US Politics

Fight to voteUS voting rightsRepublicans blocked a key voting rights bill. Are Democrats out of options?No one is surprised by the Republican effort to block the measure – but the higher-stakes fight is what Democrats do next with the filibuster The fight to vote is supported byAbout this contentSam Levine in New YorkThu 21 Oct 2021 10.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 21 Oct 2021 10.02 EDTSign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterHello, and happy Thursday,Senate Republicans on Wednesday again blocked Democrats from advancing sweeping federal voting rights legislation, escalating one of the most important fights for the future of US democracy.The bill failed to advance on a 49-51 party-line vote (Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, changed his vote at the last minute in a procedural maneuver that will allow him to bring it up again). It would have required states to automatically register voters when they interact with motor vehicle agencies, offer two weeks of early voting, allow anyone to request a mail-in ballot, and outlaw the severe manipulation of electoral districts, a practice called gerrymandering.No one was particularly surprised by the Republican effort to block the measure – they already blocked an earlier version of the bill two times this year. But the higher-stakes fight is what Democrats do next with the filibuster, a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Republicans are using the provision to prevent a vote on the bill.“What we saw from Republicans today is not how the Senate is supposed to work,” Schumer said after the vote.Democrats have been calling to get rid of the filibuster, arguing that the rule, once envisioned as a tool to bring compromise, had turned into a GOP weapon of obstruction. Now, all eyes will be on two Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, two of the staunchest supporters of keeping the filibuster. If Democrats were to get rid of the rule, they could advance the voting rights bill with a majority vote.A few weeks ago, I wrote about why I was optimistic that this vote could be a crucial turning point for Manchin. After Republicans blocked a more expansive voting rights bill earlier this year, Manchin reportedly made efforts to get GOP support for the measure. Republican recalcitrance in the face of those good-faith efforts could push Manchin to open up to changing the filibuster rules. I still think that Manchin would not have put so much effort into the revised measure if he wasn’t willing to do something to get it passed.Civil rights groups and other activists are also going to be closely watching how Joe Biden responds in the aftermath of another voting rights failure. While the president strongly supports voting rights legislation, the White House has not explicitly endorsed getting rid of the filibuster. Senate Democrats would like to start debate on the Freedom to Vote Act. Senate Democrats have worked hard to ensure this bill includes traditionally bipartisan provisions. But Senate Republicans are likely to block even debate on the bill, as they have before on previous voting rights bills. “It’s unconscionable,” the president said in a statement on Wednesday.Aside from a brief comment earlier this year, the White House also has not publicly pressured Manchin and Sinema around the voting rights bills. That has infuriated some activists, who feel that the White House is not putting enough political muscle behind pushing voting rights legislation.“You said the night you won that Black America had your back and that you were going to have Black America’s back,” the Rev Al Sharpton, the civil rights leader, said at a voting rights rally in August. “Well, Mr President, they’re stabbing us in the back.”What’s next?The next few weeks are going to be some of the most critical for Democrats – and no one quite knows what will happen. After the vote, Schumer and other Democrats immediately suggested they weren’t giving up on voting rights legislation, hinting they would do away with the filibuster if necessary. Schumer also promised he would bring the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a separate bill that would restore a critical provision of the Voting Rights Act, up for a vote next week. Another filibuster of that would only increase pressure on Manchin and Sinema.It’s also worth watching whether the White House escalates public pressure on Manchin and Sinema after the repeated filibusters – something it has not been willing to do.Senator Amy Klobuchar, one of the main sponsors of the bill, said in a statement on Wednesday that Democrats would not give up on the bill, hinting that changes to the filibuster were needed.