state university. >> Former president Donald Trump returned to Washington today to face a federal judge on charges over his efforts to stay in power. I spoke with his former attorney general, bill Barr, earlier today about the historical legal cases boss is now facing as well as his new memoir out in paperback. Thank you so much for being with us. This is his third arrest in four months. In your mind, what sets this case aside -- apart? >> This case is a more serious case. I don't think Alvin Bragg's case is a legitimate case. That is a political hit. But this case is the most serious of the cases. The conduct involved trying to subvert and prevent the progress, the execution of probably the most important assets and proceeding we have and are country, which is the peaceful transfer of power after an election. What is being alleges that he knew that he lost the election, he knew the claims of a stolen election or false, and yet he decided he would try to stay in office twice of hurting that process. By putting out misinformation but more important, by putting out these false panels of electors and presenting them to congress and tracked as the vice president to make these decisions to suppress the legitimate votes. That was outrages. Putting aside whether it is criminal or not, I do not see how the Republican party can nominate someone who is capable of doing that. >> In your book you catalogued the chaos at the end of his time in office. You have unique access to him. Did he know he was lying about the election? >> Initially I could not tell. He did not appeal -- appear to cancer -- care about the answers. He kept on repeating them. He did not appear to care about the facts. I have come to believe he knew he lost the election. His own campaign was telling him that. I was concerned at the time that maybe his campaign was feeding some of the stuff to him. On the contrary, I think everybody was telling him that he lost. >> There are Republicans who have disparaged as cases being politically motivated. How do you see it? Was an indictment warranted? >> I think it is a legitimate case. I do not understand the attacks on the department saying it is abusive or weaponized for bringing this case. When someone says this is unfair , there is some other motive, the first question is, was a crime committed? Or is this a case of going after somebody really did not do anything. Or stretching the law way beyond where it should be? No, there was very grave wrongdoing here. I think it is reasonable to say that it falls within the discretion -- obstruction of a proceeding. That is not weaponization, that is enforcement of a law. Will the case be hard to prove? Are there areas where they may not be able to make the case? Perhaps. Are there some disadvantages for having brought it? I think there are. But I think it is unfair to say this is abuse. The abuse was on after the election and conducted by trump. >> What are the disadvantages that you see in terms of rain this case? >> I think it is a time when there is for mount -- profound feeling where there is two standards for justice. That is a justified concern. I think to come at the same time you see the mishandling of the hunter Biden investigation, I think it will be very hard to persuade people this is not political. I don't think bringing this case is political. But I can understand why would think it is given the understanding of the hunter Biden thing. The other is that it helps drop. -- Trump. I think that has to be taken into account. If we do not want this stuff happening, I could see why people say we have to prosecute it. But you are making it more likely that he could get back into office. >> What do you make of the job of the attorney general is doing? Some people criticize the dod -- doj and say it took too long to bring this case. >> Advocate took that long. I think they were focusing on people who went into the capitol building. The lower level people for a while. I have said publicly that they seem to have decided to do that. That scene article say there was some resistance to the idea of doing that from others in the FBI. I think it was a legitimate investigation to look at what happened on January 6. I would like to know something about what happened. I think Garland needs to act swiftly. I would advise him to pull the issue in and make a decision as to whether it will be a hourly or a misdemeanor. Make him explain it. >> The trump legal team is floating their defense. They said it is his right to free speech. You think this line of defense will fight its way into a courtroom? >> I think it will. That is a version of the real issue. The real issue is whether it is possible to impose liability on this case without chilling other kinds of legitimate speech. I don't think the other stuff here is what she is entitled to do under the first amendment. You don't want to have a fuzzy decision where future campaigns are reluctant to challenge the outcome because someone might accuse me of this being crime. I think that's a legitimate concern. I think this indictment was carefully drawn. They will say that they will prove trump new that the election was not stolen. They are focused on deceitful actions. Such as submitting false slates of electors. And trying to use them to create the illusion that there was a bona fide dispute within the state that the vice president could rule on. That was a complete fallacy. He does not have a constitutional right to do that. >> He also said the former president is following the advice of his lawyers, he and John then. How solid a defense is that to you? >> I think that will quickly fall apart. He basically searches around for any lawyer who agrees with his predisposition. He does not get advice and follow it. He looks for a lawyer who will tell him what he wants to hear. He was passing through all the government lawyers and in pain lawyers were telling him no. He finally found this professor, it will be interesting to see what he actually told him. I don't think he necessarily set this is legal and ok. I think he said he might be able to make an argument for this the courts will accept. We will have to see how he casts it. But there is a big practical hurdle in doing that. He will have to get on the stand to raise that the fans and subject himself to cross-examination. John Eastman will have to get on the stand. >> Would you ever testify? >> If they call me, of course. I'm hoping I'm not called as a witness. >> Why not? >> I have better things to do. [Laughter] >> Can Mr. Trump get a fair trial