Barr Says Trump Trial Dates Not Election Interference, Claims Are ‘Silly’

Then-U.S. Attorney General William Barr waits to speak at an announcement of a new Crime Reduction Initiative designed to reduce crime in Detroit in Detroit, Mich., on Dec. 18, 2019. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

In an interview on Fox News, former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr dismissed claims of “election interference” in the indictments against former president and presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“The idea that this is interfering with the election is simply wrong,” he told host John Roberts.

Mr. Roberts had been referring to the multiple charges against President Trump this year for various actions he took during his presidency, and in particular the March 4, 2024 trial date set by a judge—just a day before “Super Tuesday.”

He played a clip of presidential candidate former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has been combative in his approach against the GOP frontrunner, saying in an interview with Mr. Roberts that the former president’s insistence on campaigning is interfering with the elections more than the indictments.

“I think the governor is right,” said Mr. Barr, who has clashed with his former boss over claims of election fraud. While President Trump maintains that fraud occurred in several states in 2020, possibly costing him reelection, Mr. Barr has been dismissive of those claims.

In the Fox interview, he argued there was no standing for the presidential candidate to seek to move his trial dates until past the 2024 elections.

“The basic principle in the criminal justice system is if a prominent person commits a crime and is seeking office, that doesn’t give them immunity,” he said.

“If there’s if there’s enough time to have it resolved before the election, it should be resolved.”

“Just think some mayor charged with massive embezzlement and he says, ‘Well, you know, it’s a year and a half to the election. Let’s put that on hold. While I run for reelection.’ It’s silly,” he said. “It’s silly.”

He added that one could argue whether President Trump should be charged, but regardless, the charges were not interfering with the election.

Mr. Barr has previously also said he would “of course“ be willing to testify against President Trump in the election case. In interviews on news networks, he has multiple times dismissed the legal arguments put forth by President Trump’s legal teams, claiming there is no First Amendment defense.

President Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly called the legal action against him “election interference,” noting that indictments and motions follow as he rises in the polls, or when investigations into the Biden family make headlines.

He slammed the Fox interview on Truth Social, naming the host and two interviewees.

“Anyway, my polls are even higher since the so-called Debate. Republicans should unite against the Fascist Lunatics who are destroying our Country!” he wrote.

Overlapping Trials?

The candidate faces a busy trial schedule as campaign season heats up.

In the Washington, D.C. case ahead of “Super Tuesday,” when more than a dozen states will hold their Republican primaries, President Trump is being charged on four conspiracy counts over his challenge of the 2020 election results in federal court.

He faces similar charges in state court in Georgia, where Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is prosecuting a racketeering case that names President Trump along with 18 other defendants. The prosecutor is pushing for an Oct. 23 trial date, which President Trump’s attorneys have argued against. This would be the earliest trial date any prosecutor has asked for yet, while the former president’s legal teams have consistently pushed for cases to be tried after the 2024 general election, sometimes citing plans for dismissal.

In New York, Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg is prosecuting a case against President Trump over allegedly mishandling business finances, set to go to trial in May.

In Florida, special counsel Jack Smith, who is also prosecuting the Washington case, has a case against President Trump over allegedly mishandling classified documents, also set to go to trial in May.

In addition to these criminal cases, President Trump is facing a civil suit as well, which may go to trial earlier.

In another case related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, his team has asked to delay the case until after the criminal case, because they overlap in nature.

He also faces two cases in New York. In January, the suit brought against him by E. Jean Carroll will go to trial after a judge rejected an attempt to delay the case.

Then there is another civil suit against President Trump, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, charging him with financial fraud. Ms. James is seeking a partial summary judgment before the case goes to trial.

‘Rush to Judgment’

Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard law professor, claimed the opposite of Mr. Barr, saying that although he is not a Trump supporter, the legal action against the GOP frontrunner seems to be election interference.

“It’s Alice in Wonderland—verdict first, execution, and then trial. That’s what we’re having here. And it’s such an undercutting of our Constitution. I predicted this all in ‘Get Trump,’” he said on Steve Bannon’s podcast, referencing a book he wrote where he predicted that President Trump’s political opponents would try to tie him up in court to prevent his running for the 2024 presidency.

“I predict there’ll be some convictions. I think the strategy is to get bad convictions, but to get them fast in New York, in Florida, in Washington, and in Fulton County, then they’ll be reversed on appeal, but they’ll be reversed on appeal after the election,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “That’s why everybody’s rushing to get these cases tried.”

In a recent New York Sun op-ed, he wrote that in his 60 years or practicing, teaching, and writing about criminal law, “I have never seen a rush to judgment quite like this” and the rush was a violation of President Trump’s rights.

He, as well as other legal experts and President Trump’s own counsel, have argued that the cases are complex, involving reams of documents and dozens of witnesses, and such cases necessitate long timelines.

“If the election were not scheduled for November of 2024, these cases would be put on the usual schedule, which generally involves more than a year of preparation for such complex cases,” he wrote, adding that even rushed, the trials will take a long time with jury selection expected to be time-consuming and the calling of multiple witnesses.

“Mr. Trump will have to spend months sitting in court and in his lawyers’ offices right in the midst of his campaign,” he wrote.

“These efforts to speed up the trial are completely political and partisan.”