The PointConversations and insights about the moment.

The defense got more than a tongue-lashing. After lunch, Merchan turned to the jurors and told them why they had to ignore this sneaky move — not a good final look for the defense.

In his three-hour closing argument, Blanche gave jurors a few places to explore reasonable doubt but mostly swung wildly and set up the prosecution for better arguments in the afternoon.

My favorite dumb moment: “Guess who else you did not hear from in this trial?” Blanche asked. “Don and Eric. Is there some allegation that they are part of a conspiracy?” No, counselor, but the jury will likely wonder why the defense called Robert Costello, who was destroyed on cross-examination, instead of Trump’s own sons.

Blanche huffed and puffed to discredit the two possible “smoking guns” offered by the prosecution. The first consists of the scrawled notes of Allen Weisselberg, former financial head of the Trump Organization, breaking down the $420,000 that Trump paid Cohen in 2017. Weisselberg wrote “gross it up” in reference to doubling the $130,000 in hush money for tax purposes. That “is a lie,” Blanche said, using a word he would employ more than 30 times in his closing argument, to diminishing effect.

But it wasn’t a lie. The former controller of the Trump Organization had confirmed on the stand that the numbers and “gross it up” were in Weisselberg’s own hand.

The other smoking gun involves a call Cohen taped, during which Trump said “150” in reference to the hush money for Karen McDougal. While trying and — to my mind — failing to establish that Cohen’s phone was tampered with, Blanche played the tape and challenged the idea that Trump even said “150” and that Trump saying “cash” on the tape had anything to do with hush money. Jurors will presumably listen to the tape and decide for themselves. Believe me, you can hear “150.”

Blanche ended his closing argument by telling jurors that if they focus on the evidence, “this is a very easy and quick not-guilty.” Insulting the jury’s intelligence? Not smart.

This is insultingly and obviously untrue. As the longtime Trump aide Hope Hicks testified about that moment in the 2016 campaign, “I think there was consensus among us all that the tape was damaging, and this was a crisis.”

We now know that a critical mass of voters doesn’t care about Trump’s misogyny and predation, but we didn’t know that then. One job of the prosecution, which begins closing arguments Tuesday afternoon, will be to take the jury back to a more innocent time before Trump’s election, when people still imagined there were Republicans with a capacity for shame.

Blanche’s argument has been internally inconsistent. First, he insisted that Trump, being busy as president, didn’t always look at the checks he signed. Then, trying to discredit the idea that Trump would reimburse Cohen $420,000 for a $130,000 payment — which Cohen has claimed was grossed up to include taxes and a bonus — Blanche pointed to “all the evidence you heard about how closely President Trump watches his finances.”

During a long digression about the National Enquirer’s practice of “catching and killing” stories, he insisted that there had never been a “catch and kill” plot involving the Playboy model Karen McDougal, implying, I think, that her deal with the publication was on the level. “She wanted to be on the cover of magazines, she wanted to write articles,” Blanche, said and that’s what she did.

Obviously, I have no idea what the jury is thinking. But given the implausibility of the narrative that Trump’s defense is spinning, it just seems weird that Blanche is invoking Occam’s razor.

The central government in Madrid responded by dismissing the Catalan government, imposing direct rule. Two years later, under the current left-wing government of Pedro Sánchez, Spain sentenced nine Catalan independence leaders to prison on charges of sedition, though they were later pardoned. This year the lower house of the Spanish Parliament voted to grant amnesty to those involved in the 2017 campaign as part of a deal to prop up Sánchez’s government, despite a Senate veto. Seventy percent of the Spanish public opposes the amnesty.

Catalans aren’t the only ethnic minority in Spain that has sought independence, only to encounter violent suppression. In the 1980s the Spanish Interior Ministry under a socialist government responded to the long-running Basque separatist movement with state-sponsored death squads, notoriously responsible for a string of kidnappings, tortures and assassinations. The Spanish government called the separatists terrorists — as indeed some were — though their tactics look tame compared with Hamas’s. By the time the conflict ended in 2011, it had claimed more than 1,000 lives.

