Speaker 1: One of the questions that is increasingly being asked about the legal defense
being mounted after the FBI raid of Mar a Lago to get all those documents back from Donald Trump,
is are Trump's lawyers going to use the same stupid arguments that they're making on TV
when it comes to courts of law? Because if they do, it's going to be very embarrassing for them.
I'm going to give you one such example. Here is Trump attorney Christina Bobb, who was on
Newsmax two days ago, I believe it was. And she started making the case that the raid was illegal
and that it's unconstitutional and that privileged documents were taken. It's a
very dumb argument. Is she willing to make it in court or do they only make these arguments
for the court of public opinion on TV? Speaker 4: Oh no, that anything about this
raid was legal. But they did take attorney client documents. We know that because in the warrant,
in the receipt of property that they gave us, they actually gave us two separate receipts
of property. One of them is a shorter list. I think it only has about five or six items
on it. And then you've got the other one that has the, I don't know, 20 or so items on it.
And the shorter list, which doesn't explain that it's privileged information, they just happened
to tell me that when they gave me the receipt, they said, this is privileged information that,
you know, we're handling it differently. You know, we'll work out with the lawyers how to
handle it. But of course, you know, they write out classified information on the one list. And then
when they take something that is questionable and the public won't like, they leave that off
of the list and just tell me. So I think it's a lot of gamesmanship. I think what they did
is wrong. It's illegal, it's unconstitutional. And I think they have a lot of explaining to do.
Speaker 1: Now, if you I've read a couple of legal opinions about this and other arguments
that are being made by Trump's legal team of Haba Barb it's Elina Haba and Christina Barb.
But lawyers are basically laughing like saying, okay, sure, you can say that on
TV to try to convince people that what took place was wrong. But these are not really arguments for
court and it's very similar to what happened with Cassidy Hutchinson. Similar? Not exactly the same.
Remember that Cassidy Hutchinson was this aide to Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows,
and she testified under oath before the January six committee in the House of Representatives. And
under oath she made a number of assertions about Secret Service, about Trump's desires on the day
of the riots. And on and on and on. Immediately after that, you heard media reports of Secret
Service agents supposedly claiming that Cassidy Hutchinson was lying and saying they'd be willing
to give the truth side of the story. And then they never did. And they were invited and they
were welcomed. And the door was wide open from the House of Representatives for those Secret Service
agents and others who said, Sorry, Cassidy, Hutchinson, not Christina, Bob Cassidy. Hutchinson
is lying to come in and make those claims under oath, and they never did. And often a strategy is,
Well, we don't want to lie under oath, so we will lie in the court of public opinion, we will lie in
the media. And then as consumers, we have to think and say, okay. CASSIDY Hutchinson was under oath.
In the House of Representatives. All of these other media statements are not under oath,
and we're not even hearing it directly from the horse's mouth. Oftentimes, there are reports of
statements that are being made. Let's not consider that equivalent. And so when we think about, oh,
the legality of the search warrant, everything we know factually looking at the search warrant,
the affidavit, knowing that it was signed off on by Merrick Garland, knowing that it was signed
off on by Christopher Wray, the FBI director selected by Donald Trump, knowing it was signed
off on by a judge. That's a substantive reason to believe that the raid was perfectly legal. You
then have a lawyer on TV saying it was illegal and unconstitutional. Okay. Well, these are not
equivalent. Make that argument in court is what Christina Bobb should do. My guess is that that's
not where they're going to be bringing this argument. I want to remind you once again that
on 919, we are doing our 919 David Pakman show membership special. It will be 19 themed. And if
you've been thinking, well, maybe I'll dabble in membership, a little bit of membership never hurt
anybody. You can get on my mailing list at David Pakman dot com. And then on the morning of 919,
like a Phenix rising over the horizon, you will receive an email telling you exactly how to take
advantage of this great membership special. In the meantime, let me know on Twitter at D Pacman.
Well, Trump's lawyers make these silly arguments in a court, or are they only willing to make
them on TV? The David Pakman show is, of course, a community supported program, which depends on your
support through something we call the membership program. You can sign up at join Packman dot
com today. You can also wait until 919 for the 19 themed membership special. If you'd
like to be notified of that, you can get on my mailing list at David Pakman dot com. And then on
919, you will learn about the 1919 membership special, which will be absolutely fantastic.