Bob Barr: Liar-Hypocrite Extraordinaire



Home • Latest • Archive • Search

Rep. Bob Barr: Liar-Hypocrite Extraordinaire

Thanks to Ann Woolner for portions of this article, reproduced by permission of American Lawyer Media

Tuesday, January 26, 1999 -- Washington, D.C. -- In case voters in Rep. Bob Barr's Georgia District haven't realized it yet, we're here to tell you that Barr appears to be a liar. He's a liar so big as to embarrass anyone -- including the President, who Barr claims is so awful as to require instant dismissal.

We launched the story about Barr cheating on his old wife with his new one and included for you the gory detail of the first (or was it second?) divorce where the smart and ex Mrs. Barr claimed that Bob forced her to have an abortion and then paid for it -- by check!

So here we have the first big lies about Barr:

(1) He is a "family man;" and
(2) he is pro life.

Now, if that's not enough to nauseate you, try this on for size, courtesy of Ann Woolner, an apt investigative reporter for American Lawyer Media. As you recall, Barr loves to tell everyone, including the United States Senate -- under oath, mind you -- that he was a big-time U.S. Attorney. Barr never misses an opportunity to tell the world how many criminals he's prosecuted -- and how many for perjury and obstruction of justice. Of course, Barr -- along with Canady, Rogan and Hutchinson -- never tell us the specific facts of any of these exemplary cases, but Barr goes a step further:

He never tried any of them either.

Barr turns out to have been nothing more than a too-highly-paid PR man for the U.S. Attorney's office.

"His first impeachment press release, dated Nov. 5, 1997 (yes, 2-1/2 months before we heard of Monica Lewinsky), closes by saying Barr "previously served as United States Attorney in Atlanta, where he prosecuted numerous cases involving public corruption....

"He mentioned it again to give weight to a specious legal argument last month in the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings when he said perjury indictments need not specify the statements alleged to be lies.

"And later, while debating impeachment on the floor of the House, Barr said he knows about obstruction of justice "as a former United States attorney who directed the prosecution of a Republican member of this body for obstructing justice... ."

He was referring to ex-Rep. Patrick L. Swindall, except that Swindall was indicted and convicted for perjury, not obstruction.

As you'll see, these are public lies (3), (4) and (5) -- two of which were made from the floor of the House and as a member of the House Judiciary Committee! So much for Barr upholding the oath he took when sworn in to the House this month. Okay, these aren't really big lies -- I mean nothing like lying about getting ahead in the White House.

"But as U.S. attorney Barr oversaw prosecutions; he did not actually do them, according to three of his former assistants and to my recollection as federal court reporter at the time. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office researched the question and turned up a longtime staffer who recalls one time Barr made a presentation in court, in the sentencing of a public official."

As best as could be determined in the absence of a call-back from Barr on the question, he never made an opening statement or a closing argument as a prosecutor. He never examined a witness, offered an objection or defended against one. This may be why his memory of the Swindall prosecution is vague -- he didn't actually do it himself.

So, I am vindicated. Barr really is a legal moron, and so are his colleagues -- one of who claims to be a judge -- and actially was.

But what kind of judge? We'll go into Mr. Rogan at a later date.

With regards to Mr. Barr, the topper is that Barr had almost ALL of his trial experience as a CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER! In other words, he got dope dealers, car thieves, rapists and maybe even murderers off the hook -- but we doubt any murderer would trust him for the defense.

"...four of Atlanta's last five U.S. attorneys -- going back to 1982 -- have all tried at least one case each, Barr being the exception. (The two before Barr, Larry D. Thompson and Stephen S. Cowen, both prosecuted cases, as did the two after Barr, Joe D. Whitley and Kent B. Alexander. Current U.S. Attorney Richard H. Deane Jr., who took the job in March, says he has not prosecuted a case personally in his new job but expects to.)"

By the way, Barr thought he could get away with his lies because television cameras are not allowed in Federal courts -- so no one ever knew that it was his assistants that were trying his so-called cases. Barr, as US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, signed all indictments and issued press releases on "his" convictions over his name -- not the name of the true prosecuting attorney or attorneys.

Why? Well, we think it was because Bob was gearing up to run for congress. He was the first US Attorney to issue press releases, all of which started with the words, "Robert L. Barr Jr., United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, announced today..." What a moron. As Ann Woolner put it:

"But let's be fair. There's nothing wrong with taking arch criminals to task. But even Barr's assistants were afraid and angry that Barr's leaks to the press would put their own cases in jeopardy. Also, most of the law enforcement chiefs in Northern Georgia filed complaints with the Justice Department about Barr -- who was investigated twice. Of course, now that Barr is a congressman, the results of those investigations have never been disclosed."

To make a boring story shorter, Barr was leaking grand jury information to the press -- just like his pal Starr -- and early disclosure of grand jury and in-house Justice Department information showed up in local papers who reported people and companies were under the microscope of the grand jury. Of course, most of them were never indicted at all. Could this be because Barr had blown his own case with leaks?

So Barr is perfectly prepared to be the head liar and puffer in the Senate. Woolner says it best...

"Now he need not worry about the ethics rules that constrain prosecutors. Now, no judge will chew him out, as U.S. District Court Judge William C. O'Kelley did in 1989 for appearing on every possible network news and interview show discussing his then-big case."

We'll go one better. We think that when the wash is off the line, Barr will need all the practice he's getting on national television lynching the President for the same things he has done all his life, in one way or another.

Why? Because he'll be up for re-election in 2000 -- and we will be mailing 500,000 pieces of mail into his district to remind them what a hypocrite. liar and opportunist he is.

-- Mac MacArthur