14 THENEWYORKER, NOVEMBER 4, 2019
OLDWESTDEPT.
WA I T I N GFORKANYE
W
edding horror stories are a dime
a dozen. But can anything beat
having your wedding venue sold right
out from under you, two weeks before
the big day? Lance Arnold and Shyla
Coleman, both registered nurses in
Cody, Wyoming, found themselves in
just this situation, when the ranch they’d
planned to get married on was bought
by Kanye West. For seven months they’d
been organizing a September wedding
in a barn, in the middle of a four-thou-
sand-acre fishing property known as
Monster Lake Ranch, where Lance’s
father, Mike, worked as a caretaker.
Then, the ranch’s owner suddenly sold
the place to West. (The asking price
was fourteen million dollars.)
After an initial panic, the couple
learned that West was keeping Mike Ar-
nold on the payroll; perhaps, with a lit-
tle diplomacy, the wedding could go on
as planned. Lance was a huge Kanye fan;
he had always defended the rapper when
people criticized him for supporting
Donald Trump (“I think it’s refreshing,”
Lance said). But, now, he was worried
about his wedding. “I hope Kanye doesn’t
do something to fuck it up,” he said.
Mike Arnold had only a passing fa-
miliarity with his new boss. “In high
school, Lance would listen to ‘College
Dropout’ in the basement, and I’d yell,
‘Turn that shit off,’ ” he recalled the other
day. “When I found out that Kanye was
buying the ranch, I did a little research,
and I was surprised. Just a few years ago,
he was fifty-three million in debt.” But
as the new owner and his employee got
to know each other (they drove around
the ranch in Mike’s pickup truck, dis-
cussing the water quality), Mike ven-
tured to ask if his son’s wedding was still
in the cards. West said sure.
That settled, the couple faced a new
dilemma: would Kim and Kanye come
to the wedding? A two-day affair, com-
plete with a fly-fishing derby before the
rehearsal dinner, the celebration would
take over the ranch. Attendees would stay
in the guest cabins and in R.V.s parked
on the property. Two locations were off
limits: the West family’s living quarters,
inside the main house, and an old saloon,
which West is said to have been using
as a recording studio. (Last Friday, he
dropped a new album, “Jesus Is King.”)
West, his wife, Kim Kardashian, and their
four children have been enjoying their
new spread. “Wyoming is amazing,” Kar-dashian said on the Emmys’ red carpet.
“It is just so chill, and you can do abso-
lutely nothing. I bring no makeup, and
just my sweats, and hang out.”
The morning before the wedding,
the Wests were nowhere in sight. But,
a few hours later, two black S.U.V.s pulled
into the gravel driveway. That afternoon,
as wedding guests towed rafts down to
the lake for the fly-fishing derby, there
was a full sighting: Kardashian and her
children were seen sitting in an all-ter-
rain vehicle. Her hair was pulled back,
and she wore large sunglasses. West,
wearing a helmet, sat in a second A.T.V.Union, brought up the investigations,
and later referred to the scheme as a
“drug deal.” Taylor’s statement is nota-
ble not only for the details it provides
but because it recounts his reactions to
events as they unfolded. He was “em-
barrassed,” “uncomfortable,” “troubled,”
“alarmed,” and “very concerned.” Those
same words describe how much of the
country has felt for the past three years.
The week’s developments both clar-
ified and upended ideas about the po-
tential impeachment of Trump. There
really can no longer be substantial doubt
of a quid pro quo. Taylor’s statement and
those of other diplomats, along with the
whistle-blower’s complaint and the re-
cord of Trump’s telephone conversation
with Zelensky—not to mention the here-
today-gone-later-today admission by
Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House
chief of staff, during a press briefing—
have surely resolved the question.
A cornerstone of the comparisons
between Watergate and the present na-
tional predicament has been the way
that congressional hearings drove pub-
lic opinion toward impeaching Richard
Nixon. Support for impeaching Trump
surged a few weeks ago, after the Speaker
of the House, Nancy Pelosi, announced
the inquiry. Taylor’s testimony appears
to have raised the volume of the con-
versation about whether Trump’s ac-
tions warrant his removal from office.
More testimony—in closed and open
hearings—and additional facts, the ar-
gument presumes, will further move the
public to support impeachment.
Such presumptions should not rest so
easily. Trumpism is hostile to facts. The
consequence may be more reactions like
the one we saw last week. The House
may deliver articles of impeachment
before the end of the year. The findings
that result may point to even moredamning conclusions than have already
been established. Trump, though, has
been the lifelong beneficiary of a sys-
tem in which his race, his wealth, and
his lineage have allowed him to oper-
ate above the law. Both his personal at-
torney and Attorney General William
Barr are attempting to institutionalize
this kind of immunity as a perquisite
of the Presidency. (On Thursday, the
Times reported that the Justice Depart-
ment has turned its review of the Rus-
sia investigation into a criminal inquiry.)
All of which suggests that Trump is
partly correct about the situation resem-
bling a lynching. The history of that act
is replete with examples of men who op-
erated outside the law, and believed that
their offenses should carry no penalty.
In that, the comparison brings to mind
not the victims of lynchings but those
who committed them.
—Jelani CobbKanye West and Kim Kardashian