newyorker--2020-01-07--John Mulaney Is Not So Square

John Mulaney Is Not So Square

Anyone who has John Mulaney pegged as America ’ s most wholesome comedian is only partially correct .
Yes , the thirty-seven-year-old is a mild-mannered , Midwestern Irish Catholic who went to Georgetown and nearly always performs in a tailored three-piece suit .
He has an old-timey sensibility—he avoids the raunch of many of his peers—and moves about the stage with a Broadway actor ’ s flair .
And yet there ’ s a black-sheep quality to him that ’ s often ignored .
He started drinking at the age of thirteen , and by twenty-three he was already in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the emotional child in his family , he was imbued with a streak of petulant darkness , which runs subtly through all of his work .
In one joke from his 2009 standup album , “ Top Part , ” he imagines himself as a drunk eight-year-old , being grilled by his father about what he ’ d done that day .
“ What did you color ?
” his dad asks .
“ Some biiiiig fuckin ’ brontosaurus , ” he imagines himself replying , slurring his words .
This interplay between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tone for Mulaney ’ s new children ’ s variety show , “ John Mulaney & the Sack Lunch Bunch , ” which is on Netflix , and which marks a departure from the comic ’ s run of award-winning standup specials and appearances on “ Saturday Night Live , ” where he also worked as a writer .
Not quite a children ’ s show for adults and not quite an adult show for children , “ The Sack Lunch Bunch ” —which Mulaney wrote with his former “ Saturday Night Live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eli Bolin—portrays Mulaney as the slightly grumpy host of a “ Sesame Street ” –like show , guiding children through an array of songs and scenarios .
( It also has a guest list that includes Jake Gyllenhaal , Richard Kind , and David Byrne . )
Mulaney , who is open about not wanting to have children , stands at a skeptical remove from his young co-stars , curious about them but also plainly aware of just how alien they can be .
As a performer , Mulaney has a pinballing adrenaline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downed a shot of espresso .
In person , he ’ s calm and thoughtful , and often speaks elliptically .
Recently , we met for breakfast at Russ & Daughters Café , in New York , to talk about the new show , his niche in today ’ s comedy landscape , and more .
Our conversation has been edited and condensed .
You took another reporter here during the making of “ The Sack Lunch Bunch , ” and he noted in the piece that you didn ’ t eat anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-week period when I was very stressed out .
Why were you stressed out ?
I don ’ t mean to make it sound like Abstract Expressionism , or like this was some crisis of genius .
But I was very bad at articulating what I wanted “ The Sack Lunch Bunch ” to be—and still am , in terms of a log line .
We had an hour and forty minutes of material , and I just kept thinking , We ’ re not going to know until day one of shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the same time , we had a budget and a schedule .
I hadn ’ t ever done anything where I was , like , I can ’ t describe this , but I can picture it .
Normally , most things I ’ ve done have been pretty straightforward .
It was also July in New York , and I felt kind of insane doing it .
You ’ ve talked about not wanting children .
Where did the idea for a children ’ s variety show come from ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nephews , or any other children in your life , as a focus group for the project ?
In a way , but not really .
At the time I was thinking about doing this project , all of my nieces and nephews were under five .
I ’ d had minimal conversations with them .
It was more that , in doing standup , I ’ d thought a lot about being a teen-ager , and , looking back on it , that teen-ager wasn ’ t me .
That was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was as a teen was far different from what I am now .
As a teen-ager , I was just incredibly emotional .
I didn ’ t realize that if I held it together just ten per cent more my life would be a lot easier .
I had a lot of meltdowns , telling people how much I liked them and falling into despair .
I always thought you were supposed to tell a girl how much you liked them .
In the movies , that was the only thing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started to feel like I was more myself when I was nine , ten , eleven than I was between the ages of fourteen and twenty-three .
I had an idea , which was a sketch show , with kids , that wasn ’ t Nickelodeon but wasn ’ t trying to be adult .
The novelty was not going to be kids saying adult things .
That was as articulate as I could be about it last March , when we started .
I started talking to Marika about it , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marlo Thomas ’ s ] “ Free to Be .
.
.
You and Me ” and “ Sesame Street , ” they struck us as really funny .
They actually used kids far less than we remembered .
“ Free to Be .
.
.
You and Me ” features a lot of adults .
There are kids in it , but it ’ s a lot of adults singing .
Roosevelt Grier and Harry Belafonte have a song about how moms and dads can be doctors .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought , That ’ s what it would look and sound like .
I think [ Marika ] really gave it context .
You say in the special that you ’ d watched a bunch of modern-day children ’ s television and didn ’ t like it .
But I ’ m trying to think of what modern-day kids ’ television is , and I can only think of YouTube .
They do watch YouTube like crazy .
At no point did any of the kids say , “ I watch ‘ Paw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ” or any of those Disney Channel shows .
It was all , like , “ I watch YouTube.
” And ads for anything come up on YouTube .
A bunch of them had seen the trailer for “ Us ” and were freaked out .
One of the girls had seen the movie in full .
They were telling me about things like Slender Man and Momo .
Many of the kids have other acting gigs or big social-media presences .
On a scale of naïve to savvy , how would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me to be show-biz kids , the way me and my siblings and my friends were .
They wanted to be putting on a show , but they were not Hollywood .
None were too stage-managed , and none were experienced in a way that they ever held over anyone else ’ s head .
It ’ s an eclectic show , where someone might have more screen time than others , and I was very concerned that that would present problems .
But they had a much better compass for how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and my contemporaries had .
It made me realize that the thing Marika , Rhys [ Thomas , the show ’ s director ] , and I had to base this on was “ Saturday Night Live.
” I think kids would be much better at “ Saturday Night Live ” than adults are .
Someone should pitch that to Lorne Michaels .
We actually pitched that to Lorne back in the day .
We wanted to get a kid in a sketch .
Marika always had an idea for “ Lil ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
But the 11:30 P.M. time wouldn ’ t have worked , because of child-labor laws .
How did you pitch such an abstract idea to your guest stars , like Jake Gyllenhaal and David Byrne ?
Jake was sent the demo without the preamble explaining the concept .
He responded to the material !
When I got on the phone with him , the fact that he was already interested in it as a character was really fun .
With Byrne , I explained it as kind of like an examination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and songs .
And he wrote back , “ When I was a kid I was afraid of volcanoes .
I don ’ t know why .
I grew up in Baltimore.
” He came over to my apartment , and Marika and Eli and I were sitting around my kitchen table .
I cleaned before he came over .
I didn ’ t know what to do .
And then he came in , and he was so nice , and he had his bike helmet .
I realized that we were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demo in front of them .
He was , like , “ O.K.
, great .
What date ?
” And he took out a day planner .
I think , when stuff goes in the day planner , he does it .
Throughout the special , you seem a bit aggrieved by the children .
Was that performative ?
A little bit .
Like in the sketch for the focus group for the kids ’ movie .
You seem impatient with them .
When I watch the special , I see someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m going to write for these kids , and it ’ s going to be funny for me to hear them say what I ’ ve written , to being a far softer person who really just enjoyed their talking .
Did doing the special make you rethink your decision not to have children ?
It didn ’ t , no .
We shot an ending where they asked me if it did .
And I say no , unless I have a tremendous mental shift , but I liked hanging out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of you is the perfect argument for and against having children .
I heard you were spotted at the Lizzo concert at Radio City .
You have a reputation for having a retro sensibility and being anti-trend .
I wonder which aspects of modern pop culture you engage with on a regular basis .
When I first moved to New York , my roommate was a music writer .
I knew about everything new from him .
In 2009 , we got separate places , and after that it just started to nosedive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything fun about not knowing current references .
I ’ m very happy when [ my wife ] Anna gets me into something new , but I also cannibalize it too quickly .
I ’ ll be , like , “ I really like Phoebe Bridgers.
” And she ’ ll be , like , “ I told you about her album.
” She ’ s one of my few lifelines to the world , and I forget that I ’ ve taken her taste .
“ The Irishman ” made me think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nodded off during it .
When I came to , Al Pacino was , like , “ These fuckin ’ Kennedys are comin ’ after me !
” And I was , like , I know where we are .
I ’ ve never not known about Robert Kennedy going after the Mafia .
Ugh .
Sometimes things in my wheelhouse are so .
.
.
ugh .
What do network notes look like from a streaming platform like Netflix ?
It ’ s very preproduction .
There ’ ll be post-notes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the production ] , which is nice .
On a network half-hour show , they come every day and observe : “ We ’ re not sure about this.
” And you ’ re , like , “ But this is all I have !
” Netflix is more macro .
You know , I won ’ t spend too much time praising a powerful company , but in this case I have to say they were really patient with me .
I ’ m embarrassed to say I had a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get them my script when I don ’ t even know if Richard Kind is available ?
” At this point in your career , do you still go out and workshop your material at small clubs ?
I was doing that , showing up and doing shorter sets .
But I haven ’ t for a few months .
I kind of got out of the rhythm , honestly , of , at 9 P.M. , being , like , “ I ’ d like to go out and stand for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always happy when I do .
The best thing that I found was doing these shows with Pete Davidson , doing thirty-five minutes each .
On paper , a lot of people would assume you and Pete Davidson are mismatched .
How did you become friends ?
I understand why they would say that .
I met him at the fortieth-anniversary thing for “ S.N.L.
” There was one dressing room you could smoke in .
I was sitting in there with Bill Hader , and Pete comes in and is , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] “ Are people here liars ?
” I was , like , “ Yes.
” And it was funny talking to someone who ’ d been there for maybe a year or two who was very wise about what was happening .
He was really funny and rebellious , but he kind of saw the whole thing right away .
He ’ d be , like , “ They ’ re only lying because they ’ re afraid.
” It took me so long to figure that out !
I think one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re friends with people who , in a lot of other situations , you wouldn ’ t know .
At the Comedy Cellar , you can hang out with someone for hours who is thirty years older than you and who is not an uptight dork from Georgetown .
I went to your Georgetown-benefit show at BAM without realizing it was a Georgetown thing .
The crowd was extremely buttoned up , and I remember you needling them in a way that was very funny .
I remember having an emotional journey that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was , like , “ Thank you , good night .
I know I make a lot of fun of you , but it was a very good time.
” I think , being the black sheep of a very buttoned-up family , I had to be , like , “ You uptight pricks !
” Your black-sheep-ness tends to get lost in your image .
Wherever I used to perform , I was the squarest of the square .
And then , when I would go home to visit , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Have you ever been in hot water , or been afraid of getting in hot water ?
Do you mean the personal hot water that many of the people in the arts have found themselves in lately ?
Yes .
Being made fun of , or being cancelled , or being the subject of negative attention online .
Well , I don ’ t want to equate it with being “ cancelled , ” but , when my sitcom just died in the ambulance , it felt like that .
[ The autobiographical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two episodes , in 2015 . ]
And I think , maybe privately , and maybe sometimes publicly , I would wear that a little too much .
“ I know you all think I ’ m a fucking loser.
” It ’ s , like , they paid to see you .
Relax .
And many people probably didn ’ t even know that you had a sitcom .
They didn ’ t .
And now there ’ s a whole generation coming up who Google my name , and they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this ?
” But have I ever been on the brink of getting in hot water ?
[ Long pause . ]
Now I feel like this is a curse I ’ m going to bring upon you .
I mean , it ’ d be absurd to act like I ’ m thinking about this for the first time .
I ’ ve thought , Oh , that joke might not age well .
I ’ ve written comedy for fifteen years .
[ Pause . ]
O.K.
, I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general , I would not enjoy a shitstorm .
But I don ’ t stand by all the work .
I ’ d happily apologize .
A big thing I look back on is that people don ’ t know that you think of yourself as a really progressive , liberal , open-minded person .
It ’ s not a given .
I felt like sometimes on “ S.N.L.
” we would get into that : “ You know our politics.
” And they ’ d be , like , “ No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s that murky territory .
There ’ s this notion that “ P.C .
culture ” was invented in the last few years .
Do you agree ?
We did this twenty-five years ago .
At the time , people were , like , “ Now you ’ re supposed to say ‘ mentally challenged.
’ What the hell ?
” And I remember thinking , Well , it ’ s nicer .
And these aren ’ t laws .
They just seemed to be suggestions that were immediately shot out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a busy career .
Does it feel that way to you ?
I ’ ve been fairly selective in that I do two things a year , max .
And one will often be , like , a guest appearance .
But I like everything I ’ ve picked .
I also think ages twenty-five to thirty at “ S.N.L.
” felt like twenty years .
I have fewer goals now , in a nice way .
Will you put out another standup special soon ?
In 2021 , I bet .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Emmy for your last special .
At this point , is standup your crown jewel ?
It ’ s the thing I really love the most .
What was nice about this kids ’ special was that I had not done anything from the ground up since I did that half-hour sitcom .
I normally operate within someone else ’ s show .
“ The Sack Lunch Bunch ” was as satisfying as anything I ’ ve ever done , and it wasn ’ t standup or just writing .
Bizarrely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hosting the Globes , or whatever , and they use it , and it works , I get more satisfaction out of that than a lot of things .
I don ’ t know why .
This was your first year at the Oscars .
Did you feel like an outsider , or like you were part of the club ?
It was really nice to present with Nora [ Lum , who performs as Awkwafina ] .
I felt a little bit out of place , but everybody seemed like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did cut to me at one point when they were , like , “ Ladies and gentlemen , Tom Morello.
” You play Thoreau in the new Emily Dickinson show .
Did you do any kind of transcendentalist exercises to prepare for it ?
Well , I read this profile of him in The New Yorker that inspired the episode .
He was a dilettante hipster prick .
Walden Pond was extremely close to his family , and bustling .
He was just a contrarian .
I feel like we ’ re on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against social media .
Do you subscribe to any of that ?
No .
I am alone without it a lot , and also sometimes totally buried in my phone , because it ’ s a TV and it ’ s really neat and fun .
But working with “ The Sack Lunch Bunch , ” people were talking like it was the end of days with kids on their phones .
And I thought , Yeah , that person is eleven and they have an Instagram account .
But we had pellet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the city of Chicago .
We were vulnerable in different ways .
Those fears are just generational snobbery .

