View this post on the web at [link removed]

Former Vice President Mike Pence made some of his most intrepid statements yet (even by Pence standards) in putting separation between himself and his former boss. Speaking at the Heritage Foundation [ [link removed] ] on Wednesday, he said Republicans cannot “allow our movement to be led astray by the siren song of unprincipled populism that’s unmoored from our oldest traditions and most cherished values.” He criticized the “Putin apologists” in the GOP pushing for an isolationist foreign policy, and again defended his refusal to participate in Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election, saying, “The American people must know that conservatives will not simply pay lip service to keeping faith with the Constitution, but that we will always keep our oath…even when it hurts.” The coup de grace came later that day at Georgetown University, where he was asked whether he would vote for Trump if he is the Republican nominee in 2024. “Well, there might be somebody else I’d prefer more,” Pence responded cheekily, drawing applause from the audience. Wow. Though we appreciated Pence’s courage and leadership on Jan. 6, the former vice president elevated and helped normalize Trump, and thereby helped do generational damage to our democracy. It will take a lot more than words, however much we may agree with them, to restore his credibility, if restoration is even still possible. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor
FBI found documents containing classified intel on Iran and China at Mar-a-Lago — [ [link removed] ]NBC News [ [link removed] ]
Bannon gets four months behind bars for defying Jan. 6 subpoena — [ [link removed] ]Associated Press [ [link removed] ]
Trump claims he owns White House pardon and immigration policy records — [ [link removed] ]The New York Times [ [link removed] ]
Boris Johnson eyes comeback as UK Conservatives pick new PM — [ [link removed] ]Associated Press [ [link removed] ]
FBI raids star ABC News Producer James Gordon Meek’s home — [ [link removed] ]Rolling Stone [ [link removed] ]
He got served 
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has officially subpoenaed Donald Trump in light of his central figure in the multi-step plan to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The panel is attempting to compel Trump to sit for a deposition under oath and to turn over documents by Nov. 4. If the ex-president does agree to cooperate, he will appear either in person or virtually for "one or more days of deposition testimony beginning on or about Nov. 14." Ahead of the subpoena's release, the committee's vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney, said she assumes Trump will fulfill his legal obligation and honor the committee's subpoena, "but if that doesn't happen, then we'll take the steps we need to take after that.” —CNN [ [link removed] ]
But his emails… Earlier this week, a federal judge indicated that Trump signed legal documents describing evidence of election fraud that he knew to be false. On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter wrote in an 18-page opinion that emails from attorney John Eastman, an architect of the effort to subvert the 2020 election, needed to be turned over to the select committee. Carter said the emails “show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public.” —Politico [ [link removed] ]
Mo money or no money? The Justice Department says it is in critical need of more money to continue investigating and prosecuting the Jan. 6 rioters. But it’s not clear whether Congress will grant the request in a major funding bill planned for December. If it fails to do so before the new year, a potential Republican-led House could imperil what the DOJ has called “the most wide-ranging investigation” in its history. With more than 870 arrests so far, the 21-month investigation, led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, has largely been propped up with help from 93 federal prosecutors' offices from across the country who are volunteering personnel. —NBC News [ [link removed] ]
Down in Georgia. In a separate but related case in Georgia, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday that U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify before a special grand jury investigating whether Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in the state. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis wants to question Graham about phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the weeks after the election. Stay tuned. —Associated Press [ [link removed] ]
MORE: Ed Kilgore: Indifference about Jan. 6 is the real threat to democracy — [ [link removed] ]New York Magazine [ [link removed] ]
Priola: ‘If you don’t like what’s going on…you’re not trapped’
“You have free will. You can register independent. You can register with the Democratic Party. You can be part of a third party. [W]e in this country have choices. Legislators have choices; elected officials have choices; citizens have choices.” —Kevin Priola in The xxxxxx [ [link removed] ]
Kevin Priola is a Colorado state senator who switched party affiliation from Republican to Democratic earlier this year, citing concerns about election integrity and climate. In this piece, he is interviewed about his choice by Tim Miller, writer-at-large at The xxxxxx.
