Support The Bulwark and subscribe today.
  Join Now

George Conway Explains E. Jean Carroll’s Lawsuit Against Donald Trump

January 18, 2024
Notes
Transcript
In this third edition of “George Conway Explains it All,” George explains to Sarah Longwell how he gave legal advice to E. Jean Carroll and helped connect her with her lawyer, Trump’s many, many other trials, and Trump’s big mad TruthSocial bleats directed at George.
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
    0:00:01

    Hello, everybody, and welcome to George Carmley explains it all to Sarah. I’m Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark and definitely not a lawyer. And because I’m not a lawyer, I have asked my friend George Conway from the society for the rule of law to explain this week’s legal news to me, and there’s a lot to explain because George I’m gonna ask you to explain two Trump trials that are going on right now. The first is the e gene Carol case happening this week And the second is the Trump Organization fraud case that wrapped last week. And unlike the January six cases, that we talked about last time.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:43

    This like, that was a criminal case, but this is a civil case, right? Which means it’s about money you’re not going to jail. Correct?
  • Speaker 2
    0:00:49

    Correct. These are these are both civil cases. Absolutely. But significant civil cases.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:54

    I’m getting better at the legal stuff already. Okay. I wanna start with the e Jean Carol case because Trump is big mad at you. He’s out there bleeding at you right now on Truth Social. He’s very mad at you.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:09

    You made him upset. This
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:11

    makes me very sad.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:14

    Yeah. I’m sure you’re really caught up about it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:01:16

    This is my sad face. Okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:18

    So let me let me just read you a couple of things. First, a recent filing in this case says that. The idea of suing mister Trump crystallized in miss Carol’s mind as a result of a conversation at a party with George Conway, a Republican lawyer who does not like Mr. Trump, and that Mr. Conway then introduced her to a lawyer, Then today on the stand when e Jean Carroll was asked why she decided to sue Trump.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:47

    She said that at a party, you explained the difference between a civil and criminal case, like you just did with me, and walked her through the steps to sue and said that you would help her get a lawyer. And then in a bleat on truth social today, Trump complained about the unfairness of the trial and wrote. Even E. Jean Carroll is a Democrat political operative. She’s a Democrat?
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:15

    A Democrat.
  • Speaker 3
    0:02:16

    Democrat. Nobody told me that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:19

    And this whole hoax was funded and conceived of by Reed Hoffman, George Conway, and many others in the democratic system of thugs. Alright. Three questions.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:28

    I’m a democratic thug.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:30

    One. What party was this? Why wasn’t I invited? And how does it feel to be a democratic thug?
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:37

    Oh, okay. Well, once upon a time, there was a president. He was a bad man and he used to sexually harass women. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:50

    It’s like a magnet. Just kidding. I don’t need to wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:56

    Whatever you want. Grab them by the one day, A woman wrote a book describing all the bad men in his life in her life, and the book came out and mentioned this president as being one of them. And he had raped her in a department store in New York City. I did not know anything about this until I read it in a magazine, New York magazine. And, it just so happened that I, I, you know, I wrote something in the Washington Post, the few days later, that basically said, hey, if you guys believe when he’d a broderick, And you gotta believe this woman because what happened was I mean, I saw Jean Carroll’s original story, and then I saw this interview in the New York Times where she it was clear that she had told two people, two other people, almost immediately after it happened.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:50

    And to me, that’s a very, very very, very compelling circumstance when it comes to these me too type cases. If the the two things that I think are the most compelling, if you follow the work of Ron and Farow and and the recent last few years of of stories coming about about bad men doing things to women The two factors that you really have to consider are, did the guy do it to other people? And were their contemporaneous witnesses because if something bad happens to you, you’re gonna wanna tell somebody even if you don’t go to the police. And to me, this was a pretty compelling case. And it happened that, you know, I had never met Jean Carroll before.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:32

