House Republicans are wrapping up the House Intelligence Committee's investigation of Russian election meddling and any ties to President Trump's campaign, over the objections of the Democrats on the committee. But there doesn't appear to be unity in the panel's GOP ranks, either. Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who led the committee's investigation, said the GOP majority will conclude in its report that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia and Russians did not try to help Trump win the election.

The U.S. intelligence community disagrees with that assessment, and said so again Monday, CNN's Erin Burnett reminded House Intelligence Committee member Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) Monday night. "They believed that the Russian intent was to hurt Hillary Clinton, but as it became clear that Donald Trump was a viable candidate, they then took it further," Burnett said. "They wanted to explicitly help Donald Trump. So you're saying you do agree?" "I believe there's evidence of everything that you just said," Rooney agreed. "But I also believe there's evidence to where they were trying to wreak havoc on both sides."

Rooney said his assertion is "not completely the opposite" of what Conaway said. "I think there were efforts to try to hurt Hillary and help Trump, but I think there was also the opposite, too," he said. Burnett asked why Republicans are wrapping up the House investigation with questions outstanding, and Rooney was frank. "We have gone completely off the rails, and now we're basically a political forum for people to leak information to drive the day's news," he said. "As you allude to, we have lost all credibility."

Russians still want to interfere and Americans are already voting, Rooney said, and "if we don't get any of these recommendations out before this cycle gets fully underway, then we really have just completely wasted a year of everybody's time." Peter Weber

President Trump's administration has faced widespread bipartisan outcry over its new "zero tolerance" immigration policy, which involves separating children from their families at the border. But even as many Republican leaders have called for an immediate end to the policy, a whole 55 percent of Republican voters support the practice, a Quinnipiac poll released Monday found, while 35 percent of GOP voters oppose it.

Overall, most Americans oppose the family separation policy: Just 27 percent of Americans support it, and an overwhelming 66 percent oppose it. "When does public opinion become a demand that politicians just can't ignore?" asked the poll director, Tim Malloy. "Two-thirds of American voters oppose the family separation policy at our borders."

A whole 91 percent of Democrats oppose the policy, with a mere 7 percent supporting it. Young voters between the ages of 18 and 35 also strongly oppose the policy, 80 percent to 16 percent.

The poll reached 905 voters across the country between June 14 and 17 and has a margin of error of 3.9 points. See the full results here, and read the results of a separate Daily Beast poll that found a plurality of Republicans agreed with the policy separating undocumented immigrant parents from their children here. Jeva Lange

President Trump announced Monday that he is directing the Pentagon to "establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the Armed Forces." Trump, who floated the Space Force idea earlier this year, added Monday that it is "so important for our military" but "people don't talk about it."

The Air Force and Defense secretaries both reportedly oppose the creation of the Space Force; space-related missions are already overseen by the Air Force. "We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force," Trump insisted in his comments Monday. "Separate but equal. It is going to be something."

Trump said that the Space Force will do more than "plant our flag and leave our footprints" on distant celestial bodies, with its objectives including building "a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars" and implementing "a state of the art framework for space traffic management." Watch the announcement below. Jeva Lange

The Supreme Court on Monday opted not to rule in two partisan gerrymandering cases, putting off a decision on whether state election maps can be drawn in a way that helps keep political parties in power, reports The Washington Post.

The justices decided to sidestep what would have been a landmark decision related to cases in Wisconsin and Maryland, where challengers argue the election maps are unfairly drawn with overt political animus. The cases could be reconsidered next term after they are retried in lower courts, but the Supreme Court chose not to consider a ruling yet because of procedural faults.

Justices sided with a district judge in the Maryland case, agreeing that it was not clear whether the state's electoral map violated the Constitution. They also said that it wasn't clear whether any rights had been violated in the Wisconsin case. In both cases, all Supreme Court judges ruled unanimously, reports the Post.