MORE: These third-party candidates could have a big impact on the midterms — [ [link removed] ]The Hill [ [link removed] ]
Focus on election denialism
The upcoming midterm elections on Nov. 8 will be something of a Rorschach test on the strength of election denialism in the U.S. Candidates who believe the “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” through widespread voter fraud are appearing on ballots across the country. What do they want? According to a Brookings Institution analysis, their election administration agendas would impact how votes are cast, how they are counted, and who has control of election results. Many election deniers also support policies designed to decrease the overall pool of voters, such as creating requirements that voters be removed from voter rolls and demanding stringent voter identification. What we can expect if election deniers are successful is already evident in some states. —Brookings Institute [ [link removed] ]
“You just feel like you’re fighting for your life.” Election officials around the country say threats, harassment, and incessant voter-fraud claims are driving mass departures of election staffers. In Pennsylvania, more than 50 county election directors or assistant directors have left in the state’s 67 counties since the 2020 vote. In South Carolina’s 46 counties, 22 election directors have left office. And 30% of Texas election officials have exited over that same time period; in one county, the entire elections staff resigned. —Reuters [ [link removed] ]
“There’s a lot of stuff they can do, and they can do it in ways that look pretty boring.” In places like Arizona, a crucial swing state in which all three Republican candidates for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general are election deniers, it could mean major changes to come. They could rewrite the state’s elections procedures manual, which details the rules for conducting elections and certification. It’s written by the secretary of state and must be approved by the attorney general and governor. If all three sign off, the changes carry the force of law. And that’s not even counting the more expansive changes that could be made by the state legislature. —Associated Press [ [link removed] ]
“What is wrong with this state, man?” New rules around voting are causing chaos and confusion in Florida—and raising questions about whether Gov. Ron DeSantis and his Office of Election Crimes and Security are weaponizing their new powers to gain political advantage. DeSantis created the elections police force to fight baseless claims of mass election fraud. In video footage, those arrested appear puzzled when local and state police showed up at their houses to fulfill warrants. Authorities also showed confusion when answering their questions about why they were being taken into custody. —Tampa Bay Times [ [link removed] ]
MORE: Alaska’s independents have something to say to the rest of the country - [ [link removed] ]Politico [ [link removed] ]
The Art of Disagreement
By Bill King
French philosopher Michel de Montaigne once quipped that “there is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees.” My experience is that talking only to people with whom you agree (or only watching people on TV with whom you agree) is not only boring, it makes us more uninformed. I rarely learn anything from talking to people who agree with me.
When I was running companies, I found that having staff around me who only agreed with everything I said was a sure-fire way to get into trouble. But as the media has Balkanized into ideological strains, Americans have increasingly listened only to those voices reflecting what they already believe, thereby reinforcing those beliefs. 
Psychologists tell us that hearing something that conflicts with our beliefs is emotionally painful because the possibility that we have been wrong, especially about fervently held beliefs, lowers our self-esteem. Psychologists refer to this as cognitive dissonance. To avoid it, we naturally tend to avoid and are hostile to such input.
But I have learned some simple rules over the years that have helped me embrace engaging with those who disagree with me, and I would like to share them.
1. Acknowledge the possibility you are wrong. No one is right all the time; therefore, there will be occasions when your conclusion is wrong. Routinely stop and think about whether that may be the case.
2. Look for evidence that contradicts your own beliefs. Because we don’t like to hear things that negate what we believe, we have a natural tendency to seek out evidence that supports our preconceptions and ignores evidence that does not. So, do the opposite. Look for evidence that questions your opinions. And do it in a good faith attempt to challenge your conclusions. If nothing else, understanding evidence will help you defend your position if you do not change your mind. Every good lawyer looks for holes in their own case.
3. Recognize that two intelligent people of good faith may reach different conclusions. As much as we think of our brains as a computer, they are infinitely more complex. Our opinions and beliefs are the result of a lifetime of continual inputs along with an element of genetic diversity. No two people have exactly the same life experiences or genetic makeup. Those two elements may lead two honest and bright people to look at the same set of data and reach different conclusions. And that is okay. The ability to see different approaches to a problem is a strength of our species.
4. There is no reason to hate someone who disagrees with you. This is the most important point. There is no one in our lives with whom we agree on everything. It is a waste of spirit to demonize people who come to a different conclusion. We should always keep in mind the words of former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson: “Hatred corrodes the container in which it is carried.”
Happy disagreeing.
Bill King is a businessman, lawyer, and former contributor at the Houston Chronicle. He has served as a city councilman and is the author of “Saving Face” and “Unapologetically Moderate.”
(Originally published by RealClearPolitics [ [link removed] ])
I have a challenge for those who blame President Biden, or for that matter, former President Trump, for our high inflation rate. According to an analysis by The New York Times, about $5 trillion was spent related to COVID-19, since the start of the pandemic through both administrations.
Most economists seem to agree that massive deficit spending has contributed to the rapid rise in domestic prices. They also cite other factors such as Ukraine war sanctions, material and labor shortages, and post-lockdown increased demand by consumers.
My challenge for those who are quick to blame either president, is to try to fill a 4x6-inch postcard with the names of individual people, government agencies, and businesses who refused to accept any of that money. Then they should consider what would have happened without it. —Bill M., Pennsylvania
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]?