Upon receiving the press release Wednesday afternoon, I let out an audible groan: Steve Bannon, the former Trump consigliere, fascist propagandist, and failed documentary filmmaker, would be the big top-of-show interview guest on Bill Maher’s popular HBO series Real Time Friday night. Having interviewed Bannon in the past, including a fairly heated three-hour back and forth in his lux Venetian hotel suite that lasted into the wee hours, I know how much of a charismatic charmer he can be, which, in addition to his serving as a valued source for so many White House reporters, is a big reason why he’s been subject to so many fawning profiles. Such cajoling can easily work on Maher, who not only loves having his colossal ego massaged but has found common ground with everyone from alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to, well, Steve Bannon, who talked circles around the late-night comedian during his last Real Time appearance.  Which brings us to Friday night.  Following an impeachment-heavy monologue (“I feel like Nancy Pelosi’s copy of the State of the Union…”), and calling it Trump’s “best week ever” following his acquittal by the Senate, Maher welcomed Bannon, who’s recently made headlines for pushing debunked claims about the spread of the coronavirus, onto the show, airing live while the Democratic debate in New Hampshire was still ongoing. And, well, things got weird. Steve Bannon, in His $1,400 Hotel Suite, Rails Against the ‘Elite’Bill Maher Upstaged by Milo Yiannopoulos on ‘Real Time’First question? “I’m not gonna lie about it, your boy had the best week so far.” (Yes, that was really the opening question.) After allowing Bannon to gloat a bit, Maher—referring to Bannon as a “student of history”—interjected, asking, whether anything this week in Trumpworld bothered him, including the firing of Vindman, calling Romney a “suppressive person” (Maher’s words), bragging about how he wouldn’t have been in office if he hadn’t fired FBI Director Comey, etc. “We should’ve had a longer impeachment. We should’ve had Bolton, we should’ve had Mulvaney…witnesses, let ‘em get crossed, but we get the whistleblower, we get the second whistleblower, we get Schiff as a factor in this, let’s get it all out.” said Bannon, adding, that this is “about going after the office of the president,” and if Bernie gets elected, the “neoliberal, neocon national-security apparatus” will go after him, too. (Though Bernie has not, like Trump, committed a number of crimes whilst in office.) Bannon also rambled on about Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia—forwarding the (debunked) right-wing conspiracy theory that the investigation was politically-motivated—but Maher instead changed the subject, and instead of breaking down and exposing Bannon’s arguments for how empty they are, chose to focus on Trump’s bad words, and Bannon successfully steered the talk elsewhere, as is his wont. They agreed that Trump will “run the table” and be re-elected, and that the Democrats are incredibly “arrogant,” and that Hillary “should have gone to Wisconsin,” but lightly tussled over the merits of the Electoral College. And Bannon, playing three-dimensional chess, admitted that he likes Bernie because he’s a “populist,” and that Bernie’s been “screwed by the Democratic Party,” to which Maher politely agreed. The two then shared some laughs going at it over the debt, discussed the silly names Trump’s called Bannon (he deflected once more), and then Maher allowed Bannon to deliver his closing statement, uninterrupted, before remarking, “I wish we had someone on our side as evil as you, Steve.” Pathetic. Maher has made it plainly clear that he is unequipped to handle such incendiary figures on his program. So, why does he do it? Ratings? Controversy? Or both? Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg might have not qualified for the Democratic debates yet, but he still had a cameo on Friday.George Stephanopoulos during Friday's New Hampshire debate asked a question all about Bloomberg submitted via Apple News, asking the candidates why they're "better positioned" to take on President Trump than he is. The Democrats on the stage, naturally, didn't pass up the opportunity to get in some attacks on a candidate who wasn't actually there to respond."I don't think anyone ought to be able to buy their way into a nomination or to be president of the United States," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said.Sanders joined in as well, saying, "It's a funny thing. There are millions of people who can desire to run for office, but I guess if you're worth $60 billion and you can spend several hundred million dollars on commercials, you have a slight advantage. That is nonsense."These attacks may end up serving as solid practice for an upcoming debate, as a recent rule change leaves the door open for Bloomberg to soon join the fun himself. > Sen. Sanders on Michael Bloomberg: "I guess if you're worth $60 billion and you can spend several hundred million dollars on commercials you have a slight advantage. That is nonsense." https://t.co/0GxKJz7e8Y DemDebate pic.twitter.com/6p6YtLnEjF> > -- ABC News (@ABC) February 8, 2020More stories from theweek.com America's pig problem Vanguard is an anomaly in the investment world. Can it stay that way? 5 scathingly funny cartoons about Trump's impeachment acquittal

Former Vice President Joe Biden got a standing ovation at the New Hampshire debate on Friday, but it wasn't for himself. Biden asked the audience at Saint Anselm College to get on their feet to show support for impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert who was expelled on Friday by President Trump in apparent payback for participating in the House's investigation."[Trump] should be pinning a medal on Vindman and not on Rush Limbaugh," Biden said. "I think what we should be doing now, I think we should all stand and give Col. Vindman a show of how much we supported him. Stand up and clap for Vindman. Get up there!"> Biden asks the audience to give Alexander Vindman, who was escorted out of the White House today, a standing ovation: "[Trump] should be pinning a medal on Vindman and not on Rush Limbaugh." pic.twitter.com/lMsHyaT8IQ> > — Axios (@axios) February 8, 2020As the room rose to cheer, Biden said: "That's who we are. We are not what Trump is."More stories from theweek.com Elizabeth Warren's last chance American democracy is dying Elizabeth Warren is third in the polls, but was fifth in speaking time at the Democratic debate

After his impressive Iowa showing, the knives were out for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at Friday's Democratic debate.Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) went after Buttigieg, who is narrowly leading Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in state delegate equivalents in Iowa, early on in the debate, comparing him to President Trump by saying, "We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us. I think having some experience is a good thing." Klobuchar also criticized Buttigieg for having called the impeachment proceedings "exhausting" and saying it "makes you want to watch cartoons instead." Soon after, businessman Tom Steyer launched a similar line of attack, saying "you have to have experience" to "take down" Trump."That's why I'm worried about Mayor Pete," Steyer said. "You need to be able to go toe-to-toe with this guy and take him down on debate stage, or we're gonna lose."Then, it was entrepreneur Andrew Yang's turn to get a hit in. After Buttigieg described how he plans to beat Trump, Yang cut in, telling Buttigieg specifically he's "missing the lesson of Donald Trump's victory," describing Trump as "not the cause of all of our problems" but rather a "symptom of a disease that has been building up in our communities for years and decades." > Amy Klobuchar knocks idea of being a "cool newcomer": "We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us. I think having some experience is a good thing." https://t.co/93QauZSK6e DemDebate pic.twitter.com/OAjohZVqeT> > -- ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 8, 2020More stories from theweek.com American democracy is dying MSNBC's Chris Matthews wants to know what Bernie Sanders thinks of Fidel Castro America's pig problem

If there's one important rule for preparing for a political debate, it's do your homework. And Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) just earned herself an A.During a debate about healthcare in New Hampshire on Friday, Klobuchar blasted Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (D) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren for their ambitious plans to implement Medicare-for-all. And although the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, now supports a public option, Klobuchar had brought her receipts: "Pete, while you have a different plan now, you sent out a tweet just a few years ago that said: 'henceforth, forthwith, indubitably, affirmatively, you are for Medicare-for-all,'" she said.> Amy Klobuchar on Medicare for All: "I keep listening to this same debate, and it is not real. It is not real, Bernie, because two-thirds of the Democrats in the Senate are not on your bill, and because it would kick 149 million Americans off their current health insurance." pic.twitter.com/BEXzg0nHW0> > — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 8, 2020While the casual viewer watching at home might have assumed Klobuchar was just riffing on Buttigieg's manner of speaking, it turns out she was actually pretty accurately quoting his two-year-old reply to the progressive platform, the People's Summit:> Gosh! Okay... I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered. Now if you'll excuse me, potholes await.> > — Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) February 19, 2018Well played.More stories from theweek.com Elizabeth Warren's last chance Susan Collins says she's 'obviously' against Trump's payback targeting impeachment witnesses American democracy is dying

