newyorker--2020-01-22--Chief Justice John Roberts’s After-Midnight Warning in the Impeachment Trial

About twelve hours into the first real day of Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to conclude that a boundary had been crossed , and stepped in to “ admonish ” both the House managers and the President ’ s lawyers .
The reason , it seems , wasn ’ t just that the session had moved from one day into the next—it was 1 A.M. , senators were weary , and Roberts himself had to be at the Supreme Court in a few hours—and it couldn ’ t just have been because there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , though there were , from multiple directions .
The President ’ s lawyers had already , much earlier in the day , accused the House of engineering the impeachment to undo the 2016 election , and there had been multiple points at which each team had called the other side ’ s statements false .
( Given how fast and loose the President ’ s lawyers were with the facts , the House managers could hardly avoid doing so . )
Maybe the reason was all of that , capped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange , which involved the congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff , who is leading the House managers , and the President ’ s lawyers Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow .
Roberts said that he was addressing both sides “ in equal terms , ” and , though each side will undoubtedly feel that the burden is on the other , each has something to learn from Roberts ’ s warning .
The squabble began as Nadler made the case for an amendment to the trial rules that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twenty-four hours of arguments from each side , spread over three session days .
This already represented a victory for Democrats , since McConnell had originally proposed only two session days each , which would likely have meant that anyone who watched the whole trial would be in a daze of sleeplessness before too long .
( The sessions begin at 1 P.M. ) Another change also represented a victory for the Democrats : making admission into the trial record of evidence that the House had gathered , including witness testimony , automatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem , for the Democrats , was that votes on subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents would only come after the multi-day round of arguments , and also after senators had submitted questions and had them answered .
Schiff had argued that this was “ ass-backward.
” And so Chuck Schumer , the Senate Minority Leader , forced a debate and a vote on eleven amendments specifying different sources of and approaches to evidence : getting documents from the Pentagon , or subpoenaing the acting chief of staff , Mick Mulvaney , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should subpoena John Bolton , the former national-security adviser , who other witnesses have said referred to the withholding of military aid and a White House meeting , in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Biden family and theories about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election , as a “ drug deal.
” Bolton has said that he would testify if the Senate subpoenaed him .
Nadler gave an account of Bolton ’ s value as a witness , and called the President ’ s legal arguments for why his aides supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ embarrassing.
” By that point , the Democrats had lost seven votes on amendments , all by a vote of 53–47 , the partisan split in the Senate .
Nadler said that the public should be “ shocked ” at that outcome , and that “ the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people.
” He also said that “ only guilty people try to hide the evidence ” —a line that , however outrageous Trump ’ s defiance of congressional oversight has been , was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nadler then added , “ I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup , voting to deny witnesses , an absolutely indefensible vote , obviously a treacherous vote ” —at that , Nadler ’ s stream of words broke slightly , but he continued to condemn what he called “ a vote against the United States.
” Cipollone rose next and addressed the senators .
“ You don ’ t deserve and we don ’ t deserve what just happened , ” he said .
Nadler “ made false allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations against all of you .
.
.
.
It ’ s ridiculous !
” And , Cipollone added , “ he ’ s been making false allegations against the President !
” In angry tones , Cipollone alternately attacked Nadler ( “ The only one who should be embarrassed is you !
” ) and extolled Trump ( “ President Trump is a man of his word !
” ) .
The House managers , he said , had “ attacked every institution of our government.
” Cipollone made way for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the insults .
Nadler had “ talked about treacherous , ” he said , adding , “ I ’ ll tell you what ’ s treacherous.
” Sekulow ’ s definition of treachery turned out to be Nadler ’ s description of some of Trump ’ s arguments for immunity from subpoenas as “ executive privilege and other nonsense.
” ( They are nonsense . )
And , because he is a Trump lawyer , he could not resist taking the opportunity to attack Barack Obama .
“ So I guess , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not give information , he was guilty of a crime ?
” ( This was a reference to the so-called Fast and Furious case , in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially fought congressional subpoenas . )
Nadler went back at it : the President ’ s lawyers had “ no standing to talk about lying , ” because Trump ignores the law , “ lies about it all the time , and sends Mr. Cipollone to lie about it.
” Schiff seemed to want in on the action .
“ The President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said , and “ the Russians are at it as we speak.
” It was after he wrapped up , by mockingly listing Trump associates who had ended up under indictment as a result of the Mueller investigation , that Roberts stepped in with a reminder that both sides were “ addressing the world ’ s greatest deliberative body , ” where members , supposedly , “ avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.
” Roberts gave an example of a 1905 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objection to the word “ pettifogging.
” The Senate has , of course , had a less dainty past , particularly in the years before the Civil War , but , as an aspiration about a desirable way to conduct the trial , Roberts ’ s point was well taken .
The Trump lawyers are so encased in resentment that his admonition may not register with them .
But it might give the Democrats a chance to reflect on who they are performing for—their colleagues , swing Republicans , the public , history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and early Wednesday ) , Schumer ’ s opening approach of forcing witness votes worked reasonably well : it gave the Democrats a chance to highlight the evidence they have , and explain how it points to more .
( A point of the exercise seems to have been to give each of the managers a chance to speak ; Representative Val Demings did a particularly good job with her assignment , which was to argue that the Senate should subpoena specific State Department documents that the House had identified . )
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to expect how substantive the arguments would be on what was expected to be a day focussed on procedure .
They might realize from Roberts ’ s intervention that they need more than invective to counter the House case ; they probably won ’ t .

