B (3:01)

So there was a routine on Saturday Night Live in which I think there was a kind of typical Washington panel, you'll forgive me. And this one is saying, it's a turning point, and this is horrible, and this is horrible. And this kind of wised up African American academic says, yeah, but it's not gonna matter. And there's sense in that. I mean, how many scandals have we had? We've had hush money payments to porn stars. We've had the Mueller report, which has 10 indications of possible obstruction of justice. This is now consigned to history, it almost seems. Is there any reason to believe that Donald Trump can't survive this?

C (3:41)

Look, I was really, really struck to your point. There's a new poll out today that's getting circulation here in Washington that would underscore this, a Monmouth survey that shows that 40% of Republicans believe that Trump raised the issue of investigating Joe Biden and his son in the phone call with the the Ukrainian president, even though that is actually in the transcript that the White House itself released. So, I mean, propaganda works, telling a lie over and over and over again. At least enough people start to believe it.

B (4:16)

You asked on Twitter whether we should call this whole affair Ukraine Gate. Has anyone been able to come up with a name that works better yet?

C (4:23)

You know, it's funny that you mentioned that. I was going to put that in my column this week. I got thousands of responses. Some of my favorite were moron contra.

B (4:37)

John Oliver says, stupid Watergate.

C (4:39)

Right, Stupid Watergate. A lot of people said that Ukrainian won. My favorite response, though, was Monday.

B (4:49)

Because.

C (4:49)

That'S when I made the tweet on Monday.

B (4:52)

Susan, thanks so much.

C (4:54)

Thank you, David.

F (4:58)

The only thing that matters is the transcript of the actual conversation that I had with the president of Ukraine. It was perfect.

B (5:08)

Joshua Yaffa is a reporter who's usually based in Moscow, and he's been covering the Ukraine scandal from Kiev.

G (5:15)

Hello.

B (5:16)

Hey, Josh, how are you?

G (5:18)

Hi. Good, good.

B (5:19)

It's good to talk to you. Not long ago, this country, the United States, was consumed with the question of whether Donald Trump sought Russia's help in influencing the 2016 election. And here we are talking about the president attempting to get Ukraine to influence the 2020 election. How do these two stories kind of nestle together?

G (5:41)

Well, it all goes back to the counter narrative that Trump and those around him tried to come up with as they were facing the allegations through it grew out of the Mueller report about there and the campaign's interactions with various Russian entities. And it was the search for contradictory or exculpatory or diversionary stories that led them, the president and his allies, first and foremost Rudy Giuliani, to look to Ukraine. And it was there where Giuliani had told to him that this conspiracy theory about Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and the former prosecutor general of Ukraine.

B (6:22)

Now, when you're in the offices of Ukrainian officials these days and you're talking about these things, what is the kind of emotional valence that you're getting? They must feel like this is the last position that we want to be in, is in between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, and it's the biggest rock and the biggest hard place imaginable.

G (6:47)

That's exactly right. The first thing I think they feel is something between confusion and disappointment. After all, to the extent that American presidential administrations have put pressure on their counterparts in Kiev over the years, it's been essentially to strengthen rule of law, to keep politics out of the judiciary and the law enforcement system, to make sure that presidents weren't using or abusing the Ukrainian legal system for political benefit. And so this sad irony wasn't lost on anyone that now it was an American president who apparently was using his office to put pressure on his Ukrainian counterpart to use that country's judicial system for political ends, that the roles were reversed. And that was certainly unexpected and I think quite dispiriting for a lot of Ukrainian officials who were used to, if they were going to get a lecture from their American counterparts, it was really to do the exact opposite.

B (7:47)

Josh, thanks so much.

G (7:49)

Thank you.

F (7:51)

Lindsey was saying, I never knew you were so nice. That was a perfect conversation. I heard Rick Scott today say that was a perfect conversation. How can you impeach somebody on that conversation?

B (8:05)

Jane Mayer is a veteran chronicler of Washington scandals going all the way back to Iran Contra and maybe even a little bit before.

H (8:14)

Hello.

B (8:15)

Hey, Jane. How are you?

H (8:16)

I'm good. How are you?

B (8:18)

Jane, you've been in Washington for, you know, a few years, and you've been around for some scandals. Does this feel different?

H (8:26)

Well, everything's different under Trump. It's just all a little bit wilder.

B (8:32)

How do you mean?

H (8:35)

Usually when you have a scandal, you've got kind of an organized pushback coming back from, say, the White House. In this case, you've just got sort of a rain of crazy Twitters coming from the president calling his Accusers, names.

B (8:52)

I guess that is different.

H (8:54)

There's no kind of organized effort here, it seems like. And some of the language that's coming from these tweets is really remarkably extreme.

B (9:04)

Treason, Civil War, Deep State, all the rest.

H (9:08)

Absolutely. I mean, the word treason being used by a president is, as we know, basically what he's talking about is that the whistleblower, if he were treasonous, he's basically saying he should be killed. And so it has a kind of an unhinged feel.