    But the following week, I was But within a week or two, I was at a party in New York at Molly Jonathan Last Department, and lo and behold, there’s the There’s Eugene Cow. And she came up to me. And, you know, she wants she thanked me for the article that I’d written in the Washington which had effectively defended her. It was basically, I was arguing that, well, Trump made a big deal out of Juanita Broderick during the campaign. He and and and Bannon.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:01

    And and I now and I think that that there was some credibility to to to to broader its claim But it wasn’t as strong as Jean Call’s hand, which is the point of my article. And so Jean thanked me for that. And then she mentioned the fact that, you know, some people were telling her that she should sue and that she was thinking about it, but you know, she didn’t know anything about whether it would make sense or not. And what did I think? She was just, you know, just asking me, and my immediate reaction within a millisecond was you have a libel claim.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:36

    Because if this happened, and I don’t have any reason to disbelieve you, and in fact, the evidence seems to support it based on what I reading in the in the paper, and and then there was Trump lying about never having met her when in fact there was a photograph published New York magazine of the two of them together with other people. I mean, it struck me that he’s lying. She’s telling the truth And she has a libel claim, even if you couldn’t bring a lawsuit for something, a physical assault that happened, two and a half decades before. So she she I told her, and I know precisely the lawyer to bring the case. And it was my friend, Robbie Kaplan, who I’d gotten to know over the prior year or two.
  • Speaker 2
    0:06:21

    She, is just a fantastic lawyer. She her most famous, well, she tried the she later tried the the, Charlotte School case, but the the thing that she’ll always be remembered for is she won, on behalf of EDie Windsor, the, you know, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, a very, you know, obviously a very historic, a historic case. And she won that case, and she’s also just a terrific trial lawyer and a great person. And she also She’s also bringing another lawsuit against Trump for the the, the pyramid scheme that he was running on, on the apprentice, in that, that case is scheduled to go to trial in a few weeks. But, anyway, I told I told Jean Carroll, I think I know the right lawyer for you.
  • Speaker 2
    0:07:07

    And the next day, I I got in touch with with, Robbie Kaplan, and she met with Jean and and Jean retained her, and and the rest is history. Shape as we got this great verdict from through the first trial. He now is in you know, there was what happened was She brought suit for the libel that he he he libeled her into fainter by calling her a liar when he was president. And Jean testified about what happened to her in the department store and testified, and her, friends testified about what what she said happened to them back in nineteen in the, in the nineteen nineties when this happened. And then there were a couple of other witnesses who testified base of the Donald Trump did the exact tried to do the exact same thing to them.
  • Speaker 2
    0:07:58

    Latasha Stoynoff, who was a reporter at People magazine, testified that she was doing she was assigned to do a feature story on Trump, and and Trump cornered her in the Mar a Lago ballroom and tried to, and and and and and tried to sexually assault her. And then he she was saved by some guy who said, oh, mister Trump Melania is coming. And then there was a woman who was, he he he he molested on an airplane of all places. But, anyway, the jury came back, with a five million dollar verdict in last summer, in favor of Jean Carroll, two million dollars for the rape and three million dollars for the defamation. And, as a result, the judge has ruled that basically that first verdict means that the only issue in this trial is damages.
  • Speaker 2
    0:08:45

    So this case is only about damages. And that is what’s going on right now, before Judge Kaplan in the Southern District of New York, a trial that’s only about damages.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:56

    Like, why do you think he’s so fixated on you in this? Like, why are you winding up in the testimony? Who cares about yada’s lawyer? That doesn’t seem to remain.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:06

    Because he’s a narcissistic sociopath. Narcissists are obsessed with, getting revenge. They feel persecuted. I mean, they feel like they should be able to do whatever they want. But when somebody says, no.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:21

    No. No. You can’t do that. Like, you can’t rape people, they get mad. When you when they tell them, when they’re told, no, you you can’t just stand up in court and just yammer stuff, you have to answer questions and be sworn.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:34

    They get mad. And so and they’re always seeking to blame somebody else for their conduct. And so I’m I’m a very convenient target. I’m happy to be the target because I think I did something pretty good when I founding Jean, her lawyer. But, yeah, he’s he’s he wants to deflect attention from himself.
  • Speaker 2
    0:09:56

