 This is Think Tech Hawaii. And this program is on this day of October 14th, 2021. And this is Politics for the People, a weekly show. And I am your host, Stephanie Stoll Dalton. We are looking at some very intense degrees of concern and also pressure on the TV today as far as the issue of over enforcement or law enforcement is considered. So in this show today, we're gonna talk about the news that where we're seeing these extremes of law enforcement at play in the critical political dramas of our day which we have many of them recently. And these dramas are raising questions about not only the rule of law the U.S. claims to have, but the actual survivability of American democracy. For example, at one extreme, which is an extreme of under enforcement of the law by the legal authorities regarding the assaults, the attacks and stalking of school board members during meetings and members home sites, threats to electoral vote workers and even threats and attacks and stalking of members of Congress and many others. At the other extreme today, we see the January 6th select congressional committee facing the defiance of their subpoenas issued to Steve Bannon and three other officials, former officials close who work close to the former president to come for testimony to testify about activities during the period of the Capitol insurrection or leading up to the Capitol insurrection. And now pressure mounts for the January 6th committee to pursue extreme enforcement of the OJ criminal prosecution that current attorney general criminally prosecute this subpoena defiance that we see happening today, yesterday and in the days to come. Is this a move then to over enforcement when much of what we've already seen for weeks is under enforcement and no enforcement at all for people who are under tremendous stress and threat. Now, what do these extremes tell us about our legal system and how does such an irregular approach solve any of the current major problem of the Capitol, the congressional select committee regarding their subpoena defiance. So has this what I'm describing as a kabuki experience of the former president, another one of those reveal deficiencies in our system that we could not see before. And now we are left somewhat aimless in how to manage to get control of the situation and bring on the appropriate level of enforcement. So regarding all of that, we have a committee here, a panel to discuss these issues of enforcement and they show guests are Jay Fidel, Winston Welch and Tim Apachello. So welcome to the program today and to the topic. So I just wanted to ask if, as we've all heard about the lengthy process of the DOJ for moving towards any indictment at all, if that's what the congressional select committee uses to do, which is one pressure they're under to do from certain sources that they want to move to recommending indictments and criminal prosecution for defying these subpoenas. Are we learning that the US is now saddled with an unwieldy medieval process that does not serve today's legal needs at all? Is there something that we're finding out here that we need to also pay attention to along with the rest of the pressing needs? So Jay, you have a legal, you're a lawyer, so tell us what is it that we're in here? It just, it doesn't seem like there's anywhere to go no matter the choice. I haven't been involved in a whole lot of contempt proceedings. So I don't claim any expertise on how this should work, but if you're saying that this is burdensome, you're agreeing with the New York Times, there was a piece that just published this morning about what the Democrats are saying, the committee is saying is it's a burdensome procedure and it's gonna take a while and it's probably not gonna get ironed out for a long time because it will, it is going ultimately to court. And we cannot have confidence that courts are gonna move with any dispatch on this. So yeah, the system isn't working well for this particular issue. And maybe it's not working well in general right now these days, not only because we move slowly, maybe much more slowly than we should be, but because the judges are not, they don't have the public confidence right up to the Supreme Court. Anyway, so my comments about the choice of remedies, we've been reading about possible remedies that the Democrats might employ and one of them would be just to block them up, Trump's term and get on with it. Don't understand why they haven't done anything like that. What they're gonna do is next Tuesday, they're gonna have a big vote at the house, it'll pass, I guess it's a referral to the attorney general for criminal prosecution is what they contemplate. And we know the attorney general doesn't move that quick and he's very attentive about everything. So that's not gonna happen right away if I were the attorney general, limited to this move on Tuesday, I would be writing those papers already right now, I'd be ready to go and I moved with tremendous dispatch and I would prevail on the courts, whatever courts are involved to move with dispatch also. But I'll tell you the truth, I don't have a lot of confidence Stephanie, this is gonna move quickly. And what really bothers me is you would think this is the only issue in the world that all of the other issues have been flushed out and are not important today. Now we're only