7: George Conway Explains: Jack Smith Drops the Hammer

Hey, everyone. We’ve got a special treat at the end of the podcast. We have a new theme song.

Well, George Conway, he’s a man we’re playing. Got to sit down with Sarah Longwell. We’ll a stand.

We’re testing out for the pod, so give it a listen and let us know what you think. So the judge in this case just issued an expanded gag org barring Trump from talking publicly about his own family.

He behaves in many, many respects like a mob boss. He lacks sufficient self control to be able to comply with these orders, I think. And the question is, what do you do when he ultimately crosses the line, which actually probably has on. What do

they do? Hello, everyone, and welcome to George Conway explains it all. I’m Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark. And because I am not a lawyer, I’ve asked my good friend George Conway from the society for the rule of law to explain the legal news to me, roughly every week. Before we get started, wanted to let folks know that we’re hosting a live taping.

Did you know this of our podcast in Washington? Yeah.

This was not the fun.

Put it on your calendar. Washington DC on May fifteenth at six than I.

Where?

At six than I.

Where?

That’s that’s a place. It’s a location. Oh. It’s both a it’s both an address It’s both an address and a physical location.

I don’t know. It was on third.

If you live in DC, you know six and I, tickets are still available. So come see us.

Oh, I did know that.

Yeah. You know that. Yeah. We’re gonna do this. We’re gonna do it for all the people.

Okay. Six seven. Yes.

JBL and Tim.

I thought you were I thought she said six to nine. I’m gonna spaced out today. But

we’ll do we’ll do, it’s gonna be a good. It’s gonna be a double feature of me where, we do Sarah Longwell, and then we do,

you know We

fill that place. It’s kinda big.

No. It’s really big. It’s actually intimidating. Honestly, if you’ve already come to see us, just, you should pity come see one more time.

We’ll pay you to come. We we we we don’t wanna be like a a trump rally.

Yeah. That’s right. Need to fill the place up.

Yeah.

So actually before we start with the legal news, we’ve got two housekeeping items.

Okay.

The first is that you you you’ve decided that we have merch.

We have merch. Yes. You wanna show people the merch? Well, this is the merch. I mean, this was the draft merch.

I have been made around. And then this is the final merch with bigger lettering so that even, you know, a psycho could read it. Yeah. And, it says, vote for Joe, not the psycho. And here is a draft bumper sticker that I personally made.

And I’m gonna try to prevent on you. It’s not hard. It’s just basically you pick the colors. And the font. The font is key.

It’s gotta be a serif font.

Yep.

And, you know, this one is a little fancier because it’s got the j down there, but it’s it’s fine. It works. It works. It’s, you know, I like this. I think this is the slogan it’s going.

It’s gonna be like Tippy canoe and Tyler too. Yeah. People are gonna two hundred years from now, people are gonna say, wow. Whoever invented that slogan vote for Joe, not the psycho. He was a real genius.

Yeah. A stable jeans.

And you came up with that because you called me the day you thought you were very excited about this one.

I was very excited.

Yeah. And so it’s great.

I mean, I would I would do M and M proud.

Okay. So if you wanna get, this hat, we’re gonna put the the little link in the show notes or at the bottom of the YouTube. I don’t really know.

Be afraid to wear it everywhere. Let them get mad at you.

Oh, man. Okay. Here’s the other thing I wanna talk about. This is actually the bigger deal.

Bigger deal? Okay.

You gave almost a million dollars to Joe Biden this week. It, like, made news. Not personally.

Not personally. It’s not like I’m paying for his legal fees.

That’s true. But you gave it to his what? His campaign?

The Biden Victory Fund, which is a combined fundraising entity that consists of the campaign and, the national party, the Democratic party, and a bunch of state parties, and so on and so forth. And so you can give they allocate it in some way.

So you gave the maximum allowable

amount. Which

is actually a weird number.

Nine hundred and twenty nine thousand six hundred. And I think it’s got something to do with federal, the intersection of federal and state laws, I I have no idea. But when you get these, when you get these things, I mean, I remember the the trump, there was every every year of presidential campaigns send these out, and they have these joint fundraising vehicles for the presidential campaign that combines, fundraising for the parties and for the state parties and for the campaign, and, and they come up with some maximum number that’s based upon, you know, the federal limits and the state, state limits. And, You

were like I’m going for the limit. Give me the top.

Yeah. I mean,

talk about why it was important for you to do Like, what

is it? Well, I mean, I I mean, it was, I was asked to do the the fundraiser, the headline, the fundraiser. And I said, sure. Yeah. I’ll, you know, whatever you, whatever you guys want, I’ll do.

I’ll carry people on my back, barefoot on broken glass, the poles on November fifth if I have to. And, so I said, I’d do the fundraiser. And then I’m looking at the invitation. I was like, whoa. Yeah.