    He wants to he wants to avoid responsibility for his own actions. And he’s always seeking vengeance. So, you know, I mean, and he’s also seeking to distract from his own content by alleging a a massive conspiracy, which, of course, makes no sense. And, you know, actually, I would have a liable claim against them if I chose the green one, for alleging that I perpetrated a hoax, which makes absolutely no sense since I didn’t know anything about Gene Carroll or what had happened to her, until after it became public. And so, therefore, it’s hard to imagine that this was some kind of a put up job.
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:29

    I mean, she her story was was baked in the cake years ago. She told what happened to people decades ago, or I even know who Eugene Cara was. But nonetheless, I’m a democrat dog named yada yada yada, yada, yada,
  • Speaker 1
    0:10:43

    Jimmy response. Whatever, what do you do when he does these things? It’s it’s probably less bad now than when it was Twitter because so few so many fewer No.
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:50

    I just, you know, I just I just I mean, I take it as a badge of honor, and I mock it, which is what everyone should do. Everyone needs to mock Donald Trump because he is so mockable. And it it it’s just he has to be taken seriously because he’s a danger to the Republic. But you can’t ever lose sight of the fact that he’s a complete buffoon, and we have to keep saying that. The two, the two are completely consistent.
  • Speaker 2
    0:11:18

    He’s a dangerous buffoon. And it’s funny because I think his own people, people that I know who who have worked with him or for him, They don’t take him quite that seriously because they think he’s a buffoon. So they they they kind of make fun of us for saying, why are you so obsessed with him? Why do you think he’s so dangerous? Because they know he’s a buffoon.
  • Speaker 2
    0:11:38

    But the fact of the matter is he’s a dangerous buffoon, and for reasons that, you know, you and I could go on for, per days, mountain.
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:46

    Yeah. You know, Charlie Sykes, always says a clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower. Correct. Yes. I was thinking that’s a nice way to talk about it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:11:56

    That’s a nice thing. Right. Right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:11:57

    Yeah. Okay. So moving on from Trump’s, you know, big emotions. Big picture. Can you explain so you talked about how this is about damages, but like, what’s gonna happen?
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:10

    What’s next?
  • Speaker 2
    0:12:11

    Okay. What’s gonna happen is, I mean, she’s, Jean Carroll testified on direct examination. Her lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, took her through what happened to her. I haven’t seen a transcript. I saw some live tweeting of it.
  • Speaker 2
    0:12:23

    And, basically, I mean, her story is The one actually she told that the first trial, which is Trump lied about her, and this is There’s no, you know, the the jury is being instructed that Trump lied. This is the fact they cannot they cannot Trump cannot contest it in this trial. And the jury cannot test us to take it as a given. And she explained the consequences of that lie. To her, emotionally, to the her her needing security, which is a big thing, and her her career that all the different negative things that happened to her as the result of Trump telling this persistent lie, and how Trump continues to tell the lie even after a jury found that he had lied.
  • Speaker 2
    0:13:12

    And in fact, he has been tweeting or Xing or whatever you want to call it incessantly more lies about her, that she he never met her, that she’s a liar, and that it’s a put up job, like the you know, and and so, that’s gonna go to punitive damages because one of the, you know, if somebody doesn’t get the message, the that’s the poor purpose of punitive damages, of course, to to to punish bad behavior from people who not only just violated somebody’s rights, but didn’t give a about violating someone’s rights. So you’re gonna bleep that. I’m sorry.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:48

    Well, that’s up to Barry. He’ll decide.
  • Speaker 2
    0:13:50

    That’s up to Barry. Okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:52

    Okay.
  • Speaker 2
    0:13:53

    This is a podcast. I agree.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:54

    Alright. Okay. So, I guess now that we’ve talked about Eugene Carol, I do wanna move on to the what was the original topic, which is the trunk organization fraud trial. There’s so much legal news. There’s so much.
  • Speaker 1
    0:14:09