gonna talk about this today, every single channel is gonna talk about this today. And it's just a statement of news that where Biden is gonna lose. So again, the rug is pulled out from under him. But I guess I wanna close with just saying, I have had enough with the Democrats telling you what they hope to do. I want them to do stuff right now. I want them to speak through one voice. Now presumably that's the president or some high official and speak strongly and do it right now. Not to wait, not to give us an anticipation weeks away and what they might do, not to argue under the blanket and then come out and everybody talks to the press about their views. I mean, this whole system is broken in terms of public opinion. So right now I do not have confidence that justice will be done. All right, that is a pressure mounting in the media. There are those saying exactly that you are right on the point. My question is, what is it that keeps anyone from having the sergeant at arms? They mentioned that the one thing that could be done is the sergeant at arms can go marching out with his handcuffs and getting these people and bringing them in. And something about that is like, oh, well, we couldn't do that. So like you say, let's do something and get people to follow what the rule of law is that the sergeant of arms can do that. And then in that regard, I wanted to ask you all to go back in memory. I have heard some of these pronouncers say that the last time they did anything to rev it up, they lost it in 1983 with some woman they dragged her in and nothing came of it. But what I remember so vividly and that we covered nightly for months was the Susan McDougal imprisonment in shackles and chains in during the Clinton administration. She had been given a subpoena and she would not answer the subpoena. And he clapped her right in the slammer. So what was that all about? I've looked it up a little bit and it's just discussed like, oh, well, this was what he did. And there was nobody's picked that up and said, well, here's an example of what you can do with a Mr. Bannon and a Mr. of the other ones. They go into just like Bill Clinton did. So where is that model? Tim, do you have any memory of this? I have a vague memory of that now that you mentioned it. I think, I've said it before and whatever authority they have, they should exercise it as Jay has said immediately now. Don't wait, exercise it. And if that means a Sergeant of Arms knocks on the door of Steve Bannon and takes them off in nylon cuffs, then so be it. Like what's on stage here is whether or not the entire backbone of the Democratic Party is on stage. And if it shows that they're weak and feckless and can't act, then this whole select committee, January 6th select committee will be looked as a laughing stock. So they're on the spotlight right now and they need to act as if they are in charge and act as if they're gonna get information that they need now, not in 2022, now. So how do they do this? How do they? If Sergeant of Arms is an option that is viable as it was maybe with Bill Clinton's administration, then exercise it. It's as simple as that. And if they found to be out of authority, then I guess that'll be taken the task and in the courtrooms in the future. But now is the time to act and if they do have a clear path of that authority where they're not breaking the law, then stop with the Congress vote on Tuesday and stop with waiting, like Jay said, potentially weeks or months for Merrick Garland and his department to endorse it. If they have the authority, take it now. Yeah, it's getting to the point of no enforcement whatsoever. I mean, already just weeks and weeks and months of no enforcement of all these other people under duress and threat. Well, it took forever and a day for them to even issue the subpoenas. That should have been done in the first two weeks, in my opinion. Maybe they were waiting for testimony and then got the names of people and alleged acts that they've done and they needed to get that background information in advance before the issuance of subpoenas, but it took entirely too long in my opinion. Okay, Winston, what do you think about this tightening up the subpoena process, especially as to the consequences of denying the subpoenas? I think it's a nice idea, but in reality, so what? So you haul off Steve Bannon and Plastic Cuffs, is when he gets to the stand, it's just gonna be seen as a political maneuver that you force this fellow in there and you know what he's gonna say is, I do not recall or I don't remember and what they really need to say is here is your email sent to so and so on this date at this time where you said this and then it doesn't matter whether he remembers or not, it's in black and white on the email. So I think they need to go with the evidence that they have, their witnesses in this case, if they're forced to testify, I don't see that it's gonna make any difference. I don't see that the whole thing is gonna make any difference at the end of the day, given that, as Jay said, the level of trust and credibility in our institutions with Congress and single digits and the courts plummeting as well. There was an interesting piece of in our paper today from Maureen Dowd and it was carried by the New York Times via the Star Advertiser. Maybe it was yesterday's paper about how partisan the court is and how the accompanying comic was about Roe v. Wade and Amy Barrett overturning it and then who's the one that drinks says, I'll drink to that. Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh, yeah. And so we have a judiciary that's seen as partisan. So can we count on them? It's bled all the way down through. Donald Trump appointed three justices to the Supreme Court and she was putting the screws to have, was it Justice Breyer resigned so that his seat can be filled and was sort of castigating Ruth Bader Ginsburg posthumously for not resigning early. You know, the reality is most Americans, depending on what studies you look at, only a quarter to half of them can name the branches of government. Most of them are so sort of, I guess, traumatized and just real life or just don't care and with COVID and everything else, they've got to deal with economic realities trying to put food on the table. They're not really worried if Steve Bannon comes up and shows up before a select House committee on whatever or any other witnesses. They will produce a nice study that outlays exactly how this coup was attempted, where the dangers are currently in present. Some people will be arrested and put in prison for some small period of time for their role in it. But I don't expect that we're gonna see any meaningful change out of it, even if everybody was found absolutely 100% guilty, complicit of plotting a coup, nothing will happen out of it, except a few slaps on the wrist, because there's just not the appetite for it in America right now. Right, but I was talking about the Democratic back, but did you say backbone Tim? I was like the one that's made out of gelatin, you know, right now, we're just not seeing that. Yeah, so I think that I thought that their goal was indictment, okay, and that's what they're going for. So Jay, they can't get to indictment under the current processes because of this labyrinthine and slow pace and guarantee of all of your rights. Is there really any such thing as a rocket docket? I've heard that a couple of times that nobody ever picks it up and goes with that. Is that just a little aside or can there be a, why can't Biden, can't the president of the United States prioritize these issues and ask for some service from the courts? Are the courts the one they make up their schedules and that's it? They say what their schedules are, why can't the president intervene on that? I want this done. I'm sure they talk to him anyway, but you know, as Winston said, you know, it's a failure of strategy and a strategical blunder is one after the other. It was a strategical blunder to wait this long. It was a strategical blunder, you know, not to issue these subpoenas months ago. It was a strategical blunder to focus on these four guys who as Winston rightly said, they're going to forget everything they're not going to know anything. Every question is going to be a struggle. I mean, there are so many things they can do to obfuscate the truth, obfuscate, you know, even testifying. So, you know, with an ordinary person who isn't so pathological, maybe it works, he's not going to work with any of these guys. They're going to be on the phone with Trump, you know, throughout and he's going to tell them, you know, what he knows about how to derail legal proceedings. They'll never get anything out of them. If really, you know, they need to talk Fifth Amendment and who knows what? God is, we're all going to learn so much about this that we don't need to know. Furthermore, as Winston also said, you know, get the documents, let's go with the documents, let's go now, now, now. If they don't have enough staff, get some more staff. If they're not spending enough time, get some time. But I don't want to hear anymore. I want a result. I want to report. I want to see them take action. This is going to drag on right into the election and he is going to look more and more, you know, impotent and the Democratic Party looks impotent and the House of Representatives looks impotent. So I'm focusing on these legal remedies. Stephanie isn't going to get us anywhere. They can't pull it off. That's the bottom line. And so we've got to find something else to get to the facts. And we got, you know, I don't care what Bannon has to say. I want his documents, as Winston said. I don't want a drama. You know, the cameras will be there. It'll be drama. Everybody be glued to the tube. I don't care. I don't want that. I want real news and we're not getting that. So the whole country is like in this spasm over Bannon. What about the others? What about the facts? What about the committee? What about running the government? What about all the initiatives? It's like we lurch from irrelevant point to irrelevant point. We've got to do some governing now. Bannon has virtually nothing to do with that. I think you're right on it. It is the case, though, again, going back to Clinton, that he managed to make his way through that impeachment. And that was democratic, Democrats making that happen. And making all of those things happen. And I'm just wondering, where have all those people gone to not be here to move this investigation along at a peace that makes sense? Because these people have done nothing but get away with every crime imaginable. And so what is it that we're doing here is, as you