Former President
Donald Trump
is at this federal courthouse
in Washington, D.C.
and technically he is
in custody of law enforcement.
Mr.
Trump will soon be arraigned
on four federal charges
stemming from the January six 2021 attack
and the
multiple efforts
in 20, 20 and 2021 to deny Joe
Biden's 20, 20 election victory
and deprive millions of Americans
of their rights as voters.
Trump landed in the D.C.
area a short while ago
at Reagan National Airport in Virginia,
and he's returning
to the epicenter of power, as well as,
in some ways, the scene of the crime.
Joining us now to discuss, John Bolton,
the former
national security adviser for
President Trump.
Ambassador Bolton, thanks for joining us.
So Mr.
Trump is about to be arraigned
for his efforts
to overturn the 2020 election.
Do you think that his
behavior was criminal
Yes.
Look, I think this
indictment lays out
a pretty strong case, particularly
the most important part of it,
I think, is the description of the effort
to turn Mike Pence
into an instrument of
reversing the result
in the Electoral College.
I think that's the strongest part of it.
I think it was right
to bring the document case
I think it's important
to have both of these cases
brought to trial
before the election
as far in advance of the election
as possible.
But I want to underline what we're doing.
I think it's the right thing to do,
but it is a modified form of
Russian roulette.
If Trump is convicted in one
or both of the federal cases,
I think that will turn
things upside down.
I think he could be denied
the Republican nomination.
He'd certainly lose the election.
But if he is acquitted
or a hung jury,
results, which I think
would be understood by
most people
as being the equivalent of acquittal,
I think he would get
the Republican nomination
and he could quite possibly
win the election. On the back of that.
But just to be clear,
you're not arguing that therefore
this shouldn't be happening.
You're just saying
we just need to, as Americans,
be aware of potential political fallout
No, I think I think, as I said, it
is essential to have brought these cases.
And it's just as essential,
in fact, more essential
to have them tried
before the election
to defeat the DeLay strategy
that Trump's
putting out the public interest here
is in having in each case, 12 jurors
give us a decision.
So the people have adequate information
on which to judge Trump.
But the risk is real.
And I hear the exuberance
I've heard at the last 24 hours
and everybody, you know, look,
the impeachment efforts against Trump
failed twice to convict him.
And what did
what was the consequence of the failure
in bolding, emboldening and empowering
Trump
acquittals
here would be even more devastating.
One important question
in the case going forward
might be
whether prosecutors will be able to prove
that Donald Trump acted corruptly.
In other words, whether or not he knew
deep down the fact that he lost
the election.
You worked closely with him.
Do you think Donald Trump
knew that he lost the election?
There's no doubt in my mind that he knew
he lost the election.
But that's not really an issue
that anybody needs to worry about,
because the question is, can his.
His lawyers don't have to prove anything.
They simply have to induce reasonable
doubt in the minds of one or more jurors.
To get a hung jury.
And if people think
that he's being railroaded,
if they if they if they don't believe
the prosecution case
or they believe
whatever case Trump puts on
and this results in a hung jury in
either of the two federal cases,
I think we're in for real trouble.
That's I just think people
need to understand
that don't get too exuberant
because of the indictment
as people got exuberant
over the impeachment.
Tell me what the result of the trial is
and that I'll tell you how to feel.
There are a lot of Republicans
in Congress
railing about two standards of justice.
They say
when you look at the conduct
that Donald Trump has been accused of.
Is there any part of you
that thinks that it's true
the Justice Department
is being weaponized
against Donald Trump
for political reasons?
You know, I've
been an
opponent of the special counsel concept
as long as I can remember,
and I'm still against it.
But in this case,
nobody can say
the Department of Justice is weaponized.
I think the special counsel
has proceeded independently.
I happen to think
that's not a good thing constitutionally.
But it's simply false
to say the Department of Justice
has been weaponized.
It is possible
and I think seriously open to question
whether
Hunter Biden
has been treated in a similar way.
But as my mother always used to say,
two wrongs don't make a right.
You don't
you don't make up for Hunter
Biden getting a sweet deal,
if that's the fact,
by letting Donald Trump
skate free, you prosecute
where the law has been violated. Yeah.
And we should note that, of course,
the judge has sent back
that plea deal
which seems to have exploded
for Hunter Biden.
Mr.
Trump is speaking out already
this morning.
He wrote, quote,
I'm going to Washington, D.C.,
to be arrested for having challenged
a corrupt, rigged and stolen election.
It is a great honor
because I am being arrested for you.
Make America great again.
What does that mean to you?
I'm being arrested for you. What?
Why would anyone think that
that is possibly true?
Well, I think he's
appealing to the alienation
of a lot of Republican voters,
a lot of independents,
a lot of people
who have supported him before.
