Former AG Barr Says Trump Shouldn't Testify in Criminal Hush Money Case Because 'He Lacks All Self-Control'

Former AG Barr says Trump shouldn't testify because he "lacks self-control." (Credit: Fox News)

Trump loyalists have an interesting, at best, relationship with former Attorney General William Barr — one of two AGs to serve under the former president, with the first being Jeff Sessions.


When Barr called the recent indictment of Trump “the epitome of the abuse of prosecutorial power,” he was lauded by MAGA. But when Barr said he’s “all for restoring America, but that “Trump is not that man,” the MAGA crowd wanted to burn him at the stake — proverbially speaking, of course.

So here’s the deal: I’ll report Barr’s comments, verbatim — with zero editorializing — and sit back while those who choose to do so, debate in the comment section. But as always, please don’t break the furniture.

As reported by Breitbart, Barr said on this week’s “Fox News Sunday” that Trump’s “lack all self-control” would make it unwise for the former president to speak in his defense in the hush money case.

Host Shannon Bream broached the subject with the former AG (emphasis, mine):

So he is facing other cases. We’ve got special counsel investigating the Mar a-Lago, the documents, the January 6 lead-up. As somebody who headed up the DOJ, are you confident they can be neutral and they will be in this case?

The well-respected Barr was forthright in his response, as per his usual:


I hope they will be. As I have said repeatedly, I think the document case is the most serious case. I don’t think they went after those documents to get Trump. I think they actually wanted the documents back.

What’s at issue, in that case, is not the taking of the documents. It’s what he did after the government sought them and subpoenaed them and whether there was any obstruction. I think that’s the most serious one out there.

The other one, I think the January 6 one, is a difficult case to make. It also runs into First Amendment issues. Where are you going to draw the line between legitimate First Amendment activity, protesting an election, and actually conspiring to undo an election? That’s a difficult case to make. I’m hopeful the department will approach it properly.

Bream then asked the question relative to this article:

I asked you if the president was your client, would you put him on the stand? I’m thinking if it goes to trial, he’s going to want to defend himself.

Again, Barr went bottom-line:

I’m not his lawyer, but generally, I think it’s a bad idea to go on the stand, and I think it’s a particularly bad idea for Trump because he lacks all self-control.

It’d be very difficult to prepare him and keep him testifying in a prudent fashion.


So, would Trump testifying be a bad idea?

As I suggested, I won’t comment (in this article, anyway) on Trump’s alleged “lack of all self-control,” but I will say this: Barr was right,  generally speaking — contrary to the opinion of some. Taking the stand in one’s own defense is often a very bad idea, indeed.

Rather, force the prosecution to make its case on its own, beyond a reasonable doubt, and for God’s sake, and your own, if you’re ever in a situation like Trump now finds himself — don’t help the DA.

As the wise old sage said, no one ever listened himself into trouble.

Donald Trump would be wise to follow that advice. Will he?

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos