The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
On Sabre/Farelogix Merger, DOJ Mustn’t Undertake a Misguided Antitrust Boondoggle

The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard of its proposed acquisition of Farelogix, but it looms as one of the most important antitrust cases to approach trial since AT&T/Time-Warner. The transaction’s most significant aspect is the way in which it offers a perfect illustration of overzealous bureaucratic antitrust enforcement, and the way that can delay and also punish American consumers. Specifically, the transaction enhances rather than inhibits market competition, and will benefit both travelers and the travel industry by accelerating innovation.  That’s in part because Sabre and Farelogix aren’t head-to-head market competitors, but rather complementary businesses.  While Sabre serves customers throughout the…[more]

January 13, 2020 • 03:53 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.
Nancy Pelosi Is Already Attacking the Legitimacy of the 2020 Election Print
By David Harsanyi
Friday, November 22 2019
Rather than safeguarding the integrity of our elections, Democrats have corroded trust in them.

"Nancy Pelosi just stated that 'it is dangerous to let the voters decide Trump's fate.' @FoxNews In other words, she thinks I'm going to win and doesn't want to take a chance on letting the voters decide. Like Al Green, she wants to change our voting system. Wow, she's CRAZY!" tweeted Donald Trump Tuesday.

Well, not exactly. Trump's tweet quotes a Fox News reporter summarizing Pelosi's position, not the speaker's statement verbatim. Left-wing Twitterverse, of course, immediately jumped all over the president's clumsy wording and acted as if the substance of his contention was wholly untrue. It wasn't.

In her "Dear Colleague" letter pushing back against Republican anti-impeachment talking points, Pelosi wrote this: "The weak response to these hearings has been, 'Let the election decide.' That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections." Is he?

If a Republican had suggested that a presidential election was a "dangerous" notion, he would have triggered around-the-clock panic-stricken coverage on CNN and a series of deep dives in The Atlantic lamenting the conservative turn against our sacred democratic ideals.

What Pelosi has done is even more cynical. She's arguing that if Democrats fail in their efforts to impeach Trump  and, I assume, remove him from office  then the very legitimacy of the 2020 election will be in question before any votes are cast.

Though most liberals have long declared the 2016 contest contaminated, as far as we know, absolutely nothing  not even the most successful foreign efforts in "interference" or "meddling"  damaged the integrity of the election results. Notwithstanding the belief of more than 60% of Democrats, precipitated by breathless and often misleading media coverage, not one vote was altered by Putin, nor was a single person's free will purloined by a Russian Twitter bot or Facebook ad.

And, contra Pelosi's implication, whatever you make of Trump's request from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Joe Biden's shady son, not one voter will be restricted from casting a ballot for whomever they please in 2020. In truth, voters will know more about the inner workings of Trump's presidency than they have about any other administration in memory. Maybe they care, maybe they don't, but that's not up to Pelosi.

Rather than safeguarding the integrity of our elections, Democrats have corroded trust in them. Post-2016 calls for increased control over speech on the internet, for instance, pose a far greater danger to American freedoms than anything our enemies at the Kremlin could cook up. And if the contention is that the only truly legitimate election is one that is free of any attempts to mislead voters, as seems to be the case, then we might as well close up shop. The presence of unregulated political rhetoric is a feature of a free and open society. We will never be able to, nor should we aspire to, limit discourse.

It shouldn't be forgotten, either, that this habit of injecting doubt into the electoral process is nothing new. For the past 20 years (at least), Democrats have shown a destructive inability to accept the fact that a bunch of voters simply disagree with them. If it's not "dark money" boring into their souls, it's gerrymandering, special interests, confusing ballots, voter suppression, crafty Ruskies or the Electoral College. Democrats can't lose on the merits. Someone, somewhere, has fooled the proles into making bad decisions.

All that said, it is Pelosi's constitutional prerogative to try to impeach Trump for any reason she sees fit, even if her goal is only to weaken the political prospects of her opponent. No, it isn't a "coup," but it's certainly not a constitutional imperative, either. It's a political choice.

In the end, the presidency happens to be one of the things we do decide via elections. That will almost surely be the case when it comes Trump, and Pelosi knows it. And if Trump isn't removed by the Senate, and if the results don't go the way Pelosi hopes, she's preemptively given Democrats a reason to question the legitimacy of yet another election.


David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of the book "First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History With the Gun." 
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first African-American soloist to appear at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Federal prosecutors are scrutinizing whether former FBI Director James Comey leaked classified information about a possible Russian disinformation campaign to journalists, according to a bombshell New York Times report.The inquiry, which kicked off in recent months, appears to focus on information from documents that Dutch intelligence obtained from Russian computers and provided to the U.S. government…[more]
 
 
—Chuck Ross, Daily Caller
— Chuck Ross, Daily Caller
 
Liberty Poll   

Should witnesses be called for the Senate impeachment trial, which could take weeks or even months, or be restricted to the record and evidence already produced by the House?