The Chris Cuomo Project - Paul Manafort, Inflation Reduction Act

Episode Date: August 23, 2022

In this week’s episode of The Chris Cuomo Project, Chris explores Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg’s guilty plea and President Biden’s signing of the Inflation Reduction Act through the lens of the binary political system.  Paul Manafort, political strategist and 2016 Trump campaign chairman, speaks with Chris in a wide-ranging interview about the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago, his work in Ukraine, the Mueller investigation and his subsequent conviction and pardon, and the prospects of a potential 2024 Trump presidential run. Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

man i love that music i think we have the best backbeat in the business here on the chris cuomo project so thank you for joining me i appreciate it uh the subscribing the following but most importantly, taking the time to listen and watch and sharing it with other people. That's what's going to make the project a success. That's why we've been growing the way we have. And it means something to me. And I really appreciate this. And it matters to me that it matters to you. You can also give me some more feedback. Leave your email because we're going to start having more offerings for people when I have your information and I can get you stuff. Don't worry, I'm not going to sell your information or anything like that. It's just about being able to give you more information.

Now, something I want you to see is understanding the game, not always because someone's just lying out their ass about something. It's not always that obvious. It's not always that insidious. The game of us and them, okay, of opposition as a legitimate position because of this binary system we're in politically and culturally, it's really become about that also, us and them. Often it's about a matter of degree, okay? It's not that something is right or wrong on its face, but it's about how it's being used, how it's being contextualized, okay? Two examples. Allen Weisselberg, okay? A lot of headlines. He pleads guilty to a bunch of crimes of basically finding ways to get paid without paying any taxes on it. Now look, it's no coincidence that you're

used to seeing in the movies and learning about the mob, and it seems like it's always about taxes. It starts off as murder or some heinous action, but it always winds up with taxes. Why? Because people are selfish, and people act out of self-interest, and people can be sloppy, and a lot of people don't want to pay their taxes, like you and probably me, right? You do it because you're afraid of getting caught or you feel responsibility as a citizen, but nobody wants to pay a dime more than they have to. And very often that winds up being the case. And we see it a lot. We see it with the mob. We see it with a lot of different cases. You see it with people around Trump. And we're going to be talking to one of them today. Allen Weisselberg, he worked for Trump's father. He's been running the books for the Trump organization for a long

time. So if he pleaded guilty, does that mean they're going to get Trump? Again, it's a question of degree. Because you don't like someone, because you think they are dirty, that does not mean they're going to get linked to a crime. And I think what we're going to see here is Weisselberg cuts a deal. They give him a little bit of jail time. He's an older man, so any jail time is going to be harsh. And he agrees to testify for the prosecution. Now, people are taking that to mean, well, this is it. Now they got him.

I'm telling you, you got to get off that. OK, proving that someone is connected to a crime is a way different bar than saying you don't like what they did, that politically it stinks, that it's a function of bad character, that they're lying, that they did a% aware and involved in what he did illegally or in other crimes. Now, we have had no suggestion that that's what Weisselberg has or that that's what the case is. So again, don't overreach. There is no question that you can look at Donald Trump and the people around him and say, wow, he's had a lot of shady characters around him. Now that could be true for two reasons. One is, the obvious one, is that we are who we like to be around and he likes to be around people

who play too close to and often over the line. Or people around him get looked at very closely because there's so much scrutiny on him. It's a matter of perspective. It could be either. And opinion is going to come into that. So that's Weisselberg. Is it going to take Trump down? The answer in all likelihood is no. And that doesn't mean that Trump doesn't cheat at business or he doesn't have low personal

integrity or things like that. It's just, that's not the same thing as committing a crime. And we have to be very careful not to confuse the two. You do not want your politicians using the law to go after their opponents. OK, now I'm not saying that that's what's going on here, but we have a lot of it that is happening with these hearings and special investigations. You have to be concerned. Now, another manifestation of this game and how things are done by a matter of degree, the Inflation Reduction Act. Why did the Democrats call it that? It's a layup for opponents and critics to say, all these different economists say that inflation is not really going to come down because of this act, certainly not anytime soon. Why set yourself up for that kind of chop shot? You don't need it. They should have just called it the next part of the Build Back Better bill or whatever. Call it anything else, but don't call it

