Fascinating interview. Weve all been leaning into see what bill barr had to say. A lot of us, waiting to figure out what he would think about all this. Im laura coates. Everyone. And thank you all for joining me right here in washington, d. C. Its the capitol on high alert tonight. Why . Because the nation is bracing for the arrest and arraignment of a former president. Shall i say, again . The third time in, what, three months . He will appear in court tomorrow, as expected. In now his third indictment on charges of trying to overturn an election. And weve learned at cnn that the Secret Service is already done a walk through of the courthouse and Law Enforcement is now monitoring even potential threats. Meantime, everyone, we are getting an early look at what his potential Defense Strategy might be. Including whats called, this is not my term, but the delusion defense, that he actually believed his own lies. Plus, suggestions that hes about to throw his legal advisors 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 was not sure, but ive 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 was not stolen through fraud. And they are going to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a high bar, of course. Thats a high bar which leads me to believe that they were only seeing a tip of the iceberg on this. You think jack smith has more . Oh yes, i would believe he has a lot more. Well, in the case of this magnitude, one would assume he would. He also poured cold water 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, 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 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. I mean, just because you have said something does not mean that you are totally immunized and inoculated from ever being held liable for it. We will talk about the specifics of those comments in just a few moments, but ive got an Amazing Group of legal experts standing by to dissect and walk through all of this. But first, i want to begin with cnns chief Legal Affairs correspondent, paula reid. Paula, look, bill barr said up todays development. So, i want to know, what we now know tonight about what the plan is for trump to build a defense . We are starting to see the broad contours of a Legal Defense here and they are really trying to hit on this idea of infringing on his freedom of speech, and saying that, here the, government has allegedly criminalize political speech. What that fails to take into consideration is the fact that the indictment outlines exactly how this went so much further than just words and laying out the specific series of alleged actions that the former president took. Now, in the alternative, theyre also arguing this good, faithfully by 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, i am joined by david aaron, a former federal prosecutor with the Doj National Security division. Weve got sophia nelson, cnn contributor. Pain contributor. And also former House RepublicanInvestigative Committee counsel, beta johnsons also here in Associate Professor of law at George Howell university. And on kuch could or, is a former federal prosecutor as well. In other words, weve got his panel and im glad that youre all here because the number one question i keep getting, including at the Grocery Store today, was, whats up with his whole free Speech Discussion . The political speech notion. Is it true that 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 do you think. You can even lie. But you cant engage in a conspiracy to commit fraud and do other things that are crimes. That is the line that jack smith is going to have to walk. I mean, the network, and thats a great point because you know, first of all, we already have laws that say if you say certain things, youre going to be liable. I mean, if i were didnt to try to hide or hire a hit person with my actual words, because i said it, im not protected, right . Defamation also a part of it. I mean, there are threats, a great example of it. Why is this having legs . Is it because people believe, what . Its so nuanced, its political, can he criticize people . I assume its people who have not read through the indictment and see all the actions that are being alleged, that the 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 actual concrete steps like trying to line up the slate of fake electors. So, there are certainly things beyond just words here in this indictment. So, is the fact that the words are part of the action . I mean, its not like youre saying, maybe he was trying to avoid a First Amendment defense, in many respects, right . Lays it out and says, hes got every right, im paraphrasing here, to say these things. But they were likely prepared for the First Amendment, but is the action youre talking about that, look, im putting these words in here to show you this, part of the oral conspiracy, is that right . I think thats right and i think its absolutely right, in the special counsel saw that this might happen because some of the first page is where he lays out what, you know, the fact that donald trump had every right to talk about and even to lie about what he believed we took place with the election. What do you think . Every time sort of significant legal news pops around trump and indictment, or some investigation, there is always a few days where theyre, like, test driving these really bad arguments, right . Then they eventually kind of settle on one or two that maybe will sort of carry them through. We are in sort of the test driving face. I think this is kind of a crazy argument because, like, i used to prosecute financial fraud cases. They are all about speech, right . 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 that they are speaking to does not somehow make that protected by the First Amendment. It is a crime, right . You are saying, they are, saying its political though. This is obviously a campaign and one of the things that the lawyer said yesterday was, hold on. This was kind of a forward thinking, what aboutism, which i love that sort of creativity after a long day of news. It was the idea of, what if one day joe biden says something that you dont agree with . Is that going to be colonel eyes . This is different. It is. I do think that the political character of the speech is what is giving this theory the legs that it has. I also think its a theory thats probably toward the public men out a judge or at a jury and a lot of the members of the public, as well written and concise as the indictment is, a lot of people are not going to read it. They are just going to hear about it. And the fact that the speech was political in nature, i think, will lead a lot of people to attach that First Amendment idea at least temporarily. Sorry, sofia, political in nature . You have to shrink, im going to whats going on here . No, no. You stopped dead in her tracks right now. All i was going to say was political in nature meaning, its coming for a politicians mouth . Correct and its hard to a political process. Doesnt make it any less fraudulent. Doesnt make it any less dangerous. But because its not made, you know, in the course of financial fraud or i think for the public, we should define what is political speech and why its different from regular speech. Political speech is probably, correct me if im wrong, the most protected or the one that we really look at, want to guard, because you are saying something that has to do with an election or your opinion, or your assessment, or your analysis, or you are saying how you feel about it, right . He did all of that, for sure. But he crossed the line. As the former Attorney General said, and thats what i think the