For trump, Arraignment Number three is tomorrow. How he is preparing for it the legal fight of his life, and the judge overseeing it has delivered this line, president s are not kings. Plus, could be the most important case in the u. S. History . One of the nations top Election Experts says democracy is on the line in the United States versus donald trump. Im kaitlan collins, and this is the source. Donald trump will be arraigned in less than 24 hours from now, right here in washington, d. C. The first time for crimes he allegedly committed us president against his country. Hes expected to appear in court at 4 pm eastern, in person, we are told, and today, his former Vice President and now 2024 challenger, and a critical witness in this case, had a lot more to say about the january 6th indictment, and his former bosss role. Anyone who puts themselves over the constitution should never be president of the United States. It wasnt just the asked for a pause, the president specifically asked me end his gaggle of Crack Pot Lawyers asked me to literally reject votes, essentially, to overturn the election. And im joined by the former trump Attorney General, bill barr. His first reactions since we have seen these new charges, and thank you for being here, mister Attorney General. Youve read through this indictment. Do you think it is a strong case . Yeah. I think it is a legitimate case, i think unlike the Documents Case. Its going to have issues of proof. It is a more complicated case. I think there are some downsides to it. I think there were reasons not to bring it. I have said before, i am a little concerned about the Slippery Slope of criminalizing legitimate political activity, i am worried about moving in that direction. Im also worried about bringing this case and the divisiveness that it will bring by highlighting the double standard. At the same time, this case is being brought, the department appears to have dropped the ball on the hunter biden investigation. Its going to be very hard to persuade many republicans that this isnt a political. Well talk about the hunter biden investigation. But when you look at the indictment, you think it is something you would have brought . I dont know if i would have improved the indictment, in the sense that i have exercised discretion and not brought attention to the case. I am most concerned about having this case going on during the election, and diverting peoples attention from the issues and election, most are worried about the impact is if there are acquittals during the campaign. As a legal matter, i dont see a problem with the indictment. I think that it is not an abuse. The department of justice is not acting to weaponize the department by proceeding against the president for a conspiracy to subvert the electoral process. Which is what trumps attorneys are saying, and they are saying he is exercising his First Amendment right here. Do you think that is a valid argument, in your view . I dont think thats a valid argument. As the indictment says, they are not attacking his First Amendment right. He could say whatever he wants, he can even lie, he can tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. That does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy, all conspiracies involve speech. All fraud involves speech. So, you know, free speech doesnt give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy. The other thing they are arguing, including john lauro, trumps new attorney to me last night, they were asking the former Vice President , mike pence, to pause on the counting of votes. Mike pence pushback on that today, said thats not what they were asking him to do. Lets be clear on this point, it wasnt just that they asked for a pause. The president specifically asked me and his gaggle of crack pot attorneys, they asked me to literally reject votes which would have resulted in the issue being turned over to the house of representatives, and literally chaos would have ensued. How strong of a witness do you think he will be against trump if he is called . Vice president . I think he will be a very strong witness. You know, he has the highest integrity. Hes behaved with dignity and propriety all the way through this. Do you agree they were just asking him to pause the counting of the votes . Theyre asking him to overturn the election . I wasnt around, but from what i read in the indictment, there was a discussion, and the president , himself, stressed he would prefer him just to accept the votes and the panels that were pro trump, that it wasnt a question of just buying time. The other argument we are hearing is about who trump was listening to at this time. Trumps attorney, john lauro, said this of john eastman. Mr. Trump had the advice of counsel, mr. Eastman, who was one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the United States, giving him advice and guidance. He is citing john eastman as this constitutional scholar. We know, in the indictment, trump was ignoring your advice, that of other Senior Justice Department officials, pat cipollone, the white house counsel, Leader Rector of national intelligence. Is it a credible defense to say he was just listening to john eastman . I dont think that dog is going to hunt, as you say. First, as the people who had some knowledge of whether or not there was fraud, everyone was telling him that the election was not stolen by fraud. As to the issue of what he could do legally, at that point, he went through all the lawyers, he wouldnt listen to all the lawyers in the department, in various departments of the white house, that had those responsibilities, or his campaign. He would search for a lawyer who would give him the advice he wanted. Im not sure you would characterize what eastman said as advice. I mean, it would be