View this post on the web at [link removed]

Presidents have been criticized historically for both their public and private decisions—for saying too much, or withholding information the American people have a right to know. President Biden, for example, has been accused of going too far, by publicly declaring during a speech in Poland on Saturday that Vladimir Putin should not remain in power. Some argue that his comment signaled a change in U.S. foreign policy that could escalate the war. Whether or not you agree, debates like these are fair game. However, there is no defending his predecessor’s failure to release to the House select committee a full record of the White House phone logs from Jan. 6, 2021. The logs in the panel’s possession show a 7+-hour gap. Now, most Americans understand that some executive discussions are not appropriate for public consumption, as a matter of national security. But that's not at all what’s going on here. When I worked in the administration, we worried about leaving Donald Trump unsupervised for more than a few moments. This is exactly why. Seven hours was more than enough time for him and his allies to attempt a soft coup. —Miles Taylor, Executive Director, Renew America Movement
Ukraine proposes neutral status with guarantees, but Zelensky calls for more Western help — [[link removed]]The Wall Street Journal [[link removed]]
FDA OKs another Pfizer, Moderna Covid booster for 50 and up — [[link removed]]Associated Press [[link removed]]
Omicron subvariant BA.2 is now the dominant strain of Covid in the US, CDC says — [[link removed]]CNN [[link removed]]
Romney says he hasn’t decided on Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation vote, chides GOP for ‘hot’ rhetoric during hearings — [[link removed]]National Review [[link removed]]
‘Significant’ evidence suggests Trump Organization misstated asset values for more than a decade, NY AG says — [[link removed]]CNBC [[link removed]]
‘The DOJ must act swiftly’
Yesterday was an eventful day for the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. First, asserting that it’s “more likely than not” that Donald Trump committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election, a federal judge ordered [[link removed]] the release of more than 100 emails from Trump legal adviser John Eastman to the committee. Then, the panel voted unanimously [[link removed]] to hold former Trump advisers Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt of Congress for their months-long refusal to comply with subpoenas.
During that vote, several committee members directly urged Attorney General Merrick Garland to take action in the contempt cases the panel has referred to him. Renewer Rep. Elaine Luria remarked, “I will echo what my colleagues have already said, but more bluntly, Attorney General Garland, do your job so that we can do ours." Rep. Adam Schiff concurred. "Without enforcement of congressional subpoenas, there is no oversight. Without oversight, no accountability for the former president or any other president, past, present, or future,” he said. “Without enforcement of its lawful process, Congress ceases to be a co-equal branch of government, and the balance of power would be forever altered to the lasting detriment of the American people." —Newsweek [[link removed]]
Fall into the gap. Internal White House records from Jan. 6 that have been turned over to the committee show a gap in Trump's phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes, including the period when the Capitol was under violent assault. There is no record from 11:17 a.m. to 6:54 p.m., meaning there is no record of the calls made by Trump as his supporters descended on the Capitol, battled with law enforcement, and forcibly entered the building, prompting lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence to flee for safety. By comparison, the gap in time on former President Richard Nixon’s infamous Watergate tapes was 18 minutes. —CBS News [[link removed]]
But did he leave a voice mail? One person who missed a call that actually was documented in the phone logs was Sen. Josh Hawley, who famously pumped a fist in the air on the day of the insurrection. Trump asked the White House switchboard operator to place a call to Hawley at 9:39 a.m., but the two were unable to connect. Hawley tried to reach him later but supposedly didn’t get through. Gee, wonder what it was about? —The Kansas City Star [[link removed]]
Who's up next? Former senior White House advisor and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner [[link removed]] is expected to appear before the committee virtually this week. The panel is also seeking to talk with Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. From her text correspondence with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Ginni Thomas appears to know an awful lot about what Trump and crew had planned. Stay tuned. —The Wall Street Journal [[link removed]]
MORE: Ted Cruz's battle to keep Trump in power has cost him friends, sparked questions from investigators — [[link removed]]The Washington Post [[link removed]]
Schulzke: How voting reforms can help defuse the Big Lie
“We often hear that politics is the art of compromise. Yet American voters are never given the chance to try it. Their candidate wins or loses. They may feel entitled if they win or alienated if they lose. But they never get to compromise—and perhaps it is no surprise that they often object when their representatives do.” —Eric Schulzke in Deseret News [[link removed]]
Eric Schulzke is a contributing politics and national policy writer at Deseret News.
MORE: Pelosi: 'I fear for our democracy' if Republicans win House — [[link removed]]The Hill [[link removed]]
Bridgeland: Ukraine is doing what some American leaders won't 
“The lurch toward authoritarian rule in America—from within—in the very country that inspired other countries to create democracies is a startling contrast to the brave patriots in Ukraine we see daily on our television screens. For the Ukrainians and their leadership, they are willing to die for their freedoms—to defend a cause greater than self. In America, too many of our policymakers are not willing to risk the ire of their base to defend our system—not willing to sacrifice perceived self-interest for democracy itself. Americans themselves value their freedom and expect their leaders to defend it.” —John Bridgeland in USA Today [[link removed]]
John Bridgeland is a Republican and former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council under former President George W. Bush.
