Leaker charged

As a baseball fan, watching the boys of summer take to diamonds across the country over the past few weeks has been a delight. It’s also had me thinking about how different America’s pastime would be if it were run like American politics. What if there were only two teams to root for? Seems pretty boring. Most Americans would eventually tune out altogether. Some might feel forced to choose a side—even one they don’t like very much—because there’s no other option if they still want to enjoy the game. The only folks who would really care are the diehard fanbases, and the teams would naturally cater to their whims. Now imagine if the two teams did have competitors…but only those two would have any real chance to play in, much less win, the World Series. All that work over a long, 162-game season only to be denied the opportunity to truly compete at the top level, no matter what happens. And for the two entitled teams? The incentives for them to work hard would be almost nil. Just keep making the most rabid fans happy, and you’re sitting pretty. Thankfully, for baseball fans everywhere, that’s not how it works. Politics should look more like baseball (or any sport, for that matter) because competition is what makes it work. But until the political system is reformed to give candidates outside the two major parties a chance, running a third-party or independent presidential campaign is kind of like winning 162 games and still missing the World Series—a frustrating waste of time and resources. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor

• Supreme Court keeps FDA abortion pill rules in place for now —Associated Press

• Biden to open up Medicaid, Obamacare plans to DACA recipients —Politico

• Judge in Dominion case sanctions Fox for withholding evidence, plans to appoint special master to probe possible misconduct —CNN

• Clarence Thomas failed to report real estate deal with billionaire Harlan Crow —The New York Times

• Sen. Dianne Feinstein asks to be temporarily replaced on Judiciary Committee —NPR

• Alexei Navalny in ‘critical’ situation after possible poisoning, says ally —The Guardian

• France’s Constitutional Council approves higher pension age —Associated Press

• Florida’s 6-week abortion ban signed into law —WFLA

• Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wants to pardon man convicted of murdering BLM protester —Time

• 2024 Republicans descend upon NRA convention under shadow of mass shootings —The Hill

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick

Jack Teixeira, the 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guard member who leaked a trove of classified military intelligence, was charged by the federal government today with retention and transmission of national defense information and willful retention of classified documents. He has been detained. According to the criminal complaint, the FBI learned from a member of Teixeira’s online messaging group on Discord—the platform where he posted the intel, which was then spread to the wider internet—that Teixeira initially wrote down the contents of classified documents, then took them to his residence to photograph them.

• What was leaked? As a result, dozens of highly classified documents were leaked, revealing sensitive information intended for senior military and intelligence leaders on such subjects as U.S. spying on allies, the grim prospects for Ukraine in its war with Russia, and China’s secret plan to arm Russia.

• How did he do it? Teixeira has held a top-secret clearance since 2021, under which he had the authority to view a smaller category of highly classified material called sensitive compartmented access. He even used his clearance to try to figure out whether investigators were on to him once word of the massive leak became public. —The Washington Post

• Why did he do it? Like Kyle Rittenhouse before him, Teixeira has quickly become a hero among some on the far-right. According to extremist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, “Jake Teixeira is white, male, Christian, and antiwar. That makes him an enemy to the Biden regime. And he told the truth about troops being on the ground in Ukraine and a lot more.” Greene, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, continued, "Ask yourself, who is the real enemy?”—a not-so-veiled reference to President Biden. Ugh. —NBC News

MORE: Ed Board: The Discord leaks show our nation’s secrets at risk —The Washington Post

Defunding…libraries?

Public libraries seem like they’d be the least-controversial, most-nonpartisan sort of investment around, but they’re facing trouble in at least two states. Missouri’s Republican-controlled House voted to defund all of the state’s public libraries over a fight concerning books and materials with LGBTQ people and themes. Fortunately, the state Senate plans to put $4.5 million for libraries back into its version of the budget proposal. Meanwhile, in Texas, commissioners in Llano County have debated shutting down their library system instead of complying with a federal judge’s order that they must return 17 banned books to the library shelves. The banned books, which include themes of race and gender identity, were removed last year without public input after county officials declared them “pornographic” and “sexually explicit.” —Texas Public Radio

MORE: Why was a book about Anne Frank banned in Florida? —Katie Couric Media

Ex-POTUS back in NY again

Donald Trump was back in the Big Apple this week, but once again, for legal matters, not pleasure. He "spent nearly seven hours" defending his family business during his second deposition for New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million lawsuit against him. It was the first time he has spoken about the Trump Organization in the civil investigation that accuses him, his business, and his elder children, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump, of fraud. In his first deposition last August, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer any questions from James. She was not in attendance this time around. Whatever happens in this or any open case against Trump, he says he will not drop out of the 2024 presidential race—even if he is convicted of a crime. We are not too surprised by that. —Axios

MORE TRUMP NEWS:

