Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Fed Up George Conway DROPS THE HAMMER on Trump (Interview)

Episode Date: February 5, 2024

Legal AF host and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo interviews conservative attorney George Conway about Donald Trump's legal woes. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to this special legal AF where I'm joined by George Conway, who everybody has seen and heard over the years. George, you have been somebody that has just we've been in awe of because you're a conservative, because you're a conservative Republican who's been very, very outspoken and vocal about Donald Trump for years, even raising the alarm bells way before many others were and warning people about his dangers and his just psychology, if you will, and why he is just a different animal than any of us are used to. So I'm so thrilled that you are willing to join this pod. I mean, your credentials are beyond impressive. You know, Harvard, Yale, educated, worked for many, many years as a lawyer. You were up for being solicitor general,

which is code for anyone out there. If you're going to be a solicitor general, or you argue in the Supreme Court, you're the smartest of the smart lawyers. And so you would just have an incredible career. But my favorite thing that you do and have done is you're hilariously funny, which I always appreciate. So I love following you on X and seeing what you have to say about things because I think

it makes everything better when you add a little humor and certainly it makes this time that we're in a little more palpable. Yeah, I don't know how we can get by without a few jokes here and there, whether it be gallows, humor or not, you know, I mean, whatever. Yeah. And I'll probably ramp it up when they send me to Guantanamo next year. Yeah, well, but welcome, welcome and thank you for joining. And I just, you know, really wanted to get your brain on all things that are happening right now, just in our country, involving Republicans and Democrats and Donald Trump. And where do you see that we are? And where do you see a path forward for us? That's, well, because it encompasses so much the political and the legal. I mean, I see what I think right now is we have a Republican party that is basically

on autopilot. It's completely out of control. The metaphor I've used in the past is that Malaysian Airlines flight that took off from, I don't know, was it Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, and then turned around and instead of going to Beijing, we're supposed to go and flew into the Indian Ocean. And it's like, this guy is in the cockpit. He's completely nuts talking about Trump, of course. And he's flying this airplane, the Republican party, to nowhere. And there are some people on board who are saying, well, I don't see any city lights down there.

We're over the middle of the ocean. Where are we going? But most of the passengers on board, you know, think that those guys are trying to hijack the plane. And if they actually make a move for the cockpit, they're going to get attacked. And, you know, it's just this bizarre circumstance where these so many people in the Republican Party have shielded themselves. They protect themselves from reality. They either don't consume news or they consume conservative media that refrains from telling them things that they don't want to hear. whether that be Fox News, which had to pay that $787.5 million judgment for passing on the election stolen election lies, or the Newsmax, or all these other things,

or these other outlets. I mean, they're just brainwashed. 50 million people or 60 million people. And that's hard to reverse. But it's I understand, I just have one question about what you just said, I understand the politicians who have to do it. I don't agree with it. And I have tremendous respect for the the Liz Chainies of the world or the Adam Kinzinger's of the world, or the use of the world, not that you're a politician, but the people who say, you know what, the world, not that you're a politician,

but the people who say, you know what, I'm gonna put my conservative beliefs aside or even Mike Pence and say, I'm gonna put my beliefs aside and do what's right. And we know what's happened to all of them, right? And Chris Christie's another. They've all, they're all. You started with Jeff Flake.

Remember Jeff Flake started saying, he was drummed out of the Senate. You know, one of the reasons why I started speaking out. And by the way, I'm no longer Republican in March of 2018. I registered in New Jersey as a unaffiliated voter because I believed at that time. And that's what I said to people was this party has become a personality cult. And that was March of 2018.

That was six years ago. It's much worse now, which is just absolutely insane. But what, you know, the people, the problem fundamentally is, is that everyone, people are, they have all these mixed motives. I mean, there's fear for those who live off the Republican party, the political consulting class and the lobbying class

and all of these people who make their money off the political system, they feel that they can't cross the majority of Republican voters. They can't cross Donald Trump because it'll basically ruin their careers. You've got some politicians who are ambitious. They want to go for higher office,

and they think the only way they can do that is by dumbing themselves down and repeating lies and giving Trump a pass on things they know to be morally corrupt or legally corrupt. You've got lots of people who just don't want to admit a mistake. They just don't want to say, oh, you know, I was wrong. I supported Trump in 2016 or 2016 and 2020.

And it was a mistake because they feel foolish. And I think that part of it is also, if you go to the mass electorate, that's a big piece of what's going on. I think part of it is, as I mentioned, the bubble, the media bubble that people have tended to surround themselves with. But I think partly the reason they partly do that, I mean partly it's they're not paying enough attention, they're not educated enough or they're not informed enough and they don't choose to be. But then there are people who could be, who are intelligent and who are

otherwise well-informed about the world, but they shut out the things they don't want to hear because they don't want to be confronted. They don't want to look themselves in the mirror and say, wow, I support this. And so they black it black it out. I mean, there's just so many different mixed motives here. But why are the American people falling for it? That's what I can't understand. Even if there's a lot that you can justify with politicians, you know, look, I have family members, I'm sure you do too, who who are supportive of him. And these are people who I love. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And they're smart And they're smart and they're educated

and they're people who I love and respect. And for the like of me, I can't understand it. How do you explain that there's so many people out there who are willing to follow this and who are believing, there are things that he says that are just objectively not true and they don't care. Right. And I think that the, I mean, I think partly it's, there's a lot of kind of narcissism in the country and a lot of anger about life in general that finds its way into the political world. And people, you know, there's a certain part of a lot of individuals,

and this is getting into sort of psychoanalysis of cults and cultish behavior, where people need to feel part of an in-group, and they need to, they have a need to sort of hate an out-group. And that's part of what's going on. And part of it is just it's simpler to accept the words of a fearless leader than it is to actually think things through and think out the nuances and think out the qualifications and then challenge your own views when your own views are challenged by the facts.

