WE LIVE AT A TIME WHEN JOURNALISM can land with great force. The epic investigation published Tuesday by The New York Times, on the fraud that is the Trump family business, is such a story. The piece, which took three reporters—David Barstow, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner—18 months, 15,000 words, and eight pages in the print edition, has been roundly, and rightly, praised. One of its great benefits, to my mind, is that it transcends the headlines of the day, focusing on an elemental, fundamental aspect of this man and this presidency that, it turns out, is even more divorced from our common understanding than we might have previously thought. It is an example of journalism as long game, a sport that more of us need to be playing.
For two years, Americans have tried to absorb the details of the 2016 attack: spies, leaked emails, social media fraud — and President Trump’s claims that it’s all a hoax. The Times explores what we know and what it means.
A great synopsis of the Russia story going back to 2014. And if nothing else, some great artwork to go with it.
Did they err? Or did they lie?
Six weeks ago, CNN broke a blockbuster story: According to several anonymous sources, President Trump had advance knowledge of the infamous Trump Tower meeting. It was a potential smoking gun, until one of those sources — Lanny Davis, attorney for Michael Cohen — recanted.
Beyond that headache for CNN, there was another. The original article had claimed, "Contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment." Depending on how you understand the word "comment," and depending your general disposition, that claim could be technically true or woefully, mendaciously disingenuous. Bob spoke with Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi about the implications — and dangers — of this latest media mishap.
President Trump has asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether the F.B.I. infiltrated his campaign in 2016 for political purposes. In response, the department granted the president’s team access to highly classified information from the special counsel’s Russia investigation. What’s behind this decision?
On today’s episode:
• Julie Hirschfeld Davis, who covers the White House for The New York Times.
• In a series of tweets on Sunday, President Trump demanded an investigation into whether an F.B.I. informant “infiltrated or surveilled” his campaign. The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to accommodate the president’s wishes by expanding an existing inquiry.
• The president’s tweets referred to a Times report about Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, examining whether countries other than Russia, including Saudi Arabia, had offered assistance to the Trump campaign.
• After a White House meeting on Monday, intelligence and law enforcement officials agreed to disclose some sensitive documents from the Russia investigation to Republican congressional leaders.
White House lawyers have claimed that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, will not indict the president, regardless of his findings. If that’s true, then what is the purpose of his inquiry?
On today’s episode:
• Michael S. Schmidt, a Washington correspondent who covers national security and federal investigations for The New York Times.
• According to President Trump’s lawyers, Mr. Mueller’s investigators said that they would abide by the Justice Department’s legal and historical precedent to refrain from prosecuting sitting presidents.
• Any discovery of wrongdoing by the president might instead be referred to Congress for a decision, as was done when Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton were under investigation.
• It has been one year since Mr. Mueller was appointed special counsel to look into a dizzying array of events that span years and continents. Here's a guide to what has happened.
The New York Times has obtained the list of questions that Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel looking into Russia’s election interference, wants to ask President Trump. The wide-ranging queries offer a rare view into an investigation that has been shrouded in secrecy.
On today’s episode:
• Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the Russia investigation for The Times.
• The Times reports that Mr. Mueller’s team shared with the president’s lawyers a list of at least four dozen questions, the majority of which focus on possible obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation.
• Here are the questions, along with a look at their context and significance.
If his attorneys couldn’t have guessed all of these questions by themselves, they should be fired. The real secret is to know the hidden questions to things they’re aware of, but no one knows they’re privy to.
If Trump is laundering money, and he probably is, the Russians know about it. So do Michael Cohen’s gangster friends.
Iand remarked about how screwwy the situation seemed and wondered where the investigation into his businesses and taxes was and why we hadn’t heard much about it. Well it seems to be coming out in more force.
In this article, Chait indicates what is only incredibly obliquely implied in that Washington Post article: Trump is likely laundering money for Russian concerns for he can’t honestly have the native cash flow from honest dealings to be spending the way he has. This is a much more stark take on this recent financial reporting.
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, spoke with me for Friday’s episode of “The Daily,” as he wraps up a publicity tour for his book, “A Higher Loyalty.” Our conversation focused on his decision, before his firing, to document his interactions with President Trump in a series of memos — and to eventually share the contents of one of those memos with a journalist, in the hopes of pressuring the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in the Russia investigation.