interesting to see, but i interpreted some of what he was saying as, well, you know, it is unclear here. You can make this argument. Im not saying the courts would accept it, and so forth. You act on that at your own hazard. I dont think this defense of advice of counsel is going to go forward. I think the president would have to get on the stand and subject himself to crossexamination in order to raise that. Youd also have to wave attorneyclient privilege. What would happen if he got on the stand . I think it would not come out well for him. Do you think it would hurt him . Oh, yes. Yes. Why do you think that . Well, because i think you would be subject to very skilled crossexamination, and i doubt he remembers all the different versions of events hes given over the last few years. Do you think he knew that he lost the election . Do i personally believe that . Yeah, at first i wasnt sure, but i have come to believe he knew well he had lost the election. You know, 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 lost the election, and the election was not stolen through fraud. Theyre going to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a high bar, of course. A high bar. It leads me to believe that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg on this. Do you think jack smith has more . Yes, i would believe he has a lot more, and that is one of the things that impressed me about the indictment, it was very spared. There were a lot of things he could have said in there, and i think there is a lot more to come, and i think they have a lot more evidence, about President Trumps State Of Mind. If they do come around to the idea he knew he lost. Why have you come around to that . Number one, comments from people like bannon and stone, before the election, saying he was going to claim it was stolen if he was falling behind on election night. That was the plan of action. I find those statements very troubling, and you see he does that on election night, and then the evidence that has come out since that, you know, press reports, the indictment, and his lack of curiosity as to what the actual facts were. That is my personal opinion, that is my personal opinion, and we will see if the government can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. You spoke to the january six congressional committee. Have you talked to jack smiths investigators . Im not going to get into that. Im not going to get into that. Okay. You came out on december 1st, you were there on election night. You said the Justice Department had uncovered no voting fraud on a scale of what would have changed the outcome of the election. When you look back on that time period from the election to december 1st, do you ever wish you had come out sooner and spoken up sooner . Not at all. If i had come out and shot from the hip without doing some Due Diligence, and making sure i understood what the claims were, and i knew the facts, and i turned out to be wrong, without doing Due Diligence, i think that would have been a disaster for the country. I had to get did it take you long to do Due Diligence . The allegations kept on changing from day today, and it was frequently specific. A truck driver took so many ballots from here to there you interviewed that truck driver even . I didnt, but the Department Department did yeah. We were chasing down all of these things. I wanted to make sure that the major allegations were looked at, and i had a good sense of what happened. I also wanted to analyze the votes themselves, and see the voting patterns, how they were in those states. Not only did we not find any fraud of that magnitude, but in the states, and when you look at the votes, it was clear to me why he lost. He ran as the weakest person on the republican ticket, like in pennsylvania, he came in 60, 000 votes alone below the republican ticket. He is losing republican votes. He lost at least 75, 000 republican votes in arizona. So, to me, these were the female voters in the suburbs that where republicans. These were the independents in the suburbs that ordinarily vote republican. I dont think there was a mystery as to why he lost. Because it was an area that he was underperforming in . It is Attorney Pretext would take nine months to a year to try this case. Do you think that good, solid defense team could get it done before the 2024 election . I think it depends on the judge. My impression is this judge may want to move it along. So they will have to be ready to try the case, when she is ready to try the case. Do you think the American People wasnt the American Peoples best interest to have this educated before the 2024 election happens, before they cast their ballots . The paramount question has to be fairness to the defendants, the fairness of the process. I think there are arguments to be made both ways, as to whether it should be first, or it should come afterwards. Of course, if he is elected president , that coming afterwards would be meaningless. You believe he tried to, essentially, get rid of it or pardon himself. Do you think this entire indictment for january 6th could have been avoided . Is this something up his own making . You know, i dont think this is an issue of his victimization. I think he brought this on himself. This is one of the reasons i oppose him for the republican nomination, because he has this pension for engaging in these reckless acts that creates these calamitous situations, and undercut the cause he is supposed to be leading. This is a perfect example of it. All right, mister Attorney General, standby. I would ask more questions. I know your thoughts on the Documents Case. There are other indictments. I want to ask you more about that comment you made about opposing him before the 2024 nomination. We will be back. Want to come with