Support The Bulwark and subscribe today.
  Join Now

George Conway Explains: Why the House GOP are LOWLIFES

February 23, 2024
Notes
Transcript
In this week’s episode of George Conway Explains It All to Sarah Longwell, they discuss the Georgia case against Trump, Trump’s $400 million+ judgment, and the FBI informant who lied about Hunter Biden.

If you have any questions for next week’s show, email [email protected]. Enjoy.

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors and omissions. Ironically, the transcription service has particular problems with the word “bulwark,” so you may see it mangled as “Bullard,” “Boulart,” or even “bull word.” Enjoy!
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:00

    The anti American party today is the Republican Party. They hate America. They want to destroy America, and the Republicans in Congress are low lives.
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:11

    Jane Jordan, comer.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:13

    They are liars. And it’s insulting to scum to say that they are scum. It’s insulting to liars to say that they are liars. These are the worst people you could ever possibly imagine, and they have no morals whatsoever. They have no respect for truth.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:29

    They have no respect for decency. These people are the worst of the worst and and and calmer just that not only see. He is dumb.
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:38

    Yeah. He’s dumb.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:39

    He is the he is I mean, you should look at his eyes and you could just see through the back of his head.
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:45

    Hello, everyone, and welcome to George Conway explains it all to Sarah. I’m Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark. And because I am not a lawyer, I have asked my friend George Conway from the society for the rule of law to explain the legal news to me every week, except last week, which we missed. And unfortunately, there was a ton of legal news while that happened. Right?
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:08

    There was,
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:09

    but you still have your enthusiasm. I’m amazed that, you know.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:12

    I do. I’m still happy. Well, I gotta say There was some good news on the legal front from my perspective.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:17

    From your perspective.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:18

    Trump was ordered to pay four hundred and sixty five million dollars for business fraud. So that was good.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:24

    That’s a lot of money.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:25

    You went to the Super Bowl?
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:26

    That was not what happened. I did go to the Super Bowl. Yeah. That didn’t that didn’t cost that didn’t come for them. That did not have cost as much money.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:31

    So
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:31

    just my first most important question was, did you meet Taylor Swift?
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:34

    No. Okay. I almost could have if I had really some courage. Yeah. I could have met if
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:42

    only you’d had the courage.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:43

    If I’d only had the courage, I could have met Nancy Pelosi. She was standing by herself just at halftime. She had been deserted by, I don’t know who, but she was just standing there by herself, and I could have walked up to her scent. I, ma’am, can I have your autograph or something, but I’m just too afraid?
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:00

    I feel like listeners of this podcast could potentially be more excited about the idea that you encountered Nancy Pelosi than Taylor Swift.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:08

    Yeah. I I’m, you know, it’s probably a less hip crowd, but yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:11

    Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We also have special guests in the studio today. Your dogs, Bonnie and Clyde are here.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:17

    They’re good. They like they like Sarah. I’m really impressed.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:21

    Yeah. I’m easy. I’m nice. I’m good. I’m I’m good.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:23

    Alright. So let’s talk about the four hundred and sixty five million dollars. Were you? Like, did that cause you joy? How what how
  • Speaker 3
    0:02:29

    what what were your feelings about it? I didn’t have strong
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:29

    feelings about it other
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:36

    than It was a long time coming. It didn’t cause me any it didn’t move my emotional needle.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:45

    Okay. Great. Well, we’re gonna get into that
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:48

    a little bit more. That’s not particularly exciting.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:49

    No. That’s okay. We’re talking
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:50

    about it. Fraud is fraud. We fraud is boring compared to
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:53

    I don’t think I just agree with this, and I’m gonna tell you why. But listen, I’m glad we started this podcast because I can’t believe how much we took like one week off. Because we both had just conflicts. And then, like, all this stuff happened. So I wanna cover four things today.
  • Speaker 1
    0:03:06

    Four things.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:06

    Are you ready?
  • Speaker 1
    0:03:07

    That means I don’t have to know very much about any one of them.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:09

    That’s right. I wanna quickly touch on the Fanny Will Saletan. Don’t
  • Speaker 1
    0:03:13

    can be started. Okay.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:13

    Well, we’re gonna get started in all of this. That’s what the podcast is about. Then I wanna talk about the verdict in the Trump organization, the business fraud case. Then I wanna dig deeper. This is my personal pet hobby horse right now on the Alexander Smereenov.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:28

    This like double agent who, it turns out he’s lying and,
  • Speaker 1
    0:03:32

    Is he related to Yakov’s smirnoff?
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:34

    I don’t know. I just keep wanting to pronounce it like smirnoff ice, you know? Have you ever gotten iced before?
  • Speaker 1
    0:03:39

    No. But, I mean, I just remember it was shitty vodka when I was there.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:42

    Yeah. When I was in my, like, late twenties, there was a trend where if somebody like, gave you a bottle of smearing off ice, you had to chug it right then. It was like a weird game that people sometimes they put it in your drawer And if you found it, like, she said to get on one knee right then and chug it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:03:58

    Yeah. So I have that as a stage with it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:00

    Okay. And then I wanna wrap up though by looking ahead to the New York election in Ference case, which is the hush money case against Trump, because it backs up the trial.
  • Speaker 1
    0:04:09

    Like we, everybody’s calling the election interference case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:12

    Yeah. That’s the that’s the new framing on this.
  • Speaker 1
    0:04:14

    This is the first election interference case. It was the first of many.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:17

    Alright. But let’s start with the circus down in Georgia because I ended up watching this live.
  • Speaker 1
    0:04:22

