newyorker--2020-01-28--Watch Live: Donald Trump’s Defense Team Concludes Its Arguments in the Senate Impeachment Trial

On Tuesday , in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump , the President ’ s legal team will complete its defense .
The day before , Trump ’ s lawyers focussed largely on constitutional , legal , and historical precedents ; in Monday ’ s first speech , Kenneth Starr , the independent counsel whose salacious report led the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton , asserted that the proceedings against Trump have been “ dripping with fundamental process violations.
” Later in the afternoon , the President ’ s deputy counsel Pat Philbin argued that the Democrats have conflated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the President was denied due process .
He repeated the common Republican talking point that Trump was unable to be represented by counsel or to call witnesses during the House inquiry , saying that the President had been shut out of the proceedings “ for seventy-one out of seventy-eight days.
” He also chalked up the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans toward the impeachment as “ friction ” between the executive and legislative branches , which the Constitution both predicted and allows .
It was Pam Bondi , a former attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new pillar of Trump ’ s defense : a long-anticipated attack on Joe and Hunter Biden .
“ We would prefer not to be discussing this , ” she said , adding that it was only because the House managers mentioned Biden or Burisma “ over four hundred times ” during their arguments last week—a number she cited repeatedly—that Trump ’ s defense team was forced to address the subject .
Bondi sought to portray Hunter Biden as a profiteer who was nepotistically installed in a lucrative position on Burisma ’ s board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bidens ’ alleged corruption , she offered excerpts from both the televised House testimony of George Kent and from pieces published in the Times , the Washington Post , and other media outlets expressing concern that Hunter Biden ’ s board position represented a potential conflict of interest .
( She also routinely quoted from news outlets throughout her arguments , including from The New Yorker . )
Later , Eric Herschmann , a partner at the private law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres , questioned Joe Biden ’ s temperament , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been screamed at.
” Their aim was to establish that Trump ’ s desire for an investigation of the Bidens was warranted—no matter what length the President seemed willing to go for it .
Herschmann ’ s comments then veered further off course .
He brought up an episode in March , 2012 , in which Barack Obama told Dmitri Medvedev , who was then the Russian President , that he understood Russia ’ s concerns regarding an anti-missile shield that the U.S. and NATO wanted to build across Europe .
Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that he ’ d have “ more flexibility ” to accommodate concessions to Russia following the 2012 Presidential election in the U.S. Herschmann argued that this conversation constituted a more impeachable offense than Trump ’ s actions in the Ukraine affair .
He went on to praise President Trump as if he were campaigning for his reëlection , saying that perhaps the American people like “ historically low unemployment , ” strong 401 ( k ) s , “ secure borders , ” favorable trade agreements , “ lower taxes , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promises and delivered on them.
” Alan Dershowitz , who closed the day ’ s arguments with a coda centered on history and constitutional law , opened his remarks with personal sentiments : he said that he abhorred Nixon and supported his impeachment ; admired Clinton and opposed his impeachment ; and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 , and would defend her as he ’ s defending Trump were she the President and presented with the same articles of impeachment .
Those articles , he argued , are ultimately too vague and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he asserted that he now believes , in contrast to the past , that impeachment charges must be criminal in nature .
He also addressed more directly than his colleagues the “ Bolton Bombshell ” —a leak , late on Sunday , of a draft of a forthcoming book by the former national-security adviser John Bolton , which says that Trump told Bolton directly that the release of the withheld aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into certain Democrats .
( In her most recent column , the New Yorker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s revelation “ the proverbial smoking gun.
” ) “ Nothing in the Bolton revelations , even if true , would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense , ” Dershowitz said .
But the news did change things for some .
At a lunch for Republican senators on Monday , Patrick Toomey , of Pennsylvania , said that he now would be open to some sort of witness exchange involving Bolton .
Democrats need only four Republican votes in order to call witnesses .
Three—Susan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney—have already expressed interest .
You can watch the proceedings on the live stream above , as the President ’ s lawyers wrap up their arguments .

On Tuesday, in the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the President’s legal team will complete its defense. The day before, Trump’s lawyers focussed largely on constitutional, legal, and historical precedents; in Monday’s first speech, Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose salacious report led the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, asserted that the proceedings against Trump have been “dripping with fundamental process violations.” Later in the afternoon, the President’s deputy counsel Pat Philbin argued that the Democrats have conflated executive privilege with abuse of power and that the President was denied due process. He repeated the common Republican talking point that Trump was unable to be represented by counsel or to call witnesses during the House inquiry, saying that the President had been shut out of the proceedings “for seventy-one out of seventy-eight days.” He also chalked up the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans toward the impeachment as “friction” between the executive and legislative branches, which the Constitution both predicted and allows.
It was Pam Bondi, a former attorney general of Florida, who presented a new pillar of Trump’s defense: a long-anticipated attack on Joe and Hunter Biden. “We would prefer not to be discussing this,” she said, adding that it was only because the House managers mentioned Biden or Burisma “over four hundred times” during their arguments last week—a number she cited repeatedly—that Trump’s defense team was forced to address the subject. Bondi sought to portray Hunter Biden as a profiteer who was nepotistically installed in a lucrative position on Burisma’s board. In lieu of concrete evidence of the Bidens’ alleged corruption, she offered excerpts from both the televised House testimony of George Kent and from pieces published in the Times, the Washington Post, and other media outlets expressing concern that Hunter Biden’s board position represented a potential conflict of interest. (She also routinely quoted from news outlets throughout her arguments, including from The New Yorker.) Later, Eric Herschmann, a partner at the private law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres, questioned Joe Biden’s temperament, saying that “everyone who works for him has been screamed at.” Their aim was to establish that Trump’s desire for an investigation of the Bidens was warranted—no matter what length the President seemed willing to go for it.
Herschmann’s comments then veered further off course. He brought up an episode in March, 2012, in which Barack Obama told Dmitri Medvedev, who was then the Russian President, that he understood Russia’s concerns regarding an anti-missile shield that the U.S. and NATO wanted to build across Europe. Obama said, unknowingly into a hot mike, that he’d have “more flexibility” to accommodate concessions to Russia following the 2012 Presidential election in the U.S. Herschmann argued that this conversation constituted a more impeachable offense than Trump’s actions in the Ukraine affair. He went on to praise President Trump as if he were campaigning for his reëlection, saying that perhaps the American people like “historically low unemployment,” strong 401(k)s, “secure borders,” favorable trade agreements, “lower taxes,” and “a President who kept his promises and delivered on them.”
Alan Dershowitz, who closed the day’s arguments with a coda centered on history and constitutional law, opened his remarks with personal sentiments: he said that he abhorred Nixon and supported his impeachment; admired Clinton and opposed his impeachment; and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and would defend her as he’s defending Trump were she the President and presented with the same articles of impeachment. Those articles, he argued, are ultimately too vague and subjective to warrant Trump’s removal, and he asserted that he now believes, in contrast to the past, that impeachment charges must be criminal in nature. He also addressed more directly than his colleagues the “Bolton Bombshell”—a leak, late on Sunday, of a draft of a forthcoming book by the former national-security adviser John Bolton, which says that Trump told Bolton directly that the release of the withheld aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into certain Democrats. (In her most recent column, the New Yorker staff writer Susan B. Glasser called Bolton’s revelation “the proverbial smoking gun.”) “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said. But the news did change things for some. At a lunch for Republican senators on Monday, Patrick Toomey, of Pennsylvania, said that he now would be open to some sort of witness exchange involving Bolton. Democrats need only four Republican votes in order to call witnesses. Three—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney—have already expressed interest.
You can watch the proceedings on the live stream above, as the President’s lawyers wrap up their arguments.


newyorker--2020-01-28--How Victoria’s Secret Would Describe My Postpartum Intimates

Honk honk !
Take a gander at this naughty-but-nice nursing bra .
Keeping another human being alive has never been so easy .
Just unsnap the straps and ka-blam—come to mama !
Seriously , bring the baby over now ; she ’ s hungry and screaming .
This hotter-than-hot , dare-to-bare bra is a gorgeous shade of laundromat gray , so you ’ ll never have to wonder if it needs a wash .
It definitely does .
Old Mother Hubbard ?
More like “ Wow , mother , hubba hubba !
” It ’ s getting hot in here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the postpartum sweats—it ’ s these ultra-sexy , über-shapeless panties !
For this next-level boudoir look , we started with our basic bikini shape , doubled the fabric , and halved the elastic .
The result ?
A panty with the look and feel of oversized , flappy bike shorts .
So set the temperature to maximum hotness , because you ’ ve just put the “ ass ” back into “ materfamilias ” !
Slip into something more functional with this fabulously forgettable tank top .
Constructed from cool jersey cotton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night to day and back to night and then to day again before you can say “ Is it Tuesday already ?
” This item is exclusively available in a super-saucy shade that we call “ dirty white , ” because it used to be white but now it ’ s filthy .
For added va-va-voom , you can wear it inside out , back to front , or , for your ultimate flirty fantasy , underneath that flannel shirt you just picked up off the floor .
Yowza !
Somebody take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control !
O , Mother , who art in heaven—you ’ ll be an angel heavily in disguise in these faded sweatpants that you pulled from the back of a drawer two weeks ago and haven ’ t taken off since .
They just ooze flirtatious functionality—the waist cord is broken , and the derriere is so stretched out that it hangs to the backs of your knees .
There ’ s no sexier , more celestial way to lie on the couch and gaze at your phone in a sleep-deprived fog .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d find in your baby ’ s crib—no , ma ’ am .
This is a completely unembellished nightgown that suspiciously resembles an oversized T-shirt that you got for free back in college .
Finally , something that looks more tired than you do !
And talk about versatile—you can wear this to all your sexy rendezvous , from the kitchen to the changing table to the trash can .
Adult cuddle time starts now , or maybe after you just close your eyes for a quick na— Mother-of-Pearl Girl , You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mine , Itsy-Bitsy Teensie-Weensie Ultra-Embellished for-His-Eyes-Only Too-Hot-to-Handle the Perfect Body G-Stringi Bikini-tini

Mother Goose Deliciously Delicate Demi Laceless Peek-a-Boob Bra
Honk honk! Take a gander at this naughty-but-nice nursing bra. Keeping another human being alive has never been so easy. Just unsnap the straps and ka-blam—come to mama! Seriously, bring the baby over now; she’s hungry and screaming. This hotter-than-hot, dare-to-bare bra is a gorgeous shade of laundromat gray, so you’ll never have to wonder if it needs a wash. It definitely does. Old Mother Hubbard? More like “Wow, mother, hubba hubba!”
Mommy Dearest Miami Nights Steamy Dreamy Cheeky Oo-la-la! Panty
It’s getting hot in here, and it’s not just the postpartum sweats—it’s these ultra-sexy, über-shapeless panties! For this next-level boudoir look, we started with our basic bikini shape, doubled the fabric, and halved the elastic. The result? A panty with the look and feel of oversized, flappy bike shorts. So set the temperature to maximum hotness, because you’ve just put the “ass” back into “materfamilias”!
Whoa, Mama! Sultry Caress Crisscross Tankini
Slip into something more functional with this fabulously forgettable tank top. Constructed from cool jersey cotton, it will take you from day to night to day and back to night and then to day again before you can say “Is it Tuesday already?” This item is exclusively available in a super-saucy shade that we call “dirty white,” because it used to be white but now it’s filthy. For added va-va-voom, you can wear it inside out, back to front, or, for your ultimate flirty fantasy, underneath that flannel shirt you just picked up off the floor. Yowza! Somebody take the reins, because this mama is outta control!
Mama Earth-Angel Shine-Star Space-Debris Lounge Pant
O, Mother, who art in heaven—you’ll be an angel heavily in disguise in these faded sweatpants that you pulled from the back of a drawer two weeks ago and haven’t taken off since. They just ooze flirtatious functionality—the waist cord is broken, and the derriere is so stretched out that it hangs to the backs of your knees. There’s no sexier, more celestial way to lie on the couch and gaze at your phone in a sleep-deprived fog.
Yummy Mommy Fuchsia-rama All-in-One Total-Body Teddy
This isn’t a teddy you’d find in your baby’s crib—no, ma’am. This is a completely unembellished nightgown that suspiciously resembles an oversized T-shirt that you got for free back in college. Finally, something that looks more tired than you do! And talk about versatile—you can wear this to all your sexy rendezvous, from the kitchen to the changing table to the trash can. Adult cuddle time starts now, or maybe after you just close your eyes for a quick na—
Mother-of-Pearl Girl, You’re Divine and Mine, All Mine, Itsy-Bitsy Teensie-Weensie Ultra-Embellished for-His-Eyes-Only Too-Hot-to-Handle the Perfect Body G-Stringi Bikini-tini
No.


newyorker--2020-01-29--Watching Amy Klobuchar’s Impassioned Centrism in Iowa

The caucuses are almost upon us , and this weekend Amy Klobuchar , dividing her time between senatorial duties and Presidential goals , travelled to Iowa to address as much of the state as she could before returning to Washington for the impeachment hearings .
Since the previous Sunday , when the Times co-endorsed Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren , Twitter and Instagram had noted some # Klomentum .
( # Feeltheklob and # Klozone got less traction . )
Long lagging behind her competitors in Iowa , with polls giving her about five per cent of the vote , Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added events in towns whose names put a triumphant section of a song from “ The Music Man ” ( “ Dubuque , Des Moines , Davenport , Marshalltown , Mason City , Keokuk , Ames , Clear Lake—ought to give Iowa a try !
” ) in my head .
On Saturday , Klobuchar visited Muscatine and Bettendorf .
On Saturday night , the Des Moines Register announced its endorsement for Elizabeth Warren .
On Sunday , undeterred , Klobuchar soldiered on to Waterloo .
It had been a snowy week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; I drove to Waterloo from Des Moines , two hours of unbending highway through gorgeous white farmland .
There were grain elevators and windmills and quixotic billboards for Tom Steyer , looking just as startled to see us as we were to see him .
In downtown Waterloo , across from a dog-walking area called Wiggly Field , Klobuchar ’ s event was held at Black ’ s Building Skyroom , in a historic eight-story building that had once been a department store .
I happened to enter near Klobuchar and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something about turning into a pumpkin .
Inside , on the eighth floor , a ballroom-like space was full of people of all ages , almost all of them white .
Many wore clothes you might wear to church or the office ; many others wore jeans , jean jackets , plaid .
There was a lively energy , and a green “ Amy for America ” banner hung on the front wall .
Klobuchar was introduced by Vikki Brown , the chair of the Black Hawk County Democrats , and the crowd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentions of Klobuchar ’ s accomplishments .
“ Thirty-four of the bills in which she was lead Democrat on were actually signed into law , ” Brown said .
“ Klobuchar has built a reputation of putting partisanship and politics aside to strengthen the economy and help middle-class families.
” Silence .
“ Let ’ s clap !
” Brown said .
( Getting dark money out of politics fared better . )
Klobuchar took the stage , to wild cheering .
She wore a red blouse and a dark suit , her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can give the impression of someone piloting a recumbent bike : energetic but not overeager .
“ I love grassroots campaigning , ” she told the crowd—but the Senate beckons , too .
“ I ’ m a mom , and I can do two things at once , ” she said .
“ It ’ s kind of like you turn into a pumpkin.
” Klobuchar speaks deliberately , hitting clear points with humor .
Many jokes are good ; others have the spirit , if not the effect , of fun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that we need to hear witnesses—people who were , “ in the words of the ‘ Hamilton ’ musical , ‘ in the room where it happened.
’ ” The stump speech was about forty minutes long , considerate of Iowa and its concerns , with material that included the Iowa native Joseph Welch , of “ Sir , have you no sense of decency ?
” fame ; John Deere ; climate change and Midwestern flooding ; and a promise to fire Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos on Day 1 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeVos has rattled many Iowans via public-versus-private-school-funding shenanigans , sometimes in closed-door meetings that have excluded Democrats and public-school administrators . )
Klobuchar was also amused and disgusted , by turns , with Trump ’ s misdeeds .
She talked about a cattle rancher with whom she shared an A.T.V .
ride— “ I thought , This is not how I want to die , ” she said , to laughs—who later told her that he voted for Trump but came to regret it the day after the inauguration , when Trump gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ C.I.A .
Memorial Wall .
In talking about C.I.A .
officers who had died in the line of duty , Klobuchar ’ s voice got whispery and serious , and it stayed that way when she described what else the rancher didn ’ t like : Trump ’ s terrible behavior at the Boy Scout Jamboree .
Klobuchar , like many American politicians , deftly weaves into such stories details about her family ’ s own just-like-you values and history—in this case , involving the Boy Scouts , her husband and his five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ triple bunk beds in their trailer home .
The punch line was “ and five of the six became Eagle Scouts—and I never want to say which one didn ’ t make it , because I don ’ t want to embarrass my husband.
” The crowd roared at this , with something like the thrill of audacity .
Klobuchar ’ s calibrated control extended to the Q .
& A. , which at each event averaged three or four questions , pre-submitted via index card , answered with anecdotes as deliberate as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existential political problems with pragmatic , feasible proposals .
Jane from Cedar Falls wanted to know about guns , and Klobuchar paid respect to hunting—she always asks herself if gun-control proposals will “ hurt my Uncle Dick in his deer stand ” — but then cited background checks , magazine limitations , and the “ boyfriend loophole ” ( a phrase made even more unnerving by its proximity to a mention of Mitch McConnell ) .
There was discussion of a trust-fund-appreciation tax—the opposite of what she has called her more progressive competitors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an entreaty for campaign support .
She likes to tell an anecdote about the late Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone , who had multiple sclerosis and , in the last year of his life , was unable to run around his distinctive green campaign bus during parades .
He had so many green-shirted supporters running alongside the bus , she said , whispering again , that you couldn ’ t tell he wasn ’ t running himself .
Now , she said , “ that ’ s what I ’ m asking you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message as she returned to D.C. Then : a request to sign convention cards , a promise of selfies .
I approached a woman who had responded to the speech with enthusiasm , occasionally clapping with hands aloft .
Her name was Barbara Borchert .
“ I love her moderation !
” she told me , beaming .
“ And she ’ s a woman !
” She raised her fist .
“ She does it all in a womanly way , a masterly way.
” She paused .
“ Side note : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lives in Minneapolis and recently retired from a forty-year career as a pediatric E.R .
nurse , now volunteers for Klobuchar ’ s campaign .
In 1984 , she had joined a strike with her nursing union , which secured good salaries , benefits , and health care .
“ Nurses could afford to be nurses , ” she said .
( Her husband was a nurse , too . )
Now those benefits were under threat from hospitals in league with big pharmaceutical companies , she said , and nursing education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be !
” —is expensive , often prohibitively .
Klobuchar understood this , and would help .
I talked to a dozen or so Iowans from the area , none of whom wanted to give me their names—or , especially , talk to a journalist .
A gray-haired husband and wife , eying me suspiciously , liked Klobuchar ’ s centrism .
“ I ’ m impressed by how she spoke to the ordinary citizen , ” the wife , who had worked for Black Hawk County , said .
She held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ The Senator Next Door : A Memoir from the Heartland.
” What issues did they care most about ?
“ One she didn ’ t mention , ” the husband , a Navy veteran , said .
“ Military.
” Also : fair labor laws .
A tidy young man who would identify himself only as “ a golf professional ” told me that his chief concern was “ the electability factor , ” and that Klobuchar ’ s Midwesternness was an asset .
Paul Simon ’ s “ Late in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mellow and warm , if , suddenly , a bit edgy .
A kindly-looking bespectacled man who had retired from the University of Northern Iowa—teaching ?
No , “ other things ” —was impressed by Klobuchar ’ s three successful Senate campaigns and ability to win in red districts .
“ I ’ m a centrist , ” he said .
“ I ’ d support any candidate to beat Trump.
” As I left Waterloo for Klobuchar ’ s next event , “ Iowa Stubborn ” came into my head again : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ halfway / About the Iowa way to treat you / When we treat you / Which we may not do at all.
” On to Ames !
While driving , I listened to a political podcast in which Democrats were strategizing about which voters to try to activate and motivate , and how .
Which candidate would inspire new or low-motivation voters ?
Which would avoid turning off the base ?
Who is the base ?
The landscape was still stunningly white and serene , with a thin layer of snow on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the air .