That's hard work and it's also humbling work because you realize in life, I think most people should, I think you get wiser and more mature as you realize how you've been wrong about things and how your perceptions were wrong and how your judgments been wrong about things and how your perceptions were wrong and how your judgments were wrong. Because we all, being imperfect beings, make those mistakes. And I think the people who mature over the years or the people who accept that they've made mistakes

and tried to correct them and the people who are fearful of being called out for making mistakes and want to be in denial of having made those mistakes. Those are the people that we are seeing, I think, who fall for Trump, in my mind. But it's not, I don't want to say that it's any one thing. I think there's just, there is cultural resentment that's a part of it where people feel that other people in the elites and the Eastern universities or the this or that place looked down upon them because they're not perceived to be as smart

or as educated or as having as much class or this or that. And I think there's just a lot of resentment there that finds its way into the political culture in a manner that just has become irrational. I mean, we see it today in the whole thing about Taylor Swift, they're picking on Taylor Swift. Why? Because she's-

That's insane. It's like she's a pop star. We love pop stars normally. And then she's seeing a football player. We love football. What's the problem here? I can't, but there's just people who know, it's there's misogyny involved, but it's not just it's not just the well, they're worried, just men. They're worried. Yeah, it's just a lot. There's a psychology

here, a complex psychology here. I think it's different for different types of folks, but it's all gelled into this toxic mix that I think is going to take a while for us to find an antidote for. But I do think, you know, you said at your point about so many Americans have fallen for it. They have, but I think most Americans have not. And I remain hopeful that in the fall, common sense and normality will prevail, but we will still have a problem going forward with a large section of American public

who just doesn't want to face truths about things. And the truth about things is not, they perceive an alternative universe, an alternative world, I won't say alternative facts, that is, everything's worse for them, worse to them than it actually is. And things that are actually bad, they ignore. And it's like, we live in this country that is, I mean, I don't, I mean,

I'm not just talking about the jobs report today that was terrific, but we live as comfortably and as well as a people as virtually any, leaving apart maybe a couple of Scandinavian countries this year, in human history, this should be the most content society ever on this planet. And who knows how long that would last. We don't have much to complain about. I mean, we don't have, I'm not saying that we don't have poverty in this country, we don't have racism, we don't have problems in this country. We don't have racism. We don't have problems.

But compared to, again, leaving apart the MAG of part of it, just on a day-to-day basis, the way people live their lives, everyone has cell phones and everybody has this and everybody has that. We don't really see that many people starving on the streets or in Appalachia. It's certainly better than it was 50 or 60 years ago when when Lyndon Johnson started the war on poverty, we have very little to really

complain about. We should be grateful and yet we have a large section of the population that feels aggrieved that things are getting worse, things are getting worse for them, for their children and they need, and the way they plan to solve that is to basically destroy everything. I mean, did you see that article in Politico about a week and a half ago?

I was right before the New Hampshire primary. And it was Michael Cruz, a fine writer at Politico, interviewed a Republican voter in New Hampshire who was a former, formerly in the Marine Corps, I think. He's reasonably well off individual and not a dummy. I mean, you know, he doesn't have a PhD in politics from Oxford, but he's no dummy. And Cruz interviewed him on his views about things and why he decided to vote for Donald Trump. And basically it was all, there were no real policy issues that were of any seriousness.

I mean, a little harping on immigration and things like that, but it was more about resentment, resentment of other people. And he wants to be, you got the sense that the voter wants, thinks perceives other people out there as thinking they're hoity-toity and they're better than him, and he wants to wreck them and ruin their lives. And then the question came back and it was all, and he said, and basically he thinks

Donald Trump is the wrecking ball that will help get these people. And Cruz basically asked him, well, won't that hurt you too? And he goes, yes. Yes. It is just this bizarre, self-defeating, nihilistic mindset that is, frankly, to me, not fully explicable. I mean, I can describe it. I can trace some of the resentments, the resentment of educated elites, the resentment of minorities, the resentment of people in the media, the resentment of politicians. But it's just this bizarre angst and anger that really has been channeled by Donald Trump as if though through a prism and it's and it's focused directly on our legal and political and constitutional system and the rule of law, which is just Which is the the thing that really

Makes this so such a dangerous moment in our history No, no, no, but pivoting to the legal issues, which I know people are going to want to hear your perspective on, I want to ask you a couple of questions. So the historic verdict in the Eugene Carroll case, and the reason I say historic is because he only got, she only got, or he only got whacked with a $5 million verdict for rape and the major defamation, right? This is now, this $83 million for the other def, the first defamation, right? And then the punitives is just, is just, I think that was a massive message being sent

to Donald Trump, which is is which is ridiculous, right? The I'm gonna say it a thousand times. I'm never gonna stop. Well, guess what it stopped. Yeah For now well people a lot of people have the quote have a have a question number one Is she ever gonna see the money? Number two is he gonna have to put up the money to if he wants to appeal the money. Number two, is he going to have to put up the money if he wants to appeal? Number three, when will she see the money? And number four, can it be paid by his supporters, the super PACs, the grifting he does off of these cases? Is he going to have to pay this money or is it going to come from somebody else? Well, that's a good question. I'm going to confess I haven't delved deeply into all of those questions, but to take them in order and actually start with your description of the judgment, which was accurate, I was not surprised by the size of the judgment. And if anything, I thought it might, it could have easily ended

up being higher, which is not to say that it wasn't a remarkable judgment, a remarkable verdict and an amazing achievement and a terrific thing overall. But he was hit with the $5 million judgment, as you know, in last year, and too many of that was from the claim that she was able to bring under the New York Survivors Act for the actual sexual assault in 1996. And then the other three million roughly was for the defamation that he engaged in, the defamation of her that he engaged in

after he was president. And those cases were separate because they didn't happen while he was president because the survivors act wasn't enacted until after he was president. And the first case was the initial, just for the initial defamation when he was president. But if you look at the $3 million that the jury awarded for the second defamation, you could infer from that, and I always did, that any judgment or defamation from the original 2019 libel when he was in the White House has to be several times more, several times greater,

because A, it was the initial false statements about her. And it's like my mother always used to say, first impressions matter, and that was the first lie. So it absolutely did the most damage. And also, although he wasn't engaged in his official capacity as president when he was first libeling her in June of 2019, the fact remains that because he was at the time president, his words, his lies were amplified.

So I always felt that the judgment just in terms of compensatory damages alone was always going to be several times higher than the initial verdict for the post-presidential libels. And that was consistent with the evidence because they put on evidence that they would take $10 million to repair her reputation, and she suffered $10 million in damages. And then the question of punitives comes up.

