Pre-emptive Executive Privilege: Examining Committee Questions And Sessions' Answers On Why He Can't Disclose What The President Said To Him In Private

This was going to be several quick reactions to a few points that struck me at the Sessions' hearing today in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.  As I started this post I used the excuse of no transcripts to be a little looser than normal and to just write from memory.  But then, like I usually do when I make comments like that, I checked to see if there were transcripts yet.  I found that Politico has "running transcripts" here.  So I decided I'd just focus on the two main reasons that Sessions invoked for not answering certain questions:

1.  Executive privilege - which he acknowledged the president hadn't invoked, but claimed he was going to give the chance to do so after the fact.  

2.  An unspecified rule at DOJ that doesn't allow him to disclose what was said in his private meetings with the president.  

It turns out that Politico's running transcripts weren't complete yet.  At my first went to the site they got to Sen. Heinrich's questions and ended.  I started writing, but then saw it ended at Sen. Heinrich's questions.   When I reloaded the page it got to Sen. Manchin's questions.  The third time it got to Sen. Cotton - who read out answers for Sessions rather than ask him questions. It took longer to get through the Sen. Harris questions which I needed because she pressed him pretty hard on what 'appropriate' means and then for specific citation and copies of the rule he was citing.    The transcripts seem  pretty good, though like most transcripts there are lots of little typos, so keep that in mind.  

Pre-emptive Executive Privilige  And "A Long-Standing Policy"

First was this discussion with Sen. Warner (D-Virginia).  Here, he says he's not claiming executive privilege because that's the president's power. I'm just giving you the relevant parts.  Sessions is claiming "the communications rule" which he later explains as 'there are privileges of communications.'

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. That would be a violation of the communications rule that I have to --
WARNER: Just so I can understand, is the basis of that unwilling to answer based on executive privilege?
SESSIONS: It's a long standing policy. The department of justice not to comment on conversations that the attorney general had with the president of the united States for confidential reasons that rounded in the coequal branch.
WARNER: Just so I understand, is that mean you claim executive privilege?
SESSIONS: I'm not claiming executive privilege because that's the president's power and I have no power there.
WARNER: What about conversations with other Department of Justice or White House officials about potential pardons? Not the president, sir.
SESSIONS: Without in any way suggesting I had any conversations concerning pardons, totally apart from that, there are privileges of communication within the department of justice that we share all of us do. We have a right to have full and robust debate within the Department of Justice and encourage people to speak up and argue cases on different sides. Those arguments are not -- historically we have seen they shouldn't be revealed.

Part 2 in exchange with Sen. Heinrich (D-NM)

SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH: Attorney General Sessions, has the president ever expressed his frustration to you regarding your decision to recuse yourself?
SESSIONS: Senator Heinrich, I'm not able to share with this committee private communications --
HEINRICH: You're invoking executive privilege.
SESSIONS: I'm not able to invoke executive privilege. That's the president's prerogative.
HEINRICH: My understanding is that you took an oath, you raised your right hand here today and you said that you would solemnly tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And now you're not answering questions. You're impeding this investigation, so my understanding of the legal standard is that you either answer the question. That's the best outcome. You say this is classified, can't answer it here. I'll answer it in closed session. That's bucket number two.
Bucket number three is to say I'm invoking executive privilege. There is no appropriateness bucket. It is not a legal standard. Can you tell me why what are these long-standing DOJ rules that protect conversations made in the executive without invoking executive privilege?
SESSIONS: Senator, I'm protecting the president's constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to review it.
HEINRICH: You can't have it both ways.
SESSIONS: And second I am telling the truth in answering your question and saying it's a long-standing policy of the department of justice to make sure that the president has full opportunity to decide these issues.
HEINRICH: Can you share those policies with us. Are they written down at the Department of Justice?
SESSIONS: I believe they are.
HEINRICH: This is the appropriateness legal standard for not answering congressional inquiries.
SESSIONS: That's my judgment that it would be inappropriate for me to answer and reveal private conversations with the president when he has not had a full opportunity to review the questions and to make a decision on whether or not to approve such an answer, one. There are also other privileges that could be invoked. One of the things deals with the investigation of the special counsel as other --
HEINRICH: We're not asking questions about that investigation. If I wanted to ask questions about that investigation, I'd ask those of Rod Rosenstein. I'm asking about your personal knowledge from this committee which has a constitutional obligation to get to the bottom of this. There are two investigations here. There is a special counsel investigation. There is also a congressional investigation, and you are obstructing that congressional delegation -- investigation by not answering these questions, and I think your silence, like the silence of Director Coats, like the silence of Admiral Rogers speaks volumes.
SESSIONS: I would say that I have consulted with senior career attorneys in the department.
HEINRICH: I suspect you have.
SESSIONS: And they believe this is consistent with my duties.

