Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018

We’ve been hearing a lot about the “quid pro quo.” But this week, Democrats started using a new term, one that shows up in the impeachment clause of the Constitution, to describe President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine. Republicans started using it, too — to reject it.“The Latest” is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind “The Daily.” You can find more information about it here. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

14 Nov 20196min

The House of Representatives opened historic impeachment hearings on Wednesday, with William B. Taylor Jr. and George P. Kent, senior career civil servants, caught in the crossfire. Democrats underscored the constitutional import of the proceedings, while Republicans branded the whole investigation into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine a sham. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent — carefully, if cinematically — detailed the emergence of a shadow foreign policy, one which had the capacity to determine the fate of an ally in the face of Russian aggression. We discuss what this phase of the impeachment inquiry could mean for the president — and for the 2020 election.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security and federal investigations for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Mr. Taylor said that, in a call with Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, President Trump had made clear he cared “more about the investigations of Biden” than Ukraine’s security.Here are key moments from the first public impeachment hearing. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

14 Nov 201927min

On the first day of public hearings in the Trump impeachment inquiry, lawmakers questioned two diplomats, and laid out two competing narratives about the investigation. This is the first episode in our new series on the impeachment inquiry. For more information, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

14 Nov 20196min

This morning, the House of Representatives begins public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Before those hearings get underway, we sat down with someone who’s unafraid to ask all the questions we’ve been too embarrassed to say out loud. Guests: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security and federal investigations for The New York Times, spoke with Bianca Giaever, a producer for “The Daily,” and Leo, a third grader, to answer his questions about the impeachment inquiry. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: In the first nationally televised hearings of the impeachment inquiry, Democrats will look to make the case that Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.These will be the first presidential impeachment hearings in more than two decades. Here’s how this inquiry is likely to be different than the last.Meet the public officials likely to be most prominent in the inquiry. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

13 Nov 201923min

Today, the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments about whether the Trump administration acted legally when it tried to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The Obama-era program known as DACA shields immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, from deportation.In this episode, we explore why the outcome of the case may turn on a small act of rebellion by one of President Trump’s former cabinet members. Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor of The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Elaine C. Duke, a former Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, refused to echo the White House’s policy justifications for ending DACA. Her decision led to a Supreme Court case addressing presidential power over immigration.Meet two of the nearly 700,000 Dreamers whose families, homes and jobs may be affected by the justices’ ruling. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

12 Nov 201919min

The question of whether President Trump leveraged military assistance to Ukraine for personal gain is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. Today, we speak with our Ukraine correspondent on why that assistance was so important to Ukraine — and the United States — in the first place.Guest: Andrew E. Kramer, who covers Ukraine for The New York Times and is based in Moscow. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Petro O. Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s president until May, knew his country’s independence hinged on American support. So he waged a campaign to win over President Trump.As vice president, Joe Biden tried to press Ukraine’s leaders to clean up corruption and reform the energy industry. The story of that effort has been overtaken by his son’s work for a Ukrainian gas company. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

11 Nov 201923min

Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, told impeachment investigators he knew “nothing” about a quid pro quo in Ukraine. Now Mr. Sondland, a blunt-spoken hotelier, has changed tack. In a new four-page sworn statement released by the House, he confirmed his role in communicating President Trump’s demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens in exchange for military aid. Today, we discuss the road to Mr. Sondland’s sudden reversal, and what his new testimony means for the impeachment investigation.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The Times who covers national security and federal investigations. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Mr. Sondland’s reversal offers a potentially critical piece of evidence to investigators trying to determine whether Mr. Trump abused his power.Late-night show hosts mocked Mr. Sondland, saying he had reversed his testimony after remembering “one important detail: that I don’t want to go to jail for perjury.” Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

8 Nov 201928min

In 2013, Aimee Stephens watched her boss read a carefully worded letter.“I have felt imprisoned in a body that does not match my mind. And this has caused me great despair and loneliness,” she had written. “With the support of my loving wife, I have decided to become the person that my mind already is.”Ms. Stephens was fired after coming out as transgender. Now, she is the lead plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that will determine the employment rights of gay and transgender workers across the nation. Guests: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, and Aimee Stephens, the lead plaintiff in the transgender discrimination case heard by the Supreme Court. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling hangs on justices’ interpretation of wording in the Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex.”The case came to the Supreme Court from a federal appeals court, which found in favor of Ms. Stephens last year. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

7 Nov 201927min