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.
Fire Eric Holder Now, Fast and Furiously Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, October 06 2011
With the lies mounting, the American people are fast becoming aware of what Republicans in Congress have known for at least a decade: Eric Holder cannot tell the truth.

Congressional Republicans investigating Attorney General Eric Holder’s failed leadership are moving too slow on President Barack Obama’s chief enabler.  After the publication this week of devastating emails revealing Holder lied to Congress about his knowledge of a botched gun-tracking program, they should skip asking the White House to appoint a special prosecutor and demand Holder be fired. 

Consider the evidence.  On May 3, 2011, Holder said under oath that he was “not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”  By October 3, 2011, Holder’s claim was undermined when CBS News publicized internal Department of Justice documents showing that Holder received briefings about the program as far back as July 5, 2010.  Other memos indicate Holder was updated on the deliberate selling of guns to Mexican drug cartels in October and November of 2010. 

Trying to turn the subject away from the attorney general’s perjury, Holder’s mouthpieces at Justice and the White House have taken to screaming at the CBS reporter who broke the story.  In a deeply ironic and absurd response, the White House spokesman “cussed” at the reporter claiming that she lacked the kind of “reasonable” liberal bias expected by President Barack Obama of his friends in the mainstream media.  As if reading from a list of approved house organs, the White House flak went on to cite the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times as examples of “reasonable” outlets that agree with the liberal delusion that Fast and Furious is not a story worth pursuing. 

What makes Holder’s lie to Congress even more outrageous is that this is not the first time he’s failed to tell the truth under oath.  Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online recently detailed a damning chronology of Holder’s fallacious statements regarding the infamous Marc Rich pardon.  McCarthy shows that in testimony in 2001 and 2009, Holder misled Congress on how much he knew about Rich prior to assisting him with securing a pardon for crimes against the United States that earned a place on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.  In both instances, Holder stated that “Mr. Rich’s name was unfamiliar to me” prior to 1999.  In fact, as the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in 1995, Holder had settled a case against some of Rich’s companies, publicly stating that Rich himself was still wanted by the U.S. government. 

The rationale for each of these lies is preserving Holder’s grasp on power.  McCarthy notes that Holder’s work to pardon Rich in 2000 was a way for then-Deputy Attorney General Holder to be first in line to succeed Janet Reno in a possible Gore Administration.  When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, Holder’s commitment to his career led him to repeat the same indefensible explanation regarding Rich to win the job he long coveted. 

And yet, for as self-servingly deceptive as Holder has been, none of this would have been possible had Republicans in Congress challenged him on his record.  Evidence of Holder’s inability to speak honestly under oath was and is readily available in public documents.  But cowed by whispers of racism for opposing the first black attorney general, many Republicans thought they had a deal when Holder privately assured them he would not pursue criminal allegations against Bush-era officials involved with the War on Terror.  That promise lasted only as long as it took Holder to sign off on investigations into CIA interrogation tactics and other meritless probes into former Justice Department lawyers. 

With the lies mounting, the American people are fast becoming aware of what Republicans in Congress have known for at least a decade: Eric Holder cannot tell the truth.  There are now three known instances where Holder has lied under oath.  If he were a private citizen, he would be in prison for perjury.  Since he’s a politician, he at least deserves to be fired.  Failing that, Republicans should skip the special prosecutor request and move immediately toward impeachment. 

If not now, when? 

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   
 
"If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: 'Sure, you can have your lawyers here…[more]
 
 
—Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
— Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
 
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?