Because in here, you could not have created a better record for punitive damages if you were writing a fiction novel, if you were writing a fiction novel. You know, a John Christian novel, I don't know who would be writing it, Scott Turo, maybe us someday, we'll keep up and write something. So you've got a guy who professes to have billions of dollars and you've got one of the most. You've got that and you've got this continual drumbeat including during after the 2020, after 2022, going into 2023, going into 2024 and during the trial itself, continuing to libel her and muttering about how

this was a witch hunt in the courtroom, right in front of the jury. I mean, you could not build a better case, a constructor, imagine in your fever dreams, a stronger case for punitive damages. And so, when you look at punitive damages, I think a general rule of thumb is they're not excessive if they're, you know,

any up to seven or eight or nine or maybe even 10 times the compensatory. So easily if you have 10 or $20 million in compensatory damages, my thinking was, well, okay, multiply that by five. You're up to 50 or 100. You multiply it by six, you could get, if it's 20, you could get 120.

And I told someone the day before the verdict came down that I thought it was quite possible that there'd be a verdict of anywhere from 75 to 125 million. And, you know, but it's one thing to say that into do that intellectual exercise in your head and another thing entirely to actually see it happen. And in that sense, it was not surprising, but it was staggering for me and emotionally staggering

because I know Eugene Carroll. I met Eugene Carroll and I I just as a matter of just a pure serendipity I was the one who first told her that she had a libel case because she asked me at a cocktail party the first time I met her like you know, what do you think and I've written something in the Washington Post about her credibility being greater than credibility of some other alleged victims and She thanked me for that and she said well, you know some people say I said shoot it should sue What do you think and I didn't tell her that she should sue but I said well you know if you choose to sue you've got a claim And then like that was just an instantaneous reaction and then the instantaneous next thought was oh my god

This is perfect for Robbie, Robbie Kaplan, who I had gotten to know in 2017-2018. We'd become very good friends. And so I sent an email the next day. And so thinking back at that, at that serendipitous flash of insight that I had that one evening in July, 2019, when I met Eugene, and then to see it blossom into this absolutely colossal judgment that really is the first occasion in Donald Trump's life, really, where he's really been forced to face the consequences of his own actions.

I was moved to tears and also considering genes, e-genes were just bravery and just, you know, she didn't crawl back into a, in curl up into a fetal position in a closet. I mean, you know, I remember when I met her that day at that cocktail party in July, 2019, you know, she was a very composed, very dignified, great sense of humor, very, just really put, well put together woman. I didn't know, had no idea

she was pushing 80. I thought she was in her upper 60s, I mean, at the, at work, at most. And I'm looking and, and, but you could see the weight on her shoulders of what, you know, and, and the way, and, and, and then you see the way that she was just abused by Trump and Alina Haba basically they're saying, well, you shouldn't get any damages. You brought this on yourself. You brought this on yourself by telling the story. It's like, this is the classic narcissistic trick. They call psychologists called Daro,

deny, attack, reverse victim and offender where you basically say hey You know, I mean and narcissistic spouses do it all the time when they're when they engage in abuse It's like why did you make me do that to you? And that was essentially there that I mean it was obscene. It was malicious and and and this jury Saw right in front of their eyes, they saw the horror, they saw the inhumanity, they saw the contempt that he had for the rule of law, the court, and them and us and Gene Carroll especially. And when you think about it, it's actually very overwhelming that this is the way it's supposed to be.

And you love how Trump talks about how Judge Kaplan, who is a lifetime appointment, has been on the bench since what? I think he's a Clinton appointee. He went on the bench in 1994, as we found out in the bullshit recusal motion. 1994 as we found out in the bullshit recusal motion. That's right. And meanwhile, they keep blaming, you know, Trump keeps blaming by Kaplan, Lewis Kaplan and saying he's a Biden tool, et cetera, et cetera. This is a jury that decided this, a jury that Trump's lawyers agreed to and chose.

They chose this jury who awarded this. So it's just crazy to me. I love Judge Kaplan's parting words to the jury, which is if I were you, I wouldn't tell anyone you were on this jury because it's you were. And you're a prosecutor. When do you see anonymous juries?

What kind of cases? You see it when they're, you know, when they're... I've never had one. It doesn't happen. You've never had one? I've never had one. You know what happens on a mystery? Well, you have it when, you know, in federal court, they'll have them when you're, you know,

when you've got a Rico case and you've got mobsters and you've got gang bangers and whatnot. Exactly. It's so rare though, it's reserved for the most dangerous people it's reserved for. And that's telling. I think. Yeah, it's telling.

So do you have any insight into whether she'll get the money and how they work? So here, okay, so he was, he, okay, so he got hit by the $5 million judgment in 2022 and he did something remarkable, which is normally when you, you either have to pay the judgment within 30 days in federal court under the federal silver seizure or If you don't then the plaintiff who's won the judgment can go out and enforce the judgment by Attaching your bank accounts and putting leans on your holes and whatever. I don't know that You know, it's not something I've ever had to do so I don't know what all the all the tricks are to that I had to do so I don't know what all the tricks are to that.

I represented corporate clients who were just put up a bond. And that's what most people do. You put up a bond. You pay somebody who's committed contractually to pay the judgment if you don't so that you can appeal. And you pay that person a fee. And it could be a bank or I don't know. There are people who do this.

And he couldn't get one. He couldn't get a five, this billionaire couldn't get, or chose not to get, I think it's actually more than he couldn't get, a $5 million bond. And the only possible reasons were he didn't want to pay the bonding fee or he just didn't have the credit to do that or nobody could try. Maybe the assets aren't his own. I'm speculating, but he didn't do it.

So what he did instead was he wrote a check, which you can do and deposit into this account nobody really knows about because it's not used very often in this other district of New York. I don't know if other courts have similar federal courts have similar accounts. I assume they do. I don't know if they're called the same thing. They're called it's called a Chris account. And I only have one occasion in my entire 30 year legal career in New York City to have to deal with it. It was when a judge wanted to was giving some class section plaintiffs a hard time and he said, I don't want you holding the money. I want this fun to hold the money and so he deposited cash Into that account five million dollars So she's going to get that money the court will disperse that money when the appeal from that first judgment is

finally determined in her favor, which I'm confident it will be at some point and determined in her favor, which I'm confident it will be at some point. And so she's got the $5 million there. Now the problem is he's got this $88.3 million judgment. If he couldn't get a bond for that, then he's not, I mean, he couldn't get a jump bond for the five. He's not going to get a bond for the $88.3. And then so he would have to come up with $88.3 in cash. And the question is, does he have that?