About twelve hours into the first real day of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to conclude that a boundary had been crossed, and stepped in to “admonish” both the House managers and the President’s lawyers. The reason, it seems, wasn’t just that the session had moved from one day into the next—it was 1 A.M., senators were weary, and Roberts himself had to be at the Supreme Court in a few hours—and it couldn’t just have been because there were accusations of lying and of betraying the country, though there were, from multiple directions. The President’s lawyers had already, much earlier in the day, accused the House of engineering the impeachment to undo the 2016 election, and there had been multiple points at which each team had called the other side’s statements false. (Given how fast and loose the President’s lawyers were with the facts, the House managers could hardly avoid doing so.) Maybe the reason was all of that, capped off by the rawness of the preceding exchange, which involved the congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff, who is leading the House managers, and the President’s lawyers Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow. Roberts said that he was addressing both sides “in equal terms,” and, though each side will undoubtedly feel that the burden is on the other, each has something to learn from Roberts’s warning.
The squabble began as Nadler made the case for an amendment to the trial rules that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had put forward. Those rules called for twenty-four hours of arguments from each side, spread over three session days. This already represented a victory for Democrats, since McConnell had originally proposed only two session days each, which would likely have meant that anyone who watched the whole trial would be in a daze of sleeplessness before too long. (The sessions begin at 1 P.M.) Another change also represented a victory for the Democrats: making admission into the trial record of evidence that the House had gathered, including witness testimony, automatic, barring specific sustained objections. The problem, for the Democrats, was that votes on subpoenaing additional witnesses and documents would only come after the multi-day round of arguments, and also after senators had submitted questions and had them answered. Schiff had argued that this was “ass-backward.” And so Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, forced a debate and a vote on eleven amendments specifying different sources of and approaches to evidence: getting documents from the Pentagon, or subpoenaing the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, for example. Nadler was arguing that the Senate should subpoena John Bolton, the former national-security adviser, who other witnesses have said referred to the withholding of military aid and a White House meeting, in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Biden family and theories about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, as a “drug deal.” Bolton has said that he would testify if the Senate subpoenaed him.
Nadler gave an account of Bolton’s value as a witness, and called the President’s legal arguments for why his aides supposedly had immunity from testifying “ridiculous” and “embarrassing.” By that point, the Democrats had lost seven votes on amendments, all by a vote of 53–47, the partisan split in the Senate. Nadler said that the public should be “shocked” at that outcome, and that “the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people.” He also said that “only guilty people try to hide the evidence”—a line that, however outrageous Trump’s defiance of congressional oversight has been, was a bit jarring, from a civil-liberties perspective.
Nadler then added, “I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote”—at that, Nadler’s stream of words broke slightly, but he continued to condemn what he called “a vote against the United States.”
Cipollone rose next and addressed the senators. “You don’t deserve and we don’t deserve what just happened,” he said. Nadler “made false allegations against our team, he made false allegations against all of you. . . . It’s ridiculous!” And, Cipollone added, “he’s been making false allegations against the President!” In angry tones, Cipollone alternately attacked Nadler (“The only one who should be embarrassed is you!”) and extolled Trump (“President Trump is a man of his word!”). The House managers, he said, had “attacked every institution of our government.”
Cipollone made way for his colleague, Sekulow, who continued with the insults. Nadler had “talked about treacherous,” he said, adding, “I’ll tell you what’s treacherous.” Sekulow’s definition of treachery turned out to be Nadler’s description of some of Trump’s arguments for immunity from subpoenas as “executive privilege and other nonsense.” (They are nonsense.) And, because he is a Trump lawyer, he could not resist taking the opportunity to attack Barack Obama. “So I guess, when President Obama instructed his Attorney General to not give information, he was guilty of a crime?” (This was a reference to the so-called Fast and Furious case, in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially fought congressional subpoenas.)
Nadler went back at it: the President’s lawyers had “no standing to talk about lying,” because Trump ignores the law, “lies about it all the time, and sends Mr. Cipollone to lie about it.” Schiff seemed to want in on the action. “The President is trying to cheat in this election,” he said, and “the Russians are at it as we speak.” It was after he wrapped up, by mockingly listing Trump associates who had ended up under indictment as a result of the Mueller investigation, that Roberts stepped in with a reminder that both sides were “addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” where members, supposedly, “avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.”
Roberts gave an example of a 1905 judicial-impeachment trial at which there was an objection to the word “pettifogging.” The Senate has, of course, had a less dainty past, particularly in the years before the Civil War, but, as an aspiration about a desirable way to conduct the trial, Roberts’s point was well taken. The Trump lawyers are so encased in resentment that his admonition may not register with them. But it might give the Democrats a chance to reflect on who they are performing for—their colleagues, swing Republicans, the public, history?
For a while on Tuesday (and early Wednesday), Schumer’s opening approach of forcing witness votes worked reasonably well: it gave the Democrats a chance to highlight the evidence they have, and explain how it points to more. (A point of the exercise seems to have been to give each of the managers a chance to speak; Representative Val Demings did a particularly good job with her assignment, which was to argue that the Senate should subpoena specific State Department documents that the House had identified.) And the President’s lawyers did not seem to expect how substantive the arguments would be on what was expected to be a day focussed on procedure. They might realize from Roberts’s intervention that they need more than invective to counter the House case; they probably won’t.
But, for the Democrats, there came a point of diminishing returns. Skipping from one department, one official, and one desired trove of documents isn’t the best way to present a coherent narrative. The names began to blur. (Who had been called, and who hadn’t?) Schiff had also begun in a very high key—saying that the votes, that day, were more important than the verdict itself. He dismissed as all but worthless a planned vote on witnesses later in the trial—something that Republican moderates, such as Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, had reportedly pushed McConnell hard to guarantee. The accusations and predictions that, if the votes on Tuesday didn’t go the Democrats’ way, the whole thing would be a farce may not have done much to draw the public in, either.
The approach also forced Democrats to defend the decision to move ahead without the pending court decisions on subpoenas. This led to some exaggeration of how long it might have taken to go to court. (Schiff said it could be years, although a key case is already at the appellate level.) And it led to the language suggesting that only the guilty, as a rule, would refuse to give prosecutors full access to their papers and information. That flies in the face of American presumptions about privacy, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, for starters. They may not be the issues in the Trump case, but the line was stated as a general truth about anybody—whether a private person or politician—and it is not. It would have been better to frame the point in terms of government transparency. This was not just Nadler; his colleagues, particularly Schiff, had spoken in similar terms earlier in the day. Indeed, Schiff, explaining why the House had moved forward quickly with its impeachment inquiry and vote, had put up a display containing the line “Waiting for Courts Is Irresponsible When Threat Is Imminent.” This is language and a line of argument that the Democrats need to seriously reflect on.
The Democrats have the facts on their side when it comes to Trump’s Ukrainian dealings. They have a straightforward story about the extortion of a foreign government—military aid for an investigation—and the abuse of power. They can tell it well, and over the next few days they’ll have the chance. John Roberts will be listening. With any luck, the voters will be, too.


newyorker--2020-01-22--Watch Live: Day 2 of Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial

Wednesday is the second day of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
Tuesday ’ s debate over the rules of the trial stretched well into the early-morning hours , wrapping up close to 2 A.M .
The rules , which more or less reflect the objectives of the Senate Majority Leader , Mitch McConnell , were voted into place along a party-line vote of 53–47 .
Attempts by Senate Democrats to expand the range of evidence to be put under consideration were almost universally shot down by the Republican majority : a proposal to subpoena testimony from the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mick Mulvaney , was defeated , and so were requests for documents from the Office of Management and Budget , which could shed more light on the President ’ s motives for withholding security assistance from Ukraine .
Susan Glasser writes that the more moderate Republicans in the Senate , such as Senator Susan Collins , of Maine , hold considerable power to influence how the trial will progress , and Glasser notes that Collins ’ s office “ released a statement saying that , later in the trial , after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor of additional witnesses and testimony.
” But , as of last night , Collins had voted with the rest of the Republican senators to stonewall Democratic amendments , with one minor exception—she voted for a proposal by Senator Chuck Schumer , of New York , to extend the allotted time for senators to file responses to motions .
Senator Mitt Romney , of Utah , too , said that he would decide whether to call additional witnesses after opening arguments are complete , likely next week .
Last night , as debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Office of Budget Management were released , following a public-records request from the watchdog group American Oversight .
The documents show the contours of the discussions within the office around the holdup of military assistance to Ukraine , but the timing of their release underscores a widely discussed problem : that the trial may well proceed without the fullest amount of evidence made available to the Senate and to the public .
On Wednesday , the House impeachment managers will begin to present their case to the Senate over the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power and another of obstruction of Congress .
Under the rules set in Tuesday ’ s late-night and partisan proceedings , the House will have roughly twenty-four hours over three days to make their presentation .
You can watch as the third Presidential-impeachment trial in U.S. history continues , on the live stream above .

Wednesday is the second day of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Tuesday’s debate over the rules of the trial stretched well into the early-morning hours, wrapping up close to 2 A.M. The rules, which more or less reflect the objectives of the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, were voted into place along a party-line vote of 53–47.
Attempts by Senate Democrats to expand the range of evidence to be put under consideration were almost universally shot down by the Republican majority: a proposal to subpoena testimony from the White House’s Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, was defeated, and so were requests for documents from the Office of Management and Budget, which could shed more light on the President’s motives for withholding security assistance from Ukraine.
Susan Glasser writes that the more moderate Republicans in the Senate, such as Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, hold considerable power to influence how the trial will progress, and Glasser notes that Collins’s office “released a statement saying that, later in the trial, after the arguments, she would probably vote in favor of additional witnesses and testimony.” But, as of last night, Collins had voted with the rest of the Republican senators to stonewall Democratic amendments, with one minor exception—she voted for a proposal by Senator Chuck Schumer, of New York, to extend the allotted time for senators to file responses to motions. Senator Mitt Romney, of Utah, too, said that he would decide whether to call additional witnesses after opening arguments are complete, likely next week.
Last night, as debate continued, additional, heavily redacted e-mails from the Office of Budget Management were released, following a public-records request from the watchdog group American Oversight. The documents show the contours of the discussions within the office around the holdup of military assistance to Ukraine, but the timing of their release underscores a widely discussed problem: that the trial may well proceed without the fullest amount of evidence made available to the Senate and to the public.
On Wednesday, the House impeachment managers will begin to present their case to the Senate over the two articles of impeachment—one count of abuse of power and another of obstruction of Congress. Under the rules set in Tuesday’s late-night and partisan proceedings, the House will have roughly twenty-four hours over three days to make their presentation.
You can watch as the third Presidential-impeachment trial in U.S. history continues, on the live stream above.


newyorker--2020-01-22--Daily Cartoon: Wednesday, January 22nd

Daily Cartoon: Wednesday, January 22nd

© 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 .

“Your honor, in order to insure a fair trial, we ask that the proceedings be moved to a nonpartisan venue such as Trump Doral Golf Club.”


