DiscoverThe Daily
The Daily

The Daily

Author: The New York Times

Subscribed: 795,003Played: 25,609,709
Share

Description

This is what the news should sound like. The biggest stories of our time, told by the best journalists in the world. Hosted by Michael Barbaro. Twenty minutes a day, five days a week, ready by 6 a.m.

738 Episodes
Reverse
Marie Yovanovitch, who was ousted as the ambassador to Ukraine on President Trump’s orders, came before the House Intelligence Committee on the second day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. At the very moment she was testifying about feeling threatened by the president, the president was tweeting about her.“The Latest” is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind “The Daily.” You can find more information about it here.
Capitalism on Trial in Chile

Capitalism on Trial in Chile

2019-11-1500:27:4921

Free-market economists once talked about “the miracle of Chile,” praising its policies as Latin America’s great economic success story. But recently, over a million people have flipped the script, taking to the streets and facing down a violent police response as they demand a reckoning on the promise of prosperity that never came.Today, we explore how, in Chile, capitalism itself is now on trial.Guest: Amanda Taub, who explores the ideas and context behind major world events as a columnist for The Interpreter at The New York Times, spoke with Annie Brown, a producer for “The Daily.” For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: “It’s not 30 pesos, it’s 30 years.” Our correspondent went to Santiago, the Chilean capital, to understand how a small hike in public transportation fares ignited mass protests.After weeks of demonstrations, Chile’s president said he would support a new Constitution. But for many, it was too little, too late.Our correspondent went inside a trauma unit in Chile that’s responding to “an epidemic” of protesters who have been shot in the eye by police pellet guns. Watch the video below.
We’ve been hearing a lot about the “quid pro quo.” But this week, Democrats started using a new term, one that shows up in the impeachment clause of the Constitution, to describe President Trump’s actions toward Ukraine. Republicans started using it, too — to reject it.“The Latest” is a new series on the impeachment inquiry, from the team behind “The Daily.” You can find more information about it here.
The House of Representatives opened historic impeachment hearings on Wednesday, with William B. Taylor Jr. and George P. Kent, senior career civil servants, caught in the crossfire. Democrats underscored the constitutional import of the proceedings, while Republicans branded the whole investigation into President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine a sham. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent — carefully, if cinematically — detailed the emergence of a shadow foreign policy, one which had the capacity to determine the fate of an ally in the face of Russian aggression. We discuss what this phase of the impeachment inquiry could mean for the president — and for the 2020 election.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. Background reading: Mr. Taylor said that, in a call with Gordon D. Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, President Trump had made clear he cared “more about the investigations of Biden” than Ukraine’s security.Here are key moments from the first public impeachment hearing.
On the first day of public hearings in the Trump impeachment inquiry, lawmakers questioned two diplomats, and laid out two competing narratives about the investigation. This is the first episode in our new series on the impeachment inquiry. For more information, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
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.
A Small Act of Rebellion

A Small Act of Rebellion

2019-11-1200:20:5435

Today, the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments about whether the Trump administration acted legally when it tried to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The Obama-era program known as DACA shields immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, from deportation.In this episode, we explore why the outcome of the case may turn on a small act of rebellion by one of President Trump’s former cabinet members. Guest: Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the congressional editor of The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Elaine C. Duke, a former Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, refused to echo the White House’s policy justifications for ending DACA. Her decision led to a Supreme Court case addressing presidential power over immigration.Meet two of the nearly 700,000 Dreamers whose families, homes and jobs may be affected by the justices’ ruling. 
The question of whether President Trump leveraged military assistance to Ukraine for personal gain is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. Today, we speak with our Ukraine correspondent on why that assistance was so important to Ukraine — and the United States — in the first place.Guest: Andrew E. Kramer, who covers Ukraine for The New York Times and is based in Moscow. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Petro O. Poroshenko, who was Ukraine’s president until May, knew his country’s independence hinged on American support. So he waged a campaign to win over President Trump.As vice president, Joe Biden tried to press Ukraine’s leaders to clean up corruption and reform the energy industry. The story of that effort has been overtaken by his son’s work for a Ukrainian gas company. 
The Saga of Gordon Sondland

The Saga of Gordon Sondland

2019-11-0800:31:1612

Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, told impeachment investigators he knew “nothing” about a quid pro quo in Ukraine. Now Mr. Sondland, a blunt-spoken hotelier, has changed tack. In a new four-page sworn statement released by the House, he confirmed his role in communicating President Trump’s demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens in exchange for military aid. Today, we discuss the road to Mr. Sondland’s sudden reversal, and what his new testimony means for the impeachment investigation.Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent for The Times who covers national security and federal investigations. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Mr. Sondland’s reversal offers a potentially critical piece of evidence to investigators trying to determine whether Mr. Trump abused his power.Late-night show hosts mocked Mr. Sondland, saying he had reversed his testimony after remembering “one important detail: that I don’t want to go to jail for perjury.”
‘Because of Sex’

‘Because of Sex’

2019-11-0700:28:3837

In 2013, Aimee Stephens watched her boss read a carefully worded letter.“I have felt imprisoned in a body that does not match my mind. And this has caused me great despair and loneliness,” she had written. “With the support of my loving wife, I have decided to become the person that my mind already is.”Ms. Stephens was fired after coming out as transgender. Now, she is the lead plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that will determine the employment rights of gay and transgender workers across the nation. Guests: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, and Aimee Stephens, the lead plaintiff in the transgender discrimination case heard by the Supreme Court. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling hangs on justices’ interpretation of wording in the Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex.”The case came to the Supreme Court from a federal appeals court, which found in favor of Ms. Stephens last year. 
loading
Comments (2526)

Sharon Tiffany

Zaza

Nov 17th
Reply

moose nut

if you are reading this: fuck you retard

Nov 17th
Reply

moose nut

8 minutes? how many lies can you jam in there LOL

Nov 17th
Reply

S F

not an illigitameny question though

Nov 17th
Reply

Thomas Franklin

new York dies

Nov 16th
Reply

John Bailey

why did they setup her removal?Was it because she was getting close to helping uncover corrupt individuals who were going to help get dirt out about the Bidens and the dnc server.? Got to dig for that.

Nov 16th
Reply (1)

Baleeiro

One interesting fact about the protests that is important to mention 'cause illustrates well all the situation: The former president of Chile is one of the richest men in that country.

Nov 16th
Reply

John Smith

could these hacks try a little harder to sell the Democrats fake narrative? NYT hack reporter- "he spoke with a booming voice!"..... I mean are you kidding me? disgusting

Nov 15th
Reply

Molly Phoenix

Thank you for this little nugget! Leo you saved me at dinner last night. I so rarely remember to seek the answers to the deluge of questions I have on a daily basis, one of them being the meaning of quid pro quo. I understood the gist of it but I've wanted to know the literal translation and never made the time. I remembered Leo casually answering the question and was impressed by his presence enough to stop what I was doing and listen. When it came up at dinner that most Americans probably don't know what it means I answered just as casually as Leo had and kept shoveling potatoes into my mouth like it was nothing, all the while being so grateful for Leo and The Daily. 🙏🏼

Nov 15th
Reply

Jamie Rhines-Romero

Leo sounds soooooo intelligent for his age! I am super impressed with him! Shout out to his parents for doing an amazing job raising such a sweet, kind, smart child. Also, shout out to both Mikes for being so great with Leo!

Nov 15th
Reply

Elizabeth Hendrickson

To both Mike S. and Mike B., as you were probably called when you were in third grade, congratulations on your interview with Leo. You treated him with dignity and respect. That was classy! Congratulations to Leo, of course, and to his wise mother who brilliantly has guided her gifted child. I applaud her decision to kept his last name private.

Nov 15th
Reply

Claire Macglashing

U probably didn't expect another school shooting when u were typing a few days ago. I will NEVER understand why American citizens need semi or automatic weapons. So ĺlinclude machine guns. ie: AR15's, ect. My prayers go out to the families whose children were gunned down & those 100's traumatized in CA this morning. I have no idea what kind of gun was used, doesn't matter. We need to fix what we can, & work harder on the rest! peace. claire https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b2oM8F_bUhDa3WhTAD76dePcj4ygSbQl/view?usp=drivesdk

Nov 15th
Reply

Jonathan Petherbridge

"a guy I know, overheard a conversation and has an opinion" how is this news-worthy evidence? I hope there's better than this coming.

Nov 15th
Reply

Heather McNamee Rensel

The Republicans are crazy.

Nov 14th
Reply (1)

Linda Susan Erickson

Reasonably balanced. As long as you keep it that way, I will keep listening. But if not, I'll bail.

Nov 14th
Reply (1)

Bjørn Håvard Bakken

i'm a cynical bastard oftentimes and went into this episode thinking it would be really lame, centering it around what a kid thinks about impeachment. Ended up loving this concept, and rooting for Leo and generally having more hope for humankind.

Nov 14th
Reply

Aman Me

very interesting

Nov 14th
Reply (1)

1234567

so wholesome ♥️

Nov 14th
Reply (1)

AH

Excellent episode

Nov 14th
Reply (1)

Nancy Loomis

is there any way to poll people who voted for Trump only because they wouldn't vote for Clinton...and wouldn't vote for Trump again?

Nov 14th
Reply
loading
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store