Anyone who has John Mulaney pegged as America’s most wholesome comedian is only partially correct. Yes, the thirty-seven-year-old is a mild-mannered, Midwestern Irish Catholic who went to Georgetown and nearly always performs in a tailored three-piece suit. He has an old-timey sensibility—he avoids the raunch of many of his peers—and moves about the stage with a Broadway actor’s flair. And yet there’s a black-sheep quality to him that’s often ignored. He started drinking at the age of thirteen, and by twenty-three he was already in recovery from drugs and alcohol. As the emotional child in his family, he was imbued with a streak of petulant darkness, which runs subtly through all of his work. In one joke from his 2009 standup album, “Top Part,” he imagines himself as a drunk eight-year-old, being grilled by his father about what he’d done that day. “What did you color?” his dad asks. “Some biiiiig fuckin’ brontosaurus,” he imagines himself replying, slurring his words.
This interplay between the squeaky-clean and the morose sets the tone for Mulaney’s new children’s variety show, “John Mulaney & the Sack Lunch Bunch,” which is on Netflix, and which marks a departure from the comic’s run of award-winning standup specials and appearances on “Saturday Night Live,” where he also worked as a writer. Not quite a children’s show for adults and not quite an adult show for children, “The Sack Lunch Bunch”—which Mulaney wrote with his former “Saturday Night Live” colleague Marika Sawyer and the composer Eli Bolin—portrays Mulaney as the slightly grumpy host of a “Sesame Street”–like show, guiding children through an array of songs and scenarios. (It also has a guest list that includes Jake Gyllenhaal, Richard Kind, and David Byrne.) Mulaney, who is open about not wanting to have children, stands at a skeptical remove from his young co-stars, curious about them but also plainly aware of just how alien they can be.
As a performer, Mulaney has a pinballing adrenaline, as if he’s just downed a shot of espresso. In person, he’s calm and thoughtful, and often speaks elliptically. Recently, we met for breakfast at Russ & Daughters Café, in New York, to talk about the new show, his niche in today’s comedy landscape, and more. Our conversation has been edited and condensed.
You took another reporter here during the making of “The Sack Lunch Bunch,” and he noted in the piece that you didn’t eat anything.
Well, that was during a two-week period when I was very stressed out.
Why were you stressed out?
I don’t mean to make it sound like Abstract Expressionism, or like this was some crisis of genius. But I was very bad at articulating what I wanted “The Sack Lunch Bunch” to be—and still am, in terms of a log line. We had an hour and forty minutes of material, and I just kept thinking, We’re not going to know until day one of shooting what works and what doesn’t. At the same time, we had a budget and a schedule. I hadn’t ever done anything where I was, like, I can’t describe this, but I can picture it. Normally, most things I’ve done have been pretty straightforward. It was also July in New York, and I felt kind of insane doing it.
You’ve talked about not wanting children. Where did the idea for a children’s variety show come from? And did you use your nieces and nephews, or any other children in your life, as a focus group for the project?
In a way, but not really. At the time I was thinking about doing this project, all of my nieces and nephews were under five. I’d had minimal conversations with them. It was more that, in doing standup, I’d thought a lot about being a teen-ager, and, looking back on it, that teen-ager wasn’t me. That was a different person. I think that what I was as a teen was far different from what I am now.
How so?
As a teen-ager, I was just incredibly emotional. I didn’t realize that if I held it together just ten per cent more my life would be a lot easier. I had a lot of meltdowns, telling people how much I liked them and falling into despair. I always thought you were supposed to tell a girl how much you liked them. In the movies, that was the only thing that worked—really spelling it out. And I started to feel like I was more myself when I was nine, ten, eleven than I was between the ages of fourteen and twenty-three.
Photograph by David Brandon Geeting for The New Yorker
I had an idea, which was a sketch show, with kids, that wasn’t Nickelodeon but wasn’t trying to be adult. The novelty was not going to be kids saying adult things. That was as articulate as I could be about it last March, when we started. I started talking to Marika about it, and when we went and looked at [Marlo Thomas’s] “Free to Be . . . You and Me” and “Sesame Street,” they struck us as really funny. They actually used kids far less than we remembered. “Free to Be . . . You and Me” features a lot of adults. There are kids in it, but it’s a lot of adults singing. Roosevelt Grier and Harry Belafonte have a song about how moms and dads can be doctors. It’s a lot of parents defending themselves. We thought, That’s what it would look and sound like. I think [Marika] really gave it context.
You say in the special that you’d watched a bunch of modern-day children’s television and didn’t like it. But I’m trying to think of what modern-day kids’ television is, and I can only think of YouTube.
They do watch YouTube like crazy. At no point did any of the kids say, “I watch ‘Paw Patrol’ or ‘Fancy Nancy,’ ” or any of those Disney Channel shows. It was all, like, “I watch YouTube.” And ads for anything come up on YouTube. A bunch of them had seen the trailer for “Us” and were freaked out. One of the girls had seen the movie in full. They were telling me about things like Slender Man and Momo.
Many of the kids have other acting gigs or big social-media presences. On a scale of naïve to savvy, how would you characterize the cast?
They seemed to me to be show-biz kids, the way me and my siblings and my friends were. They wanted to be putting on a show, but they were not Hollywood. None were too stage-managed, and none were experienced in a way that they ever held over anyone else’s head. It’s an eclectic show, where someone might have more screen time than others, and I was very concerned that that would present problems. But they had a much better compass for how to treat people than I thought me and my contemporaries had. It made me realize that the thing Marika, Rhys [Thomas, the show’s director], and I had to base this on was “Saturday Night Live.” I think kids would be much better at “Saturday Night Live” than adults are.
Someone should pitch that to Lorne Michaels.
We actually pitched that to Lorne back in the day. We wanted to get a kid in a sketch. Marika always had an idea for “Lil’ Update,” with little kids in it. But the 11:30 P.M. time wouldn’t have worked, because of child-labor laws.
How did you pitch such an abstract idea to your guest stars, like Jake Gyllenhaal and David Byrne?
Jake was sent the demo without the preamble explaining the concept. He responded to the material! When I got on the phone with him, the fact that he was already interested in it as a character was really fun.
With Byrne, I explained it as kind of like an examination of fear and anxieties, with sketches and songs. And he wrote back, “When I was a kid I was afraid of volcanoes. I don’t know why. I grew up in Baltimore.” He came over to my apartment, and Marika and Eli and I were sitting around my kitchen table. I cleaned before he came over. I didn’t know what to do. And then he came in, and he was so nice, and he had his bike helmet. I realized that we were just going to have to play the demo in front of them. He was, like, “O.K., great. What date?” And he took out a day planner. I think, when stuff goes in the day planner, he does it.