B (9:25)

Has the intelligence community turned on Trump? Is there any validity to that argument?

H (9:29)

Well, I mean, by all accounts, the whistleblower comes out of the intelligence community, and if so, he's one of their own. And he played it by the book. And I think there's a pretty strong feeling within the intelligence community that it's threatening. When the president is talking about treason and also about unmasking a member of the intelligence community, I mean, that's kind of a serious affront to them. And so you've actually seen a number of key intelligence figures go on the air. Mike Morell, for instance, who was activ. Acting director of the CIA, made a very careful but interesting appearance on television in which he basically supported the whistleblower.

B (10:09)

Nothing can be certain about what the future holds for the Trump presidency. And I'm not asking you to predict too much, but the specter is coming of the possibility of something that you wrote about President Pence. You wrote a long piece about Pence. And would a President Pence be at a policy level all that different from President Trump, you think?

H (10:32)

Very different.

B (10:33)

How so?

H (10:34)

Pence is an ideologue. He's somebody who cares about policy, and he is a devout evangelical Christian. He cares about all of the issues that animate the religious right. He's, you know, very anti abortion. He's had some very controversial views about gay rights. And he's also someone who's been in bed for most of his career with the big money and the Republican Party Party. And Trump has cast himself as independent of those big money donors. I mean, recently since he's taken office, he's cozied up to them, but he ran against them as a populist. And Pence is very different. And I actually interviewed Steve Bannett at one point about Pence, and he surprisingly said to me he thought that a presidency in Pence hands, the White House would be controlled by the Kochs. It was a real concern. And that's the Koch brothers, who are, you know, some of the biggest donors have been traditionally in the Republican Party. So Pence would be very. He'd also work better with the Hill because he knows how Washington works.

B (11:34)

In a way. Jane, these are early days, but is there a scenario that you think that the Senate turns on Donald Trump if articles of impeachment are brought to the Senate?

H (11:44)

I mean, anything's possible. It doesn't look like that today. But, you know, people tell me on the Hill that a lot of Republicans in the Senate dislike Trump personally. What's holding them there is that he's got a hold on the base of the party whose votes they need. And if that changes, they'll change.

B (12:02)

Now, in Watergate, Nixon's base of support shriveled to almost nothing. And as we famously remember, Republican leaders of the House and the Senate came to the White House and told him it was time to resign. Barry Goldwater, Hugh Scott, and all the rest. The world is different now, and the ability to retain your base through Fox News and social media and all the other instruments that didn't exist in 1974, that seems to indicate that it might be easier for Trump to hold onto the base to the bloody end.

H (12:34)

Yeah, I mean, he has an alternative communications system, and Fox is a big part of that. And in fact, it's interesting because although.

B (12:41)

Fox seems to be fracturing somewhat, its.

H (12:44)

New side is peeling off a little bit. But when Roger Ailes founded Fox, Roger Ailes, you have to remember, was a veteran of the Nixon administration, and he founded Fox partly in reaction to Watergate, saying, we're not going to let this happen again. Next time, we're going to have our own way of reaching our voters so.

B (13:01)

That they could retain the base and survive something as bad as Watergate.

H (13:04)

Right.

B (13:05)

Jane, thanks so much.

H (13:07)

Great to be with you.

F (13:08)

I saw many of the senators talking about it, many of the congressmen talking about it. Not a thing wrong. Unless you heard the Adam Schiff version where he made up my conversation. He actually made it up. It should be criminal. It should be treasonous.

H (13:25)

Hello.

B (13:26)

Hey, Jelani.

E (13:27)

Hey, how are you?

B (13:28)

Jelani Cobb has covered justice and many other issues in the Trump era. He's a staff writer and a historian, currently teaching at Columbia University. You know, in the last few days, Trump has accused his critics of treason, and he's made ominous remarks about punishment for the whistleblower. Talk of civil war. Does any of this have any precedent in American history?

E (13:50)

You know, I've thought about this, and I can't really find anything that compares. And the one thing that I say that's really interesting, though, about this you know, the comparisons to the Civil War is that, you know, in what he called, I think, a Civil War like fracture and a retweet of his. But the weird thing about that is that when we start talking about the Civil War, it takes us not to 1860, but to 1776, which is dynamics that were present at the beginning of the republic, that there are various efforts over the course of decades to patch together and ultimately culminate in a fratricidal war nearly a century later. I don't think the fate of the Trump presidency is anywhere near that scale.

B (14:46)

Jelani, if that was meant as a note of reassurance, I appreciate it. But shouldn't we take it seriously when the President of the United States says things about arresting people and incites violence at rallies and in his rhetoric?

