vox--2020-01-27--The 8 best performances from the 2020 Grammys

Oh , Grammy Awards : As our beloved host Alicia Keys so ably reminded us , you ’ re like ten thousand hours long , and for what ?
Especially now that we all know that you are maybe rigged , what excuse do you have to be so long ?
Every year we ask this , and every year the Grammys make their best possible argument against our kvetching by bringing out their true reason for existing : a few live performances against which we find ourselves awed and defenseless .
Sure , the Grammys are still too long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is now compelling evidence that they are at least somewhat corrupt — but nonetheless , these live performances are something the Oscars and Emmys can never quite match .
Here are the eight performances that had us happy we stayed up all night with the Grammys in 2020 .
If there ’ s a better way to open an awards show than with Lizzo powering through two of her most undeniable hits , surrounded by ballerinas in glowing tutus , well , we certainly can ’ t think of one .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s philosophy of helping her fans love themselves , her ballerinas were all dancers of color who were larger than traditional ballerinas . )
After dedicating the performance to Kobe Bryant , she kicked off the night with a jolt of energy that it would take many , many boring acceptance speeches to entirely melt away .
There ’ s something about Alicia Keys and the way her mannerisms suggest a gently stoned youth pastor that just puts us at ease .
Alicia Keys wants to sit down at the piano and slow-jam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re not going to say no !
Alicia Keys wants to remind everyone that Grammys night is “ ten thousand hours long / so keep the speeches short ?
” We consider ourselves in safe hands for the night !
Sing us whatever you like , Alicia , we ’ ll count ourselves blessed .
Tyler , the Creator has cultivated a reputation for outlandish , exciting live performances since way back in his Odd Future days .
( Never forget the group ’ s Late Night With Jimmy Fallon performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting a piggyback ride from Jimmy . )
For his Grammys showcase , Tyler donned a blond bowl-cut wig for a riotous medley of two songs from his 2019 album , Igor .
( Igor was nominated for — and won — Best Rap Album at this year ’ s Grammys . )
Starting off with the standout single “ Earfquake , ” Tyler was accompanied by Boyz II Men and Charlie Wilson on backup vocals , all of them clad in identical garb .
During the performance , the group fittingly set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Tyler followed it up with a firestorm for “ New Magic Wand.
” It was literally a fiery performance , and one that absolutely is worth rewatching .
As a pack of hardened cynics , we were initially resistant to this number .
A sweet , simple ballad an hour into Grammys night ?
Yes , Camila Cabello has the voice of an angel , but look , wake us up when Tyler , the Creator sets something else on fire .
But then the camera cut to Camila ’ s father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and well … we are not made of stone .
We ’ re always willing to respect a show of genuine emotion when we see it .
Now if you ’ ll excuse us , we have something in our eyes .
Ariana Grande ’ s thank u , next represented a maturation for the artist , a vulnerable journey into the singer ’ s life following the death of her first love , Mac Miller , and the dissolution of her engagement to Saturday Night Live ’ s Pete Davidson .
Ari @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the album exemplified its greatest strengths : In “ Imagine , ” she is hopeful for a future in which she can find the happiness that has eluded her ; “ 7 Rings ” is a feisty kiss-off to the men she ’ s left behind her ; “ Thank U , Next ” is a loving ode to herself and the woman she has become amid the ashes of her past relationships .
For the Grammys , Ariana stripped each song down to its core .
“ Imagine ” was underscored by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” was preceded by a sweet cover of its inspiration ( and the origin of its primary melody ) , The Sound of Music ’ s “ My Favorite Things , ” before erupting into something sensual and authoritative .
And then “ Thank U , Next ” combined strong a cappella vocals with thoughtful , sweet , earnest pop .
Ari ’ s been through some tough times over the past year and a half , but she ’ s doing just fine .
And we love her for that .
Lil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to perform what must be the definitive version of “ Old Town Road , ” the anthem that made him a star last spring .
The cowpokes who joined cowboy-in-chief Lil Nas X : Billy Ray Cyrus , BTS , Diplo , and Mason Ramsey , a.k.a .
the Walmart Yodeling Kid .
The crew had all previously guest-starred on remixes of the song , with the Billy Ray Cyrus version becoming the most well-known of them all , setting a chart-topping record on the Billboard Hot 100 , and earning a Grammy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to boot .
Getting all these artists together to take their horses down to the Old Town Road ?
An implausible dream that ’ s now our blessed reality , especially thanks to an amazing rotating set that gave each contributor a unique backdrop to perform against .
( Did you catch the reference to Lil Nas X ’ s other hit single , “ Panini , ” via the Chowder clips shown in the first set ?
We also loved the Kobe Bryant jersey included in his onstage living room as tribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lil Nas X ’ s namesake Nas arrived to jam on another Lil Nas X song from 7 EP , “ Rodeo.
” Now that ’ s an ambitious crossover .
Headed into the evening , Demi Lovato ’ s performance was notable because it marked the first time Lovato would perform live since the singer ’ s hospitalization in 2018 .
And perhaps it was because of pressure surrounding her comeback that Lovato , with a tear streaming down her cheek , needed to start her song , “ Anyone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restarted , and Lovato got through the first few lines , she showed off the signature soaring vocals we ’ ve come to expect from her and combined them with vulnerability and humanity .
It was just Lovato , a piano , and all eyes on her .
And as she hit those notes and fought through her performance , it felt like a triumph for Lovato and a testament to her perseverance .
In a recent interview with Apple Music ’ s Beats 1 , Lovato said “ Anyone ” was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t really realize while she was writing it .
“ If I ever come back , I want to sing this song , ” she said , explaining her thoughts during her hospitalization .
And she did sing her song , beautifully .
Misty Copeland , the Debbie Allen Dance Academy , Joshua Bell , Gary Clark Jr. , Cyndi Lauper , The War & Treaty , Ben Platt , John Legend , Camila Cabello , Lang Lang , and Common , “ I Sing the Body Electric ” First of all : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rich man none of the audience has ever heard of at 11:28pm during an award show that ’ s supposed to end at 11:30pm legally a war crime ?
Probably yes !
However !
Are we such cretins that we ’ re going to complain when America ’ s treasure Misty Copeland is pirouetting her heart out in front of us ?
Friends , like Song/Album/Record of the Year winner Billie Eilish before us , we are not going to waste your time .
The answer is no , of course not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will take whatever you condescend to give us .

