by Bob Barr | Feb 10, 2020 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerThe victory by President Trump and his team over the impeachment-pursuing Democrats was complete, and devastating. However, missing from the celebratory activities last week was one of Trump’s strongest, most consistent, and most loyal supporters – Roger Stone. Stone remains silenced under a federal court gag order that prevents him from publicly discussing anything about his conviction last November, even as he awaits sentencing for up to 25 years on February 20th. His case has been described as the last “loose end remaining from the Mueller investigation.” More accurately, it is the “last travesty of the Mueller investigation.”The one thing people might remember from the government’s prosecution of Stone probably would be the massive, pre-dawn SWAT raid on his Ft. Lauderdale home on January 25, 2019. The reason this incident may be the only aspect of Stone’s case at all familiar to the public is because the government apparently notified CNN in advance of the raid so as to ensure it produced sufficient coverage to paint the 67-year old political consultant as dangerous and a “flight risk.”Stone, who has been a decades-long supporter of Trump and assisted him early in his presidential campaign, was the target of a lengthy investigation by the FBI directed by Robert Mueller’s team of mostly Democrat-supporting lawyers searching vainly for Russian connections to the 2016 campaign. No such “collusion” was found, of course, but that did not slow Mueller’s quest to nail Stone’s scalp to his crumbling prosecutorial trophy wall.Stone was never charged with any substantive criminal offenses. The best the government could do was charge him with lying to Congress when he appeared...
by Bob Barr | Feb 5, 2020 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comAs they say, “words have meaning”; even – rather, especially – words in the Constitution. Take the words found in Article 2, Section 4, which provide the only grounds on which a president can be impeached and removed from office: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Despite the interminable effort by Pelosi, Schiff and their merry band to ignore both these words and the historical context in which they were written, the President of the United States can be removed from office only if found to have committed a serious (“high”) crime. In a startling display of ignorance of history – which renowned historian David McCullough wrote recently is something that “keeps him up at night” – impeachment-focused Democrats appear to have forgotten our Founders established a government led by a “President” elected by the People, and not by a “Prime Minister” chosen by the legislative branch. The difference at the heart of the debate over how our country’s leader may be removed is more than semantic; it reflects clearly two of the principles – separation of powers and checks and balances – woven into the fabric of our constitutional republic. The President is elected by the People but can be removed by the Congress, that is, the legislative branch. In contrast, a British Prime Minister is chosen by and can be removed by the legislative branch in which he or she serves whenever that head of state loses the support of the Parliament, for whatever reason (including, for example, disreputable behavior or “maladministration”). While technically a prime minister can be removed by impeachment – an extreme procedure under old British law – the use of...
by Bob Barr | Feb 3, 2020 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerSen. Elizabeth Warren declared at a campaign event last fall that for a person to be considered as her Secretary of Education if she were to be elected President, that candidate first would have to be interviewed and approved by a nine-year old transgendered student. Notwithstanding the sheer lunacy of such a declaration (made by the candidate with a straight face and to a round of applause from her audience), it got me thinking – applying such selection criteria to other positions, what might a Warren cabinet look like? For the post of attorney general, the candidate would be vetted by a panel of convicted felons. This would help guarantee President Warren’s “top cop” would possess extensive, first-hand knowledge of how the federal penal system operates. It also would essentially guarantee we would have an attorney general whose dislike for law enforcement would fit the mold that seems to be the litmus test for Democrat Party candidates – supporting prosecutors who see the police rather than criminals as the bad guys. Secretary of state candidates would have to pass muster by a panel limited to citizens of other countries — preferably countries whose leaders despise the United States and share the Obama administration’s “America last” world view. Advocates of this philosophy adhere to the mindset of today’s Democrat Party, which is that every serious problem facing the world in the 21st century has been caused by the United States. The only candidates who could be considered by Warren’s transition team for the post of secretary of commerce would be individuals who previously worked for the federal minimum hourly wage....
