It's 'Ms. Cheney' if you're nasty

Last night, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol voted unanimously to hold the certifiably nasty former White House aide Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress, after he defied a subpoena for documents and testimony last week. The committee chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, said Bannon "stands alone in his complete defiance of our subpoena," but the panel "won't be deterred. We won't be distracted. And we won't be delayed." Rep. Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans on the panel, was another standout at the proceedings, not only excoriating Bannon but putting Donald Trump on notice as well.

• — The contempt resolution asserts that Bannon has no legal standing to rebuff the committee. Trump's lawyer has argued that Bannon should not disclose information because it is protected by the privilege of the ex-president's office. The committee noted that Bannon, fired from his White House job in 2017, was a private citizen when he spoke to Trump ahead of the attack. Trump has filed a lawsuit against the committee, but has not asserted executive privilege claims to the panel itself.
•  
• — What happens next? Last night's vote sends the contempt resolution to the full House, which is expected to vote on the measure tomorrow. House approval would send the matter to the Justice Department, which would then decide whether to pursue criminal charges. Asked last week if the DOJ should prosecute those who refuse to testify, President Biden said yes. A DOJ spokesman said the department would make its own decisions. —Associated Press
•  
• — Liz drops the gauntlet. "Based on the committee's investigation, it appears that Mr. Bannon had substantial advanced knowledge of the plans for Jan. 6 and likely had an important role in formulating those plans," said Cheney. She argued that Bannon and Trump's invocations of executive privilege "appear to reveal one thing: They suggest that President Trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of Jan. 6, and this committee will get to the bottom of that." Amen. —Insider

'A downward spiral toward a hollow shell of democracy'

Liz Cheney wasn't the only public official to unload on Donald Trump yesterday. Ahead of today's Senate vote on the Freedom to Vote Act, Sen. Angus King had this to say about the ex-president: "In relentlessly pursuing his narrow self-interest, he has grievously wounded democracy itself." Tough, but more than fair. The bill would serve as an antidote to the state-level, Republican-led restrictions on ballot access that have been put into place since the 2020 election. Senate Democrats need the support of at least 10 Republicans to reach a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster. King doesn't see that happening. "I've talked to Republicans myself," he said. "I don't think Republicans here are interested in short circuiting what their brothers and sisters are doing across the country." Stay tuned. —The Independent

MORE: Iowa Democratic chair says he received lynching threat after criticizing Trump —The New York Times

Waldman: The Senate's moment of truth on democracy reform 

"In 2020, despite the pandemic, and despite voter suppression, we had the highest turnout since 1900. The election was secure and safe. It was a remarkable achievement. The response: Trump's Big Lie, an insurrection driven by that lie, and now a wave of new state laws also driven by that lie. Nineteen states have passed 33 laws making it harder to vote. State and local election administrators face violent threats and intimidation for their public service, as Republican-controlled legislators try to rig election rules to assure their control at the state and federal level. And in both Democrat- and Republican-controlled states across the country, partisans are drawing maps that lock in their party's control in a way that too often discriminates along racial, ethnic, and partisan lines. The Freedom to Vote Act would stop this voter suppression and gerrymandering, cold." —Michael Waldman at the Brennan Center for Justice

Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is the author of "The Fight to Vote" and previously served as director of speechwriting for former President Bill Clinton.

MORE: Texas' latest congressional gerrymander wouldn’t pass muster under Freedom to Vote Act —The Dallas Morning News

Vaccines for the younger set

Kids might not be happy about this, but their parents likely will be: children ages 5 to 11 will soon be able to get a COVID-19 shot at their pediatrician's office, local pharmacy, and potentially even their school. The White House detailed plans today for the rollout of the Pfizer pediatric shot, expected to be authorized in a matter of weeks. If approved at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory meeting, scheduled for Nov. 2-3, doses of the vaccine will begin shipping to providers across the country, and within days will be ready to go into the arms of kids on a wide scale. The U.S. has purchased 65 million doses, more than enough for every kid in the age group. Kids who get their first shot within a couple weeks of the expected approval will be fully vaccinated by Christmas. —The Boston Globe

MORE: 'Had I not been vaccinated, this would be a far more dire situation' —The Hill

Friedman: China's bullying is a danger to the world

"Ever since Deng Xiaoping opened China to the world in the late 1970s, many in the West wanted to see the country succeed, because we thought China—despite its brutal authoritarian political structure—was on a path to a more open economy and society. Alas, President Xi Jinping has reversed steps in that direction in ways that could pose a real danger to China's future development and a real danger to the rest of the world." —Thomas Friedman in The New York Times

Thomas Friedman is an author and New York Times columnist, focusing on foreign affairs, global trade, and environmental issues.

