Thoughts, Prayers, and the next Tragedy

            In the wake of tragedy we offer thoughts and prayers. In America we have had so much tragedy though, that it seems like a perfunctory, nothing, of a statement. So much so the show On The Media included the statement in their most recent breaking news consumers handbook.

            It is the only thing to say in the immediate aftermath of a major incident, though. To say anything else and one is accused of politicizing a horrible event.

            I offer in this time, appropriately long enough, following the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise while at baseball practice for the congressional baseball game, that for the next horrible thing that happens, I WILL offer my thoughts and prayers, and it will be a radically political statement.

            My thoughts will be for the survivors. And how I will build a better world for those affected by the upsetting event and those it might touch next. Policies may need to change, law makers may need to be lobbied. Deep, values challenging conversations may need to happen. I won’t shy away from them, and I won’t let someone tell me it’s “too soon.” Particularly when, for someone, it may already be too late.

            My prayers will be to change the hearts and minds of those who stand in my way. A better world does not come easy and we must all band together to do that important work. So I’ll pray that my motives remain true, and my methods become effective.

            Perhaps, those thoughts and prayers of mine will end up reiterating a previously held position. Perhaps, the event in question will lead me to question and rethink previously held positions. Either way, I hope to act rationally and begin my work immediately. Any delay could prevent people from genuinely being able to help.

            I will want to offer condolences and empathy to survivors or victims. But my words will be hollow should I not be willing to take action and to be honest immediately following a horrible incident. No one can claim to seriously feel for a victim if they are unwilling to remedy the cause.

            So the next time we see tragedy, can we all offer our thoughts and prayers, and let’s make them count.

Sessions Hearing Live reflections

Note: this was a live blog, without automatic updates. 

Refresh and scroll down for latest updates.

3:00 - Sessions has just begun talking, he is certainly being quite folksy. Immediately he refutes the thrust of this inquiry, so we could be in for a really boring one here. Claims that Senator Franken's line of questioning was "rambling" and "based on breaking news." Both fairly true. 

Also points out that he does not know anything about the current Russia investigation because of his recusal. Sessions does not know anything other than what's been reported in the press, "and I don't even read that!" The folksy-ness is so strong right now...

3:07 - Sessions has recused himself from the investigation but has not recused himself from scurrilous allegations! He certainly has some defending to do with the attacks he has had to endure, and his opening statement suggests he is going to outline his whole narrative. Questioners beware, he will not have another Franken moment.

On to the Chairman, Senator Burr.

3:14 -  One problem with AG Sessions' strategy of  saying he forgot to include the meetings in his disclosure, he may begin to sound dottering by the end of this. He just answered that way for the first time under questions from Senator Burr. I can imagine a super cut of this being played in the press, for his sake lets hope he rehearsed a referential answer along with that one.

Also happening, AG Sessions points out that under DOJ rules, those with political or personal interests must recuse themselves from investigations. He never perceived himself as under investigation. Hey maybe that's what Mr. Comey was talking about? Maybe.

3:25 - No claim of executive privilege, so at least we are not getting a direct stonewall from the president. Not sure how big of a moment that is, but it seems to be worth noting that President Trump does not want to try to challenge on that matter just yet.

3:32 -  AG Sessions did not linger in oval office due to any feeling that the president was about to do something improper. This thread of Jeff Sessions just being really old is heating up, lingered in room because he moves the slowest in the group? Also points out that Mr. Comey should know not to discuss cases with people who aren't supposed to be involved. A touch of whataboutism might begin to show itself as well.

3:35 - In his preamble to a question, Senator Risch, discusses talking to ambassadors in grocery stores when you just bump in to them. That folksy-ness is back! Sen. Risch then demonstrates why leading is not allowed on direct examination in courts. Hey would you like to deny this softball? Yes I would!

3:41 - Attorney General Sessions is getting some great digs in on Mr. Comey, saying the longstanding policy is to not discuss the conversations DOJ employees have with the president. Excellent fodder for several think pieces, you probably won't get one here. The questioning is now by Senator Feinstein, she needs to learn how to cut Mr. Sessions off, he's out to waste her time... And now its gone.