the former Attorney General, bill barr, whether or not we will see a fourth indictment following this third indictment. Trumps toast, half of the classified Documents Case allegations are true. What does he think now that more charges have been added since that prediction. Its the only bcell treatment for rms i can take at home once a month. Kesimpta was proven superior at reducing the rate of relapses active lesions and slowing disability progression vs aubagio. Dont take kesimpta if you have hepatitis b and tell your doctor if you have had it, as it could come back. Kesimpta can cause serious side effects, including infections. While no cases of pml were reported in rms clinical trials, it could happen. Tell your doctor if you had or plan to have vaccines, or if you are or plan to become pregnant. Kesimpta may cause a decrease in some types of antibodies. The most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and injection reactions. Ask your doctor about treating rms with kesimpta. tony hawk skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. I take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. Why qunol . It has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. Qunol. The brand i trust. Woman why did we choose safelite . Vo for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. We went to safelite. Com. Theres no one else wed trust. Their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our cars advanced safety system. They focus on our safety. So we can focus on this little guy. Singers safelite repair, safelite replace. At morgan stanley, Old School Hard Work meets bold new thinking. Partnering to unlock new ideas, to create new legacies, to transform a company, industry, economy, generation. Because grit and vision working in lockstep puts you on the path to your full potential. Old school grit. New world ideas. Morgan stanley. The chase Ink Business Premier Card is made for people like sam, who make everyday products, designed smarter. Like a smart coffee grinder, that orders fresh beans for you. Oh, genius for more breakthroughs like that i need a breakthrough card. Like ours with 2. 5 cash back on purchases of 5,000 or more. Plus unlimited 2 cash back on all other purchases. And with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas a brilliant reality the Ink Business Premier Card from chase for business. Make more of whats yours. Back now with the former Attorney General, bill barr. Since we have last spoken on this program, trump is now facing a superseding indictment in the Documents Case, which means more charges have been added. You thought it was a serious case before. Now that these other charges have been added, do you believe it is stronger now . Oh, yeah, it is stronger. The allegation of another kind of coverup, and Obstruction Attempt after getting a subpoena for the surveillance tapes, then entering into a conspiracy to delete the surveillance tapes. That strengthens the governments case. It is also quite typical in the sense, you know. These two individuals know how to carlos. Carlos are dragged into these things. Their lives, turned upside down by trump to pursue this caper of his. He leaves in his wake ruined lives like this, the people who went up to capitol hill, these individuals, many of the people who served him and government, that got sucked into things. He just leaves all this carnage in his wake. Do you think he cares about that . No, he doesnt care about that. Loyalty is a oneway street for him. In many ways, i think these two people down in maralago represent many republicans who feel they have to manned the ramparts and you defend this manner, and go along with him. I think they have to be careful or they are going to end up as part of the carnage in his wake. That is what your message is to those people who feel that loyalty to him . I think we all have primary loyalty to the constitution and the country, not to any particular individual. At some point, trying to defend the indefensible really dumb means you. He says he had a right to declassify the document, or take them with them. If he thought that, why would he ask someone to delete Security Surveillance footage . The whole thing, if he thought he had the right to have that documents, they were umpteen ways for him to assert that when he was asked by the government, during that one and a half year period. He never did. He never asserted it in a lawful way. What did he do . He obstructed the subpoena, and both subpoenas. You have said before, at its core, this is an obstruction case, because you say he gave the documents back. He would have never been indicted. What do you say to republicans, and this includes 2024 gop candidates, who say this is unfair for him to be prosecuted for that, they say its a Process Crime . Its hogwash. A grand jury subpoena asking for the documents, and he makes his lawyer, puts his lawyer in his position, making a false statement that a full search was made, when he knew it wasnt, and prevented the lawyer for making it. That is the essence of obstruction, obstruction of a grand jury. It doesnt get more serious than that. What would you say he brought on to new attorney, todd blanche in april, john lauro just now. Given whats happened with other attorneys hes had, what is your advice to his attorneys . You have any . Get a lot of insurance. They will be spending a lot of times, themselves, at some point, you know, before grand juries, or answering questions, or as witnesses in investigations. He spending a lot of money on legal fees as well. His Political Action committee spent more than 40 million on legal fees already this year. What do you make of his supporters, his political supporters, giving him money to his campaign, and he then uses that for his legal fees and codefendants l