NOW A GREAT PLEASURE JOINING ME IS BILL BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, TWICE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FORMER FRIENDS AND CABINET COLLEAGUE. BILL, THANK YOU FOR COMING ON. JUST TELL ME YOUR IMPRESSIONS ABOUT THIS WHOLE STORY. YOU HEARD MY RIFF. I KNOW YOU WERE TALKING TO ANDY McCARTHY OF NATIONAL REVIEW. >> I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, LARRY. WE DON'T HAVE THE INDICTMENT SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF SPECULATION INVOLVED. BUT BASED ON THE NEWS REPORTS IF THEY ARE ACCURATE. THIS IS AN ABOMINATION. IT'S THE EPITOME OF THE ABUSE OF PROSECUTORIAL POWER TO BRING A CASE THAT WOULD NOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST ANYONE'S ELSE. THEY ARE GOING AFTER THE MAN, NOT A CRIME. THE LEGAL THEORY IS PATHETICALLY WEAK. THE CASE IS HELD TOGETHER BY CHICKEN WIRE AND PAPER CLIPS AND RUBBERBANDS. IT'S A LOUSY CASE. AND IT'S A SHAMEFUL EPISODE IN OUR HISTORY WHERE THIS LOCAL PROSECUTOR IS TRYING TO AFFECT THE POLITICAL PROCESS BY BRINGING THIS CASE. LARRY: THIS IS POLITICALLY DRIVEN AS YOU SUGGESTED. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT. OR AT LEAST CONSERVATIVES KNOW THAT. WHAT IS THIS TATTERED LEGAL THEORY? I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT. >> ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS, THE THRESHOLD CRIME IS FALSE BUSINESS RECORDS REPORTEDLY YOU PAYMENTS REIMBURSED TO MICHAEL COHEN WHO PAID OFF STORMY DANIELS. THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THOSE PAYMENTS IS LEGAL PAYMENTS WHICH VIOLATED A MISDEMEANOR STATUTES AGAINST FALSE DOCUMENTS. I DON'T THINK THE CLAIM IN THIS CASE STANDS BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD. IF YOU HAVE FALSE BUSINESS RECORDS WHERE SOME VALUE IS TAKEN FROM SOMEBODY ELSE AND YOU FALSELY GET VALUE IN YOUR OWN NAME THEN THE FALSE RECORDS WOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR A FRAUD CLAIM. BUT THEN THEY TAKE THIS NIFD WHICH HAS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND TRY TO SHOE HORN IT INTO A FELONY BY CLAIMING THE REASON THE DOCUMENT WAS FALSIFIED, THE DOCUMENTS WERE FALSIFIED WAS TO COVER UP ANOTHER CRIME. IN THIS CASE THEY ARE ASSUMING THE PAYMENTS WERE A CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY WERE EFFECTIVELY A CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. I CAN TELL YOU THAT'S NOT THE LAW. I DON'T THINK THAT'S HOW THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD VIEW IT. IT WASN'T BROUGHT BY THE JUST ITS DEPARTMENT DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. BUT EVEN AFTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LEFT, THERE IS NO INHIBITION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO BRING THIS CLAIM IF IT WAS VALID, AND IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT. I THINK IT'S QUITE CLEAR UNDER THE LAW -- I'LL CALL IT HUSH MONEY, I DON'T LIKE THAT TERM, BUT PAYMENTS OF HUSH MONEY TO KEEP AFFAIRS AND THINGS LIKE THAT SECRET ARE NOT INHERENTLY UNLAWFUL. THE QUESTION UNDERSTOOD THE STATUTE IS WAS IT A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? I THINK THE LAW IS CLEAR IT IS NOT. I THINK MERRICK GARLAND WHEN HE WAS A D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE WROTE AN OPINION ALONG THESE LINES WITH SENATOR LARRY CRAY. BUT IT WOULD BE A PERSONAL PAYMENT, A PERSONAL EXPENSE. AND THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF A STATUTE IF IT'S A PAYMENT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE EVEN APART FROM THE CAMPAIGN. I THINK THERE IS A COMPELLING ARGUMENT HERE WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH A COMPANY NAMED AFTER ITS COMPANY, TRUMP, OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE PAYMENT TO PROTECT THE REPUTATION OF THE OWNER OF THE CORPORATION. SO I THINK IT'S A WEAK CASE ALL TOGETHER. UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK IT WILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT ITS POLITICAL PURPOSE WHICH IS TO INJECT CHAOS INTO THE REPUBLICAN PROCESS. I THINK PROBABLY THE GOVERNING INTENT HERE IS TO HELP TRUMP AND HAVE ALL THE NEWS FOCUSED ON THIS KINDS OF STUFF FOR THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS AND