Somebody is getting upset

And with good reason. A federal appeals court ruled against Donald Trump yesterday in his effort to shield documents from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. A three-judge panel rejected Trump's arguments for invoking executive privilege to block records deemed central to the investigation of the deadly riot, which aimed to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Judge Patricia Millett said Congress had a "uniquely vital interest" in studying the events and that President Biden had made a "carefully reasoned" determination that the documents were in the public interest. Trump also failed to show any harm that would occur from the release of the records, Millett wrote. —Associated Press

• — Double whammy. That wasn't the only bad news Trump got yesterday. New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking a deposition from the ex-president as part of her investigation into potential fraud inside the Trump Organization. James has requested to take Trump's testimony on Jan. 7 at her New York office as part of a civil investigation into whether the company committed financial fraud in the valuations of properties to different entities. James is reportedly examining whether widespread fraud "permeated the Trump Organization." —The Washington Post
•  
• — "I love it." Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows sent emails as early as Nov. 7, 2020, about a plot for Republican-controlled states to send "alternate" slates of presidential electors to Congress on Jan. 6 and even texted a sitting member of Congress about the idea. Meadows, who failed to show up for his scheduled deposition with the select committee on Wednesday, now faces a vote to hold him in contempt of Congress. In retaliation, Meadows is suing the committee, arguing that its subpoena unconstitutionally violates Trump's powers to invoke executive privilege. —Insider
•  
• — The backup plan. Among the documents that Meadows turned over when he was still cooperating with the committee is a PowerPoint presentation that lays out another scheme for stopping the certification of Biden's victory. The plan was to declare a "national security emergency," under the pretext that China had seized control of American voting machines, and then throw out the election results in several U.S. states that Trump lost. —Independent

Ed Board: Our last best hope for global democracy

"If the liberal order breaks down, America's allies will suffer grievously. Once it is gone, Americans themselves may be surprised to discover how much they benefited from it. Yet all is not lost. A determined and united effort by democracies could preserve at least some of the rules-based system, and prevent the world from sliding back towards the dismal historical norm, in which the strong prey unchecked on the weak. Few tasks are more important, or harder." —The Economist

MORE: Renewing democracy is 'defining challenge of our time,' Biden tells summit —Reuters

Assange to be extradited?

It could finally happen. A British court ruled today that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to the U.S. to face charges under the Espionage Act. The case centers on Assange's 2010 publication of secret diplomatic and military files leaked by Chelsea Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst—not on his publication during the 2016 election of Democratic emails stolen by Russia. He is accused of taking part in a criminal hacking conspiracy, by offering to help Manning mask her tracks on a secure computer network and by engaging in a broader effort to encourage hackers to obtain secret material and send it to WikiLeaks. The charges against Assange have alarmed some advocates of media freedom, though hacking is not a protected journalistic act. Assange will appeal today's decision to Britain's Supreme Court. —The New York Times

Lowry: Why has Vladimir Putin become a right-wing hero?

"It's possible for a political leader to defend national sovereignty, pursue an interest-based foreign policy, defend a common national culture, and fight against woke insanity without jailing the political opposition, assassinating critics, invading and dismembering neighboring countries, enriching a kleptocracy, and installing a de facto dictator for life. These aren't incidental foibles; they are at the very heart of Putin's repressive and corrupt regime." —Rich Lowry in Politico

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review and a contributing editor with Politico Magazine.

MORE: Biden reassures Zelensky of U.S. support for Ukraine's sovereignty —Politico

Lieberman: Gerrymandering should be opposed by both parties

"If we really want to save our system of representative self-government, an attack on democracy from one party can't just be dismissed as politics-as-usual by the other party. Implementing true change will require leaders on both sides of the political aisle to be willing to say the truth: that gerrymandering is just plain wrong, whoever does it." —Joseph Lieberman in Newsweek

Joseph Lieberman represented Connecticut in the U.S. Senate and was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000. 

MORE: Ohio Supreme Court hears gerrymandering lawsuits challenging state House and Senate maps —cleveland.com

Focus on Congress

The Protecting Our Democracy Act, a bill designed to rein in presidential authority, passed the House yesterday, but its future in the Senate is uncertain. The bill would codify compliance with congressional subpoenas and pardons, the independence of inspectors general, and transitions in presidential administrations, among other measures. The final vote was 220 to 208, with Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, along with every Democrat, voting in favor of the legislation. Republicans dismissed the bill as a Democratic preoccupation with the previous administration rather than a serious effort to strengthen checks and balances. "It's not about politics, it's about the survival of our democratic system of government," Rep. Adam Schiff, a co-sponsor of the bill, said. —Washington Examiner

