by Bob Barr | Nov 25, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerNow that one phase of the impeachment process is finished — sort of — the question is, where are we? Has the needle moved? Are we closer to the goal? Where do we now go?In every sense that means anything of substance, we are right back where we started many weeks ago. We have come full circle.The sum total of what we have learned can be summarized in one half dozen points:• The Washington Establishment — especially that ensconced in the Department of State, and often referred to (not without good reason) as “Foggy Bottom” — dislikes President Trump with an animosity bordering on hatred.• The president disdains the Washington Establishment, most notably those careerists at the Department of State, who regularly exhibit a predisposition in favor of the foreign countries to which they are or have been assigned rather than to the country they are sworn to serve.• California Rep. Adam Schiff, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is the 21st century version of the ancient philosopher Diogenes, who was doomed to search vainly with his lantern for an “honest man,” though Schiff’s vain search for an “impeachable offense” lacks the aid even of a lantern.• The ratio between opinions, presumptions, conclusions and inferences on the one hand, and factual evidence adduced during the two weeks of hearings and a dozen or so witnesses, is a mathematical nullity, as division by zero is not calculable. Zero being the number of actual fact-based pieces of evidence, related by witnesses purporting to establish a “quid pro quo” that Trump sought to force Ukraine’s president to investigate a “political...
by Bob Barr | Nov 20, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comIn legal proceedings or interactions with law enforcement, the one rule any defense attorney would offer is to always consult with an attorney first, regardless of the circumstances or whether you might be guilty of anything. The reason is simple: everything you say is or can become a matter of legal consequence (even if not under oath). Absolutely anyone, even if completely innocent of any wrongdoing, can unintentionally cause themselves legal harm or headache by virtue of a simple misstatement or misunderstanding a question put to them.So, under normal circumstances, I would recommend President Trump not give Democrats any ammunition to use against him, even if provided accidentally. Of course, as has become obvious to all but the most diehard Democrats, the ongoing impeachment proceedings are far from “normal.” They are not even normal legal proceedings. They are political theater being orchestrated by Rep. Adam Schiff but with very real potential consequences for the president and the presidency.In these circumstances, the best course for President Trump may very well be for him take the offensive and do what he does best: fight on the playing field provided, but at a time of your choosing and with your choice of weapon; in this match up, Trump has the ability to beat his opponents face-to-face. The pitfalls of such a move are the same as for any witness in a legal proceeding, whether under oath or not — inconsistencies, misstatements, contradictions, etc. This is why my initial thought was that Trump should not testify, and that his advisors should so advise him. However, as the impeachment inquiry has progressed it has become...
by Bob Barr | Nov 18, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerA little noticed, two-page Oct. 16 memorandum from Attorney General William Barr to all federal law enforcement and prosecution offices raises serious questions about whether the Trump administration is seeking to roll back fundamental civil liberties in order to counter “the threat of mass shootings.”The memorandum itself is oddly worded; unusual, perhaps, for such a renowned wordsmith as Barr. For example, it speaks of the necessity for the government to “hone an efficient, effective and programmatic strategy to disrupt individuals who are mobilizing towards violence” (emphasis mine). It also employs medical terminology at several places; for example, noting the need to “triage” threatened violence.The troubling, overarching theme of the document, is that the appropriate way to identify and head off mass shooters within the United States, is to use approaches similar to those employed by federal intelligence and national security agencies in thwarting acts of terrorism since 9/11. If so, this ought to raise a number of red flags, considering the abuses known to have taken place by the CIA and other federal agencies following those horrific attacks.Moreover, a strategy premised on mimicking anti-terrorism tactics in domestic anti-crime enforcement activities risks neglecting the fact that a number of vital civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights do not apply equally to the array of powers available to government agencies when acting abroad in anti-terrorism and other national security matters; most notably, perhaps, the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures and warrantless mass surveillance.Some of what the attorney general appears to be advocating is not new. For example, three months before the release of the Oct. 16 memo,...