TURN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY INTO A CIRCUS. LARRY: IS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT THE BASIC THOUGHT HERE, LEFTIST DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT TRUMP BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE, PERIOD, FULL STOP. IS THERE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT? AND THEY WILL DO ANYTHING IT TAKES. LEGAL, ILLEGAL. YOU NAME IT AND THEY WILL DO IT. NO POLICY GOAL HERE. NO HELP IN AMERICA. NO WEALTH AND PROSPERITY AND HAPPINESS. KNOW BRINGING THE PEOPLE UP FROM THE LOW INCOME. IT'S TO STOP DONALD TRUMP. >> I THINK THERE ARE SOME DEMOCRATS WHO WOULD LIKE TO DRIVE HIM FROM THE POLITICAL SCENE COMPLETELY BECAUSE OF TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. BUT MOST DEMOCRATS WHO GET INVOLVED IN THIS KINDS OF THING, THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO RUN AGAINST TRUMP BECAUSE THEY THINK, WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG, THEY THINK THEY CAN BEAT HIM. SO THEY ARE TRYING TO HELP HIM BY GENERATING THE SUPPORT OF HIS BASE AND THEY FEEL THAT THAT WILL GENERATE THEIR OWN TURNOUT. SO THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY PLAYING FOR A REPEAT OF THE 2020 ELECTION. LARRY: I THINK THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. HALF THINKS TRUMP IS THE EASIEST TO BEAT IN THE ELECTION. OTHERS DON'T THINK HE COULD WIN THE WHITE HOUSE. BILL BARR, WHERE DOES THIS LEAD? NOW WE ARE PROSECUTING A FORMER PRESIDENT ON VERY DUBIOUS GROUNDS. REALLY SMALL BEER, WHATEVER THE TECHNICALITIES. WHERE DOES THIS LEAD? WHERE DOES THIS TAKE THIS COUNTRY? >> TO ME THIS IS A FATEFUL STEP. I HAVE OFTEN COMPLAINED ABOUT THE USE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS IN THE POLITICAL REALM. TO ME, THIS IS THE EPITOME OF THE ABUSE OF THE PROSECUTORIAL POWER TO PREEMPT POLITICAL DECISIONS. SO I THINK WE ARE GOING TO RUE THE DAY WE CROSSED THIS RUBICON. THERE WILL BE MORE AND MORE OF THIS. IT JUST DOESN'T ENDS WELL. LARRY: THE COUNTRY IS ALREADY SPLIT, ALREADY DIVIDED. I KNOW THERE ARE DIFFERENT MOTIVES HERE. I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME DEMOCRATS, MODERATE DEMOCRATS, WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW THAN THEIR BRETHREN ON THE FAR LEFT. HOW DOES THIS LOOK TO PEOPLE IN BRITAIN, IN EUROPE, IN LATIN AMERICA, IN BEIJING, IN VLADIMIR PUTIN'S MOSCOW? OR NOBODY THINKS ABOUT THAT STUFF ANYMORE. >> I THINK IT MAKES US LOOK LIKE A BANANA REPUBLIC AND IT SHOULD. THIS IS NEW YORK STATE AND THEY HAVE BEEN ACTING LIKE A BANANA REPUBLIC. THEY HAD THE CIVIL LAWSUIT AGAINST TRUMP AND HIS CHILDREN. THAT WAS A POLITICAL HIT JOB AS WELL. THIS RATCHETS THAT YOU HAVE BECAUSE IT'S A CRIMINAL CASE. THESE CASES TOGETHER TO ME MEAN THE BREAK DOWN OF THE RULE OF LAW IN NEW YORK STATE. LARRY: HOW ABOUT THE BREAKDOWN OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY. >> ALL OF OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE BEING MILITARY SIZED. MEDIA, SIGNS, MEDICINE, EDUCATION. AND PEOPLE AREN'T DOING THEIR JOBS IN THOSE INSTITUTIONS. THEY ARE PURSUING A HIGHER POLITICAL AGENDA. SO THEY SACRIFICE WHAT THOSE INSTITUTIONS SHOULD BE ALL ABOUT. SO WE SEE THAT NOW WITH THE BREAKDOWN OF THE RULE OF LAW WHERE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE CASES NOT BASED ON PRINCIPLE, AND NOT WITH A BLINDFOLD ON REGARDLESS OF WHO IT IS WHO IS IN THE DOCK. THEY ARE TRYING TO USE THE LAW AS A POLITICAL TOOL. >> LAST QUESTION, BECAUSE WE ARE OLD FRIENDS AND I ALWAYS RESPECT YOUR WISDOM. HOW IN GOD'S NAME CAN WE STOP THIS VERY BAD TREND AND LIFT THIS COUNTRY BACK UP? >> I ALWAYS SAY, WE HAVE SO MANY PROBLEMS, IT CAN BE DAUNTING. BUT THE FIRST STEP BACK IS THE STEP YOU AND I TOOK IN 1980 TOGETHER WHEN WE WORKED FOR RONALD REAGAN. WE HAVE TO WIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. IT HAS TO PAINT A POSITIVE VISION OF WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GO IN THE FUTURE. WE NEED A STRONG LEADER WHO CAN TAKE THE COUNTRY THERE AND WIN A DECISIVE VICTORY. WHEN RONALD REAGAN RAN, THE LIBERALS LOOKED AS THOUGH THEY WERE IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING. BUT A FEW YEARS LATER LIBERAL WAS A DIRTY WORD BECAUSE THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION WAS SO