    I refused to.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:23

    Okay. Well, I was just I I don’t know. I had the TV on when this very dramatic thing happened. Where Fanny Willis just kind of walks into the courtroom, and then they took it live. But, like, they had sort of the, they had the video of her doing this.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:39

    And so just to back up, okay. This is the Fulton County district attorney, Bonnie Willis. She brought the election interference Rico cased against Trump and a bunch of his buddies. But turns out she was romantically involved with a guy whom she had hired to be the special prosecutor in the case. And there’s an open question whether they started dating before or after she hired him.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:59

    They’ve taken vacations together, but again, it’s an open question whether Wade paid for the trip from his Trump prosecution earnings or whether she paid him back, that seemed to be the crux of the questioning that I was watching. But because of all of this, one of the offendants filed a motion asking that Willis weighed in the entire DA’s office down there in Georgia be disqualified from prosecuting Trump. And just to be clear, this is the case where he asked Brad Affinsburger to go find eleven thousand some
  • Speaker 1
    0:05:26

    votes. Yeah. Eleven thousand yada yada votes.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:28

    Uh-huh. So the vendor in the hearing last week. Right? So, Willis, she comes in. She she takes the stand.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:34

    It was, it’s broadcast to broadcast live. And I know some people think she did a good job defending herself, but I will tell you just from my perspective, as I was watching it, I sat there like this. Oh, no. Oh, no. No.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:46

    No. No. No. No. No.
  • Speaker 1
    0:05:47

    See, that’s why I refuse to watch
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:49

    and and I I when you when people clip it, like they do on Twitter, there’s you know, she had sort of some zingers in response, but I just thought for such an important case. I it wasn’t even that I disagreed with maybe some of the explanation she was given. She was just she came in hot I thought, man, this seems like a train wreck. That is but people are having split they’re split on it. But what do you think?
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:13

    Oh, I hate everybody.
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:14

    Okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:15

    So that’s my position on this one is everybody is ridiculous, and I can’t stand this whole show. And it starts with her. I don’t know what she was thinking. I also don’t know what he was thinking. I also know that it doesn’t matter one wit.
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:38

    At all to the prosecution that there’s no basis for recusal. And the judge letting this happen I’m mad at him too. So I’m just mad at everybody. And I can unpack all of that, I guess. Can I
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:49

    unpack a little bit of it? So when you say so let’s just start with It’s not an affair. Like, they’re just like both adults who are single.
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:55

    There’s no problem with the relationship as a as a matter of just two adults. Consenting adults. I think from a standpoint of running a, a public organization or any form of organization, that’s it’s bad because we, you know, I think we’ve established by the year twenty twenty four that you shouldn’t really have affairs with underlings or people in in the in in your office unless there’s some
  • Speaker 2
    0:07:19

    kind of Yes. What is the what’s what is the relationship? Like, so she is
  • Speaker 4
    0:07:24

    the relationship she’s apparently was
  • Speaker 1
    0:07:25

    the relationship Okay. This is a this is, and this this brings in another screwy aspect of what happened here, which is something that happens in Georgia. Prosecutors can hire private Council to be prosecutors and pay them an hourly rate that is maybe not the hourly rate that they would get in private practice necessarily, but a pretty substantial, rate such that you can get hundreds of thousand dollars a year, Bulwark working a prosecutor’s office, even though you are not actually a employee, you know, you’re more like a contractor or something. I don’t know what it is. And so the pro the DA’s office was able to hire him and he gets the bill by the hour, not as a salaried employee, but he bills by the hour.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:15

    And that is sort of the one source of how this happened. Now it’s it’s totally lawful in Georgia apparently. Now the problem here is she hired this guy and then she later started, I guess, sleeping with him. And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that from a legal standpoint. It’s no business of anybody else’s other than taxpayers to the extent that know, this isn’t this isn’t this isn’t the way you should run a public prosecutor’s office, but it’s got nothing to do.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:44

    It shouldn’t create any rights in any of the defendants because has nothing to do with their guilt or innocence. It has nothing to do, with their being prosecuted. It has no un it visits no unfairness upon them. To the to the point that they had to actually just make up in order to bring this into court and make an issue.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:03

    What are they making?
  • Speaker 1
    0:09:04

    And what are they what they were making up was the was a they made up a suggestion that somehow her hiring him was this way of getting him to funnel her money through these super vacations and trips and dinners And that created an incentive for them to prosecute as many people as possible so that he could run up the tab and benefit her. Okay. And there’s just no evidence of that. Just no not not a shredder. This is
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:34

    why the bulk of the questioning that I was watching was focused on this idea of he they went on these vacations and then they were asking how she reimbursed him. Because that’s her response, right, is that she reimbursed, for these trips. She came back and that The problem is, though, she doesn’t have transactional proof of that because she’s saying she paid it all in cash.
  • Speaker 1
    0:09:52

    Right. Which, you know, I don’t think that’s unreasonable typically, but I don’t think you know, I I just don’t believe for an instant that she hired this guy, in order to and rich herself. Yeah. It it’s just it’s just ludicrous. She had she had mixed motives to be sure.
  • Speaker 1
    0:10:10

    She had she thought he was a good lawyer. I mean, people have just said, well, you know, he’s not really a criminal he’s not really a prosecutor, but he’s a good he’s a good lawyer, a good complex litigator, and he’s done criminal defense work. He’s perfectly is is obviously perfectly capable, and the work that they put out is pretty good. So, you know, there just really isn’t an issue here, but the problem was the judge just let
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:34

