schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime, booktv.org. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans see democracy at work with citizens who are truly informed on the public thrives, get informed straight from the sources on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are. the opinion that matters the most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span powered by cable. >> former attorney general william barr looked back on his time in the trump administration, speaking at the city club of cleveland. in this hour-long discussion he talks about his memoir and gives his take on the state of democracy in america.

>> hello and welcome to the city club of cleveland where we are devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive. it is friday, may 5th. i'm the chief executive officer of the cleveland metropolitan bar association and fundraising arm of the bar foundation. this year marks the 150th anniversary of the see mba. thank you. are one hundred fiftieth anniversary is a remarkable milestone that has been made possible by the inspiration and literal perspiration of thousands of lawyers, judges, law students, paralegals and business professionals who, over the course of 15 decades have coalesced around a central mission, promoting the rule of law and the legal profession. for years the cleveland bar has

partnered with friends of the city club to present the conversation of consequence, the ties into the annual laws established by the american bar association. our theme is cornerstones of democracy, civics, stability and collaboration. we believe so strongly in the importance of law day that we expanded again to encompass a full week of programs spotlighting the rule of law, people who worked tirelessly to advance the rule of law and institutions that exist to uphold the rule of law. as a nonpartisan organization comprised of 5000 members, the see mba strives to include and uplift diverse perspectives in all that we do. that is particularly true when our subject matter liens political in nature. in an era when too many people retreat to their own ideologies and refuse to listen, let alone

consider, information to the contrary, the see mba remains committed to bringing people of different viewpoints, political persuasions and experiences together for several, constructive dialogue, thanks to the connection provided by a long-term member and leader of the see mba, judge mcmonagle, thank you. i'm pleased to introduce this year's forum, our conversation with former attorney general of the united states, william barr. [applause] >> very few people have the kind of legal experience that mister barr does. he had his bachelors and masters degrees from columbia university followed by highest honors from george washington university law school. he had a prestigious clerkship at the appeals for district of

columbia, spent a decade in private practice with washington dc based bridge and in 1990 joined the justice department as deputy attorney general. a year later, president george h w bush, past speaker here at the city club appointed him to serve as 70 seventh attorney general of the united states, a position he held until the end of 1993. for the next 25 years he held a variety of roles including general counsel for gte and verizon followed by several years in parkland. in 2019 donald trump called on him to return to public service again this time as the 85th attorney general of the united states. two highlights of his second tenure as ag include his handling of the special counsel investigation into russian involvement in the 2016 election and his resignation in december of 2,020 when he

refused to support donald trump's efforts to overturn the election based on unsubstantiated claims of fraud. given the breadth and length of his career he brings a unique point of view on the rule of law and the functioning of the executive branch. he lays this out in his 2022 book "1 damn thing after another: memoirs of an attorney general". his predecessors used to describe the role of ag. the bucket number one on the new york times bestseller list was described by the wall street journal as, quote, substantive and brilliant. of course there are those who would describe the book differently. therein lies our opportunity for our civil, constructive dialogue today. conversation with mr. barr will be moderated -- happy tenth anniversary ceo dan and also a member of the see mba. if you have a question please

text it to 330-541-5794. 330-540 one-fifty 794. you can tweet your question to at the city club and the diligent city club staff will try to work your question into the second half of the program. members and friends of the city club of cleveland, please join me in welcoming the former attorney general of the united states of america, william barr. >> say whatever you want. >> how honored i am to be here. if were going to make it as a country we have to have a lot more civil discourse in this country. [applause] >> that's what this club is all about it i feel honored to be part of the program today and i want to thank my 30-year friend

judge jim mcmonagle for asking me here and colleagues and friends from jones day including several with whom i worked in the government and finally, you may not know this but i didn't see any sign of election fraud, all over the internet was a store that i had been paid a lot of money over the years by dominion. it was dominion energy. >> thank you for clearing that up. very much in the news today. >> welcome to cleveland, welcome back to cleveland. you've been here many times before. i wanted to start by asking why you felt it important to write this book "1 damn thing after another: memoirs of an attorney general". secondarily, is it truly one damn thing after another? >> i had no intention of writing a book, i never liked the idea of writing a book.