    It just wrapped up last week. And just like the judge today, That judge told Trump’s lawyer to control his client. Right. And, right, because Trump’s always doing that, like, presidential level headed vibe stuff. That’s just how he behaves.
  • Speaker 2
    0:14:24

    Vaying the rules like he always does.
  • Speaker 1
    0:14:27

    Yeah. Very normal. Very cool.
  • Speaker 2
    0:14:28

    Showing respect for for authority.
  • Speaker 3
    0:14:31

    Absolutely. Right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:14:33

    That’s right. Yep. And so, can you just blade this one out? So starting, like, what’s an issue in the fraud case?
  • Speaker 2
    0:14:39

    Alright. What what’s an issue in the fraud case is basically the books, the records that have been kept by the Trump Organization and its myriad subsidiaries and related entities for many years. And essentially the DA’s case, not the DA, but the AG’s case is this. Those books were all cooked. They were cooked in any number of ways.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:04

    But mostly they were cooked in terms of values of scribed to various various assets. And those were used those those financial statements and balance sheets were used, to to to induce banks, into lending money and to, and to get to insurance companies. And the problem that Trump has is that the numbers are just not supportable. The numbers of, of, of, in his books were just not supportable to the point where his own accountants, disclaimed, the numbers, and then later quit as his accountants. And his only defense as well.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:44

    The banks were gonna lend me the money anyway. Nobody actually relied on this stuff, but the problem for that for for Trump is that under New York law, now that that does necessarily matter. It might it could matter if somebody was seeking damages on behalf of a bank or something or or somebody who purchased securities. But it’s essentially in New York, if you’re gonna do business in New York, either as a New York operation or as a non New York corporation who is author that is authorized to do business in New York, you’re obliged to keep accurate books and records. And if you do not, You can forfeit the right to do business.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:22

    The judge essentially has already found that the books were cooked, and this is the question of his intent to do that. And it’s pretty clear that judge is, you know, what was issued at the trial even though the judge had found on the basis documentary evidence and grand summary judgment for the trial on the question of falsity, the issues here were, you know, his state of mind, in, in participating in the making of those, false statements in the books. And, again, which is not something that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because this is a civil case. And we have to be proven to basically fifty point zero one percent, more likely than not that he, you know, intended to put false statements in the books, and there’s gonna be a little question about that. And then the other issue would be how much restitution, how much How much is the state entitled to recover from him, you know, in terms of ill gotten gains, because he was able to keep his business running with these false books for so long.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:27

    So he’s gonna lose that case. The question is how much money he’s gonna have pay. And, that’s not good for him.
  • Speaker 1
    0:17:36

    Okay. So and so it’s just it’s money, but, like, is there anything else at stake for his family? Like, what kind of penalty are we potentially talking about?
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:44

    When we’re talking I mean, the the I I don’t remember the price of precise amount that the the the attorney general is seeking, but it is two or three hundred million dollars or more. It’s it’s a lot of money.
  • Speaker 4
    0:17:54

    That’s real.
  • Speaker 3
    0:17:55

    I don’t I don’t it
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:56

    is real money, and I don’t know. I don’t know, you know, I don’t I have no sense of how how much liquidity he has, but it’s it’s it’s going to be a bad thing for him if he has to pay that judgment.
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:07

    And what are the what are the chances he does?
  • Speaker 2
    0:18:11

    The chances I think the chances are reasonably high, but we’ll see. I mean, this judge is gonna rule fairly quickly. I think it’s going to be a substantial number. He didn’t seem to, he didn’t seem to show much sympathy for Trump’s arguments or his antics. And, we’ll see.
  • Speaker 2
    0:18:28

    We’ll see.
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:29

    Okay. So I just I wanna read some quotes from Trump on the last day of his trial. So he said, this was a political witch hunt. We should receive damages for what this country what this company has gone through. And also, this is election interference.
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:46