Now he said, he's testified, I think in the New York civil action, the AG action, that he's got a $400 million in cash. That's assuming he's, I mean, it's possible he might not be telling the truth on that, who knows. But he's got to fork out that money. If he puts it into the bank, into the Chris account, in the court account, well then it's going to be there for her and she's going to have it. If he doesn't do that and he can't get a bond, then she can go running around, her lawyers

can go running around attaching assets. Now the problem they might have is that those assets may not be in his name. They may be in the name of all the, you know, his revocable trust, which and his various corporate entities that he makes intentionally opaque to, you know, I think, to confuse people. So it's going to be, you know, if he, if he, if there's another thing that Gigi and Carol can do to get the money sooner, at least some of it, I mean, she could essentially sell the judgment. She could, you know, if you have a judgment

and you don't like collecting it, you can get somebody else to collect it by basically selling the rights to collect the judgment to someone else, which would make sense for her. Since she's 80 years old, obviously it's a contingent upon her winning the appeals, but somebody else, she could sell the for 50 cents on the dollar and come out with $40 million and $44 million in cash. I'm just making this up and not have to worry about not have to worry about the collection possibilities. And you know, all she has to do is win the appeal. I thought that would be the transaction. It may well be. I don't know that, you know, she had a litigation funder who Trump made a big deal about who was basically paying the cost of, you know, Robbie Kaplan running her extremely small firm, a large team of small firm running

that at a high clip for a couple of years. Maybe there's already a provision in there where she can get part of the judgment and have the litigation financer collected. I'm just speculating, but there, she's gonna see some, I think, significant portion of this money at a minimum. I think one way or the other, she's gonna get something. She's certainly gonna get the $5 million. Wow.

And then we don't even know, and remember, you know, this is, we're awaiting Judge Angaron's decision, right? And he's gonna hit, and there's a pretty high percentage, and I defer to you on this, because you're probably following me closer and more closely than I am,

being up in New York. I mean, he hit with the $300 million judgment there, or more, or four hundred maybe. And so, I don't know where he's gonna come up with all this money. I don't know how he's going to going to stave off collection issues if he can't buy, if he can't purchase a bond.

I mean, he's got real troubles just on the silver leaving apart the 91 Counts felony counts. He's been charged with the force ever jurisdiction. I like to say he's got 90 91 counts 91 problems and jail is one Yeah, except except nobody's willing to to treat him the way they would treat people who be regular defendant. Yeah. No, you were I would be you were I would be in the lockup right now. Yeah. I mean, look at look at what you mean. Anybody look at Sam Bankman free. Right. He he opened his mouth and judge judge Kaplan threw him in the pokey.

Exactly. Question. He you know, Trump Trump could you know, should, I don't know what the equivalent of the MCC is down here in DC. I don't doubt they have equivalent. But yeah, I mean, he's lucky he's not in the pokey. I mean, it's, it's crazy. Yeah, I mean, it's just interesting because, because he pushes the envelope and, and he walks up to the line and nobody's willing to

Oh, he dances over it too. He jumps over it. Well, I was gonna say they keep, I was gonna say they keep moving, right? Yeah, they keep moving, but they keep moving, right? You're right. Because nobody wants to be the first one to do it except, you know, meanwhile, that's why my old office, the Manhattan DA's office, they were the first. No one wanted to go first, right? But they went first and he was arrested and now he's in. Now it's looking like that case that a lot of people criticize saying, well, by that case, it's not that serious.

That's looking like it's going to be the only case that goes to trial in March, it seems. Yeah, I think that's true. Because the DC Circuit is not ruling on presidential immunity, which is really confounding. And I thought maybe you could talk a little bit about, is this... I think it was argued January 9th, I believe. I believe it was 8th or 9th. 8th or 9th. And it's already been on an expedited schedule to begin with, right? Yes. And so what is this taking long?

Does it just feel like it's taking long? And what is taking them so long? What is going on? And why haven't they ruled? Well, I mean, we have no idea exactly what's going on. And to take a step back, as you know, it takes, in the normal course of a non-expidated appeal, they can take a long time. I've had appeals take a year or two.

And I'm sure you've had, too, in the appellate division. And even in the Second Circuit, they can, you know, you can get a panel that's particularly slow. And the DC Circuit is not necessarily known to be one of the fastest appellate courts in the land. But they did take this on an expedited basis. They ordered briefing be conducted with lightning speed. I think they understood the imperative of trying to preserve a relatively speedy trial, if not a trial beginning on March 4th. And then I think that's the reason why when Jack Smith tried to leapfrog the court of appeals and go to the Supreme Court by filing what is called a petition for a social rivalry before judgment, which would have taken the case out of the DC circuit and put it straight up in the

Supreme Court so it would get completely disposed of more quickly. I think one of the reasons the Supreme Court denied that motion, that petition, was because they thought the DC circuit would act very quickly. Now that said, so it's like 22, 23 days after argument, if the decision came down this afternoon, it still would be a fast decision by any reasonable standards, even under an expedited appeal. And if it came down Monday, it still would be.

It's just that I think the expectation was, and certainly I'll admit my expectation was, wow, they moved so fast here. I'll bet you they started writing the opinion already and they'll have it ready to go in a week. But that's easy for us to say, because we don't actually have to write the opinions, the opinion or opinions.