i had no intention of doing it, keeping notes and taking papers with me. i can talk about it. but i got a full court press from my publisher and a number of people called me saying you have a unique perspective, you worked for ronald reagan, you worked for george hw bush and then this president whose quite unusual. people could be very interested in that and i allowed them to control me into it, they came with a nice financial offer but i also sat down and wrote a chapter to see, am i going to like this? this is before i agreed to do it and i had fun and i agreed to do it and sign the contract and then it wasn't fun. it was a job. and the other part of it was a little bit of therapy.

i enjoyed thinking about it, trying to put things in context and looking back at my career was an interesting process. >> the last portion of your government career as attorney general in the trump administration, the way you describe it i can understand why you might have felt you need a little therapy. >> as people probably know. i am a lifelong republican and did not support trump for the nomination. i supported jeb bush and then i supported rubio. i was never a never trump so but er. i thought the country needed a republican administration. i supported trump once he became the nominee and all my business friends, who worked with him over the years told me

all about him, essentially bad news, i should give no thought to the administration which i didn't but at a critical juncture it was clear to me and i go through this in the book, he wanted to talk to me and i wouldn't talk to him unless i felt i could say yes. we were getting into a constitutional crisis. i was suspicious of the russiagate allegations, they were being used to hound him from office so i made up my mind that i would go in. i was in the best position of stabilizing the institution, the department, the fbi but also making sure people didn't run over the administration. i went in, trump was more of a

handful than i expected. even with all the warnings i had got. >> what had you expected and in what ways did he not meet expectations. >> the degree -- i don't like people using medical terms but i think he is a narcissist, completely focused on his own interests, he had some sound policy judgments, generally agreed with his policies which i admired that he stood up for what he believed it in, said some hard things and wasn't kicking the can down the road on some difficult issues but i think he was voted into office because people were angry. a lot of support for trump, people were frustrated and angry and wanted to send a message, they wanted a disrupter, they want a wrecking ball, they got a wrecking ball. trouble is it is hard to govern

and move the country forward as a wrecking ball and he's a very contentious person, most happy when he is in a fight with one. when he is in a fight with someone he will do anything to win. it was a difficult time in every cabinet member had a hard time. >> you check out cabinet members to see more successful, mike pompeo would bring up stuff to change the subject. >> if you are handling a portfolio you could go off and

do your thing which is good. but he was more focused on the department of justice than most agencies. he would talk to me a lot. when i was working for h&w bush when i was working for the cia i met h&w and when i was his attorney general we talked 6 times, i was probably in the oval office by myself, trump stayed in a lot of contract, our couple calls a day sometimes, frequent meetings, very informal. it was sort of a chaotic way of running things but i sort of enjoyed it, pick up meetings in the oval office, what do you

think about this? >> you can laugh now, but -- it sounds in some ways, you write about that in the book, it reminded you of a room in your fraternity house, the intense informality of it can be great because it is dynamic, much less predictable. >> in my fraternity at college it seemed there was a 24/7 card game going on and you could never detect who was there and who wasn't with people coming and going in subtle way and kept on going and that's what the oval office was like and find myself sitting there having gone in to talk about drugs or something like that. what do you think about those

trade you should. it was dynamic and to me the problem was with us. before the election, you could persuade trump to back away from some reckless silly step he was about to make or some thing he was going to do that would make politically hard to achieve what we were going to achieve but it would take endless meetings, would shift around all the time. thought he had the thing won, 10 minutes later reopened again. he would beat you up, you had to be willing to stand your ground but eventually if he said this will hurt you all of a sudden he would start listening and if you could convince him it wasn't a smart move for him he would changes position. at the time of the election i felt he had a successful