    And what so that’s an excellent because the judge does what? He let when he say let him
  • Speaker 1
    0:10:37

    do it. The judge must basically just let the the the the the process not the, the defense counsel just run wild with all this stuff. I mean, you could have easily seen the judge doing something like Alright. You gotta come up a little more than this, or I’m not gonna let you ask all these crazy questions, or he he could have contained the questioning to some and clearly he did not. He chose not to, and it may well be that it be it’s because he is afraid of getting reversed because it’s the one, you know, the one thing you prosecutors are never gonna get you reversed.
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:08

    The people who are gonna get you reverse of defense lawyers, so it may well be that his thinking was I just have to let the defense have their, you know, have their fun on this one so that nobody can can challenge me after. But it just I mean, it was just so it just created such an unnecessary and pointless spectacle that I just found the whole thing offensive, and I found basically everybody I I blame everybody. That’s why I say I hate everybody on this one. I think she She did not conduct herself well. I don’t think he conducted himself well.
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:40

    I mean, it was just I mean, talk about you you’ve got the most contentious criminal prosecution you will ever have and you open yourself up to this? It’s like God, it’ll be find somebody else.
  • Speaker 2
    0:11:53

    What about her taking the stand? Because I mean the part that was pretty wild was like She walked into the courtroom and was like, no, I wanna get up there. And there was a little bit of back and forth. And then she just took stand. And you could see the lawyer the TV lawyers were going they were doing what I was doing, like, oh, no, no, no, why is she doing this?
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:13

    I think she was doing it for for political reasons. I think she was getting beaten up politically, and I think she felt she needed to defend herself. And I can’t I can’t necessarily blame her for that decision. I I you can debate whether or not she went into hot or not. I think think she did have a right to be offended to some extent.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:30

    It’s a lot of implications that were being made, although she she kinda bought this ticket. So I I I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. So, I mean, it’s one of these things where A lot of different things can be true at once. Yeah. Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:44

    Okay. There is no. I mean, the motion was baloney. When you I was gonna use the word BS again, but you guys keep bleeping me.
  • Speaker 2
    0:12:53

    Baron has very sensitive ears.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:55

    Very sensitive ears. The motion was hogwash. It was Mendacious. On the other hand, her conduct was not w was not was far from ideal. And the judge didn’t conduct the proceedings, I think, with sufficient dignity or, discipline, I think, in a way that I think the court should have And I I just I just it’s just a lot of different.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:19

    And and and some people some people are saying, oh, well, this is just this is just an example of racism. I have no doubt that there isn’t a racial aspect of this pull from a political standpoint and and from the from the standpoint of these trumpers. On the other hand, they would have done this to anybody. They were gonna pull this stunt once they had something to pull. And and so, you know, there’s a lot of different things.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:43

    Are are true all at once. And and and I, you know, there’s just plenty of blame to go around and Hopefully, this judge gets it right and there’s no basis to there’s just no basis that I can see to recuse. And the problem though is that if there is a recusal, the recusal is office wide. That for some reason under Georgia law, it wouldn’t be enough. You couldn’t just find a substitute assist assistant district attorney to serve as the DA of Fulton County for purposes of this one case, which is what would happen in a US attorney’s office the recusal means that nobody who works in that office who was employed by the Fulton County district attorney’s office could participate in the prosecution, which basically would shut it down.
  • Speaker 1
    0:14:27

    Yeah. Because you’d have to find another county, another DA, and, you know, that’s not gonna happen.
  • Speaker 2
    0:14:32

    So I know that this case is, a big one and that what Fony Willis did by taking the stand really broke through because I asked a focus group about it of California Democrats, just this week, and I wanna play for you what they had to say when we asked. And let me just tell you a lot of times when got the legal stuff. People are like, what? Like, you asked about the critics, but let’s listen to how these voters, answered.
  • Speaker 4
    0:14:57

    Are you guys worried that this is all hurt the credibility of her case against Trump?
  • Speaker 3
    0:15:05

    It’s clearly strong why they’re going after her. So it’s proving itself. That’s the whole point. You don’t worry about something that’s not greasy. That wheel doesn’t get attention on this is greasy.
  • Speaker 1
    0:15:16

    Bob, your perception of it.
  • Speaker 4
    0:15:18

    Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Derek.
  • Speaker 1
    0:15:19

    It’s the perception of it. That’s why they’re going after her.
  • Speaker 5
    0:15:24

    I’m I’m not worried about the case. I’m worried about her her being taken off the case, which would kill the case. But as far as the the case itself, It hasn’t really made a difference.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:36

    So let me tell you. For Those
  • Speaker 1
    0:15:38

    are perfectly sensible reactions.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:39

    Right. I they basically had your reaction Right. Which is, they are going after her. They’re going after hers politically motivated. But and but this is about the perception of of this case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:52

    But the fear is is that it could work and she could get taken off of it because as you just noted, if if that resets the whole case, like it’s over if if they get pulled off. I mean,
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:02

    I understand why the Trump lawyers made the motion because it’s a it’s a it’s a it’s a it’s a just a it was a it’s a small percentage chance at a huge sector.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:09

    It’s something to grab onto.
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:10

    It’s something to grab onto and, you know, it’s like you you put a little it’s just just putting a little money on that chip. It doesn’t cost very much and if it pays off, it’s pay off. It’s gonna pay off
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:20

    big.
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:21

    So I, you know, I, on that level I mean, the menacity I can’t take I can’t I can’t defend, but I do understand tactically why they’d wanna take a shot at at this.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:31