Spain possesses two cities on the African continent, Ceuta and Melilla, both of which are claimed by Morocco and have been stormed by African migrants seeking entry into the European Union. They are protected by extensive border fences and fortifications strikingly reminiscent of Israel’s breached border fence with Gaza.

There are many other independence movements throughout Europe, from Scotland to Flanders to Corsica and the Balkans. Many of these movements tend to have affinities with Palestinians, for reasons that are obvious. More difficult to explain are governments that suppress independence seekers at home while applauding those abroad. Some might call it deflection. To others, it looks like hypocrisy.

This system wrote off poor students who might have benefited from exposure to new material and denied well-prepared children the opportunity to forge ahead in their studies. Not surprisingly, the policy failed to achieve its central goal, which was to close racial gaps in the taking of advanced math courses. Chastened by parental outrage, San Francisco reversed course.

Only about a quarter of American students study algebra in eighth grade. That proportion needs to grow. Fortunately a few states, including North Carolina and Texas, are adopting systems under which children who meet specified performance levels on state exams are automatically channeled into advanced math classes.

In Dallas there are no hoops to jump through. As The Dallas Morning News reported last year, young people no longer have to wait for counselors to recommend them or for parents who know little about how schools operate to sign them up. Students who were unaware that honors courses even existed are now being enrolled.

The gravest challenge facing the country today is redressing the devastating learning losses that children suffered during the Covid pandemic. Among other things, solving this problem will mean equipping teachers to manage classrooms that include students of different preparation levels.

One new study offers reason for optimism. It shows that students who would ordinarily be tracked into remedial work can perform well in algebra classes that include higher-performing peers — and experience broader academic success — when teachers are trained to handle heterogeneous groups and are given more time to prepare.

Trump went on and on about the local landmarks he had worked to renovate and the big ol’ buildings he built, and he could not stop talking about his dealings with the city’s rough and tough contractors. “These are killers!” he gushed. “By comparison, talking to world leaders is, I believe, easier.” Or how about this bit of schmaltz? “I knew that if I could build a skyscraper in Manhattan, I could do anything.”

These tales of his past heroism and genius tended to be rambling to the point of incoherent and probably confused many people with their utter irrelevance to the presidential race at hand. But the guy was obviously having so much fun with them, he was practically glowing.

This was all history according to Trump, of course, meaning his many and varied business failures didn’t make the cut. The whole display was kinda goofy. But it was also a shrewd play to New Yorkers’ sense of exceptionalism.

The dark side of this was Trump’s false hyperbole about how his beloved city has become a dirty, crime-ridden hellhole — that only he can fix, of course. Which goes for the rest of the nation as well, he told the crowd: “If a New Yorker can’t save this country, no one can.”

Aww. How adorable. But what this country really needs is someone to save it from this particular New Yorker.

So here she is, performing her genuflection — despite having called Trump “totally unhinged,” despite her expressions of disgust at his fealty to Vladimir Putin, despite dozens of ways in which Trump contradicts her putative convictions, despite having warned us emphatically that another Trump presidency would be ruinous folly. Never mind! She has personal ambitions to attend to, a future to blaze.

In a post on Truth Social a week and a half ago, Trump stated that he was not considering Haley as his choice for vice president. But he would hardly feel bound by that. He wants to win, period. If she’s the way, it would be her all the way.

She’s not, though. Many of the Republican primary voters who chose her over Trump aren’t likely to follow her into the Trump camp. They were opposing and defying him more than they were supporting and deifying her, and they would recoil from the stench of rank opportunism surrounding a Haley-Trump partnership.

While she arguably complements Trump, she inarguably complicates his anti-establishment message. Picking her would be in cynical league with presidential politics as usual. What’s more, the media coverage of her vice-presidential candidacy would be dominated by her past denunciations of Trump, by all the U-turns and switchbacks on the rocky road of their relationship. It’s not the story line he wants.

