Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael S Schmidt

After engaging in a campaign of retribution against his enemies within the federal government, President Trump is turning to those outside of it.Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, explains what that retribution has looked like for a single law firm — and the impact it has had on the entire legal profession.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, covering Washington.Background reading: The law firm Perkins Coie has sued the Trump administration over an executive order that would make it all but impossible for the firm to advocate for its clients.The president's use of government power to punish law firms is seen by some experts as undercutting a basic tenet: the right to a strong defense.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Maansi Srivastava for The New York Times Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

John is joined by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Time scribe Michael S. Schmidt on the eve of Donald Trump's second inauguration to discuss the road ahead. Proceeding from the premise that what Trump says matters less than what he actually does, Schmidt details the myriad ways in which 45/47 attempted to weaponize the government against his enemies in his first term; analyzes the confirmation hearing of Trump's AG nominee, Pam Bondi, and public statements of FBI director-designate Kash Patel through that lens; and revisits his story last fall in which Trump's former chief of staff, General John Kelly. described Trump as a “fascist” and wannabe dictator. Schmidt also dishes on Zero Day, a Netflix limited series dropping in February that Mike co-created starring Robert DeNiro as an ex-president called back into service to deal with the fallout of a global cyberattack. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After just nine days as Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, Matt Gaetz has withdrawn from consideration.Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The Times, discusses the revelations and the reporting that doomed the prospective nomination of Gaetz, a former representative of Florida.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, covering Washington.Background reading: Matt Gaetz withdraws from consideration for attorney general.A federal inquiry traced payments from Gaetz to women.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

With less than two weeks to go in the race for the presidency, Donald Trump's longest-serving White House chief of staff is warning that he met the definition of a fascist, Kamala Harris is seizing on the message of Mr. Trump as a threat to democracy and Mr. Trump himself is relying on viral stunts and vulgarity to break through to undecided voters.The Times journalists Michael Barbaro, Michael S. Schmidt, Lisa Lerer, Reid J. Epstein and Nate Cohn try to make sense of it all.Guests: Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, covering WashingtonLisa Lerer, a national political correspondent for The New York Times.Reid J. Epstein, a New York Times reporter covering politics.Nate Cohn, the chief political analyst for The New York Times.Background reading: John Kelly, the Trump White House's longest-serving chief of staff, said that he believed that Donald Trump met the definition of a fascist.Harris called Mr. Trump's reported remarks on Hitler and Nazis “deeply troubling.”A look at the polls: A slight shift toward Mr. Trump but still no clear favorite.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

In a special series, “The Daily” examines what a second Trump presidency would look like, and how it would challenge democratic norms.This episode focuses on former President Donald J. Trump's growing plans for revenge, which his allies and supporters often dismiss as mere bluster.Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter at The New York Times, found that when Mr. Trump asked for retribution in his first term, he got it, over and over again.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, covering Washington.Background reading: Here are cases of Trump rivals who were subject to investigation.Read excerpts from memos written for Mr. Trump about his powers to prosecute.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Soon, you'll need a subscription to keep full access to this show, and to other New York Times podcasts, on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Don't miss out on exploring all of our shows, featuring everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts.

A new doping scandal is rocking the world of competitive swimming, as the Paris Olympics approach. These allegations are raising questions about fairness in the sport and whether the results at the summer games can be trusted.Michael S. Schmidt, one of the reporters who broke the story, explains the controversy and what it reveals about the struggle to police doping in sports.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times.Background reading: Chinese swimmers twice tested positive for drugs. They kept on swimming.U.S. swimming stars assailed the World Anti-Doping Agency ahead of the Olympics.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

A single piece of unverified intelligence became the centerpiece of a Republican attempt to impeach President Biden.Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The Times, explains how that intelligence was harnessed for political ends, and what happened once it was discredited.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, covering Washington.Background reading: Ignoring warnings, Republicans trumpeted a now-discredited allegation against President Biden.Analysis: An informant's indictment undercuts Republicans' impeachment drive.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

The seven new criminal charges against Donald Trump relate to his handling of classified material upon leaving office and then obstructing the government's efforts to reclaim them. Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security and federal investigations for The Times, talks about what this will mean for Trump, and for President Biden, whose administration will now be prosecuting his biggest potential rival for the White House.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The New York Times.Background reading: Trump is the first former president in U.S. history to face federal charges.The former president assailed Hillary Clinton for her handling of sensitive information. Now, the same issue threatens his chances of reclaiming the White House.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell contrasts brinkmanship in Congress in previous decades with today's unhinged brawling. Michael S. Schmidt of The New York Times talks to us about his new revelations concwrning Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly's regrets about his time working for the former president. And Politico's Rachel Bade talks to us about the ticking time bomb that could blow up Kevin McCarthy at any moment.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God” (Jer. 31).                                                                    Jeremiah 31:27-34 Psalm 119:97-104 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5 Luke 18:1-8 “When the Son of humanity comes will he find faith on earth” (Lk. 18)? These words from two thousand years ago are the defining question of our time. This week the House Committee on the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol concluded its hearings. We have seen indisputable evidence that politicians continue to use false claims of electoral fraud to secure their own power.[1] Last month the governors of Florida and Texas falsely promised jobs and resettlement help to asylum seekers who they sent to Washington, D.C. and Martha's Vineyard. They used immigrants, including children, as part of a political stunt.[2] This action echoes the way that black southerners were bused out of the south by segregationist White Citizens' Councils to cities with prominent integrationist leaders in 1962.[3] This week in Ukraine and Iran ordinary people were slaughtered because of a distant political agenda, because of an ideology. Here at home we see terrible poverty and neglect on our own streets. “When the Son of humanity comes, will he find faith on earth?” In the face of the heartbreaking cruelty and dishonesty of his own time Jesus tells his friends, “a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart” (Lk. 18). Jesus tells this story near the end of his own journey to Jerusalem, as he talks about the end of time when God's realm of justice, peace and love will come. The Hebrew Bible frequently demands that the powerful have a special responsibility to widows, strangers and orphans. These groups are vulnerable because they have no male relatives to defend them. Although widows in the Bible (like in the stories of Ruth or Elijah and the widow of Zarephath) often model tenacity, resourcefulness and initiative, they represent vulnerability just as the judge symbolizes power. In several sections of Luke's Gospel he uses a “how much more” argument. “If you then, who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him” (Lk. 11:13).[4] This parable uses this same logic. A widow comes to a judge seeking justice. He does not believe in God. Nor does he respect people. He refuses to help her until he reasons that, “because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out” (Lk. 18). Let me point out two ways in which the Greek version differs from the English translation. When the judge says that he does not want the widow to “wear him out” the Greek word for this is hupopiazē. It is an expression from boxing. It means to literally give someone a black eye. The judge doesn't want the widow to embarrass him or injure his reputation. Second, the Greek more strongly conveys urgency, impatience and conviction. Greek uses double negatives to add emphasis. It's almost as if Jesus raises his voice to underline what he means. A more literal version might be, “And will not God give vengeance to his chosen ones who are crying day and night? And be impatient to help them!”[5] The point is not that God resembles the unjust judge. In almost every respect Jesus describes God as the opposite. The judge is self-centered. He only uses people. But God is full of love, impatient for his children to thrive. Jesus is unafraid to be humiliated for our sake. The purpose of this “how much more” story is for us to trust God and to persist in prayer.[6] Today I want to give you one picture of a faithless world and then to consider how faith humanizes us. In college I knew a woman whose favorite story was Ernest Hemmingway's "The Short and Happy Life of Francis Macomber." This always worried me about her partly because of the story's misogyny but mostly because of its position with regard to faith. We meet Francis Macomber as a thirty-five year old American business tycoon on safari in East Africa. As the story unfolds we gradually come to realize that he has committed the cardinal sin in the universe of Hemingway fiction. The day before he betrayed his manliness and ran in fear from a wounded lion who had been concealed in the tall grass. Margot, his wife, does not try to comfort him in his humiliation. Instead, she despises this act of cowardice and as a consequence she sleeps with the safari leader that night. Hemmingway also seems to hate his own fictitious character, because he wouldn't leave his wife, because "he would take anything" from her.[7] The next day the group goes in pursuit of a dangerous buffalo. Then, suddenly, in an almost religious conversion, Macomber changes. Hemmingway writes, that “[f]or the first time in his life he felt wholly without fear. Instead of fear he had a feeling of definite elation.” The safari leader admires this new courage. His wife fears it because she no longer has the power to make him ashamed of being afraid. Why is it called a "Short Happy Life"? Only moments later as Macomber tries to flush the buffalo out of the long grass, “he [feels] a sudden white-hot, blinding flash explode inside his head and that was all he ever felt.” Although his wife claimed she was aiming at the buffalo, she shot him in the back of the head. When the son of man comes will he find faith on earth? In Hemmingway's universe there is no faith. Men can never depend on women, or on other men. Every person is either a conquest or an adversary. The individual can only rely on an elusive courage that comes miraculously from within, an irrational bravery which completely isolates each soul from all else. The theologian H. Richard Niebuhr emphasizes that faith means more than merely faith in God. Faith concerns all the ways that we are connected to and support and depend on each other. “We see this possibility – that human history will come to its end… in the gangrenous corruption of a social life in which every promise, contract, treaty and “word of honor” is given and received in deception and distrust. If [human beings] can no longer have faith in each other, can they exist as [human beings]?”[8] What shall we do in this time before the second coming of Christ? We need to pray and not lose hope. We also need to strive to be people of honesty and integrity, to listen and care for others. To use the language of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) we need to treat people as ends rather than as means to our own goals. The heartbreaking sin of this judge was his inability to see the widow as a person. I have a friend named Sue Everson who is a world authority on hopelessness. As a medical researcher she studies the effect that hopelessness has on our health. One of her more startling statistics is that people who feel hopeless are twenty percent more likely to die in the next four years from a stroke. Hopelessness increases your chance of a stroke to the same degree that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day does.  Sue scientifically studies how religion seems to make people less hopeless.[9] Today with churches around the world we celebrate the Children's Sabbath. A central part of what we do together involves our care for children and families. We teach children how to listen spiritually, how to pray and not lose heart. Professor Lisa Miller has been our guest on the forum twice. She argues that denying our spirituality is not just untrue but unhealthy for us and especially for children. Using new techniques ranging from twin studies to neuroimaging, scientists are coming to a new appreciation for just how important spirituality is for human flourishing. Miller claims that all children possess a kind of “natural spirituality.” This interest in the Holy, this, “direct sense of… the heartbeat of the living universe… precedes and transcends language, culture and religion.”[10] This spirituality protects us, but not completely, from depression, anxiety and the tendency to misuse alcohol and drugs. So what is the most important thing that we can do as adults for children? We can support their Sunday School teachers and the families who gather here. We can take their questions seriously. We can listen to them.[11] And so the conversation continues every week here. In life we are forever asking and being asked a simple question, “do you believe me?”[12] Do you? Seeing what is happening in the world, it is easy to struggle with a crisis of trust right now. I trust God but I don't know if the Son will find faith on earth. And yet at the same time I feel remarkably supported by the life I find at Grace Cathedral. C.S. Lewis writes that, “Faith… is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of changing moods….” Because of this he says we need to pray and hold some of the Christian ideals in our mind for a period of time every day. We need to worship because, “We have to be continually reminded of what we believe… Belief has to be fed…” People do not cease to be Christian because of a good argument but because they simply drift away. Kathleen Norris writes, “prayer is not asking for what you think you want but asking to be changed in ways you can't imagine. To be made more grateful, more able to see the good in what you have been given instead of always grieving for what might have been.”[13] My friends pray always and do not lose heart. Be trustworthy and care for the children. When the Son of humanity comes may he find faith on earth. [1] Alan Feuer, Luke Broadwater, Maggie Haberman, Katie Benner and Michael S. Schmidt, “Jan. 6: The Story So Far,” The New York Times, 14 October 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/politics/jan-6-timeline.html?name=styln-capitol-mob®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=show&is_new=false [2] Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Eileen Sullivan, “Is That Legal: How Scores of Migrants Came to be Shipped North,” The New York Times, 16 September 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/us/politics/migrants-marthas-vineyard-desantis.html?name=styln-marthas-vineyard-immigrants®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=show&is_new=false and https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/02/us/migrants-marthas-vineyard-desantis-texas.html [3] Jacey Fortin, “When Segregationists Offered One-Way Tickets to Black Southerners,” The New York Times, 14 October 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/02/us/migrants-marthas-vineyard-desantis-texas.html [4] See also, “But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you – you of little faith!” (Lk. 12:28). [5] 22 Pent (10-16-16) 24C. [6] Ibid. [7]  Hemingway cynically writes, "They had a sound basis of union. Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to divorce her and Macomber had too much money for Margot ever to leave him now." Ernest Hemingway, “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” The Short Stories of Ernest Hemmingway (NY: Scribners/Macmillan, 1987) 18. See also, 20 Pent (10-21-01) 24C. [8] “We see this possibility – that human history will come to its end neither in a brotherhood of [humanity] nor in universal death under the blows of natural or man-made catastrophe, but in the gangrenous corruption of a social life in which every promise, contract, treaty and “word of honor” is given and received in deception and distrust. If [human beings] can no longer have faith in each other, can they exist as [human beings]?” H. Richard Niebuhr, Faith on Earth: An Inquiry into the Structure of Human Faith ed. Richard R. Niebuhr (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 1. [9] 20 Pent (10-17-04) 24C. [10] Lisa Miller, The Spiritual Child: The New Science on Parenting for Health and Lifelong Thriving (NY: Picador, 2015) 25. [11] Miller quotes a parent who says, “I didn't realize for a long time that when my child asks a question and I say, “I don't know,” and just leave it at that, I'm actually stopping the conversation.” Ibid., 47. [12] H. Richard Niebuhr, Faith on Earth: An Inquiry into the Structure of Human Faith ed. Richard R. Niebuhr (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 22. [13] Kathleen Norris, Amazing Grace: A Vocabulary of Faith (NY: Riverhead Books, 1998) 60-1.

