January 2022

Townhall

by Bob Barr

The Grand Old Party is at a major crossroads as it nears its 168th birthday. Former President Donald Trump is at a similar juncture as he nears his 76th. How these two traverse their intersecting crossroads will go a long way to determine whether Republicans will win major victories in this year’s congressional contests and whether they will recapture the White House in 2024.

At the moment, the disjointed and deteriorating relationship between Mr. Trump and some of the Party’s rising stars does not bode well for lasting GOP victories. This should not be the case.

Polling shows clearly that the American electorate is deeply frustrated and disappointed with the Biden presidency; to the extent even that voters are being pulled away from the Democrat Party and into the Republican orbit.

At the same time, a cadre of well-known and popular Republican governors are implementing positive public policies far more successfully than their Democrat counterparts.

In both houses of Congress, Republican leadership is successfully maintaining a united front in opposition to the socialist agendas being pressed by Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Schumer.

Republicans should be clamoring to highlight the tremendous accomplishments of governors like Florida’s Ron DeSantis, Maryland’s Larry Hogan, and others. These state leaders represent a clear and positive antidote to the damage being inflicted on our country by the Biden Administration and its congressional cohorts.

So, what exactly is the problem for the GOP? In a word, the immediate past president.

Unlike Republican former presidents before him, who, after leaving office supported the Party, its leaders, and its candidates so as to strengthen the Party moving forward, Trump has shown no desire to fill the role of GOP “elder statesman” — a post from which he could provide a strong and positive voice fueling GOP momentum heading into November 2022 and 2024.

Instead, Trump appears to have voluntarily anchored himself to a circular 2020 election loop; occasionally stopping only long enough to attack other Republicans who he feels “betrayed” him. In one instance – Georgia – he has opined publicly that far-left Democrat Stacey Abrams would make a better governor than conservative incumbent GOP Gov. Brian Kemp; an absurd and destructive notion no matter the context.

Then there is Trump’s fracas with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Probably nobody except Trump has endured the level of abuse from the Mainstream Media as has DeSantis. Nevertheless, the Floridian’s steadfast leadership during COVID to keep Florida “open for business,” combined with his cool-as-a-cucumber demeanor in the face of media attacks, has made him an early — and deservedly credible — 2024 frontrunner.

Going after DeSantis now is akin to putting a stick in the spokes of one’s own bicycle. Although the latest kerfuffle comes from private comments leaked to the media, it is not the first shot Trump has taken at DeSantis in recent weeks. Such squabbles serve no end other than to possibly weaken DeSantis as a future presidential candidate, which in turn weakens the GOP.

If Trump’s true interests lie in helping the Republican Party and its future, a serious attitude adjustment is in order. To start, grievances Trump may harbor with other high profile GOP leaders should be sorted privately; public spats are especially harmful to Republicans this cycle, considering all that is on the line in the next three years.

Even better would be for Trump to stop fighting with the GOP’s crop of stars, and instead help guide them behind the scenes.

Trump should focus his public relations on all the good his administration accomplished — huge tax cuts, a booming economy, and a truly genius approach to finding a vaccine for COVID. Reminding the public of such wins would be immensely helpful for the GOP, which in turn can focus on its many and ongoing positive policy accomplishments — contrasted to the awful state of affairs wrought by the current administration.

Most importantly, the GOP must decide to openly support its governors and congressional leaders against baseless and errant attacks, regardless of who is making them, whether a Democrat or a former Republican president.

Failing to thus stand up for itself and for its own elected officials – the ones who now are actually implementing policies which the Grand Old Party historically has championed – is a weakness that will, in the end, hurt Republicans more than anything the Democrats might throw at it.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

In recent weeks, state governments across the country have begun prioritizing the issue of criminal justice reform, and at the federal level it is high time for Congress to return to this vital issue.

It has now been four years since Congress, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, passed the First Step Act — the most significant criminal justice reform in decades. While the legislation arguably did more than any other to get low-risk, nonviolent offenders back on their feet, even President Donald Trump acknowledged that the federal government still has more work to do in this matter.

The 50 states have similarly acknowledged as much. That is why states such as New York and Pennsylvania have made passing the Clean Slate Act a priority. This bill will expunge the records of certain low-risk, nonviolent offenders who have already completed their sentences, allowing them to better qualify for work, education, and housing opportunities.

While it is commendable to see so many states take action to reform their own criminal justice codes, as a former U.S. Attorney I know all too well that the federal government needs to do the same with the federal criminal code.

The Kyle Rittenhouse case provided the American people a glimpse into why reform on the state and federal levels needs to become a top priority.

Although much of the country, including most legal analysts, recognized that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, the politicized prosecutors in Wisconsin still invested heavily to see Rittenhouse put in jail.

Rittenhouse was lucky. Most defendants do not have the resources to fight prosecutorial abuse as aggressively as did Rittenhouse’s legal team. In most cases, especially at the federal level, prosecutors routinely pressure defendants with decades in prison if they do not accept offered plea deals.