3:50 - Senator Rubio asked a bunch of questions. Moving on. Senator Wyden begins with a lecture about things that should be done out in the public square and how there is no legal basis for refusal to answer. Those think pieces are getting juicier. Sessions says he is going by historic policies of the Department, doesn't want to be accused of "stonewalling."

Now he claims that he recused himself by never taking an interest and never accessing files, then he recused himself formally. Not exactly the same.

3:53 - Oh thank god some yelling. AG Sessions says there is no reason to think there are other reasons than those he stated for recusing and there is nothing problematic about the firing of Mr. Comey because of the recusal. Senator Wyden seems to have drawn out some emotion, AG Sessions is the most sensitive about his reputation. Perhaps an interesting contrast with the testimony of Mr. Comey, who allowed himself to be dragged through on questions regarding why he did not show a stronger spine.

3:57 -  Under questioning from Senator Susan Collins, AG Sessions get another shot at Mr. Comey saying that its time to restore the policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Also gets a question about involvement with the firing of Mr. Comey, AG Sessions offers a fairly boiler plate answer that the FBI oversees many investigations and is within his department. Its a legitimate answer. And then he punts after a question on his choices in light of President Trump going on TV with Lester Holt to say it was all about Russia. So we are back to the more boring side of things.

4:02 - Senator Heinrich is not wasting time and appears to be paying attention what upsets AG Sessions. He immediately states that Sessions is impeading an investigation, then asks for the written policy, seems incredulous about the judgment part of the answer. He may be shooting a campaign ad right here, its hard to say.

4:08 -  Great nugget from the Chair, a clarification that those who have refused to answer in open session have fulfilled their promise to discuss conversations with the president in a closed session. Senator Burr says that all members were able to hear the answers and their questions were answered to satisfaction. That does the work of making the Democrats look like they are grandstanding, but does not ameliorate the practical question of why it will not be discussed in open session.

Senator Roy Blunt on the mic.

4:14 - Blunts time expires with little real revelation. Senator King is out of the box on a line of questioning about AG Sessions preserving a right of the present to assert executive privilege. Premature to prevent the president from being able to assert executive privilege. Kind of dizzying really. King trips Sessions up on having already disclosed content of conversations with the president, nice logic game.

4:24 - Senator James Lankford, seems interested in providing most of the evidence himself. Reads long prepared statement asks AG Sessions to agree, then does it all over again. Really easy to tune out, but he did yield back time so at least we came out ahead in that exchange.

Senator Joe Manchin on the mic.

4:29 - Sen. Manchin seems totally impatient with AG Sessions desire to waste his time. Actually giving him the wrap it up hand signal and asking for just yes or no answers. So Manchin asks for advice! What should we be asking for? hmmm.

4:32 -  Senator Tom Cotton starts up by talking about how they aren't talking about Russia. He wishes they were talking about that? And now he's talking about spy novels. This lets AG Sessions flip and point out how small the amount of contact he has had with any Russian. Its been pointed out prior in this hearing how light and public the communication was. It is all a fair point regarding the heart of the investigation. Though, it misses the whole point that we are now on to an Obstruction of Justice problem, so everyone gets to be right!

4:36 - Sen. Cotton reads a list of "leaks" that have happened and asks if they harm national security. Some of those leaks do indeed threaten national security, some of them are minor. I wrote earlier today about how we need to all be honest about what is serious if proven, obviously no one is interested in heeding my words.

4:40 - Senator Kamala Harris is up now, she is keeping her pace up of wanting to ask as many questions as possible. AG Sessions goes back to the folksy-ness saying being pressed makes him nervous and he wants to qualify some of his answers. It would be adorable if it weren't maddening. AG Sessions even got to talk about the fall of the Soviet Union.

4:46 - We got one of the things we came for, Kamala Harris getting lectured by the Chair to let a witness answer a question they had no interest in answering. It may not be the most productive thing but it does draw in to relief the evasiveness of the witness and the hunger of the questioner.  We also got some more pressure on the written policy of not disclosing communication with the president, which Sessions says he did not consult before coming to the hill to answer questions.

