Support The Bulwark and subscribe today.
  Join Now

Trump’s Legal Stall FAILS! Trial Starts in 3 Weeks & He’s $175M poorer.

March 26, 2024
Notes
Transcript
George and Sarah take on the upcoming New York trial, including the $175 million bond that Trump posted. George offers a few (highly critical) insights into Judge Cannon’s handling of the case in Florida.

Get 15% off OneSkin with the code AskGeorge at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod

Head to https://FACTORMEALS.com/askgeorge50 and use code askgeorge50 to get 50% off.

🔥 Love the show but hate the ads? Join Bulwark+ for an exclusive, ad-free version of George Conway Explains it All (to Sarah Longwell): https://plus.thebulwark.com/subscribe

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

    So I saw him. He was out there, you know, true thing, that he had the money.
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:06

    He just says stuff. I I don’t know if he’d noticed this, From time to time, Donald Trump says things that may or may not be true. I have noticed. The only time he really, you can depend on him to say something truthful is when there is some malevolence involved. When he’s saying something that’s just malevolent, usually means it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:31

    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 explain the legal news to me, which we do almost every week, but when we miss a week, like we missed last week, the legal news just explodes. It’s like it knows. So
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:51

    And it exploded a little this morning.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:52

    It did. And now, but now we’ve had that’s good. We’ve had a big news day today. So I feel like it’s easy to jump into.
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:58

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:58

    Yeah. That’s right. Okay. So you were actually supposed to be in New York. Right?
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:03

    Today, for the start of the New York election interference, hush money trial. Instead you’re here in the studio with me. Right. Lucky you. Yep.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:10

    Why is that?
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:11

    Because the hearing I mean, the trial was put off a couple of weeks because Donald Trump and his lawyers filed a boat a motion or a series of motions that basically attacked the prosecution for allegedly failing to produce relevant materials in discovery relating to the the hush money allegations, and the materials were from the United States attorney’s office. And the accusations were essentially like, well, you didn’t ask for the right stuff from the US attorney’s office long ago, and you’d it required Trump’s lawyers to ask for this stuff. And then you know, you are just basically hiding the ball. And and the judge today took that apart. And he when he originally scheduled this hearing, he kicked off the trial because he and set two days for this hearing, but basically, he there was no hearing to be had today because he read through the papers, and he just goreated the Trump people for making, unjustified allegations about the prosecution.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:08

    Essentially, the the bottom line is that There were some materials produced very, very late in the day by the US attorney’s office, for the Southern District of New York, which had, as you may know, originally investigated the Hush money allegations in connection with its prosecution of Michael Cohen, and my cohen did plead guilty to campaign finance violations relating to the one hundred and thirty thousand dollars Stormy Daniels payment, inexplicably, the Justice Department when Trump no was no longer president failed to prosecute, they should have, but here we are. And that they had some materials that related to the investigation. The pro the state prosecutors ask for this stuff the US government doesn’t isn’t obligated to produce it because it’s the US government. They got some stuff from the US attorney’s office, but not, but apparently mostly didn’t get a lot of stuff. And then late in the day, Trump’s people subpoenaed, issued a subpoena or a request to the to the government and the government decided, okay, we’re gonna produce some stuff, the federal government.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:08

    And they were trying to essentially blame, D. A. Bragg and his people for that. And and basically, the judge wasn’t having any of it and he really goreated Trump’s lawyers for making these, as I said, unfounded allegations. Essentially, what his line was, you know, they had the right to ask and you had the right to ask and you didn’t ask till the very, very end, and the fact that you’re getting this stuff late in the day, doesn’t justify, a postponement or a of of the trial because you asked so late in the day and it’s your fault.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:39

    The other thing that the Trump people were hoping for was some kind of discovery sanction of maybe even dismissal against the the indictment because in New York, there are broad discovery obligations that the executors have, and if you fail to abide by those, indictments can be dismissed, even indictments of guilty people, and they completely whiffed on this. There was not there was just no basis for alleging any impropriety. And and so they lost. And the trial is now scheduled for April fifteen, bright and early Monday morning.
  • Speaker 1
    0:04:09

    So I have some questions about the timing of it. But when you say the judge excoriated, it sounded like just based on missus Maggie Haberman’s tweets.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:17

    Yes.
  • Speaker 1
    0:04:17

    That the lawyer Trump’s lawyer is some some guy looked very caught off guard, and that Trump was in the courtroom just like shooting daggers at him as they were getting yelled at for Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:28

    I, you know, I mean, I didn’t go because I thought, this is just gonna be a technical discovery hearing, boring, boring, boring. It sounds like I missed something. I should have gone down. But, Yeah. Apparently, I, you know, I I they made a look, they made a BS motion.
  • Speaker 1
    0:04:43

    I can’t
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:43

    I can’t I can never decide whether I’m allowed to use swear words on the show. But they made a BS motion and the judge called him on it. And I don’t know why the Trump lawyer was so surprised about it. I, you know, you, you, you know, you’re taking these risk in your hands when you’re making a tendentious argument for smart judge and making accusing the other side of committing, improprieties that they simply did not commit, and they were no obligation to do anything other than what they did. So I don’t know why he was caught off guard.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:15

    I think he might have been caught off guard by the judges’ vehemently. I wasn’t in the courtroom, so I can’t really make an assessment of that. But I, you know, trump, trump shouldn’t be shooting daggers at his lawyers. He makes his lawyers. He he encourages his lawyers to make ridiculous motions.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:29

