[music]

michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today: President Trump has undertaken a campaign of retribution against those who crossed him during the impeachment inquiry and favors for those who have tried to protect him. Peter Baker on the post-acquittal presidency. It’s Friday, February 14.

archived recording [HORNS] Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.

michael barbaro

Peter, I want to begin with retribution. How does that start?

archived recording (donald trump) Well, thank you very much, everybody. Wow.

peter baker

The day after his acquittal in the Senate, the president gathers people in the East Room of the White House for an event. It’s not quite a press conference. It’s not quite a speech. It’s really kind of a mix, a mix of a celebration of his acquittal but a venting session of his grievances.

archived recording (donald trump) I want to start by thanking some of — and I call them friends, because you develop friendships and relationships when you’re in battle and war.

peter baker

And he wants to thank the people who stood behind him, names them in the audience.

archived recording (donald trump) Mitch McConnell, I want to tell you, you did a fantastic job. [APPLAUSE]

peter baker

Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader who did more than anybody to secure his acquittal in the trial. And he mentions Jim Jordan —

archived recording (donald trump) When I first got to know Jim, I said, huh, he never wears a jacket. What the hell’s going on? He’s obviously very proud of his body. [LAUGHTER]

peter baker

— and other members of the House, the Freedom Caucus, the conservative Republicans who always stood by him in the most aggressive and assertive and staunch way. And then, of course, he turns to his enemies. The people he blames for his ordeal, the people he thinks have treated him so unfairly, have plotted against him, been disloyal or what have you. And he names ones that you would expect, of course.

archived recording (donald trump) Nancy Pelosi is a horrible person.

peter baker

Nancy Pelosi, he says she’s a horrible person.

archived recording (donald trump) A corrupt politician named Adam Schiff made up my statement to the Ukrainian president. He brought it out of thin air — just made it up. They say he’s a screenwriter, a failed screenwriter.

peter baker

He names, of course, Adam Schiff, the lead House prosecutor.

archived recording (donald trump) And then you have some that used religion as a crutch. They never used it before.

peter baker

He names Mitt Romney, the Republican, the only Republican senator to vote for conviction.

archived recording (donald trump) But, you know, it’s a failed presidential candidate, so things can happen when you fail so badly running for president.

peter baker

These two now, of course, are really at odds. And you see the visceral anger in the president in this moment. And he mentions Colonel Alexander Vindman, a member of his own staff, a detailee from the Pentagon working on Ukraine issues, and his twin brother Yevgeny Vindman, who also works at the N.S.C. staff. He says it almost in passing.

archived recording (donald trump) Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and his twin brother, right?

peter baker

And he says it with such dripping disdain in his voice. You’d get the sense immediately, of course, that this is somebody who’s really angry at the president, and he’s got his attention.

michael barbaro

And remind us what puts Vindman in this list of enemies.

peter baker

Colonel Vindman was one of the members of the White House staff, the National Security Council staff who were subpoenaed by the House to testify in the impeachment inquiry. He didn’t come forward voluntarily. He was required to by law to give his testimony to the committee. And during his testimony, he told about being on the famous July 25 call between the president and President Zelensky of Ukraine when the president asked him to investigate Joe Biden and the Democrats. And Colonel Vindman told the committee that he thought that was inappropriate, and he reported it to his superiors at the N.S.C. And for that, he has been on the target list of President Trump and his allies ever since. Painted as disloyal, painted as even treasonous to the country. His patriotism questioned even though he’s a decorated veteran of the Iraq War, injured in battle, and really, a kind of a symbol to both sides of sort of where this fight has evolved.

archived recording (donald trump) Our country is just respected again, and it’s an honor to be with the people in this room. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.

peter baker

And so he comes to the end of this sort of rambling, meandering talk that goes on for an hour and two minutes. And you get the sense that this is not the end and that there’s more to come.

archived recording Well, President Trump has begun his revenge in the wake of his impeachment trial.