    Alright. Let’s let’s let’s turn to this, trump organization verdict. Happy happier stuff. So
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:39

    Many people are saying.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:40

    Many people are saying. So this is No
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:42

    one has ever had such a verdict. Many people
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:46

    The New York Trump organization. What an
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:47

    incredible verdict do you have? Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:50

    So he has to pay three hundred and fifty five million plus another hundred or million or so in interest. Yes.
  • Speaker 1
    0:16:56

    Prejudgment interest. In order to look at New York law, nine percent from the time of the offense.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:00

    Didn’t know about that. This interest. That’s a lot of money. In interest.
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:04

    Nine nine percent is really, you know, you can’t. Where are you gonna get nine percent made off? I don’t mean, you probably even couldn’t even got it from made off?
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:11

    So, and he also can’t apply for any New York loans for three years Yeah. Which is a problem.
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:15

    I’m from a right New York Credit Ship Bank. Yeah. And
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:17

    he can’t serve as an officer or director of any New York Corporation for three
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:21

    years. Bummer.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:22

    Alright. So tell me
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:23

    But he can’t be president of the
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:24

    United States. Alright. So hit me with just I know it didn’t you said it didn’t move move the emotional needle, but what about just from a legal standpoint, were you surprised by the size of the judge?
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:34

    No. No. No. I mean, I think This has been a long time coming. I think that, I mean, one of the worst things that happened actually to Donald Trump ironically was that this entire investigation, which was originally a criminal investigation, spearheaded by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office by those two gentlemen, Carrie Dunn and Mark Palmer.
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:01

    It was originally that this was all this stuff was originally a criminal investigation, which would have required them to prove, everything beyond a reasonable doubt, And what happened was because Alvin Bragg dropped the criminal piece of it. The the parallel piece of it became the more important piece, which is the civil case. And the civil case was always easier to prove because You have a lower burden of proof, and the documents on their face prove the case. The document. Basically, they’re maintaining multiple sets of books.
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:36

    To to to oversimplify it. And and he he they just made up numbers for the books. The points where the accountants wouldn’t even stand stand up behind him and the accountants later resigned. So there was not really much for the DA’s office to to prove beyond the documents other than that the documents were intentionally issued and that they and and so from the very beginning, it was clear that he was gonna be held liable, and the only question is is is is of the damages. And the only real argument they have that the the the Trump lawyers have about this case is that known they they already known was harm.
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:17

    Yeah. No one was harmed because people got repaid. The loans got repaid. No one believes us anyway. You know, everybody knows for lying.
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:25

    That kind of defense And, but that’s not that’s not what this case was about. This case is about the fact that if you register to do business in the state of New York and you keep books and records, under New York State law because your your your registers do business or you have a New York LLP or whatever, You are required to keep accurate books and records because there may be a time when people will come and look at them and rely on them. Whether that be tax authorities, banks, insurance companies, auditors, anybody. And to basically conduct your business as if none of that mattered and to and to run it as just, you know, you’re on on false numbers all the way down the line in almost everything you do. Now is it legal?
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:13

    And it may be that there are a lot of private companies in New York that do this in the real estate business or otherwise. I don’t know. But, you know, it’s it’s it’s a basis for liability and and and it’s a it’s, you know, the question is how do you calculate the damages and and I guess you calculate the damages on the basis of how much business you’re conducting using these books, not necessarily, you know, because there’s not a fraud measure of liability in terms of a, you know, of somebody being, losing money. But There was, you know, he’s been doing this for years, endlessly, and that’s why the numbers are so large.
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:53

    So the other argument that I saw people making was that this would have never been brought against Trump had he not been president
  • Speaker 1
    0:21:04

    Well, you know, if you are a criminal
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:08

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:21:08

    And you step into the public limelight, people are gonna start investigating.
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:14

    I should tweet that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:21:15

    That is such a good point.
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:16

    If you’re a criminal and you step into the public line, like, you this is why
  • Speaker 1
    0:21:21

    this is why if you’re a criminal, it’s better not to go into politics.
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:25

    Yeah. Right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:21:26

    I mean, it just you you subject yours. Everyone who goes and puts presents themselves to the public in some fashion, particularly if they’re, you know, running for president, you’re open you open yourself up to scrutiny. And the fact that this man could not survive that scrutiny is frankly not the government’s fault. It’s like you you’re just like, oh, hey, investigate me. Right?
  • Speaker 1
    0:21:49

    I think you can invite away with it. It it’s everything that this guy has done. Was put under a spotlight, but that’s because he chose not anyone else. He chose to make himself a public candidate and public official.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:07

    That is a, that’s a, that’s a great point. It’s a great point. I’m gonna
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:10

    I mean, why why am why are you telling me it’s a great point? It’s like the most obvious thing you know.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:15

    You know what’s funny is sometimes?
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:16

    Don’t don’t re guys. If you are a criminal doing crimie things, don’t run for public office. Don’t go on TV. Don’t it’s bad. It’s a bad idea.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:28

    You know why? Because on its so, obviously, that is a good and obvious point. The the the corollary though is that it also it feels obvious to be like, yeah. He is under more scrutiny because, of his presence.
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:41

    And so he showed Biden?
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:42

    Right. That’s right. And like So is
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:44

    so is so is Barack Obama. So is everybody. Yes. Okay. It’s just that this guy happens to be a criminal and a rapist and everything bad under the sun that you could possibly imagine that he plays the victim.
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:55