    And if they get slap down in court. Well, that’s the price you pay for getting your lawyers to make, frivolous or meritless motions. And you know, that’s why I’m the other set of hats, I mean, I we’ve been talking about hats I had I had made or actually the, Room Raider guy made make attorneys get attorneys. This is just perfect example of how, Trump gets his lawyers into trouble. I don’t know whether there’ll be some sanctions for this or anything like that, but you know, getting yelled at by a judge with that you’re about to try a criminal case in front of isn’t a good thing.
  • Speaker 1
    0:05:59

    Yeah. That’s right. So it’s like Bodes I
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:01

    don’t know if he
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:01

    was yelling.
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:01

    I mean, in fairness, I don’t know whether it was yelling, but it didn’t it didn’t sound good. It sounded like from the the live blogging of the of
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:09

    the hearing on Twitter that I saw
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:09

    it sounded like that it was a very as a moment for, the defense.
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:15

    Is Trump scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to lawyers these days? Like, is part of it that these Well,
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:22

    he’s he’s scraping it mostly an empty barrel. Because, you know, most lawyers would not entertain the proposition of working for him because He’s not just the criminal. I mean, you represent a guy who’s guilty of something, but he’s an unreasonably difficult criminal who won’t follow directions and is likely to get you and, you know, other lawyers into trouble because he lies to you when he encourages you to lie to other people, which is what happened. In in so many instances previous to this, including in the, Marlago documents investigation. He’s just trouble, and he doesn’t pay his bills.
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:58

    And he does things that just sort of make everybody around him look bad. I mean, it’s like what Rick Wilson, what Rick Wilson’s book, every, everything trump touches Trump touches the odds. Yeah. So, I mean, I he he doesn’t have much to choose from. He does have a couple of talented lawyers on his various teams defending him.
  • Speaker 2
    0:07:21

    There’s this guy Kaise from Florida, was the solicitor general down there. There’s a woman on the defense team in this case, the case that we’re talking about, the hush money, the hush money cover up election fraud stormy Daniels case, the criminal case. Her name is Susan Michelleis, and she’s apparently a very, very good lawyer, by all accounts, and she’s not the one who makes these she doesn’t stand out front and make these silly motions. She just she’s sort of lays back and does some serious Bulwark, and she’s gonna do some serious cross examination, and she’ll probably do a very good job during this trial.
  • Speaker 1
    0:07:53

    This is what Maggie’s, Haberman’s tweet said. She said, I’ve seen Trump in three different court settings in the past several months. Mhmm. Florida Federal Court, Manhattan Federal Court and Manhattan court, and this appearance by Blanche. Blanche is Todd Blanche, a lawyer, is one of the most uncomfortable I’ve ever seen for a Trump lawyer.
  • Speaker 2
    0:08:12

    That’s pretty bad then because they they’ve had some pretty, pretty sorry moments in court, and they will continue to.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:19

    So let me ask you about the the jury selection starts April fifteenth. Fifteen. Yes. Now, okay. So when will this trial realistically wrap up then?
  • Speaker 2
    0:08:28

    I don’t know. I’ve heard various estimates. I think it’s going to My guess is from what I’ve heard, and I I don’t have specific recall of what I’ve heard, but I’m I’m guessing six to eight weeks.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:41

    Okay. So like two months?
  • Speaker 2
    0:08:42

    Yeah. I think this this case will go to the jury.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:44

    Is that like from April fifteenth. Yeah. I always
  • Speaker 2
    0:08:48

    take them a few days to pick a jury. Apparently, it takes longer to pick a jury in New York State Court than in federal court that, which has been mostly my experience. So, and I think that they’re gonna be I think it’s probably gonna be six week trial. Just a guess. Okay.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:03

    It will get a verdict. I think by the end of, May or beginning of June.
  • Speaker 1
    0:09:07

    And if he’s found guilty in this case, then what happens?
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:11

    Then he’ll be sentenced.
  • Speaker 1
    0:09:12

    And for something like this.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:14

    That’s a good question. I don’t know. I mean, I I there has been some writing on what the sentence could be. I it I don’t I have to familiarize myself with that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:09:23

    But this is not one where, like, jail is likely on the menu.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:27

    It’s Although,
  • Speaker 1
    0:09:28

    he might go and went to jail, did
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:30

    he? Yeah. But he went he went to jail on federal campaign finance Charlie Sykes a bunch of other things that he had done, mucking around with his own personal businesses and finance. I don’t know exactly what he got. I don’t remember what he got exactly for the campaign finance bit, but that was a federal case anyway, not a state case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:50

    I don’t I don’t recall what the, you always ask me these questions, these questions I’m not ready for.
  • Speaker 1
    0:09:55

    I’m sorry. I think well, I just think about what, you’re right. I wasn’t even prepared for this, but I
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:01

    I Will Saletan this before we go before the sun and say, no, I mean, he their jail is an option. Jail is on on the on the menu of possibilities here. I don’t think that these But I I think you’re right and I think the direction of your question is suggesting that these these charges would not carry as heavy as sentence as some of the other charges he’s facing, which is absolutely true. The espionage act charges in in the Mar a lago case. You know, a lot of those are ten years.
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:28

    Ten years max.
  • Speaker 1
    0:10:29

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:30

    You know, and they’re just multiple multiple counts. So he’s got he’s got a lot of issues.
  • Speaker 1
    0:10:35

    And then what does it mean? Here’s another one that maybe, I should have thought about beforehand, but the if if this is eight weeks, That means the other trials can’t go. Yeah. So let’s say it’s like June fifteenth. That still gives enough time for some of the other ones to move.
  • Speaker 1
    0:10:48