newyorker--2020-01-07--What War Powers Does President Trump Have?

After President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Qassem Suleimani , the head of Iran ’ s Quds Force and one of the most notorious and feared figures in the Middle East , Iran ’ s government vowed revenge .
Trump responded by threatening further military action , and even went so far as to say that Iranian cultural sites could be targeted .
In addition to drawing the United States closer to war with Iran , the President ’ s actions have raised important legal questions , starting with whether the strike itself was within the bounds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal issues involved , I spoke by phone with Oona A. Hathaway , a professor at Yale Law School who served as a legal adviser to the Department of Defense during the Obama Administration .
Her book “ The Internationalists : How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World , ” co-authored with Scott J. Shapiro , was published in 2017 .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed the constitutional limits on the President , whether the Obama Administration opened the door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power , and the dangerous consequences that could result from targeting Iran ’ s cultural-heritage sites .
You wrote , about the strike on Suleimani , that lawyers from previous Administrations “ almost certainly counseled that such action would be illegal.
” What makes you sure of that ?
Congress has repeatedly made it clear that it is wary of getting involved in a conflict with Iran .
There have been hearings ; there have been a number of events where it is clear that Congress really does not favor getting involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s true , the only way in which the President , whether he is Bush or Obama or Trump , could take action is if there was an imminent threat .
As far as we know , that has not been the case .
Congress can perhaps make its feelings clear with a hearing or by having its members talk to the media .
But does that have any legal basis unless a law is passed ?
Congress has the power in the Constitution to declare war , not the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other relevant powers , such as the power to raise armies , and it ’ s clear that the intention in the creation of the Constitution was to give the power of initiating conflict to Congress .
The rare exception that almost everyone agrees exists is in instances where there is a necessity of acting in self-defense—when there is no time for deliberation , no time to go to Congress to seek authorization .
And that was particularly true back when the Constitution was first written , because it could take a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them back to Washington , and so they needed to allow some way to have the President defend the nation if it was under attack .
The understanding was that he could do what was necessary , but then as quickly as he could , he needed to go to Congress and seek authority .
The onus is not on Congress to say , “ We don ’ t want a war with Iran ” ; the onus is on the President to say , “ Here is why I think a war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and get the authority to act .
The Administration now seems to be saying that the killing of Suleimani was an act of self-defense .
How are they legally required to prove that , and to whom are they supposed to prove it ?
They do seem to be asserting that it is an act of self-defense .
What they would need to do is provide evidence that , in fact , there was some imminent threat to the nation .
And even if that requires providing intelligence that can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to be provided to Congress .
And , truthfully , it should have been provided in advance of the strike to the Gang of Eight [ the bipartisan group of top congressional leaders normally briefed by the White House on intelligence matters ] .
If you had time to consult with various Republican advisers , some who are in Congress , you had time to notify the Gang of Eight .
But what the President would have to do was provide as much information as possible that was unclassified , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appendices , notifications to the relevant committees in Congress .
The onus is on the President to show there was an imminent threat and that he couldn ’ t go to Congress .
It can ’ t simply be that he thought Congress wasn ’ t going to say yes .
It has to be that he needed to act now in order to effectively defend the nation and the only way to do that would be to not go to Congress first .
You wrote that one legal question raised by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership was not consulted .
Why is that a legal matter ?
First , it is respectful of the constitutional allocation of powers , recognizing that Congress plays a significant role in the decision of taking the nation to war , even if you don ’ t have time for a full-fledged debate .
Second , under the War Powers Resolution , the President is required to consult with Congress and provide it with the information necessary to assess whether the actions he is taking are permissible .
He hasn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has provided just a War Powers report , the entirety of which was classified .
Pelosi , who ’ s read it , said it raised more questions than it answered .
Providing the entirety of the information in a classified way is unusual , and what that does is make it difficult for Congress to question the President about the information , because they can not reveal any of it , and that puts them in an awkward and difficult position of trying to hold the President to account .
Jack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has cast some doubt on the idea that the strike was illegal , in part because of opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel ( O.L.C . )
, and in part because of Congress ’ s unwillingness to assert itself in the past several decades .
How do you respond to that ?
I read that as saying not so much that it is legal but that the reality of the situation is that Presidents over the years have expansively interpreted their war powers , and that has paved the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
This makes it easier for lawyers in the Administration to come up with another justification for a questionable assertion of war power .
It may even make it difficult for lawyers who want to press back , in part because there are O.L.C .
opinions out there that , if read broadly , could be used to support this .
I think he is right about that .
I think the problem is that you want to be careful about putting these O.L.C .
opinions into context .
They are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers—there is no court that has ever weighed in on this , and there is no way in which anyone is in a position to reject the claims that the O.L.C .
opinions are making .
I think it ’ s a problem that Congress doesn ’ t have its own Office of Legal Counsel to press back on excessive claims of executive authority .
Is that the reason Congress hasn ’ t pushed back , or is it because they have willingly given power to the executive ?
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one hand , the political incentives don ’ t necessarily run in favor of doing anything in these cases .
And they have also been boxed in over the years .
Each Congress is put in a more difficult position because of the Congress before it .
There is a really difficult collective-action problem in Congress , whereas with the executive , you have all the power to act , and then Congress has to try and do something to stop you .
And Congresses are not always willing to put the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Look at all the counterterrorism operations since 9/11 .
Congress enacted the 2001 Authorization For Use of Military Force ( A.U.M.F . )
, and it hasn ’ t enacted any legislation to follow up on that .
That is partially because Presidents have interpreted the 2001 A.U.M.F .
to do more and more , to allow them to continue to do everything they want .
But it is also because Congress can ’ t agree on what to replace it with , or doesn ’ t really see that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trying to act to repeal it and put something more constrained in its place .
And so here we are , in 2020 , working on a law that was passed several days after 9/11 and was never intended for any of the things it is being used for today .
You tweeted , “ The problem is that there are few checks on aggressive executive branch interpretations .
The courts never weigh in and Congress ca n't effectively respond .
One year ’ s legal stretch looks like next year ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make the legal interpretations correct !
” I get that , but where does it leave us ?
What , if any , are the legal remedies available if the law is being violated ?
I do think the effort to push back with this new congressional resolution is a step in the right direction .
Which resolution is this ?
This is the resolution that is being debated that follows on the Kaine resolution , but there is zero doubt that it is time for a substantial new legislation or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad place right now .
Congress has gotten to a point where it can ’ t effectively respond to Presidents who want to seize authority and who are shameless about it , who can ’ t be convinced to follow the rules in the way they are supposed to or don ’ t have lawyers who can rein them in .
President Obama was susceptible to arguments about legality , and it seems pretty clear that President Trump is not .
And a President who just doesn ’ t really care about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We do need new legislation that deals with this kind of situation , which I think no one has taken seriously before because we never really had a President like this before .
The House should just impeach him .
That would solve it .
We ’ ll see .
[ Laughs . ]
There are definitely people making the argument that this could become another article of impeachment .
That seems unlikely politically .
You hear a lot of people on the left argue that Obama and previous Presidents allowed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their own ends and pushing its bounds .
If previous Presidents had not done so , would Trump actually be constrained in any meaningful way ?
That ’ s a great question , and that would push against Jack Goldsmith ’ s argument to some degree , as well .
He sees this as another step , but not as huge a step as one might think , given the prior O.L.C .
opinions .
I think that each act of pushing the bounds makes it easier for someone that comes later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes it seem less surprising and less norm-breaking and less outrageous .
The less of a leap that ’ s required , the more there is a willingness to accept it .
Trump doesn ’ t seem cowed by any of that , and so if there hadn ’ t been a 2011 O.L.C .
opinion , would things really be any different ?
It ’ s hard to say .
It ’ s hard to give a counterfactual .
But I think it has made it easier for Republicans to accept that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all that different , and it has given them some rhetorical fire , because they can say , “ Look , President Obama went to war in Libya without congressional authorization .
So , really , what is so different here ?
” And those arguments do have some effect .
And so I think that Presidents before have made it easier for Trump to do what he is doing .
But whether he would not be taking these actions if that hadn ’ t been the case is very hard to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Libya argument as a rejoinder ?
The thing about Libya is that at least there was international authorization there .
Yeah , we had a Security Council resolution .
It didn ’ t come as a huge surprise to Congress .
Congress knew this was happening .
There wasn ’ t a situation where one day there was a strike in Libya that no one was anticipating .
There was a long effort in the U.N. to get the Security Council resolution that was going to be a NATO-led intervention .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States wasn ’ t out on its own .
That said , I do think that the Libya operation was harmful to congressional war powers , because the President , in defending the operation , interpreted hostilities in the War Powers Resolution in a way that basically made it almost ineffectual .
Saying the extensive bombing campaign in Libya wasn ’ t hostilities does really mean that it is very hard to imagine that the War Powers Resolution applies to anything other than a full D Day-type invasion .
So it really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that was a big mistake on Obama ’ s part .
I co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post arguing that it was illegal the time , so I am not among those who are fair-weather fans of the War Powers Resolution .
It ’ s interesting how many Democrats were not interested in war powers during the Obama Administration , and now that Trump is in office are suddenly discovering its value .
What would be the legal ramifications , domestic and international , of targeting cultural sites , as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be really tragic .
It ’ s a clear violation of the 1907 Hague Convention .
It is a clear violation of the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property .
And it would license others to do the same , and it also could expose members of the U.S. military to war crimes prosecution potentially , because the 1907 Hague Convention is among the laws that the 1996 War Crimes Act allows people to be prosecuted for violating .
That puts members of the military in a horrible position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I follow orders from the President ?
On the other hand , do I refuse and potentially lose whatever position I have ?
And I am not a fan of the idea of encouraging members of the military not to follow orders from the President , because the President is a civilian leader .
We have an idea of civilian control of the military .
And for members of the military to refuse to follow the civilian Commander-in-Chief ’ s orders because they are bad is not a great precedent to set if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military .

