Today: Part 2 of our series on pivotal moments in the lives of the 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. Michael Barbaro speaks with Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist senator from Vermont.
Mr. Sanders reflected on his early schooling in politics and how he galvanized grass-roots support to evolve from outraged outsider to mainstream candidate with little shift in his message.
Guest: Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. We also speak with Alexander Burns, who covers national politics for The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Mr. Sanders has staked his presidential campaign, and much of his political legacy, on transforming health care in America. His mother?s illness and a trip he made to study the Canadian system help explain why.We asked 21 candidates the same 18 questions. Hear Mr. Sanders?s answers.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced this morning that the House of Representatives would draft articles of impeachment against President Trump. But what our colleague found most striking today happened a few hours later, when a reporter for a conservative television network asked the speaker, ?Do you hate the president??
?The Latest? is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind ?The Daily.? You can find more information about it here.
For decades, the U.S. spent billions of dollars trying to close its education gap with the rest of the world. New data shows that all that money made little difference. Today, we investigate how that could be. Guest: Dana Goldstein, a national correspondent for The New York Times who covers education. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:The past three American presidents have tried to help the U.S. education system compete with other countries. Test scores haven?t improved.The ?Nation?s Report Card? came out this fall. It indicated that two-thirds of children in the U.S. are not proficient readers.
The House Judiciary Committee opened a new phase of the impeachment inquiry by tackling a fundamental constitutional question: What is an impeachable offense? All the witnesses testifying in today?s hearing were in agreement, except one.
?The Latest? is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind ?The Daily.? You can find more information about it here.
The House Intelligence Committee has released its impeachment report to the Judiciary Committee, signaling the end of one phase of impeachment and the beginning of another. Today, we break down the report and explore why those two phases will look so different. 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:The House Intelligence Committee released its impeachment report this week, concluding that President Trump tried to ?use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.? Here are our key takeaways from the report.Confused by what happens next? Our step-by-step guide to the impeachment process has you covered.
Behind the curtain of an internet blackout, the Islamic Republic?s security forces have killed at least 180 unarmed protesters.
Natalie Kitroeff speaks to Farnaz Fassihi about Iran?s deadliest political unrest in decades and why the United States wanted that unrest ? and has helped fuel it.
Background reading:How a peaceful protest over fuel prices quickly evolved into nationwide demonstrations against the Islamic Republic and its leaders, unrest which scores of people would not survive.After the United States condemned the extrajudicial killings, Iran pointed to the rebuke as evidence that the demonstrations were backed by Western enemies.
For decades, hospitals could assume that patients with jobs and health insurance would pay their medical bills. That?s no longer the case. We speak to one woman about her skyrocketing medical costs ? and the aggressive new way hospitals are forcing patients to pay up.
Guest: Sarah Kliff, an investigative reporter covering health care for The New York Times, speaks with Amanda Sturgill, 41, whose health care provider took her to court in Virginia. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:One in four Americans have skipped medical treatment because of the cost, and nearly half fear bankruptcy in the event of a health emergency. Meet some of the employed and insured Americans who cannot afford health care.The American health care system is not the norm for developed countries. Here?s a look at how socialized and privatized systems compare internationally.Why doesn?t the United States have universal health care? The 1619 Project found that the answer is linked to segregation.
The story passed for years from tea sellers to rickshaw drivers to shopkeepers in Old Delhi. In a forest, they said, in a palace cut off from the city, lived a prince, a princess and a queen, said to be the last of a Shiite Muslim royal line. Some said the family had been there since the British had annexed their kingdom. Others said they were supernatural beings.
It was a stunning and tragic story. But was it real? On a spring afternoon, while on assignment in India, Ellen Barry got a phone call that sent her looking for the truth.
In Chapter 1, we hear of a woman who appeared on the platform of the New Delhi railway station with her two adult children, declaring they were the descendants of the royal family of Oudh. She said they would not leave until what was theirs had been restored. So they settled in and waited ? for nearly a decade.
