Pilot. I grew up with the founder of the freedom fest and we had a unique upbringing one where we werwould teenagers out on campot in the woods fishing and hikingg it lay in our sleeping bags looking up at the stars talking about economic and political theory when weaver 12 and 13yearsold which is unusual. [laughter] but weve always had an interest in hosting is. Later on we became aviators during the vietnam war era. I have a Richard Jones to all of us in america. There is a mural in the Capitol Rotunda in washington, d. C. At the top, a beautiful mural that shows my elephant greatgrandfather on the ship just before they boarded in a flower beforthemayflower beforeo america. It shows him holding the bible open editors of the people within. On the floor of the ship is a musket and a helmet and i thought this is symbolic in that their reliance is through the word of thword of the scriptureg for the divid divine guidance aa willingness to defend themselves if necessary to protect life, liberty and their positions. My fourth grade grandfather fought with George Washington the entire eight years of the revolutionary war of which im very proud of my heritage anyway. Sacrifices were made for us to have what we have today. I need patriotic constitutionalist which is what i call myself. We need to return to the heritage of our roots anyway. If we stick to the constitution, stop the partisan bickering thats going on all the time, we would be much better off. As a naval officer i swore an oath to defend and support the u. S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Sadly today we have some enemies of our constitution and the country that are even in congress. It doesnt mean that they are going to stop trying. So, to get a better view of the situation and whats going on right now with the threats of impeachment that they are having almost daily, they will follow for the bit about that and share some information with us. Bob barr served as a United States attorney, appointed by president Ronald Reagan from 86 to 90. A member of congress from 95 to 2003. A member of the House Judiciary Committee and on the Oversight Committee for six years he served as an official for the time it was a member of congress to call for clintons impeachment. The house impeachment manager in 1999 and presently private practice attorney in atlanta since leaving the house. Plus the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 2008. We would like to hear from him and ask you to give a warm welcome to the congressman. [applause] i always appreciate the invitations to come to freedom fest and speak and probably more importantly to meet old friends, new friend, all of them who have a deep and abiding love for liberty and are always on the front lines of defending it against those who would take it away and in todays world as jim mentioned even in the congress of the United States, there are those who would take freedom away and undermine freedom. So, its always wonderful to be a freedom fest which is one of those institutions undertaking in support of liberty. From a personal standpoint, jim mentioned when he was younger 12, 13yearsold she would go out camping, look at the stars cant talk about freedom and liberty and government. When i was that age, i was living in peru. My dad was a Civil Engineer and we would go camping sometimes along the bank is literally of the amazon river in the mountains of peru. We would talk about things with hedifferent from liberty to how the Government Works back in those days. But growing up overseas, as i did in the countries as diverse as iraq and iran and peru, malaysia and various other countries, from a very early age it gave me a profound appreciation for what we do have as american citizens it still means something. It seems you are a citizen of the greatest nation on the face of the earth. It doesnt mean that we are citizen is a perfect land. There is no perfect plan, but it does mean there is Something Special about the individual that carries a passport in the United States of america. And ive always appreciated that. And as i say, having grown up in societies and countries where those freedoms that so many of our fellow citizens take for granted that dont exist. That was very mindful of course when i had taken 30 office. Jim has taken at least one in the air force. Ive taken 30 this to the country to support and defend the constitution and the wall thereof both as an official with the cia many years ago and then as jim mentioned the United States attorney for the district of georgia under president s reagan and bush number one. Then as a member of the United States congress from january, 1995 to 2003. I considered that both as continuing. It didnt end the moment i left my job as the u. S. Attorney. It did not end the moment i resigned to presume that all practice, and it certainly didnt end the moment i was sure we stay involuntarily retired from the congress and of losing an election. I considered that that is the cost i am more than willing to pay to be able to carry the as a citizen of the United States of america to do everything i can to ensure that the freedoms embodied in the constitution and reflected in the wall continue and are defended against, so i consider myself very much just as bound by that oath that i took as a member of congress from georgia standing here today as a citizen and a private life. Talking about impeachment and investigations by the congress particularly about impeachment, understanding or being aware what i think is more important simply looking at the process of impeachment or the Administration Whether it begins by an inquiry of impeachment which is a document that i filed in november of 1997 when it became clear to me and many others that then president clinton violated very serious provisions of the United States law that related to the export of defense related technology to china or whether it have to do with serious violations of federal campaign law that undercut the integrity of the electoral process. That is one way to begin the process which doesnt call for impeachment. It