Former Vice President Joe Biden kicked off Friday's New Hampshire debate with a prediction: he's not going to win the primary.Biden spoke at the top of the debate about his disappointing fourth place finish in Monday's Iowa caucuses, admitting he "took a hit." But the former vice president took things a step further, appearing to set expectations as low as possible ahead of the Tuesday New Hampshire primary by suggesting he'll lose again."I took a hit in Iowa, and I'll probably take a hit here," Biden said. It was certainly a unique start to the event, as The Washington Post's Dave Weigel observed, "That has to be the first time that a debate began with a candidate saying he'd probably lose the state's primary."As far as who will win, Biden suggested Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will likely beat him, citing the fact that "Bernie won by 20 points last time, and usually it's the neighboring senators that do well." But the good news for Biden, according to Biden? "This is a long race." > Former VP Biden on Iowa: "This is a long race. I took a hit in Iowa and I'll probably take a hit here." https://t.co/Y3LWCvEZfY pic.twitter.com/T7kWYYisdJ> > -- ABC News (@ABC) February 8, 2020More stories from theweek.com Elizabeth Warren's last chance American democracy is dying Democratic debate gives standing ovation to ousted impeachment witness Col. Vindman

President Trump fired Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, on Friday, in apparent retribution for testifying against him in the impeachment proceedings.

On Friday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) characterized herself as "obviously" against President Trump punishing impeachment witnesses, the Portland Press Herald reports. The remarks were her first in public since she voted against impeaching Trump on Tuesday, and came almost at the same time as news was breaking that the president had fired impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council's top Ukraine expert; Vindman's twin brother, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who was not involved in the House's investigation; and European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland, also an impeachment witness."I think it's important to understand that when you're in an impeachment trial, you consider the evidence that is before you," Collins went on, in defense of her vote to acquit Trump, although she had initially broken with her party to call for additional witnesses. "You don't try to make predictions. You consider the evidence that's before you. In this case, the evidence did not meet the high bar that's established by the Constitution for immediate removal of the president from office."Alexander Vindman's attorney slammed Trump and the Senate in a statement released after his client was fired. "In recent months, many entrusted with power in our political system have cowered out of fear," the statement read, adding: "If we allow truthful voices to be silenced, if we ignore their warnings, eventually there will be no one left to warn us."More stories from theweek.com Elizabeth Warren's last chance American democracy is dying Furious Democrats call for Tom Perez's resignation after Iowa fiasco

Apparent attempts by Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez to absolve himself of responsibility over the Iowa caucus fiasco have sparked many in the party to begin calling for his resignation. "It's a lack of leadership," Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) told The Hill in an interview Friday. "If you have the Iowa situation you don't throw them under the bus, you stand up and you support and you try to fix it. He doesn't lead on anything."Party insiders have been particularly rankled by Perez's treatment of Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price, who has publicly taken heat over the scandal that resulted from a failed app on election night and a week's worth of confusion over the winner. Perez took three days after the Iowa debacle to speak publicly about the caucuses, Politico reports, after having failed to appear alongside Price during an initial public address. "Loads of state party chairs are pissed that [Perez] would treat one of their peers like this," one state party official told Politico.Perez has repeatedly attempted to distance himself from the scandal. On Thursday, he demanded a recanvass — essentially, a recalculation — of the election results, while Iowa Democrats were still counting votes. On Friday, asked by CNN's John Berman "how much of this is on you?," Perez dodged. "Well, again, the Iowa Democratic Party runs the caucus," he said. "Okay? And they — what happened was unacceptable."The American Prospect's David Dayen blasted Perez, writing that the chair was "seeking to be an independent actor trying to 'clean up' the Iowa mess, when he was fully implicated in making the mess in the first place." Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), speaking with Politico, called Perez's leadership "virtually nonexistent ... It's just a matter of time before he's going to go."More stories from theweek.com Elizabeth Warren's last chance Susan Collins says she's 'obviously' against Trump's payback targeting impeachment witnesses American democracy is dying