My name’s big words there, and read the whole thing. And I guess, oh, I have to I should give something, and I started thinking about it. And I was like, okay, what’s the I can give five, ten thousand dollars oh, maybe I should get fifty. I don’t know. And I thought about it as like, this is the most important thing that I could ever give money to in my life.

I hope they spend it wisely. I I I I’m gonna trust them too. It’s I mean, this is like, okay, so this comes out of maybe it comes out of my children’s inheritance, right? But what could they What what more of a bequest can we give them than a functioning constitutional republic? And, you know, I I thought about that and and, that’s how I decided to do it.

And at that point, there was no question I was gonna do that. And I You know, it’s more than I ever have given probably in the aggregate to political candidates or frankly even Charlie Sykes, I’m sure, in my entire life. But, I mean, this is for all the marbles. It really is. And, I don’t wanna be emotional about it, but it it really Everybody needs to, I mean, do what anybody out there, just do what you can.

Okay? It doesn’t have to be writing a check to the, to the Biden victory fund or, It’s just whatever you can, you you need people need to do whether just talking to their neighbors, when making a recurring donation for a dollar or two or something. I don’t know. Whatever you whatever you can do, this is so important. I can’t I can’t I I words can’t describe it and and, I I just my own my hope is that, I can get a few people to do the same, or not the same, or, but get people to give a little more than they otherwise would have because it’s really important.

I do think if you’re a democratic donor and somebody like you who’s given I would say if you’ve looked back at your the history of your giving, it is mostly to Republicans.

I I think it’s basically ninety nine percent of Republicans once again, once my former former law partner, Bernie. I just don’t remember him. He was the White House Council, first White House Council in the Clinton Administration, and he rest in peace. He was a big dam. He was a friend of Hillary’s, he once got me to give two hundred dollars to tend some luncheon in his honor, you know, for the demo state Democratic Committee.

Yeah. Sure. That was basic. Really the only time I ever gave money to a Democrat. Yeah.

To Democrats. But this isn’t about this isn’t about I don’t I don’t view this as giving money to Democrats. I give this. This is this is about the country. This is about the country.

It’s not I mean, there’s there’s You know, there there’s a there’s a rational. There is the rational and the irrational. There’s the hateful and the, constructive. And we’re we’re being forced to choose between an abyss that we can’t we can’t even see the bottom of because it keeps getting worse and worse and worse, and normality. And that’s what this is about.

Yeah.

And if so if you’re a Democratic donor,

I’m gonna shame them all into giving more than they ever have. If this Schmuck ass Republican who voted for Trump in twenty sixteen can write this f in check. Guys, come on. All you rich limousine liberals get to it.

Alright.

Alright.

Alright. Okay. Let’s start down in Florida with Jack Smith and his filing in the Mar a lago classified documents case.

That was something.

So we talked about this last episode, but just to remind folks, Judge Cannon asked both parties to submit proposed jury instructions based on two, and I think the technical term is bananas, formulations of the law. And those were Both due on April second. So we’re taping on April third. No. We’re taping on April fourth.

So it was a couple days ago. So before we get to the substance of the party’s filings this week, you just remind us what was so odd for judge Cannon? Like, why it was so odd for her to do this in the first place?

It was prompted by motions to dismiss. By Trump in which they made various bananas arguments. And and the the principle argument that comes to mind is this argument that was not the product of any brilliant legal mind. It was the product of this fellow from judicial watch who is not a lawyer who basically

got with the arms?

The guy yes. Yes. The guy’s arm.

I get

his direct mail request.

Yes. Yes. You know, he must have dropped the weight on his head or something, but, he his he misread there was case in the nineteen nineties involving Bill Clinton. And Clinton met with a historian. Taylor Branch, was it?

I think,

you looking at me? Like, I would know. I don’t know.

You, you, you were like an encyclopedia. But and so so he meets with a historian, and and and they tape you know, his thoughts about things that are going on so that this guy can write a book. And he gets a copy of these cassettes, And he takes the cassettes to his private residence upstairs in the White House and he puts it in his sock drawer. And so later, somebody the judicial watch actually, filed or some maybe it wasn’t judicial watch. Somebody filed a request or some made some claim that the these materials were presidential records.

And it was litigated in the United States District Court here in in Washington. And the court basically held no. These were personal. These were personal records under on the PRA, the presidential records act. And presidential records act basically says that presidential records meaning stuff you use in the course of doing business as president, things that go to the president from staff and things that, you know, where he responds to that or things that have something to do with his actual working, our presidential records.

And so the issue here was, well, okay, he’s recount he’s recounting events to a historian about things that he did in office, but this wasn’t for the purpose of his work. It was for the purpose of the of the historian’s Bulwark. And, you know, maybe he was gonna use that for his own personal diary someday or whatever. And the court basically said, this doesn’t fall within the presidential records definition on the present record time. Somehow, this fellow from judicial watch, Tom Fitten, is his name?

