newyorker--2020-01-21--Mitt Romney Returns to the National Stage in the Senate Impeachment Trial

When it became apparent on Election Night in 2012 that Mitt Romney had lost the Presidency to Barack Obama , the former Massachusetts governor sat on a couch in the hotel suite where he had been awaiting the returns and began writing a concession speech .
His wife , Ann , was next to him ; other family members and campaign advisers lined the seats nearby .
An aide suggested to Romney that he be “ pastoral.
” He would have time later to continue to press his ideas for the country .
Romney ’ s reaction was one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage is over , guys , ” he said .
“ I mean , I ’ m happy for the time I ’ ve had there , but my time is over.
” Ann Romney was equally emphatic .
“ We ’ re done , ” she said .
This scene appears toward the end of “ Mitt , ” a documentary released in 2014 , which shadowed the Romney family in the course of his unsuccessful 2008 and 2012 bids for the Presidency .
The film ’ s concluding sequence shows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail and returning home shortly after the 2012 election .
Romney settles into an armchair , his wife across from him .
The moment is quiet and reflective––a narrative coda before the credits roll .
The story line , however , that Romney ’ s second failed attempt for the Presidency marked his final exit from public life , proved to be inaccurate .
In November , 2018 , after the retirement of Senator Orrin Hatch , Romney was elected to the U.S. Senate in Utah .
He was seventy-one years old .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , to the national political stage , as one of the leading protagonists in the third Presidential-impeachment trial in American history .
The uneven trajectory of Romney ’ s political career makes this a moment of genuine suspense , both for him and for American democracy .
The animating rationale for Romney ’ s political career largely has been his image as a private-sector turnaround artist , based on his business career in management consulting and private equity , which made him fabulously wealthy .
Romney ’ s ardent supporters also tout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Mormon faith , which occupies the center of his life .
Yet questions about what he truly stands for have long hampered Romney ’ s efforts to attain higher office .
In “ Mitt , ” one of the more human moments comes during the 2008 campaign , when Romney ruefully acknowledges the public ’ s perception of him .
“ When this is over , I will have built a brand name , ” he tells his family .
“ People will know me .
They ’ ll know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
“ The flippin ’ Mormon , ” he said , his face broadening into a doleful grin .
In the 2008 Republican Presidential-primary contest , Romney had sought to recast his image from the moderate , coalition-building governor of Massachusetts to an uncompromising fiscal and social conservative .
In 2012 , he managed to win the nomination , campaigning with a focus on the economy and the argument that he would put it on better footing than President Obama could .
In both of these bids for President , Romney often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applying a management-consulting approach to his campaign , calculating where the data points best aligned and calibrating his candidacy accordingly .
“ He ’ s not a very notional leader , ” Eric Fehrnstrom , a longtime aide , said , in a 2007 interview with the Des Moines Register .
“ He is more interested in data , and what the data mean.
” Fehrnstrom was describing Romney ’ s management style , but that sentiment also helps to explain the difficulty Romney has had in conveying conviction to voters .
Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 , but ultimately demurred .
Instead , during the primary season , he delivered an extraordinary speech denouncing Donald Trump , who had become the Republican front-runner , as “ a phony , a fraud ” who was “ playing the members of the American public for suckers.
” In January of last year , just before Romney was sworn into the Senate , he published an op-ed assailing Trump in the Washington Post .
The piece asserted that “ a presidency shapes the public character of the nation , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the essential qualities of honesty and integrity , and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect.
” In this regard , Romney wrote , the President ’ s “ shortfall has been glaring.
” Romney promised to “ speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive , racist , sexist , anti-immigrant , dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.
” The most abiding—and instructive—political influence on Romney over the years has been that of his late father , George Romney , a Republican former governor of Michigan who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on civil rights .
George Romney made his fortune as an automobile executive before he got into politics .
In 1968 , he made his own ill-fated attempt for the Presidency .
Before Mitt Romney ’ s first debate with President Obama , he had scrawled “ Dad ” on a notepad at the podium , for inspiration .
In the book “ The Real Romney , ” from 2012 , Michael Kranish and Scott Helman , reporters from the Boston Globe , recount a campaign-trail encounter in New Hampshire in which a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell her classmates to make them want to be politicians .
At first , Romney jokes , “ The answer is : nothing .
Don ’ t do it .
Run as far as you can.
” In taking on Trump , Romney seems finally to have found the clarion voice that so often eluded him while he was running for President .
In April of last year , after the release of the Mueller report , Romney issued a statement in which he said he was “ sickened at the extent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the highest office of the land , including the President.
” In October , he called the President ’ s appeals to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden “ wrong and appalling.
” He was also harshly critical of the President for his abrupt pullout of American troops from northern Syria , at the expense of Kurdish allies .
“ What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a bloodstain in the annals of American history , ” he said , in a speech on the Senate floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial approaching , Romney expressed support for hearing testimony from witnesses and suggested that he was interested , in particular , in summoning John Bolton , the former national-security adviser who reportedly described the White House ’ s attempt to secure politically expedient investigations from Ukraine as a “ drug deal.
” ( Romney , and also Lisa Murkowski , of Alaska , Susan Collins , of Maine , and Lamar Alexander , of Tennessee , are widely seen as representing the decisive votes on the question of whether witnesses will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @

When it became apparent on Election Night in 2012 that President Barack Obama had won reëlection, Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, sat on a couch in the hotel suite where he had been awaiting the returns and began writing a concession speech. His wife, Ann, was next to him; other family members and campaign advisers lined the seats nearby. An aide suggested to Romney that he be “pastoral.” He would have time later to continue to press his ideas for the country. Romney’s reaction was one of disbelief. “My time on the stage is over, guys,” he said. “I mean, I’m happy for the time I’ve had there, but my time is over.” Ann Romney was equally emphatic. “We’re done,” she said.
This scene appears toward the end of “Mitt,” a documentary released in 2014, which shadowed the Romney family in the course of his unsuccessful 2008 and 2012 bids for the Presidency. The film’s concluding sequence shows the couple bidding farewell to their Secret Service detail and returning home shortly after the 2012 election. Romney settles into an armchair, his wife across from him. The moment is quiet and reflective—a narrative coda before the credits roll. The story line, however, that Romney’s second failed attempt for the Presidency marked his final exit from public life, proved to be inaccurate. In November, 2018, after the retirement of Senator Orrin Hatch, Romney was elected to the U.S. Senate in Utah. He was seventy-one years old. This week, Romney returns, once again, to the national political stage, as one of the leading protagonists in the third Presidential-impeachment trial in American history.
The uneven trajectory of Romney’s political career makes this a moment of genuine suspense, both for him and for American democracy. The animating rationale for Romney’s political career largely has been his image as a private-sector turnaround artist, based on his business career in management consulting and private equity, which made him fabulously wealthy. Romney’s ardent supporters also tout his character and integrity, qualities shaped by the Mormon faith, which occupies the center of his life. Yet questions about what he truly stands for have long hampered Romney’s efforts to attain higher office. In “Mitt,” one of the more human moments comes during the 2008 campaign, when Romney ruefully acknowledges the public’s perception of him. “When this is over, I will have built a brand name,” he tells his family. “People will know me. They’ll know what I stand for.” The camera zooms in. “The flippin’ Mormon,” he said, his face broadening into a doleful grin.
In the 2008 Republican Presidential-primary contest, Romney had sought to recast his image from the moderate, coalition-building governor of Massachusetts to an uncompromising fiscal and social conservative. In 2012, he managed to win the nomination, campaigning with a focus on the economy and the argument that he would put it on better footing than President Obama could. In both of these bids for President, Romney often seemed to be paralyzed by caution, applying a management-consulting approach to his campaign, calculating where the data points best aligned and calibrating his candidacy accordingly. “He’s not a very notional leader,” Eric Fehrnstrom, a longtime aide, said, in a 2007 interview with the Des Moines Register. “He is more interested in data, and what the data mean.” Fehrnstrom was describing Romney’s management style, but that sentiment also helps to explain the difficulty Romney has had in conveying conviction to voters.
Romney considered running for President yet again, in 2016, but ultimately demurred. Instead, during the primary season, he delivered an extraordinary speech denouncing Donald Trump, who had become the Republican front-runner, as “a phony, a fraud” who was “playing the members of the American public for suckers.” In January of last year, just before Romney was sworn into the Senate, he published an op-ed assailing Trump in the Washington Post. The piece asserted that “a presidency shapes the public character of the nation,” and that a President should “demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect.” In this regard, Romney wrote, the President’s “shortfall has been glaring.” Romney promised to “speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.”
The most abiding—and instructive—political influence on Romney over the years has been that of his late father, George Romney, a Republican former governor of Michigan who was known for his candor and principled stance on civil rights. George Romney made his fortune as an automobile executive before he got into politics. In 1968, he made his own ill-fated attempt for the Presidency. Before Mitt Romney’s first debate with President Obama, he had scrawled “Dad” on a notepad at the podium, for inspiration. In the book “The Real Romney,” from 2012, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, reporters from the Boston Globe, recount a campaign-trail encounter in New Hampshire in which a young girl asked Romney what he would tell her classmates to make them want to be politicians. At first, Romney jokes, “The answer is: nothing. Don’t do it. Run as far as you can.”
But when he turns serious, he invokes the advice he says his father offered years ago: “He said, ‘Don’t get into politics as your profession. . . . Get into the world of the real economy. And if someday you’re able to make a contribution, do it.’ ” This is the essence of Romney’s pitch, and it has been ever since his days as a dealmaker in the 1980s and 1990s. He’s made his money—a mountain of it, in fact—and believes, as his father did, that he now owes a debt to the country that made a place for him.
In taking on Trump, Romney seems finally to have found the clarion voice that so often eluded him while he was running for President. In April of last year, after the release of the Mueller report, Romney issued a statement in which he said he was “sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President.” In October, he called the President’s appeals to China and to Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden “wrong and appalling.” He was also harshly critical of the President for his abrupt pullout of American troops from northern Syria, at the expense of Kurdish allies. “What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a bloodstain in the annals of American history,” he said, in a speech on the Senate floor. Most recently, with the Senate impeachment trial approaching, Romney expressed support for hearing testimony from witnesses and suggested that he was interested, in particular, in summoning John Bolton, the former national-security adviser who reportedly described the White House’s attempt to secure politically expedient investigations from Ukraine as a “drug deal.” (Romney, and also Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, are widely seen as representing the decisive votes on the question of whether witnesses will be permitted in the trial proceedings.)
And yet it is hardly certain that Romney will take the ultimate step of defying Trump and vote for his removal from office. He has had, after all, a maddening tendency of prioritizing political expediency over principle during his career. (In 2016, while Romney was under consideration to become Secretary of State in the Trump Administration, he went out of his way to praise the President. He also accepted Trump’s endorsement for his Senate run.) While Trump is not as popular in Utah as he is in other Republican-leaning states, a recent poll showed Romney’s approval rating slipping among Republicans in the state as he has taken on Trump. There is also the matter that voting for Trump’s removal would almost certainly be futile. Twenty Republican senators would need to join all of their Democratic colleagues, an unlikely scenario.