For more information, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Yesterday, we looked at the origins of President Trump?s baseless theory that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in the 2016 election. This theory inspired one of the two investigations he sought from Ukraine that triggered the impeachment inquiry. Today, we look at the origins of the president?s second theory. Guest: Kenneth P. Vogel, a reporter in The New York Times?s Washington bureau. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.?s diplomatic record on corruption in Ukraine contradicts President Trump?s claims.There are a lot of accusations flying back and forth between the president and the former vice president. Let us help you sort them out.
In the phone call at the center of the impeachment inquiry, President Trump asked Ukraine for two different investigations. Today, we explore the unexpected story behind one of them. Guest: Scott Shane, a national security reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:How a fringe theory about Ukraine took root in the White House.Moscow has run a yearslong operation attempting to essentially frame Ukraine for its own 2016 election interference, according to United States intelligence agencies.
An unusual battle has broken out between President Trump and top military commanders over the future of a Navy SEAL commando.
Today, how a high-profile war-crimes investigation has prompted a war of words from the commander in chief ? rocking the highest levels of the military. Guest: Dave Philipps, a national correspondent covering veterans and the military for The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Why Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher was investigated for war crimes, and why his fellow SEAL members broke the group?s code of silence to testify against him.Order within his ranks was a ?deadly serious business.? Now, Richard V. Spencer, the secretary of the Navy, has resigned after clashing with the president over Chief Gallagher?s demotion.
President Trump called into ?Fox & Friends? this morning to respond to all that has been said over two weeks of public impeachment hearings. The conversation offered a preview of what may become the president?s impeachment defense.
?The Latest? is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind ?The Daily.? You can find more information about it here.
Today we launch Part One in our series on pivotal moments in the lives of the 2020 presidential front-runners. In studio with ?The Daily,? Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., talks about how his lifelong political ambitions were complicated by the secret he kept for decades.
Guests:Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Ind., and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.Jeremy W. Peters, a politics reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York Times.
??The Candidates? is a new series from ?The Daily? exploring pivotal moments in the lives of top presidential contenders in the 2020 election. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Throughout the impeachment inquiry, an image has surfaced of the Trump administration?s two policymaking channels on Ukraine ? one regular, one not. Today?s testimony from Fiona Hill, President Trump?s former top adviser on Russia and Europe, raised the question: Which was which?
Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, has evolved from a loyal Trump campaign donor to a witness central to the impeachment inquiry. But his testimony has been contradicted on multiple occasions.
Today, we look at how both Democrats and Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee handled their most complicated witness to date.
Guest: Nicholas Fandos, who covers Congress for The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Mr. Sondland implicated Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the nation?s biggest foreign policy controversy in nearly two decades. Reciting emails that he had written to Mr. Pompeo, he said that ?everyone was in the loop.?Confused about what this moment might mean? Here are answers to seven key questions about the impeachment process.
In explosive testimony, Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, directly implicated President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top administration officials in what he said was a push for a ?clear quid pro quo? with the president of Ukraine. But during questioning, things got complicated.
When Senator Kamala Harris started her presidential campaign 10 months ago, she drew a crowd of 20,000 to her kickoff rally ? the biggest of any candidate?s. She was talked about as a potential heir to the political coalition that carried Barack Obama to the White House. We followed her campaign to South Carolina to explore why, after such fanfare, she?s now polling in the single digits.
Guest: Astead W. Herndon, a national political reporter for The New York Times, and Monika Evstatieva, a producer on ?The Daily.? For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Ms. Harris said she wanted relevant policy, not ?a beautiful sonnet.? Here are the signature issues of her campaign.We asked 21 candidates the same 18 questions. Hear Kamala Harris?s answers.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, gave public testimony of his alarm at what he heard during President Trump?s July phone call with the leader of Ukraine. Appearing in his Army dress uniform trimmed with military ribbons, Colonel Vindman spoke of himself as a patriot, an account that Democrats echoed. The president?s Republican allies, however, told a different story.
As they lobbied the Trump administration for a $1.5 trillion tax cut, corporations vowed to invest the savings back into the U.S. economy. Today, we investigate whether they made good on that promise.
