Tangle - Steve Bannon gets held in contempt.

Episode Date: October 26, 2021

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Steve Bannon, the former Trump advisor, in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. Bannon was one of four former Trump officials subpoenaed by the January 6 committee in Congress investigating the riots at the Capitol. Members of the committee believe Bannon has crucial information about plans to obstruct the electoral college ratification of the vote on the same day a Trump rally in Washington D.C. ended with hundreds of rioters storming the Capitol building.Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul, edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.The podcast is edited by Trevor Eichhorn, and music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.You can support our podcast by clicking here.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.

Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome back to the Tangle podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I am your host, Isaac Saul, and if I sound a little hoarse today, it's because I basically lost my voice over the last week. As many of you know, we were off for a few days. I was competing in the U.S. National Championships of Ultimate Frisbee. I was screaming a lot. I'm a captain of the team. I talk a lot, and my voice took a beating. My team lost by one in the championship game, a game so well played by both teams. I'm sure it will go down as one of the sports classics. Unfortunately, I lost to my older brother Noah, who is captaining the opposing team from Raleigh, North Carolina. A proud family moment, but makes me look forward to Thanksgiving a lot less this year.

Anyway, I just want to thank everybody for all the support and graciously allowing us to take a little time off and all the good luck wishes and everything. It was an excellent weekend. Didn't quite end the way I was hoping, but I'm very glad to be back. Before we jump into our quick hits for today, I want to just hit on a few things that happened while we were gone. Fortunately, we did not miss a total blockbuster weekend or week of news, but there were some very important things that happened that I want to make sure we acknowledge. First off, the Supreme Court agreed to your arguments over Texas's new abortion law, adding to what was already going to be a historic term. The U.S. Border Patrol reported 1.7 million arrests on the southern border this fiscal year, the highest total in recorded history despite the number of arrests dropping over the

last few months. The CDC endorsed booster shots of the Moderna and J&J vaccines, as well as mixing and maxing of both initial vaccines and booster shots. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump is launching a new social media network called Truth Social. The Virginia governor's race is now in a dead heat, and Democrats are still haggling over how to pass their infrastructure and reconciliation bills this week. All right, that brings us to our quick hits for today. First off, U.S. officials say they believe Iran was behind a drone strike on an American base in Syria. Number two, the Biden administration has announced a new program that will allow private citizens to help sponsor Afghan refugees.

Number three, experts advising the Food and Drug Administration are meeting to consider endorsing Pfizer's vaccine for young children. Number four, President Biden is planning to campaign with Democrat Terry McAuliffe ahead of Virginia's gu for young children. Number four, President Biden is planning to campaign with Democrat Terry McAuliffe ahead of Virginia's gubernational election. Number five, executives from YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat are being hits for the day, which brings us to today's main story. Today's topic is Steve Bannon. On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Steve Bannon, the former Trump advisor, in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. Bannon was one of four former Trump officials subpoenaed by the January 6th committee in

Congress that's investigating the riots at the Capitol. Members of the committee believe Bannon has crucial information about plans to obstruct the Electoral College ratification of the vote on the same day a Trump rally in Washington, D.C. ended with hundreds of rioters storming the Capitol building. Earlier this month, Bannon's lawyer, Robert J. Costello, informed the House committee that Bannon would not comply with the subpoena. He pointed to Trump's call for former aides and advisors to cite executive privilege and proclaim immunity from the investigation. But given that Bannon was fired by Trump in 2017, legal scholars doubt whether his conversations would fall under executive privilege, a right of privacy typically reserved for official duties of standing presidents under special circumstances.

After Bannon refused to comply with the subpoena, which included documents and testimony, the House voted 229 to 202 to find him in contempt. Nine Republicans crossed party lines on the vote. Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Jamie Butler of Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Fred Upton, and Peter Mayer of Michigan. Each of those nine Republicans, with the exception of two, voted to impeach Trump in January. Bannon has not worked directly for Trump since 2017, but he has remained influential in the pro-Trump movement.