And it's a three judge panel. And there can be legit, even if they all agree on what the result should be, there can be legitimate disagreements or a need to iron out possible differences, because you have to be very careful when you're writing a judicial opinion, because there are all sorts sorts every sentence that you write can have

unforeseen consequences. Every time you explain your reasoning and you say more than you might necessarily have to, somebody's gonna use that someday in some other case and you have to be careful how you do it. And they're also writing for the Supreme Court. So they wanna make this as bulletproof as possible. And then there's a couple of issues that, threshold issues, there's a jurisdictional issue, which shouldn't change the result of there being a trial,

but there's a jurisdictional issue about whether or not Trump can even have appealed the denial of immunity because basically there's a line of authority that says that you can't appeal, basically you can't appeal interlocking, what are called interlocking sort of rulings in the federal courts, rulings that don't dispose of an entire case. Now, there are specific exceptions in the statutes. And then there's this thing called the collateral order doctrine, which says that if there's some issue where

the court finally resolves it, it's not the whole case. But you can never undo it if you let the proceedings go further, then you can appeal that. And the argument here for Trump's right to appeal is, well, this is immunity. This is immunity means the right not to actually face a trial. And if you let this trial go forward by denying immunity and you turn out to be wrong, it's not fixable if you let the trial go forward. But there's a line of authority in the Supreme Court that says that only explicit statutory

and constitutional guarantees of immunity can allow this interlock exception to the rule against interlockutory appeals to be invoked. And this is an explicit, this is something that they're implying from the Constitution. And the answer to that is, well, if it's the Constitution, the Constitution trumps anything and everything. And so there has to be the right to appeal.

But it's a bit of a thorny threshold issue. And I could see courts overthinking this and maybe getting bogged down in that. That's a possibility. And then you have the judges are human. Not all judges are right at the same pace, and big at the same pace. And there are in every court,

you ever pellet court you ever see, every district or trial court you ever see, there's some judges who just write things quickly and dispose of things more quickly than others. And it could be that the person assigned to write this opinion on this panel is a slower person than we might want. We have no idea what's going on. This has been fulminating for five minutes about what could be going on, but we really

don't know. And so what happens if they rule and then Trump wants to seek an embank? Does he have a right to do that? Does that actually happen in the Bazaar? Yes, he would have a right to seek an embank, and he would have a right to petition the Supreme Court. The entire court of like 12 people, I don't know how many people around the D.C. Circuit actually,

it's either the entire court. And then he could go to the Supreme Court. Now the thing that could speed that all up because you normally get 14 days, I think, or 14 or 21 days to go on bunk, and then you've got 90 days to file a cert petition in the Supreme Court. If that went, if those days, if he used up all that time,

he could easily chew up the rest of the summer with this. But the thing that's going to be driving the speed of the proceedings after the District of Columbia Circuit rules will be whether the court effectively lifts the stay by directly saying that it's lifting the stay of proceedings in the District Court and allowing District Court proceedings to proceed. And they can do that either by saying there is no Stay or they can just do it by what's issuing what's called the mandate Immediately, which is the basically the formal judgment that says we decided this appeal and if they do that

West absolutely Expedited cases in the courts cases, in the courts of appeals, in federal courts of appeals, you'll see something like, the judgment of, you know, the last sentences will be, in the opinion, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, or the order of the district court is affirmed, the mandate shall issue forthwith, meaning that there's not the normal X number of days before the clerk's office finally puts out the mandate

and sends the case formally back to the district court. So if the court of appeals does that, it can actually light a fire in a trough to force him to make an immediate on bonk petition in an amount of time that's less than the normal amount of time or to seek a petition for a social rare eye in an expedited fashion. And that's effectively what the Colorado Supreme Court did

in this 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification cases being argued next week. What they said was, you only get a stay, Mr. Trump or Mr. Republican Party of Colorado, if you file a cert petition by January 4th. So yeah, that's what they did. And that moved that case really, really quickly. And that's why it's going to be argued next week

and decided promptly after that. I think still the worst case scenario for the cause of justice in the DC circuit case, the DC district court prosecution would be, they rule in the next couple of weeks and then the Supreme Court actually decides to take the case and the Supreme Court decides the case by June. I just can't see them letting this drag out to the fall,

which is would be possible if someone were determined to allow that to happen. And if the cases decided by June, there's a good chance, I think, that the case could at least start to be tried in August or September. And the real issue is how long would it take and would it be resolved before the election? So.

Yeah, well, it'd be interesting if he was. But you're right, I mean, the BRAD cases, it was the first one brought and it does now appear. I mean, we thought it was gonna be, I thought it was gonna it was the first one brought and it does now appear. I mean, we thought it was gonna be the last, I thought it was gonna be like the last one tried because he seemed to be deferring to everyone else. And it seemed like the moral logo case was a slam dunk.

And Jack Smith brought the case here in the District of Columbia that is just against one defendant. It was a very streamlined focused case. You know, I thought I would have thought those two cases would be tried this spring, but you know, I mean, it's litigation, you can't you can't always predict, you know, it involves a lot of moving pieces and you can't always predict how quickly those pieces will move to where they're supposed to move or even get there. So speaking of Mar-a-Lago, I want to talk about that and I want to talk about your 14th Amendment case

that you just were mentioning. But just I have one question about Mar-a-Lago. I was first of all absolutely shocked yesterday to read the ABC News report that there's a secret room at Mar-a-Lago that the FBI missed, as well as the fact that Trump changed the locks on a closet right before the FBI got there, you know, presumed, and then he had the key, and they didn't go in there. I was just absolutely shocked. But my question for you has to do with Judge Cannon. A lot of people are just accusing her of doing Trump's bidding and slow walking this because you know she's a Trump appointee etc. What are your thoughts on how she's handling these

issues in this case? Well look I mean as you know trial judges have an enormous amount of discretion As you know, trial judges have an enormous amount of discretion in scheduling proceedings in front of them. And I hesitate to say that any judge impossible that this case won't be tried this year, although for, you know, because of the way she has conducted proceedings thus far, I'm not all that hopeful. I would ordinarily not entertain that kind of speculation about her motives, were it not for the bizarre proceedings that occurred in front of her when the case was first brought? And when she, or when they first served, actually, when she first dealt with the grand jury and the the search warrant that the Justice Department had secured on the property at Mar-a-Lago and then there was this

bizarre satellite mitigation where she created some kind of a special master and appointed a special master of basically a separate judge to deal with disputes that really just were not things that were any business of defendants. I mean, the government sees as things in a search warrant, the government gets to do what it wants with them. And there shouldn't be any interference by the defendant. And this resulted in this bizarre satellite litigation that took several weeks before the indictment and required the intervention twice of the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

where they basically said, look, this guy is like anybody else who gets, who gets, whose property is searched. And if he's defending, he's gonna be like any other defendant. Something that should have been clear from the outset. So she starts with that black mark against her. And yeah, it's like, this is really hard to fathom.

