Donald Trump is now the only president ever impeached twice. Yes, that says a lot about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s, and the Democratic Party’s, obsessive quest to remove him from office. But the impeachment is also the result of a disastrous turn in Trump’s presidency since the November 3 election. The turn was so consequential that it makes sense to divide Trump’s term into the time before November 3, 2020, and then what happened after. With the notable exception of the COVID vaccine, everything Trump did after the election has led to catastrophe for himself, the Republican Party, and the nation. And it all stemmed from one decision: Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the election.

Democrats started trying to remove President Trump from office before he entered office. Now they are proposing to remove him from office after he leaves office. How do you remove an ex-president? He’s already gone. That is the bizarre question posed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s obsessive quest to re-impeach Donald Trump with just a few days left in his term.

There are some Republicans in Washington who wish inauguration day were today, or tomorrow — or yesterday. They supported President Trump and appreciated his significant accomplishments, but now they are more than ready to move on from what has become a disastrous end to the Trump presidency. The fact is, though, the president’s term lasts for nine more days, and the GOP could see partisan wildness beyond anything they’ve experienced before, starting with a unprecedented quickie impeachment.

It’s possible to have two entirely different but entirely compatible reactions to accounts of President Trump’s Saturday phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. First, the president clearly tried to press Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to flip Georgia from Biden to Trump. Even though Trump obviously believes the phantom votes are rightfully his, he stepped over the line of propriety by trying to push Georgia election officials to change the result. At the same time, Raffensperger has NOW given shifty, evasive answers to basic questions about his decision to make his conversation with the president public. What was he trying to accomplish with the revelation, which just happened to come in the last hours of the Georgia Senate race? Raffensperger appears to have acted more from personal motivations than a desire to expose the president’s misconduct.

Democrats and their allies in the press spent the last four years accusing President Trump of being soft on Russia. And worse: Some called the president a Russian asset, a traitor, Putin’s patsy, and much, much more. It was all BS, because behind the rhetoric was the stark reality that Trump, and his administration, have actually been tougher on Russia than many of his predecessors. Now, with the president on the way out, one lone voice in the anti-Trump press — CNN, specifically — has spoken the truth out loud. It’s not too late for others to do the same.

House Democratic leaders are trying to keep the espionage scandal surrounding Intelligence Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell under tight control. But it’s going to be an uphill battle. Republicans are pushing harder and harder to learn more about Swalwell’s relationship with Chinese spy Christine Fang. And after an FBI briefing for GOP leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, it’s becoming clear the story will get out eventually.

There’s been a lot of commentary in recent days about President Trump, the election, and martial law. It is unclear what the president himself thinks about it — he tweeted that reports were “fake news” and “knowingly bad reporting” — but it is clear that his former national security adviser, retired General Michael Flynn, is expressing views about a possible military role in the election that are reckless and alarming. In short, Flynn has floated the idea of Trump seizing voting machines from around the country and sending the military into some key states to “re-run” the presidential election. What to make of that? Is it just talk? Something more? It should go without saying that acting on Flynn’s proposals would be catastrophic for all involved, and the country as a whole. So what’s going on?

The Electoral College has voted to elect Joe Biden president. That is done. But there is one more step in the process. On January 6, Congress will officially ratify the Electoral College vote and declare Biden the president-elect. Now, though, there is talk that some House Republicans will try to disrupt the ceremony. The plan, such as it is, is being denounced as an “assault on democracy,” but it will surely go nowhere. How do we know that? Because Democrats tried the same thing on January 6, 2017 in an effort to stop the ratification of President Trump’s electoral victory. One difference: Back then, it wasn’t called an assault on democracy. Today’s podcast also features a reading from “OBSESSION,” Byron’s book on the long effort to remove Trump from office.

With the meeting of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court’s denial of the Texas case, President Trump is running out of options to challenge the election results. Yes, some supporters believe he still has paths to victory. But to win he needs to change the results in not one, not two, but three states, and no legal action currently underway can do that. So it’s time to talk about what happens next.

After months of stonewalling Trump efforts to pass targeted, short-term relief for millions of Americans suffering in the pandemic, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has changed her mind. What she blocked before is now OK. Why? Because, Pelosi explained, there’s a new president and a vaccine on the way. Huh? Didn’t the absence of a vaccine in the last several months make it more urgent to help people? And why refuse to help suddenly-unemployed Americans just because Donald Trump was president? Pelosi’s flip-flop revealed the cold political calculations behind her blockade — and the weird obsession she has developed about resisting Trump.

Some in the media knew the story of the trip before Trump even flew to Valdosta, Georgia on Saturday. The president would rant about election results and in the process undermine purpose of trip — to campaign for Republican Senators Kelly and David Perdue. News accounts, even the ones published after Trump’s speech, reflected those preconceptions. But there was much more going on in Valdosta. Trump pushed hard for Loeffler and Perdue. Over and over, he urged Georgians to vote — by mail, too! And he pushed back at two of the lawyers filing lawsuits on his behalf — Sidney Powell and Lin Wood — for urging an election boycott. “We can’t do that,” Trump said. So here is the real story.

Wednesday witnessed one of the most extraordinary events in recent political history. With two critical Senate races underway in Georgia — with Republican control of the Senate at stake — two prominent allies of a Republican president traveled to the state to urge voters not to vote for Republican candidates.

Attorney General William Barr has appointed John Durham as special counsel investigating the Trump-Russia investigation. Durham’s new status will make it harder for Biden to fire him. It also clears the way for a public report. And that means we will learn more about the FBI’s effort to target the 2016 Trump campaign. People who expected top officials to be led away in handcuffs expected too much. This is significant.

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?

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.