January 26, 1999

[Partial transcript]

Dr. Keyes: What's THE GOOD NEWS today?

Started out with the good news of the Supreme Court's decision, knocking down this idea of sampling on the census, which I think would have handed an obviously corrupt Democrat Party the ability further to corrupt our political process, probably to manipulate it in ways that would have guaranteed one party government in this country. God help us if we have to endure one-party government when it's a party like the Democrats that have obviously now, in my opinion, been taken over by a thuggish criminal element and have the mentality that they are above the law, and that so long as they're pursuing the policies they think are right, it doesn't matter what laws they break or what reputations they destroy or what lies they tell, and so forth and so on. So I think it was a good thing that the Supreme Court put an obstacle in the way of their efforts to employ a method in the census count that could be easily subject to lying, abuse, manipulation and a lack of integrity. Good news.

Other piece of good news is the guest I have right now. We are privileged once again to have with us, in a sense I have to say I think of him as our esteemed and respected man on the scene, because he is right at the heart of this impeachment process, operating as one of the House Managers. But he has also been, I deeply believe, a voice of courage and integrity throughout this process. He has withstood really merciless assaults at the hands of those who have tried to shut the process of searching for truth in this matter down. He has been one of those people assaulted by the thuggish character assassinators of the Clinton team, and throughout he has held his head up and he has kept his mind clear, and he has kept his principles in focus in such a way that I think he's been a real inspiration to those of us looking for some integrity in politics, and that's Bob Barr.

Welcome to the show, Bob.

Rep. Bob Barr: Well, thank you very much, Alan. It's always a tremendous honor to be with you and to share some thoughts with your many, many listeners.

Dr. Keyes: Tell me, we're looking at this process now in the Senate and various things, we'll talk in a minute about the vote they took yesterday, but overall what is your sense of how this process is going right now?

Rep. Barr: I can't say that it's really something that I can take tremendous satisfaction in over here on the Senate side. I was very, very proud of our colleagues on the House side, the Republican Party that came together, took a hard vote, and voted Articles of Impeachment, and now thinking that we would get a fair shake over here in the Senate, have the opportunity to present the evidence that we need to to have a fair showing, to see at every twist and turn in the road, roadblocks thrown up in the path of our ability to simply fulfill our Constitutional duty to present this case, I must say is rather distressing.

Dr. Keyes: I have to confess, I was thinking that. I found myself in a quandary this morning, Bob, because I read the papers about the vote that took place yesterday--to have closed-door deliberations and all--and I found myself coming to a conclusion that had me in agreement with such unlikely characters as Tom Harkin, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Milkulsky, Arlen Spector. But on the other hand, I always have to follow my thought to its conclusion, and I did not, maybe you can help me understand this, but I did not understand the rationale for opposing the idea that, by and large, the Senate's deliberations would take place in front of the American people. I believe there's a tremendously strong case to be made for removing this President, and for all the steps that are necessary, to do so in a fashion that gets at the truth with integrity. Why wouldn't the Republicans in the Senate want that? Am I missing something?

Rep. Barr: I don't think you are, Alan, and as a matter of fact, as I was sitting there at the Managers' table on the floor of the Senate while that vote was taking place, what was going through my mind was exactly what you have just articulated. I was thinking, this is a no-brainer. Why wouldn't we want the American people to see this? This would be an opportunity where we could shine--our Senators, that is--by discussing this issue in intelligent terms and on the merits. Why would we want to close this off? And it left me with a feeling that, well, maybe they want to close it off because they don't want the American people to hear, because maybe the discussion will not be about the Constitution and the merits, but rather about politics.

Dr. Keyes: Well, see, this is what I'm afraid of. In this particular case, you go behind closed doors--I don't know that you're going behind closed doors to make the arguments that are needed. If you're discussing the question of these offenses, the truth or falseness of the offenses, their seriousness, the warrant for removal, all of that involves reasoning that I think y'all have presented very well on the House side in very moving and clear fashion, and cogent fashion, and you didn't have to go behind closed doors to do that. Why would they have to go behind closed doors? What kind of deliberations are gonna take place that can't take place out in the open, unless they are just about political expediency, and they don't want us to see it going on?

Rep. Barr: Well, I think that's a very, very good question that you've raised, and a very legitimate one, Alan, and it really personifies, in so many respects, unfortunately, the way this process is unfolding in the Senate.

Dr. Keyes: If you were gonna make a case, Bob, and somebody asked you, "Well, we have this whole big record and everything, why are y'all insisting on witnesses?"--what would you say?

Rep. Barr: Well, because the Constitution, by God, demands that we do it. There is no way that anybody can reasonably interpret the words of the Constitution that places the exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of all impeachments in the Senate, without concluding a trial in the historical and judicial sense of the word--and that means that you have search for the truth, that you have witnesses, that you don't artificially limit the House Managers or the President's attorneys in their presentations, and if you do so, then you are going contrary to every clear understanding and every precedent in the Senate.