peter baker

Colonel Vindman, the same witness he had just talked about so dismissively at the East Room event finds himself escorted out of the White House by security guards and told his services are no longer needed —

michael barbaro

Wow.

peter baker

— exiled back to the Pentagon from which he came. Not just him —

archived recording Escorted out of his job and off the White House grounds, as was his twin brother, who was also assigned to the N.S.C.

peter baker

His brother Yevgeny Vindman — who didn’t do anything, had nothing to do with the impeachment hearings at all, except to show up and sit behind his brother just as a matter of family support — also dismissed from his post at the National Security Council, marched out at the same time by security and sent back to the Pentagon.

archived recording Today, Vindman’s lawyer issued a statement saying, quote, “The truth has cost him his job, his career and his privacy.”

peter baker

You can understand why a president might not want somebody on his staff who had testified an impeachment hearing against him. But it was handled in a way that was meant to maximize the public message, right? I’ll tell you what I mean by that. The N.S.C. is currently undergoing a downsizing. And in fact, the plan was to move Colonel Vindman out as part of that, or at least to use that as the cover to to say, it’s not about reprisal. It’s not about his role in impeachment. It’s just part of this overall restructuring. And that’s frankly how other presidents might have handled a situation like that.

michael barbaro

Come up with a rationale.

peter baker

Come up with a rationale, come up with a public face-saving kind of storyline, a narrative, at least, that even though people would see through it, would at least have the veneer of looking professional rather than vindictive. That was not what the president wanted. He made sure they did this separate from that reorganization. They did not explain it as part of that reorganization. And they did not deny when we called them that day that this was what it looked like, which was, of course, an act of retribution.

michael barbaro

OK, so what happens next?

peter baker

Well, we thought that was the story for the day, these two brothers being marched out of there.

michael barbaro

Right.

peter baker

And then we discover as the evening arrives that it’s not over.

archived recording Now we’re getting word that the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, he is out as well.

peter baker

Gordon Sondland, you may remember him. He was the ambassador to the European Union, who had been deeply involved in the Ukraine pressure campaign, on the phone with the president and required to testify, became a key witness in the House hearings. He said that they were operating on the order of the president himself. He said that it was clearly a quid pro quo, and he said that everyone was in the loop. Suddenly, it turns out he’s out as well. Now, as with Vindman, there was a way to do this that would have minimized the public kerfuffle. Gordon Sondland actually was ready to leave. He had told his superiors at the State Department that he was ready to step down on his own. And he got word that Friday you have to resign today, they told him. But he says, no. I don’t want to resign on the same day that you’re pushing out these Vindmans as if I’m part of some sort of purge.

michael barbaro

Wow.

peter baker

If you want me today, you’re going to have to fire me. And they called back and said, OK, you’re fired.

michael barbaro

So at this point, it’s clear that this is a vindictive purge of anyone who did anything that put the president in a negative light during the impeachment process. And what is the reaction to that, that very clear and deliberate message from the president inside Washington?

peter baker

Certainly among Democrats, even among a few Republicans who say what’s the message you’re sending? If you respond to a subpoena, as ordered by the law, and you give your testimony, you shouldn’t be punished for doing that. The president’s view is, why should I have people I can’t trust working for me? It’s my right as the president to have a staff that serves my interests that I believe is loyal. And he’s made clear that loyalty is a number one when it comes to this president. There’s no other quality that matters more to him.

michael barbaro

And, Peter, as somebody who’s covered many White Houses, is he right about that? Is it ultimately a presidential prerogative to decide if someone testified against you, that, you know, you no longer want them around, you don’t want them in those jobs anymore, especially presidential appointments?

peter baker

It’s a good question, right? Because it does feel like it would be untenable to have testified and provided damaging testimony against the president, and then come to work every day afterwards. You would think, in fact, you might not want to necessarily do that. But the question isn’t what’s the right place then for that person to work. The question is what the message the president is trying to send by what he’s doing, right?

michael barbaro

Right.

peter baker

This president has made a point of making sure everybody knows these people are out, and they’re out because of him and because he will not tolerate disloyalty.

michael barbaro

OK, so that is the campaign of retribution so far, post acquittal, which brings us to the campaign of protection for the president’s allies.

peter baker

Right. It’s not enough just to go after his perceived enemies. Now it’s time to do something to protect his friends. And for him, this is going to start with a colorful character and longtime friend and adviser named Roger Stone, who’s about to go to prison.

michael barbaro

We’ll be right back. So, Peter, before we get to how the president is trying to protect Roger Stone, remind us who Roger Stone is.

peter baker

Roger Stone has been in American politics going back decades. He is somebody who calls himself a dirty trickster.

archived recording (roger stone) I’m certainly guilty of bluffing and posturing and punking the Democrats. Unless they pass some law against [BLEEP] and I missed it, I’m engaging in tradecraft. It’s politics.

peter baker

He’s a self-proclaimed fan of Richard Nixon. Even to this day, he has a Richard Nixon tattoo.

michael barbaro

Right.

peter baker

He’s somebody who’s involved early on in some of the Reagan and Dole campaigns, but over the years kind of drifted off into the side, really kind of more of a fringe character, a conspiracy theorist, a provocateur.

archived recording 1 In 1980, Stone began a lobbying firm with Paul Manafort that unapologetically catered to human rights abusers. archived recording 2 He has these maxims on how he conducts his political strategy. One of his rules is never turn down an opportunity to have sex or be on television. archived recording 3 We’ve seen a lot of colorful characters in the world of political consulting, none more colorful than Roger Stone. And that is the most charitable adjective you can apply to the single weirdest man possibly in the history of political consulting.

peter baker

He’d been friends for years with Donald Trump. And like Roger Stone, Trump comes from the outside, right? He was not part of the Republican establishment. But suddenly, he’s powering forward toward a presidential bid. And he brings with him people like Roger Stone, who had not been in the center of American politics now for years.

michael barbaro

Right. And my recollection is that it’s during that campaign that Roger Stone gets into very significant trouble.

peter baker

Right. He becomes wrapped up in the whole story about the Russian hacking of the Democratic emails.

archived recording Hillary Clinton’s campaign dealing with more email problems. The email account of campaign chairman John Podesta was hacked and many of the emails released.

peter baker

Things he said gave the impression that he might have known about it in advance.

michael barbaro

Right.

archived recording So were you surprised when John Podesta’s emails came out, as you seemed to predict ahead of time? archived recording (roger stone) I was interested, like the rest of the country. archived recording Were you surprised? archived recording (roger stone) No, I wouldn’t say that I was surprised.

peter baker

And that puts him right in the heart of this. Is he a link between the Trump campaign and Russia through perhaps WikiLeaks, which is the cutout that the Russians used to get these emails out. And so, once the president wins and comes into office, his friend Roger Stone finds himself under investigation for what he knew and when he knew it. And then Congress jumps in. They call Stone to testify at the House Intelligence Committee. And this is where he really gets into trouble.

archived recording (roger stone) We had a very frank exchange. I answered all of the questions. I made the case that the accusation that I knew about John Podesta’s email hack in advance was false, that I knew about the content and source of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton was false.

peter baker

He starts telling things that are demonstrably not true. And he ultimately ends up getting charged with lying to Congress. He also tries to get an associate of his to not tell the truth, threatens him even, threatens to kill his dog.

michael barbaro

Whoa.

peter baker

And he was put on trial. And last fall Roger Stone was convicted of seven crimes, seven felonies, including lying to Congress and witness intimidation.

michael barbaro

And these are conditions on very serious charges of obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That’s right. I remember thinking when that happened, like, whoa. This is the big leagues for Roger Stone.

