Remember the dossier? Many journalists (not to mention the FBI) worked hard to confirm its allegations against Donald Trump. They failed miserably. But even then, some Democrats, and their allies in the press, refused to admit the dossier was BS. Instead, they argued that since it had not been proven untrue, it must be true. With that in mind, what standard of proof should apply to the Hunter Biden story? One thing is certain: Republicans and conservatives should not fall into the “not proven untrue” trap. It’s the wrong standard to apply to serious allegations. Instead, media organizations should be working to confirm the details of the Hunter Biden emails. If they succeed, they’ve got a big story. If they fail, they can report that the story could not be confirmed. It’s a very simple approach — too bad many news organizations are not following it.

Republican Rep. Devin Nunes has been in the middle of Trump wars on Capitol Hill. In this podcast, we discuss some scenes from my new book, Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump, in which he played a prominent role. Like, what happened when Republicans took over the secret room where Democrats were conducting their secret impeachment inquiry? What about Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman? What was his relationship to the whistleblower? And did Nancy Pelosi really threaten to impeach President Trump again, right away?

It’s like Russiagate all over again, this time with the Post Office. The news is filled with reports of President Trump’s “assault” on the U.S. Postal Service. The president, Democrats say, is deliberately slowing mail delivery and crippling the Postal Service so that it cannot handle an anticipated flood of voting by mail in the presidential election. Former President Barack Obama says Trump is trying to “kneecap” the Postal Service to suppress the vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the president is trying to “sabotage” the Post Office. The only problem: It’s just not true. Herewith, a commonsense explanation of what’s going on.

You’ve been hearing it for a long time: President Trump will refuse to accept the election results if he loses in November. But now, a secretive group of former government officials has worked through a number of scenarios for the election, and guess what they found? War-gaming a scenario in which Trump lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College — in other words, won the presidency — they found that it was Joe Biden and the Democrats who would not accept the election results. All hell broke loose, as a matter of fact. And then there was the “rogue individual” scenario…

This is the first “Byron York Show” podcast since February. Even though it’s the no chit-chat podcast, I need to explain what’s been going on. The short version: I have written a book. It’s about the long effort to remove President Trump from office, and it will be published on September 8. The title is Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump, and if you would like to pre-order, here is the Amazon page. In this new podcast, I discuss some of the reasons why I wrote it. There’s some news in the book, and I’ll be talking about that a lot more as we get nearer to publication. Also on this episode: The latest on the riots in Portland. Why do the Trump administration and the governor of Oregon seem to be saying such different things about their so-called agreement on the future of federal law enforcement in the city?

So now the Senate has acquitted President Trump on both articles of impeachment. It is the end of a Senate trial marked by wild predictions and intense speculation. So with it all over, it’s time to look at the things that were said about the trial — Republicans will defect! John Roberts will take charge! — and judge them against what actually happened

A special edition from Iowa, where Democrats are struggling with a number of unpalatable options in their presidential caucuses. The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway got her first chance to observe the 2020 version of Joe Biden in action, and her reaction is…not entirely optimistic for the former vice president’s chances. Meanwhile, President Trump is making an all-out effort in Iowa not to win the caucuses — he’s guaranteed to do that — but to put a key swing state in the Trump column for the general election before Democrats even choose a candidate.

The Byron York Show’s new theme music is courtesy of Gunnar Sidak.

On Friday a new movie, “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas In His Own Words,” will open in theaters across the country. The most striking thing about it is obvious from the beginning: The famously publicity-shy Supreme Court justice is talking. A lot. Thomas spoke to filmmaker Michael Pack for 30 hours — yes, 30 hours — of interviews. What emerges is a deeply personal look at a consequential historical figure who has shunned personal revelations for nearly all of his life. In this podcast, Pack talks about Thomas’ life and how 30 hours of interviews turned into an extraordinary film. For more, see

Democrats and their allies in the press have been saying President Trump simply has no defense against articles of impeachment. Hill Republicans made the case for the president, but the fact is, the White House had not produced any comprehensive defense in the nearly four months since impeachment began. Until now. In a 110-page memo, White House lawyers make the process arguments that have been widely discussed. But they also go deeply into the substance of the Trump-Ukraine matter — more deeply than Democrats ever predicted they would. In this solo podcast, Byron takes a look at the arguments Republicans will be making in the contentious days and weeks ahead.