Alan, for a body that is so enamored with precedent, for the Senate to embark on this course that throws every prior impeachment trial out the window in which they have had witnesses and full opportunity for it, boggles the mind. It is directly contrary to what the Senate itself says it stands for.

Dr. Keyes: And one of the things that bothers me--and I've been hearing the to-ing and fro-ing on the witness question, and of course the news media present it in the most shallow and superficial way imaginable, and they're always asking the question, "Well, what new stuff are we gonna hear from these people?" and so forth. And what I've tried to explain, and you can correct me--you have trial lawyer experience and so forth--but it's my understanding that quite often when you are calling witnesses at a trial, you don't expect them to say anything new. Matter of fact, it would come as a great shock to most lawyers if their witnesses said anything new. What you're actually expecting is that those witnesses are going to be there, you'll question them in a way that can cast a light on their experience and testimony so the jury will understand how it affects the case, and you can try to present that favorably, and it also provides an opportunity for cross-examination, so that both sides have a chance to probe for the inconsistencies and weakness in that testimony. Am I wrong about this?

Rep. Barr: Alan, you are absolutely correct. You've just passed Trial Advocacy 101. The modern trial is not a forum for surprises. Quite the opposite, it is a very deliberative, very well organized process for which there has gone on a great deal of work before you go into court to try and flesh out all of the evidence, and the trial is simply the forum by which the triers of fact listen to the evidence. There should not be surprises. The parties should have worked all that out beforehand. It's not Perry Mason, it is an opportunity for the triers of fact, in this case the Senators, to hear the evidence, to see the witnesses, to listen to them, to look them in the eye so that they can decide their credibility. That is the whole point of having a trial, and when they take that away from us, what they are doing is they are negating the whole purpose for having a trial.

Dr. Keyes: That's what it seemed to me. And I also thought that when the Clinton defenders got up and they were talking about the record, and characterizing certain things that the witnesses had said--for instance, they talked about the Betty Currie episode, they talked about Monica saying that she had never been asked to lie. Of course, in their presentation, they also neglected the fact that she said, "But I understood what he meant, and I understood that he meant that we were going to continue in our story about what this was about," and so forth. I mean, calling witnesses and having an opportunity for cross-examination strikes me as the only way to clear up those differences of interpretation in the record.

Rep. Barr: You've just passed Trial Advocacy 102. You're shooting through law school here. You're absolutely correct. There are key areas where there is a clear dispute as to testimony--for example, in the December 17, 1997 phone conversation at 2 a.m. in the morning between the President and Monica Lewinsky, was there a discussion of the false affidavit? We believe that there is. Monica has testified previously to that, the President's lawyers contest that. That is absolutely crucial to have one of the parties to that, hopefully two of the parties, but in the absence of the President coming forward, at least one of the parties come before the Senate and explain, that so that they can determine her credibility.

Dr. Keyes: And that has to be done, it seems to me, in the presence of and under cross-examination from the two sides. So you can see how credible that witness is. And in the absence of that, the whole thing starts to look like a kind of jury-rigged sham. And that's part of the problem that I see with everything that they're suggesting here short of witnesses, and so forth.

(BREAK)

Dr. Keyes: Welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. We're privileged to have with us one of the key House Managers in the impeachment trial. Congressman Bob Barr is with us, sharing his thoughts with us about where things stand.

Question, Bob, in terms of the audience that we have out there, and there are, I know--contrary to what the polls are saying, I encounter a lot of people intensely interested in this who have, when it was being deliberated in the House gotten involved, made comment, written, called, etc. To what extent do you believe that that kind of citizen interest and involvement can help out in this instance? Are the Senators paying any attention at all to what they're hearing from the grass roots, or are they just basing this on a short-range political calculation?

Rep. Barr: Well, I mean, I don't know to what extent they're listening to their constituents, but I suspect that what they're listening to, at least in part, if not primarily, seem to be these polls. And that is the direct opposite of the way our Founding Fathers envisioned sort of a split between the House and the Senate. They envisioned that it would be the House that might, if anybody, would be listening to polls and so forth, and the Senate would put principle ahead of that. As it turns out, it's exactly the opposite. The House put principle ahead of the polls, did the right thing, and now we're witnessing the Senate by all accounts seeming to simply put those polls ahead of the principles involved in these matters.

Dr. Keyes: Well, what do you think we're likely to see in the next few days? I know we have the likelihood that they're gonna come to a head on this dismissal vote, all that I am reading suggests that it is not going to succeed, and that they will then take a vote on the witnesses. Do you see the likelihood that some witnesses are going to be called, or not?

