Everything we know about the Russia probes so far

Lazaro Gamio / Axios

James Comey's firing is raising questions about what will happen with the FBI's Russian investigation, while the Senate Intelligence Committee is signaling its probe is moving full steam ahead. Here's what we know:

Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election

  • Wikileaks published emails stolen from Democratic officials and Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta during the 2016 election.
  • The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking to undermine Hillary Clinton and to help Donald Trump.
  • The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a public report on its findings in January, and the conclusion was backed by the FBI, the CIA and NSA.

Where the investigation stands

  • On March 20, FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the FBI has been investigating Russian interference in the election since July, and noted that the probe could take months to complete.
  • Comey also revealed that the FBI was investigating whether anyone associated with Trump's campaign colluded with Russia, as well as if any current administration officials have ties to the Kremlin.
  • CNN reported Tuesday that federal prosecutors had issued subpoenas to the associates of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, requesting their business records as part of the ongoing investigation.
  • Trump announced Tuesday night that he was firing Comey on the recommendation of Attorney General Sessions and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein.

Where the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation stands

  • The Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting its own investigation into Russia meddling in the election and potential ties between the Trump team and Russia.
  • Following Comey's ouster, GOP Sen. Richard Burr — chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee — said his panel's probe into Russia's role in the election will move forward.
  • The committee has asked Comey to testify next Tuesday on the status of the FBI's Russia investigation at the time of his firing.
  • The committee issued Flynn a subpoena on Wednesday for documents relevant to the Russia probe.

The Russia links

  • Axios' Stef Kight has listed the six key players in Trumpworld with known dealings with Russian officials.

What's next

New York Times endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warrenand Sen. Amy Klobuchar at the December 2020 debatein Los Angeles. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president, in a decision announced on national television Sunday night.

Why it matters: The board writes in its editorial that its decision to endorse two candidates is a major break with convention that's intended to address the "realist" and "radical" models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field.

Go deeperArrow1 hour ago - Media

What's next in the impeachment witness battle

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Senators will almost certainly get to vote on whether or not to call impeachment witnesses. The resolution laying out the rules of the trial, which will be presented Tuesday, is expected to mandate that senators can take up-or-down votes on calling for witnesses and documents.

Yes, but: Those votes won't come until the House impeachment managers and President Trump's defense team deliver their opening arguments and field Senators' questions.

Inside Trump's impeachment strategy: The national security card

White House counsel Pat Cipollone and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Trump officials say they feel especially bullish about one key argument against calling additional impeachment witnesses: It could compromise America's national security.

The big picture: People close to the president say their most compelling argument to persuade nervous Republican senators to vote against calling new witnesses is the claim that they're protecting national security.