    Plan all that hits here. The person, here, meaning the New York attorney general, hates Trump and doesn’t want Trump to win elections. Excellent use of first, of of what third person trump there. He also directed a comment at the judge and said, you have your own agenda. You can’t listen for more than one minute.
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:08

    Now, again, not a legal scholar over here, but this seems like a typical courtroom behavior for a defense in a serious lawsuit. Right. What happens when you just act like a lunatic like this yelling at the judge?
  • Speaker 2
    0:19:21

    You don’t get much you don’t get much cream as from the judge. I I I don’t think a judge is going to say is going to change his conclusions because of this. A good judge will not do that. A good judge will not get resentful and seek vengeance in his judgment. But the but the truth of the matter is, if that’s what you’re doing, it looks it’s it reeks of weakness.
  • Speaker 2
    0:19:48

    And if you, you know, the way to appeal to a judge is to show them you have some facts and that you have some law. And he’s not doing that because he’s not capable of doing that. And that’s not good for him. And that’s not good for you know, it’s not gonna be good on appeal. It’s not gonna be he’s he’s created a terrible, terrible record for himself.
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:11

    And at this point, in in the other case, in the in the in the Gene Cow case. I mean, he’s got this lawyer who basically doesn’t even know how to try a case. She was basically getting schooled by the judge, today on how to do things like mark an exhibit, move an exhibit into evidence, cross examine a witness based upon deposition transcript. I mean, things that law students, and sometimes, trial participants in high school learn how to do. And, you know, this woman, Elena Haba did not know how to do that.
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:43

    Oh, can we talk about this Haba attorney for just one second?
  • Speaker 2
    0:20:46

    Haba. Yes. Haba. Haba, nice day. Hold on.
  • Speaker 1
    0:20:49

    Why would he choose? She has done I have seen her make all kinds of comments that she shouldn’t be making. In public on TV, you know, has this stuff like, why did he choose her?
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:00

    Because, He she’s she plays to him. Right? She he wants his his idea of he’s not capable of reasoned thinking or reasoned argument. He is a narcissistic sociopath, a psychopath, a rat not not not a rational man, And the law is generally it tries to be a rational process. And so he’s fighting it every bit of the way because it involves evidence.
  • Speaker 2
    0:21:30

    It involves, rules. He doesn’t like evidence because it’s not doesn’t conform to his delusions or fantasies or desires to have people believe false things, and it doesn’t believe in rules or laws unless they’re applied to other people and unless he’s making the rules and laws up as he goes along. So that’s you know, he’s he’s always been in a continual battle against the legal system, and this is just part of it. And, it’s not going well for him, and it won’t it will continue not to go well for him.
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:04

    So let me float a theory at you, which is
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:07

    Yes.
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:07

    So Trump’s obviously gonna appeal this case, right, against the Trump organization. And the way that he’s talking to the to me reads like, he’s trying to delay whatever the impact is, and he just wants to he needs to win the election. Right? Like, he’s basically and so he what he wants to convey coming out of these court cases is the, like, I’m the tough guy none of these judges are getting to me also on the victim. And so to me, it seems like a political play.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:37

    It is. It is. It’s a it’s it’s an instinctive play. In part because he is a narcissistic sociopath. But it is also a political play because that is That is that is how he’s made it in politics.
  • Speaker 2
    0:22:52

    That the the the the lying and the and the playing victim appeals to a significant, as we’ve learned, a significant number of people who, for for their own psychological reasons. And so I don’t think it’s part of I I I I hesitate to say that it’s part of some kind of master plan because as associate path, he’s not capable of extensive planning. He’s he’s more reactive. He’s more instinctive. He’s, you know, he’s he’s got a rep too, kind of like a tilling and brain, except the reptiles are generally smarter.
  • Speaker 2
    0:23:30

    And, he’s just doing what he what he naturally does. And and and, yes, it’s it, you know, it fits into his political approach, which is basically to play the victim. And but that’s what he does. I mean, he’d be doing this even if he weren’t running for public office, he’d be playing the victim. Because that’s what physicists do.
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:52

