America’s legacy of unparalleled copyright protections and free market orientation has cultivated…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
“Blanket Licensing” – a Collectivist, Bureaucratic, One-Size-Fits-All Deprivation of Property Rights Proposal

America’s legacy of unparalleled copyright protections and free market orientation has cultivated a music industry unrivaled in today’s world or throughout human history.

From the first days of the phonograph, through the jazz age, through the rock era, through disco, through country, through hip-hop and every other popular musical iteration since its advent, it’s not by accident that we lead the world in the same manner in which we lead in such industries as cinema and television programming.  We can thank our nation’s emphasis on strong copyright protections.

Unfortunately, that reality doesn’t deter some activists from periodically advocating a more collectivist, top-down governmental reordering of the music industry in a way that would deprive artists and creators of their…[more]

July 06, 2020 • 02:32 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.
End Impeachment Secrecy Print
By Byron York
Wednesday, October 09 2019
It is simply inconceivable that a party could seek to remove a president but say to the American people, in essence, 'Trust us, we've got good reason.'

There have so far been two hearings in the House Democrats' effort to impeach President Donald Trump over the Ukraine matter. Both have been held in secret. One was last Thursday, the other Friday, and the public does not know what was said in either. Two more are scheduled for this week, and they will be held behind closed doors, too.

The hearings are part of an effort to remove the president from office. There could not be a matter of more pressing public concern. There could not be a matter in which the American people have a greater stake. And yet the public has no idea what is being discovered.

Last week's sessions weren't just secret. They were super-secret. The first hearing, in which the witness was former Ukraine special envoy Kurt Volker, was held in what is known as a SCIF, which stands for sensitive compartmented information facility. It is a room in the Capitol, built to be impervious to electronic surveillance so that lawmakers can discuss the nation's most important secrets without fear of discovery.

The second hearing, in which intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson testified, was also held in the SCIF.

Were highly classified matters discussed at the Volker and Atkinson hearings? Apparently not. Neither interview was classified. And even if some classified information were involved, it would be astonishing for Democrats to believe they could attempt to remove the president on the basis of information that is not available to the public.

The secrecy, decreed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, has taken Republicans by surprise. Some are now speaking out about it.

"Adam Schiff is running an impeachment inquiry secretly, behind closed doors, and he's making up the rules as he goes along," said Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe.

"These proceedings should be public," added Republican Rep. Jim Jordan. "Democrats are trying to remove the president 13 months before an election based on an anonymous whistleblower ... and they're doing it all in a closed-door process."

"This is nothing more or less than a show trial for the media," said Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, noting that with secrecy rules in place, the public knows only what is leaked to the press. "The Democrats leak what they want to leak to build narratives."

Of course, that is not how Democrats would describe it. For his part, Schiff has said that secrecy is needed to protect the identity of the CIA whistleblower who started the entire process. "The whistleblower has the right in the statute to remain anonymous," Schiff said recently, referring to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which lays out the process through which intelligence community whistleblowers can file complaints.

In fact, the law says: "The inspector general shall not disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the inspector general determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation."

First, the inspector general is the only official specifically prohibited from disclosing the identity. And second, even if the statute's use of "investigation" refers to the inspector general's probe, the fact is, the whistleblower is now part of an impeachment proceeding. Disclosure is, in fact, unavoidable; Democrats cannot keep entire hearings secret, keep vital information away from the American people, in the name of preserving the anonymity of a whistleblower.

Yet that appears to be what Schiff and his Democratic colleagues are doing. This week the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, was scheduled to be interviewed, but the State Department nixed his appearance at the last minute. That session was set to be held behind closed doors. Also this week, lawmakers will interview former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich  behind closed doors. Republicans can complain, but Democrats, in firm control of the House, can do as they like. (An inquiry to Schiff's office went unanswered.)

The Democratic drive to impeach President Trump over Ukraine is the first impeachment proceeding solely about foreign policy. The exercise of foreign policy sometimes involves secrecy. The imposition of secrecy was an enormous problem in public understanding of the Trump-Russia affair, which ended with the special counsel unable to establish that there had been any conspiracy or coordination involving Russia and the Trump 2016 campaign. In that investigation, the public would have been better served by more disclosure, more quickly.

Now, the American people deserve to know precisely why one party in the House proposes to remove the president. They deserve to know the facts behind the Ukraine matter. It is simply inconceivable that a party could seek to remove a president but say to the American people, in essence, "Trust us, we've got good reason."

The impeachment proceedings should be opened up  now.


Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2019 BYRON YORK

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years was the National Park Service established?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"When President Trump dared to suggest the decades-old malaria drug hydroxychloroquine may help patients with the coronavirus, he was accused by reporters and commentators of dangerously 'playing doctor' and engaging in 'happy talk' about the disease. ...Now, a new study from the Henry Ford Health System shows the drug has in fact been effective in combatting the coronavirus, especially when used…[more]
 
 
—Katie Pavlich, Townhall.com Editor and Fox News Contributor
— Katie Pavlich, Townhall.com Editor and Fox News Contributor
 
Liberty Poll   

Has Covid-19 significantly changed your family's typical July 4th weekend activities or are they essentially the same as in previous years?