“We will continue to fight. We must restore the Senate so we can work together in the way the Founders intended to take on the challenges facing our democracy,” the Minnesota Democrat said in a statement.There would be immediate, tangible consequences if Democrats were able to pass the bill. In Texas, Republicans are on the verge of implementing a new congressional map filled with district lines that are distorted to entrench the party’s control of the state for the next decade and blunt the growing power of minority voters. The bill contains a provision that would allow courts to block maps if a computer simulation shows they produced an unacceptable level of bias in two of four recent elections. The new Texas map would fail the bias test, said Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice.On Tuesday, I spoke with Rafael Anchia, a Democrat in the Texas House who sat on the panel tasked with redrawing district lines. The previous evening, the Texas legislature gave final approval to the maps, and Anchia had been working until 3am. He described how frustrating it was to watch his Republican colleagues rush through the maps, giving the public little chance to provide feedback on the plans.“It’s pretty demoralizing, to be honest with you,” he told me. “The Senate has to act. They have to act because democracy requires it,” he added.Reader questionsThank you to everyone who wrote in last week with questions. You can continue to write to me each week at [email protected] or DM me on Twitter at @srl and I’ll try and answer as many as I can.John writes: Is it now time for the US to adopt the obvious system that appoints the presidential candidate who has the most popular votes?There have been growing calls to get rid of the electoral college in recent years, especially after two presidents, George W Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016, won the presidency but lost the electoral vote. To me, it’s part of a broader recognition of how certain rules and practices – the filibuster, partisan gerrymandering – undermine America’s democratic ideals.I’m curious to see how and if the push grows ahead of the 2024 election. There is an interesting effort, bubbling in some states, to create a compact where states would agree to award their electors based on the winner of the popular vote.TopicsUS voting rightsFight to voteRepublicansDemocratsUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

OpinionColin PowellColin Powell: a life served as fodder for US imperialismCynthia A YoungUnlike many Black military men before him, Powell behaved just as the white leaders had: waging war when and where he was told to do so Thu 21 Oct 2021 06.32 EDTLast modified on Thu 21 Oct 2021 14.45 EDTI cannot think of Colin Powell without thinking of my own father, who, like Powell, served in the US military. My dad was only a generation older than Powell, but that gap was the difference between serving in a segregated or integrated military. A second world war veteran, my midwestern father was stationed at a southern military base in a segregated marine corps.Colin Powell: the man who might have been America’s first Black presidentRead moreIn those days, a Black man could be demoted for failing to show “proper deference” to white officers, a fate that befell my father, who I never saw defer to anyone. My father never spoke of his time in the military, seemingly indifferent to it, not ashamed exactly, but not proud either. I suspect that he, like many Jim Crow era Black men, enlisted because of the GI Bill, which paid for college and then law school, degrees that would have otherwise been out of reach for my father.Yes, the federal government paid for my father’s education, but at the same time, it enforced restrictive covenants that barred him and other Black people from federally subsidized suburban housing. Nonetheless, my father’s enlistment was a ticket into the middle class, even as it was a Faustian bargain my father made to get a tiny sliver of the American pie. But he never forgot, was never allowed to forget, that the benefits he reaped derived from and reinforced the racist apartheid system in which he lived. He knew as do many Black people that serving in the military meant becoming disposable fodder, useful to the military as cooks, janitors or human shields. It meant fighting for a country that does not value Black life.Powell, too, made his own Faustian bargains, and in the end, he also served as fodder for US imperial ambitions destined to fail. He did this, most famously, in his 2003 speech to the UN security council in which he claimed that Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction.Powell’s televised testimony is widely credited with turning US public opinion in favor of invading Iraq, though when polled at the time, a majority of Black people continued to question the war’s necessity and morality. Powell’s position, the result of a civil rights movement in which he did not participate, lent cover to the Bush administration, as it was intended to do, a fact Powell would later lament. He squandered his political capital and popularity to shroud a pointless, endless war in the cloak of moral certitude.However, 2003 was not the first time that Powell justified US imperial ambitions. In fact, he rose to prominence in 1968 when, as a young major, he investigated the My Lai massacre, a mass murder of hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese suspected of aiding the Vietcong. As his superiors no doubt hoped, Powell could not substantiate eyewitness accounts, concluding in his report that relations