4:56 - This hearing has started living up to my prediction that it would be boring. So not a whole lot of updates, there was not a whole lot of meat on the bones of this matter. Senator John McCain is asking questions now. He appears to be well rested, the Diamondbacks had an off day yesterday, they will be playing the Tigers this evening at 7:10 Washington time.

5:09 -  The excitement really did fizzle out, this whole thing went fairly to script. AG Sessions is President Trump's man, supported him during the campaign and works under him as Attorney General. The president craves loyalty and Sessions wants to keep his job, so he came here to defend his honor as a bonus. The long term of the investigation remains unchanged. Hopefully this investigation does get back to how Russia interfered and who they may have cultivated within the country. The obstruction of justice angle remains very much open, as Mr. Sessions testimony did not actually rebut the possibility. So the investigation will need to continue in that direction as well.

While it seems the desired orientation of the investigation may have something to do with the party orientation of the individual, remember, Republicans have a majority and can call whomever they like. So don't let them protest too much.

That's it for this one!

James Comey and the Time-Space Continuum

            Last Thursday James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. That happened, and we can all agree it happened. I wrote about it as it was happening and then I reflected on it.

            I found few took the same line as me in analyzing the behavior of Mr. Comey. I have to say my analysis fits comfortably in to the narrative that the “Evil MSM” is pushing: Comey said no one big bombshell but affirmed lots of negative reporting about Trump and laid out a handful of other breadcrumbs of things to come. While not mind blowing, the gathering storm from those clouds is becoming obvious.

            For this story I thought it might be good to venture outside my ideological neighborhood and see what everyone else might say. It was served to me before I even had the chance, though. First WaPo did a Chyron analysis which was fascinating. Second, several of my conservative friends on Facebook and Twitter jumped to the party line. Some were even people who had appeared to be taking a break from politics were stepping up to note the lack of a direct order language, and to profess they had just tasted a “nothing burger.”

            Rather than suggest they go look up the definition of obstruction of justice I kept my (electronic) mouth shut. I smugly thought they would soon come around, I was wrong. As they fought in the feeds below their comments, my smugness lost its edge. I could accuse them of lawyering up with the rest of the administration, or I could explain what I perceived as the long game Comey was playing. But it didn’t seem like it would matter.

            What I am seeing is that everyone is being totally earnest. All of my liberal friends see obstruction. All of my conservative friends see a disgruntled employee who has a history of going it alone and wanting to be at the center of things. Back on the left, Mr. Comey is portrayed as a tone deaf, Boy Scout, one that says “lordy” instead of “shit.”

            We all watched the same hearing. We all are living in the same universe, I presume. Are we alternating sticking our heads in the ground? Is this some sort of political Rorschach test?

            This is the real thing about gas lighting, there is no way to prove it has been happening or that it was done, barring an admission from the culprits. I have my beliefs, and I have my education, and I know what I saw. Problem is, so does the other half of the population.

            There has been plenty said about objective reality and political tribalism and information siloes. But this is a genuine test, we all saw him say he felt a pattern emerging where the president tried to leverage him to stop an investigation. That, if all true, would be obstruction of justice. Is there daylight? Absolutely. We still need to 1) determine the veracity of his words, and 2) parse the meaning of the word “hope.” If we want a particular result there is still plenty of room for optimism, either way. And for you to believe that is still rational. But to say your side has won is not rational at all.

            For the good of the republic, and frankly my mental state, as I have had to question the objective reality around me, seen with my own eyes, let’s try to call this one as it is, not as we see it.

----

As a complete afterthought, and in fairness, what Loretta Lynch did to synchronize between Department of Justice and Clinton Campaign language is sketchy, perhaps even worthy of further inquiries. But it changes nothing in regards to other misdeeds. Nor, was it the biggest story. Same goes for Mr. Comey being the source of the memos to the New York Times, if you couldn’t work out that there were 4 people in the room during the loyalty pledge, and it wasn’t President Trump, it was not the two Navy Stewards, so it had to be James Comey, then you are not great at reading between the lines and should refer to my piece on Comey’s behavior. 

