And for trump, Arraignment Number three is tomorrow. How he is preparing for the legal fight of his life and the judge overseeing it has already delivered this line, president s are not kings. Could it be the most important case in u. S. History . One of the nations top Election Experts says that democracy is on the line in the United States versus donald trump. Im kaitlan collins, and that 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 that he allegedly committed as president against his country. He is expected to appear in court at 4 00 p. M. 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 boss role. Anyone who puts themselves over the constitution should never be president of the United States. It wasnt just that he asked for a pause. The president specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes, essentially to overturn the election. And im joined now by the former trump Attorney General bill barr, his first reaction since we have seen these new charges, and thank you so much for being here, mr. Attorney general. You have now read through this indictment. Do you think its a strong case . I think its a legitimate case. I think unlike the document case, its going to have issues of proof. Its a more complicated case. And i think there are some downsides to it. I think there are reasons not to bring it. I said before im a little concerned about the Slippery Slope of criminalizing legitimate political activity. Im worried about moving in that direction, and im also worried about bringing this case and the divisiveness it will bring by highlighting the double standard. Because at the same time this case is being brought in the department appears to have dropped the blow on the hunter biden investigation. Its going to be very hard to persuade many republicans that this isnt political. Well talk about the hunter biden investigation. But when you do look at the indictment, do you think its something you would have brought . I think i dont know if i would have approved the indictment, but in the sense i may have exercised discretion and not gone forward with the case. Im also concerned about having this case going on during the election and diverting peoples attention from the issues in the election. Im also worried about what the impact is if there are acquittals during the campaign. But as a legal matter, i dont see a problem with the indictment. I think its 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 theyre also saying he was just exercising his First Amendment right here. Do you think thats a valid argument in your view . No, i really dont think thats a valid argument. As the indictment says, theyre not attacking his First Amendment right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can tell people that the election 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 free speech doesnt give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy. The other thing that theyre arguing, including john lauro, trumps new attorney to me last night is they were simply asking the former Vice President mike pence to pause on the counting of votes. Mike pence pushed back on that today, said thats not what they were asking him to do. Lets be clear on this point. It wasnt just that he asked for a pause. The president specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers 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 hell be against trump if he is called . The Vice President . I think hell be very strong witness. He has the highest integrity. He has behaved with dignity and propriety all the way through this. You agree with him they werent just asking him to pause the counting on the votes, they were asking him to overturn the election . I wasnt around. But what i read in the indictment, there was a discussion around the president himself stressed that he would prefer him to just accept the votes in the panels that were protrump, that it wasnt a question of just buying time. The other argument that were 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 council, mr. Eastman, who is one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the United States giving him advice and guidance. He is citing john eastman as this constitutional scholars, but we know in the indictment it says trump was ignoring your advice, that of other Senior Justice Department officials, pat cipollone, the white house council, the director of national intelligence. Is it a credible defense to say he was listening to john eastman . I dont think that dog is going to hunt, as you say. First as to people who had some knowledge of whether or not there was fraud, everyone was telling him that the election was not stolen by fraud. And then as to the issue of what he could do legally at that point, he went through all the lawyer he wouldnt listen to all the lawyers in the department in various departments or the white house that had those responsibilities or his campaign. He would search for a lawyer who would give him the advice he wanted. But im not even sure you would characterize what eastman said as advice. It will be interesting to see, but i interpret some of what he was saying essentially was well, you know, its unclear here, and you can make this argument. Im not saying the courts would accept it, and so forth. And you act on that at your own hazard. Also, i dont think this defense of advice of council is going to go forward, because i think the president would have to get on the stand and subject himself to crossexamination in order to raise that, and he would have to waive attorneyclient privilege. And what would happen if he got on the stand . I think it would not come out very well for him. You think it would hurt him . Oh, yes. Yes. Why do you think that . Well, because i think hed be subject to very skilled crossexamination, and i doubt he remembers all the different version of events he has given over the last few years. Do you think he knew that he lost the election . Do i personally believe that . At first i wasnt sure, but i have come to believe that he knew well that he had lost the election, and now 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. Its 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, yes. I would believe he has a lot more, and thats one of the things that impressed me about the indictment. It was very spare, and 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 as to President Trumps State Of Mind. You said youve come around to the idea that you do think he knew that he lost. Why have you come around to that . Number one, comments from people like bannon and stone before the election saying that he was going to claim it was stolen if he was falling behind on election night. And that that was the plan of action. I find those statements very troubling. And then you see that he does that on election night, and then the evidence that has come out since that the press reports and the indictment and his lack of curiosity as to what the actual facts were. Thats my personal opinion. Thats my personal opinion. Well see if the government can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You spoke to the january 6th 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 1. You were there on election night, and you said that the Justice Department had uncovered no voting fraud on a scale of what would have changed the outcome of the election. Right. When you look back on that time period from the election to december 1, do you ever wish you had come out sooner and spoken up sooner . Not at all. Because 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 that i knew the facts, and if i turned out to be wrong without doing due diligence, i think that would have been a disaster for the country. Due diligence . Well, the allegations kept changing from day to day, and were very frequently specific, you know. A truck driver took so many ballots from here to there. And you interviewed that truck driver even . I didnt. But the department did. The department did. We were chasing down all these things. And i wanted to make sure that the major allegations were looked at and that i had a good sense of what happened. I also wanted to analyze the votes themselves and see, you know, how the Voting Patterns were in those states. Not only did we not find any fraud of that magnitude, but in the states when you actually looked at the votes, they were very 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 below the republican ticket. So he is losing republican votes. He lost at least 75,000 republican votes in arizona. And so to me there was no these were the female voters in the suburbs that were republicans. These were the independents in the suburbs that ordinarily would vote republican. So i didnt think there was a mystery as to why he lost. Because it was in areas that he was underorm performing with. Right. His attorney predicts it would take nine months to a year to try this case. Do you think a good solid defense team could get it done before the 2024 election . I think it all depends on the judge. And i think my impression is this judge may want to move it along. And so theyll have to be ready to try the case when she is ready to try the case. But do you think the American People was it in the American Peoples best interest to have this adjudicated before the 2024 election happens, before they cast their ballots . Well, the Paramount Question has to be fairness to the defendants, fairness of the process. And i think it goes i think there are arguments to be made both ways as to whether it should be first or whether it should come afterwards. Of course, if he is elected president , then coming afterwards would be meaningless. Because 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 of his own making . Yeah. You know, i dont think that 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 penchant for engaging in these reckless acts that create these calamitous situations, and then undercut the cause he is supposed to be leading. And that is a perfect example of it. All right, mr. Attorney general, stand by. I want to ask you a lot more questions. I know you thoughts on the Documents Case. I want to ask you about that comment you made about opposing him for the 2024 election. Well be back with more to come with Attorney General bill barr, whether or not he sees a fourth indictment following this third indictment. He once said trump is toast if half the documents allegations are true. What does he think now that more charges have been added since that prediction . So have we. Thats why new Dove Body Washsh now has 24hour renewing Micro Moisture for continuous carare. New dove body wash. Change is beautitiful. Im jayson. Im living with hiv and im on cabenuva. It helps keep me undetectable. For adults who are undetectable, Cabenuva Is E only complete, longacting hiv treaent you can get every other month. Cabenuva is two injections, given by my healthcare provider, every other moh. Its really nice not to have to rush home and take a daily hiv pill. Dont receive cabenuva if youre allergic to its ingredients or if you taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. Serious side effects include allergic reactions postinjection reactions, Liver Problems, and depression. If you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. Tell your doctor if you have Liver Problems or Mental Health concerns, and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. Some of the most common side effects include injectionsite reactions, fever, and tiredness. If you switch to cabenuva, attend all treatment appointments. Ready to treat your hiv in a different way . Ask your doctor about everyothermonth cabenuva. Every other month, and im good to go. My a1c was up here; now, its down with rybelsus®. His a1c . Its down with rybelsus®. My doctor told me rybelsus® lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill and that people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. I got to my a1c goal and lost some weight too. Rybelsus® isnt for people with type 1 diabetes. Dont take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. Stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. Serious side effects may include pancreatitis. Gallbladder problems may occur. Tell your provider about Vision Problems or changes. Taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. Side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. Need to get your a1c down . You may pay as little as 10 per prescription. Back now with the former Attorney General bill barr. And since we have last spoken on this program, trump is now facing a Superseding Indictment. Yes. 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 its Even Stronger now . Oh, yeah, its definitely 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 certainly buttresses the governments case. And its also quite typical in this sense, you know. These two individuals, nauta and carlos. Carlos are dragged into this things. Their lives turned upside down by trump to pursue, you know, 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 in government that got sucked into things, and he just leaves all this carnage in his wake. Do you think he cares about that . No, he doesnt care than. Loyalty is a oneway street for him. And in many ways, these two people down in maralago represent many republicans who feel that they have to man the ramparts and defend this guy no matter what he does and go along with him. I think they have to be careful or theyre going end up as part of the carnage in his wake. Thats what your message is to those people that do feel that sense of loyalty to him . I think we all have primary loyalty to the constitution of the country, not to any particular individual, and at some point trying to defend the indefensible really demeans you. He always said he had a right to declassify the documents or take them with him. If he really thought that, why would he ask someone to delete security footage. Yeah, but the whole thing. If he really thought he had the right to have the documents, there were umpteen ways for him to assert that when he was asked by the government and during that 1 1 2year period. He never did. He never asserted it in a lawful way. What did he do . He obstructed the subpoena, both subpoenas. You said before that at its core this is an Obstruction Case because he gave the documents back, he would have never been indicted. But what do you say to republicans, and this includes 2024 gop candidates who say its unfair for him to be prosecuted for that. They say its a process crime. Its hog a grand jury subpoena asking for the do documents and he puts his lawyer in a position of making a full statement that a full search was made when he knew it wasnt, and in fact prevented the lawyer from making it. I mean, thats the essence of obstruction. Obstruction of a grand jury. It doesnt get more serious than that. What would you say, he just brought on two new attorneys in april, todd blanche and john lauro. Given whats happened with other attorneys heing has had, what is your advice to other attorneys . Do you have any . Get a lot of insurance. Theyll be spending a lot of time themselves at some point before grand juries or answering questio