Emily & John discuss the latest in CBA negotiations, Michael S. Schmidt: MLB Shill Lifer, Mike Trout getting some hitting instruction, Mets Old Timers' Day, HUGE announcement in Breaking Balls world, The Book of Boba Fett: Chapters 6 + 7, voicemails, Top 6 Reasons the Winter Olympics are Superior to the Summer Olympics & more!

Rep. Matt Gaetz is accused of sex trafficking. In this episode, we look at the trustworthiness of the allegations before turning our attention to another powerful member of Congress whose selfish actions are far easier to prove. Jen then thanks the wonderful producers who make Congressional Dish possible. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Articles/Documents Article: Who Is Joel Greenberg? A Guide to the Man Who Could Bring Down Matt Gaetz By Ryan Bort & Tessa Stuart, Rolling Stone, April 15, 2021 Article: Matt Gaetz’s Wingman Paid Dozens of Young Women—and a 17-Year-Old By Jose Pagliery and Roger Sollenberger, April 14, 2021 Article: Nancy Pelosi's Husband Buys Microsoft Ahead of Big Govt Contract By Mish, The Street, Mish Talk, April 13, 2021 Article: Justice Dept. Inquiry Into Matt Gaetz Said to Be Focused on Cash Paid to Women By Katie Benner and Michael S. Schmidt, The New York Times, April 1, 2021 Article: Powerful Reps Rely on Corporate PACs to Pay Their Committee Taxes By Donald Shaw, Sludge, March 18, 2021 Article: Pelosi-Controlled Committee Blocks Votes on Congressional Stock Holdings By Donald Shaw, Sludge, March 4, 2021 Article: Rep. Matt Gaetz insists he’s “not gay” after revealing his 19-year-old “son” who he “loves very much” By Graham Gremore, Queerty, June 19, 2020 Additional Resources About House Committee on Rules Movie Trailer: The Swamp HBO Report: On Life, Liberty, and Stock Markets Unusual Whales Sound Clip Sources CLIP OF HOUSE DEBATE ON ARIZONA ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE CHALLENGE, PART 3: User Clip: Matt Gaetz speaks to joint session on Objection to Arizona Electoral Votes, Joint Session of Congress, January 6, 2021 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

In the wake of Georgia's controversial and restrictive new voting laws, Major League Baseball decided to move their All-Star Game out of Atlanta. They weren’t alone in their reaction. Yahoo News’s Jon Ward joins Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman and Victoria Bassetti to talk about the implications of the corporate backlash in Georgia. Then, they are joined by Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg of Palm Beach County, who lends his insight on a number of Florida stories in the news: the recent allegations that Gov. Ron DeSantis mishandled his state’s vaccine rollout through preferential treatment, the ongoing unravelling of Matt Gaetz, and the possibilities for the future indictment of one auspicious Palm Beach resident.GUESTS:Jon Ward (@jonward11), Chief National Correspondent, Yahoo NewsDave Aronberg (@aronberg), State Attorney, Palm Beach County, Florida HOSTS:Michael Isikoff (@Isikoff), Chief Investigative Correspondent, Yahoo NewsDaniel Klaidman (@dklaidman), Editor in Chief, Yahoo NewsVictoria Bassetti (@VBass), fellow, Brennan Center for Justice RESOURCES:“All-Star Game: Gov. Kemp defends election laws after MLB moves game,” Fox 5 Atlanta (Apr. 4, 2021)“As in Georgia, Texas Democrats look to mobilize business against voting restrictions” by Jon Ward, Yahoo News (Apr. 6, 2021)“The Working-Class GOP: A Muddled Concept” by Matthew Continetti, National Review (Apr. 3, 2021)“How the Wealthy Cut the Line During Florida’s Frenzied Vaccine Rollout” by Sharyn Alfonsi, CBS 60 Minutes (Apr. 5, 2021)“Matt Gaetz, Loyal for Years to Trump, Is Said to Have Sought a Blanket Pardon” by Michael S. Schmidt, Maggie Haberman and Nicholas Fandos, New York Times (Apr. 6, 2021) Follow us on Twitter: @SkullduggeryPodListen and subscribe to “Skullduggery” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

In the wake of reporting that there is an ongoing Justice Dept. investigation into him, which involves sex, trafficking a minor across state lines, and possible campaign finance misdeeds, Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman and Victoria Bassetti sit down to untangle the twisted web that is Gaetz-gate (or maybe just “Gaet”?) They are joined by Washington Post Justice Dept. reporter Devlin Barrett, and former federal prosecutor Steven Block, who each lend their insight and expertise to predicting what comes next in this wild story.GUESTS:Devlin Barrett (@DevlinBarrett), reporter, Washington PostSteven Block (@sablockus), former federal prosecutor HOSTS:Michael Isikoff (@Isikoff), Chief Investigative Correspondent, Yahoo NewsDaniel Klaidman (@dklaidman), Editor in Chief, Yahoo NewsVictoria Bassetti (@VBass), fellow, Brennan Center for Justice RESOURCES:“Gaetz investigation complicated by overture to his father about ex-FBI agent who went missing” by Mike Zapotosky and Devlin Barrett, Washington Post (Mar. 31, 2021)“Justice Dept. Inquiry Into Matt Gaetz Said to Be Focused on Cash Paid to Women” by Katie Benner and Michael S. Schmidt, New York Times (Apr. 1, 2021) Follow us on Twitter: @SkullduggeryPodListen and subscribe to “Skullduggery” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.E-mail us with feedback, questions, or tips: SkullduggeryPod@yahoo.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