The caucuses are almost upon us, and this weekend Amy Klobuchar, dividing her time between senatorial duties and Presidential goals, travelled to Iowa to address as much of the state as she could before returning to Washington for the impeachment hearings. Since the previous Sunday, when the Times co-endorsed Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, Twitter and Instagram had noted some #Klomentum. (#Feeltheklob and #Klozone got less traction.) Long lagging behind her competitors in Iowa, with polls giving her about five per cent of the vote, Klobuchar was now nearing double-digit support. She added events in towns whose names put a triumphant section of a song from “The Music Man” (“Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, Clear Lake—ought to give Iowa a try!”) in my head. On Saturday, Klobuchar visited Muscatine and Bettendorf. On Saturday night, the Des Moines Register announced its endorsement for Elizabeth Warren. On Sunday, undeterred, Klobuchar soldiered on to Waterloo.
It had been a snowy week, and the morning began with frosted windshields; I drove to Waterloo from Des Moines, two hours of unbending highway through gorgeous white farmland. There were grain elevators and windmills and quixotic billboards for Tom Steyer, looking just as startled to see us as we were to see him. In downtown Waterloo, across from a dog-walking area called Wiggly Field, Klobuchar’s event was held at Black’s Building Skyroom, in a historic eight-story building that had once been a department store. I happened to enter near Klobuchar and her entourage; she was smiling and saying something about turning into a pumpkin. Inside, on the eighth floor, a ballroom-like space was full of people of all ages, almost all of them white. Many wore clothes you might wear to church or the office; many others wore jeans, jean jackets, plaid. There was a lively energy, and a green “Amy for America” banner hung on the front wall. Klobuchar was introduced by Vikki Brown, the chair of the Black Hawk County Democrats, and the crowd cheered, mostly unprompted, at her mentions of Klobuchar’s accomplishments. “Thirty-four of the bills in which she was lead Democrat on were actually signed into law,” Brown said. “Klobuchar has built a reputation of putting partisanship and politics aside to strengthen the economy and help middle-class families.” Silence. “Let’s clap!” Brown said. (Getting dark money out of politics fared better.)
Klobuchar took the stage, to wild cheering. She wore a red blouse and a dark suit, her hair a controlled swoop. Her manner can give the impression of someone piloting a recumbent bike: energetic but not overeager. “I love grassroots campaigning,” she told the crowd—but the Senate beckons, too. “I’m a mom, and I can do two things at once,” she said. “It’s kind of like you turn into a pumpkin.” Klobuchar speaks deliberately, hitting clear points with humor. Many jokes are good; others have the spirit, if not the effect, of fun. About the impeachment hearings, she said that we need to hear witnesses—people who were, “in the words of the ‘Hamilton’ musical, ‘in the room where it happened.’ ” The stump speech was about forty minutes long, considerate of Iowa and its concerns, with material that included the Iowa native Joseph Welch, of “Sir, have you no sense of decency?” fame; John Deere; climate change and Midwestern flooding; and a promise to fire Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos on Day 1, to lusty cheers of approval. (DeVos has rattled many Iowans via public-versus-private-school-funding shenanigans, sometimes in closed-door meetings that have excluded Democrats and public-school administrators.)
Klobuchar was also amused and disgusted, by turns, with Trump’s misdeeds. She talked about a cattle rancher with whom she shared an A.T.V. ride—“I thought, This is not how I want to die,” she said, to laughs—who later told her that he voted for Trump but came to regret it the day after the Inauguration, when Trump gave a self-serving speech in front of the C.I.A. Memorial Wall. In talking about C.I.A. officers who had died in the line of duty, Klobuchar’s voice got whispery and serious, and it stayed that way when she described what else the rancher didn’t like: Trump’s terrible behavior at the Boy Scout Jamboree. Klobuchar, like many American politicians, deftly weaves into such stories details about her family’s own just-like-you values and history—in this case, involving the Boy Scouts, her husband and his five brothers, who as children slept in triple bunk beds in their trailer home. The punch line was “and five of the six became Eagle Scouts—and I never want to say which one didn’t make it, because I don’t want to embarrass my husband.” The crowd roared at this, with something like the thrill of audacity.
Klobuchar’s calibrated control extended to the Q. & A., which at each event averaged three or four questions, pre-submitted via index card, answered with anecdotes as deliberate as the speech, pairing heartfelt emotion about existential political problems with pragmatic, feasible proposals. Jane from Cedar Falls wanted to know about guns, and Klobuchar paid respect to hunting—she always asks herself if gun-control proposals will “hurt my Uncle Dick in his deer stand”— but then cited background checks, magazine limitations, and the “boyfriend loophole” (a phrase made even more unnerving by its proximity to a mention of Mitch McConnell). There was discussion of a trust-fund-appreciation tax—the opposite of what she has called her more progressive competitors’ “pipe dreams.” She ended with an entreaty for campaign support. She likes to tell an anecdote about the late Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone, who had multiple sclerosis and, in the last year of his life, was unable to run around his distinctive green campaign bus during parades. He had so many green-shirted supporters running alongside the bus, she said, whispering again, that you couldn’t tell he wasn’t running himself. Now, she said, “that’s what I’m asking you to do for me”—spread her message as she returned to D.C. Then: a request to sign convention cards, a promise of selfies.
I approached a woman who had responded to the speech with enthusiasm, occasionally clapping with hands aloft. Her name was Barbara Borchert. “I love her moderation!” she told me, beaming. “And she’s a woman!” She raised her fist. “She does it all in a womanly way, a masterly way.” She paused. “Side note: I love them all.” Borchert, who lives in Minneapolis and recently retired from a forty-year career as a pediatric E.R. nurse, now volunteers for Klobuchar’s campaign. In 1984, she had joined a strike with her nursing union, which secured good salaries, benefits, and health care. “Nurses could afford to be nurses,” she said. (Her husband was a nurse, too.) Now those benefits were under threat from hospitals in league with big pharmaceutical companies, she said, and nursing education, which is difficult—“and it should be!”—is expensive, often prohibitively. Klobuchar understood this, and would help.
I talked to a dozen or so Iowans from the area, none of whom wanted to give me their names—or, especially, talk to a journalist. A gray-haired husband and wife, eying me suspiciously, liked Klobuchar’s centrism. “I’m impressed by how she spoke to the ordinary citizen,” the wife, who had worked for Black Hawk County, said. She held a copy of Klobuchar’s book, “The Senator Next Door: A Memoir from the Heartland.” What issues did they care most about? “One she didn’t mention,” the husband, a Navy veteran, said. “Military.” Also: fair labor laws. A tidy young man who would identify himself only as “a golf professional” told me that his chief concern was “the electability factor,” and that Klobuchar’s Midwesternness was an asset. Paul Simon’s “Late in the Evening” played, sounding appropriately mellow and warm, if, suddenly, a bit edgy. A kindly-looking bespectacled man who had retired from the University of Northern Iowa—teaching? No, “other things”—was impressed by Klobuchar’s three successful Senate campaigns and ability to win in red districts. “I’m a centrist,” he said. “I’d support any candidate to beat Trump.”
As I left Waterloo for Klobuchar’s next event, “Iowa Stubborn” came into my head again: “Oh, there’s nothing halfway / About the Iowa way to treat you / When we treat you / Which we may not do at all.” On to Ames! While driving, I listened to a political podcast in which Democrats were strategizing about which voters to try to activate and motivate, and how. Which candidate would inspire new or low-motivation voters? Which would avoid turning off the base? Who is the base? The landscape was still stunningly white and serene, with a thin layer of snow on the ground and a misty white haze in the air.
Ames is a college town, home to Iowa State University. That afternoon, at Jethro’s BBQ Steak ‘n Chop, the Amy for America bus had parked near the Jethro’s van, which was painted with a cartoon muscle-bound hunk, presumably Jethro, and a giant American flag. In a wood-panelled back room lined with flat-screen TVs, a packed roomful of people—again, mostly white and of many ages—crackled with energy. As the program began, Ross Wilburn, an Iowa state representative who was the first African-American mayor of Iowa City, introduced himself—“My pronouns are he/him/his,” he added—and endorsed Klobuchar, which excited her. “I didn’t know he was going to endorse me!” she said.
Klobuchar gave the Waterloo speech, with slight adjustments. “But I can’t tell you how wonderful it is to be here with all of you and to know the warmth in this room—literally!” It was hot. As she spoke, the jokes hit their marks—pumpkin, Hamilton, Eagle Scouts—as did the points of pain. The crowd murmured in horror recollecting Trump’s behavior at the C.I.A. wall and the Boy Scout Jamboree. Talking about the rancher who regretted his Trump vote, she said, “We better not screw this up. . . . We need to have a candidate who’s going to bring them with us.” When she mentioned health care and the goal of a nonprofit public option, an elegant older woman in a shawl raised her arms and clapped. Her husband, holding her purse, wore a brushed-fur hat. Men in sports shirts nodded when Klobuchar mentioned bringing prescription-drug costs down. On my phone, a news alert announced Kobe Bryant’s death. The news didn’t seem to have penetrated the room; firing Betsy DeVos got another wild cheer.


newyorker--2020-01-29--Trump Unveils the “Giveaway of the Century” on Middle East Peace

