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.
Vindman's Claims Don't Hold Up Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Monday, November 18 2019
When Vindman was asked if he had knowledge of a quid pro quo communicated to the Ukrainians on July 25 - or any other day - he admitted, "no," says page 317 of the transcript.

For Tuesday's impeachment show, House Democrats are trotting out their star witness, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. He listened in on the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that is central to the Dems' case. They allege that Trump demanded Zelenskiy dig up dirt on the Bidens in exchange for military aid.

At first glance, Vindman looks like the ideal witness, wearing U.S. Army dress blues with medals. The press portrays him as a hero reluctantly stepping forward to disclose the president's misconduct. But Vindman will wither under cross-examination, the same way he did during his closed-door testimony on Oct. 29. You haven't heard about that because the media's lying about what's in Vindman's testimony.

Vindman's job at the National Security Council is to write policy memos, schedule meetings and keep minutes of conversations with foreign diplomats. That's why he was on the July 25 call.

On page 316, Vindman claims that Trump "demanded" investigations from Zelenskiy in return for military aid, but that's Vindman's opinion, not fact. He admitted that the actual words spoken during the call don't support that claim: "I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions." Vindman's damning admission is found on page 256 of the transcript.

Where did Vindman get his preconceived notion? He points to media stories accusing Trump and Rudy Giuliani of seeking investigations to damage Joe Biden. See pages 176-177 and 251-252.

Vindman confessed he never met or communicated with Trump or Giuliani and didn't know what Trump was thinking, according to transcript pages 36 and 177.

But on page 252, the Democrats hilariously argue Vindman's on solid ground because the stories quoted Giuliani, "so this is not some sort of media spin thing."

Are the Democrats suggesting a president can be impeached based on media accounts, without real evidence?

When Vindman was asked if he had knowledge of a quid pro quo communicated to the Ukrainians on July 25  or any other day  he admitted, "no," says page 317 of the transcript.

That makes sense. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said Thursday he was unaware of any link between investigations and military aid.

Zelenskiy himself denied that Trump put him under any pressure. EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland reported to Trump that Zelenskiy "loves you're a--." That doesn't sound like someone having his arm twisted.

After the July 25 call, Vindman rushed to tell a NSC lawyer about his trigger-happy conclusion that Trump had committed a grave "wrong." Lucky that Vindman pushes paper and not nuclear buttons.

The whistleblower's complaint, filed Aug. 12, tracks Vindman's concerns. The whistleblower also relied on media stories and admitted he had no facts showing that Ukrainians were told aid depended on favors for Trump.

House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., barred Vindman from naming anyone he talked to outside the NSC, on pages 105 and 277-281, apparently to protect the whistleblower. But on page 14, Vindman denies knowing the whistleblower. Schiff is protecting himself and his staff.

The scariest aspect of Vindman's testimony is his insistence that U.S. foreign policy should be made by unelected bureaucrats like himself. Vindman says he and his colleagues have formulated "the best, most informed judgment" about Ukraine and it wasn't "appropriate for government officials" like Trump's ambassadors to act "counter" to it. What arrogance. See pages 270, 336 of the transcript.

Vindman drafted talking points for Trump's July 25 call with Zelenskiy and grew "concerned" when the commander in chief "strayed" from them, according to pages 18, 42 and 93 of his testimony. Is this lieutenant colonel for real?

Similarly, Vindman was outraged over Trump's recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. But Trump had solid reasons. Zelenskiy said he disliked her and mistrusted her. She had sided with his rival during the election, as page 324 of Vindman's testimony reveals. It's smart to appoint an ambassador who can get along with the country's leader.

Vindman's testimony will be full of such blockbuster revelations, but none that support impeaching Trump.

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York State. 

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?