He’d be wise, though, to figure out some other prize to dangle before her. You never know when she might wobble in an unhelpful direction.

“Donald Trump disrespecting Black folk is nothing new,” a male voice, clearly Black-coded, booms in the spot, following a 1989 clip of Trump saying, “Of course I hate these people,” referring to the Central Park Five, who were wrongly convicted.

He was sued for refusing to rent his apartments to Black families, and called for the execution of five innocent Black and brown teenagers.

It’s why Trump stood with violent white supremacists, warned of a blood bath if he loses the next election, and if he is president again vowed to be a dictator who wants revenge on his enemies.

Now, who do you think that is?

Black voters are more likely to support Biden than voters of any other race. But polls in recent months have suggested that support may be softening, especially among Black men.

Heavy-handed ads like this one from the Biden campaign might help reacquaint lower-information Black voters (but especially men) with Trump’s loathsome racial attitudes. There’s value in that, particularly in what could be a very close election.

And yet, most Black voters already hold strong negative views of Trump and have no trouble recognizing his abhorrent views on race. The possibility that a sizable portion of these voters are considering voting for Trump anyway should provoke a flurry of soul-searching in the Democratic Party, as well as outreach and relationship building.

Black voters appear to be at least somewhat open to the idea of finding a new political home. The real task before the Biden campaign, and the Democratic Party, is to give them good reasons to stay. That’s something no 30-second spot can buy.

When the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic subpoenaed those emails, it found that Morens advised his colleagues to avoid oversight requirements and that he intimated he would delete emails related to Covid origins.

Many of those conversations involved EcoHealth Alliance — a nonprofit that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, often criticized for its risky research and lax biosafety standards — and Peter Daszak, EcoHealth’s president. The Trump administration had terminated an EcoHealth grant, but as these emails showed, Morens was working to reverse that decision. (The termination was eventually reversed, but last week the Biden administration barred EcoHealth from all federal funding, after a hearing in which the organization was scorched by lawmakers from both parties for misrepresenting its work with Chinese virologists.)

After Morens rebuffed the committee’s request for a voluntary interview, it subpoenaed him to testify.

Morens told the committee he used a private email account because he was merely trying to avoid having his personal correspondence with Daszak, whom he described as a longtime friend, become public information. However, the subpoenaed emails revealed Morens advised Daszak on how to publicly respond to the termination of EcoHealth’s grant and demeaned other scientists who worried about biosafety lapses.

Morens wrote to Daszak, “We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did, we wouldn’t put them in emails, and if we found them we would delete them.”

Representative Raul Ruiz, a physician who is the committee’s ranking Democrat, told Morens his actions were a “stain on the legacy” of his colleagues. Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, read email after email from Morens on his avoidance techniques and snapped, “When you say, ‘Oh, I didn’t know this. I didn’t intentionally use my Gmail,’ are you kidding me?”

Morens replied to that and many other pointed questions with a version of “I don’t remember,” drawing strong rebukes from members of both parties.

The only way to reassure the public that smoking guns weren’t deleted is proper transparency.

He also spoke about bumping into his former students in Beijing, including at church during an Easter Sunday Mass.

“There’s a point in the Catholic Mass where you turn to the person beside you when you say, ‘Peace be with you,’” he recalled. “I turned to my left and before I could say anything, this young woman said: ‘Professor Burns, peace be with you. I was in your Great Powers class in 2014.’”

It struck me as he spoke that it is a fortuitous thing that our man in Beijing has personal relationships with some of China’s best and brightest. When ties between the two governments get strained to the brink, he can still see his Chinese counterparts as human beings, with all the complexity and nuance that entails.

It also means that he knows what’s at stake when negotiating agreements with China, including the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement, which has been the basis of scientific cooperation since 1979. That pact, which was once renewed every five years without much debate, has been living on life support, with short-term six-month extensions.

