The Articles of Impeachment
House Democratic leaders have introduced two articles of impeachment against President Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But they did not include obstruction of justice. In today’s episode, we delve into the unseen fight among Democrats over whether two articles of impeachment was enough. Guest: Nicholas Fandos, who covers Congress for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:In the draft articles, House Democrats claim that Mr. Trump used as leverage against Ukraine two “official acts”: the delivery of $391 million in security assistance and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president.Here are key takeaways from yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing.
- Duration
- 26m
- Broadcast on
- 11 Dec 2019
- Audio Format
- other
This episode appears to contain dynamically inserted ads. Transcript timestamps may be approximate.
House Democratic leaders have introduced two articles of impeachment against President Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But they did not include obstruction of justice. In today’s episode, we delve into the unseen fight among Democrats over whether two articles of impeachment was enough. Guest: Nicholas Fandos, who covers Congress for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:
- In the draft articles, House Democrats claim that Mr. Trump used as leverage against Ukraine two “official acts”: the delivery of $391 million in security assistance and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president.
- Here are key takeaways from yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing.
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Amazon Music. 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.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Brought to you by the Capital One Saver Card. With Saver, you are an unlimited 3% cashback on dining, entertainment, and at grocery stores. That's unlimited cashback on ordering takeout from home. Or unlimited cashback on tickets to concerts and games. So grab a bite, grab a seat, and earn unlimited 3% cashback with the Saver Card. Capital One. What's in your wallet? Terms apply. See CapitalOne.com for details. From the New York Times, I'm Michael Bobaro. This is The Daily. Today. House Democratic leaders have introduced two articles of impeachment against President Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. My colleague Nick Fandos on the unseen fight among Democrats over whether two articles of impeachment was enough. It's Wednesday, December 11th. Nick, how would you characterize the impeachment inquiry that we have all watched playing out over the past few weeks? So in an odd sense, there has been, for the last month or so, an era of inevitability about this inquiry, since Democrats decided to take it in the public and begin holding fact-finding hearings, writing a written report that they released to the public, talking about the President's pressure campaign on Ukraine. It seemed to all of us watching this closely that it was only going to end in one place, and that was with the impeachment of the President of the United States. But at the same time, privately behind the scenes, there was a debate going on about one of the most fundamental unanswered questions about this. What exactly were they going to charge the President with? What was the case against him going to encompass? Right. What would be the articles of impeachment? That's right. The constitutional term for charges, prosecutorial charges brought by the House against the President. And what exactly is this debate? I mean, if there have been public hearings, if there has been a report, and if there's a unified front on just about everything leading up to that, what exactly is the debate? Well, so to answer that question, you have to go back a little ways. To the summer and early fall, before most of us ever heard about Ukraine and what Rudy Giuliani or President Trump were trying to accomplish there, when the debate in Congress, as it had to do with impeachment, was really centered on another set of facts, on another country, on another report. And that was special counsel Robert Mueller, the special counsel Robert Mueller, the special counsel and his report on Russian election interference in the 2016 campaign. And whether or not President Trump had illegally obstructed justice when he tried to various means to try and undercut Earth for that investigation. I remember that. We did a few episodes on the subject. We did, although it's easy to forget now. But Democrats spent months with Mueller's report. There was very serious evidence before them that the president had, for instance, instructed
Transcription truncated.
House Democratic leaders have introduced two articles of impeachment against President Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But they did not include obstruction of justice. In today’s episode, we delve into the unseen fight among Democrats over whether two articles of impeachment was enough. Guest: Nicholas Fandos, who covers Congress for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Background reading:In the draft articles, House Democrats claim that Mr. Trump used as leverage against Ukraine two “official acts”: the delivery of $391 million in security assistance and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president.Here are key takeaways from yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing.