Support The Bulwark and subscribe today.
  Join Now

6: George Conway Explains: Trump’s Road to Jail?

March 8, 2024
Notes
Transcript
George Conway joins Sarah Longwell for a rundown of Donald Trump’s various and sundry court cases.

This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. Learn to make time for what makes you happy, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/askgeorge today to get 10% off your first month.

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

    Does seem like when he shows up, people give him judgments costing him many, many millions of dollars.
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:06

    Judge like no one has ever seen. Many people are saying. Judgments that make make grown men cry.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:14

    Groone men with tears in their eyes. They say, sir. Can you how do you get such big judgments? Hello, everyone, and welcome to George Conway, explains it all to Sarah. I’m Sarah Longwell, publisher of of Bulwark.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:33

    And because I am not a lawyer, I have asked my good friend, George Conway from the society for the rule of law to explain the legal news of the day to me. But before we jump into the legal news, I first wanna ask George, you got any feelings about Nikki dropping out? Just do a little quick politics just for me?
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:50

    Well, thought she gave a very nice speech, and I didn’t mind the bit at the end where she said Donald Trump needs to earn our support. I’m I’m okay with that because she to the if she realizes that she will never that he can’t meet that bar. And in fact, he immediately tweeted that, you know, she was a loser and all everybody who supported her was was was a loser in substance. So, if she sticks to that, he will never ever be able to get her endorsement. That said, I don’t know what, you know, what she’s gonna be thinking three three weeks from now.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:39

    So I I really I don’t know.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:43

    You know, I gotta agree with you though. There’s a lot of people who found her speech sort of duplicitous or trying to have it both ways, but I actually thought I thought it was good. I thought her Margaret thatcher quote, you know, as a for a person who has flipped flop back and forth so much, it felt like she had finally found her footing in standing up to Trump. Right? And she was clear.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:06

    She was clear on Ukraine and supporting our allies abroad and staked out some of the places where she and Trump have hard disagreements and where she is in my mind undeniably correct. And so I and she calling for unity. Look, I I understand people people keep kinda acting like on Lucy with the football here. Like, obviously, she’s gonna endorse them. And yeah, maybe she’s I mean, look, she’s probably gonna look for a way to endorse them.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:30

    But it is possible. This is what I wanna see if you think. Is it possible that during her campaign, she realized. Oh, wait. This Republican Party is no longer the one that I joined.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:43

    That the voters want something different. And therefore, I no longer have a future in this party There’s no twenty twenty eight run for me, and that she uses her voice now to sort of try to to push to push to to say, look, I’ve got a real constituency with thirty percent. They’re mine, and I’m gonna try to wield them. Yeah. Maybe.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:03

    I that I have that same feeling, and I’m hopeful of it, but I I wouldn’t I wouldn’t put all my chips on that on that square. My feeling about her dovetails with yours. Your feeling is that she finally realizes that she has no place in this party or as as it’s currently constituted, but I’ll add something to that. There seem to be I think from the time of the New Hampshire primary on. For her kind of a she seemed liberated.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:38

    And you see that in people who finally just realize they can’t straddle Trump. They can’t type walk the tight rope of trying to persuade his supporters and to kowtow to him and still be true to things they believe in. And once you cross that that line or that bridge or whatever you wanna call it, it’s liberating. I mean, some of us liberating some of didn’t need liberating like you, but when I just started saying what I thought about this guy, I I felt this immense feeling of liberation. Because I didn’t feel I didn’t no longer had the burden of pretending anymore.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:24

    And I you know, unless she’s just an amazing actress. And she’s a very, very skilled. She’s obviously a very skilled politician and a very, very personable individual? I think there was some genuine I think she generally enjoyed being able to say more of what she thinks or at least what I think she thinks. Obviously, she doesn’t go full bore the way I would or you would, but I don’t need that, because that’s that’s what we’re here for.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:01

    If he wants if she just wants to say that he’s, you know, he’s unhinged, you’re not normal, and we need normality and that Kaos follows him and he doesn’t want she doesn’t wanna call him a narcissistic psychopath. That’s that’s fine with me. But if she wants to call him out for his deceptions and his bad behavior and his, you know, and and and sexual assault, or she can basically refer to that at one point. If she and she wants to call him out for for Kowtowing to Putin and all the other things she has called him out for in recent weeks? I’ll take that.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:39

    I just, you know, I I don’t and and the fact that she didn’t just go out and endorse him in accordance with the hand raising that she engaged in at that first debate. I I think gives me some hope. Now that said, I mean, maybe there’s some kind of a bargain, the devil’s bargain that we’re gonna see in a few weeks. I hope not. I’d like to I wanna like Nikki Hale I wanna support Nikki Haley.
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:08

    And the last few weeks, I, you know, she won me over to some extent. And we’ll we’ll just have to see where where she takes it from here.
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:17

    Yeah. You know, you you that point you’re just making though about the freedom, like, when you are that people don’t realize I think who aren’t sort of adjacent to politics and what are or aren’t in places where it takes so much energy to calibrate Right? It just takes like hard. It’s like exhausting because you are not saying the thing that you think it is part of what it’s freeing is you’re like, no, this is I really think. So I don’t have to think that hard about what I’m saying, and you could see how much better she got when she was being authentic, saying the things that mattered to her.
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:48

    And I also, you know, Hope dies last. And so like you, I wouldn’t bet my house on it, but I’m gonna hold out hope and not just give in to the cynicism, that says she will absolutely turn around and endorse Trump.
  • Speaker 2
    0:07:02

    Yeah. And you and I are similar in in in one in in a respect that we tend and not all the people who oppose Trump are like this, but you and I I think tend to project positive things onto people. We wanna assume the best in them. I think there are a lot of people who agree with us on Trump who have just decided that everybody is everybody is bad. Look, I’ll take I’ll take a convert any day of the week.
  • Speaker 2
    0:07:32

    You know, if if if I think the conversion is real and I think when they do con when people do convert away from trumpism, it is real. Because they are, you can just see the relief in their faces of the the idea that you don’t have to be carrying the burden of lies and you don’t have to be calculating everything that you say and and trying to find some kind of of of ridiculous false equivalents to to to change the subject. I mean, it’s a lot of work. It’s a lot of into, you know, to be deceptive and and and to to to to handle this guy and to to to try to push away the dissonance that it requires, the dissonance that’s required to support him I mean, that’s just a lot of energy. I don’t have that kind of energy.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:20

    It’s it’s energy and then I think it’s also depleting because it gnaws at your soul.
  • Speaker 2
    0:08:25

    I
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:25

    mean, I I just I just watch, you know, Mitch McConnell. Here’s another piece of news. I wasn’t planning on talking so much politics. But I just I just like to say that it must be agony to have to cao cao and endorse a man who made racist statements about your wife called you old crow and hijacked your party and you’re the one. Mitch, You’re the one who let him off the hook in the first place.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:53

    You’re the one who had the power to keep it from happening. You whiffed on it. You you you punked out, and now Now this guy’s back and your job’s over and your legacy’s crushed.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:04

    Absolutely. And and the thing about it, hurt the most for McConnell is that he knows the truth. He spoke the truth even though he voted the wrong way and had his cock vote the wrong way on February thirteenth twenty twenty one. He made all the right points other than the legal point about whether or not the president a former president could be barred from future public office for crimes that he commit or high crimes and misdemeanors. He committed while in He said that Trump was responsible.
  • Speaker 3
    0:09:34

    President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office, as an ordinary citizen, didn’t get away with anything yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:58

    He said that Trump basically just watched TV and in glee while the rioting went on the capital while the insurrection went on and then he basically said there’s a criminal law in this country and he basically addressed Trump’s the immunity claim. He said, he’s not immune from being held criminally or civily liable. That’s how he ended his speech. And I was there like standing up. I wanted to applaud him.
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:23

    So he knows the truth and there’s our link to the to the legal issues there. You know, I think that somebody should take his remarks that day and file it as an Amicus brief in the Supreme Court. And so I, you know, he he knows better. And and given that this is the end of his career. He’s eighty two years old.
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:43

