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.
Trump Calls Pelosi's Bluff Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, October 30 2019
Polls show fewer than half of voters support impeachment in key swing states like Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly slammed the secret impeachment hearings in the Capitol basement as "a totally compromised kangaroo court." Sounds like Speaker Nancy Pelosi got the message. On Monday, she announced the full House will vote to formally launch impeachment proceedings, which will be out in the open instead of in the dark.

Until now, Democrats have been trying to trick the public into believing they've got the goods on Trump. But the truth is, none of the witnesses they've called so far have had any firsthand knowledge of presidential wrongdoing.

Behind closed doors and with no press allowed, House Democrats have tried to put on the appearance of a legal proceeding. At the end of each session, they leak to the press what they claim happened. The media are all too willing to play along, printing the Democratic pols' claims as if they were fact. "Powerful testimony from multiple state and national security officials," the Hill reports, adding up to a "scathing picture of Trump and his allies withholding nearly $400 million in security aid from Ukraine."

Politico called Ukrainian Ambassador Bill Taylor's testimony "explosive," though Taylor's prepared statement merely regurgitated what other State Department minions had told him. His source was the rumor mill. In law, it's called hearsay.

The New York Times reports "a rapidly moving investigation securing damning testimony." That's hardly the case. But soon the jig will be up. Regardless of how many "witnesses" the Dems parade into the Capitol hearing, it won't matter if they have no firsthand knowledge. Even the Times concedes that to impeach a president, the House needs proof "tying him directly" to wrongdoing.

Before Pelosi's announcement on Monday, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, who's overseeing the secret hearings, gave up on calling witnesses who have direct, firsthand working relationships with Trump and can attest to what the president has said and done.

Schiff caved after a key witness actually challenged the committee's subpoena as illegitimate and said see you in court. Charles Kupperman, former deputy national security adviser  and one of the few people who was on Trump's call with the Ukrainian president  filed a lawsuit, arguing that the House committee can't compel testimony for an impeachment until the full House has voted to authorize subpoenas for that purpose. That, of course, is the vote Pelosi was dodging.

"We are not willing to allow the White House to engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope with the courts," Schiff said. Translation: Dems don't think they'd win in the highest court.

They also don't want to risk dragging the inquiry on for months, as they did with the Mueller investigation. Better to ram anything through. After all, without evidence of grave wrongdoing, the Republican-controlled Senate won't remove this president from office. But Dems have one goal: to impeach Trump, damaging him enough to tip the 2020 election.

Schiff's cynical decision not to meet Kupperman in court indicates he's also not going to press for testimony from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Energy Secretary Rick Perry or former National Security Adviser John Bolton  advisers who actually know the facts about Trump's dealings with Ukraine. Additional witnesses are scheduled to appear before Schiff's committee later this week. But they'll likely offer more of the same, predicts Mark Meadows, R-N.C., an Intelligence Committee member witnessing the charade. "It's always people who talked to people who have talked to other people who think that he might have meant this," says Meadows.

Meanwhile, Trump released the transcript of his July 25 call with the Ukrainian president. He didn't have to. If there's any kind of presidential communication that's legally protected, it's conversation between two heads of state. Even so, Democrats and their media allies claim the call is damning evidence of a quid pro quo. All you have to do to see that that's false is read the words yourself.

The public's not stupid, and Pelosi is a far better politician than Schiff. Polls show fewer than half of voters support impeachment in key swing states like Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan. These are states Trump won in 2016, and Pelosi has been reluctant to put Democratic members from these states on the spot. But Trump's called her bluff. Now the Democrats will have to put up or shut up.


Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York State. 
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

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   
 
"The great debate about whether the FBI spied on the Trump campaign continues. The question is why there is still any argument. The newly-released report from Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz shows that by any definition the FBI did indeed spy. ...It turns out the FBI used what should have been a routine intelligence briefing of the Trump campaign to pursue its investigation.…[more]
 
 
—Byron York, The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent
— Byron York, The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Should House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff be investigated for subpoenaing and publishing call log records (with no details or context) of another member of congress, the president's attorney, a journalist and others?