that because that's not what it is specifically aimed to do. And now you have these tortured explanations. It's a mistake. So now the other side jumps on it. They're lying. It's not going to bring down inflation. They go at Joe Biden. President Biden says zero percent inflation. He's talking about a relative growth rate now, but it was awkward for him to say that and it opened him up to criticism. Now, on the flip side, because opposition is now a legitimate position and everything is zero sum, meaning that the Republicans can't give the Democrats a win on anything. You then get these exaggerated positions of opposition. McCarthy, all right, the House minority leader for now. What does he say? All your taxes are going to go up. They're all going to go up. Is that true? I say no. Why?

Well, if you look at like the Washington Post, I think they gave him three Pinocchios, which is not the full lie. It is kind of true that some people's taxes will go up at some point. I think it's fair to say, look, every dollar counts, right? Especially when you live in paycheck to paycheck. But it is de minimis as an analysis. And I don't like the analysis for two reasons. I don't like his position for two reasons. One, it's a gross exaggeration.

And two, the reason that it is kind of true in the later years of this act is because of his tax cuts that they said, well, we'll never be allowed to expire. They're expiring. So the irony is that, and I believe the Washington Post has this, if you want to flesh it out a little bit more, that to the extent that he's right at all, he's right because of his own doing. Now, that tax cut never gets talked about enough because as soon as I tell you tax cut, you're good. Everybody wants a tax cut. However, they didn't pay for that tax cut never gets talked about enough because as soon as I tell you tax cut, you're good. Everybody wants a tax cut. However, they didn't pay for that tax cut. They gave people who didn't need the tax cut a tax cut.

83 cents out of every dollar went to the top 1%. That is not a middle class tax cut. See, that was another one. They called it a middle class tax cut. Look, this is politics, okay? It's puffery. It's exaggeration. But it has gone too far in this game this binary game

and we've got to see it so we can change it okay they didn't pay for that tax cut meaning they didn't offset the budget with the lack of revenue that would be coming because of the tax cut which is totally anathema to conservative thinking but they did it anyway why because that was trump and by the way they're now complaining mccarthy saying you know, Biden did all this profligate spending, you know, spent too much money. Trump wanted to put out the same checks that Biden did to people during COVID, during the pandemic as relief. Look it up. So it's about degree, the Inflation Act, Weisselberg, it's about degree. Now, the reason you're able to see the game is because you have an open mind. Not easy to maintain right now. And our guest is going to test that.

Our guest is Paul Manafort. Okay. Now, if you consider yourself a Democrat or you are just a Trump critic, Manafort is going to give you a big eye roll when you hear his name. Why? He's like one of his henchmen. He did all these things. He was dirty, Ukraine, dirty, dirty, dirty. He went to jail. Guy pardoned him, let him out. I have never seen the situation that way. And I really am asking you, I wouldn't have him on the show if I thought it was so obvious what it was all about. Now, I'm not talking deep state, any kind of conspiracy stuff. He does in his new book. But I do think that if you listen, you will have new sets of questions about why what was done to Manafort was done to him. Again, these tax cases. He had two cases against

him, right? Tax case, and then also this tampering case, and the government saying that he wasn't being straight with them during his cooperation phase of his plea deal. He didn't have an overt cooperation agreement, but he was supposed to work with them on testimony. They said that he wasn't telling the truth. He disagrees. He explains. You'll hear it. But these tax cases, very often they come up with people because the government decides to look. You know, one of these things that McCarthy's complaining about, the IRS is going to be 10 times the size. Well, don't you want people to have to pay their taxes? And don't you want people who cheat on their taxes to get caught so that it's not just you paying your taxes?