    Like, no. That’s not that’s not how this should work.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:58

    So I’m surprised you got no joy out of it because I did say the judge did write the complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. And I know how much you like to Porter’s on? Well, I knew you were gonna say that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:09

    Porter’s on. Oh, judge, judge. Judge, I, you know, I they did differ. Borders on doing some work there.
  • Speaker 2
    0:23:19

    Heavy lifting for borders on. So listen, a listener named Doug wrote in to ask how Trump? Doug. Yeah. How will Trump be able to pay all the legal fees and judgments?
  • Speaker 2
    0:23:27

    Obviously, his pack has paid legal fees. Can it help pay the judgment in his case and the eugene Carol case two, or is he going to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying?
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:37

    This is the three hundred and fifty five or four hundred and fifty five. Yeah. But whatever million dollar question. I don’t know that he can use it to to to these packs to pay off the the the judgment, not only because it doesn’t strike me as particularly co particularly kosher, but I’d prefer to campaign finance experts of which this town in which the of which there are thousands in this town.
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:00

    We’re lousy with them.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:01

    Oh, yeah. And, on the other hand, I the money isn’t there for that. Because he’s already been spending it on legal fees and and whatnot. Does he have the cash? He claims to have the cash and Lena Hobba says he’s got the cash, but he’s does he really have four hundred.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:19

    I remember this is four hundred and fifty million on top of the eighty eight point three eighty three point three million.
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:24

    To not half a bill here. Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:26

    No. No. We’re up to half a billion dollars. I mean, it’s like it would be kind of For a leveraged real estate guy, it would make no sense to have that level of cash sitting around. Okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:35

    That doesn’t doesn’t it doesn’t it doesn’t it it just uneconomical to have that level of cash not doing something. Yeah. And then go on the campaign. And he’s right. And he’s a And, he’s a, and and he’s in the real estate business.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:53

    Stuff, you know, it’s not like he’s in the securities business where he can sell stuff quick. On an open market really quick. And any and anything to anytime you sell that much of anything that quickly, you’re gonna take a bath. So the question is I don’t know how he’s going to I don’t know how this is gonna happen. I mean, the the way these rules work in terms of judgments.
  • Speaker 1
    0:25:13

    I mean, in the federal court, it’s thirty days after the entry of the formal judgment, which in the Eugene Carroll case happened on I think it was February eighth. Thirty days, he he’s got to either come up with a bond or put the money deposit the money with the court in order to be able to take to to not to suspend collection efforts. If he does not do that, he can still appeal, but that would mean that Eugene Carroll and her lawyers could run around town or Florida or wherever trying to attach assets that belong to him directly or indirectly, whether it be bank accounts, real estate, anything. And I I don’t, you know, I I don’t know the complexities of doing that you have to figure out how these things are titled and so on and so forth. It’s complicated.
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:01

    But it’s a big nuisance for for somebody to have, you know, be chased around town for money.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:07

    But you think he can’t. Not I mean, I may have
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:09

    to go find a joke
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:10

    from it. You think he can he raise it from these poor unsuspecting I
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:15

    don’t think he can raise it from these poor unsuspecting people. I think they’re tapped out. Yeah. First of all.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:20

    Like, if he could, he could pay it with that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:23

    I I don’t know that he could. Did you see did you just see, Lara Trump there they’re asking her about that on TV? They said, do you think that you think you think people wanna help pay for that judgment? Because, oh, I don’t know.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:34

    Yeah. Every dollar will go to Trump from there and see. I will I will say Lara, you may know that the RNC is in charge of electing all the Republicans, right? Not just, not just the one, not just your father-in-law.
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:48

    No. It’s totally become a corrupt.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:51

    It’s a corrupt piggy bank for him. And I the fact that he’s just installing his family members, like, No.
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:56

    It’s this is this is this is it’s a mafia. It’s it’s exactly like if you talk to a Ruth Ben Giat, talk to an expert in in authoritarianism. This is what happens. The families, you know, the the the the corrupt leaders families end up controlling the lots of things and and here they’re controlling an entire political party and it’s fundraising and so on and so forth. But to go back to the question of I I don’t know where he’s going to get five hundred million dollars.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:23

    Maybe he has it. Maybe he has it in cash. Maybe Alina Habba and Trump are telling you the truth, and he really has all these liquid assets. In which case, he’ll he’ll have to tell deposit them to the court, into the court, or he can you can get a bond. But I don’t think he’s gonna be able to get a bond.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:38

    I don’t think, you know, real estate isn’t particularly good for getting a bond for. So, who’s gonna who’s The the the problem is the people who are issuing the bond are the ones who ultimately get charged with having to collect against Donald Trump. Yeah. You wanna do that?
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:52

    I do not. No. I’m not sure he’s good for it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:55

    He’s not good for it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:56

    And Kim declaring bankruptcy, which seems like how he’s gotten out of these jams in the past, optically, that’s not great. That’s
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:01

    not great. And that’s the interesting, but that that’s that’s an entry. David k Johnston, a a very, a former New York Times reporter who has been writing about Donald Trump’s taxes and finances for a very long time, issued some kind of a a I I guess it was I I’ve maybe it was a sub stack. I don’t remember, but it was some kind of an article where he said. Look for Donald Trump possibly to file for personal bankruptcy.
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:26