Oh, Grammy Awards: As our beloved host Alicia Keys so ably reminded us, you’re like ten thousand hours long, and for what? Especially now that we all know that you are maybe rigged, what excuse do you have to be so long?
Every year we ask this, and every year the Grammys make their best possible argument against our kvetching by bringing out their true reason for existing: a few live performances against which we find ourselves awed and defenseless. Sure, the Grammys are still too long and too self-congratulatory, and sure, there is now compelling evidence that they are at least somewhat corrupt — but nonetheless, these live performances are something the Oscars and Emmys can never quite match.
Here are the eight performances that had us happy we stayed up all night with the Grammys in 2020.
Lizzo, “Cuz I Love You/Truth Hurts”
If there’s a better way to open an awards show than with Lizzo powering through two of her most undeniable hits, surrounded by ballerinas in glowing tutus, well, we certainly can’t think of one. (In a nice nod to Lizzo’s philosophy of helping her fans love themselves, her ballerinas were all dancers of color who were larger than traditional ballerinas.)
After dedicating the performance to Kobe Bryant, she kicked off the night with a jolt of energy that it would take many, many boring acceptance speeches to entirely melt away.
Alicia Keys, “Someone You Loved”
With a show-stopping medley performance, @aliciakeys gives us a mashup that will go down in #GRAMMYs history.
WATCH ⬇⬇⬇ pic.twitter.com/wviTy36Dlq — Recording Academy / GRAMMYs (@RecordingAcad) January 27, 2020
There’s something about Alicia Keys and the way her mannerisms suggest a gently stoned youth pastor that just puts us at ease. Alicia Keys wants to sit down at the piano and slow-jam about Donald Trump’s impeachment? We’re not going to say no! Alicia Keys wants to remind everyone that Grammys night is “ten thousand hours long / so keep the speeches short?” We consider ourselves in safe hands for the night! Sing us whatever you like, Alicia, we’ll count ourselves blessed.
Tyler, the Creator, “Earfquake/New Magic Wand”
Tyler, the Creator has cultivated a reputation for outlandish, exciting live performances since way back in his Odd Future days. (Never forget the group’s Late Night With Jimmy Fallon performance from 2011, where Tyler ended up getting a piggyback ride from Jimmy.) For his Grammys showcase, Tyler donned a blond bowl-cut wig for a riotous medley of two songs from his 2019 album, Igor. (Igor was nominated for — and won — Best Rap Album at this year’s Grammys.) Starting off with the standout single “Earfquake,” Tyler was accompanied by Boyz II Men and Charlie Wilson on backup vocals, all of them clad in identical garb. During the performance, the group fittingly set off an onstage earthquake of sorts, and Tyler followed it up with a firestorm for “New Magic Wand.” It was literally a fiery performance, and one that absolutely is worth rewatching.
Camila Cabello, “First Man”
Camila Cabello sings "First Man" to her dad from the #GRAMMYs stage as he's overcome by emotion pic.twitter.com/Xwwpo4tIrP — MTV NEWS (@MTVNEWS) January 27, 2020
As a pack of hardened cynics, we were initially resistant to this number. A sweet, simple ballad an hour into Grammys night? Yes, Camila Cabello has the voice of an angel, but look, wake us up when Tyler, the Creator sets something else on fire. But then the camera cut to Camila’s father openly weeping as she serenaded him, and well … we are not made of stone. We’re always willing to respect a show of genuine emotion when we see it. Now if you’ll excuse us, we have something in our eyes.
Ariana Grande, “Imagine”/“7 Rings”/“Thank U, Next”
Ariana Grande’s thank u, next represented a maturation for the artist, a vulnerable journey into the singer’s life following the death of her first love, Mac Miller, and the dissolution of her engagement to Saturday Night Live’s Pete Davidson. Ari’s beautiful trio of cuts from the album exemplified its greatest strengths: In “Imagine,” she is hopeful for a future in which she can find the happiness that has eluded her; “7 Rings” is a feisty kiss-off to the men she’s left behind her; “Thank U, Next” is a loving ode to herself and the woman she has become amid the ashes of her past relationships.
no better way to end the sweetener/thank u, next era. what a beautiful year and a half ❤ thank u @ArianaGrande #GRAMMYs pic.twitter.com/Fp08FJmN52 — (@inmyheadoutro) January 27, 2020
For the Grammys, Ariana stripped each song down to its core. “Imagine” was underscored by string orchestras, and “7 Rings” was preceded by a sweet cover of its inspiration (and the origin of its primary melody), The Sound of Music’s “My Favorite Things,” before erupting into something sensual and authoritative. And then “Thank U, Next” combined strong a cappella vocals with thoughtful, sweet, earnest pop. Ari’s been through some tough times over the past year and a half, but she’s doing just fine. And we love her for that.
Lil Nas X with BTS, Billy Ray Cyrus, Diplo, and Mason Ramsey, “Old Town Road”
Lil Nas X was joined by a supergroup to perform what must be the definitive version of “Old Town Road,” the anthem that made him a star last spring. The cowpokes who joined cowboy-in-chief Lil Nas X: Billy Ray Cyrus, BTS, Diplo, and Mason Ramsey, a.k.a. the Walmart Yodeling Kid. The crew had all previously guest-starred on remixes of the song, with the Billy Ray Cyrus version becoming the most well-known of them all, setting a chart-topping record on the Billboard Hot 100, and earning a Grammy nod for Record of the Year, to boot.
Getting all these artists together to take their horses down to the Old Town Road? An implausible dream that’s now our blessed reality, especially thanks to an amazing rotating set that gave each contributor a unique backdrop to perform against. (Did you catch the reference to Lil Nas X’s other hit single, “Panini,” via the Chowder clips shown in the first set? We also loved the Kobe Bryant jersey included in his onstage living room as tribute.)
And at the very end, Lil Nas X’s namesake Nas arrived to jam on another Lil Nas X song from 7 EP, “Rodeo.” Now that’s an ambitious crossover.
Demi Lovato, “Anyone”
Headed into the evening, Demi Lovato’s performance was notable because it marked the first time Lovato would perform live since the singer’s hospitalization in 2018. And perhaps it was because of pressure surrounding her comeback that Lovato, with a tear streaming down her cheek, needed to start her song, “Anyone,” over.
But once the piano restarted, and Lovato got through the first few lines, she showed off the signature soaring vocals we’ve come to expect from her and combined them with vulnerability and humanity.
It was just Lovato, a piano, and all eyes on her. And as she hit those notes and fought through her performance, it felt like a triumph for Lovato and a testament to her perseverance.
In a recent interview with Apple Music’s Beats 1, Lovato said “Anyone” was a cry for help that she didn’t really realize while she was writing it. “If I ever come back, I want to sing this song,” she said, explaining her thoughts during her hospitalization. And she did sing her song, beautifully.
Misty Copeland, the Debbie Allen Dance Academy, Joshua Bell, Gary Clark Jr., Cyndi Lauper, The War & Treaty, Ben Platt, John Legend, Camila Cabello, Lang Lang, and Common, “I Sing the Body Electric”
First of all: Is starting an absurdly lengthy performance honoring a rich man none of the audience has ever heard of at 11:28 pm during an awards show that’s supposed to end at 11:30pm legally a war crime? Probably yes! However! Are we such cretins that we’re going to complain when America’s treasure Misty Copeland is pirouetting her heart out in front of us? Friends, like Song/Album/Record of the Year winner Billie Eilish before us, we are not going to waste your time. The answer is no, of course not. Take your time, Misty. We will take whatever you condescend to give us.


vox--2020-01-26--Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special Sticks & Stones targets Michael Jackson’s accusers, #MeToo, and can

Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special Sticks & Stones targets Michael Jackson’s accusers, #MeToo, and cancel culture

Dave Chappelle on Sunday took home the 2020 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album , over other nominees including Ellen DeGeneres and Trevor Noah .
But not everyone is celebrating the win , which nets Chappelle his third Grammy in the category in three years .
That ’ s because Sticks and Stones , the album version of his 2019 Netflix comedy special , challenges its audience right from the title .
And though it suggests that Chappelle will brush off criticism before the special even begins , it has sparked debate over the limits of shock humor , cancel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chappelle himself .
The one-hour show includes a hidden Q & A session ( accessible only after watching through the end credits of the special ) and is themed around Chappelle ’ s reaction to what he calls “ celebrity hunting season.
” As a part of his argument that society has gone too far in naming and shaming those with offensive pasts , the comedy legend takes aim at everyone from queer and transgender activists and the # MeToo movement to critics of R. Kelly , Kevin Hart , and Louis C.K @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he mocks the men who accused Michael Jackson of child sex abuse in the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland — which he calls “ gross ” and urges his audience not to watch .
The special has divided Chappelle ’ s fans and peers , with some prominent voices rushing to Chappelle ’ s defense as others express their reservations about the limits of comedy that targets the vulnerable .
The debate over his incendiary humor has played out before , but the topical relevancy of Chappelle ’ s latest Netflix special makes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Sticks and Stones , Chappelle flatly disbelieves , and then mocks , Michael Jackson ’ s accusers “ I ’ m gon na say something that I ’ m not allowed to say , ” Chappelle says onstage fairly early into his set , which was filmed in Atlanta .
From that setup , Chappelle launches into a bit about being a “ victim blamer , ” and states that he doesn ’ t believe the molestation allegations against Jackson .
With a grand pause , Chappelle declares , “ Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what I mean ?
” It ’ s unclear , however , what exactly Chappelle does mean here .
Is the joke supposed to be that Michael Jackson ’ s stature makes his behavior okay ?
Is the joke that his behavior doesn ’ t change his status as a pop legend ?
Something else ?
He eventually concludes , after letting the audience fill in their own ideas , “ It ’ s Michael Jackson !
” The Michael Jackson routine is a variant of one Chappelle has performed before , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version , he goes further with the joke , saying that the kids probably enjoyed the experience and should have felt empowered by it because of Jackson ’ s stature .
In the new special , Chappelle goes even further : “ I know more than half the people in this room have been molested in their lives , but it wasn ’ t no goddamn Michael Jackson , was it ?
” he says .
“ This kid got his dick sucked by the king of pop .
All we get is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives.
” “ I know it ’ s harsh , ” he says , “ but somebody ’ s got ta teach these kids there ’ s no such thing as a free trip to Hawaii , ” referencing the frequent trips and other perks that Jackson gave his accusers , Wade Robson and James Safechuck , as children .
In statements to TMZ on August 27 , both Robson and Safechuck responded to Chappelle ’ s routine .
“ I ’ m heartbroken for all those children who look to see how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find the courage to speak out about their sexual abuse , ” Safechuck said .
“ I just want to reach out to other survivors and let them know that we can ’ t let this type of behavior silence us .
Together we are strong.
” Robson ’ s lawyer added that “ it ’ s unfortunate that [ Chappelle ] has chosen to use his platform to shame sexual abuse victims , and spread his ignorance of sexual abuse and the way it is perpetrated upon children.
” He contrasted Chappelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buress , who used his platform to call out Bill Cosby ’ s long history of abuse instead of shaming victims .
But Chappelle had more on his mind than Jackson .
He built his set around a number of other recent controversies , including R. Kelly ’ s alleged history of sexual grooming and abuse of young women , and Kevin Hart ’ s withdrawal from hosting the 2019 Oscars .
But whether he framed those events fairly or not in order to mine them for comedy has become a contentious talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director Dream Hampton in the special , but came in for criticism himself Throughout the special , Chappelle cites the media ’ s response to Kelly , Hart , and Jackson as examples of “ overreactions.
” Though he contrasted Jackson with R. Kelly by claiming Kelly “ probably did ” what he was accused of , he focused his routine on the recent documentary Surviving R. Kelly , a look into the serious abuse allegedly committed by the singer .
Discussing how Surviving R. Kelly ’ s director Dream Hampton name-dropped him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appear in the documentary , Chappelle portrayed her request as random and odd .
“ I don ’ t know [ R. Kelly ] at all ...
I don ’ t know anything that they don ’ t tell me about him , ” he said .
But Hampton ’ s reason for wanting Chappelle to appear in the documentary was due to Chappelle ’ s long history of jokes made about R. Kelly in the past , including a sketch from his Comedy Central series Chappelle ’ s Show in 2003 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tape .
When TMZ confronted him about his previous R. Kelly comedy earlier this year , Chappelle responded that he ’ d have to rewatch the skit to be able to comment on it .
Hampton responded to Chappelle ’ s special on Tuesday by saying she never actually discussed the documentary with him at all .
In the special , Chappelle barely touches on the specific allegations made against Kelly , though he makes more off-the-cuff jokes during his Q & A .
Focusing on critiquing Hampton instead lets him continue building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftist activists are overreacting and rushing to judgment .
Another case in point is comedian Kevin Hart , whose own divisive “ jokes ” Chappelle defends during the special .
He calls Hart “ four tweets shy of perfection ” in reference to tweets that formed part of the history of homophobic humor that led to Hart ’ s decision not to host the 2019 Academy Awards .
“ Clearly Kevin was joking , ” Chappelle said , regarding one of Hart ’ s old homophobic jokes , which resurfaced on Twitter shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show in December 2018 .
He uses his defense of Hart to speak derisively about a long-ago incident in which Comedy Central took him to task for using a homophobic slur .
“ Why is it that I can say the word ni**er with impunity but I can ’ t say fa**ot ?
” Chappelle claims to have asked at the time .
He describes himself and Hart as “ breaking an unwritten and unspoken rule of show business ... you are never , ever allowed to upset the alphabet people , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community .
And as he argues against the notion of “ cancel culture ” — of the collective aim to disempower those who abuse their privilege by committing sexist , racist , homophobic , or other offensive behavior — he throws in a screed against the # MeToo moment for good measure .
“ What the fuck is your agenda , ladies ?
” Chappelle says , connecting the tone of the # MeToo movement with the stringency of recent abortion laws around the country , as if one is causing the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rhetoric that is considered the progenitor of cancel culture is to blame for our distraction from other big issues , like gun control .
To his credit , Chappelle has been active in efforts to create real-world progress on these issues ; he recently hosted a benefit concert for victims of the Dayton , Ohio , mass shooting .
But critics have described this brand of shock humor as “ tired ” and “ regressive , exclusionary , and cruel.
” Bits in which Chappelle painstakingly jokes about each of the letters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gross , ” he says , while transgender people are “ confusing ” ) , uses homophobic slurs when talking about ex-Empire star Jussie Smollett , uses a racist Chinese stereotype , or muses that “ if women were actually equal to men , there ’ d be no WNBA , ” all feel like they ’ ve been imported from 1996 with little alteration .
Chappelle seems to know that the jokes are potentially offensive .
But “ it ’ s hard not to write these jokes , ” he says .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawing on this sort of comedy for a while .
Chappelle has a history of saying and doing controversial things in the name of comedy , but he remains unapologetic Chappelle has been called out repeatedly for his comedy .
The New York Times recently criticized his “ tired ” attempts to joke about the # MeToo movement in two 2018 Netflix specials , and other writers have found a disturbing pattern of homophobic and transphobic humor in his work .
As Jason Zinoman , who reviewed Chappelle ’ s latest show for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted , “ He ’ s still defending wealthy , famous peers and joking about transgender targets.
” Many critics of the Netflix show have agreed , with Vice calling it skippable and BuzzFeed asking , “ why can ’ t he be more thoughtful ?
” Sticks and Stones has brought out detractors and defenders from all sides , however .
Some prominent names in the entertainment industry are praising him , while others have panned the routine .
In a since-deleted Instagram post , Saturday Night Live ’ s Michael Che @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative reviews , complaining that “ all their criticism seems to be about the take , and very little about the actual art , and you can tell when half the review are verbatim quotes of the jokes.
” The Daily Beast argued that Chappelle ’ s provocative comedy was the entire point , and that his goal was to say “ the things we ’ re not supposed to say , let alone think , and then making us consider what it says about us that we quiet those parts of ourselves.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt some people ’ s feelings , ” Chappelle says about his brand of comedy in the secret epilogue to Sticks and Stones , which sees him answering Q & As from the audience in his Broadway engagement .
As an example , he mentions # MeToo jokes and delivers an anecdote about offending a rape victim who he says left an earlier performance of the show by declaring , “ I ’ m sorry I was raped.
” Chappelle tells the audience that he replied , “ It ’ s not your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not my fault either .
Ta-ta , bitch !
” In another anecdote , he bonds with a transgender fan because she loves his arguably transphobic humor , before adding the arguably transphobic coda that he then made out with her ... while inspecting her anatomy .
( A Reddit user claiming to be the woman in question commented about the bit on Monday and described him as “ awesome to work with and an incredible talent.
” ) Chappelle defends his humor during the show by claiming , “ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I make fun of , just know that I probably only make fun of you because I see myself in you.
” But he also had words for anyone who chose to watch the Netflix special despite having some idea what kind of comedy he ’ s known for : “ Remember bitch , you clicked on my face.
” Indeed , the debate over Chappelle ’ s comedy seems to be exactly what he wants — a way to keep his name in the public eye , draw lots of curiosity views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protective of him , and , in his own words , “ victim blame ” anyone feeling outraged .
And it seems to be working ; Netflix ’ s official comedy Twitter account has been promoting the special by referencing some of its most controversial moments , and retweeting praise from comedians .
It all bodes well for more Chappelle specials in Netflix ’ s future — and more rounds of this debate .