This case, the Mar-a-Lago case, even though it involves classified documents and there are special procedures provided for by Congress that require additional work dealing with highly classified documents and sensitive national security documents. And yes, she's not one of the judges who is familiar with those provisions because they just don't get those cases in Fort Myers or whatever. For Pierce, I think.

For Pierce, yes. I get all my forts confused. The judges who deal with that are most of them are here in the district of Columbia and under Maryland and the Eastern District of Virginia. But still, it's not that complicated. Because the content of those documents, the specific content of those documents

does not matter that much. because the content of those documents, the specific content of those documents does not matter that much. It's not, you know, it's not the specifics. The fact of the fact that these documents were in his possession and the fact that these documents were generally speaking classified, but more importantly, national security documents because the Espionage Act charges

which are in the indictment, don't actually require classification. They just require there to be sensitive national security information in the documents. There's no dispute that those documents contain such information. And there's no, really, there's overwhelming evidence that he lied.

He had his lawyers lie about whether he had had the documents in his possession and had returned them all to the government. And then he tried to move them around in advance of an FBI visit by the FBI and the Justice Department so they would be concealed. And then, I mean, it's just the obstruction charges alone are a no-brainer. I mean, it's just the obstruction charges alone are no brainer. I mean, this case can be tried and let. I mean, this is as simple as a, this is not that much more complicated than a, than a, than a, a nickel and dime street corner drug busts in, in, in, in, in, you know, that, that a, that a, that a junior federal prosecutor would handle here in DC or in DC.

I agree. The consciousness of guilt evidence, like thinking all of it, it's just, it's overwhelming. And it's, it is so much more simple in DC or in the United States. I agree. The consciousness of guilt evidence, like changing all of it, it's overwhelming. And it is so much more simple in some ways than the January 6th case, but. Absolutely. So all that being said, you have to wonder what's going on with this judge. And it's highly, it's highly disturbing.

And I think more attention needs to be focused on what this judge is doing and why. I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, And Donald Trump is kind of helping by getting hammered in other places. So people aren't, actually he's helped weirdly by things like the E.G. Carroll judgment because people aren't focusing on what this judge in Fort Pierce is doing. So yeah, that's something that deserves a lot more focus, what she's doing. And that's something we need to talk more about, I think, in the future. Talk a little bit about now what's going on next week with the 14th Amendment and in that case. Well, okay, so I guess it's Thursday morning at 11 a.m., those Marshall and the Supreme Court's going to say, oh yeah, oh yeah, people having business

for this honorable court. And they're gonna hear argument in this case, brought in Colorado by the state attorney general, no by a bunch of individual voters, not even procedural posturing. But basically the courts in Colorado held that Donald Trump is barred from being on the ballot because he would be barred from office under section three of the 14th amendment, which provides that anybody who takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, who then engages in insurrection

or gives aid and comfort to the enemies of that said constitution, cannot hold office under the United States. And by its terms, it applies to Donald Trump. And the arguments that Trump is making in the Supreme Court, The arguments that Trump is making in the Supreme Court, and they were unsuccessful in the lower courts, are that one, he's not an actual officer of the United States, and for that,

he's relying on what I think to be in an apposite authority dealing with the Appointments Clause where the president can appoint officers under the Constitution or some other method can be provided if they're inferior offices. I think there's language in some Supreme Court decision that basically says that officers aren't elected like the president is. And people are saying, ah, the president therefore is not an officer.

But that's not what- But didn not the lower court in Colorado find the same right Not well the first court did but the Supreme Court did not the district court did but the Supreme Court did not and the reason why it's wrong is that the appointments clause only deals with Officers who are appointed by the president doesn't mean the president's not an officer Just it just means the president is an officer who's not subject to appointment because there's another provision when they were drafting the 14th Amendment. It was being enacted by the states, approved by the states that people understood the president

to be the chief officer of the land. And then there's some interesting, interesting, there's an interesting letter that somebody, it's not really precedent, but it's interesting, interesting letter that apparently Justice Scalia wrote explaining that, you know, he thought that apparently Justice Scalia wrote explaining that, he thought that an officer,

the president was an officer. And I think that's a stretch of an argument, but people seem to be taking it more seriously than I would. And I think the feeling is among most people, including people who think that Trump should be disqualified under the 14th movement, is that the court is going to look for any way to get out from having to be the one that delivers this blow to Trump, because it's just, you know, people will understand it. People think, how can you knock somebody off the ballot? And, you know, that this may be the way out for the

Supreme Court, people think. But then then there's another there's another argument that Trump is making which I think is even more It is even weaker which is an argument that section 3 with the provision I was describing It is not self executing that it does not stand alone It doesn't have any force or effect unless Congress passes a law providing a method by which someone can be determined to have been engaged in an insurrection. And the problem is that's not what the Constitution is, not what the 14th Amendment says.

It has a provision, there's a provision in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment that says that Congress can enact appropriate legislation to enforce the prior four sections. But no one has ever held that, for example, to require that Congress pass a law so that the 14th Amendment section 1 is prohibition against the denial of equal protection by the states, which prohibits racial discrimination. No one has ever suggested that the states have the right to engage in racial discrimination,

not with standing section one of the 14th American, unless and until Congress passes the law. That's just ridiculous. That would mean that if Congress repealed all the civil rights statutes tomorrow, all the states could resegregate their schools by race. And that's just not the law. It's just crazy.

I think that argument's bad. And one- He preposterously says he didn't take an oath to support the Constitution. I mean, that- Oh yeah, no, no, right. Yeah, he said, the Preserve, Protect and defend the Constitution.

He's saying that, well, that's not the same as what section three of the 14th Amendment is, which says support. Okay, well, if you're the president of the United States and you're sworn to preserve, protect, defend, I mean, that's kind of supporting the Constitution, I would think. But they made that ridiculous argument too, and they're still making that ridiculous argument. The only argument that I thought had some legs, I don't even know if he made it, but certainly others have made it, which to me is really the only thing that

have made it, which to me is really the only thing that made me think, huh, I wonder if that's the case, which is, you know, to have engaged, who's to say whether you've engaged in an insurrection? And isn't there some due process required to, and I know there was a trial in Colorado in front of a judge, it was a bench trial. And she found that he had engaged in an insurrection. And that was my only, I know there's not, it doesn't say in there that you have to be convicted, et cetera. I understand that a lot of people talk about that. But that's the one that feels, and again, it's a feeling more than it's a legal analysis. That's the only one that feels to me like it does seem to require some structure or some due process or something.