Three years after he said that peace in the Middle East was “ not as difficult as people have thought , ” President Donald Trump unveiled a lopsided plan that gives Israel much of what it has long sought and imposes daunting requirements on the Palestinians before negotiations can even begin .
The President described his plan , orchestrated by his son-in-law , Jared Kushner , as “ the last opportunity ” for a Palestinian state .
Yet it fails to address many of the problems that led to the collapse of earlier peace initiatives .
The plan calls for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name only .
It grants Israel ’ s long-standing demands on settlements and borders , security , Jerusalem , and refugees .
Israel will have the right to annex parts of the West Bank that it now occupies , significantly reducing and further dividing Palestinian territory .
It gets control of Jerusalem as its “ undivided ” capital .
And it will assume security control over the entire West Bank , the Jordan River Valley , and Jerusalem .
The Palestinians will be left with a proto-state that is physically divided , economically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a modern country .
Trump ’ s plan also lacks diplomatic energy—with no formal mechanism to get the two sides together—or any sense of urgency , since it offers a vague four-year window for the Palestinians to complete a long list of preconditions just to talk with Israel .
Netanyahu called the Trump plan “ the deal of the century.
” Paul Salem , the president of the Middle East Institute , in Washington , D.C. , and the son of a former foreign minister of Lebanon , called it the “ giveaway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on steroids.
” Daniel Kurtzer , a former U.S .
Ambassador to Israel and Egypt , called the plan “ the latest example of this administration ’ s snake oil diplomacy—packaging useless ideas and trying to market them as innovative .
Having spent three years punishing Palestinians and distancing U.S. policy from any realistic positions that might lead to peace , the administration has unveiled a plan that Palestinians will justifiably reject , thus giving the administration an opportunity to support annexationist actions by Israel.
” The dim prospects for Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rollout , in the White House East Room , during a noon break in the impeachment hearings .
The President was flanked by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , who praised the “ brilliant ” proposal as a “ realistic path to a durable peace.
” But no Palestinians were present .
In September , 2018 , Trump ordered the Palestine Liberation Organization ( P.L.O . )
diplomatic mission to close and its diplomats to leave Washington , on the grounds that Palestinians had not done enough on peace .
A tattered flag still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but a big yellow banner underneath declares that the “ embassy-style ” building is for sale .
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas , who has participated in previous peace talks , flatly rejected the new plan .
“ I say to Trump and Netanyahu : Jerusalem is not for sale , all our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain .
And your deal , the conspiracy , will not pass.
” The only Arabs present at the White House on Tuesday were the Ambassadors of Oman , Bahrain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the twenty-two members of the Arab League .
The League is due to meet this weekend to discuss the plan , but most states still firmly back the Palestinians ’ core demands—and are likely to say so .
Two hours after the plan was rolled out , Netanyahu ’ s office announced that the Israeli Cabinet will vote on annexing parts of the West Bank on Sunday .
Neither event is likely to move the plan forward .
Martin Indyk , a former U.S .
Ambassador to Israel , told me that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the Palestinians will not accept what amounts to a “ Bantustan ” —a term for a small black enclave in apartheid South Africa—on just seventy per cent of the West Bank , with only a sliver of East Jerusalem as their capital , and Israeli sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif , or the Temple Mount , the third holiest site in Islam .
“ It will also be opposed by the right wing in Israel , ” Indyk said , “ which is vehemently opposed to a Palestinian state and giving up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the West Bank.
” The Trump plan calls for a remapping of the West Bank , including a land swap that would give the Palestinians desert territory disconnected from much of their state in exchange for prime real estate in the middle of the West Bank , according to Ilan Goldenberg , the former chief of staff to the Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at the State Department .
Refugees who fled the wars in 1948 and 1967 would be granted some form of compensation , “ wrapped in very condescending language , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be allowed to return , Goldenberg , who is now a fellow at the Center for a New American Security , noted .
Because the plan has security criteria set by Israel , Israel will decide when the occupation ends .
“ That is a recipe for a permanent occupation , ” Goldenberg said .
“ If you put it in Israel ’ s hands , it will never happen.
” Trump ’ s proposal also calls for the demilitarization of Palestinian areas , including the total disarming of Hamas , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all extremist movements .
Given the history of conflict in the area , getting all Palestinian factions to surrender weaponry despite Israel keeping all of its arms will be extraordinarily difficult .
A long-standing problem in peace efforts has been the division among Palestinians , with P.L.O .
politicians running the West Bank and Hamas controlling Gaza since the 2006 elections .
( The polls were urged by the Bush Administration as a step toward consolidating the Palestinians into a more unified political whole to facilitate peace .
It only further divided the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s long list of demands also includes an end to all “ malign activities ” among Palestinian groups , including eliminating the “ culture of incitement ” in textbooks .
To create incentives , the fifty-page plan offers a thirty-page annex of economic plans for the West Bank and Gaza that was unveiled last summer .
But it too was rejected by the Palestinians .
“ The Trump proposals released today were formally presented as a basis for negotiations , but that ’ s not in fact how they are structured .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Tamara Cofman Wittes , a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs who is now at the Brookings Institution , told me .
“ The Administration has made it clear that it plans to recognize Israeli sovereignty over all the land indicated for the Israelis in Trump ’ s map , whether the Palestinians accept it or not .
That makes the Trump plan an imposed peace.
” Wittes noted that the timing of the plan conspicuously aids Trump and Netanyahu politically .
Both men face tough reëlection bids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges .
The Israeli leader has been indicted on three corruption charges .
He is now competing for his political life in the third election in a year .
The last two polls failed to produce a government .
Benny Gantz , the leader of the Blue and White Party and Netanyahu ’ s main rival , also endorsed Trump ’ s plan after he met separately with the President .
But Israel faces its own divisions on peace .
Naftali Bennett , the former head of the right-wing Jewish Home Party and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coalition government , said on Tuesday that he and his party would “ not allow the government of Israel to recognize a Palestinian state in any eventuality ” or cede even a centimeter of land to the Arabs .

Three years after he said that peace in the Middle East was “not as difficult as people have thought,” President Donald Trump unveiled a lopsided plan that gives Israel much of what it has long sought and imposes daunting requirements that the Palestinians must meet before negotiations can even begin. The President described his plan, orchestrated by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as “the last opportunity” for a Palestinian state. Yet it fails to address many of the problems that led to the collapse of earlier peace initiatives. The plan calls for a two-state solution, but largely in name only. It grants Israel’s long-standing demands on settlements and borders, security, Jerusalem, and refugees. Israel will have the right to annex parts of the West Bank that it now occupies, significantly reducing and further dividing Palestinian territory. It gets control of Jerusalem as its “undivided” capital. And it will assume security control over the entire West Bank, the Jordan River Valley, and Jerusalem. The Palestinians will be left with a proto-state that is physically divided, economically challenged, and possibly not viable as a modern country. Trump’s plan also lacks diplomatic energy—with no formal mechanism to get the two sides together—or any sense of urgency, since it offers a vague four-year window for the Palestinians to complete a long list of preconditions just to talk with Israel.
Netanyahu called the Trump plan “the deal of the century.” Paul Salem, the president of the Middle East Institute, in Washington, D.C., and the son of a former foreign minister of Lebanon, called it the “giveaway of the century”—or “apartheid on steroids.” Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt, called the plan “the latest example of this administration’s snake oil diplomacy—packaging useless ideas and trying to market them as innovative. Having spent three years punishing Palestinians and distancing U.S. policy from any realistic positions that might lead to peace, the administration has unveiled a plan that Palestinians will justifiably reject, thus giving the administration an opportunity to support annexationist actions by Israel.”
The dim prospects for Trump’s long-delayed peace plan were reflected in the rollout, in the White House East Room, during a noon break in the impeachment hearings. The President was flanked by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who praised the “brilliant” proposal as a “realistic path to a durable peace.” But no Palestinians were present. In September, 2018, Trump ordered the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.) diplomatic mission to close and its diplomats to leave Washington, on the grounds that Palestinians had not done enough on peace. A tattered flag still flies over its red-brick mission near Georgetown, but a big yellow banner underneath declares that the “embassy-style” building is for sale. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has participated in previous peace talks, flatly rejected the new plan. “I say to Trump and Netanyahu: Jerusalem is not for sale, all our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain. And your deal, the conspiracy, will not pass.”
The only Arabs present at the White House on Tuesday were the Ambassadors of Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates—three out of the twenty-two members of the Arab League. The League is due to meet this weekend to discuss the plan, but most states still firmly back the Palestinians’ core demands—and are likely to say so. Two hours after the plan was rolled out, Netanyahu’s office announced that the Israeli Cabinet will vote on annexing parts of the West Bank on Sunday. Neither event is likely to move the plan forward.
Martin Indyk, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, told me that Trump’s proposal isn’t viable because the Palestinians will not accept what amounts to a “Bantustan”—a term for a small black enclave in apartheid South Africa—on just seventy per cent of the West Bank, with only a sliver of East Jerusalem as their capital, and Israeli sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif, or the Temple Mount, the third holiest site in Islam. “It will also be opposed by the right wing in Israel,” Indyk said, “which is vehemently opposed to a Palestinian state and giving up even one inch of Area C in the West Bank.”
The Trump plan calls for a remapping of the West Bank, including a land swap that would give the Palestinians desert territory disconnected from much of their state in exchange for prime real estate in the middle of the West Bank, according to Ilan Goldenberg, the former chief of staff to the Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at the State Department. Refugees who fled the wars in 1948 and 1967 would be granted some form of compensation, “wrapped in very condescending language,” but not even a symbolic number would be allowed to return, Goldenberg, who is now a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, noted. Because the plan has security criteria set by Israel, Israel will decide when the occupation ends. “That is a recipe for a permanent occupation,” Goldenberg said. “If you put it in Israel’s hands, it will never happen.”
Trump’s proposal also calls for the demilitarization of Palestinian areas, including the total disarming of Hamas, which currently controls the Gaza Strip, and all extremist movements. Given the history of conflict in the area, getting all Palestinian factions to surrender weaponry despite Israel keeping all of its arms will be extraordinarily difficult. A long-standing problem in peace efforts has been the division among Palestinians, with P.L.O. politicians running the West Bank and Hamas controlling Gaza since the 2006 elections. (The polls were urged by the Bush Administration as a step toward consolidating the Palestinians into a more unified political whole to facilitate peace. It only further divided the Palestinian rivals.) The Trump plan’s long list of demands also includes an end to all “malign activities” among Palestinian groups, including eliminating the “culture of incitement” in textbooks. To create incentives, the fifty-page plan offers a thirty-page annex of economic plans for the West Bank and Gaza that was unveiled last summer. But it too was rejected by the Palestinians.
“The Trump proposals released today were formally presented as a basis for negotiations, but that’s not in fact how they are structured. They are structured as a diktat,” Tamara Cofman Wittes, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs who is now at the Brookings Institution, told me. “The Administration has made it clear that it plans to recognize Israeli sovereignty over all the land indicated for the Israelis in Trump’s map, whether the Palestinians accept it or not. That makes the Trump plan an imposed peace.”
Wittes noted that the timing of the plan conspicuously aids Trump and Netanyahu politically. Both men face tough reëlection bids this year, and also perilous legal challenges. The Israeli leader has been indicted on three corruption charges. He is now competing for his political life in the third election in a year. The last two polls failed to produce a government. Benny Gantz, the leader of the Blue and White Party and Netanyahu’s main rival, also endorsed Trump’s plan after he met separately with the President. But Israel faces its own divisions on peace. Naftali Bennett, the former head of the right-wing Jewish Home Party and the defense minister in Netanyahu’s coalition government, said on Tuesday that he and his party would “not allow the government of Israel to recognize a Palestinian state in any eventuality” or cede even a centimeter of land to the Arabs.
The Trump initiative may also face legal challenges, Salem told me. The U.S.’s decision to recognize all settlements on the West Bank as effectively part of Israel violates international law and U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. The new U.S. plan paves the way for Netanyahu or his successor to annex all the settlements, which comes after the U.S.’s recognition of Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. “The U.S. has thus recognized a de facto Greater Israel State” with no conditions on it, he said.
The plan also faces criticism at home. Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, called the plan “farcical,” because it only benefits one party and may hurt America’s image as the only viable broker with all sides. “It is a plan that would diminish the prospects for peaceful coexistence, while damaging our country’s hard-won role as a force for stability in the Middle East,” he said, in a statement.
The conflict between Israel and the Arabs—now in its seventy-second year—is one of the world’s longest. The Trump plan will probably let it rumble on for another four years, with ominous implications for all countries in the volatile Middle East—and, quite possibly, to the benefit of no one.