Tom Fitten. Good. I keep thinking of the guy in the nineties who sued his mother. I’ve never mind. You remember him, right?

No. Forget it. Okay. I’m just dating myself. But anyway, he, He twists this opinion into saying that the president can basically say whatever he wants is personal.

If, you know, if he he can get a and to the point where the Trump people are arguing that he that that the president could get a document with the nuclear codes on it and say, oh, this is personal. Right. Is

this like the declassify with my mind?

It’s even but it’s even worse because it’s it’s even worse than the classified with his mind thing because at least the declassification, you know, the the the declassification with his mind, it doesn’t change who owns the property. This is like literally saying that he can decide that the property of the United States of America in the property interest of the United States of America in a document that say reflects our deepest most important nuclear secrets or or intelligence information that he can just make it personal. Right. And that’s just insane. And it’s and in And and more more than the point.

It’s not just insane. It’s just completely inconsistent with the definitions that are right up front in the presidential records act. But anyway, so Trump makes a motion. Champers and his lawyers make a motion to dismiss the US district board for the Southern District floor before our friend judge Cannon. And she issues some mealy mouth decision saying, oh, this is kinda hard.

Mhmm. They say this, and these I say that, and We’ll have to I’ll have to see. We’ll we’ll see what the facts show at trial, which is nonsense because this is a pure issue of law. It’s not There is no evidence to be weighed on this. The documents fit either fit the definition of presidential records, which they do unquestionably because they are things that were presented to the president in connection with his official duties.

It doesn’t even matter whether or not they’re classified. Frankly, it’s just if he gets a memo from a staffer and it relates to some business in the White House, in the government, that is a presidential record and it belongs to the United States of America belongs to you and I, you and me.

Well, we don’t I don’t have classified.

In our in our capacity as citizens. Okay? I don’t mean personally, but but it it it is the property of the United States of America. And so The notion that she’s even entertaining this is a dangerous thing for a couple of reasons. One, it’s wrong.

And secondly, if she She should be denying this motion to dismiss. If she denies the motion to dismiss, it’s fine. If she grants the motion to dismiss now, then which she didn’t. She the the Jack Smith could take it up to the eleventh circuit and get it reversed. But if in the middle of a trial, she declares.

So let’s say the government rests its case and she says I find that the government as a matter of law has not proven these to be presidential records. That judgment can’t be appealed because of the double jeopardy prohibition in the constitution. Once jeopardy attaches, meaning once the jury is sworn in essentially. If the court directs a verdict in favor of the defendant, the government cannot appeal, even if what the court has done is completely bananas. And so basically that was one problem here was that saying this a factual issue.

It’s not even a factual issue. It’s not even close to a factual issue. It’s a pure simple issue of law, and it’s black and white, and only only a person who can’t read or does who is insane would say otherwise that that that somehow the president can just declare, a book about, you know, the the the nuclear codes in the in in the football that the that the aid, that the military aid, you know, president can declare that to be those those are personal records. Those are my personal nuclear.

Taking them home. Yeah.

I’m taking them home with me. Yeah. The Marilago and and and, you know, it’s just insane. But the other thing that she did after she denied the motion to dismiss or deferred it to the trial was she asked for proposed jury instructions. Now it’s a little early to do jury instructions.

Normally, you do that closer to the trial, which she doesn’t seem to be inclined to hold anytime soon, but She asked for instructions that incorporated the ridiculous absurd insane construction or non construction, if you will, of the presidential records act that was advanced by, you know, but the Tom fitton theory as as endorsed by Trump. And this is like you’re asking the government to write to propose jury instruct you’re asking both sides, but the government to propose during structures that are completely inconsistent with the government’s position on the law Ron DeSantis completely inconsistent with the text of the act, and it’s just completely in So what Jack Smith did is he complied with with the with the with the request the order by the court to produce such draft during his student structures. And he basically I mean, the intone, it’s a very lawyerly document. It’s a very lawyerly submission, but it really kind of it it it mocks her. Mean, it’s like it’s it’s a it’s a piece of writing.

It’s a it’s a brilliant piece of writing. The tone is respectful, but it just mocks her. And what it does is is It’s it it wrote jury instructions and jury instructions are usually structured this way. They they make a few preliminary, premises. They they they say to the jury that, you know, there are classified records in there dot dot by this or there are presidential records that they’re defined as that and and does that sort of boilerplate stuff And then it the what what they did was they wrote the provost instructions like with correct statements of law at the beginning.

And then they said, in spite of this, I instruct you to find, you know, to make this finding that is completely inconsistent with. What we just said the law was. And they did that’s the technique they used basically to just show her, try to show her and the world. How ridiculous, what she what she was asking for was.