I'd note that Trump is reported as saying he wouldn't invoke executive privilege to block Comey's testimony.  But I can't find the same sort of claim about Sessions' testimony.

President Trump will not claim executive privilege to block former FBI Director James Comey from testifying before Congress later this week, the White House confirmed on Monday.
At the daily White House press briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters the president wants a “thorough investigation of facts,” in reference to Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee this Thursday.

But, if he really wants a 'thorough investigation of facts' one would think that not invoking executive privilege would apply to Sessions' appearance as well.

Then there's this exchange with Sen. King (I-Maine):

KING: I respect your willingness to be here. You testified a few minutes ago I'm not able to invoke executive privilege. That's up to the president. Has the president invoked executive privilege in the case of your testimony here today?
SESSIONS: He has not.
KING: Then what is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions?
SESSIONS: Senator king, the president has a constitutional --
KING: I understand that, but the president hasn't asserted that. You said you don't have the power to exert executive privilege so what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer the questions?
SESSIONS: I'm protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses and there may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance.
KING: Well, I don't understand how you can have it both ways. The president can't not assert it, and you've testified that only the president can assert it and yet I just don't understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer.
SESSIONS: What we try to do, I think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recently, officials before the committee, protect the president's right to do so. If it comes to a point where the issue is clear and there's a dispute about it, at some point the president will either assert the privilege or not or some other privilege would be asserted, but at this point I believe it's premature
KING: You're asserting a privilege.
SESSIONS: It would be premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege. That's not necessary at this point.

So at this point he's
1.  Saying he can't tell them what he said in private discussion with the president because he needs to reserve the president's right to invoke executive privilege
2.  And there may be other privileges (that he may not know about yet, but you can be sure his DOJ lawyers are now scouring the rules to find.)

Nobody brought up the fact that Trump waived executive privilege for Comey because he wanted to get the facts out as I mentioned just before this section on Sen. King's questions.

More King questions involving executive privilege:

KING: Did the question of the Russia investigation in the firing of James Comey come up?
SESSIONS: I cannot answer that because it was a communication by the president or if any such occurred it would be a communication that he has not waived.
KING: But he has not asserted the executive privilege.
SESSIONS: He's not exerted executive privilege.

He seems to have decided that this pre-emptive executive privilege is a better grounding than his assertion about a rule protecting his conversations with the president.  It also sounds like he did have such a conversation.  I say that because first he says I cannot answer because "it was a communication by the president."  Then he seems to catch himself and say "or if any such occurred."


Then Sen. Manchin (D- WV) asks if executive privilege would cover non-public hearings.  No, Sessions says, it's not waived in closed session.

MANCHIN: I know it's been asked of you things [I told you the transcripts had some problems], your executive privilege in protecting the president. I understand that, but also when we had Mr. Comey here, you know, he couldn't answer a lot of things in open session. He agreed to go into a closed session. Would you be able to go in a closed session? Would it change your answers to us or your ability to speak more frankly on some things we would want to know.

SESSIONS: Senator Manchin, I'm not sure. The executive privilege is not waived by going in camera or in closed session. It may be that one of the concerns is that when you have an investigation ongoing as the special counsel does, it's often very problematic to have persons, you know, not cooperating with that counsel in the conduct of the investigation, which way or may not be a factor in going into closed session.

He's using the executive privilege grounds here, not the "longstanding" DOJ rule.

Then Sen. Harris (D-CA) got to ask questions.  She was asking if he took any notes or had other written stuff that he could refresh his memory with and send them to the committee.  So now he's looking for rules that cover what documents (rather than oral communications with the president) can be disclosed.

HARRIS: Sir, will you provide the committee with the notes that you did maintain?
SESSIONS: As appropriate I will supply the committee with documents.
HARRIS: Can you please tell me what you mean when you say appropriate?
SESSIONS: I would have to consult with lawyers in the department who know the proper procedure before disclosing documents that are held within the Department of Justice. I'm not able to make that opinion today.
HARRIS: Sir, I'm sure you prepared for this hearing today and most of the questions that have been presented to you were predictable. So my question to you is did you then review with the lawyers of your department if you as the top lawyer are unaware what the law is regarding what you can share with us and what you cannot share with us, what is privileged and what is not privileged.
SESSIONS: We discussed the basic parameters of testimony. I frankly have not discussed documentary disclosure rules.
HARRIS: Will you make a commitment to this committee that you will share any written correspondence, be they your calendars, records, notes, e-mails or anything that has been reduced at any point in time in writing to this committee where legally you actually have an obligation to do so.
SESSIONS: I will commit to reviewing the rules of the department and as and when that issue is raised to respond appropriately.