    I mean, one of the things that’s crazy to me is that if the Trump org was found to be cooking the books, right? Like, this is part of his political, like, lore, the lore of him is that he’s a great businessman and that he’s super rich. And part of what this case shows, right, is that he’s He was he’s inflating his wealth all over the place. Right? And so, but what I what never failed
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:14

    Which isn’t which actually isn’t new because you know, it it came out years ago that he basically was lying to the Forbes to get on the Ford’s four hundred. And, you know, there was this lawsuit that that he brought against, against Tim O’Brien that he had to settle because because, you know, he claimed that Tim had libeled him by saying he wasn’t as rich as he made himself out to be. Well, they, you know, turned out that He couldn’t sustain that claim, you know, to drop the case. So, I mean, there should this is this is not new. And it’s not, you know, it’s consistent with everything we know about the man is that he exaggerates.
  • Speaker 2
    0:24:49

    He self promotes. He lies, about everything about himself, even when it’s not necessary to he lies. It’s pathological.
  • Speaker 1
    0:25:01

    Yeah. I just in a different world, the idea that he had made his political grand around being rich. And then there being a case in which he was convicted for cooking the books at his company That would have an enormous, like, earthquake of political consequence because it would, like, topple down, like, the whole thing has been a sham. I don’t think this will change anything. No.
  • Speaker 4
    0:25:24

    I don’t I I don’t think it’s I
  • Speaker 2
    0:25:26

    don’t think I don’t think it will at all because I think we’ve, you know, seven years in we’ve reached this point of what psychologists call malignant normality. Where people just sort of accept the bizarre as and even people who don’t like Trump accept the bizarre as just perfectly normal. And so none of this is going to be I mean, the people who support him are just going to disbelieve it no matter what the evidence shows, no matter what the findings are. And then the people who oppose them all say, well, we already knew that. And in in that sense, you know, he benefits because he’s so crazy.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:09

    He’s he’s so, mind boggling disturbed that Not that none of this is news anymore.
  • Speaker 3
    0:26:19

    Yeah. Hey. This is a this the the
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:21

    the results of this are gonna be decided by that judge the one he’s yelling at. Right? Correct.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:26

    Yes. Yep. This guy Because apparently, because apparently, Alina Haba forgot to ask for a jury. I think.
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:34

    Oh, that’s right. This is this case. You know, part of it is even, you know, so I’m obviously I don’t always understand the ins and outs of the legal side, but I follow it pretty mostly. And I forget which things attached to which case. Like, when we were talking about Eugene and Carol, I was like, right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:50

    This is the one where there’s the video of Trump when he’s getting interviewed, and he says, you know, he he’s like, yes. When you’re a star, you’re allowed to it’s like it’s like it’s like Right.
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:03

    That’s right. No. That that was admitted into evidence both of the first trial and the second trial. That when you’re, you know, the the the access Hollywood tape, because it goes to his state of mind and and so on and so forth.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:14

    But it wasn’t even the access Hollywood tape. It was, like, him, he was saying,
  • Speaker 2
    0:27:19

    Yes. Yes. In in his deposition
  • Speaker 3
    0:27:21

    In this video, I just started kissing them. It’s like a magnet kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
  • Speaker 3
    0:27:32

    Grab them by the You could do anything. That’s what you said. Correct?
  • Speaker 5
    0:27:35

    Well, historically, that’s true with stars.
  • Speaker 3
    0:27:38

    It’s true with stars that that they can grab women by
  • Speaker 5
    0:27:40

    Well, that’s what that’s if you look over the last million years, I guess, that’s been largely true, not always, but largely true, unfortunately or fortunately.
  • Speaker 3
    0:27:52

    And you consider yourself, to be a star?
  • Speaker 5
    0:27:56

    I think you can say that. Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:27:59

    They have let great men do whatever they want. You know, fortunately. I was like, unfortunately or fortunately.
  • Speaker 3
    0:28:09