doesnt outline articles in future and. It is what i consider to be a responsible first up is a member of congress believes that there are grounds to impeach a president because it simply says it iits directed that the judiy committee of the house of representatives which is the Committee Vote on it response abilities under the rules and procedures of the house to consider impeachment if simply directs that the committee on the judiciary inquire into whether or not there are proper grounds. To me, that is the responsible first ste step as a member of congress believes that the member has committed high crimes and misdemeanors which is the criteria set out in the constitution for the impeachment of a president by the house and thereafter it if convicted by two thirds of the Senate Removal from office. There are other ways to begin an impeachment of course if we solve that is jim mentioned i think just earlier this week. A member of the house can introduce articles directly by calling for an inquiry into whether or not it is existing at drawing the piece of paper into the house and saying who cares about whether or not there is an inquiry into whether or not there is evidence to support taking such a dramatic step. Lets skip over those technicalities and move directly to impeachment. I think it was introduced for maybe the third or even a fourth time the articles of impeachme impeachment. And we will talk in a minute about those articles of impeachment as opposed to the articles of impeachment which were initiated and codeveloped by the Judiciary Committee in december 1998 with regards to president clinton and now the two articles of impeachment on december 191998. The process, those documents, if you go back and look up and it t is related to the impeachment of William Jefferson clinton in 1998 they read very differently than the articles that are sort of thrown on the floor of the house by a representative from just a few days ago. There is a major difference between going through a professional legitimate process of inquiring into the evidence and then voting on something as opposed to just again skipping over, jumping over all of the and moving directly to impeaching a president simply because we dont like them. Before we get into the inns and outs of the administration, i think its important to consider in impeachment in the context of what is happening in the society in a much broader level. If you look a we look at other s happening in the congress or the government generally or the society generally, what c we see is a process that is about as alien as you can get from the process to the deliberative process outlined by the founders and reflected in the constitution based based of course o on some things largely missing from todays world. One is a properly educated citizenry. Whether or not a constitutionally based system, republican form of government as we have is going to work depends on the citizenry knowing whats going on, not just knowing whats going on at educated as to those things happening in society and it clicked through the educational process which doesnt end with school. It continues a clipping us with the tools to understand and to discern what is going on. And also, if you think, go back and read jefferson and the federalist papers and the debate surrounding the constitution and later the bill of rights. Having that educated citizenry that understand not just the country and our institutions, but how we arrived about. That is the history of how the Government Works. Our founders didnt just come together and scribble some ideas based on what they thought they knew. They spent countless hours, days, years studying the rise and fall of civilizations, the rise and fall of different forms of government going back to the societies from ancient rome, ancient egypt, mesopotamia, on through of course what to them were the more moderate forms of government in europe based on the royal succession and divine rights. They studied this and understood. They understood why governments failed and others succeeded. It was not only incorporated into the system of government and the constitutional form of government that we have, but it was presupposed as a predicate for the proper functioning of the government in other words, having a citizenry that understands history and understands government and understands the issues and is able to debate in that process provides the underpinning for the continued success of the tht form of government. That is the success of a government that protects as its first responsibility. Not National Defense but the ofe freedom of the citizenry. I think if we look at the society nowadays, we largely dont see that. Those of us here in this room are not there were the exception i think. As a majority of people in the country including i suspect a large number in my grounds of the congress dont understand that and dont have that education. The other thing missing is important to the founders setting up the mechanisms of government including the mechanisms on the one hand how we elect people and people get into the government, and on the other end had to get rid of them if they are not working properly. If they are not doing what they should was the sense of being able to prioritize things. And by the prioritization, what im talking about is the notion that some things are better than other things. And what i see now, subject to being corrected if you dont see this but it does come back to what we are talking about with regards to impeachment, it seems we are living in a society that has taken the notion of egalitarianism not just that every person is equal but everything is equal. No one thing can be stated as better or valued higher than something is if theyve done a better job than this person, then you are saying to a lot of people in society nowadays, these people are not equal. You cant say this person got an a and this person got to see. This person is better than this person, after all everybody is equal. We see that i think everywhere not just in sports so much, education, but now in