I hate to even ask, but what is their "argument" here?

Compares the incident to when an 8-year-old is “in the middle of a bedtime temper tantrum” and “takes that stuff animal with which he sleeps…and throws it at you. Are you offended?…Are you scared you might suffer bodily injury? No.”

Says assault requires a “reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm,” and none exists given agent’s long-sleeve shirt, long pants, boots, gloves and ballistic vest that is created to “keep you safe from military rifle fire” and so is “definitely going to keep you safe from a sandwich.”

While the government prosecutes this case “in some purported effort to keep law enforcement safe and free from food fights,” CBP employees “are joking about it.” The gov, she says, is trying to turn a “gag-gift worthy moment into a federal criminal offense. We ask you not to allow them to do that.”

Asks, “Would a man genuinely injured, genuinely offended by having a sandwich thrown at him proudly, happily, joyfully” keep a plush sandwich on his shelf and a “Felony Footlong” patch on — yes! — his lunchbox?

Defense begins, “This case, ladies and gentlemen, is about a sandwich. A sandwich that according to Agent Lairmore somehow both exploded on his chest in a spray of mustard and onions but also landed intact on the ground still in its Subway wrapper.”

Minor note, but how stupid and racist do you have to be in order to mock someone else's name at all, let alone when you're called "Elon Musk"?