Gerrymandering based on factors like racial demographics has been deemed unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has never ruled on partisan gerrymandering. Any ruling on the practice would have major implications, as many states engage in some level of gerrymandering to benefit the dominant party. The ongoing cases have been punted down the line for now, but the justices expressed interest in soon taking a closer look at what Justice Elena Kagan called a practice that "burdens" and "harms" voters everywhere. Read more at The Washington Post. Summer Meza

Ann Coulter is worried about President Trump's TV-watching habits.

On Fox News' The Next Revolution, the conservative commentator said Sunday that she knows the president gets all his news from TV. And she thinks the "actor" children claiming they've been separated from their parents will fool him into softening immigration policy.

"These child actors weeping and crying on all the other networks 24/7 right now, do not fall for it Mr. President," Coulter passionately claimed on Fox, looking straight in the camera. When host Steve Hilton started to get skeptical, Coulter vaguely sourced The New Yorker, which she affirmed is "not a conservative publication."

"These kids are being coached, they're given scripts to read by liberals, according to The New Yorker," Coulter said. "Don't fall for the actor children."

But searches for any New Yorker article containing "immigrant children" and the words "script" or "coach" came up empty. The closest bet is a 2011 story of an African woman — not a child — who embellished her past hardships to gain asylum in the U.S.

Breitbart similarly sourced a New York Times article saying "migrant children have been coached on what to say to make fraudulent claims for asylum." The article explicitly states that the claim came from Trump administration officials.

Don't fall for the commentators, America. Kathryn Krawczyk

Soccer is the beautiful game no matter what — but every four years, when it's imbued with the international pride and enthusiasm of the World Cup, it takes on extra emotion. Whiffing on a penalty kick can equal global failure, while a victory for the underdog is practically a religious experience.

But for the Panama national soccer team, well, they were just happy to make it to Russia this year. Before they took the field against Belgium on Monday for their first-ever World Cup match, the players stood for the customary playing of their national anthem. Several stood with tears in their eyes, while the crowd belted the words with a fervor. Watch the touching moment below, and relive the goal that brought Panama to Fisht Stadium in Sochi here. Kimberly Alters

This spring, the Pentagon quietly upgraded U.S. Cyber Command, giving it authority to launch daily, offensive cyber attacks against foreign computer networks, The New York Times reported Sunday.

In the past, Cyber Command operated mostly in a defensive mode, neutralizing digital threats and only rarely making offensive strikes against targets like the Islamic State. Though those strikes have had "mixed" results and can land the U.S. in difficult situations with allies, the Times notes, Cyber Command will now be able to engage in preventive, "constant, disruptive 'short of war' activities" against terrorist networks and state actors alike.

The decision to expand Cyber Command's power was not "formally debated inside the White House before it was issued," the Times reports, citing multiple current and former administration officials, all unnamed. In fact, shortly after National Security Adviser John Bolton took office this year, he eliminated the role of White House cybercoordinator. Bonnie Kristian

President Trump has repeatedly tried to pass off his administration's new "zero tolerance" policy of separating immigrant children from their parents at the border on Democrats, even as other administration officials have doubled down on the practice. Here are some of the contradictory excuses offered by the Trump team for a policy that is being increasingly criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Jeva Lange

President Trump: "It is the Democrats' fault for being weak and ineffective with Boarder Security and Crime. Tell them to start thinking about the people devastated by Crime coming from illegal immigration. Change the laws!"

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: "I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful."

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: "I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible."

Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller: "It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero tolerance policy for illegal entry, period. The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law."

Legislative affairs chief Marc Short: "The policy is incredibly complicated and it is one we need to do a better job of communicating."

Former chief strategist Stephen Bannon: "We ran on a policy — very simply — stop mass illegal immigration and limit legal immigration, get our sovereignty back to help our workers, and so he went to a zero tolerance policy. It's a crime to come across illegally and children get separated. I mean, I hate to say it, that's the law and he's enforcing the law."

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."