governme government. We see it reflected, or i should say the iac is reflected also in how the congress operates and how the courts operate when it comes to implementing government policies. The president says i am the executive or of the law. Congress passes a law and i have the responsibility under the constitution, article two to execute those, to implement the policies. Now, so long as the president does so consistent with the law, he ought to be free to institute and implement the policies and if congress decides they dont like a president who is implementing or the manner in which he may be implementing, congress has at least two ways to change it. They can not appropriate money for what the president is doing. They can withhold from them. None of them are under this piece of legislation that shall be used for etc. , etc. Or congress can use the legislative tool for the responsibilities to appropriate funds and legislate and then one that is largely forgotten is to provide oversight to make sure the executive branch is operating with the intent of the law. What seems to be happening now is the president will make a decision as one that is very much in the news the constitution provides authority for the federal government over citizenship and provides the executive branch the ability to regulate immigration into the country. The president says okay in order to exercise and implement that responsibility, i have to do certain things. I have to correct that those agencies under my jurisdiction, under my authority offered it a certain way to protect our country and to implement the law that the congress has had prior president s have signed. It should be fairly simple, but its not. For one reason because courts nowadays are populated by a lot of judges whose individual views of this president or a president or the executive branch for, and therefore what a lot of the liberals to them and im not saying that conservatives dont do the same thing, but the liberals have finetuned the process of judge shopping whether it is by their attorneys general saying Washington State attorney general or other actions by officials. They will find a judge that agrees with them philosophically on the particular issue they are going into court on. With the president is doing is adversely affecting our citizens, and by the way it is in earthly affecting the citizens of the entire country. So therefore we are asking you what the judge, to enjoy with the president is doing not just in our federal jurisdiction or within the jurisdiction of the particular state if its the attorney general of the state going into court which is the normal process they have jurisdiction. Simply based on personal views into the judge judges that the districat the districtcourt lev. From implementing a policy anywhere in the country, those cases then our brought to the wind that takes a lot of time and plus the fact that it is severely weakening the legitimate exercise of executive power by the president. So come if the president and says you, records or you, the court, or improperly infringing and limiting my ability to carry out my duty that im sworn to carry out under the constitution to effectively and properly implement these immigration laws for example, i have to continue to do it. And i have to continue to do it that while it is being appealed. Otherwise now the nation will be irreparably harmed. These are the legal battles. What then happened is liberal members of congress or those members of congress that disagree with the administration or with what the president may be doing they say weve got few. This court, i don dont mean to unfairly picked on washington, but its fair to pick on washington nowadays, this judge in washington has issued an order, judicial order. Whats more important than a judicial order . I can think of a lot of things but anyway they said we have a judicial order, and the president is continuing to protect the borders and to make sure that the officials on the border are Holding People to the letter of the law. Yet gore said they cant do that. It is in Impeachable Offense so they are rushing out there to start an impeachment process math. Whats happening nowadays, and what we saw earlier this week doesnt even rise to the level of something as far out as that. It goes back to a profound lack of understanding of what it is by members of the house of representatives or they just dont care. What happens is we get a document like al green from texas introduced that is a rambling i have tried against President Trump we dont like the way that he insults people. We dont like the way President Trump denigrates certain people or the way he does this, that or the other thing and therefore he ought to be in impeached. A similar process is happening in other areas of society has become so fluid, so the illdefd and uneducated and so unprofessional the democratic leadership in the house, and i use the term loosely, leadersh leadership, the democratic leadership in the house is so void of anything that they allow this member to introduce these articles of impeachment, and there is a process in the house a member can say im introducing this as a privilege of motion. While, there are privileges of motion where they sort of skip ahead of the pack. Normally you would introduce a peaceful legislation and throw it in so to speak and it gets assigned to a are in a committea committee and then it goes down and they want to have hearings on it. There is a way to require a vote on peaceful legislation you can start with a discharge position then you sign a discharge position a that the speakers dek and a little drawer and members sign on to that. If you can get a majority, 219 members to sign onto the dischargon to dischargepositionl legislation that you have introduced goes to the floor for the votes notwithstanding that it might never have had a hearing in the House Committee or marked up on the committee. It doesnt happen very often. Occasionally it does but not very often. But if a member of this im introducing a resolution here or a piece of legislation that is