But at this point, I don't necessarily think that they would even go to
the extent of trying to plant information.
I think they just make stuff up and come up with whatever they want and
that's the way that they will have to proceed in order to actually try to
indict the president because they don't have anything, there's just nothing there.
>> Honestly, I'm concerned that they may have planted something.
At this point, who knows?
I don't trust the government and that's a very frightening thing as an American.
If- >> You can't trust this guy.
So they go in, they'll probably do a fishing expedition.
God knows what they're gonna find or plant or fake.
>> For example, do I know that the boxes of material they took from Mar-a-Lago that
they won't put things in those boxes to entrap him?
How do we know?
Their lawyers weren't allowed to see the boxes go, they weren't categorized.
>> That's gonna be a problem.
>> Thousands of documents were taken.
>> His lawyers said they brought in backpacks.
What was in those backpacks?
Did they bring those in to fill them up or did they have something in there?
>> Okay, no, we're done.
In one day, the right has decided what their story is going to be going forward.
Not just to ensure that their base isn't terrified about what's going on with Trump
right now, but also let's keep it real in advance of what might come from this.
So in that mash up, you had Christina Bobb, a Trump lawyer,
you had another Trump lawyer, then you've got Jesse Watters, who, by the way,
went on to rant even more about planting evidence on his own show.
To be fair, he did bring evidence and the evidence was guesses and a hunch.
And then you've got Rand Paul.
So it's hit the actual elected officials.
Ainsley Earhardt is only too happy to agree with them.
And then, this morning, you get a statement from Trump, the FBI and
others from the federal government would not let anyone, including my lawyers,
be anywhere near the areas that were rummaged and
otherwise looked at during the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
Everyone was asked to leave the premises.
They wanted to be left alone without any witnesses to see what they were doing,
taking or, hopefully not, planting.
Why did they strongly insist on having nobody watching them?
Everybody out.
Obama and Clinton were never raided despite big disputes.
So, according to lawyers, people and
their lawyers are not present during these raids.
That's just not how that normally happens.
Now, we can debate that and say whether it should be,
I feel like you should be around for the raid.
That makes sense.
But this is not weird that they were not allowed there and
the reason that they've landed on the they've planted evidence thing,
I think there are two reasons for it.
I think one of them is legitimate and one of them is not.
The legitimate one first is that the idea that the FBI or
law enforcement in general could plant evidence is pretty believable.
Sure, yeah, yeah.
The FBI and cops often plant evidence to get a conviction and
it is amazing that we have finally reached a point where the right cares about that.
They have never ever, ever cared about that when it affected a regular person for
whom drugs were planted or evidence of a murder was planted,
their entire life was taken away or they were, in fact, executed as a result of it.
They have never once cared about that, but
finally it hits a wealthy powerful white politician.
And so, God, FBI could be planting evidence.
I'm sure they're gonna care a lot about that going forward and
look forward to reform our criminal justice system.
The non-legitimate one is that it's not unfalsifiable.
If you say they're planting evidence, well,
how would they prove that the evidence they get wasn't planted?
It's very easy to just put it out there to just say whatever comes
is going to have been faked or planted there.
And, look, them debating whether there might have been
planted evidence is not proof that a crime was committed,
it's not proof that they believe that a crime was committed.
But Jayar, I think we can all agree like everyone coordinating on this narrative
is not probably what you would do if you were sure nothing would come of this.
If you were sure Trump hadn't done anything, you wouldn't be like, no,
they're definitely planting stuff.
There's gonna be lots of bad stuff, but it's not authentic and
you shouldn't worry about it.
>> It's almost like they're panicking [LAUGH]
>> A little bit like [INAUDIBLE]
>> What I've heard from these types of
folks is there's a law and order party, the rule of law and
they need to be crime deterrence for people who break the law.
So there won't be more people that're inspired to commit these same types of
crimes, right?
This is America.
This is the shining example on the hill.
We don't mess around with criminals.
We don't let them just run free.
We're tough.
We back the blue.
None of that means anything when it comes to them, those same rules and
laws and applications coming for your guy.
Now, suddenly, it's wrong.
Now, suddenly, there's evidence being planted.
But when evidence gets planned on some random 22 year old that's walking down
the street and cops drop some drugs next to him while they are attacking him with,
you know what we'll call that?
That's just a bad apple.
Why isn't this just a bad apple in you all's minds.
Why is this the entire Department of Justice right now?
Why is it?
Everything is the worst thing that ever happened and
now they're coming in this un, I've heard it so many times.
It's unprecedented, John, what they're doing to this former president.
Do you know why it's unprecedented, what they're doing to this former president?
