Speaker 1: The David Pakman Show continues to be supported directly by our viewers and listeners.
I invite you to become a member at join Packman dot com. It's very quick. It's very easy. You
get some great benefits, including an extra show called The Bonus Show every single day,
as well as commercial free audio and video streams of the show. Get all of it by signing up at join
Packman dot com. You can use the coupon code 24 starts now to save that's a discount code
all of it happening at join Packman dot com. Donald Trump's defense lawyer or one of them
went on MSNBC and lunged at the host Ari MELBER to try to rip some papers out of his hands. I have
never seen anything like this. It is a complete and total meltdown by attorney Joe tacopina.
Probably not the best idea to go on MSNBC to begin with. And it went just about as badly as you can
imagine. The subject matter was, of course, the continued Stormy Daniels controversy. Now,
we are years into this controversy. Joe Tacopina saying Trump didn't really lie when he said he
didn't know anything about it because he would have violated the terms of the settlement. And
so it's not really a lie. Take a look at this. And about a minute in, he's going to lunge for
Ari MELBER in a completely unhinged moment for anybody, particularly for a defense lawyer.
Speaker 3: If all of what you say is true, it is. Then why was Trump hiding it and lying
about it at the time? And I'll play that for your response. He lied about it. We all know
that. Take a look. Take a look. Let's see. Speaker 1: And the question was, did you know
about the payment to Stormy Daniels? And Trump says no. Now we all know Trump did know about it,
but that's sort of the core of this. Speaker 3: Ari,
that is, if that's what you're going to consider a liar like me or something. Material. Under oath
in a proceeding. I didn't say perjury. I said a lie. Yeah, but that's not a lie. That's not a lie.
Here's why it's a lie. That's not a lie. Here's why it's all I could do. Did you know about this?
Speaker 1: Okay, so now he's lunging for the paperwork. He's lunging for.
Speaker 3: Ari. Did you hear that? I mean, did you know about this? You know, I don't. We don't need
that. And again, here's what. Why is that a lie? Yeah. Because it was a confidential settlement.
So if he acknowledged that he would be violating the confidential settlement.
Speaker 1: Doesn't make it not a lie. It could make it a legal problem. But that
doesn't make it not a lie. Speaker 3: Is it the truth?
Of course it's not the truth. It's. Speaker 1: It's of course not the truth.
But it is not a lie. They say the left are the postmodern is where words have no meaning anymore.
Speaker 3: Postal. He would be in violation of the agreement if he told the truth. So by
him doing that, by doing that, he was abiding by not only his rights, but Stormy Daniels. It
seems like we're drawing some blood here because you're having a strong reaction.
Speaker 1: Yeah, strong reaction is an understatement.
Speaker 3: Did lie about it. And in a confidential settlement, you can easily say no comment or I'm
not getting into it. He says. And the reason why I look at this, he says, No,
no, I didn't know about it. Didn't didn't know about it, didn't he? You know, but here's the
thing. I don't know the timing of that, but you I really don't. And I'm not trying to.
Speaker 1: Ah. So now we have a new argument. Maybe at the time
Trump really didn't know about it. Really? Speaker 3: Joe Gabriel, April 28. But I don't
know the timing of that video in relation to the timing of the other video where he
was speaking on my phone, what was the data that other video do you know? Yeah, we have the Cohen
recording. This was around the 2016 campaign pre November, right? It was 2018. Later the original
conversations were in the fall of 2016. Yes, sir. So obviously he knew about it, but what he decided
to do was not violate the confidentiality. Speaker 1: So once pressed where listen,
the dates aren't going to get you out of this, Joe, now he says, well, there's an okay,
the dates do suggest he knew about it, but he was not acknowledging it. In order to
stay compliant with the confidentiality agreement. Speaker 3: Clause and provision of that agreement,
which was the right thing to do. So he could have said, no.
Speaker 1: He didn't lie and lying was the right thing to do. Oh, good. I hope that this
comes to court at some point as an explanation. Speaker 3: Or he could said, I don't know anything
about it, which is what he did. But that's the right. I would advise my client do the same thing.
He's speaking to some, whether it's a journalist or some young lady on December 2016 is the exact
date. But whether he's speaking to a journalist or some young lady on the street who shouting,
have a question, that is not the form for him to go into detail. QUESTION
about a confidential settlement agreement. Speaker 1: Right. So, guys, he didn't lie
and he was completely correct to lie based on the circumstances. And because it might have been a
young lady shouting at him on the street, this is the sort of legal representation, I guess,
that you find when I don't know. You look at the back pages of a classified newspaper
or something. I mean, this guy is actually relatively well known, Joe Tacopina. And I know
that is I know he's come up on the show before, although I don't remember the exact context.
This is ridiculous. This is an if this is the type of argument that Trump's counsel
is going to be making if and when indictments do come forward. And I'm not saying they will,
I'm not. But at this point, it's like either they will or they won't. But if they do.
If this is the sort of legal counsel that Trump is going to be surrounding himself with,
it doesn't look very good. Now, it is important to mention that Donald Trump has a history of having
sort of like your TV lawyers and then your actual lawyers and the TV lawyers go on TV and they say
certain things and you're actual lawyers that are working on cases are usually different. Where we
saw this come to a disastrous head was with Olina Haba, I believe her name was where she
was both talking about Trump as a lawyer on TV, but also filed some motions and very quickly got
herself into hot water after the search warrant was served at Mar a Lago, where if I again,
I'm going from memory, if I recall correctly, she put her name on something saying they gave
back all the documents, even though they clearly had. And then it became a very,
very quick mess. So the point here is Trump has TV lawyers and real lawyers. I don't know
that he pays either of them, quite frankly. But if this is the sort of representation we
expect him to have, it's going to be really, really wild if he does get himself indicted.