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:49

    I I don’t think they’re any other cases that were likely to be tried in this next in in this window. The you know, we’re gonna still be waiting on the Supreme Court probably, throughout most of this trial. We’ll be waiting on the Supreme Court’s decision in the immunity case on the January six indictment from DC. And if the Supreme Court rules sometime in June, that case could be tried, but in September or October. I don’t know.
  • Speaker 2
    0:11:19

    I don’t think the Fannie Willis case is gonna get tried this year. I could be wrong. And I don’t think the the Marlago documents case is gonna get tried this year. It just seems that she’s just very slow, and there’s been some reporting recently that says that she’s She’s having trouble keeping up with the work. And we’ll see.
  • Speaker 2
    0:11:38

    Well,
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:39

    we’re gonna get to both those cases before you end of the show, but before we move on to our next topic, I wanna say that episode sponsor One Skin is here to help you simplify your skin care regimen founded by four PhDs dedicated to skin longevity. One skin proves you don’t need a complicated routine to achieve better skin. Their topical supplements make it easy to help your skin stay younger and healthier without all the extra steps. That’s great. I hate extra steps.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:02

    The Secret Podcast skin’s proprietary OS One peptide. The first ingredient scientifically proven to reduce the build up of Ron DeSantis cells, those notorious zombie cells that contribute to skin aging. Fewer zombie cells mean healthier younger looking skin with fewer lines and wrinkles, reduced age spots and a stronger natural barrier, something that’s especially important this time of year. Your skin does so much for you. Return the favor with one skin, George.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:28

    It looks like you’ve been using one skin. Your skin looks great.
  • Speaker 2
    0:12:31

    Well, I haven’t been, but I I’m looking for some way to simplify my, you know, as I get older, I’ve decided I need to do a little something for my skin, but I have no idea what I’m doing. Oh. And so if it’s one step, I’m all for it.
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:45

    Well, I have the skin of a baby. So, a limited time, our listeners
  • Speaker 2
    0:12:51

    Will Saletan
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:51

    exclusive fifteen percent off their first one skin purchase using the code, ask George. When you check out at one skin dot co invest in the health and longevity of your skin with one skin. I’ve been making these appearances on CNN in the morning. And I use and I it’s like super early. Like, I gotta go from six to seven, but that means I gotta be up at four thirty.
  • Speaker 2
    0:13:11

    And so And then
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:13

    they gotta and they gotta put all stuff on me. So I’ve been using one scan really. It’s a great way to have a short but effective routine in the AM because I don’t have much time before going on TV, so I can’t recommend it enough. And because our listeners know I love conducting focus group research, I should say that in a third party twelve week clinical study OS one face was clinically proven to strengthen the skin barrier, improve skin health markers, and diminish visible signs of aging. Rinkle diminished in eighty seven percent of users.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:41

    Once skin is more than skin care, it’s about skin longevity targeting the root causes of aging to help you look and feel your best at every age, Get started today with fifteen percent off using code ask George at one skin dot co. That’s fifteen percent off one skin dot co with code ask George. After your purchase, they’ll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. It’s time to expect more from your skin care routine.
  • Speaker 1
    0:14:06

    Invest in the health of your skin with one skin. Alright. So we’re recording this on Monday. And the election interference slash hush money case isn’t the only big news out of New York. Just today, this is breaking.
  • Speaker 1
    0:14:20

    In the New York business fraud case, the court of appeals just agreed to a smaller bond of one hundred and seventy five million instead of the four hundred and fifty four million they were originally gonna do And that original bond was due today, but now, Trump has an additional ten days to obtain it. So, I don’t know, to me, one hundred and seventy five millions does sounds like a lot of but this does seem like a win for Trump.
  • Speaker 2
    0:14:42

    Yeah. It’s a small win for trump, and I don’t think it’s a surprising win. In fact, I put out on x or Twitter few days ago that I thought I wouldn’t be surprised if the appellate division that’s the name of this particular appeals court, the appellate division first department cut back on the bond requirement to some extent. And that’s what they did. They cut back to they cut it down to one hundred and seventy five and gave him a few extra days to see if he could come up with that money since he couldn’t come up with the four sixty four.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:08

    But it’s still a substantial sum of money. I’m not surprised that they did that. I read through the papers that both sides file. They were both sides were very good papers, and I thought the Trump people were very good papers. I mean, their point was that this is in a circumstance where you have damages where somebody’s suffered some out of pocket loss.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:27

    This is these are damages for, you know, these are this is this gorgement for, unjust profits And it’s not money that the state of New York needs to give to victims or anything like that. So why do they need the full bond? And That’s that’s not a crazy argument, and it could be. There are lots of different arguments here on the merits and on damages, and it could very easily be that the the the judgment gets back to some extent. I don’t think it’ll it’ll be throwing out altogether, but if it’s cut back, it could be cut back by a hundred million dollars or two hundred million dollars in still be just a massive defeat for Donald Trump.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:03

    And so if there’s any possibility of that in fairness, it makes sense. The judges are exercising their equitable discretion as they have. That has that’s what this involves. It’s just the power of equity, the just trying to figure out what the sense is of what the right thing to do is. And their their view is one hundred and seventy five million should basically cover.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:24

    They have a bond for that that covers you know, the the the you this state, is covered. And I I don’t disagree with that. I mean, actually, if I were in the AG’s office, and it turns out that this is a bond that Trump can produce a hundred and seventy five million dollar bond. And that means that the the state’s gonna get one hundred and seventy five million no matter what if the judgment is affirmed, they can collect on that. I’d be pretty happy with that because frankly, if I were this if I were this state, I wouldn’t be, you know, the the state AG, I wouldn’t be wanting to send out teams of lawyers trying to track down Donald Trump’s assets.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:04