Now, I'm not talking about overreach and having them audit all of us for these nitpicky reasons. Nobody wants that. But what is this anti-government thing from people in government? This voguish notion of attacking government and every system is bad. You know, Republicans used to be about the systems of government. We always want small government. My father's expression was all the government you need, but only the government you need. But this idea of just fueling every paranoia, every conspiracy, everything is bad. You can't trust anybody. It's not leadership.

And if it is going to be a point of criticism, it should be backed up by a claim. And the idea of having more ability for the IRS to catch tax cheats, nobody likes to pay a dollar more in taxes than they have to. But you got to stop running everything down just because you think it fuels your basis of opposition to who's in power at the moment. It's no good. And a matter for it, I want you to listen, not just to his explanation of his own circumstances. It can get into the weeds. And if you followed Russian collusion in the investigations, you'll be very interested. I am just as interested in his feelings about Donald Trump.

It blows my mind how he feels about Donald Trump after Trump, in my opinion, threw him under the bus when the first suggestions came, threw him to the wolves, let him be who the Mueller probe could focus on. And then didn't pardon him for a long time. The guy was in solitary. He was in prison. And Trump had said, I don't like the case. I feel bad. But he left him there. But you have to hear what Manafort says about that and these predictions that he has about what Trump is going to do and what's going to happen in the upcoming elections. Paul Manafort has a new book. He has a deep story about what happened to him, what he learned, and what he now believes. And it is absolutely worth a listen. Let's get after it.

Support for the Chris Cuomo Project comes from Sundays. Now, we got a problem in the Cuomo house. We got three dogs who now like Sundays better than the other food that I was giving them. Sundays is healthy dog food. easy to store, okay? Very tasty, very nutritious, because Sundaes is fresh dog food made from a short list of human-grade ingredients. No, not humans, human-grade. Sundaes was co-founded by Dr. Tori Waxman,

practicing vet, tests, and formulates every version of each recipe. No, the doctor doesn't eat it. They test it for pets. What is wrong with you? So I got this stuff, and I like that it's kibble, man, because I got to tell you, I've tried other foods that are wet foods, and you got to have

a whole refrigerator for them. This, you store it just like all the other kibble. And I got to have a whole refrigerator for them. This, you store it just like all the other kibble. And I got to tell you, they loved it. All right. I got these three savage rescues. They eat an incredible amount of food. And I actually had to get a special bowl for one of them because he was eating the sundaes too fast. And if you're a dog owner, you know that that can go sideways on you. And I love it because it makes me feel like I'm doing them right. So get 40% off your first order of sundaes. Go to sundaysfordogs.com slash chris or use the code chris at checkout. The Chris Cuomo Project is supported by Cozy Earth. Why? Because I like their sheets.

That's why. A lot of people don't get a good night's sleep for a lot of reasons. One of the ones that you can control is bedding. One out of three of us report being sleep deprived. Okay, well, what is it? Well, it stresses all kinds of things, but the wrong sheets can make you hot, can make you cold. I'm telling you, I don't even believe it either. But Cozy Earth sheets breathe. And here's what I love about them. Cozy Earth's best-selling sheet is a bamboo set, okay? Temperature regulating.

Gets softer with every wash. I'm not kidding you, all right? Now, so if you go to CozyEarth.com and you enter the code, enter the code Chris, and you can get up to 35% off your first order. CozyEarth.com and the code is Chris. I would have never imagined that you would be where you are right now after having been through what you have, and I would be here and we're sitting in my living room on the couch. Life takes crazy turns. Let's start with where we are now. Okay.

And we'll keep going backwards. The context is obviously your book, Paul Manafort, Political Prisoner, Persecuted, Prosecuted, but Not Silenced. That's the book, that's the title, and I'm learning in the podcast game. I'm used to just showing it, but not silenced. That's the book. That's the title. And I'm learning in the podcast game. I'm used to just showing it, but people are listening to this, not only watching. So you got to give them the title. It's obviously available now. I think people will be surprised. The main reason they're going to read this is they want to go through all the Russia stuff in the prosecution. I believe that most of that is out there. These are your personal feelings about what was done to you. But the experience that you went through as a human being, now people are going to say, uh-oh, Cuomo's sympathetic to Manafort. I am because we're

human beings and you've gone through some very hard things that are very atypical, even based on the cases that were brought against you. So I appreciate you taking the time to discuss these things. I want to start with the now. The last thing you say in this book is you believe the former president, Donald Trump, is going to run again in 2024. Do you still believe that? Absolutely. More so now than I did two weeks ago. Now, is that because of what you know or because of how you feel? It's because of what I know about him.

Has he told me that personally? No. But I know the man. I know that when he was elected president in 2016, people didn't understand why he was elected, how he was elected. And they didn't understand him as a person. They still don't. And the raid on his home was not something that was going to discourage him. If anything, it was going to make him more steadfast in his thinking about running. You think that them exercising that search warrant was a tactic?

Yes. You think it was done to chill Donald Trump and make him think twice? Well, I have a hard time thinking that because they should know that's not the measure of the man. But I don't think they thought through, whoever they is, the consequences of the act. I mean, it's unprecedented. The consequences of the act. I mean, it's unprecedented. I mean, if you think about it, when Trump was elected in 2016, his campaign, one of the key slogans in his rallies, lock her up, lock her up.

He becomes president. What did he do? He didn't lock her up. He didn't go after her. He didn't turn the scales of justice against her because he understood all the history of this country and then never been done before. You don't go after your political opponents. Not only is he the past political opponent, he very likely could be the next political opponent. So the unprecedented nature and the threat to democracy, I think, is very grave by doing something like this on a charge that is really

quite spurious. I mean, let's assume all of the allegations or the concerns are real, that he had classified documents in his basement that he shouldn't have had. He was having a conversation on it. If they thought the documents were being hidden, they could have gone after this stuff long ago. But they were in his basement, in boxes. They weren't out in the open. Hillary Clinton's server was hacked with classified documents on it. And we know the enemy hacked the Russians, the Chinese, the Romanians. We know that they were hacked.

That was not viewed as high enough level to go after. Yeah, but I get it. Look, I respect the analysis. And one of the themes of this conversation will be, I cannot believe how generous you are to Donald Trump after he left you sitting in prison for as long as he did when he could have pardoned you immediately. And you write about it. You think a lot about it.

But I am shocked, knowing you as long as I have, full disclosure, I've known Paul Manafort most of my adult life from the world of politics. He's never been just Republican campaigns. He's always been sought out by both sides of the aisle. I'm shocked by that just because of where we come from and how we are and the respect for loyalty. Now on the analysis, you're smarter than me, but let me back up a few steps. Clinton, I just don't see it as apples to apples. Look, you smash up something with a hammer, it looks bad, period. And she had the answer for that. You can judge yourself whether she did it well. But on the classified side, most of the documents were low level and they were classified

after that she had had them. So I don't see it the same way. Here's his problem. You exercise a search warrant on a president where they live, a former president, that looks bad. And it did look bad. And the Democrats didn't do anything politically with it. Merrick Garland was quiet, which was a mistake. Christopher Wray, who's obviously Trump's guy, didn't come out.

And well, he was when he came in. Now he may not be, but he was when he came in. But he does have classified documents, top secret and beyond, in his basement. And they were asking him nicely. The lawyers haven't pushed back on this. They were asking nicely to get him back. Then they sent him a subpoena and he refused it. Then this happened. So I think

your analysis is a little too generous, no? No, I don't agree. I mean, there's more to come out as there always is in something like this. I think the affidavit redacted to keep names and things protected would go a long way towards explaining what the motivations were. But on the one hand, you can say, well, it's such an egregious act that there has to be something there. But after going through five years of Russian collusion has to be real, I don't know what's real anymore. The documents are real, and he's got to explain why he has them.