And if he can make them feel that
that they are
the ones that the system,
the deep state is after,
it will solidify their support.
And for a lot of reasons
that the people can discuss,
that support is real.
It's it's undeniable.
What will shake that
support is conviction.
Ambassador John Bolton,
thank you so much for your time today.
Appreciate it.
Kaitlan Collins,
yes.
Hi, Jake.
Yeah, sorry.
We're out here outside the courthouse.
Obviously, Donald Trump has arrived here.
We did not actually see him
because his motorcade went into
the garage.
We do know
he's got a slew of political advisers
with him.
But most importantly,
he has his attorneys with him.
And what's notable about
that is one of those attorneys,
John Lauro, is just someone
who was only recently added,
but he is going to be the one
who is leading
the January six case in the defense here.
We've seen him already doing so publicly.
Now is the first time
that he's in a courtroom to do this.
Here with me now
as CNN's Paula Reid and the former
federal prosecutor David Aaron
worked at the Justice Department,
the special prosecutor,
until not that long ago.
You looked through this indictment
and we heard from Bill Barr last night.
You just heard from John Bolton.
His assessment of the indictment.
What do you think of it?
I think it's it's largely
not what I expected.
It's it tells the full story.
It tells that story in a way that lawyers
and regular people will understand.
And it focuses on one defendant,
even though it alleges
that conspiracy is limited
to the one defendant.
And I think that reflects an effort
to get this case moving
and tell the whole story
without unduly complicating it. Yeah.
And as you're looking at this
looking at this indictment,
looking at this case, and now he is
when they are in there talking about this
and what this looks like,
the defense is of what they are
clearly going to use that are shaping up.
Do you think what they are
saying publicly, what John
Lauro and others are saying
is what they're going
to be actually using
when they're in a courtroom?
Well, I think it remains to be seen.
I think they might be test
driving a few of these arguments.
Not all of them seem
legally meritorious,
although they might be
publicly appealing.
This might end up a defense
of just a probable cause,
as I have beyond a reasonable doubt
defense
arguing that the prosecutors just didn't
carry their burden
without offering
any particular specific defense,
which is a high bar, Paula.
I mean, as we've been in
an incredibly high bar,
and I think you make
a great point about test
driving some of these defenses
in the court of public opinion.
Let's take this argument
about the First Amendment right.
They've been arguing,
I think, John,
the lawyer told you
he's told
other people publicly
in the past few days
they're trying to criminalize
First Amendment activity, particularly
political speech.
Well, let's let's look at that.
Political speech
is widely recognized
as one of your most protected rights.
You can speak out against the government,
the political process.
You can even lie about that.
But there is no First
Amendment protection for fraud.
And that is what is being alleged here.
They're alleging
that he fraudulently tried
to create these documents
and submit them to the government
to the archives
and to Congress
to steal
the most powerful office in the world.
There is no First
Amendment protection for that.
So I think legally that is the problem.
Not going to hold up in a court of law,
but it appears to be very appealing,
particularly
to the president's supporters.
So they're going to probably
be testing these ideas, see what sticks.
And the other thing is
that they're essentially arguing this
when it comes to
what this is looking like.
What Bill Barr was saying last night
is that
the idea about the free speech
and Bill Barr was saying, well,
yes, speech is involved
in any conspiracy charge.
And just because it's
speech doesn't mean it's
protected by the First Amendment,
especially when it does relate
to what
this indictment alleges,
which is a conspiracy
to subvert the election. Exactly.
They're alleging that he engaged
in a conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
government,
and that is not protected
by any constitutional amendment.
But when it comes to the
the court of public opinion,
people who may not understand,
you know, the history
of the Supreme Court protecting
political speech,
but carving out exceptions for fraud
that may seem appealing to them,
they may say, hey, well,
why can't he just call out alleged fraud?
But again, legally speaking, once
this is before a jury
and you do not have
a First Amendment right to lie
or to engage in a conspiracy.
Dave, you're a former prosecutor.
I mean, Trump is going to be face
to face in that room.
We believe Jack
Smith is going to be here.
That's the second time
that they'll both have been
in a courtroom together.
But Trump has been attacking him
endlessly on social media,
calling him deranged,
calling him a crackhead,
implying that he had something
to do with cocaine.
That was found at the White House.
I mean,
it's awkward.
But also, how
does it affect the prosecution,
a sense
that he is attacking the very prosecutor,
you know, seasoned prosecutors
like Jack Smith
have been called a lot of names
and been in a lot of awkward situations.
This particular defendant
may be dialing it up a bit,
but you don't get to the point
where Jack Smith is
without having a fairly thick skin.
I don't think
we'll see a change in his stoicism
and I don't think we'll see any impact
on the prosecution itself.