in Washington? His legal team is asking for a change of venue. At least they say they are going to do that. They say Washington is not politically favorable. >> I feel strongly that the most boring thing is fairness to the individual. I think this may not be a fair jurisdiction for him given the heat of political sentiment these days. I think that motion is worthy of consideration. I would just point out that in the other case, I thought the justice apartment sought the venue in Florida rather than Washington and it was moved to an even more favorable jurisdiction. That favors trump. >> It is remarkable how little visibility the American public will have into what you could argue is the most important federal criminal proceeding in U.S. History. Only a handful of reporters are allowed into the classroom and the cameras. Should an exception be made? Should cameras be allowed so the American public and watch it unfold? >> I don't think so. I'm opposed to cameras in court. Our life is becoming more like reality TV. All of the posturing. I would hate to see that happening more and more in boards. >> What did you see an Donald Trump initially that made you want to serve as his attorney general? >> I did not want to serve as his attorney general. I was actually not interested at all. I had reservations about him. I did not support him initially. But he was elected and I thought he was being unfairly treated and being thwarted from trying to run a normal administration. I felt he was entitled to that. I also saw some good things about him. He was willing to speak lamely, to take on issues other people were afraid to talk about. He also had the stamina to keep on going on all of these issues and try to eat his election -- keep his election promises. His policies were ones that I agreed with. I went in because I felt we were headed toward a constitutional crisis and I thought I could help stabilize things at the department of justice. >> You were one of his most influential and ardent supporters. Have you any second thoughts about that? >> No. I would agree that maybe I was influential. I was not an artists supporter. I was a member of his cabinet. I realized his deep false. But he was the elected president. People are talking about the weaponization of the department. They start talking about cases where I intervene. I said we were not going to weaponize the department. In each case, demonstrably, they kicked out treatment that would not have been done in any other case. They asked for sentences higher than what would normally be given written I said no, we are going to leave it to the judge. >> Can you make that same case about hunter Biden? He is only facing prosecution because he is the president's son. >> Those charges, some of them were brought under me. The Democrats were constantly beating up the administration for not prosecuting people who live to get their guns area. I said ok, I made it a priority. It is one of the top priorities of the department to prosecute as felonies people who lie on their gun applications. One of the first people was hunter Biden. He is brandishing that again in photographs. He should not be allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. He should be charged with a felony. Other people should be charged with felonies and that case. >> You are clear in your book that the GOP needs to move on from Donald Trump, yet he is a dominant years will. Is his nomination inevitable? >> I do not think so. I think people are way ahead of themselves. I think he has a hard-core following of about 30% of the Republican party. I think there are 20% who tend to support him. I think that reflects how they instinctively want to do that. It could become a better race. I think that is essential for the future of the Republican party. >> You said previously that there will be more shoes to drop. >> I think it will be more evidence. Perhaps as we saw in the documents case. Evidence of his knowledge. Of statements he has made or other things that would be probative of what his state of mind was. I don't think the department will throw all of evidence away. >> Were you questioned by jack Smith? >> I will not get into that. >> Do you believe it is your duty to speak to him? >> Of course. If he asked me to talk to him, I would talk to the special counsel. >> Would Republicans ever turn away from Donald Trump that he was to be convicted? >> I think a lot of Republicans would. When they see some of the facts that are characteristic of his behavior, they will. Unfortunately a lot of them are tolerant of behavior that are not appropriate for a chief executives. He has a lot of people who follow him stubbornly. One of the interesting things is the people who have worked with him and seen him behind the scenes are not many are supporting. >> I spoke with his attorney last night. I asked if there was any universe in which she would accept a plea deal, and he said no. Should he except a plea deal? >> I would not push and to accept a plea deal and I don't think he will. I think the stuff about prison time is hyped. Even if he is convicted of both crimes, I don't think he will serve a day in prison. I think you will have a felony record but I think any president, Republican or debit, and any department of justice would cut some kind of deal so you don't have the spectacle of a former president in prison. He is raising money. >> If he is reelected, what would a second term mean for this country? What with the defense look like? The legal advisors who had his year, any of them are now co-conspirators in this indictment. >> I think many of the people he would otherwise turn to will have their law licenses revoked. It'll be interesting to see how he staffs the department of justice. The only way to really talk sense to him would say this will hurt you and your reelection chances. I am concerned that in a second term, he would be off the hook. There will be no way of controlling him and he will surround himself with yes-men. >> Your memoir is now out in paperback. For people who have not read the book, the title, can you quickly explain it? >> It is a story that attorneys general tell. When Reagan appointed his, he went to talk to one of his predecessors. He had been in academia. Smoked a pipe in ward three jacket. He said tell me about this job? He was expecting to hear this elevated lecture about separation of powers. But he said it is one damn thing after another. That is what attorneys general have told each other since then. >> Thank you for coming in. >> Thank you. ♪♪