But then after questions about other topics, Harris got back to the policy rule that kept Sessions citing that prevented him from answering questions:

HARRIS: And you referred to a long-standing DOJ policy. Can you tell us what policy it is you're talking about.
SESSIONS: Well, I think most cabinet people as the witnesses, you had before you earlier, those individuals declined to comment, because we're all about conversations with the president --
HARRIS: Sir, I'm just asking you about the DOJ policy you've referred to.
SESSIONS: A long-standing policy, a policy that goes beyond just the attorney general.
HARRIS: Is that policy in writing somewhere?
SESSIONS: I think so.
HARRIS: So did you not consult it before you came before this committee knowing we would ask you questions about that?
SESSIONS: Well, we talked about it. The policy is based --
HARRIS: Did you ask that it would be shown to you?
SESSIONS: The policy is based on the principle that the president --
HARRIS: Sir, I'm not asking about the principle. I'm asking when you would be asked these questions --
SESSION: Well, I'm unable to answer the quest--
HARRIS: and you would rely on that policy --
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: Chairman --
HARRIS: Did you not ask your staff to show you the policy that would be the basis for you refusing to answer the majority --
MCCAIN: The witness should be allowed to answer the question. [I'd note he wasn't answering the question and she was redirecting him to the actual question.]
BURR: Senators will allow the chair to control the hearing. Senator Harris, let him answer.
HARRIS: Please do.
BURR: Thank you.
SESSIONS: We talked about it, and we talked about the real principle that's at stake is one that I have some appreciation for as far as having spent 15 years in the department of Justice, 12 as United States attorney, and that principle is that the Constitution provides the head of the Executive Branch certain privileges and that members -- one of them is confidentiality of communications, and it is improper for agents of any of the department -- any departments in the Executive Branch to waive that privilege without a clear approval of the President.
HARRIS: Mr. Chairman. I have asked --
SESSIONS: And that's the situation we're in.
HARRIS: I asked for a yes or no. Did you ask --
SESSIONS: The answer is yes, I consulted.
BURR: The senator's time has expired.
HARRIS: Apparently not.

So, he refused to answer her question whether he talked about the rules that governed his disclosure.  McCain jumped in to tell her to let him answer the question, though he was raising other issues and she was trying to refocus him.  She had limited time and was trying to get the answer before her time ran out.  Sessions was running out the clock.  And he did.  But she made it clear that he couldn't tell her what rule he was supposedly following.  Though now his department has time to find one.

It's interesting because to stall Sen. Harris, he spoke about principles, yet when he answered Sen. Collins  (R-Maine) on something else he said,  he doesn't discuss hypotheticals.  Principles are not hypotheticals, but the way you answer a hypothetical is to apply principles.

SESSIONS: Well, I would just say this, Senator Collins. I don't think it's appropriate to deal with those kind of hypotheticals. I have to deal in actual issues. I would respectfully not comment on that.

Harris was asking for actual rules, not principles or hypotheticals.

While he couldn't tell the committee the specific rule about confidential information that prevented his telling the committee about anything about his private conversations with the president, he was very well prepared when asked about the rules around recusal:

BURR: On March 2nd, 2017, you recused yourself in the investigation being conducted by the FBI and the Department of Justice. What are the specific reasons that you chose to recuse yourself?
SESSIONS: The specific reason, chairman, is a cfr code of federal regulations put out by the Department of Justice. Part of the Department of Justice rules and it says this. I will read from it. 28 cfr 45.2. Unless authorized, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he had a personal or political relationship with any person involved in the conduct of an investigation that goes on to say for political campaign and it says if you have a close identification with an elected official or candidate arising from service as a principal adviser, you should not participate in an investigation of that campaign. Many have suggested that my recusal is because I felt I was a subject of the investigation myself, I may have done something wrong. This is the reason I recused myself: I felt I was required to under the rules of the Department of Justice and as a leader of the Department of Justice, I should comply with the rules obviously. 

So, I think that is most if not all of the testimony on the grounds of his refusal to disclose what passed between him and the president - mainly, if I recall correctly - about what was said about the Comey firing.