    It’s just a lot of effort. It’s a pain in the ass. And if trump can produce a hundred seventy five million dollar bond. More power, that’s great for the that’s great for the for the for the state because the state means it means the state’s gonna get one seventy five if if if if it gets at least that part of the judgment affirmed. It’s kind of like it was great for Eugene Carroll when Trump produced that bond from Chubb for eighty that covered her eighty three point three million.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:26

    It means she’s gonna get paid. So if this if he can come up with a one hundred and seventy five and uh-uh and bond this, that’s great for the state.
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:34

    So I saw him and I saw it on Twitter, but he was out there, you know, true thing, that he had the money. Like, he was doing a weird thing where he was like, but I have the you know, this is this is well, I don’t know. It was all rigged and stolen. So and there was a lot of people commenting on the fact that this was a bizarre thing for him to do.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:53

    He just says stuff.
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:55

    Okay. So I mean,
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:56

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed this.
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:57

    I have.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:59

    From time to time, Donald Trump says things that may or may not be true. I’ve noticed. I mean, you know, sometimes he sometimes he even contradicts himself. Sometimes he contradicts his lawyers. Sometimes he says things The only time he really, you can depend on him to say something truthful is when there’s some malevolence involved.
  • Speaker 2
    0:18:20

    When he’s saying something that’s just malevolent, he usually means
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:23

    it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:18:23

    Yeah. Well, if he’s saying something on almost any other subject, you know, it could be random chance it might be true. Mostly it isn’t. So we just don’t know. And and the funny thing about it was though he directly contradicting his lawyers and his lawyers were trying to make the point to the court that we can’t come up with this.
  • Speaker 2
    0:18:42

    If you can’t come up with it, that so you Why why are you making us try to do something we can’t do? And then he goes, I have the money. He could’ve you you could’ve easily seen the court say, well, saw in the newspaper that the that the Trump said he had the money. So motion denied. It was really self defeating.
  • Speaker 2
    0:18:59

    But it’s funny. It’s just like the the courts know not to necessarily trust the out of court statements of Donald Trump, and it’s funny. It it even happened when he was present in the United States. When he was present in the United States, the Justice Department had this continuing problem of them making representations. The lawyers in the Justice Spark would make representations to the courts, and mostly the US US district court here, And then Trump would put something out on Twitter that contradicted what the Justice Department was saying, and the Justice Department would and then the other side opposite to the Justice department, whatever litigation was involved with, then, wait a minute.
  • Speaker 2
    0:19:35

    Look with the look what Trump said. Look what trump said. The Justice You can’t listen to the Justice department and the Justice department say would basically tell the court guys, you shouldn’t court. You shouldn’t trust anything this guy says on Twitter. He’s the president of the United States, and there’s actually There’s actually a little body, a small little body of case law that says that, you know, when Donald Trump says something, the justice department says something, listen to the justice
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:02

    You know, it’s funny, except that it’s also terrifying that this person was running our country. Hey, one thing that I was thinking about though on the they were there was like this talk of Tish James going around and starting to, like, seize his buildings in New York. What if he couldn’t put a bond. And so, like, the conversation always turns to the political implications of that. You know, does it hurt Trump?
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:24

    Does it help Trump? Oh, we’re
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:25

    we’re we’re talking about what’s his name’s comment? Who? The pollster.
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:32

    Oh, yeah. Long Once, Frank. So he was
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:36

    he was one
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:37

    of the people who was putting this out there. I wasn’t sure I agreed with him about this because I don’t
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:41

    agree with him.
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:42

    Yeah. Right. Like, I mean, the idea that his base would get really ticked off if they saw his buildings getting foreclosed.
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:48

    Well, I mean, the other many things wrong with Well,
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:50

    that would be true, but I’m not sure about the swing voters. I I
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:52

    don’t I don’t think it’s true with the swing voters, but also it’s just sort of the whole premise of Lunch’s commentary kind of plays into what Trump is saying that this is all just sort of a political hitch up. And Democrats, if you’re smart, you wouldn’t be doing this. Well, they’re not doing it as a hitch up. This is the legal process at work. And and I I, you know, it’s not you can’t say the attorney general don’t force laws of the state of New York and don’t collect a judgment that you have validly secured in in a court after a full blown trial because somebody might somebody might get mad at you out in the Boondocks, in some other state.
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:31

    I mean, it just doesn’t make any any sense. And it’s not And and as and I agree with you. Politically, you know, the people who have problems with this are going to have problems with anything that happens to Trump. As I said the other day, I said, you know, these people, you know, whether it be enforcing a judgment for for rape and defamation. I mean, they’re gonna complain about that and say witch hunt, witch hunt, or making a knock knock joke about the boss.
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:57

    They’re gonna they’re gonna complain that he’s being persecuted. No matter what. It doesn’t it just doesn’t matter to them. And so I think that I I think as you as you point out, I think with the swing voters, wing voters are gonna say, whoa. A court’s really
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:10

    Yeah. They’re told they’re taking this building. Yeah. I I so I agree with that. I do wonder though If and you could tell me, because I don’t know whether they take these things into consideration or not, whether there was part of the core that lowered the bond to say, we don’t want them going around seizing this guy’s assets right now.
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:27

    I mean, you just said it was a pain. But I also wonder just about like politically, politically, politically.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:32

    I mean, I think they they want to be jon courts want to do justice, and they want to give the appearance of doing justice. Both are extremely important. And in this particular circumstance, if he’s not gonna be able to bond the four sixty four, why not give him a chance to bond some significant portion of it? And at least that way, he will, you know, he will have had the chance. You will you will you will appear to have given him a chance.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:58

    And, you know, I I I would have done it frankly. That’s why I tweeted the other day. I said, you know, I’m gonna be surprised I gave him a break on the bond. Why not?
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:06