newyorker--2020-01-22--Welcome Aboard Our Newest Roller Coaster, the Freelancer

Buckle up and prepare for the ride of your life !
We have some of the world ’ s most income-stability-defying heights , plus thrilling twists , turns , and retainer contracts .
Please take a seat and hang on tight .
Our passengers do get thrown back into Uber driving on the reg .
We ’ re beginning the climb !
Feel the pleasant breeze of avoiding rush-hour traffic and the joy of gliding through an empty grocery store at midday or taking leisurely walks with your dog whenever the hell you want .
We ’ re rounding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connor , with his mortgage , cushy retirement plan , and sad office job with fluorescent lighting .
He didn ’ t have the courage to ride the Freelancer !
We ’ re at the top !
Enjoy waking up late and working from bed .
Here we pause .
Your first client ’ s check is overdue .
We plunge into the Crevasse of Rejected Projects .
You spent too long on a half-baked magazine pitch about organic gardening in the nude .
But , as we hit the bottom , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Besides , the fall is thrilling—you feel nauseated from motion sickness , but you ’ re doing this freelance thing !
You veer sideways and are whipped around a bend—it took you four hours to sign an e-contract , because no one told you about DocHub !
Catch your breath .
You ’ re entering the Ghosting-Client Corkscrew of Death , a vertiginous spiral that terrifies , disorients , and makes you wish that you hadn ’ t listened to your independently wealthy friend Jenn when she dragged you to Bali and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force who was too good for the nine-to-five grind .
You are flung violently up and down , as a deranged chorus of voices is piped in .
“ Your proposal was great !
” “ We ’ ll get back to you in two weeks !
” “ Can ’ t wait to jam about quiz funnels and conversion rates !
” Finally , you slow to a stop , upside down .
This is where your glasses fall off your face and into the abyss .
Now you round a pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your brain ” about becoming a writer .
You ’ re rapidly rocked side to side , from the egotism of being an “ expert ” to the crippling self-doubt of being a complete and total fraud who hasn ’ t worked in three weeks and whose greatest success was beating every level in Bejeweled Blitz .
You speed into a heart-stopping inverted loop where a section of the track is missing .
You ’ re upside down and being propelled through the air by sheer centrifugal force—you ’ ve been given an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a feminist reading of “ Rock of Love ” !
You ’ re gloriously weightless .
Your friends below are so impressed .
Connor is bragging about you at happy hour .
Your work has gone viral on Twitter !
Feminists love you !
Roxane Gay retweeted you !
Men ’ s-rights activists hate you !
Look , you ’ re at the top again !
Reward yourself , girl .
Buy that plane ticket to Italy .
Breathe in the thin , rarefied air as you lurch to a halt .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s time to send your monthly payment of four hundred and thirty-seven dollars for health insurance that only offers in-network psychiatrists who aren ’ t accepting new patients .
Congratulations , your quarterly taxes are also due .
Your plane ticket to Italy is nonrefundable , and you still haven ’ t replaced those glasses .
You can still blurrily see Connor from here , with his homeownership , his recent promotion , and his avowal of “ I really envy you ; you ’ re living the life !
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re moving again !
The track turns you sideways as you frantically write a real-estate e-mail funnel , despite having bronchitis , because your asshole boss ( you ) doesn ’ t offer paid sick days .
The bottom drops out .
How are you falling again ?
That same respected publication has now rejected you .
You screwed the pooch with those three misspellings and that factual error about the meaning of the eggplant emoji .
The feminist world has forgotten you .
Men ’ s-rights activists still hate you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends .
A technical-writing gig on government entities providing cybersecurity through digital transformation just fell into your lap .
It pays double your usual rate !
It ’ s also boring as hell .
Sure , you ’ ve lost a shoe , but your feet are on the ground .
Thank you for riding the Freelancer .
Go ahead and puke in the bushes .
And remember to come back to visit our exciting upcoming attraction , a hall of mirrors named All Your Friends Are More Successful Than You .

Buckle up and prepare for the ride of your life! We have some of the world’s most income-stability-defying heights, plus thrilling twists, turns, and retainer contracts. Please take a seat and hang on tight. Our passengers do get thrown back into Uber driving on the reg.
We’re beginning the climb! Feel the pleasant breeze of avoiding rush-hour traffic and the joy of gliding through an empty grocery store at midday or taking leisurely walks with your dog whenever the hell you want.
We’re rounding the bend—wave to your friends below! Especially Connor, with his mortgage, cushy retirement plan, and sad office job with fluorescent lighting. He didn’t have the courage to ride the Freelancer!
We’re at the top! Enjoy waking up late and working from bed. Here we pause.
Your first client’s check is overdue.
We plunge into the Crevasse of Rejected Projects. You spent too long on a half-baked magazine pitch about organic gardening in the nude. But, as we hit the bottom, you figure: you live, you learn. Besides, the fall is thrilling—you feel nauseated from motion sickness, but you’re doing this freelance thing!
You veer sideways and are whipped around a bend—it took you four hours to sign an e-contract, because no one told you about DocHub!
Catch your breath. You’re entering the Ghosting-Client Corkscrew of Death, a vertiginous spiral that terrifies, disorients, and makes you wish that you hadn’t listened to your independently wealthy friend Jenn when she dragged you to Bali and drunkenly said that you were an unstoppable force who was too good for the nine-to-five grind. You are flung violently up and down, as a deranged chorus of voices is piped in. “Your proposal was great!” “We’ll get back to you in two weeks!” “Can’t wait to jam about quiz funnels and conversion rates!” Finally, you slow to a stop, upside down. This is where your glasses fall off your face and into the abyss.
Now you round a pass where younger people ask to “pick your brain” about becoming a writer. You’re rapidly rocked side to side, from the egotism of being an “expert” to the crippling self-doubt of being a complete and total fraud who hasn’t worked in three weeks and whose greatest success was beating every level in Bejeweled Blitz.
You speed into a heart-stopping inverted loop where a section of the track is missing. You’re upside down and being propelled through the air by sheer centrifugal force—you’ve been given an assignment from a major publication, for a feminist reading of “Rock of Love”!
You’re gloriously weightless. Your friends below are so impressed. Connor is bragging about you at happy hour. Your work has gone viral on Twitter! Feminists love you! Roxane Gay retweeted you! Men’s-rights activists hate you!
Look, you’re at the top again! Reward yourself, girl. Buy that plane ticket to Italy.
Breathe in the thin, rarefied air as you lurch to a halt. Here we dangle you over the park. It’s time to send your monthly payment of four hundred and thirty-seven dollars for health insurance that only offers in-network psychiatrists who aren’t accepting new patients. Congratulations, your quarterly taxes are also due. Your plane ticket to Italy is nonrefundable, and you still haven’t replaced those glasses.
You can still blurrily see Connor from here, with his homeownership, his recent promotion, and his avowal of “I really envy you; you’re living the life!” What a smug dick.
And you’re moving again! The track turns you sideways as you frantically write a real-estate e-mail funnel, despite having bronchitis, because your asshole boss (you) doesn’t offer paid sick days.
The bottom drops out. How are you falling again? That same respected publication has now rejected you. You screwed the pooch with those three misspellings and that factual error about the meaning of the eggplant emoji. The feminist world has forgotten you. Men’s-rights activists still hate you.
You reach flat track as the ride ends. A technical-writing gig on government entities providing cybersecurity through digital transformation just fell into your lap. It pays double your usual rate! It’s also boring as hell. Sure, you’ve lost a shoe, but your feet are on the ground.
Thank you for riding the Freelancer. Go ahead and puke in the bushes. And remember to come back to visit our exciting upcoming attraction, a hall of mirrors named All Your Friends Are More Successful Than You.