E (15:00)

Yeah, I do think that we should take it seriously, and I think that's been the kind of tricky line that people have tried to finesse since he's emerged as a public figure, which is, you know, clearly he has a tendency toward hyperbole, but that doesn't mean that we should completely ignore everything, the entire underlying sentiment. And so we've seen in his campaign rallies that he has the possibility of riling people up into, you know, committing acts of violence. We've seen that in other instances, people who are maybe unwell are inspired to other acts of violence. I'm thinking about Cesar Syock and mailing pipe bombs to various people who he thought were critics or are enemies of Donald Trump.

B (15:45)

Sure.

E (15:46)

That said, who knows where this is going to go? The thing that concerns me is not so much his potential to inspire violence as his capacity to actually author it.

B (16:00)

Is that your greatest fear that he is so unpredictable, and that's a mild word for it, impulsive. That he may react to this political crisis in a way that's even more dangerous than the crisis itself?

E (16:16)

I think so. And one of the things I think that people on the left have found at least heartening, I guess, if that's the term you can use about the Trump presidency, is that he has been, you know, strikingly dovish in terms of his actual military engagements. But we also don't know what that volatile personality could do. Especially we know that Trump is particularly attuned to humiliation and that he seems to be really driven by any instance in which he perceives himself as being embarrassed and so on. What an impeachment might unleash in that kind of psyche, I have no idea, and I don't think any of us do.

B (16:58)

Jelani Cobb thank you very much.

E (17:00)

Thank you.

F (17:01)

Here's where I fooled them. They never thought I'd release the conversation. They never thought in a million years then I'd release the conversation.

B (17:12)

Staff writer Gill Lepore is also a professor of history at Harvard University. And her recent book called these Truths is a survey of pretty much the entirety of American history. Jill, you recently wrote a kind of summa, a book on the full arc of American history. How do the things that President Trump is accused of lately compared to the allegations against previous presidents like Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton?

D (17:43)

They're very bad. But that's not what impeachment is for. You can't be impeached for being a creep or a bad president. And that's, I think, one of the things that's been tricky. So the question, you know, the last week and a half has been, how much worse is this, this latest set of revelations?

B (17:59)

And what do you make of the revelations? Do you think they're bad enough for articles of impeachment and possible conviction in the Senate?

D (18:06)

I do. I do, without hesitation. I think in terms of the House, the articles of impeachment are not really a choice, but I think a duty that members of Congress have, a constitutional duty. What happens in the Senate is a different matter. I mean, it's easy to focus on individual senators and personalities in the state of the Republican Party, but the structural matters really do prevail here. It is a very high bar. You know, it's going through a narrow window after climbing a very high ladder to get through conviction in the Senate. So I think that's why you kind of just see sort of people spinning around.

B (18:50)

Well, has there been any fundamental historical change in the country which has enabled a president to be this brazen, or was it just that his predecessors exercised more restraint, or did they?

D (19:03)

Well, impeachment is chiefly a deterrent. Right. It's the gun on the mantle that not only never goes off, but people rarely even notice that it's there, since there have only ever been, you know, two and a half impeachments, we presume the presidents have always known that it's there, and it governs to some degree their tendency to abuse their own power. So Trump is an ungoverned. Just as a human being, he has. He doesn't govern himself. So it's not surprising that he's not deterred by the threat of impeachment, I think, and to the contrary, probably thrilled by it.

B (19:38)

What is a good outcome here, historically speaking? You describe the predicament. We're in, in every manner. What's a good outcome here?

D (19:49)

You're testing my optimism.

B (19:51)

I, you know, you're always provisionally optimistic compared to so many other scholars and journalists. Yeah, I am testing it.

D (20:01)

I wonder if we might gain as an electorate clarity about the powers of the presidency relative to the other branches of government. It is a, you know, for those of us who teach civics and history, it's a really important moment to think about what are the checks against the power of the executive. You know, there's congressional oversight, there are elections, and there's impeachment. And if congressional oversight fails and the impeachable offense is interfering with elections by soliciting the aid of a foreign power, then really all you have left is impeachment. That, actually, there's a lot of clarity even in just understanding that that's the nature of the dilemma, the constitutional dilemma.

B (20:44)

But more likely, I hate to say but more likely is an outcome in which articles of impeachment are written, they go to the Senate, and the core of Trump's support does not shrivel. And therefore the senators act on that and dismiss these articles, make them go away, and he's still in office.

D (21:05)

It was still the principled thing to do. It was still the obligation of the House to send those articles of impeachment to the Senate. And it will be the burden of history that lands on the shoulders of those senators. I mean, this is the presidential equivalent of shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.

B (21:28)

Jill Lepore. And we heard from Jelani Cobb, Jane Mayer, Josh Yaffa, and Susan Glaser. You can read all their reporting on the impeachment inquiry@newyorker.com David I'm David Remnick and that's the New Yorker Radio Hour for today. Thanks for listening.

A (21:51)

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Tune Yards, with additional music by Alexis Cuadrado. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Chorizo Endowment Fund.