Category Trump Attorney John Lauro -vs- Major Garrett

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks, Bill Barr Says “Of Course” He Would Testify Against President Trump


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

This guy really is the worst of the worst.  I do not think I could dislike him more. Remember, Bill Barr appointed John Durham officially as a special counsel quietly without informing the public in October of 2020, specifically intended to block President Trump from declassifying any documents prior to the 2020 election.  We do not discover the official appointment until December, after the 2020 election.

The intent of the Durham appointment was to create the oft used silo of an “ongoing investigation” to block inquiry and/or action by President Trump.  The entire process of the DC silo deployment is one long continuum, as we have previously outlined.  Michael Horowitz was an investigative silo (blocking document release), Robert Mueller was an investigative silo (threats of obstruction blocking document release), John Durham was an investigative silo (blocking document release), and ultimately, now Jack Smith is an investigative silo, retrieving documents from Mar-a-Lago and blocking document release.

You will note that every single one of John Durham’s investigative pathways was to look at Trump-Russia fabrication and corruption outside government, outside Washington DC.  None of the Durham investigation was focused inside government or inside the institutions that he and Bill Barr were protecting.   Bill Barr was the Bondo, John Durham was the spray paint.

Today, Bill Barr when asked if he would testify against President Trump, says “of course” he would.  WATCH: 

MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as former president’s attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. Bill, it’s good to see you.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Good to see you.

MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you’re on the show, you said “the January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interest.” Having read the indictment, is that still your view?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, it’s- it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment. There’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress. The allegation essentially by the government is that at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme, that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.

MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  Right. And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud and what the- and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong, and false. This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. But it’s not- if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front, but they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels, that were not authorized panels, to claim that they had alternative votes. And then they- and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed, were false. But then pressuring the Vice President to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes, and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives. You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.

MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.

MAJOR GARRETT:  From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case.

MAJOR GARRETT: But from an Attorney General’s point of view?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account. But I’ve also said consistently, really, the rubicon was passed here, when- when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case, really have to be made by the Attorney General. And he picked a prosecutor. And I think at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the rubicon was passed.

MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the Special Counsel?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR:  I’m not going to get into any discussions–

MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Of course.

Major Garrett: Could you describe your interactions with the President on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I wasn’t discussed- well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least, and I- I told him in no uncertain terms, that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we–

[CROSSTALK]

MAJOR GARRETT: — One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the President what you told him? How thorough was that investigation?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, I- I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. Some of them are obvious, okay. One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more- that more people voted then absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should- we should have heard no more about that. Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done.

MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden. On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said, “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.” This is the Hunter Biden investigation. “And to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.” Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: No, because the–

MAJOR GARRETT: To which? To which? Should one be appointed now?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: When I was the attorney- in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have, a conflict of interest. I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary. I felt that if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably, or the administration, would have just canceled the investigation, and I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place. But once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done and was being done fairly.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has- has been conducted?

[CROSSTALK]

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well I did agree with the- the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.

MAJOR GARRETT:  Is that time passed?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously. And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done–

MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Yeah. Yes.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden, and if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Okay, well remember- one thing I stress is those are two different questions. Right? And, you know, things can be shameful without being illegal. And I- yes, I thought- I think it’s grotesque, cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I- I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.

MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still, whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?

FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it. I mean, some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind, there’s reasons- before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy, but after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps. And apparently someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics? You know, after the election, that it was the president elect’s son, that’s not a reason not to investigate.

MAJOR GARRETT: William Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much. “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks, John Lauro -vs- Chuck Todd


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

President Trump attorney John Lauro continues running the gauntlet against the narrative engineers with this interview on NBC’s Meet the Press with Chuck Todd.

An intellectually deficient Todd attempts to justify the Biden administration targeting of Donald Trump and is countered by John Lauro. WATCH: 

.

During the CNN interview below, it was very important to narrative engineer Dana Bash to assert that Joe Biden has nothing to do with the decisions of the DOJ, which is a rather remarkable position considering the same Dana Bash has been asserting for the previous four years that Donald Trump controlled decisions of the DOJ.

.

Aug 7 2023

Sunday Talks – President Trump Attorney John Lauro -vs- Major Garrett


Posted originally on the CTH on August 6, 2023 | Sundance 

President Trump attorney John Lauro appears on Face the Nation with Major Garrett to discuss and debate the Biden administration’s criminal prosecution of President Trump for contesting the results of the 2020 election.  Toward that latter part of the interview, Garrett needs to enhance his leftist bona fides with a strawman argument about the 2016 election outcome.  Lauro handles Garrett’s narrative engineering very well. [Video and Transcript Below] WATCH:

MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s lawyers. He joins us now from New York. John, good morning to you. I want to let you know that we spoke with former Vice President–

JOHN LAURO: –Good morning

MAJOR GARRETT: –Mike Pence and asked him specifically about your assertions made this last week that all the President did was asked him to pause the certification on January 6, 2021. He told me flatly, quote, “That’s not what happened.” Your response?