Well, let me, there are two lines of response to that. And the first is, I mean, there are two separate arguments there. There's the process argument and then there's the substance argument. The substance argument is what does it mean to engage in an insurrection? Personally, I always thought that that's the only straight-faced argument that Trump has. Why do you agree with me? Because I agree. Yeah. that Trump has. Why do you agree with me? Because I agree.

Yeah, but not because I think it's right, but because, I mean, you can at least argue intelligibly and intelligently that, well, to engage in an insurrection. I don't think there's any doubt that what happened in January 6th is an insurrection because an insurrection doesn't just, doesn't necessarily mean a coup, it doesn't necessarily mean a war.

It means basically a violent uprising against civil authority. And that's what happened on Capitol Hill in January 6th, 2021. Now, what does it mean to engage in an insurrection? Certainly, it means that if you were carrying arms on Capitol Hill, if you were engaging in individual, engaging in violence on Capitol Hill in January 6th, you were engaging in insurrection. If you were planning and organizing some people

who are on site like the Proud Boys or whatever the names of those groups were, there was one guy who was back in a motel in Virginia and he was organizing it all. Well, I think that's engaging in insurrection too, also. But I think Trump is arguing. And what's interesting is he didn't really make this argument that strongly in his petition

for social rare eye, but he moved it up in his merits brief when the time came to file full blown brief on the merits for the argument that's coming up. His argument, he's making an argument that he didn't engage in insurrection because he didn't engage in such planning, he didn't engage in such direct participation. Now the answer to that would be, okay,

but you invited all of these people here. You asked them to come to Washington, you told them to go up to Capitol Hill. You wanted to go and join them up on Capitol Hill to the point of you almost choked a secret service agent. Or you did choke a secret secret agent. I mean, they're just, you know, and without him, none of this would have happened.

So, you know, that's the counter argument, but at least there is some intel and tell the argument, saying, well, yeah, actually, they have to participate. You can't just sort of encourage people to do something bad in a general sense. I don't think it's protected by the First Amendment, but I do think that he does have an argument there. And he moved that argument up to the second argument

in his brief, as I just mentioned. And normally when you write a Pell of Previews, as I'm sure you did, and I did, you did in criminal, I did civil, you put your best arguments first, and you basically, you know, when you see a brief, it's like generally speaking, you assume that the first argument is the one

that the appellant believes in the most, second is number two and the third is number three you order your points in order of their strength and so they move that point up that one that we're just discussing about engaging in an insurrection but think of the problems for the supreme court is the supreme court of the united states really going to want to overturn a factual, they don't normally overturn factual findings. And of all the factual findings they've ever, I mean, that they don't exist to overturn factual findings. They normally take the factual findings of the lower courts as a given because they're supposed to be a pure court of, that decides purely issues of law, at least that's in the modern iteration.

So, but then they want to take, are they going to want to take this one on and say that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection? That's a tough one to swallow, too. Just as hard as disqualifying. So I would, this is not an easy case for the court, not because I think it's legally difficult. I just think it's prudentially difficult for them because I think that it's like,

it's one of these things where, you know, and it goes with judging is you have to, sometimes you have to do stuff the law makes you do stuff that it's kind of scary to have to try to do and and so we'll see whether they have the courage of To enforce the law and particularly and I don't think this is necessarily going to be conservative liberal split because you know We've seen commentators out there. We've seen liberal commentators saying, oh, we can't possibly, this can't possibly happen. And we were seeing conservative commentators saying,

like Judge Ludig or me saying, well, this is the language of the statute and we conservatives believe in the language of the constitution, it says in plain terms what it says. And like it or not, we have to apply it that way. And that's going to be an interesting dynamic in the argument on Thursday, which is the strict, the textualist and the originalist on the court, the conservatives, you know,

the best arguments against Trump are textualist and originalist arguments. But this, hey, look, it just said this. You gotta apply it as it's written. You can't, clever way out the way Libbles found clever ways of reading all sorts of things that you didn't like into the constitution over many years. So it's sort of like, it's this,

it's sort of an amazing test of people's fundamental views of jurisprudence. It's sort of an amazing test of people's fundamental views of jurisprudence. And I would not, even though I think that the legal arguments are run strongly in favor of the plaintiffs, I would not put money on this case. I would put money on a lot of other things, but not this case.

Is it gonna be audio? Are we Is it going to be a audio? Are we going to be able to hear the audio next week? I think there, yes, I think they're going to run. I think that, you know, as the court has done in highly, I mean, normally what the Supreme Court does is they don't allow cameras in the courtroom. They do record all of their arguments. And typically what happens on an argument day is the argument is recorded and then You know, it's a 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock argument most of the most of the time and then by 1 or 2 in the afternoon

they post both the transcript of the argument and the tape of the argument in cases that are of exceptional public interest where there's just overwhelming media interest they will do a live stream. And I think they also did it during COVID because of COVID. But, and in this case, they're going to have, you know, this argument is going to be live streamed and you probably can be able to turn around CNN or MSNBC

or, you know, the medium of your choice. You can probably log on to the Supreme Court website and you can listen to this live as it's happening. You won't be able to see the smiling faces of the justices or the counsel, but you will be, at least on probably CNN and MSNBC, you'll be seeing these sketches of them. Yeah, well, you'll be able to see it on the way. Do you ever see, do you ever see the, when somebody made these muppets of the, or dolls of the Supreme Court justices and they time them to the tape of an argument.

Amazing. I don't know, we won't see that here. No, but you'll be able to get it on the Midas Touch Network too, if it's available for sure, we'll also stream it. You guys are amazing. So, George, we're coming to the end, but I want you to, I want to talk about your new podcast that you have announced. Tell us about it. What are you doing? And when, where can

we find it and how often? I love reading your Atlantic articles, by the way. I know you're a frequent contributor and it's a great place. It's certainly a great place for information for anybody who's looking to really... No, it's just an amazing, amazing journal. It is. It is. And yeah. A power that they have me writing for, you know. Yeah, well, your writings are definitely a trusted source for sure.