ICYMI, Joe Biden and his administration hit the ground running since his first official day in office. After four years of, well, you know, we like our White House this way: boring and efficient. Light on drama, heavy on getting stuff done. From COVID relief to immigration reform, Biden has signed a slate of executive actions signaling a surprisingly impressive understanding of what it will take to advance equity for millions of Americans. In this episode, we take a high level overview of what Biden’s executive actions mean for the New American Majority. And we also introduce a new segment called “How We Win the Civil War” where Steve grounds our current political climate in the historical context of the U.S. Civil War that never ended. REFERENCES: Alida Garcia, Esq. - @leedsgarcia - VP of Advocacy, FWD.us & Founder, Inclusv Susan Rice - @AmbassadorRice - Director, US Domestic Policy Council Executive Actions CNN.com // Kate Sullivan - Here are the executive actions Biden has signed so far https://cnn.com/interactive/2021/politics/biden-executive-orders/index.html Articles NYT Opinion Editorial // Ease Up on the Executive Actions, Joe! https://nytimes.com/2021/01/27/opinion/biden-executive-orders.html New York Times // Jim Rutenberg, Jo Becker, Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Martin, Matthew Rosenberg, and Michael S. Schmidt - 77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election https://nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-lie.html The Root // Stephen A. Crockett Jr. - The Return to Boredom America Deserves https://theroot.com/the-return-to-boredom-america-deserves-1846092852 Newsweek // Jacob Jarvis - Joe Biden Signed More Executive Orders Than Trump, Obama Combined in Their First 12 Days https://newsweek.com/joe-biden-executive-orders-more-donald-trump-barack-obama-first-12-days-1565795 Newsweek // Aimee Allison - The Women Behind Biden’s Executive Orders I Opinion https://newsweek.com/women-behind-bidens-executive-orders-opinion-1565510 Ms. Magazine // Carrie N. Baker - “Uplifting the Rights of Girls and Women in the U.S. and Around the World”: Biden and Harris Announce New White House Gender Policy Council https://msmagazine.com/2021/01/26/white-house-gender-policy-council-biden-harris-tina-tchen/ NPR.org // Barbara Sprunt - Biden Picks Susan Rice For Top Domestic Policy Position https://npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/10/944997218/biden-picks-susan-rice-for-top-domestic-policy-position Book Jean Guerrero // Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, and the White Nationalist Agenda https://harpercollins.com/products/hatemonger-jean-guerrero?variant=32999929610274 Pop Culture Reference YouTube.com // Schoolhouse Rock - I’m Just a Bill https://youtube.com/watch?v=OgVKvqTItto