peter baker

Exactly. And the question is, why is he lying? Why is he obstructing? Is he trying to protect the president? This is how this all fits together, right? This goes back to the whole Russian interference. This goes back to the Mueller probe. This goes back to the things that have dominated this presidency for three years and frustrated this president for three years. So he sees Roger Stone’s conviction as an illegitimate shot at him, at himself, the president. A way of trying to take him down because they couldn’t take him down any other way.

michael barbaro

OK. So Peter, how does the president try to protect Stone after this conviction?

peter baker

So even as he’s in the middle of this campaign of retribution against the Vindman brothers and Gordon Sondland, he is increasingly aware that the sentencing for Roger Stone is coming up. And then, when Monday comes around and the prosecutors present their recommendation for a sentence to the court, the prosecutors ask for seven to nine years behind bars. That’s the normal sentence that would be required under the sentencing guidelines passed by Congress for crimes of the type that Roger Stone was convicted of. So they didn’t go outside of those guidelines. They simply said we want to sentence him to what the guidelines say. That doesn’t mean the judge would go along with it, but that was their recommendation. Well, that set the president off.

archived recording The president expressed his outrage on Twitter, calling it a very unfair situation, adding, “Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”

peter baker

In the middle of the night, he starts sending out tweets, angry tweets. How can this happen? Nine years, this is outrageous. And they’re going after him. How come they don’t go after my enemies but they go after him? And that just sort of sets the town ablaze.

archived recording Controversy in the nation’s capital now over a sentencing recommendation for President Trump’s longtime friend Roger Stone.

peter baker

Here’s a president weighing in directly on a court case involving a friend of his. This is something that we have not seen really since Watergate. Presidents don’t, especially publicly, weigh in on prosecutions of people that they are personally connected to, at least except in the venue of issuing pardons at some point, which they sometimes do. So this has shocked a lot of people. But what really shocked a lot of people in Washington was when they woke up a few hours later on Tuesday and they saw not only these tweets, but they saw that the attorney general of the United States, Bill Barr, had essentially overruled the career prosecutors.

archived recording Breaking news involving President Trump. A stunning reversal in the sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone.

peter baker

And said, no, we’re not going to ask for a sentence this heavy. We’re going to ask for something lighter.

michael barbaro

So not seven to nine years, something less.

peter baker

Not seven to nine years, something less. It doesn’t specify what, but something below what the guidelines would normally call for. And so this is causing a huge furor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.

archived recording What is going on? President Trump knows how to get away with stuff when we’re not watching.

peter baker

The four career prosecutors who worked on the Stone case, all four of them, quit.

archived recording We’re following some truly stunning, breaking news, still developing by the minute this hour. Federal prosecutors in the Roger Stone criminal case have resigned this afternoon.

peter baker

One after the other. One, two, three, four, just like that.

archived recording This does not happen. Prosecutors don’t resign just days before they go to sentencing after a case that they’ve worked so hard on.

peter baker

One of them actually quits his job altogether, leaves the Justice Department as a whole.

archived recording In protest.

peter baker

Well, they don’t say it, but that’s the obvious conclusion. Yes, they’re protesting the overruling of their recommendation. And I think that they felt like they had an ethical obligation. If they had told the court this is the sentence we think is appropriate, and then suddenly a day later the same department is coming and saying, no, we don’t — how is that tenable for them to continue on that case?

michael barbaro

And, Peter, given what has just happened — the firing of Vindman, Sondland, Vindman’s brother — what is the reaction to this intervention? Not just the retribution, but this protection?

peter baker

Well, in effect, the Democrats are saying we told you so, right?

archived recording (chuck schumer) No serious person believes President Trump has learned any lesson. He doesn’t learn any lessons. He does just what he wants, what suits his ego at the moment.

peter baker

Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader in the upper chamber goes to the floor and gives a pretty passionate speech in which he says that the natural consequence of acquitting the president on the Ukraine matter means that he feels completely unleashed and empowered to do whatever he thinks is right for his own political interests.