On January 5th, he assured listeners of his radio show that all hell is going to break loose tomorrow, a prediction Democrats have cited as evidence that Bannon had foreknowledge about plans to storm the Capitol building. The committee has said it is interested in following up on other media reports that Bannon encouraged Trump and Republicans to block certification of the election in conversations he had with the president on December 30th and January 5th during meetings at the White House. With the vote, Bannon has been referred to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who can now decide whether or not to prosecute the case. Under federal law, Bannon can face a misdemeanor charge that carries fines of $100 to $100,000 and a jail sentence of one month up to one year. Now, we're going to take a look at some of the reactions from the

left and right to the vote, and then my take. All right, first off, we'll start with what the left is saying. The left has essentially argued that Bannon needs to be held accountable and either compelled to testify or charged by Garland for contempt. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marquez called Bannon's contempt of Congress lawless and ludicrous. Pursuing criminal contempt charges against Stephen Bannon is a terrible way for the House Committee investigating the January 6th insurrection to obtain the Trump aides' testimony. It is also pretty much the only available option,

and one that Attorney General Merrick Garland should quickly pursue, Marcus said. It's predictable because, well, Bannon. He is a professional provocateur. Were it not for Donald Trump's 11th hour pardon, he'd be facing criminal trial for allegedly defrauding credulous donors who believed they were helping build a border wall instead of lining Bannon's pockets. Bannon's pockets. It's infuriating because Bannon clearly has evidence relevant to the committee's investigation, because his claim that he somehow isn't obliged even to show up in response to a subpoena is so lawless, and because his assertion that his testimony is absolutely protected by executive privilege is so ludicrous. Most of all, it's dangerous, because if this intransigence is allowed to stand, it will signal the end of effective congressional oversight, if we're not there already. In Bloomberg, Jonathan Bernstein said it was an easy call to prosecute Bannon. Whatever one thinks about the rest of the January 6th committee, this is an incredibly easy

question, and it's essential to Congress and the presidency that the Justice Department and the courts get this right, Bernstein wrote. Unlike previous such disputes, in which there were serious competing claims, this one is straightforward. Presidents, for example, have claimed that they're entitled to protect conversations with their top advisors from congressional prying. But here, we're not only talking about a former president, we're talking about someone who was a private citizen at the time. And the evidence that Congress is seeking has nothing to do with advising the president about public policy. It's about organizing a political rally at best and an attempted overthrow of the government at worst. The nation will survive just fine if private citizens discussing such things with presidents

are aware that they could be hauled before Congress and asked about them. Nor is there any question that this is a legitimate topic for congressional investigation. There's a doctrine that Congress must have some legislative purpose for its investigations. Whether that's a proper interpretation of Congress's role or not, this again is an easy call. Of course Congress can write election law, including about the Electoral College. Of course Congress can write laws concerning its own safety. If Bannon's assertion is allowed to stand, it's hard to imagine any legitimate congressional investigation of any president.

Congress would be permanently weaker. Presidents would be closer than ever to being above the law. But in the Los Angeles Times, Harry Lippman called for caution, saying Garland's decision was more complicated than it might seem. Attorney General Merrick Garland has a far more complicated decision coming his way than people realize, Lippman said. The righteousness of the referral is not in doubt. There is every reason to think

Bannon has important firsthand information about the planning of the Capitol attack. After all, he crowed the night before on his podcast, All Hell is Going to Break Loose Tomorrow, Strap In. But, Lippman said, it turns out, quote, the Department of Justice has emphatically pushed back against contempt referrals related to the executive branch. One of the pertinent legal counsel memos holds that, notwithstanding the mandatory language of the statute, the Justice Department retains its traditional prosecutorial discretion over contempt referrals. In other words, there is no more duty to go to a grand jury than in any other case. Two more memos, one from 1980 and another from 2008, are yet more significant and on point. They hold that DOJ may not prosecute criminal contempt charges against a current or former White House official

who ignores a congressional subpoena based on an assertion of executive privilege. As a matter of statutory interpretation and the constitutional separation of powers, the reasoning goes, the statute was not intended to and could not lawfully apply to such contempt claims. All right, so that is it for what the left is saying, and we'll move into the right's take. So the right, just like in Congress, is somewhat mixed on this issue. Some agreeing Bannon must be held in contempt, others arguing that Democrats are just conducting a partisan investigation. In hot air, the conservative blogger a la pundit expressed surprise that more than three Republicans voted in favor of holding Bannon in contempt. It's risky but logical for pro-impeachment Republicans to support a subpoena aimed at

investigating the run-up to January 6th, he wrote. But Butler et al. have convinced themselves that they can get away with this vote without angering Trumpists since A, Bannon was the target, not Trump, and B, all of them except Cheney and Kinzinger voted against creating the January 6th committee. I think that's a miscalculation, though. Maga loves a litmus test, and this obviously qualifies because the subpoena is aimed at uncovering what Trump knew in advance about the riot, which is why McCarthy and Steve Scalise urged a no vote. Anything that might expose the great man to legal or political jeopardy must be fought by Republicans, and the nine who voted yes today didn't fight.

The two big surprises among the yes votes were Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Ala Pundit added. Fitzpatrick is a former FBI agent and has always been lukewarm about Trump, let's say. He opposed impeachment twice, but offered a censure resolution condemning Trump after January 6th. His Pennsylvania district is evenly divided between Republican and Democratic voters, so he's been trying to walk a line between not antagonizing either party too much. Today's vote was a bone he threw to his Democratic constituents after throwing one to Republicans by voting against the formation of the committee a while back. Mace is a huge surprise, though.

Her district is R plus 7, and she's facing at least one MAGA primary challenger. In the Post and Courier, Representative Nancy Mace explained why she voted the way she did. The House's special committee to investigate Benghazi was created in the exact manner as the January 6th committee, and the Benghazi committee subpoenaed civilians and members of the Obama administration. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up to testify, Mace wrote. I'm not comparing the merits of these two committees. In fact, I didn't think there was much merit to the January 6th committee, which is why I voted against creating it. Four federal agencies and 10 congressional committees were already investigating the events of January 6th.

We didn't need more. Instead, Mace said, she voted to protect congressional authority. Congress has powers and they are an important check on the other branches of government, Mace wrote. Congress must have the ability to provide broad oversight, conduct investigations, and make use of its subpoena power, which it used throughout our nation's history from investigating the Titanic sinking to exposing organized crime. and over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.

It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. When Republicans were in control, we used this power to investigate Benghazi,

the Whitewater Land scandal, Vince Foster's death, Major League Baseball, Eric Holder, and Lois Lerner, just to name a few. Next Congress, if Republicans are in the majority, we will want and need the same tools to investigate the many crises being overlooked by the current administration. In PJ Media, Matt Margolis called out the Democrats' contemptible flip-flop on

contempt, citing the 2012 Fast and Furious scandal when Attorney General Eric Holder asserted executive privilege to refuse to testify. Seeing as Eric Holder was Obama's wingman who protected him from various investigations, Obama returned the favor by protecting Holder, who falsely claimed to have no knowledge of the operation, by asserting executive privilege over thousands of documents requested by the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. This resulted in Congress's historic and bipartisan vote to hold the Attorney General in contempt, Margolis said. At least 80 Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, staged a walkout over the contempt vote, calling it a misuse of power and chanting shame on you at Republicans,

whom they naturally accused of racism for daring to hold a holder accountable for his obstruction. But now that former Trump advisor Steve Bannon is refusing to comply with a subpoena for their partisan investigation of the January 6th Capitol riot, Democrats no longer believe holding someone in contempt of Congress is an abuse of power or a distraction from more important priorities. Bannon's refusal to participate in a partisan investigation is undeniably more justified than Eric Holder's obstruction of an investigation. Holder tried to cover up that he was aware of the program that resulted in Terry's death, but documents ultimately proved he'd long been briefed about Fast and Furious. All right, so that sums up the right and the left's take, and that brings us to my take.

