Former AG Bill Barr says it’s ‘increasingly likely’ that Trump will be indicted over documents

Former Attorney General Bill Barr said Friday that he believes the federal government has enough evidence to indict former President Donald Trump based on the sensitive documents the FBI recovered from his Mar-a-Lago in August.

Barr told PBS’ “Firing Line” host Margaret Hoover that the Justice Department “probably has the evidence” to “legitimately” accuse Trump regarding the contents of the document.

Trump recently admitted to transporting the documents from the White House to his Florida home, but argued he was allowed to do so because they are “personal,” though Barr seemingly disagrees.

Barr said he “thinks they were probably sensitive documents,” exposing the former president to a litany of possible charges.

If prosecutors can “prove that the president was knowingly involved in deceiving the Department, defrauding the government and playing games after he received the subpoena for the documents, then those are serious allegations,” Barr said.

Barr has twice served as United States Attorney General, first in the early 1990s in the George HW Bush administration and then again for the Trump administration.

While admitting he was “speculating,” he admitted “I think they probably have the evidence that would check the box” for indictments.

He also added that he doesn’t think Trump should run for president again in 2024, as he “failed” his first term, Trump thought recently announced his candidacy.

‘He failed. He didn’t do what the whole country was hoping — that he’d jump at the opportunity and run for office, and he didn’t,” Barr said.

On Monday, a new unsealed file from Trump’s legal team argued that the Presidential Records Act is “clear” and that a “president determines whether a document constitutes a presidential record or a personal record.”

Trump’s lawyers also argued that it was clear the documents were “personal” and pointed to those Trump had taken – but that part of the court document had been redacted for public inspection.

The DOJ hit back in their own filing, arguing that Trump “cannot designate records that qualify as ‘presidential records’ under the Presidential Records Act as his ‘personal records’ simply by saying so” or “simply by remove. from the White House.”

The administration’s lawyers said neither the written law nor judicial precedent gave Trump the ability to ignore the statute by removing presidential documents from the White House, keeping them (without permission) in a personal storage room, and then deeming[ing] they are personal.’

The recently unsealed filings by the Justice Department and Trump’s lawyers were submitted to Judge Raymond Dearie, an independent arbitrator appointed to review the seized documents to consider whether they should be shielded from investigators.

The department’s filing said Trump claims privilege over 122 documents seized in early August during the federal raid on Mar-a-Lago.

Prosecutors wrote that then they would have to gain access to nearly 2,800 other documents that they cannot currently review as part of their investigation.

Federal law allows a president to retain personal information after leaving office, but it cannot be related to official work.

The Justice Department has said about 100 pages of the approximately 11,000 files seized have been marked as classified, and other court documents show government files were mixed with items such as media clippings.

If Dearie, a so-called special master assigned to conduct a review of items taken during the search, decides the papers are not personal, Trump’s lawyers said Dearie should instead determine that she fall under executive privilege – and still need to keep them away from researchers.

That doctrine allows a president to keep certain documents or information secret.

The department said Trump cannot exercise executive privilege over documents he has claimed as personal data because such data should not be related to official duties.

“The Special Master must not indulge in such games,” the prosecutors wrote.

Prosecutors are investigating whether Trump violated federal law by seizing the records and also whether he obstructed the investigation of the missing papers.

Two weeks after the search, Trump filed a civil lawsuit in an effort to delay the investigation and preserve some investigators’ records by asking a judge to appoint a special master to assess whether anyone should be considered privileged.

District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, named Dearie to the role.

Trump has stated on social media, without providing evidence, that he has released all documents and that the FBI may have planted evidence.

Trump’s lawyers have made no such arguments in official court cases.

The Justice Department is appealing Cannon’s decision to appoint a special master, telling the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that she exceeded her jurisdiction and that her ruling harmed the investigation.

Trump’s legal team filed papers on Thursday claiming that Dearie’s assessment should move forward.

Cannon initially banned the department from using any seized documents for its criminal investigation until Dearie’s review is complete.

The 11th Circuit subsequently reversed part of Cannon’s order, ruling that she had made a mistake in blocking the department’s access to the classified material for its investigation.