CLAY: I’m glad I’m not alone in this from a legal perspective. A bunch of people weighing in, Buck, who are lawyers. Let’s start with Betty in Connecticut. You’re a former assistant attorney general. What did you think about Cassidy?

CALLER: I’m outraged. I was assistant attorney general for 28-1/2 years in the child protection unit here in Connecticut and 35 years as a trial lawyer, and the first thing I thought when I heard this crap going on is, “Who is in charge here?” There are lawyers on that committee. They know better. They should be ashamed. Hearsay wouldn’t be permitted in court, and this just makes the whole thing a joke. And I’m just wondering, as you did, Clay, that the bar associations, who don’t really have much chutzpah, should be doing more about this kind of crap.

CLAY: I agree.

BUCK: I think Betty’s right. I think they also… The odds —

CLAY: She’s fired up like I am, Buck.

BUCK: Yeah, she is. The odds of any Democrat on that committee even getting a sternly worded letter from the bar committee? I’d give thousand-to-one odds against that.

CLAY: Karen is in Ohio. She’s an attorney and a magistrate, hears cases every day. Karen, what was your reaction when you heard Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony?

CALLER: So my first reaction was shock. Why in the world would a witness be presented who is so far removed from the actual events? Why not inquire of the witness who was in the car with President Trump?

BUCK: Yes, the Secret Service agents! It’d be pretty easy to find them. It’s not like we don’t know who they were.

CLAY: If someone tried to do this in a hearing that you were presiding over, what would your reaction be?

CALLER: My reaction would be, I would stop the hearing, inquire of the presenters of evidence, say, “Why aren’t you presenting testimony from the person with direct knowledge?” I’m not finding this witness to be credible, and I’m telling you right now it risks the credibility of that evidence. And it suggests a motive on the part of the presenters of the evidence to further their narrative, which is not an accurate one, and I think they’re putting their thumb on the scale of justice to try to achieve a result that they want. It is not a result that has anything to do with the truth.

BUCK: Absolutely. Karen’s nailing it. Karen, thank you so much for calling in. Clay, I just want to throw out an idea, and I know we have one or more call, another lawyer. But I do think at some level the Democrats, it’s so sloppy and so desperate because they know January 6th isn’t gonna… They’re all talking about they’re gonna bring charges against Trump. Really? Bring it, libs. Let’s see how that goes for you.

I think they’re creating a psychological safe space for Democrats going into an election they’re gonna get annihilated on, where they get to be the heroes and Democrats are doing a lot and they’re standing up for our democracy. You know, that’s really… I think this is just this narrative creation of safe space for libs who can’t look at the reality of gas prices, crime, the border, inflation, et cetera, and that’s what this is really all about.

CLAY: It feels to me like such a Hail Mary, but it’s like you tried to get the snap off without your team even lined up to protect your quarterback and the quarterback just got broken, right? It’s not even a Hail Mary formation. It’s beyond the desperate level.

BUCK: You might have even gotten sacked in the end zone for a safety, Clay.

CLAY: (laughing)

BUCK: Yeah!

CLAY: Great sports analogy. Matt in Mississippi, Matt, what’s your thoughts on this when you saw Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony as a lawyer?

CALLER: Well, my thoughts are if this were a civil matter and you have the federal rule of civil procedure number 11, which talks about how when you sign your pleadings or you file a complaint of some sort, you’re making a representation to the court that you have made an inquiry that is reasonable under the circumstances.

CLAY: Yes.

CALLER: And, now, I could sit here all day long in a complaint, but I’m certifying to the court that I have done inquiry and that I have corroboration for that, otherwise I would be in violation of rule 11.

CLAY: That is a phenomenal point. I think we gotta go to break. You can hear the music playing us out. But I’m not alone, Buck.

BUCK: This audience could be arguing in front of the Supreme Court and do very well. It’s amazing.