administration. he had been treated unfairly in many respects. in some respects he's his own worst enemy but in many respects he was treated unfairly. i was satisfied with the performance. it was a lawful administration. we won, everything was challenged and challenged multiple times around the country, we won those cases which wasn't an unlawful administration but once he lost the election there was no talking to him. he felt he had already been hurt so what did he have to lose so he went off half cocked and there was no getting him back on the rails. the stuff about it being stolen once i started looking at it, understanding what had happened, it was clearly wrong

and i wasn't going to be part of it. >> you famously explained that to him in the oval office. how did that go? >> if you read nothing else you can read that. that the prologue of the book. everyone was trying to get him out of this frame of mind that he had won and there was some way he could stay in office and when i saw that that wasn't working and he continued to attack the department of justice and me claiming we were not doing anything when we were looking at some of the stuff -- i just got tired. people on the hill were getting frustrated by this, someone has to say it so i said it. we have seen nothing to support these claims. i knew it that point i would

probably be fired. i went over to the meeting and he called me into the oval office and he was as mad as i have ever seen. i went through the details of the meeting. i was expecting to be fired. i said i know you are unhappy and i'm happy to resign. he slammed the table and said accept it! . i said okay and left. as i was getting in my car, fbi suburban to go back to my office there was suddenly pounding on the windows and everyone jumped. he sent two lawyers out, he didn't mean it, he wants you to come back in. i said we will talk about it later. i resigned two weeks later. >> reminds me of that joke,

fired with enthusiasm. >> right. >> i want to mention for the benefit of the listening audience we are talking with william barr, former attorney general of the united states of america. and his book is called "1 damn thing after another: memoirs of an attorney general" and it is our page turner and a barnburner. i want to turn to more recent events in the news lately. in your work in previous administrations and the trump administration you were involved in federal appointments to the judiciary, this week justice clarence thomas, the past few weeks justice clarence thomas under a lot of scrutiny regarding perceived ethical challenges. i wonder if you could offer your point of view. >> i haven't gotten into the details of this.

my general view is each branch of government is a separate branch and has to set its own rules. the executive branch's rules, congress cannot impose its conflict of interest rules on the president or vice president. they are not subject to conflict of interest rules, they are separate branch of government, they decide what the rules are. congress can impose rules on itself, doesn't have to -- no conflict of interest rules. most numbers of congress were farmers. it is more recent vintage the idea that conflict of interest rules apply across the government and same with of the supreme court. the supreme court is in itself a branch of government and i don't think they have ethics rules apply on them by someone outside. they have to come to their own

determination how they apply, what makes sense. i am a little worried about this idea that you take rules applicable to other branches of government and slap them on. the other thing i would say what i have seen, some of these benefits or whatever you want to call them were related to actual cases, decisions, we will see what the fact ultimately show and it is up to the supreme court to deal with it. >> recent polling suggests americans have an unfavorable view of the supreme court. their favorability rating in pew which has been asking these questions for decades and

decades suggests 40% of americans have a favorable view of the supreme court. it is very partisan, the difference today is very partisan, 70% or more of republicans view the court favorably while 20% of democrats do or something on that order. 30 years ago it was roughly 80% of americans had a favorable view and 80% of both parties. >> it's largely because there's been an effort to make the supreme court a super legislature that instead of neutrally applying the law sort of engages the united states in major societal changes without the political branches playing a role in that and if they are making major changes that are

liked by the progressives than all of a sudden the supreme court is a great institution. if they are retrenching, that decision for congress were the people than all of a sudden the left hates the man the right loves them. that is what happened. americans are in a grouchy mood, they hate everybody. i understand the grouchy mood and i sympathize with it in many respects but it leads to a level of mindlessness, jumping to conclusions. when i actually know the whole story, more complicated with the merits are not as people see them and get you have people always willing to trash the organization or trash the individual. look at the approval levels of every person who sticks their

head above the mantle it is in the basement, that's the way it is now. one of the reasons i decided to take the job of ag. i said to people anyone in their 40s or 50s or even 60 cannot afford to make controversial decisions in the executive branch because their careers are completely destroyed, they will not get a job later on. part of the problem in government is paralysis. everyone is a coward who doesn't want to make a decision. the only people capable of holding office and making decisions are people who are not looking for another job after the position, willing to do what they think is right and let the chips fall where they may. >> do you see a way out or away to rebuild trust in institutions?

