House Republicans vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt | The Excerpt
USA TODAY Taylor Wilson
Southern Baptists condemn the use of IVF. Plus, the Oklahoma Supreme Court dismisses a lawsuit from survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre.
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/sites/usatoday/images/favicon.png
USA TODAY
On Thursday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: USA TODAY Congress Reporter Ken Tran breaks down the move by House Republicans to hold the attorney general in contempt of Congress. Southern Baptists condemn the use of IVF. The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismisses a lawsuit from survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. The Federal Reserve holds interest rates steady. USA TODAY Network Florida First Amendment Reporter Douglas Soule discusses how one school board banned a book about banning books.

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Taylor Wilson:

Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson and today is Thursday, June 13th, 2024. This is The Excerpt.

Today House Republicans have voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress, plus Oklahoma Supreme Court dismisses a lawsuit from survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race massacre. And a Florida school board bans a book about book bans.

♦

House Republicans voted yesterday to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress. It marked a dramatic escalation of the GOP's broader war against the Biden administration's Justice Department. I spoke with USA TODAY, Congress reporter Ken Tran for more. Ken, thanks for making the time.

Ken Tran:

Thanks for having me.

Taylor Wilson:

So Ken, what did House Republicans decide here around holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress?

Ken Tran:

So on Wednesday, House Republicans voted in the afternoon to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress as retaliation against the Department of Justice for withholding the audio recordings of President Joe Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Hur. House Republicans have been asking for the audio recordings for a while now, but the DOJ has refused, saying that the Justice Department has already provided Republicans all that they need for any investigative needs, such as the transcripts, for example.

Taylor Wilson:

And was anything surprising about the vote and how it came out?

Ken Tran:

There was a lot of tension leading up to the vote. There was a lot of consternation about the moderate Republicans who were a little skeptical about picking another fight with the Department of Justice since the party already has been taking aim at the US Justice system for multiple reasons, accusing it of being politicized and targeting conservatives. But at the end of the day, all the Republicans in the house did vote for the contempt resolution besides one, Rep. David Joyce of Ohio, one of the many moderates that were skeptical. He said that he couldn't, in good conscience, support something that would again further politicize the justice system.

Taylor Wilson:

So you mentioned the skeptical moderate there. How are other opponents responding, thinking Democrats? And have we heard from Garland himself?

Ken Tran:

So Garland went after Republicans for politicizing the justice system, over and over again. He's reiterated this. He said that Republicans are playing dangerous games and making the justice system appear something that it's not. And Democrats have argued the same. They've echoed Garland's sentiments, saying that Republicans are just seeking to score political points. But they've also agreed with the Department of Justice that they've already provided Republicans with all they need. They already have the transcripts from the interview. So providing the audio recording wouldn't do much because the transcripts already offer the exact words and what was said in that interview.

Taylor Wilson:

So Ken, what does this now functionally mean really, for Garland going forward?

Ken Tran:

So the resolution includes a referral to the US attorney of the District of Columbia for criminal prosecution. That is almost certainly not going to happen. Instead, this resolution will likely end up in a court fight. Republicans are hoping that this will help them sue the Department of Justice so they can get the audio recordings forcefully. That will be a very long court battle that we don't expect to wrap up anytime soon. Probably not before election day.

Taylor Wilson:

All right. Ken Tran covers Congress for USA TODAY. Thanks Ken.

Ken Tran:

Thanks.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

Southern Baptist yesterday condemned the use of in vitro fertilization or IVF. Southern Baptist Convention delegates known as "messengers," at this year's annual meeting in Indianapolis, approved a resolution criticizing IVF, calling on Southern Baptist to only support reproductive technologies that affirm the "unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage." The resolution reinforces an increasingly popular stance among anti-abortion groups following an Alabama Supreme Court ruling in February. The court said frozen embryos are legally considered children and are protected under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, a ruling that sparked national debate. Debate on the floor of the convention over the resolution, showed divisions within the nation's largest Protestant denomination, over the issue. The statement is the first of its kind for the SBC, but could reverberate across other conservative denominations. Also, yesterday the Southern Baptist Convention rejected a ban on women pastors, a major victory for those seeking to maintain local church autonomy and soften what many considered growing antagonism toward women in ministry.