    And and that is one way. I mean, it is a very common way that judgment debtors, common method for judgment debtors to use stay off collection efforts when they can’t post the bond. In the corporate, you see it in the corporate environments. I mean, dating myself, but once upon a time, there was this Pennzoil Texico litigation in the eighties, and it it produced one of the biggest the biggest judgment anybody had ever seen up until that point of eleven point five three billion dollars eight point five three plus three billion in punitive as it was for, a breach of a merger agreement, and Texas, ultimately had to declare bankruptcy so that it could it could pursue its appeal. So that it could it could basically function as a continuing business while it tried to challenge the appeal, which had also only settled.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:16

    Donald Trump has done this in the past, but only corporate bankruptcies. This would be a bankruptcy because the judgments the judgments that are at issue here that both for the the rape and defamation and for fraud are against him personally. So it’s it’s it’s a bit different, but it would have the same effect. It would stave off efforts to collect pending appeal. Now the problem is personal bankruptcy for him is one thing for him to take his companies through bankruptcy.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:44

    Because he can just say, Oh, I’m just being a smart business. This goes straight to him. This is him personally and he’s basically saying, I don’t have this money. And he, you know, that that’s much more narcissus from an from the standpoint of this narcissistic sociopath. That’s a much deeper, chewier pill to swallow than than any other it could possibly.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:07

    But on the other hand, I don’t think it’s I think he’s got to figure out some way to stave off the collection efforts or else. Basically, we’re gonna watch in real time as as, you know, properties, of his direct that he owns directly and directly and, get attached and and and liens get put on them. I don’t know how Fire sale.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:29

    Fire sale on Trump’s arms guys.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:30

    I don’t know. It would not it would not surprise me if he declared personal anchorruptcy by the end of the month. It wouldn’t surprise me if he doesn’t. I just don’t know what he’s gonna do.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:40

    Okay. Well, while we wait for Donald Trump to make that decision, I actually wanna talk about something slightly different than just the regular court cases, because I’m hot on this one. I wanna talk about Alexander Smithernov.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:51

    Okay.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:52

    Again, punch
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:53

    in the trailer. Okay. I
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:54

    do not understand how this is not getting more coverage. Now just hold on. I’m gonna set this thing Like, just so for background in August, Merrick Garland appointed David Weiss a special counsel to investigate all the hunter Biden stuff. Right? Before that, Trump had appointed Weiss to be, the US attorney for Delaware.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:10

    Right. So last week as a part of Weiss’s investigation, a federal drip grand jury indicted a guy named Alexander Smiernoff, who was a former FBI informant for lying about the Biden’s dealings with Ukraine. Not only was he lying But he got those lies from Russian spies. Now, the prosecutors what? Duh.
  • Speaker 1
    0:31:33

    But also duh.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:34

    So the prosecutors asked that smeared off be detained pending trial because he’s also an Israeli citizen and he could flee the country. But the judge released him from custody and ordered that he wear an ankle monitor among other restrictions which I wanna ask you about because I do not understand. I read this whole thing. I read the whole document. I do not understand why this judge let him walk.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:51

    So meanwhile, House Republicans have been leaning on smirnoff’s allegations in their impeachment inquiry into Biden. He was like very important to When the other special counsel Robert Her dropped his report, which included Jabs about Biden’s age, my phone ring off the hook with reporter who wanna know, like, oh, what do voters think about Biden’s age? And does this problem for him? But the smirnoff stuff this week, Hey, I mean, I’m not hearing from reporters about it, but, like, There’s just like not I mean, it was like on a sixteen of the New York Times. Even though that we know that members of Congress have been parroting the talking points, of these Russian intelligence agents who were giving him this stuff.
  • Speaker 4
    0:32:27

    So just like Well, no. It is happening here.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:30

    What is happening is a standard thing. It’s it’s standard operating procedure of the media environment in the trump era, which is we know the Trump people and everyone associated with them and they’re they’re supporters in Congress. They are bad people. Yeah. When they do bad things, we expect them.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:49

    We’re not shocked by them. When you know somebody who’s not so bad does something that’s not perfect, that becomes a story. And then then that’s just basic. Donald Trump has defined, the level of the
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:03

    presidency down.
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:04

    Absolutely. Yeah. And that’s basically what’s happened here. You have You know, these people in in in Congress are just low lives. They’re they are the the the Republicans in Congress are low lives.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:18

    Jim Jordan.
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:18

    They are They are liars.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:21

    And, you know, it’s not just, Congress, like, again, because I was watching Jim and do this Yumani Raju is asking him, and he’s like, well, the facts still remain. But the facts
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:30

    no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I was like, this was number one. This was your number one fact.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:33

    This was a good fact. And not not just I mean, the number of times Sean Hannity and Fox News that they talked about was at ten thirty two. Is that what this is? Is that the there’s some There’s some name.
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:44

    Document for that. I have a ten thirty two, you know, that they
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:47

    they talked about how this was a very
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:48

    This is this important informant blah blah blah. Very radical informant.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:53

    This guy was like I I mean, so he is has an FBI handler, but also is getting so I guess that makes him a double agent if he’s also getting intelligence Russia’s license that’s deliberate.
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:03

    Which is a which is a problem when you’re when you’re doing this kind of work that you have is you don’t know whether these people are spinning you or they’re working for somebody else at the same time. They may be spinning the other team, they, you know, and that’s that’s the reason why this is considered to be raw intelligence data.
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:17

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:17

    And that’s why you just don’t you just don’t necessarily credit everything. You look at it and then you try to figure out whether it makes any sense or not, whether you can verify it or not. But these people took it. Because This
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:27

    is it that the FBI was telling the Republicans in Congress, we cannot verify this. In fact, we’re not sure it’s credible at all.
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:34