Ive called what Sessions invoked 'pre-emptive executive' session, because I was thinking about how he was invoking it before the president did.  I guess we could also think about this as 'retroactive executive session' because he's giving the chance to invoke it after the hearing rather than before.


There are lots of other things to remark on about today's hearings, but this is already long enough - just focused on the reasons Sessions used to avoid answering some questions.

[UPDATE just after posting:  I found a tweet that called this "Schrödinger's Executive Privilege" and responders are adding other names for it.]

What Will The Sessions Testimony Offer?

In an hour or so, Attorney General and former US Senator Jeff Sessions will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee.   Publicly.  What could happen?

I've only heard a few reports on this and they really didn't say much except that he'll be asked questions about

• the meetings he had with the Russian ambassador but didn't mention at his confirmation hearings as AG
• his role in the firing of FBI director Comey.
• Comey's testimony last week that mentioned Sessions - whether he agrees or disagree with what Comey said
• the nature of his recusal on the Russia investigations whether he has violated it

So if I don't have any inside information, what's the point of this post.  I'm just using this as a way to think this through for myself.  

Possibile Outcomes:

Who will benefit?

1.  He will support the president's position

2.  He will support Comey's testimony

Can he do both at the same time?  Maybe.  On some things.  Both Trump and Comey said that he was fired because Comey didn't drop the Flynn investigation.  But he surely will support the president's version that his comment about hoping he would drop the investigation was NOT an order.  

Impact on Sessions himself

1. How will he defend not disclosing meetings with Russians when asked at his confirmation hearings?  And what about the allegations of yet another meeting or meetings that haven't been disclosed?  
1. I guess he'll repeat that he didn't think they were relevant because they were pro forma meetings that had nothing to do with his role in the campaign.  
2.  Some have suggested that he could perjure himself at this hearing. 
1. He's an attorney.  He's the attorney general.  I suspect he's been carefully coached on how to avoid perjuring himself.  Some options here are:
2. Claiming, as did Comey last week, that he can't talk about some things in public hearings.
3. Invoking the 5th Amendment
3. Will he be able to continue as attorney general after this?
1. He can either 
1. be loyal to the president and if that requires bending the truth, bring legal and political problems on himself  OR  
2. he can piss off the president who expects complete loyalty.   

I can't really predict the actual answers to all theses questions, but my guess is that at this point,  Sessions' first priority is Jeff Sessions and the Trump is a distant second priority.   

I think it will also be interesting to see how this committee seeks 'the truth' and how Sessions and the committee members determine the facts and interpret them.

Or is this all a distraction so no one pays attention to what the Senate does with the Trump health care bill?

There are a number of ways to listen or watch the hearings today.  NPR will air it live over the radio or online.  And the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence website has a video window which looks like it will use.

(Another) Why I Live Here: 'Forest Bathing' With The Moose

At my check up last week the doctor asked for a routine blood test, but I had eaten, so I had to come back on an empty stomach.  That was today.  I was in and out in ten minutes.  It was gray out and I could either ride back straight home or get in a real ride.  So I headed toward the Campbell Creek bike trail.

Besides the physical benefits of riding the bike, there's also a lot to be said for the mental benefits of being in the woods.  And as I stopped to google for some back up on that statement, I got this (among many other hits): 

"Numerous studies in the U.S. and around the world are exploring the health benefits of spending time outside in nature, green spaces, and, specifically, forests. Recognizing those benefits, in 1982, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries even coined a term for it: shinrin-yoku. It means taking in the forest atmosphere or "forest bathing," and the ministry encourages people to visit forests to relieve stress and improve health." (emphasis added)

It goes on to detail eight specific health benefits:

• Boosts immune system
• Lowers blood pressure
• Reduces stress
• Improves mood
• Increases ability to focus, even in children with ADHD
• Accelerates recovery from surgery or illness
• Increases energy level
• Improves sleep

I know that I feel much better after a bike ride, and even better after a ride that was mostly on the wooded bike trail.  Today I noticed a brown mass out of the corner of my eye as I road along the creek and stopped to check out the moose across the water.  

And then I noticed there was another, little one.  Note, the moose didn't want their faces to appear on the blog.

Even on a gray day, I can take a delicious visual bite of the creek and the intense green of the trees and undergrowth. 

At Taku Lake I could see the rain drops' ripples.  But it didn't come down hard enough to even wet the trail.  

On my way back I stopped to see if the moose were still there.  All I could see were two ears.