3 de febrero | Nueva YorkHola, maricoper. Filibuster y reconciliation.El podcast de La Wikly también está disponible en iTunes, Spotify y iVoox.Añade el podcast a tu plataforma favorita haciendo click en el botón “Listen in podcast app” que aparece justo debajo del reproductor.Si te haces suscriptor premium, recibirás dos newsletters extra. Los viernes, el maricóctel, un podcast y una serie de enlaces recomendados para ponerte al día de algún tema destacado. Y los lunes, el maricoffee, un repaso de cuatro titulares para empezar la semana bien informado (y un test de actualidad para ponerte a prueba).Leer esta newsletter te llevará 28 minutos y 23 segundos.Porque es un placer fastidiar a los críos (sorry, padres). Bienvenido a La Wikly.🧑🏻‍🦳 Obstáculos y atajosLo importante: Joe Biden tiene que afrontar las crisis que azotan a Estados Unidos de dos formas: desde el ejecutivo con decretos como los que lleva aprobando estas semanas y/o con la ayuda de las cámaras legislativas.Por si hace falta que te refresquemos la memoria.Cámara de Representantes, con mayoría demócrata ajustada de tan solo 10 congresistas (222-212).Queda un escaño en Nueva York por decidirse.Senado, con mayoría demócrata muy ajustada (50-50) gracias a la función que la vicepresidenta Kamala Harris ejerce para deshacer empates.En la Cámara de Representantes es posible pasar muchos proyectos de ley ambiciosos por mayoría simple. Es decir, 218 congresistas y los demócratas solo se pueden permitir cuatro fugas.El Senado es otra historia.Es por eso que en esta edición de La Wikly queremos explicar los dos mecanismos que permiten pasar o bloquear leyes en el Senado y que pasarán a formar parte del lexicón de esta newsletter en los próximos meses.EL FILIBUSTERQué es. Se trata de una técnica específica de obstruccionismo parlamentario mediante la cual se pretende retrasar o enteramente bloquear la aprobación de una ley o acto legislativo a través de las intervenciones de los congresistas.Como el sistema estadounidense es uno que no contempla un tiempo límite para las intervenciones de los congresistas, un filibuster puede implicar largos discursos, mociones dilatorias y una cantidad ingente de proposición de medidas.Regulación en el Senado. Tras más de cien años de prácticas de filibuster, se han desarrollado leyes reglamentarias para controlarlo e impedir que el mecanismo frene en su totalidad la actividad del Capitolio.Hasta 1970, el obstruccionismo en un debate frenaba por completo la actividad del Senado, pero con la adopción del sistema de dos vías se permitió tener dos o más leyes/nominaciones pendientes en simultáneo.¿Cómo? Designando períodos específicos durante el día para que cada una sea considerada. Ejemplo:La nominación judicial de Pepito será considerada por la mañana y hasta la hora de comer.La ley de transición patológica será considerada a lo largo de la tarde.Es decir, que el filibuster permite de facto bloquear una ley porque un partido puede alargar un debate ad infinitum al tiempo sin frenar la actividad del Senado porque en paralelo se van aprobando otras leyes.La excepción. El Senado puede poner fin a un obstruccionismo invocando la Cloture Rule, una regla que desde 1975 permite terminar el debate con el apoyo de las tres quintas partes del Senado (60 senadores).Sin embargo, no es una regla que se invoque con regularidad debido a que suele ser necesario el apoyo bipartidista para obtener la supermayoría requerida.Por otro lado, la minoría de votos requerida por esa Cloture Rule, o regla de clausura, no es la misma si el debate gira en torno a modificar las leyes del Senado; para esos fines es necesario el apoyo de dos tercios de la cámara.En ocasiones, se ha propuesto la "opción nuclear", un procedimiento parlamentario que permite al Senado anular una regla permanente del Senado por una mayoría simple de 51 votos —si es que los 100 senadores están presentes.Eso incluye la regla de clausura de 60 votos necesarios para cerrar el debate.Con el tiempo, las prácticas de filibuster, que solían estar reservadas para problemas controvertidos, empezaron a afectar a casi todos los debates caldeados del Senado y se normalizó requerir los 60 votos para esquivar el obstruccionismo.¿Cuáles son las opciones para los demócratas teniendo el control de la Casa Blanca y del Capitolio pero sin una mayoría a prueba del potencial obstruccionismo del Senado?Crear más excepciones mediante la opción nuclear, como ha sucedido un par de veces en los últimos años, aunque para ello necesitarían el apoyo de senadores como Joe Manchin y Krysten Sinema, que no están muy convencidos.En 2013, una mayoría demócrata en el Senado puso fin al obstruccionismo para las nominaciones a los tribunales federales, así como a las nominaciones del poder ejecutivo.En 2017, un Senado controlado por los republicanos puso fin al obstruccionismo para las nominaciones a la Corte Suprema.Con la administración de Biden, gran parte de las políticas de la agenda demócrata están fuera de su alcance a menos que diez republicanos del Senado las respalden.Es de ahí que los demócratas lleven meses proponiendo a debate si el partido debería eliminar el obstruccionismo parlamentario con la llamada opción nuclear.Si la activaran, podrían aprobar muchos proyectos de ley sobre cambio climático, derecho al voto, ampliación de Medicare o subida de impuestos a los ricos con solo 50 votos (+Kamala) en lugar de 60.RECONCILIATIONQué es. Reconciliation o reconciliación es un procedimiento parlamentario del Capitolio estadounidense que facilita la aprobación de determinadas leyes presupuestarias.Es de especial utilidad en el Senado, pues permite evitar el filibuster y salvar el requisito de los 60 votos a favor necesarios para poder pasar la mayor parte de la legislación.Los mecanismos de control del debate ya existentes en la Cámara de Representantes hacen que este mecanismo no sea tan útil en esa cámara.La reconciliación permite al Senado, por mayoría simple de 50 senadores, aprobar por lo menos una ley al año que afecte a gastos, impuestos y límites de deuda como parte del proceso presupuestario.Existe la posibilidad de aprobar una ley que afecte a gastos e impuestos por un lado y otra ley que afecte a límites de deuda.Pero sí, solo uno de esos tres términos (gastos, impuestos y límites de deuda) al año.Este mecanismo fue creado por la Ley de Presupuestos del Congreso de 1974 y se puede utilizar para abordar aquellos gastos “obligatorios” o de derecho. Es decir, aquellos gastos determinados por las leyes de autorización vigentes.Eso incluye cambios a gastos que afecten a programas públicos de sanidad como Medicaid y Medicare, a pensiones civiles y militares a nivel federal o a cupones de alimentos y programas agrícolas.Eso sí, la conocida como Regla Byrd impide que por reconciliación se hagan cambios a la Seguridad Social o se aumente el déficit federal después de un periodo de 10 años, entre otros. La reconciliación fue utilizada por primera vez en 1980, y desde entonces se ha utilizado en otras 21 ocasiones. Entre los ejemplos históricos más reseñables:La reforma de ayudas sociales de 1996 (PRWORA).Las bajadas de impuestos de George W. Bush en 2001 y 2003.Como parte del proceso de aprobación de la Ley del Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA), mejor conocida como Obamacare, en 2010.La bajada de impuestos de Trump en 2017.Los republicanos, con su mayoría en el Senado, también intentaron utilizar la reconciliación en 2016 y 2017 para derogar Obamacare.Ambos intentos fracasaron: el primero porque fue vetado por Obama, y el segundo, ya durante la presidencia de Trump, porque no logró su aprobación en el Senado.A destacar el hecho de que el veto presidencial a una ley de reconciliación no permite reiniciar la tramitación de otra ley por ese procedimiento, lo que implica la exigencia de un nuevo proceso presupuestario.La de 2017 fue especialmente controvertida puesto que se intentaron aprobar dos leyes de reconciliación: una para el año fiscal 2017 (utilizada para intentar tumbar Obamacare; fracasó) y otra para el año fiscal 2018 (la que aprobó la bajada de impuestos de Trump).¿Y cómo pueden utilizar los demócratas la reconciliación?En teoría, los demócratas podrían aprobar una sola de reconciliación en 2021, aunque es posible que se puedan permitirse aprobar una extra del año fiscal 2020.Dado que en 2020 no se aprobó una ley presupuestaria correspondiente al año fiscal 2021, los demócratas podrían aprovechar este año para aprobar las leyes correspondientes a 2021 y a 2022.Eso permitiría la generación de una ley de reconciliación extra que los demócratas podrían utilizar para aprobar sus medidas legislativas más ambiciosas.¿Qué medidas? Los líderes demócratas ya han anunciado que utilizarán las leyes de reconciliación para aprobar algunas de las principales medidas legislativas del programa de Biden. Destacan:Los paquetes de estímulo para hacer frente a la situación económica dejada por la crisis de COVID-19 en caso de que no se llegue a un acuerdo con los republicanos.Legislación en materia de cambio climático e infraestructuras.Subida del salario mínimo a 15 dólares por hora, si bien esto no tiene precedentes de aprobación mediante reconciliación.¿Qué no pueden hacer? En esencia, no puede aprobarse por ley de reconciliación cualquier medida que no afecte a gastos, impuestos o límites de deuda. Entre las medidas que no se pueden aprobar por esta vía se encuentran:Reformas en los sistemas electorales, plazos de votación y procedimientos de redistrito.Convertir a D.C. y Puerto Rico en estados.Aumentar el número de jueces en los tribunales de distrito, de circuito o del Tribunal Supremo.Protección o extensión de derechos como el aborto, medidas o regulaciones medioambientales o restricciones en la tenencia de armas.No obstante, la decisión final dependerá de lo que decidan los propios parlamentarios, pues la Regla Byrd no deja de ser una norma sujeta a reforma o derogación.Los demócratas podrían tratar de eliminar esta norma para que las leyes de reconciliación puedan abarcar la reforma de cualquier materia legal.¿Desea saber más? En el podcast, Anita Pereyra y yo (hola, soy Emilio) hablamos de ambos mecanismos y de cómo encajan en el contexto político actual. The Daily, el podcast diario de The New York Times, publicó hace unos días un programa sobre el debate en torno a poner fin al filibuster.🤓 Qué están leyendo en…Washington D.C.: ‘77 días: la campaña de Trump para revertir las elecciones’ por Jim Rutenberg, Jo Becker, Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Martin, Matthew Rosenberg y Michael S. Schmidt en The New York Times. (en inglés; 46 minutos).The New York Times vuelve a juntar a muchas de sus estrellas para esta exhaustiva crónica desde dentro sobre cómo Trump y sus aliados construyeron una narrativa falsa sobre el fraude electoral. El reportaje es ilustrativo de la magnitud de la empresa de Trump y la complicidad de gran parte de la infraestructura republicana, así como de los baches que se encontraron por el camino (mi preferido, el repartidos reconvertido a cazafantasmas). Pero lo más revelador quizá quede en esta frase sobre el equipo legal del que se rodeó el ahora expresidente: “Por cada abogado del equipo de Trump que silenciosamente se echó atrás, había otro preparado para impulsar las demandas propagandísticas que pasaban por alto la ética legal y la razón”.For every lawyer on Mr. Trump’s team who quietly pulled back, there was one ready to push forward with propagandistic suits that skated the lines of legal ethics and reason.Silicon Valley: ‘La locura de la extrema derecha con las sobras de QAnon’ por Kelly Weill en The Dialy Beast (en inglés; 6 minutos).Si hace unos años eran los grupos privados de Facebook donde se lanzaron avisos de que ‘aquí está pasando algo realmente peligroso’ con la teoría de la conspiración QAnon, ahora el foco se va a centrar en plataformas de mensajería como Telegram, donde los medios tienen mucho más difícil hacer un seguimiento de la toxicidad que se da en algunos de sus canales. En The Daily Beast se hacen eco de las estrategias de reclutamiento por parte de grupos de extrema derecha o ultrareligiosos que están captando a seguidores de QAnon desencantados con la falta de resultados en las últimas semanas. Y lo peor es que podría estar funcionando.Hollywood: ‘11 películas atractivas a la venta en el Festival Virtual de Cine de Sundance’ por Brent Lang, Rebecca Rubin y Matt Donnelly en Variety (en inglés; 8 minutos).Con el COVID-19 haciendo imposible una cita presencial en Park City, Utah, el Festival de Sundance de cine independiente se celebra este año de forma virtual. Y aunque la pandemia ha frenado el estreno de numerosas producciones, la edición sigue teniendo en ristra algunos títulos destacados que repasan en este artículo de Variety. En Sundance siempre suele haber sorpresas de última hora (¡Whiplash! ¡¡Beats of the Southern Wild!!), pero algunos títulos a tener en cuenta: Passing, el por ahora aclamado debut en largometraje de la actriz Rebecca Hall con Tessa Thompson como protagonista; How It Ends, una comedia sobre un Los Ángeles postapocalíptico que parece ser una de las mejores respuestas al mundo postpandemia que viviremos dentro de poco; y Land, el también debut en largometraje de la actriz Robin Wright que no aparece en el artículo de Variety porque ya tiene distribución de Focus Features (el sello indie de Universal). Por cierto, Apple compró los derechos de la potencialmente lacrimógena CODA por 25 millones de dólares, récord histórico de venta del festival. Apuntad el nombre de la joven protagonista: Emilia Jones.😆 Quitándole la graciaWall Street Bets sigue siendo una de las noticias del momento a nivel global gracias a la narrativa del David vs. Goliath que tiene la historia. Lo explicamos en profundidad en la newsletter de la semana pasada y después en el noticiario de Twitch cuyo resumen editó mi compañero Mario aquí.Si ya habéis vuelto con el contexto, ahora podréis entender mejor algunos de los memes que se han hecho virales en Reddit en la última semana. Ahí está el de arriba en referencia al meme ‘go brrr’ que entró en nuestro ranking del 2020. Pero detrás de todo ese fenómeno hay un nombre que ha pasado desapercibido en muchos de los análisis de los últimos días: el de Keith Gill aka /deepfuckingvalue aka Roaring Kitty, un redditor que lleva meses hablando de Gamestop. The Wall Street Journal lo entrevistó:Todo empezó con este vídeo del pasado julio que ya es parte indispensable de la historia de internet:Os cuento esto para que podáis entender mejor los memes de DFV que vais a ver mucho en los próximos años. Ejemplo claro:Y este otro nivel icónico con la palabra Hold. Esto es, aguantad, en referencia a la estrategia de los redditors de seguir manteniendo sus posiciones en Gamestop para que los fondos de cobertura continúen ahogándose en su propia mierda:Conocido el contexto, se os hará mucho más fácil entender la presencia de DeepFuckingValue en versiones épicas del Hold the line! enmarcadas en películas como El caballero oscuro: la leyenda renace, Vengadores: Endgame, El señor de los anillos: El retorno del rey y, por supuesto, 300:Y en vídeos e imágenes que te alegrarán el día:Un buen meme nostálgico sobre el apoyo a GameStop.Un gran meme sobre apoyar la cabeza en la ventana del autobús.Un buen meme wholesome sobre la cola del supermercado.Un buen meme para recordar a Harambe.Un buen meme de Trump:🤩 Un vídeo para celebrar la vuelta de SNLSaturday Night Live volvió este pasado sábado a NBC con un episodio que dejó algún momento memorable como el que encabeza este párrafo, en el que Cecily Strong interpreta a la congresista republicana Marjorie Taylor Greene (QAnon Lady). Es parte del cold open de la última entrega del programa de sketches en la que curiosamente quien estuvo desaparecido es Joe Biden, que en episodios anteriores fue interpretado por Jim Carrey (ya retirado del rol) y Alex Moffat (parte del elenco de SNL).El programa tuvo algunos sketches muy flojos, pero tanto el cold open como el retrato de la Georgia Azul, un estado de repente megaprogresista, cuentan con ideas y gags cojonudos. Y ahí estará la clave. Sin Trump, es posible que SNL pierda mucho material fácil con el que levantar programas, pero también para que los guionistas arriesguen más que nunca y la sátira política sepa estar a la altura de un momento político que no debería tener que ser más aburrido.Haré muchas menciones a SNL en los próximos números de La Wikly, pero ya aviso que los vídeos de YouTube con los sketches completos suelen estar capados por localización, con lo que aquí solo podré compartir las versiones recortadas que la cuenta oficial del programa cuelga en Twitter. Si quieres verlo todo, tendrás que activar un VPN.Os dejo con un último extracto del otro sketch que más me ha hecho reírme esta semana:👋 Y para terminar...Una recomendación. HBO ha lanzado una serie documental sobre jóvenes que quieren ser famosos en Los Ángeles. Se llama Fake Famous y es una radiografía del universo influencer de la mano del periodista Nick Bilton y el sello de la cadena de cable, lo cual es un aliciente bastante potente. Las primeras críticas son buenas, como estas de The Hollywood Reporter y de Wired, así que parece un gran plan para el fin de semana.Hasta la semana que viene, This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.lawikly.com/subscribe

The power to pardon criminals or commute their sentences is one of the most sacred and absolute a president has, and President Trump has already used it to rescue political allies and answer the pleas of celebrities.With his term coming to an end, the president has discussed granting three of his children, his son-in-law and personal lawyer pre-emptive pardons — a rarity in American history. We look ahead to a potential wave of pardons and commutations — and explore who could benefit. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The New York Times. We want to hear from you. Fill out our survey about The Daily and other shows at: nytimes.com/thedailysurveyFor an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on our show come together, subscribe to our newsletter. Read the latest edition hereBackground reading: Speculation about pardon activity at the White House is churning furiously, underscoring how much the Trump administration has been dominated by investigations and criminal prosecutions of people in the president’s orbit.The president’s pardoning of Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser, signals the prospect of a wave of pardons and commutations in his final weeks in office. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily

Podcast: The Daily (LS 91 · TOP 0.01% what is this?)Episode: The President and Pre-Emptive PardonsPub date: 2020-12-04The power to pardon criminals or commute their sentences is one of the most sacred and absolute a president has, and President Trump has already used it to rescue political allies and answer the pleas of celebrities.With his term coming to an end, the president has discussed granting three of his children, his son-in-law and personal lawyer pre-emptive pardons — a rarity in American history. We look ahead to a potential wave of pardons and commutations — and explore who could benefit. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The New York Times. We want to hear from you. Fill out our survey about The Daily and other shows at: nytimes.com/thedailysurveyFor an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on our show come together, subscribe to our newsletter. Read the latest edition hereBackground reading: Speculation about pardon activity at the White House is churning furiously, underscoring how much the Trump administration has been dominated by investigations and criminal prosecutions of people in the president's orbit.The president's pardoning of Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser, signals the prospect of a wave of pardons and commutations in his final weeks in office. For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The New York Times, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

On covering politics during the craziest of years; on his new book, "Donald Trump V. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President"; on sharing a name with the greatest third baseman in baseball history.