between the US military and the South Vietnamese people were “excellent”.Later, as he would with his US testimony, Powell would regret his part in covering up My Lai, which was widely condemned as a war crime. In 1989, Powell was again at the center of an imperial adventure. This time the setting was Panama, and the pretext was deposing that country’s leader, Manuel Noriega, who was wanted in the US on drug trafficking charges. Powell, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, used the invasion, which he named “Just Cause”, as a laboratory for developing the Powell Doctrine, which dictated that the US only go to war to protect strategic interests and once engaged, must have a decisive plan for winning and a clear exit strategy. Ironically, the second Iraq war, the war for which Powell will long be remembered, followed none of these principles.By the time the first Iraq war occurred, Powell had perfected his doctrine. As the war’s chief military strategist, Powell spoke at a televised press conference before the war began to explain how US military would prosecute the war swiftly and decisively, avoiding a bloody and extended defeat like the one in Vietnam.As he would 12 years later at the UN, Powell explained in his calm, authoritative tone why the war was both necessary and ethical. Like the invasion of Panama, US involvement in the first Iraq war lasted less than two months. Bombarding Iraq from the air and on the ground, the US military killed thousands of Iraqis while suffering only 300 casualties. This was the fulfillment of Powell’s boast: “First, we’re going to cut [the Iraqi army] off, and then we’re going to kill it.” The war’s swift and successful conclusion made Powell so popular with both Democrats and Republicans that he briefly considered a run for the 1996 presidency.Again and again throughout his storied rise, Powell made Faustian bargains, publicly endorsing military excursions, including both Iraq wars, that he privately admitted were risky enterprises. Whether Powell knew the falseness of the intel on which his security council testimony rested, whether he genuinely failed to find evidence of the My Lai massacre or whether he regretted the first Iraq war’s toll in blood and treasure, Powell, like the military man he was, never broke ranks.The price for inclusion and advancement in the military and the country it represents required of Powell that he follow orders, even when they were illegal, unethical, or simply strategically wrongheaded. Unlike many Black military men before him who resisted in big and small ways, Powell behaved just as the white leaders before him had, waging war when and where he was told to do so.Though his trajectory made him a man of many firsts, his Blackness never seemed to influence the military or professional decisions Powell made. The price of admission to the “American dream” was conformity and obedience. It was deference to a country and a white supremacist society that made of him an exception, if not the rule of racial equality.
Cynthia A Young is associate professor of African American studies, English and women’s, gender and sexuality studies at Pennsylvania State University
TopicsColin PowellOpinionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

Bill ClintonBill Clinton says he is ‘glad to be home’ after hospital admissionFormer US president releases video thanking staff at California hospital where he was treated for infection01:08Associated PressThu 21 Oct 2021 06.21 EDTFirst published on Thu 21 Oct 2021 06.18 EDTBill Clinton has released a video saying he is on the road to recovery after being hospitalised in southern California for six days to treat an infection unrelated to Covid-19.Clinton, 75, who arrived home in New York on Sunday, said he was glad to be back and that he was “so touched by the outpouring of support” he had received while in hospital last week.An aide to the former US president said he had a urological infection that spread to his bloodstream but was on the mend and never went into septic shock, a potentially life-threatening condition.Clinton thanked the doctors and nurses at the University of California, Irvine medical center.Clinton has faced health scares in the years since he left the White House in 2001. In 2004, he had quadruple bypass surgery after experiencing prolonged chest pains and shortness of breath. He returned to hospital for surgery for a partially collapsed lung in 2005, and in 2010 he had a pair of stents fitted in a coronary artery.He responded by embracing a largely vegan diet that resulted in him losing weight and reporting improved health.TopicsBill ClintonCaliforniaUS politicsHealthnews More