>> i have been up until recently sort of optimistic because i felt the big dynamic in our country in the last 30 or 40 years has been the movement of the democratic party sharply to the left, that's not me talking is a partisan, every empirical study showed that is the case and left a lot of people behind them, kowtowing more and more to a more radical group and party. that is the dynamic and that is part of the dynamics that brought trump to power, frustration with that and was so-called elites who are not resisting it but going along with it. i felt for some time that this could be a replay of 1980 when one party goes too far in one direction it leaves a big spectrum for the other party to fill. i feel the way was for the republican party to get the hint and put up somebody who's

quasi-normal. and i think that that would lead to a resounding victory and with enough strength in congress to reject the extremism on one side and show that there is an alternative other than extremism on the other side. >> the extremism on the other side, on the republican side is an issue as well? >> yeah. i personally feel it is more reactive in a sense, the threat to american democracy is not authoritarian black shirts coming from the right. there's not that kind of threat. the threat of totalitarianism as tocqueville said in the 1930s, more of the progress of totalitarianism, a lot of classical liberals, barry wise,

andrew, people like that, that it is totalitarian. who are the people losing their jobs these days? people on the left? no. there is more mccarthyism going on in this country than happened during mccarthy by a big factor. in those days it was people in hollywood who attended meetings of the communist party, now kindergarten teacher, head of the university, whatever, you can lose your job. that's the kind of creeping totalitarianism controlling what people think that is a danger to freedom in this country. i think people on the right are not actually the threat to the democratic system. >> do you feel that way on january 6th? >> i did.

i thought january 6th was a clown show. anyone who thinks there were serious danger on january 6th is out of touch. you had a control room with rudy giuliani and those people, the country couldn't have been safer. the country, this was a keystone cops operation that played into the hands of their adversaries. people said why were they treated differently than people in the courtroom? no more and no one feels that more keenly than i. they should, that was an attack on american institution. but all dressed the same, dressed in black, wore masks, came out at night with no distant wishing features, very hard to build a case. only people on the right, walking into the most photographed place in the country wearing distinctive

clothing and no facemasks. the thing was a joke and i would point out no agency even in the executive branch went along with this, no statement along with that, no republican legislature, no attorney general, deputy attorney general, lawyers in the other agencies. it was a farce like most things trump cooks up on his own. >> before we go to questions from the audience i want to turn to some of the issues you dealt with as attorney general, specifically the issue of fentanyl and drug trafficking and the opioid epidemic. we are grateful for your service. i have a sense particularly when it comes to trafficking, there's a lot going on the ordinary american does not understand and i wonder if you

could help us understand better why it is such an intractable problem? >> it is a problem you have to attack on both the supply and demand side, people who think you can treat this ordeal by treating people, the main reason people get treated is the enforcement system. unless we take a strong stand on the enforcement side i don't think we will get a handle on this. it is not working. i actually think we can make more progress on the supply side because we should be fighting it where the head of the snake is. the head of the snake are the cartels who control all the drugs coming into the united states. a 1-stop shop, mexico, makes it easier for this, first time i was attorney general we had

burma, colombia, peru, it is mexico. what has happened, prior to 1995 we destroyed the cartels because we took the gloves off and hit them on their home turf. that allowed the mexican cartels -- they challenged the government of mexico, they have total impunity. they have completely corrupted the government of mexico, both with bribery and threats of silver or lead. the government of mexico, they can operate with impunity and that is a dangerous situation. the diversion of legal drugs is an important battle, she

stepped down when i became ag which i didn't want her to do but she did it. that was the only year we suppressed opioids but that was mostly the legal opioids, started getting a handle on that but we saw fentanyl, synthetics are skyrocketing. i don't see a way out of this on the supply side, law enforcement side unless we take strong action in mexico but we can have a big effect on it but we have lost, i will be surprised if there's any notable intermission in the number of deaths. we are losing as many americans to illicit drug overdoses as we lost, killed in action in the bloodiest year so we are sustaining casualties at the rate of a global war.