newyorker--2020-01-21--The Staggering (and Uncovered) Legal Bills Facing Impeachment Witnesses

In November , the State Department announced that it would cover the legal fees of senior staff summoned to testify during the House Intelligence Committee ’ s hearings on the impeachment of President Trump .
After all , none of the diplomats had been accused of doing anything wrong .
“ The department has proactively established a program to provide financial assistance and legal fees incurred by department employees , ” David Hale , the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs , said , in prepared remarks during his own testimony , on November 20th .
That claim was only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Witnesses have accrued as much as half a million dollars in legal fees that are not being covered by the State Department , according to six witnesses , who spoke on condition of anonymity , lawyers , and others involved in helping with the soaring bills .
The diplomats and other senior officials , most of whom have spent a lifetime in government service earning modest government salaries , have had to tap into personal-liability insurance or relied on the generosity of fellow-diplomats and friends who donated to a legal-defense fund .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have slashed fees or , in one case , provided largely pro-bono assistance .
“ Many of these public servants stand to amass legal bills in the six or seven figures , ” Lee Wolosky , who worked in three previous Administrations and now heads the legal team representing Fiona Hill , a former Russia expert at the National Security Council , told me .
“ Fortunately , a number of experienced lawyers from both parties have stepped forward to help for free , under arrangements with insurance carriers , or otherwise under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked not to be named said that without the discounted rates her fees alone would be in the range of six hundred thousand dollars—so far .
“ In these difficult times , lawyers have a particularly urgent duty to help defend the rule of law , ” David Pressman , a former U.N .
Ambassador , told me .
Pressman leads the legal team representing Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman , a Ukraine specialist at the National Security Council .
And lawyers are still tracking the Senate trial and new evidence introduced since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The State Department ’ s program will reimburse the lawyers of witnesses for only a fraction—about a quarter—of the charges for a single lawyer versed in constitutional , U.S. , foreign-policy , or government issues at a Washington law firm , according to lawyers working on behalf of witnesses .
But the key witnesses have each required teams of several lawyers and law-firm associates , who spent months reconstructing how the Trump Administration ’ s Ukraine policy unfolded relevant to their clients , piecing together a paper trail , collecting evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then public testimony , in addition to dealing with security and the press , and keeping up with how the case unfolds daily .
The State Department reimbursement is based on a Department of Justice scale known as the Laffey Matrix , which pays legal fees at three hundred dollars an hour for this category of cases .
For the witnesses involved in a high-profile impeachment , a single partner at a major Washington law firm charges up to twelve hundred dollars an hour , with associates making at least half that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ case would be between four hundred thousand and half a million dollars—so far .
The government rule limits payment to a maximum of a hundred and twenty hours of work , or a maximum of thirty-six thousand dollars a month .
Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department responded to multiple requests for further information .
The legal bills of witnesses from the White House , Pentagon , or Office of Management and Budget are not covered by the State Department program , according to lawyers and witnesses .
The House heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , another five in closed-door depositions .
Twelve of the witnesses had worked at the State Department , three at the National Security Council , one at the Pentagon , and one at the Office of Management and Budget .
Twelve current or former Administration officials declined to testify , despite subpoenas .
A few witnesses—including one at the State Department , one from the White House , and a third from another department—have tapped into personal-liability insurance to help cover costs .
“ I can ’ t imagine my situation if I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because I am sure it could have been tens of thousands of dollars , ” one witness , who was deposed behind closed doors but was not called to testify in the open hearings , told me .
Liability insurance has limits , however .
Government employees first have to take it out at personal expense .
Not all do .
And some insurance companies do not assist with legal fees unless the policyholder is charged with a crime or a civil offense , lawyers involved in the impeachment said .
Multiple witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Only one State Department witness is receiving modest reimbursement from a liability policy .
He , too , was originally rejected ; his legal team had to intercede to persuade the insurer to pay .
Insurance companies often require their policyholders to use lawyers on a pre-approved list , who may not be well qualified to counsel on congressional investigations , especially a Presidential-impeachment case .
Liability insurance also pays on a scale—typically about four hundred dollars an hour , according to a lawyer for one witness—which is slightly higher than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fraction of the actual costs .
It usually has a cap of around two hundred thousand dollars .
If insurance companies were reimbursing at the going legal rates , almost all the witnesses would have exceeded that amount—by a lot , their lawyers said .
Some witnesses are receiving no aid .
Kurt Volker , a former career diplomat and Ambassador to NATO during the George W. Bush Administration , served in a volunteer capacity as President Trump ’ s special representative for Ukraine .
He resigned in September as the controversy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid to Kyiv .
Because he is no longer affiliated with the State Department , either as a former diplomat or a volunteer , the State Department would need to reach a special determination to make Volker eligible for even its modest reimbursement , which it has not yet done .
And Volker did not have a personal-liability policy that covered legal fees for congressional testimony .
His legal bills—from holding a job for which he did not get paid—are about eighty thousand dollars , according to sources familiar with his case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses , ten former diplomats launched a legal-defense fund in December .
“ Our admiration for their clarity , courage and competence has been shared by many other current and former colleagues and countless other Americans , ” they wrote to fellow-diplomats .
“ Contributions to their legal fees are a concrete expression of gratitude for their taking on such a personal burden out of an inspiring sense of duty and professional integrity.
” The appeal was drafted by Anthony Lake , a former diplomat who served in both Republican and Democratic Administrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration .
He later headed UNICEF .
“ I did it out of personal admiration for them and also very much for the sake of encouraging officials in the future to see their duty as clearly as these diplomats did .
What they did was extraordinary , ” Lake told me .
For many diplomats , the stakes go beyond the fate of President Trump or his Administration .
“ The civil service is under greater assault than at any time since reforms of the eighteen-eighties , and we mustn ’ t go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Lake said .
If diplomats are not guaranteed the freedom to dissent , he added , any Administration is more likely to make mistakes or bad policy choices with enduring impact on the United States and the world .
The final House report on impeachment criticized Trump ’ s intimidation and personal attacks on the former Ambassadors to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Bill Taylor , and on Vindman on the National Security Council and Jennifer Williams on Vice-President Mike Pence ’ s staff .
The President “ issued threats , openly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their character and patriotism , and subjected them to mockery and derision—when they deserved the opposite , ” the House report said .
The appeal for donations was first made through the American Foreign Service Association , a professional union with more than sixteen thousand active-duty and retired members of the State Department and five other agencies .
“ The amounts of legal fees are staggering , ” Eric Rubin , a former Ambassador and the current president of A.F.S.A.
, told me .
“ Our people were caught in a terrible dilemma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President says , ‘ Don ’ t do it , ’ and then you ’ re subpoenaed ?
You ’ d be in contempt .
It was very painful.
” The American Academy of Diplomacy and the Association of Black American Ambassadors also sent out the A.F.S.A .
appeal .
“ The black American ambassadors realize that they could have been in the same situation during their careers , ” Ruth Davis , the group ’ s vice-president and a former director general of the Foreign Service , told me .
“ Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressures that current Foreign Service officers are under and supporting them is a way of supporting an institution that is important to the country.. ” With support from the array of diplomatic associations , A.F.S.A .
has so far raised three quarters of a million dollars , Rubin said .
The funds are helping defray the legal fees of seven witnesses , covering in full charges that were not paid by the State Department or waived through pro-bono assistance .
“ It ’ s very moving that current and former Foreign Service officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have much money , have contributed to help their colleagues , ” John Bellinger , who served as a legal adviser to the State Department and National Security Council during the George W. Bush Administration , told me .
He and a former C.I.A .
general counsel , Jeff Smith , represented Ambassador Taylor and Ambassador Mike McKinley .
But Taylor , who was not a member of the Foreign Service and was pulled out of retirement to return to Ukraine after Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was recalled , is not a member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid .
He was in Ukraine for only six months .
Volker is also not a member of A.F.S.A .
And none of the witnesses from the White House , Department of Defense , or the Office of Management and Budget qualifies for its aid , either .
Historically , U.S. government officials were blocked from accepting pro-bono legal aid , because , by regulation , they are not able to accept anything of value—in gifts or in kind—above twenty-five dollars .
For the Trump impeachment hearings , A.F.S.A .
was able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House Intelligence Committee stipulated that government lawyers could not represent witnesses because of the potential conflict of interest .
Only one of the six witnesses I interviewed received pro-bono legal aid for most but not all fees ; others hoped or expected to get discounted legal bills .
“ Unless you ’ re a full-time public-interest lawyer , you get only a few chances to take cases that you strongly believe in , ” Larry Robbins , the lead lawyer for Yovanovitch , told me .
“ I took the case because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school.
” As Trump ’ s Senate trial begins , the impeachment process is not yet over for the witnesses .
And neither are the legal bills .

