In Georgia, the fight for truth goes on

Back in January, with a critical U.S. Senate runoff and special election about to take place, amid news of a phone call between Donald Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger—in which Trump urged him to "find" enough votes to overturn his loss in Georgia—Gabriel Sterling took a stand. The top state election official publicly and passionately refuted false allegations made by Trump about the state's voting system and encouraged Georgians to vote in the Jan. 5 election. They did, and two Democrats won, tipping the Senate ever so slightly in the Democrats' favor. A lot has happened since then, but for Georgia, the focus on the 2020 presidential election continues.

• — A criminal inquiry into Trump's Jan. 2 call to Raffensperger to "just find" 11,780 votes is making headway. Prosecutors conducting the investigation, launched by Fulton Co. District Attorney Fani Willis, are scrutinizing "potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office, and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election's administration."
•  
• — The district attorney's office is now also sharing information with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol as well. Further, the FBI has begun interviews in recent weeks with several Georgia election officials about death threats and other dangerous warnings they received in the months after the election from Trump backers suggesting falsely that Georgia officials were involved in election rigging.
•  
• — Meanwhile, Trump has continued to push his bogus claims. He wrote to Raffensperger last month asking him to decertify the election results, which is impossible. He has also campaigned for Rep. Jody Hice—who is hoping to defeat Raffensperger in a primary contest—as part of a retaliation campaign against Republicans who defied his demands to block Joe Biden's win. Will it work? As Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers said, "Politics is about addition, and vengeance is not consistent with addition." —The Guardian

Are the insurrectionists getting off easy?

According to Attorney General Merrick Garland, no. Yesterday, he defended the Justice Department against claims that it is not charging the rioters who breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 harshly enough. "Prosecutors involved in this case are making determinations in every case about what charge fits the offense, what charge fits the law," Garland said. Many defendants have been charged only with misdemeanors, and some low-level offenders have reached plea deals that will likely allow them to avoid jail time. Asked about accountability for the ex-president, who was impeached in the House for inciting the insurrection, Garland cited department policy limiting public comments on pending investigations or individuals. "We are doing everything we can to ensure that the perpetrators of Jan. 6 are brought to justice," he said. "We will follow the facts and the law where they land." —CNN

MORE: FBI and Justice Department will help protect school employees amid uptick in violence over COVID-19 policies and critical race theory —CBS News

Sullivan: Facebook should be reined in

"Facebook has built a business model that it knows full well relies on the anger and outrage of its nearly 3 billion users to keep them engaged and clicking ('Misinformation, toxicity, and violent content are inordinately prevalent among reshares,' its own data scientists concluded, according to the Journal report.) As [Facebook whistleblower Frances] Haugen explained, this phenomenon motivates politicians not just to communicate differently but to govern differently, by embracing less reasonable, more outrage-inducing policy positions. You can see this playing out in extreme rhetoric on emotional issues like immigration policy. Facebook's practices, she believes, even propelled the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol by allowing misinformation to flourish and organizers to congregate on its sites." —Margaret Sullivan in The Washington Post

Margaret Sullivan is the media columnist for The Washington Post.

MORE: Whistleblower to Congress: Facebook products harm children and weaken democracy —NPR

Back in session

The U.S. Supreme Court returned yesterday for a term that promises to be monumental, with cases involving abortion, guns, and election law. In one of its first decisions, the court affirmed an earlier ruling that Washington, D.C., is not constitutionally entitled to voting representation in Congress, deflating hopes among some advocates that they could secure representation for residents through the courts rather than through legislation. The ruling has little bearing on the ongoing fight for D.C. statehood, however, and does not preclude Congress from passing a law that would grant the District a vote. The ruling only affirms a finding made by a three-judge panel of federal judges in D.C. that Congress is not constitutionally required to do so. —The Washington Post

MORE: Suspect taken into custody from a 'suspicious vehicle' outside the U.S. Supreme Court, officials say —NBC News

Esarey: Pandemic democracy vs. pandemic autocracy

"Democracies face criticism of their vaccination campaigns precisely because they are democracies: They have cultures of open discussion and free media. But when it comes to developing and administering the lifesaving vaccines that can stop the virus, democratic governance is working." —Justin Esarey in The Atlantic

Justin Esarey is an associate professor of politics and international affairs at Wake Forest University who specializes in political methodology.

