Normal view

Received — 29 October 2023 wallabag — unread feed

Killer Carbonara, Straight from the Source

29 October 2023 at 20:26
estimated reading time: 7 min

Killer Carbonara, Straight from the Source

The dining room at Roscioli in New York.
The upstairs dining room at Roscioli doubles as a grocery store.Photographs by Morgan Levy for The New Yorker

If you’ve ever been a tourist in Rome, odds are that someone has exhorted you to visit Roscioli. The family of businesses includes the original Antico Forno Roscioli, situated in a two-hundred-year-old bakery; Salumeria Roscioli, a deli-style-grocery-cum-restaurant; Roscioli Caffe e Pasticceria, home to the TikTok-famous maritozzi cream bun; and Rimessa Roscioli, a sleek, wine-focussed dining room. If you’ve made the pilgrimage to any of these locations, you’re likely to have been confronted with a horde of other tourists following similar advice. All of you have lined up together, in pursuit of what has been described as the best pizza in Rome, the best salumeria, the best pasta. I’ve never been to Rome, so I can’t weigh in on the worthiness of that endeavor, but now Roscioli has come to New York. There are no lines down the block just yet, though competition for tables on Resy is fierce.

Roscioli
43 MacDougal St.
Tasting menu $130; à-la-carte dishes $8-$60

The New York Roscioli is a collaboration between Alessandro Pepe, the head sommelier of Rimessa Roscioli, and Ariel Arce, a New York City restaurateur who has a knack for serving wine—an act that, even at its most scintillating, is always at least thirty per cent tedious—in a way that feels urgent and alive. At her now-closed SoHo restaurant Niche Niche, which occupied the space that now houses Roscioli, Arce adhered to a “dinner party” format, with diners served nightly set menus of food-and-wine pairings, at strikingly affordable all-inclusive prices, that showed off a particular producer or region or theme. Famous sommeliers would come through to show off rare selections, legendary cellars would be raided for no better reason than it was a Wednesday, and it was New York, and why the hell not. The wine was great, but, more important, it was selected for you, which robbed it of its powers of intimidation—all that was left was pure enjoyment. In 2021, Niche Niche played host to Rimessa Roscioli for a week of Rome-themed suppers, and from there a partnership was born.

The downstairs dining room at the new Roscioli continues that whole wine-soaked-dinner-party vibe. You arrive at your table and are immediately handed a drink, which gives way to a parade of predetermined courses, and a parallel parade of Italian wines to match. (At a hundred and thirty dollars per person, it remains an almost disorientingly good bargain.) On a recent visit, the opening course was panzanella—the tomatoes semi-roasted, to condense their flavor into a reminder of the Dionysian sweetnesses of late summer. It landed on the table along with a heap of mortadella, sliced whisper-thin, and a plate bearing a milky blob of burrata, doused in golden olive oil and studded with more of those concentrated tomatoes. “We fly the burrata in from Puglia,” my server said, as he set down the plate of cheese, and then laughed. “No, seriously, could you imagine the carbon footprint?” The Roman location of Roscioli is a temple to the abundance of Italy; in New York, thanks to import restrictions and logistical impracticalities, the focus has to be on quality rather than provenance. The burrata, warm as breath, bloomed against my knife into a river of sweet cream. The wine, a leaf-yellow Asprinio di Aversa, was frizzy and sharp—like the best pairings, it made everything on the table taste better, brighter, more alive.

The downstairs dining room at Roscioli in New York.
Downstairs is a tasting room offering a set menu of dishes and a parade of Italian wines to match.
The food shop at Roscioli.
The shelves upstairs are lined with jarred sauces and vegetables preserved sott’olio.