A Unified theory on the "strange" behavior of James Comey

James Comey has submitted written testimony and answered about 2 1/2 hours of public questions from senators in the intelligence committee hearing. Democrats hunted for the silver bullet that will make all of their dreams of impeaching President Trump come true. Republicans tried to trip up James Comey as best they could, through it all he presented a calm and rational case, though. The one that he wanted to present. He was not swayed to jump to conclusions or step outside of his comfort zone. He was a rock, the committee were crashing waves.

The thing that should strike you is that James Comey has made record of each and every solo interaction with President Trump. It has been lost on almost no one so far. But an honest answer has not been offered as to why. The Republicans would like the answer to be because James Comey has some reason to dislike Donald Trump and is in some way deranged and untrustworthy. The Democrats would like the answer to be that he has "the goods" and is out to show it off. Neither are the truth.

To understand Mr. Comey's behavior, you should understand his work experience and who he is. He is a career prosecutor, former Deputy Attorney General, and former FBI director. His instinct is to build cases over long periods of time protect the integrity of witnesses and then present the strongest case possible. That is how he has been trained and that is his primary setting. Until he realizes his role is different in that process.

Take a piece of his written testimony, excerpted for clarity and retrieved here:

I first met then President-Elect Trump on Friday, January 6 in a conference room at Trump Tower in New York. I was there with other Intelligence Community (IC) leaders to brief him and his new national security team on the findings of an IC assessment concerning Russian efforts to interfere in the election. At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment. 

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing.
... 

When the FBI develops reason to believe an American has been targeted for recruitment by a foreign power or is covertly acting as an agent of the foreign power, the FBI will “open an investigation” on that American and use legal authorities to try to learn more about the nature of any relationship with the foreign power so it can be disrupted. In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counterintelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

So it is at this meeting when he is briefing the president on the dossier with the pee tape that Comey decides to offer an, otherwise unprompted, assurance that Mr. Trump is not under investigation. There is clearly a level of intuition here that causes Mr. Comey to do that. His behavior since, recording all interactions in the form of unclassified memos, making those memos available to the public and prosecutors, and preserving his integrity as a witness, all shows that he knew he would one day be called to testify regarding these interactions. He begins to act as a witness while he is still at his job as FBI Director, even at the expense of some of his duties. He intended for all of the memos to be unclassified but he typed the first one out on a classified machine, why? Because he knew he had to record the January 6th meeting immediately to keep it "present sense." He was simply preparing a witness rather than trying to stop any misdeeds.

Many of the Senators were interested, some even mezmorized, by Mr. Comey's inability to call out the President, his boss and the most powerful man in the world, for these inappropriate behaviors. While it would be both difficult because of the disorienting nature of Mr. Trump, and take the courage of standing up to your new boss, it just as easily could have been a third reason, its hard to remain a credible witness if you had begun to take part in, or shape, the inappropriate behavior rather than just witness it. Mr. Comey risked losing his credibility and integrity on the witness stand. He was out to better prepare himself than that. 

I don't believe that today's testimony was even the one he was preparing himself for. He leaked the unclassified memos for the express purpose of triggering a special prosecutor. There may be more said behind closed doors today, but a few things are clear. Mr. Comey intended to be a witness, he had a long term plan to see a case built over time, and he believes that only a special prosecutor can properly execute it. 

What is not clear is what Mr. Comey believes will come of his testimony, how much more interesting stuff he still has to say, if anything at all, or if the special prosecutor will actually turn up anything actionable against anybody. 

Some Live Impressions of the Comey Hearing

Some notes of what I am thinking about as I watch James Comey testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

10:40 - I am noticing that between previous hearings, Yesterday's hearing with DNI Dan Coates, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, and today with James Comey, Intelligence Community members are choosing to look suspicious not answering questions with regard to specific questions. Whether they were about influence over the Russia investigation, or if they were about the Steele Dossier. There is a larger play by the intelligence community. They are building a case and they know they will spook it or confuse it if they are too forthcoming.