MORE: China purchased mass quantity of PCR tests months before first reported case of COVID-19 —Newsweek

Focus on Congress

With the deadline for voting on the two big pieces of legislation currently making their way through Congress—infrastructure and a social spending package—pushed back to the end of the month, moderate and progressive Democrats have a few more weeks to figure out how to work together. While an agreement between the two factions remains up in the air, Democratic leaders now acknowledge that the topline for the social spending plan will likely fall below $3.5 trillion, and instead end up closer to between $1.9 and $2.3 trillion. President Biden, anxious to pass the major pillars of his agenda before 2022, when the nation's focus will begin to shift to the midterm elections, has urged progressives to get on board. —Politico

• — Build Back Better. A proposal in the reconciliation package that could give the IRS access to millions of bank accounts is drawing criticism from both banks and customers. Currently, banks are only required to report deposits or withdrawals of $10,000 or more. Officials say the proposal would lower that requirement to $600 because the feds want to identify people illegally avoiding the system. The Treasury Department and IRS have both stated that it's a method for them to raise revenue—but how and how much are unclear. —WQOW
•  
• — Debt ceiling. Biden excoriated Republicans yesterday for blocking Democrats' efforts to raise the debt ceiling weeks before a projected government default, calling their tactics "reckless" and "disgraceful" and warning they risked causing "a self-inflicted wound that takes our economy over a cliff." Trying to convey the risks to everyday Americans, the president warned that they could see the effects as early as this week. The cap dictates the amount of money the government can borrow to fulfill such financial obligations as Social Security checks, salaries for military personnel, and other bills. —The New York Times

1. — Infrastructure. The bipartisan infrastructure bill has lost a supporter: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber's chief policy officer, Neil Bradley, announced the policy shift in a letter to its Board of Directors yesterday. The reason given for his decision to withdraw the organization's support? Biden's move to formally link the bill with the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package during his meeting with House Democrats on Friday. —Yahoo! News

Bauer & Goldsmith: Congress should seize this change

"The Protect Our Democracy Act contains vital presidential reforms that have the potential to attract bipartisan support, and that should attract that support, despite our splintered polity and a 50-50 Senate. The moment is also propitious for reform because the president has indicated openness to these constraints on presidential powers where other presidents typically have not. According to press reports, Democratic lawmakers have consulted with the White House on PODA, and while it is not on board for everything, it apparently supports many of the reforms. In short, this is a rare moment where consequential reform of the presidency not seen since the 1970s might be possible." —Bob Bauer & Jack Goldsmith on Politico

Bob Bauer served as White House counsel to former President Barack Obama and as senior adviser for the Biden campaign. Jack Goldsmith served in the George W. Bush Administration as an assistant attorney general and as special counsel to the Department of Defense. They are co-chairs of the Presidential Reform Project.

Keith R. from Oregon…slam dunk, right on the money, well said. I agree with everything you said. I was a GOP'er my entire life, but no more, and for the same reasons you espouse. With all the hullabalogna going on in the Democratic Party, maybe it really is time for all of the moderate Dems, all of us "independent" voters, and the few remaining true Republicans to really and seriously consider a new political party. It would take time, but there could be a groundswell of support for a truly left-center to right-center constitutionally committed group of candidates. —Steven B., Florida

As difficult as it is to create a third party that can actually win significant elections (not done since the 1850s), it seems more easily accomplished than returning Republicanism to political norms and respect for the Constitution. —Nathan J., Virginia

The Republican Party is hopelessly broken. Those who vote in the primaries have adopted the far-right flakiness of Donald Trump. It needs to be replaced with a conservative party with some integrity. I don't see that happening any time soon, however. —Paul G., Idaho

No, the Republican Party is not worth saving. It is not reforming and is opposing good things like the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It's time for a new party. I hope Stand Up Republic will lead the charge. —David W., Utah

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.