say, just running the wheels and getting more and more stuck in the mud and need to turn and shift over to the documents and do a documentation approach to this. So the other part of having this experience is it shows this also it shows what Trump has done to reveal these deficiencies in our system and that there are ways that it doesn't work. And the rule of law is not what we think it is. And so it would seem to meet somebody of legal knowledge and expertise should be talking about what we're going to do to toughen this up. Because we can't go forward having had this extreme example of how you can do anything you want as long as you can get a little grab on power. So Tim, what do you think? Are we going to get any traction on that? I mean, I don't know if this committee is going to. Before I answer your question, I just want to respond just briefly to the report itself that eventually will come out. And maybe it's yesterday we talked about whether or not this thing sits on a shelf and gathers dust and cobwebs. The report may serve as a vital findings of fact for anyone who wants to challenge Donald Trump to become a candidate in 2024. It may be the Rosetta Stone, if you will, for them to charge him under the 14th Amendment paragraph 3 stating that he's not eligible to be a candidate. And here's the proof. And that report becomes that proof. So it has to take place now to have any effect. But if it doesn't, it still may be valuable for a future candidate to file against Donald Trump. Now, go ahead. What is the section 3 point that we keep? It basically says if you are caught undermining the government and participating in insurrection activities, that you are not eligible for running for public office. It's real simple and sweet paragraph. So if we could get the evidence of that showcased, that that would be an achievement of the community. It'd be nice if anyone could file that right now. But as Jay has correctly pointed out in previous shows, you have to have a position of good standing. And that would probably be a candidate who's running for president would have better standing than an attorney with the ACLU or whatever group. The standing is important. OK. All right, we're going to make another point after that. Your question about are there any things in the work that would try to close up these loopholes with the existing law? And I think you do have two bills in Congress regarding the Voting's Right Act. And those are trying to plug some of the holes, not all of them, but some of them. And I think it's my hope that they go through. I think you have to get infrastructure done first and get it done now, as Jay would say, now is the time. Now, now, now. But then as soon as the infrastructure is done, you have to get on these Voting Right Act bills, one in the Senate, one in the House. And if you don't, then this is the dismantlement of our democratic election system if those don't get put in place. By the way, these subpoenas is the first salvo of whether or not our democracy holds or not. And if these subpoenas are laughed off and someone just waves their finger at the committee here, that's the first step on undermining the rule of law and not taking our democracy seriously. I mean, that just resonates right through the entire society. Who's going to ever answer a subpoena again? I mean, of what value is it at any level, especially at all citizens? Well, if you've been given authority, then exercise it. Don't just put it off on the shelf and look at it and go, see we have the authority to do this, but we're just going to let this, we're going to talk it through. No, don't talk it through, bring them in. Yeah. All right, Winston, do you have any insight into the rehabilitation of our legal system so that we can address atrocious crimes against our democracy? What can be done? Well, it's the question of the day, isn't it? I mean, it's what we've been talking about here for a long time is that we just don't have a shared understanding of where this nation is going or what is the right path or even the same information sources and viewpoints. So we're not even talking about, we think we're talking about the same thing, but in fact, we're not. And the perspective is that what we're looking at are so absolutely different that we're just sort of talking past each other and now just over each other to the point of if you're just average Joe on the street, let's forget about the congressional level, although Tim's right, I think these people, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself, but and they're probably not going to want to testify against someone who's very powerful either for obvious reasons, but that's where the evidence comes in, so let the evidence do the talking. Yeah, could you arrest people and force them to be there? I think that would be, in fact, counterproductive, they say now look at what the fastest Democrats are doing type of thing, the demon Nazis or whatever. I'm sure that they get, but I think my concerns are more at the micro level as much as the macro level in that if you're on a school board or a neighborhood board or a city council like we had here, even in Honolulu, very angry people banging on the windows of the city council chamber when our mayor was talking about some COVID restrictions a couple of months ago, it's sort of the mob