View this post on the web at [link removed]

It's been said ad nauseam over the past six years: the Republican Party as we knew it is dead. Yet, over that same period of time, every so often came the faintest glimmer of hope that the GOP of old would vanquish Trumpism and come roaring back. After Tuesday, those hopes are dimmer than ever. Donald Trump’s hold over the party is still remarkably strong, as evidenced by the overwhelming defeat Rep. Liz Cheney suffered at the hands of her Trump-endorsed opponent in Wyoming’s Republican primary. But again, there are stirrings. Cheney wasted no time and has shifted gears from her unsuccessful re-election campaign to her political future. What say you? Can Cheney spark a revitalized Republican movement that blunts Trump’s influence, or should she seek her political fortunes elsewhere? Let us know what you think [ [link removed] ]. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor
Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg will testify against company — [ [link removed] ]New York Daily News [ [link removed] ]
D.C. Circuit orders release of Barr memo on Mueller Russia report — [ [link removed] ]The Washington Post [ [link removed] ]
U.S., Taiwan agree to start trade talks amid China tensions — [ [link removed] ]The Hill [ [link removed] ]
Louie Gohmert leaves Congress with one law and many falsehoods — [ [link removed] ]The Texas Tribune [ [link removed] ]
Man indicted on attempted murder charge in stabbing of author Salman Rushdie at Chautauqua Institution — [ [link removed] ]The Buffalo News [ [link removed] ]
Inde-Pence-dence Day
Former Vice President Mike Pence revealed this week that he hasn’t ruled out testifying before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. “If there was an invitation to participate, I would consider it,” Pence said at a political event on Wednesday. “It would be unprecedented in history for the vice president to be summoned to testify on Capitol Hill. But, as I said, I don’t want to prejudge ever any formal invitation rendered to us.” The panel has weighed whether to formally seek Pence’s testimony, as there is one piece of evidence only he can provide: His responses to Donald Trump during their final phone call on Jan. 6, when Trump berated Pence for refusing to support his effort to block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. “The American people have a right to know what happened,” Pence said. “And in the months and years ahead, I’ll be telling my story even more frequently.” Interesting. —Politico [ [link removed] ]
And that’s not all. At the same event, Pence also called on Republicans to stop attacking the nation’s top law enforcement agencies over the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago last week. The search, part of an investigation into Trump’s handling of classified material, has led some enraged Republican lawmakers to call for the FBI to be “defunded” or “destroyed.” The rhetoric also has contributed to violent threats made against the agency and individual officials. Pence said the Justice Department and the FBI could be held accountable for their decisions “without attacking the rank-and-file law enforcement personnel.” —The New York Times [ [link removed] ]
About that search… U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart said during a hearing at a West Palm Beach courthouse yesterday that he is planning to unseal portions of the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. The judge plans to hear more from the Justice Department by next Thursday about how extensively investigators want to keep confidential the document that describes their investigative steps and methods leading to the need for the search. Any public release of the document is expected to be heavily redacted. —CNN [ [link removed] ]
Compromised security? Having subpoenaed surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago prior to the search, federal agents saw something alarming in a hallway outside a storage room where the sensitive documents Trump took were allegedly stored. In the government’s quest to retrieve the materials, the FBI interviewed Pat Cipollone and Patrick Philbin, the White House counsel and his deputy under Trump. Other former Trump officials [ [link removed] ] say Trump’s claim of 'standing order' to declassify the documents in question is nonsense. Stay tuned. —The New York Times [ [link removed] ]
MORE: Domestic anti-government threats have increased but are difficult to stop — [ [link removed] ]NPR [ [link removed] ]
Grisham & Smith: Time to put America first
“We have a simple message for our former colleagues and fellow Republicans: This is your moment to put America first and do your part to end this dark time in our country's history. We are pleading with you to join us in speaking out against our former boss—regardless of how long it's taken us or anyone else to do so—because it's never the wrong time to do what's right.” —Stephanie Grisham & Gavin J. Smith on ABC News [ [link removed] ]
Stephanie Grisham served as White House press secretary during the Trump Administration. Gavin J. Smith served in the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services during the Trump Administration.