Climate crisis‘No more time to waste,’ chair of House climate panel warns ahead of Cop26Democrat Kathy Castor warns that even Biden’s ambitious Build Back Better bill ‘doesn’t really get us to net zero by 2050’ Lauren Gambino in Washington@laurenegambinoThu 21 Oct 2021 03.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 21 Oct 2021 03.01 EDTThe alarm bells are ringing. A code red has been declared. With no less than the future of the planet at stake, Kathy Castor, chair of the select committee on the climate crisis, has warned Democrats that there is precious little time left to enact the US president’s aggressive climate agenda and avert the most catastrophic impacts of global warming.“We just don’t have any more time to waste,” the Florida congresswoman said in an interview with the Guardian ahead of crucial UN climate talks in Scotland. “We have got to act now or else we’re condemning our children and future generations to a really horrendous time.”‘This is our last chance’: Biden urged to act as climate agenda hangs by a threadRead moreClimate scientists say the world must keep the average global temperature from rising more than 1.5C (2.7F) compared with the pre-industrial era, or risk catastrophically more dangerous effects of climate change. Upon rejoining the global effort to confront the climate crisis, Joe Biden vowed that the US would cut emissions by 50% to 52% below 2005 levels by the end of the decade.Perhaps the best hope of achieving that goal is embedded in legislation pending before Congress that must overcome the objections of a coal-state senator and razor-thin Democratic majorities. If enacted, Castor said the plan to slash planet-heating emissions by accelerating America’s transition away from fossil fuels would be “the most important and far-reaching clean energy and climate bill ever passed by the US Congress”.But with days left before Biden is expected to depart for the summit, significant obstacles remain.Senator Joe Manchin, one of the party’s last remaining holdouts, made clear that he would not support a proposed clean electricity program, effectively gutting the most powerful piece of Democrats’ climate plan. The $150bn proposal, known as the Clean Electricity Performance Program, used a carrot-and-stick approach to reward energy utilities that transitioned from coal and natural gas toward clean power sources like wind, solar and nuclear energy, and penalizing those that do not.Now White House officials and congressional negotiators are scrambling to salvage pieces of the plan while finding alternative policies that will keep the US on track to meet the president’s emissions targets, including, potentially, a tax on carbon dioxide pollution.“It’s clear that investing in clean electricity is one of the most effective ways to unlock emission reductions and create good-paying jobs across our economy, which is why we’ve fought to include a robust Clean Electricity Performance Program in the Build Back Better Act,” Castor said in a statement following news of Manchin’s objection to the program. “Every step we take now to clean up our electricity sector will make a world of difference in the decades to come – and we cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road.”After the Democratic takeover of the House in 2018, Castor was tapped to lead the newly created House select committee on the climate crisis. Its task was to conduct research and hearings that would educate the public about the threat posed by climate change and pave the way for mitigation legislation.Last year, the panel’s Democratic members released a sprawling climate plan that aimed to put the nation on the path to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It also aimed to make environmental justice a priority by focusing on the communities that are the most vulnerable to climate change.A summer of devastating heatwaves, wildfires and hurricanes has made the risk of inaction painfully clear to Americans across the country, Castor said, speaking from Tampa, Florida, where rising sea levels are no longer a threat but a costly reality for many residents.“When you have farmers whose crops or livestock have been flooded out or dropping from an extreme heat, or wildfires are burning through your town, or your electric grid isn’t resilient and people die in Texas because of a cold snap, that’s a wake-up call,” Castor said. “And I think now people are really looking at policymakers and asking, ‘What are you going to do about it?’”Republicans remain a chief obstacle to Democrats’ climate goals.After years of denialism, there is a growing acceptance of climate science among rank-and-file Republicans, particularly those representing frontline districts battered by climate-fueled disasters. And yet, the party remains largely opposed to plans to stop burning fossil fuels, which climate scientists say is the most efficient and effective strategy to guard against an even hotter planet.Castor said Republicans are missing a once-in-a-generation economic opportunity. Democrats have touted the transition to clean energy as an economic boon, with the president repeatedly promising “jobs, jobs, jobs”.