Bill Barr: Trump committed a ‘grave wrongdoing’ in Jan. 6 case

Read the Full Transcript

• Geoff Bennett:

  As we reported earlier, former President Donald Trump returned to Washington today to face a federal judge on charges related to his alleged efforts to stay in power and overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

  I spoke with Mr. Trump's former Attorney General Bill Barr earlier today about the historic legal case his former boss is now facing, as well as his new memoir, out in paperback now.

  Former Attorney General Bill Barr, thanks so much for being with us.

• William Barr, Former U.S. Attorney General:

  Thanks for having me, Geoff.

• Geoff Bennett:

  This is Donald Trump's third arrest in four months. He was previously charged by the special counsel in the classified documents probe, and, before that, by that Manhattan grand jury for business fraud.

  In your mind, what sets this case apart from the previous two?

• William Barr:

  Well, this case is a more serious — first, I don't think Alvin Bragg's case is a legitimate case. I think it — that is a political hit.

  But I think this case is the most serious of the cases, because the conduct here involved, trying to subvert and prevent the progress, the execution of probably the most important process and proceeding we have in our country, which is the peaceful transfer of power after an election.

  And what's being alleged here is that he knew that he lost the election, he knew that the claims of a stolen election were false, and yet he decided he was going to try to stay in office by subverting that process, by putting out misinformation, but, more important, by putting out these false panels of electors and presenting them to Congress and trying to push the vice president to make these decisions to suppress the legitimate votes.

  I mean, that was outrageous. And putting aside whether it's criminal or know, it — I don't see how the Republican Party could nominate someone who's capable of doing something like that.

• Geoff Bennett:

  In your book, you catalog the chaos at the end of Mr. Trump's time in office.

  You had unique access to him. You were familiar with his thinking, his thought processes. Did he know lying about election fraud?

• William Barr:

  I don't — initially, I couldn't tell, and — but he didn't appear to really care about what the answers were. And he kept on repeating the same charges, even after other people sat down, walked him through them, and explained that there was no problem with those allegations.

  And he kept on repeating them. He didn't really appear to care about the facts. But I have come to believe that he knew that he lost the election, because something I didn't know at the time when I was telling him that was that his own campaign was telling him that.

  In fact, I was concerned at the time that maybe his campaign was feeding some of this stuff to him, but, on the contrary, I think everyone was telling him he lost.

• Geoff Bennett:

  There are Republicans who have disparaged this case as being politically motivated. How do you see it? Was an indictment warranted in this January 6-related case?

• William Barr:

  Yes, I think it's a legitimate case.

  I don't understand the attacks on the department and saying it's abusive or it's weaponization for bringing this case. When someone says, you know, this is unfair, this is — there's some other motive here, the first question is, OK, was the crime done? Was there serious wrongdoing here, or is this a case of going after somebody who really didn't do anything or a technical violation or stretching the law way beyond where it should be?

  No. There was very grave wrongdoing here, and I think it's reasonable to say that it falls within the obstruction of a proceeding. That's not weaponization. That's enforcement of the law. And are there some — some hair on — on the case? Is it going to be maybe hard to prove? Are there areas where they may not be able to make the case? Perhaps.

  Are there some disadvantages for having brought the case? I think there are. But I think it's unfair to say that this is an abuse. The abuse was on after the election, and the abuse was conducted by Trump.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Well, what are the disadvantages that you see in terms of bringing this case?

• William Barr:

  Well, I think it's coming at a time where there's a profound feeling among many Americans that there's two standards of justice.

  And I believe there are, that that's a justified concern. And I think to come at the same time you see sort of the mishandling of the Hunter Biden investigation, I think it's going to be very hard to persuade people that it's not political.

  Now, I don't think bringing this case is political, but I think — I can understand why people would think it is, given the handling of the Hunter Biden thing. So, that's one.

  And the other is, it helps Trump. And I think that has to be taken into account. What are we trying to do here? If the feeling is that his conduct was dangerous and we don't want this stuff happening, I can see why people would say, OK, well, we have to prosecute this.

  But, on the other hand, you're making it more likely that he could get back into office.

• Geoff Bennett:

  What do you make of the job that the current attorney general, Merrick Garland, is doing? Because there are Democrats and Republicans who, for different reasons, criticize the DOJ, and they say that it took too long to bring this case, and now here we are in the middle of an election, and, to your point, it helps Donald Trump.

