Of course, thank you for joining us. Cnn prime time with laura coates starts right now. Wow, that was a really fascinating interview. Weve all been leaning in to say what bill barr had to say. A lot of wanting to see what he had to say. Thank you for joining us here in washington, d. C. Its a Capitol On High alert tonight . Why . Because the nation is bracing for the arrest and arraignment of a former president. Should i say again the third time in three months. He will appear in Court Tomorrow as expected, and now his third indictment on charges of trying to overturn an election. And we learned on cnn the Secret Service has already done a walk through of the courthouse and Law Enforcement is even monitoring any potential threats. Meantime, everyone, were getting an early look at what his potential Defense Strategy might be including whats called this is not my term but the dilution defense, that he actually believed his own lies. Plus the suggestion hes about to throw his Legal Advisers under the bus. I cant imagine that happening. And just moments ago trumps former Attorney General bill barr spoke to cnn with his very first reaction to this new indictment. At first i wasnt sure, but ive come to believe that he knew well hed lost the election. What i think is important is the government has assumed the burden of proving that. The government in their indictment takes the position that he had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasnt stolen through fraud. And theyre going to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a high bar, of course. Thats a high bar. Now, that leads me to believe that they were only seeing the tip of the iceberg on this. You think jack smith has more . Oh, yeah, some i would believe he has a lot more. Well, in the case of this magnitude one would assume he would. He also poured coldwater on the First Amendment defense that some trump allies have already been floating including i might add trumps own lawyer. As the indictment says, you know, he theyre not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech, and all fraud involves speech. So, you know, free speech doesnt give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy. Just because youve said something does not mean that you are totally immunized and inoculated from ever being held liable for it. Well talk about those comments in just a few moments, but ive got an Amazing Group of legal experts standing by and dissect and walk through all of this. But first i want to begin with cnns Foreign Affairs correspondent paula reid. Paula, bill barr setup todays developments, so i want to know what do we now know tonight about what the plan is for trump to build a defense . Were starting to see the broad contours of a Legal Defense here, and theyre really trying to hit on this idea of infringing on his Freedom Of Speech and saying that here the government has allegedly criminalized political speech. But what that fails to take into consideration is the fact the indictment outlines exactly how this went so much further than just words and lays out the specific series of alleged actions the former president took. In the alternative theyre also arguing this good faithful leap, that the former president really believed that the election had been stolen. But prosecutors were one step ahead of him laying out in the indictment multiple instances where he either admitted that he did lose or that he had officials telling him that, in fact, there was no basis for these claims. Paula, stick around. We need your insight tonight. And right now also im joined by david aaron, a former federal prosecutor, sarah nelson, a cnn contributor and also former House RepublicanInvestigative Committee council. And johnson is also here. And a former federal prosecutor as well. In other words, weve got us a panel, and im glad youre all here because the number one question i keep getting including at the Grocery Store today is whats up with this whole free speech discussion, the political Speech Notion . Is it true as long as trump was saying something about his views on the election that hes protected . What do you think . Well, yes and no. The Attorney General, the former Attorney General said it best. You can have free speech, you can say what you think, you can even lie, but you cant engage in a conspiracy to commit fraud and do other things that are crimes. Thats the line that jack smith is going to have to walk. I mean the indictment and thats a great point because, first of all, we already have laws that say if you say certain things youre going to be liable. If i were to try to hire a hit person with my actual words, because i said it im not protected. Defamation is part of it, threats a great example of it. Why is this having legs . Is it because people believe its so nuanced and political, and can he criticize people . I assume its people who havent read through the indictment and seen all the actions that are being alleged that former President Trump actually took to bring about his plan to overturn the Election Results. I mean if you look through what is being alleged, there are actually concrete steps like trying to line up the slate of fake electors. So theres certainly things beyond just words here in this indictment. So its the fact the words are part of the action. Its not like youre saying and i think maybe hes trying to avoid a First Amendment defense in many respects. Lays out the defense hes got every right and im paraphrasing here to say these things. The action youre talking about that, look, im putting these words in here to show you its part of the overall conspiracy. I think youre absolutely right. The special counsel saw this might happen, because its in some of the