Mke Fahey and Trevor Dion talk to our guest Michael S. Schmidt about his book Donald Trump v. The United States.Here's the link to buy  ithttps://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/604656/untitled-4667-by-random-house/9781984854667Michael S. Schmidt is a Washington correspondent for The Times who covers national security and federal investigations. He was part of two teams that won Pulitzer Prizes in 2018 — one for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues and the other for coverage of President Donald Trump and his campaign’s ties to Russia.For the past year, Michael’s coverage has focused on Robert S. Mueller III's investigation into Mr. Trump's campaign and whether the president obstructed justice.From 2012 to 2016, Michael covered the F.B.I., Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. Michael spent 2011 in Iraq chronicling the last year of the American occupation. From 2007 to 2010, he covered doping and off-the-field issues for the sports section. He started his career at the Times in 2005 as a clerk on the foreign desk. Michael has broken several high profile stories. Among them was that former F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, wrote a series of memos on how the president asked for his loyalty and tried to interfere with the F.B.I.'s investigations. Mr. Mueller was appointed after those disclosures. Michael was first to reveal the fact that Hillary Clinton exclusively relied on a personal email account when she was secretary of state. In sports, he broke the stories that Sammy Sosa, David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez had tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs and wrote about the treatment of young baseball players in the Dominican Republic who were exploited by American investors and agents.In 2017, Michael co-authored the stories that outlined how the former Fox News host, Bill O'Reilly, paid off a series of women who made sexual harassment allegations against him. For that coverage, he won the Livingston Award for national reporting, which recognizes the best work of journalists under the age of 35.

Michael S. Schmidt is a reporter for The New York Times, a reporter who broke a number of key stories during the Russia investigation. He is most recently the author of "Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President," a new book with exhaustive reporting on the history of the Russia investigation and the confrontations between the president and those in his administration who tried to put the brakes on his most extreme behaviors. Schmidt joined Benjamin Wittes to talk about the book. They talked about Jim Comey and his wife Patrice; they talked about former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who was in an impossible situation as both a deep believer in the Trump agenda and an informant for the Mueller investigation; and they talked about the Mueller investigation and why it never answered those counterintelligence questions that everyone expected it to address.

On this episode of the pod, we reflect on the violence in the United States incited by the Trump Administration's cult-like behavior and bring to light how these actions foreshadow the future intentions of the administration and GOP. Recorded 09.03.2020 ​​Rachel Maddow Podcast reference: Trump's Hospital visit to Walter Read - minute marker 4:35 Book Reference: "Donald Trump vs the United States" by Michael S. Schmidt ​Power the Polls: www.powerthepolls.org

On this episode of the pod, we reflect on the violence in the United States incited by the Trump Administration's cult-like behavior and bring to light how these actions foreshadow the future intentions of the administration and GOP. Recorded 09.03.2020​​Rachel Maddow Podcast reference: Trump's Hospital visit to Walter Read - minute marker 4:35Book Reference: "Donald Trump vs the United States" by Michael S. Schmidt​Power the Polls: www.powerthepolls.org [...]

This episode contains strong language.Today, we go inside the fraught weeks that led up to the opening game of the 2020 professional baseball season — from the perspective of the commissioner of Major League Baseball. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security for The New York Times, spoke with Rob Manfred, the commissioner of Major League Baseball. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily Background reading: The schedule is short. The stadiums will be empty. This is what our baseball writer thinks the season might look like this year.