So do you think she is so shamed by this? Or did did she know what she was doing? Because the whole thing is just a tactic to, like, get this thing delayed and kicked around.

Well, I I have come to the conclusion that she is in She’s in so far over her head. Yeah. I I think she’s completely incompetent to tell you the truth. I mean, her she writes English sentences that sometimes seem like they make sense, but she She she’s just utterly completely incompetent. This woman should not be a federal judge.

And and you can see that just in the way she’s conducted these proceedings. And And the fact that she’s just she’s actually falling behind. She can’t keep up with the work. And there there are just so many things that are just piling up. And I and I think Now, I mean, part of it may be that she does have some motivation or some skepticism about the prosecution or motivation to help Trump maybe maybe it’s personal ambition or otherwise, but she’s not very good at

it. Yeah.

Okay. If you were if you’re gonna help trump you just not do any you wouldn’t do some of this shit, so to speak. You wouldn’t be doing these absurd things. You would just slow it down. That’s how you that’s how you you you you do things.

And so I think it’s a combination of Maybe she has a bad motive or maybe she has a bias. I I I I’m I’m I’m always I don’t like to say that judges are corrupt I I will say when they are completely stupid that they are stupid. Yeah. And this judge is, I mean, I wouldn’t do it if I were practicing. But she this is this is just stupidity on our part.

She doesn’t does does not know what she’s doing. She doesn’t even know how to help the guy. That said, she can do a lot of damage. And, and one of the things that that is important about this submission that Jack Smith made the other day is that basically said they said to to judge Ken and look judge. If you’re gonna do this, and we disagree with you when we think it’s ridiculous, I mean, didn’t quite use that language, but pretty much that’s what they’re saying.

You better tell us now sooner rather than later because we’re gonna take you up to the court of appeals. Because we can’t have this happening close to trial or during the trial. And so basically they’re just they’re they threw down the gauntlet and and they’re basically saying, you know, one one we’re we’re ready to take you up. And I have to say, I mean, there is it’s a very difficult thing to throw a judge off a case for being biased. And if it’s almost impossible.

But sometimes you can get a court of appeals. I’ve seen it happen in the second circuit where a judge makes so many mistakes in one direction and is so screwed something up that the Court of Appeals just says, we reverse and we remand and we direct the the chief judge of the district court to assign this case to another judge.

Yeah.

And that’s it’s like it it’s a very, very It’s very, very insulting to the lower court judge. They don’t like to do that to their to their colleagues, but in in the eleventh Circuit, I’m told by Mavens of Eleventh circuit practice. Eleventh Circuit is the circuit of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that covers the States, the great States of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The eleventh Circuit, it there’s sort of like an unwritten three strikes rule as I understand it. That if you if the court district court judge does something that’s completely wild, three times in in in in in sort of the wrong direction.

They they they they they will strongly consider taking somebody off the case. And based on if she’s done that already, So this could be if she if she persists, this could be strike three. And and at point, you know, one of the things that you have to consider when you are a lawyer and you’ve got a judge who you think is just stacking the deck against you. And, I mean, legitimately think that not like the way that Trump thinks that everybody’s stacking the deck against him even though, you know, he brings it all on himself by being a criminal. You you you hesitate to make the motion because it’s like if you lose, it’s it’s like the old adage.

If you shoot at the king, you better better not miss. And you better not miss when you’re trying to take out a district judge. Unless, of course, you’re just trying to create a record for an appeal. But here there wouldn’t be an appeal if she does what they the the the worst scenario would be to direct the verdict during the trial, which would be unappealable. But anyway, so it’s a very tricky thing when you are a litigant, whether civil or criminal, whether you be the United States of America or any or or ordinary litigant, whether it be a civil litigant or a criminal defendant, it’s a very tricky calculus.

Because you you you need to you need to succeed. Here, the other piece of the calculus is that delay any any anything that if you try to take her off the case and you try to take, a, a, a, a, one of these pretrial rulings up to the court of appeals. And there’s not normally an appeal root for some of this stuff. The root is it’s not It’s not technically appealable under the ordinary appellate statutes, but there is something called mandamus, a writ of mandamus, which essentially says This judge is not doing her job. Okay.

She’s off the wall. So the court of appeals, you need to order this judge to do her job. And that’s what, you know, and that’s a very, very tough, high standard. But if if they did that here, I mean, I think they’re pretty, I think they could get it. I think one of the considerations is all would of would be delay because it would take a while.

It would take a few weeks, but they’re not gonna get this case tried. This year anyway. I suspect at this point. And so at some point, if she I think the next time she twitches the wrong way, and does something that they can take up. Like if she I don’t know.

I mean, the next time she does something, there’s a pretty good chance I think that Jack Smith will seek a writ of mandamus, and they try to get her kicked off the case. And that will be, you know, that’ll be the most important piece of litigation in the case.

But if Donald Trump wins the election, will any of that even matter?

No. If Donald Trump wins the election, these cases all go away.

Yeah. Right. Hey, just we went deep there on

tax history. We will go away. We will be riding you from New Zealand for Guantanamo. Or, you know, antarctica. Yeah.

Antarctica would make me safe. He wouldn’t find us there.

People podcasts from wherever we go.

Hopefully, we’re gonna sell it together. Like this. Yeah.

What did Trump’s filing have anything interesting? Like, he had to do the same thing Jack Smith did. Right?

I You know, I didn’t read it and I didn’t hear anything about it.

It’s like, you

know, I mean, it was the same old, same old b s.

Okay. So moral of the story, there’s still a long way to go.

A long way to go. That that is not. That case is yes. That that case, I have no I I have given up hope that that case, this case is going to get tried anytime soon. It’s a twenty twenty five case.

It is still. I mean, if look, I mean, this is the best case against Trump, just on the merits. It’s just they have him dead the rights. Yeah. They have him dead the and these are the multiple counts under the espionage act and each of these is ten year maximum on each of these counts.

Of a on the espionage act. And then there’s obstruction. There’s no question. He he is he’s the closest thing to guilty as a matter of law that you could get. Mean, you know, there’s no such concept, but that

She’s done her job for him then, right? Because it’s Yeah.

I mean, but not in not in a competent way, but yeah. Yeah. She’s bumbled her way. And I think she’s, you know, I mean, I think this is a very interesting character study of her. I think she’s I think she’s a very stubborn resentful person who who who who who who’s who’s gonna be difficult to deal with for them.

I mean, I just think she she doesn’t know what she’s doing and then she’s got a chip on her shoulder and she’s probably angry at all the criticism that that that is being thrust in her direction by people like us. You you know that type of person. I mean, you you see these judges from time to time. They’re the worst judges of the judges who have a chip on their shoulder and who are angry and have a have a bias. And I think that’s we’re I think it’s what we have here, and, and, it’s not good.

Yeah. He got very lucky getting this shot.

Trying her. Hey, guys. A little breaking news to insert into the pod here. After we finished recording, Judge Eileen Cannon did deny Trump’s motion to dismiss So that is good news based on the discussion we were having. And I hope you’re enjoying the pod, stick with it.

Okay. We gotta pay bills. And because you have given all your money away, you know, we gotta we gotta we gotta get some more here. So is gonna do his first ad. My

first ad. I’m gonna do my best. I’m inspired by listening to baseball on the radio as a kid. I’ll do my radio voice and Sarah Longwell is my first ad read. Are you excited?

I am excited. Okay. I’m excited.

Alright. Today’s episode is sponsored by The Perfect Gene. And Sarah, the best thing about this ad is that we’re allowed to swear. And so please swear whenever you like. I don’t know who I’m

not the one who

I’m the one who swears. Yeah. What am I talking about? As for our sponsor, the perfect gene makes great looking, perfect fitting jeans that are as comfortable as sweatpants. And this is actually a true thing.

Yeah. You’re wearing them right now.

Right? They sent me a pair and I’m wearing them and these are actually No. No shit. These are these are these are the most comfortable pairs, the pair of jeans I’ve ever had. And, I was sent a pair and I safely said they fit me perfectly and are incredibly comfortable.

Okay. I said that already. Here’s their secret. They use a special denim fabric that’s soft. And has the perfect amount of stretch so that you can spot do yoga or sit around reading legal news and tweeting.

They’re just Anybody. Yeah. I don’t do yoga. I do, yeah, tweeting doesn’t really require me to kick my leg on my back, you know. But,

Look at that.

Look at

I was able to do that. What you could do in these jeans?

Yeah. My hamstrings not so much, but but but jeans are okay. They make six different fits and have waist sizes from twenty six to fifty. No. I no longer have those.

And lengths from twenty six to thirty eight. So they’ve got you covered. We should send some pair we should send some pairs to Morocco. Yeah. Okay.

And for a limited time, our listeners get fifteen percent. Off their first order plus free shipping at the perfect gene dot n y c. You can just Google the perfect gene and use code ask George fifteen for fifteen percent off. And Sarah, it can be a real struggle to find a pair of jeans that fit just right. I always dread when I have to get new ones, but now I don’t have to worry about that because I have the perfect jean.

They also have t shirts. I wanna check those out. So it’s finally time to ditch uncomfortable genes by going to the perfect gene dot n y c. That’s the perfect gene dot n y c. Our listeners get fifteen percent off your first order plus free shipping, free returns, and free exchanges when you use the code ask George fifteen ask George fifteen at checkout.

That’s fifteen percent off for new customers at the Perfect Gene dot NYC. With promo code Ask George fifteen. And after you purchased the last year, where you heard about the perfect gene, and please support our show and tell them we sent you.

Alright. Now, let’s talk about hush money. Hush. Hush. Let’s move on.

I wanna

talk about porn stars.

To the election interference case in New York, Trump has asked yet again for this company.

Corn star hush money case. I just prefer, I mean, let’s just let’s just get real here.

Don, why don’t you like the election interference framing?

You

know, I it’s fine. It is election interference, but

But you like saying porn star?

Yes.

Okay. That’s fair enough.

I mean, Donald Trump paid off hush money paid hush money to a porn star and she didn’t stay hushed. I think that’s I just love saying that.

Yeah. I

mean, think about that. Is that? The art of the deal. Not a good deal.

It was not a good deal.

A hundred and thirty thousand dollars plus he had the he had to gross up the taxes for for Michael Cohen. I’m And then he got indicted. So Am I getting in trouble?

Trump, once again, he wants this case to be postponed. He’s asking again. So this time, he claims for

somebody who’s so innocent, he doesn’t wanna go to trial. Why is that?

Well, he keeps saying there’s too much pretrial publicity and it’s crediting them against them, which is funny. Because and Brad’s office made this case that they oppose Trump’s motion. Obviously

Where’s the policy coming from? I wanted

to read. I wanted to I wanna read it part of Brad’s filing. Defendant’s own incessant rhetoric is generating significant publicity And it would be perverse to reward defendant with an adjournment based on media attention he is actively seeking. This just feels like classic Trump, right? Acting like the victim in circumstances entirely of his own making.

Right. Yeah. It’s the classic, DARvo, where you deny, and then it, we, it, darvo is this, is this psychological term where you, deny attack, reverse victim, and offender. And that’s basically what he does all the time. And here he’s basically saying, You know, I’m not doing anything wrong and when he is.

And then accusing the other side of doing it and then claiming to be the victim. Yeah. So that’s essentially what he does. That’s that’s the classic narcissist, approach to everything.

So this is this is he’s not gonna get this one. Right?

No. This judge is not gonna give him. It’s ridiculous. And and the and the other good point that the that the prosecution makes is this publicity isn’t gonna go any, this this this case is gonna have a certain amount of publicity no matter what happens. And and you combine that with the argument that, that, he’s causing most of the publicity.

Yeah. It’s that there’s just no argument here. And and the fact of the matter is there are dangerous issues means that the jury selection has to be done in a certain way. You have to interview the jurors. You have to ask them questions, and if they’re gonna do the best they can.

And that, you know, most cases do not get postponed or moved or anything like that for no matter how much publicity there was. And sometimes you you you know, I remember there was one case when I clerked No, not before when I click when I was in law school, they had this big, big New York City scandal involving the parking violations Bureau and basically every major politician other than Ed Cotch got got in trouble. And the defense moved for a change of venue because the extensive publicity. I mean, it was literally in the papers every day. Every time somebody would go into the grand jury.

And so the judge said, okay, fine. I’m gonna go to Connecticut and we’ll try the case in Connecticut. So they basically had a bunch of Connecticut homemakers and, you know, just people who were completely shocked don’t read the New York post every day and guilty all along. Sometimes you get your mind, but here, he he he doesn’t he’s not asking for change of venue. He’s asking to put this off.

He doesn’t want to be tried in any court anytime anywhere. Because he knows he’s guilty.

Yeah. But he won’t get this one So he’s talking about it so much though. This is like Well, it’s

not just that he’s talking about it. He’s basically just he’s using it. He’s using the opportunity to attack the judge’s daughter.

Well, this is it. So the judge in this case just issued an expanded gag order. Right? Because last week, the judge issued a gag order barring Trump from talking publicly about witnesses, the court staff, and the jurors. And then this week, the judge had to expand it, the gag order to include his own family, the judges family, and the district attorney’s family after Trump started personally attacking the judge’s daughter.

You have a take on this? Cause I’ve seen some of our conservative pals, even ones that are like not always the worst. Suggests that the gag orders on Trump are, you know, like obliterating his first amendment

or something. He’s look, it it You and I can say anything we want about anybody because we’re not the defendant. He is a criminal defendant. His trial is at issue here. The integrity of his trial is at issue here and he does not have the same rights to speak as other people with respect to matters pertaining to the trial and the people participating in the trial.

And he abuses, you know, his right of free speech by attacking people and trying to intimidate people. I mean, the the danger is that that that witnesses will be intimidated. Even if even if he doesn’t attack the witnesses themselves, I mean, what or or jurors I mean, a juror or a witness will go into that courtroom and think, He can say all this stuff about the judge’s daughter. I mean, he’s gonna take after me if I find him guilty. Or if I testify, wait till after the trial, he’s gonna go after me.

And it can be very, you know, it it that has an intimidating effect and it’s intentional. I mean, that’s just what he does. So he does not have the right to do any of these things and he’s gonna push continue to push the envelope and he he lacks so, he lacks sufficient self control to be able to comply with these orders, I think. And the question is, what do you do when he ultimately crosses the line, which actually probably has already? Well, I mean, you know, I mean, there there there are there are sanctions short of throwing them into, into the lockup.

And the tombs and Manhattan of rikers or whatever. They, you know, he he there’s a there’s the judges has suggested that he might prevent Trump. I don’t know whether maybe you would include the lawyers in this from learning the identities of the jury, which I think Yacht I mean, New York, New York law may say differently, but I if you remember in the eugene Carol, case, which was under, you know, federal procedural rules, the judge made the jury anonymous so that neither including you know, including Robbie Kaplan and her people in Eugene Carroll, neither side knew the names of the jurors. They were all identified by numbers, And then the judge said when when when in both jury for both jury trials, when he discharged the juries, he said, my advice to you is don’t tell anybody you around this jury. And we don’t even know to this day, we don’t know who these jurors are.

We know a little bits and pieces about them, but we don’t know their identities.

That seems like a good practice.

It is a good practice. It’s a and it’s a practice usually never seen in civil cases. It’s seen in basically mob cases, mob Rico cases in in federal court. And basically his behavior is he’s even worse than a mob boss. The the mob bosses, you know, they usually don’t They don’t try to attack or intimidate the cops or the judge.

They kinda know not to do that because even though they’re probably psychopaths, they’re not completely insane. Donald Trump has no such inhibitions. Which tells you a lot about Donald Trump. So, you know, he he behaves in many, many respects like a mob boss. He he demands that kind loyalty.

He acts like he’s not constrained by rules, and he isn’t. So, you know, I mean, he ought to be constrained by rule, the very kinds of protections that, the court system gets and imposes, when a mob boss is tried, I think should apply to him.

Alright. I wanna turn quickly to the New York business case because Trump did manage to post that one hundred and seventy million bond this week. Apparently, California billionaire, Don Hanky footed the bill. Hanky? Hanky.

Hanky. Hanky. Hanky.

Hanky.

Hank said that the bond was a good business deal, and he’s charging Trump a modest fee, doubtful. I mean doubtful. It’s a good business deal. So the posh from the Washington Post, Trump has gained stays in the two most daunting civil cases against him without having to forfeit any of his assets or sell any of his properties nor did he have to touch stock he has in his social media company, Trump media, and technology, corp group, stake that was still valued around four billion Tuesday afternoon despite stocks prices recent slide. It looks like Trump dodged all those

points again. Yeah.

I mean, look, again, I Yeah. He did it. He did it. And and but I I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. For the reasons I said last week.

The purpose of the security requirement, the bond requirement is to protect the interests of the judgment creditor. Eugene Carroll in the case of of the civil defamation rape case, and then the state of New York in the AG case. And if he could not post the bond in either case, then the judgment would be unsecured and there wouldn’t be what what what’s gonna happen now is if Gene, eugene Carol wins on appeal, which she I’m pretty confident she will. She will the the a three million eighty p three point three million dollars will be dispersed by Chubb, by Chubb’s federal insurance subsidiary, to her within a matter of days. The money is there.

There is no question. She will get that money if she wins. Similarly, with respect to the one hundred and seventy five million dollar bond, that was issued by whatever hanky panky is, assuming he’s good for it, and I I a reason to believe he isn’t good for it. The the state’s gonna get that one hundred and seventy five million. Because Hanky Panky will be on blind for it.

And he he he is committed to that. And so when he says

a modest piece of what Trump pays him back with a little interest?

No. Usually there’s a there’s an upfront fee. Like like, you know, like when you when you take out a mortgage, there’s an origination fee. And there there is some kind of fee. I don’t know the business model and I don’t know the I don’t know the economics of it, but it’s

gonna be at all his money just by the way, providing high interest loans to people in dire economic circumstances. Who wanted to buy a car. Like, that was his business model, so he’d try them hard. I find that to be, like, a little bit funny, but that’s the first and, like, he’s definitely taking a high risk.

A used car finance or Yeah.

Taking on

a high risk client who doesn’t pay his, yeah.

I mean, trump, who would buy a used car from Donald Trump? Many people say. Any people say. Anyway, so, yeah, so the state is guaranteed the one hundred and seventy five unless Hanky, goes bankrupt or something. And that’s good for the state.

And and it’s good for the state in another way. It means that they don’t have to send out lawyers to go and chase down these assets, which would have been a nightmare. Yeah. I mean, it would have been difficult in a nightmare for trump, which is what some people wanna see, and people were a lot of people out there were disappointed that, you know, Trump doesn’t isn’t being subject to asset seizures and forfeitures and whatever. But, you know, that’s a long and brutal process, and it would take a long time and it’d be expensive for both sides.