newyorker--2020-01-22--Glenn Greenwald on Brazil’s Charges Against Him

On Tuesday , Brazilian prosecutors charged the journalist Glenn Greenwald with “ cybercrimes ” as part of what the government claims was his role in a “ criminal organization.
” They allege that Greenwald—who reported on wrongdoing in Brazil ’ s judicial establishment last year for the Intercept , the Web site he co-founded—participated in the hacking of cell phones , the content of which was later used in his stories .
But the reporting itself is the reason much of the Brazilian government is furious with Greenwald .
He has repeatedly antagonized the country ’ s new far-right President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office amid a sprawling corruption investigation known as Operation Car Wash , which brought down two former Presidents .
Sérgio Moro , who led the operation , was later made Bolsonaro ’ s Minister of Justice and became the subject of much of the Intercept ’ s reporting .
A number of leaders across the Brazilian political spectrum have criticized the charges against Greenwald , which were met with outrage by civil-liberties organizations around the world .
Greenwald , who is best known for covering Edward Snowden ’ s disclosures , lives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David Miranda , a Brazilian congressman , and their children .
We spoke by phone on Tuesday , after the charges were announced .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed his life in Brazil since Bolsonaro ’ s election , the reasons the President has gone after him , and his different approaches to the rise of the far right in Brazil and the United States .
The case against you relies in part on the claim that you helped in “ facilitating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do anything to encourage the hacking of cell phones or other devices ?
No .
In fact , when the source first talked to me , he had already obtained all the material that he ended up providing us , making it logically impossible for me to have in any way participated in that act .
And the federal police , just a few months ago , concluded that not only was there no evidence that I committed any crimes but much to the contrary , I conducted myself , in their words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and caution , ” to make sure that I didn ’ t get ensnared in any criminal activity .
If that ’ s the case , how do you understand what has happened in the last couple of months , from the federal police determining that to the charges today ?
I think that what a lot of people are not fully understanding about Brazil is that there are a lot of people in the government , beginning with the President himself , who explicitly want a resurrection of the military dictatorship that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not joking about it .
They are genuine authoritarians who don ’ t believe in democracy , don ’ t believe in basic freedoms , and don ’ t believe in a free press .
And all they know is brute force .
They want a return to that military regime .
The fact that the federal police said there was no evidence I committed a crime , and the fact that the Supreme Court barred them from investigating me , because the Court said it was an infringement on a free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t matter to them .
They just concocted a theory to try and use brute force to criminalize what I was doing , probably to intimidate other journalists as much as to attack me and punish me for the reporting .
Do the federal prosecutors who charged you today answer more to the President than other branches of law enforcement ?
I would say that the best way to understand who they are is that they are kind of equivalent to the Justice Department , and the federal police is equivalent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like if [ the former F.B.I .
director ] Jim Comey stood in front of the cameras and said we were closing our investigation , there is no evidence of criminal activity , and then the Justice Department months later nonetheless indicted .
So yes , they are part of the executive branch but are a little more independent , just like the Justice Department is .
But the big difference is that unlike the Justice Department , which can just single-handedly indict you , these prosecutors can only issue charges that then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order for you to actually become a criminal defendant .
Is there anything about your reporting on Operation Car Wash that you regret or would have done differently ?
Of course , with individual stories , there are things you wish you had done differently .
There was one time in particular when we had promised a story , and we were anxious about it , and I published an excerpt , on Twitter , as a teaser , that hadn ’ t yet been fact-checked , and there was an error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against us to claim we were altering the chat .
But in terms of how I dealt with my source , or the legal or criminal issues , I was incredibly meticulous , because not only did I go through this with the Snowden story , I obviously knew they were going to want to prosecute me .
So before I did anything , I sat down with our huge team of lawyers and they said this is what you can do , this is what you can ’ t tdo .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that line .
Bolsonaro has singled you out several times .
What might his dislike be about , beyond a number of possibilities , ranging from your reporting to the fact you are gay ?
I actually wrote about Bolsonaro all the way back in 2014 , in an article he hated , before anyone contemplated that he might be President .
I was just trying to explain to people how someone this extreme was even a member of Congress .
The title was , “ The Most Misogynistic , Hateful Elected Official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Jair Bolsonaro.
” And then , in 2017 , while he was setting up his Presidential run , I called him a fascist on Twitter , and he responded with an extremely crude and anti-gay epithet about anal sex that made news .
And then , when my husband entered Congress as a left-wing member , in early 2019 , replacing another L.G.B.T .
congressman , who fled the country in fear of his life , largely due to Bolsonaro , David and he had a back-and-forth that went viral in Brazil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we started this reporting .
And once we did this reporting , he said my marriage was a fraud and that we adopted Brazilian children as a fraud to avoid deportation .
And then of course he has threatened I would be in prison over the reporting .
So we have a long and contentious history .
What ’ s the state of independence of the Supreme Court currently ?
It ’ s really interesting , because for a long time the Supreme Court was pretty much captive to the extreme popularity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even when Moro did things that all legal experts agreed were highly dubious , it was very rare that they would impose limits on what he was doing , because everyone was afraid of Moro , because he was basically the national hero .
His taking a position with the Bolsonaro government and our reporting have seriously diminished his stature .
And as a result the Supreme Court is emboldened now , and they have issued a series of rulings against Bolsonaro , the government , and Moro and freed [ former President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jewel of Operation Car Wash. And so there is a lot of animosity .
The Supreme Court has become much more independent , as evidenced by the fact that they barred Moro and these agencies from investigating me in retaliation for the reporting .
I should just add that , in the last few hours , there has been reporting from conservative journalists at large newspapers that several members of the Supreme Court have told them that they will not accept the charges against me and reject it if and when it gets @ @ @ @ @

On Tuesday, Brazilian prosecutors charged the journalist Glenn Greenwald with “cybercrimes” as part of what the government claims was his role in a “criminal organization.” They allege that Greenwald—who reported on wrongdoing in Brazil’s judicial establishment last year for the Intercept, the Web site he co-founded—participated in the hacking of cell phones, the content of which was later used in his stories. But the reporting itself is the reason much of the Brazilian government is furious with Greenwald. He has repeatedly antagonized the country’s new far-right President, Jair Bolsonaro, who rode into office amid a sprawling corruption investigation known as Operation Car Wash, which brought down two former Presidents. Sérgio Moro, who led the operation, was later made Bolsonaro’s Minister of Justice and became the subject of much of the Intercept’s reporting. A number of leaders across the Brazilian political spectrum have criticized the charges against Greenwald, which were met with outrage by civil-liberties organizations around the world.
Greenwald, who is best known for covering Edward Snowden’s disclosures, lives in Rio de Janeiro with his husband, David Miranda, a Brazilian congressman, and their children. We spoke by phone on Tuesday, after the charges were announced. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed his life in Brazil since Bolsonaro’s election, the reasons the President has gone after him, and his different approaches to the rise of the far right in Brazil and the United States.
The case against you relies in part on the claim that you helped in “facilitating the commission of a crime.” Did you do anything to encourage the hacking of cell phones or other devices?
No. In fact, when the source first talked to me, he had already obtained all the material that he ended up providing us, making it logically impossible for me to have in any way participated in that act. And the federal police, just a few months ago, concluded that not only was there no evidence that I committed any crimes but much to the contrary, I conducted myself, in their words, with “extreme levels of professionalism and caution,” to make sure that I didn’t get ensnared in any criminal activity.
If that’s the case, how do you understand what has happened in the last couple of months, from the federal police determining that to the charges today?
I think that what a lot of people are not fully understanding about Brazil is that there are a lot of people in the government, beginning with the President himself, who explicitly want a resurrection of the military dictatorship that ruled the country until 1985. They are not joking about it. They are genuine authoritarians who don’t believe in democracy, don’t believe in basic freedoms, and don’t believe in a free press. And all they know is brute force. They want a return to that military regime. The fact that the federal police said there was no evidence I committed a crime, and the fact that the Supreme Court barred them from investigating me, because the Court said it was an infringement on a free press for them to do so, doesn’t matter to them. They just concocted a theory to try and use brute force to criminalize what I was doing, probably to intimidate other journalists as much as to attack me and punish me for the reporting.
Do the federal prosecutors who charged you today answer more to the President than other branches of law enforcement?
I would say that the best way to understand who they are is that they are kind of equivalent to the Justice Department, and the federal police is equivalent to the F.B.I. It would be like if [the former F.B.I. director] Jim Comey stood in front of the cameras and said we were closing our investigation, there is no evidence of criminal activity, and then the Justice Department months later nonetheless indicted. So yes, they are part of the executive branch but are a little more independent, just like the Justice Department is. But the big difference is that unlike the Justice Department, which can just single-handedly indict you, these prosecutors can only issue charges that then have to be approved by a judge in order for you to actually become a criminal defendant.
Is there anything about your reporting on Operation Car Wash that you regret or would have done differently?
Of course, with individual stories, there are things you wish you had done differently. There was one time in particular when we had promised a story, and we were anxious about it, and I published an excerpt, on Twitter, as a teaser, that hadn’t yet been fact-checked, and there was an error in there, and they used that against us to claim we were altering the chat. But in terms of how I dealt with my source, or the legal or criminal issues, I was incredibly meticulous, because not only did I go through this with the Snowden story, I obviously knew they were going to want to prosecute me. So before I did anything, I sat down with our huge team of lawyers and they said this is what you can do, this is what you can’t tdo. And I was incredibly careful to never cross that line.
Bolsonaro has singled you out several times. What might his dislike be about, beyond a number of possibilities, ranging from your reporting to the fact you are gay?
I actually wrote about Bolsonaro all the way back in 2014, in an article he hated, before anyone contemplated that he might be President. I was just trying to explain to people how someone this extreme was even a member of Congress. The title was, “The Most Misogynistic, Hateful Elected Official in the Democratic World: Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro.” And then, in 2017, while he was setting up his Presidential run, I called him a fascist on Twitter, and he responded with an extremely crude and anti-gay epithet about anal sex that made news. And then, when my husband entered Congress as a left-wing member, in early 2019, replacing another L.G.B.T. congressman, who fled the country in fear of his life, largely due to Bolsonaro, David and he had a back-and-forth that went viral in Brazil. So he already hated me before we started this reporting.
And once we did this reporting, he said my marriage was a fraud and that we adopted Brazilian children as a fraud to avoid deportation. And then of course he has threatened I would be in prison over the reporting. So we have a long and contentious history.
What’s the state of independence of the Supreme Court currently?
It’s really interesting, because for a long time the Supreme Court was pretty much captive to the extreme popularity of Moro and Operation Car Wash. And, even when Moro did things that all legal experts agreed were highly dubious, it was very rare that they would impose limits on what he was doing, because everyone was afraid of Moro, because he was basically the national hero. His taking a position with the Bolsonaro government and our reporting have seriously diminished his stature. And as a result the Supreme Court is emboldened now, and they have issued a series of rulings against Bolsonaro, the government, and Moro and freed [former President] Lula, who was the crown jewel of Operation Car Wash. And so there is a lot of animosity. The Supreme Court has become much more independent, as evidenced by the fact that they barred Moro and these agencies from investigating me in retaliation for the reporting.
I should just add that, in the last few hours, there has been reporting from conservative journalists at large newspapers that several members of the Supreme Court have told them that they will not accept the charges against me and reject it if and when it gets to the Supreme Court.
Have your daily life or experiences changed much since Bolsonaro’s election? Do you feel any sense of fear?
Neither my husband, nor I, nor our children have left our house in the last year without armed security, armored vehicles, teams of security. We get death threats all the time. Our private lives have been dug through in the most invasive ways. Every one of our friends has been offered money to either reveal things about our private lives or make up lies about our private lives. There is a hugely powerful fake-news machine that supports the Bolsonaro movement that has churned out lies about our family and about our children and about our marriage. Obviously, the threats of imprisonment. It has been every single kind of threat imaginable, and it really goes back to 2018, when one of our best friends, Marielle Franco, the black L.G.B.T. city councilwoman, was savagely assassinated in a crime that the Bolsonaro family has subsequently become linked to. [Last March, two police officers were charged in the murder of Franco and her driver, Anderson Gomes. Bolsonaro has denounced reporting that he has personal connections to the officers.] So there has been political violence and intimidation in the air for a long time, and we have become the main target of a lot of it.