I don't have a lot of posts called why I live here, and surely this is the first time I have two in a row.  But it's how I felt as I rode along.  This is what keeps me here in Anchorage, this easy access to all this beauty.  

Why I Live Here: Power Line Pass Is 20 Minutes From Home

We needed to get some fresh air and the nearest spectacular spot is Powerline Pass.  Here are a few more photos.

  The grass is about 30 inches high.

I think these are thimble berries flowers.

And tiny cones on the hemlock trees.  One sign of global warming is how high the hemlocks on the trail near the parking lot have grown.  When we came almost 40 years ago, they were severely stunted at this altitude (about 2200 feet), but they've grown considerably higher since we got here.  They were (for those of you thinking, 'well trees grow') already old trees when we got here.

The Glen Alps parking lot is also the starting point to Flattop, generally known as the most climbed mountain in Alaska.  It's 3,510 feet high, 1280 feet above the parking lot.

We chose walk a more level path to Powerline Pass.

Notes: Psychopath Childhoods; Flying; Flying TVs; Refugee Day

New York Post article about a Norwegian study:

"Two “extreme” parenting styles have been linked to children becoming criminal psychopaths in later life, a study has revealed.
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology interviewed high-security prisoners and found many have a history of either total parental neglect, or rigidly controlling, authoritarian parents."

OK, so this is a study looking back from someone who ended up in prison.  I've always assumed that prisoners have figured out they'll get more sympathy if they tell people they were abused as kids.  I would imagine the researchers have figured this out too and have methods to avoid being told what they expect to hear.

But how about a study that follows kids to see how they turn out?  What percent of neglected and kids with authoritarian parents end up messed up?  How do you defined messed up?  I was thinking susceptible to Trump like tactics.  But George Layoff already argued that authoritarian parents have kids who want an authoritarian leader.(Scroll down to the Family heading under Conservativism and to the nurturing family under Liberalism.)


New York Times piece, Paying a Price For Eight Days of Flying in America:

"The trip had its share of surreal moments — interrogated by a security agent at one point, I forgot what city I was flying to — and I felt increasingly removed from myself, dehumanized and disaffected. Through a grim twist of fate, every flight seemed to leave from a gate in a distant corner of the terminal. Sitting again and again at the back of the plane, I wondered, am I getting enough oxygen?"

I'm not recommending this one, but it's (another?) example of finding what you're looking for.  She was looking for bad experiences and found them.  I mean, the route she took in a week guaranteed she wouldn't have enough sleep and would be grouchy as hell the whole time.
I think about eight hour bus rides I used to take in Thailand to go 200 miles.  Dusty.  Hot.  Chickens.  No toilet. Unpaved roads.  Dare-devil drivers.   Going 2000 miles in five hours in air conditioned seats with arm and head rests?   Luxury.

OK, There's a lot about flying to complain about - the proliferating fees, the shrinking seats, the carbon footprints,  and all the time it takes just to get on the plane.  And we should rightly work to change these things.  Through lobbying for more competition and as consumers who can refuse to fly and let the airlines know why.  And if you do have to fly, minimize the things that cost extra.  I know we can't always do that, but I see a lot of people forking over $8 for a digiplayer every time I fly.

She complains about people who pay more getting treated better.  Hey, that's the American way of life.  It's just on planes the coach passengers have to walk through first class.  The really rich fly on private jets.  And the wealthy get better everything in the United States, it's just done where you can't see it.  The more we see the class system, the more people might start to figure out our system isn't fair.  But I also have to say that a lot of the first class seats on Alaska anyway, are frequent flyers who get bumped up even though they are paying coach fares.

But still, it's pretty remarkable how quickly we can get to distant places in relative comfort.  Since I tend to fly on Alaska Airlines, I may be spoiled compared to other airline passengers, but I also plan for the trip, have something good to read, or to work on the computer, and my own food,  and the time passes quickly.

So, yes, let's do something to fix the ever increasing ways airlines gouge us (outrageous change fees would be on the top of my list), but in the meantime, prep for the flight, be respectful to the people around you, and think how much better this is than doing the same trip by stage coach.


A New Yorker piece called "White House On Lockdown After Television Is Hurled Out Window"

In these times of outrageousnous, I had to read through the writer's bio to confirm this was a joke.  It's hard to do satire when the president does it so much better.


From the Catholic Anchor,  World Refugee Day celebration set for June 11 in Anchorage.

"World Refugee Day is an annual international celebration established by the United Nations to honor, recognize and celebrate the positive contributions of refugees worldwide.

