November 2019

The Daily Caller

By Bob Barr

A 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, in speaking to the International Conference on Cyber Security, Barr lamented the fact that private technology companies still are permitted to offer customers encryption so robust that federal agencies are unable to unlock it. In claiming that the federal government’s efforts to defend the nation’s security are seriously hampered by not having a lawfully mandated “backdoor” decryption key, Barr echoed a refrain by former FBI Director James Comey before he was fired by President Trump. In fact, efforts by federal law enforcement agencies to win such a backdoor decryption capability in federal law, goes back to the time I served in the House as a member of the Judiciary Committee in the late 1990s.

The attorney general also signed a data-sharing agreement with his U.K. counterpart that some worry will provide side-door access to electronic data on U.S. individuals without constitutional restrictions that would otherwise apply.

The memorandum’s references to mental health and other medical issues as possible indicators of predisposition to engage in mass murder, raises a possible link to another idea floating around federal government circles — “HARPA.”

HARPA is the acronym for the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency, which — so far as is known publicly — is not yet an authorized or funded federal initiative. It is noteworthy, however, that HARPA’s website and linked video trailers clearly anticipate it will be authorized by executive order and funded. The agency then would deploy federal resources to advance “health technology” and cure diseases such as “pancreatic cancer” by, among other things, partnering with the National Institutes of Health and, strangely, the Department of Defense.

The narrative on the HARPA webpage favorably compares the proposed health research agency to “DARPA” (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) as the “gold standard” for “accountability.” Such a preposterous assertion mischaracterizing one of the most secretive Defense Department components, should itself be a giant red flag for congressional oversight and public inquiry.

That the attorney general and the Department of Justice are focusing on identifying and thwarting future mass shooters, is laudable and timely. But the time for transparency, oversight and asking questions about just how such a strategy and attendant tactics are to be implemented, is before not after such far-reaching and potentially problematic steps are taken.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Virginia was home to eight presidents, including some of America’s immortals — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Its state constitution, penned by Jefferson, was a prelude to the U.S. Constitution. It was in Richmond in March 1775 that Patrick Henry courageously declared, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” However, in the wake of last week’s elections in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the banner of individual liberty which the state birthed so many years ago, is now dead; replaced by a collectivist mindset distressingly similar to that which now prevails in California.

The state’s final transition to Liberalism was preceded by a series of political events that, in more normal times, would have doomed the state’s Democratic establishment to deep minority status: the governor in black face, sexual assault allegations against the Lt. Governor, an abortion bill rivaling that of the most liberal of states, and a growing trend of anti-gun rhetoric from state legislators. Notwithstanding these and other episodes, last week Virginia went solid blue.

While some pundits point to demographic shifts in the suburbs – an influx of Hispanic voters, increased numbers of college educated federal employees, and overall population growth leading to greater population density – this tells only half the story at most. The Republican Party has been losing ground for decades. Moreover, it is far from clear that those factors automatically mean more Democrat voters. The real question voters everywhere should be asking – not just in Virginia – is, has the Republican Party given up on what made the GOP attractive to these types of voters in the past?

Rather than leading with the principles and ideas that once defined Republican politics and ideals (and those of our Founding Fathers) – low taxes, limited government, individual rights – local “Republican” officials now more often than not respond to voters’s desires to enhance their “safety” and “quality of life,” by increasing spending and expanding government services. Predictably, it then becomes only a matter of time before Democrats swoop in and steal voters with promises of more of whatever goodies the GOP was offering.

In other words, Republicans simply forgot how to be Republicans and, with that, any ideas for how they might lead. According to former Republican Party of Virginia Executive Director Shaun Kenney, it is precisely this lack of big ideas that weakened his party to the point it is today. Not since former Governor Jim Gilmore’s plan to eliminate the “car tax” in 1998 have Virginia Republican candidates really offered a clear reason to consider voting for them.

It is a lesson Republicans across the country, especially in Congress, should heed with absolute resolve heading into the 2020 elections. 

Republicans are never going to beat Democrats at the “government handout” game. As we have already seen with the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, there truly is no limit as to what they will promise voters, including free healthcare and free education for everyone, including those in the country illegally. 

What voters are looking to the GOP for are meaningful alternatives; whether it is congressional Republicans countering “Medicare for All” with free market fixes to the healthcare system, or locally, making the case to new, Hispanic voters that the GOP is the party of traditional family values and small business entrepreneurs. Some may argue these are hardly “big ideas,” but compared to what many in the GOP now offer voters, they are huge.

Equally important, Republicans need the spine to defend their ideas, principles and values from attack. Unlike President Trump,  far too many Republicans sit back and allow Democrats to pillory the foundational tenets of conservatism; offering little more than boilerplate, partisan rhetoric or snarky sarcasm in response. 