There are good reasons to renegotiate it, and the terms of the U.S.-China relationship itself. China has changed, and we must change, too. But let’s work to preserve what we can of these people-to-people ties and make sure that our interactions are characterized by knowledge of one another, and ideally, mutual respect.

Live Nation functions both as the middleman and the supplier for a concert’s needs — shuttling both concertgoers and musicians to its own venues, vendors and promoters, while setting the prices and fees as it sees fit. In a news conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland, also a Swiftie, said “it is time to restore competition and innovation in the entertainment industry.”

The net effect of this is an industry strangled by a parasite. We all know how frustrating the concert-ticket experience is for consumers, but the effects of this monopoly on performers is also often disastrous. The musician Clyde Lawrence wrote a guest essay for The Times in 2022 about how the company’s perverse incentives were able to take a cut of nearly every one of his band’s revenue streams. He said if someone paid $42 to Ticketmaster to see his band, Lawrence, perform, the band ended up with $6.

Today’s suit against Live Nation appears to be part of the Biden administration’s broader antitrust playbook, which chooses targets for antitrust suits based on issues like market structure and capacity for innovation, rather than just exorbitant prices. Yes, the “Ticketmaster tax” is high, but the true target of the suit is the power that this company exercises over a large majority of the concert experience. Breaking up Live Nation, as the suit prescribes, might stimulate competition in an industry that has had too little of it for far too long.

Until then, as Olivia Rodrigo would put it, “God, it’s brutal out here.”

But part of the reason I wrote a good deal about this topic is that, to me, it always seemed the after-the-loss phase would be much less interesting for Haley and almost everyone else in the Republican field. Most of the failed candidates would probably say they were voting for Trump, as most Republican officials you can think of have been saying they would do for years — and the far more active issue would be that Trump would be the nominee.

The value proposition was entirely in winning and moving past the Trump era by default. Haley wanted to win, she didn’t, she probably wants to run again as a Republican, and here she is preserving some optionality. That’s probably profoundly disappointing to some people who were invested in her campaign. Maybe they had hoped she would just never say anything about voting this year, as it’s not eight years ago; a lot of dark stuff has happened since 2016.

Haley, as a political figure, is not especially focused on moral cases. The larger ones she made against Trump centered on electability and Ukraine in an ideological sense. Even in the late stages of her presidential campaign, she did not frame her criticism of Trump around Jan. 6 or anything similar but more around his recent behavior.

This is a practical politician who is used to winning and seemed to envision a fusion path to victory that didn’t quite congeal. There are various reasons for that. One is that the segment of Republican voters who want to move past the Trump era is just a small fraction of the party. That might make her a bit of an inverse Pat Buchanan 30 years later, articulating the opposite ideological view and representing only a quarter of the party — the bookend to an era that’s really over or the faint strands of a different era we’ll be able to see only long in the future.

In response to questions about what they were doing to protect Jewish students, the presidents produced responses only a very bad lawyer could love. You had to wonder what kinds of questions they had expected. They certainly weren’t brought there for their scholarly expertise, little of which was on display anyway. It seemed more likely that they were there so that critics of academia — particularly those on the right — could score one very big point. The presidents played along beautifully, if unwittingly. Only one of them still has her job.

In April, Nemat Shafik, the president of Columbia, came much better prepared, clearly determined not to make the same mistakes. But her testimony, though it pleased her interrogators, might have been even more damaging. Dutifully reassuring Representative Rick Allen, Republican of Georgia, that no, she definitely did not want “Columbia University to be cursed by God,” eagerly agreeing to punish outspoken faculty members in defiance of the institution’s rules for due process, Dr. Shafik — who capped her testimony by summoning the New York Police Department to dismantle the encampments and arrest scores of protesters — looked like someone frantically throwing ballast overboard to keep from sinking. Well, it worked. For now, she still has her job.

Today’s witnesses, and those who follow, need a better way to navigate this moment. Because critics in Congress have a winning formula, and they’re not going to tire of it any time soon.