archived recording (chuck schumer) We are witnessing a crisis in the rule of law in America, unlike one we have ever seen before. It’s a crisis of President Trump’s making, but it was enabled and emboldened by every Senate Republican.

peter baker

Even amongst some Republicans, you’re seeing you know some discomfort, particularly among moderate Republicans who tried to give the president the benefit of the doubt by standing with him in the impeachment trial. A couple of them had said even, well, maybe he’ll have learned a lesson from all of this and he’ll be more measured, he’ll be more restrained in the future and that that would be a good thing. Well, what you’re hearing a lot of people saying is that doesn’t seem to be the case. And I think that the question going forward is going to be, is it just a burst of energy and lashing out in the days after the acquittal, or is this the beginning of a month’s long recalibration of his administration? What is he going to do going forward?

michael barbaro

Right. Is this the post-aquittal presidency, one in which enemies are punished and allies are at all costs protected?

peter baker

Right, exactly. And that the instruments of government are to serve the president’s interests, not just the public’s interests.

michael barbaro

Peter, what you have described here is what an old school political terms might be called a strategy of carrots and sticks, but on steroids, right? You protect those who have done right by you, and you punish those who have somehow wronged you. And in the case of the president, that “steroided up” strategy clearly worked when it came to impeachment. And we talked to you. We talked to many of our colleagues about the fact that there was genuine fear of crossing this president, and that that influenced how the Senate voted in the impeachment trial. So if this strategy is working — and by all accounts, it is working — why shouldn’t the president keep it up?

peter baker

Well, it’s a great question. I think one of the things we’ve learned about the last three years is that the norms, the standards, the lines that we used to think of that constrained a president were more aspirational and conceptual than they were legal. You go look. You go back far enough, you’re going to find plenty of presidents who punished their enemies and protected their friends. But in the post-Watergate period in particular, when we put in new guardrails, we put a new laws, we put in new systems, we thought that that had been minimized at the very least, right? That, yeah, you’re going to probably give an appointment to somebody who’s been good to you. And you’re going to maybe take away a grant from the state of somebody who crossed you on a vote. These things happen. They happen under any presidency. This is that, as you put it, on steroids. And it’s overt. It’s right out there in the open. He wants everybody to know what he’s doing. He wants everybody to understand. You are loyal to this president or you should get out. And that’s true of people in government. That’s true of people even in Congress. He’s made very clear that the Republican Party has no room for anybody who is not on his side. You’re either in his camp or you’re not.

michael barbaro

And, of course, there’s a larger context here, which is we’re in the middle of a presidential election. And I wonder how this behavior by the president fits into his re-election strategy.

peter baker

You say that all this fits into a broader approach by this presidential politics. It’s not about unifying. It’s about dividing. It’s about us versus them. And this is what the appeal is to his constituents. It is: I am fighting for you. And they are trying to stop me. It’s the deep state, it’s the Democrats, it’s the fake news media. They’re all trying to stop me, and by extension, you. And that’s why you should stick with me in this election this fall. So this idea that Washington is all alarmed by retributions and protections of friends because it violates norms doesn’t hurt his appeal to many of his voters out there, because it’s part of this larger argument that he’s making. And the larger argument is I am a force of disruption. I am a force that is shaking things up. And the reason why you’re seeing things in the news that are bad about me is because they’re fighting back. And you should stay with me because it’s not just me. It’s about you too.

michael barbaro

Peter, thank you.

peter baker

OK, thank you.

michael barbaro

On Thursday, in an interview with ABC News, Attorney General Bill Barr said that the president’s interference in cases like Roger Stone’s was making it all but impossible for him to run the Department of Justice.

archived recording (william barr) To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors and the department that we’re doing our work with integrity.

michael barbaro

But Barr did not directly criticize the president, and confirmed in the interview that he had overruled prosecutors to recommend a more lenient sentence for Stone. We’ll be right back. Here’s what else you need to know today.

archived recording Are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote? If not, the yeas are 55, the nays are 45. The joint resolution as amended is passed.

michael barbaro