newyorker--2020-01-21--What C-SPAN Can’t Show Us at the Trump Impeachment Trial

Last Thursday , Jon Kelley , an assignment-desk manager at C-SPAN , was in his office in Washington , D.C. , watching cable news cover the opening of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
A correspondent for one of the networks was providing updates on the latest developments over a live video feed of the Senate chamber , which showed Adam Schiff , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , reading the articles of impeachment .
The correspondent wondered aloud why the camera didn ’ t pan elsewhere .
Wouldn ’ t it be nice to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Susan Collins were doing as they sat next to each other ?
Why wasn ’ t the C-SPAN cameraperson trying to film that , too ?
Kelley sighed .
The video feed wasn ’ t controlled by C-SPAN ; it was controlled by the Senate Recording Studio , as is always the case when the network covers floor proceedings in the Senate .
( C-SPAN brought its own cameras into the Senate chamber once , for a documentary . )
The network had hoped to get its cameras into the chamber for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s historic importance ; in December , the network ’ s co-C.E.O .
Susan Swain wrote a letter to the Senate Majority Leader , Mitch McConnell , making this request , noting that the government ’ s existing camera setup “ provides a restricted view of Senate floor debates.
” The chair of the cable-network pool , which coördinates the efforts of CNN , ABC , FOX , CBS , and NBC , later sent a letter in support of the request .
As of Tuesday , McConnell had not replied to either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realize those aren ’ t our cameras , ” Kelley told me , on the phone from his office .
“ And they should be.
” The Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network was created a little more than forty years ago , when the D.C. bureau chief for the trade magazine Cablevision got seed money to launch a nonprofit channel that gave Americans a more comprehensive picture of politics and government than the for-profit channels were providing .
The network has since built up an unrivalled archive of political video , totalling more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , C-SPAN captured Lindsey Graham , who was then a congressman representing South Carolina ’ s Third District , arguing in favor of allowing witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , and insisting on a broad interpretation of the phrase “ high crimes.
” ( “ It doesn ’ t even have to be a crime , ” Graham said . )
“ Impeachments aren ’ t our Super Bowl , exactly , or the Olympics , ” Kelley told me , trying to explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The only thing I can compare it to is every seventeen years the cicadas come out and we deal with them.
” Kelley came to C-SPAN in 1997 , shortly after he left college .
He ’ s covered conventions , debates , House and Senate races ; he saw George W. Bush roll fruit down the aisle of a campaign plane and , on Air Force Two , heard Al Gore quip that he invented C-SPAN .
( Gore was the first person to speak on the network . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one impeachment trial .
“ We ’ ve always felt that Congress is our story to tell , ” he said .
“ We take pride in that .
For better or for worse , history is being recorded through our camera lens.
” Or the people ’ s camera lenses , as the case may be .
The feed that C-SPAN provides of House and Senate proceedings is unmoderated and unfiltered .
The network ’ s cameras pan and zoom , when they can , but not much .
In a discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John McCain ’ s vote against repealing Obamacare—a wide shot , one that caught “ the conversations people were having , ” Kelley noted , and “ the back and forth between Lindsey Graham and Democrats and everything.
” During hearings , Kelley said , “ you ’ ll see us sometimes frame a wider shot in the room and do a slight zoom in to frame the witness table a little bit tighter .
That draws people in .
Then you can cut away to either a shot of the witness or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There ’ s a lot of ways to tell those stories through pans and zooms.
” As things stand , however , C-SPAN ’ s crews can not enter the chamber .
As a result , he said , “ you ’ re never going to see the Senate-controlled cameras veer away from the dais.
” Meanwhile , reporters at all networks will be dealing with new restrictions on their usual way of doing things : as the Senate sergeant at arms announced earlier this month , during the impeachment trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chamber , and reporters will not be allowed to approach senators directly outside the chamber .
The network will “ air every moment ” of the impeachment trial , Kelley said—on C-SPAN 2 , which was created to carry live footage of the Senate when it ’ s in session .
Kelley wished its coverage could show the body language of senators in the chamber , and give viewers an opportunity to read their lips .
“ Let ’ s not just stick to a podium , ” he said .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then you see people that you think just can ’ t stand each other having a really decent conversation.
” In Kelley ’ s view , seeing all this would be of great service to the American public .
The network does sometimes get its own cameras into the House : the network used seven cameras to capture early House Intelligence Committee hearings on impeaching President Trump , adding both more individual angles and panoramas .
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down C-SPAN ’ s request to use its own cameras during final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two decades ago , Kelley was a member of a sixteen-person crew assembled to film House Judiciary hearings related to the Clinton impeachment .
( C-SPAN , along with other networks , wasn ’ t allowed to film the Senate trial . )
“ At that time , ” Kelley recalled , “ we were able to put microphones on the dais , mix all of the microphone positions and control them ourselves .
We can ’ t do that anymore.
” The official reasons for the change were technical , but Kelley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea ” of overseeing the microphones , and what they caught .
“ They control them now , ” he said .
“ We just take a feed.
” That previous impeachment trial didn ’ t feel quite as partisan to Kelley as this one does so far , he said .
“ At least they were able to come to a reasonable agreement on what was fair.
” The media landscape was a lot different then—Fox News , for instance , was just a few years old .
And the cable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these hearings the way they are now , ” Kelley said .
More viewers have started watching the twenty-four-hour news networks , he noted , but , he added , “ to see these hearings without commentary and from beginning to end , from gavel to gavel , we ’ re still the place to go.
” The impeachment trial of Trump would be , in Kelley ’ s estimation , “ one of the two or three most significant C-SPAN events of my tenure.
” As for his own opinions about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network , he aspires to nonpartisanship .
“ Somebody said it ’ s a great drama TV show , ” he said of impeachment .
“ An adventure show where the hero is getting just torn apart and he ’ s near death a couple of times .
You think , Oh , my gosh , this might be it for him .
You actually know how the story is going to end , unless something major happens.
” He went on , “ It ’ s interesting to see , if we @ @ @ @ @