After President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force and one of the most notorious and feared figures in the Middle East, Iran’s government vowed revenge. Trump responded by threatening further military action, and even went so far as to say that Iranian cultural sites could be targeted. In addition to drawing the United States closer to war with Iran, the President’s actions have raised important legal questions, starting with whether the strike itself was within the bounds of the law.
To better understand the legal issues involved, I spoke by phone with Oona A. Hathaway, a professor at Yale Law School who served as a legal adviser to the Department of Defense during the Obama Administration. Her book “The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World,” co-authored with Scott J. Shapiro, was published in 2017. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the constitutional limits on the President, whether the Obama Administration opened the door to Trump’s abuses of executive power, and the dangerous consequences that could result from targeting Iran’s cultural-heritage sites.
You wrote, about the strike on Suleimani, that lawyers from previous Administrations “almost certainly counseled that such action would be illegal.” What makes you sure of that?
Congress has repeatedly made it clear that it is wary of getting involved in a conflict with Iran. There have been hearings; there have been a number of events where it is clear that Congress really does not favor getting involved in any significant conflagration. As long as that’s true, the only way in which the President, whether he is Bush or Obama or Trump, could take action is if there was an imminent threat. As far as we know, that has not been the case.
Congress can perhaps make its feelings clear with a hearing or by having its members talk to the media. But does that have any legal basis unless a law is passed?
Congress has the power in the Constitution to declare war, not the President. It also has a number of other relevant powers, such as the power to raise armies, and it’s clear that the intention in the creation of the Constitution was to give the power of initiating conflict to Congress. The rare exception that almost everyone agrees exists is in instances where there is a necessity of acting in self-defense—when there is no time for deliberation, no time to go to Congress to seek authorization. And that was particularly true back when the Constitution was first written, because it could take a long time to communicate with Congress or bring them back to Washington, and so they needed to allow some way to have the President defend the nation if it was under attack. The understanding was that he could do what was necessary, but then as quickly as he could, he needed to go to Congress and seek authority. The onus is not on Congress to say, “We don’t want a war with Iran”; the onus is on the President to say, “Here is why I think a war with Iran is a justified action,” and get the authority to act.
The Administration now seems to be saying that the killing of Suleimani was an act of self-defense. How are they legally required to prove that, and to whom are they supposed to prove it?
They do seem to be asserting that it is an act of self-defense. What they would need to do is provide evidence that, in fact, there was some imminent threat to the nation. And even if that requires providing intelligence that cannot be widely shared, at the minimum that needs to be provided to Congress. And, truthfully, it should have been provided in advance of the strike to the Gang of Eight [the bipartisan group of top congressional leaders normally briefed by the White House on intelligence matters]. If you had time to consult with various Republican advisers, some who are in Congress, you had time to notify the Gang of Eight.
But what the President would have to do was provide as much information as possible that was unclassified, and then there could also be classified hearings, appendices, notifications to the relevant committees in Congress. The onus is on the President to show there was an imminent threat and that he couldn’t go to Congress. It can’t simply be that he thought Congress wasn’t going to say yes. It has to be that he needed to act now in order to effectively defend the nation and the only way to do that would be to not go to Congress first.
You wrote that one legal question raised by the strike on Suleimani was that congressional Democratic leadership was not consulted. Why is that a legal matter?
First, it is respectful of the constitutional allocation of powers, recognizing that Congress plays a significant role in the decision of taking the nation to war, even if you don’t have time for a full-fledged debate. Second, under the War Powers Resolution, the President is required to consult with Congress and provide it with the information necessary to assess whether the actions he is taking are permissible. He hasn’t really done that in any adequate way. He has provided just a War Powers report, the entirety of which was classified. Pelosi, who’s read it, said it raised more questions than it answered. Providing the entirety of the information in a classified way is unusual, and what that does is make it difficult for Congress to question the President about the information, because they cannot reveal any of it, and that puts them in an awkward and difficult position of trying to hold the President to account.
Jack Goldsmith, an expert on executive power, has cast some doubt on the idea that the strike was illegal, in part because of opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel (O.L.C.), and in part because of Congress’s unwillingness to assert itself in the past several decades. How do you respond to that?
I read that as saying not so much that it is legal but that the reality of the situation is that Presidents over the years have expansively interpreted their war powers, and that has paved the way for what the President is doing here. This makes it easier for lawyers in the Administration to come up with another justification for a questionable assertion of war power. It may even make it difficult for lawyers who want to press back, in part because there are O.L.C. opinions out there that, if read broadly, could be used to support this.
I think he is right about that. I think the problem is that you want to be careful about putting these O.L.C. opinions into context. They are the opinions of the President’s own lawyers—there is no court that has ever weighed in on this, and there is no way in which anyone is in a position to reject the claims that the O.L.C. opinions are making. I think it’s a problem that Congress doesn’t have its own Office of Legal Counsel to press back on excessive claims of executive authority.


newyorker--2020-01-07--What Does John Bolton Want?

What Does John Bolton Want?