• — Debt ceiling. The Senate cleared away the last major hurdle to raising the debt ceiling yesterday, approving legislation that will allow Congress to steer the government away from a first-ever federal default. Fourteen Republicans joined every Democrat to end the GOP's blockade of debt-limit legislation, allowing the bill to advance. It later passed by a similar margin, 59 to 35, with 10 Republicans joining Democrats for final passage. President Biden is expected to quickly sign the bill into law. —The New York Times
•  
• — Human rights. Finally something both sides agree on—pushing back against human rights violations in China. Lawmakers from both parties agreed on Wednesday that China must be held accountable for its slave labor camps in Xinjiang. The Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act would impose economic sanctions on China for goods sold to Americans from the forced labor of Muslim Uyghurs, effectively banning imports produced in the internment camps of Northwest China. —NPR
•  
• — Voting rights. Democrats in both chambers are growing increasingly frustrated—and alarmed—by the lack of federal progress on voting rights. After four failed attempts to pass election reform bills in the Senate, and a lack of sufficient votes to abolish the filibuster, a group of Senate Democrats has gone back to the drawing board. They are debating other possible rule changes that could pave the way for legislation that is seen as paramount to combatting restrictive new voting laws and preserving democracy to pass the chamber. It may all come to a head in January. Stay tuned. —Politico

Taylor & Mancuso: 'Let's Go, Brandon' isn't just a protest phrase

"Words matter. Yet Republicans apparently have not learned the lesson, because we've continued to hear incendiary messaging propagated from GOP corners, culminating in this most recent foul rallying cry against President Biden. The politicians adopting this mantra are not the fringes of the party. They are ranking committee members and hold leadership positions, and the longer they continue, the further it will drive a wedge into our already fractured society. It has to stop. We can no longer allow political radicals to dominate the national discourse, roam the halls of Congress, or spread conspiracy theories that corrode the fabric of our republic." —Miles Taylor & Mary Anna Mancuso in RealClearPolitics

Miles Taylor is the co-founder and executive director of the Renew America Movement. Mary Anna Mancuso is the national spokesperson for the Renew America Movement.

Well said, Michael Carin! I hope what's left of the sane U.S. will read your article and act. —Donna Y., Canada

I just read about a second-grader who brought a loaded gun to school. Thankfully, no one was hurt or killed. I'm not making a joke about that situation; I'm going to use the "logic" we so often hear when it comes to guns to make a point. I wish people in the media and so on would push back in real-time by using people's own words to highlight the flaws and nonsense.

After all gun incidents and mass shootings, many people say that we need more guns, that we'd be safer if we all had guns, that guns don't kill people, people kill people, and that no one should be denied the right to have a gun. No "limits" or "bounds," they say, though that gets a little tricky at times, even for the proponents of free access, as they seem to back off a bit when it comes to what they describe as "mental illness." Yet they can never seem to define what that means. With that in mind, let's use this rationale when it comes to other issues.

Since guns don't kill people, do nukes kill people? Would we all be safer if Iran, Hamas, North Korea, ISIS, Hezbollah, etc., all had nukes? If not, why not? Nukes are just “arms," the word that actually appears in our Constitution. For those who have never read the 2nd Amendment, the word "gun" does not appear. For that matter, nor does the word "nuke." So should we all have our own personal nukes if we view the Constitution as strictly defining our country by the words in it or not in it, as some want to do, rather than as a framework? Would that make us all safer?

Do drugs like heroin, cocaine, etc., kill people, or is it still only people who kill people? Would we all be safer if everyone did drugs? Why is there, or was there ever, a "war on drugs" if drugs don’t kill people, only people kill people?

This is not to make light of the situation with the second-grader and the gun. Should all second-graders have guns? Should everyone at any age have a gun? If not, why not? Why should age be a "limit" if there can be no limits on gun ownership, as some say? The right to bear "arms" in the Constitution does not specify an age limit, or even mental capacity or ability.

By the way, if we'd all be safer if we all had guns, and if there were more guns, I pose the following question. If guns were never invented, how many gun deaths would there be? It's not a trick question. One end of the "equation" has zero guns, the other has an unlimited, or infinite, number. Or try it with, say, cancer. If there was NO cancer, how many people would die of cancer? Would we all be safer/healthier if we all had cancer, or if no one had cancer?

If it matters to some folks, I am a veteran, and I support the 2nd Amendment, as well as the entire Constitution. However, I also believe in and support limits and restrictions, especially with regard to the 2nd Amendment. The oath I took years ago did not and does not expire. Shamefully, some folks must seem to think their oath does expire or does not matter. —Bill T., Arizona

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.