Guest: Jim Tankersley, who covers economic and tax policy for The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:FedEx?s leadership lobbied unsuccessfully for tax reform for years. Then it wrote its own tax proposal for President Trump ? cutting the company?s corporate tax rate to zero.How the Trump administration?s tax cuts may have affected you, and why you might not believe it.
Four witnesses will appear in tomorrow?s public hearings ? three of whom listened directly to the July phone call between President Trump and Ukraine?s president that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Plus, impeachment investigators are looking into whether Mr. Trump lied to Robert S. Mueller III.
It was one of the most valuable start-ups in the United States, with bold plans to revolutionize how and where people worked around the world. Today, we look at how the dream of WeWork crumbled ? and explore the story of the man responsible for the wreckage.
Guest: Amy Chozick, a writer at large for The New York Times covering the personalities and power struggles in business, politics and media.
For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Adam Neumann had an inexplicably persuasive charisma and a taste for risk. Then he found a kindred spirit with an open checkbook.WeWork is preparing to eliminate at least 4,000 employees, cutting nearly a third of its work force in an effort to staunch further financial losses.
Marie Yovanovitch, who was ousted as the ambassador to Ukraine on President Trump?s orders, came before the House Intelligence Committee on the second day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. At the very moment she was testifying about feeling threatened by the president, the president was tweeting about her.
Free-market economists once talked about ?the miracle of Chile,? praising its policies as Latin America?s great economic success story. But recently, over a million people have flipped the script, taking to the streets and facing down a violent police response as they demand a reckoning on the promise of prosperity that never came.
Today, we explore how, in Chile, capitalism itself is now on trial.
Guest: Amanda Taub, who explores the ideas and context behind major world events as a columnist for The Interpreter at The New York Times, spoke with Annie Brown, a producer for ?The Daily.? For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:?It?s not 30 pesos, it?s 30 years.? Our correspondent went to Santiago, the Chilean capital, to understand how a small hike in public transportation fares ignited mass protests.After weeks of demonstrations, Chile?s president said he would support a new Constitution. But for many, it was too little, too late.Our correspondent went inside a trauma unit in Chile that?s responding to ?an epidemic? of protesters who have been shot in the eye by police pellet guns. Watch the video below.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.?
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.
Kentucky?s unpopular Republican governor, Matthew G. Bevin, was facing a losing battle. So he turned to President Trump, and a polarized political landscape, for help. Today, we look at why Tuesday?s race for governor in Kentucky is drawing outsized attention, what it may tell us about the politics of impeachment, and how a state race became a national test.
Guest: Jonathan Martin, a national political correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Matthew G. Bevin, the incumbent governor in Kentucky, was deeply unpopular after blaming striking teachers for violence against children.Mr. Bevin pivoted away from his own agenda to make the race for governor a referendum on national politics.Andrew G. Beshear, Mr. Bevin?s Democratic challenger, has claimed victory, but Mr. Bevin has not conceded. Explore our map of the results: A few thousand votes separate the candidates after all precincts reported.
The New York Times and Siena College conducted a major new poll, tackling the biggest questions about the 2020 presidential race: How likely is President Trump to be re-elected and which Democrat is best positioned to defeat him?
The results reveal that the president remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, with Democratic candidates struggling to win back the support of white working-class voters who backed Mr. Trump in 2016.
The poll also presents a snapshot of how the top Democratic candidates might fare in the general election ? a critical question for Democratic voters hoping to take back the White House.
Guest: Nate Cohn, a domestic correspondent for The Upshot at The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:The new poll suggests Senator Elizabeth Warren might struggle with some battleground swing voters, and found evidence that both gender bias and ideological doubts were hurting her.The top Democratic presidential candidates are locked in a close race in the Iowa caucuses, a key early test in the nomination race. But there, Ms. Warren currently has a slight edge. Here are five theories about what ?electability? means in the 2020 race.
In just three months, the first election of the Democratic presidential race will be held in Iowa.