John Bolton , who served as President Donald Trump ’ s national-security adviser and , before that , as President George W. Bush ’ s United Nations Ambassador , an official in the George H. W. Bush and Reagan Administrations , a Fox News contributor , and a rampant hawk-about-Washington , is now being talked about—not least , by himself—as a potential star witness in the impeachment trial of Trump .
Bolton was in a position to know a lot about Trump ’ s alleged scheme to pressure Ukraine ’ s President , Volodymyr Zelensky , to investigate the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wilder theories of purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 Presidential election .
Bolton is the one who , according to other witnesses , referred to those machinations as a “ drug deal.
” Chuck Schumer , the Senate Minority Leader , has been arguing that a truly fair Senate impeachment trial would all but require calling Bolton , along with a handful of other witnesses .
Mitch McConnell , the Senate Majority Leader , has been resisting that plan , and on Tuesday he said that he had the votes to proceed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Senator Mitt Romney , one of the few Republicans to display even a modicum of independence , said , “ I would like to be able to hear from John Bolton , ” if not until later in the trial .
Romney was speaking a day after Bolton had released a surprise statement saying that , after “ careful consideration and study , ” he had “ concluded that , if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony , I am prepared to testify.
” He threw in some phrases implying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing issues ” that he ’ d felt he had to resolve .
But he more or less waved a flag , asking or daring the Senate to call him .
Never mind being “ prepared ” to comply—is Bolton yearning to testify , and , if so , what does he want to say ?
One thing that Bolton seems to want everyone to understand is that he does know a lot of interesting things .
In November , after the principal fact witnesses , such as Ambassadors William Taylor and Gordon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the former National Security Council official Fiona Hill , had given their often devastating testimony before the House Intelligence Committee , Bolton ’ s lawyer put out a statement saying that his client could speak to “ many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed.
” That was intriguing , since the other witnesses had discussed meetings in which Bolton had reacted angrily to suggestions that military aid for Ukraine or a White House meeting for President Zelensky might be dependent on a politically motivated investigation , and had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawyers.
” What more might there be—a conversation between Trump and Bolton that could provide the direct , firsthand evidence of a quid pro quo that the Republicans have claimed was lacking ?
Something worse , or weirder ?
( Given that Rudy Giuliani , the President ’ s wildcatting lawyer , is involved , one never knows how strange the story might become . )
Later that month , returning to Twitter after a hiatus , Bolton posted “ Stay tuned ... .
” And on Monday , he solemnly noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at issue.
” It always was ; so let ’ s have it .
The question of Bolton ’ s testimony is a bit more complicated than the vision of him swooping in and laying a smoking gun on the Senate floor might imply .
Trump directed a slew of officials not to testify in the House impeachment inquiry , with or without a subpoena .
One of the two articles of impeachment that the House passed—but that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet sent on to the Senate—charges Trump with obstruction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withholding documents .
( The other article , charging abuse of power , involves the dealings with Ukraine . )
The House Judiciary Committee ’ s report listed nine key officials who defied subpoenas , including Mick Mulvaney , the acting chief of staff .
Bolton is not among them ; he was not actually subpoenaed by the House .
This is not because he wasn ’ t central to the story—everybody agrees that he was—but because of how he fit into the House ’ s legal strategy .
When the House Intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton ’ s deputy , Kupperman went to court , asking a federal judge to resolve what he presented as the dilemma of conflicting commands from two branches , the legislature and the executive .
Kupperman ’ s question to the court was , in other words , whether he should listen to Trump or to Adam Schiff , the Intelligence Committee ’ s chair .
At its heart , this question falls into a crucial and surprisingly ill-defined area of jurisprudence .
The Trump Administration , in its answer to Kupperman ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad vision of executive power that involves “ absolute immunity ” from subpoenas for any number of officials .
( It made similar arguments in a parallel case involving Don McGahn , the former White House counsel , who had been subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the Mueller report . )
Bolton , in November , said that he would be guided by the court ’ s answer .
But Schiff and his colleagues argued that the suit was a delaying tactic and moved to make it go away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , indeed , made a commitment to the presiding judge , Richard Leon , that it would not subpoena him “ ever , ” and neither would any other House committee .
Kupperman wasn ’ t even named in the Judiciary impeachment report .
On December 30th , Judge Leon declared the case moot , and dismissed it .
( The McGahn case , which the Trump Administration lost in a D.C. district court , is now before an appeals court . )
There was some irony in the House Democrats fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts , only to then hold back on sending the articles to the Senate in the name of trying to get witnesses that the courts might , in due time , have helped them get access to .
Schumer and Pelosi are relying on the Senate ’ s existing impeachment rules , according to which the House needs to formally send the articles for the trial to begin , to give them bargaining power over the form of the trial .
But the Constitution doesn ’ t specify that transmission requirement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a Senate vote .
On Tuesday , McConnell said that for now he will wait for Pelosi to send the articles , which he hopes she will do by the end of this week .
At this point , it ’ s not clear why she should hold them any longer or , arguably , why she ever did .
Doing so has allowed the Republicans to argue that the Democrats are afraid of exposing the weakness of their case .
For as long as the delay lasts , there is effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In an opinion piece for Bloomberg , published last month , Noah Feldman , the Harvard Law professor who was one of the Democrats ’ witnesses , argues that a failure to transmit meant that the House impeachment process hadn ’ t been completed , meaning that “ Trump could legitimately say that he wasn ’ t truly impeached at all.
” ) On a basic level , not sending the articles doesn ’ t come across as entirely forthright , whatever the motivation or the provocation .
Perhaps the interval has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting out the message that , since McConnell has said he is working in coördination with the White House , the trial won ’ t be fair .
But even some Democrats think that this gambit is played out .
On Tuesday , Senator Chris Murphy , of Connecticut , said , “ The time has passed , ” adding that the Speaker “ should send the articles over.
” The one certainty is that the Democrats have less leverage in the Senate than they did in the House .
Maybe Bolton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Democrats , as many hope , if only at a later stage in the trial ; it might also give leverage to McConnell to bring in witnesses that the Democrats don ’ t want , such as Hunter Biden , the Vice-President ’ s son , whose dealings in Ukraine are part of the story .
( McConnell has warned of “ mutually assured destruction.
” ) But who knows what will happen if and when Bolton starts talking ?
He could implicate Trump—who fired him , after all—or he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet save Trump .
In the famous quote attributed to Bolton , he apparently described the “ drug deal ” as something that “ Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.
” Might he add , in his testimony , “ at Trump ’ s direction , ” or “ without Trump ’ s knowledge ” ?
Who else might he draw in ?
The one with leverage here would appear to be Bolton .
If all Bolton wants to do is to lay out for Congress and the public information that is crucial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just call a press conference or write an op-ed .
He—and a lot of other people in the Administration—probably should have done so a long time ago .
( And might do so now without an Anonymous byline . )
Trump can yell about executive privilege or classified information , but whistle-blowers face this dilemma all the time , with more bravery than Bolton has shown .
Asking for a subpoena would seem to serve other purposes for Bolton .
One might be to give him political cover within the Republican Party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
( The Monday statement was put out by his eponymous PAC . )
Another might be to maintain his long-held position that the executive branch does indeed have sweeping powers , and that the President ’ s wishes should not be lightly put aside—unless , that is , the President doesn ’ t want to take military action somewhere that Bolton thinks he should .
Such reluctance has been a source of past disputes between him and Trump .
On Friday , though , he tweeted , “ Congratulations to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iranian general the U.S. had just killed in Iraq .
That would include President Trump .