Comey is a prosecutor and I am sure that he is thinking of himself as a witness, which is why he preserved the memos. He wanted present sense impression, and present memory refreshed.

10:48 - Senator Risch, points out how good the written testimony is, prepared as good as it gets from legal writing class.

10:54 - We are beginning to drill down to one of the fulcrums of the problem here. President Trump was not under investigation, but the Russian interference was. Why would this create pressure on the President were it not for some sort of complicity or collusion? If he were truly uninvolved why not turn out your pockets and instruct your councilors to do the same? That has always been the dubious problem that makes everyone act Benghazi level nuts.

10:57 - Senator Feinstein also puts before Comey the obviousness of the power of the oval office. A lot of this wouldn't fly in direct, in a court room. But still a public record.

11:03 - Comey has a couple of times mentioned that he did not have the presence of mind to admonish the president for acting strangely, or inappropriately. I think it belies the destabilizing nature of Donald Trump. He does not act like the normal politician or public servant. It is hard to predict if your whole life has been reporting to service minded people. It won't get said explicitly but I think so much of the uneasiness that Comey has had stemmed from this unpredictability.

11:14 - Under questioning from Wyden, we just got one of the biggest pieces of the obstruction puzzle. He said if the president got what he wanted, the Russia investigation would have been ended. Senator Wyden connected the dots, if you had acceded to the president's request the American people would not have gotten the truth. I know people will deny that this is the key, but really that is what those obstruction calls are about. Stay calm, its still going to feel like forever.

11:23 - Comey has been good about creating a theme of trying to protect the organization, which is a far better reason to create the memos and do all of the things he has done. He certainly doesn't look like a guy with an ax to grind.

And while I was typing, he just admitted to being the source of the leaks. Laundered the memos through a professor at Columbia Law. So pretty much everything we have read in the paper about Comey and Trump is from Comey leaking. Again, he has built his case perfectly and is just connecting the dots today.

11:36 - Senator Blut appears to be trying to bury some of this testimony as strange behavior by Comey. I think he's getting shown up, Comey seems to be able to explain over the incredulity of the Senator. And he managed to run himself out of time trying to tease out this strain of thought. Comey shows no interest in answering an unasked question. I keep saying it but that comes with practice, he had to have trained witnesses to not answer unasked questions. I hope this is shown in law schools for years.

11:45 - Closest Comey has come to discussing the actual investigations. The Russia inquiry and the Flynn investigation were "separate but touching" seemed genuinely unsure if he would have been able to let the Russia investigation go unobstructed if Flynn had been stopped. Comey noted that he might want to pressure Flynn to "flip" him. Now the question is who would he flip him to testify against?

11:57 - Great refutation of Trump's claim that Comey had better hope there are no tapes of the conversation. Comey says release them all, almost seems like he would be relieved if they were there to corroborate the memos. He seems like he is enjoying this questioning from Senator Manchin, which should not speak to effort he is putting in.

12:08 - Seeing on Twitter that Judicial Watch is putting out there that Comey leaking information to reporters through third party was betraying his oath. For a supposedly legal organization they don't seem to be able to understand the difference between classified information and unclassified information, or personal recollection recorded. Something that might be worth looking in to would be the giving of Israeli intelegence to the Russians. Or perhaps the deaths of 18 CIA Sources in China just a couple of weeks after the Presidents of China and the US met.

As far as the hearing, Senator Kamala Harris managed to get an impressive string of "unable to answer in open session" answers. And it is beginning to appear that most of the red meat has been consumed by the senior members of the committee so the junior members are going a bit far afield here.

12:19 - Senator Cornyn asks to go back to the Clinton matter with Loretta Lynch. I have not mentioned his other answers in this area because I found them lacking probative value, and minor news. It could have been extrapolated from other information already provided. Biggest piece of news was the direct request on verbiage matching the campaign line. Comey did note no news article matched the language he used. He said "matter" everyone said "investigation," this is more likely the nothing burger the GOP keeps talking about, it certainly couldn't be the other things discussed. Not seeing the Senator getting far with this.