Rep. Barr: I do, but here again, Alan, it's not in the sense that we would like to, or need to, see it done. It's not from the standpoint that the Senate is saying, "Okay, you as Managers have a job, you tell us what you need. We rely on, and respect your judgment as to how best to proceed. We know that you're not going to delay this thing, we know that you're not going to call more witnesses than you absolutely need. We know that you understand that it's not the best to go into all sorts of salacious details. Let us help you." Instead, what's happening is we're being told, "Well, we don't really want witnesses, but if you absolutely insist on it, we'll let you have a couple and you tell us who, you know, the top few are, so that we can keep it to as few as possible."

Dr. Keyes: Well, it seems to me, though, in that kind of reasoning, then, the Senate is not being guided by the search for truth. They are essentially being guided by, what? Some kind of political calculation, or maybe a Janet Reno-style impatience to get it over with? I say that because that was apparently her rationale for Waco. It seems to me that when you get caught up in that kind of impatience, you're liable to make extremely bad judgments for the country.

Rep. Barr: Well, of course, as a sidelight with regard to Janet Reno, when it came to upholding the law--for example, the Independent Counsel Statute--oh, patience, infinite patience was the password. So, it all depends on who the target of your patience or impatience is, I suppose. But I think you're right here again, Alan. What seems to be the motivating factor here is, "You've bothered us with this, we want to get it over with. Let us look for some way so that it can appear as if we're really doing something, as if we're really giving you full opportunity, but we're not really, and then we can go on to all of those other great Senatorial things that we like so much to do."

Dr. Keyes: It seems to me terribly important, Bob, that the American people understand what is happening here, and particularly the grass roots conservatives and Republicans around the country, because I am deeply dismayed, myself, at the extent to which [there is] a lack of integrity and concern just to get at the truth and to handle the process in a way that increases respect for the Constitution. The thing I guess I'm most concerned with is that this whole process is operating in such a way as to confirm the worst kind of cynicism if the Senate proceeds along the kind of lines that some of the folks have talked about--and that would be a damaging blow to the respect our people need to have for the Constitution and Constitutional processes. And I think that's why I admire what y'all have done in the House so much. You have stood for that integrity in a way that confirms that this is a government of laws, a Constitutional system, not just based on political whim and expediency.

Rep. Barr: Well, Alan, I appreciate you saying that because it's the way I feel about the House. I apologize, I've gotta run. We have a meeting of the House Managers right now to discuss some of these issues, so if you will excuse me, I thank you for the opportunity.

Dr. Keyes: Thank you, Bob, I appreciate you being with us, and our prayers are with you. You keep it up. Thank you very much.

That was Bob Barr, one of the House Managers. He's going off right now to a meeting in which they'll be talking about some of these very issues, sharing with us his thoughts. I was interested, of course, to find that he actually was thinking pretty much the same way I thought about that vote to close the deliberations--which I still don't understand. I also think, by the way, among other things, it's a tactical mistake which is the kind of thing I guess these Republican leaders are always making. It puts the Democrats in a position where they can say, "See, we wanted it all open and stuff, because we have real confidence in what we're saying, and they don't. They wanted it closed because they can't really make their case."

And in addition to that, think about what Mikulsky said yesterday about this. "My constituents and all Americans deserve to hear Senate deliberations from Senators, not leakers and speculators and commentators." One of the standard plaints of Republicans in the Republican leadership is how, "Oh, we can never get our point across, the media is always getting in the way. The commentators and the pundits are always filtering, and doing this, and doing that." And yet, when they have opportunities as a debate that was covered would give them for a clear, unfiltered shot at the American people, they then vote not to take it. And they vote in such a way as to suggest that they don't want to make their case, or they don't have confidence in their case, or they--I don't know what, exactly!

But it's interesting that Congressman Barr said he was sitting listening to the discussion and watching the proceedings and thinking pretty much what I was sitting there thinking, wondering why it would be the case that the Senators would lack the confidence and lack the desire to look the American people in the eye and make the clear case as to why the trial must proceed, it should not be dismissed, the witnesses must be called, and the matter must be considered with the gravity that it deserves. Instead, they're running for cover.

And in doing so, by the way, you cower in the bushes, they act in this cowardly way, I think they will be rewarded with what their cowardice deserves. Your enemies don't stop attacking you when you prove to be a coward. What they do is they attack you even more so, figuring that they're gonna defeat you easily because you're going down without a fight. It doesn't make any sense. It reminds me of that old phrase--I'm trying to remember, for some reason I cannot remember the source of this, it's terrible, but it will come to me soon--which talks about a time in which the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.

And we have come to such a time of utter corruption, in which those who proclaim or ought to be standing for integrity and truth and principle don't seem to have the guts to stand up and make the case, and in which the liars and the depraved people who are out there preying upon people, like Bill Clinton, will look the camera right in the eye and with brazen, shameless boldness and confidence and courage, speak their lies to the American people. It doesn't make any sense.