    He’s clearly not physically well and that’s probably a driving factor in his stepping down as majority leader why not go out and just tell the truth for once and and you know, I I don’t I just don’t get it. I I don’t get it. Instead, he gives these stiff responses about as I said on February blah blah blah twenty twenty one, I will support the nominee of my party, like a wooden robot. It’s like, dude, you I
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:15

    remember when he said I remember when he said that on TV. He was like, Gaunt, and sallow, and sweating. Like, you could just see how much of a burden it was for him to have to say that he would, support whoever the nominee was knowing at that point that it was looking more and more like it was gonna be Trump. This show is sponsored by better help. You know, George, the phrase there are only so many hours in a day really starts to ring true the more life goes on.
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:44

    And it’s especially true when you’re spending all your energy attempting to preserve democracy from the aspiring dictator. Can you imagine having just one extra hour in the day? If I had it, I would probably sleep more. How about you? I’ve been getting up early to do a lot of news.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:00

    But honestly, there are so many things I feel obligated to do if I had just a little bit more time each day. And that’s why it’s so essential to know what’s important to you. And therapy can be a great way to find out what aspects of your life you should be prioritizing. George, can you think of anybody in politics who is prioritized advertising all the wrong things and maybe could have benefited from therapy? Well,
  • Speaker 2
    0:12:26

    It I there’s this guy. I I can’t forget his name. What’s his name? It’s orange. He’s orange.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:33

    I think I know that guy. I think I’ve seen that guy.
  • Speaker 2
    0:12:36

    So tint therapy. Does this is does this product cover that?
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:41

    I’m not sure if it not sure if it does. I don’t did you see Elon tweet recently that he, never went to therapy? And that was, I was like, yeah, man. No kidding. I can tell.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:53

    Well, look, if any of our listeners are considering starting therapy, give betterhelp a try. It’s entirely online and designed and designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Learn to make time for what makes you happy with better help. Visit better help dot com slash ask George today to get ten percent off your first month.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:22

    That’s betterhelp, h e l p dot com slash ask George. I wanna do a rundown of the cases because there’s like a little bit of movement in a bunch of them. And so We did a pretty solid recap of the Trump versus Anderson opinion in the emergency episode on Monday. So if you haven’t listened to that, go check it out. But I wanted to quickly one thing we didn’t talk about there was this story that came out about the meta data.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:50

    And it’s interesting. So just to bring listeners up to speed, seemingly in a rush to get the disqualification opinion out, the document wasn’t fully scrubbed for metadata. So folks were able to see that in an earlier draft, Sotomayor’s concurrence was actually part concurrence and part descent. Ultimately, this doesn’t change anything and it isn’t a huge deal, but it seems to me that it underscores just how hard Roberts must be working to uphold the the uphold the veneer of unanimity and legitimacy of the court. So what did you were you surprised to see this metadata thing?
  • Speaker 1
    0:14:24

    It actually seems to underscore what you were saying about how things didn’t seem to make sense. Did that make it make a little more sense to you that Sotomayor had actually back occurred?
  • Speaker 2
    0:14:34

    Mark Joseph Stern did a a public service by looking at the metadata. It’s something reporters should always do. And yeah, I thought I mean, my reading of the opinions were they didn’t quite line up. And I can see how that happens. I mean, we’ve actually seen it before in the Supreme Court.
  • Speaker 2
    0:14:56

    If you’ve ever I I remember looking at the opinions and I guess it was nineteen eighty nine and that the abortion case, I guess it was called it was webster against reproductive health services, though, I’m not mistaken. And you could tell that chief justice rehnquist’s plurality opinion for four had been written in the style of a majority opinion and that the that the the opinions of justice uh-uh the opinion of justice O’Connor seemed to be looked like it was a last minute thing and and then there was a a separate opinion from Justice Scalia as I recall that kind of that seemed to have a little in it that was attacking the majority and then attacking the the it just seemed like somebody switched their votes. And then later, namely Justice O’Connor, and that that’s the way it looked like when you kind of parsed through the opinion that she I think she must have switched her vote at the very last minute of the the couple of days before the release date in June and sure enough when when the books came out about what happened. That’s exactly what happened. You can sometimes tell, you know, they don’t have, you know, particularly when they’re under time pressure.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:13