no one seems to care. it is really incredible. >> final question that you dealt with, gun violence, this week a report from the kaufman family foundation noted the leading cause of death, and children under 19 years old is gun violence that has overtaken traffic accidents. what do you think should be done? >> this debate goes on and on and on. i think the violent problem will not be solved by addressing the violence. it always comes down to this. my estimate the first time i was ag which was the point that

violent crime peaked and went down for 22 consecutive years, states started going along with this. we had to identify chronic offenders, and your crime rate will go down and that is what happened. our prison population was 750 violent crimes. and increase 26 million and crime was cut in half. that included 5000 african-american murder victims, by putting chronic offenders away in prison. that is the only way to solve

violent crime from an enforcement standpoint. if you can address them, we have blood on the streets, many solutions like education and job opportunities, you have to deal with crime. there's habitual violent offenders. it is predatory. i was interested to see the rate has come up in other countries in 2015, 1%

responsible for 63% of the crime. they are committing violence. the way we reduce violent crime is going after people, and the crime rates are dropping precipitously. yet people are not willing to say this is his third violent offense, armed robbery, he should go away for five years. the crime is being -- going through the revolving door. the anti-gun people made it impossible to come to any reasonable approach on guns. when they say we are coming for your ar 15s which is a modular rifle, we are coming for your

ar 15s and this is our agenda and they put extreme physicians -- positions, everything looks to people who want to defend gun rights as a slippery slope. makes it hard to reach, an agreement on things you would think we could agree with. i know this because i tried to negotiate it under trump. hard getting -- a few senators on the hillside we won't use this as a christmas tree, that's the kind of solution you get some steps made and that is recently with corn in, was it murphy in connecticut, wasn't a big step forward but a step forward and got there by both

of them, don't come in here with killer amendments to score political points. the point is to find common ground. when you get back to that approach, when i was a g.i. supported measures against guns and to get back to that environment, not the camel's nose under the tent. >> william barr, attorney general of the united states of america. [applause] >> we are about to begin the audience q and a. i am the moderator, we welcome questions, those joining by

live stream, cityclub.org, radio broadcasts, our primary media partner or c-span. if you would like to tweet a question you can tweet it at the city club or text it to 330-541-5794. our staff will work it into the program. first question please. >> it was texted to us. you expressed concern, the use of executive power and rule of law. given january 6th insurrection and donald trump's continued lies that the election was stolen even though you concluded and have publicly stated there was no voter fraud committed the would have resulted in a different outcome how would you suggest we address this continued erosion of the rule of law? the rule on of the rule of law isn't just a

question of executive overreach. it is people, rule of law, people use the term and don't think of what it means. rule of law means it is the key to democracy. political translation of the golden rule which is you should do to someone else what you would be willing to have done to yourself which means if the majority passes a rule, it should be a rule under which they are also living. that's the major reason we are willing to turn power over to the majority. democracy is something that protects freedom. why with the founders of said democracy protects freedom? because that critical ingredient, consent of the governed actually means. if you are consenting to something everyone will be

governed by, something they are not also under. the rule of law is that the same laws apply to everybody. that means the opposite of hypocrisy. today in the public square, hypocrisy rains. we see it every day. in my opinion generally speaking the mainstream media has become completely hypocritical and partisan generally speaking of individual journalists i have great respect for. they will attack something. a splinter in someone's i and ignore the log in their ally's i've. it is completely a double standard and that bleeds over into the system itself. i saw it in government. people are willing to use the criminal justice system as a

political tool to achieve political success and position themselves in an election year, that started at the time of watergate and turned into ability sport. both sides do it. i don't know if there's a clear way out of it except what i said before, someone has to win this trench warfare. someone has to get a victory and right now, dynamically in the country, progressives moving so far to the left is an opportunity for taking that first step which is one of the reasons we are so adamantly against trump because it would be a tragedy if he is the nominee. i don't think he will win but if he did win, it would be more trench warfare. >> another candidate in mind?

>> welcome to cleveland. you mentioned earlier you had suspicions about the russiagate story. i'm of the opinion that was a coup d'état that failed in this country. you mentioned before congress the white house, trump white house was spied upon. here we are six years later and looks like they got away with it. how is nobody held accountable for what happened? >> this is another example of hypocrisy i talk about. russiagate was a big lie it seemed to me from the very beginning. it didn't fit to gather. i waited to see what the facts weren't expected to see more to it and there wasn't. the allegations the trump was in collusion with russia. >> been a while.

>> the hacking of the democratic emails and so forth. i felt it was a big lie that was used to cripple, if not drive the trump administration out of government. does no one acknowledge that today? the media criticizes me for getting to the point of saying i don't see the evidence of obstruction here, that this whole thing was a hoax. but durham, i appointed durham to get to the bottom of it. i didn't presume it was a criminal offense but i ask him to get to the bottom and if there is something go ahead and prosecute. ..ute it. i think he will be coming out shortly with his report and i hope he casts light on what happened. the reason i think, if no one goes to prison for this hoax, it will be because durham and

others who looked at it felt they did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute somebody, which is a high standard. which is a very, very high standard. i have to say i don't like this whole environment we're in which is part of the same thing of using the criminal justice system, getting your side the thing of the doesn't require of the people giving in orange jumpsuits. in other words, getting to the truth of something and illuminating for the public what happened is more important than collecting scalps because collecting scalps you're setting yourself the highest standard possible which is beyond a reasonable doubt. and you are in a secret process and a lot of evidence cannot be introduced because of other evidentiary rules and so forth. and it's not a good way of getting quickly to the truth of what happened. and when you say let's hold someone accountable, if you want to do it criminally, it's a long

road to hoe. it's done in secret, you are not told about it and understand what people get frustrated but i think it's an ugly thing in our society when you're 31 talking about locking the other group of people up. they're so sure about it. i would like to see more accountability. it wouldn't surprise me if laws were broken when i look at the evidence, circumstantial evidence is very compelling that something was rotten, but being able to say that and nca and conclude it is a judgment of think for yourself, mr. with that having enough evidence to put someone in prison. very different standard. you.ank >> general barr, welcome to cleveland and thank you for your public service. what is your advice to all of us in yours and my party and the fact that there is that this

compass of my choice of words, a stranglehold by big core of the party that is trump or nothing? how can we get other -- what can we do to the party to get this way where more candidates can be viable and could be heard, and to turn the chances of the party around to a possibly victory? the two announced candidates are barely getting nowhere. all the polls show single digits for most of them. what can the party do, what do you recommend the party due to get away from this one band situation? >> well, i think it comes down toy. obviously this primary. i personally believe trump will not be the nominee. i think he will be beaten, and i think a lot of what's going on now is actually, a conceals what i think are the basic dynamics. of republicans are

abandoning his ship because they want to win. i think a lot of republicans value what hee did, they give hm credit for a lot of the things he did. they also know he is his own worst enemy and that he actually brings down more votes than he brings in. that's just a facte. of life. and so because they recognize i thinkk how important this election is and that they will not win the election with him at the helm, i don't think he's going to end up getting the nomination. i justt think, now speaking parochial lady among republicans, i think people have to, as is it actually a first amended government i said the maga moment isve going to have o blow up, and by that i wasn't being condescending. i said it has to mature. people understand why you want to be mad and send message and pokes him inig the eye but thats that what the country needs. we need to build, we need a