Well, and I think if it's true that the documents were there, there'll be an explanation. The point is that there are other ways, even if you're frustrated with dealing with somebody who could be your next political opponent. This sends a terrible signal around the world. I mean, and I'll give you an example. In Ukraine, as you know, I elected Viktor Yanukovych president of Ukraine. His opponent was the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. In the course of his second year, Yanukovych indicted Tymoshenko for corruption against the state.

That her own president, Viktor Yushchenko, agreed with what Yanukovych was doing. Biden was the liaison from the Obama administration to Ukraine. He came to Ukraine and publicly chastised Yovanovitch for going after his political opponent and said, this only happens in tin horn republics. It's not something that a real democracy should do. You settle the matters without going to these extremes because it sends the wrong signals. Well, what his administration did, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know, which I don't believe, what his administration did, did exactly what he said tin horn republics do. Except the documents are in the basement. They asked him for them. He wouldn't give them. They subpoenaed him. He wouldn't comply. It's not like it was their

initial move. There was no inherent immediate risk. They were in the basement in boxes. They weren't on a server that could be hacked. And that's a distinction. I mean, I'm not saying they couldn't have dealt with this in a more public way. Having the conversation in public. I mean, what we're talking about now, they could have been talking about him and put him on the defensive. And he could come out and say who put the boxes there, why they're there, dispel this notion that he wanted them because they have some value to him.

You know, he talked plenty about them coming, right? All these Republicans were all angry about it, calling it a raid. They didn't even wear their jackets. I mean, look, you of all people know that they can act a lot more harshly than they did in this situation. But you still feel intruded upon. Of course. Of course. And my point is that this was an extraordinary measure.

There were a lot of still steps that could have been taken, including forcing the discussion in the open arena, putting Trump on defensive that he's got these documents. And the same conversation we're having now without going into his place. Okay. So that's going on. You mentioned Ukraine in one context, but I want your take on it. I've been very frustrated by this.

And frankly, it's one of the things that brought me back in to this business. I went to Ukraine. They are desperate for help. They cannot hold off. I don't know why people are giving Ukraine so much credit for being a military force. They're 10 to 1. They're outnumbered there. And it seems that in your party, we've given enough money. That's good. On the left, they've got their blue and yellows all over for Ukraine's flag. But there isn't the urgency of helping that you would think

America would be putting to bear in a place that may be the last stop measure before Putin really does try to reestablish geographical boundaries. Look, I got involved in Ukraine in 2005 because it was so important, I thought, to Europe and to democracy. It was an emerging democracy, 44 million people. It was a border to Russia. It made sense that we should bring Ukraine into Europe. And my whole time there, working with Yanukovych, was geared towards that end. And I've probably took over 100 polls in Ukraine between the time I was there and left. I understood the country very well. And what I learned, the lesson Putin obviously didn't know, even though he's of the same heritage, there are two countries of Ukraine. There's the Western part of Ukraine, which is more Eurocentric,

and there's the Eastern part of Ukraine, which basically is Russian ethnic Ukrainian, underlying Ukrainian. And the expectation always was that the Russian ethnic Ukrainians would want to be part of Mother Russia. And that was one of the first things I pulled, because I needed to understand the country before I decided I was going to get into it. And what I learned about those Ukrainians was they treasured their heritage. They treasured their language, which was an important part of all the campaigns there. They treasured their Russian Orthodox faith. There's a big religious divide in Western Ukraine is Ukrainian Orthodox. Eastern Ukraine is Russian Orthodox. So they treasured all of that stuff, but they also treasured their freedom.

And when I would ask the question, would you want to have your area become part of Russia? It was always 90% plus no. The Russian, ethnic Ukraine, just say that. So when Putin invaded Ukraine, a lot of reporters called me up and said, what do you think about this? Is this going to be a blitzkrieg kind of situation? I said, no. I said, the Ukrainian people don't have an army to match the Russians, but they have a will that's much stronger than the Russians.