newyorker--2020-01-29--Trump’s Immigration Rule Is Cruel and Racist—But It’s Nothing New

On Monday , the Supreme Court lifted a lower-court stay on a Trump Administration rule that will deny permanent-resident status to legal immigrants who are deemed likely to become “ public charges , ” because they have in the past—or may in the future—receive public assistance , such as Medicaid or Social Security supplemental income .
The rule has been called a humanitarian catastrophe , an act enabling racist and classist cruelty , and a throwback to the darker days of rejecting the neediest immigrants , be they Irish , Jewish , queer—or nonwhite .
It is all of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrary to many comments , a drastic change in immigration policy .
Like much that is Trumpian , the new rules , and the Supreme Court order allowing them to go forward , build logically on the last few decades of the American political conversation on immigration , race , and class .
In August of last year , Ken Cuccinelli , then the acting director of U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services , quipped in an NPR interview that the guiding principle of American immigration policy is “ give me your tired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own two feet and who will not become a public charge.
” He was telling the truth .
U.S. policy has always hewed closer to his rendering than to the original Emma Lazarus poem that adorns the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty .
The “ public charge ” exclusion in immigration law goes back to the middle of the nineteenth century , and the underlying fear that newcomers will take what is rightly “ ours ” predates the policy by centuries .
The immediate precursor of the Trump Administration rule is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , the welfare-reform law signed by Bill Clinton , in 1996 .
Clinton had run on the promise to “ end welfare as we have come to know it , ” and he did .
On its way through Congress , the reform package acquired provisions that effectively threw most noncitizens , present and future , off most federally funded public-assistance programs .
Clinton opposed these amendments .
In his speech heralding the passage of welfare reform , he said : These immigrant families with children who fall on hard times through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they face the same risks the rest of us do from accidents , from criminal assaults , from serious illnesses—they should be eligible for medical and other help when they need it .
Then Clinton signed the bill into law .
Of course he did : it was his signature legislative achievement , which had taken years to craft and pass .
The fear of spending too much money on immigrants , meanwhile , had become a matter of bipartisan consensus .
( In the years leading up to welfare reform , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would strip noncitizens of public benefits . )
In the end , most of the money that the Treasury actually saved on welfare reform came from cutting benefits to noncitizens .
The thinking that underpinned the anti-immigrant amendments was fundamentally indistinguishable from the thinking that drove welfare reform in general : that undeserving people would somehow take advantage of the system , getting something for nothing .
The spectre of the “ welfare queen ” haunted America .
Viewed through the prism of this fear , immigrants are the least deserving people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid their imaginary dues .
One could point out that noncitizens pay taxes .
( Notably , many noncitizens pay Social Security taxes even though they may never attain the status that would entitle them to benefits . )
But arguing about taxes misses the point .
The basic idea behind the welfare state is that it ’ s best for a society when all its members lead lives of dignity .
Not only those who have paid taxes , not only those who have worked , want to work , or will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born here , but all people who inhabit this wealthy land ought to have a roof over their heads and food on the table , have basic medical care , and be free of fear that they will not have any of these things tomorrow .
Precisely because this is the foundational principle of a welfare state , in most welfare states noncitizens are eligible for public assistance , and , indeed , public assistance is seen as an essential element of integrating immigrants into society .
After welfare reform became law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decreased precipitously—more drastically than the law required , in fact .
Many people who were still eligible , such as citizen children of noncitizens , stopped receiving benefits , not because they were thrown off the rolls but because they stopped seeking the help .
Some of the provisions of the law , such as those stripping benefits from people who were already in the country and receiving aid , were never enforced , but people complied with them anyway .
Scholars called this a chilling effect : immigrants , fearful of repercussions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course they did .
Another of Clinton ’ s signature legislative achievements was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( I.I.R.I.R.A . )
, which created the framework for the mass deportations of immigrants who broke the law in the United States .
The law was rooted in thinking that we have now normalized : that noncitizens and citizens should be punished differently for the same crimes—citizens by incarceration , fines , and community service , and noncitizens by removal , often in addition to the standard penalty a citizen would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ image of immigrants as criminals , and it laid the groundwork for mass deportations , for which the Obama Administration , which removed hundreds of thousands of people a year , still holds the record .
In addition , the I.I.R.I.R.A .
mandated the construction of a physical barrier on parts of the southern border , laying the literal foundation for Trump ’ s wall .
The I.I.R.I.R.A .
became law the same year as welfare reform , as did the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act , which created expedited procedures for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five years before 9/11 , and two decades before Trump conjured the image of immigrants as terrorists in his 2016 campaign .
Trump ’ s spin on these long-standing policies and fears takes them to an entirely new level of hatred and cruelty .
But , to reverse them , we will have to do much more than return to the way things were before Trumpism .

On Monday, the Supreme Court lifted a lower-court stay on a Trump Administration rule that will deny permanent-resident status to legal immigrants who are deemed likely to become “public charges,” because they have in the past—or may in the future—receive public assistance, such as Medicaid or Social Security supplemental income. The rule has been called a humanitarian catastrophe, an act enabling racist and classist cruelty, and a throwback to the darker days of rejecting the neediest immigrants, be they Irish, Jewish, queer—or nonwhite. It is all of those things, but it is not, contrary to many comments, a drastic change in immigration policy. Like much that is Trumpian, the new rules, and the Supreme Court order allowing them to go forward, build logically on the last few decades of the American political conversation on immigration, race, and class.
In August of last year, Ken Cuccinelli, then the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, quipped in an NPR interview that the guiding principle of American immigration policy is “give me your tired, your poor who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge.” He was telling the truth. U.S. policy has always hewed closer to his rendering than to the original Emma Lazarus poem that adorns the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The “public charge” exclusion in immigration law goes back to the middle of the nineteenth century, and the underlying fear that newcomers will take what is rightly “ours” predates the policy by centuries.
The immediate precursor of the Trump Administration rule is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the welfare-reform law signed by Bill Clinton, in 1996. Clinton had run on the promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it,” and he did. On its way through Congress, the reform package acquired provisions that effectively threw most noncitizens, present and future, off most federally funded public-assistance programs. Clinton opposed these amendments. In his speech heralding the passage of welfare reform, he said:
I am deeply disappointed that the congressional leadership insisted on attaching to this extraordinarily important bill a provision that will hurt legal immigrants in America, people who work hard for their families, pay taxes, serve in our military. This provision has nothing to do with welfare reform. It is simply a budget-saving measure, and it is not right.
These immigrant families with children who fall on hard times through no fault of their own—for example, because they face the same risks the rest of us do from accidents, from criminal assaults, from serious illnesses—they should be eligible for medical and other help when they need it.
Then Clinton signed the bill into law. Of course he did: it was his signature legislative achievement, which had taken years to craft and pass. The fear of spending too much money on immigrants, meanwhile, had become a matter of bipartisan consensus. (In the years leading up to welfare reform, California residents voted for a bill that would strip noncitizens of public benefits.) In the end, most of the money that the Treasury actually saved on welfare reform came from cutting benefits to noncitizens.
The thinking that underpinned the anti-immigrant amendments was fundamentally indistinguishable from the thinking that drove welfare reform in general: that undeserving people would somehow take advantage of the system, getting something for nothing. The spectre of the “welfare queen” haunted America. Viewed through the prism of this fear, immigrants are the least deserving people of all, because they haven’t paid their imaginary dues.
One could point out that noncitizens pay taxes. (Notably, many noncitizens pay Social Security taxes even though they may never attain the status that would entitle them to benefits.) But arguing about taxes misses the point. The basic idea behind the welfare state is that it’s best for a society when all its members lead lives of dignity. Not only those who have paid taxes, not only those who have worked, want to work, or will work, not only those who were born here, but all people who inhabit this wealthy land ought to have a roof over their heads and food on the table, have basic medical care, and be free of fear that they will not have any of these things tomorrow. Precisely because this is the foundational principle of a welfare state, in most welfare states noncitizens are eligible for public assistance, and, indeed, public assistance is seen as an essential element of integrating immigrants into society.
After welfare reform became law, the number of noncitizens receiving public assistance decreased precipitously—more drastically than the law required, in fact. Many people who were still eligible, such as citizen children of noncitizens, stopped receiving benefits, not because they were thrown off the rolls but because they stopped seeking the help. Some of the provisions of the law, such as those stripping benefits from people who were already in the country and receiving aid, were never enforced, but people complied with them anyway. Scholars called this a chilling effect: immigrants, fearful of repercussions, went into the shadows.
Of course they did. Another of Clinton’s signature legislative achievements was the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (I.I.R.I.R.A.), which created the framework for the mass deportations of immigrants who broke the law in the United States. The law was rooted in thinking that we have now normalized: that noncitizens and citizens should be punished differently for the same crimes—citizens by incarceration, fines, and community service, and noncitizens by removal, often in addition to the standard penalty a citizen would have received. It also reified the image of immigrants as criminals, and it laid the groundwork for mass deportations, for which the Obama Administration, which removed hundreds of thousands of people a year, still holds the record. In addition, the I.I.R.I.R.A. mandated the construction of a physical barrier on parts of the southern border, laying the literal foundation for Trump’s wall. The I.I.R.I.R.A. became law the same year as welfare reform, as did the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which created expedited procedures for deporting “alien terrorists.” This was five years before 9/11, and two decades before Trump conjured the image of immigrants as terrorists in his 2016 campaign.
Trump’s spin on these long-standing policies and fears takes them to an entirely new level of hatred and cruelty. But, to reverse them, we will have to do much more than return to the way things were before Trumpism.


newyorker--2020-01-29--What Would a Fair Impeachment Trial Look Like?

