The Daily Folgen

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. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

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.” Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

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. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.