And they don't want to be subjugated. They know what it means to be free, and they don't want to be subjugated. They know what it means to be free and they don't want to go backwards. So I was never surprised at the resistance that the Ukrainian people had. I said the biggest risk for the Ukrainian people is they don't have all the tools they're going to need. And the friends that they're going to need. Well, yeah, that's a whole different issue that we can talk about if you want. But I said at the time, and my concern is that I do believe the Ukrainians will fight the ground war to at least a truce. But the problem is they will lose the peace.

And the follow-up question was, how do you lose the peace? I said, because the Europeans and even the Americans, they talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. And Germany is a business suburb of Russia. Nord Stream 2, Deutsche Bank, Putin understood that the way to get Germany under control was through business. And he threw a lot of business through Deutsche Bank. He threw a lot of business. Nord Stream was Schroeder, Angela Merkel's mentor, was the chairman of Nord Stream 2. They've put that on hold for now, but they are certainly not diving in to help Ukraine. Actually, this current chancellor, who's a social democrat, and whose party is actually affiliated in the international affiliations with Putin's party, has been stronger protecting Ukraine than Merkel was. Now, do you think a President Trump would have been doing more

militarily, as hands-off as he was about these situations and his weird history with Zelensky? Actually, I don't think that Russia would have invaded Ukraine if Trump was there, as Putin didn't when Trump was president. And he didn't for several reasons. One, Trump started giving aid, lethal aid to Ukraine that Obama wouldn't, sending a signal. Number two, he did say publicly, and I'm sure he said privately, although I can't confirm that, that he didn't want to see any more encroachment on Ukrainian territory. He said that to Putin. I think Putin didn't know how to measure that statement, but he didn't do anything. It's not coincidence in my mind that when Biden became president, and many of the same

foreign policy people, different seats, but back in position, Putin read that. And so he had gotten away under Obama with Crimea. He had gotten away with making eastern Ukraine, the Far East, into an autonomous war zone, basically, and didn't really pay a price. I mean, there were these sanctions that were put on, the McGinsky Act kind of stuff, but they weren't serious sanctions. They weren't impacting Putin. And then, so I think he was looking for an opening when Biden came into office. And after Afghanistan, the debacle of that departure, I think he saw this is the time. You think we should have stayed in Afghanistan?

And do you think that the United States should get more involved militarily in Ukraine? I don't think we should have stayed in Afghanistan. I think that we should have had a different kind of departure. I think we should have kept Bagram Air Force Base. I mean, the Taliban weren't trying to get that base, but they never thought we'd give that base up. That was our listening post into China. There wasn't even a discussion. Biden just pulled everybody out of there. The military, I can't believe, and I blame the military for this. I can't blame the military to let that happen, that they weren't more forceful at the White House. And if they were more forceful, then it does truly belong totally on Biden's step,

because that shouldn't have happened. But it sent a signal to Putin who already saw the inclination. What do you say to members of your party who say, we did enough in Ukraine? We can't be fighting everybody's fight? Well, I mean, there are many different voices in my party on that, but I don't let different voices affect my opinion. You know, I'll respect theirs. I know Ukraine. I mean, I know how hard we had to fight to change, with Yanukovych, the economic, legal, and regulatory structures of the country to bring Ukraine into Europe. And the Europeans were very hard on us. Because, on one hand, they had to be for that kind of movement for Ukraine. ukraine but the other

hand there was a very quiet undercurrent against ukraine being a part of the ec why well for example the marketplace while it was a huge marketplace the country is big but it's also poor and that was going to be a direct threat to southern europe and the subsidies that the eu gives which is a limited pool, and we had to negotiate all of those issues. They had corruption issues. There were questions about sympathies to Russia and what kind of operator they would be.

But that was never, to me, the way you deal with sympathies to Russia, which I don't think, I mean, there were people who did, sure, but I don't think that was a prevalent feeling. The way you deal with that, though, is you don't push them to Russia. You bring them to you. But that was the rap on Yanukovych, why they chased him out of the country. But that was an unfair rap, and I talk about that in the book. Yeah, a lot.