Prosecuting a case in front of a trial jury comes naturally to Representative Adam Schiff , a former federal prosecutor and the lead House manager in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump .
Schiff has urged senators to think of themselves as “ impartial jurors ” with a constitutional responsibility “ to hold a fair and thorough trial.
” But , more than a week into the trial , the question of the President ’ s guilt of the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress has been upstaged by suspense over whether the Senate will vote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ordinarily associate with a “ trial ” —particularly , hearing witness testimony .
Once the allotted time for speeches by both sides has run , and after senators have a chance to put questions to each side , Democrats want the Senate to issue subpoenas for evidence , while Republicans aim to move immediately to a vote to acquit .
For most of us , judicial trials are the primary template for addressing wrongs against society , but what a fair impeachment trial looks like remains uncertain .
The Constitution gives the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all Impeachments ” but doesn ’ t specify what such a process consists of , other than that the senators “ shall be on Oath or Affirmation , ” that conviction requires the votes of two-thirds of the members present , and that the Chief Justice must preside when the President is tried .
As long as those rules are followed , it is unlikely that any Senate impeachment trial will ever be declared unconstitutional , regardless of how unfair it may seem .
The key precedent is Nixon v. United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , confusingly , didn ’ t involve President Richard Nixon but , rather , a federal judge named Walter Nixon , whom the Senate convicted and removed in 1989 , for giving false grand-jury testimony .
In that case , the Court rejected the claim that the use of the term “ try ” in the phrase “ try all Impeachments ” means that a Senate impeachment trial must have some semblance of a judicial trial , including the hearing of evidence .
( Kenneth Starr , then the Solicitor General , later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Clinton , and now a member or Trump ’ s impeachment-trial defense team , won the case for the government . )
“ Trial ” for impeachment and “ trial ” elsewhere in the legal system are effectively homonyms , whose meanings may diverge as the Senate majority wishes .
But the public ’ s basic notions of procedural fairness , truth-seeking , and legitimacy are still stickily based on our expectations of trials in court—such as that witnesses will testify about the facts .
So both parties have drawn on common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to support their arguments .
Trump ’ s defense team is hammering on a lack of “ due process ” in the House proceedings that led to impeachment , likening them to the railroading of an innocent without a chance to be heard .
The criminal-justice template exerts a powerful pull on the popular imagination , and the defense has argued , too , that , because the articles of impeachment against Trump , “ abuse of power ” and “ obstruction of Congress , ” do not allege crimes—or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it , “ criminal-like conduct akin to treason and bribery ” —they are illegitimate .
( The articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson , Nixon , and Clinton involved criminal wrongdoing . )
This proffers a fig leaf for those senators who may believe that Trump did everything that is alleged but who still want to support acquittal .
The solid weight of constitutional scholarship , however , has found that the Constitution ’ s impeachment standard , “ Treason , Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors , ” clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power of office for political gain , even if no crime was committed .
For Democrats , the news that John Bolton , Trump ’ s former national-security adviser , has written in a book manuscript that the President told him that he wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden , has bolstered the case that witness testimony should be part of any “ fair and thorough trial.
” Liberals also have complained about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s commitment to conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” with the White House .
Early this month , Public Citizen , a consumer-rights advocacy group , filed an ethics complaint against McConnell , focussing on his December , 2019 , statement , “ I am not an impartial juror .
This is a political process.
” ( Senator Lindsey Graham similarly stated , “ I ’ m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.
” ) The nub of the complaint is that McConnell confessed intent to violate the oath that has been required of senators in impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1868 : that they “ will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.
” Decision-makers ’ attempt to be impartial is crucial to the legitimacy of the legal system .
A jury trial , for example , is preceded by a voir-dire process , in which potential jurors are questioned on their ability to be impartial , so that those seemingly unable can be weeded out .
But if a similar voir-dire process had preceded Trump ’ s impeachment trial , few members would have remained .
The meaning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is different from whatever impartiality we purport to expect from jurors .
But , as Public Citizen ’ s complaint explains , while we don ’ t expect senators to “ pretend to be a blank slate evaluating impeachment evidence for the first time , ” the oath still obligates them not to enter with “ a locked-in conclusion based on partisanship , personal allegiance or political calculations.
” Presumably , that ’ s what Schiff meant in reminding senators of their duty to “ to hold a fair and thorough trial.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Democrats once were reluctant to adopt the “ juror ” mind-set .
During the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , Republicans pushing for conviction characterized senators as “ jurors.
” Democrats vigorously objected , even asking Chief Justice William Rehnquist to weigh in .
As Senator Tom Harkin , Democrat of Iowa , who supported Clinton ’ s acquittal , argued , “ Regular jurors can not overrule the judge .
Not so here .
Regular jurors do not decide what evidence should be heard or the standards of evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what witnesses shall be called .
Not so here .
Regular jurors do not decide when a trial is to be ended .
Not so here.
” The Chief Justice ruled that counsel should “ refrain from referring to the senators as jurors.
” He explained , “ The Senate is not simply a jury—it is a court in this case.
” Because a trial jury ’ s limited role is to find the facts—and the Democrats ’ case is rather damning on the facts—it also serves Trump ’ s lawyers to liken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that of a trial jury but to that of a “ high court , ” which reviews legal mistakes in the proceedings of lower courts and invalidates decisions resulting from those errors .
On Monday , Starr urged the Senate to do just that with the articles of impeachment , saying that the House had conducted an impeachment process riddled with procedural mistakes—namely , by failing to provide “ due process for the accused ” —and had thereby “ inadvertently pointed this court to an exit ramp , ” through acquittal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a President will be removed turns “ primarily on whether Congress thinks it is good or bad for the country that he or she should be permitted to remain as chief executive , ” as Frank O .
Bowman III puts it in his book , “ High Crimes and Misdemeanors : A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.
” By constitutional design , the decision lies with a political body that is not as insulated from public opinion as the judiciary is expected to be , but that is supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ demands than the House .
Both sides in Trump ’ s impeachment trial are banking on the idea that challenging the process will help their side .
Despite the utter lack of suspense as to acquittal along party lines , Democrats can benefit by attributing that eventuality to the Senate ’ s refusal of fair process .
And because Republicans also know acquittal is assured , notwithstanding the President ’ s perfidious conduct , they save face by casting acquittal as the response to the House ’ s denial of fair process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the underlying facts of Trump ’ s wrongdoing and his denial of them are less compelling fodder in the impeachment court of public opinion than the conduct of Congress itself .