• Trump vows investigations of Democratic district attorneys —The New York Times

• Trump sues Michael Cohen for $500 million, alleging ex-attorney breached his contract —CNN

• Special counsel focuses on Trump fundraising off false election claims —The Washington Post

• 'Merchant of Death' Viktor Bout invites Trump to flee to Russia —Insider

• James Lewis: The case for more Trump coverage —Renew Democracy Initiative

Expelling Rep. Liz Harris almost restores my faith in the Arizona Legislature (almost)

By Laurie Roberts

Reprinted from The Arizona Republic

The Arizona House rose to the occasion on Wednesday, voting to expel Rep. Liz Harris for her role in smearing multiple public officials and private citizens who were accused of accepting bribes from a Mexican drug cartel.

Republicans and Democrats finally found something they could agree upon: Harris had to go.

This, after the House Ethics Committee unanimously concluded that Harris not only knew what her invited speaker was likely to say during a livestreamed February hearing on elections but that the freshman legislator actually took steps to hide the details from House leadership.

Then she lied about it to the ethics panel.

“The Committee finds that, prior to the Joint Hearing, Representative Harris knew or was at least aware that (Jacqueline) Breger would present criminal allegations at the Joint Hearing and REJECTS Representative Harris’ testimony to the contrary,” the ethics panel wrote, in one of five findings that she engaged in “disorderly behavior”.

The far-right voted against Harris' ouster

The committee’s nine-page report, issued on Tuesday, was enough to put Harris on a fast track out of the Capitol.

Most of the chamber’s far-right contingent had Harris’ back.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin of Scottsdale was among 13 Republicans who voted against expulsion, saying it sent a message that “if you rock the boat too much, you will get expelled.”

Actually, it set a precedent that if you scheme—without evidence—to publicly accuse dozens of people of crimes then lie about it, perhaps you don’t quite meet the ethical standards we should expect of our leaders.

Harris' star witness slimed dozens of officials

Harris, a Chandler Republican and one of the Legislature’s most energetic election deniers, was allowed to hold an all-day joint legislative hearing in February, during which she could produce witnesses to talk about the many ways in which our elections were supposedly stolen.

For the last presentation of the day, she invited Breger to testify, wherein the Scottsdale insurance agent proceeded to slime dozens of public officials and private citizens, making preposterous, evidence-free claims that they all accepted bribes from the Sinaloa drug cartel.

About 30 minutes into the 40-minute smear job, Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, objected to the presentation and asked Breger who invited her to testify.

“Breger replied that Representative Harris had invited her and then Representative Harris made a gesture moving her hand across her neck and mouthed something to Breger,” the report noted.

I’m guessing we all know what Harris meant.

Harris knew in advance and lied about it

Unfortunately, for her, there’s ample evidence—in text messages, in statements from others—that Harris knew exactly what Breger would say. She even commended Breger after the hearing.

“You were brave. I knew they would shut it down,” she texted Breger, adding, “took them longer than I thought.”

The ethics panel found, among other things, that Harris:

• “Knew or was at least aware” that Breger would make criminal allegations during the hearing and lied about it to the panel.

• “Took steps to avoid compliance” with House rules that required advance disclosure of her presentation.

• Lied to the ethics panel when she said she was surprised or upset by the testimony.

“The Committee does not lightly issue this report but the findings are necessary to protect the integrity of the House,” the panel wrote, in finding that Harris’ behavior was “disorderly”.

She needed to go for that behavior

You know what was also necessary to protect the integrity of the House?

A Harris-free environment.

It’s been clear since that February hearing that Harris needed to go.

Now, about Sen. Wendy Rogers, who chaired that joint elections hearing and allowed Breger to wax on unchallenged for fully 40 minutes…

Laurie Roberts is a columnist for The Arizona Republic.

Many in the government, especially lawyers, seem to have forgotten about the separation of powers. A murder trial was held in Austin, Texas, ending last week. After 40 witnesses, and 15 hours of jury deliberation, the defendant was found guilty of murder. The defendant killed a protester at a George Floyd-related protest after the protester allegedly pointed an AK-47 at the defendant. The jury considered the “stand your ground“ defense, as well as all other legal defenses available in criminal trials.

Gov. Greg Abbott, who did not hear any testimony, is trying to step in to the judicial branch to essentially overturn the verdict by pushing for an expedited pardon. The appeals courts are perfectly capable of considering issues to either support or overturn the verdict. As a former Texas Attorney General and former Texas Supreme Court Justice, one would think Greg Abbott knows these things. However, he’s either lost his mind, or certainly lost his way.

It’s a ham-fisted attempt to satisfy the base. It creates a serious chilling effect on jury trials and jury service. One of our best safeguards against tyranny is being attacked in Texas. Socialism creeps in from all directions. —Jim S., Texas

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 Renew America Foundation.