wrecking ball. we also have to return to the politics of persuasion. trump is an interest in persuading anyone. trumpdi is, interest in holding the part of this republican party and extorting there rest f the party to go along with that otherwise i will take my ball and go home. even if he does pick up his ball and go because the consequences of them getting the nomination, one, he will lose. you will lose the election. he will not only lose. none of the states that were up for grabs are any closer to go with them. in fact, they are further away. he will not only lose himself but he will bring out so many votes inin states like new york and california that the republicans will getre devastatd in the other houses of congress, especially in the house of representatives. our margin is because, from states like new york and california, okay? he will do that. he will then bring in someone to

be his vice president on the ticket who is not of first caliber. is anyone worth their salt is not going agreed to be as vice president afterward he did toat mike pence. so he will bring in some sort of loony tune person. [laughing] and a person will then become the standard bearer of maga and we're back where we started from. from. i think the question has to be called in the selection people have to start seeing this is nothing more than a cult of personality. and that we've other serious candidates, most of the same policies and to all the baggage. it doesn't happen, maybe the democrats will be happy but i don't think republicans will be for a long time. >> hello. my name is francis waters and i am new to cleveland, i've been here for aboutou a year and half but i'm glad the cleveland city

club -- my question is this, you mentioned earlier that you felt a lot of what was happening was result of the left going really extreme to the other side, leftist extremism. i guess my question would be this. soso i was actually harbored lo. i had charles friede, reagan general as a constitutional law professor and i actually were friends with friends who run the bush institute in dallas for george w. it seems to me the party, the republican party has gone pretty far to the right because the way i wasas taught constitutional lw when i conversation with my friends who are close with the george w. and others endows its much more moderate than i'm seeing across a gentle party. many of them are saying in some

way the party is leading thin. i'm curious in addition to use and you think the left has gotten extreme, what's your view of many republicans, republican friends i know who feel like their party has gotten pretty far to the right answer to let some other core values that they had before? >> i mean, from my examination of it, when i said republican party has not moved as much as the democratic party, i'm talking about the party. the general group of the party is pretty much where it was there all kind of charts that show the space and attitudes and positions on different issues and it's been the democratic party thatt is done a big quantm leap to the left. i mean how many democrats nowadays say my party left me? it's not that republican party got up to them, it's that their party left then. i think that's a fact. what that did was it costs a lot of people, many ofan whom who hd

been a political up to that time working-class americans to react against the excesses of the progressives and become a a stronger force in the republican party and and and commit to the republican party that became important for the republicans to bring into theub fold. that led to a process in the republican party where the leadership of the republican party has become more homogeneous. it doesn't have the sameene spaf northeastern rinos and so forth. there's a lot more consistency in thinking and republican party among the political leaders. so to that extent you were right that sort of the span of opinion especially among prominent people in the party has gotten narrower but that's because of the necessity for republicans to bring in and to recognize legitimate concerns of working class americans. i don't know if this is

happening in clayton but it is certainly happening in many eastern cities that i'm familiar with and visited in my own, which is you have this complete overthrow where it used to be in my neighborhood all the houses had republican signs and all the pickup trucks had union and democratic signs. completely reversed. completely reversed. the republicans you. [speaking in native tongue] as the party of wall street. you have to come pretty hard for republicans on wall streetl thee days. wealthy people, the vast majority ofio billionaires and millionaires are democrats now. so there has been this social change that i'min talking about that is partly a reaction to the basic dynamic that i'me talking about witches moving the democrats to the left. as i sit in normal politics that's an opportunity. that's an opportunity. you shouldn't go waltzing off on your own to the other end of the spectrum.

but the people who are viewed as authoritarian in republican party, i i don'tn know what else to refer to them, they are reacting and they've adopted a lot of the mindset of what they don't like on the left, which is try and use the law and coerce the power of the state to force people to their ideas of the perfect society. to me that's not what conservatism is about. anyway, that's sort of a riff on that. >> we have time for one last question. >> thank you for beinge here. can you explain your decision to intervene in the sentencing of roger stone, a longtime friend and political out president trump workspo you believe your actions were consistent with the department of justice's long-standing policydi of independence from political influence, which i believe youch addressed abednego? >> so i addressed this in my book.