“Catholic Social Services hosts its annual World Refugee Day celebration on Saturday, June 11, 4-6 p.m., at Clark Middle School* in Anchorage.

[UPDATE:  Seems I got last year's announcement and the times wrong.  Sorry about that.]

After facing unimaginable challenges as they were forced to flee their homes, living precariously for years in refugee camps or cities, our clients have been given the opportunity to rebuild their lives,” Catholic Social Services related in a statement about the upcoming celebration. “'They now have access to rights and freedoms they have long been denied: stable housing, education for their children, and opportunities to work and become economically self-sufficient.'”

I've been doing some volunteer work** with RAIS (Refugee Assistance & Immigration Services) and I promise you'll meet some very interesting people from places like Bhutan, South Sudan, Mexico, Congo, Somalia.  People you've been reading about.  And maybe have seen out and about in Anchorage.  But this will a setting where you're encouraged to engage them in conversation and ask about why they've left their homes and what it's like to be here.

*Clark is north of the Glenn on Bragaw - where the old Mt. View library used to be.

*Not a lot.  A few Saturday mornings.  The program is just getting started and they're working out the kinks.  But I've met some impressive people.

Enjoying And Sharing Our Summer Room With Steller Jay

It's summer enough that we are using the deck a lot now.  Breakfast, lunch, dinner, if it's not raining or too cold, we're out there in this great room.  And the birds get pretty close too.  Black capped chickadees, nuthatches, and particularly the Steller Jays.

I was finishing the newspaper the other day when two Steller Jays showed up eyeing the peanuts I
was eating.  I like peanuts in the shell because I can't eat them as fast as shelled peanuts.  I have to open them first and there are only two inside.  You get the point.

I had the peanuts on a plate and a bowl to put the shells.  Some shells had fallen to the floor.  The birds were calculating whether it was safe to hop down to the table with me sitting there.  I covered the plate of peanuts with the newspaper and went inside to get my camera.

And one of the jays struck.  Below is the video.






Here's dinner a couple of nights ago.  When we bought this house, aside from it being close to where I worked, we loved the natural backyard.  It's just a normal little city lot, but with the hills and the natural foliage, it looks much bigger.

J made Maqluba - from a cookbook called Jerusalem.  I bought the book because of the picture of this dish.  And it's incredible - so many flavors.  (The first link is to a website called Multiculturiostity that describes making this dish from this book with better pictures.  The second one links to a Jerusalem Post review of the book.  It's MUCH cheaper online than what I paid for it at a bookstore, but the bookstore price was worth it for just this recipe.  And I must thank my wife for having the patience to put all the different ingredients together now and then.)

Comey Hearing Reminds Me Of Watergate

The Comey hearing began at 6am Alaska time and I listened in bed, not completely awake the whole time.  But here are my sleepy thoughts

I'd read the statement yesterday and was struck by how carefully neutral the writing was.  It attempted to state things as factually as possible, careful to anticipate possible misinterpretations and to clarify them.  Very different from most of the writing we read nowadays.

His testimony at the hearings was the same.  Very carefully considered - trying not to say anything that he didn't mean, to avoid anyone reading into what he said.

There's been plenty of commentary about what he said, so I'll focus on how things were said.

Given all the talk about political polarization, this reminded me a lot of the Watergate hearings tone.  Senators from both sides were respectful and asked reasonable questions.  Republicans did ask questions that sought an interpretation more favorable to Trump, but not unreasonably.  For instance one Senator (Cornyn of Texas I believe, but I'm not certain) pursued the possibility that Trump was justified in understanding that he wasn't the target of an investigation.  Comey had told him that, but would not publicly state that on the grounds that the situation could change and that would require a "duty to correct."

[Added at 10:15pm:  I forgot to mention the questions from Idaho Sen. Jim Risch from Idaho about whether Comey had been ordered to call off the Flynn investigation or not.  Comey quoted Trump saying, "I hope that you . . ." and took that is at least a request if not an order.  Risch suggested it was less than an order.  I think by itself, if that were the only action on Trump's part here, Risch might be able to raise some doubts.  But given that he also wanted Comey to pledge his loyalty and when the investigation wasn't called off, he fired Comey, and Tweeted that it was because of the Russia investigation . . . Well, good try Risch.  You got it on the record, but it's not very persuasive.  And besides commands and requests can be said many ways.  With the lift of an eyebrow in some cases.  And I finally figured out that when my wife asked if I wanted to go out to dinner, she was telling me that I did.]