John Bolton, who served as President Donald Trump’s national-security adviser and, before that, as President George W. Bush’s United Nations Ambassador, an official in the George H. W. Bush and Reagan Administrations, a Fox News contributor, and a rampant hawk-about-Washington, is now being talked about—not least, by himself—as a potential star witness in the impeachment trial of Trump. Bolton was in a position to know a lot about Trump’s alleged scheme to pressure Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate the Biden family and provide backup for one of the wilder theories of purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. Bolton is the one who, according to other witnesses, referred to those machinations as a “drug deal.” Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, has been arguing that a truly fair Senate impeachment trial would all but require calling Bolton, along with a handful of other witnesses. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, has been resisting that plan, and on Tuesday he said that he had the votes to proceed without a deal with Schumer. Still, Senator Mitt Romney, one of the few Republicans to display even a modicum of independence, said, “I would like to be able to hear from John Bolton,” if not until later in the trial. Romney was speaking a day after Bolton had released a surprise statement saying that, after “careful consideration and study,” he had “concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.” He threw in some phrases implying reluctance, speaking of the “serious competing issues” that he’d felt he had to resolve. But he more or less waved a flag, asking or daring the Senate to call him. Never mind being “prepared” to comply—is Bolton yearning to testify, and, if so, what does he want to say?
One thing that Bolton seems to want everyone to understand is that he does know a lot of interesting things. In November, after the principal fact witnesses, such as Ambassadors William Taylor and Gordon Sondland, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, and the former National Security Council official Fiona Hill, had given their often devastating testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Bolton’s lawyer put out a statement saying that his client could speak to “many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed.” That was intriguing, since the other witnesses had discussed meetings in which Bolton had reacted angrily to suggestions that military aid for Ukraine or a White House meeting for President Zelensky might be dependent on a politically motivated investigation, and had sent his aides to talk to “the lawyers.” What more might there be—a conversation between Trump and Bolton that could provide the direct, firsthand evidence of a quid pro quo that the Republicans have claimed was lacking? Something worse, or weirder? (Given that Rudy Giuliani, the President’s wildcatting lawyer, is involved, one never knows how strange the story might become.) Later that month, returning to Twitter after a hiatus, Bolton posted “Stay tuned....” And on Monday, he solemnly noted that “my testimony is once again at issue.” It always was, so let’s have it.
The question of Bolton’s testimony is a bit more complicated than the vision of him swooping in and laying a smoking gun on the Senate floor might imply. Trump directed a slew of officials not to testify in the House impeachment inquiry, with or without a subpoena. One of the two articles of impeachment that the House passed—but that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet sent on to the Senate—charges Trump with obstruction of Congress, for blocking those witnesses and withholding documents. (The other article, charging abuse of power, involves the dealings with Ukraine.) The House Judiciary Committee’s report listed nine key officials who defied subpoenas, including Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff. Bolton is not among them; he was not actually subpoenaed by the House. This is not because he wasn’t central to the story—everybody agrees that he was—but because of how he fit into the House’s legal strategy. When the House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Charles Kupperman, who was Bolton’s deputy, Kupperman went to court, asking a federal judge to resolve what he presented as the dilemma of conflicting commands from two branches, the legislature and the executive. Kupperman’s question to the court was, in other words, whether he should listen to Trump or to Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee’s chair. At its heart, this question falls into a crucial and surprisingly ill-defined area of jurisprudence. The Trump Administration, in its answer to Kupperman’s suit, argued for a gapingly broad vision of executive power that involves “absolute immunity” from subpoenas for any number of officials. (It made similar arguments in a parallel case involving Don McGahn, the former White House counsel, who had been subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee in connection with the Mueller report.) Bolton, in November, said that he would be guided by the court’s answer. But Schiff and his colleagues argued that the suit was a delaying tactic and moved to make it go away. The Committee withdrew the Kupperman subpoena and, indeed, made a commitment to the presiding judge, Richard Leon, that it would not subpoena him “ever,” and neither would any other House committee. Kupperman wasn’t even named in the Judiciary impeachment report. On December 30th, Judge Leon declared the case moot, and dismissed it. (The McGahn case, which the Trump Administration lost in a D.C. district court, is now before an appeals court.)
There was some irony in the House Democrats fighting so hard not to be delayed by the courts, only to then hold back on sending the articles to the Senate in the name of trying to get witnesses whom the courts might, in due time, have helped them get access to. Schumer and Pelosi are relying on the Senate’s existing impeachment rules, according to which the House needs to formally send the articles for the trial to begin, to give them bargaining power over the form of the trial. But the Constitution doesn’t specify that transmission requirement, and the Senate rules can be changed by a Senate vote. On Tuesday, McConnell said that for now he will wait for Pelosi to send the articles, which he hopes she will do by the end of this week. At this point, it’s not clear why she should hold them any longer or, arguably, why she ever did. Doing so has allowed the Republicans to argue that the Democrats are afraid of exposing the weakness of their case. For as long as the delay lasts, there is effectively an asterisk on the impeachment. (In an opinion piece for Bloomberg, published last month, Noah Feldman, the Harvard Law professor who was one of the Democrats’ witnesses, argues that a failure to transmit meant that the House impeachment process hadn’t been completed, meaning that “Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”) On a basic level, not sending the articles doesn’t come across as entirely forthright, whatever the motivation or the provocation. Perhaps the interval has been of some use, in terms of getting out the message that, since McConnell has said he is working in coördination with the White House, the trial won’t be fair. But even some Democrats think that this gambit is played out. On Tuesday, Senator Chris Murphy, of Connecticut, said, “The time has passed,” adding that the Speaker “should send the articles over.” The one certainty is that the Democrats have less leverage in the Senate than they did in the House.
Maybe Bolton’s willingness to testify will give leverage to the Democrats, as many hope, if only at a later stage in the trial; it might also give leverage to McConnell to bring in witnesses whom the Democrats don’t want, such as Hunter Biden, the Vice-President’s son, whose dealings in Ukraine are part of the story. (McConnell has warned of “mutually assured destruction.”) But who knows what will happen if and when Bolton starts talking? He could implicate Trump—who fired him, after all—or he could implicate every bureaucratic enemy he has and yet save Trump. In the famous quote attributed to Bolton, he apparently described the “drug deal” as something that “Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” Might he add, in his testimony, “at Trump’s direction,” or “without Trump’s knowledge”? Who else might he draw in? The one with leverage here would appear to be Bolton.
If all Bolton wants to do is to lay out for Congress and the public information that is crucial to the impeachment process, he could just call a press conference or write an op-ed. He—and a lot of other people in the Administration—probably should have done so a long time ago. (And might do so now without an Anonymous byline.) Trump can yell about executive privilege or classified information, but whistle-blowers face this dilemma all the time, with more bravery than Bolton has shown. Asking for a subpoena would seem to serve other purposes for Bolton. One might be to give him political cover within the Republican Party, where he still apparently sees his political future. (The Monday statement was put out by his eponymous PAC.) Another might be to maintain his long-held position that the executive branch does indeed have sweeping powers, and that the President’s wishes should not be lightly put aside—unless, that is, the President doesn’t want to take military action somewhere that Bolton thinks he should. Such reluctance has been a source of past disputes between him and Trump. On Friday, though, he tweeted, “Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani,” the Iranian general the U.S. had just killed in Iraq. That would include President Trump.


newyorker--2020-01-08--Trump Furious at Iran for Distracting People from Impeachment for Only Two Days

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Donald J. Trump is “ incredibly angry ” at Iran for taking the American people ’ s attention away from his impeachment for only about two days , Trump told reporters on Wednesday .
“ When I did that drone strike , I was under the impression that it would knock impeachment out of the news for at least a month , ” a visibly enraged Trump said .
“ Instead , it ’ s Wednesday and we ’ re back to this Pelosi garbage.
” Trump said that he had hoped that Iranians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that might have forced Democrats to forget about impeaching him altogether , but “ all I got for my trouble was a chickenshit couple of days.
” “ Honestly , Iran reacted like it was Belgium or something , ” Trump said .
Trump said that he was unlikely to attack Iran again “ if this is the thanks I get , ” and wondered if attacking a different country might have resulted in a more substantial distraction from his impeachment .
“ Should I have attacked North Korea ?
” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know who to trust anymore .
”

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump is “incredibly angry” at Iran for taking the American people’s attention away from his impeachment for only about two days, Trump told reporters on Wednesday.
“When I did that drone strike, I was under the impression that it would knock impeachment out of the news for at least a month,” a visibly enraged Trump said. “Instead, it’s Wednesday and we’re back to this Pelosi garbage.”
Trump said that he had hoped that Iranians would react to his provocation in a way that might have forced Democrats to forget about impeaching him altogether, but “all I got for my trouble was a chickenshit couple of days.”
“Honestly, Iran reacted like it was Belgium or something,” Trump said.
Trump said that he was unlikely to attack Iran again “if this is the thanks I get,” and wondered if attacking a different country might have resulted in a more substantial distraction from his impeachment.
“Should I have attacked North Korea?” he said. “Frankly, I don’t know who to trust anymore.”


newyorker--2020-01-08--One Speech Can’t Clean Up Trump’s Iran Mess

Nearly a week after recklessly causing a New Year ’ s war scare by ordering a drone attack on Qassem Suleimani , a top Iranian military commander , and about sixteen hours after Iran had responded by firing ballistic missiles at a pair of Iraqi military bases that house American troops , Donald Trump finally deigned to make a public statement about what the heck he was thinking , or not thinking .
On Tuesday night , the Iranian Foreign Minister announced that the two waves of missile strikes on Iraqi military bases had “ concluded ” Iran ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soon after , Trump tweeted , “ All is well.
” These statements made it pretty clear that both sides were eager to take an “ off ramp , ” which is cable-news shorthand for the avoidance of an all-out war .
Still , people were understandably eager to see if Trump would confirm this in person , or else if they should start stocking their basements and scoping out the nearest bomb shelter .
To the relief of everyone , except perhaps the likes of the former national-security adviser John Bolton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump , on Wednesday , made no mention of further military strikes .
Instead , he said that Americans “ should be extremely grateful and happy .
No Americans were harmed in last night ’ s attack.
” He added , “ Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.
” But the rest of the speech was far less reassuring .
It simply confirmed what has long been obvious to most sane people : Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; he hasn ’ t got a clue , and his occupancy of the Oval Office represents an enduring threat to us all .
The speech sounded as if it had been cobbled together by someone with cognitive dissonance—or , more likely , someone who was trying to maintain public face for the boss while simultaneously mollifying the Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson .
( Hannity had cheered the decision to kill Suleimani ; Carlson had mocked the Administration ’ s claim that Iran represented an imminent threat . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump the Pax Americana bully , laying down the law .
“ As long as I am President , Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon , ” he said .
Suleimani , he added , was “ the world ’ s top terrorist , ” and the U.S. would “ immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime.
” But in the second half he sounded more like an America Firster who was eager to get out of the Middle East completely and leave the entire mess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean up .
“ We are now the No .
1 producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world , ” Trump said .
“ We are independent , and we do not need Middle East oil.
” He went on to hail the missiles in the Pentagon ’ s armory , which he described as “ big , powerful , accurate , lethal , and fast , ” adding that “ under construction are many hypersonic missiles.
” He didn ’ t spell out the message explicitly , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to go home and leave the hand-to-hand combat to others .
Of course , it would have been a good deal easier for Trump to pursue such an objective if he hadn ’ t ripped up the nuclear deal with Iran that the Obama Administration had negotiated and crippled the Iranian economy with more economic sanctions , setting off a tit-for-tat process that , even before this past week ’ s crisis , had prompted the Pentagon to dispatch thousands more American troops to the Middle East .
As usual , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described the nuclear deal as “ very defective ” and called on “ France , Germany , the United Kingdom , Russia , and China ” —the other signatories— “ to recognize this reality ” and work together on a new deal .
Mystifyingly , he also said , “ Today , I am going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process.
” Finally , Trump delivered a message to the people and leaders of Iran .
There had been some speculation that he might repeat his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directly with Tehran , but he stopped well short of that , saying , simply , “ The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.
” We should all be grateful for small mercies .
What would have happened if one of the Iranian missiles had killed any number of American service members ?
But , make no mistake , Trump doesn ’ t deserve credit .
His impetuous blundering almost produced a full-scale conflagration , and it has left behind a terrible foreign-policy mess that one speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past week , the Iraqi parliament voted for the withdrawal of American troops on its soil , Iran announced that it will no longer abide by the limits of the nuclear deal , and the Pentagon suspended the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria because of concerns about the safety of U.S. troops on Iraqi bases .
Despite these ominous developments , Trump had the gall to boast about all the ISIS fighters who had been killed or captured since he entered the Oval Office .
Gall is about all he ’ @ @ @