And I was mad at Yanukovych for fleeing the country. He fled because of corruption. He didn't flee for any other reason. That was an area I stayed out of because it was endemic to the country. I didn't feel I could do it. I didn't want it to get in the way of my mission, which was to bring Ukraine into Europe. Are you doing any work there now? No.

No Ukraine, no Russia? I'm helping some people in a social welfare kind of context, but no, I'm not doing any work. Ukraine or Russia? Ukraine. Russia? No, I'm not doing any work. Ukraine or Russia? Ukraine. Russia? No, I've never worked. I represented a Russian oligarch on his business interests, not in Russia, around the world. But I never worked in Russia, in Russia for Russians, for Russian work. I never

did that. And my life was pretty clear on that. That's why everything I've just told you about what I was doing in Ukraine was public information. Right. I mean, I was working with U.S. ambassadors as one of their go-to people. You know, that's one of the things when your situation blew up, it made me wonder, did you, when you made the calculation to get involved with Trump as high profile. Why didn't you think to yourself, I better be careful because I have stuff that they can look at with the taxes and all this other stuff that I don't want people looking at? Because I didn't think I had stuff they could look at. You thought that this was all going to be okay? Look, you have to parse the issues that

they came after me on and they grew based on how much pressure Weissman was trying to put on me. The Ferry issue was total BS. Weissman was the lead prosecutor from the Mueller. Yeah. The Ferry issue, I had resolved that issue, as I talk about in the book. The Ferry issue cropped up because of the fake black ledger that was put out in August of 2016 against me by this woman, Chaluba, who worked at the DNC

and the operatives that Soros was funding in Ukraine to try and find dirt on me to get me out of the campaign. And that flag, the fair unit reaching out to me saying, we saw this in the news, we need to have a conversation. I didn't mind having a conversation. I had a lawyer that dealt with all those government work. She contacted the head of the fair office. They worked things out. We came to a settlement. I mean, no criminal actions, no civil actions. So you thought it was done?

It was done. The deal was I'd do a filing. Then this was all before the special counsel was even appointed. Then the special counsel gets appointed. One of Weissman's first calls was to the director of the fair office. What's the status of the Manicor case? There is no status. He's filing.

Well, I'm taking it over. I'm not accepting the filing. And from there, he went after me criminally. Criminally. I had settled it with not even a civil penalty. And it was correct for me to settle it, not because I'd done something wrong, but just to move the issue forward. It wasn't necessary to stay on. It wasn't important. But I had set up a structure where I had lobbyists,

Democrat lobbyists, Tony Podesta, and Republican lobbyists with Mercury. They were the ones supposed to be filing. They didn't even file. They filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, not the FAIR Act. And they were never even sought after. They didn't go after either, any of them. So you believe it was completely political? 100%. That's why you say persecuted. That's why I say persecuted. I mean, if I had not been Trump's chairman and the black ledger came up for Ukrainian reasons, not for U.S. reasons, fair would have reached out to me.

I would have dealt with them. And the resolution that I reached them would have been the final resolution. What does it mean that the jury found you guilty on the counts? Look, I was convicted in the court of public opinion before the trial even opened. I mean, that was the whole strategy behind a gag order on me, put me in solitary confinement, and then leaking anonymous stuff that became... I mean, I believed I was guilty reading the headlines about me. You read my Wikipedia page. I don't know who that is. You said in court, I'm here because of my actions.

Well, yeah. I take responsibility for my life and what's happened. I didn't commit the crimes that I was accused of. The acts I did, not filing under FARA, because I didn't commit the crimes that i was accused of the acts i did not filing under fair because i didn't think i had to file in the fair because i was a political consultant i wasn't a lobbyist i had lobbyists working for me and that's a distinction most of the country can't understand and trying to have that conversation with the hurricane that was blowing in my face was impossible plus i had a gag or whatever plus i was in solitary confinement so you don't think the trial was fair no i thought judge ellis gave me a fair trial into my face. It was impossible. Plus, I had a gag order. Plus, I was in solitary confinement. So you don't think the trial was fair?

