We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
WSJ Urges Regulators to Approve T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, and cautioned the federal government against any pointless and destructive objection to the deal.  In today's Wall Street Journal, its editorial board encourages the Department of Justice (DOJ) to move forward on the deal:

The Justice Department lost its lawsuit to block AT&T's purchase of Time Warner.  Yet now the antitrust cops are holding up T-Mobile's merger with Sprint even though it could give AT&T more competition in wireless.  What gives?

A year ago, T-Mobile announced plans to acquire Sprint for $26 billion in stock, yet the merger is still stuck in government antitrust purgatory.  The Federal Communications Commission keeps pausing its 180-day shot clock on the merger…[more]

April 22, 2019 • 04:07 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.
Notable Quotes
On Promoting 'Collusiongate':

"On Collusiongate, the CIA and the FBI were acting contrary to their usual rule of refraining from interference in domestic politics. Instead, as has become clear thanks largely to former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., they were relying heavily on a document bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee, to the point of presenting it as evidence to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without identifying its provenance. ...

"I've written that the Democrats have been over-invested in Collusiongate and would be wiser to concentrate on other, forward-looking issues. Some Democrats are now urging just that. Put aside the dog-eared copies of the Steele dossier and safely dispose of the Robert Mueller votive candles. Everyone makes mistakes.

"But the government officials who promoted Collusiongate should not get off so easily. I'm biased, in favor of respecting elections, and I think that a CIA or FBI director who tries to tilt them his own way should be held morally accountable. Anyone disagree?"

— Michael Barone, Washington Examiner Senior Political Analyst and Co-Author of The Almanac of American Politics
— Michael Barone, Washington Examiner Senior Political Analyst and Co-Author of The Almanac of American Politics
Posted March 28, 2019 • 07:55 am
On Jussie Smollett Hate Crime Charges Being Dropped:

"Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stood shoulder-to-shoulder with his city's police force Tuesday afternoon, denouncing prosecutors for dropping charges against 'Empire' star Jussie Smollett and slamming the episode as a 'whitewash of justice.'

"Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and Emanuel said they were not only furious with the outcome of Tuesday's surprise hearing but also blindsided by the decision itself, with the officials only learning Smollett wouldn't face charges for allegedly faking a hate crime at the same time the public found out.

"'Where is the accountability in the system? You cannot have -- because of a person's position -- one set of rules applies to them and another set of rules apply to everyone else,' Emanuel said. 'Our officers did hard work day in and day out, countless hours working to unwind what actually happened that night. The city saw its reputation dragged through the mud...It's not just the officers' work, but the work of the grand jury that made a decision based on only a sliver of the evidence [presented]. Because of the judge's decision, none of that evidence will ever be made public.'

"Meantime, First Assistant State's Attorney Joseph Magats told reporters he still believed Smollett filed a false police report. He said prosecutors "stand behind the investigation and the facts," adding, 'this was not an exoneration.'"

— Jessica Sager, Fox News
— Jessica Sager, Fox News
Posted March 27, 2019 • 08:02 am
On the Mueller Report and American Trust in Media:

"In the last two years, half of Americans say their trust in the media has decreased, while only 8 percent report increasing trust. By a margin of 69 to 29, Americans agree that the media are more interested in advancing their point of view than reporting all the facts. Three-fifths agree that the media covers matters in order 'to delegitimize the views held by President Trump and his supporters.' Sixty percent of independents and 93 percent of Republicans agreed with that last item. The media have become an amen chorus of liberals chanting liberal refrains to liberals. The signature phrase of our moment is Fake News. And the Hindenburg of Fake News just went up in flames."

— Kyle Smith, National Review Critic-at-Large
— Kyle Smith, National Review Critic-at-Large
Posted March 26, 2019 • 08:03 am
On the Mueller Report:

"The FBI and the DOJ were fundamentally compromised from the start. They were fed information through backdoor channels like DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, who was on the Fusion GPS payroll, bypassing real intelligence operations. Comey clearly was out to entrap the president with the private one-on-one meeting he called to dangle the dossier, his taunting of the president by refusing to say publicly that Trump was not a target, and writing up memos of unknown veracity following meetings with the president. The after-party of Comey and other intelligence officials becoming anti-Trump talking heads on CNN and elsewhere unmasked any veneer of impartiality.

"Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Gerald Nadler (D-N.Y.) are poised to ignore the report and to stir up years of new investigations. This kind of raw partisanship, after the largest criminal investigation of a campaign and an administration in history, has no place in our democracy. It's an abuse of power without precedent. The Mueller investigation systematically went after everyone named in the Steele dossier, using the toughest possible tactics. Rather than investigate the crime, they investigated the people, finding unrelated crimes to use as leverage to squeeze out any potential drops of evidence related to collusion. They got every email of the transition; they looked through every communication by everyone through every means, including tapping secret messaging apps. ...

"It's time for true bipartisan investigation of how and why this was allowed to smear and destroy so many people when there was nothing there. Those who launched this disruption of the presidency on the basis of questionable evidence and procedures should be held accountable for their actions. Those who were investigated but not charged should have their legal fees reimbursed."

Read entire article here.

— Mark Penn, Stagwell Group Managing Director and 1996, 2000 and 2008 Clinton Campaign Chief Strategist
— Mark Penn, Stagwell Group Managing Director and 1996, 2000 and 2008 Clinton Campaign Chief Strategist
Posted March 25, 2019 • 08:08 am
On Proposed Changes to the Supreme Court:

"The First Amendment ensures that all Americans have the right to engage in political speech. Democrats wish to put political speech under heavy regulation, so that the people holding political power set the rules under which they may be criticized and debated. The Democrats have attempted to gut the First Amendment under the guise of 'campaign finance' regulation, as though the right of free speech could be separated from the means of speech. It is worth bearing in mind that the Democrats' latest attack on the First Amendment was occasioned by the desire of a political activist group to show a film critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the run-up to a presidential election -- a film whose circulation the Democrats sought to prohibit as a 'campaign finance' matter.

"The Supreme Court stepped in to stop that, finding that the First Amendment means what it says. And now the Democrats propose to corrupt the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices from nine to whatever number it takes for a future Democratic president to create a majority of Democratic partisans on the Court. They are counting on the same court-packing scheme to give them the power to effectively repeal the Second Amendment without having to bother to propose and ratify a constitutional amendment -- a political fight that the Democrats would surely lose."

— Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
— Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
Posted March 22, 2019 • 07:58 am
On Ukrainian Plot to Help Clinton:

"After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election -- this time, in favor of the Democrats.

"Ukraine's top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country's law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

"The leak of the so-called 'black ledger' files to U.S. media prompted Manafort's resignation from the Trump campaign and gave rise to one of the key allegations in the Russia collusion probe that has dogged Trump for the last two and a half years.

"Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko's probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian's release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton's campaign.

"The parliamentarian also secured a court ruling that the leak amounted to 'an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign,' Lutsenko told me. Lutsenko said the tape recording is a serious enough allegation to warrant opening a probe, and one of his concerns is that the Ukrainian law enforcement agency involved had frequent contact with the Obama administration's U.S. embassy in Kiev at the time.

"'Today we will launch a criminal investigation about this and we will give legal assessment of this information,' Lutsenko told me."

Read entire article here.

— John Solomon, The Hill
— John Solomon, The Hill
Posted March 21, 2019 • 08:04 am
On the Electoral College:

"Amid a number of proposals pushed by 2020 Democratic presidential candidates trying to stand out in a crowded field comes an idea that totally doesn't scream 'sore loser' at all: abolishing the Electoral College. ...

"The framers of the Constitution established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress and election of the president by popular vote. It maintains the institution of national representation by preventing bigger states from wielding more influence over smaller states in elections. Additionally, the Electoral College distributes popular support and gives minority interests more sway in each state.

"The Electoral College is a fundamental part of our democracy. Democrats proposing to abolish it merely want to shift the balance of power in their favor, by changing the rules of a game they just lost fair and square."

— Siraj Hashmi, Washington Examiner
— Siraj Hashmi, Washington Examiner
Posted March 20, 2019 • 08:28 am
On the Democrats' $100 Trillion Agenda:

"Remember when Democrats complained that $5.7 billion for a border wall was too expensive? Well, that's chump change compared to what many of the congressional Democrats and nearly all of those 15 declared Democrats in the presidential race are now rallying behind.