• William Barr:

  I don't know why it — I don't think it took that long.

  I mean, I think they were focusing on the people who went into the Capitol, sort of the lower-level people, for a while. And I said publicly they seem to have decided just to do that and not work their way up the chain and see what happened. I don't — I have seen articles to say that there was some resistance to the idea of doing that from others, including the FBI.

  But I think it's — it was a legitimate investigation to look at what happened on January 6. I would like to know some things about what happened there. But I do think that Garland — Attorney General Garland should — I think he needs to act swiftly to deal with the Hunter Biden thing, because I think it's hurting the department a great deal.

  And I don't think it's possible for an attorney general to distance themselves from this kind of decision and say, well, this U.S. attorney was a Trump U.S. attorney. He made the decision.

  You own the decision. You — the decision has to be right in your judgment as attorney general. So, I think if — I would advise him to pull the issue in, make a decision as to whether it's going to be a felony or a misdemeanor, make the decision, explain it, and make sure that you can assure Congress that there's a vigorous investigation of all the other aspects of the case.

• Geoff Bennett:

  The Trump legal team, as you well know, they're floating their legal defenses.

  I spoke with John Lauro, Mr. Trump's attorney, on this program last night, and he said that the January 6-related indictment is an attack on Mr. Trump's free speech and his right to political advocacy, even though the indictment makes clear that it's focused on Mr. Trump's conduct.

  Do you think that line of defense will find its way into a courtroom?

• William Barr:

  Oh, I'm sure it will.

  And I also think that's sort of a bastardized version of what the real issue is. The real issue is whether it's possible to impose liability in this case without chilling other kinds of legitimate speech.

  I don't think the stuff that was involved here that is in the crosshairs of the prosecutor is stuff that he's entitled to do under the First Amendment. But you don't want to have a fuzzy decision here, where future campaigns are reluctant to challenge the outcome because they're afraid, oh, someone may think — try to accuse me of this being a crime.

  And I think that's a legit commit concern. But I think this indictment was carefully drawn. And it's — they are saying that they will prove that Trump knew what — that the election wasn't stolen. And they are focused in on deceitful actions and false, fraudulent actions, such as submitting false slates of electors and trying to use those to create the illusion that there was a bona fide dispute within a state that the vice president could then rule on.

  And that was a complete fallacy. And he doesn't have a constitutional right to do that.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Yes.

  Well, Mr. Lauro also said that the former president was following the advice of his lawyers, to include John Eastman, that he had the advice of counsel. How solid a defense is that, in your view?

• William Barr:

  I think that's quickly going to fall apart.

  First, Trump basically searches around for any lawyer he can find who agrees with his predisposition. He doesn't get advice and follow it. He looks for a lawyer who will tell him what he wants to hear. And, here, he was saying — just passing through all the lawyers, all the government lawyers, all his campaign lawyers who were telling him, no, no, no.

  And he finally found this professor who — it's going to be interesting to say what he actually told him, because I don't think he necessarily said, this is legal, and it's OK. I think he said, well, you might be able to make an argument to this. You might make it. The courts wouldn't accept it, and so forth.

  So we will have to see how he casts it. But there's a big practical hurdle to him doing that, because he's going to have to get on the stand to raise that defense and subject himself to cross-examination, and he will have to waive attorney-client privilege. And Eastman would have to get on the stage — on the stand.

  So…

• Geoff Bennett:

  Would you ever testify?

• William Barr:

  Well, if they call me, of course, I'm going to — I'm hoping I'm not called as a witness, but, if I am, I would testify.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Why not? Why are you hoping that you're not called?

• William Barr:

  I have better things to do.

  (Laughter)

• Geoff Bennett:

  Well, let me ask you this.

  Can Mr. Trump get a fair trial in Washington, D.C.? Because his legal team is asking for a change of venue, or at least they say they're going to ask for a change of venue, because they say that D.C. isn't politically favorable.

• William Barr:

  To be honest, I feel strongly that the most important thing in any of these, whether you like the defendant, whether you're rooting for him or not, is fairness to the individual.

  And, to be honest, I think that this may not be the — a fair jurisdiction for him, given the heat of political sentiment these days. So, I think that motion is worthy of consideration.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Are there any charges…

• William Barr:

  I would just point out that the other case…

• Geoff Bennett:

  Yes.

• William Barr:

  … I thought the Justice Department sought venue in Florida, rather than D.C., and then it was moved to an even more favorable jurisdiction, Fort Pierce.

  So that favors the president, President Trump. I think it would be good to consider that here.

• Geoff Bennett:

  It's 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.

  There's only a handful of reporters who are allowed into the courtroom, and there are no cameras that are allowed. Should an exception be made? Should cameras be allowed into this proceeding, so that the American public can watch it unfold?

• William Barr:

  No, I don't think so. I'm opposed to cameras in court.

  I mean, our politics and our life is becoming more and more like a reality TV program, and everyone's posturing, and political conversation is all talking points and so forth. And I'd hate to see that start happening more and more in our courts, where it's performance, rather than substance.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Mr. Barr, what did you see in Donald Trump initially that made you want to serve as his attorney general?

• William Barr:

  Well, I didn't want to serve as his attorney general. I was actually not interested at all in going into the government. I had reservations about him. I didn't support him initially.

  But my view was, he was the duly elected president, and I felt he was being unfairly treated and his — he was being thwarted in trying to run a normal administration. And I felt that he was entitled to that. And I also saw some good things about him.

  I mean, everyone focuses nowadays on the criticisms I have, but he was willing to speak plainly, to take on issues that other people were afraid to talk about. And he also, I think, had the stamina to keep on going on these issues and try to keep his election promises.

  And I think his policies substantively were ones that I generally agreed with. I didn't like the way they were presented and the erratic nature of the administration and so forth. But — so, I went in because I felt we were headed toward a constitutional crisis, and I thought I could help stabilize things, and especially at the Department of Justice.

• Geoff Bennett:

  You were for a time one of the president's most influential, most ardent supporters in his administration, even faced criticism for personally intervening in high-profile cases, the Roger Stone case, the Michael Flynn case, characterizing the Mueller report before it was made fully available to the public.

  Do you have any second thoughts about that or regrets about serving in his administration?

• William Barr:

  No, I don't.

  I would agree that maybe I was influential, but you said the most ardent supporter. I support — I supported the president. I was a member of his Cabinet. But I think, more than many others, because I had heard so much about him beforehand from my New York business colleagues, that I realized his deep faults.

  And he has very, very deep faults, but he was the duly elected president of the United States. And I would note that people are talking about the weaponization of the department. And I always — I have said to them sometimes where I bother to engage with them, I say — so you say I was going after the president's enemies.

  Who did I go after? And there's a long silence. And then they start talking about cases where I intervened to lighten their treatment, friends of the president, Stone and…

• Geoff Bennett:

  Flynn?

• William Barr:

  Flynn.

  And I said, well, that's because we're not going to weaponize the department. In each case, demonstrably, the line prosecutors, the normal system kicked out treatment that never would have been done in any other case. They asked for a sentence two to three times higher than would normally be given. And I said, no, we're going to leave it to the judge.

  (Crosstalk)

• Geoff Bennett:

  Well, there are Democrats who make that same case about Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden is facing the kind of prosecution that he's only facing because he's the president's son.

• William Barr:

  No, I disagree, because those charges relate — some of them were brought under me.

  So, for example, the Democrats were constantly beating up the administration for not prosecuting people who lie when they get their guns, called lie and try. And they said, you're weak on guns. You're not prosecuting people who do that. I said, OK, I made it a priority. It was one of the top priorities of the department to prosecute as felonies people who lie on their gun applications.

  Lo and behold, one of the first people to stroll into view is none other than Hunter Biden. And he was brandishing that gun in photographs and stuff. In my opinion, he should not be allowed to plead to a misdemeanor. He should be charged with a felony, and other people have been charged with felonies in those cases.

  So I hear what they're saying, but I think they're wrong, if they're thinking that this should be an automatic misdemeanor.

• Geoff Bennett:

  You're clear in your book that the GOP needs to move on from Donald Trump, and yet he is the dominant figure still far and away ahead of the pack in terms of the folks who are running to be the GOP nominee in 2024.

  Is his nomination inevitable, do you think?

• William Barr:

  No, I don't think so.

  I think the media and Trump and many others are way ahead of themselves. I think he has a hardcore following of about 30 or 35 percent in the Republican Party. I think there's about 20 percent in the Republican Party who tend to support him, but they are very much attuned to his problems and are willing to shift.

  I think that they were shifting in droves up until Alvin Bragg's indictment, and then, all of a sudden, they snapped back. And I think that reflects that, when they're asked by a pollster, they instinctively want to man the ramparts for the president, the former president, who they feel is embattled.