And it’s not just New Yorkers: A new report by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health shows that 17.7 million people are using marijuana daily or nearly every day, which is three million more than those who report the same frequency of drinking alcohol.

No, marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as other Schedule 1 substances like heroin. But our understanding of the health effects of very frequent cannabis use is still unsettled. Most of us can accept it’s generally not good to be recreationally consuming mind-altering substances every day.

This week, Maia Szalavitz argued in Times Opinion for balanced policies regulating the probable federal legalization of marijuana. I’d add that we need to think deeper about a psychological balance for our society. It’s wonderful to see marijuana use destigmatized and decriminalized. But it feels as though New York City is tripping over itself to sell us the idea that the whole world is toking up now — and that you should be, too.

How our neighborhoods look should be defined by the things we do and the services we need every day. Having every dry cleaner I know replaced by a front for weed isn’t making our day-to-day lives better.

In the short term, these diplomatic recognitions from fellow democracies will not move the Israeli public, Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, told me. In the wake of the horrific murders, rapes and kidnappings perpetrated by Hamas on Oct. 7, he said, Europeans telling Israel that it must accept a Palestinian state — “without even mentioning that it must be demilitarized or any obligations on the part of Palestinians to reject Hamas” — will be “rejected” by the Israeli silent majority.

In the long term, though, it is precisely these kinds of diplomatic shocks that could lead the opposition leaders in Israel to finally escape from the gravitational pull of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who dominates what is or is not permissible to say on this subject — and start calling for two states on terms Israel can live with. One can already see signs of that.

If that does not transpire, though, Israel is heading for a world of hurt. Those recognitions of a Palestinian state by European nations “are a huge straw in the wind, that will grow into a hurricane if Israel does not change course,” Craig Charney, a pollster who was a member of Nelson Mandela’s polling team in the 1990s, told me.

Charney explained that the isolation of South Africa’s apartheid regime started with a voluntary arms embargo in the 1960s, which after the Soweto uprising morphed in the 1970s into a formal U.N. arms embargo, which grew into a popular cause on campuses and in boardrooms in the early 1980s, which grew into a broader economic, military and travel embargo in the mid-1980s — until two great leaders, Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk, finally emerged to end apartheid. “But it was a very painful journey,” he said.

It was clear in Trump’s first presidential campaign that this level of cartoonish outrageousness would help him get the attention he craved. As Jim Rutenberg of The Times wrote in 2018, the campaign law never stopped Trump or other Republican candidates from advertising blatant lies and overt racism; being crudely aggressive and openly authoritarian, in fact, had become a useful tool.

Former Representative David Price of North Carolina, an architect of the “stand by your ad” provision in 2002, summed up the new attitude this way 16 years later: “I’m the baddest, meanest, most politically incorrect guy in town and will say whatever pops into my head and I regard that as a political virtue.”

The “stand by your ad” law couldn’t prevent this attitude, but if it had been more effective, it might at least have spared the country the embarrassing spectacle of blaming bad ads on some low-level staff member somewhere. In 2015, when Trump retweeted a dumb post mocking Iowa voters for preferring Ben Carson, he later deleted the tweet and put full responsibility on an intern, who he said had apologized. (Trump himself, of course, almost never apologizes.)

In the case of the Reich video, the campaign said it was created by a “random account online” and reposted “by a staffer,” though the posting was done in Trump’s own name. (The campaign took it down the next day, after the inevitable outcry.) Too bad Congress didn’t prohibit blaming the help for a candidate’s deeply offensive messages.

Inside the courtroom, my go-to guy is Judge George Grasso, retired from the New York bench, who is attending the trial as a spectator.

“This judge is evenhanded,” Grasso told me at the end of the day. “He makes rulings sometimes for the benefit of one side, sometimes for the other. He’s very careful on the facts and everyone has the opportunity to be heard. Even if he’s decided already,” Grasso said, referring to pretrial motions, “he’s willing to listen.”