Last Thursday, Jon Kelley, an assignment-desk manager at C-SPAN, was in his office in Washington, D.C., watching cable news cover the opening of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. A correspondent for one of the networks was providing updates on the latest developments over a live video feed of the Senate chamber, which showed Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, reading the articles of impeachment. The correspondent wondered aloud why the camera didn’t pan elsewhere. Wouldn’t it be nice to see what the swing-voting Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins were doing as they sat next to each other? Why wasn’t the C-SPAN cameraperson trying to film that, too?
Kelley sighed. The video feed wasn’t controlled by C-SPAN; it was controlled by the Senate Recording Studio, as is always the case when the network covers floor proceedings in the Senate. (C-SPAN brought its own cameras into the Senate chamber once, for a documentary.) The network had hoped to get its cameras into the chamber for the trial, given the proceeding’s historic importance; in December, the network’s co-C.E.O. Susan Swain wrote a letter to the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, making this request, noting that the government’s existing camera setup “provides a restricted view of Senate floor debates.” The chair of the cable-network pool, which coördinates the efforts of CNN, ABC, FOX, CBS, and NBC, later sent a letter in support of the request. As of Tuesday, McConnell had not replied to either letter. “People don’t realize those aren’t our cameras,” Kelley told me, on the phone from his office. “And they should be.”
The Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network was created a little more than forty years ago, when the D.C. bureau chief for the trade magazine Cablevision got seed money to launch a nonprofit channel that gave Americans a more comprehensive picture of politics and government than the for-profit channels were providing. The network has since built up an unrivalled archive of political video, totalling more than a quarter million hours. In 1999, for instance, C-SPAN captured Lindsey Graham, who was then a congressman representing South Carolina’s Third District, arguing in favor of allowing witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, and insisting on a broad interpretation of the phrase “high crimes.” (“It doesn’t even have to be a crime,” Graham said.)
“Impeachments aren’t our Super Bowl, exactly, or the Olympics,” Kelley told me, trying to explain what the proceedings meant for the network. “The only thing I can compare it to is every seventeen years the cicadas come out and we deal with them.” Kelley came to C-SPAN in 1997, shortly after he left college. He’s covered conventions, debates, House and Senate races; he saw George W. Bush roll fruit down the aisle of a campaign plane and, on Air Force Two, heard Al Gore quip that he invented C-SPAN. (Gore was the first person to speak on the network.) Before this year, Kelley had covered one impeachment trial. “We’ve always felt that Congress is our story to tell,” he said. “We take pride in that. For better or for worse, history is being recorded through our camera lens.”
Or the people’s camera lenses, as the case may be. The feed that C-SPAN provides of House and Senate proceedings is unmoderated and unfiltered. The network’s cameras pan and zoom, when they can, but not much. In a discussion of classic C-SPAN moments, Kelley mentioned John McCain’s vote against repealing Obamacare—a wide shot, one that caught “the conversations people were having,” Kelley noted, and “the back and forth between Lindsey Graham and Democrats and everything.” During hearings, Kelley said, “you’ll see us sometimes frame a wider shot in the room and do a slight zoom in to frame the witness table a little bit tighter. That draws people in. Then you can cut away to either a shot of the witness or to the member.” He added, “There’s a lot of ways to tell those stories through pans and zooms.” As things stand, however, C-SPAN’s crews cannot enter the chamber. As a result, he said, “you’re never going to see the Senate-controlled cameras veer away from the dais.”
Meanwhile, reporters at all networks will be dealing with new restrictions on their usual way of doing things: as the Senate sergeant at arms announced earlier this month, during the impeachment trial, electronic devices will be barred from the chamber, and reporters will not be allowed to approach senators directly outside the chamber.
The network will “air every moment” of the impeachment trial, Kelley said—on C-SPAN 2, which was created to carry live footage of the Senate when it’s in session. Kelley wished its coverage could show the body language of senators in the chamber, and give viewers an opportunity to read their lips. “Let’s not just stick to a podium,” he said. “You see so much bitterness and partisanship. Then you see people that you think just can’t stand each other having a really decent conversation.” In Kelley’s view, seeing all this would be of great service to the American public.
The network does sometimes get its own cameras into the House: the network used seven cameras to capture early House Intelligence Committee hearings on impeaching President Trump, adding both more individual angles and panoramas. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down C-SPAN’s request to use its own cameras during final debates on the articles of impeachment.
Two decades ago, Kelley was a member of a sixteen-person crew assembled to film House Judiciary hearings related to the Clinton impeachment. (C-SPAN, along with other networks, wasn’t allowed to film the Senate trial.) “At that time,” Kelley recalled, “we were able to put microphones on the dais, mix all of the microphone positions and control them ourselves. We can’t do that anymore.” The official reasons for the change were technical, but Kelley thinks that Congress also just “liked the idea” of overseeing the microphones, and what they caught. “They control them now,” he said. “We just take a feed.”
That previous impeachment trial didn’t feel quite as partisan to Kelley as this one does so far, he said. “At least they were able to come to a reasonable agreement on what was fair.” The media landscape was a lot different then—Fox News, for instance, was just a few years old. And the cable networks “certainly weren’t covering these hearings the way they are now,” Kelley said. More viewers have started watching the twenty-four-hour news networks, he noted, but, he added, “to see these hearings without commentary and from beginning to end, from gavel to gavel, we’re still the place to go.”
The impeachment trial of Trump would be, in Kelley’s estimation, “one of the two or three most significant C-SPAN events of my tenure.” As for his own opinions about it, Kelley wouldn’t say—like his network, he aspires to nonpartisanship. “Somebody said it’s a great drama TV show,” he said of impeachment. “An adventure show where the hero is getting just torn apart and he’s near death a couple of times. You think, Oh, my gosh, this might be it for him. You actually know how the story is going to end, unless something major happens.” He went on, “It’s interesting to see, if we can see it.”


newyorker--2020-01-21--Watch the Live Stream of Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial

On Tuesday , the Senate will begin the impeachment trial of Donald Trump , the third Presidential impeachment in U.S. history .
The House has charged Trump with abusing Presidential power and obstruction of Congress , and , last week , when senators were sworn in as jurors , they took an oath to be “ impartial ” in their judgment of the evidence presented to them .
But that impartiality , Susan Glasser writes , seems like a political impossibility .
“ Three years into Trump ’ s tenure , there is precisely no one in the U.S. Capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the subject of his impeachment or any other.
” Conventional wisdom says the outcome of the trial is a predetermined acquittal—that there ’ s no way that sixty-seven members of the Republican-controlled Senate would vote to remove the President from office .
Still , there is plenty of suspense surrounding the proceedings .
One open question , set for a vote on Tuesday , is simply how the trial will proceed .
In impeachment trials , the senators serve as jurors , but they also set the rules .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side will have to make its argument , or whether the House managers that Nancy Pelosi appointed to make the case against Trump will be allowed to call witnesses .
On Monday night , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid out a resolution that gives each side a total of twenty-four hours , allotted over the course of two days , to deliver its arguments .
Democrats have complained that , with the trial starting at one o ’ clock in the afternoon , such a rule would push the debate late into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a majority of senators would have to agree to each witness or document before it could be presented , placing an obstacle in the way of potential evidence .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that he intends to propose amendments to the resolution that would change the rules of the trial , and called McConnell ’ s version “ a national disgrace.
” And then there is the question of Trump ’ s legal team , which includes Kenneth Starr , who became a household name when he investigated Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was a member of O. J. Simpson ’ s defense team .
Of Trump ’ s eight lawyers , many specialize in showmanship .
Jeffrey Toobin writes that the team itself raises interesting questions .
“ How can we not wonder how Starr , who inveighed against what he called the dishonesty of the Clintons , will contrive to defend this President ?
What will Dershowitz , a onetime liberal and a civil libertarian , say about his new client , who is openly hostile to the values enshrined in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the senators begin their debate over the process and hear the opening arguments in the live stream above .

On Tuesday, the Senate will begin the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the third Presidential impeachment in U.S. history. The House has charged Trump with abusing Presidential power and obstruction of Congress, and, last week, when senators were sworn in as jurors, they took an oath to be “impartial” in their judgment of the evidence presented to them. But that impartiality, Susan Glasser writes, seems like a political impossibility. “Three years into Trump’s tenure, there is precisely no one in the U.S. Capitol who is undecided about the President, on the subject of his impeachment or any other.” Conventional wisdom says the outcome of the trial is a predetermined acquittal—that there’s no way that sixty-seven members of the Republican-controlled Senate would vote to remove the President from office. Still, there is plenty of suspense surrounding the proceedings.
One open question, set for a vote on Tuesday, is simply how the trial will proceed. In impeachment trials, the senators serve as jurors, but they also set the rules. It’s not yet clear how much time each side will have to make its argument, or whether the House managers that Nancy Pelosi appointed to make the case against Trump will be allowed to call witnesses. On Monday night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid out a resolution that gives each side a total of twenty-four hours, allotted over the course of two days, to deliver its arguments. Democrats have complained that, with the trial starting at one o’clock in the afternoon, such a rule would push the debate late into the night. The resolution also states that a majority of senators would have to agree to each witness or document before it could be presented, placing an obstacle in the way of potential evidence. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that he intends to propose amendments to the resolution that would change the rules of the trial, and called McConnell’s version “a national disgrace.”
And then there is the question of Trump’s legal team, which includes Kenneth Starr, who became a household name when he investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Alan Dershowitz, who was a member of O. J. Simpson’s defense team. Of Trump’s eight lawyers, many specialize in showmanship. Jeffrey Toobin writes that the team itself raises interesting questions. “How can we not wonder how Starr, who inveighed against what he called the dishonesty of the Clintons, will contrive to defend this President? What will Dershowitz, a onetime liberal and a civil libertarian, say about his new client, who is openly hostile to the values enshrined in the Bill of Rights?”
Watch as the senators begin their debate over the process and hear the opening arguments in the live stream above.


newyorker--2020-01-23--The Opening Statements in the Harvey Weinstein Trial and the Undermining of #MeToo