Dave Chappelle on Sunday took home the 2020 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album, over other nominees including Ellen DeGeneres and Trevor Noah. But not everyone is celebrating the win, which nets Chappelle his third Grammy in the category in three years.
That’s because Sticks and Stones, the album version of his 2019 Netflix comedy special, challenges its audience right from the title. And though it suggests that Chappelle will brush off criticism before the special even begins, it has sparked debate over the limits of shock humor, cancel culture, left-wing political rhetoric, and Chappelle himself.
The one-hour show includes a hidden Q&A session (accessible only after watching through the end credits of the special) and is themed around Chappelle’s reaction to what he calls “celebrity hunting season.” As a part of his argument that society has gone too far in naming and shaming those with offensive pasts, the comedy legend takes aim at everyone from queer and transgender activists and the #MeToo movement to critics of R. Kelly, Kevin Hart, and Louis C.K. In the most high-profile attack, he mocks the men who accused Michael Jackson of child sex abuse in the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland — which he calls “gross” and urges his audience not to watch.
The special has divided Chappelle’s fans and peers, with some prominent voices rushing to Chappelle’s defense as others express their reservations about the limits of comedy that targets the vulnerable. The debate over his incendiary humor has played out before, but the topical relevancy of Chappelle’s latest Netflix special makes it especially tricky — perhaps more than usual.
In Sticks and Stones, Chappelle flatly disbelieves, and then mocks, Michael Jackson’s accusers
“I’m gonna say something that I’m not allowed to say,” Chappelle says onstage fairly early into his set, which was filmed in Atlanta. From that setup, Chappelle launches into a bit about being a “victim blamer,” and states that he doesn’t believe the molestation allegations against Jackson. With a grand pause, Chappelle declares, “Even if he did do it ... you know what I mean?” It’s unclear, however, what exactly Chappelle does mean here. Is the joke supposed to be that Michael Jackson’s stature makes his behavior okay? Is the joke that his behavior doesn’t change his status as a pop legend? Something else? He eventually concludes, after letting the audience fill in their own ideas, “It’s Michael Jackson!”
The Michael Jackson routine is a variant of one Chappelle has performed before, as early as 2004. In that version, he goes further with the joke, saying that the kids probably enjoyed the experience and should have felt empowered by it because of Jackson’s stature. In the new special, Chappelle goes even further: “I know more than half the people in this room have been molested in their lives, but it wasn’t no goddamn Michael Jackson, was it?” he says. “This kid got his dick sucked by the king of pop. All we get is awkward Thanksgivings for the rest of our lives.”
“I know it’s harsh,” he says, “but somebody’s gotta teach these kids there’s no such thing as a free trip to Hawaii,” referencing the frequent trips and other perks that Jackson gave his accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, as children.
In statements to TMZ on August 27, both Robson and Safechuck responded to Chappelle’s routine. “I’m heartbroken for all those children who look to see how they will be received when they finally find the courage to speak out about their sexual abuse,” Safechuck said. “I just want to reach out to other survivors and let them know that we can’t let this type of behavior silence us. Together we are strong.”
Robson’s lawyer added that “it’s unfortunate that [Chappelle] has chosen to use his platform to shame sexual abuse victims, and spread his ignorance of sexual abuse and the way it is perpetrated upon children.” He contrasted Chappelle’s comedy with that of Hannibal Buress, who used his platform to call out Bill Cosby’s long history of abuse instead of shaming victims.
But Chappelle had more on his mind than Jackson. He built his set around a number of other recent controversies, including R. Kelly’s alleged history of sexual grooming and abuse of young women, and Kevin Hart’s withdrawal from hosting the 2019 Oscars. But whether he framed those events fairly or not in order to mine them for comedy has become a contentious talking point.
Chappelle criticized Surviving R. Kelly director Dream Hampton in the special, but came in for criticism himself
Throughout the special, Chappelle cites the media’s response to Kelly, Hart, and Jackson as examples of “overreactions.” Though he contrasted Jackson with R. Kelly by claiming Kelly “probably did” what he was accused of, he focused his routine on the recent documentary Surviving R. Kelly, a look into the serious abuse allegedly committed by the singer. Discussing how Surviving R. Kelly’s director Dream Hampton name-dropped him in several interviews as someone who refused to appear in the documentary, Chappelle portrayed her request as random and odd. “I don’t know [R. Kelly] at all ... I don’t know anything that they don’t tell me about him,” he said.
But Hampton’s reason for wanting Chappelle to appear in the documentary was due to Chappelle’s long history of jokes made about R. Kelly in the past, including a sketch from his Comedy Central series Chappelle’s Show in 2003 that mocked R. Kelly’s sex tape. When TMZ confronted him about his previous R. Kelly comedy earlier this year, Chappelle responded that he’d have to rewatch the skit to be able to comment on it.
Hampton responded to Chappelle’s special on Tuesday by saying she never actually discussed the documentary with him at all.
Quick fact check: I didn't personally (or casually) invite Chappelle to be interviewed for the doc. The producer responsible for celeb outreach officially asked him, more than once. I haven't seen or talked to him in about 8 years. Weird he told his joke that way. — dream hampton (@dreamhampton) August 27, 2019
I also, obviously, didn't need Chapelle to talk about R. Kelly personally. I wanted him to talk about the two pieces of cultural criticism he produced about R. Kelly for the Chapelle show. — dream hampton (@dreamhampton) August 27, 2019
I also have never in my life said the words "too hot for tv", because, Bitch, that's not how I sound. — dream hampton (@dreamhampton) August 27, 2019
In the special, Chappelle barely touches on the specific allegations made against Kelly, though he makes more off-the-cuff jokes during his Q&A. Focusing on critiquing Hampton instead lets him continue building the theme of the evening — that leftist activists are overreacting and rushing to judgment.
Another case in point is comedian Kevin Hart, whose own divisive “jokes” Chappelle defends during the special. He calls Hart “four tweets shy of perfection” in reference to tweets that formed part of the history of homophobic humor that led to Hart’s decision not to host the 2019 Academy Awards.
“Clearly Kevin was joking,” Chappelle said, regarding one of Hart’s old homophobic jokes, which resurfaced on Twitter shortly after he agreed to host the awards show in December 2018. He uses his defense of Hart to speak derisively about a long-ago incident in which Comedy Central took him to task for using a homophobic slur.
“Why is it that I can say the word ni**er with impunity but I can’t say fa**ot?” Chappelle claims to have asked at the time. He describes himself and Hart as “breaking an unwritten and unspoken rule of show business ... you are never, ever allowed to upset the alphabet people,” he says, referring to the queer community.
And as he argues against the notion of “cancel culture” — of the collective aim to disempower those who abuse their privilege by committing sexist, racist, homophobic, or other offensive behavior — he throws in a screed against the #MeToo moment for good measure.
“What the fuck is your agenda, ladies?” Chappelle says, connecting the tone of the #MeToo movement with the stringency of recent abortion laws around the country, as if one is causing the other. He hints that the leftist political rhetoric that is considered the progenitor of cancel culture is to blame for our distraction from other big issues, like gun control.
To his credit, Chappelle has been active in efforts to create real-world progress on these issues; he recently hosted a benefit concert for victims of the Dayton, Ohio, mass shooting. But critics have described this brand of shock humor as “tired” and “regressive, exclusionary, and cruel.” Bits in which Chappelle painstakingly jokes about each of the letters in “LGBTQ” (bisexuals are “gross,” he says, while transgender people are “confusing”), uses homophobic slurs when talking about ex-Empire star Jussie Smollett, uses a racist Chinese stereotype, or muses that “if women were actually equal to men, there’d be no WNBA,” all feel like they’ve been imported from 1996 with little alteration.
Chappelle seems to know that the jokes are potentially offensive. But “it’s hard not to write these jokes,” he says. And indeed, he’s been drawing on this sort of comedy for a while.
Chappelle has a history of saying and doing controversial things in the name of comedy, but he remains unapologetic
Chappelle has been called out repeatedly for his comedy. The New York Times recently criticized his “tired” attempts to joke about the #MeToo movement in two 2018 Netflix specials, and other writers have found a disturbing pattern of homophobic and transphobic humor in his work. As Jason Zinoman, who reviewed Chappelle’s latest show for the New York Times in July, noted, “He’s still defending wealthy, famous peers and joking about transgender targets.” Many critics of the Netflix show have agreed, with Vice calling it skippable and BuzzFeed asking, “why can’t he be more thoughtful?”
Sticks and Stones has brought out detractors and defenders from all sides, however. Some prominent names in the entertainment industry are praising him, while others have panned the routine.
Dave Chapelle starts the entire comedy set by telling the crowd he hates them & people who dig up old shit to try and cancel celebs...
The special is also called “Stick & Stones” .... — El Viejo Ebro (@oldmanebro) August 28, 2019
Yo @VICE thinks it has some say in who watches what & what’s funny.
I hope the new #DaveChapelle Special is the MOST WATCH one yet.
FOH politically correct Newly Woke Weirdos.
You ain’t cancelling ANYONE for being funny, ever.https://t.co/8qW40zT4cG — MichaelRapaport (@MichaelRapaport) August 27, 2019
I've been a Dave Chapelle fan for a long time. However, I dunno that more 'rich guy says whatever the FUCK he wants about marginalized people!' is what the world needed. — B. Dolan (@BDolanSFR) August 28, 2019
In a since-deleted Instagram post, Saturday Night Live’s Michael Che defended Chappelle by lashing out at the negative reviews, complaining that “all their criticism seems to be about the take, and very little about the actual art, and you can tell when half the review are verbatim quotes of the jokes.”
The Daily Beast argued that Chappelle’s provocative comedy was the entire point, and that his goal was to say “the things we’re not supposed to say, let alone think, and then making us consider what it says about us that we quiet those parts of ourselves.”
“I understand why it could hurt some people’s feelings,” Chappelle says about his brand of comedy in the secret epilogue to Sticks and Stones, which sees him answering Q&As from the audience in his Broadway engagement.
As an example, he mentions #MeToo jokes and delivers an anecdote about offending a rape victim who he says left an earlier performance of the show by declaring, “I’m sorry I was raped.” Chappelle tells the audience that he replied, “It’s not your fault you were raped. But it’s not my fault either. Ta-ta, bitch!”
In another anecdote, he bonds with a transgender fan because she loves his arguably transphobic humor, before adding the arguably transphobic coda that he then made out with her ... while inspecting her anatomy. (A Reddit user claiming to be the woman in question commented about the bit on Monday and described him as “awesome to work with and an incredible talent.”)
Chappelle defends his humor during the show by claiming, “If you’re in a group that I make fun of, just know that I probably only make fun of you because I see myself in you.”
But he also had words for anyone who chose to watch the Netflix special despite having some idea what kind of comedy he’s known for: “Remember bitch, you clicked on my face.”
Indeed, the debate over Chappelle’s comedy seems to be exactly what he wants — a way to keep his name in the public eye, draw lots of curiosity views, make his fans feel even more protective of him, and, in his own words, “victim blame” anyone feeling outraged. And it seems to be working; Netflix’s official comedy Twitter account has been promoting the special by referencing some of its most controversial moments, and retweeting praise from comedians. It all bodes well for more Chappelle specials in Netflix’s future — and more rounds of this debate.