public needs to get. I think we are all telling you, yes, he can say what he wants. But there is a line of criminality that none of us can cross with our words. Im hearing some amen nodding over here. Yeah, i think the key point was the one that you made which is, 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 around criminalizing certain types of speech. I dont want to just be flippant about it. But the First Amendment is designed to promote truthful public debate, right . And so, its for that reason that the First Amendment doesnt 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 that was aimed at overturning the election, right . We are talking about the most dangerous form of, quote, unquote, political speech, right . Supporting our democratic process. So, i think like i said, i mean, there are throwing things against the wall. In my estimation, we will see what sticks. Im surprised that a panel full of lawyers, not one of us that the word allegedly. So i will say the word allegedly to give all the things that we just said. But let me just play for you, 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 someone is committed a crime, he, you know, hones in on it and really goes to try to make that case. There is no question he is aggressive. But i do not think that he is a partisan actor. He, personally. You think hes treated trump fairly here . I dont know whether hes treated trump fairly. From what youve observed, i guess. Yeah, 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 tell me hes a tough, hard nosed prosecutor, but that hes not a partisan prosecutor. I mean, that seems to belie some of what were going to be hearing about this language of the weaponization of the government and that, i think the word was deranged, that trump used on truth social. One of the night awards. It was one of the nice words, right . Which, is saying something. But i mean, this idea, the partisanship of a prosecutor. Its always causing the question, whether they have some sort of ax to grind. We hear about it all the time. But is there any evidence to support this Talking Point . Doesnt mean there wont be legs, but other evidence to support this for you . Absolutely not. Jack smith comes in from the g career job at justice. Hes a classic product of those institutions playing it down the middle, going very aggressively when he believes that someone is guilty and that he has the evidence to prove it. Staying within the ethical lines, for sure. I just dont think theres any evidence of that at all and i was going to say the same to there is also another clip he talks about where he was asked about whos paying it, right . The old, where is this money coming from . 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, you know, he goes out and raises money from hardworking people, small donors, and tells them this is to defend america and to, you know, take care of the election. He didnt provide any significant support during the 2022 elections. And a lot of this money seems to be going to his legal fees. Well, hes nauseated. I want to ask you, david, because youve been and also received public defenders. We were talking about people who, as much as discussions that are happening in politics right now about this haves and havenots, a tale of two justice systems, which i think is true. The haves and havenots are in stark contrast, in terms of what theyre able to access for justice. But that conversation doesnt really contemplate Something Like this. Well, i think that is what is interesting about this case, is that it took so long to even be brought. I mean, what everyone saw on january 6th was truly mindblowing and we 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 two and a half years for there to be charges, i, think is really just the surprising part. So, thats what my answer to some of the questions about, you know, whether this is a political prosecution. But every day in superior court, were both you and i have practiced, we see the poorest people, the people with elise 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 crossed lines. I mean, otherwise, the rule of law doesnt mean a thing. I mean, he was, at the time, they are alleging so many things, the head of the Executive Branch of government. His job is, of course, to enforce the law. Look at this civics lessons civics lesson happening on wednesday night at 10 00. Everyone standby, we have a lot more to talk about including more about these donations and what bill barr has to say and others. I want to go back quickly to paul reed, though. Paula, trump has set to appear in court tomorrow. What are we expecting to take place tomorrow . Laura, we are expecting a former president to come here, to washington, the sea, to attend this hearing in person. Its unclear if we are actually going to get to see him. There is no cameras in federal court. And this particular courthouse is very accustomed to dealing with vips. Peoples Security Details and you can easily drive into the garage underneath the courthouse and not be seen at all. But once he is inside the courthouse, hes effectively under arrest. He will be processed, we expect they will take his fingerprints. We dont, though, expect that he will have a mugshot. This is an issue they dealt with in manhattan and florida. The consensus is that mug shots are used by Law Enforcement as someone goes on the line, but Everybody Knows what former President Trump looks like. Now, the hearing itself will be pretty quick. Procedural. We expect he will hear the charges that been filed against him, have the opportunity to enter a plea. This hearing also is not going to be before a judge chutkan, shes one who oversees this case in a possible trial. Instead, this will be before a magistrate and will likely have another date on the calendar for his first hearing before the trial judge. In case youre all wondering, yes, paul reed, does in fact, live in this building and reports all the news from here constantly, all the time. Everyone, we are going to go back to the table right now, i want a bit of a round robin because the viewers, i told you, they are asking questions. One of the quick questions theyre asking is, look, can he serve if hes convicted . Yes. Thats a short answer, there you go. The answer is yes, america. Number two, if you were to go behind bars for any of these alleged crimes, could he be elected from prison . Yes. Go back to the eugene debs case in the 19 twenties, right . Socialist, got, what, 1 million, 1 million votes, i mean, thats where we are. Its surprising to people. Just unpack it a little more because it might surpris people to know, as we talk about all the different qualifications that he takes to get hired in most professions, right . The resume building, all things that are going on. When it comes to the presidency, the constitution governs and it didnt contemplate, perhaps, this scenario. Just unpack a little more about why the constitution doesnt actually say, no, he cant run if this happens . Maybe that it wasnt contemplated as a possibility. There is, in the 14th amendment, some provision for disqualification on very narrow grounds related to insurrection. But that is about it. Otherwise hes qualified, hes 14 years and youve got to be a natural born citizen. We were talking about i was born in germany, i wrote to the Secretary Of State when i was in the eighth grade and he said, because your dad was in the military, you are a citizen born abroad. Like john mccain. So yes, i did. When i turned 35, i [laughter] i dont know why you guys are laughing at. That Question Number three. Number three is, if trump was elected, and this is a question that came up ear