"The price tag isn't in the billions but in the tens of trillions. President Trump was attacked earlier this month by Democrats for a budget blueprint that would run fiscal deficits of 5 percent of GDP. That's too high, for sure, but count up the spending plans of Democrats and deficits could easily hit 20 to 30 percent of GDP and tilt the nation toward Greek and Puerto Rican-style bankruptcy. ...

"Add it all up and the estimated 10-year cost of creating the Democratic-socialist utopia envisioned by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other leaders of the Democratic Party reaches well north of $100 trillion. ...

"The Democrats balked at spending $5.7 billion to protect American communities by securing the border, but they're perfectly happy to mortgage our future by spending nearly 20,000 times that amount on their own utopian fantasies. We will all have everything we want, and our country will be bankrupt."

— Stephen Moore, Economist, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Visiting Fellow
— Stephen Moore, Economist, Heritage Foundation Distinguished Visiting Fellow
Posted March 19, 2019 • 08:02 am
On Gun Control and the New Zealand Terrorist Attack:

"For some reason, gun-grabbing liberals seem to think that the existence of people who want to shoot random civilians should make us want to be less able to defend ourselves. Uh, no. The horrifying New Zealand terrorist attack would usually have drawn universal attacks by liberals on law-abiding Americans and their rights. On the upside, the dishonest and disgraceful slander of fellow Americans that usually accompanies these events was comparatively muted, perhaps because this loser (who should die anonymously, his videos unviewed, his manifesto unread, and his name unspoken) was so transparently attempting to provide everyone with fodder to hate their political opponents. To rile liberals, he mixed in references to Trump and Candace Owens; to outrage us Normals, he embraced leftism and environmental wackoism. It was a scam to set us at each other's throats. The proper response to this creep's crude manipulation is to not pretend that he was motivated by anything other than resentment over his own manifest inadequacies and failures. To hang this idiot's acts on one's political opponents for cheesy short-term rhetorical advantage is to play his game; instead, we should come together in the hope that the Kiwis hang that idiot."

— Kurt Schlichter, Townhall.com
— Kurt Schlichter, Townhall.com
Posted March 18, 2019 • 08:01 am
On Pots, Kettles, and the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"There's a big shakeup going down at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) this week. In a surprise announcement on Thursday, the hateful left-wing 'hate watch' group disclosed the sudden firing of co-founder Morris Dees. Although the SPLC declined to specify why, reports of racial bias and a possible #MeToo situation quickly surfaced.

"Josh Moon, a columnist with the Alabama Reporter, tweeted, 'The SPLC fired Morris Dees yesterday and announced it today. Multiple sources have told me that the allegations of inappropriate conduct involve sexual harassment incidents. Multiple incidents that have come to light after an initial recent allegation.'

"He followed up with, 'I have been sent a number of internal SPLC emails that address the ongoing situation and specifically discuss Dees. Looks like a combination of complaints regarding sexual harassment and racial biases in promotion and hierarchy led to this.'

"The LA Times reported that after the recent resignation of a female African-American lawyer, SPLC staff wrote a letter to management this week saying, in part, 'Allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism threaten the moral authority of this organization and our integrity along with it.'"

— Alexa Moutevelis Coombs, MRC Culture's On TV Blog Editor
— Alexa Moutevelis Coombs, MRC Culture's On TV Blog Editor
Posted March 15, 2019 • 07:37 am
Question of the Week   
How many times in our nation’s history has a presidential election been decided by the U.S. House of Representatives?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"SAN FRANCISCO -- Facebook said on Wednesday that it expected to be fined up to $5 billion by the Federal Trade Commission for privacy violations. The penalty would be a record by the agency against a technology company and a sign that the United States was willing to punish big tech companies.The social network disclosed the amount in its quarterly financial results, saying it estimated a one-time…[more]
—Mike Isaac and Cecilia Kang, New York Times
— Mike Isaac and Cecilia Kang, New York Times
Liberty Poll   

Does Joe Biden's entry into the Democratic race for president virtually seal the general election as Trump vs. Biden, or will one of the other Democrats be the candidate?