vox--2020-01-26--The Grammys opened with a Kobe Bryant tribute from Alicia Keys and Boyz II Men

The opening of the 2020 Grammy Awards paid tribute to basketball star Kobe Bryant , who died in a helicopter crash on Sunday at age 41 , along with his 13-year-old daughter Gianna and at least seven other people , including the pilot .
Bryant played his entire 20-year career with the Los Angeles Lakers at the Staples Center , where the 62nd Grammy Awards were held on Sunday night .
The first performer of the night , Lizzo , kicked off the evening by declaring , “ Tonight is for Kobe.
” Grammys host Alicia Keys followed Lizzo with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening monologue that “ we ’ re all feeling crazy sadness right now .
Because earlier today , Los Angeles , America , and the whole wide world lost a hero .
And we ’ re literally standing here heartbroken in the house that Kobe Bryant built.
” Boyz II Men then joined to Keys on stane for an a cappella version of their 1991 hit “ Hard to Say Goodbye.
” Bryant was a basketball titan , his talent recognized worldwide .
Up until last week , when his record was surpassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was the third-highest scorer in NBA history .
He helped lead the Lakers to five national championships and enjoyed a thriving career after his retirement from basketball in 2016 as a businessman , author , and filmmaker .
He won an Oscar in 2018 for the animated short film Dear Basketball : The Legend of Kobe Bryant , which he produced and wrote .
“ He inspired a whole generation of young athletes , ” fellow ex-Laker Kareem Abdul-Jabbar noted after the news of Bryant ’ s death broke .
Before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans had already begun arriving at the stadium to leave flowers and other tributes .
Attending celebrities shared their reflections on the loss , including rapper Rick Ross , who paid tribute to Bryant as “ a true champion.
” Other celebrities chose to cancel their red-carpet appearances , while some who were not in attendance shared their reactions and remembrances across social media following the news , ahead of the Grammys ceremony .
Inside the Staples Center on Sunday night , there was only love — for Bryant and for the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to do what we ’ re here to do , ” Keys said .
“ We ’ re going to sing together , we ’ re going to laugh together .
We ’ re going to dance together .
We ’ re going to cry together ... we ’ re going to make sure that we are celebrating the most powerful energy , the most beautiful thing in the world , the one thing that has the power to bring all of us together .
And that ’ s @ @ @