Nearly a week after recklessly causing a New Year’s war scare by ordering a drone attack on Qassem Suleimani, a top Iranian military commander, and about sixteen hours after Iran had responded by firing ballistic missiles at a pair of Iraqi military bases that house American troops, Donald Trump finally deigned to make a public statement about what the heck he was thinking, or not thinking.
On Tuesday night, the Iranian Foreign Minister announced that the two waves of missile strikes on Iraqi military bases had “concluded” Iran’s response to the killing of Suleimani. Soon after, Trump tweeted, “All is well.” These statements made it pretty clear that both sides were eager to take an “off ramp,” which is cable-news shorthand for the avoidance of an all-out war. Still, people were understandably eager to see if Trump would confirm this in person, or if they should start stocking their basements and scoping out the nearest bomb shelter.
To the relief of everyone, except perhaps the likes of the former national-security adviser John Bolton, who has long advocated for bombing Iran, Trump, on Wednesday, made no mention of further military strikes. Instead, he said that Americans “should be extremely grateful and happy. No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack.” He added, “Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.” But the rest of the speech was far less reassuring. It simply confirmed what has long been obvious to most sane people: Trump doesn’t merely lack a strategy; he hasn’t got a clue, and his occupancy of the Oval Office represents an enduring threat to us all.
The speech sounded as if it had been cobbled together by someone with cognitive dissonance—or, more likely, someone who was trying to save face for the boss while simultaneously mollifying the Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. (Hannity had cheered the decision to kill Suleimani; Carlson had mocked the Administration’s claim that Iran represented an imminent threat.) The first half of the speech was Trump the Pax Americana bully, laying down the law. “As long as I am President, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” he said. Suleimani, he added, was “the world’s top terrorist,” and the U.S. would “immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime.” But in the second half he sounded more like an America Firster who was eager to get out of the Middle East completely and leave the entire mess he had created for other countries to clean up. “We are now the No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world,” Trump said. “We are independent, and we do not need Middle East oil.” He went on to hail the missiles in the Pentagon’s armory, which he described as “big, powerful, accurate, lethal, and fast,” adding that “under construction are many hypersonic missiles.” He didn’t spell out the message explicitly, but it was clear enough. Uncle Sam would like to go home and leave the hand-to-hand combat to others.
Of course, it would have been a good deal easier for Trump to pursue such an objective if he hadn’t ripped up the nuclear deal with Iran that the Obama Administration had negotiated and crippled the Iranian economy with more economic sanctions, setting off a tit-for-tat process that, even before this past week’s crisis, had prompted the Pentagon to dispatch thousands more American troops to the Middle East. As usual, Trump tried to turn things around. He described the nuclear deal as “very defective” and called on “France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China”—the other signatories—“to recognize this reality” and work together on a new deal. Mystifyingly, he also said, “Today, I am going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process.”
Finally, Trump delivered a message to the people and leaders of Iran. There had been some speculation that he might repeat his July, 2019, offer to negotiate directly with Tehran, but he stopped well short of that, saying, simply, “The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”
We should all be grateful for small mercies. What would have happened if one of the Iranian missiles had killed any number of American service members? But, make no mistake, Trump doesn’t deserve credit. His impetuous blundering almost produced a full-scale conflagration, and it has left behind a terrible foreign-policy mess that one speech can’t mitigate. In the past week, the Iraqi parliament voted for the withdrawal of American troops on its soil, Iran announced that it will no longer abide by the limits of the nuclear deal, and the Pentagon suspended the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria because of concerns about the safety of U.S. troops on Iraqi bases.
Despite these ominous developments, Trump had the gall to boast about all the ISIS fighters who had been killed or captured since he entered the Oval Office. Gall is about all he’s got.


newyorker--2020-01-08--“The Crying Book” Reveals How Tears Can Help Us, and How They Can’t

In 2013 , researchers led by Paul Rozin , a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania , published a paper on “ hedonic reversal , ” a form of “ benign masochism ” in which people take pleasure in “ initially negative experiences that the body ( brain ) falsely interprets as threatening.
” Some of these experiences included eating a chili pepper or watching a slasher movie .
The paper ’ s “ most interesting ” finding , however , was that people often enjoy the experience of sadness , and that many even delight in crying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by sad films , sad novels , sad music , and sad paintings .
“ More than any other hedonic reversal , ” the researchers wrote , “ the liking for sadness is engaged by works of art ; it has an aesthetic quality.
” “ The Crying Book , ” by the poet Heather Christle , is a study of that quality , which Christle aims to both dissect and provoke .
The book , which is built of fragments of varying lengths , examines the science , sociology , and history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ species that sups on elephant tears ; why plane travellers sob in the air ; the difference between basal , irritant , and psychogenic eye water .
Woven among the facts are bits of memoir : the narrator , who suffers from depression , tries to get pregnant , and succeeds .
( The book ends when her daughter is a young child . )
At one point , Christle discovers that the Victorians did not actually collect their tears in glass vials , called lachrymatories ; nonetheless , the image gives her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This tear and this tear and this one , ” she writes , describing the blocks of text that compose her book .
“ I want the act of reading these tears , of placing them alongside one another , to make .
.
.
relationship emerge.
” What emerged in me , at first , was wariness .
There can be something suspect about dolor , with its seam of gratification , and Christle ’ s self-awareness occasionally falters , so that her objective can feel less like catharsis than like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one passage , Christle surveys her “ crybrary ” of texts , which includes a volume with chapters titled “ Crying at nothing but colors ” and “ Weeping over bluish leaves.
” Oy . )
But Christle anticipates this skepticism , the way grief can feel secretly thrilled at itself , and addresses it in several ways .
The first is through humor .
( Runny noses , Christle notes , are the enemy of tragic mystique . )
The second strategy , which overlaps with the first , is a sincerity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s embarrassment , thereby neutralizing it .
Shame , a sense of being compromised , clings to many of Christle ’ s disclosures .
“ Most days I cry more than I write about crying , ” she admits .
Yet her unguarded tone shifts the burden of that shame onto us , forcing a consideration of our own sympathy and distaste .
The subversion at work here feels related to the third strategy , which is to highlight how we tend to discount some tears and elevate others .
A crying woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as Christle sends up her own weepiness , she is justly scathing toward experts who would pathologize the expression of emotion .
She traces , too , the ways in which white women ’ s tears have been used to persecute people of color and wonders whether men tend to experience their grief as rage .
A reader relishes such moments of critique .
The book ’ s structure lends itself to evocative factoids— “ restitution for botched lacrimal surgeries are even mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi , ” for example—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t rely on the intrinsic glamour of misery .
In one striking passage , Christle quotes a psychologist , writing to W. E. B .
Du Bois in 1905 , who inquires if “ the negro sheds tears ” at all .
The book draws some voltage from the coincidence of its creation with Christle ’ s pregnancy .
The parallel works in progress underline how the author deviates from the image of the calm , upbeat parent , who dries ( or even studies ) her baby ’ s tears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry I will be a colicky mother , ” Christle admits , “ because I am periodically overcome with complete , encompassing fear and despair , and when I am suffering thus , my crying can go on for hours.
” Each bout of weeping could portend depression , a familiar demon returned .
But “ The Crying Book , ” which suggests a fluidity to the roles of the vulnerable infant and self-sufficient parent , declines to tell a story about a mother who heroically suppresses her pain in order to raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engages the unsavory aspects of sadness until they become less strange .
Rather than denying that self-pity can be pleasurable , she reveals how that pleasure comes from enfolding oneself in imagined care .
The book inhabits an ambivalent zone between the acknowledgment that adult women have needs and the author ’ s fear that she has too many needs nevertheless .
Christle also shows a poet ’ s concern for the properties of language .
She notices “ the plainness of cried ” versus “ the velvet rope of wept.
” She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ suicidal ideation , ” and “ anxiety , ” because they “ cast a staged or laboratory light.
” There is power in holding grief at a remove , she knows—one thinks of Rose-Lynn Fisher , the artist who , photographing dried tears that she had placed under a microscope , revealed hidden landscapes—but “ The Crying Book ” seems determined to dissolve that remove : to press up against the edge of language , to push beyond representation into the real .
“ I would like the moon in my poems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christle writes , quoting Jack Spicer .
Weeping , which happens when words are not enough , belongs to this world of pure signification .
But transcending language is a tricky business .
One might , moving beyond words , obtain an audience with Spicer ’ s moon , or one might find only darkness .
This is the terror of tears ; it is also the terror of depression , which rips everything apart .
“ Despair , ” Christle claims , “ is a kind of decomposition .
When we want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stern governess with one recalcitrant pupil we instruct them , Compose yourself.
” Christle ’ s challenge , then , is to compose a text about coming undone .
Fragments are her solution .
They allow her to simultaneously dismantle and construct her story : to break down and , at the same time , to pull herself together .

