You're welcome is brought to you by progressive insurance. Now, most of you listening right now, probably multitasking. Yep, while you're listening to me talk, you're probably also driving, cleaning, exercising, maybe even grocery shopping.

But if you're not in some kind of moving vehicle, there's something else you can be doing right now, which is getting an auto quote from progressive insurance. It's easy.

You can save money by doing it right from your phone, drivers who save by switching progressive save over $700 an average and auto customers qualified for an average of seven discounts discounts are having multiple vehicles in your policy being a homeowner and more.

So just like your favorite podcast progress will be with you 24 seven 365 days a year, so you're protected no matter what multitasking right now quote your car insurance at progressive.com to join the over 27 million drivers who trust progressive.

For his casual insurance company affiliates, natural annual average insurance savings by new customer survey to save the rest of between June 2020 and May 2021 potential saves will vary discounts not available in all states situations.

Good afternoon, Michael Malice here, let that be your welcome for the next hour. This is our fourth attempt, which makes this episode a bit of a mistrial.

With Robert Barnes, one of my favorite people returning guests, Robert was on the show last year to break down the Colbert and House case, which I've not been familiar with up until that point, I was making a point not to follow the news and he brought it, broke it down brilliantly.

And since there was some news stories in the news to be redundant involving the legal profession, I'm like, you know what, rather than sitting at here looking at Twitter and having every Tom Dick and Harry think that they have a JD and explain the situation to me, let me ask an actual practice attorney who's been involved in several these cases to give me his professional opinion. Robert, thank you so much for coming back to the show.

Yeah, glad to be here.

The first thing I want to discuss was, and you know, there's a lot of minutiae here was the raid by the FBI on Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago. Now here is the narrative that has been propounded by corporate media outlets as far as I could ascertain, which was this president Trump was in possession of some documents he did not have a right to both because it was not his property simply because you're the White House resident does not mean that everything the White House belongs to you.

It's that president Clinton and Hillary Clinton had to return tens of thousands of words of things when they left the White House in 2001.

This was executed in standard operating procedure. Trump is just trying to make himself out to be a victim, where his feet just handed over the documents that was never his to begin with none of this what happened and he's just making the FBI look bad when they're just following orders doing their job.

And the person who approved the warrant was and the head of the FBI were both appointed by him. So who is he to have a right to complain so that's so what's wrong with that kind of narrative that there is no standard operating procedure when it comes to rating a former president of the United States.

And there is no standard operating procedure for rating the political opponent, the leading presidential opponent of the incumbent party.

So both of these are extraordinary exceptional a historical events in American legal history.

And the fact that even as a real analyst at CNN said if they did this just over some documents at the archives, this doesn't look good.

And that's because that appears to be the pretext. We don't know for for sure because we haven't seen the actual warrant judicial watch and others have brought suit to try to unseal the warrant so we can find out what's there.

Can I interrupt you for a second? Yeah.

If the warrant is this much in the public interest, is it unusual that the warrant as we record has not been made public yet?

That's not unusual. The it's up to now the my understanding is the president's legal team will ultimately did receive a copy of the warrant.

There's been inconsistent information about that, but the report I saw did in fact she actually Christine a Bob, I think was the attorney at the scene did in fact receive a copy of the warrant, but only belatedly in the process.

There's an additional requirement of the war of what's called presentment, which means if the warrant isn't presented at the time of the of the search activity, then that can be considered a violation of the fourth amendment, just because they didn't properly present it.

...