The New Yorker on Impeachment

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The New Yorker on Impeachment

The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Release Date: October 7, 2019
Host: David Remnick
Featured Guests: Susan Glasser, Joshua Yaffa, Jane Mayer, Jelani Cobb, Jill Lepore

---

Overview

In this episode, David Remnick convenes several New Yorker writers and experts to dissect the unfolding impeachment proceedings against President Trump. The discussion covers Washington’s turbulent mood, the reactions from Ukrainian officials, historical and political context surrounding impeachment, and the gravity of the current moment for American political institutions. Through multiple perspectives, the episode situates the Trump impeachment within a longer arc of presidential scandal, explores partisan entrenchment, and assesses the real stakes for democracy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Mood in Washington and Partisan Shockwaves

[02:19 – 06:11] Susan Glasser

• Washington is in a state of palpable confusion and anxiety, lacking the typical sense of “conventional wisdom” that generally tempers political storms.
  • "You will run into people who will allow that they could see it both ways, that the beginning of impeachment could be the day that Donald Trump won reelection... you can get Democrats who tell you that and yet nonetheless feel they need to proceed." – Susan Glasser [02:56]
• Congressional Republicans lack a unified defense for the president. Instead, tactics center on distraction—attacking the whistleblower, talking of a "coup," and amplifying calls to investigate Joe Biden.
  • "Most of the Republicans right now, they aren't even defending Trump on the facts... they're not really defending Trump." – Glasser [03:50]
• Notable moment on Republican support:
  • A Monmouth poll shows “40% of Republicans believe that Trump raised the issue of investigating Joe Biden and his son in the phone call with the Ukrainian president, even though that is actually in the transcript that the White House itself released.” – Glasser [04:58]
• Lighter moment: Attempts to brand the scandal (“Moron Contra,” “Stupid Watergate”).

---

2. The View from Ukraine and the International Angle

[06:24 – 09:05] Joshua Yaffa

• The Ukrainian reaction is marked by confusion and disappointment; U.S. presidents have typically pressured Ukraine to clean up its system, yet Trump is perceived to be exploiting it for political gain.
  • “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.” – Yaffa [08:28]
• The episode highlights Ukraine’s precarious position—caught between US and Russian spheres of power, and now thrust unwillingly into a US domestic scandal.

---

3. Scandal, Impeachment, and the Erosion of Norms

[09:22 – 14:21] Jane Mayer

• Trump-era scandals are “wilder” than previous historical examples due to the president’s unfiltered, chaotic communication style.
  • “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.” – Jane Mayer [09:52]
• Mayer notes the severity of presidential language: Trump’s tweets referencing "treason" are especially dangerous, conjuring images of severe, even lethal, consequences.
• Intelligence Community Response: There is backlash within intelligence circles, supportive of the whistleblower and threatened by Trump’s rhetoric. Mike Morell’s public endorsement is cited.
• If Pence were president: Policy differences and implications for the Republican party are discussed, with Mayer describing Pence as “an ideologue” shaped by religious right politics and big donors like the Koch brothers.
  • “Pence would be very different. He'd also work better with the Hill because he knows how Washington works.” – Mayer [12:41]
• On the Senate’s willingness to act: Republican senators dislike Trump but are bound to him by his control of the party base. Media infrastructure (specifically Fox News) sustains Trump’s base, contrasting with Nixon’s inability to do so during Watergate.

---

4. Threats of Violence and Historical Precedent

[14:42 – 18:14] Jelani Cobb

• Trump’s rhetoric, which includes talk of treason and civil war, is historically unprecedented for a modern president.
  • “You know, I've thought about this, and I can't really find anything that compares.” – Jelani Cobb [15:07]
• While Trump’s tendency toward hyperbole is acknowledged, Cobb stresses the importance of not dismissing the incitement of violence.
  • “We’ve seen in his campaign rallies that he has the possibility of riling people up into... committing acts of violence.” – Cobb [16:36]
• Cobb’s deeper worry: The president’s unpredictability could translate into dangerous, impulsive action if Trump feels sufficiently threatened or humiliated by impeachment proceedings.

---

5. Impeachment in Historical Context and the Constitutional Dilemma

[18:29 – 22:45] Jill Lepore

• Jill Lepore positions current allegations alongside previous impeachments—Johnson, Nixon, Clinton—and notes that impeachment is about constitutional violations, not merely presidential misbehavior.
  • “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.” – Lepore [18:59]
• On whether the current charges warrant impeachment:
  • “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.” – Lepore [19:22]
• Impeachment serves mainly as deterrent; Trump’s unique disposition means he is not threatened by it—in fact, he perhaps relishes the drama.
• When asked for hope or clarity:
  • “I wonder if we might gain, as an electorate, clarity about the powers of the presidency relative to the other branches of government... It's a really important moment to think about what are the checks against the power of the executive.” – Lepore [21:18]
• Even if the Senate refuses to convict, Lepore argues the investigation and articles themselves will be historically meaningful.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Propaganda works. Telling a lie over and over and over again. At least enough people start to believe it.”
  — Susan Glasser [04:58]