    Yeah. So a listener named Carol.
  • Speaker 2
    0:23:07

    As I said, it’s like I would be thrilled to get a, you know, a bond for one seventy five if I were the if I were the
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:15

    Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:23:16

    Because it might just like basic. I could take the one seventy five at the end of the day and go home. I don’t have to chase him around.
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:21

    Yeah. A listener named Carolyn wrote in today and asked, is the reduction in the Trump bond indicate anything about what they think about the trial court’s ruling in the case in general.
  • Speaker 2
    0:23:31

    It might. It could be that they suspect that there is some error in there and they’d have to cut their verdict back, or it could be, the judgment back, or it could be just that they you know, want to give him a chance to post some kind of a bond and and appear fair to to to do that. We don’t know. We don’t know what their thinking is. They did not explain their thinking.
  • Speaker 2
    0:23:53

    But there are, you know, there’s a these are gonna be hard. This is gonna be a hard fought appeal and and and there are a lot of moving pieces to this judgment. And it it’s not you know, it’s it could still be a big victory for the AG if he she wins six out of ten.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:07

    Yeah. So speaking of, like, there could be twists and turns in all this. Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social merged with a publicly traded company last Friday, and and could get a big influx of cash from doing so.
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:22

    Right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:23

    And one of the people who apparently is a big investor in the weird shell company. Is this guy Jeff Yes? Yes. Yes.
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:33

    Yes. Yes or no.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:34

    Yes. And who also was the big investor in TikTok
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:39

    Yep.
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:39

    Who, and and who got Trump to, like, flip his position and
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:44

    take that. It’s a very curious set of circumstances, but I will say this. This deal has been in the works for a very long time, and it was just pure fortuity that the timing of this deal happened to line up with the date of that he needed to come up with the the four sixty four million dollars.
  • Speaker 1
    0:25:04

    That’s true. That is just an
  • Speaker 2
    0:25:06

    pure serendipity. Okay. And it’s not clear whether or not he is going to be able to extract any cash out of this deal. I mean, what happened essentially is you have this pre existing shell company that has a certain amount of capital and you have that’s a pro that has been publicly trading. And then you have Trump’s Truth Social, which was a private company, and you merge them in the people who own Truth Social, social gets some of the publicly tradeable shares, except and that that’s Trump.
  • Speaker 2
    0:25:35

    Trump’s getting a whole bunch of shares for his his share of of share in this what’s called a spec, special purpose acquisition vehicle. And he’s getting that in exchange for this merger. And those shares, because the, for some reason, the market is valuing them relatively highly, you know, are worth something except that there is what’s called a lockup. I think of ninety days or six months. I forget I forget what the I think six months.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:05

    Where he cannot sell the shares. And the idea behind that is when you have a transaction like this, you don’t want all the insiders who get just got shares to dump them on the market and depress the price. The problem is, at some point, you know, the the the price will drop. And the question is how much will it drop? He can’t sell them now unless he gets some kind of a waiver from the board, and I don’t know that they’ll agree to that.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:27

    He he also there’s also restrictions on his ability to post them as collateral for, for for a loan. What he could do, I was talking to a finance guy the other night. He’s what the what what he could do is essentially write a call option on these shares and have an agreement to sell them at a fixed price after the six months is over, but you’d have to take a haircut. So, like, you know, I I have a bunch of money and these shares are trading at forty. They were trading at thirty something.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:57

    I don’t know. And I could say, okay, Donald. You need the money now? I’ll buy an option to purchase these things at ten six months from now. And I’ll pay you ten or some.
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:09

    I don’t know. I’m just making up these numbers, so he’s gonna take a haircut. Mhmm. He will get ten on the back end ten now. Instead of the full forty that he could sell if he were able to sell the shares now, but he can’t sell the shares now.
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:21

    So it, you know, it based the bottom line is he may be able to get some cash out of it now, but somebody’s gonna have to basically price the risk and decide. Okay. I think I think these shares gonna be a worth at least this when the lockup period ends. So I’m willing to buy an option and pay him now to, you know, you have to do the math, and and it could be that that he could get some money out of it now, but he’s not gonna get the full value of the shares as they are priced now. He’s gonna have to take a big haircut.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:50

    Yeah. Well, as Mark Levin asked on Twitter.
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:53

    Oh, Mark Levin.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:54

    Why I remember you got in a little bit of a back and forth with him on this, but he was like, why can’t some billionaire just bail him out? Come on guys. What are you doing? Bail him out?
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:03

    And what was my answer? Different answer was something like, because he’s a criminal deadbeat who’s who’s who doesn’t pay his debts and and and and is subject to ninety one criminal accounts and is a rapist or something like that. It was like, yeah, who will end this guy? Who what rational person was And
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:17

    he got mad at you for that.
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:18

    He got very mad at me about that. And it wasn’t He called me like, I don’t know. He called me something very bad.
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:24

    He did. I think he used asterisk. It’s like Berry. He bleeped it in some way. Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:28

    It was like he called like an a
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:30

    hole or something like that like, I didn’t say anything bad about you. Why you’re so mad, Mark?
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:35

    That’s right, Mark. This was the better health thing. Well, yes.
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:38

    Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:39

    We were like, you need some better health. Yeah. Too they’re not they’re not our sponsor today, but come back again. We’re still talking about you. That’s funny.
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:47

    Okay. I feel like I had another question on that, but we’re gonna have to go to our next ad break, which is not for better help, but for something different. Our second sponsor today is Factor. Which has made my family’s eating life better and easier with delicious ready to eat meals. Hey.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:03