    They don’t do very well always in matching up the opinions, and it’s not for want of legal skill. It’s for the fact that you you got nine people. And they’re chain and that they they can change the text of an opinion at any moment. And are you gonna change everything that you’ve written? Like, it was clear to me that’s what I said at the podcast before we knew about the metadata that this was moving around and I think what my theory is that the majority opinion actually had more explicit language in a draft about how a federal lawsuit would not be permitted without congressional authorization and the other federal actions by maybe even by Congress, in terms of its, the electoral vote count that occurs every four years on January six.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:03

    Maybe they couldn’t disqualify a presidential candidate either. I don’t know, but that seemed to be what the attack from Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence, which we now know was a dissent at one point. So it may well be that some of the harsher language in that opinion in in Sotomayor’s opinion was an artifact of even harsher language that was referring to an earlier draft opinion and then justice Barrett’s opinion, which was essentially like a a Rodney King. Can’t we all just get along here opinion? That she seemed to be saying that there’s we can’t be strident here.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:43

    Well, I didn’t find someone in your opinion. All that strident, for Sotomayor, she can be really, really tough with the pen as as could Justice Scalia in his his day. I thought she was relatively contained. And so my theory was she the the the the the the a majority opinion went a lot farther than it actually did in foreclosing a non state efforts as federal efforts, whether it be by federal to federal judiciary or federal federal litigation to stop, a presidential candidate from getting on the ballot. And that prompted a a very, very strong descent from Sotomayor And then the majority took some of that some or most of that language out, but there was still kind of shades of it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:18:32

    And so Sotomayor tone her opinion down And then Barrett was still out there saying, can’t we all just get along? And that’s that’s how I think. I mean, if you if I saw a pile of these drafts, if we ultimately gotten if they were leaked, I’ll I would bet money. More than I would bet on, Nikki Haley not endorsing Trump as we discussed earlier, I’d bet more that that’s that’s exactly how these opinions came about.
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:59

    Hey, how does it work when they’re trying to, like, come to a nine person unanimous conclusion? Like, do they stay up all night eating Chinese food with a white board? You know, you know, giving each other a hard time horse trading lines from opinions or did their stabs go back and forth, submitting draft after draft trying to, like, organize it. Like, how does it work when you Well because, yeah, I
  • Speaker 2
    0:19:22

    I only I did not clerk on the Supreme Court. I did clerk on a federal court of appeals, the one in New York, which is a lot simpler most of the time because the pant the courts those courts of appeals sit in three judge panels and only occasionally sit as an entire court. My court, the court I put on for the second circuit. Yeah. Very good.
  • Speaker 2
    0:19:43

    Very good. You’re learning a lot. And and there are thirteen judges normally when when they have a full compliment on the second circuit. And so when when you had it on bunk, it could get kind of messy because that obviously the person who has been assigned the majority opinion or the the opinion that’s posted the opinion of the court after argument is trying to get as many votes as possible and then everybody has their little nitpicks. And so what what happens, they don’t sit in the room and do this.
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:11

    And and I I know what I know about the Supreme Court based upon, you know, knowing law clerks and having read books about it. They don’t really sit together in the same room. Occasionally, one justice may walk over to another justice’s chambers for a private conversation, but usually they just send the paper around. They send drafts around. They talk to each other in drafts and and that’s, you know, it’s it’s it’s kind of a cloistered and and monastic existence.
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:41

    They don’t really get together to talk other than at oral argument and then at the conference that they hold immediately uh-uh at the end of a of a of an argument week where they’re discuss all their cases or discussing or conferences where they’re discussing what cases to take, but by by and large, they don’t really have a lot of conversations about opinions. They circulate what they think should the opinion should say, and then they’ll circulate comments on what other people are saying. And That’s how look now. I mean, that’s that’s kinda how lawyers operate.
  • Speaker 1
    0:21:17

    Interesting. Interesting. Alright. Well, since the oral argument in this case, we’ve gotten a lot of listener questions about the twenty second amendment. So to remind folks twenty second amendment says that no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.
  • Speaker 1
    0:21:32

    And this issue came up at oral argument when Justice Sotomayor asked Trump’s lawyer, if a president runs for a third term, can a state disqualify him. A listener named Greg wrote in and asked, is this as chilling as it sounds.
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:49

    I honestly do not know how the court would address that issue because their entire discussion in Trump V Anderson was directed at the nature of of Section three of the fourteenth amendment. But that being said, the some of the logic, which is that different states could reach different conclusions could apply to any number of things. I think the answer would be that whether somebody has been elected previously twice to the office of president and whether somebody is going to be thirty five on January twentieth of a year, divisible by four That those things are not subject to reasonable dispute. And accordingly, states could make that determination because they does it doesn’t present the risk of conflicting determinations that whether or not someone engaged in an insurrection in violation of their oath. That that issue it would be different because if you could you could have reasonably differing views in in some other case, not this one.
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:14

    Okay. Does that does that make you feel better? Do people feel better by that? I don’t know. Okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:21

    Moving on to the DC January sixth case. The Supreme Court scheduled the oral argument on the immunity question for Thursday, April twenty fifth, which means that the Supreme Court has at most Two months to crank out an opinion before the term ends at the end of June, and hopefully they will move faster than that. April twenty fifth is also probably a trial date in the New York election interference, hush money case. So trump’s gonna be busy? Yes.
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:46

    Can he please just use, like, do these at the same time?
  • Speaker 2
    0:23:49

    Yes. He can do that. He doesn’t need to show up for an appellate argument. He has the right to show up for the for for his criminal trial and a judge can require it, but he doesn’t have to show up for that either. That said he, you know, he didn’t go to the Supreme Court argument in the fourteenth Amendment case I don’t know that he will go to the argument in the immunity case, although he did go to the argument in the immunity case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:13

    I saw the back of his head from the twenty five feet behind, in the DC circuit. So I I don’t know what he’s going to do that day. I don’t know that he helps himself by showing up there. But he can do whatever he wants.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:27

    Does seem like when he shows up, people give him judgments costing him many, many millions of dollars. Tens of millions of dollars.
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:37

    Judge like no one has ever seen. Many people
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:40

    are saying
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:41

    judgments that make make grown men cry. Amazing.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:46

    Growing men with tears in their eyes. They say, sir. Can you Sir. How do you get such big judgments?
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:52

    It’s you, sir. I mean, we say size does the size doesn’t matter, but with judgment it does. I actually cut that one out.
  • Speaker 1
    0:25:04

    Oh, that was funny.
  • Speaker 2
    0:25:06

    That actually okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:25:06

    Which leads me to the Eugene Carroll defamation case. Right? So the yesterday, they were Trump’s lawyer, Elena Habow wrote a letter to the judge asking I don’t is it Haba? The Trump’s lawyer, Alina Haba wrote a letter to the judge asking I don’t even know asking what to buy more time in securing this ninety one million dollar bond.
  • Speaker 2
    0:25:32

    Is that
  • Speaker 1
    0:25:32

    what she’s trying to do? Get more time. Yeah?
  • Speaker 2
    0:25:34

    Yes. Yes. And, you know, the upshot is as I as I x or tweeted, I said, orange rapist habano Bond. And that seems to be the problem. I don’t know whether maybe he’ll get one.
  • Speaker 2
    0:25:50

    The thirty days after the entry of judgment, which was on February eighth, it runs on Friday. No, on Saturday. And as a result, he has until Monday to post the bond, or or else collection efforts can start. So we’ll see. He clearly doesn’t think he can get the bond by Monday.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:13

    I don’t know what I don’t know what his plans are to pay the judgment or secure a bond by next I guess Thursday if he’s asking for three days. I don’t remember how many days he was asking for. I don’t know what he is going to be able to do in those three days that he hasn’t been able to do that already, but we’ll see. And then you’ve got the other problem of another four hundred and fifty odd million dollars for the state case. He’s he’s in he’s in difficult circumstances and I think, you know, that may well be didn’t watch his, victory speech, on super Tuesday, but he seemed, apparently, was not on his game and maybe he was burdened by the need to obtain two super city as bonds.
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:05