In November, the State Department announced that it would cover the legal fees of senior staff summoned to testify during the House Intelligence Committee’s hearings on the impeachment of President Trump. After all, none of the diplomats had been accused of doing anything wrong. “The department has proactively established a program to provide financial assistance and legal fees incurred by department employees,” David Hale, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, said, in prepared remarks during his own testimony, on November 20th.
That claim was only partially true—and in very small part. Witnesses have accrued as much as half a million dollars in legal fees that are not being covered by the State Department, according to six witnesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity, lawyers, and others involved in helping with the soaring bills. The diplomats and other senior officials, most of whom have spent a lifetime in government service earning modest government salaries, have had to tap into personal-liability insurance or relied on the generosity of fellow-diplomats and friends who donated to a legal-defense fund. In some cases, major Washington law firms have slashed fees or, in one case, provided largely pro-bono assistance.
“Many of these public servants stand to amass legal bills in the six or seven figures,” Lee Wolosky, who worked in three previous Administrations and now heads the legal team representing Fiona Hill, a former Russia expert at the National Security Council, told me. “Fortunately, a number of experienced lawyers from both parties have stepped forward to help for free, under arrangements with insurance carriers, or otherwise under discounted-rate structures.” One high-profile witness who asked not to be named said that without the discounted rates her fees alone would be in the range of six hundred thousand dollars—so far. “In these difficult times, lawyers have a particularly urgent duty to help defend the rule of law,” David Pressman, a former U.N. Ambassador, told me. Pressman leads the legal team representing Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine specialist at the National Security Council. And lawyers are still tracking the Senate trial and new evidence introduced since the House hearings that may affect their clients.
The State Department’s program will reimburse the lawyers of witnesses for only a fraction—about a quarter—of the charges for a single lawyer versed in constitutional, U.S. foreign-policy, or government issues at a Washington law firm, according to lawyers working on behalf of witnesses. But the key witnesses have each required teams of several lawyers and law-firm associates, who spent months reconstructing how the Trump Administration’s Ukraine policy unfolded relevant to their clients, piecing together a paper trail, collecting evidence, prepping their clients for closed-door depositions and then public testimony, in addition to dealing with security and the press, and keeping up with how the case unfolds daily.
The State Department reimbursement is based on a Department of Justice scale known as the Laffey Matrix, which pays legal fees at three hundred dollars an hour for this category of cases. For the witnesses involved in a high-profile impeachment, a single partner at a major Washington law firm charges up to twelve hundred dollars an hour, with associates making at least half that. Multiple lawyers representing witnesses said the average case would be between four hundred thousand and half a million dollars—so far. The government rule limits payment to a maximum of a hundred and twenty hours of work, or a maximum of thirty-six thousand dollars a month. Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department responded to multiple requests for further information.
The legal bills of witnesses from the White House, Pentagon, or Office of Management and Budget are not covered by the State Department program, according to lawyers and witnesses. The House heard from a dozen officials in public testimony, another five in closed-door depositions. Twelve of the witnesses had worked at the State Department, three at the National Security Council, one at the Pentagon, and one at the Office of Management and Budget. Twelve current or former Administration officials declined to testify, despite subpoenas.
A few witnesses—including one at the State Department, one from the White House, and a third from another department—have tapped into personal-liability insurance to help cover costs. “I can’t imagine my situation if I hadn’t had liability, just because I am sure it could have been tens of thousands of dollars,” one witness, who was deposed behind closed doors but was not called to testify in the open hearings, told me.
Liability insurance has limits, however. Government employees first have to take it out at personal expense. Not all do. And some insurance companies do not assist with legal fees unless the policyholder is charged with a crime or a civil offense, lawyers involved in the impeachment said. Multiple witnesses had claims rejected by their insurance agencies.
Only one State Department witness is receiving modest reimbursement from a liability policy. He, too, was originally rejected; his legal team had to intercede to persuade the insurer to pay. Insurance companies often require their policyholders to use lawyers on a pre-approved list, who may not be well qualified to counsel on congressional investigations, especially a Presidential-impeachment case.
Liability insurance also pays on a scale—typically about four hundred dollars an hour, according to a lawyer for one witness—which is slightly higher than the State Department scale, but still only a fraction of the actual costs. It usually has a cap of around two hundred thousand dollars. If insurance companies were reimbursing at the going legal rates, almost all the witnesses would have exceeded that amount—by a lot, their lawyers said.
Some witnesses are receiving no aid. Kurt Volker, a former career diplomat and Ambassador to NATO during the George W. Bush Administration, served in a volunteer capacity as President Trump’s special representative for Ukraine. He resigned in September as the controversy broke over the White House delaying military aid to Kyiv. Because he is no longer affiliated with the State Department, either as a former diplomat or a volunteer, the State Department would need to reach a special determination to make Volker eligible for even its modest reimbursement, which it has not yet done. And Volker did not have a personal-liability policy that covered legal fees for congressional testimony. His legal bills—from holding a job for which he did not get paid—are about eighty thousand dollars, according to sources familiar with his case.
As the financial challenges mounted for impeachment witnesses, ten former diplomats launched a legal-defense fund in December. “Our admiration for their clarity, courage and competence has been shared by many other current and former colleagues and countless other Americans,” they wrote to fellow-diplomats. “Contributions to their legal fees are a concrete expression of gratitude for their taking on such a personal burden out of an inspiring sense of duty and professional integrity.”
The appeal was drafted by Anthony Lake, a former diplomat who served in both Republican and Democratic Administrations and was national-security adviser in the Clinton Administration. He later headed UNICEF. “I did it out of personal admiration for them and also very much for the sake of encouraging officials in the future to see their duty as clearly as these diplomats did. What they did was extraordinary,” Lake told me. For many diplomats, the stakes go beyond the fate of President Trump or his Administration. “The civil service is under greater assault than at any time since reforms of the eighteen-eighties, and we mustn’t go back to the spoils system back then,” Lake said. If diplomats are not guaranteed the freedom to dissent, he added, any Administration is more likely to make mistakes or bad policy choices with enduring impact on the United States and the world.


newyorker--2020-01-21--What C-Span Can’t Show Us at the Impeachment Trial

Last Thursday , Jon Kelley , an assignment-desk manager at C-SPAN , was in his office in Washington , D.C. , watching cable news cover the opening of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
A correspondent for one of the networks was providing updates on the latest developments over a live video feed of the Senate chamber , which showed Adam Schiff , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , reading the articles of impeachment .
The correspondent wondered aloud why the camera didn ’ t pan elsewhere .
Wouldn ’ t it be nice to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Susan Collins were doing as they sat next to each other ?
Why wasn ’ t the C-SPAN cameraperson trying to film that , too ?
Kelley sighed .
The video feed wasn ’ t controlled by C-SPAN ; it was controlled by the Senate Recording Studio , as is always the case when the network covers floor proceedings in the Senate .
( C-SPAN brought its own cameras into the Senate chamber once , for a documentary . )
The network had hoped to get its cameras into the chamber for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s historic importance ; in December , the network ’ s co-C.E.O .
Susan Swain wrote a letter to the Senate Majority Leader , Mitch McConnell , making this request , noting that the government ’ s existing camera setup “ provides a restricted view of Senate floor debates.
” The chair of the cable-network pool , which coördinates the efforts of CNN , ABC , FOX , CBS , and NBC , later sent a letter in support of the request .
As of Tuesday , McConnell had not replied to either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realize those aren ’ t our cameras , ” Kelley told me , on the phone from his office .
“ And they should be.
” The Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network was created a little more than forty years ago , when the D.C. bureau chief for the trade magazine Cablevision got seed money to launch a nonprofit channel that gave Americans a more comprehensive picture of politics and government than the for-profit channels were providing .
The network has since built up an unrivalled archive of political video , totalling more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , C-SPAN captured Lindsey Graham , who was then a congressman representing South Carolina ’ s Third District , arguing in favor of allowing witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton , and insisting on a broad interpretation of the phrase “ high crimes.
” ( “ It doesn ’ t even have to be a crime , ” Graham said . )
“ Impeachments aren ’ t our Super Bowl , exactly , or the Olympics , ” Kelley told me , trying to explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The only thing I can compare it to is every seventeen years the cicadas come out and we deal with them.
” Kelley came to C-SPAN in 1997 , shortly after he left college .
He ’ s covered conventions , debates , House and Senate races ; he saw George W. Bush roll fruit down the aisle of a campaign plane and , on Air Force Two , heard Al Gore quip that he invented C-SPAN .
( Gore was the first person to speak on the network . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one impeachment trial .
“ We ’ ve always felt that Congress is our story to tell , ” he said .
“ We take pride in that .
For better or for worse , history is being recorded through our camera lens.
” Or the people ’ s camera lenses , as the case may be .
The feed that C-SPAN provides of House and Senate proceedings is unmoderated and unfiltered .
The network ’ s cameras pan and zoom , when they can , but not much .
In a discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John McCain ’ s vote against repealing Obamacare—a wide shot , one that caught “ the conversations people were having , ” Kelley noted , and “ the back and forth between Lindsey Graham and Democrats and everything.
” During hearings , Kelley said , “ you ’ ll see us sometimes frame a wider shot in the room and do a slight zoom in to frame the witness table a little bit tighter .
That draws people in .
Then you can cut away to either a shot of the witness or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There ’ s a lot of ways to tell those stories through pans and zooms.
” As things stand , however , C-SPAN ’ s crews can not enter the chamber .
As a result , he said , “ you ’ re never going to see the Senate-controlled cameras veer away from the dais.
” Meanwhile , reporters at all networks will be dealing with new restrictions on their usual way of doing things : as the Senate sergeant at arms announced earlier this month , during the impeachment trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chamber , and reporters will not be allowed to approach senators directly outside the chamber .
The network will “ air every moment ” of the impeachment trial , Kelley said—on C-SPAN 2 , which was created to carry live footage of the Senate when it ’ s in session .
Kelley wished its coverage could show the body language of senators in the chamber , and give viewers an opportunity to read their lips .
“ Let ’ s not just stick to a podium , ” he said .
“ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then you see people that you think just can ’ t stand each other having a really decent conversation.
” In Kelley ’ s view , seeing all this would be of great service to the American public .
The network does sometimes get its own cameras into the House : the network used seven cameras to capture early House Intelligence Committee hearings on impeaching President Trump , adding both more individual angles and panoramas .
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down C-SPAN ’ s request to use its own cameras during final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two decades ago , Kelley was a member of a sixteen-person crew assembled to film House Judiciary hearings related to the Clinton impeachment .
( C-SPAN , along with other networks , wasn ’ t allowed to film the Senate trial . )
“ At that time , ” Kelley recalled , “ we were able to put microphones on the dais , mix all of the microphone positions and control them ourselves .
We can ’ t do that anymore.
” The official reasons for the change were technical , but Kelley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea ” of overseeing the microphones , and what they caught .
“ They control them now , ” he said .
“ We just take a feed.
” That previous impeachment trial didn ’ t feel quite as partisan to Kelley as this one does so far , he said .
“ At least they were able to come to a reasonable agreement on what was fair.
” The media landscape was a lot different then—Fox News , for instance , was just a few years old .
And the cable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these hearings the way they are now , ” Kelley said .
More viewers have started watching the twenty-four-hour news networks , he noted , but , he added , “ to see these hearings without commentary and from beginning to end , from gavel to gavel , we ’ re still the place to go.
” The impeachment trial of Trump would be , in Kelley ’ s estimation , “ one of the two or three most significant C-SPAN events of my tenure.
” As for his own opinions about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network , he aspires to nonpartisanship .
“ Somebody said it ’ s a great drama TV show , ” he said of impeachment .
“ An adventure show where the hero is getting just torn apart and he ’ s near death a couple of times .
You think , Oh , my gosh , this might be it for him .
You actually know how the story is going to end , unless something major happens.
” He went on , “ It ’ s interesting to see , if we @ @ @ @ @

Last Thursday, Jon Kelley, an assignment-desk manager at C-SPAN, was in his office in Washington, D.C., watching cable news cover the opening of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. A correspondent for one of the networks was providing updates on the latest developments over a live video feed of the Senate chamber, which showed Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, reading the articles of impeachment. The correspondent wondered aloud why the camera didn’t pan elsewhere. Wouldn’t it be nice to see what the swing-voting Republican senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins were doing as they sat next to each other? Why wasn’t the C-SPAN cameraperson trying to film that, too?
Kelley sighed. The video feed wasn’t controlled by C-SPAN; it was controlled by the Senate Recording Studio, as is always the case when the network covers floor proceedings in the Senate. (C-SPAN brought its own cameras into the Senate chamber once, for a documentary.) The network had hoped to get its cameras into the chamber for the trial, given the proceeding’s historic importance; in December, the network’s co-C.E.O. Susan Swain wrote a letter to the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, making this request, noting that the government’s existing camera setup “provides a restricted view of Senate floor debates.” The chair of the cable-network pool, which coördinates the efforts of CNN, ABC, FOX, CBS, and NBC, later sent a letter in support of the request. As of Tuesday, McConnell had not replied to either letter. “People don’t realize those aren’t our cameras,” Kelley told me, on the phone from his office. “And they should be.”
The Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network was created a little more than forty years ago, when the D.C. bureau chief for the trade magazine Cablevision got seed money to launch a nonprofit channel that gave Americans a more comprehensive picture of politics and government than the for-profit channels were providing. The network has since built up an unrivalled archive of political video, totalling more than a quarter million hours. In 1999, for instance, C-SPAN captured Lindsey Graham, who was then a congressman representing South Carolina’s Third District, arguing in favor of allowing witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, and insisting on a broad interpretation of the phrase “high crimes.” (“It doesn’t even have to be a crime,” Graham said.)
“Impeachments aren’t our Super Bowl, exactly, or the Olympics,” Kelley told me, trying to explain what the proceedings meant for the network. “The only thing I can compare it to is every seventeen years the cicadas come out and we deal with them.” Kelley came to C-SPAN in 1997, shortly after he left college. He’s covered conventions, debates, House and Senate races; he saw George W. Bush roll fruit down the aisle of a campaign plane and, on Air Force Two, heard Al Gore quip that he invented C-SPAN. (Gore was the first person to speak on the network.) Before this year, Kelley had covered one impeachment trial. “We’ve always felt that Congress is our story to tell,” he said. “We take pride in that. For better or for worse, history is being recorded through our camera lens.”
Or the people’s camera lenses, as the case may be. The feed that C-SPAN provides of House and Senate proceedings is unmoderated and unfiltered. The network’s cameras pan and zoom, when they can, but not much. In a discussion of classic C-SPAN moments, Kelley mentioned John McCain’s vote against repealing Obamacare—a wide shot, one that caught “the conversations people were having,” Kelley noted, and “the back and forth between Lindsey Graham and Democrats and everything.” During hearings, Kelley said, “you’ll see us sometimes frame a wider shot in the room and do a slight zoom in to frame the witness table a little bit tighter. That draws people in. Then you can cut away to either a shot of the witness or to the member.” He added, “There’s a lot of ways to tell those stories through pans and zooms.” As things stand, however, C-SPAN’s crews cannot enter the chamber. As a result, he said, “you’re never going to see the Senate-controlled cameras veer away from the dais.”
Meanwhile, reporters at all networks will be dealing with new restrictions on their usual way of doing things: as the Senate sergeant at arms announced earlier this month, during the impeachment trial, electronic devices will be barred from the chamber, and reporters will not be allowed to approach senators directly outside the chamber.
The network will “air every moment” of the impeachment trial, Kelley said—on C-SPAN 2, which was created to carry live footage of the Senate when it’s in session. Kelley wished its coverage could show the body language of senators in the chamber, and give viewers an opportunity to read their lips. “Let’s not just stick to a podium,” he said. “You see so much bitterness and partisanship. Then you see people that you think just can’t stand each other having a really decent conversation.” In Kelley’s view, seeing all this would be of great service to the American public.
The network does sometimes get its own cameras into the House: the network used seven cameras to capture early House Intelligence Committee hearings on impeaching President Trump, adding both more individual angles and panoramas. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned down C-SPAN’s request to use its own cameras during final debates on the articles of impeachment.
Two decades ago, Kelley was a member of a sixteen-person crew assembled to film House Judiciary hearings related to the Clinton impeachment. (C-SPAN, along with other networks, wasn’t allowed to film the Senate trial.) “At that time,” Kelley recalled, “we were able to put microphones on the dais, mix all of the microphone positions and control them ourselves. We can’t do that anymore.” The official reasons for the change were technical, but Kelley thinks that Congress also just “liked the idea” of overseeing the microphones, and what they caught. “They control them now,” he said. “We just take a feed.”
That previous impeachment trial didn’t feel quite as partisan to Kelley as this one does so far, he said. “At least they were able to come to a reasonable agreement on what was fair.” The media landscape was a lot different then—Fox News, for instance, was just a few years old. And the cable networks “certainly weren’t covering these hearings the way they are now,” Kelley said. More viewers have started watching the twenty-four-hour news networks, he noted, but, he added, “to see these hearings without commentary and from beginning to end, from gavel to gavel, we’re still the place to go.”
The impeachment trial of Trump would be, in Kelley’s estimation, “one of the two or three most significant C-SPAN events of my tenure.” As for his own opinions about it, Kelley wouldn’t say—like his network, he aspires to nonpartisanship. “Somebody said it’s a great drama TV show,” he said of impeachment. “An adventure show where the hero is getting just torn apart and he’s near death a couple of times. You think, Oh, my gosh, this might be it for him. You actually know how the story is going to end, unless something major happens.” He went on, “It’s interesting to see, if we can see it.”


newyorker--2020-01-21--Susan Collins Takes Hours to Decide on Lunch Before Ordering Exactly What Mitch McConnell Is Having

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —On the first day of the impeachment trial in the United States Senate , Senator Susan Collins , a Republican of Maine , spent hours trying to decide what she would have for lunch before ultimately ordering exactly what Senator Mitch McConnell was having .
Clutching the Senate takeout menu in her hands , Collins told reporters mid-morning that the decision of what to have for lunch was a matter of serious consideration and that she wanted to review all of the available options before selecting one .
“ I ’ m deeply troubled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Collins said .
“ There are many valid choices on this menu and I don ’ t want to give any of them short shrift.
” Around 11 A.M. , rumors swirled that Collins was leaning toward ordering a quinoa salad , a choice that would have set her apart from the rest of her Republican colleagues in the upper chamber .
By noon , however , Collins emerged from her office to tell reporters that she had ordered the exact same thing that the Senate Majority Leader had chosen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ At the end of the day , there was just not enough evidence that ordering anything else would have been better , ” she said .
According to sources , Collins spent the lunch hour eating her sandwich alone at her desk and trying to determine why everyone hates her .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—On the first day of the impeachment trial in the United States Senate, Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine, spent hours trying to decide what she would have for lunch before ultimately ordering exactly what Senator Mitch McConnell was having.
Clutching the Senate takeout menu in her hands, Collins told reporters mid-morning that the decision of what to have for lunch was a matter of serious consideration and that she wanted to review all of the available options before selecting one.
“I’m deeply troubled and concerned about getting this order right,” Collins said. “There are many valid choices on this menu and I don’t want to give any of them short shrift.”
Around 11 A.M., rumors swirled that Collins was leaning toward ordering a quinoa salad, a choice that would have set her apart from the rest of her Republican colleagues in the upper chamber.
By noon, however, Collins emerged from her office to tell reporters that she had ordered the exact same thing that the Senate Majority Leader had chosen, a roast beef sandwich on a roll.
“At the end of the day, there was just not enough evidence that ordering anything else would have been better,” she said.
According to sources, Collins spent the lunch hour eating her sandwich alone at her desk and trying to determine why everyone hates her.


newyorker--2020-01-21--How to Watch the Live Stream of Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial

On Tuesday , the Senate will begin the impeachment trial of Donald Trump , the third Presidential impeachment in U.S. history .
The House has charged Trump with abusing Presidential power and obstruction of Congress , and , last week , when senators were sworn in as jurors , they took an oath to be “ impartial ” in their judgment of the evidence presented to them .
But that impartiality , Susan Glasser writes , seems like a political impossibility .
“ Three years into Trump ’ s tenure , there is precisely no one in the U.S. Capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the subject of his impeachment or any other.
” Conventional wisdom says the outcome of the trial is a predetermined acquittal—that there ’ s no way that sixty-seven members of the Republican-controlled Senate would vote to remove the President from office .
Still , there is plenty of suspense surrounding the proceedings .
One open question , set for a vote on Tuesday , is simply how the trial will proceed .
In impeachment trials , the senators serve as jurors , but they also set the rules .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side will have to make its argument , or whether the House managers that Nancy Pelosi appointed to make the case against Trump will be allowed to call witnesses .
On Monday night , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid out a resolution that gives each side a total of twenty-four hours , allotted over the course of two days , to deliver its arguments .
Democrats have complained that , with the trial starting at one o ’ clock in the afternoon , such a rule would push the debate late into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a majority of senators would have to agree to each witness or document before it could be presented , placing an obstacle in the way of potential evidence .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that he intends to propose amendments to the resolution that would change the rules of the trial , and called McConnell ’ s version “ a national disgrace.
” And then there is the question of Trump ’ s legal team , which includes Kenneth Starr , who became a household name when he investigated Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was a member of O. J. Simpson ’ s defense team .
Of Trump ’ s eight lawyers , many specialize in showmanship .
Jeffrey Toobin writes that the team itself raises interesting questions .
“ How can we not wonder how Starr , who inveighed against what he called the dishonesty of the Clintons , will contrive to defend this President ?
What will Dershowitz , a onetime liberal and a civil libertarian , say about his new client , who is openly hostile to the values enshrined in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the senators begin their debate over the process and hear the opening arguments in the live stream above .

On Tuesday, the Senate will begin the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the third Presidential impeachment in U.S. history. The House has charged Trump with abusing Presidential power and obstruction of Congress, and, last week, when senators were sworn in as jurors, they took an oath to be “impartial” in their judgment of the evidence presented to them. But that impartiality, Susan Glasser writes, seems like a political impossibility. “Three years into Trump’s tenure, there is precisely no one in the U.S. Capitol who is undecided about the President, on the subject of his impeachment or any other.” Conventional wisdom says the outcome of the trial is a predetermined acquittal—that there’s no way that sixty-seven members of the Republican-controlled Senate would vote to remove the President from office. Still, there is plenty of suspense surrounding the proceedings.
One open question, set for a vote on Tuesday, is simply how the trial will proceed. In impeachment trials, the senators serve as jurors, but they also set the rules. It’s not yet clear how much time each side will have to make its argument, or whether the House managers that Nancy Pelosi appointed to make the case against Trump will be allowed to call witnesses. On Monday night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid out a resolution that gives each side a total of twenty-four hours, allotted over the course of two days, to deliver its arguments. Democrats have complained that, with the trial starting at one o’clock in the afternoon, such a rule would push the debate late into the night. The resolution also states that a majority of senators would have to agree to each witness or document before it could be presented, placing an obstacle in the way of potential evidence. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that he intends to propose amendments to the resolution that would change the rules of the trial, and called McConnell’s version “a national disgrace.”
And then there is the question of Trump’s legal team, which includes Kenneth Starr, who became a household name when he investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Alan Dershowitz, who was a member of O. J. Simpson’s defense team. Of Trump’s eight lawyers, many specialize in showmanship. Jeffrey Toobin writes that the team itself raises interesting questions. “How can we not wonder how Starr, who inveighed against what he called the dishonesty of the Clintons, will contrive to defend this President? What will Dershowitz, a onetime liberal and a civil libertarian, say about his new client, who is openly hostile to the values enshrined in the Bill of Rights?”
Watch as the senators begin their debate over the process and hear the opening arguments in the live stream above.


newyorker--2020-01-21--What Not to Cook This Week

What Not to Cook This Week

Exhaustion .
Stress .
Anger .
Divorce-induced debt .
These are a few ingredients that nobody likes to cook with .
As you struggle to find time to unwind , it ’ s nice to know that preparing a meal for your family will make everything astronomically worse .
Here are some recipes that our Cooking editors think you really ought to avoid trying this week .
You ’ re going to want to visit your local seafood shop and buy nothing .
Back away from the counter .
Go home .
Sure , the photos look appealing—but there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , once seared , turns into a military-grade adhesive .
Stainless steel , nonstick , cast iron—no matter what type of pan you use , you will not extricate this fish fillet from it .
Oh , and the brown-butter caper sauce would require deglazing with that last cup of Chardonnay you ’ ve been saving in the fridge and thinking about all day .
Don ’ t be stupid—order a pizza .
This “ simple ” dish requires you to use more pieces of large cookware than you actually own .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cook the spaghetti , another for the sauce , another to hold extra pasta water , another in which to mix the spaghetti and sauce , another for serving the pasta , another to concoct the anchovy-lime mixture , and yet another to toast the breadcrumbs ?
Haven ’ t a clue .
Though it may be because the vast majority of our readership is , like , Illuminati-rich and has live-in help .
But then there ’ s you , obviously .
LOL .
Not going to lie—no one here had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I guess adding the word “ grandma ” to any recipe makes it feel more authentically homey or healing or something ?
It ’ s as if “ grandma ” has become a flavor , disgustingly .
Either way , it needs salt .
You know only eighteen per cent of the words in this recipe .
Although the quiche is tasty , this recipe ’ s author keeps making subtle jabs at the grocery-shopping habits of lazy home cooks like you .
For instance : “ Using store-bought piecrust is fine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own quiche dough from scratch , using double-zero semolina flour purchased at my specialty grocer ” and “ Although I ’ m using wild broccolini that my husband , Wilhelm , foraged at dawn , you may use the green fibrous waste that your supermarket calls broccoli as well.
” You ’ ll feel so embarrassed about your ( totally acceptable ) produce that you won ’ t be able to enjoy the dish .
This is a full-page ad , not a recipe .
But , hey , maybe not such a @ @ @ @ @ @

Photograph from Getty
Exhaustion. Stress. Anger. Divorce-induced debt. These are a few ingredients that nobody likes to cook with. As you struggle to find time to unwind, it’s nice to know that preparing a meal for your family will make everything astronomically worse. Here are some recipes that our Cooking editors think you really ought to avoid trying this week.
Stick-to-the-Pan Salmon in Brown-Butter Caper Sauce
You’re going to want to visit your local seafood shop and buy nothing. Back away from the counter. Go home. Sure, the photos look appealing—but there’s something in our spice rub that, once seared, turns into a military-grade adhesive. Stainless steel, nonstick, cast iron—no matter what type of pan you use, you will not extricate this fish fillet from it. Oh, and the brown-butter caper sauce would require deglazing with that last cup of Chardonnay you’ve been saving in the fridge and thinking about all day. Don’t be stupid—order a pizza.
Seven-Pot Garlic Spaghetti with Anchovy-Lime Breadcrumbs
This “simple” dish requires you to use more pieces of large cookware than you actually own. Why do our editors recommend using one pot to cook the spaghetti, another for the sauce, another to hold extra pasta water, another in which to mix the spaghetti and sauce, another for serving the pasta, another to concoct the anchovy-lime mixture, and yet another to toast the breadcrumbs? Haven’t a clue. Though it may be because the vast majority of our readership is, like, Illuminati-rich and has live-in help. But then there’s you, obviously. LOL.
Nobody’s Grandma’s Hen-Broth Soup
Not going to lie—no one here had a grandmother who cooked this. But I guess adding the word “grandma” to any recipe makes it feel more authentically homey or healing or something? It’s as if “grandma” has become a flavor, disgustingly. Either way, it needs salt.
Spatchcocked Micro-Pheasant Avec Crème Monet
You know only eighteen per cent of the words in this recipe.
Charred-Broccoli-and-Gruyère Quiche
Although the quiche is tasty, this recipe’s author keeps making subtle jabs at the grocery-shopping habits of lazy home cooks like you. For instance: “Using store-bought piecrust is fine, but I really prefer to build my own quiche dough from scratch, using double-zero semolina flour purchased at my specialty grocer” and “Although I’m using wild broccolini that my husband, Wilhelm, foraged at dawn, you may use the green fibrous waste that your supermarket calls broccoli as well.” You’ll feel so embarrassed about your (totally acceptable) produce that you won’t be able to enjoy the dish.
Taco Bell’s New Turkey-Loaded Crunchwrap with Flamin’ Hot Gravy
This is a full-page ad, not a recipe. But, hey, maybe not such a terrible option for dinner tonight?


newyorker--2020-01-22--Ellen Bass Reads Frank X. Gaspar

Ellen Bass Reads Frank X. Gaspar

Ellen Bass joins Kevin Young to read “ Quahogs , ” by Frank X. Gaspar , and her own poem “ Because.
” A chancellor of the Academy of American Poets , Bass has received the Lambda Literary Award for Poetry , the Pablo Neruda Prize for Poetry , and fellowships from the California Arts Council and the National Endowment for the Arts .
Below is an automated transcript of this podcast episode .
Kevin Young : Hello .
You ’ re listening to The New Yorker poetry podcast .
I ’ m Kevin Young , poetry editor of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we invite poets to choose a poem from The New Yorker archive to read and discuss .
Then we ask them to read one of their own poems that ’ s been published in the magazine .
My guest today is Ellen Bass , a chancellor of the Academy of American Poets .
She ’ s received the Lambda Literary Award for Poetry , the Pablo Neruda Prize for Poetry , and Fellowships from the California Arts Council and the National Endowment for the Arts .
Welcome , Ellen .
Thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bass : Oh , thank you for inviting me .
I ’ m delighted to be here .
Kevin Young : So the poem you decide to read for us is “ Quahogs , ” by Frank X. Gaspar .
Can you tell us why this particular poem caught your attention as you were looking through the archives ?
Ellen Bass : I love this poem for many reasons .
One of them is it ’ s so primal .
It ’ s so visceral .
It brings us into one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel like I ’ m having that experience when I read the poem .
And I should say , just in case people aren ’ t familiar , the title is “ Quahogs.
” And quahogs , if you don ’ t know , are large clams .
Kevin Young : Excellent .
Let ’ s hear the poem .
This is Ellen Bass ’ s reading “ Quahogs ” by Frank X. Gaspar .
Kevin Young : So tell me more about this wonderful poem .
I was thinking when you were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s worthy of note that you really capture , I think , the rolling quality .
I mean , it feels like one big breath , but there ’ s something also for me about poetry in that it ’ s both a poem of discovery , but also a poem about poetry in some way , about the making of poetry , an ars poetica .
Ellen Bass : I ’ m so glad that you said that , because the more I was reading this poem and thinking about talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my notes .
What I wrote down , “ ars poetica.
” It does feel exactly like that process of writing a poem , of searching , of describing and describing until you come to something that you didn ’ t know you were going to come to .
Exactly like that .
And I love the music of the poem and the sound .
And Frank Gaspar is a master of sound and really works through sound and moves the poem forward through sound .
And that wonderful repetition , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which is such a strange and wonderful way to start this poem .
Ellen Bass : You know , “ It was for the wind as much as anything.
” What , where ?
You know , we ’ re immediately , immediately in the experience and the way that that repetition just drives the poem forward and has that force of moving through the music of the poem I love so much .
And I love how primal this poem is .
This is something people have been doing for , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More .
I don ’ t know how long .
Ellen Bass : Millennia .
Exactly .
And the more I read the poem , the more I think about how it ’ s a poem without judgment .
That there is adversity here and there .
They ’ re cold and they ’ re hungry .
And there ’ s a we in the poem .
I ’ ll just stop .
He ’ s not doing it alone .
Kevin Young : I want to get to the we in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bass : Yeah .
So somebody else might think , I love doing this .
I hate doing this .
But he is beyond judgment in this poem .
It ’ s deeply rooted in the world .
And I think that really works with the ars poetica too , because that ’ s what we ’ re trying to do in poetry is to get more—or at least what I ’ m trying to do—get more deeply rooted into the experience , into the world , and see then what we discover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Galway Kinnell ’ s line , “ Whatever what is is is what I want.
” And I feel that in this poem that he just wants it all .
And that wonderful line .
I love that line about the ugly .
Kevin Young : That is literally what I ’ ve underlined here .
“ Ugly except / they were beautiful.
” Kevin Young : You know , and that to me is like so much of our experience , which we , you know , poetry—you ’ re talking a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit about what poetry is for .
And one thing is to talk about that line .
You know , often the things that fascinate us , the sublime , rides that line , and poetry is able to , of course , name things that we might otherwise miss or dismiss as worthy of note .
So what about this we ?
I mean , obviously , in some way it ’ s all of us .
But was there a specific we you feel ?
Ellen Bass : I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or he and , you know , his cohorts , but it is a communal we .
And that feels so primal , too .
You know , I can ’ t imagine that a thousand years ago people didn ’ t do this together .
Kevin Young : Mm hmm .
So often , we don ’ t experience that because we eat alone or we ’ re in our little , you know , boxes or houses or places or wherever if we ’ re fortunate enough to have such .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor that goes into achieving what is this kind of brief glory at the end .
“ Our bodies in all / the customs of weariness.
” I mean that ’ s a great phrase .
Kevin Young : “ The supper , / succulent of the freezing dark sea come up.
” Ellen Bass : And I love how once they get into the warm kitchen with the steam and the closed stove and the close room that the freezing dark sea is introduced and it ’ s brought into the warm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these opposites that are connected .
You know , there ’ s the steam and the beginning of his breath and then , in the end , the steam in the room .
And then he repeats that orange fire .
You know , first it ’ s the “ sinking orange fire ” of the sun going down , and then it ’ s “ the little stove , warming its own orange fire.
” So the outside and the inside are so connected in this poem .
And the part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is when he says , “ Then it / was surgery and force together.
” Kevin Young : Right .
That ’ s a good definition of it .
Kevin Young : Yeah .
And I think also hunger .
I mean , I think when I was first writing , I thought , oh , if I could ever be , you know , like good enough to write the poems I want to write .
But I think that was really good for me because it gave me a sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it wasn ’ t simply talent that got one there .
It ’ s really that hunger and that drive .
And I , you know , sometimes see writers who are very talented and then not so hungry .
And I ’ ll bet on the hungry kid every time who was really eager to find and soak up everything and knows they ’ re not quite as good .
You know that that was all that makes you better , I think .
Ellen Bass : Well , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t start out looking all that promising .
And I ’ m seventy-two and it ’ s , of course , it ’ s still a journey .
It ’ s not like I ’ ve arrived somewhere , but I have been able to make poems that satisfy me more than I was able to when I started out at twenty .
It ’ s been a long journey for me and it ’ s been driven by that hunger and that work .
And so I relate to that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that start ?
I know you had some early teachers that were important .
Ellen Bass : I did .
I began writing in college and I had a wonderful mentor who I ’ m actually visiting with right now as I ’ m in New York .
Florence Howe , who is the co-founder of the Feminist Press , which is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary this year , the longest running women ’ s press in the world .
Ellen Bass : And she encouraged me and she did it in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I think is absolutely brilliant .
I wrote a little essay and what she wrote on it was , “ You like to write.
” Kevin Young : What a great way to put it .
Ellen Bass : Oh , my God .
Because and actually talking about this poem , beyond judgment—not good .
Not bad .
She was just— “ you like to write ” and she saw that hunger in me .
Ellen Bass : And I love that quality of the beyond judgment that ’ s in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kevin Young : And who else did you study with ?
Ellen Bass : Well , I studied with Anne Sexton at Boston University .
The first year that she was teaching , which was 1969 to 1970 .
And she was also a crucial young teacher for me at that time .
I was , again , not showing much promise , but hunger .
I wanted it .
And my other professors—you have to think back this was quite a while—really didn ’ t know how to teach the young woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teaching of the craft wasn ’ t like it was today .
Mostly , I was told , if there was one , this is a good line and , more than that , I was told , take this out , take this out , take this out .
So my not very good poems were whittled down to little things that were even less good .
Kevin Young : Less of the bad but less of anything .
Ellen Bass : And whatever breath or little bit of life was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main thing that I remember Anne saying is , Write more , expand .
Just let the largeness come out .
Let the expansion come out .
And I think if I hadn ’ t had her , I would have given up .
Kevin Young : That ’ s incredible .
And you know , a longtime New Yorker contributor , someone who , of course , whose work , as you know , I read as a young person myself and was really turned on by , stunned by , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Oh , you could write poetry that was kind of visceral .
Talking about primal with this poem .
But Sexton had that kind of ability to be so visceral and blunt , you know , some would critique that .
But that ’ s also her strength , of course .
Ellen Bass : And she so much opened up women ’ s experience .
I mean , Muriel Rukeyser , I think , was the first to start , you know , writing about something like breast feeding and being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic life or the body , women ’ s bodies .
But then , you know , when Anne started writing , you know , her poem in celebration of her uterus , I don ’ t think the word uterus had ever had ever appeared in poetry before .
Kevin Young : Well , I think what ’ s interesting , to me , around the same time , it ’ s almost like the development of DNA .
You have someone like Lucille Clifton who ’ s writing in praise of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as a celebratory thing .
But Sexton is so , as you said , crucial .
Ellen Bass : And then she ’ s the empress of metaphor .
And that was the one strength that I had , I naturally think in it .
So whenever I ’ m talking to somebody , I ’ m always saying , well , it was like , well , it was like , and especially if I ’ m trying to convince them of something , you know , or and somebody says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get what you ’ re saying .
I go , oh , yeah , well , it ’ s like this .
And that comes naturally to me .
And nobody I don ’ t think ...
I mean , Sharon Olds makes the most amazing similes .
And so I think , you know , that ’ s kind of a lineage .
Kevin Young : You know , I love that you ’ re talking about metaphor , because especially in this poem , the metaphors kind of are subtle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says , “ Like stones.
” Ellen Bass : Yes , don ’ t you love that ?
Kevin Young : And then they open up , “ Opal or pearl or plain rock , ugly except , ” —break— “ they were beautiful.
” And so they are literally transforming because to me , metaphor is about transformation and connection .
You know , across time and space , these two seemingly quite different things are really actually not just like each other , but often they ’ re the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go from “ stones ” to conjuring “ opal or pearl or plain rock.
” He doesn ’ t say they ’ re like those things .
Suddenly that ’ s what they are .
And of course , rock is rockier than a stone is .
And so that they get kind of uglier , too .
You know , it goes from it goes from stones to opal , you know , pretty nice , shiny , luminescent .
And then pearl like this thing that the cousin to the quahog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , suddenly then they ’ re back to plain rock .
Ellen Bass : The one metaphor that he really presents in a traditional metaphoric way— “ the tide creeping like a wolf ” —I think is really interesting because there ’ s that , again , primal threat , right ?
You know ?
Ellen Bass : Little red riding hood .
I mean , you know , it ’ s like the wolf is that thing that we protect ourselves from .
And they can eat us !
Kevin Young : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s so different , you know , there ’ s this weird thing that goes in your bones , you know , like you see one you go , wait , that ’ s not a dog .
And you have this weird reaction .
You know , we ’ re talking we ’ re on the brink of life , meeting death .
You know , and that ’ s what I think he ’ s conjuring for us .
Ellen Bass : Right .
And if we don ’ t eat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yeah .
And if the earth eats us .
If the wolf or the water.. Ellen Bass : Yeah .
We got to get that food before the wolf comes .
You know , before the tide comes .
And I just love then when he gets to that ending , “ It was for the hunger.
” It ’ s not recreational .
It ’ s necessity .
Kevin Young : There ’ s something about it that mirrors the experience .
To me , the best poems enact what they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t describe .
Kevin Young : Well , let ’ s talk about your poem , shall we ?
Kevin Young : Now , in the June 24th , 2019 issue of the magazine , The New Yorker published your poem “ Because , ” which we ’ ll hear you read shortly .
Is there anything you ’ d like to tell us about it before we hear it , actually ?
Ellen Bass : Because we ’ ve been talking about Frank Gaspar , I ’ ll just start mentioning that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your mind .
And I ’ m sure he means to read great literature , read nonfiction .
But , in this poem , what fed my mind was a television show that had no value in that kind of way , but did for me .
There was a series , not a great series , called “ This Is Us.
” Kevin Young : Still on , I think , “ This Is Us.
” Ellen Bass : Is it still on ?
And in it there ’ s a character—I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breakdown , a nervous breakdown and went temporarily blind .
And in this poem , as you ’ ll hear when I read it , that happens .
And I had never seen or heard of any other person who had had this experience .
And my ex-husband had this experience .
And it ’ s that way in which it ’ s so important for us to see ourselves named and reflected , our experience named and reflected , before we can quite know what it is .
And when I saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can write this poem .
Kevin Young : Wonderful .
Well , let ’ s hear it .
This is Ellen Bass reading her poem “ Because.
” Kevin Young : Well talk about enacting !
You really are enacting for us this process , the ultimate creation .
You know , the ultimate poem , as it were .
Tell us more about that .
I mean , was that , did “ because , ” the repetition , come first or ?
Ellen Bass : I knew that I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that it didn ’ t sound like I ’ m telling you my sad birth story .
And it was the because that allowed me to write the poem .
And I actually modeled it on Frank Gaspar ’ s poem .
I just loved his , “ it was for.
” And I couldn ’ t say “ it was for ” because he had already done that .
Kevin Young : But “ because ” is such a phrase people use , you know , like , why did you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own , it has its own kind of ... .
Ellen Bass : It has a kind of propulsion that you ’ re waiting , you know , because this , then that .
And I was really worried as I wrote this poem , you know , part of my brain and self was writing the poem .
And the other part was going , what are you going to say ?
You know , what is the “ that ” going to be that is the “ because this then that.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And of course , that ’ s the best place to be in writing a poem .
That ’ s the place that I strive for is to enter into the place where I don ’ t know anymore and hope that I will discover something .
But this was more obvious than in some poems because I was doing this “ because ” and it ’ s interesting what you just said really made me think of that , you know , “ Why ?
Because.
” Because there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You know , why is this woman with this person who ’ s going to go hysterically blind and then go to sleep on her and then she ’ s going to have to .
And why did she stay all those years ?
I mean , it ’ s all these whys that can ’ t be answered in the poem .
But I think I never articulated that to myself until you just said that .
Ellen Bass : Yeah !
You find out more about them from the reader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one ’ s self , too , I find , you know , like as you ’ re saying , there ’ s a discovery for the poet as well as the reader or listener .
Kevin Young : And here to me , it happens both at the end— “ I lay there with the baby whimpering in my arms ” —but also in this stanza a few before .
“ Now , love and grief would be greater than I ever imagined.
” And that way that suddenly the speaker has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s something really powerful about that notion that suddenly there ’ s this future .
I think that ’ s the brilliance of how you ’ ve set the poem , which is aware of what ’ s going to be .
It ’ s a poem of looking back and of wisdom , but it also is gentle toward that earlier self that doesn ’ t know .
Ellen Bass : Yes , not when I was writing the poem , but afterward when I really looked at the poem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yes , maybe my birth story is sadder than some people ’ s birth stories , but everybody is kind of pushed into this other world when they become a parent .
And I think that ’ s the universality of it .
Kevin Young : And tell me more about the way this situates sort of in other of your poems .
Other poems of yours , I think , write about this more grown daughter .
If we can talk about that .
But also , as we were talking with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visceral experience of life and death , you know , you make a diaper change into the most dramatic scary thing !
Even if you don ’ t know and haven ’ t done diapers with safety pins .
I mean , you know , “ the ducky pins , ” great phrase .
And you know , the care that the speaker who surely is bewildered and you convey that , but is taking to make sure not to harm this little baby .
Ellen Bass : You know , sometimes people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to write a poem .
And this poem took me forty years .
And I wasn ’ t working on this poem directly for forty years , but I had written a million poems about my daughter and early life and my ex-husband and all of the complications .
And they pretty much all failed because I didn ’ t have both the perspective and , also , the craft .
And somehow they all came together when I watched “ This Is Us ” and I thought about this use of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other thing that happened that allowed me was I had been listening to recordings of the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh .
And he talked about how our language is so odd that “ up ” has no meaning unless there ’ s “ down.
” These dualities are actually so integrated that you can ’ t separate them from each other .
And that really just hit nerves in me the way that he talked about it .
Otherwise , I couldn ’ t have done anything with this experience .
Unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grief being “ rooted together like north and south , / over and under , ” and I think that was the discovery of the poem .
Kevin Young : It ’ s very subtle , though .
You know , I think that ’ s what ’ s interesting is , to me , the best poems have ...
It ’ s like a soup .
You know that .
And a good cook puts a lot of different stuff in there that , you know—or where I come from , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , and then that ’ s a good thing .
It has to have some of the body in it .
Were you thinking about that in terms of the body here ?
Because I do think there ’ s also a reclamation of that kind of tradition we ’ re talking about and thinking about things that aren ’ t always in poems .
Ellen Bass : Yes .
I think that when I write , I don ’ t feel much hesitation ever about putting something in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just lucky that way .
You know , I never think to myself , Oh , I shouldn ’ t say , you know , my “ huge dark nipples ” or something like that .
Or , you know , this doesn ’ t belong in a poem , whatever it might be .
And when I was thinking about talking about this poem with Frank ’ s poem , they ’ re both so much of the body .
And then I was thinking about just they ’ re both so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that what ’ s fascinating here is how much you make poetic out of , you know , perineum , and these parts of speech that we don ’ t even talk about in daily life .
You know , there was , I think , this divide between the daily , the everyday , let ’ s say , and the poem , which the modern poets tried to collapse .
And I think largely did .
But here you ’ re also going into things that we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life to ourselves .
And I think that ’ s what ’ s really powerful about poetry .
And especially in this moment , I think you hear poets writing about things that I ’ ve never seen that in a poem still .
I mean , it ’ s amazing after , you know , millennia .
Ellen Bass : That ’ s exciting .
And I think I had a lot of permission early on because of all these poets who you ’ re naming .
And maybe because I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And there was an up and a down side to that .
You know , the downside was that I wasn ’ t in as much contact with other poets and the inspiration and stimulation of other poets .
I was in Santa Cruz , California .
And there were some poets .
But it wasn ’ t like being in New York City .
So there was a downside .
But I think the up was that I wasn ’ t really getting the kind of feedback that maybe I might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could kind of do a lot whatever I wanted .
Kevin Young : I want to ask you really quick about the California that ’ s in the poem .
You say , “ This was California in the seventies.
” How important was it to locate us ?
Ellen Bass : Well , I think that natural childbirth in California in the seventies was like a religion .
And I wanted to birth this baby naturally so much that I couldn ’ t even take in that it was important for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baby was born .
So that ’ s part of that .
And also , maybe some readers might wonder what is this paper bag being baked in an oven for ?
And that was to sterilize the diapers .
And the little sleeper thing that you were going to put on the baby is that you put it in a brown paper bag , you stapled it closed and you baked it in a low heat in the oven to sterilize .
Kevin Young : I ’ ll bet those staples were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from an oven .
Ellen Bass : Well , they had cooled off by then .
No , you baked it in advance .
Kevin Young : Yes , yes .
And you didn ’ t put the baby in there either .
But it also is a kind of metaphor , I think .
You know , the baking in the oven , it ’ s almost a cliche , a bun !
Kevin Young : But also , I think there ’ s something about you talking about the rituals that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and also for the memory .
And I think , as you said , the forty-year distance really shows in that way that things that , you know , this isn ’ t how exactly things are always done .
And , you know , I think that ’ s really important for people to understand that there are cultural things around birth and traditions .
But at the same time , you ’ re getting at the kind of primal and that kind of intermix , I think , is really why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of you , but also part of this human experience .
Ellen Bass : It ’ s interesting that you ’ re talking about time and that distance , because also time was a little bit challenging to handle in the poem .
Because I don ’ t tell things exactly in chronological order , and I had to start with my husband going hysterically blind because , as you said , you know , that kind of sets it up .
And then I have to kind of go back and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poem , that line , “ because I ’ m still there on my hands and knees , ” originally I wrote it “ because she ’ s still there on her hands and knees , ” really looking back at that younger self and making more of a distance .
And then I realized that , no , I ’ m still there .
Kevin Young : That ’ s a powerful leap .
And again , I think it ’ s important that it ’ s enacting .
And , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you might not have had this experience .
Of course , you ’ ve not had this exact experience , no matter who you are .
And I think we ’ ve all had some version of “ because there ’ d been too many people / and then there was no one .
Only.
” You know that , here , is childbirth , but I think is about that larger love and grief that is knitted together in so many experiences .
Thank you so much for talking with us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thank you so much for having me .
Kevin Young : “ Because , ” by Ellen Bass , as well as Frank X. Gaspar ’ s “ Quahogs , ” can be found on newyorker.com .
Frank X. Gaspar ’ s latest book is “ The Poems of Renata Ferreira.
” Bass will publish a new collection , “ Indigo , ” in April .
Outro : You may subscribe to this podcast , the Fiction Podcast , the Writer ’ s Voice Podcast and the Politics and More Podcast by searching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app .
You can hear more poetry read by the authors on newyorker.com and the New Yorker app , available from the App Store or from Google Play .
The theme music is “ The Corner ” by Christian Scott Atunde Adjuah , courtesy of Stretch Music and Rope a Dope .
The New Yorker Poetry Podcast is produced by Michele Moses with help from Hannah Aizenman .