LAURO: That’s not- that’s not what I said, though, but that’s okay.

MAJOR GARRETT: What- what is it that you believe happened between the President and the Vice President? And do you have any fear of the Vice President being called as a witness in the case?

LAURO: No, in fact, the Vice President will be our best witness. What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in. That was my statement, and what- what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying. The reason why Vice President Pence will be so important to the defense is the following, number one. Number two, he agrees that there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level, all of that will- will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump. And finally, what Vice President Pence believes and believed is that these issues needed to be debated on January 6. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in the January 6 proceeding. President Trump, on the other hand, believed following the advice of John Eastman, who’s the legal scholar, that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level. Now, of course, there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump, but the bottom line is never- never in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally. It’s- It’s unheard of.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, can I ask you a couple of very simple basic yes or no questions? Is there- first, is there any condition under which the former president of the United States, your client, would accept a plea deal on these January 6 charges?

LAURO: No.

MAJOR GARRETT: Will you seek a motion to dismiss?

LAURO: Absolutely, 100 percent.

MAJOR GARRETT: When?

LAURO: Hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted. This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of- of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from- from being prosecuted in this way.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you-do you have a ballpark figure of when you’ll be ready for trial?

LAURO: Well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.

MAJOR GARRETT: Understood. Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?

LAURO: Absolutely, we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury.

MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have an expectation that will be granted?

LAURO: That reflects the- the- the characteristics of the American people. It’s up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case–

MAJOR GARRETT: — Speaking of the judge

LAURO: — very close to D.C. and a much more diverse–

MAJOR GARRETT: — Understood. Speaking of the judge’ earlier this week, your client, the former president, on his social media platform, said ‘The judge is unfair’, On what basis did he say that?

LAURO: Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season, is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign. We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And- and my role- my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way, and I’m going to do that.

MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned discovery. In the protective order back and forth between you and the prosecutors, it says, the prosecution, that discovery will be provided, quote, ‘As soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled’. What’s wrong with that?

LAURO: We’re all in favor of protecting sensitive and highly sensitive information. But it’s unprecedented to have all information hidden in a criminal case, including, by the way, information that might be exculpatory and might be exonerative of President Trump. The Biden administration wants to keep that information from the American people.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, in the back and forth on this matter, you also said in the filing to the court that the former president would be willing to come to an agreement on this matter. And what I want to ask you is would that requirement be something where the President would agree not to release any information that was highly sensitive in this matter and would he also refrain from any speech that called for or hinted at retribution about anyone associated with the prosecution of this case?

LAURO: He’s never called for that at all. He’s going to abide by the conditions of his release. But of course, we would agree that any sensitive or highly sensitive information be kept under wraps. In fact, we made that proposition to the Biden administration, but they rejected it. They want every single piece of evidence in this case hidden from the American public.

MAJOR GARRETT: John, before I let you go, do you remember what you were doing the early morning of November 9th, 2016?

LAURO: I have no idea.

MAJOR GARRETT: Well, I remember what I was doing. I was covering President-elect Trump announcing that he had won the presidency, about 3 a.m. that morning after the November 8th election. My question to you, John, is how did he know he won?

LAURO: Well, politicians are convinced in the righteousness of their cause, including President Trump, and he certainly believed that he won and he did win in 2016- (crosstalk)

MAJOR GARRETT: — But on what basis did he know he- But on what basis did he know he won?

LAURO: — Can I finish? Can I finish?

MAJOR GARRETT: — Yeah. Sure.

LAURO: — Can I finish? And he believed in 2020 that he won based on the fact that he had 10 million more votes than in 2016. He had a situation where, somehow, President Biden, or at that time candidate Biden, received 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. And he also understood in 2020, that president- that President Trump understood that he had won all- virtually all of the bellwether counties, and 84 percent of all the counties in the country-

MAJOR GARRETT: Right. John- John, let me- let me help you with this–

LAURO: — So on that basis he believed that he was successful.

MAJOR GARRETT: — John, let me help you with this, I wasn’t asking about 2020.

LAURO: — No, let me help you with this, because the issue here- I have to help you with this.

[crosstalk]

MAJOR GARRETT: I wasn’t asking about 2020, John. John, I wasn’t asking about 2020. I was asking about 2016.

(CROSSTALK)

LAURO: The issue. Right. The issue. Right. The issue in a criminal case-

MAJOR GARRETT: Because- because the votes were still being counted in 2016. The votes were still being counted in 2016. There had been no recounts. How did he know in 2016 that he had won? How did he know? On what basis?

LAURO: The issue- the issue- let me just tell you something, the issue in this criminal case is not what happened in 2016 and whether all candidates say they won. The issue now is, in 2020, whether or not the Justice Department can weaponize criminal law to go after a political opponent and prevent that opponent from running for office. That’s the issue, not what happened in 2016.

MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time.

LAURO: Do you think it’s fair- do you think it’s fair that- do you think it’s fair what the- what the Biden administration is doing to a candidate for president?

MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

LAURO: Thank you.

MAJOR GARRETT: And we will be right back.