“As clean energy grows in districts across the country, you’ll see more Republicans finally understanding it creates jobs and is less costly for the folks they represent,” Castor predicted. “That’s kind of the only pathway out of the trap they’ve gotten themselves into – to talk about climate but not do anything about it.”Democrats face a difficult electoral map in 2022, with their control of both chambers at risk. Many activists and Democratic lawmakers believe they have one, perhaps fleeting, chance to aggressively confront climate change before possibly losing their majorities to Republicans, who are far less likely to act on the crisis.Castor believes that the Democrats’ spending bill cannot be the last legislative action taken by this Congress. But she is less concerned by the political deadline than the scientific one.Despite the difficulty of finding a consensus among Democrats on climate legislation, Castor believes there is more Congress can do this term. As an example, she pointed to a funding bill passed by the House that aims to minimize the carbon footprint of the Department of Defense, by making military bases more resilient and bolstering investments in research to better understand the security implications posed by climate change.At the same time, she expects the president will continue to use his executive authority and the rule-making powers of the Environmental Protection Agency to combat climate change.“We’ll have a lot more to do,” she said. “Even if we pass the Build Back Better Act as it is, that doesn’t really get us to net zero by 2050, which is the goal.”Democrats are increasingly optimistic that they will send Biden to Glasgow with an agreement that proves the US is capable of making good on its climate promises. How Democrats accomplish this – and whether they can do it by 31 October, when the summit is due to begin – is unclear.TopicsClimate crisisHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsBiden administrationCop26featuresReuse this content More

TV reviewTelevisionFour Hours at the Capitol review – a chilling look at the day the far right ‘fought like hell’With Trump’s words ringing in their ears, a violent mob descended on the US Capitol on 6 January. This powerful film details what happened – and their horrifying lack of remorse Lucy Mangan@LucyManganWed 20 Oct 2021 17.30 EDTNick Alvear started believing in Trump “because 800,000 kids in America go missing every year – held captive, tortured and killed … enslaved sexually … I’m part of the first wave bringing awareness of this.”It is perhaps the greatest of Four Hours at the Capitol’s many strengths that it gives space to those who were most eager for battle. They call themselves insurrectionists, while others in the BBC Two documentary that details the unfolding of the 6 January assault on the meeting place of the US Congress refer to them as domestic terrorists.Jamie Roberts’ film (he also directed The Rise of the Murdoch Dynasty) lays out the timeline of that extraordinary day in exhaustive but never exhausting detail. Phone footage shot by Eddie Block, a member of the far-right group Proud Boys, shows them beginning to gather at 10.35am. By 12.06pm they have heard enough of Trump’s Stop the Steal speech to have started marching towards Capitol Hill. Viewers are reminded of the barely veiled exhortations to action that were ringing in their ears: “You’ll never take back our country with weakness … If you don’t fight like hell you won’t have a country any more.”The film hears from many of those on the other side of the fight, including some of the 40 or 50 officers who did their best to hold back the 1,500-strong mob as they came up the steps and broke into the building, and from members of Congress (Republican and Democrat) and others who found themselves trapped inside. The latter include Leah Han, a staffer in Nancy Pelosi’s office, who recounts how she and her colleagues relocated from the room that bore Pelosi’s name to an anonymous office down the hall and hid under the desks as the noise of invasion got louder, hoping that they would not be killed or raped before help arrived.The accounts of those trapped and of the officers hopelessly outnumbered outside are as harrowing as you might expect – whether they are recollected with stoicism (“For hours we were sitting there, the president not saying a word,” says Republican representative for Illinois Adam Kinzinger. “To me that was beyond the pale”) or fury (most of the officers). Foremost among the second group is Mike Fanone, who was grabbed by the mob as he and others battled for hours to keep protesters out of the tunnel that would have let them flood the building. He was Tasered and beaten before being passed back to safety. He suffered a traumatic brain injury and a heart attack. “That I and a shit-ton of my fellow officers almost lost their lives pisses me the fuck off,” he says.The documentary passed lightly – too lightly, maybe – over the lack of preparation by Capitol and Metropolitan Police Department officials on the day, given the known combustibility of the situation and the hesitant response from the National Guard and others to pleas for reinforcement. However, overall there was a much-needed sense of the true human impact of what happened. From the outside, ruined by Hollywood spectacle as we all have been, perhaps it didn’t look that bad. Once we were taken inside – shown the mentality and mechanics of the crowd, and given the proper scale by which to judge – it was that bad, and worse.Most chilling of all was the lack of remorse among the rioters interviewed, coupled with their unassailed – and one must presume, at