THE ROAD TO IMPEACHMENT

Rep. Bob Barr, the most vocal congressional proponent for holding impeachment hearings on President Clinton’s conduct in office, takes issue with House Speaker Newt Gingrich on the way such a potential inquiry should be conducted.

“To me, the best course of action is one that I’ve already laid out (House Resolution 304), so I’m somewhat prejudiced,” he says. “Begin the process with the Rules Committee, then it goes to the Judiciary.”

Last week Roll Call reported that Gingrich told a closed-door meeting of GOP leaders that Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are ill-prepared to handle an impeachment investigation, or to respond to likely attacks from Democrats. Barr wasn’t familiar with the substance of the meeting, but did express support for Judiciary.

“I don’t know what Newt said, or intended to say,” Barr told WorldNetDaily. “I will say that certainly there is nobody better equipped in the Congress to handle these matters
than (Chairman) Henry Hyde. He is a man who has tremendous background and
knowledge, not only of impeachment, but how it works. So I would take severe issue with anybody if they believe Henry Hyde is not equipped to handle it.”

Barr represents Georgia’s 7th Congressional District, and charged into the
House along with 72 other freshman members in the Republican class of 1994.
He has become a highly visible member of the Judiciary, Banking, and
Government Reform and Oversight committees.

Barr has sponsored House Resolution 304, which calls upon the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether grounds exist to impeach President Clinton. So far it is the most bold proposition in Congress to pursue the president’s impeachment; one which has 23 co-sponsors, all Republicans. Meanwhile, House leadership is discussing how to handle the likely imminent presentation of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report from his
Whitewater investigation.

According to news reports, Gingrich has been considering the creation of a smaller panel to review Starr’s initial report, rather than allow it to go immediately to the Judiciary Committee. Barr says the uniqueness of this case requires deliberation on how to handle it.

“One has to remember that this is a unique historical situation,” said Barr. “Never before in our history have we been confronted with the situation of considering possible impeachment of a president, and the work of an independent counsel. The last time we considered the impeachment of a president, we didn’t have the independent counsel statute. There’s no historical roadmap at all for what we’re putting together here. So, different ideas being floated as ways to handle this material is not at all inappropriate.”

It has been reported that Gingrich also wants to include some Republican women on the smaller panel. There are currently no GOP women on the Judiciary Committee.

“I’ve never been one that thinks that we ought to place people on committees based on whether they are a man or woman,” said Barr. “I don’t subscribe to that philosophy at all.”

Barr agrees that Republicans need to improve in their response to Democratic attacks, though.

“I think there are problems in the way we have responded to the tactics of the Democrats,” said Barr. “As the majority, (Republicans) have to be very, very well prepared to respond to the vehement and constant attacks by the Democrats seeking to delay and draw us off target, or trivialize, or change the subject. “If what the Speaker is saying is, ‘We need to do a better job of preparing ourselves in our committees,’ then he has a point. We do need to do a better job of preparing and carrying out tactics that blunt such efforts by the Democrats, who seem to be unanimously dead set on defending this
president at all costs, no matter what the evidence shows.”

Some of those Democratic tactics have included questioning of Republicans’ moral leadership. Barr has not been exempted from the Democrats’ attacks, who have questioned the example of his two divorces. Barr bristles at those who compare his morality to Clinton’s.

“It’s patently ludicrous,” he said. “I don’t think they gain any credibility by doing that.”

Barr believes that personal lives have no bearing on one’s eligibility to serve in the U.S. Congress.

“It is irrelevant. I have said that on many occasions, and I’ll say it again now,” Barr stated. “Any more than it is that Barney Frank is an avowed homosexual. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person can sit, look at our Constitution, look at the evidence, and either hold the president accountable for official acts or not.”

Barr also faced some difficulties with his campaign, having received $55,000 in improper contributions, according to the Federal Election Commission. Barr says he has put his house in order.

“We hired completely new staff. We got a new computer. We got new software, so we can make every single effort possible to not have any further problems.”

The Democratic attacks have not blunted Barr from publicly posturing for the need for hearings. Recent criticisms of Clinton from House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), and Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Dan Burton (R-Ind.) may be signaling a new GOP strategy, but Barr doesn’t see it yet.

“Apparently when Dick Armey made his statements, he didn’t get any support from anybody else,” said Barr. “As a matter of fact, I remember there were some of our leaders who said they did not agree with him. So, I’d have to say there still seems to be a tremendous hesitancy to say anything publicly.”

“To some extent, I can understand that. I don’t think people should be jumping to conclusions. But I certainly see nothing wrong with people stepping forward and saying, ‘There is substantial evidence already, and clearly we need to look into it.”

Both DeLay and Armey say they experienced extremely positive responses to their criticisms of the president. However, many GOP members feel that only those in safe, anti-Clinton districts can be so outspoken. Barr thinks it shouldn’t matter.

“I don’t believe whether one is outspoken or not should depend on whether or not one is from an anti-Clinton district,” said Barr. “If you believe in the Constitution … and take time to look at the evidence, I just don’t see that there’s any conclusion that one can come to other than the fact that there is evidence that certainly something is wrong here, and we ought to look into it.”

“To me, that’s not jumping to conclusions; that’s not even being outspoken. For people to say we can’t even talk about it, simply because we may come from a district that is one way or another, I think is using a criteria that completely absolves ourselves from any leadership responsibility. And that’s what we’re elected to be as members of Congress, is leaders.”

Barr would like to see more members sign on to House Resolution 304, but support is limited right now. Most congressmen are taking a “wait and see” attitude.

“Everybody seems to be sort of frozen in place, waiting for Kenneth Starr to report,” said Barr. “The way I view all this, there is no need to wait to begin something, to wait on what Mr. Starr is reporting. We’ve got a substantial body of evidence already from the work of Senator (Fred) Thompson’s committee, and some of the hearings of the House Judiciary Committee, and certainly the House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee’s work.”

Despite the evidence, Republicans still face strong opposition from Democrats in Congress. No Democrat has signed on to Barr’s resolution, and he seems envious of their solidarity.

“I think this White House and the (Democratic) leadership have done a very effective job of closing their ranks. They seem to be just blindly supportive of whatever it is that the President wants, and 100 percent opposed to any effort to inquire into, or get to the bottom of any of this. Which is a very important difference between now and 23 years ago in Watergate.”

Still, Barr is optimistic. He’s willing to wait as long as it takes. “I’m always optimistic that eventually the truth will come out,” he said. “But in this case, it’s going to be a long, hard road.”

“It’s very difficult to proceed where you have a Department of Justice that is not assisting, a Department of State that is not assisting, where you have individuals with White House connections … just blatantly refusing to answer, getting up in the middle of depositions and leaving, taking the Fifth, and then not being able to grant immunity because Henry Waxman and the folks on the other side just will not do so. It makes it very difficult. But I am optimistic that eventually we will get sufficient evidence.”

Despite the frustrations, Barr tries to maintain an even keel. When asked if he thought Rep. Dan Burton’s characterization of the president as a “scumbag” was appropriate, Barr demurred.

“I don’t believe we ought to call him names,” he said. “I understand that there are a lot of Americans that feel very strongly about what this president has done. I do, too. So I can understand why people use derogatory terms, but I think it’s inappropriate to refer to the president with such terminology.”

“It may be my background as a prosecutor, where you try to keep your emotions in check, and focus as objectively as you can on the evidence and the facts.”