While such plea agreements may allow those charged to avoid prison, they still are left with criminal records that stay with them for the remainder of their lives; denying them jobs, housing, even education. These records drastically limit their economic and rehabilitative opportunities, thereby increasing their chances of recidivism.

For the more than 70 million Americans that have committed nonviolent criminal offenses — from the struggling single mom who shoplifted from the grocery store to the young adult arrested for possession of marijuana — their long-term prospects are dire. It is not, and should not be a question of allowing these low-risk, nonviolent offenders to escape punishment, but rather whether they really need a criminal record for the rest of their lives because of a low-risk, nonviolent mistake made years before.

Congress apparently does not think so, which is why a consortium of members, including Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst and Republican Pennsylvania Rep. Guy Reschenthaler have introduced the Clean Slate Act at the federal level.

Akin to the many similar Clean Slate bills introduced in state legislatures, the federal version will expunge the records of certain low-risk, nonviolent offenders that have already served their time, allowing them to provide for their families, contribute to society and move on with their lives once again. Not every nonviolent offender will qualify, nor should they. Still, this legislation will allow millions of Americans who have paid for a past mistake to finally move on.

A bipartisan coalition of center-right and center-left groups, including Americans for Tax Reform, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for American Progress and the Faith and Freedom Coalition, have all endorsed this bill, and it is difficult to find anyone in vocal opposition to it.

When will congressional leaders, on either side of the aisle, call it up for a vote?

With 91% of Americans agreeing that the criminal justice system needs fixing, there is no reason for this issue to linger any longer. Pressure for these reforms needs to be pushed to the very top of the congressional food chain.

A weigh-in to leadership from some of Congress’ most notable criminal justice reform advocates — from John Cornyn, Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee and Rand Paul on the Republican side to Cory Booker and Dick Durbin on the Democratic side — could provide the necessary horsepower to expedite consideration of this important legislation, and help this and future generations of Americans get back on the right track.

It is a move long overdue.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and serves as head of Liberty Guard.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

Democrats’ latest anti-Trump gambit is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. If you are not familiar with this provision, you are not alone; it was ratified in 1868 and was last used more than a century ago. The language was inserted into the otherwise important 14th Amendment, which secures our vital “privileges or immunities of citizen” along with “due process” and “equal protection of the laws.”

Section 3 of the Amendment, however, has nothing to do with those important guarantees. Its purpose was simply to prevent individuals who had taken up arms against the United States, or who had rendered “aid or comfort” to enemies of the United States, from later serving in the federal or state government.

Section 3 was last used in 1919 against a sitting United States Senator alleged to have given assistance to Germany in World War I. Even then, he was later reseated, and Section 3 has lain undisturbed for well over a century. Until now.

A year ago, Democrats were quick to label the January 6th demonstrations on Capitol Hill an “insurrection,” and their Google search of that word appears to have led them to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because – you guessed it – the phrase “insurrection or rebellion” appears in it as an apt description, not of a demonstration but of a horrendous civil war the country had just gone through.

Undaunted by this inapposite historical rationale underlying Section 3, some Democrats appear to be seriously considering it as a way to stop Trump from ever again serving in any state or federal position including, of course, president.

The tortured reasoning (if it be called that) behind this latest ploy appears to be that Trump deliberately and intentionally encouraged those individuals who did unlawfully enter the Capitol on January 6th, and in so doing, incited and gave “aid and comfort” to those who thereby engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States. And, Voila! Donald Trump falls within the prohibitory language of Section 3 and can never again hold public office.

Except, of course, this analysis holds no legal, historic, factual, or common-sense water.

As explained by Gerard Magliocca at Lawfare, the only conceivable use of Section 3 for the January 6th riots would be to pursue state or federal officeholders who were present among the group of protestors when the Capitol was breeched (and, to even have an outside shot with a far-Left judge, they would need to have been among those doing more than just standing inside the Capitol building at the time). This is also assuming federal prosecutors could convince a judge or jury that an impromptu protest, in which a small group of individuals took things too far, constitutes a “rebellion” or “insurrection” on par with the Civil War or WWI.

Democrats have other conservatives within their obtuse Section 3 gunsights. Earlier this month, for example, a far-Left group of North Carolina voters announced it would appeal to the courts to disqualify GOP rising star Rep. Madison Cawthorn from office under Section 3. Cawthorn was not present among the small group that stormed the Capitol, and he offered no assistance at all to those that did. His only “offense” was a speech delivered at a rally echoing sentiments held by many Americans today. Yet, to the Left, this protected expression is tantamount to a full-scale rebellion against the United States.

Were Democrats not so obsessed with Trump, this Section 3 Plan would be laughable. But it is not funny. It is sick; just as are their other ploys to hang onto power no matter the cost to the country or the Constitution.

Whether it is resuscitating a Civil War-era provision intended to keep Confederate sympathizers from holding government office, proposing to pack the Supreme Court because they disagree with some of its decisions, or some other cockamamie scheme, Democrats and others who pursue such destructive courses have no business whatsoever serving in any position of trust in government.