    I don’t know.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:06

    Yeah. Right? He’s probably gotta, what, unload several buildings in, like, a fire sale to try to put together the Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:13

    I don’t I don’t think you can I don’t think you can do I don’t think you can sell a building that quickly? I think you might be able to maybe you could maybe you could mortgage at a at another mortgage at some at some high rate to the extent that the property is unencumbered, but I, you know, I don’t know. I have no idea what But
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:33

    then what happens if he just can’t do it?
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:36

    Then, Eugene Carroll and or Tish James can go around and try to seize or attach assets or put liens on things. And which makes it, you know, which which is not good for business and it makes it difficult for example to to it could trigger debt covenants. You know, it could it could mean that a bank could have to recall a loan. I don’t know. It just presents all sorts of complications.
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:07

    You you rather not want to have some you don’t wanna have somebody trying to take your stuff away while you’re in it. So Not good for him.
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:19

    You know, just on this question, which is basically how Trump is gonna pay. There was one of the guys at the RNC. I forget his name, but one of the delegates tried to pass a I don’t know. I don’t know what it was.
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:31

    Henry Barber, Halley’s Haley son Haley Haley’s grandson or cousin or something. Right?
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:37

    Oh, is that right? Okay. I didn’t put that together, but he was definitely like, we should pass a resolution saying that they can’t use campaign funds to pay Trump’s legal fees and they got voted down. Which means that RNC was affirmative to be like, yes, we can. Oh, yes, we can.
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:50

    We can use campaign cut. Are they really? They’re gonna have voters pay off this guy’s five.
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:56

    Well, they don’t they’ve only Sarah, as I understand it, the RNC only has like eight million dollars now.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:04

    Because Trump sucks it all up.
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:05

    I mean, you you you walk down fifth avenue and there are people like all all sorts of people will be walking around with with that in their pockets there. So I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know how they’re gonna pay off his judgment. But, hey, you know, Lara, he just I think he installed Lara Trump yesterday or today.
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:26

    So we’ll see we’ll see what they come up with. I don’t know people are gonna write checks to the r and c anymore. They haven’t.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:32

    I love it. I love that Lara Trump is like the co director. Like, who’s the other person? Who’s the other person that’s like the pain sponge and just like the the meat puppet that they say is like the person Lara Trump is it’s like a mafia thing. Right?
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:48

    Like, Trump is that
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:49

    the the other person’s like a real person. He’s a real political. Yeah. Who knows what he’s doing? But she That
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:57

    but who doesn’t have any power probably? Because the family’s in charge.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:00

    No. No. It’s a family business now. Absolutely.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:04

    That is That’s not
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:06

    that’s not it it could I mean, there’s so many things that are afflicting the Republican Party. As you know, at the state level, you have a lot of state parties that have been completely hijacked by lunatics and the people who actually know something about winning elections are fighting them and trying to get it back. You have all these You have down ballot candidates who are not getting enough funds because Trump has sucked up all those small donor. Give me. There’s so many things going wrong.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:34

    This doesn’t help.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:36

    Yeah. Okay. Last New York election interference. So There’s the New York criminal case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:44

    I call it the Stormy Daniels case.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:46

    This is the the the Stormy Daniels case. The the trial set to start March twenty fifth with jury selection. So how long do we think that trial is gonna go?
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:55

    You know, I’ve heard varying estimates of of, I think I’ve heard something by possibly six weeks. I honestly don’t. I kind of think that’s unnecessarily long, but I think the theory the theory is that the Trump lawyers will make the trial longer rather than shorter because they are going to want to do things like cross examine Michael Cohen for a week And, you know, I don’t know that that’s going to help them because this is a this is fundamentally a documents case. And that’s part of what may take a while, at trial. This could be a relatively boring trial, except for the day that This is that Stormy Daniel shows up because it’s a documents case and basically you’re going through the documents that were used to make these payoffs and that were falsified.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:55

    And and I think and to get those in is going to require some testimony about how the record keeping about the the documents and what documents are supposed to what what records are supposed to look like and and and so on and so forth. That can be pretty boring stuff and it can take a while, but I don’t think it can take that long six weeks. I I I I think that, you know, if this were before a a Like a judge Kaplan, the the judge in this in the southern district who had who tried the eugene Carroll cases. I think he’d get this done in two or three weeks and he force the parties to do it that way, but I I don’t know. I mean, the state court is a little is a little different in that regard.
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:41