The opening of the 2020 Grammy Awards paid tribute to basketball star Kobe Bryant, who died in a helicopter crash on Sunday at age 41, along with his 13-year-old daughter Gianna and at least seven other people, including the pilot.
Bryant played his entire 20-year career with the Los Angeles Lakers at the Staples Center, where the 62nd Grammy Awards were held on Sunday night. The first performer of the night, Lizzo, kicked off the evening by declaring, “Tonight is for Kobe.”
Grammys host Alicia Keys followed Lizzo with a touching remembrance, noting in her opening monologue that “we’re all feeling crazy sadness right now. Because earlier today, Los Angeles, America, and the whole wide world lost a hero. And we’re literally standing here heartbroken in the house that Kobe Bryant built.”
Boyz II Men then joined to Keys on stane for an a cappella version of their 1991 hit “Hard to Say Goodbye.”
Bryant was a basketball titan, his talent recognized worldwide. Up until last week, when his record was surpassed by LeBron James on January 23, he was the third-highest scorer in NBA history. He helped lead the Lakers to five national championships and enjoyed a thriving career after his retirement from basketball in 2016 as a businessman, author, and filmmaker. He won an Oscar in 2018 for the animated short film Dear Basketball: The Legend of Kobe Bryant, which he produced and wrote.
“He inspired a whole generation of young athletes,” fellow ex-Laker Kareem Abdul-Jabbar noted after the news of Bryant’s death broke.
Before the Grammys red carpet began on Sunday, fans had already begun arriving at the stadium to leave flowers and other tributes.
Flowers being set up at LA Live for Kobe Bryant
The Grammys are at Staples Center tonight, so plaza in front is blocked off. Dozens already beginning to gather here pic.twitter.com/6gHUVwGphB — Jack Harris (@Jack_A_Harris) January 26, 2020
Attending celebrities shared their reflections on the loss, including rapper Rick Ross, who paid tribute to Bryant as “a true champion.”
I'm on the red carpet for @TeenVogue at the Grammys at Staples, Kobe’s home. Celebrities are being so thoughtful on how they’re processing this news. https://t.co/I43gcpFFGn — "they're very local" (@dariansymone) January 26, 2020
Other celebrities chose to cancel their red-carpet appearances, while some who were not in attendance shared their reactions and remembrances across social media following the news, ahead of the Grammys ceremony.
Most people will remember Kobe as the magnificent athlete who inspired a whole generation of basketball players. But I will always remember him as a man who was much more than an athlete. pic.twitter.com/9EZuwk8wrV — Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (@kaj33) January 26, 2020
My friend, a legend, husband, father, son, brother, Oscar winner and greatest Laker of all-time is gone. It’s hard to accept. Kobe was a leader of our game, a mentor to both male and female players. pic.twitter.com/NXsrXmCkkG — Earvin Magic Johnson (@MagicJohnson) January 26, 2020
Sometimes when I'm really lacking in courage because of anxiety or whatever, I will put on this video.
It's the last three minutes of Kobe's last game, the greatest retirement game by any athlete ever.
Everyone should watch it.https://t.co/Id2TLQLVX0 — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) January 26, 2020
#KobeBryant you were the greatest. You made our city and the rest of the world so proud. Every basketball fan knew the magnificence of the Mamba. Love and healing to Vanessa and those little girls. God, this is just the worst ever. — Mindy Kaling (@mindykaling) January 26, 2020
This breaks my heart. Thinking about Kobe’s wife and children. Including his new baby. https://t.co/4U9nGoIalM — Katie Couric (@katiecouric) January 26, 2020
I feel like I lost a brother.... this is unbelievable. Kobe isn’t just my favorite player in the NBA he’s my favorite ATHLETE of all time... I seriously can NOT believe this... my heart breaks for his wife and daughters #TeamDL #goat #Kobe #KobeBryant #mambamentality #mamba #rip pic.twitter.com/FB1uqpMXrl — DL Hughley (@RealDLHughley) January 26, 2020
No @NBA player supported the @WNBA or women’s college basketball more than Kobe. He attended games, watched on tv, coached the next generation. We pray for his family. https://t.co/ZhTCxD3sRg — Rebecca Lobo (@RebeccaLobo) January 26, 2020
Devastated and heartbroken by the passing of Kobe Bryant. I admired his athletic prowess from afar and his humanity close up. He was an original. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends and fans. RIP. — Tim Cook (@tim_cook) January 26, 2020
Kobe Bryant knew art. He knew history. Music. Finance. Business. Our hearts hurt for his family and those at the firm that bears his name. @BryantStibel @Stibel pic.twitter.com/VucTJBcy3k — Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) January 26, 2020
Years ago Kobe was suspended for calling a ref a fucking fag in a heated moment. He didn’t give a weak apology and yell “triggered!” He learned from it. Actually put in work. Worked with GLAAD. Called out his own fan for calling someone gay in his mentions. People can grow. — Slade (@Slade) January 26, 2020
Gutted to hear about Kobe’s helicopter crash. Just terrible. I’m not a sports fan, but I do know that Kobe was incredibly nice to me, and was like a kid in a candy store at the Oscars when his film won. Love to his family. RIP. pic.twitter.com/i9c4QHXKls — Lee Unkrich (@leeunkrich) January 26, 2020
(Few if any of the famous figures who paid tribute to Bryant online mentioned that he was accused of sexual assault in 2003 by a 19-year-old woman in Colorado. He denied the allegation, claiming the encounter had been consensual; the matter was ultimately settled out of court.)
Inside the Staples Center on Sunday night, there was only love — for Bryant and for the power of music. “I know that we’re going to do what we’re here to do,” Keys said. “We’re going to sing together, we’re going to laugh together. We’re going to dance together. We’re going to cry together ... we’re going to make sure that we are celebrating the most powerful energy, the most beautiful thing in the world, the one thing that has the power to bring all of us together. And that’s music.”


vox--2020-01-26--NBA legend Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna shared a love of the game

The deaths of basketball star Kobe Bryant and one of his daughters , Gianna — along with at least seven other people — in a helicopter crash Sunday have led to an outpouring of support and condolences .
Amid those messages are a number that express heartbreak at 13-year-old Gianna ’ s life being cut short .
Bryant ’ s 20-year career with the Los Angeles Lakers was full of championships and controversy , from public fallouts with co-stars like Shaquille O ’ Neal to his 2003 rape allegation ( which he refuted ) .
But Gianna ’ s career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ father often spoke of her on-court skill and her bright future in basketball .
Bryant got to see these skills firsthand , not just as a parent but as the coach of Gianna ’ s team ; in a 2018 interview with ABC ’ s Jimmy Kimmel , the former Laker said his daughter hoped to play in the WNBA when she was older , and that he believed she would do so .
Bryant proudly told Kimmel about Gianna ’ s reaction whenever fans approached his family and told him to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy : “ She ’ s like , ‘ Oh , wait , I got this !
’ ” Bryant told Kimmel he was motivated to coach youth basketball in part to “ try to teach the kids what excellence looks like ” and said that as a coach , “ we try to give them a foundation of the amount of work and preparation that it takes to be excellent.
” For Bryant , that amount of work was immense , and excellence required intense preparation as well as tunnel-vision focus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentality , most recently for a 2019 Instagram post in which he seemed to mock the fourth-place finish of one of the youth teams he coached and spoke dismissively of one child who missed the team ’ s final game “ for a dance recital so that should tell you where her focus was at this time.
” As SB Nation ’ s James Dator explained , this attitude was part of Bryant ’ s brand — what he called the “ Mamba mentality , ” after his Black Mamba nickname : Bryant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determination is how you excel .
Take his quote from the 2015 documentary , Kobe Bryant ’ s Muse .
“ We all can be masters at our craft , but you have to make a choice .
What I mean by that is , there are inherent sacrifices that come along with that .
Family time , hanging out with friends , being a great friend , being a great son , nephew , whatever the case may be .
There are sacrifices that come along with making that decision.
” Bryant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past made pains to state he wasn ’ t a dictatorial coach , like during a 2017 appearance on the Tonight Show , when he told host Jimmy Fallon of his daughters ’ desire to develop their own playing styles , something he said he tried his best to encourage .
Still , he admitted he couldn ’ t resist giving a bit of courtside advice , and later that year , he told The Late Late Show ’ s James Corden of the progress Gianna ’ s team had made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying , “ We run the triangle offense ; it ’ s awesome.
” All that time on the court had Gianna thinking of her future .
Bryant told former basketball star Reggie Miller in 2018 that Gianna was a big fan of the University of Connecticut team , an elite college women ’ s program , and that she was “ hellbent ” on playing for them as a college student .
“ She watches their interviews , watches how they play and learns — not just in wins , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves , ” the former Laker told the Hartford Courant .
“ It ’ s great , as a parent , to be able to see my daughter pull inspiration from them.
” Bryant was committed to making that dream a reality , taking Gianna to games and recently sharing courtside analysis at a game between the Atlanta Hawks and the Brooklyn Nets .
According to ESPN , Bryant and Gianna were on their way to one of her games in a helicopter when it crashed .
Basketball fans are mourning not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had the potential — and ardent desire — to become a legend in her own right .