    Right. And but went on television yesterday. I think he went on last night with with Caitlin Collins and basically said, yeah, we were told that this you you you you be careful with this stuff. You know, they’re entitled to get to see the raw stuff, but but but, you know, you can’t it a lot of it’s unvetted.
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:50

    And then they ran with it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:51

    Yeah. It’s funny. It’s the the same people who complain about the the leaking of the of the of the steel dossier. It’s like, yeah. Well, that’s, you know, people write down stuff that they hear that’s, and and and sometimes Somebody’s who the person who’s writing it down is lying or somebody is lying to the person who’s writing it down or lying to the person who’s told the person who who then wrote it down It’s like, you know, you you you have to actually investigate.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:15

    That’s what investigations are for. And but these people didn’t care and they still don’t care. Now they’re Now they’re saying they they ignore the fact that they were told that this stuff may not be reliable, and now they’re saying they didn’t rely on it, even though this is what they were waving around for all these months. And yeah, the problem with it is it’s like, oh, it’s not news that these people are scum.
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:37

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:37

    That Jim Jordan is scum and that Comer is scum and and comer just that not not only is he scum. He is dumb. Yeah. He’s dumb. He is the he is I mean, you just look at his eyes and you can just see through the back of his head.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:49

    It’s it’s just I was
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:50

    listening to him on TV the other day and I actually had the same thought. I was like, cannot believe you are the guy. No.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:54

    Literally. Literally. You can see the light. You can see the light shining through the back of his head. It’s just it’s just incredible.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:59

    And these and these people just won’t then they just they just slip and they just Oh, we we weren’t relying on that. And then it doesn’t like you could show them tape with them relying on it. Yeah. These people are scummed.
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:10

    Sometimes I think that maybe dems don’t even understand this the way people who are Republicans are because we were raised on cold war, Reaganism, Russia. The idea that a Republican president would stand on the stage with Vladimir Putin and side against America’s intelligence community is on is unthinkable. The idea that the Republican Party in Congress would be relying to impeach an American president on raw intelligence, from provided by Russian spies in order to impeach, right? The idea that they would celebrate one of their biggest so called journalists like Tucker Carlson going and parroting Russian propaganda and talking about how their grocery stores are great. Like, this is This is you couldn’t even make up No.
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:55

    A spy novel in which a Republican president and Congress No. When we grew
  • Speaker 4
    0:36:59

    up when we grew
  • Speaker 1
    0:36:59

    up when we grew up the Democrats with the anti immigrant party.
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:01

    That’s right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:02

    They were like, oh, America has failed this. America is doing this badly in America. Just like And the fact of the matter is the anti American party today is the Republican Party. They hate America. They want to destroy America, and they wanna destroy it because they don’t like that they’re not in charge of it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:21

    And they want to see every its institutions brought to heal. And so lying using rep you’re losing, Soviet propaganda? All good. All good. And that’s that’s where we are today and that’s why they that’s why they they wanna pull the plug on Ukraine.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:40

    They they want they want They wanna see this country laid low because they hate it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:46

    Yeah. And can I just the the thing about Ukraine is when you when you think about all of this stuff together, when you think about trump, leveraging Vladimir Zelensky in that perfect, phone call
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:57

    Right? That he
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:57

    which is we went to his first Right. Right? Remember he was worth the holding weapons and aid to them so that they would dig up dirt on Joe Biden. Like the the the Russian And
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:08

    it was but it was also right. And it was also on the basis he believed he was fed All this nonsense for years, Trump was, that the the Ukrainians had conspired against him. To to to to beat him and to spread bad information about him. I mean, that was
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:25

    because the Russians helped him and you know the only thing for Trump only thing the Trump cares about is
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:29

    who’s who’s who’s who’s
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:30

    who’s good for him. And so he is fine.
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:32

    I like that’s why he always says, I like Putin, Putin likes me, and it’s still true.
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:37

    And what what is what just blows my mind is how it’s all happening in broad daylight?
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:40

    It’s all happening in broad daylight. And and again, I mean, this goes to the the to the the to the psychopathy of it. It’s like Putin is a murderer. Yeah. He’s a killer.
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:50

    He doesn’t even pretend to be anything but that today.
  • Speaker 4
    0:38:54

    And, like, we just saw him
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:56

    murder of only. And you don’t hear you don’t hear the you don’t hear the Kremlin saying, oh, we didn’t do this. I don’t know. Yeah. That’s right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:03

    Where’s the body? Body. What body? You know?
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:07

    In order you hear republic. Trump doesn’t Ron DeSantis. In fact all he’s done now
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:11

    is he wants to be. So I am the volley.
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:12

    I’m the volley. Yeah. They
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:13

    No. Right. It’s it’s sick. It is sick. And and and it’s sick.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:21

    That’s it basically is sick.
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:22

    Okay. I just needed to I just wanted I needed to talk about that one. Okay. Before we wrap up, I wanna look ahead at the Trump criminal trial calendar because everyone had been hoping, including us we’ve talked about on the podcast January sixth case would be the first trial because it’s the most serious. But because of all the immunity litigation in that case, it’s probably not going trial until this summer at the earliest.
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:47

    Obviously, we will talk about the Supreme Court in the immunity case in future episodes. But last week, the judge in the New York election interference case, otherwise known as the Stormy Daniels Hushmoney case scheduled the trial to start March twenty fifth. Which means that case is gonna go to trial first. And I’ve gathered that a lot of folks are not thrilled about that. I’m not thrilled about that, but why don’t you tell us why aren’t thrilled about it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:08

