Barr says Colorado decision helps Trump: ‘He feeds on grievances’

Former Attorney General Bill Barr argued Wednesday that Colorado’s ruling disqualifying former President Trump from the state’s ballot will be “counterproductive,” as he is a person who “feeds on grievances” and will use the decision to reinforce his narrative.

Asked on CNN for his initial reaction to the ruling, Barr said: “I think this kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyperaggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race are counterproductive. They backfire.”

“As you know, he feeds on grievance, just like a fire feeds on oxygen. And this is going to end up as a grievance that helps him,” he continued.

Trump is already and the far-and-away leader in the GOP primary, though former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was gaining on him in New Hampshire.

After the Colorado decision, there were immediate questions about whether it would blunt any of Haley’s momentum.

A New Hampshire poll released Thursday found Haley had pulled to within 14 points of Trump.

Barr’s argument echoes that of some other Republicans, such as former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), who said the ruling will feed into Trump’s narrative of “the whole system’s after me, and everybody wants to get me.”

Barr, who served as Trump’s attorney general, noted that while he “strongly opposes” Trump for the Republican nomination, he believes Colorado’s case is “legally wrong and untenable.”

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump engaged in an insurrection through his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, stating Trump intended to incite political violence and rallied supporters toward the Capitol to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election results.

The 4-3 ruling asserted the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause — which states that those who took oaths to support the Constitution cannot engage in a rebellion against it — applies to the office of the president, overturning a lower court’s decision.

Barr said he disagrees with the court’s “ability to make those findings” and that the case lacked due process for the former president, noting the five-day hearing was solely in front of a judge, not a jury. He added the court relied on the Jan. 6 committee hearings, which he called “mostly hearsay,” and did not subpoena witnesses.

“The core problem here is the denial of due process. To deprive somebody of the right to hold public office requires due process. It requires an adjudication of two core issues,” he told CNN anchor Jake Tapper.

“One, was there an insurrection? Did the public disturbance rise to the level of an insurrection? And second, what was the role of the individual in there? Was it engagement? Did they do something to break their oath of office? Those are complicated facts, and this was denied due process,” he continued.

Barr applauded the three dissenting judges on the decision as “masterful” and pointed to their argument that this case was “a procedural Frankenstein.”

Trump’s campaign has vowed to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which Barr said will “slap it down very quickly” if it chooses to hear the appeal.

“The 14th Amendment is not something that be applied willy-nilly by the states through sort of ad hoc proceedings,” Barr said.

Tapper asked Barr if a guilty conviction of Trump in special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case — which does not charge the former president with insurrection or inciting an insurrection — could provide grounds for more 14th Amendment challenges in states.

Barr responded, “Well, I’m sure it could prompt that, but my own view of it is that the federal government — the mechanism that’s in place is charging him with insurrection or rebellion. And … Congress did pass that after the 14th Amendment.”

Asked if he believes there is a case to be made to charge Trump with insurrection or incarceration, Barr said he has not seen evidence to support this but that it will be “interesting” to see how Smith’s Jan. 6 case plays out.

Barr’s viewpoint appears to contradict some other legal figures, such as former federal judge Michael Luttig who said Colorado’s ruling is not “anti-democratic,” but rather the conduct that prompted the disqualification was anti-democratic.