to me it's the epiphany of independence and applying the law evenhandedly. also the work intervention, the attorney general is the figure that hasgu the authority. the attorney general is not a clerk that just administers a department. the authority, the legal authority and discretion vested in the attorney general and the people in the department carry it out on behalf of the attorney general. so some people might call it intervention. i call itt -- what happened was the young lawyers to a previous event in mueller's office and wanted the obama white house who prosecuted the case under me and got a conviction under me wanted to ask for a sentence that was three times longer than the normal sentence had been for someone. i didn't intervene. that issue was brought to me because there was a disagreement below me. i made the decision that where going to just go with whatever

the judge says. we are not going to argue for a sentence that is three times longer because if the rule of law means anything, it means that yes, they shouldn't get a special favor because he had a relationship withwi trump but he shouldn't be treated worse because he had a special relationship. so leave it to democratic sentencing judge she agreed with me and gave him a three and half year year sentence which is what i said wouldwo have been the no. so i felt that in that situation if you look at the substance, i did what i was paid to do, which was make sure the law was applied evenhandedly, and issue was brought to me and the handled it according to hoyle, and the sentencing judge ended up agreeing with my position. >> apologies orre friends that k as you. we will do one less caution but i will go on your show last expert this man knows what were coming up against at the top of the hour or i'm honored to be a very general barr, , you really are my favorite person in washington. filled with admiration to the

way you kept being relatively friendly with the president, the way you kept the world, the walls from falling in, kept him from absolutely cracking up during russia, russia, russia as he was being assailed nonstop. havingng said that, i think january 6th was more profoundly disruptive than come more serious than maybe some of yourou remarks, but you are my favorite person in washington. i think the most honest person in washington. >> thank you for. >> the question i have for you, given that i trust you, is donald trump, a lot of my friends that okay, he's made mistakes and okay, january 6th, okay this and that, it is his policies we would be voting for. given the pragmatic side also, do you think he is emotionally fit to be president of the

united states? i i disagree. i think that trump and biden will be the candidates, that whatever this is about the united states.s. you see fit to be president of the united states? is donald trump fit to be president? >> this is the way i will answer that. [laughing] witches come if you believe in his policies he's, what is advertising is his policies, he's the last person who can actually execute them and achieve them. [laughing] he does not have the discipline. he does not have the ability for strategic thinking and linear thinking or setting priorities, or how to get things done in the system. it is a horror show when he's, when hee is left to his own devices. and so you may want his policies but trump will not deliver trump policies. deliver chaos, and if anything lead to a backlash that will set his policies much for the back than it otherwise would

be. >> a very direct answer. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> bar is attorney general of the united states of america. he is author of a memoir called one damn thing after another and you joined us as part of our authors and conversation series which is presented in partnership with the foundation and the cuyahoga county public library. we also like to say thank you to guess at tables hosted by the click of a metropolitan bar association a special thank you for your partnership today. dominion energy ohio, friends of jim, glenn meade, global cleveland, ideastream public meeting, the legal aid society of cleveland and omar llp. thank you all for joining us. please -- [applause]

>> saturday on c-span florida governor ron desantis is the featured guest at a pnic fundraiser hosted by iowa republican representative randy feenstra. that's live at noon eastern. later in theveng our campaign 2024 coverage continues with former president donald trump headline and rally in des moines. live at 8:00 eastern. you can also watchn c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> c-spanshop.org c-span's online store. browse through our latest collection c-span products, apparel, us, home decor and accessories. there's something for every c-span fan and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile

app featuring unfiltered view what's happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the days because events with live streams of floor proceedings or hearing some u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store in google play. download it for free today. c-span now your front row seat to washington anytime anywhere. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by the television companies and more including midco. ♪ ♪ ♪