The House of Representatives is now allowing absent members to vote via members who are physically present on the House floor, in a process called proxy voting, for the first time in US History. In this episode, we examine the unnecessary, unprecedented changes to the way the House passes bills that might also be unconstitutional. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD213: CARES Act - The Trillions for COVID-19 Law CD212: The COVID-19 Response Laws Bills H.Res.965 - Authorizing remote voting by proxy in the House of Representatives and providing for official remote committee proceedings during a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus, and for other purposes. Read the Document Section 1: Allows the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) to decide if members of the House of Representatives can have another member of the House of Representatives cast their votes for them. She can do this if the Sergeant-at-Arms says that "a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus is in effect.” Proxy voting will be allowed for 45 days, and then automatically expire, unless the Speaker decides to extend it for an additional 45 days. There are no limits on how often this can be done. If the Sergeant-at-Arms says that the emergency is no longer in effect, the Speaker has to stop allowing proxy voting. Section 2: To choose who will be their proxy, members of the House need to submit a signed letter to the Clerk of the House with the name of their proxy. The letter can be electronic. A member can sign another letter, also allowed to be electronic, in order to revoke a proxy. If a member shows up and votes in person, the proxy authorization is automatically revoked. When the Clerk gets the letter, the Clerk has to notify the Speaker (Nancy Pelosi), the Minority Leader (Kevin McCarthy) and the “members involved”. A member of the House can serve as a proxy for up to 10 other members. The Clerk has to maintain an updated list of the proxy designations and publish them online during any vote conducted using proxy voting. Section 3: If a member is not physically present but has designated a proxy to vote for them, the physically missing member will be counted towards establishing a quorum. Before casing a vote for another member, the physically present member has to “obtain an exact instruction” from the missing member in regards to the vote or quorum call. Before casting a vote for someone else, the physically present member has to announce the vote they will cast for the missing member out loud. Section 4: All committees are allowed to conduct their hearings remotely and committee votes can be cast “while participating remotely”. Witnesses can appear remotely. “Any committee meeting or hearing that is conducted remotely in according with the regulations” written by the Chairman of the Rules Committee (Jim McGovern) “shall be considered open to the public”. They also “shall be deemed to satisfy all requirements for broadcasting and audio and visual coverage”. Closed sessions are not allowed to be conducted remotely, except for the Ethics Committee. Section 5: The Chair of the House Administration Committee (Zoe Lofgren) has to study the technology to be used to conduct remote voting in the House and certify that what she choses is operational and secure. After the technology is certified, the Chairman of the House Rules Committee (Jim McGovern) will write the regulations for remote voting in the House of Representatives. Articles/Documents Article: Clyburn threatens to end in-person coronavirus committee hearings if Republicans won't wear masks by Cristina Marcos, The Hill, June 26, 2020 Article: House bill passed with proxy votes becomes law by James Wallner, LegBranch.org, June 16, 2020 Article: Democrats’ risky plan to ensure Congress can vote during the pandemic, explained By Ian Millhiser, Vox, May 29, 2020 Article: House scraps votes on FISA bill By Niels Lesniewski, Roll Call, May 27, 2020 Article: First proxy votes cast in the House despite GOP opposition, lawsuit By Katherine Tully-McManus, Roll Call, May 27, 2020 Article: Road ahead: Proxy voting begins as House takes up FISA, PPP bills By Lindsey McPherson, Roll Call, May 27, 2020 Article: Justice Department clears 3 senators in stock sales investigation, but Burr's case appears ongoing By Kristine Phillips, USA Today, May 26, 2020 Article: House Republicans sue Nancy Pelosi to block proxy voting rule By Chris Marquette, Roll Call, May 26, 2020 Article: Republicans Sue Pelosi to Block House Proxy Voting During Pandemic By Nicholas Fandos and Michael S. Schmidt, The New York Times, May 26, 2020 Article: The Prior Practice of Proxy Voting in House Committee By EveryCRSReport.com, May 1, 2020 Article: IT’S A SCANDAL THAT WE DON’T KNOW WHO SUPPORTED THE CORONAVIRUS BAILOUT. HELP US FIND OUT. By Lee Fang, Aída Chávez, The Intercept, April 9, 2020 Article: Irate House lawmakers scramble back to D.C. amid fears of coronavirus vote delay By Heather Caygle, Sarah Ferris and Melanie Zanona, Politico, March 26, 2020 Article: Kelly Loeffler and Richard Burr Were Briefed on Coronavirus. Then They Sold Stocks. What Now? By Shane Goldmacher, The New York Times, March 20, 2020 Document: Majority Staff Report Examining Voting Options During the COVID-19 Pandemic by U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Rules, Office of the Majority, March 23, 2020 Article: Apple Issues iPhone FaceTime Security Warning by Gordon Kelly, Forbes, January 29, 2019 Press Release: Speaker Boehner Swears In Paul D. Irving as House Sergeant at Arms by Speaker Boehner's Press Office, The New York Times, January 16, 2012 Article: Security Concerns Of The Super-Rich by Brian Wingfield, Forbes, October 20, 2010 Additional Resources Twitter Status: Jake Sherman, @JakeSherman, Twitter Twitter Status: Erik Wasson, @elwasson, Twitter Active Proxies: Proxy Letters (116th Congress, 2nd Session), Clerk of United States House of Representatives, May 20, 2020 Vote Result: Roll Call 107 | Bill Number: H. Res. 965, Clerk of United States House of Representatives, May 15, 2020 Officers and Organizations: Sergeant at Arms, United States House of Representatives ABOUT ZOE: Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, United States Congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, Representing California's 19th District Bill: S. 716 (113th): A bill to modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms., GovTrack, Apr 13, 2013 Bill: S. 2038 (112th): STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act, GovTrack, Mar 28, 2012 Sound Clip Sources Video: Republicans On Coronavirus Committee Refuse To Wear Masks, Capitol News Forum, June 26, 2020 Transcript: House Record, Wednesday, May 27, 2020 Transcript, United States Congressional Record, May 27, 2020 Hearing: H. Res. 965 - Authorizing remote voting by proxy in the House of Representatives and providing for official remote committee proceedings during a public health emergency due to a novel coronavirus, and for other purposes., United States House of Representatives Committee on Rules, May 14, 2020 Watch on YouTube Transcript: 20:45 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): Though the changes are purportedly limited to the present COVID-19 pandemic timeline, the temporary change we make to the rules today becomes the precedent we follow tomorrow. 23:55 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): This proposed rules package fundamentally changes two key rules of the house. First, for the first time in history of the chamber, we are being asked to approve a system of proxy voting for members on the House floor. That rules change also holds open the possibility of moving forward with totally remote voting. Once the chairperson of the house Administration Committee certifies the technology for that use. Second, again, for the first time in our history, we're being asked to approve a measure that would allow committees to operate remotely and approve legislation remotely. 25:05 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): I have real concerns about whether or not any system of remote voting or proxy voting is constitutional. The language of the Constitution clearly contemplates members being physically present in the chamber to conduct business, a move to any other kind of procedure that involves members not being physically present in the chamber to vote and to make a quorum will put the legislation passed by those methods at risk of court challenges. 26:45 Rep. Tom Cole (OK): Rules change we are considering today will allow for remote voting to take effect without an additional vote of the house, and instead only upon certification of technology by one member, Chairperson Lofgren. This is ceding the authority of the Rules Committee and it denies the entire house deliberation on the technology and a vote on making such a consequential change. 31:30 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): The process of unanimous consent that is allowing bills to pass with just two members in the in the chamber was developed in response to the Spanish flu pandemic, despite the constitution requiring a majority of members to conduct business in both the House and the Senate, use you see to this day. 37:45 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Because of social and physical distancing measures currently in place to save lives and prevent the spread of COVID-19, it is unsafe for members to travel back and forth to Washington from their districts and risk exposing potentially thousands of people while in transit. 38:05 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): It is also unsafe to require thousands of House staff and Capitol Hill employees to commute to work while infections have not even reached their peak in the Washington Metropolitan Area. 38:27 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Of course, the founders did not contemplate the technology that is now available to us, which allows us to meet virtually. To see one another, to hear one another, to respond to one another, virtually not in the same room, but in the same box, that we call an iPad or a computer or some other device that allows us to communicate in real time, essentially, in person, virtually. 42:30 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): First step authorizes the house to begin working on a remote voting system. Such a system would only be used during emergencies like this one. Let me stress that. In the 40 years I have been here there is not an instance where I think this would be justified, until now. 43:00 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): We are not fundamentally changing the way the house works. Let me be clear we are not changing. There is no advantage to Democrats. No disadvantage to Republicans by using virtual technology. None. Zero. Zip. 45:30 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): And we are all committed that we would only use it in extraordinary circumstances. I don't believe there's been such a certain circumstance the United States of America since 1918. Over 100 years ago. This may be once in a century experience for our country. 48:00 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): Talking about a member of congress giving their voting privilege to someone else. There's legitimate constitutional uncertainty with what is being proposed, and it could call into question the validity of any legislation the proxy voting is used for. 53:30 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): This is the Rules Committee, right? We are one of the smallest committees in Congress. And here we are taking up the entire Ways and Means Committee room, which is one of the biggest committee rooms in Congress. What do you do with the Transportation Committee and the Appropriations Committee, which you know, are significantly larger. Some have suggested that maybe they can meet in the auditorium, or maybe on the House floor, one at a time. We have a huge amount of work to do. There are, in addition to responding to this crisis, and trying to figure out how to get the economy back on its feet again, we have much past bills that we need to get done. I mean, the Defense Authorization Bills, Appropriations Bills, I mean, and the the fact that we cannot function, our committee process just literally can't function the way it should, if we're going to follow CDC guidelines. I mean, that is problematic. So what do we do? We don't meet? We don't address certain issues that need to be addressed? 56:05 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): And this alternative, which I think incorporates some of the things that are in the press release that you guys released was that, you know, we should operate like the White House, and we all should get tested. We all should move to the front of the line. We're all special enough that even though our constituents can't get tests, people who work in hospitals, first responders, people who are in working in food pantries in homeless shelters, who, quite frankly, should be tested, that Congress the way we can kind of manage this as we all come back, and every time we have a discussion, we'll get tested. I don't know what the reaction would be in minority leaders district but in my district, people think that's tone deaf and think it's wrong, that we're not super special, that we should move to the front of the line. 58:15 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): But the gentleman referred to the change that was done, that was implemented after 911. When the Republicans were in charge of The House, and in 2005, you changed the rules for a provisional quorum, which would allow in the extreme, two members to constitute a quorum. Now, the Constitution, defines a quorum is the majority of the membership, but under the rules change that was done back then. I mean, you literally could have two members constitute a quorum. I don't think that's constitutional. But nonetheless, that was the plan that was put forward and yeah, it may have taken a long time to put forward but I don't really think it was a very good a good plan. 59:30 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): We have come together in a bipartisan way on a number of packages that have become now law in which we have literally appropriated the house in a bipartisan way. The Senate in a bipartisan way is appropriated trillions of dollars to help respond to this health crisis, and to help try to protect our economy. We need to do oversight, we need to make sure the money is being spent the way we want it to be spent. I mean, that's one of our jobs and if committees cannot meet because of this pandemic, you know, where they have to wait their turn, you know, because we don't have rooms big enough here for people to meet and follow CDC guidelines, that's a dereliction of our duty. 1:05:00 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Because I believe that being virtually present and being present is essentially the same thing in the constitutional consequences of that presence. Because I can vote "aye" here and I can vote "aye" 1000 miles away, and it has the same representation of my constituents. It's just transmitted in a different way. 1:09:05 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): But why when we have the technology that allows us to do it virtually do we put lives at risk not only here, you're going to go back to Oklahoma at some point in time, and you're going to deal with the folks in Oklahoma and you're going to come from a hotspot. Now, hopefully, you will not have anything to transmit. But we know that that's possible. 1:20:50 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): The way it worked back then, was that the chair would have a bunch of proxies in his or her pocket and vote however, the chair saw fit without consulting with the member. That is not the way this should work. And that is not what this we're talking about is. What we're talking about is that if you want to give me your proxy, you have to indicate in writing, how you want me to vote on every single vote, and then it will be announced publicly how you voted on the on the House floor. And if Jim McGovern had Rodney Davis, his proxy and I voted, contrary to the way you wanted to it would be announced and there would be a period of time. If I voted, if I somehow abuse my power, for it to be corrected. 1:26:50 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): Also gives unprecedented power to just the Chairperson of House Administration. Doesn't say she has to consult with me, the ranking member when determining what type of technology to choose and implement before putting forth remote voting on the house floor. Remote voting is much different than proxy voting that allows somebody to sit at home and cast a vote. And yes, there's technology Mr. Chair that could allow that to happen. But in the end, why do we have one person in the majority party determining what technology to use. 1:35:40 Rep. Norma Torres (CA): I have a pre existing condition and when I got on the plane yesterday, I was scared to death. There were people in the screening area of the TSA process that were much too close for my own comfort. And I have made a commitment to my staff to my family that if that plane was more than 70% occupied and there were people, you know, stepping over each other that I would immediately get off of it before taking off cause I am not willing to risk my life for this. 1:49:15 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): One of the problems we have today is that although people conceptually raise the pandemic that had happened in 1918, could happen again, it was conceptual. And as a result, we were not prepared. Here it is actual. That's why you're sitting with a mask, why I'm sitting with a mask. Why we're distancing, we're in this large room, as the chairman pointed out, where small room would have accommodated the Rules Committee and the witnesses. It is here. It's not conceptual, it's not theoretical. We had 9-11, now had 9-11 knocked out the entire air traffic system, it would have been actual because people would not have been able to get here except drive maybe five days or three days from the west coast. 1:5330* Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): Proposing that we take a baby step, that we'd go with a low tech approach first and as we feel more comfortable, we can evolve. This may shock you, Mr. Woodall, but there are some members of the House who still have flip phones. There are some members of this chamber who are more technologically comfortable than others. There are some members of this house who think bifocals are a radical idea. So I mean, the bottom line is we are trying to deal with the situation in a way that we feel that there's a comfort level and as people get more comfortable, we can then look at other other things. 1:55:05 Rep. Rob Woodall (GA): And it says specifically a member casting a vote or recording the presence of another member as a designated proxy under this resolution shall cast such vote or record such presence pursuant to the exact instruction received from the other member. Now, when Mr. Davis's name is called and I'm holding his proxy, and I speak out and vote, in a way contrary to the Davis instruction, because things do come up on the on the fly and not everything can be consulted with, what is the procedure for resolving that? Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): The theory, not the theory, but I think the the letter of the rule that's being proposed is, if you did not get instructions, you could not vote that proxy. Rep. Rob Woodall (GA): I'm going the other direction. I did receive instructions and I'm voting against those instructions, just like in the electoral college where folks have received instructions to vote for President Trump, but they don't. What is my recourse? As a Member, again most solemn responsibility we have as members is is voting on the House floor. What is my recourse? Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): 'Madam Clerk, he cast my vote incorrectly.' You can email, you can text, you can call. There's so many different methods of technology. 1:56:30 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): My own view, I will tell you honestly, is that the best way for me to convey my vote is to look into my phone on FaceTime, and say I vote aye or nay, I don't think, I personally don't believe this is a security question. 1:57:10 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): If you are assuming if you're trying to assert that Mr. Horry(?) would deliberately try to take your vote and use it in a bad way, and that's a question of privilege, and you would have the opportunity to be able to correct it, so hopefully if you're participating remotely, you are following what is going on. You will hear your name announced you will hear how you voted. And if you call him Mr. Horry(?) doesn't want to change your vote and it's a question of privilege, and you have the right to be able to change it that way. 1:57:10 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): If you are assuming if you're trying to assert that Mr. Hoyer would deliberately try to take your vote and use it in a bad way, and that's a question of privilege, and you would have the opportunity to be able to correct it, so hopefully if you're participating remotely, you are following what is going on. You will hear your name announced, you will hear how you voted. And if you call him, Mr. Hoyer doesn't want to change your vote and it's a question of privilege, and you have the right to be able to change it that way. 2:05:20 Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): Why are we acting quickly? Because the experts tell us and some people believe the experts that this may regenerate itself in September, we may have a flattening. But until frankly, we get a vaccine or a therapeutic that very substantially minimizes the consequences of COVID-19. We're going to have a problem. And if it raises, again, its ugly head in September, we ought to be ready for September is going to be a very busy month for us. And we don't have a lot, it's an election year, so we're going to be off in October, etc, etc. So now is the time that you say we move quickly, we did move quickly, because we need to anticipate we would we all hope this gets better. We all hope we get a vaccine we all hope we get a therapeutic. But if it doesn't, we need to be ready to make sure that Congress is empowered to act on behalf of the American people and to conduct oversight. 2:13:55 Rep. Earl Perlmutter (CO): But we cannot have government come to a grinding halt. In a pandemic, where our own Attending Physician or our public health experts at home or the public health experts here in DC say you guys shouldn't get together because you could drag the disease from Denver to DC or you could take the disease from DC back to Denver. And that's the last thing I want to do. 2:18:00 Rep. Earl Perlmutter (CO): Mr. Hoyer, I understand that this rule terminates at some... This is a temporary rule, is it not? Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD): The life of the Congress, and 45 days in the sense of it has to be recertified. That the cause of the rules being implemented was still present. Rep. Earl Perlmutter (CO): Right, for the rule to be called upon. It has to be the Sergeant at Arms, the Attending Physician and The Speaker. And then it lasts for 45 days, at least the proxy voting and the different things called for in the rule. 2:23:40 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): We do not oppose, as Republicans, and you can see in the plan that was submitted for the record. We do not oppose remote hearings. We do not oppose utilizing technology. 2:25:05 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): I do want to clarify some things. Yes, the United States Senate does have a proxy process. But that proxy process, unlike the rule that's being debated today, does not ever allow a proxy vote on the House on the Senate floor. That's something that this rule will allow for today. 2:25:50 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL): That this Congress has not stopped working. This Congress, just a few short weeks ago, had 300 members that came out here. I do understand and I share the concerns of my colleagues in this room about staff, which is why we worked in a bipartisan way before this crisis, to get equipment to every office, so that every office was ready in case they needed to telework, and they did. 3:18:25 Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL): We're living in a house where the work product is coming from the very top and being thrown upon the rest of us, and we're abdicating our responsibility to legislate. If we're honest with ourselves, I believe no one would challenge me when I say the rights and individual prerogatives of the members of the House had been steadily shrinking for decades. It was true when the chairman eloquently made this point when he was the ranking member of this committee, and it's just as true today. Too much power has been taken away from individual members and committees of jurisdiction and transferred to the office of the speaker. With all due respect, this proposal today reinforces what is fast becoming a complete transfer the power of the institution to the speaker. 3:22:55 Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): But understand what's in this proposal. One member can have 10 proxies you know what that means? 22 members with 10 proxies in their back pocket can conduct the business of the American people. 22 - 5% of the United States House of Representatives. 3:56:20 Rep. Michael Burgess (TX): As I read the rule that we're considering today, yes, there's a time limit on the denotation, that this is an emergency and all of this is triggered. But there's an extension available. And that extension is arrived at by the speaker in consultation with the Sergeant at Arms and Attending Physician, two individuals that I hold in very high regard, but they're not constitutional offices. So we're putting some power in the hands of some people that are really not accountable to the people and this being the people's House. That seems to me to be counter to what we should be about. Do either of you have a thought on that? Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL): Well, I think he said it correctly. Rules that we're operating in this house right now will all go out on January 3 at noon, when the new Congress comes in. But between now and then, that can be this perpetual, running 40 five day extension of this all the way up into the very end. And there's no check on that. I mean, it's up to the speaker. And one person and other speakers of important position in the house. But one person can let this thing just roll over and over and over to the end of the Congress. 4:00:45 Rep. Jim McGovern (MA): The alternative to this is to rely on the republican standing rule, which is, well, you could literally redefine a quorum as two people. And again, my friends here, many of them supported it. I did not at the time, but that is what the standing rule is right now that my friends passed post 911 and I think that is unacceptable. 4:09:50 Rep. Joseph Morelle (NY): We'll note though 45 days is the is the amount indicated, but it also suggests on page three, that even during any - whether it's the original 45 day or an additional 45 days is the covered period. The speaker the designee receives further notification from the sergeant of arms in consultation with the attending physician, that the public health emergency due to the Coronavirus is no longer in effect, the speaker shall terminate the covered period. It's not as though the speaker can't - it doesn't say may, it says shall. So, immediately upon so of the speaker, as I read the rule, the speaker says on on May 1, we have a pandemic I've been advised by the sergeant of arms in consultation with the attending physician to put this temporary rule in place. And then two weeks later before the 45 days has terminated. If you receive if the speaker receives another certification or notification in the sergeant of arms that the emergency no longer exists, it is terminated shall terminate, so it wouldn't 45 days in length. 4:02:35 Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Mr. Cole posed an interesting question to the panel about whether all of you concurred that you think that the proposed rule here is unconstitutional. And each one of you in Syria them repeated the idea that you thought it was unconstitutional. Now, Mr. Bern, as candidly volunteered that the current rule adopted by a Republican Congress is unconstitutional, which would allow two members to constitute a quorum. Mr. Jordan, what about you? Do you agree the current rule is unconstitutional. Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): As the gentleman well knows, my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus have come to the floor and objected to unanimous consent to pass certain legislation. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): You agree you agree with me? Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): We've always had a problem with that? Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Do you agree...just a yes or no question. Do you agree with Mr. Byrne, it's unconstitutional? Rep. Jim Jordan (OH): Yeah, I don't like the rule that we've been very clear about that. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): You agree? it's unconstitutional. Okay. Is that right? Okay, Mr. Bern, you presumably still agree that it's unconstitutional? Rep. Bradley Byrne (AL): Yes, sir. Okay, if you're gonna be consistent, you have to follow what the Constitution requires. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I try to be consistent. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Mr. Bishop, do you believe the current rule is unconstitutional, adopted under the Republican Congress? Rep. Dan Bishop (NC): I've examined it carefully, but I find Mr. Byrne's comments and those that have been made by the Chairman on the point persuasive, it probably is unconstitutional. Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD): Okay. Video: Congress: Trading stock on inside information?, 60 Minutes, 2011 Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Impeachment, elections, resignations, oh my! In this bonus "thank you" episode, Jen dishes about the acquittal of President Trump, the State of the Union, and why it's so important for us peasants to personally police the presidential primary elections this year. After the updates, it's thank you time!  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Articles/Documents Article: Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says By Nicholas Fandos, The New York Times, February 5, 2020 Article: THE IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY DID THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE DONE TO SECURE ITS DISASTROUS APP By Micah Lee, The Intercept, February 5, 2020 Article: NEW DETAILS SHOW HOW DEEPLY IOWA CAUCUS APP DEVELOPER WAS EMBEDDED IN DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT By Lee Fang, The Intercept, February 4, 2020 Article: App Used to Tabulate Votes Is Said to Have Been Inadequately Tested By Nick Corasaniti, Sheera Frenkel and Nicole Perlroth, The New York Times, February 3, 2020 Article: Ros-Lehtinen registers as a foreign agent By Theodroric Meyer, Politico, January 28, 2020 Article: Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says By Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt, The New York Times, January 26, 2020 Twitter Status: The Daily Show Twitter, January 23, 2020 Decision: Office of Management and Budget—Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance GAO, January 16, 2020 Article: GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter resigns after corruption conviction By Julie Watson, AP, January 7, 2020 Article: Mistresses and pet rabbit airline seat: Rep. Duncan Hunter campaign finance spending saga nears end By Kerry Picket, Washington Examiner, December 3, 2019 Podcast: Citations Needed Podcast Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

