Trump Brutally Insults ‘Slovenly, Lethargic Coward’ Bill Barr as a ‘Globalist RINO Spokesman for Fox & WSJ’

(Photo by Oliver Contreras/SIPA USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Former President Donald Trump lashed out at his Attorney General Bill Barr Friday morning, calling him a “Globalist RINO spokesman for Fox & the WSJ” — among other insults.

Trump has gone after Barr before, but never as brutally insulting as this, calling him a “Slovenly, Lethargic Coward” and a “Stone Cold LOSER!” which neatly reflects the professional wrestling rhetorical ethos that the former president so comfortably employs.

Barr appeared on CNN Primetime Thursday evening for an interview with Kaitlan Collins. He wasn’t terribly harsh on Trump but refused to defend his former boss in light of multiple criminal investigations.

As such, Trump took to social media and posted on his Truth Social feed:

So many legal scholars & pundits have viewed my lawsuit against lying, convicted felon, Michael Cohen, a disbarred lawyer, as being meritorious – a very good one. Some have stated, “It’s about time!” Slovenly, Lethargic Coward, Bill Barr, who didn’t have the “guts” to fight election fraud, & more, because he was afraid he was going to be impeached by the Radical Left Lunatics – The Democrats – disagrees. Barr is a Globalist RINO spokesman for Fox & the WSJ. He is a Stone Cold LOSER!

Collins asked Barr about his recent remark that Trump “dug himself a hole” in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations. Barr said he’s still “skeptical” about the Jan. 6 case, but piled on Trump over the classified documents case, saying:

COLLINS: Why do you think that one’s more threatening to him?

BARR: Because, when it first came out that he had the documents, a lot of people sort of immediately ran and said, why didn’t the government seek him, talk to him about it? Why didn’t the government subpoena it? Why did they have the raid and so forth — or the search?

And it turns out, as I suggested, that they jawboned him for a year-and-a-half. They did subpoena him. And I think the real question there is not whether he kept the documents and had them in Mar-a-Lago, so much as, once this was raised with him, and it was clear that he was being asked to return the documents as the government’s property, that games were played for quite a long time.

And I think that that exposes him. And…

COLLINS: Do you think…

BARR: Yes.

COLLINS: Do you think he can be charged on obstruction only here, or does there need to be an underlying crime, in your view?

BARR: I think, in this case, the underlying offense was his having these documents, which he shouldn’t have had, and he was subpoenaed.

And if he doesn’t provide them and hides them from the government, there’s both an underlying offense and there’s the offense of obstruction. But the thing that I think actually brings this — that raises this and makes it a more significant threat is the obstruction aspect of it.

COLLINS: And so do you…

BARR: And I — I’m not saying he — I just think there’s a high risk here.

And, just based on the government’s conduct here, I suspect that they have some evidence of — that they would consider to be strong evidence of obstruction. And that’s why I feel that this is probably the most threatening case.

COLLINS: What do you mean by that, based on what the government’s doing here? Do you mean because of how aggressively Jack Smith’s investigation is progressing, the fact that he was able to talk to Evan Corcoran, one of Trump’s defense attorneys, without the shield of attorney-client privilege?

What is it that makes you realize that it might be a serious case for your former boss?

BARR: Well, they did — they did puncture the attorney-client privilege, as you said, through the so-called crime-fraud, establishing before the judge the crime-fraud exception, which was to say there was probable cause that this — there was evidence of a crime here.

So, that and just the things I read in the newspaper make me feel that there’s probably a likelihood that they have people — people who have cooperated with the government and may be able to establish that he well knew he had not delivered all the documents back to the government.

COLLINS: It’s a pretty extraordinary case if they do move forward with it.

If you were the attorney general, do you think you could feel comfortable moving forward with indicting a former president?

BARR: Well, I think that this is the kind of case that requires a lot of discretion, prosecutorial discretion.

And one of the things that I think is appropriate to consider is, what will this do to the body politic, the precedent it sets, and having to deal with the question of uneven justice. People will point to Hillary Clinton and so forth. And those are legitimate points to consider.

And I’m not paid the big bucks to make that call right now, so I’m not going to offer my views on it. But one of the things I have said is that the appointment of Jack Smith makes me feel that they have decided not to — if — that, if the facts are there to sustain a case, that it’s a supportable case that would ordinarily be indicted, that they have made the decision to indict it, and that they’re not going to tank the case because of these discretionary considerations.

That’s — now, this happened — you know, that was my view before they found President Biden had taken some documents and Vice President Pence. And that complicates things. So, we will see where it falls out.

But, again, I do think that that’s the most serious thing facing the president — the former president.