On Wednesday morning , when the former movie producer Harvey Weinstein hobbled into the courtroom on the fifteenth floor of the New York State Supreme Court building , observers occupying the room ’ s wooden pews craned their heads toward him simultaneously , as if we were at a wedding where all the guests despised or pitied the bride .
Weinstein , in a black suit , looked lumpy and radiated persecution .
Two men in his entourage helped him move to the front of the room , with another following behind , carrying a tennis-ball-bottomed walker .
The lighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room , the kind that makes you want to eat a stale doughnut and abandon all hope .
Seventy journalists had been allowed inside , a reward for lining up outside the building before dawn ; one of them opened his laptop to spend several minutes revising a tweet about being in the courtroom .
In December , Weinstein reached a tentative deal to settle the array of civil claims against him for twenty-five million dollars , to be paid out by his insurers .
In the People of the State of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with two counts of rape , one count of a criminal sexual act , and two counts of predatory sexual assault .
The charges come from two alleged incidents .
The former production assistant Mimi Haleyi accuses Weinstein of forcibly performing oral sex on her , in 2006 ; another woman , identified for the first time on Wednesday as Jessica Mann , accuses him of raping her , in 2013 .
Two weeks ago , on the day that the trial began , the Los Angeles District Attorney announced that Weinstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two women in California , in 2013—one of whom , identified on Wednesday as Lauren Young , is set to testify in New York .
More than eighty women have publicly accused Weinstein of sexual harassment or assault ; he has repeatedly denied the allegations .
It has been effectively impossible for any human being with a television , a radio , a newspaper subscription , or Internet access to avoid news about Weinstein , and , on the first day of jury selection , around forty people told the judge , James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being impartial .
Jury selection took two weeks ; one of the potential jurors called to the courtroom was the supermodel Gigi Hadid , who said that she ’ d met Weinstein , as well as one of the potential witnesses , the actress Salma Hayek , but Hadid said that she could “ keep an open mind on the facts.
” ( Lawyers on both sides agreed to dismiss her . )
Prosecutors accused the defense of “ systematically eliminating ” young white women from the pool .
The jury ultimately came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one black man , three black women , and two white women .
They were instructed by Burke that the trial is not “ a referendum on the # MeToo movement.
” Donna Rotunno , one of Weinstein ’ s lead defense lawyers—who , on Wednesday , was armored in rigorous high femininity , with a sky-blue blouse and an immaculate blowout—has characterized # MeToo as a movement that strips people of their “ fundamental rights.
” “ The man seated right there was not just a titan in Hollywood , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning the prosecution ’ s opening statement .
“ He was a rapist , sexually assaulting these women when they refused to comply with his desires and his orders , and then using his power and prestige in the entertainment industry to insure their silence.
” Hast , dressed in plain black , had a way of saying unexpectedly vivid things in the sort of tone you might hear at a human-resources workshop .
On a screen at the front of the courtroom , an old Getty head shot of the actress Annabella @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of barging into her Gramercy Park apartment and raping her .
The allegation is outside the New York statute of limitations , but the prosecution would call Sciorra as a witness with the aim of establishing a pattern of behavior .
The screen switched to a photo of Weinstein circa 1993 , which is when Sciorra says that he raped her .
Hast noted that Weinstein is nearly six feet tall and was close to three hundred pounds at the time , and Sciorra weighed a hundred and ten .
She told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up fighting after Weinstein penetrated her , then violently shook as Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex .
The screen switched to a photograph of Haleyi with a bright smile and wavy hair .
Hast told a story of a transactional back-and-forth with a severe power imbalance .
At the time , Haleyi was a broke young assistant from England , looking for Weinstein ’ s help getting a job .
He was a world-famous producer , and he tested Haleyi , Hast said , to see how she would handle unwanted sexual advances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haleyi was in Weinstein ’ s apartment , he lunged at her , pushing her into the bedroom and onto the bed , holding her down despite her begging him to stop , yanked her tampon out in response to her protests that she had her period , and forcibly performed oral sex on her .
Haleyi , too shocked and scared to try to make a break for the door , decided to “ just check out , ” Hast said .
Later on , Hast continued , Haleyi , still “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to figure out the best path given her decision not to report , ” met Weinstein in a hotel room , where he demanded that she get undressed and get on the bed .
Haleyi “ knew she didn ’ t want to , and that he knew she didn ’ t want to ” —at this , the defense objected and was overruled—but lay there and “ let him violate her.
” Finally , there was a glamour shot of Jessica Mann , whom Hast characterized as a “ young Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State and an aspiring actress .
Mann gave Weinstein her number at a party , trying to network .
Hast said that Weinstein began auditioning Mann “ not as an actress but as a victim.
” Mann alleges that Weinstein lured her to a hotel room with the promise of a script , then orally sexually assaulted her , producing a sense of shame that made her want to transform her assault into a relationship .
“ Maybe he really does think I ’ m talented and special , ” Hast said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I don ’ t know how to get out of it .
.
.
maybe I can just grin and bear it.
” Mann sent Weinstein loving e-mails , which Hast compared to the actions of a child trying to get love from an abusive father .
In March , 2013 , according to Hast , Weinstein raped Mann in a hotel room , after he had injected his penis with medication to induce an erection .
In November , 2013 , he did it again , Hast said , ripping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oral sex on her , and then forcing her to perform oral sex on him .
Hast said , of Mann , “ She will describe to you what came out of his penis ” —a substance altered by the medication , which was “ vile and unforgettable.
” “ This stops now , ” Damon Cheronis , one of Weinstein ’ s attorneys , announced , in the defense ’ s opening statement .
Cheronis has an intense matter-of-factness and a youthfulness gone slightly wrinkly ; watching him , I imagined a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a movie about men ’ s rights .
“ We ’ ve been waiting patiently to tell you the truth , ” Cheronis said , adding that “ it ’ s not easy for Mr. Weinstein ” to hear all these things said about him .
Hast had called Weinstein “ sloppy and basically called him ugly , ” Cheronis argued .
But Weinstein produced movies like “ Pulp Fiction , ” “ Good Will Hunting , ” and “ Shakespeare in Love , ” Cheronis noted .
Was it not possible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attracted to Harvey Weinstein ?
“ It ’ s going to be hard at times , no doubt , to not let emotion cloud your intellect , ” Cheronis told the jury .
But “ the truth doesn ’ t change when an article comes out in 2017.
” He assured the jury that he was not “ victim-shaming—victim is a conclusion that is only made after a trial , ” he said .
In other words , these women weren ’ t victims , and , Cheroni argued , they only seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked them any actual questions—they ’ d just given press conferences , and gone on Megyn Kelly ’ s TV show .
( He was alluding to Haleyi , who appeared on “ Megyn Kelly Today ” in October , 2017 , along with her lawyer , Gloria Allred , who was sitting in the courtroom on Wednesday . )
The defense would cross-examine the prosecution ’ s witnesses , Cheronis said , and , soon enough , he insisted , the jurors would say , “ Oh , my God—Harvey Weinstein is @ @ @

On Wednesday morning, when the former movie producer Harvey Weinstein hobbled into the courtroom on the fifteenth floor of the New York State Supreme Court building, observers occupying the room’s wooden pews craned their heads toward him simultaneously, as if we were at a wedding where all the guests despised or pitied the bride. Weinstein, in a black suit, looked lumpy and radiated persecution. Two men in his entourage helped him move to the front of the room, with another following behind, carrying a tennis-ball-bottomed walker. The lighting was flat, like an office break room, the kind that makes you want to eat a stale doughnut and abandon all hope. Seventy journalists had been allowed inside, a reward for lining up outside the building before dawn; one of them opened his laptop to spend several minutes revising a tweet about being in the courtroom.
In December, Weinstein reached a tentative deal to settle the array of civil claims against him for twenty-five million dollars, to be paid out by his insurers. In the People of the State of New York v. Harvey Weinstein, he is charged with two counts of rape, one count of a criminal sexual act, and two counts of predatory sexual assault. The charges come from two alleged incidents. The former production assistant Mimi Haleyi accuses Weinstein of forcibly performing oral sex on her, in 2006; another woman, identified for the first time on Wednesday as Jessica Mann, accuses him of raping her, in 2013. Two weeks ago, on the day that the trial began, the Los Angeles District Attorney announced that Weinstein was also being charged with sexually assaulting two women in California, in 2013—one of whom, identified on Wednesday as Lauren Young, is set to testify in New York.
More than eighty women have publicly accused Weinstein of sexual harassment or assault; he has repeatedly denied the allegations. It has been effectively impossible for any human being with a television, a radio, a newspaper subscription, or Internet access to avoid news about Weinstein, and, on the first day of jury selection, around forty people told the judge, James Burke, that they were incapable of being impartial. Jury selection took two weeks; one of the potential jurors called to the courtroom was the supermodel Gigi Hadid, who said that she’d met Weinstein, as well as one of the potential witnesses, the actress Salma Hayek, but Hadid said that she could “keep an open mind on the facts.” (Lawyers on both sides agreed to dismiss her.) Prosecutors accused the defense of “systematically eliminating” young white women from the pool. The jury ultimately came to consist of six white men, one black man, three black women, and two white women. They were instructed by Burke that the trial is not “a referendum on the #MeToo movement.” Donna Rotunno, one of Weinstein’s lead defense lawyers—who, on Wednesday, was armored in rigorous high femininity, with a sky-blue blouse and an immaculate blowout—has characterized #MeToo as a movement that strips people of their “fundamental rights.”
“The man seated right there was not just a titan in Hollywood,” the Assistant District Attorney Meghan Hast said, beginning the prosecution’s opening statement. “He was a rapist, sexually assaulting these women when they refused to comply with his desires and his orders, and then using his power and prestige in the entertainment industry to insure their silence.” Hast, dressed in plain black, had a way of saying unexpectedly vivid things in the sort of tone you might hear at a human-resources workshop. On a screen at the front of the courtroom, an old Getty head shot of the actress Annabella Sciorra appeared. Sciorra has accused Weinstein of barging into her Gramercy Park apartment and raping her. The allegation is outside the New York statute of limitations, but the prosecution would call Sciorra as a witness with the aim of establishing a pattern of behavior. The screen switched to a photo of Weinstein circa 1993, which is when Sciorra says that he raped her. Hast noted that Weinstein is nearly six feet tall and was close to three hundred pounds at the time, and Sciorra weighed a hundred and ten. She told the jury that Sciorra struggled and then gave up fighting after Weinstein penetrated her, then violently shook as Weinstein forcibly performed oral sex.
The screen switched to a photograph of Haleyi with a bright smile and wavy hair. Hast told a story of a transactional back-and-forth with a severe power imbalance. At the time, Haleyi was a broke young assistant from England, looking for Weinstein’s help getting a job. He was a world-famous producer, and he tested Haleyi, Hast said, to see how she would handle unwanted sexual advances. Then, Hast said, when Haleyi was in Weinstein’s apartment, he lunged at her, pushing her into the bedroom and onto the bed, holding her down despite her begging him to stop, yanked her tampon out in response to her protests that she had her period, and forcibly performed oral sex on her. Haleyi, too shocked and scared to try to make a break for the door, decided to “just check out,” Hast said. Later on, Hast continued, Haleyi, still “trying to process what had happened, trying to figure out the best path given her decision not to report,” met Weinstein in a hotel room, where he demanded that she get undressed and get on the bed. Haleyi “knew she didn’t want to, and that he knew she didn’t want to”—at this, the defense objected and was overruled—but lay there and “let him violate her.”
Finally, there was a glamour shot of Jessica Mann, whom Hast characterized as a “young Christian from a dairy farm” in Washington State and an aspiring actress. Mann gave Weinstein her number at a party, trying to network. Hast said that Weinstein began auditioning Mann “not as an actress but as a victim.” Mann alleges that Weinstein lured her to a hotel room with the promise of a script, then orally sexually assaulted her, producing a sense of shame that made her want to transform her assault into a relationship. “Maybe he really does think I’m talented and special,” Hast said, vocalizing Mann’s state of mind. “I don’t know how to get out of it . . . maybe I can just grin and bear it.” Mann sent Weinstein loving e-mails, which Hast compared to the actions of a child trying to get love from an abusive father. In March, 2013, according to Hast, Weinstein raped Mann in a hotel room, after he had injected his penis with medication to induce an erection. In November, 2013, he did it again, Hast said, ripping off Mann’s jeans, performing oral sex on her, and then forcing her to perform oral sex on him. Hast said, of Mann, “She will describe to you what came out of his penis”—a substance altered by the medication, which was “vile and unforgettable.”
“This stops now,” Damon Cheronis, one of Weinstein’s attorneys, announced, in the defense’s opening statement. Cheronis has an intense matter-of-factness and a youthfulness gone slightly wrinkly; watching him, I imagined a mid-career Michael J. Fox starring in a movie about men’s rights. “We’ve been waiting patiently to tell you the truth,” Cheronis said, adding that “it’s not easy for Mr. Weinstein” to hear all these things said about him. Hast had called Weinstein “sloppy and basically called him ugly,” Cheronis argued. But Weinstein produced movies like “Pulp Fiction,” “Good Will Hunting,” and “Shakespeare in Love,” Cheronis noted. Was it not possible that any of the women could have been attracted to Harvey Weinstein?
“It’s going to be hard at times, no doubt, to not let emotion cloud your intellect,” Cheronis told the jury. But “the truth doesn’t change when an article comes out in 2017.” He assured the jury that he was not “victim-shaming—victim is a conclusion that is only made after a trial,” he said. In other words, these women weren’t victims, and, Cheronis argued, they only seemed to be because no one had ever asked them any actual questions—they’d just given press conferences, and gone on Megyn Kelly’s TV show. (He was alluding to Haleyi, who appeared on “Megyn Kelly Today” in October, 2017, along with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, who was sitting in the courtroom on Wednesday.) The defense would cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, Cheronis said, and, soon enough, he insisted, the jurors would say, “Oh, my God—Harvey Weinstein is innocent.”
The defense’s argument, it was clear, would hinge on the idea that the accusers were making a knowing trade-off for access to Weinstein’s power—that, in fact, they were eager to exploit him. “It’s not going to be this predator-prey dynamic that the state so badly wants you to believe,” Cheronis said. Haleyi had bragged about her friendship with Weinstein; she had written him an e-mail, in 2009, wondering if he knew of any jobs, beginning it “Dear Harvey” and signing it “peace and love.” Excerpts of the women’s messages to Weinstein appeared on the screen. “I appreciate all you do for me, it shows,” Mann wrote, not long after her alleged assault. In August, 2013, she sent him her new phone number; in September, she wrote, “miss you big guy.” Cheronis said, “You can’t have it both ways, members of the jury. The truth is what happened in 2013, and the truth can’t change.” He read several of Mann’s text messages, including one that said, “I love you, I always do. But I hate feeling like a booty call. :)” Weinstein and Mann had an “actual loving relationship,” Cheronis argued, and the jury would see it and wonder what was even going on with this trial at all.
Cheronis treaded more lightly with Sciorra’s allegation. He pointed out that she couldn’t provide an exact date, that she hadn’t initially described the encounter as rape, that she’d signed onto a Miramax project afterward, that she says that she screamed but no neighbors had called the cops. He said that thinking of Weinstein as a predator “might reinforce your preconceived notions.” But “it’s not true, it didn’t happen, it’s not real.” It was up to the jury to do what’s right, “rather than what’s popular in the court of public opinion,” he said, as if the two were obviously at odds.
There was something circular going on in the courtroom. We were litigating events that had produced the context of their litigation. When the allegations against Weinstein were published in the Times and The New Yorker, in October, 2017, they transformed the public narrative around sexual harassment and assault, particularly when it is perpetrated by powerful men. This discursive shift was implicit in Hast’s confident explanations to the jury about how Weinstein’s alleged victims were traumatized and exploited not just physically but psychologically and professionally, and how, when they returned to Weinstein, they were attempting to reclaim a sense of agency over their situation. Cheronis was more explicit about how things have changed, insisting that a little “God-given New York City common sense” would reverse the scales and put Weinstein, suddenly the underdog, on top.
Two and a half years ago, I attended the first trial of Bill Cosby, and things were different then. Cosby’s lawyers also referred to the increased weight that was being given, in the press and elsewhere, to accusations made by women, but it sounded like a rebuke to a growing trend, not an attempt to overturn the new normal. After all, Donald Trump had just been elected President, despite piles of credible allegations of sexual misconduct. The prosecution, at that first Cosby trial, was only allowed to call one additional accuser to the stand, and it ended in a mistrial.
When Cosby was tried again, the stories about Weinstein had been published; the judge permitted the prosecution to call five additional accusers as witnesses, which allowed them to establish the sort of pattern that had been central to the Weinstein story. (The Wall Street Journal recently labelled this strategy “controversial.”) Cosby was finally convicted in April, 2018.
What the opening statements in the Weinstein trial demonstrated is something that started becoming clear a long time ago, in the first few months after Sciorra and Asia Argento and others described what Weinstein had allegedly done to them. The most effective way of undermining the #MeToo movement is to pretend that it has already won—to pretend that centuries of male domination have been swiftly reversed to make women the rulers of the land. No one believes (or, rather, pretends to believe) in the lasting influence of a woman’s testimony as much as a man who has been accused of sexual assault.
And no one understands the abuse of power better than a person who’s fallen victim to it, as the women testifying in the Weinstein trial quite possibly know. The #MeToo movement has demonstrated the principled urgency of a persuasive story of victimhood; the accused now crave that righteousness, too. They want to possess the moral power that their victims are wielding over them, along with the structural power they have long had and still possess. It’s the original demand, replicating itself fiendishly: whatever is yours must belong to me.


newyorker--2020-01-23--Adam Schiff, Hakeem Jeffries, and the Framers Weigh In on Impeachment

Last week , the Senate opened the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
With Republicans standing immovably by the President @ @ @ @ @ to result in Trump ’ s acquittal .
The Framers of the Constitution issued dire @ @ @ @ @ “ factionalism ” and how it could endanger American democracy .
Jelani Cobb joins Dorothy @ @ @ @ @ of partisanship in American politics and how it ’ s playing out in arguments about @ @ @ @ @ removed from office .

Photograph by Erin Schaff / NYT / Redux
Last week, the Senate opened the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. With Republicans standing immovably by the President, the trial is expected to result in Trump’s acquittal. The Framers of the Constitution issued dire warnings about the spectre of “factionalism” and how it could endanger American democracy. Jelani Cobb joins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss the origins of partisanship in American politics and how it’s playing out in arguments about whether the President should be removed from office.