Over the weekend, the party held its most important political event yet in the prelude to that vote ? including a fabled annual dinner attended by almost every remaining candidate in the campaign. At this dinner in 2007, Barack Obama, then a senator, delivered a searing critique of Hillary Clinton?s electability, helping him pull ahead in the polls. Candidates this time around were hoping for a similar campaign-defining moment.
We traveled to Des Moines to find out how the candidates are trying to stand out in a crowded field and to try to discern who might have the political support, financial might and organizational prowess to become the nominee.
Guest: Reid J. Epstein, a campaigns and elections reporter for The Times based in Washington D.C.
Clare Toeniskoetter and Monika Evstatieva, producers for ?The Daily,? who traveled to Des Moines to speak with campaign supporters.
For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:With the Iowa caucuses fast approaching, the ideological debate has remained the same, but the key players have shifted, with Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Elizabeth Warren appearing to have gained momentum. The latest poll in Iowa suggested that Ms. Warren had seized much of Bernie Sanders?s youthful following. Here are five takeaways from the survey.
The House of Representatives voted to begin the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump ? one which will be open to public scrutiny. Two Democrats in the House broke ranks and voted against the resolution, which outlined rules for the impeachment process. That was the only complication to an otherwise clean partisan split, with all House Republicans voting against the measure. The tally foreshadowed the battle to come as Democrats take their case against the president fully into public view. Today, we discuss what the next phase of the inquiry will look like. Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor for The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:House Democrats decided they now have enough confidence in the severity of the underlying facts about Mr. Trump?s dealings with Ukraine to open the inquiry to the public, despite the risk that doing so would further polarize the electorate. This is a timeline of the events that prompted the impeachment inquiry.Here?s how Democrats and Republicans voted on the impeachment rules resolution.
In testimony before a House committee on Wednesday, Dennis A. Muilenburg, Boeing?s chief executive, said, ?If we knew everything back then that we know now, we would have made a different decision.? Congress is investigating two crashes of Boeing 737 Max jets which killed 346 people, cost the company billions of dollars and raised new questions about government oversight of aviation. So what did Boeing executives know about the dangers of the automated system implicated in the crashes ? and when did they know it? Guest: Natalie Kitroeff, who covers the economy for The Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Boeing successfully lobbied to reduce government oversight of airplane design.Evidence presented to House investigators on Wednesday revealed that Boeing was aware of potentially ?catastrophic? concerns about the 737 Max?s safety before the first crash.
When Juul was created, the company?s founders told federal regulators that its product would save lives. Those regulators were eager to believe them. Today, part two in our series on the promise and the peril of vaping.
Guest: Sheila Kaplan, an investigative reporter for The New York Times covering the intersection of money, medicine and politics. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Here?s the first episode in this two-part series, describing how one man?s mysterious death changed our understanding of vaping and its consequences.The federal government has repeatedly delayed or weakened efforts to regulate e-cigarettes, allowing a new generation to become addicted to nicotine.
After a five-year international manhunt, the leader of the Islamic State, who at one point controlled a caliphate the size of Britain, was killed in a raid by elite United States forces in Syria over the weekend.
Today, we explore the life and death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ? and the legacy he leaves behind. Guest: Rukmini Callimachi, who covers terrorism and the Islamic State for The Times, in conversation with Natalie Kitroeff. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:Kurdish forces were essential in the mission to track and identify Mr. al-Baghdadi. President Trump?s decision to withdraw American troops from northern Syria threw the operation into turmoil.Some survivors of Islamic State brutality said Mr. al-Baghdadi?s death came too late. ?He deserves a worse and more abhorrent death,? one added.
When John Steffen died, his family had little doubt that a lifetime of cigarette smoking was to blame. Then, the Nebraska Department of Health got an unusual tip.
Today, we begin a two-part series on the promise and the peril of vaping. Guest: Julie Bosman, a national correspondent for The New York Times, spoke with Kathleen Fimple and her daughter, Dulcia Steffen, in Omaha, Nebraska. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:John Steffen trusted vaping could help him quit smoking. Instead, he became one of vaping?s first victims in Nebraska. Vaping can cause lung damage resembling toxic chemical burns, according to researchers at the Mayo Clinic.