    It it’s trials tend to to to go on a little longer even though the judges are incredibly overworked more so than I think federal judges are.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:50

    Wait. I have a question. Why do they want this trial? To go on longer. Like, what’s the what do they think they get out of questioning Michael Cohen an extra long time?
  • Speaker 1
    0:33:01

    Did they think he’s just bad, and that makes it’s like They’re gonna Like, why?
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:06

    I well, look. I mean, I think that they want a bloody Michael up. Okay. And there’s a lot to, you know, there’s a lot to cross examine him on. He plead guilty to various things in federal court although one of them was this very action of this federal federal campaign violation relating to this same sequence of events.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:29

    And, you know, he’s he he’s said a lot of things that have gotten him in trouble and that were, you know, contradicted later, and he’s gonna have to own up to that. He apparently did a decent job. I think at the at the fraud trial. But they’re gonna wanna bloody him up again and and if if only to create a distraction from the documents, like you’re gonna say, you can’t believe this man, this man, but they don’t have up, but they don’t have countervailing theory of the case, I think, that’s consistent with the documents. I mean, the notion that Michael Cohen would write out of his own pocket, a hundred and thirty thousand dollar check if he weren’t going to be reimbursed.
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:13

    And didn’t have an understanding that he was going to be reimbursed by by Trump or the Trump organization is absurd. And when you combine that with the fact that there’s no question he was reimbursed for services, you know, for legal services that didn’t occur in amounts can with the hundred and thirty thousand dollars paid to Stormy Daniels. I don’t know how you don’t get I don’t know how those facts would not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. So
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:45

    Okay. Alright. Last one. In another New York civil case, the business fraud case with the three hundred and sixty three million verdict,
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:54

    trump is leaking the interest interest interest
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:56

    And the interest rate, so it’s half a million with interest. There’s like four fifty with interest. Right. Yeah. And so I think Trump’s currently appealing.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:04

    And in the Georgia Rico case, we’re waiting on the judge to decide if Bonnie Willis is disqualified. So there’s, you know, there’s, like, a couple There’s a couple of things we’re waiting on. What what do you what do you what do you think? What do you know about those? What are what what’s happening?
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:17

    What’s gonna happen soon?
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:19

    Well, every day, eight percent per annum interest. Excuse me. Nine percent. Sorry.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:28

    Accumulate. The interest continues to accrue?
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:31

    Yes. It’s simple interest. It’s nine percent every day. Nine percent divided by three sixty five or three sixty this year, I guess. I don’t know how that works actually in a leap year.
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:43

    Every day, it’s it’s the judgment the amount is increasing. Every day, which is why he has to bond an amount higher than the actual currently accrued amount, both in the eugene Carol case which also applies the New York State nine percent rule and in, the state fraud case and so, you know, he’s gotta come up when we just talked about the problem that he has coming up with a bond in the eugene Carroll case. Well, you know, he’s gotta come up with a bond about five times bigger in the, in in the state, fraud case. And I don’t know if he’s gonna be able to do that. He can still appeal.
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:23

    I think one of the misconceptions that you hear sometimes is like, oh, he needs to post the bond in order to appeal. Well, that’s not true. He needs to post the bond in order that the appeal suspend and block efforts to collect these judgements. That’s that’s that’s the way to put it. Again, I don’t I don’t know that he’s gonna come up with that, and I don’t know that he’s gonna have a basis for reversing the judgment As for, Fony Willis, I I just, you know, I mean, you’ve heard my opinion on that.
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:53

    I hate everybody down there. I think she’s not going to be disqualified. And but, you know, I mean, it’s it’s bloody corrupt considerably.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:05

    So that nine percent, it accrues while he’s appealing. Yes. Is that right?
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:12

    So at
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:12

    the end, if he still has to do it, if he’s like, they’re like, yeah, you appealed, you lost. The sum is gonna be that much bigger.
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:21