In 2013, researchers led by Paul Rozin, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, published a paper on “hedonic reversal,” a form of “benign masochism” in which people take pleasure in “initially negative experiences that the body (brain) falsely interprets as threatening.” Some of these experiences included eating a chili pepper or watching a slasher movie. The paper’s “most interesting” finding, however, was that people often enjoy the experience of sadness, and that many even delight in crying. Frequently, this pleasure was spurred by sad films, sad novels, sad music, and sad paintings. “More than any other hedonic reversal,” the researchers wrote, “the liking for sadness is engaged by works of art; it has an aesthetic quality.”
“The Crying Book,” by the poet Heather Christle, is a study of that quality, which Christle aims to both dissect and provoke. The book, which is built of fragments of varying lengths, examines the science, sociology, and history of weeping. Christle discusses a moth species that sups on elephant tears; why plane travellers sob in the air; the difference between basal, irritant, and psychogenic eye water. Woven among the facts are bits of memoir: the narrator, who suffers from depression, tries to get pregnant, and succeeds. (The book ends when her daughter is a young child.) At one point, Christle discovers that the Victorians did not actually collect their tears in glass vials, called lachrymatories; nonetheless, the image gives her a metaphor for her process. “This tear and this tear and this one,” she writes, describing the blocks of text that compose her book. “I want the act of reading these tears, of placing them alongside one another, to make . . . relationship emerge.”
What emerged in me, at first, was wariness. There can be something suspect about dolor, with its seam of gratification, and Christle’s self-awareness occasionally falters, so that her objective can feel less like catharsis than like a literary ode to wallowing. (In one passage, Christle surveys her “crybrary” of texts, which includes a volume with chapters titled “Crying at nothing but colors” and “Weeping over bluish leaves.” Oy.) But Christle anticipates this skepticism, the way grief can feel secretly thrilled at itself, and addresses it in several ways. The first is through humor. (Runny noses, Christle notes, are the enemy of tragic mystique.) The second strategy, which overlaps with the first, is a sincerity that makes room for the reader’s embarrassment, thereby neutralizing it. Shame, a sense of being compromised, clings to many of Christle’s disclosures. “Most days I cry more than I write about crying,” she admits. Yet her unguarded tone shifts the burden of that shame onto us, forcing a consideration of our own sympathy and distaste.
The subversion at work here feels related to the third strategy, which is to highlight how we tend to discount some tears and elevate others. A crying woman is quickly discredited, Christle observes; even as Christle sends up her own weepiness, she is justly scathing toward experts who would pathologize the expression of emotion. She traces, too, the ways in which white women’s tears have been used to persecute people of color and wonders whether men tend to experience their grief as rage. A reader relishes such moments of critique. The book’s structure lends itself to evocative factoids—“restitution for botched lacrimal surgeries are even mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi,” for example—and yet these morsels resonate most when they don’t rely on the intrinsic glamour of misery. In one striking passage, Christle quotes a psychologist, writing to W. E. B. Du Bois in 1905, who inquires if “the negro sheds tears” at all.
The book draws some voltage from the coincidence of its creation with Christle’s pregnancy. The parallel works in progress underline how the author deviates from the image of the calm, upbeat parent, who dries (or even studies) her baby’s tears without shedding any herself. “I worry I will be a colicky mother,” Christle admits, “because I am periodically overcome with complete, encompassing fear and despair, and when I am suffering thus, my crying can go on for hours.” Each bout of weeping could portend depression, a familiar demon returned. But “The Crying Book,” which suggests a fluidity to the roles of the vulnerable infant and self-sufficient parent, declines to tell a story about a mother who heroically suppresses her pain in order to raise her child. Instead, Christle tenderly engages the unsavory aspects of sadness until they become less strange. Rather than denying that self-pity can be pleasurable, she reveals how that pleasure comes from enfolding oneself in imagined care. The book inhabits an ambivalent zone between the acknowledgment that adult women have needs and the author’s fear that she has too many needs nevertheless.
Christle also shows a poet’s concern for the properties of language. She notices “the plainness of cried” versus “the velvet rope of wept.” She dislikes terms like “depression,” “suicidal ideation,” and “anxiety,” because they “cast a staged or laboratory light.” There is power in holding grief at a remove, she knows—one thinks of Rose-Lynn Fisher, the artist who, photographing dried tears that she had placed under a microscope, revealed hidden landscapes—but “The Crying Book” seems determined to dissolve that remove: to press up against the edge of language, to push beyond representation into the real. “I would like the moon in my poems to be a real moon,” Christle writes, quoting Jack Spicer. Weeping, which happens when words are not enough, belongs to this world of pure signification.
But transcending language is a tricky business. One might, moving beyond words, obtain an audience with Spicer’s moon, or one might find only darkness. This is the terror of tears; it is also the terror of depression, which rips everything apart. “Despair,” Christle claims, “is a kind of decomposition. When we want someone to stop crying and we are a stern governess with one recalcitrant pupil we instruct them, Compose yourself.” Christle’s challenge, then, is to compose a text about coming undone. Fragments are her solution. They allow her to simultaneously dismantle and construct her story: to break down and, at the same time, to pull herself together.
Between Maggie Nelson’s “The Argonauts,” Sarah Manguso’s “Ongoingness,” and, most recently, Carmen Maria Machado’s “In The Dream House,” the book told in fragments has been enjoying a sunlit few years. There’s something beguiling about the form, which feels alive and provisional. Relationships emerge, just as Christle predicts, and the associative logic of “this tear and this tear and this one” creates a dreamy flow, like ice skating through someone’s subconscious. Opportunities abound to drop in trivia—a feat which, done casually, generates the impression of an omnivorous intellect. What’s more, disrupting the linearity of narrative lifts each scene out of time, which is an experience people seek from both writing and life. In “The Argonauts,” Nelson hails the “autotelia” of moments that require no context and imply no consequences. She gives the example of finding herself erotically consumed by her baby, but not feeling the need “to do anything about it” (i.e., have sex). There is a seductive echo between Nelson’s aspirational vision of a life in instants and her creation of a text in pieces.
Nelson is the writer whose influence on Christle feels determinative. “The Argonauts” narrates the author’s romance with her fluidly gendered partner, who begins hormone therapy, taking testosterone, while Nelson carries their baby. Not only does that memoir, like “The Crying Book,” describe pregnancy and childbirth but Nelson, like Christle, has thought deeply about how motherhood can both shape a woman’s identity and dissipate it. “To let the baby out,” she writes, prefiguring Christle’s riff on decomposition, and also making it painfully literal, “you have to be willing to go to pieces.” Christle, fearing postpartum depression, points to Judith Butler’s characterization of sadness as “a kind of undoing”; Nelson quotes the poet Alice Notley, who writes, of her infant son: “he is born and I am undone.” But “The Argonauts” approaches the question of form with more curiosity than does “The Crying Book.” Though Christle is content to let “not story, but relationship emerge” from her fragments, Nelson asks whether omitting sections of a narrative serves to “make a fetish of the unsaid.”
This is a valid concern. The suggestiveness of silence often creates a headwind for authors, who might seem not to have earned their text’s mystery. (Not writing a sentence is much easier than writing a sentence, and a reader can easily get confused about when a book is being lazy and when it is channelling genius.) What saves “The Argonauts” is sharpness, rigor, and, most of all, its evocation of becoming. Nelson’s title alludes to Roland Barthes, who wrote about how the Greek heroes aboard the Argo continually replaced pieces of their ship; by the time the voyage was over, the vessel was “entirely new,” although it possessed the same “name and form.” Nelson is gesturing at her partner’s physical and emotional changes, and at her own, but the image seems germane to the book itself: planks slide in or out, but the craft sails on. In contrast, I often felt, reading “The Crying Book,” that Christle wanted to consecrate stillness. (“The body at rest suddenly finds its feelings have caught up,” she writes.) Where Nelson explores “the pleasure of . . . persistence,” of transformation sustained over time, Christle thinks in terms of discrete “occasions,” around which language hardens like ice. The result is less a journey than a set of paratactic ideas. The reader surfaces, as if from a crying session, sensing that something has been gained, but unsure what.