I got up to leave but Grasso, a former deputy New York police commissioner, wasn’t finished yet, adding: “To attack him is to attack the rule of law.”

Merchan’s Solomonic nature was in evidence Tuesday as he discussed with lawyers for both sides how he will instruct the jury.

On the critical issue of “accessorial liability” — how responsible Trump should be given his distance from the Trump Organization’s bookkeeping department — Merchan said he would instruct the jurors that they “need not to be unanimous on whether the defendant” is liable on each element of the case, though they do have to be unanimous on the overall verdict. This was a win for the prosecution. So was his ruling that the jury will be instructed that “intent to defraud can extend beyond economic concerns.”

At the same time, Merchan seemed to be leaning toward the defense in limiting how far the prosecution could go in pushing accessorial liability. When the district attorney’s office sought to broaden the concept, Merchan said that would mean a “material change” in the state statute and he would not use it in his instructions. And he reserved judgment on the extent to which Trump’s violations of tax laws can be brought into the case.

We won’t know until later this week exactly what the judge’s instructions to the jury will be. But we do know this: When you trash a judge like Merchan, you’re trashing America.

As Crockett told me, “It triggered me because MAGA is constantly on social media doing all these wild memes about my lashes and talking about my nails.” She continued, “They call me ghetto trash and D.E.I. hire.”

Greene, in that moment, became the personification of her online harassment, Crockett said.

“I interpreted that as not, ‘oh girl, you don’t need to wear lashes because you’re more than enough and you’re beautiful,’” she said, “I interpreted that as, ‘you’re basically like, oh, you ghetto piece of trash.’”

So, Crockett shot back with her one insult about Greene’s appearance, asking the committee chairman, “I’m just curious, just to better understand your ruling, if someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach-blonde, bad-built, butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?”

The alliteration became a viral sensation. People made songs about it. Crockett herself is making apparel featuring the phrase, and she moved to trademark the term.

Crockett has gained a reputation for producing such moments. But the incident also speaks to the nature of the modern Congress, in which spectacle generates its own form of power, in which being a social media clip star is just as important as being an advancer of legislation.

This is not to defend Greene in any way. She is a bully who has proved to be a bona fide stunt queen, exploiting outrage for personal advancement. I think Crockett was right when she told me, “People have really been waiting on someone to put her in her place, because she’s been so out of place and so outlandish this entire time.”

And yet, going toe to toe and tit for tat with someone like Greene is also to descend into chaos, and ultimately into indecorous absurdities, because that is precisely where Greene is most comfortable.

Even Crockett concedes that the clipbait-ification of Congress is a bad thing, saying, “I really dislike that social media and virality is playing a part in legislating.”

But she offered an explanation for her own actions: “I don’t try to create these moments, but I think that what’s happening is that Democrats have been craving someone who would be responsive in the moment to misinformation and disinformation and do it in a very forceful way.”

In her view, it is the motivation that matters most: standing for truth vs. standing for institutional and societal degradation.

The problem is that the country has been lied to so often and for so long that many people can only see their party’s representatives on the noble side of that equation.

In response to Johansson’s scathing letter, OpenAI claimed that the voice was someone else and “was never intended to resemble hers,” but it took Sky down anyway.

The A.I. industry is built on grabbing our data — the output that humanity has collectively produced: books, art, music, blog posts, social media, videos — and using it to train their models, from which they then make money or use as they wish. For the most part, A.I. companies haven’t asked or paid the people who created the data they grab and whose actual employment and future are threatened by the models trained on it.

Politicians haven’t stepped in to ask why humanity’s collective output should be usurped and monopolized by a handful of companies. They’ve practically let the industry do what it wants for decades.

I am someone who believes in the true upside of technology, including A.I. But amid all the lofty talk about its transformational power, these companies are perpetuating an information grab, a money grab and a “break the rules and see what we can get away with” mentality that’s worked very well for them for the past few decades.

Altman, it seems, liked Johansson’s voice, so the company made a simulacrum of it. Why not?