Photograph by Irene Young
Ellen Bass joins Kevin Young to read “Quahogs,” by Frank X. Gaspar, and her own poem “Because.” A chancellor of the Academy of American Poets, Bass has received the Lambda Literary Award for Poetry, the Pablo Neruda Prize for Poetry, and fellowships from the California Arts Council and the National Endowment for the Arts.
Below is an automated transcript of this podcast episode.
Kevin Young: Hello. You’re listening to The New Yorker poetry podcast. I’m Kevin Young, poetry editor of The New Yorker magazine. On this program, we invite poets to choose a poem from The New Yorker archive to read and discuss. Then we ask them to read one of their own poems that’s been published in the magazine. My guest today is Ellen Bass, a chancellor of the Academy of American Poets. She’s received the Lambda Literary Award for Poetry, the Pablo Neruda Prize for Poetry, and Fellowships from the California Arts Council and the National Endowment for the Arts. Welcome, Ellen. Thank you so much for joining us.
Ellen Bass: Oh, thank you for inviting me. I’m delighted to be here.
Kevin Young: So the poem you decide to read for us is “Quahogs,” by Frank X. Gaspar. Can you tell us why this particular poem caught your attention as you were looking through the archives?
Ellen Bass: I love this poem for many reasons. One of them is it’s so primal. It’s so visceral. It brings us into one of the most basic human experiences. And I feel like I’m having that experience when I read the poem. And I should say, just in case people aren’t familiar, the title is “Quahogs.” And quahogs, if you don’t know, are large clams.
Kevin Young: Excellent. Let’s hear the poem. This is Ellen Bass’s reading “Quahogs” by Frank X. Gaspar.
[“Quahogs”]
Kevin Young: So tell me more about this wonderful poem. I was thinking when you were reading it, you know, it’s worthy of note that you really capture, I think, the rolling quality. I mean, it feels like one big breath, but there’s something also for me about poetry in that it’s both a poem of discovery, but also a poem about poetry in some way, about the making of poetry, an ars poetica.
Ellen Bass: I’m so glad that you said that, because the more I was reading this poem and thinking about talking here, that’s exactly on my notes. What I wrote down, “ars poetica.” It does feel exactly like that process of writing a poem, of searching, of describing and describing until you come to something that you didn’t know you were going to come to. Exactly like that. And I love the music of the poem and the sound. And Frank Gaspar is a master of sound and really works through sound and moves the poem forward through sound. And that wonderful repetition, of course, of “it was for,” which is such a strange and wonderful way to start this poem.
Kevin Young: Right. Right.
Ellen Bass: You know, “It was for the wind as much as anything.” What, where? You know, we’re immediately, immediately in the experience and the way that that repetition just drives the poem forward and has that force of moving through the music of the poem I love so much. And I love how primal this poem is. This is something people have been doing for, you know, a thousand years. More. I don’t know how long.
Kevin Young: Millennia!
Ellen Bass: Millennia. Exactly. And the more I read the poem, the more I think about how it’s a poem without judgment. That there is adversity here and there. They’re cold and they’re hungry. And there’s a we in the poem. I’ll just stop. He’s not doing it alone.
Kevin Young: I want to get to the we in a moment, but keep going.
Ellen Bass: Yeah. So somebody else might think, I love doing this. I hate doing this. But he is beyond judgment in this poem. It’s deeply rooted in the world. And I think that really works with the ars poetica too, because that’s what we’re trying to do in poetry is to get more—or at least what I’m trying to do—get more deeply rooted into the experience, into the world, and see then what we discover. And it made me think of Galway Kinnell’s line, “Whatever what is is is what I want.” And I feel that in this poem that he just wants it all. And that wonderful line. I love that line about the ugly.
Kevin Young: That is literally what I’ve underlined here. “Ugly except / they were beautiful.”
Ellen Bass: Yes.
Kevin Young: “Their whorls and / purple stains.”
Ellen Bass: Yes.
Kevin Young: You know, and that to me is like so much of our experience, which we, you know, poetry—you’re talking a little bit and this poem is a little bit about what poetry is for. And one thing is to talk about that line. You know, often the things that fascinate us, the sublime, rides that line, and poetry is able to, of course, name things that we might otherwise miss or dismiss as worthy of note. So what about this we? I mean, obviously, in some way it’s all of us. But was there a specific we you feel?