    Hey.
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:05

    I am a factor customer.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:07

    Get out of town?
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:07

    No. I have the app on my phone. Oh, they’re gonna your your sponsor is gonna love this. Look. And I order fat.
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:14

    There it is. Here’s the Factor app. You can use it to, to see, like, if you’re going away, you can, you know, you can, you can decide whether you want more veg or less veggies. You can want more protein, less protein, your soy, or your chicken, or beef. And then if you’re going away for a week or you have two of the meals collect up, you can go down, and you could it’s it’s great.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:33

    Oh, well, this is terrific. I mean, every fresh, never frozen meal is chef crafted, dietitian approved, ready to go in just two minutes. Maybe that’s why you love it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:41

    Look, it sure is. And now the app is asking me for feedback, which I say, I should respond. I’m gonna say.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:49

    Well, you look. I’m gonna read this. It’s really
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:50

    likely that I would recommend. In fact, I am recommending extreme I put ten extremely like I am recommending fact
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:58

    You’ll have over thirty five different options to choose from every week, including calorie smart protein plus and keto. Also, there are more than sixty add ons to help you stay fueled up and feeling good all day long just like George Conway.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:09

    If I had known, I would have brought a couple I would have brought a couple meals from my refrigerator.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:12

    Well, I’ve got we’ve got them down Actually, I gotta tell you, half the guys in our office live on these things. They’re crazy. It’s just true. Okay. So get started today.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:20

    I love the chick.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:21

    And get after your goals. Factor meals take only two minutes to prep so you can fuel up fast with their restaurant quality meals that are ready to heat and eat wherever you are. You can also discover a wide variety of easy options for the entire day like breakfast, midday bites, and more. There’s no prep and no mess meals. There’s all
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:36

    these shakes that are amazing.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:38

    That’s good. Yeah. People in my office also like the shakes. These dishes are ready to heat meat, so there’s no prep and cooking or clean up needed, which is good for me because I don’t like to do any of those things. And they’re flexible for your schedule.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:48

    Get as much or as little as you need by choosing your meals every week plus you can pause or reschedule your deliveries anytime. Factors the perfect solution if you’re looking for fast premium options with no cooking required. And they’ve done the math. Their meals are less expensive than takeout and every meal is dietit approved to be nutritious and delicious. Called action.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:07

    Look at this. I think it’s like I’m getting the Fusili and ground pork tomato ragu shredded chicken taco bowl. Oh, this is like, you know, Tell me, we’re gonna do this.
  • Speaker 1
    0:31:20

    Head to fact your meals dot com slash ask George fifty and use code ask George fifty to get fifty percent off. That’s code ask george fifty at factor meals dot
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:28

    com. Do that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:31:30

    That’s okay. Here. Come here.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:31

    Go ahead.
  • Speaker 1
    0:31:31

    You read this. Read this. Don’t read the words called action.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:35

    Head to factor meals dot com slash ask George fifty and use code ask George fifty to get fifty percent off. That’s code ask George fifty at factor meals dot com slash ask George fifty to get fifty percent off. We crushed that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:31:50

    That was great.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:51

    And we’re back. Bottom the fourth.
  • Speaker 1
    0:31:56

    I get through my radio voice. Alright. Let’s move on down to Florida. Two weeks ago, Judge Cannon heard arguments about whether to grant Trump’s motion to dismiss the case. This is what we missed when we were gone.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:08

    Everyone was freaking out about Judge Cannon so. What is happening in this hearing? And could you what even happened with her thing? No.
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:14

    I I I can’t figure out what she’s doing. She hasn’t done anything really, really terrible recently that we haven’t already discussed. Right? Didn’t we discuss the other day when she issued the crazy order?
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:25

    No. That’s the thing. We never discussed that. Oh, god. You said here, I’ll just remind you.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:29

    Here. Let me refresh my last.
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:30

    Let’s just talk about her. Which which crazy thing
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:32

    that she’d
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:32

    done. I think we just did
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:34

    an update. I don’t think we had really
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:36

    She did this crazy thing the other day Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:37

    Hold on. Where
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:38

    everybody flipped out about.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:39

    Yeah. So last week, she issued an order, and then here’s wrote about it on Twitter. In the decades that I’ve been a lawyer, this is the most bizarre order I’ve ever seen issued by a federal judge.
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:47

    Yes.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:47

    What makes that all the more amazing is that the second and third most bizarre orders have ever seen in federal court were also issued by Judge Cannon in this case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:56

    This is a trifecta. Absolute trifecta. I mean, the first two orders I’m talking about are the orders that she issued way back. Even before the before the indictment was issued right after the search warrant, she She issued one order saying that there had to be a special master, and then she issued us another order. She’s saying that, restricting the government’s ability to look at documents and the both of those got completely.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:17

    She got demolished in the in the US court of appeals for the eleventh Circuit and on both of those things. And now she issued some order the a big contention that the Trump people are making here, and it’s a it’s a contention that Trump has been making publicly on true social. Is a completely ridiculous contention that somehow the Presidential Records Act, allows him to designate documents as being personal documents as opposed to property of the government. And that is complete and utter. I want keep wanting to use these words, but I I don’t know whether I can, but it’s complete BS.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:52

    You can you speak freely. Okay. It’s taught utter and complete and the the the presidential record tack basically minds what is a presidential record. And essentially a presidential record is anything that the president gets receives or distributes or anything that, you know, touches his desk in the course of his official duties, which you would think that secret secrets about other countries nuclear weapons and about our nuclear weapons and about all this defense stuff. That’s government property.
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:26