When you’re a tech industry star, they let you do anything.

None of that reflected a change of heart or a disavowal of targeted killing as a clandestine tool or any regret outside Iran over the death of Raisi and his foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, who was also killed in the crash. Both were full-blooded members of the Iranian theocracy, dedicated to its ruthless suppression of any dissent and its proxy wars, especially against Israel. Raisi, in fact, was discussed as a likely successor to the 85-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iranian exiles were reported to have celebrated their deaths in London and elsewhere.

But Iran, already deeply enmeshed in the Israeli conflict through its support for Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi rebels in Yemen, only recently risked getting into a major direct war with Israel by launching a massive wave of drones and cruise and ballistic missiles at Israel in retaliation for the bombing of its Damascus embassy. Accusing Israel or the United States of the killing of the Iranian president would have risked a far more fateful exchange, which no one wanted at this juncture.

Besides, Raisi and Amir Abdollahian probably did not figure high on the American or Israeli enemies list, even if the president was a candidate for supreme leadership. However repugnant, both were tools of the theocracy, not architects of the nuclear, regional or domestic policies that they brutally enforced.

The broad consensus in the immediate aftermath of their deaths was that nothing much would change. There were plenty of other hard-liners lined up to succeed Khamenei, including his son Mojtaba Khamenei, and none of them suggested a promising future for Iran. The only immediate question was how many — or, more accurately, how few — Iranians would show up for the “election” of the next president picked by the supreme leader.

These digs are so provocative because the rich and powerful are beholden to few things other than family.

Family motifs carry hip-hop and rap. Rappers are obsessed with whether the women they’re involved with are wifey material. Are they capable of mothering, or are they just hos? The rapper Future, notorious for having seven baby mamas, apparently dreams of domestic bliss. Lil Wayne, Offset, DaBaby and Lamar have all featured family members on album covers. Artists grapple meaningfully with family, whether that family abandoned them or supported them on the come up.

In her 2022 book “Abolish the Family,” Sophie Lewis criticizes family as a norm that “makes a prison for adults — especially women — out of their own commitment to children they love.” But because there is no alternative, family is sacred; this is especially true for Black people.

The traditional family is an untouchable symbol. Women, who bleed more for it, are its figureheads. This is why attacking your competition’s family members — especially his partner or mother — becomes the most potent way to dismantle the honor of a man who appears to have everything.

It’s hardly Drake’s fault that Kendrick Lamar did it better.

Michael Cohen testified earlier that Costello and Rudy Giuliani were assigned by Donald Trump to open a back channel to Cohen to keep him in the Trump fold.

Costello testified before a friendly House subcommittee last week that Cohen was a liar. This apparently impressed Trump and — presto! — Costello was the first important witness the defense called after the prosecution rested.

On direct examination, Costello did next to nothing for the defense beyond landing a few more mostly irrelevant blows on Cohen.

On cross-examination by the prosecution, however, you could almost see steam coming out of Costello’s ears. The temerity of this lowly local female prosecutor asking him questions! Merchan ruled earlier that Costello could testify only on certain subjects. When Merchan sustained several objections from the prosecution and struck a couple of Costello’s answers from the record, Costello decided to play judge.

He muttered “ridiculous” and “strike it” after disliking a question. An enraged Merchan excused the jury and said sharply, “I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom.” He continued, “You don’t say, ‘Geez,’ and you don’t say, ‘Strike it.’ And if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t give me side-eye and roll your eyes.”

Merchan apparently didn’t want reporters to hear the rest of his tongue-lashing and cleared the courtroom.

None of this was good for the defense, which struggled all day to build on Thursday’s success in making Cohen seem he was lying about the purpose of his calls to Trump in late October 2016. Cohen looked bad admitting he passed $20,000 in cash in a paper bag to Red Finch, a tech firm that uses algorithms to rig online polls. But Trump looked even worse by directing Red Finch to cheat his way onto CNBC’s list of the most famous business leaders of the 20th century. Classic Trump.