this point, unassailable – devotion to the man they believe commanded them to storm the Capitol. There was also a generous portion of denial and doublethink from people like Couy Griffin, part of the Cowboys for Trump group, who insists he was standing among thousands of “peaceful patriots” and thinks that “you’re really stretching it to say it was supporters of Trump that did it … just because they have a Trump hat or a Trump T-shirt on”.Three protesters outside the Capitol died from medical emergencies, 140 police officers were injured, one died and – since January – there have been four deaths by suicide among those who were on duty that day. The rage still visibly emanates from Fanone. “I still haven’t made sense of it,” he says, eyes blazing. “And it certainly doesn’t help when the elected leader won’t even acknowledge it occurred.”The underlying collective testimony furnished by Four Hours at the Capitol is that the age of Trump has not yet ended – and the true day of reckoning in the United States is still to come.TopicsTelevisionTV reviewUS politicsreviewsReuse this content More

Climate crisis‘Tired of broken promises’: climate activists launch hunger strike outside White HouseThe protest comes a day after Joe Biden appeared ready to settle for a smaller environmental proposal ahead of the COP26 summit David Smith in Washington@smithinamericaWed 20 Oct 2021 15.20 EDTLast modified on Wed 20 Oct 2021 16.59 EDTWith little more than sun hats, placards and folding chairs, five young activists have begun a hunger strike in front of the White House urging Joe Biden not to abandon his bold climate agenda.The protest came a day after the US president threatened to water down his $3.5tn social and environmental legislation and with Washington’s commitments about to face scrutiny at the COP26 summit in Glasgow.The five protesters said they will eat no food and drink only water. They intend to gather in Lafayette Park every day from 8am to 8pm until their demands – which include a civilian climate corps, clean energy performance program and funding for environmental justice – are satisfied.The climate disaster is here – this is what the future looks likeRead moreOn Wednesday, in bright autumn sunshine, the quintet stood in a row holding signs including “Hunger striking for my dreams” and “Hunger striking for my future children”. They then sat down in red folding chairs with the words “Hunger strike day one” written in giant letters on the pavement before them.“I’m nervous in that I know that I will go on hunger strike until the demands are met, until I’m absolutely physically unable to,” said Ema Govea, a high school student who turned 18 on Tuesday. “That’s scary and I know my parents are worried and my friends back home are worried.”Biden met privately on Tuesday with nearly 20 moderate and progressive Democrats in separate groups as he appeared ready to ditch an ambitious $3.5tn package in favour of a smaller proposal that can win passage in the closely divided Congress. A provision central to Biden’s climate strategy is among those that could be scaled back or eliminated.Joe Manchin, a conservative senator from coal-rich West Virginia, has made clear that his opposes the Clean Energy Performance Plan, which would see the government impose penalties on electric utilities that fail to meet clean energy benchmarks and provide financial rewards to those that do, in line with Biden’s goal of achieving 80% “clean electricity” by 2030.The hunger strikers, who have worked with the Sunrise Movement youth group, warned that such concessions would be disastrous for the planet.Govea, from Santa Rosa, California, said: “Joe Biden made these campaign promises and we worked really hard on his campaign and to get him elected so that he could stop the climate crisis on these promises that he made.”Abandoning Biden’s commitments would signal to Cop26 that America has failed, Govea added. “I won’t let Joe Biden send a message to the world that he’s willing to give up on climate because I know that the American people, and young people across the country and across the world, are terrified but they’re ready to fight.”The hunger strikers drew TV cameras and curious glances from tourists in an area close to the White House that has reopened after months of security restrictions. As they sat, they spoke to reporters, checked emails and contemplated the long haul ahead.Paul Campion, 24, had skipped his usual breakfast of a bagel with cheese and eggs. He said: “I’m nervous about losing my my body weight, my muscles, about what it will do to my energy, to my brain, but I’m putting my body on the line because I’m here to remind Joe Biden of the promises that he’s made and that the stakes are this high, that young people are out here not eating because it’s this urgent and it’s this important.”Campion, a community organizer from Chicago, and his fellow protesters are “sick and tired of broken promises” from Biden and the Democrats, he continued. “I’m hunger striking because I want to live a full, beautiful life without fear of the climate crisis and I want to have children, I want to play with them in the park and I want to have community dinners where I invite my friends and family over and we sing and we have a bonfire.“That’s the future that we can have if Joe Biden will side with the people and deliver on his own agenda and actually fight for it instead of siding with ExxonMobil executives who are trying to gut his climate agenda and trying to prevent any significant federal action on climate change.”TopicsClimate crisisActivismJoe BidenBiden administrationUS politicsUS SenateUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