• “The first thing I think [Ukrainian officials] feel is something between confusion and disappointment... 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.”
  — Joshua Yaffa [08:04]

• “In this case, you’ve just got sort of a rain of crazy Twitters coming from the president calling his accusers names.”
  — Jane Mayer [09:52]

• “He has an alternative communications system, and Fox is a big part of that. When Roger Ailes founded Fox... he founded Fox partly in reaction to Watergate, saying, We're not going to let this happen again.”
  — Jane Mayer [13:50]

• “I can't really find anything that compares.”
  — Jelani Cobb on Trump’s threats of violence and historical precedent [15:07]

• “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.”
  — Jill Lepore [18:59]

• “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.”
  — Jill Lepore [22:20]

---

Important Timestamps

• Mood in Washington (Susan Glasser): [02:15 – 06:11]
• Ukraine’s View (Joshua Yaffa): [06:24 – 09:05]
• Impeachment, Scandal and GOP (Jane Mayer): [09:22 – 14:21]
• Violence, Rhetoric, and Precedent (Jelani Cobb): [14:42 – 18:14]
• History of Impeachment (Jill Lepore): [18:29 – 22:45]

---

Final Thoughts

This episode bridges the day-to-day chaos of Washington with the broader sweep of American political history, offering a sobering examination of how impeachment functions as both a safeguard and a stress test for democracy. The speakers reflect a consensus that the Trump impeachment represents an extraordinary—and deeply ambiguous—moment, raising hard questions about partisanship, constitutional obligations, and the future of political accountability in the United States.

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

I'm Dorothy Wickenden. On today's Politics and More podcast, David Remnick talks with a group of New Yorker staff writers about the future of impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

[David Remnick]

No modern president has ever been convicted on impeachment charges. Richard Nixon resigned before the vote ever took place. Bill Clinton was impeached, but he was acquitted in the Senate and his popularity went up. What will happen with this wildly unpredictable presidency? The Trump presidency is pure conjecture. Every day brings a new revelation, a new turn. There are so many big questions about what's going on right now, and we're going to tackle at least a few of them with some of the writers who are covering the situation for the New Yorker. We'll start with Susan Glasser, a veteran of D.C. politics who writes our weekly column on Washington in the Age of Trump. I reached her on Skype.

[Susan Glasser]

Hi, this is Susan.

[David Remnick]

Hey Susan, it's David. How are you?

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Hey. Great.

[David Remnick]

I'm sorry to interrupt your lunch, but I can't help but ask, what is the mood like in Washington this week? It seems to me like it hasn't been this way in a very long time.

[Susan Glasser]

You know, I saw somebody referring to it as shocktober, which is pretty silly. But Washington has these weeks, days when the wheels feel like they're coming off, and that's usually in the early days of a scandal or investigation, when tons of information starts to break free. And I feel like usually it could end up being wrong. But usually in Washington, there's a pretty strong conventional wisdom and people have a sense of how the politics of something are going to shake out. And here you will run into people who will allow that they could see it both ways, that the beginning of impeachment could be the day that Donald Trump won reelection. And, you know, you can get Democrats who tell you that and yet nonetheless feel they need to proceed. You can have Republicans say the opposite, which is, you know, I know that's been the conventional wisdom, but we're really terrified that this is gonna be awful for us.

[David Remnick]

Now, if I'm a congressional Republican, how do I see a decent outcome for me and the party here? Is there a template of defense that they can look to? Historically?

[Susan Glasser]

Well, they seem to be quite upset, just that there's not been a more vigorous defense. And obviously it does vary by district. But most of the Republicans right now, they aren't even defending Trump on the facts. There's a lot of shouting about the whistleblower, about a coup in progress. There's a lot of demands to investigate Joe Biden, to investigate Mueller, and the basis on his report, basically to obfuscate and to throw up kind of chaff. But when you strip it away, it's interesting that they're not really defending Trump.

[David Remnick]

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?

[Susan Glasser]

Look, I was really, really struck to your point. There's a new poll out today that's getting circulation here in Washington. 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 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.

[David Remnick]

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?

[Susan Glasser]

You know, it's funny that you mentioned that. I was gonna put that in my column this week. I got thousands of responses. Some of my favorite were Moron Contra.

[David Remnick]

John Oliver says, stupid Watergate.

[Susan Glasser]

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

[Jane Mayer]

Because.

[Susan Glasser]

That'S when I made the tweet on Monday.

[David Remnick]

Susan, thanks so much.

[Susan Glasser]

Thank you, David.

[Donald Trump (audio clips)]

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

[David Remnick]

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

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Hello.