♦

The Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit yesterday from remaining survivors of the 1921 Tulsa race massacre, who sought reparations. Survivors Viola, Fletcher, Lessie Benningfield Randall and Hughes Van Ellis initially filed the suit in 2020 against the city of Tulsa and other departments and officials. The suit said the massacre represented an ongoing public nuisance, and that in 2016 the defendants began enriching themselves by promoting the site of the massacre as a tourist attraction. Van Ellis died last year at the age of 102. The incident was one of the worst single acts of violence against black people in U.S. history. In the early 1900s, the 40 blocks to the north of Downtown Tulsa boasted successful black businesses and residents. On May 31st and June 1st, 1921, a white mob descended on Greenwood, the black section of Tulsa, burning, looting and destroying more than 1000 homes. The true death toll of the massacre may never be known with the search for unmarked graves continuing more than a century later, but most historians who have studied the event, estimate the depth toll to be between 75 and 300 people.

♦

The Federal Reserve kept its key interest rate unchanged again yesterday, and scaled back its forecast from three rate cuts to just one this year, after an inflation pickup in early 2024. The outlook will likely disappoint markets that figured the Fed would forecast two cuts after an encouraging report earlier in the day showed inflation slowing more than expected. In a statement after a two-day meeting, the central bank acknowledged a resumption of at least some gains in its battle to tame inflation that has concerned Americans the past three years. You can read more, with a link in today's show notes.

♦

A ban on a book about banning books. The School Board in Indian River County, Florida, voted it off the shelves. I spoke with USA TODAY Network Florida First Amendment reporter, Douglas Soule, to find out more. Douglas, thanks for making the time today.

Douglas Soule:

Thanks for having me on.

Taylor Wilson:

So Douglas, let's just start with this. What is this book and what did the school board decide here?

Douglas Soule:

So the book in question is called "Ban This Book". It's a children's novel that follows a fictional fourth grader who creates a secret banned book's locker library after her school board pulled a multitude of titles off the shelves, including her own favorite book. Now the school board of Indian River County in Florida decided in a 3-2 vote to remove it from its school libraries, going against the decision of its own district book-review committee. It was previously in two elementary schools and a middle school.

Taylor Wilson:

Yeah. So Douglas, what do supporters and opponents say of the decision here?

Douglas Soule:

The objector of the book is Jennifer Pippin, the leader of the local chapter of Moms for Liberty. Moms for Liberty is a national conservative group that has become the loudest voice promoting school book removals of books its members deem are inappropriate. Now, Pippin's Challenge accused the book of containing sexual conduct. The school board members and members of the public who wanted to keep the books on the shelves disagreed with that, saying it only listed books, some of which had already been removed from school shelves, including in Indian River County itself. The supporters of the book also expressed reservations about the school board going against the decision of its own review committee.

Now, Alan Gratz, the author, called The decision "incredibly ironic." Opponents of the book took big issue though with it referencing books that had been removed. They also accused the title of teaching rebellion of school board authority. One school board member even accused it of being a liberal Marxist propaganda piece.

Taylor Wilson:

Wow. So what led up to this point Douglas? Can you help us just put this moment in context?

Douglas Soule:

So to put this moment in context for Indian River County, I think you really do have to look statewide, because Indian River County and its school district is not the only place that's seeing book removals in the State of Florida. Multiple measures signed by Governor Ron DeSantis have prompted local school board leaders and school district leaders across the state to pull books in wildly varying ways, fearing running afoul of state law. It's also prompted multiple lawsuits. Now in Indian River County, more than 140 books have been removed from school shelves. That's according to a list I obtained through a public records request. Interestingly, Moms for Liberty's Pippin, who filed the objection had also filed the objections for those more than 140 books. And those removed titles in Indian River County also include classics like "The Bluest Eye", "Slaughterhouse-Five" and "Kite Runner".

Taylor Wilson:

So as you say, Douglas, really these debates over book bans are not going anywhere. What's next for this conversation around book bans in Florida, going forward?

Douglas Soule:

It's kind of hard to say. I'm certain these conversations and these controversies will continue. A law will be taking effect soon that will limit how many books non-student parents can challenge. So it'll be interesting to see the results of that, especially since a lot of the book challenges from across the state are coming from only a few people, though people like Pippin who challenged "Ban This Book" are parents themselves. There's also litigation to look out for. For example, in two lawsuits, Florida and [inaudible 00:09:45] are arguing that book removals, regardless of reason, are protected government speech. So how judges eventually rule on that could have big implications.

Taylor Wilson:

Douglas Soule covers the First Amendment in Florida for the USA TODAY Network. Great insight here. Thanks Douglas.

Douglas Soule:

Thanks for having me.

♦

Taylor Wilson:

The U.S. Supreme Court is having a moment in the national spotlight and not in a good way. Tune into The Excerpt, beginning at 4:00 PM Eastern time this afternoon, when my co-host Dana Taylor sits down with USA TODAY Supreme Court correspondent, Maureen Groppe, to talk about the tangled ethical web the court now finds itself in. You can listen to the episode right here on this feed.

♦

Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your pods, and if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.