Jurors may conclude that the whole bunch of ’em are liars and reasonably doubt every word out of all of their mouths. At this point, that may be Trump’s best hope of avoiding conviction.

Hoffinger asked, “Was that a true statement?” Cohen, in his new, polite incarnation, replied, “No, ma’am.” This told the jury: Here goes Cohen, lying again. In other words, because Cohen was such a known liar, it is more plausible than not that he was lying when he said the payment was not a campaign contribution, to protect Trump and himself.

After a sidebar, Justice Juan Merchan turned to the jury and repeated instructions he had already given, during direct examination of Cohen, when the subject of his 2018 guilty plea in the criminal case that sent him to jail for 13 months came up: “Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea is not evidence” of Trump’s guilt.

The judge was basically saying to the jury, “I know you may think these two guys both intended to commit this other crime, but you can’t use Cohen’s guilty plea to convict Trump.”

As Norm Eisen, an expert on campaign finance law, told me during a break, “The jury will listen to the judge, but that’s like saying, ‘Don’t look at the elephant.’”

To emphasize the point further, Hoffinger asked, “Did Mr. Trump approve the substance of these false statements by you?” This brought another “Yes, ma’am.”

The prosecution caught another break when Merchan refused to allow Bradley Smith, a Republican and former chair of the Federal Election Commission, to testify about his conservative interpretation of campaign laws. The judge said if he allowed that testimony — which the defense desperately wants — he would have to let the prosecution call an expert witness with his or her opposing interpretation. Merchan concluded that as judge, it was his job — and his job alone — to interpret how campaign finance law should be regarded by the jury.

All in all, this was an unsexy but significant win for the prosecution.

That has always seemed to me a part of the Israeli operation in Gaza that is particularly difficult to justify. My view is that Israel absolutely had a right to strike Gaza militarily after the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, to destroy Hamas leadership and to try to recover hostages. I have argued that the military operation should have been far more restrained, calibrated to target Hamas officials rather than to level entire neighborhoods, but bombing targets in Gaza was not inherently wrong or unlawful.

What has seemed utterly indefensible has been the constraints placed on aid entering the territory, so that Gaza is teetering on the edge of famine — even as trucks filled with food are lined up at Gaza’s border, waiting to enter. That is what seemed to galvanize the International Criminal Court.

A panel of international experts convened by the International Criminal Court unanimously backed the prosecutor. “Parties to an armed conflict must not deliberately impede the delivery of humanitarian relief for civilians, including humanitarian relief provided by third parties,” the experts said.

I’m not an expert in international humanitarian law, so I’ll leave it to others to argue about whether a prosecution of Netanyahu is justified. But the court’s efforts underscore the moral stain of the starvation in Gaza, in which the United States is complicit.

America’s highest-priority response needn’t be a flurry of legal arguments, but instead could involve a far greater effort — using all the leverage we have — to persuade Israel to allow more aid into Gaza and to ensure that the aid is actually delivered to starving children. Whether or not one agrees that starving children is criminal, it is unconscionable. And preventable.

“We are conducting a thorough inquiry and are in contact with the governments,” the statement read. “We will do everything to prevent a recurrence.”

But by that time, the sheer number of attacks on aid workers and on Gaza civilians seeking aid raised real questions about whether we have been witnessing intentional killings or “reckless incompetence,” as Christopher Lockyear, an official with Doctors Without Borders, noted.

On the side of reckless incompetence, there was that time in December when Israeli soldiers fired on three unarmed men waving white flags — only to discover that they were Israeli hostages who had managed to break free of their captors. At that time, Netanyahu’s office released a statement that called the killings “an unbearable tragedy.” The statement pledged to “learn the lessons” to ensure that it wouldn’t happen again.

How many apologies will be issued and investigations pledged before this God-forsaken war ends? Netanyahu’s list of international apologies keeps growing. But the attacks on Rafah — and the unspeakable suffering of Palestinian civilians — continue.