rule mentality and that's quite frightening. And so who in their right mind then wants to run for the school board where they think they're doing something to help the KKIs, whether they believe we should teach about evolution exists or not. I mean, it's sort of, or should kids learn division in fourth grade or 11th grade, whatever it is. Those things don't get addressed. In fact, those people then are just in fear because they're having threats against them. So normal people won't do that. This is where we need to have real laws that say if you're working in government, if you're working for government, if you're elected or appointed to any board or commission or anything like that, and someone gives any threats towards you, that's going to be investigated on a federal level, not even a state level. It should be investigated on a state level, but not just a state level. We need to enforce it at the city, state, county, federal level and say, yes, you may passionately argue your point that you want to mask or you don't want to mask whatever it is with your reasoning behind it. And you try and convince me with your better reasoning so that I can adopt your viewpoint. That's what this nation's about is having robust discussions and that the best, most intelligent, highest view wins. And that is where we've been missing all of this. So if you're going up there and saying, hey, we know where you live and you drive a red Toyota or whatever, that person needs to be reported to the FBI, to the police department, to the state department of office of investigation that we don't have right now. We're enforcement versus no enforcement. It should be a regular enforcement consistent. Absolutely. And all enforcement levels, because otherwise we've lost a victim officer. Last comments here. So one round left, Jay, to make a comment about what's gonna happen with this committee. Does this just look like the burden is just too huge and the forest, the jungle is too tough to get through or are they gonna make it somehow to be meaningful? I don't think we really got through to the point here today. What occurs to me is that it isn't gonna happen. It's gonna be a waste of the government's time such as there is a government. It's gonna be a waste of the media's time. It's gonna be a waste of our time. And when the smoke clears, we will have less confidence in the government. We aren't gonna get banned and we aren't gonna get the other ones. And Tim is right that what we need is something to prove up on the third section of the 14th Amendment. And we're not gonna get that for a long time. And my guess is it's gonna be so mushed up that a court will not be clear on it. And it won't be the kind of evidence we wanna give that court about the 14th Amendment, section three. So what I'm telling you is what Carl Bernstein said the other day, it's broken. It's not coming back. If your question to Winston is very important, what can we do? Well, there's nothing we can do. We are over the hill. I mean, a file for immigration papers in some friendly country. This one is completely broken. This government is not coming back. Voting rights is the most important thing. To me, it's more important than infrastructure, but it isn't going to happen. Nothing is going to happen. We are according to Carl Bernstein in a civil war, in a civil war taking place in Congress, among other places. So I'm sorry to tell you that this is not meaningful and it's not only too late. It's not only without remedy. It is a waste of our time. Okay, Tim. Last comment, are you? Last comment, I agree with Jay. We are, and Carl Bernstein, we are in a civil war. It's a cold civil war that's heating up, but it is in no way lost. If you give up now, you might as well just kiss a goodbye. We are in the midst of it, and those who have passion need to move it forward and fight for what's important, rule of law, constitution, fair and free elections. Fight for it. Don't just say it's gone. And I have to disagree with my good friend Jay, fight L and say it's not done yet. We haven't lost and the government's still worth saving. Final comment. All right, Winston, your final comment, briefly. Running on the bandwagon with Tim. It is not over. This show is proof that it's not over. This show is proof that we care about the process, that we care about our great nation, that we care about rule of law, this constitution of the United States, and all the good things that it can represent. Right now, we're in a funky period. I don't know that we'll get out of it, but not knowing is pretty powerful to motivate us to get to knowing. So let's start with where we can in our own city, states, neighborhoods. Move out from there, hopefully, our elected representatives will step up to the plate. Let's not count on it, but let's reinforce and shore up everywhere we need to. All right, thank you, thank you. It's a lo-ha time and we do have to wrap it up. So we've been in conversation with J-Fi Dow, Tim Apichella and Winston Welch about some very pressing matters that are critical for our democracy and for our future as US citizens. And we see it's not over yet, so we're gonna keep on pushing. And I'm Stephanie Stull Dalton, your host for Politics for the People, and we'll see you next week, Thursday, same time. Hawaii Standard Time and Mahalo, everyone. Thank you.