Steve BannonUS House expected to vote on Thursday to refer Steve Bannon to prosecutorsLawmakers to vote on whether to recommend contempt chargeTrump ally defied subpoena over Capitol attack investigation Ed Pilkington in New York@edpilkingtonWed 20 Oct 2021 11.29 EDTLast modified on Wed 20 Oct 2021 14.18 EDTThe House of Representatives is expected to vote on Thursday to refer Steve Bannon to federal prosecutors for potential criminal charges relating to his defiance of Congress over the investigation into the 6 January Capitol insurrection.Donald Trump’s former chief strategist in the White House is facing deepening legal peril as he continues to refuse to cooperate with the House select committee investigating the Capitol violence. On Tuesday, the nine-member committee, including two Republicans, voted unanimously to recommend criminal prosecution after Bannon refused to comply with a subpoena calling for him to provide documents and to testify.White House outlines plan to vaccinate US children once FDA gives approval – liveRead moreShould the full House decide to recommend contempt charges, the case is likely to pass to federal prosecutors in Washington, who would then have the power to convene a grand jury. Any final decision to charge Bannon would likely be taken at the highest levels of the justice department, given the extreme sensitivity of the case and the exceptionally rare nature of contempt of Congress prosecutions.Should he be convicted of contempt, Bannon faces up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000.The House committee investigating the 6 January insurrection has been steadily tightening the screws on Bannon. At Tuesday’s hearing, Liz Cheney, the representative from Wyoming who has been a leading critic of Trump’s role in inciting the 6 January assault in which five people died, directly accused Bannon of planning the attack.“Based on the committee’s investigation, it appears that Mr Bannon had substantial advanced knowledge of the plans for January 6 and likely had an important role in formulating those plans,” she said. Cheney added that Bannon and Trump’s refusal to comply suggested that “President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of January 6th”.The committee has released a 26-page report setting out its case for why Bannon, the former executive chairman of the rightwing Breitbart News, should be held accountable to Congress. In it, Bannon is said to have played “multiple roles”, including “his role in constructing and participating in the ‘stop the steal’ public relations effort that motivated the attack [and] his efforts to plan political and other activity in advance of January 6th”.The investigators make special reference to a gathering of the Trump campaign’s legal team on the eve of 6 January at the Willard Hotel, two blocks from the White House. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was present with Bannon and together they reportedly contacted several Republican Congress members encouraging them to block the certification of Biden’s victory.Also present was Roger Stone, the political dirty trickster, who left the hotel with bodyguards drawn from the far-right militia group the Oath Keepers.According to Peril, the book by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Bannon spoke to Trump from the Willard Hotel. They discussed the then vice-president Mike Pence’s resistance to playing along with the attempt to subvert the election result.The committee report also quoted at length from Bannon’s War Room podcast which he posted on 5 January. He said: “It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen,” he told his listeners. “OK, it’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in. Tomorrow it’s game day. So strap in. Let’s get ready.”Bannon added: “So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.’ Well, this is your time in history.”Trump has instructed Bannon and other former aides who have been served subpoenas by the House committee not to cooperate. Earlier this month the former president’s lawyers sent a letter to the individuals saying that they were covered by executive privilege.President Biden has formally rejected that argument, saying that the issue of executive privilege is decided by him and that in his opinion it would not be “in the best interests of the United States” to grant it in this case.On Tuesday, Trump lashed back by suing the House committee investigating 6 January. The legal complaint said that the demand for documents was “nothing less than a vexatious, illegal fishing expedition”.TopicsSteve BannonUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More