privileged, then it can go to the floor for an immediate vote even if nobody else has signed on to it. Its called the privilege of motion. And that is what al green dave earlier this week. Now, at the democratic leadership if they had been somewhat smart, they would have said this motion is and filed as a privileged motion and therefore will not go to the floor for an immediate vote. If the democratic leadership in the house have the ability to lead to direct its members to any extent whatsoever, they would have said that. They would have perhaps pulled him aside, had they come to jesus meeting. You cant call that in the congress, but he come to jesus meetinmeeting and the in the spe and said we understand what you are trying to do here and a lot of us may agree with you. We dont like is operating. We would prefer to see somebody else. But the proper way to do it that will accomplish what you want to do which is to highlight these issues but at the same time providing at least a facade of credibility and which by the way is consistent with history and precedent would be the inquiry of impeachment and we will send such the Judiciary Committee and they can hold the hearings on it, which is what happened back in 1998. Some of you may remember back in 1998, Kenneth Starr who at the time was serving as the independent counsel which is a statutory position was serving as the independent counsel and sent a report to the house. And thats not what is happening nowadays. Is the fault of the american people. And without political activity and dont demand a requisite amount of education and civility. Of the elected officials. But it is those important mechanisms those that are devalued that we also saw a resolution passed the house of representatives and whether last week or this week the house held the attorney general we work together. And wilbur ross is the secretary of Congress Held in contempt because they didnt get everything they wanted to try to come up with another case against the president the outrageous question of citizenship on the census. So the problem is with the democratic leadership understanding if you allow these notions to go forward not wet like a president is done after a while and you dont understand what you are doing they dont have any meaning anymore they should but they dont but its been devalued and the impeachment which is extremely important tool in our constitutional structure is in danger of going down that same road. And it fits into the notion the construct but the ideas just as good as anybody elses. That they should impeach him and the secretary of commerce. So we will hold them in contempt. But that doesnt mean anything. One of those important factors with the us attorney that had a great effect from the success of the office was having the credibility of the public and that credibility came running in office and having an office that consistently articulated a high professional standard to uphold the rule of law. And because we didnt like something they had said with th. And wouldnt have that credibility. And they were to get information from the and to have that credibility to have that confidence in what you are doing in the congress and then to say we dont know why that is. You are doing what you are allowing to have happened and allow your members but the articles of impeachment every time somebody in the administration does something you dont like that they dont have confidence what youre going to do it you are doing. And that is to protect liberty. But in order for the government to do the most important thing that is required and that is to ensure liberty because they have no leadership and themselves. So we are allowing government for those that believe in liberty and limited government for whats going on in washington if we have a dysfunctional government liberty will not be protected. And from a political standpoint and i have seen a lot of it and it amazes me. So what they did to allow a vote although not on the articles of impeachment so impeachment basically has come to me nothing so censoring the president doesnt mean anything more its important that we understand the mechanism of government how they do work to make sure that all three branches of the government not that Just Congress is on frontline dysfunctional according to the same rulebook. And then to rewrite that ship once it fears so off course. And then allow us these investigations that are going on. So we have time for questions. Is peach man a purely political process or is there an element to judicial review if not a high crime and misdemeanor . If the democrats were to have super majorities or is it because they dont like his tweets . Is that a political process or do they appeal to the court to say this is not a high crime and misdemeanor this is not what the constitution provided in your opinion. There is no mechanism for history for judicial review for impeachment. It is similar to other powers in the constitution. The president has authority to pardon individuals for criminal offenses and that is nonreviewable. And in the sentence you are asking, impeachment is a political process not to be reviewed by the courts and should not be. And to be overstepping their bounds. I have a theory im interested in what you think. I think the democrats know full well that they cannot impeach the president because it has to go to the senate and senate and the purpose for all of this is that those who are not politically aware. To think in terms of impeaching the president. So the game is your vocabulary in front of the public. For those that are not aware of what is going on to reject the president because of what they have heard that i have a number of acquaintances that all i have heard is that repeated back i asked for their fax on the matter they dont have it. So the democrats know that and they are just trying to keep it in front of the public so when 2020 comes up they will believe it. You are absolutely correct. Whatever happens, the issue of impeachment in the investigations of the president whether through the Judiciary Committee, Financial Services committee, whether the oversight and that the committee decides to investigate something with the oversight and Reform Committee that they can investigate anything. And with very broad universal oversight. Those will continue regardless of what they find are what the president does, they will continue because it is not about the law or the constitution and politics. Hard break. And of argument. You are correct. So the victim in all of that is we the people and the system of government is weakened by the fact these mechanisms which were used or provided for to ensure our system of government operated properly within the bounds of our constitution to make sure they dont work. And those legitimate functions of government to be abused and misused and continue this until day and that weakens the system and one system of government and weekends liberty. Independence was based upon taxation without representation in my rights that. Bat is one of the igniting factors and limiting freedom. So i have an idea so there are hardly anybody that can envision so i have found a way to get rid of all the taxes to fund the government in a different way is there an interest in that quick. Thats not the topic of discussion but i would be interested but here to see. With rita being important. Please use a microphone. I think the question in everybodys mind is do you think trump will be impeached before next year . There is no simple answer that is responsible. I have written a piece here. If you go to Freedom Works case in point i wrote a paper that talks a lot about these issues and one of the things that we talk about for example is the fact that at the time this paper was published in our view there is no appropriate basis to impeach. Even with obstruction of justice the democrats are waiting breathlessly for Mister Mueller to appear on wednesday. So if in fact in the absence of a new revelation, for serious violation of law while committed while in office , after tha that, based on what we know now and a correct interpretation of the constitution and impeachment history and the law, there should not be impeachment but it doesnt come close to an no. Because that rash irrational historically based view so they could very well impeach them in the sad thing is it doesnt mean anything. And thats what im talking about. If you can impeachment something then what they are doing is they devalue the whole notion of impeachment and why you would hold that to buy a one dash that was never intended the to be used as the Impeachable Offense. But it would not surprise me. It would be very sad because of what it does to our system of constitutional checks and balances. So that would be the death of a legitimate way by our founders to correct an imbalance. This is only slightly offtopic. It is so difficult to read news from every source to see if the administration is as chaotic and terrible that the left wing says . There are very few voices on the right. So all these people want to impeach it so terrible thats all they talk about that the fact he has replaced people it seems its functioning fine but am i just biased . Has it been that chaotic . It is different by a number of important indices to me it is working just fine. The Regulatory Reform is topnotch. Thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] reagan is an intellectual and comfortable with ideas to understands the power of ideas and with that kind of foundatio foundation, a political leader can do all kinds of marvelous things. And with that confirmation my brother unfriended me on facebook over kavanaugh my sisterinlaw broke her engagement over kavanaugh. It has gone insane. And it comes from the outside. Absolutely. May be even more from the anti trump sideband the pro trump side. That i read a statistic that they are at thanksgiving one or two hours less so they dont fight 17 things to talk about other than politics. We wrote the articles we would have something to talk about at thanksgiving. It has gotten worse and worse and worse. As a psychotherapist did you see this during the george w. Bush administration or Ronald Reagan administration or Obama Administration quick. All of this is true but it was under control to a certain extent. Not that they would rather marry someone of a different race than a different political party. This has become to normal. And one of the people that has written those letters and one who sounded really nice was on the west coast he had to take trump supporter off of his profile because no woman would go out with him. He had been in the military and very intelligent and he met a woman and he really liked her and had a lot in common she went on one date and said how can we do this . Just one date i think we have a chance will you talk to her . [laughter] she said so why is it i think they are the antichrist . So we had a long conversation i dont know if i convinced her to go back but heres a situation youre treating them as if they did you wrong but they didnt. And i told her that this is the basis to me of the chemotherapy test when you are lying on a hospital bed getting chemotherapy you do not ask Party Affiliation of the person who was laying next to you. And we both came to this understanding that bad and that is what matters to me. Who passed the test for you quick. He passed the test he was there constantly my nextdoor neighbor in new york who is passionate she does not like trump either she came and did my laundry. And my closest friend at the time who was a local democrat and a psychoanalyst never showed up. And i have a remarkable story that i tell in the book it is called what is a core value . So this is a young woman i knew her father was important in her life and when he died and to be serious progressives but her uncle the ex marine that committed evangelical trump supporter will tell you that healthcare was everything. And she did something that almost nobody did, she apologized to him she said i misjudged you you are the only one who came through i will never forget it
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.