MORE: Trump calls on Putin to release info on Hunter Biden’s dealings with oligarchs — [[link removed]]Just the News [[link removed]]
Budget marks immigration shift
President Biden released his $5.8 trillion budget plan for 2023 yesterday, and it includes a notable focus on economic and security concerns—no surprise considering that domestic inflation and overseas threats have taken priority in the first few months of 2022. The proposal also would substantially increase funds for the Department of Homeland Security, while taking the agency further away from the enforcement-heavy immigration policies of the last administration. Much of the DHS funding is directed toward "effectively managing irregular migration along the Southwest border,” with an emphasis on improvements to ports of entry. The budget proposal also includes a large increase in funding for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services—the agency in charge of processing work permits, permanent residency permits, and naturalizations—and nearly doubles funding for the immigration court system, which has a 1.7 million case backlog. —The Hill [[link removed]]
MORE: Renewer Sen. Mark Kelly tells Biden to think twice before ending border policy — [[link removed]]Tucson Sentinel [[link removed]]
Gallaudet: No time for surrender
“Ukraine is winning. Russia recently announced a halt to its advance on Kyiv, claiming that the Donbass region was its only aim all along. It is clear to many that Russia’s staggering losses are giving it pause. Now is the time for NATO to shift from its current ‘long haul’ position to one of urgency, stand up to Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling, and give Ukraine every means it has requested to secure victory over Putin and convince him of the futility of such future aggression against Ukraine or any member of NATO.” —Rear Adm. (ret.) Tim Gallaudet in The Hill [[link removed]]
Rear Adm. (ret.) Tim Gallaudet is a former deputy administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, assistant secretary of Commerce, and oceanographer in the U.S. Navy. He is an advisor to the Renew America Movement.
MORE: Andrew Rawnsley: What else can democracies do to ensure Vladimir Putin’s defeat? — [[link removed]]The Guardian [[link removed]]
Albright: Resilience of spirit is the key to life
“No matter how smart we are, we can allow sorrows and grievances to overwhelm us, or we can respond positively to setbacks—be they caused by our own misjudgments or by forces beyond our control. This choice has rarely been starker than in the past two years. As individuals, we have had to adapt to the shock of unwelcome and unexpected circumstances. Collectively, we have had to bounce back not only from the pandemic but also from doubts about our willingness to pursue social justice, our power to make self-government succeed, and our capacity to prevent advanced technology from causing more harm than good. … Clearly, our future leaders will have to be gutsy and resourceful, and so, each in our own way, will we. … So let us buckle our boots, grab a cane if we need one, and march.” —Madeleine Albright in The Washington Post [[link removed]]
Several months before her death last week, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright wrote these reflections on the importance of making the most out of life. Rest in peace, Sec. Albright.
MORE: Don Young: A conservative who believed in the House — [[link removed]]The Hill [[link removed]]
This month’s read is: “Tío Bernie” by Chuck Rocha
Book Corner Confession: I’ve known Chuck Rocha for years, and I spent a good portion of the 2020 presidential election watching his efforts on Bernie Sanders’ campaign. So when Chuck published “Tío Bernie,” I had to read it, because I wanted to know how Bernie Sanders, an old white guy from Vermont, became the favored candidate of the younger set. While Chuck, Sen. Sanders, and I have little in common in terms of political ideology, we do align with the goal of making the country better for all Americans. 
When I sat down to read “Tío Bernie,” I knew I would finally get a behind-the-scenes look into the 2020 campaign to elect Sen. Bernie Sanders as President of the United States, but what I didn’t expect was the backstory of how Chuck and his team worked tirelessly to court the Latino vote in states previously written off by other candidates and campaigns. If you’ve ever met Chuck, you’d learn two things immediately: 1) He’s passionate about ensuring Latinos have a voice in American politics, and 2) he’s willing to do whatever it takes to ensure diversity in our politics is more than a talking point. “Tío Bernie” tells the story of Chuck’s ascension to top Latino political consultant and the creation of Sen. Sanders’ 2020 Latino outreach operation. 
While I know many of us Topline readers did not vote for Bernie Sanders, the takeaways from “Tío Bernie” on the importance of Latino outreach are extremely important. In a nutshell, it’s so much more than a story of the author’s personal journey. It serves as a blueprint for what campaigns should do going forward when it comes to connecting candidates to the Latino community, which is the fastest-growing voting bloc in the United States. “Tío Bernie” is a must-read for anyone looking to mobilize the Latino community and move the needle in the midterm elections. After all, Latinos do, in fact, vote. —Mary Anna Mancuso, Renew America Movement National Spokeswoman
Have you read this? Share your thoughts with me on Twitter @MaryAnnaMancuso [[link removed]]
Want to purchase this book? Click here [[link removed]].
Have a suggestion for our next monthly read? Send it my way: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
We should cease to think of ourselves as "conservatives." The Republican Party has become a classical conservative party in alliance with reactionaries. Conservatives seek to preserve the existing order; reactionaries wish to return to a mythologized order in which White males were dominant. 
We're really classical liberals: We want to preserve and expand economic and political freedom. We used to have a home in the Republican Party. The problem is to find a label for our beliefs, given that in America liberal, libertarian, and progressive are all taken. Given how Americans think in terms of left-right spectrum, perhaps we should call ourselves something like "radical centrists." We thus place ourselves in the center with an implication of seeking action to expand freedom, consistent with the original meaning of radical, an advocate for change from autocracy to democracy. —Chuck C., Virginia
The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff, the Renew America Movement, or the Renew America Foundation.

Unsubscribe [link removed]