  But I think that that's going to change over time. And I think if the Republicans are able to get the number of candidates down, and it becomes more like a two- or three-man race, I think there's a good chance of having another nominee.

  And that's what I hope. And I think it's essential for the future of the Republican Party.

• Geoff Bennett:

  You said in a previous interview that there could be or there will be more shoes to drop in the special counsel investigation.

  What do you think those might be?

• William Barr:

  Well, I don't think — I think it'll be more evidence, and perhaps, as we saw in the document case in Mar-a-Lago, maybe another additional charge.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Evidence like what?

• William Barr:

  Well, I think evidence of his knowledge, evidence of statements he's made or other things that would be probative of what his state of mind was and whether he understood that the election — that he had lost the election.

  I think there could be a lot more evidence of that. I think they have evidence on a number of fronts. And I don't think the department's going to throw all of its evidence in its first filing.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Were you questioned by Jack Smith?

• William Barr:

  I'm just not getting into any discussions I have with the government.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Do you believe that you — it's your duty to speak to him if he were to call?

• William Barr:

  Of course. If he asked me to talk to him, I would talk to the special counsel.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Would Republicans ever turn away from Donald Trump if he were to be convicted?

• William Barr:

  I think a lot of Republicans would.

  I think, over time, when they see some of the facts here that are characteristic of his behavior, that they will. But I think, unfortunately, a lot of Republicans are — seem to be tolerant of behavior that I don't think is appropriate for the chief executive.

  One of the things is, he has a lot of people who follow him stubbornly. And one of the interesting things is, the people who actually have worked with him, have seen him, have seen him behind the scenes, not many of them are supporting him.

• Geoff Bennett:

  I spoke with, as I mentioned, Mr. Trump's attorney last night, and I asked, is there any universe in which Donald Trump would accept a plea deal? And he said no.

  Should Donald Trump accept a plea deal? Is the potential threat of prison time that great?

• William Barr:

  I don't — I mean, I wouldn't push him to accept a plea deal? And I don't think he will.

  I actually think this stuff about prison time is hyped. At the end of the day, even if he's convicted, even if he's convicted of both crimes, I don't think he will serve a day in prison.

• Geoff Bennett:

  As a former president, it would be inappropriate?

• William Barr:

  Yes, I think he — yes.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Is that what you're saying?

• William Barr:

  Yes, I think as a — he will have a felony record, but I think any president, Republican or Democrat, and any Department of Justice would basically cut some kind of deal, so we don't have the spectacle of a former president in prison.

  I don't think that's going to happen. Now, the president is out there, of course, saying he's at risk of 500 years in prison or something like that, because he's raising money.

• Geoff Bennett:

  If Donald Trump is reelected, what would a second term mean for this country, and what would a second-term Trump DOJ look like?

  I mean, the legal advisers who had his ear at the end of his term, the majority of them, many of them, are now unindicted co-conspirators in this indictment.

• William Barr:

  Yes, I think many of the people he might otherwise turn to won't have law licenses during a second term. So it'll be interesting to see how he staffs the Department of Justice.

  I found in the — in his first term that the only way to really talk sense into him was to say, this is going to hurt you, and it's going to hurt your reelection chances, and so forth. He would then pay attention.

  So I am concerned that, in the second term, he will be off the hook. There will be no way of controlling him, and he will also surround himself with yes-men.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Former Attorney General Bill Barr, his memoir, now out in paperback, is "One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General."

  For people who haven't read the book, that title, "One Damn Thing After Another"…

• William Barr:

  Yes.

• Geoff Bennett:

  … can you quickly explain where that came from?

• William Barr:

  Yes.

  So it's a story that attorneys general tell, because when Reagan appointed William French Smith, William French Smith went to talk to one of his predecessors, Ed Levi,who was an academician. He had been dean of the law school at Chicago, smoked a pipe, wore a tweed jacket.

  And he said: You know, Ed, tell me about this job of attorney general.

  And he was expecting to hear this, you know, elevated lecture about separation of power. And Levi puffed on his pipe and said: "One damn thing after another."

  (Laughter)

• William Barr:

  So that's what attorneys general have told each other since then, that that's the job.

  And that was the basis of the title.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Bill Barr, thanks for coming in.

• William Barr:

  Thank you.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Good to see you.

• William Barr:

  Yes.