Cuz this former president's doing something that was unprecedented.
It's like they forget that part.
It's crazy.
My God, I can't believe that they would come after
someone who looks like he's committed so many crimes.
It's almost like they're investigating crimes.
This weird thing that falls into that law and
order rule you guys like to talk about.
One of the parts from that whole match up at the top.
First of all, it was wonderful.
They said they'll make stuff up and they'll say anything.
They'll make stuff up?
Someone who's supporting Donald Trump, who made stuff up about January 6th?
Was antifa after he led his people to it?
Who said stuff like COVID isn't really that big of a deal right before it
ravished the entire world and he hid it?
The guy who said drink some bleach for that COVID?
Making stuff up and they'll just say anything?
Who are we talking about here?
Every time you hear these folks say something,
just understand they're saying it about their own folks, but
they want the other side to be demonized for exactly what they're doing.
It's amazing that they'll continue to do it.
>> Yeah, you're totally right about that and on the unprecedented,
like I tweeted about that yesterday, but it would be like getting all fired up.
It is unprecedented that they took
that husky out of the upper branches of that oak tree.
Well, yes, but can we talk about how the husky got there?
Cuz I feel like that's the more relevant part of the story.
Obviously, you had to take the husky out, but
how did a dog get that high up in an oak tree?
And so it's all diversions, it's all focused on this,
it's focused on these possibilities.
And sometimes when they're unscripted, they even mess up in it.
So in Jesse Watters' little thing there on the five, he's like,
God knows what they'll find, I mean, plant, I mean, make up.
No, but if they find something, that's the interesting part.
But in terms of the, like if we're talking about critiquing law enforcement,
let's focus on critiquing law enforcement.
Could you do it consistently?
If you're worried about the FBI lying or maybe the oversight in terms of
getting a warrant or something not being strong enough, could you please
care about it literally in one other case than where it affects the president?
They love to cosplay having a heart and caring about human rights.
So they'll freak out about supposedly
a January 6th rider being put in solitary confinement.
I agree that shouldn't happen, that's inhumane, whenever it happens to anyone.
Marjorie Greene, could you care about it when it's not a January 6th rider.
You'll freak out when Ashley Babbitt gets shot,
you'll freak out about the willingness of law enforcement to use force.
Will you care about it during the George Floyd protests?
When cops are driving SUVs intentionally into crowds?
When they're knocking over protesters and cracking their skulls open?
And so, it's the unwillingness to be consistent with your critique of law
enforcement, which is demanded considering the evidence that comes out every day.
And now you even have some supposed leftists on social media
implying that like, if you don't completely denounce the FBI right now,
then you don't care about the FBI or warrantless wiretapping or surveillance.
No, no, no, no, no.
There is a slight difference between being opposed to warrantless mass collection
of innocent people's data by the literal tens of millions and one elite being
investigated, apparently, with strong evidence of a crime having been committed.
One is illegal, or at the very least, should be, should be unconstitutional.
The other is the incredibly rare,
admittedly consequences of a crime actually being applied equally for once.
Where a rich person, a powerful person can actually be investigated for
the sorts of things that we would never be allowed to get away with.
And I get, Tina, I see your super chat, thank you.
I understand that a lot of people really care about the difference between it being
a raid and a warranted search.
That doesn't make any difference to me.
Sure, it's a warranted search.
I agree with you.
Anyway, Jayar, I expect that this is all you're gonna hear from now on.
By the time evidence comes out, and God only knows what will,
if anything will, there's not a single conservative who is not
going to immediately believe that all of it was faked.
>> By the way, you're gonna hear so many politicians they've already had openly and
blatantly talk about how this is a, they need to have this retaliation.
Wait until the midterms, wait until Republicans are in power, wait until so
then we're gonna investigate this, this and that.
And they won't even say because they have any suspicions of anything,
not because there's any kind of actual crimes that they've noticed that they
want to come after.
If, before Monday, they didn't say that they're looking to open up all these
investigations into 18 different people, that means what they're saying is
happening with this playing politics with the Department of Justice,
it means that's exactly what they wanna do.
So, one more time, as soon as you hear them say, there's a politicization
of the Department of Justice, they'll say that right before the next sentence, which
is, we're gonna politicize the Department of Justice in response out of retaliation.
Because Joe Biden is treating this like a banana republic or we're advocating for
us to then get into power and treat this like a banana republic,
cuz that's definitely a staple of a banana republic.
We're gonna take over the usurped power by any means necessary, by the way.
And then after that, punish our political enemies for
actually following some facts in an investigation.
>> Exactly, all these people who are covering for a guy who attempted
a coup are really concerned about banana republics all of a sudden.
[MUSIC]