The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump begins in earnest Tuesday. Nobody knows the charges better than Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, who was there for every step of impeachment’s way in the House. The articles of impeachment are actually quite brief, and we go line-by-line through the accusations against the president. Jordan answers them all — he appears to be able to recite key documents by heart — and argues that the Senate should simply dismiss the case before the trial even begins. A preview from a key player in the House.

Impeachment, the Horowitz report, FISA, battling the FBI, suing CNN, trolling Adam Schiff for getting so much of it wrong — Devin Nunes has a lot to talk about. He goes into detail about how he discovered the FBI’s abuses during the Trump-Russia investigation, and how he faced obstacle after obstacle in his work to make them public. Then, after the Mueller report came out, did he foresee Democrats turning on a dime to impeach President Trump over Ukraine? (Spoiler alert: No.) All that and more in a wide-ranging discussion with the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

Democrats are making up impeachment as they go along. They’re sensitive to accusations that they’re rushing — but they’re rushing. Adam Schiff says Democrats have to act quickly because President Trump presents an imminent danger to the country and must be removed ASAP. For her part, Nancy Pelosi says it’s not a rush at all, because the impeachment investigation is really a continuation of the years-long Russia probe

Republican Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, sat through all the impeachment depositions, and then all the hearings. He talks about dealing with the witnesses–Vindman, Sondland, Hill, and others–and sees some waning in impeachment enthusiasm. Polls seem to show that, too. So are Democrats irreversibly committed? Are they on board with what Chairman Schiff is telling them? And on an insanely unrelated note: Did you know that Rep. Stewart has flown around the world faster than any other person?

With public impeachment hearings starting on Capitol Hill, it’s time to look at what the witnesses actually said in those secret Democratic depositions. The star of the show, whenever he is scheduled to testify, will be Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. The National Security Council staffer showed up in full dress uniform — the first witness who actually heard the Trump-Zelensky call — and was celebrated in the press
Back in 1998, the former independent counsel Ken Starr saw House Republicans use his report to impeach Bill Clinton. Now, he’s watching the House race to impeachment again, this time under Democrats and in a very different way
You know the story about a lie getting halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on? Today, a look at two key parts of the impeachment battle that have been the subject of a lot of inaccurate commentary but which we’re finally learning more about. First is the now-infamous Mick Mulvaney news conference; just what concerns did President Trump have before withholding, and later approving, U.S
Nobody knows more about the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation fight than Mollie Hemingway, co-author of “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court.” Now, a new book by two New York Times reporters tries to throw more dirt at Kavanaugh — and Hemingway has taken the lead in debunking its new, flimsy charges
A solo edition taking a look at a story that has roiled the anti-Trump media: Is the president really using military money to prop up his money-losing golf resort in Scotland? Reading Politico, watching MSNBC, you might think one thing
No reporter knows more about the Trump-Russia affair, top to bottom, than Fox News Chief Intelligence Correspondent Catherine Herridge. We go deep into the Little Horowitz Report, on James Comey, and what’s expected in the Big Horowitz Report, on FISA and the beginnings of the Trump-Russia probe

The inspector general’s report on fired FBI director James Comey changed the way students of the Trump-Russia affair view one of the key moments in the investigation. The players: Comey, President-elect Donald Trump, an FBI laptop, a secure video tele-conference, and the Crossfire Hurricane team. Remember when Comey told Trump the FBI wasn’t investigating him? It wasn’t true.

Note: there were some audio issues with the recording of this show. We apologize in advance.