Just two days after he was acquitted of abuse of power charges, President Trump ousted two key impeachment witnesses on Friday: U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.Sondland, who had tied Trump to the pressure campaign against Ukraine at the heart of impeachment proceedings, announced he had been let go but gave no reason for his removal.“I was advised today that the President intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” he said in a statement.That was only hours after Vindman was demonstratively marched out of the White House, along with his attorney brother, in what his lawyer described as retaliation “for telling the truth” during impeachment proceedings. Alexander Vindman Decries ‘Callow and Cowardly’ Attacks on Witnesses in Impeachment InquiryMany had expected Trump to exact vengeance following his impeachment acquittal. After all, it was only two weeks ago that Eric Ueland, Trump's legislative affairs director, had breezed past a group of reporters and was quoted saying, “I can't wait for the revenge.”And Trump allies were quick to gloat, with the president’s son facetiously thanking Rep. Adam Schiff for helping to identify who in the administration “needed to be fired” through the impeachment process.Still, some U.S. officials were left alarmed by the moves.“It’s incredibly disturbing that the president is unaware of his Constitutional powers until his corrupt intent is clear,” a State Department official told The Daily Beast. “All Americans should easily recognize at this point his personnel decisions have nothing to do with valid policy decisions for the public good and are only about the zero sum game of his own personal power interests.”The firings come two days after the Senate acquitted Trump of coercing Ukraine into investigating the president’s political rivals, rejecting articles of impeachment approved by the House.Both Vindman and Sondland had provided crucial testimony during House hearings, with Vindman recalling his shock when he said he heard Trump pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and Biden’s son, Hunter. Vindman, a war hero who served as director of European affair on the NSC, testified that he revealed his concerns about Trump’s request to other NSC officials. Trump had foreshadowed Vindman’s departure on Friday, telling reporters that he “wasn’t happy” with the colonel. “You think I’m supposed to be happy with him? I’m not.” Sondland’s departure comes more than two months after his stunning testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee, when he singled out top Trump officials and said they were all in on the campaign to coerce Ukraine to conduct politically motivated investigations pushed by Trump. Here Are All the People Sondland Just Threw Under the BusSondland told the panel that senior players including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and Vice President Mike Pence knew about his attempt to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to make a public commitment to investigate a conspiracy theory around 2016 election and the gas company Burisma. Sondland stopped short of saying the president directed him personally, instead saying he was following orders from Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who the president had directed Sondland, U.S. Envoy Kurt Volker and Energy Secretary Rick Perry to deal with on Ukraine. Two officials who spoke to The Daily Beast on Friday night said they had been expecting Sondland’s removal for months. The EU Ambassador had been absent for meetings and conference calls he had in the past frequented.One former official said Sondland’s departure was not surprising and that the former ambassador had indicated privately that he knew he was on his way out. His ouster came as much of Trumpworld seemed to be cheering on the president’s decision to force Vindman out, urging him not to stop at the Vindman brothers and to keep “draining the swamp.” Donald Trump Jr. reacted to the firings with mockery, suggested on Twitter that the impeachment trial had actually done the president a favor by “unearthing who all needed to be fired.” The Twitter account for Trump’s re-election campaign also appeared to justify the firings, retweeting old tweets accusing Vindman of “colluding” in the impeachment “coup” and “leaking” information to the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment trial. The State Department official said Sondland’s ouster was even more concerning than Vindman’s.“Regardless of our concerns with Sondland’s initial nomination, he was a duly sworn Ambassador and even more so than LTC Vindman, this is retributive,” the official said. “I think we were anticipating that after the president was acquitted he was going to purge the people he couldn’t before because it was too politically costly beforehand,” another U.S. official said. “Plus, what if these people had known something that they had not yet publicized?” The official added that Sondland’s departure came as more of a shock since he hadn’t been as critical in his testimony as Vindman. Vindman, the official said, seemed to have “no political leanings” when he started at the National Security Council and was devoted to serving the president. “I think the idea that they had to fire him and not let him leave quietly is the big dramatic signal. The Secret Service comes in and walks you out. It was meant to humiliate him,” the official said. A Republican Senate aide told The Daily Beast there was nothing unseemly about the Friday firings.“This has nothing to do with loyalty or with questioning their patriotism. The president is entitled to his own staffing selections,” the aide said. “And if there’s one thing we learned through the past six months, it’s that there are a number of staff who think it is their job, not the president’s job, to set foreign policy.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.