    I mean That’s right.
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:09

    That was at his deposition. That was at his deposition in the Jean Carroll case. Robbie Kaplan basically showed him or quoted him quoted at him that the the access Hollywood Dave and asked him, hey. Is this true? And he basically said, yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:26

    And that that’s consistent with his narcissistic sociopathic way of looking at the world. It’s why he says he likes to talk about how Kim Jong Un wants to see him he said this the other day. He wants he Kim Jong Wu wants to see him present again. I mean, it’s the same kind of sick What is in Gorsuch?
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:44

    Corvace. Yeah.
  • Speaker 4
    0:28:45

    What are what are those?
  • Speaker 1
    0:28:46

    A former dictator wants
  • Speaker 2
    0:28:47

    to be known. A former dictator. Right. And and and, you know, it’s consistent with Trump the other day, saying that, you know, Sammy the Bulligravano had it right that Trump is, you know, a great man and these judges better watch out or something like that. I mean, something Who’s that?
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:02

    Who’s that person you’re talking about?
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:05

    Sam, Sammy the Bull Gravano, a mobster, famous mobster, famous mobster, who was apparently giving an interview saying nice things about Donald Trump. And, so Donald Trump said, this is great.
  • Speaker 3
    0:29:21

    I mean You’re not making this up.
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:22

    Can’t make this up.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:23

    That must’ve come from a place where, like, if nobody’s ever liked you, you’ll take a compliment wherever you can can get it even if it’s
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:29

    like No. It’s not it’s it’s worse than that. He likes people. He likes that type, he likes criminal dictators. He likes mobsters.
  • Speaker 2
    0:29:40

    Okay. He admires them. He his He he thought the best lawyer in the world was Roy Cohen, who is the most unethical lawyer, one of the most unethical lawyers in American history. You know, I I I don’t know what else. He admires people who are fellow sociopaths.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:00

    That’s just basically how he rolls.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:03

    Well, I for one I know that That’s that expression. The the wheels of justice turned slow, but they turned fine.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:14

    Yes. They grind slowly, but they grind fine. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:17

    That’s basically what’s happening to him.
  • Speaker 1
    0:30:19

    That is what’s happening. Alright. They got But
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:21

    he is, but he has you right. He’s absolutely trying to run out the clock. I mean, that that’s part of what he’s doing. He is trying to run out the clock on all of his stuff because he has figured out. I’m sure people have told him that if he becomes present, I cannot have the civil case he can’t, they’re more healthy.
  • Speaker 2
    0:30:35

    But, basically, if he were in jail on, at noon, on January twentieth, twenty twenty five, having been convicted of something or other this year. And he had been he gets two hundred and seventy electoral votes. Well, they’re gonna have to spring them. I think under the constitution, which wouldn’t be great. But, you know, that’s that’s his best play, and that’s what he’s trying to do.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:00

    Among others.
  • Speaker 1
    0:31:01

    Hey, what did you think? So this was something interesting that just came out of Iowa with the one of the things that was in the exit polls or interest entrance polls, and those are not terribly reliable, but it was something like thirty one percent of the primary voters said that they would not vote for him if he was convicted I’m a crime. Do you believe that?
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:23

    I believe that there are Here’s my theory, and, I don’t know why I’m telling you this because you’re the one who actually conducts focus groups and talks to voters on my guy. I do not. But I do think they’re are going to be, broadly speaking. They’re gonna be people who are never gonna believe anything bad said about Donald Trump, even if they’re shown video of it. They will say it’s a deep deep fake or something.
  • Speaker 2
    0:31:50

    And then there are people who Don’t like the Democrats, wanna vote for a Republican and, but are exhausted by Trump and embarrassed by Trump. And I do think that those people can be moved more so than in twenty twenty because I I I just think we’re just we’re I mean, I it’s incumbent upon all of us to really really camera him in a way. I don’t think happened even in twenty twenty. I think twenty twenty, it it was sort of easier because we he was president. I think now His big advantage is that he’s been off everyone’s radar screens.
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:29