[David Remnick]

Hey, Josh, how are you?

[Joshua Yaffa]

Hi. Good, good.

[David Remnick]

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?

[Joshua Yaffa]

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 that 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 to the president and his allies, first and foremost, Rudy Giuliani, to look to Ukraine. And it was there where Giuliani had told to him this conspiracy theory about Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, and the former prosecutor general of Ukraine.

[David Remnick]

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 the biggest rock and the biggest hard place imaginable.

[Joshua Yaffa]

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, 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.

[David Remnick]

Josh, thanks so much.

[Joshua Yaffa]

Thank you.

[Donald Trump (audio clips)]

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?

[David Remnick]

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

[Jane Mayer]

Hello.

[David Remnick]

Hey, Jane, how are you?

[Jane Mayer]

I'm good. How are you?

[David Remnick]

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

[Jane Mayer]

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

[David Remnick]

How do you mean?

[Jane Mayer]

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.

[David Remnick]

I guess that is different.

[Jane Mayer]

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.

[David Remnick]

So you have to. Treason, civil war, deep state, all the rest.

[Jane Mayer]

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.

[David Remnick]

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

[Jane Mayer]

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, 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 acting director of the CIA, made a very careful but interesting appearance on television in which he basically supported the whistleblower.

[David Remnick]

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. Would a President Pence be at a policy level all that different from President Trump, you think?

[Jane Mayer]

Very different.

[David Remnick]

How so?

[Jane Mayer]

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 very anti. 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 in the Republican 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 Bannon 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 different. He'd also work better with the Hill because he knows how Washington works.

[David Remnick]

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?

[Jane Mayer]

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.

[David Remnick]

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.

[Jane Mayer]

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 Fox seems to be fracturing somewhat, its 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 that they.

[David Remnick]

Could retain the base and survive something as bad as Watergate.

[Jane Mayer]

Right.

[David Remnick]

Jane, thanks so much.

[Jane Mayer]

Great to be with you.

[Donald Trump (audio clips)]

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.

[Jane Mayer]

Hello.

[David Remnick]

Hey, Jelani.

[Jelani Cobb]

Hey, how are you?

[David Remnick]

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 or talk of civil war. Does any of this have any precedent in American history?

[Jelani Cobb]

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 their 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.

[David Remnick]

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. And incites violence at rallies and in his rhetoric?

[Jelani Cobb]

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 a. 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 Sayoc and, you know, mailing pipe bombs to various people who he thought were critics or enemies of Donald Trump.

[David Remnick]

Sure.

[Jelani Cobb]

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.

[David Remnick]

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?

[Jelani Cobb]

I think so. And one of the things I think that people on the left have found, at least, I guess, if that's the term we 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.

[David Remnick]

Jelani Cobb, thank you very much.

[Jelani Cobb]

Thank you.

[Donald Trump (audio clips)]

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

[David Remnick]

Staff writer Gilles 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 compare to the allegations against previous presidents like Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton?

[Dorothy Wickenden]

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, in the last week and a half has been, how much worse is this, this latest set of revelations?

[David Remnick]

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?

[Dorothy Wickenden]

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. There's a very high bar. It's, 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.

[David Remnick]

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?

[Dorothy Wickenden]

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 person. Right. Just as a human being, he has. He doesn't govern himself. So it's not surprising that he's not deterred by this threat of impeachment, I think, and to the contrary, probably thrilled by it.

[David Remnick]

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

[Dorothy Wickenden]

You're testing my optimism.

[David Remnick]

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

[Dorothy Wickenden]

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.

[David Remnick]

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.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Mm. 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.

[David Remnick]

Jill Lepore. And we heard from Jelani Cobb, Jane Mayer, Josh Yaffa, and Susan Glasser. You can read all their reporting on the impeachment [e-mail].

[Katie Drummond]

What the hell is going on right now? And why is it happening like this? At Wired, we're obsessed with getting to the bottom of those questions on a daily basis. And maybe you are, too. I'm Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired, and I'm hosting our new podcast series, the Big Interview. Each week I'll sit down with some of the most interesting, provocative and influential people who are shaping our right now. Big Interview conversations are fun.

[Joshua Yaffa]

I want a shark that.

[Katie Drummond]

That eats the Internet, that turns it all off, unfiltered and unafraid. So in a lot of ways, I.

[Jane Mayer]

Try to be an antidote to the.

[Katie Drummond]

Unimaginable faucet of reactionary content that you see online. To the best of my ability every week when going to offer you the ultimate luxury of our times, meaning and context. True or false? You, Brian Johnson, the man sitting across from me, one day, at some point, as of yet undefined in the future, you will die. False.

[Jane Mayer]

Tell me more.

[Katie Drummond]

Listen to the Big Interview right now in the same place you find WIRED's Uncanny Valley podcast. Subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

From. Prx.