    And there is no basis and no mechanism for him. Even if he could he has this argument that he can declassify documents by the with the book. Right? He cannot make these documents, personal documents. They are defined by law as being the property of the United States government Ron DeSantis statute says in words of maybe one or two syllables, maybe threesome occasionally, This says that basically government documents that the, you know, in the president’s possession have to turn have to be turned over at the end of his term to the National Archives and Records Administration, which is what he did not do with a boatload of documents And it’s just a completely meritless argument.
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:09

    It doesn’t deserve the time of day. And he made a motion to dismiss in front of Judge Cannon, based upon this argument. And judge Cannon was expressed expressed some skepticism about it, and then she issued this a crazy order basically saying, I want you guys to write me jury instructions, and one of the possible jury instructions I might give would be to say the president gets to decide under the president of records act that these are personal records. So essentially, I mean, you know, if that were the law, then we wouldn’t have a trial. We she should just dismiss the case now.
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:42

    But it it was just utterly bizarre and and and she got completely, completely excoriated by it, by for everybody. Everybody on their side. I mean, I I what I said was kinda mean, but I think well deserved. I’ve been giving her the benefit of the doubt.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:59

    I’m
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:59

    just been, you know, I I I I was thinking, oh, okay. She got ahead over skis a little. I think she’ll wanna do the right thing, and she’s Maybe she’s just a little inexperienced, but this is just off the wall. I mean, this is just I there’s something seriously wrong in Fort Myers or Fort Mill Trump. Pierce, Florida.
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:21

    Yeah, wherever she is.
  • Speaker 1
    0:36:22

    I don’t know where in Florida, but is she trying to help Trump with this? And that’s
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:25

    Well, I mean Or is
  • Speaker 1
    0:36:26

    it just weird?
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:27

    I think it’s both. I mean, I think I think she may want to help Trump, but I don’t think she really knows how to do it. I think she’s I think the more I read and see about this judge, and there was an interesting Some interesting reporting by my former associate and friend, still friend, David Latt, who writes essentially, he’s a kind of a legal gossip columnist. You know, where The
  • Speaker 1
    0:36:48

    most exciting kind of gossip artist.
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:50

    Oh, yeah. The old gossip. No. He likes, you know, talking about judges and clerks and judges and clerks. And he’s been doing it for a long time, but he, you know, a couple of her clerks quit recently and the question was, well, why?
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:00

    And, and, he’s suggesting based upon what people who know these clerks are saying, or maybe maybe one of the clerks stopped to him, background that that she it’s it’s not been a good environment to work in her judge Cannon’s chambers. Since this case came around, she’s feeling a lot of pressure and a lot of heat. That’s understandable. The picture you get, which is not inconsistent with the picture that I’ve been, kind of that’s been developing my head as I watch this. I think she’s in over her head as much as anything.
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:32

    I think a judge who was experienced and smart and evil who was wanting to help Trump would have figured out a way to do it without getting into so much trouble. And I think the way that that you help Trump is you just take your time to solve things. And that’s that’s the principal way to do it. So I I, you know, but it seems like she’s taking her time in the sense that she because she can’t keep up with it. As much as anything, and and it’s clear that she doesn’t know what she’s she has no idea what she’s doing.
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:02

    And it’s really tough because, look, I mean, There there is a huge learning curve in becoming a judge and there’s a huge learning curve, particularly for judges in areas in types of cases where they they didn’t handle in private practice or when they work for the government in the as as a government attorney. And this is an area to, you know, in in her defense. This is an area. Look, this is a this is an unbelievable case to have. I mean, involves a former president of the United States, involves classified documents, involves the espionage act.
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:32

    It is it’s got a lot of things going on. I don’t think it’s that complicated at case any at bottom because the fact is he was caught red handed with the goods. But, you know, you, it will be a lot of pressure and you’d have to get to speed up to speed on a lot of things that you might not have known before if you weren’t working in the Justice Department’s national security division for your whole life. And so I I, you know, in in that sense, I feel for her, it would be tough for any young judge to handle this case, but a good smart judge will we’ll get by here. And and one of the problems as I said that this judge has is she’s out there in Fort Pierce, Florida, by herself in this loan, you know, she’s basically the only judge in that courthouse.
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:13

    If she were in Miami, she could at least consult some more experienced judges and she can’t do that. And again, that’s that’s assuming she’s acting in good faith isn’t trying to isn’t trying to to help trump in any way, but I it’s clear that she is the but the one thing that I am absolutely dead certain on now is that she is in way overhead and that’s that’s not good for the that’s not good for the case. That’s not good for the prosecution. It may not even be good for Trump at the end of the day. But it’s not good for the country.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:38

    Yeah. Okay. Do I talk too much? No. This was that was good.
  • Speaker 1
    0:39:42

    I’ve been wondering about that one for a long time. And I guess what happens if Jack Smith needs to appeal any of this before the trial gets going? Right? That case could find itself in the same delayed posture with the DC case.
  • Speaker 2
    0:39:55

    Right? I think at this point, I think it’s highly unlikely that that case is gonna go to trial before the election. Yeah. It just doesn’t doesn’t have that feel. I think she’d have to real I mean, Right now, it is scheduled for some time in the summer, but it’s I don’t think that’s gonna be a realistic trial date as she falls more and more behind.
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:13

    I think at some point, it’s gonna be worth Jack Smith making a motion to get her off the case. The next time she does something That’s that she the next time she does something that they can take up to the circuit that’s whacked out, she should he probably should take a shot. And we’ll see. But you don’t you don’t wanna take that shot too early. It will cause delay, but as I say, I don’t think this case is going to trial before the election anyway.
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:43

    So he he might as well at some point take a shot.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:47