    I guess people aren’t thrilled about it because it just looks trivial compared to trying to overthrow the constitution of the United States. And that’s not an incorrect thing, but what he did there was still a crime. It was a crime under federal and state law. The, US attorney’s Office of Southern District of New York identified it as a crime when they charged and took a guilty plea from Michael Cohen. I mean, it was a violation of US federal campaign finance law.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:41

    It it was it was illegal in any number of respects, and it was a fraud on the American people. It’s a it this is I mean, the reason why it looks so trivial is because, you know, you have it’s so absurd. You have Trump paying a hundred and thirty million dollars to a porn star with It
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:59

    wasn’t a hundred and thirty million, was it? A hundred
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:00

    thirty. I’m sorry. A hundred and three thousand Oh, sorry. Yeah. A million million.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:04

    Yeah. Pretty soon you’re talking real money. I’ll give you a thousand out to this to the to the to the to this character. And who’s actually smarter than he is. And, it it just it’s just embarrassingly stupid.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:15

    But The fact of the matter is it’s a crime. It should have been charged a long time ago. And, it’s sort of fitting. Right? That that the first thing that the that the first conviction will be for something so perfectly stupid.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:34

    That it only Donald Trump could have gotten himself into it. Yeah. So I I don’t look at it in a negative way as some other people do. There’s just a sort of a fitting absurdity and embarrassment to him to it. So gonna be so embarrassing for him.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:51

    It’s perfect. It’s delicious. He deserves this. So I I, you know, I I don’t I don’t get upset that this is the first case. At at at all.
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:01

    I mean, I actually, you know, I mean, ideally in the in in the perfect world that Mar a lago classified documents case which is cut and dried. Open and shut should have been tried months ago and should still be tried. But, you know, he’ll get his day in court on all these things, and he’s gonna go down on on more than one of these things. And and I just we just have to be patient.
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:24

    Yeah. So for me sort of your, like, the full circle poetic
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:29

    Yeah. There’s a poetic justice. There’s a poetic justice.
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:31

    I don’t I that doesn’t satisfy me because I need him to be, I I I wanted I want the severity of what he’s done. Like, the problem with the storm let me tell you one of the reasons I stormy Daniels thing. I’ll just tell you why I take the opposite side. Whenever so we’re we’re talking about these old guys. Right?
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:50

    Do you,
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:51

    you think it’s embarrassing for him? I bet he loves
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:54

    No, he doesn’t.
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:54

    Being talk talking about his, stuff with porn stars. It makes him I think he probably thinks it makes him sound vural. It makes, it makes the the sort of bar stool sports bros who are already pro trump like him. I think, I think, yes. I think it it makes I think it is a thing that may
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:12

    be modeled. He’s a sucker. He paid one hundred and thirty thousand dollars to this woman and she didn’t stay hushed. I don’t know. He looks like a fool.
  • Speaker 2
    0:43:22

    You’re gonna have to you’re gonna have to
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:24

    Oh, it’s not You’re gonna
  • Speaker 2
    0:43:25

    have to Bulwark to make that framing stick because I don’t think that’s how I think people just think it’s stupid. Like, oh, yeah. Like, they think he’s he gets away with it because he’s a celebrity. He gets away with it because he’s never been faithful to anybody because, I mean, The Epstein stuff doesn’t stick to him. Like
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:40

    Nothing sticks to him because he’s so bad.
  • Speaker 2
    0:43:42

    Yeah. No. It’s true.
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:43

    I mean, that’s that’s that’s I just think the January six, not even January six, not even January six sticks to him if you if you really want to get right down to it because some people just are unwilling to un unwilling to accept the truth.
  • Speaker 2
    0:43:56

    It doesn’t stick to him with lots of people. I think it I think unlike the Stormy Daniels case, which I don’t think swing voters are gonna about one bit because it has no impact on their lives or their country.
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:05

    Okay. But but what what’s gonna happen is what happens when he gets a when he gets a yes, I agree with that. I agree that I agree that I agree that that the January sixth case is more impactful, but this one could also send him to jail. And he’s gonna be, you know, he this could also make him a convicted felon. I so I’m not I’m not
  • Speaker 2
    0:44:21

    I’m not a convicted felon and not go to jail. Right?
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:23

    He could be. I mean, he could I mean, it’s possible the judge could decide just to find him. I I I haven’t looked at the New York sentencing, you know, the sentencing
  • Speaker 2
    0:44:34

    Dude, close to jail over the stormy Daniel. Thing.
  • Speaker 1
    0:44:36

    He’s gonna go to jail. My view is he’s gonna go to jail for a bunch of different things. Okay. I think, you know, as I’ve said before, any Any random combination of the ninety one counts could put him in jail for the rest of his life.
  • Speaker 2
    0:44:50

    Okay. Well, think we’re gonna end with, your optimism about Trump going to jail, which, for the record, I’m not sure I share, but I like I like your perspective on it. Okay. Because we had so much to catch up on, we didn’t have as much time for listener questions today, but we love hearing from you guys. So keep emailing us at ask George.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:11

    That’s one word. Ask George at the Bulwark dot com. Thank you for listening to George Conway explains it all. To Sarah. I’m Sarah Longwell.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:19

    Don’t forget to hit subscribe. Leave us a review on your podcast app, and we will see you next
  • Speaker 1
    0:45:24

    week. Bye bye.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:25

    Bye.