The deaths of basketball star Kobe Bryant and one of his daughters, Gianna — along with at least seven other people — in a helicopter crash Sunday have led to an outpouring of support and condolences.
Amid those messages are a number that express heartbreak at 13-year-old Gianna’s life being cut short. Bryant’s 20-year career with the Los Angeles Lakers was full of championships and controversy, from public fallouts with co-stars like Shaquille O’Neal to his 2003 rape allegation (which he refuted). But Gianna’s career had not yet begun, and her father often spoke of her on-court skill and her bright future in basketball.
Bryant got to see these skills firsthand, not just as a parent but as the coach of Gianna’s team; in a 2018 interview with ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, the former Laker said his daughter hoped to play in the WNBA when she was older, and that he believed she would do so.
Bryant proudly told Kimmel about Gianna’s reaction whenever fans approached his family and told him to have a boy to carry on his basketball legacy: “She’s like, ‘Oh, wait, I got this!’”
Bryant told Kimmel he was motivated to coach youth basketball in part to “try to teach the kids what excellence looks like” and said that as a coach, “we try to give them a foundation of the amount of work and preparation that it takes to be excellent.”
For Bryant, that amount of work was immense, and excellence required intense preparation as well as tunnel-vision focus.
Bryant had faced some criticism for this mentality, most recently for a 2019 Instagram post in which he seemed to mock the fourth-place finish of one of the youth teams he coached and spoke dismissively of one child who missed the team’s final game “for a dance recital so that should tell you where her focus was at this time.”
As SB Nation’s James Dator explained, this attitude was part of Bryant’s brand — what he called the “Mamba mentality,” after his Black Mamba nickname:
Bryant has a history of saying that single-minded determination is how you excel. Take his quote from the 2015 documentary, Kobe Bryant’s Muse. “We all can be masters at our craft, but you have to make a choice. What I mean by that is, there are inherent sacrifices that come along with that. Family time, hanging out with friends, being a great friend, being a great son, nephew, whatever the case may be. There are sacrifices that come along with making that decision.”
Bryant eventually apologized for the post, and in the past made pains to state he wasn’t a dictatorial coach, like during a 2017 appearance on the Tonight Show, when he told host Jimmy Fallon of his daughters’ desire to develop their own playing styles, something he said he tried his best to encourage.
Still, he admitted he couldn’t resist giving a bit of courtside advice, and later that year, he told The Late Late Show’s James Corden of the progress Gianna’s team had made in their ability to execute complex plays, saying, “We run the triangle offense; it’s awesome.”
All that time on the court had Gianna thinking of her future. Bryant told former basketball star Reggie Miller in 2018 that Gianna was a big fan of the University of Connecticut team, an elite college women’s program, and that she was “hellbent” on playing for them as a college student.
“She watches their interviews, watches how they play and learns — not just in wins, but in tough losses — how they conduct themselves,” the former Laker told the Hartford Courant. “It’s great, as a parent, to be able to see my daughter pull inspiration from them.”
Bryant was committed to making that dream a reality, taking Gianna to games and recently sharing courtside analysis at a game between the Atlanta Hawks and the Brooklyn Nets.
Kobe and Gigi courtside breaking down the game pic.twitter.com/FxqSjVx6ew — ESPN (@espn) December 22, 2019
According to ESPN, Bryant and Gianna were on their way to one of her games in a helicopter when it crashed.
Basketball fans are mourning not just a legend Sunday, but a teen who had the potential — and ardent desire — to become a legend in her own right.


vox--2020-01-27--The House will soon vote on a bill to repeal Trump’s travel ban — as he gears up to expand it

Amid reports that President Donald Trump is planning to expand his travel ban , Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is sending a message : She announced Monday that the House will hold a vote in the coming weeks on a bill that would dismantle it altogether .
The bill , known as the National Origin-Based Anti-discrimination for Nonimmigrants ( NO BAN ) Act , would repeal Trump ’ s travel ban on citizens of seven countries and limit the president ’ s authority to issue such sweeping bans in the future .
It would also strengthen existing prohibitions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guaranteed by the Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ) — what immigrant advocates have praised as a means of protecting the rights of American Muslims .
The INA currently bans discrimination in the issuance of visas only on the basis of “ race , sex , nationality , place of birth and place of residence.
” There is no provision prohibiting religious discrimination , which made it more difficult for immigrant advocates to argue that the travel ban was unlawful .
The bill seeks to correct this by amending the INA to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , based on credible evidence , subject to congressional oversight , and be created only in response to specific actions foreign entities have taken to threaten the US .
The bill also states that a ban must also advance a compelling government interest in the least restrictive way possible .
These proposals have been praised by immigration advocates , like those at the National Immigration Law Center , who said they would “ ensure that future presidents would not be allowed to issue orders based so clearly on anti-Muslim bias or any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would receive individual consideration.
” The House Judiciary Committee will debate and potentially amend the bill , which has broad Democratic support , in the next two weeks , and is expected to advance to the floor for a full House vote .
But even if the bill passes the House , it has little prospect of clearing — or even being considered in — the Republican-led Senate , where several recent immigration bills have languished .
This congressional reality makes Pelosi ’ s show of support for the bill appear to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice about expanding his travel ban as it is about policy .
“ House Democrats continue to stand opposed to President Trump ’ s cruel , un-American travel ban in all of its iterations , ” Pelosi said in a statement Monday .
The NO BAN Act comes as Trump threats to expand the travel ban Politico reported last week that Trump is weighing expanding the existing ban to cover citizens of seven additional countries : Belarus , Myanmar , Eritrea , Kyrgyzstan , Nigeria , Sudan , and Tanzania .
The ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from coming to the US , with exceptions for refugees and those who already have US green cards or visas .
Under the first version of the ban , unveiled in January 2017 , citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries , including those who held US green cards and dual US citizenship , were held for questioning for many hours at airports across the country and were denied entry to the US .
A de facto “ Muslim ban , ” the policy appeared to be the execution of Trump ’ s call on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and complete shutdown ” of Muslims entering the US and sparked widespread protests throughout the country .
That ban was amended in the face of court challenges ; the version of the ban now in place — the third Trump has issued — was upheld by the US Supreme Court in June 2018 .
It places restrictions on citizens of Iran , Libya , Somalia , Syria , Yemen , Venezuela , and North Korea who seek to enter the US .
( Chad was taken off the list of countries subject to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration ’ s demands to share information with US authorities that could aid in efforts to vet foreigners . )
The NO BAN Act is an effort to negate the Supreme Court ’ s ruling , albeit one that ’ s unlikely to succeed .
But even if it fails in the Senate , the bill will allow Democrats to contrast themselves with Trump ahead of the 2020 election and present themselves as a party that welcomes immigrants , rather than keeping them out .

Amid reports that President Donald Trump is planning to expand his travel ban, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is sending a message: She announced Monday that the House will hold a vote in the coming weeks on a bill that would dismantle it altogether.
The bill, known as the National Origin-Based Anti-discrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, would repeal Trump’s travel ban on citizens of seven countries and limit the president’s authority to issue such sweeping bans in the future. It would also strengthen existing prohibitions on religious discrimination with respect to visa applications guaranteed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — what immigrant advocates have praised as a means of protecting the rights of American Muslims.
The INA currently bans discrimination in the issuance of visas only on the basis of “race, sex, nationality, place of birth and place of residence.” There is no provision prohibiting religious discrimination, which made it more difficult for immigrant advocates to argue that the travel ban was unlawful.
The bill seeks to correct this by amending the INA to require that any travel ban be temporary, based on credible evidence, subject to congressional oversight, and be created only in response to specific actions foreign entities have taken to threaten the US. The bill also states that a ban must also advance a compelling government interest in the least restrictive way possible.
These proposals have been praised by immigration advocates, like those at the National Immigration Law Center, who said they would “ensure that future presidents would not be allowed to issue orders based so clearly on anti-Muslim bias or any other religion-based animus and that every visa applicant would receive individual consideration.”
The House Judiciary Committee will debate and potentially amend the bill, which has broad Democratic support, in the next two weeks, and is expected to advance to the floor for a full House vote. But even if the bill passes the House, it has little prospect of clearing — or even being considered in — the Republican-led Senate, where several recent immigration bills have languished.
This congressional reality makes Pelosi’s show of support for the bill appear to be as much about warning Trump to think twice about expanding his travel ban as it is about policy.
“House Democrats continue to stand opposed to President Trump’s cruel, un-American travel ban in all of its iterations,” Pelosi said in a statement Monday.
The NO BAN Act comes as Trump threats to expand the travel ban
Politico reported last week that Trump is weighing expanding the existing ban to cover citizens of seven additional countries: Belarus, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. The ban would prevent most citizens of those countries from coming to the US, with exceptions for refugees and those who already have US green cards or visas.
Under the first version of the ban, unveiled in January 2017, citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries, including those who held US green cards and dual US citizenship, were held for questioning for many hours at airports across the country and were denied entry to the US. A de facto “Muslim ban,” the policy appeared to be the execution of Trump’s call on the campaign trail for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the US and sparked widespread protests throughout the country.
That ban was amended in the face of court challenges; the version of the ban now in place — the third Trump has issued — was upheld by the US Supreme Court in June 2018. It places restrictions on citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and North Korea who seek to enter the US. (Chad was taken off the list of countries subject to the ban last April after it met the Trump administration’s demands to share information with US authorities that could aid in efforts to vet foreigners.)
The NO BAN Act is an effort to negate the Supreme Court’s ruling, albeit one that’s unlikely to succeed. But even if it fails in the Senate, the bill will allow Democrats to contrast themselves with Trump ahead of the 2020 election and present themselves as a party that welcomes immigrants, rather than keeping them out.


vox--2020-01-27--The Washington Post sure bungled its Kobe Bryant tweet controversy