The only Senator that I heard who seemed to be off topic was John McCain who wanted to know why the Clinton email investigation was closed if the Trump Russia connection was kept open.  He wasn't clear to me what his point was.  That because the Russians were involved in the Clinton email leak, it should be kept open?

Many things about this hearing reminded me of what it was like listening to Watergate hearings.  The somberness, the respectful tones, the possibility of tapes, the number of venues that carried the hearings live.  (Well, there are a lot more ways to listen nowadays.)  There was none of the grandstanding and outrageous behavior we've been seeing from Congress lately.

But if you think about it, the gravity of a bungled break-in at the Democratic headquarters is of a lot less consequences than getting election help from one of the United States' biggest competitor nations.

Opera To The Rescue? Bannon Diavolo, Bigoto, Bigoto, Bigoto, Immigrantissimo Trumpo Banisimo

Last November 22 I had an uncharacteristically short blog post:

"Trump And The Arts
Prediction:  The period beginning roughly in 2017 will be known in the future for its burst of artistic creativity in music, literature, poetry, painting, graffiti, and all other forms of human creativity."

Below is the most creative and well executed example I've seen of the creativity that the Trump administration has inspired.

The power of humor and music!

Thanks to Sam Rose who posted this on his FB page.

Recipes for Glass Palace

My book club is reading Amatav Ghosh's The Glass Palace.


The meeting host generally tries to make refreshments with an eye to food that was in the book.  Sometimes that's easy, sometimes a bit more difficult.


The Glass Palace begins in the mid 1800s when the British demands for access to more teak forests are turned down by the King of Burma so the British fleet moves up the Irriwaddy and overwhelms the Burmese military and then send the King and Queen into exile on the west coast of India. A key theme of the book is how the British used  Indians to become their soldiers - who then do most of the Burmese invasion (killing and dying) work.

In any case, there was a fair amount of food mentioned, but as often happens, I wasn't thinking about the book club refreshments (it was at our place last time when we discussed The Three Body Problem).  But then on page 190, the key characters are gathered for a meal in Malaca (now Malaysia just south of the island of Penang) and the whole menu is listed.

I couldn't resist sending the list to our next host, and I wondered if I could even find the recipes for these dishes.  For some I was more successful than others.  But here it is:

• Gulai tumis - this is a tamarind fish curry Prawns roasted in pandanus leaves    
• Peanut crumpets - This was harder.  The link goes to peanut honey crumpets.  There were also names like peanut butter crumpets.  When I added Malaysia to the search terms, I got peanut pancakes instead of crumpets  
• Nine-layered rice cakes - these look pretty gaudy, but I think this is right.  Here's a similar one.Another one had the right name, but it's from  Chinese Vietnamese American cook, not Malaysian.  But it's a fun blog by someone who knows exactly what she wants.   
• Chicken with blue flowers - bunga telang - looks like this is chicken with blue rice.  The link doesn't exactly offer a recipe, but it talks about cooking with bunga telang.   You can buy the seeds on Amazon, but  our host won't have time to grow them and collect the blue flowers, so I also sent him this link to where you can buy the flowers already sun-dried. 
• Pickled fish with turmeric leaves and lime leaves and leaves of purple mint - (last one on page)  Not quite right but the closest I could get.
• Salad of shredded squid and polygonum and dan kado, a creeper that smells like a spice-garden - couldn't find this one, but here's a great video for shredded squid.

When I sent the list, I noted these recipes were way beyond the call of duty for our book club meeting, but his reply suggested he might try one or two.

By the way, the book is an interesting romp through the history of that region from the view of an Indian.  You get a much different picture of that region of the world than you do from The Camp Of The Saints.    One of the characters - Uma - lives a number of years in London and then New York.  She gets involved with other ex-pat Indians who are concerned about the plight of their homeland.  Their view sees how India was exploited by the British empire and then set up for failure in the newly industrialized world.

"Witnessing the nascency of the new century in America, they were able to watch at first hand the tides and currents of the new epoch.  They went to visit mills and factories and the latest mechanized farms.  They saw that new patterns of work were being invented, calling for new patterns of movement, new ways of thought.  They saw that in the world ahead literacy would be crucial to survival;  they saw that education had become a matter of such urgency as to prompt every modern nation to make it compulsory.  From those of their peers who had traveled eastwards they learnt that Japan had moved quickly in this direction;  in Siam too education had become a dynastic crusade for the royal family.   