first pages where he lays out the fact donald trump had every right to talk about and even to lie about what he believed took place in the election. What do you think . Every time, you know, sort of significant legal news pops around trump, an indictment or some investigation, theres always a few days where theyre like test driving these really bad arguments. And then they eventually settle on one or two that may carry them through. Were in sort of the test driving phase. I think this is a crazy argument because i used to prosecute financial fraud cases. Theyre all about speech. When someone calls you on your phone, you get a spam call, someones trying to get your icloud credentials or get you to turn over your credit card, the fact theyre speaking to you is not protected by the First Amendment. Its a crime. Theyre saying its political. This is obviously a campaign. One of the things the lawyer said yesterday was this is a forward thinking about what aboutism. It was what if one day joe biden says something you dont agree with, is that going to be criminalized . This is different. It is. I do think the political character of the peach is whats giving this theory the legs that it has. I also think its a theory probably more of the public than at a judge or jury. And a lot of the public as well written and concise as it is a lot of people arent going to read it, theyre just going to hear about it. I think it will lead a lot of people to attach that First Amendment idea at least temporarily. Political in nature you dont have to all im going to say was political in nature meaning its coming from a politicians mouth . Correct, and its tied to a political process. Doesnt make it any less fraudulent or dangerous. Because its not made in the course of a financial fraud. I think for the public we should define what is political speech and why its different from regular speech. Political speech is probably and correct me if its the most protected and one we want to guard because youre saying something that has to do with an election or your opinion, or your assessment, or analysis or how you feel about it. He did that for sure, but he crossed the line. Yes, he can say what he wants but theres a line of criminality that none of us can cross with our words. Im hearing some amen nodding over here. Its not just words. The words were intended to produce actions, right, and i think calling this political speech i understand that. And there are real First Amendment issues surrounding criminalizing certain types of speech. I dont want to be flippant about it, but the First Amendment is designed to promote truthful public debate, right . And so its for that reason the First Amendment does not protect fraud, right . And yes, its political speech. But in this instance its not just like talking about his position on a bill or something, right . Were talking about speech aimed at overturning an election. Were talking about the most dangerous quoteunquote political speech, subverting our political process. Theyre throwing things against the wall in my estimation. Ill say the word allegedly to cover for all the Things Justin said. Let me play for a second what bill barr had to say in terms of how he felt about jack smiths integrity. Listen to this. Hes an aggressive prosecutor. Hes the kind of prosecutor in my view that if he thinks someones committed a crime, he hones in on it and really goes to try to make that case. Theres no question hes hes aggressive. But i do not think that hes a partisan actor, he, personally. And you think hes treated trump fairly here . I dont know hes treated from what youve observed, i guess. If from what ive observed. I dont know him, but i know a lot of republican lawyers who have worked with him over the years, and they told me hes a tough hardnosed prosecutor but hes not a partisan prosecutor. I mean that seems to belie some of what were going to be hearing of this language of the weaponization of government, and i think the word was deranged trump used on truth social. One of the nicer words. One of the nicer words, right, which is saying something. But, i mean, this idea the partisanship of a prosecutor, its always called into question whether they have some sort of axe to grind. We hear that all the time. Is there evidence to support this view . Absolutely not. Jack smith comes from the manhattan d. A. s office and career job in justice. Hes a classic of those institutions, staying within the ethical lines for sure. I just dont think theres any evidence of that at all. And i say the same about his team. Theres also another clip he talks about where hes asked about whos paying for it. Whos paying for the legal fees. Listen to what he had to say. I find that sort of nauseating. This guy claims to be a multibillionaire and he goes out and raises money from hardworking class hardworking people, small donors and tells them this is to defend america and to, you know, take care of the he didnt provide any significant support during the 22 elections and a lot of this money seems to be going to his legal fees. Hes nauseated. I want to ask you because youve been and received public defenders. As much as discussions are having about haves and have notes and a tale of two justice systems. Which i think is true. The have and have notes are in stark contrast in terms of what theyre able to access for justice, but that conversation doesnt really contemplate Something Like this. I think thats whats so interesting about this case is it took so long to even be brought. What everyone saw on january 6th was truly mindblowing, and it really is the most dangerous kind of act for our country to try to undo the Election Results of american voters. And so the fact that it took 2 1 2 years for there to be charges i think is really the surprising part. So thats been my answer to some of the questions about whether this is a political prosecution. But every day in Superior Court where both you and i have practiced we see the poorest people, the people with the least social capital prosecuted by the department of justice. And so for the rule of law to mean anything there has to be people with power and donald trump had the most power of anyone at the time who get prosecuted when they cross lines. I mean otherwise the rule of law doesnt mean a thing. I mean he was at the time theyre alleging some of these things the head of the Executive Branch of government whose job it is of course to enforce the law. Look at this civics lesson happening on a wednesday night at 10 00. Everyone, standby. Weve got more to talk about include more about these donations and what bill barr to say. I want to go quickly back to paula reid. Trump is expected to appear in Court Tomorrow. Were expecting the former president to come here to washington, d. C. To attend this hearing in person. Its unclear if were actually going to get to see him. Theres no cameras in federal court, and this particular courthouse is very custom to dealing with vips, people with security details. And you can easily drive into the garage underneath the courthouse and not be seen at all. But once hes inside the courthouse, hes effectively under arrest. He will be processed. We expect theyll take his fingerprints. We dont expect, though, hell have a mug shot. This is an issue they dealt with in manhattan and florida. The consensus is mug shots are used by Law Enforcement if someone goes on the lam, but Everybody Knows what former President Trump looks like. Now, the hearing itself will be pretty quick, procedural. We expect hell hear the charges that have been filed against him, have the opportunity to enter a plea, and this hearing also is not going to be before judge chutkan. Shes the one that will oversee this case in a possible trial. Instead this will be before a magistrate and likely have another date on the calender for his first hearing before a trial judge. In case your wonder, yes, paula reid does live in this News Building and reports news constantly all the time. Were going to go back to the table. The viewers are asking questions. One of the questions theyre asking is, look, can he serve if hes convicted . Yes. Yes. Theres the answer. The answer is yes, america. Number two, if he were to go behind bars for any of these alleged crimes could he be elected from prison . Yes. Yes. Wow. Go back to the eugene debbs case. Wow, thats where we are. Its surprising to people and i want to unpack a little more. It might surprise people to know when we talk about all the different kwoifgdss it takes to get hired in most professions and the resume building and all the things going on. When it comes to the presidency the constitution governs. And it didnt contemplate perhaps this scenario. Contemplate a little bit why the constitution doesnt say, no, he cant run if this happens . Maybe it wasnt contemn plated as a possibility. There is in the Fourth Amendment some provision for disqualification on very narrow grounds related to insurrection, but thats about it. Otherwise hes qualified based on age. 35, 14 years and youve got to be a natural born citizen. We were talking about i was born in germany. I wrote to Secretary Of State when i was in the eighth grade, and he said you can be president because your dad was in the military and you were a citizen born abroad. Like john mccain. Well, when i turn 35 i dont know why you guys are laughing. Question number three. Number three is if trump was elected and this is a question that came up early, of course, in his own initial presidency in his first term could he pardon himself . I dont think anyone knows the answer to that question because its never happened before. No president has attempted to pardon himself. No president has been charged formally with a crime. But i do think its possible that we could see President Trump sworn in behind bars and then pardon himself to walk out of prison. Can i adone note to that . Because i totally agree as a theoretical matter, legal matter its unclear, but as a practical matter whos going to stop him . The statute of limitations would run on the offense while hes in office. His own Justice Department is not going to do it. I dont think anyone else would have standing to even raise this issue potentially. So i think that would be the bigger problem even in the abstract. I also think his republican rivals would have to take a pledge if they were lets Say Nikki Haley was the nominee, i believe theyd have to take a blood oath on this if it was somebody else and trump was found guilty and has to go to jail, hed have to pardon. Were hearing that, and desantis as well. That is the litmus test on what you would do next although this is different scenario and different world we live in today. Everyone, standby because next were going to look at the judge whos presiding over trumps case including her experience with january 6th defendants. Plus were breaking out the ven diagram, yes we are, to show you the variety of reactions from his 2024 rivals. And well speak with one as well. And coming up, an exclusive interview. I talk with the family of travis king, the man youre seeing here, The Army Sole Yr who went into north korea. This as kim jonguns regimes sends some pretty eerie messages. Chevy silverado has what it takes toto do it all. With up to 13 camera views. And the z71 offroad package. You ok . Yeah. Any truck can help you make a living. This one helps you build a life. Chevy silverado. 1 isnt a status earned overnight. I