At a rally in New York City last weekend, Senator Bernie Sanders drew the largest crowd of his presidential campaign ? at a moment when his candidacy may be at its most vulnerable. After a heart attack this month, Mr. Sanders faced a challenge in convincing voters that he had the stamina to run both a campaign and the country. His first rally since his hospital stay attracted supporters still resentful of his loss in 2016, and of a party establishment they feel favored Hillary Clinton over Mr. Sanders in the primary. The question for Democratic candidates now is how to respond to this grievance and harness the fervor of Sanders supporters to mobilize support for the Democratic Party more broadly.
Background coverage:Revitalized by an endorsement from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders proclaimed ?I am back? as he rebooted his campaign after a health scare.The response to Sanders?s rally from public housing residents in Queens exposed the race and class tensions in a gentrifying slice of New York City.
Before the career diplomats working in Ukraine discovered a ?highly irregular? power structure around President Trump determined to undermine and derail them, a Trump cabinet secretary said the same thing happened to him.
Today, David J. Shulkin, former secretary of Veterans Affairs, speaks about his experience with ?a dual path of decision making in the White House? and how falling out of favor with President Trump?s political appointees ended his tenure. Guest: David J. Shulkin, a former secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Trump administration. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background listening and reading:Mr. Shulkin?s story matches a pattern described that career diplomats have described to the impeachment inquiry. Here?s a ?Daily? episode about their testimony.Back channels to the White House are at the heart of the investigation.
The Democrats leading the impeachment inquiry are calling testimony from the acting envoy to Ukraine the ?most damning? yet, implicating President Trump himself in a quid pro quo over military aid to the country. William B. Taylor Jr., a career diplomat who has served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, prepared a 15-page opening statement for investigators on Tuesday. He described his testimony as ?a rancorous story about whistle-blowers, Mr. Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption and interference in elections.? In his statement, Mr. Taylor documented two divergent channels of United States policymaking in Ukraine, ?one regular and one highly irregular.? He said Mr. Trump had used the shadow channel to make America?s relationship with Ukraine ? including a $391 million aid package ? conditional on its government?s willingness to investigate one of his political rivals, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and his family. The question of a quid pro quo for the military aid has been pursued by House Democrats since the beginning of the impeachment inquiry. In Mr. Taylor, investigators have a former ambassador testifying under oath that the allegations are true.
Background coverage:Here are six key takeaways from Mr. Taylor?s opening statement to impeachment investigators.This is the evidence collected and requested in the impeachment inquiry so far.
Yesterday on ?The Daily,? we met Kamalle Dabboussy, who said his daughter had been tricked by her husband into joining the Islamic State. His daughter and three grandchildren are being held in a Syrian detention camp for the relatives of ISIS fighters.
When we left off, Mr. Dabboussy had just received a call from a journalist that suggested his family?s situation was about to become far more precarious. President Trump had announced that he would withdraw U.S. troops from the Syrian border, and Kurdish forces who had been guarding the prisons were expected to abandon their posts, leaving the detainees? lives in imminent danger.
Today, we follow Mr. Dabboussy?s struggle to convince the Australian government that his daughter and her children are worth saving ? despite their ties to the Islamic State.
Guest: Livia Albeck-Ripka, a reporter for The Times in Melbourne, Australia, spoke with Kamalle Dabboussy, whose daughter Mariam is trapped in Syria with her children. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background coverage:Here?s the first episode in this two-part series, in which we introduced Kamalle Dabboussy and his fight to bring his family home from a war zone.Mr. Dabboussy is one of a cohort of parents in Australia lobbying the government to help release their loved ones from detention camps in northern Syria.
Since the fall of the Islamic State, many of the group?s fighters and their families have been held in prison camps controlled by U.S.-allied Kurdish forces. Parents around the world have been trying to get their children and grandchildren out of the camps and back to their home countries. Now, the fate of those detainees has become an urgent question after President Trump?s abrupt recall of American troops from the Syrian border.
