Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
This Week's "Your Turn" Radio Lineup

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:

 

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute - An Epidemic of Loneliness;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Ross Marchand, Director of Policy for Taxpayers Protection Alliance - Unwarranted Carcinogenic Classifications and How the US Government is About to Drive Up the Cost of Videogames;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste - 2019 Congressional Pig Book;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT:  Marlo Lewis…[more]

June 17, 2019 • 12:48 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.
Disagreeing With Conventional DC Wisdom Isn't a Crime Print
By David Harsanyi
Friday, January 18 2019
For starters, the idea that the president should be embroiled in an investigation prompted by his foreign policy positions is both dangerous and arguably unconstitutional.

The New York Times recently reported that President Donald Trump has, on a number of occasions, contemplated withdrawing from NATO. This is an important issue for public debate and, ultimately, for elections. There is, however, no constitutional amendment codifying a forever-alliance with select European nations. So if Trump decided to try to pull out of the alliance  and to this point, he's done nothing to move in that direction  it would be well within his purview. Even if Trump did so solely to placate Russia in hopes of building better relations with that nation, he'd be engaged in neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor.

Some of us believe that Trump is misguided to consider exiting, but it's become a matter of faith among many Democrats and never-Trumpers that the very act of disagreeing with their (often newly acquired) foreign policy positions is a crime against "democracy." As onetime U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, a hero to the resistance for the valiant act of being fired, tweeted, "If true: Trump should immediately and publicly state his apparent wish to withdraw from NATO so he can be promptly impeached, convicted, and removed from office."

As it happens, The New York Times also recently reported that the FBI "began investigating whether (Trump) had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests" soon after he fired a subordinate, FBI Director James Comey. In other words, as far as we now know, the nation's top law enforcement agency purportedly launched a counterintelligence investigation in part  or maybe in whole  because it deemed Trump's firing of its head unjustified and Trump's positions too favorable toward Russia and thus a threat to national security.

For starters, the idea that the president should be embroiled in an investigation prompted by his foreign policy positions is both dangerous and arguably unconstitutional. We'll soon know whether there was any genuine evidence to substantiate such a remarkable move. If not, it would mean that the FBI engaged in an unprecedented attack on a duly elected president. It's not the FBI's job to set foreign policy.

After all, we have widely divergent ideas about what "American interests" look like. Which ones is the FBI going to treat as potentially criminal? No one contemplated investigating or impeaching Barack Obama after he was caught on a hot mic assuring Russian President Vladimir Putin's puppet that he was lying to the American electorate and would have "more flexibility" after the election to acquiesce to Russia's demands on NATO missile defense in Europe. If pliancy toward illiberal regimes is a red flag, the obsequiousness of Obama administration officials toward the Islamic regime in Iran should have sounded alarms at the FBI.

Moreover, in the real world, Trump has taken the same kind of impulsive and inconsistent positions on Russia as he's taken on any number of issues. On the policy front, there's an argument that he's been at least as tough on Russia than the previous two administrations.

Voters knew these were his positions before they voted. Everyone understood that Trump would be flattering Putin  which isn't exactly new for American presidents. Everyone knew that Trump was skeptical about the usefulness of NATO. It was widely covered. During the presidential campaign, Trump went on a long rant about how antiquated and expensive the alliance had gotten: "NATO was set up at a different time," Trump said. "NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We're not a rich country anymore."

We're not a rich country anymore? We're still the richest, by far. That certainly doesn't mean that debating the usefulness and cost of NATO is an attack on "democracy"  a catchall for conventional bipartisan policies. A 2018 Reuters poll, conducted after Trump got back from haranguing Europeans, found that 49 percent of American voters believed that the United States shouldn't be required to defend NATO allies from attack if Europeans were not to contribute more to their defense. Anyway, if the public is shocked about the prospect of backing out of NATO (and did I mention that I'm skeptical that we're ever going to withdraw?), then voters can let their displeasure be known through elections, not by deputizing law enforcement agencies.

Of course, Congress  the same Congress that abdicated its responsibility on foreign policy long ago  can impeach and remove the president for any reasons it sees fit. But there should be two debates: one regarding the president's positions and another about his disposition and the legality of his actions. Yet Trump's obsessed adversaries can't help but conflate those things to create an all-encompassing, overwrought case that ends up making everything about one man. They have few ethical or constitutional qualms about enlisting every institution to undo the 2016 election. And in the end, no one is really talking about NATO, right? Everyone's just talking about Trump.


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist 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   
Prior to 2016, what was the last Presidential election year in which the candidate who won had never before held elected public office?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"[T]he public fretting about launching a war with Iran ignores the fact that Iran has waged its own war against the U.S. and its allies for decades. It has supplied insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan with the roadside bombs that maimed and killed U.S. soldiers. It tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. More recently, Iran's diplomats and operatives were tied to terror plots in Western…[more]
 
 
—Eli Lake, Bloomberg Opinion National Security and Foreign Policy Correspondent
— Eli Lake, Bloomberg Opinion National Security and Foreign Policy Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Should the 2020 U.S. Census add a multi-part question regarding U.S. citizenship, including specifically whether the respondent is or is not a U.S. citizen?