And it’s if I were, as I said last week, if I were in the state’s attorney general, I’d be happy not to be engaged in that litigation, which is costly time consuming and and and a pain.

The only thing that bothers me about this is that I would have liked to have seen Trump says he has the money, and I would like to seen him pay it and not one of these Republican donors, like, get him off the hook.

If he had the money, I don’t know. I mean, maybe he, I I tend to credit that he couldn’t get the bond with the four sixty million dollar bond. I tend to credit that. But, because I don’t think he had that much in

Oh, but

he had one seventy five.

Yeah. And I think that’s the reason why he was able to get the bomb. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

So it’s sort it’s sort of circular, but I don’t know where how the court the the appellate division first department, which is the appellate court that is that cut the bond requirement down, came up with the one seventy five, but, you know, it’s one hundred and seventy five million dollars that the state will not have to work for if it obtains an affirmative of the judgment, you know, that that of of at least one hundred and seventy five million dollars. I mean, it’s possible the judgment cut what you will say.

Okay. So I also wanna get into just very quickly, that a California court recommended that John Eastman be disbarred. And while that decision is on appeal, Eastman cannot practice law in the state of California. Who’s hiring that guy anyway? The opinion said that Eastman can aspired with president Trump to obstruct a lawful function of government of the United States, specifically by conspiring to disrupt the electoral count on January sixth twenty twenty one.

This is amazing to me how a bunch of people who tried to overturn the election with Trump are facing actual accountability. Yes. Including the people who storm the capital No. Who are in jail, but not trump.

Yeah. And and and we’ve we are seeing, we’ve seen these disciplinary proceedings or sanctions proceedings against lawyer proceed. I mean, you we saw Jenna Ellis and Rudy, and now this was the this is actually the most severe thus far. I will Rudy was Rudy really lost his gonna lose his license, I think. This is Look, what’s what’s amazing about this is this is essentially a fact factual finding after a full trial the Eastman conspired with Donald Trump to commit crimes.

I mean, we had remember during the January sixth, hearings January six Committee litigated some attorney client privilege issues with Eastman and got a federal district judge in California to hold that the documents that Eastman had, even if they involve communications with Donald Trump, many of them, were exempt from protection under the attorney client privilege because they were in furtherance of a crime. I mean, here we have a full fledged finding after a trial, and this is essentially the kind of evidence the kind of case that, that that Jack Smith will have to put on in here in the district, when when the when the case comes back to judge chuck in, which I think it will in the, in the January sixth, the, the, that is truly an election interference case.

Yeah. You think eastman loses his thing for

Yeah.

I mean eastman now has been, you know, he he has been found by the state bar trial court to engaged in conduct that makes him unfit to practice law, and and he can take that. He’s suspended, right now. And it becomes final if he does not appeal, or if it is affirmed by the California Spring Court. So what’s gonna happen is next is that he will file some kind of a petition for review. In the Supreme Court of California.

And I suspect the Spring Court of California will at some point affirm, and he will never practice law in California. Again,

you can’t become the head of the DOJ. Cause I’ve just, like, I think when I think about Trump’s cabinet, I always think Trump’s gonna take the people who tried to overturn the last election and, like, put them in charge of DOJ. Light.

Well, that’s an interesting question. It’s not clear that you to be attorney general that you have to be a lawyer. There’s no law that says that. There Will Saletan

Really, the attorney general doesn’t have to be an attorney.

I don’t think that I I I don’t think that the that that that they’re necessarily is a legal requirement that that the attorney general be entered. No. And I don’t I don’t think that necessarily it is. I mean, And How do

I know?

I know. I mean, there’s always been this question about whether or not somebody who’s not admitted to the practice of law in a particular, district court can appear on behalf of the government, but usually they just get themselves admitted. I don’t I I mean, here, trump’s gonna do whatever he wants to appoint you. I don’t know that he’s gonna appoint Eastman he’s gonna point somebody nefarious to be attorney general. You know, no question about it.

He’s not gonna point any of these guys who no matter Judge

Cannon sounds like somebody who might be looking for a gig.

Oh, god help us.

Okay. I’m gonna leave it there.

I’m

gonna leave it there. George, as always, Thank you for explaining the legal news to me. And thanks to everybody. For listening, don’t forget to hit subscribe. Leave us a review on your podcast email us at ask George at the Bulwark dot com.

Get tickets for our live show on May fifteenth in Washington, DC, and we will see you next week.

Thank you very much.

Well, George Conway, he’s a man we’re playing. Got to sit down with Sarah Longwell. We’ll take and explain all the legal problems they’re piling high with Donald Trump on my own He said, Sarah, let me break it down for you. There’s obstruction of justice corruption to the legal angles and troubles that grow in fast. It’s a storm that’s gonna last and last.

Oh, can’t wait. Tell I’m well about it. Those legal problems can live without it from me more. Let’s do the Russian