The rhythm of a restaurant changes when everyone in the dining room is eating the same things simultaneously. The kitchen moves quickly, in a practiced choreography, and there are none of the lags or pauses necessitated by a dozen different orders coming in at different times, as in a standard à-la-carte dining room. It’s exhilarating and energetic, at first—a propulsive rat-a-tat of activity as the appetizers are swapped out for an impossibly buttery saffron risotto, then an all-time tremendous rendition of pasta carbonara, in which fried slivers of guanciale crackled like tiny morsels of chicharron in the funky-rich emulsion of the sauce. And then, all at once—maybe it was the mood, maybe it was the wine, maybe the pasta was so wonderful that all my circuits blew out—it all seemed like too much, too fast. I craved the pause of a kitchen in the weeds, the welcome breather of a lull between courses. When the next dish came—a meatball (soft, mild) atop a dollop of polenta (mild, soft)—I could hardly bring myself to take a second bite. I wanted to close my eyes. I wanted to hide in the bathroom and do a crossword puzzle on my phone. In a way, it’s a testament to the success of the dinner-party model: this is exactly how I feel after about ninety minutes at the table in someone else’s home. I wanted to skip dessert completely (tiramisu and a lovely little cannoli, with a perfectly silly glass of Moscato) and slip into the kitchen to eat more carbonara straight from the stove.

The carbonara at Roscioli.
The Roman pastas on the menu include a superior version of carbonara.

In early October, Roscioli opened its “upstairs”—a street-level space—where meals adhere to a more familiar rhythm. There’s an à-la-carte menu, and a shop-the-pantry conceit that harks back to the whole dinner-in-a-deli vibe of its Roman progenitor. The walls are lined with shelves bearing packages of dried pasta, bottles of vinegars and oils, and jars of honey and prepared sauces and Italian vegetables preserved sott’olio. Customers eating at a long counter in the back face a glass case of cheeses, meats, breads, and condiments. Everything is for sale, grocery store-style; almost everything is also available to order as components of a wide-ranging menu. That molten puddle of honey in which you dipped a piece of salt-flecked focaccia; those oil-cured heads of puntarelle, with their ghostly bitterness and alien curls; even the caciocavallo, a cheese aged in a clay pot that must be dramatically shattered to get to the pleasures within, are all available to take home, as souvenirs, or trophies. Even without a reservation, you can walk in and shop the provisions of the alimentari (or order online, with in-person pickup). The contents of Alessandro Pepe’s extensive Italian wine list (from which the downstairs pairings are drawn) are not for sale directly, though you can get a few bottles by joining the Roscioli Wine Club, a work-around for restrictive retail-spirits laws.

That unreal carbonara is available upstairs, thank God, as are other holy Roman pastas. All’amatriciana (with guanciale and tomatoes) is tart and bright. Cacio e pepe (cheese and pepper) is saved from predictability, and mac-and-cheese adjacency, with the use of springy fresh tagliolini in lieu of more conventional dried noodles. The menu, a wide-ranging tour of Roman classics and modern Romanesque creations, seems designed for grazing: a bite of oxtail-stuffed supplì (fried balls of arborio rice—like arancini, except oblong, and from Rome rather than Sicily); a forkful of paper-thin zucchini fried with mint; a bit of cheese; a bit of prosciutto. I was especially enchanted by a tasting of tunas—crudos of belly and loin, paired with two different oil-cured versions, each form of the fish enhancing the preciousness of every other.

Homemade pasta at Roscioli.
Homemade pasta makes a surprising appearance in Roscioli’s cacio e pepe.
A dining table set in front of a shelf of pantry items for sale at Roscioli.
Even without a reservation, you can walk in and shop for provisions.

There was something ineffable—not quite a je ne sais quoi, more like non so che cosa—about the offhand elegance of the place. The tables in the upstairs space are awkwardly cramped, and the room is glaringly loud, with conversations seeming to ricochet off the jars on the walls. But it’s an energizing, convivial cacophony. Servers hand out samples of interesting sausages, or climb onto a banquette to reach a particular bottle of oil from a high shelf. Dishes like lamb tartare, with crispy fried capers and an earthy artichoke aioli, or fried baccalà (fresh cod), over a swirl of ultra-floral red-pepper cream, have the easy, sexy lightness of an unplanned meal eaten late: lunch at four, or dinner at eleven, too many glasses of wine, a taxi home. Is it just like being in Rome? I couldn’t tell you. But it’s absolutely just like being in New York. ♦