12:29 - Comey just reminded the room what is at stake, if the Russians were meddling in our election that is a big deal. If any American helped that is an even bigger deal. This makes it plain that we need to dig for facts, non-partisan, non-biased facts. I hope all of congress just got that message, as well as Robert Mueller III, which everyone says he already knows that.

Now Senator John McCain can show if he is for America or if he will fall back on the need to protect the President.

12:36 - John McCain is blowing my mind. He goes on a long questioning about the Clinton Email scandal, but can't seem to put a cogent question together. He concludes that there appears to be a double standard. He might be the only one who can track exactly what he means. These are very separate matters, and one seemed finished. If you tracked it let me know.

12:38 - McCain gets gaveled out of a rather tortured speaking time.

12:47 - We are gaveled out of the hearing and the talking heads are flapping. I'll collect myself in a bit for a recap.

With Obama Care, we were never angry at the right people

            There have been years of bellyaching in regards to the passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Most of it has come from Republicans decrying the temerity to mandate the purchase of something which is considered essential by most developed countries. Some came from earners in the subsidy gap left by the structure of the bill. As time went on, more voices joined the chorus to note the rise in premiums that were inevitable, and then egregious, to give everyone with preexisting conditions coverage.

            The anger flowed freely and ran hot against President Obama and the Democrats that voted for it. A sharp irony now that 23-24 million stand to lose insurance who clearly were the beneficiaries of that law. It was so bad and worth complaining about for seven years but the prospect of it going away and millions of our fellow Americans losing their coverage appears to be untenable. This uproar should indicate that the ACA was not all bad. And the things that weren’t bad maybe, definitely, are worth saving. Like the subsidies that allowed more than 20 million people to sign up for insurance in the first place. Or the requirement that insurance companies cover preexisting conditions and what people are paying for will actually cover the illnesses they could get.

            Our problem is that we were never angry at the right people. People raged against the president but never questioned why insurance companies were pulling out of marketplaces other than the reasons on the company press release. Instead of believing that they couldn’t make any money in the insurance marketplace, we should have questioned why they could not make money while insurance rates were doubling or tripling, and a record number of insurance customers were paying along with the federal government. Not to mention, company profits never took a sustained hit. Yes there were some growing pains but by 2016 there were profits for all who had stuck it out. If a company cannot make money in this environment it appears to be more a result of incompetence rather than the failure of legislation.

            One of the most important customers that the insurance marketplaces managed to get in this process was the federal government. If these companies really cared about the health of their customers, they, with their enormous lobbyist arms, could have reached out to congress to help prod for more subsidies. On passage even Democrats admitted the bill was not perfect, the companies could have taken the lead in how to reform the markplaces payment structure. Instead they just kept raising prices and they did so because of a clear assurance from an important interest group of the insurance companies. The Republican Party, led by their congressional delegation gave the companies political cover to continue to raise the rates. They complained loudly and often about the bill. So much so that the insurance industry saw that they would not get those subsidies quickly and the path of least resistance would be to play in to the hell-scape that Paul Ryan was promising.

            The other major group that one could credit with not getting enough flack is those  people who were complaining about the individual mandate and the media that enabled them. People who refused to buy insurance were depicted as patriotic cowboys fighting for their right to die of whichever disease they so choose. They were allowed their indignation without the serious check that they did not understand how the purchase of insurance might benefit society at large, or them in the long run, as preventative care is far cheaper than trying to pay for some unforeseen illness. The media allowed them to not have to deal with the fact that their principled stand against Obama Care should have been conflated with a desire to see their neighbors die of cancer.

            The Democrats were not totally blameless, though they were not criticized enough for the right things. They should have been dragged in to the streets for not creating a public option, or the ability to buy in to medicare for all. They were likely lobbied hard; any sign of public insurance will lead to the end of private health insurance in the ten years that follow it. That’s hard to end an industry. Democrats chose not to end dying of preventable disease in their own country instead. They do deserve praise for one thing, though. The bill was never designed to go on forever, and it may fail, but it will do so in a way that proves that people prefer to have healthcare rather than not. And that may mean that Obama Care hastened the coming of the public option, and for that we should thank those who crafted this whole mess.