It ’ s 2020 .
How come the Washington Post is screwing up at Twitter ?
That ’ s the rough paraphrase coming at me today from my colleagues and from Twitter .
Everyone wants to know why the Post has punished one of its reporters for tweeting about Kobe Bryant after his death yesterday .
My answer : It ’ s 2020 , and Twitter — really , all of social media — remains something that media companies of all stripes can and will screw up .
Because humans are messy , and social media , among other things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The situation won ’ t get better unless media companies ban their employees from using social media .
Which they ’ re not going to do .
You can get a full tick-tock on the Post/Bryant/Twitter story from my colleague Emily Stewart , but the tl ; dr is that the Post put reporter Felicia Sonmez on “ administrative leave ” after she tweeted in the wake of Bryant ’ s death on Sunday .
A slightly longer account includes the detail that Sonmez ’ s output included a link to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges Bryant faced in 2003 .
( The criminal charges were dropped in 2004 , and Bryant and his accuser reached an out-of-court settlement in 2005 . )
One of Sonmez ’ s tweets also included a screenshot of her email inbox , which was taken after sending out the tweet with the link about Bryant ’ s assault charges .
The tweets garnered thousands of replies , many of which were negative , before Sonmez deleted them .
As Stewart points out on Vox , one of the missives read , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yourself .
Cunt.
” Sonmez also got an email from Marty Baron , the Post ’ s executive editor , on Sunday evening .
“ Felicia , ” Mr. Baron wrote , according to an email obtained by the New York Times .
“ A real lack of judgment to tweet this .
Please stop .
You ’ re hurting this institution by doing this.
” “ Because The Post does have policies governing these things , all I did was tweet out a link to the story , ” she said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was my place to provide any further commentary.
” The Post has since said that Sonmez ’ s output may have violated the Post ’ s social media policies , so it ’ s investigating that possibility .
You can find those policies here , but you won ’ t find instructions forbidding Post reporters from linking to other publications ’ stories or from posting evidence of people on the internet behaving badly .
The Post ’ s Erik Wemple reports today that Sonmez , who checked into a hotel Sunday night after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told that the initial problem with her tweets was that they didn ’ t concern her “ coverage area.
” Following her suspension , Sonmez told the Times , “ Because The Post does have policies governing these things , all I did was tweet out a link to the story , ” she said .
“ I didn ’ t think it was my place to provide any further commentary.
” Like other media organizations that have posted social media policies , the Washington Post does tell its employees that when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages will be treated as Official Washington Post tweets or Instas or whatever , no matter their original intent .
As with many other outlets , there is also this instruction : Don ’ t post anything that could “ objectively be perceived as reflecting political , racial , sexist , religious or other bias or favoritism.
” This is one of those instructions that seems both obvious and impossible to enforce .
I hope I can avoid posting racist commentary .
But I most certainly have bias , and I definitely have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the point — and my view of the world may be the same as yours — it ’ s ridiculous that the Post penalized its reporter for acknowledging that Bryant , in addition to being beloved by many people , was credibly accused of rape .
( In a 2004 statement , Bryant ultimately apologized to his accuser “ for my behavior that night , ” adding that while “ I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual , I recognize now that she did not and does not view this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) You may also see the world the way many other people do : You think the hours after someone ’ s death are not the time to speak critically of that person .
But the fact that the Post says that Sonmez may have violated the company ’ s social media policy — but can ’ t say for sure if she has , a day after the tweets — is telling .
The Post ’ s guidelines , like those published by the New York Times , the Wall Street Journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Media — amount to “ don ’ t screw up.
” Screwing up is the whole point of social media .
It ’ s a feature , not a bug .
Twitter , Instagram , Facebook , TikTok , and every other service offering the opportunity to transmit your unmoderated , instantaneous thoughts to the world want you to screw up at least some of the time .
Social media invites you to say something you might not have said to someone ’ s face , or at least not without some foresight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may feel good — again , I think a newspaper that can stand up to Donald Trump can also protect a reporter who hasn ’ t published something defamatory — the Post certainly isn ’ t the only publication that has found itself disciplining one of its employees for a tweet or apologizing for one of their tweets .
We can start close to home : Vox , for instance , suspended an editor in 2016 for tweeting that people should “ start a riot ” if Donald Trump arrives in their town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times demoted an editor for displaying “ serious lapses in judgment ” when he tweeted about politics and race .
And in 2017 , the Wall Street Journal said it was sorry for a tweet about Venus Williams — which began with “ Something ’ s not white !
” — because it “ was seen by some as insensitive.
” Let ’ s not forget about publications that have had to apologize for what their employees did on social media before they came to work there .
The Times , in particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2018 , it unhired an opinion writer once her old tweets surfaced and attracted negative attention .
Last year , a Times editor had to apologize for tweets he made in college .
The way for the Times and other outlets to avoid worrying about journalists screwing up on Twitter is to ban them from Twitter and every other public forum .
These companies would also have to force all of their journalists to retroactively delete everything they ’ ve ever posted — maybe someone tweeted something unkind about Bryant back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single game , or whatever .
Or they could require the same kind of attorney-assisted vetting that the SEC has now forced Tesla ’ s Elon Musk to go through whenever he wants to tweet .
That won ’ t happen , of course , because every company that hires journalists wants its journalists to use those platforms , at a minimum as a way to promote their work .
Perhaps they also think it ’ s crucial to “ maintain a vibrant presence on social media , ” as the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true : NYT ’ s reporters do great work on Twitter .
But as soon as people pick up the phone and start tapping , they are a couple of taps away from a screwup .
Media companies should be able to live with that prospect — and , crucially , with the idea that not all screwups are equal , and that just because someone is angry about a tweet doesn ’ t make it a Bad Tweet , and you can let people complain about Bad Tweets without having to Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can bail out and leave Twitter to the rest of us .
Ed .
note : This post has been updated to include an email from Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron as well as a quote from Felicia Sonmez , both of which were first reported by the New York Times .

It’s 2020. How come the Washington Post is screwing up at Twitter?
That’s the rough paraphrase coming at me today from my colleagues and from Twitter. Everyone wants to know why the Post has punished one of its reporters for tweeting about Kobe Bryant after his death Sunday.
My answer: It’s 2020, and Twitter — really, all of social media — remains something that media companies of all stripes can and will screw up. Because humans are messy, and social media, among other things, is built to exploit that mess. The situation won’t get better unless media companies ban their employees from using social media. Which they’re not going to do.
You can get a full tick-tock on the Post/Bryant/Twitter story from my colleague Emily Stewart, but the tl;dr is that the Post put reporter Felicia Sonmez on “administrative leave” after she tweeted in the wake of Bryant’s death on Sunday.
A slightly longer account includes the detail that Sonmez’s output included a link to a 2016 Daily Beast article about sexual assault charges Bryant faced in 2003. (The criminal charges were dropped in 2004, and Bryant and his accuser reached an out-of-court settlement in 2005.) One of Sonmez’s tweets also included a screenshot of her email inbox, which was taken after sending out the tweet with the link about Bryant’s assault charges. The tweets garnered thousands of replies, many of which were negative, before Sonmez deleted them. As Stewart points out on Vox, one of the missives read, “Piece of fucking shit. Go fuck yourself. Cunt.”
Sonmez also got an email from Marty Baron, the Post’s executive editor, on Sunday evening. “Felicia,” Baron wrote, according to an email obtained by the New York Times. “A real lack of judgment to tweet this. Please stop. You’re hurting this institution by doing this.”
The Post has since said that Sonmez’s output may have violated the Post’s social media policies, so it’s investigating that possibility. You can find those policies here, but you won’t find instructions forbidding Post reporters from linking to other publications’ stories or from posting evidence of people on the internet behaving badly. The Post’s Erik Wemple reports that Sonmez, who checked into a hotel Sunday night after receiving death threats, says she was told that the initial problem with her tweets was that they didn’t concern her “coverage area.”
Following her suspension, Sonmez told the New York Times, “Because The Post does have policies governing these things, all I did was tweet out a link to the story,” she said. “I didn’t think it was my place to provide any further commentary.”
Like other media organizations that have posted social media policies, the Washington Post does tell its employees that when they tweet or Insta or whatever, those messages will be treated as official Washington Post tweets or Instas or whatever, no matter their original intent. As with many other outlets, there is also this instruction: Don’t post anything that could “objectively be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism.”
This is one of those instructions that seems both obvious and impossible to enforce. I hope I can avoid posting racist commentary. But I most certainly have bias, and I definitely have favorites. So do you.
More to the point — and your view of the world may be the same as mine — it’s ridiculous that the Post penalized its reporter for acknowledging that Bryant, in addition to being beloved by many people, was credibly accused of rape. (In a 2004 statement, Bryant ultimately apologized to his accuser “for my behavior that night,” adding that while “I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.”)
You may also see the world the way many other people do: You think the hours after someone’s death are not the time to speak critically of that person.
But the fact that the Post says Sonmez may have violated the company’s social media policy — but can’t say for sure if she has, a day after the tweets — is telling. The Post’s guidelines, like those published by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other outlets, including Vox Media, amount to “don’t screw up.”
Screwing up is the whole point of social media. It’s a feature, not a bug. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and every other service offering the opportunity to transmit your unmoderated, instantaneous thoughts to the world want you to screw up at least some of the time. Social media invites you to say something you might not have said to someone’s face, or at least not without some foresight.
And while piling on the Post may feel good — again, I think a newspaper that can stand up to President Donald Trump can also protect a reporter who hasn’t published something defamatory — the Post certainly isn’t the only publication that has found itself disciplining one of its employees for a tweet or apologizing for one of their tweets.
We can start close to home: Vox, for instance, suspended an editor in 2016 for tweeting that people should “start a riot” if Trump arrives in their town. Last summer, the New York Times demoted an editor for displaying “serious lapses in judgment” when he tweeted about politics and race. And in 2017, the Wall Street Journal said it was sorry for a tweet about Venus Williams — which began with “Something’s not white!” — because it “was seen by some as insensitive.”
Let’s not forget about publications that have had to apologize for what their employees did on social media before they came to work there. The Times, in particular, stumbles on this one a lot. In 2018, it unhired an opinion writer once her old tweets surfaced and attracted negative attention. Last year, a Times editor had to apologize for tweets he made in college.
The way for the Times and other outlets to avoid worrying about journalists screwing up on Twitter is to ban them from Twitter and every other public forum. These companies would also have to force all their journalists to retroactively delete everything they’ve ever posted — maybe someone tweeted something unkind about Bryant back when he was scoring 81 points in a single game, or whatever.
Or they could require the same kind of attorney-assisted vetting that the Securities and Exchange Commission has now forced Tesla’s Elon Musk to go through whenever he wants to tweet.
That won’t happen, of course, because every company that hires journalists wants its journalists to use those platforms, at a minimum as a way to promote their work. Perhaps they also think it’s crucial to “maintain a vibrant presence on social media,” as the Times policy suggests. And it’s true: Times reporters do great work on Twitter.
But as soon as people pick up the phone and start tapping, they are a couple of taps away from a screw-up. Media companies should be able to live with that prospect — and, crucially, with the idea that not all screw-ups are equal, and that just because someone is angry about a tweet doesn’t make it a Bad Tweet, and you can let people complain about Bad Tweets without having to Do Something About the Bad Tweet.
Or they can bail out and leave Twitter to the rest of us.
Update, January 27, 2020, 7:15 pm ET: This post has been updated to include an email from Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron as well as a quote from Felicia Sonmez.
Update, January 28, 2020, 5:40 pm ET: Felicia Sonmez is no longer suspended. Washington Post managing editor Tracy Grant just released this statement:


vox--2020-01-27--This video clip shows how Trump defenders have dramatically moved the misconduct goalposts

Throughout the impeachment process , President Trump and his allies have come up with novel ways to defend the president against allegations of misconduct that range from misdirection to outright lies .
As Trump ’ s Senate trial progresses , a clip put together by Media Matters for America shows just how dramatically defenders of President Donald Trump are willing to move the goalposts in their defenses of the president .
Last September , and in the months that followed , Trump ’ s Republican defenders acknowledged that if Trump linked the release of military aid to Ukraine with political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal .
They insisted , however , there was no evidence that any corrupt quid pro quo actually existed .
But on the heels of news breaking on Sunday about former National Security Adviser John Bolton saying he has firsthand knowledge that Trump did in fact make that linkage , evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo is suddenly being met with yawns .
The then-and-now clip of Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy talking about the Ukraine scandal illustrates this shift in an especially stark manner .
Watch the two clips back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , Doocy proclaimed that “ if the president said [ to the Ukrainian government ] , you know — ‘ I ’ ll give you the money but you got ta investigate Joe Biden ’ — that is really off-the-rails wrong.
” In short , he acknowledged that a quid pro quo linking military aid to political favors would be indefensible , but he suggested the question was irrelevant because it didn ’ t happen .
But today , hours after news broke about Bolton ’ s book and its revelation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military aid was linked to his desired investigations , Doocy is singing a very different tune .
To hear him say it now , the quid pro quo revelation is old news and not a big deal .
Referring to a New York Times report about a draft of Bolton ’ s forthcoming book , Doocy noted that “ apparently it says Bolton was told Trump wanted to continue freezing money to Ukraine until they helped with probes of the Bidens , ” but then downplayed the quid pro quo .
“ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transcript say he wanted President Zelensky to look into the Bidens and what happened in 2016 , so is this a big , big , big story ?
” he said .
This sort of spin isn ’ t just a Fox News thing — as journalist Judd Legum detailed in a Twitter thread , a number of Republicans , including Sens .
John Cornyn and Ted Cruz , have made the same shift from denying the quid pro quo to downplaying it .
Similarly , Rep. Doug Collins ( R-GA ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense team , shifted from tweeting there was “ zero quid pro quo ” last September to saying Monday , “ the facts haven ’ t changed.
” In a way , this is true : Witness testimony has showed the president attempted to trade aid for the investigations , and Bolton ’ s information merely confirms that fact .
But that ’ s not what Collins means .
Rep. Mark Meadows ( R-NC ) , another member of Trump ’ s defense team , went from saying “ there was definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October to dismissing Bolton ’ s account of the quid pro quo as “ a desperate attempt [ by Democrats ] to resusciate their dying political dreams ” on Monday .
( Never mind that Bolton is a Republican who worked for numerous Republican presidents . )
Along similar lines , Sen. James Inhofe ( R-OK ) went from falsely claiming just last Friday that a major problem with the case against Trump is the lack of firsthand witnesses to saying on Monday that Democratic efforts to compel the testimony of Bolton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just an effort to “ string this thing out as long as they can.
” Other Republicans are even contradicting themselves within individual news conferences .
During one on Monday , Sen. John Barrasso said of the Bolton revelation that “ there ’ s going to be something new coming out every day , ” and later claimed that “ the facts of the case remain the same .
There is nothing new here to what the House managers have been saying.
” Moving the goalposts in Trump ’ s defense seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrasso .
On Friday , I wrote about how he did the same thing regarding an audio recording that indicates Trump was lying about his relationship with Lev Parnas , Rudy Giuliani ’ s former fixer and a central figure in the Ukraine scheme .
It ’ s no longer surprising that Republicans are willing to contradict themselves and to endure cognitive dissonance to defend Trump .
After all , many of them spent the first week of the impeachment trial complaining that Democrats weren ’ t presenting new evidence , ignoring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent Democrats from presenting new evidence .
But if they ’ re willing to put their heads in the sand in response to an account from a former administration official that indicates Trump is guilty of what he ’ s being accused of , it raises the question of what ( if anything ) Republicans wouldn ’ t defend .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

Throughout the impeachment process, President Trump and his allies have come up with novel ways to defend the president against allegations of misconduct that range from misdirection to outright lies.
As Trump’s Senate trial progresses, a clip put together by Media Matters for America shows just how dramatically defenders of President Donald Trump are willing to move the goalposts in their defenses of the president.
Last September, and in the months that followed, Trump’s Republican defenders acknowledged that if Trump linked the release of military aid to Ukraine with political favors, it would be a big deal. They insisted, however, there was no evidence that any corrupt quid pro quo actually existed.
But on the heels of news breaking on Sunday about former National Security Adviser John Bolton saying he has firsthand knowledge that Trump did in fact make that linkage, evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo is suddenly being met with yawns.
The then-and-now clip of Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy talking about the Ukraine scandal illustrates this shift in an especially stark manner.
Watch the two clips back to back for yourself:
Steve Doocy's shifting perspective on Trump and Ukraine pic.twitter.com/uqGK2oSzMG — Media Matters (@mmfa) January 27, 2020
Four months ago, Doocy proclaimed that “if the president said [to the Ukrainian government], you know — ‘I’ll give you the money but you gotta investigate Joe Biden’ — that is really off-the-rails wrong.”
In short, he acknowledged that a quid pro quo linking military aid to political favors would be indefensible, but he suggested the question was irrelevant because it didn’t happen.
But today, hours after news broke about Bolton’s book and its revelation that Trump directly told him the release of military aid was linked to his desired investigations, Doocy is singing a very different tune. To hear him say it now, the quid pro quo revelation is old news and not a big deal.
Referring to a New York Times report about a draft of Bolton’s forthcoming book, Doocy noted that “apparently it says Bolton was told Trump wanted to continue freezing money to Ukraine until they helped with probes of the Bidens,” but then downplayed the quid pro quo.
“But we heard him [Trump] in the transcript say he wanted President Zelensky to look into the Bidens and what happened in 2016, so is this a big, big, big story?” he said.
This sort of spin isn’t just a Fox News thing — as journalist Judd Legum detailed in a Twitter thread, a number of Republicans, including Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, have made the same shift from denying the quid pro quo to downplaying it.
3. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX):
1/15: Quid pro quo allegations were "hearsay... people who had no direct evidence, witnesses who'd never even met President Trump"
1/27: On Bolton: "It doesn’t change the underlying facts" — Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) January 27, 2020
Similarly, Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), who is part of Trump’s defense team, shifted from tweeting there was “zero quid pro quo” last September to saying Monday, “the facts haven’t changed.” Sen. Lindsey’s Graham’s (R-SC) position has also changed:
Just a reminder, Lindsey Graham in October: “If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing" — Ruth Marcus (@RuthMarcus) January 28, 2020
In a way, this is true: Witness testimony has showed the president attempted to trade aid for the investigations, and Bolton’s information merely confirms that fact. But that’s not what Collins means.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), another member of Trump’s defense team, went from saying “there was definitely no quid pro quo” in early October to dismissing Bolton’s account of the quid pro quo as “a desperate attempt [by Democrats] to resusciate their dying political dreams” on Monday. (Never mind that Bolton is a Republican who worked for numerous Republican presidents.)
Along similar lines, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) went from falsely claiming just last Friday that a major problem with the case against Trump is the lack of firsthand witnesses to saying on Monday that Democratic efforts to compel the testimony of Bolton, who would be a firsthand witness, is just an effort to “string this thing out as long as they can.”
Other Republicans are even contradicting themselves within individual news conferences. During one on Monday, Sen. John Barrasso said of the Bolton revelation that “there’s going to be something new coming out every day,” and later claimed that “the facts of the case remain the same. There is nothing new here to what the House managers have been saying.”
Moving the goalposts in Trump’s defense seems to be becoming a regular thing for Barrasso. On Friday, I wrote about how he did the same thing regarding an audio recording that indicates Trump was lying about his relationship with Lev Parnas, Rudy Giuliani’s former fixer and a central figure in the Ukraine scheme.
It’s no longer surprising that Republicans are willing to contradict themselves and to endure cognitive dissonance to defend Trump. After all, many of them spent the first week of the impeachment trial complaining that Democrats weren’t presenting new evidence, ignoring that they began the trial by voting to prevent Democrats from presenting new evidence.
But if they’re willing to put their heads in the sand in response to an account from a former administration official that indicates Trump is guilty of what he’s being accused of, it raises the question of what (if anything) Republicans wouldn’t defend.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.