We can look to Corey Stewart’s embarrassing loss to Tim Kaine in the 2018 Virginia U.S. Senate race as proof that this strategy is a recipe for failure. The rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez provides clear evidence that the vacuum of intellectual leadership left by Republicans, now is being filled with a growing flock of socialist ninnies in Virginia and elsewhere; a phenomenon no longer limited to America’s west coast.

What happened in Virginia last week is a bellwether for trends we already are seeing in other traditional Republican strongholds like Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina. More blind partisanship, immature snark, and atrophic leadership from GOP leaders will only ensure more states like Virginia are surrendered to the Left.

The Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

As the Adam Schiff-orchestrated impeachment debacle plays itself out on Capitol Hill amid intense media and public interest, just a few blocks away in a hushed federal courthouse, 67-year old political consultant Roger Stone — the man everyone loves to hate — is fighting a lonely battle against the federal government fixated on punishing him for doing what most every political consultant and candidate for public office routinely does.

Stone has made a living out of blustery, often exaggerated rhetoric; sometimes for himself and other times for his clients. That practice now places him at high risk of being incarcerated for the remainder of his natural life.

Stone’s career as a hard-edged political consultant began in the 1960s. In the 1980s he first advised Donald Trump, then a brash New York businessman, on how to navigate the turbulent waters of national politics.

Never one to shy away from controversy — instead often courting it — Stone in 2016 was a vocal supporter of candidate Trump. Even though he was not a member of the Trump campaign team, Stone’s razor-sharp political mind and his vast storehouse of political knowledge were valued by those directly aiding the then-candidate; and he maintained contacts with people in the campaign. In this he was not alone. Dozens, if not hundreds of individuals with political skills and who viewed Trump’s anti-establishment message and persona favorably, communicated with the Trump campaign; hardly fodder for a federal criminal indictment.

The release of emails by WikiLeaks damaging to the campaign of Hillary Clinton in the late summer of 2016, however, focused renewed attention on Stone and those associated with him. The Justice Department had become extremely interested — some might say, fixated — on finding out whether there were any links between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, and its founder Julian Assange.

During those tumultuous weeks of the 2016 campaign, the matter of email “dumps” and their real or perceived impact on the Clinton campaign, was a matter of constant discussion and speculation not only by the media, but by political consultants and pundits everywhere. Among those who communicated with others about the email disclosures, was Stone.

Unlike many of his colleagues, Stone never tried to hide his interest in the matter, and even appears to have engaged in a degree of exaggerating his ability to influence matters relating to the emails. He always asserted that he did not collaborate or coordinate any release of the emails with WikiLeaks; and voluntarily testified before Congress in this regard. The Department of Justice, however, believed otherwise and obtained an indictment against Stone for lying to the Congress. The government has pursued a tortured path in arriving at this conclusion.

No less a tainted witness than Trump’s convicted former lawyer, Michael Cohen, claims to have overheard a conversation between then-candidate Trump and Stone regarding the WikiLeaks disclosure. However, that allegation was never corroborated, and was in fact denied by Trump in his written answers to questions posed by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Additionally, the government alleged that Stone directed Jerome Corsi, a well-known “conspiratorialist” commentator, to attempt to find out about the timing of the WikiLeaks email dumps so as to assist the Trump campaign. Neither Stone nor Corsi ever confirmed the government’s suspicions; and despite threats to indict him if he did not plead guilty to lying in such regard, the Justice Department never pursued charges against Corsi.

In his testimony before Congress, Stone maintained that radio talk show host Randy Credico was his source for discussions about the timing of any WikiLeaks disclosures. The FBI has insisted Stone lied in this regard, and is attempting to so prove in the federal trial now unfolding in the nation’s Capital. The government has buttressed its case against Stone with allegations that he tried to dissuade Credico from testifying truthfully, and that he went so far as to threaten Credico with an almost comical reference to a scene from the 1974 “Godfather Part II” movie. The feds even claim Stone threatened Credico’s therapy dog, Bianca.

All this may sound like a bad movie script, but it is not. Stone was arrested earlier this year in the dead of night, by federal agents armed with automatic weapons. Now he is a defendant facing decades in prison.  The charges against him stem from nothing more than — at worst — bragging and exaggerating his abilities to influence events in the political arena. There, but perhaps for the grace of God, go many other consultants, candidates, and office holders.

The Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

A question heard often in politics is, “what have you done for me lately.”  South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, less than one year into his long-awaited chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, may be hearing echoes of that refrain as he faces criticism of his leadership from within his own caucus.

Graham, who is universally acclaimed in the GOP as having virtually single-handedly resurrected the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh last fall, now is being chastised by some of his colleagues for failing to more aggressively move a conservative agenda through his committee. A review of Graham’s freshman year as Judiciary chair belies such criticism, but if permitted to go unchallenged, it could cut short his tenure at the helm of this key committee.

For starters, Republicans should not lose sight of Graham’s pivotal role ensuring that President Trump’s nominees for U.S. district courts and the all-important federal courts of appeals, move expeditiously through his committee and to the Senate floor for votes.  Since being handed the Judiciary Committee gavel from outgoing Chairman Chuck Grassley in January, some 100 federal judges — all strong constitutionalists — have been confirmed by the committee.