    This deplatforming of him has made him more of an abstract like you forget how bad he is. And then you worry about things, you know, you worry about things that are not really as significant as having an associate path in charge of the second largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. So, that’s gonna be the the important thing is is for us every all every single one of us, including people who are listening. You know, you you’ve gotta engage people. And and and tell them what you think and tell them why this is bad.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:05

    And I think there’s a there’s another potential effect. And again, this I I defer to you, maybe maybe this fantasy on my part, but I do think that the more this happens, the more it demoralizes, even the, even the phonetics. And, and, and, and, and, my, my one data point on this Well, I mean, one data point is turnout, although that could have been due to the weather in Iowa, but there was also an interesting report that was leaked. It was a report prepared by Club for growth. You may have read it or seen it, but they had run.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:47

    They had focus group tested a bunch of negative ads about Trump. And they found two things. The first thing was it didn’t affect people’s willingness to say they were gonna go for Trump. They basically showed all the bad things about Trump, and people said, well, I still support him. But they found that it dampened their enthusiasm.
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:10

    And I think I think the people who support him are exhausted too. And I think that I think at the end of the day, what we’re going to see, assuming, you know, nothing bad happens to Joe Biden, and the Democrats do what they should be doing. And god knows they have the money to do it. The the the the the the turnout is going to be huge for people who don’t wanna see Trump again, and it’s not gonna be so great for the people who are just trying to stick by him. Because they because deep down a lot of them know better, and and also they’re just exhausted.
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:49

    And, that’s why I think at the end of the day, I’m hopeful that we will not all end up in Guantanamo.
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:56

    Yeah. I, you know, I wanna underscore something you said there. I was just talking about this with a reporter, And and it is this idea of right now Joe Biden is front and center for people.
  • Speaker 3
    0:35:06

    I hear this in the press
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:07

    for all the time. Right? So they They know what they’re annoyed about with Joe Biden. They’re frustrated with the economy. I heard this in twenty twenty two from swing voters going into the election as well.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:16

    They were mad about Joe Biden River but then when you said, okay. Well, then who are you gonna vote for? Blake Masters or Mark Kelly. They were like, I’m not gonna vote for that psychopath. Blake Masters.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:25

    Crazy on abortion. He thinks the election was stolen and he likes the unabomber. Like, I’m not gonna vote for him. And I think the contours I think we’re at a low watermark for Joe Biden. And a high watermark for Trump because he’s about to sort of get a coordination in this nomination.
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:39

    But then I think once that contrast becomes clear, because something else that’s clear in the group is that people don’t know yet that it’s Biden versus Trump. They just have not cracked.
  • Speaker 2
    0:35:48

    They don’t believe it, but they haven’t focused. Yeah. And and I I I I I still second that and I’ll use even bigger data points. In twenty sixteen, Hillary was ahead until Hillary became the issue. And one of the things that happened when they, you know, got rid of Manafort and put in my ex wife and and so on in the fall was they started making the campaign about Hillary.
  • Speaker 2
    0:36:12

    And that’s why she lost. In twenty twenty, he lost because the election was about him. He was the incumbent. In twenty twenty four, it’s going to become about him again, even though he’s not the incumbent because Everybody who’s gonna all of us are gonna make it about him, and he can’t help but make it about himself.
  • Speaker 1
    0:36:37

    I think that’s a hundred percent right, and I think that, also underscore your part about we’re all gonna have to do this job. It’s one of the reasons we need to make sure people understand what’s happening in these court cases. And so George, then I appreciate you another week of George Conway explains it all to Sarah. I feel like we’re all getting a lot out of this. It was great to talk to you, and we’re gonna come back and do this again next Absolutely.
  • Speaker 2
    0:37:01

    Absolutely. Alright. Because they’re all the lord knows there won’t be some there will be something next week as well.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:06

    There will be. Alright. Thanks so much. Bye.
Want to listen without ads? Join Bulwark+ for an exclusive ad-free version of The Next Level Podcast! Learn more here. Already a Bulwark+ member? Access the premium version here.