    Correct. If he takes two years, he’s, you know, he doesn’t be interest accrues no matter what. Wind I mean, I mean, if he loses, obviously, if he wins, then he doesn’t have to pay anything. But he’s not gonna have a total win. But yeah, nine percent from the from the from from the date of the judgment continues.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:41

    Oh, well, that’s cheers me up. That’s a nice little nugget.
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:45

    Well, did you see Tish James’s tweets? Like, you know, plus a hundred and ten thousand dollars. She was doing that, like, for a couple of days and that that was basically nine percent. If he did the math, it was nine percent divided by three sixty five.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:58

    Okay. I said I said that was the last one we were gonna update on, but actually I was wrong because there’s all the documents case. So they’ve they’ve got the the federal prosecution in Florida. What’s the latest on that one?
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:12

    The real issue is that the timing of the trial date, obviously the Trump people want this thing kicked over to twenty twenty five. They originally asked, I think, for twenty twenty six or something like that. And you know, Jack Smith wants it to occur sooner rather than later. The and then what the what the what the Trump people did. I think he might have mentioned in a prior podcast is they they suggested something like August and nobody thinks they actually meant that.
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:41

    The Trump people that the what they were trying to do is like set a temporary trial. They they they would then try to move later, but they they wanna use the they might be trying to use the Florida trial date to block it to to prevent Judge Chutkin from setting down the January sixth case for trial after Labor Day, which would be a likely scenario if the Supreme Court takes all the way to the end of June to decide the immunity issue before it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:13

    Man, it is a lot to juggle. But Thanks so much for breaking
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:18

    the hell
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:19

    down for us.
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:19

    Yeah. No. It’s a lot to juggle, but you we should be grateful you and I and our listeners that we are not the ones facing ninety one felony counts. Yes. We don’t have to settle.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:32

    Hey. Just as we close here, do you got any, burning hot takes on state of the union preview? You think got anything anything Biden not to do?
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:43

    Just be normal. I stood out on TV this morning. We were on competing networks this morning, you and I, and I just said, look, I mean, you know, I yeah. I I did all the Democrats saying, we need to get out and and and and show the the president’s accomplishments and that’s fine. That’s all well and good.
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:01

    But the most important thing that he could do is just be normal. And then say, what’s his problem? That’s how I think this election is gonna is gonna fly.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:13

    I totally so I I was saying the same thing. We were must have been saying the same thing, great minds on different networks at the same ungodly early hours.
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:21

    We’re like the it’s like the Vulcan the Vulcan mind meld. Right? You know, even for Star Trek fans.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:27

    But, you know, part of I I do wonder if Republicans haven’t done Joe Biden a little bit of a service by setting the bar at dementia, you know, the guys got dementia. Oh, that doesn’t If Joe Biden is here the dementia line, you’re right. He’ll be okay. Right? It’d be normal, and people would be like, okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:46

    He seems He doesn’t seem like he’s got open for brains.
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:49

    Yeah. And he’s gonna give a perfectly fine speech. He’s good at that. And he he’s, you know, and even when he is not reading from a teleprompter. Joe Biden speaks incomplete sentences that have articles, subjects, verbs, adverbs, objects, you know, just like the way they teach English.
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:13

    To people who learn English, like for five year olds or people coming over to to the United States from foreign countries or, you know, he speaks English unlike what the other guy speaks, which is mostly gibberish.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:30

    Yeah. I am grateful. I don’t have to listen to Donald Trump give a state of the union. I’m often grateful that Donald Trump is not. As nervous as I am about him becoming president, he is not the president right now.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:41

    I do think that’s a high stakes speech for Joe Biden, and I think speeches are almost never high stakes. I almost never think a state of the union or a speech is high stakes, but No.
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:50

    I agree
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:50

    with you,
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:51

    but He’s
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:51

    got a kick off his campaign here. Show people he can do the job for another four years. Alright, George. Thanks. As always, for explaining the legal news to me because there is a lot of it, and thanks to everyone for listening.
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:06

    Don’t forget to hit subscribe. Leave us a review on your podcast app. Email us at ask George at the Bulwark dot com. We’re reading them all, and we will see you next week.