MORE: China tests hypersonic missile in military expansion —The Wall Street Journal

Focus on the Deripaska investigation

The FBI raided the Washington, D.C., home of Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, yesterday. Investigators also searched a second residence belonging to the aluminum magnate in New York's Greenwich Village. Both searches were said to be part of an ongoing investigation by the Southern District of New York.

• — Who is Deripaska? He's a Kremlin-linked Russian billionaire who rose to prominence during former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Federal court filings revealed that he made a $10 million loan to Paul Manafort, a former chair of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, who was charged as part of the probe for his consulting work in Ukraine and was later pardoned by Trump.
•  
• — What did Deripaska do? A lot, according to the Treasury Department. Deripaska has been investigated for money laundering and was accused of threatening business rivals' lives, illegally wiretapping a government official, and participating in extortion and racketeering. The department also cited allegations that Deripaska "bribed a government official, ordered the murder of a businessman, and had links to a Russian organized crime group." 

1. — So what was yesterday about? Deripaska and several companies he controls were hit with sanctions in 2018 for "having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of" a senior Russian government official, as well as for his work in Russia's energy sector. In 2019, the Trump Administration lifted sanctions on the three companies after an attempt by Congress to block the move failed. The sanctions on Deripaska, however, remained in place. Yesterday's raids are reportedly connected to violations of those sanctions. —CBS News

Rogin: 'I would never count the U.S. out, but I wouldn't be complacent about it either'

"According to Fiona Hill, America's homegrown populism and our democratic dysfunction are now undermining our democracy in fundamental ways at the worst possible time. But blaming Trump or even Russian President Vladimir Putin for the decline of U.S. institutions misses the point… Trump and Putin are actually cut from the same cloth, she said, populists who were able to capitalize on post-Cold War discontent in their societies. Putin came at it from the perspective of an intelligence officer, while Trump approached it as a business owner. But their similar conclusion was that democracy didn't really work, and that one strongman running things was a better approach. … For someone who has tracked the struggle between democracy and autocracy from both sides, Hill knows of what she speaks. Those who still think the democratic experiment is worth preserving should be paying close attention to what she's saying." —Josh Rogin in The Washington Post

Josh Rogin is a Washington Post columnist covering foreign policy and national security.

MORE: Poll: Half of voters say American democracy under 'major threat' —The Hill

What a loss the country has suffered from Colin Powell's passing. His biggest fault was paradoxically his self-effacement, for his ego was not large enough to match his manifest leadership qualities and sound judgment. Thus, he was too good a soldier to obey senior authority and become the cheerleader for an ill-conceived policy to invade Iraq, instead of having a politician's ego that chooses to resign for being better than all that. His integrity has been missed for years. —Steve J., Pennsylvania

When Fox News' John Roberts reported (and then quickly deleted) implications that Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell, who although fully vaccinated died from complications of the Covid virus, he omitted the fact that Mr. Powell was also suffering from multiple myeloma, a form of blood cancer that leaves patients susceptible to Covid even if they have been fully vaccinated. 

One wonders how an alleged journalist could have leaped to such conclusions without doing basic research, investigating whether Mr. Powell had underlying medical conditions before implying that perhaps Covid vaccines don't work. If this is true, John Roberts was sloppy.

But perhaps there is a more sinister reason for this inaccurate reporting: Roberts' bosses at Fox News may have wanted to play up to their most loyal viewers by casting doubt on the efficacy of the Covid vaccines, and chose John Roberts, who has a reputation as more of a real newsman than people like Steve Doocy or Brian Kilmeade, to deliver this message. 

If this is so, John Roberts should do the honorable thing and resign. —Jim V., New York

The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Stand Up Republic Foundation.