But tell us about your podcast. Okay, so the podcast, you know, for a long time, people say, you know, you should do a podcast, you should do a podcast. And everybody under the sun, you know, has podcasts. And I always thought, well, you know, I mean, aren't we going to end up with more global warming with all this energy being devoted to podcasts?

I don't know. And I was always resistant to them. Just like, okay, well, what's, why does the world need another podcast? But at the Bull Work run by Sarah Long, while she finally persuaded me by promising me that I wouldn't have to do any work, any work, I would just have to answer her questions.

And since I make it an effort particularly, because I think I sort of have a duty to do that this year. And I go on television and talk about stuff and I'm writing about stuff. You know, this is another way, and I bet you have this similar experience with doing this podcast and going on CNN. There's a synergy involved where you basically,

you learn having to talk about things, forces you to learn about them. And then, you know, when I talk about something, I say, hey, well, I should write this up. Or when I write something up, I say, Hey, this is something I can talk about. So I said, Okay, fine, I'll do this. And so basically, what the idea behind the podcast was that, you know, Sarah Longo is a political type. She's a she's, she runs non-profit political organizations and so on and so forth. She's a political consultant. And she doesn't have a background in the law.

And she says, there needs to be a podcast where somebody explains to me, like I'm a five year old, what's going on? And I don't like dumb it down that much. I talk too fast and I talk too much, but people seem to be responding to it. And it's done quite well. And our most recent episode, we taped yesterday afternoon at 4 o'clock, and our guests were Robbie Kaplan and one of her law partners who tried both of the E.G. and Carol cases.

Wow. And she told us some absolutely amazing stories about Trump's behavior at his deposition. One story was how when he found out that Alina Ahaba and her team had ordered, the deposition was at Mar-a-Lago. And whoever's hosting a deposition, as you know, it typically in the practice of law, they buy lunch for everybody and they stick lunch in the conference room for their adversaries. It's just a courtesy and it makes sense here because they insisted,

that Trump people insisted, is lawyers insisted on having the deposition in Florida at Mar-a-Lago. So anyway, Trump finds out just before the lunch break that Alina bought Robbie and her team lunch and he flips out and he takes, there's a stack of exhibits on the table and he takes them and chucks them against the wall

and violently and storms out of the room. That's an incredible story to hear Robbie tell. And then the other story. Wait, just because his lawyer bought lunch? Bought lunch and then then he's screaming. They could hear him screaming at Alina. You almost feel sorry for Alina. OK.

Why is she still as low? Do you know what? Why does she, his lawyer? I mean, I don't want to pile on, but she just has not even the most basic level of competence. I, you know, just, she just doesn't. And how, why, A, why is she his lawyer? Is that, is this by design? Like, what is going on here?

Well, he loves people who just will say anything to the defendant. And I mean, he likes attractive women. Let's be blunt about it. So those two, I think, stood her in good stead, and she basically will do whatever he tells her to do, including things that got her in trouble for the judge. That said, he posted on Truth Social a couple of days ago

that he was now interviewing appellate lawyers to overturn the carol judgments. So she may be out. Maybe he finally had enough of her. I have no idea who the hell knows. I mean, people go in and out of Trump world for reasons you can't even fathom on a day-to-day basis. And so we don't really know. And the other story, I had to tell the other story,

it was in a pretty wild, not necessarily, you can't really tell it on a family TV network. But at the end of the, what happened was, there were two depositions that were essentially back-to-back one week to the other. One was in this pyramid scheme case called ACN, and Robbie represents the plaintiff's there, and the other was in the Carol case

I forget what join was first, but at the end of the first day Trump and Alina as they are leaving Trump says to Robbie see you next Tuesday Referring to the next deposition ostensibly except the deposition wasn't on Tuesday See you next Tuesday. I'm not gonna say what that means. Well, no, I think most people. I had only heard it like once or twice in my life. And when I first heard that story for Robbie, and Robbie didn't know what it meant.

And she just was puzzled, like, why aren't they talking about Tuesday instead of Wednesday? And then basically one of her associates or partners had to explain in the car ride back to the airport, Robbie, this is what this means. He just called you a terrible, expletive name for. Yes, a very, very misogynistic term. Yeah, for those of you who are listening who don't know, I hate to tell you this,

but it's the letter C, the letter U, and then next Tuesday. And it's a very derogatory way of calling a woman a terrible name. What a disgusting. I mean, he is just he's a pig. He's a pig. He's, you know, it's really a dude. We do that. I mean, who is just beyond? I mean, it's it's it's repulsive. And I think that the president of the United States. And I think that he's going to potentially be again is what I just, for the life of me, I don't understand. I mean, as I tell everybody, and again, I'm not political, and what do I know?

But I kind of feel like, don't people know if you really hate Joe Biden, who I love, by the way? Why don't you just make Nikki Haley your nominee? I think people would vote for her. Yeah, I think she'd win as General Electric. She'd win. She'd win. Yes, yes.

So this is like irrational. I don't understand why they don't see this because. Absolutely. And again. That plane on autopilot. But with the. It's more than on autopilot? People are doubling down. I mean, they are like, FU, F me, F me, F you, you know, and I'm gonna it's this it's this insanity. And hopefully they're gonna fly their plane into the, you know, into the ocean, like that. Yeah, the problem is the problem is, as you know, are easy again, they he gonna take the rest of the country with him? And that's the problem. Well, I what I mean by flying it into the ocean. Yeah,

I know, I know, I know, I know, he doesn't get elected president. But yeah, anyway, I am so appreciative that you took time. We became full circle there. Topic wise, right? Yes, of course, you got to you got to turn it back into all Malaysia Airlines, you know, flying that we're going to fly into the ocean now. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But is there anything I didn't ask you about that you want to mention? No, I don't think I ever have to say another word publicly again. I think we talked about everything. You were very comprehensive, Karen.

Any secrets, any Trump secrets that you want to reveal that you know, you never told anybody. No, I think I've told all my stories. All right. Well, I'm so appreciative. I love your little chair. I love your I love your corgi. No, things. Yeah. The little guys. Yeah. Yes, exactly.

I should be moving them up. I don't know why I did the house. Keep them pushing them back a little bit. Anyhow, thank you so much. And I hope you'll join us again. Absolutely. Thanks. Take care.