While critics may argue that any Republican serving as committee chair could have orchestrated such confirmations, from my vantage point as a long-serving member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Senate chairman plays an essential role in the confirmation process.  In this regard, Graham has been relentless in making sure Trump’s judicial nominees do not languish in his committee.  He deserves praise, not scorn.

Regarding the question of social media, another hot-button issue that has come before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham has taken on Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg with assertiveness shown by far too few of his Republican colleagues in either House.  The senator’s pointed grilling of Zuckerberg forced the young billionaire to admit publicly that Facebook has no direct competitors and little, if any, ability to self-regulate — both crucial concessions in any potential future anti-trust action against the social media giant.

It is, however, in the context of standing up to Big Hollywood that Graham has perhaps shone the brightest. He has regularly stood against the west coast-based entertainment industry that for years has tried — often successfully — to rig the free market to advance their anti-consumer financial interests. In this battle, Graham has even crossed swords with the current U.S. Department of Justice; something many Republicans are loathe to do.

For reasons not exactly clear, the Antitrust Division has been lukewarm at best in holding the music industry’s feet to the fire. Look no further than what it is currently doing to the anti-trust decrees agreed to by the industry to prevent these entertainment industry monopolies from continually raising prices on music consumers. In an apparent move to humor the music industry, the division is engaging in an investigation of these decrees, which DOJ decided should not be modified in 2016 after an exhaustive two-year analysis.

Rather than ignore such a move by the government — as some politicians beholden to the industry would do and have done — Graham wrote to the department. He asserted his committee’s oversight power to ensure the nation’s anti-trust laws are enforced against the entertainment industry, and that it not cruise by with its historically cozy relationship with the feds.

Of course, and in the context of impeachment, Graham has exhibited backbone in short supply among many of his congressional colleagues.  He has taken the lead in calling out the impeachment effort now moving forward in the House exactly what it is — a fraud.  Graham has gone so far as to assert the Senate might not even hold a trial in the Senate if the House in fact impeaches Trump along its current path.  It appears Graham’s aggressiveness in this regard has raised the fighting spirit of Republicans in the Senate and the House.

Thus, while some in the Senate Republican caucus may be pressing for Grassley to replace Graham as Judiciary chair in 2021 if the GOP holds the majority in next year’s crucial election, as things now stand, President Trump and his agenda have no better champion in that key post than the incumbent firebrand from South Carolina (itself a key primary state next year).

The Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Now 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 rival” of Trump’s in return for supplying military assistance to that corruption-infested country.

• The impeachment process as played out thus far, is 100 percent partisan; with not a single witness allowed to be called by the minority party.

• Impeaching a president of the United States based on focus-grouping words and phrases designed to convey criminality is a really bad idea. It’s far more likely to sow confusion and discredit rather than confidence in its purveyors.

So where are we, now that we are back at square one; not having passed “Go” and not even been able to collect our $200? It is difficult to say with any degree of confidence.

Remember, the “Inquiry of Impeachment,” passed in October by Democrats in the House without a single Republican vote, did not establish a clear path to an end, as was the case in 1998 when the House impeachment President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Instead, Pelosi opted for a vague, multi-landed roadmap with six different avenues demarcated — the Intelligence Committee, the Financial Services Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, the Oversight and Reform Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and last, but certainly not least the only House committee with actual, rule-based jurisdiction regarding impeachment, the Judiciary Committee.

At this point, all we know for certain is that the Intelligence Committee has held hearings designed to elicit evidence of an impeachable offense. We do not know if this committee is finished, or intends to hold additional — and equally unrevealing — hearings. We have not been informed if this committee is ready to turn over its “findings” — whatever they might be — to the Judiciary Committee. And we have no knowledge of what any of the other five committees with a “piece of the action” have done in similar regard, or what they might do moving forward, if anything.

For a House majority which two months ago declared itself fully ready to launch the most solemn and serious action capable of being undertaken pursuant to our Constitution — removing an elected president — this is a sorry, and embarrassing position in which Speaker Pelosi finds herself. And it promises not get any better if and when the venue shifts to the Senate, where the GOP holds the reins of power.

Despite recent indications by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that the upper chamber would hold a trial on whatever the House might send over if labeled “Article(s) of Impeachment,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has advanced a proposal that a House resolution lacking any substantive, precedential or procedural characteristics of a legitimate impeachment process, is not worthy of a Senate impeachment trial, and should be dismissed summarily by simple majority vote.

Any way one looks at where we are “at this point in time,” the fate of the exercise so piously undertaken by House Democrats, is uncertain even if they complete their desired task of impeaching President Trump on something; on anything.

The famous bard, William Shakespeare, wrote four centuries ago in the tragedy King Lear, that “the wheel is come full circle.” So has now the impeachment wheel come “full circle.” and the results are just as theatrical.