In India, on the other hand, it was the military that devoured the bulk of public monies:  although the army was small in number, it consumed more than sixty percent of the Government's revenues, more even than was the case in countries that were castigated as "militaristic."  Lala Har Dayal, one of Uma's most brilliant contemporaries, never tired of pointing out that india was, in effect, a vast garrison and that it was the impoverished Indian peasant who paid both for the upkeep of the conquering army and for Britain's eastern campaigns.   

What would become of India's population when the future they had glimpsed in America had become the world's present condition?  They could see that it was not they themselves nor even their children who would pay the true price of this Empire:  that the conditions being created in their homeland were such as to ensure that their descendants would enter the new epoch as cripples, lacking the most fundamental means of survival;  that they would truly become int the future what they had never been in the past, a burden upon the world.  They could see too that already time was running out, that it would soon become impossible to change the angle of their country's entry into the future;  that a time was at hand when even the fall of the Empire and the departure of their rulers would make little difference;  that their homeland's trajectory was being set on an unbridgeable path that would thrust it inexorably in the direction of future catastrophe."

There's also an interesting tidbit on how the Indians in the US were learning from the Irish in the US about how to resist the British.

"The Indians were, comparatively, novices in the arts of sedition.   It was the Irish who were their mentors and allies, schooling them in their methods of organization, teaching them the tricks of shopping for arms to send back home;  giving them instruction in the techniques of fomenting mutiny among those of their countrymen who served the empire as soldiers.  On St. Patrick's Day in New York a small Indian contingent would sometimes march in the Irish parade with their own banners, dressed in sherwanis and turbans, dhotis and kurtas, angarkhas  and angavastrams."

Studying the past certainly does put a fresh light on the present.  

Survivorship Bias - The Pitfalls Of Learning From The Lucky Winners

A Tweet about survivor bias led me to an old post on "You Are Not So Smart."  It's just good reading with lots of information.

It's a long, somewhat rambling, post.  But it's well told and brings lots of ideas together.  It's about how survivor bias leads us, often, to faulty conclusions.  The reason?  Because we only hear from the survivors and not those who failed, which often can be the vast majority. Starts with a long story about:

"The official name for the people inside the apartment was the Statistical Research Group, a cabal of geniuses assembled at the request of the White House and made up of people who would go on to compete for and win Nobel Prizes. The SRG was an extension of Columbia University, and they dealt mainly with statistical analysis. The Philadelphia Computing Section, another group made up entirely of women mathematicians, worked six days a week at the University of Pennsylvania on ballistics tables. Other groups with different specialties were tied to Harvard, Princeton, Brown and others, 11 in all, each a leaf at the end of a new branch of the government created to help defeat the Axis – the Department of War Math."

One of their more tangible problems was how to better protect WWII fighter planes in the Pacific.  The problem was the military saw the bullet holes only on the planes that survived and tried to protect the planes better in those places.  Mathematicians pointed out that those planes had made it back, so those hits were survivable.  They needed reinforcement in the places the surviving planes hadn't been hit.


It then goes on to give lots and lots of other examples of survivor bias.

• in employer surveys (people who quit don't get surveyed)
• old art and literature is better than modern stuff (bad stuff in the past disappeared and only the 'not bad' survived, while the current junk is still all around)
• 'how to succeed books' from the successful (you miss the stories of the many ways to fail, and success seems much easier than it really is)
• lottery stories

There's also an interesting section on luck and lucky people.

"Wiseman speculated that what we call luck is actually a pattern of behaviors that coincide with a style of understanding and interacting with the events and people you encounter throughout life. Unlucky people are narrowly focused, he observed. They crave security and tend to be more anxious, and instead of wading into the sea of random chance open to what may come, they remain fixated on controlling the situation, on seeking a specific goal. As a result, they miss out on the thousands of opportunities that may float by. Lucky people tend to constantly change routines and seek out new experiences. Wiseman saw that the people who considered themselves lucky, and who then did actually demonstrate luck was on their side over the course of a decade, tended to place themselves into situations where anything could happen more often and thus exposed themselves to more random chance than did unlucky people. The lucky try more things, and fail more often, but when they fail they shrug it off and try something else. Occasionally, things work out."

I'm not totally sure about this.  I'd guess there are lots of 'unlucky' folks who take crazy risks that get them into serious trouble.  But maybe Wiseman can explain how that still fits his model.

There's history in this post, plus some good science lessons.  Basically this seems like a specific kind of generalization based on a biased sample.

There was something familiar about the site and so I did check and found I had written about the book You are Not So Smart a few years ago.