Okay, honestly, I think that I could concede everything above from both sides and still come to the same conclusion, which is that Bannon should testify or be held in contempt. Even if you take the right's talking points at face value, that the January 6th commission is a partisan charade, that Obama officials stonewalled Congress in the past, that Bannon may have some semblance of protection because of executive privilege, he should still have to testify or face charges. The most obvious reason for this is that former President Trump, who may not even be able to assert executive privilege here, it's pretty untested for ex-presidents, hasn't even formally asserted it in this case. He or his lawyers need to come before the committee and do that for Bannon to have some kind of lifeline. But if the defense actually amounts to Democrats were upset when Republicans held Eric Holder in contempt, that doesn't really seem like a great reason not to hold Bannon accountable too. Still, the idea that Bannon would be protected by executive privilege is a very tough sell at face value. The January 6th riots happened well after

Bannon was a private citizen, as did his meetings with Trump that may have helped egg on those riots. Even if we were to pretend that Bannon was an official government employee at the time, though, executive privilege would only protect his discussions with the president related to crafting policies, making decisions, performing responsibilities of the office, etc. It's designed to protect advisors from having to reveal information that could damage governmental functions. What exactly could Bannon and Trump reasonably claim was policy-oriented or needed to be protected now in regards to January 6th that would somehow damage governmental functions? I don't really

think they have a case there. I wrote in the aftermath of January 6th that the events would forever be a part of Trump's legacy. I never bought into the coup attempt narratives and honestly found them a bit outlandish while actual coups with dead citizens and millions protesting in the streets are happening across the globe right now. I even find the word insurrection a bit over the top, as it seems to carry this connotation of a well-thought-out, pre-planned attempt at overthrowing our government. January 6th struck me much more as the logical conclusion of endless, meritless conspiracies meeting a mad political rally. But the truth is, we still don't really know everything,

which is the point of all these investigations. The John Eastman memo that laid out a detailed and ill-fated plan for Trump to literally overthrow the election got a fraction of the attention it should have. Even questions from pro-Trump Republicans, like what was the FBI's role in monitoring or egging on the events of January 6th, should actually be probed. In short, there are serious questions to be asked, and Bannon is one of the people that has answers. That doesn't mean holding him in contempt will help necessarily. The ideal process would be to take Bannon to court and then enforce the subpoena, not just punish him for refusing to testify. But Congress knows Bannon, like testimony dodgers before him, could delay enforcement through the midterms when Republicans are likely to retake the House and the investigation will be

kaput. What other choice is there really? As Mace argued, even in a world where Bannon is innocent and the investigation is partisan hackery, Congress must retain some power or there's no point or legitimacy to them investigating anything at all. All right, so that's it for my take. And that brings us to our reader question for the day. This one is from Bill in Wayne, New Jersey. He wrote, should Democrats manage to pass it? How secure are the Build Back Better programs?

Could Republicans start canceling parts of it with reconciliation should they gain control of the House, Senate, and executive branch in 2024? It seems like they would be easier to dismantle than the ACA since a lot of it would still be getting built up by then. So Bill, this is a great question and the answer is that they are not very secure. I mean, one of the big ideological debates happening among Democrats right now about passing this reconciliation and the infrastructure bill together is whether they want to do a few things very well and permanently or whether they want to do everything they want in a more piecemeal fashion that leaves them more up to whoever controls Congress and the White House in the next few years. Basically, they're trying to figure out how to fund this bill. The bill is going to have a price tag. The longer some of these policies go on,

the bigger the price tag. In order to get the price tag down, they can either eliminate policies or shorten the length of those policies. So far, it seems like they are going with the latter, shortening the length of those policies. Catherine Rample actually just wrote about this in the Washington Post in an op-ed that may be included in an upcoming Tangle edition about this. She said essentially that Democrats didn't learn their lesson from Obamacare, which was a popular and more entrenched policy that Republicans were still just one vote away from overturning. I think she makes a strong case that if you want Democratic policies to last and flourish, the strategy of funding a few programs for many years