MORE: An emerging consensus of common sense? — [ [link removed] ]Polity Research Insights [ [link removed] ]
Nichols: What’s next for Cheney?
“Whatever her future, [Rep. Liz Cheney’s] willingness to tell the voters that they have a duty, a positive obligation, to defend the American Constitution and the rule of law was a bracing moment in an era where too many politicians merely pander to extremists and coddle the very worst citizens among us. I want to hope that Cheney, for just a moment, broke through the fog that surrounds the mind of Republican voters, but I am pessimistic. Still, she vowed that the end of her congressional career is only the beginning of her fight against Trump, and so Liz Cheney’s story is far from over.” —Tom Nichols in The Atlantic [ [link removed] ]
Tom Nichols is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and is the author of “The Death of Expertise” and “Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault from Within on Modern Democracy.”
MORE: Liz Cheney to form new anti-Trump group, ponders presidential bid — [ [link removed] ]The Wall Street Journal [ [link removed] ]
Election fraud arrests in Florida
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has announced that 20 Floridians who voted in the 2020 election have been arrested and charged with breaking the state's election laws on felon voting rights. In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly passed “Amendment 4,” a ballot measure that restored voting rights to felons in the state. However, the amendment excluded those convicted of rape or murder, and according to DeSantis, all of those arrested yesterday were convicted of either murder or sexual assault. The arrests are described as the "opening salvo" for the Office of Election Crimes and Security, which was created by DeSantis, approved by the Florida Legislature, and began its work on July 1. Cecile Scoon, president of the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of Florida, said there are still open questions about the election crimes office, such as how law enforcement will be utilized and if their presence will be felt at polling stations. —CBS News [ [link removed] ]
MORE: Social media posts about election fraud still prevalent, study finds — [ [link removed] ]The Washington Post [ [link removed] ]
Del Savio: The danger of one-party rule
“Single-party dominance means that partisan primaries determine your representative before you even get to the general election. In over 85% of our districts, the outcome of the general election is functionally decided in the primary, where just one-fifth, or less, of a party’s voters participate. What does it mean to vote if the victory is predetermined by partisan manipulation of districts and of primaries?” —Laura Del Savio on Forward Thinking [ [link removed] ]
Laura Del Savio is the senior communications strategist at the Forward Party.
MORE: America has a primary problem — [ [link removed] ]Unite America [ [link removed] ]
Bernstein: A positive sign for democracy 
“To some analysts, it looked like sharpening partisan polarization was ushering in a new era of presidential politics. Views of the president would depend on partisanship, not the actual state of the union. If true, then presidents would no longer have a strong electoral incentive to produce results that made voters happy. As long as presidents and their party have strong incentives to produce positive results and to avoid doing things that would make voters unhappy, the basic structure of democracy should, over time, tend to have good outcomes.” —Jonathan Bernstein on Bloomberg [ [link removed] ]
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University.
MORE: Biden’s approval rating surges after series of unexpected wins — [ [link removed] ]Forbes [ [link removed] ]
“We now have a presidency where the president has delivered the largest economic recovery plan since Roosevelt, the largest infrastructure plan since Eisenhower, the most judges confirmed since Kennedy, the second largest healthcare bill since Johnson, and the largest climate change bill in history. … The first time we've done gun control since President Clinton was here, the first time ever an African-American woman has been put on the U.S. Supreme Court. … I think it’s a record to take to the American people.” —Ron Klain, White House Chief of Staff, in Politico [ [link removed] ]
Ten years ago, I volunteered at a veterans' center in New York to help recently discharged veterans organize their resumes and write cover letters. 
I offered to take their information home with me, to write up and bring back a day or two later, but this was not allowed: Because the information I was working on contained data such as military identification numbers and other private information, I had to return all materials when I left the center at the end of the day. 
It seemed like overkill to me...what was I going to do...use a veteran's discharge information to try to fraudulently obtain benefits? But I complied, because this was the law. 
It's the same with Trump: You comply with the law, even if it seems like overkill. —Jim V., New York
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.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?