Received — 26 October 2023 wallabag — unread feed

Trump’s Four Latest Criminal Defenses, Each More Absurd Than the Last

26 October 2023 at 09:11
estimated reading time: 8 min

With alleged accomplices flipping left and right, it’s been a rough week for Donald Trump. On Tuesday, though, Trump’s attorneys looked to turn that momentum around, filing three additional motions to dismiss the Jack Smith–led federal prosecution of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The legal filings offer a fascinating preview of Trump’s potential defenses in the Washington prosecution brought by the special counsel. Will it work? Almost certainly not. Legal experts say the arguments are almost certain to fail to result in dismissal of the case, and in many ways, Trump’s defenses are outright absurd. Former federal prosecutor and impeachment expert Frank Bowman called the dismissal motions “an embarrassing goulash of mischaracterized facts and inverted logic, not to speak of misapplied legal citations.”

How bad are Trump’s latest motions for dismissal—and thus his possible defenses at trial? At one point, Trump’s attorneys literally argue who’s to say what’s true and what’s not true in regards to Trump’s (untrue) claim that the election was stolen. That claim, remember, underpins the entire case. “Bottom line on all of this stuff is that it’s so bad from a legal perspective that some of it comes close to being sanctionable by the court,” Bowman said.

Here’s a quick look at some of the most ridiculous and grotesque arguments for Trump’s innocence made by his legal team in these latest filings.

Argument 1: You Can’t Prove That the Election Wasn’t Stolen

This is the argument that takes the cake—and is likely in there almost exclusively for the satisfaction of the client. One of Trump’s motions to dismiss rests on the premise that he’s being persecuted for unpopular—but First Amendment–protected—political speech. That claim rests on the notion that none of the actions he and his alleged co-conspirators took to try to overturn the election went beyond such protected speech, a debatable premise at best.

Here, though, is where Trump’s lawyers truly go off the rails. They state that there’s no way to prove that Trump’s claims about a stolen election were even false, and so therefore all of his actions could have been taken to secure the sanctity of, not warp, the 2020 election.

From the motion (emphasis mine):

Claims about the integrity of the 2020 Presidential election—including claims that the election was “rigged” and/or “stolen,” or that fraud and irregularities tainted the outcome in certain States or across the Nation … constitute … core political speech … that is not readily verifiable or falsifiable. Thus, they lie at the heartland of the First Amendment’s protection, and the federal government may not dictate whether such claims are true or false—nor prosecute the purveyors of the allegedly “false” views.

This is especially true because claims that the 2020 Presidential election was “rigged” or tainted by fraud and irregularity … do not involve “easily verifiable facts.” … Such claims require the assessment of mountains of information from which each person will draw competing inferences based on facts as well as their personal, deep-seated political views and presuppositions. They are not readily verifiable or falsifiable.

Bowman summed up this legal claim: “There is, apparently, no such thing as reality.”

Trump’s premise here is that because he used the bully pulpit to convince large segments of the country of the lie that he won the 2020 election, which he lost, the position is now debatable and any actions he took to turn that “big lie” into political reality were protected by the First Amendment. The motion states:

This is why Americans’ opinions on these issues are profoundly divided, very much to this day. The First Amendment does not permit the prosecution to dictate what is “true” and what is “false” on such broad, vigorously disputed, politically charged questions—especially not in the context of a criminal prosecution that effectively seeks to criminalize a political viewpoint shared by over 100 million Americans.

Bowman summarized this position as “a testament to the fact that Trump and the right-wing media complex have—astonishingly—managed to convince a segment of the population that the crime Trump committed in plain sight was not really a crime.” He concluded that this idea that there is no such thing as the truth is “not a proposition that the law can admit. At least, I hope not.”

Argument 2: Trump Is the Subject of a Witch Hunt Led by Joe Biden

One of Trump’s latest motions to dismiss focuses exclusively on the notion that this is a “selective prosecution” orchestrated by President Joe Biden as a means of taking out a top political rival, i.e., a witch hunt. From the motion:

This prosecution is also driven by an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose: Biden’s publicly stated objective is to use the criminal justice system to incapacitate President Trump, his main political rival and the leading candidate in the upcoming election.

