In formal comments filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) this week, the Center for Individual…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
CFIF Files Comments in Support of IRS Rulemaking to Protect Donor Privacy

In formal comments filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) this week, the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) offered strong support for the IRS’s proposed rulemaking to eliminate the requirement that certain nonprofit organizations provide the names and addresses of contributors on Schedule B of their annual tax filings.

As CFIF notes in its filing, "the Proposed Rulemaking would help protect the First Amendment rights of subject organizations and their citizen donors, without negatively impacting the legally permissible handling of the nation’s tax laws or 501(c) organization tax filings."

Read CFIF’s comments here (PDF).…[more]

December 11, 2019 • 03:45 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Robert Mueller’s Legacy Reduced to Rubble Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, July 25 2019
As Representative Ratcliffe pointed out, Mueller was unable to cite a provision authorizing to do what he did, and was unable to cite a single example of another prosecutor doing what he did, for good reason: They don’t exist.

Throughout his lengthy military and public service career, Robert Mueller built a reputation as an honorable man who served his country admirably. 

This week, however, his legacy was largely reduced to rubble. 

That’s the regrettable but inescapable takeaway from Mueller’s highly-anticipated testimony this week before the House of Representatives, regarding his performance as Special Counsel investigating the Trump Administration. 

What transpired wasn’t merely compelling political theater.  What he acknowledged should disgust and anger every American who still values the rule of law. 

Mueller’s answers under withering questioning from House Republicans exposed numerous errors and improprieties, and he repeatedly appeared befuddled and fragile.  An early exchange regarding his decision to emphasize that he couldn’t “exonerate” Trump on the question of obstruction of justice, however, was the most significant and damning. 

Since November 2016, Trump Derangement Syndrome victims thundered that Donald Trump illegally conspired – or “colluded” – with Russia during his presidential campaign, and gleefully assured us that it was only a matter of time until Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation resulted in Trump’s impeachment and even criminal prosecution. 

Well, that ended with a thud when Mueller issued his findings. 

Mueller’s report left them empty-handed.  It was all a mirage on the scale of Geraldo Rivera’s live unsealing of Al Capone’s vault.  No “collusion.” 

But instead of acknowledging their error and laughably naïve expectations, they only hardened their determination, doubled down and shifted their rationalization to the Mueller report’s latter portion on the issue of “obstruction of justice.” 

As we all know by now, Mueller found insufficient evidence to allege obstruction of justice.  Instead of rightfully stopping there, however, he conspicuously and preposterously went out of his way to add that he couldn’t “exonerate” Trump, either. 

So off they went.  For the past several months, “Russian collusion” was simply replaced by “not exonerated of obstruction.” 

There was just one glaring problem. 

In a nation where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s not a prosecutor’s role to “exonerate” a potential defendant.  Instead, a prosecutor’s role is to objectively accumulate any evidence indicating criminal activity, and bring charges if warranted or decline prosecution without elaboration if the evidence proves insufficient. 

During this week’s hearings, Representative John Ratcliffe (R – Texas) provided the nation an invaluable service by exposing Mueller’s inexcusable gamesmanship on that front. 

“Which Department of Justice policy or principle,” Representative Ratcliffe asked Mueller, “set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?  Where does that language come from, Director?  Where is the DOJ policy that says that?” 

Mueller couldn’t answer. 

Representative Ratcliffe continued, “Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” 

With unseemly arrogance, Mueller replied, “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.” 

As Representative Ratcliffe pointed out, Mueller was unable to cite a provision authorizing to do what he did, and was unable to cite a single example of another prosecutor doing what he did, for good reason:  They don’t exist. 

Nowhere in Mueller’s appointment order is he authorized to determine whether or not to exonerate Trump or anyone else.  Such authority appears nowhere in the Special Counsel regulations.  It’s nowhere to be found in Office of Legal Counsel opinions.  It’s nowhere in the Justice Department’s manual.  Nor does it appear in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. 

Accordingly, Representative Ratcliffe concluded by justifiably lambasting Mueller’s conduct, and highlighted to Americans why this matters: 

The bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.  It exists for everyone.  Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents.  And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.  Now, Director, the Special Counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can’t find and you said doesn’t exist anywhere in the Department’s policies… 

By doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.  So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report:  that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written.  It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department.  And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary.  I agree with the Chairman this morning, when he said, “Donald Trump is not above the law.”  He’s not.  But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him. 

He’s right.  Leftists have sounded the “not exonerated” trumpet since their “collusion” narrative evaporated.  But that concept has no place in our nation, and must be resolutely condemned. 

Question of the Week   
The most recent U.S. Senator to be elected President of the United States was Barack Obama. Who was the first U.S. Senator to be elected President?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Gobsmacked Republicans made known their fury and frustration late Thursday as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., abruptly wrapped up an all-day marathon hearing on the adoption of two articles of impeachment against President Trump by delaying planned votes on the matter until Friday morning.'It is now very late at night,' Nadler said shortly before midnight in D.C. 'I want…[more]
 
 
—Gregg Re, FOX News
— Gregg Re, FOX News
 
Liberty Poll   

Which of the following is the most important political event of the week?