    Yeah. Okay. Before we wrap up, since our last episode, the judge in Georgia decided that Fony Willis can stay on the case as long as Nathan Wade stepped down, which he subsequently did. Seemed like the right decision to me. What do we know?
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:59

    Do we know who’s taken over for Wade? Do we know what
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:02

    this does to the case? We don’t know. Mean, we don’t know whether she’s going to have to fill that hole or whether the other attorneys in the case can, you know, are are are up to the task of of managing it without weight. I don’t know. I don’t know.
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:17

    I don’t know the people involved.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:18

    Seems like a big loss of institutional knowledge.
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:21

    You know, maybe. I mean, he clearly spent a lot of time. He’s clearly a talented lawyer, although he, you know, people he was criticized for not having criminal prosecution experience. He’s clearly a good he’s clearly a very talented lawyer in in handling complex cases, and he’s been he’s done criminal defense work. It’s it’s absolutely a loss.
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:39

    You need, you know, you need some a senior person who’s smart and has judgment and and and can rally the team. And the question is whether they have anybody in house whether she can find somebody else to to slot in there to do that. I don’t know. So we’ll see.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:55

    What kind of harm does this do to their case?
  • Speaker 2
    0:41:57

    I don’t think it does any substantive harm. Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:00

    At all.
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:00

    You think
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:00

    she’s alright?
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:01

    Yeah. I think she’s fine. I mean, obviously from a political standpoint, a public relations standpoint that she didn’t come off all that well here. But she’ll I mean, it fine. At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s gonna affect the prosecution.
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:15

    Did you think it was
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:15

    the right decision that the judge?
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:17

    Well, I don’t know. I I I I’m gonna be agnostic on that because I don’t know I haven’t read the Georgia cases. I think that it’s clearly correct that there was no actual conflict of interest that would have warranted throwing the district attorney and it hurts higher office, off the case. Was there an appearance Yeah, I guess you could say that. Although, you know, it’s a bit iffy.
  • Speaker 2
    0:42:44

    I mean, it just it wasn’t an appearance of anything that could that I thought really adversely affected the defendants. It was an appearance of, this isn’t the way you run a railroad. And, and from a public administration standpoint, it it it it’s, you know, I mean, when you’re running, you’re running a whether it be a business or, a government law office or anything. It’s like you don’t wanna be in the circumstance where you are appointing somebody you’re having a personal relation to an important position and then paying that person and then going on vacation. Well, it just doesn’t look good.
  • Speaker 2
    0:43:17

    I mean, you could be, you know, you’d be the CEO of, Exxon or something. You you know, you get, you get in hot hot hot water with the board. It doesn’t mean though that the what the business that you guys are conduct, that they are conducting is is bad or anything like that. It’s just it’s just not it’s just bad form. So I don’t I don’t think there was an appearance of a variety that really entitled the defendants to anything.
  • Speaker 2
    0:43:42

    But that said, I mean, the solution that the judge came up with, whether or not it was legally justified, was actually probably the sensible thing to do just as a practical matter. And there are a lot of people. I know my friend Norman Eisenhower said this. That who were saying that that was they should have done at the very beginning. I mean, what she should have said, yes, there’s an affair.
  • Speaker 2
    0:44:02

    Not a fair. I mean, a fair is covering the wrong word. Yes, there’s a relationship. It didn’t happen until after I hired him, but to remove any doubt, and and we we, you know, I paved my share for everything. So there’s none of this.
  • Speaker 2
    0:44:16

    None of these things that defendants are saying are true. It doesn’t affect them, but to give the public confidence and the defense confidence that nothing untoward is going here. Mr. Wade is going to step down and we’re going to point somebody else. If she had done that and been, you know, a little more forthcoming with the facts instead of letting me.
  • Speaker 2
    0:44:36

    It’s a common problem in you know, in public life, when you let something fester and you don’t provide an answer and you don’t provide a solution and you kind of drag it out a little bit, people get more and more suspicious. I mean, it’s kind of like, not to use the, I mean, I feel very bad for for Kate, but that, you know, the photo thing with the photo is like you just, you’re just hurting yourself if you don’t get the news out sooner. Yeah. No matter how tough that may be. And that they could have cauterized themselves, I think, from all of the harm that they suffered.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:08

    The political or the public relations harm that they suffered thereafter if they had just come out and said, okay. You know, we don’t think it was required, but we’re just just Nathan’s gonna step down.
  • Speaker 1
    0:45:19

    Yeah. You know, it’s funny in crisis communications work, which I, this is a lot of my background.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:24

    Yes. Buy or her. Let’s do an ad for her crisis.
  • Speaker 1
    0:45:28

    Crisis is democracy right now, but but it’s it’s, tell it all, tell it fast, tell the truth. Like, that is the what is the central tenant behind price communication.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:36

    And just because and just because you say, I’m gonna give you something for this, like, I’m gonna, you know, he’s gonna resign. You don’t have to say You don’t have to say, we did the worst thing in the world. You just say, look, it just we don’t want an issue here. It’s more important that we prosecute this case more important that we get back to business instead of these distractions. And and and Mr.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:57

    Wade would say, yes, I don’t wanna be a distraction. This is an important case of a blah blah blah yada yada yada. And You know, they they they could have saved themselves a couple, I guess, a couple of months. I don’t know how long it went on of of just of this immense embarrassing time consuming, expensive sideshow.
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:14

    And you all can save yourselves, you know, bad times in a crisis by listening to me and George. George. As always, thanks for explaining the legal news to me, and thanks to everyone for listening.
  • Speaker 2
    0:46:24

    Always fun.
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:25

    Don’t forget to hit subscribe. Leave us a review on your podcast email us at ask george at the Bulwark dot com, and we will see you next week.