If the case is not dismissed, Trump’s legal team is asking that a hearing be held to subject members of the prosecution to direct examination as to whether or not they are “witch hunters.”

The problem for Trump is that the bar for proving such a political prosecution is … very high.

“Trump will have to establish that 1) others similarly situated could have been prosecuted but were not and 2) that the government’s selection of him for prosecution was motivated by insidious intent. It is an almost-impossible-to-meet standard,” said Norman L. Eisen, a former special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment.

To demonstrate Trump’s claim of a witch hunt, the defense points to a pair of Trump’s Truth Social posts, as well as two mainstream news articles reporting that, behind the scenes, Biden was frustrated that Attorney General Merrick Garland took so long to put Trump in the sights of federal prosecutors. But these articles—and the defense—offer no evidence that Biden meddled in the prosecution, or even had any contact with Garland over it. (Biden’s comments that Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, which were anonymously sourced, were reportedly made privately to members of his “inner circle.” The New York Times article cited by Trump’s legal team explicitly says, “The president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland.”)

Another comment cited in the motion references Biden as saying, “I’m making sure he, under legitimate efforts of our Constitution, does not become the next President again.” The motion claims that Biden’s statement was in reference to prosecuting Trump, but that claim has been fact-checked by the Associated Press as false.

“The quoted statements seem pretty plainly to refer to beating Trump in the next election,” Bowman said. “There is no evidence Biden has interfered in the DOJ’s decisionmaking.”

Argument 3: Trump’s Impeachment Means He’s Protected by Double Jeopardy

I covered a version of this argument after Trump’s legal team first made it in a previous motion to dismiss earlier this month, but Trump’s attorneys make it a primary focus of one of the new motions to dismiss, stating:

The government—through Congress—already put President Trump on trial once, placing him in jeopardy for an alleged criminal offense arising from the same course of conduct alleged in the indictment. Having failed to obtain a conviction, President Trump’s acquittal in the United States Senate must stand, and the prosecution may not seek a retrial in this forum.

As I wrote earlier, this is the opposite of what Trump’s legal team stated when he won that acquittal in the Senate. Then, they claimed the appropriate venue for accountability for Jan. 6 was the criminal justice system and not an impeachment of a former president and private citizen. Here, though, Trump’s team goes a step further, saying that he has already been tried via impeachment and can’t be tried again.

“The double-jeopardy claim is comical,” noted Bowman, who wrote a 478-page comprehensive history of impeachment. “It mischaracterizes the impeachment clauses and rests on the wholly incorrect notion that impeachments are criminal proceedings that trigger double-jeopardy protections.”

Argument 4: Trump’s “Stop the Steal” Campaign Did Not Constitute “Deceit or Trickery”

This one is a little wonky, but the bottom line is that one of the statutes Trump is charged under—conspiracy to defraud the United States—demands a showing that the criminal action be taken with the purpose of “deceit or trickery.” Trump argues that he had no such purpose and that, even if he had, there’s no way that little old he could have possibly been responsible for convincing anyone of anything during his efforts to strong-arm officials into overturning the election results. As the lawyers write:

To assert that President Trump, as one voice among countless millions, was somehow capable of unilaterally “tricking” or “deceiving” these individuals, who include some of the most informed politicians on the planet, simply by advocating his opinions on this contentious issue, is beyond absurd.

As anyone who might have lived through that period would know, it is not absurd.

Ultimately, the defense goulash rests on the premise that Trump did nothing wrong and is a victim of political persecution, without offering any evidence of either. No serious prosecutor thinks that this will go well for him.

“The evidence that has been unearthed during the past year is simply overwhelming,” said Marty London, the defense attorney who negotiated Spiro Agnew’s plea deal with federal prosecutors when Agnew was vice president. “The rats are abandoning the sinking ship. And the ship will sink, I believe, and the big rat will go down with it.”

❌