This week, “The Daily” is revisiting some of our favorite episodes of the year and checking in on what has happened since the stories first ran. After we sat down with Leo, a third grader, to talk about the impeachment inquiry, we were flooded with emails expressing gratitude for our guest. So we called Leo back and asked him about what he’s been up to while the impeachment inquiry has unfolded. Guests: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security and federal investigations for The New York Times; Bianca Giaever, a producer for “The Daily”; and Leo, a third grader who was obsessed with the impeachment inquiry. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading:Leo predicted President Trump would be impeached in the House of Representatives. He was right.The impeachment process was paused after Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would wait to see what the trial in the Senate would look like before sending the two charges there.

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.

Robert Mueller, the special counsel, discussed his investigation of Russian election interference for the first time on Wednesday. He did not absolve President Trump of obstruction of justice, saying: “If we had enough confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The news conference presented an extraordinary spectacle of a top law enforcement official publicly stating that the president’s conduct warranted a criminal investigation, even though it was impossible to indict him for any crimes.Here’s the full transcript of Mr. Mueller’s statement.

Clouds Of Illegitimacy Settle Upon the Deep State. After two years of casting clouds upon President Trump, the Obama Intel Community now encounters the scenario in reverse -- and they don't like it one bit. Vindicated Trump is presently asking how their investigation into his campaign got started in the first place, suggesting FBI Comey was "leading the effort on spying." Meanwhile, on the heels of the NYT's admission of the FBI honeytrap on George Papadopoulos, the usual MSM suspects attempt to sanitize the effort. Playing defense. We sample the CNN banalities of James Clapper and Josh Campbell, along with the NYT's Liam Brennan and Michael S. Schmidt. Just routine normal stuff, they say, which shouldn't count as actual "spying." Also, we dig deeper into mysterious international spook Joseph Mifsud -- who was he working for? Maria Bartiromo interviews Papadopoulos and Devin Nunes on the subject, who both want answers. And soon. When we get them, we may find the coup de grace on SpyGate. Istanbul Not Constantinople. Different Drum. Thunder. With Listener Calls & Music via Carrie Underwood, They Might Be Giants, Imagine Dragons and Dr. Dre. Sacred Song from Hank Williams, Sr.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two years and 448 pages later, a redacted version of the Mueller report has been made public. Here’s what we’ve learned. Guests: Michael S. Schmidt and Mark Mazzetti, who have been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.This episode includes disturbing language.Background reading:The Mueller report laid out the scope of Russian election interference and President Trump’s frantic efforts to thwart the special counsel investigation.Read a rundown of what we know so far from the report.Times reporters shared key annotated excerpts from the report.