We follow one father as he fights to get his daughter, a former ISIS bride, and her children back to Australia.
Guest: Livia Albeck-Ripka, a reporter for The Times in Melbourne, Australia, spoke to Kamalle Dabboussy, whose daughter Mariam is trapped in Syria with her three children. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background coverage:?There will be ethnic cleansing of the Kurdish people from Syria, and the American administration will be responsible for it,? said Mazlum Kobani, a Kurdish military commander, when asked about a full American withdrawal from northern Syria.President Trump is now said to be considering leaving a few hundred troops in eastern Syria to defend against an ISIS resurgence.
Members of the American diplomatic corps testified about the state of U.S. foreign policy in private hearings on Capitol Hill this week. According to our national political correspondent, their testimonies revealed ?a remarkably consistent story? about the ways in which career diplomats have been sidelined to make room for Trump administration officials. The conduct of those officials, and the nature of the directives they received, is at the center of the House impeachment investigation.
We look back at a week inside the U.S. Capitol as that inquiry enters a pivotal phase. Guest: Nicholas Fandos, who covers Congress for The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background coverage:Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, told impeachment investigators on Thursday that President Trump delegated Ukraine policy to his personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani.Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, threw Washington into turmoil on Thursday when he first confirmed, then retracted, that Mr. Trump had withheld military aid to pressure Ukraine.
The presence of U.S. troops in northern Syria was designed to protect America?s allies and keep its enemies there in check. President Trump?s unilateral withdrawal from the region quickly, and predictably, unraveled a tenuous peace on the volatile border between Syria and Turkey. His decision handed a gift to four American adversaries: Iran, Russia, the Syrian government and the Islamic State. David E. Sanger of The Times explains why ?the worst-case scenario is even worse than you can imagine.? Guest: David E. Sanger, a national security correspondent and a senior writer at The New York Times. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background coverage:President Trump lashed out in defense of his decision to remove U.S. troops from northeastern Syria in response to rare bipartisan condemnation from Congress.Russian troops have already occupied abandoned American outposts in Syria as Moscow moves to fill the power vacuum.?Don't be a fool! I will call you later.? Read the letter President Trump sent to Turkey?s leader.
Last night in Ohio, The New York Times co-hosted a presidential debate for the first time in more than a decade. Marc Lacey, The Times?s National editor, moderated the event with the CNN anchors Erin Burnett and Anderson Cooper.
It was also the first debate since Democrats started an impeachment inquiry into President Trump and his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Candidates denounced the president, calling for his impeachment, without wading into the specifics of the investigation. Instead, moderates focused on winning over Biden voters by differentiating themselves from more progressive candidates. Guests: Alexander Burns, who covers national politics for The Times, and Maggie Haberman, who covers the White House. For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background coverage:Senator Elizabeth Warren was the primary target of moderates? attacks, illustrating her status as an emergent front-runner. Candidates avoided criticism of Joe Biden, wary of echoing President Trump?s attacks on his family.Here are six takeaways from the debate.
This week, we?re producing episodes of ?The Daily? from The New York Times?s Washington bureau.
The impeachment inquiry is entering a pivotal phase as Congress returns from recess. The White House?s strategy to block the investigation is beginning to crumble, with five administration officials set to testify before House investigators.
On Monday, those committees heard testimony about why the president removed the longtime ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch, just two months before the call in which he asked the Ukrainian president for a favor. Today, we look at how Ms. Yovanovitch ended up at the center of the impeachment process.
Guests: Sharon LaFraniere, an investigative reporter based in Washington, and Rachel Quester and Clare Toeniskoetter, producers for ?The Daily.? For more information on today?s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background coverage:Marie L. Yovanovitch told House investigators that she was removed from office on the basis of ?false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.? The effort to pressure Ukraine so alarmed John Bolton, then the national security adviser, that he told an aide to alert White House lawyers. ?Giuliani?s a hand grenade who?s going to blow everybody up,? an aide quoted him as saying of President Trump?s personal lawyer.