Donald Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr doesn’t think the former president’s kids should have been included in the lawsuit filed Wednesday by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
But his rationale, as he explained it to Fox News on Wednesday, was an oddly patronizing defense that was an insult to Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump.
James’ suit accuses Donald Trump and his family of engaging in real estate business practices that routinely undervalued and overvalued assets to avoid paying taxes.
But even though the Trumps’ business practices have been under investigation for years, Barr told Fox News that the charges were a “political hit job” that was without merit.
Barr said he wasn’t sure that James had a good case against Trump, but said the fact she tried to “drag the children into this” was a gross overreach on her part.
Although Barr was referring to three middle-aged executives in the Trump company, the former AG suggested none of them had the smarts to understand things like contracts or real estate documents.
“The children aren’t going to know the details of that, nor are they expected in the real world to do their own due diligence and have it reviewed independently,” Barr said.
Barr continued to defend insult Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump by likening their involvement in the former president’s business dealings to a billionaire’s version of buying your child a car.
Twitter users had a field day mocking Barr’s impression of “Simpsons” character Helen Lovejoy.
A few people noted that Barr had a different definition of “childhood” when dealing with non-billionaire offspring.
Lawyer and Stanford University lecturer Dave Johnson noted that for all of Barr’s insistence that the Trump kids are defenseless babies, the law still required James to sue them as well as their father and other company executives.