The Mueller report has been sent to the attorney general. Here’s a look at what this means and what comes next. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

As the special counsel finishes his investigation, he can pursue three different paths — each with a profoundly different effect on how Congress will proceed. Recent history makes one of those paths especially treacherous. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

The special counsel’s office disputed an explosive BuzzFeed report claiming that President Trump had instructed his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress — and that investigators had evidence of this. The scrutiny that followed calls to mind another reporting team and its challenges in the 1970s. Guests: Bob Woodward, one of the Washington Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, and Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

Hi! This is Lexie of Read by AI. I will read the major political story from the New York Times F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia by Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt, and Nicholas Fandos. In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, […]

At the start of 2018, the biggest threat to the Trump presidency was an investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia. As the year draws to a close, it’s his hush payments to women. We look at what’s behind that change — and how the threat may change again next year. Guests: Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt, New York Times reporters who have been covering the special counsel investigation. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

President Trump’s former lawyer has pleaded guilty to lying about Mr. Trump’s business ties to Russia and has agreed to cooperate with the special counsel investigation. It’s the second time this week that a subject of the inquiry has been charged with lying. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

The special counsel’s office says that Paul Manafort, the president’s former campaign chairman, repeatedly lied to investigators, even after agreeing to cooperate in the Russia inquiry. Meanwhile, The Guardian is reporting that Mr. Manafort met with Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, in 2016 — a meeting the special counsel seems to know nothing about. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

After more than a year of mocking his attorney general, President Trump has forced Jeff Sessions to resign. The timing — only hours after the midterm elections — is not a coincidence. 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.

Days after being named deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein was so alarmed by what he was seeing inside the White House that he proposed a series of extreme measures. Will those proposals now cost him his job? Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

Bob Woodward’s reporting on the Nixon administration pioneered an approach to journalism that drew from anonymous sources and has been widely used since. He has deployed that form of reporting in his new book to tell the story of the Trump administration. Guests: Mr. Woodward, author of “Fear: Trump in the White House,” speaks with Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

The special counsel, Robert Mueller, has followed a set of rules devised to allow for the investigation of a sitting president. Those rules will now be tested. Guests: Neal Katyal, who drafted the regulations that govern Mr. Mueller’s investigation, and Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

The New York Times has found that one of the White House’s own lawyers, Don McGahn, has cooperated extensively in the investigation led by the special counsel, Robert Mueller. And he has shared far more information than the president thought. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, one of the reporters who broke the story. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

After his text messages about President Trump were made public, Peter Strzok, a high-ranking F.B.I. agent who played a pivotal role in the Russia investigation, became a punching bag for Republican lawmakers. So why did he offer to testify before them? 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.

A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on border walls turned into a fight over the language President Trump used to describe Haiti and some African countries. Why does it matter so much to members of Congress? Also, Stephen Bannon is the first member of Mr. Trump’s inner circle to receive a grand jury subpoena in the Russia investigation. Guests: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, a White House correspondent for The New York Times; Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

Michael Flynn pleaded guilty this morning to lying to the F.B.I., and said he’s cooperating with the Mueller investigation. What does it tell us that prosecutors have a former senior member of the Trump White House on their side? Plus: Republicans race toward a tax vote. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

In a marathon session before Congress, Attorney General Jeff Sessions denied lying about Russian contacts in earlier testimony and sidestepped questions about feeling pressure from President Trump to investigate Hillary Clinton and Uranium One. Guests: Matt Apuzzo, who covers the Justice Department for The New York Times; Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. [AUDIO PLAYER DESCRIPTION] Attorney General Jeff Sessions denied lying to Congress about Russian contacts and sidestepped questions about feeling pressure to investigate Hillary Clinton.

Jodi Kantor is a New York Times investigative reporter and the author of The Obamas. “Being a reporter really robs you of self-consciousness and shyness. You realize that it’s this great gift of being able to ask crazy questions, either really personal or very probing or especially with a powerful — to walk up to Harvey Weinstein, essentially and say, ‘What have you been doing to women all these years, and for how long? All of these other people may be afraid to confront you about it, but we are not.’ That is our job.” Thanks to MailChimp and Eero for sponsoring this week's episode. @jodikantor jodikantor.net Kantor on Longform 11/12: Longform Podcast, Live in Chicago with Zoe Chace 11/15: Longform Podcast, Live in San Francisco with Kara Swisher [00:50] "Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades" (Jodi Kantor, Megan Twohey • New York Times • Oct 2017) [02:10] "Promethea Unbound" (Mike Mariani • Atavist • Nov 2017) [03:30] "From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories" (Ronan Farrow • New Yorker • Oct 2017) [03:45] "Harvey Weinstein’s Army of Spies" (Ronan Farrow • New Yorker • Nov 2017) [04:50] "New Accusers Expand Harvey Weinstein Sexual Assault Claims Back to ’70s" (Ellen Gabler, Megan Twohey, Jodi Kantor • New York Times • Oct 2017) [5:15] "Kevin Spacey Issues Apology to Actor After Sexual Accusation " (Michael Paulson • New York Times • April 2017) [8:00] "Bill O’Reilly Thrives at Fox News, Even as Harassment Settlements Add Up" (Emily Steel, Michael S. Schmidt • New York Times • April 2017) [9:05] "Women in Tech Speak Frankly on Culture of Harassment" (Katie Benner • New York Times • June 2017) [10:50] "Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace" (Jodi Kantor, David Streitfeld • New York Times • Aug 2015) [18:55] "Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Others Say Weinstein Harassed Them" (Jodi Kantor, Rachel Abrams • New York Times • Oct 2017) [38:10] "Working Anything but 9 to 5" (New York Times • Aug 2014) [46:10]Longform Podcast #198: Franch Rich [48:00]The Obamas (Little, Brown and Company • 2012)

The question of collusion seemed to be at the heart of the special counsel’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Does it matter that there may now be evidence of it? Plus, Facebook, Google and Twitter address Russia’s use of their platforms to sway American voters. And we look at the terrorist attack in Lower Manhattan. Guests: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security for The New York Times; Jim Rutenberg, The Times’s media columnist. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

“It’s horrible what I went through, horrible what my family went through,” Bill O’Reilly said of the sexual harassment allegations that cost him his job at Fox News. Mr. O’Reilly spoke on the record to two of our reporters, Emily Steel and Michael S. Schmidt, addressing the latest reporting on a $32 million settlement he reached with a longtime network analyst. Guests: Emily Steel, a business reporter for The New York Times; Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

Virginia Heffernan talks to Brendan Nyhan, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, about the President's many lies including his most recent ones featured in The New York Times interview with Maggie Haberman, Peter Baker, and Michael S. Schmidt. Slate Plus members, stick around after the show to listen to producer Jayson De Leon chat with Jonathan Swans of Axios about his latest scoop – Anthony Scaramucci being named White House Communications Director. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Heffernan talks to Brendan Nyhan, Professor of Government at Dartmouth, about the President's many lies including his most recent ones featured in The New York Times interview with Maggie Haberman, Peter Baker, and Michael S. Schmidt. Slate Plus members, stick around after the show to listen to producer Jayson De Leon chat with Jonathan Swans of Axios about his latest scoop – Anthony Scaramucci being named White House Communications Director. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, exclusive audio from The Times’s wide-ranging interview with the president. Speaking with three New York Times reporters in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump discussed his conversation with President Vladimir Putin and expressed his anger toward major figures in the Russia investigation — including his own attorney general. Guests: Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, who, along with Peter Baker, interviewed the president on Wednesday. For more information on today’s episode, visit http://nyti.ms/2hjqSNx.

James Comey goes before the Senate Intelligence Committee today. We talk through his prepared remarks, and look at what President Trump might have meant when he said “we had that thing you know.” And why would Islamic State militants be targeting Iran? Guests: Michael S. Schmidt, who has broken several stories about encounters between President Trump and Mr. Comey; Thomas Erdbrink, The Times’s Tehran bureau chief. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. For the next two weeks, we’re offering listeners a free trial of a New York Times digital subscription. Visit nytimes.com/dailytrial to sign up.

The latest revelations from the Comey memos and from James Comey’s confidant, who talked on the record — and on tape — to The New York Times. Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who has broken several stories in the last two weeks about encounters between President Trump and Mr. Comey. For more information on today’s episode, visit http://nyti.ms/2qLMCVk.

James Comey’s secret memos: We discuss the latest revelations about President Trump, Mr. Comey, Russia and Israel. Guests: Michael S. Schmidt, who broke the story about the former F.B.I. director’s memo detailing a conversation with President Trump; Adam Liptak, who explains obstruction of justice; Adam Goldman, who discusses Israel’s role. For more information on today’s episode, visit http://nyti.ms/2rujm3q.

The White House’s story about James Comey’s firing is unraveling. Among those contradicting the president is the president. Guests: Michael S. Schmidt, who has been reporting on the secret conversation that may have doomed Mr. Comey; Matthew Rosenberg, who followed Thursday’s testimony by Andrew G. McCabe, the acting director of the F.B.I. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

How is it that with seven days left until the election, we are consumed anew by Hillary Clinton's emails? We sift through the still-unfolding facts and implications of the case with our guests: two New York Times reporters who have covered the investigation since it first emerged, Amy Chozick and Michael S. Schmidt; Carrie Cordero, a former attorney at the Department of Justice who worked closely with the F.B.I.; and Nate Cohn of The Upshot, to tell us what impact this could have on the election.

How is it that with seven days left until the election, we are consumed anew by Hillary Clinton’s emails? We sift through the still-unfolding facts and implications of the case with our guests: two New York Times reporters who have covered the investigation since it first emerged, Amy Chozick and Michael S. Schmidt; Carrie Cordero, a former attorney at the Department of Justice who worked closely with the F.B.I.; and Nate Cohn of The Upshot, to tell us what impact this could have on the election.