October 2020

Townhall

by Bob Barr

April 19 was the day America lost the fight against COVID-19. It was on that day that two hospital workers in Denver stood in front of a truck with people heading to the Capitol to protest the state’s stay-at-home order. Suddenly there was clarity. You were either with the hospital workers or the protestors in the truck. That was it; no in-between, no confusion. The lines had been drawn. COVID was — like every other issue in this Year of Our Lord 2020 — absolutely partisan.

This, of course, was not by accident. Partisan leaders on each side recognized the value in making COVID political, and went all-in hoping their position would better resonate with voters. Consider the Great Shutdown debate. Republicans arguing it was about the economy, and Democrats about health and safety. Subtlety was thrown to the wind, as nuance is not helpful when trying to stoke people’s emotions and further drive them into embittered tribes.

Predictably, today’s debate over COVID-19, which should be discussed seriously as a national crisis impacting both our health care and economy, is just another toxic mess full of vile rhetoric and misinformation designed only to better each party’s chances in November. Take, for instance, the ghoulish joy liberals express at infection rates in the South because these states’ leaders dared to defy Leftist orthodoxy on COVID shutdowns; or how many anti-Trumpers openly hoped the president’s COVID infection would remove him from office, and perhaps even from this physical world.

To characterize this situation as unhealthy is an extreme understatement. There really are no winners in such an environment. Citizens are held hostage as any meaningful progress in Congress grinds to a halt, with members either too stubborn or too scared to reach across the aisle on even the most limited and obvious of compromise solutions. Basic human civility among colleagues becomes “betrayal,” as when the hug between Sens. Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein after an intense but respectful confirmation hearing resulted in calls to “cancel” Feinstein.

It has not always been like this. In an era not so long ago but which now feels like ancient history, I served as a member of Congress when, despite deep philosophical differences between Republicans and Democrats, we managed to find solutions to America’s problems. In fact, in one year when the GOP controlled Congress and Democrats occupied the White House, we cut taxes, reformed welfare, and balanced the federal budget.

Of course, it helped that in those days we had leaders like Newt Gingrich, who despite the political disagreements with President Bill Clinton, was willing and able to reach meaningful compromises, even as both leaders claimed to be protecting their base constituencies. While Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi were both in Congress in those days, just one generation later neither can direct anything but bile at any GOP member of either the House or the Senate.

Can you even imagine today doing what Newt Gingrich and then-Minority Leader Dick Gebhardt did at the start of the 105^th Congress — hold a bipartisan congressional retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania for all House Members, their spouses and children? This occurred a mere two years after the majority in the House switched from Democrat to Republican for the first time in 40 years, and as tempers were still somewhat raw as a result.

However, the simple act of a bipartisan retreat forced members from one party to be in close proximity to their counterparts on the other side of the aisle for three days, away from the partisan halls of the Capitol. Democratic and Republican Members ate, talked, and socialized (including dancing) together over the course of a weekend. Members from one party were able to see their counterparts from the other party not as one-dimensional cut-outs to be shouted down and belittled, but as human beings with strengths and weaknesses, and as parents and families just like theirs.

The lessons from Hershey, PA in 1997 are lessons badly needed today for members of Congress, the president, and citizens alike. We must make America civil again if we are to have any hope of breaking these cycles of partisan brinkmanship, in which the goal is not a functional democracy, but rather complete control of government and everything it touches; where the winning side has free reign to ram through whatever it wants. In the short term this may seem necessary to balance out the changes of the last regime, but ultimately draws the country ever closer to all-encompassing authoritarianism as such “balancing” becomes increasingly more extreme — even inhuman, as in wishing COVID on your political enemies.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Daily Caller by Bob Barr   From 2017 to 2019, America averaged 11 mass shootings per year; nearly double the rate of the three prior years. Although still a statistical rarity when it comes to crime, the uptick in mass shootings was cause for concern and attention by those on the right and the left. Yet, in 2020 America has endured only one such tragedy, not only running counter to the supposedly grim “new normal” painted by Democrats as a way to shame Second Amendment supporters, but shattering the data trends altogether.     For the self-proclaimed “Party of Science,” the facts this year – a record number of gun sales and a historically low number of mass shootings — should prompt at least a brief reflection on the party’s anti-gun platform, which holds that guns are always and inherently dangerous. Democrats’ take on “science,” however, is just as bad as their understanding of the Second Amendment. When it comes to actual facts about firearms, they cannot close their eyes and ears fast enough.     The simple, obvious truth is that if gun ownership rose to an all-time high and mass shooting incidents fell dramatically during the same period, gun ownership is not the cause of mass shootings.  This should have been obvious long before 2020, but for all of their histrionics about conservatives not wanting to talk about gun violence in the wake of mass shootings, Democrats continue their refusal to talk about anything other than banning guns as the solution to violent crime (including shootings in cities with the most stringent gun control laws already on the books).     For real scientists, the effects of 2020, and in particular that of COVID-19 on mass shootings, is an instructive reveal of the complexities behind such events, which Democrats have long ignored or refused to consider. An FBI study of mass shootings from 2000 to 2018 showed 44 percent occurred in “commerce” locations such as businesses and malls, and another 21 percent in education settings. These also happen to be areas impacted heavily by COVID-19, resulting in mass closures across the nation.     It is no coincidence that the removal of the favored soft targets for these killers has resulted in a dramatic drop-off of mass shootings. Nor is it a coincidence that psychopaths who murder pick such targets; they offer plenty of victims who are almost completely unprotected.     The vulnerability of soft targets to these attacks has for decades been a concern of Second Amendment activists. In fact, the FBI confirmed these fears in a 2018 report on mass shootings, noting “the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.” Even so, calls for restoring or buttressing citizens’ natural rights to self-defense outside the home as a solution to reducing mass shooting casualties are routinely mocked by Democrats. Even calls for armed guards or police protecting schools are met with derision.     All of this presents an uncomfortable reality for Democrats heading into the 2020 elections. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, millions of the record number of gun purchases this year were by first-time buyers, motivated by concerns about the economy and social unrest. Included in this cadre of new firearm owners are many who consider themselves politically liberal, and who until now might even have counted themselves among those who viewed the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to keep and bear arms” as one that applied collectively rather than individually.     The problem for Joe Biden, if he is elected, is that these new firearms owners are unlikely just to roll over once he begins implementing the stringent gun control measures for which he has advocated as a candidate.     None of this, of course, is likely to stop Biden from doubling-down on gun control, which is why every gun owner, whether new or long-time, must see their vote next month as one that will directly impact the future of their gun rights, more so than in any election since Bill Clinton’s in 1992.     For all their blustering about “science,” Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats want nothing to do with facts when it comes to guns and their plan to limit or strip citizens of their lawfully owned firearms. The consequences for the Second Amendment this election cycle could not be starker — an assessment confirmed by the science of research.     Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The long-awaited and much-discussed anti-trust suit against Big Tech behemoth Google has been filed by the Justice Department. While many on the conservative side of the ledger are applauding the government’s action, the reality is that Google, while big and powerful, is not a “monopoly” that ought to be subject to such drastic action by the federal government.

I do not make that statement as a die-hard fan of Google. I have been among those critical of the search engine company for using manipulative algorithms to direct internet users in ways that skew the results, the so-called “search engine manipulative effect” or “SEME.” I also have chastised Google for the way it has stretched the “fair use” doctrine beyond reasonable limits in the company’s years-long battle with Oracle over “application programming interfaces.”

Those and other criticisms of Google, however, are reflective of issues that can be remedied by civil lawsuits (as in the Oracle case now awaiting Supreme Court action), or through targeted action by the Congress (if it would wake from its customary somnambulance and actually follow up its oversight responsibility with focused, meaningful legislative proposals rather than just talk).

Pulling the trigger on a massive antitrust action against Google, however, is simply not called for. A decision reached in 2013 by the Federal Trade Commission following a two-year investigation of its own. In the broad scheme of things, little has changed since then that would render Google a monopoly to be broken apart by the feds.

Yes, Google is still big, and yes it wields considerable power as a global search engine. But Google is by no means the only search engine on the internet block. There are more than two dozen active search engines available to internet users, each one only a few clicks on the keyboard away if a person is dissatisfied with their Google “experience.”

In terms of advertising revenues, while Google brings in far more than Facebook or Amazon, recent reports show that, far from being stifled by Google, Amazon’s ad revenues have been increasing substantially at the expense of both Facebook and Google. In other words, competition in the internet advertising market remains alive and well.

Objective analysis of the internet search and advertising market simply do not support the conclusion that Google sits atop that market because it has engaged in practices that harm either consumers or businesses that advertise on the platform. Unfortunately, in a highly charged election year the search engine giant makes an easy and tempting target for Democrats and Republicans alike, as a way to burnish their pro-consumer and anti-Big Business credentials.

Liberal members of Congress, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, and of course, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, delight in beating up on Google largely because it is big and successful. Many conservatives in the nation’s Capitol are quick to jump on the anti-Google bandwagon because of its thinly disguised bias toward Democrats. But neither reason provides proper basis for an anti-trust lawsuit, in many ways the most powerful legal tool in the government’s arsenal.

The anti-trust hammer should not be unleashed at this time and in this manner to punish a company that, while imperfect, has changed dramatically and positively the way people all over the word perceive and use information, information being the real currency of the 21st Century. The repercussions of a successful anti-trust lawsuit against Google would be felt for years to come, and would open the door to search engine companies from other countries, notably including China, whose bias against the United States and disdain for the very free markets that spawned Google and so many other internet tech companies, is (or should be) well known to lawyers at the Department of Justice.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and served as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990. He currently serves as President and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Congress rarely deserves praise for acting swiftly to exercise its oversight responsibility, but the quick response by the Senate Judiciary Committee to Twitter’s outrageous election interference last week in support of Democrat nominee Joe Biden is to be commended.

Shortly after the news broke that Twitter blocked users from sharing a New York Post story critical of Biden, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) scheduled a hearing (to be held tomorrow), at which time the committee will vote on subpoenaing Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear before Congress later this week to explain himself.

Dorsey has a lot of questions to answer. Over the years, he repeatedly has assured government decision-makers and the general public that his popular social media platform does not discriminate against any political viewpoints. What Twitter did in response to the Post story illustrated the hollowness of those assurances.

The Judiciary Committee needs to stand up for the First Amendment and demand answers. But beyond securing the explanation the American people deserve, the Committee also needs to actively consider avenues to address the platform’s continued assaults on free speech, without itself running afoul of the Constitution.

To his credit, Dorsey himself has apologized for “straight blocking” the news story. This, coupled with his past vocal support for regulating Big Tech, provides at least a glimmer of hope that Congress can come to terms with Twitter on a solution.

Investigations by the Department of Justice and state attorneys general are important, and in some instances appropriate, but they are excruciatingly time-consuming. We have witnessed this tedious, intricate process unfold with the current governmental investigations into Google’s alleged monopoly on search and advertising, which are still not complete despite having been initiated years ago.

The American people cannot afford to wait years for the government to protect their right to free speech. The time for continued talk is long past.

Perhaps the best way to get this started would be for one of the Committee members to inquire of Dorsey if he would be willing to put his company’s commitment to preventing censorship in writing to Attorney General William Barr.

Such agreements, known in legal circles as “consent decrees,” work well in taming artificial monopolies. The government likes them because they create a legal framework for stopping abuse and disciplining further iterations of it. Often the private actors prefer them too, as they do not require admissions of past wrongdoing and can be employed for significant public relations benefit.

When executed in the right manner and with the right intentions, government consent decrees have provided the public with benefits that are significant and long-lasting.

The Reagan administration-brokered consent decree with AT&T, for example, stopped the predatory behavior of the Bell System phone monopoly in the 1980s and caused an outpouring of competition that created the likes of Sprint and MCI. This led to increased service quality and lower costs, which continue to benefit consumers even today, three decades later.

Long before the AT&T settlement, a 1940s-era government consent decree with “Big Music” ushered in America’s “Golden Age of Music.”

Instead of competing against one another, individual music publishers created ASCAP and BMI — a duopoly that today licenses 90-percent of popular music. The decrees signed with ASCAP and BMI to this day are hailed for protecting the functionality of the music industry. No less a music luminary than Bon Jovi remarked just this summer that these long-standing decrees should not be eliminated or weakened since they “protect ASCAP and BMI from using their market power against the small players in the system.”

Twitter’s ability to continue censoring competing viewpoints shares two things with the Bell System and music case studies: an artificial monopoly that could not exist without government forces, and an organizational leader who at least pays lip service to entertaining new government restraints.

As a lawyer and former member of the Judiciary Committee, I am convinced that a consent decree with Twitter to end viewpoint discrimination could work as effectively as these two earlier examples. Not only does it appear to be the quickest, easiest, and surest way to protect the First Amendment, but it can also be paired with future actions the government may decide to take against this social media giant (and perhaps others as well).

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Privacy is one of the pillars of a free society. In fact, as renowned philosopher and writer Ayn Rand noted in The Fountainhead more than seven decades ago, privacy is the essential foundation of a civilized society, without which individual freedom cannot be maintained. Yet, when it comes to protecting this essential cornerstone of our society, Congress consistently falls short.

Whether controlled by Democrats or the GOP, congressional committees put on great shows. They invite all the big names in Big Tech to a hearing, where members pose eloquent soundbites about “privacy,” “security,” and, of course, “profiting from user data.” Yet, as for doing something meaningful to protect individual privacy rights by legislation or through oversight, Congress is little better than the CEOs they verbally harangue.

It is beyond question that private companies, including Big Tech players like Google, Facebook and Twitter, use the vast databases of information they accumulate, to hawk products and develop user “profiles” for commercial benefit. It is also clear that the power they wield can be, and demonstrably has been abused to harm individuals, often because they hold political views at odds with the so-called “Lords of Social Media.”

At the end of the day, however, it is only government that can use such databased information to put someone in jail. And it is here – at the intersection between data accumulation and government power – that Congress repeatedly fails to guard against abuse.

Ever since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, the government has been bound by the Fourth Amendment, which was designed and intended to limit how law enforcement may invade a person’s privacy and gather information that ultimately could put them in jail (or worse). Over the decades, however, government has proved itself extremely creative in circumventing the Amendment’s restrictions, including in recent years turning to private companies like Google for assistance.

One of the most recent and cleverest vehicles employed by law enforcement to slip by the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of specificity as to the person to be searched and the information to be gathered, is something known as a “reverse search warrant” or a “geofence warrant.” These can be used, for example, to scoop up data about all cell phones within a certain geographic area, or to identify all cell phone users who accessed a certain site during a particular time period.

Key to such extremely broad (and constitutionally troublesome) warrants, is that law enforcement agents have the cooperation of a private company, like Google, which can provide the data being sought. Unfortunately, most tech companies that maintain this data or that have access to it, are happy to stay on government’s good side and readily comply with such requests, even though they clearly do not meet the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.

This is precisely what Google did in July in an arson investigation; cooperating with such a warrant by supplying police with information of all users who searched for a specific address.

Sadly, efforts by the handful of members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle wanting to place statutory limits on these newfangled tools designed expressly to thwart the Fourth Amendment, consistently fail to garner the votes necessary to send a bill to the president for signature.

In one of the more recent displays of Congress’ unwillingness to protect individual privacy, last May the Senate failed to pass a simple amendment to the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act, which would have shielded private search data from warrantless search by federal law enforcement.

That vote was not the first time the Senate failed to stand up to Big Tech and to rein in overly zealous law enforcement demands, and it is certain not to be the last.

Whether the Supreme Court ultimately will throw a much-needed lifeline to the Fourth Amendment, by ruling that such “reverse warrant” fishing expeditions are unconstitutional, remains to be seen. It is a concern, however, that should be posed in some meaningful way to Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the full Senate votes to confirm her as a Supreme Court justice later this month.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Daily Caller

Bob Barr

The arrest late last week of more than a dozen self-styled “Wolverine Watchmen,” and the subsequent war of words between Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the apparent target of their conspiracy, and President Trump, who Whitmer charged was “complicit” in the plot, illustrates once again the truly strange world in which we are living as we approach the November 3 election.

The federal criminal complaint that provided the basis for the arrests of the conspirators confirms a rule that became apparent to me shortly after I was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia in 1986, and which remains as accurate today, 34 years later. Simply stated, the rule holds that one of the best and most useful tools a prosecutor wields is the stupidity of the criminal element. The affidavit in the Wolverine Watchmen case, executed by an FBI special agent working the investigation, paints a picture of the conspirators as not real bright, to put it most kindly.

To be sure, the conspirators’ goal was deadly serious — to kidnap or kill the Michigan Governor, along with other individuals. Thankfully, the strategy they hatched as a roadmap to achieve their goal was about as artless and unsophisticated as a cable TV “reality show.”

The conspirators apparently had been planning their deed since at least early this year, when federal law enforcement were alerted to their plans after the disgruntled Brainiacs discussed the “violent overthrow” of the government on not-so-secret “social media.” At some point thereafter, and before a June 6, 2020 meeting of the plotters in Ohio, the FBI was able to do what it long has been expert at – infiltrating such conspiracies with undercover sources. In this case, the FBI was able to use not just a single “confidential human source” but “multiple” such sources.

In further display of their lack of brain power, the conspirators appeared in full armed regalia at demonstrations this past summer at the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing, where TV cameras were aplenty. So much for remaining incognito.

While the plotters did display a knowledge of movie drama — holding some of their meetings in a basement room “accessed through a trap door hidden under a rug” — they reportedly were constantly plagued by a lack of resources. According to the FBI affidavit, they could not even raise $4,000 they apparently needed to purchase the explosives they intended to use in carrying out their plan. Moreover, when they attempted to construct and test some homemade IEDs (improvised explosive devices), they proved to be duds and would not detonate.

As with investigations involving confidential sources that were handled by my office in Atlanta during my tenure as U.S. Attorney, these Michigan plotters did worry about snitches in their midst. But their effort to ensure there were no rats in their group proved as poorly conceived as other elements of their plan — requiring that everyone at one of the “secret” meetings “bring personal documents to confirm their identities.”

In yet another move that would have further improved their chances of being caught, one of the conspirators suggested hiring a real estate agent to help them find the precise location of the Governor’s vacation home and to better get the lay of the land by inspecting other, nearby homes.

Thankfully, these Wolverine conspirators displayed the same lack of intelligence often exhibited by similar groups of misfits, making them a relatively easy target for apprehension by the FBI (and state authorities working in tandem with the feds).

It is clear, however, that the group had been working diligently at their criminal deeds for many months, which makes Whitmer’s post-arrest claim that President Trump was somehow “complicit” in the conspiracy because of something he said or did not say during his September 29 debate with former Vice President Biden, hollow and crassly political. But then again, it is all part of the Bizarro World in which we are living in this twentieth year of the 21^st Century.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Move over COVID-19. There is a new contagion loose in America. This virus attacks that part of the brain which develops and controls the adult male’s sense of self-esteem and courage of conviction. Its effect is felt quickly once the victim exercises any degree of independent thought contrary to the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy.

One of the most recent victims of this viral infection is Ohio State University Professor Matthew Mayhew, who succumbed to the intellectually debilitating disease shortly after publishing an opinion piece praising the return of college football at Ohio State.

Apparently oblivious to the fate that awaited him, Mayhew last month co-authored an opinion piece titled “Why America Needs College Football,” published September 24th by Inside Higher Ed. The symptoms of the disease swiftly and mercilessly manifested themselves.

Three days after Mayhew’s opinion piece was published, a fellow academic – Andrew McGregor, who teaches history at Dallas College in Texas – excoriated Mayhew in the same publication for writing in support of the long-standing Fall tradition known as “college football.” Mayhew’s prostration in the face of this politically correct onslaught quickly followed. The seriousness of the attack on Mayhew’s intellect became evident just two days thereafter, on September 29th, when his complete loss of self-esteem caused him to write an apology in which he berated himself for having voiced support for college football.

Some observers might feel compassion for Prof. Mayhew as he confronts the complete, and likely permanent loss of his intellectual courage. It is far more important, however, that we focus on the damage to our culture resulting from the emergence of the disease known as “cancel culture.” This emergent disease has gained a strong foothold in colleges and universities across the country. It threatens not only to erase our country’s diverse and vibrant history, but also to homogenize our culture so that no expressions of support beyond the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy are tolerated.

In this mean and joyless environment, the mere expression of support for something as benign as college football is verboten, not because it helps build character, personal skills, and teamwork (which it does), but because it is considered “racial capitalism” (whatever that means). In this worldview, offering students the opportunity to participate in such a popular sport is considered to be “exploitation,” therefore to be condemned not praised.

As bad as is the vehemence with which Mayhew’s since-repudiated love of college football was attacked, even more discouraging is how quickly he prostrated himself before the bullies.

There once was a time when it was expected that adults, especially ones employed by a major university like Ohio State, actually would defend their ideas with rational arguments, if those ideas were attacked. Such process was considered the very essence of an education.

The notion that ideas matter, at least to the degree of defending them in open debate, still can be seen in a dwindling number of public settings, such as debates in the British House of Commons. Sadly, however, in 20th Century academia here in the United States, the preferred – if not the demanded — response to having one’s opinions attacked if they are not in conformity with the leftist orthodoxy du jour, is to admit error and meekly back away, as did Prof. Mayhew in his cringe-worthy mea culpa.

Like predators in the wild, “cancel culture” bullies have a knack for identifying and preying upon the weak. And while it is weak-willed individuals like Mayhew who are directly humiliated, many others will come to suffer as the Left collects another scalp it can wave at future victims, as an example of what will happen if any dare express wrong-think.

As an alumnus of USC, I love watching college football, and I will miss it greatly if NCAA officials do not permit the games to continue. What I miss far more, however, is the intellectual independence and courage that used to be hallmarks of higher education in America.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Daily Caller by Bob Barr   Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber is likely heaving a huge sigh of relief that the attention of the nation’s media is focused on COVID’s infestation of the White House, the Senate battle over the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and, of course, the looming national election. Were it not for these stories (and a handful of other newsworthy events such as continuing violence in one American city after another), Eisgruber’s September 2 letter openly admitting that the fabled Ivy League school engages in “systemic racism,” would be vying for front-page news coverage.     Eisgruber’s letter, however, did not escape the eye of lawyers at the U.S. Department of Education; and it should not be allowed to be swept under the rug.     Two weeks after the Princeton President’s highly unusual mea culpa, Robert King, the Education Department’s Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, sent a letter to the university demanding that the admissions made by Eisgruber be explained and documented. The Department gave Princeton 21 days to provide the required evidence of its self-admitted racism, and one more week after that to schedule interviews “under oath” by Eisgruber and other Princeton officials.     So far, there has been no publicly acknowledged response to the Education Department’s demand letter, other than a September 18 press release by the University stating that it “stands by” Eisgruber’s letter and  would “respond” to the federal government “in due course.”     Not surprisingly also, several dozen other university presidents quickly leaped to Princeton’s defense. In a letter made public only a few days following the Education Department’s letter, presidents of the seven other Ivy League schools and dozens of other colleges and universities including, of course, uber-liberal Wesleyan University and Amherst College, blasted as “outrageous” the fact that the federal government would have the gall to demand that a sister university must actually provide evidence for the sins to which it openly admitted.     The stakes for Princeton and other schools that receive taxpayer dollars are hardly inconsequential. As noted in Assistant Secretary King’s letter, over the course of Eisgruber’s seven-year tenure at Princeton’s helm it has received “well over $75 million” in federal funds. Problematically for Princeton, however, as with other postsecondary schools receiving such monies, Princeton has been required regularly to certify that it does not engage in racial or other unlawful forms of discrimination — the very practices to which Eisgruber so blithely admitted just one month ago.     In thus placing Princeton on notice that its “woke” claims of systemic racism are, to say the least problematic and at worst clear violations of federal laws, the Trump administration is hoisting Princeton on its own petard as the Shakespearian expression colorfully describes.     If the school actually provides evidence that it has engaged in and continues to practice racially discriminatory policies, as its president has declared, it not only risks losing significant federal funds going forward, but could be liable for repayment of monies already received.     If, on the other hand, the school admits it was making the statements about systemic racism for the sole purpose of burnishing its “wokeness” credentials as a sop to leftwing activists, it will discredit not only its own leadership and pedagogy, but that of much of our country’s post-secondary education system.     The most likely outcome, at least in the short term, will be for Princeton to stall for time, hoping that November 3 will usher in new leadership at the White House and at the Department of Education; leadership that will be far more “understanding” of the rank hypocrisy deeply infecting the country’s post-secondary education system.     If Biden were to defeat Trump next month (or whenever the election results are certified), the case against Princeton will not only go away, but Eisgruber likely would be in line for promotion and for rewards in recognition of the extreme courage his woke letter exhibited. If so, it is not Eisgruber and his leftist cohorts who will suffer, but rather the deteriorating quality of education that further generations of students of all racial backgrounds will receive.     Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7 District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.