Prosecuting a case in front of a trial jury comes naturally to Representative Adam Schiff, a former federal prosecutor and the lead House manager in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Schiff has urged senators to think of themselves as “impartial jurors” with a constitutional responsibility “to hold a fair and thorough trial.” But, more than a week into the trial, the question of the President’s guilt of the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress has been upstaged by suspense over whether the Senate will vote to allow the process for examining evidence that we ordinarily associate with a “trial”—particularly, hearing witness testimony. Once the allotted time for speeches by both sides has run, and after senators have a chance to put questions to each side, Democrats want the Senate to issue subpoenas for evidence, while Republicans aim to move immediately to a vote to acquit.
For most of us, judicial trials are the primary template for addressing wrongs against society, but what a fair impeachment trial looks like remains uncertain. The Constitution gives the Senate “the sole power to try all Impeachments” but doesn’t specify what such a process consists of, other than that the senators “shall be on Oath or Affirmation,” that conviction requires the votes of two-thirds of the members present, and that the Chief Justice must preside when the President is tried. As long as those rules are followed, it is unlikely that any Senate impeachment trial will ever be declared unconstitutional, regardless of how unfair it may seem. The key precedent is Nixon v. United States, a Supreme Court case on impeachment that, confusingly, didn’t involve President Richard Nixon but, rather, a federal judge named Walter Nixon, whom the Senate convicted and removed in 1989, for giving false grand-jury testimony. In that case, the Court rejected the claim that the use of the term “try” in the phrase “try all Impeachments” means that a Senate impeachment trial must have some semblance of a judicial trial, including the hearing of evidence. (Kenneth Starr, then the Solicitor General, later the independent counsel in the investigation of Bill Clinton, and now a member or Trump’s impeachment-trial defense team, won the case for the government.)
“Trial” for impeachment and “trial” elsewhere in the legal system are effectively homonyms, whose meanings may diverge as the Senate majority wishes. But the public’s basic notions of procedural fairness, truth-seeking, and legitimacy are still stickily based on our expectations of trials in court—such as that witnesses will testify about the facts. So both parties have drawn on common ideas of what counts as a trial in order to support their arguments.
Trump’s defense team is hammering on a lack of “due process” in the House proceedings that led to impeachment, likening them to the railroading of an innocent without a chance to be heard. The criminal-justice template exerts a powerful pull on the popular imagination, and the defense has argued, too, that, because the articles of impeachment against Trump, “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” do not allege crimes—or, as the defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz has put it, “criminal-like conduct akin to treason and bribery”—they are illegitimate. (The articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton involved criminal wrongdoing.) This proffers a fig leaf for those senators who may believe that Trump did everything that is alleged but who still want to support acquittal. The solid weight of constitutional scholarship, however, has found that the Constitution’s impeachment standard, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” clearly contemplates removal of a President who abuses the power of office for political gain, even if no crime was committed.
For Democrats, the news that John Bolton, Trump’s former national-security adviser, has written in a book manuscript that the President told him that he wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine until it agreed to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, has bolstered the case that witness testimony should be part of any “fair and thorough trial.” Liberals also have complained about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s commitment to conduct the Senate trial in “total coördination” with the White House. Early this month, Public Citizen, a consumer-rights advocacy group, filed an ethics complaint against McConnell, focussing on his December, 2019, statement, “I am not an impartial juror. This is a political process.” (Senator Lindsey Graham similarly stated, “I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”) The nub of the complaint is that McConnell confessed intent to violate the oath that has been required of senators in impeachment trials since that of Andrew Johnson, in 1868: that they “will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”
Decision-makers’ attempt to be impartial is crucial to the legitimacy of the legal system. A jury trial, for example, is preceded by a voir-dire process, in which potential jurors are questioned on their ability to be impartial, so that those seemingly unable can be weeded out. But if a similar voir-dire process had preceded Trump’s impeachment trial, few members would have remained. The meaning of “impartial justice” in this context is different from whatever impartiality we purport to expect from jurors. But, as Public Citizen’s complaint explains, while we don’t expect senators to “pretend to be a blank slate evaluating impeachment evidence for the first time,” the oath still obligates them not to enter with “a locked-in conclusion based on partisanship, personal allegiance or political calculations.” Presumably, that’s what Schiff meant in reminding senators of their duty to “to hold a fair and thorough trial.”
It’s useful to recall that Senate Democrats once were reluctant to adopt the “juror” mind-set. During the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, Republicans pushing for conviction characterized senators as “jurors.” Democrats vigorously objected, even asking Chief Justice William Rehnquist to weigh in. As Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who supported Clinton’s acquittal, argued, “Regular jurors cannot overrule the judge. Not so here. Regular jurors do not decide what evidence should be heard or the standards of evidence, nor do they decide on witnesses or what witnesses shall be called. Not so here. Regular jurors do not decide when a trial is to be ended. Not so here.” The Chief Justice ruled that counsel should “refrain from referring to the senators as jurors.” He explained, “The Senate is not simply a jury—it is a court in this case.”
Because a trial jury’s limited role is to find the facts—and the Democrats’ case is rather damning on the facts—it also serves Trump’s lawyers to liken the Senate’s impartiality obligation not to that of a trial jury but to that of a “high court,” which reviews legal mistakes in the proceedings of lower courts and invalidates decisions resulting from those errors. On Monday, Starr urged the Senate to do just that with the articles of impeachment, saying that the House had conducted an impeachment process riddled with procedural mistakes—namely, by failing to provide “due process for the accused”—and had thereby “inadvertently pointed this court to an exit ramp,” through acquittal.
At the heart of it, whether a President will be removed turns “primarily on whether Congress thinks it is good or bad for the country that he or she should be permitted to remain as chief executive,” as Frank O. Bowman III puts it in his book, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.” By constitutional design, the decision lies with a political body that is not as insulated from public opinion as the judiciary is expected to be, but that is supposed to be less immediately responsive to constituents’ demands than the House. Both sides in Trump’s impeachment trial are banking on the idea that challenging the process will help their side. Despite the utter lack of suspense as to acquittal along party lines, Democrats can benefit by attributing that eventuality to the Senate’s refusal of fair process. And because Republicans also know acquittal is assured, notwithstanding the President’s perfidious conduct, they save face by casting acquittal as the response to the House’s denial of fair process. Perhaps what that confirms is that the underlying facts of Trump’s wrongdoing and his denial of them are less compelling fodder in the impeachment court of public opinion than the conduct of Congress itself.


newyorker--2020-01-29--Oscars Spotlight: The 2020 Nominees for Best Screenplay

If you were disappointed by this year ’ s Oscars nominations , allow me to invite you to a magical land called the Screenplay Awards .
Greta Gerwig is here !
So is her boyfriend , Noah Baumbach .
( Both were left out of the Best Director category . )
Gerwig isn ’ t even the only woman : there ’ s also Krysty Wilson-Cairns , the Glaswegian screenwriter who co-wrote “ 1917 , ” with the director Sam Mendes .
True , we don ’ t have J .
Lo.
, but we do have the sole nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson ’ s delectable murder mystery , in which a Latina nurse gets a leg up on a clan of privileged nincompoops .
Nor do we have Lulu Wang ( “ The Farewell ” ) or Pedro Almodóvar ( “ Pain and Glory ” ) , who spun intimate tales out of autobiography .
But here , at least , there ’ s no choosing between “ Parasite ” and “ Little Women.
” They can both win .
Hollywood is notorious for its disregard of the art of screenwriting , so it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that writing gets twice as many Oscars categories as directing does , one for an original story and one for an adaptation .
( The fact that eight of this year ’ s nominated screenwriters also directed their films—and one , Taika Waititi , acted in his , as Adolf Hitler—is another matter . )
“ Original ” is a relative term , of course .
Quentin Tarantino ’ s screenplay for “ Once Upon a Time .
.
.
in Hollywood ” isn ’ t directly based on anything , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late-sixties kitsch that it ’ s practically a collage .
And the script for “ Joker , ” while adapted from decades-old comic-book characters , owes even more to the work of Martin Scorsese , whose film “ The Irishman ” is its competitor in several categories , including Best Adapted Screenplay .
As for Louisa May Alcott , who ’ s going to tell her that she ’ s up against a psychopathic clown ?
Below is a rundown of both writing categories .
“ The Irishman ” Steven Zaillian won this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schindler ’ s List.
” This time , he adapted “ I Heard You Paint Houses , ” by the former investigator Charles Brandt , which contained the confessions of one Frank Sheeran , played in “ The Irishman ” by Robert De Niro .
Those confessions—most shockingly , to the murder of Jimmy Hoffa—have come under question recently .
Every Oscars year seems to include some truthiness controversy ; last year , it was over the supposed cross-racial friendship at the heart of “ Green Book , ” which went on to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including for its screenplay .
If “ The Irishman ” has an advantage , it ’ s sheer size : that screenplay is long .
Yet it ’ s hardly verbose .
Witness Anna Paquin ’ s character , Sheeran ’ s daughter Peggy , whose seven-word allotment has drawn scrutiny .
Does her silence indicate a lack of interest in women ’ s perspectives , or does it make her accusatory stares at her father all the more powerful ?
Screenplays are about subtext , after all , and a true actor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communicate without words .
“ Jojo Rabbit ” There are roughly a million ways this script could have gone wrong , and , by some accounts , it did .
But “ Jojo Rabbit ” was always going to be a high-wire act : it ’ s a pitch-black satire of life under Fascism , told through the eyes of a Nazi moppet whose imaginary friend is der Führer .
Taika Waititi based his screenplay on the novel “ Caging Skies , ” by the New Zealand-based writer Christine Leunens , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christopher Durang—especially the scenes set in the Hitler Youth camp .
You watch “ Jojo Rabbit ” wondering how each scene can possibly make it to the next without the whole cheeky enterprise collapsing in on itself .
And , yet , miraculously , it arrives intact at its ( bizarrely sweet ) finish , in which two youngsters share a little dance as Germany crumbles .
For brazenness , this one can ’ t be beat .
“ Joker ” This screenplay , by Todd Phillips and Scott Silver , won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a bloody parable of alienation , set in a Gotham City that harks back to dirty old nineteen-eighties New York .
Its protagonist , Arthur Fleck , isn ’ t just a poor sap dealing with mental illness and parental neglect but a cackling loony whose lineage may just reveal shocking truths about a certain caped crusader .
For my money , the screenplay is too heavy on self-importance and worn narrative tricks ( especially when it dips into Arthur ’ s delusions ) and too light on coherence ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement manage to catch a serial killer in clown makeup ? )
.
Based on characters created by Bill Finger , Bob Kane , and Jerry Robinson , this is a blunt instrument of a movie , full of blunt words .
( “ Everybody is awful these days , ” Arthur snarls .
“ It ’ s enough to make anyone crazy.
” ) But we ’ re living in blunt times .
“ Little Women ” Back at the sixth Academy Awards , the husband-and-wife team Victor Heerman and Sarah Y.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the 1933 version of “ Little Women.
” Two other major film adaptations of the novel have come in the intervening decades .
But none tackled Alcott ’ s novel with the inventiveness shown by Greta Gerwig , who reshuffled the story into something associative and self-referential .
Gerwig ’ s screenplay , ultimately , is about authorship itself and the ways that women have had to shoehorn their stories into acceptable forms across centuries .
It interrogates Alcott and holds her close , all in an effort to set her ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jo March ) free .
And it handles the big , sweeping moments—such as Laurie ’ s proposal to Jo—with full-bodied eloquence .
Gerwig ’ s absence from the Best Director list is a bummer .
But her presence here is apt : like Alcott , she ’ s a writer who demands to be heard .
“ The Two Popes ” Late in Anthony McCarten ’ s script , Jorge Bergoglio says to Pope Benedict XVI , after a long colloquy , “ Speaking English is exhausting.
” “ Terrible language , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceptions to so many rules.
” That exchange speaks volumes about Benedict—the rule-bound traditionalist to Bergoglio ’ s charismatic reformist—and about the cleverness of McCarten ’ s screenplay , which has scenes in English , Spanish , Italian , and , Lord help us , Latin .
The script , based on McCarten ’ s play “ The Pope , ” leans on long tête-à-têtes , but it also stretches in unexpected ( and undeniably cinematic ) directions , including a long flashback sequence that shows how Bergoglio ’ s actions under a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith .
And the script bursts with humor , as when Bergoglio , as Pope Francis , orders pizza from the Vatican .
Bottom line : If the Academy chooses to honor Gerwig with what might be perceived as a consolation prize , it would be richly deserved .
Of all the nominees , her adaptation is the most concerned with adaptation itself .
But an all-around surge for “ Joker ” or “ The Irishman ” may put one of them over the edge .
And , to Academy voters ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Two Popes ” because it sounds dull , do yourselves a favor and kick back with los dos Papas !
“ 1917 ” Sam Mendes ’ s First World War drama has jumped to the upper tier of the Best Picture race , but its selling point is production value : those dreamlike vistas , the feat of making it all seem like one continuous shot .
The screenplay , written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns , is a laconic delivery system for the film ’ s technical marvels , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it doesn ’ t stray far from war-movie tropes .
There ’ s a search for a valuable soldier , as in “ Saving Private Ryan ” ( 1998 ) , and there is war-is-Hell imagery that dates back to “ All Quiet on the Western Front ” ( 1930 ) .
What you remember of “ 1917 ” isn ’ t a single uttered line—it ’ s the feeling of plummeting into a waterfall or sprinting through a burning village by night .
A win in the screenplay category would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” victory parade to come .