and doing everything you can to make them permanent would be more effective than doing many things for shorter periods of time and leaving the programs vulnerable. More importantly, Rample also pointed out that Obamacare was a law that required a vote to be ended. That meant Republicans in Congress had to take action, which is politically perilous, you know, step to the floor, say we're voting this thing down, and end the program that actually impacts their constituents' lives. The programs Democrats are considering now would expire on their own. That means that many members of Congress wouldn't have some big dramatic newsworthy down vote on a policy. They could just not do anything. Inaction would be the action. And that's less politically dangerous and also has a similar result that the programs end. So I think that

generally speaking, it seems like a huge roll of the dice to pass the laws in the way that Democrats are planning. Right now, it seems like to pass them. Just a reminder, if you want to ask a question, you can reply to the newsletter and write in or fill out the form that is linked to in the newsletter additions. Okay, and that brings us to today's story that matters. This one is about the Chicago City Council, which is planning to vote on what would be one of the nation's largest universal basic income programs ever instituted. More than 5,000 low-income households will receive $500 per month using leftover federal funding from the pandemic stimulus package that was enacted this year. The $31 million program is being proposed as part of

Mayor Lori Lightfoot's 2022 budget and could amount to the most high-profile UBI experiment in American history. While the plan is supported by most of the city's 50 aldermen, it has received pushback from the 20-member Black Caucus, which has urged Lightfoot to use the money for violence prevention programs. You can read more about this story in The Washington Post today. All right, and that brings us to our numbers section for today. These actually don't have a ton to do with our main story like they usually do, but just some really interesting stuff I found on the internet today. 44% is the percentage of Americans who say

they feel very or somewhat confident in the Biden administration's ability to ensure a post-pandemic economic recovery. 52% is the percentage of Americans who said that in January of 2021, meaning he's lost about 8% of voters saying that they feel confident in the Biden administration's ability to ensure a post-pandemic economic recovery. One is the number of times that the party holding the White House has won the Virginia governor's race since 1977, and it only happened in 2013 when Terry McAuliffe, who is running now, won the governorship while Obama was in office. 23.5% is the percentage drop in traffic on the WashingtonPost.com website over the last year. 21.7% is the percentage drop in traffic on

FoxNews.com over the last year. A little bit of a humble brag, but 257% is the percentage growth in Tangle's mailing list over the last year. So take that, Washington Post and Fox News. All right, everybody. And that brings us to our Have a Nice Day section. You can file this one under all-time rescue stories. I haven't ever really read anything like this. But two men in British Columbia were

saved by a group of quick-thinking Sikh men who unraveled their turbans, tied them together with their jackets to form a makeshift rope, and pulled the men to safety. The two men had gotten stuck on a steep rock in British Columbia's Golden Ears Park with raging floodwaters and a cliff beneath them. That's when a group of five Sikh men were hiking in the park, noticed the two Canadians in trouble, and immediately went looking for help. But they had no cell service, and after 10 minutes of trying to track down a park ranger or someone who could help them, they decided they had to act. So they tied their jackets and their turbans together, created a 33-foot-long lifeline they used to pull the men to safety from the rock

this is just nuts anyway npr has the story today you can go check it out if you want i thought it was a pretty nice pick me up all right guys that is it for today's podcast as always please go give us a five star rating if you're listening somewhere where you can rate podcasts and if you want to support this project you can go to our anchor page or just the episode description of wherever you are listening and you will see a link to pledge some support

you can subscribe to the podcast for five bucks or nine bucks a month something like that and it just helps us keep this thing going until we grow big enough to get some advertisers and find some new revenue all right everybody it's good to be back. Thanks again for listening, and we will see you tomorrow. Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul, edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman,

and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager, Magdalena Bokova, who also helped create our logo. The podcast is edited by Trevor Eichhorn and music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.

It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.