The fate of Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 prisoners are intertwined. The prisoners' biggest hope for freedom is if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, takes office and makes the federal cases go away. But the people who stormed the Capitol committed straightforward crimes that were easier to investigate, easier to indict, easier to prove. Three years after Jan. 6, the story of how they have been held criminally accountable is mostly over.But for Trump and other Jan. 6 plotters, that story is just beginning. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s December 2020. Donald Trump continues to deny that he has lost the election. He and his inner circle are working feverishly to try to overturn it while Trump is getting more and more irate. Then, on Dec. 21, he meets a man named Jeffrey Clark. Suddenly, the full might of the Justice Department is within reach. And he plans to use it.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Social media was key to Jan. 6. End to end. It was key to gathering the crowd that stormed the Capitol. It was key to generating the sentiment that led people to drop their lives to come to Washington willing to commit crimes. It was key to sending them home when the deed was done. Of course, we’re all on social media. But how does social media propel people to action, even inspire them to move from online to on the ground—and to the grounds of the Capitol? It’s impossible to track. But we know that some accounts wielded enormous influence, and none more so than Donald Trump’s. The thing is, Trump wasn’t the only one behind his social media face. He had one trusted aide who ran the accounts with him. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In December 2020, The President and his advisors are still fighting to overturn the results of November’s presidential election. Then, in the middle of the month, a lawyer in Wisconsin sends a memo to the president’s legal team. This memo marks the beginning of a scheme that works its way through state legislatures and the halls of Congress, then to Trump himself. It is a scheme that ends with the Vice President of the United States in mortal danger. The main architect and proponent of this scheme is a little-known law professor from California, John Eastman. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s been three years since the insurrection of January 6th. There have been congressional investigations, prosecutions, and legal reforms, and it’s looking like 2024 will be the year that Donald Trump and his inner circle finally confront the criminal justice system. But is that enough to respond to an existential threat to our democracy?It all started with a lie: that Trump had won the 2020 election. So we begin there, with a look at the man who—other than Trump—mattered more to the Big Lie than anybody else: Rudy Giuliani.Guests include: Kyle Cheney, Congressional Reporter at POLITICO & Aaron Blake, Political Reporter and author of the upcoming Campaign Moment newsletter at the Washington Post. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The season finale delves into what was going on behind the scenes in the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation in the months between its first public hearing to its second, almost a year later. To many, the Jan. 6 committee’s public silence seemed to indicate that it simply wasn’t doing anything. The records trickling out of the court system, however, told a much different story. Episode 6 details the committee’s legal battles over subpoena compliance, executive privilege, contempt, investigating fellow members of Congress, and more. It was these battles that provided glimpses into the committee’s efforts to build a case against the former president to prove that Trump and his allies did, in fact, attempt to shatter the foundation of American democracy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this fifth episode of The Aftermath, we explore another aspect of Congress’s response to Jan. 6: efforts to create an investigative body to find out what had happened. Proposals for a national commission began the day after the attack and continued to gain traction with support from both Democrats and Republicans. After a months-long negotiation, the House passed a bill establishing a bipartisan national commission on the model of the 9/11 Commission, which had conducted a widely-respected investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. But by the time the bill came to the floor, the political winds had shifted, and Senate Republicans ensured its ultimate failure. This led, perhaps surprisingly, to the creation of the now-famous Jan. 6 Select Committee—which was no one’s first choice. But why did it come to this? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode of The Aftermath recalls the brief period where Democrats and Republicans worked together to respond to Jan. 6—and actually made a lot of progress. How? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the days after the January 6th insurrection, for Raskin and his colleagues, it wasn’t entirely clear that the insurrection was over. And for at least a brief moment, there seemed to be some kind of consensus. The moment turned out to be brief indeed, at least with respect to accountability for Trump himself. Within a week, the consensus had devolved into a sharp partisan divide. The House had passed an article of impeachment charging Trump with incitement to insurrection—but only a small handful of Republicans supported it. Less than two weeks after that, President Biden had taken office and Raskin was prosecuting the former president in Trump’s second Senate impeachment trial. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the wake of January 6, there were immediate calls for en masse arrests of all individuals on the Capitol compound, and demands that every one of them be hauled into court to stand trial. But our justice system does not work that way. The bedrock of our legal system is the due process of law. You can’t be tried for being part of an insurrectionist mob, only for the specific things that you did–or, more precisely, what prosecutors can prove you did.  January 6, is not one case, but thousands of cases. In this episode, we explore what happened inside the Department of Justice in the days after the Capitol Attack. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Aftermath is not a podcast about the insurrection itself, or about how we got there. It’s a podcast about what happened next – how our democracy is attempting to right itself in the face of an existential threat. Who is being criminally prosecuted, and who isn’t. How is Congress taking action—and what is it ignoring. And how are our institutions telling the story—and who gets to tell it. To set the scene for this project we are going to spend one episode—this one—on the events of the day itself. How what happened on January 6 revealed the difficult questions that people have spent the last year trying to answer.  This is Episode 1: Day Zero, Ground Zero. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mahnaz was a member of a Female Tactical Platoon in the Afghan Military. She was one of tens of thousands of Afghans who came to the United States during the withdrawal from Afghanistan. In our final episode, you’ll learn about the bureaucratic mess they’re still going through to get resettled. And how Congress could pass legislation to help, but it might not even come up for a vote. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

20 years of war and broken bureaucracy culminate during the US withdrawal at the Kabul airport. Thousands of Afghans rush to the tarmac where American forces sort through the crowds. Veterans, advocates and politicians try to get their allies out while the Taliban rapidly takes control of Afghanistan.   Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We return to Fred—an Afghan combat interpreter who served with American soldiers for more than 13 years. After years of denials, an ad hoc team of lawyers and veterans tried to push his Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) application through federal bureaucracy. Then, we describe how a new president aimed to bring the SIV program to a screeching halt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Matt Zeller deployed to Afghanistan in 2008, where an Afghan interpreter saved his life. Matt spent years trying to get him resettled in the United States and saw the problems with the SIV program firsthand. Together, they started lobbying to fix it in Washington, DC. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Fred took a job as an Afghan interpreter in 2004. He ended up serving side-by-side with American soldiers for more than 13 years. But when the Taliban started targeting him after a mission, Fred started looking for a way out. The SIV program was supposed to help. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2003 the US started another war with the military invasion of Iraq. There, soldiers, aid workers, diplomats and politicians saw the threat that local interpreters, translators and partners faced for their work. That’s when Congress created the SIV program for Iraqi interpreters and then recreated it for Afghanistan. But it quickly became clear that this program wasn’t working as intended. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In order to tell you this story, we need to start at the beginning. After 9/11, the CIA set their sights on al-Qaeda’s base in Afghanistan. When the military invaded that fall, people up and down the chain of command learned that, in order to fight this war, the US needed local partners to help. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A brand new podcast from Lawfare. Weekly long-form conversations with fascinating people at the creative edges of national security. Unscripted. Informal. Always fresh.Chatter guests roll with the punches to describe artistic endeavors related to national security and jump into cutting-edge thinking at the frontiers where defense and foreign policy overlap with technology, intelligence, climate change, history, sports, culture, and beyond. Each week, listeners get a no-holds-barred dialogue at an intersection between Lawfare's core issue areas and something from Hollywood to history, science to spy fiction.On this week's Chatter, Congressman Adam Kinzinger sits down in his office with David to share his thoughts about his career in congress on heels of his announcement to not seek re-election. They talk about leadership, what the partisan divide means for future office holders, and how his time in the cockpit prepared him for tough matters of national security. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The pardon power was designed to be a tool for correcting wrongs. Any system of justice applied to a whole nation is going to have failures. A pardon is there to correct miscarriages of justice—and injustice. It was always believed that if a president abused his pardon authority, it would be so appalling to so many, at such a gut level, that the checks on the President would instantly kick in: He’s be impeached, forced to resign, voted out. Trump pushed this theory. And the results were worrisome—to say the least. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we consider the problem of foreign interventions in American political campaigns—and what to do about it. And we’re also going to look at how Trump blocked and tackled the free press, especially when it reported on Trump’s foreign ties. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In our first episode, we explore some of President Trump’s most brazen transgressions—the conflicts of interest, the self-dealing and those elusive tax returns. In the run up to his inauguration, Trump created a sort of original sin when it came to his conflicts of interest, proclaiming that he is above any conflict of interest norms and regulation. Throughout his presidency, Trump continued to challenge any transparency when it came to his personal dealings and conflicts while in office.Virginia Heffernan explains how After Trump authors Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith propose reforming our laws and norms on a President’s financial ties and activities while in office. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Impeachment Trial concludes with a final vote on the Articles of Impeachment. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Impeachment Trial continues with Day 12. Senators are given time to make statements pertaining to their vote of impeachment happening the next day. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Impeachment Trial continues with closing arguments from House Managers and White House Counsel. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s January 31, 2020. It’s the 10th day of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. I’m Margaret Taylor, Senior Editor at Lawfare. Today, Senators listened to the arguments of the parties, and then voted 49-51 not to call new witnesses or subpoena new documents. Republican Senators Susan Collins and Mitt Romney voted with Democrats, but the vote was nonetheless unsuccessful. Senate leadership then offered a new procedural resolution to govern how the trial would conclude over the coming days. Closing statements from the parties will occur at 11am on Monday, and a final vote on the articles of impeachment will occur at 4pm on Wednesday.  Democrats offered 4 amendments to the resolution. The first was an amendment to subpoena acting white house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Michael Duffey, and David Blair, as well as documents from the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State. The second was to subpoena just John Bolton. The third was to subpoena Bolton and allow for one day for a deposition and one day for live testimony. The fourth and final amendment was to require the Chief Justice to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents, and to rule on any assertions of privilege. On all four amendments, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moved to table--or defeat--them, and all were defeated. Thereater, the resolution setting out the path for resolution of the trial passed on a 53-47 party line vote.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell then asked for unanimous consent to include statements of Senators explaining their votes in the Congressional record next week, along with a full record of the Senate’s proceedings and handling of the impeachment proceedings. The Senate then agreed, by unanimous consent, to allow Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes each on Monday. This is The Impeachment, Episode 10. The Senate votes not to subpoena witnesses or documents, and charts a path forward to end the impeachment trial. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On the 9th day of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Senators have a second day to ask questions through the Chief Justice to house managers and white house counsel. As Senators pass their questions on small cards in 5 min rounds, the question of the testimony of witnesses and documents looms large over Friday’s proceedings. This is the Impeachment, Day 9. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Impeachment Trial continues, as questions from Senators are asked of House Managers and Counsel. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's January 28th, 2020. It’s the seventh day of the impeachment trial of president Donald J. Trump. The president's team of lawyers wrap up their arguments in defense of the president. Over the last two days of the trial, senators heard about 10 hours of presentations from White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone, and his team, along with the president's personal attorney, Jay Sekulow, former independent counsels, Robert Ray and Kenneth Starr, as well as professor Alan Dershowitz. Today, they wrap up their arguments, before the senators’ questioning begins. This is the Impeachment: Day Seven. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s January 27, 2020. On the sixth day of the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump, the President’s team of lawyers resume their arguments in defense of the President. On Saturday, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and his team began their presentation, spending two hours summarizing their arguments. They continue today, just as press reports indicate that former National Security Adviser John Bolton wrote in his not-yet-published book manuscript that President Trump told Bolton in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats. including the Bidens. This is The Impeachment, Day 6. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is Day 5 of the Impeachment. In this short session, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone opened the case for the president’s defense, laying out what the defense believed are the stakes of impeachment. He noted that the defense would focus on facts that, he asserts, the House Managers ignored in their presentation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, the fourth day of the Impeachment, the house managers wrap up their case. They close their arguments on Trump’s first article of impeachment, and then turn to the second--obstruction of Congress. Today is their last chance to speak before the President’s counsel presents their case. The managers have left everything they have on the gallery floor. For the past three days, they have spoken for eight hours or more, trying to convince the senators before them that Trump should be removed from office.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today is Day 3 of the Impeachment -- the House Managers continue their cases to the Senate. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today is Day 2 of the Impeachment -- the House Managers bring their opening cases to the Senate. They walk through the chronology of Trump’s interactions with Ukraine, as well as the other central figures involved. They also stress the need for documents in this trial, urging Senators to subpoena where they see fit. With today marking the first day of opening arguments, the trial is just getting under way. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s January 21st, 2020. A month ago, the House of Representatives impeached President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Now the United States Senate must decide whether to convict the president and remove him from office. Chief Justice John Roberts has been sworn in and is presiding over the first day of the trial.There’s no report this time; no definitive document laying out what happened. Instead, there is a trial. House impeachment managers will present the case against Trump. Then the president’s representatives will present a defense. When that is over witnesses may be called, but we don’t know who or how many. And then the Senate will have to vote. Two-thirds of the senate are required to convict and remove a president from office, 67 votes.This podcast will let you hear what those senators hear. They have to sit there silently, without phones or laptops or anything else to read; they don’t get to skip the boring parts. We’re going to make it easier on you; we’ll cut down the many hours of testimony and procedural motions so you can just listen to the substance. You’ll get a fair representation of what members heard each day, just in less time. This is unfolding in real time. So this podcast won’t always be polished, or put together perfectly. But you’ll be able to hear it for yourself--not a highlight reel, not someone else’s opinion of what mattered, but the actual trial--and you can make up your own mind. The following weeks will become an important part of American history, whatever happens. The outcome isn’t just about 67 votes. Because every American faces the same fundamental decision as those 100 senators: Does the evidence show that President Trump is unfit to carry out the office of the commander in chief.  This is the Impeachment. Day One. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It Friday, March 22, 2019. It’s been nearly two years since Robert Mueller was first appointed Special Counsel. Now, he’s ready to submit a final report to the Attorney General. He has uncovered a sprawling and systematic effort by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. And he’s developed a mountain of evidence about the president’s efforts to obstruct his investigation, things like witness tampering, ordering the creation of false records, and trying to fire Mueller himself. But Mueller’s got a problem: a Department of Justice memo says he can’t indict a sitting president. So what is he supposed to do with all this evidence? Mueller decides to just lay it all in the report, all 448 pages of it. It’ll be someone else’s problem to decide what to do about it: maybe a future prosecutor, maybe Congress, maybe the America electorate. That isn’t really Mueller’s concern. He’s done what he was asked to do. Now his report can speak for itself._______________________Thank you for listening to the final chapter of The Report. This podcast is made possible by the generous support of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Democracy Fund. And by listeners like you. To support this project, please go to lawfareblog.com. The Report is a production of Lawfare & Goat Rodeo in Washington D.C. Ian Enright is the executive producer. Production assistance from Char Dreyer. From the Lawfare team, the Project is lead by Executive Editor Susan Hennessey. Editor in Chief is Benjamin Wittes. Interviews conducted by Managing Editor Quinta Jurecic. Recordings by Mikhaila Fogel and Jacob Shulz. Additional assistance by Gordon Ahl . Special thanks to Daniel Hemel, Chuck Rosenberg, Jack Goldsmith, John Barrett, Paul Rosensweig, Mary McCord, Mike Schmidt, and everyone who made this podcast possible. And thank you, the listening audience. If you think this story matters, and the more Americans should understand what is in the Mueller Report, please share this podcast widely and leave us a rating and review wherever you listen to podcasts. And continue following this feed for bonus episodes and additional content in the future. On behalf of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo, thanks for listening. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We’re almost at the end of our story. This episode will cover the final set of activity that the Special Counsel examines for possible obstruction of justice: the president’s behavior towards his long time attorney Michael Cohen. Unlike the other possible acts of obstruction in Volume II, which mostly occur after Trump takes office, the relevant conduct towards Cohen spans the entire time period at issue in the Mueller investigation. It starts all the way back before the campaign. To Trump Tower Moscow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s January 2018. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates are in a whole lot of trouble. The past is catching up to them. Three months earlier, they’d both been indicted on multiple felony counts and now it looks like there might be even more charges coming. Gates is getting nervous--they’re facing many years in prison. Manafort tells Gates to relax. He’s talked to the president’s personal counsel. He says they’re going to “take care of us.” Manafort tells Gates he’d be stupid to plead guilty now, “just sit tight, we’ll be taken care of.” Gates wants to be crystal clear on what exactly Manafort’s getting at. So he asks: Is the president going to pardon them? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s February 6, 2018. Don McGahn is back in the Oval Office with President Trump and the new White House chief of staff John Kelly. The New York Times has just published a story reporting that, back in June of 2017, Trump had directed McGahn to have Mueller fired and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The story doesn’t look good. Trump says: “You need to correct this. You’re the White House counsel.”Trump wants McGahn to say it never happened. But McGahn knows that it did happen. The White House Counsel is sticking to his guns. He’s not going to lie. The president asks again. Is McGahn going to do a correction? McGahn feels Trump is testing his mettle, seeing how far he can be pushed. And so he answers: No. He’s not. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s May 17, 2017. White House Counsel Don McGahn is in the Oval Office with the president. McGahn’s job is to represent the office of the presidency, which isn’t quite the same as representing the president personally. It’s a delicate line to walk, and Trump hasn’t made the job any easier. McGahn is supposed to act as the point of contact between the White House and the Department of Justice, to ensure all the rules are being followed. But the president has made clear, he’s not interested in following the rules. Trump has already fired his FBI director. That’s why McGahn is in the Oval that morning, they need to interview a new nominee for the position. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is there too.Sessions interrupts the meeting. He has an urgent phone call from the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, so he steps outside to take it. Sessions returns a moment later and relays the message: Rosenstein has appointed a Special Counsel to oversee the Russia investigation. It’s the former FBI director, Robert Mueller.  Trump slumps back in his chair. He says, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s March 7, 2017. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the nomination of Rod Rosenstein to be the Deputy Attorney General. Rosenstein’s whole career has been leading up to this moment. He’s a non-partisan sort of guy. He’s served under both President Bush and Obama. Now he’s being elevated to the role of running the day to day at DOJ.But this hearing is about more than just confirming a new deputy attorney general. On March 2, five days earlier, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had announced his recusal from all investigations involving the 2016 election, a recusal which included the Russia investigation. And so, the moment he becomes deputy, Rosenstein will also become the acting attorney general for the purposes of the Russia investigation.Rosenstein is confirmed and he’s sworn in on April 26, 2017. But his oath is about to be tested, like never before. Less than two weeks later, President Trump says he wants to fire the FBI Director and Rosenstein decides to help. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s January 26, 2017. Sally Yates is the acting Attorney General; she’s leading the Justice Department until Jeff Sessions is confirmed by the Senate. Yates has just learned some alarming news. The new National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has lied to FBI agents. He’s told them that he hadn’t discussed sanctions in a call with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. But he had. And it looks like Flynn has lied to the vice president about it as well. Yates calls White House Counsel Don McGahn. She says they have to meet right away. Yates knows that the FBI has the tape to prove Flynn lied, which is a crime, but right now there’s an even bigger problem: the Russians probably have the tape too. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s May 12, 2017. The FBI is still reeling from the sudden firing of Director James Comey. Andrew McCabe has only been the acting Director for 3 days. He’s trying to talk to Rod Rosenstein about the issue weighing on his mind: how are they going to protect the Russia investigation? The FBI is already investigating whether the president has tried to interfere with that inquiry. But the Deputy Attorney General is distracted and upset; he can’t believe the White House is making it look as if firing Comey were his idea. He says “There’s no one I can talk to. There’s no one here I can trust.”McCabe urges Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel. The credibility of the FBI and DOJ are on the line; without a special counsel a firestorm threatens to destroy the nation’s storied law enforcement institutions. It’s five days later—Wednesday, May 17—when McCabe sits beside Rosenstein in the basement of the United States Capitol where they’ve assembled the Gang of Eight. Then Rosenstein announces that he’s made a decision. He’s appointed a special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation and the new inquiry into the president: Robert S. Mueller III. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We’ve just finished Volume I of our podcast bringing to life Robert Mueller’s report on Russian election interference, and are hard at work on Volume II. We’ll have that ready for you soon. But in the meantime, we’ve put together some bonus episodes for you to enjoy. In this episode, the Lawfare teams brings you some of the more interesting pieces of Volume I that didn't make it into our episodes. From Donald Trump Jr's grand jury redactions, the role of Bitcoin in election interference, to Michael Flynn's wild plot involving a Turkish national, in the footnotes of the Mueller Report are some wild details. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s July 2016. Then-FBI Director James Comey gives a press conference explaining that, while he has recommended that the Justice Department not pursue charges against Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified information, Clinton’s conduct was “extremely careless.” Evidence has never surfaced that Clinton’s account was compromised. But a Republican political operative named Peter Smith becomes obsessed with the idea that Russia might have gained access. He spends the next year trying to get ahold of Clinton emails that he thinks Russia has hacked. But he never gets to see what Special Counsel Robert Mueller makes of his efforts—because a year later, he dies by suicide.This is a bonus episode of The Report. We’ve just finished Volume I of our podcast bringing to life Robert Mueller’s report on Russian election interference. In a few weeks, we’ll be back with new episodes on Volume II of Mueller’s report—covering President Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Russia investigation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s April 18, 2019, Attorney General Bill Barr summons reporters to the Department of Justice in Washington DC. Robert Mueller’s report is about to be released. Before the press and the public finally see the document for themselves, Barr wants a chance to tell his own version of the story it contains. But is the bottom line according to Barr the same as the bottom line according to Robert Mueller? We’ll let you decide.Previous episodes have told the story of the factual findings of the Mueller report—what did investigators figure out about what happened? And what were the questions they couldn’t fully answer? Conducting the investigation is one part of the Special Counsel’s job: collecting evidence and assembling a record. But the investigation actually supports Mueller’s larger responsibility: he must reach a set of legal conclusions about the evidence his team has found. The Special Counsel needs to decide which parts of the story laid out in Volume One of the Report amount to prosecutable crimes.This episode covers those decisions. Where does Mueller decide to bring charges? And when he doesn’t, is that because he thinks nothing improper or possibly criminal occurred? Or is it because he finds that the evidence just isn’t sufficient to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt? Here’s what the Mueller Report says about how the Special Counsel’s office made these decisions.This is The Report: Episode 7: Charging Decisions Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s December 29, 2016. The Obama administration announces that it’s imposing sanctions on Russia, as punishment for election interference. Michael Flynn has been tapped to become Trump’s national security advisor when the new administration takes office in January, but it’s still the transition period. Flynn is taking a few days vacation at the beach, when he sees the news. He grabs his phone and texts the transition team at Mar a Lago. He writes “Tit for tat with Russia not good” and says that the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak is reaching out to him today. Flynn calls Kislyak and asks that Russia not escalate in response to the sanctions. Apparently, it works. The next day, in a surprise move, Putin says that Russia won’t retaliate. Trump tweets, “Great move on delay (by V. Putin). I always knew he was very smart.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s the morning of April 25, 2016. At a hotel in London, a Maltese professor meets with a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. The two have been in touch over the past few weeks; the professor has been helping the young man connect with Russian officials. Now, over breakfast, the professor lets him in on a secret. On a recent trip to Moscow, high-level government officials told him that the Russians have “dirt” on Trump’s opponent. What was the “dirt” in question? “Emails,” he says. They have “have thousands of emails.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.