If you were disappointed by this year’s Oscars nominations, allow me to invite you to a magical land called the Screenplay Awards. Greta Gerwig is here! So is her boyfriend, Noah Baumbach. (Both were left out of the Best Director category.) Gerwig isn’t even the only woman: there’s also Krysty Wilson-Cairns, the Glaswegian screenwriter who co-wrote “1917,” with the director Sam Mendes. True, we don’t have J. Lo., but we do have the sole nomination for “Knives Out,” Rian Johnson’s delectable murder mystery, in which a Latina nurse gets a leg up on a clan of privileged nincompoops. Nor do we have Lulu Wang (“The Farewell”) or Pedro Almodóvar (“Pain and Glory”), who spun intimate tales out of autobiography. But here, at least, there’s no choosing between “Parasite” and “Little Women.” They can both win.
Hollywood is notorious for its disregard of the art of screenwriting, so it’s some consolation, perhaps, that writing gets twice as many Oscars categories as directing does, one for an original story and one for an adaptation. (The fact that eight of this year’s nominated screenwriters also directed their films—and one, Taika Waititi, acted in his, as Adolf Hitler—is another matter.) “Original” is a relative term, of course. Quentin Tarantino’s screenplay for “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood” isn’t directly based on anything, but it’s so riddled with references to late-sixties kitsch that it’s practically a collage. And the script for “Joker,” while adapted from decades-old comic-book characters, owes even more to the work of Martin Scorsese, whose film “The Irishman” is its competitor in several categories, including Best Adapted Screenplay. As for Louisa May Alcott, who’s going to tell her that she’s up against a psychopathic clown?
Below is a rundown of both writing categories.
Best Adapted Screenplay
“The Irishman”
Steven Zaillian won this award back in 1994, for “Schindler’s List.” This time, he adapted “I Heard You Paint Houses,” by the former investigator Charles Brandt, which contained the confessions of one Frank Sheeran, played in “The Irishman” by Robert De Niro. Those confessions—most shockingly, to the murder of Jimmy Hoffa—have come under question recently. Every Oscars year seems to include some truthiness controversy; last year, it was over the supposed cross-racial friendship at the heart of “Green Book,” which went on to win a slew of awards anyway, including for its screenplay. If “The Irishman” has an advantage, it’s sheer size: that screenplay is long. Yet it’s hardly verbose. Witness Anna Paquin’s character, Sheeran’s daughter Peggy, whose seven-word allotment has drawn scrutiny. Does her silence indicate a lack of interest in women’s perspectives, or does it make her accusatory stares at her father all the more powerful? Screenplays are about subtext, after all, and a true actor loves nothing more than the chance to communicate without words.
Thomasin McKenzie, Roman Griffin Davis, and Taika Waititi in “Jojo Rabbit.” Photograph by Kimberley French
“Jojo Rabbit”
There are roughly a million ways this script could have gone wrong, and, by some accounts, it did. But “Jojo Rabbit” was always going to be a high-wire act: it’s a pitch-black satire of life under Fascism, told through the eyes of a Nazi moppet whose imaginary friend is der Führer. Taika Waititi based his screenplay on the novel “Caging Skies,” by the New Zealand-based writer Christine Leunens, but it reminded me of the absurdist plays of Christopher Durang—especially the scenes set in the Hitler Youth camp. You watch “Jojo Rabbit” wondering how each scene can possibly make it to the next without the whole cheeky enterprise collapsing in on itself. And, yet, miraculously, it arrives intact at its (bizarrely sweet) finish, in which two youngsters share a little dance as Germany crumbles. For brazenness, this one can’t be beat.
Joaquin Phoenix in “Joker.” Photograph by Niko Tavernise
“Joker”
This screenplay, by Todd Phillips and Scott Silver, won’t win the award for subtlety. It’s a bloody parable of alienation, set in a Gotham City that harks back to dirty old nineteen-eighties New York. Its protagonist, Arthur Fleck, isn’t just a poor sap dealing with mental illness and parental neglect but a cackling loony whose lineage may just reveal shocking truths about a certain caped crusader. For my money, the screenplay is too heavy on self-importance and worn narrative tricks (especially when it dips into Arthur’s delusions) and too light on coherence (why can’t anyone in law enforcement manage to catch a serial killer in clown makeup?). Based on characters created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson, this is a blunt instrument of a movie, full of blunt words. (“Everybody is awful these days,” Arthur snarls. “It’s enough to make anyone crazy.”) But we’re living in blunt times.
Emma Watson, Saoirse Ronan, and Florence Pugh in “Little Women.” Photograph by Wilson Webb
“Little Women”
Back at the sixth Academy Awards, the husband-and-wife team Victor Heerman and Sarah Y. Mason won the Adapted Screenplay award, for the 1933 version of “Little Women.” Two other major film adaptations of the novel have come in the intervening decades. But none tackled Alcott’s novel with the inventiveness shown by Greta Gerwig, who reshuffled the story into something associative and self-referential. Gerwig’s screenplay, ultimately, is about authorship itself and the ways that women have had to shoehorn their stories into acceptable forms across centuries. It interrogates Alcott and holds her close, all in an effort to set her (or at least her alter ego, Jo March) free. And it handles the big, sweeping moments—such as Laurie’s proposal to Jo—with full-bodied eloquence. Gerwig’s absence from the Best Director list is a bummer. But her presence here is apt: like Alcott, she’s a writer who demands to be heard.
“The Two Popes”
Late in Anthony McCarten’s script, Jorge Bergoglio says to Pope Benedict XVI, after a long colloquy, “Speaking English is exhausting.” “Terrible language,” Benedict replies. “So many exceptions to so many rules.” That exchange speaks volumes about Benedict—the rule-bound traditionalist to Bergoglio’s charismatic reformist—and about the cleverness of McCarten’s screenplay, which has scenes in English, Spanish, Italian, and, Lord help us, Latin. The script, based on McCarten’s play “The Pope,” leans on long tête-à-têtes, but it also stretches in unexpected (and undeniably cinematic) directions, including a long flashback sequence that shows how Bergoglio’s actions under a military junta shaped his own crisis of faith. And the script bursts with humor, as when Bergoglio, as Pope Francis, orders pizza from the Vatican.
Bottom line: If the Academy chooses to honor Gerwig with what might be perceived as a consolation prize, it would be richly deserved. Of all the nominees, her adaptation is the most concerned with adaptation itself. But an all-around surge for “Joker” or “The Irishman” may put one of them over the edge. And, to Academy voters (and anyone else) who may have avoided “The Two Popes” because it sounds dull, do yourselves a favor and kick back with los dos Papas!
Best Original Screenplay
George MacKay in “1917.” Photograph by François Duhamel
“1917”
Sam Mendes’s First World War drama has jumped to the upper tier of the Best Picture race, but its selling point is production value: those dreamlike vistas, the feat of making it all seem like one continuous shot. The screenplay, written by Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns, is a laconic delivery system for the film’s technical marvels, and, although it gets the job done, it doesn’t stray far from war-movie tropes. There’s a search for a valuable soldier, as in “Saving Private Ryan” (1998), and there is war-is-Hell imagery that dates back to “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930). What you remember of “1917” isn’t a single uttered line—it’s the feeling of plummeting into a waterfall or sprinting through a burning village by night. A win in the screenplay category would be an early sign of a “1917” victory parade to come.
“Knives Out”
Rian Johnson’s screenplay harks back to such all-star murder mysteries as “Clue” (1985) and “Murder on the Orient Express” (1974), but its pleasures have little to do with nostalgia. The mystery itself has the pleasing complexity of a jigsaw puzzle—no easy feat—and the film manages to keep the surprises coming. Its humor is sly and economical, sharply defining its large cast of characters, from Jamie Lee Curtis’s disgruntled Linda Drysdale to Christopher Plummer’s crafty Harlan Thrombey. (Those names!) But Johnson also gives the film political undertones that speak to America’s class divide and demographic tensions—something “Clue” certainly didn’t have a clue (or a care) about. For a sample of the screenplay’s virtuosity, look to the last line, which is pointed, witty, and delivered by a coffee mug.
Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver in “Marriage Story.” Photograph by Wilson Webb
“Marriage Story”
My favorite line in Noah Baumbach’s chronicle of a conscious uncoupling comes from Bert Spitz, a cuddly divorce lawyer played by Alan Alda. During his first consultation with Charlie (Adam Driver), he finds Charlie’s young son lounging on the floor with the office feline. “I wouldn’t expect too much from that cat,” Bert advises him matter-of-factly. That line tells you everything you need to know about Bert’s lawyering, which won’t stand a chance in the proceedings to come. Baumbach’s script, which draws on elements of his own divorce (but never purports to be autobiography), is full of such offhand moments, whether funny or devastating—and often both at once. Viewers may debate how fairly the film balances its two protagonists’ competing narratives, but the reason we care at all is that the script is so finely observed, lived in, and raw.