No, I thought Judge Ellis gave me a fair trial. I thought he gave me a fair trial. I thought there were the witnesses that I would have called. I couldn't call. They were totally pressured by the government. Gates lied. I mean, there was no actual evidence against me. It was all testimony. And how could you have, they had all my server stuff when they did my rate on my house. They had all my emails. They had all my memos, not one piece of evidence. Do you regret that you didn't tell them straight? Yeah, I gave information to this guy, Kalimnik. I gave it to him. It was polling information. I'd never denied that. First of all, you to this guy, Kalimnik. I gave it to him. It was polling information. I'd never denied that. First of all, you need to understand who Kalimnik is, which I explain in the book.

Yep. Constantine Kalimnik is a U.S. asset, not a Russian spy. They are U.S. The intelligence says different, though. Well, I believe John Brennan said a lot of things that were wrong. And I know for a fact when we were dealing at this time, the U.S. embassy viewed him as a reliable asset. Such, they even gave him a code name to protect him. I mean, plus if you think about it,

my meetings with Yanukovych were one-on-one. The only other person in the room always was Kalemnik because Yanukovych didn't, he understood English, but he didn't speak it. He couldn't communicate. Constantine was fluid. And Constantine had worked for me for 10 years. The SBU is as tough and as good an intelligent operation as the KGB or the CIA. They would have never let their president sit having the meetings that he was having with me with a Russian spy or an American CIA spy. I was, I found out later, they checked me out too. Did I have CIA connections? They checked Kalimnik out. Was he, had KGB. Both of us cleared it. And I know that, how? Because several people confirmed to me what was going on so u.s intel

saying that the information you gave kalimnick made its way to russian intelligence you don't believe that no i don't first of all i don't know what made for the information i gave kalimnick was through gates and it was generally public polling information there wasn't any we had not had and this is another thing they had lost our polls were in the field when I met with Klemnick on August 2nd. We didn't have polls yet for the general election. But I was building a strategy. And if you go back and look at my television appearances, and every Sunday I pick one of the shows, as you know, and I would put out my line for the week. And I would talk about how we were going to win, where we were going to win.

I was saying in public what I said to Kalemnik in that meeting that I had. Why did you tell him? Because, again, I had just spent, at that point, 11 years in Ukraine. A lot of people were very frustrated with Obama's treatment of Ukraine, and they saw me working – my friends, they saw me working for Trump A lot of people were very frustrated with Obama's treatment of Ukraine, and they saw me working, my friends, they saw me working for Trump as a new opening, and I wanted to keep them apprised, as I did, by the way, Republican friends of mine and business friends in the United States.

You didn't think it was asking for Russian help? Of course it wasn't asking for Russian help. This never even came up until it was first raised by, by, uh, at a press conference at the democratic national convention, but then really didn't clarify until the black ledger thing started to work. I'm with Klemnick on August 2nd. And I'd go through this in detail in the book. There is not one piece of evidence other than, well, the intelligence committee says there is no evidence. I mean, they may say that.

The Intelligence Committee said, including Adam Schiff, I've seen a lot of evidence showing blatant collusion with Russia. There is no evidence. They just did stupid things in the campaign. We talked about this during the campaign. When you were at the meeting with the guy with the Russian contacts who was like a singer or whatever, it was really one of the Trump's kids who had set it up and they asked you to come into it. The Paul Manafort I know would never sit in a meeting like that without knowing who the guys were and what they were supposedly offering. What happened there? Well, June 6th meeting was a business associate

who had worked with the Trump organization at a Miss Universe contest that the Trump organization owned and was running in Moscow called Don Jr. and said that there's a lawyer, Russian lawyer, who thinks she's

got some information you'd be interested in about Hillary Clinton. I mean, I know this all now clearly because it's been vetted a lot. But at the time, it wasn't even that specific. Don called me and said, what do you think about this? And I told him these things never pan out. That's somebody trying to pander to you. He said, well, I feel like we have to do it because of the business thing. I said, well, you do what you need to do. He said, well, you attend. I said, when is it? He told me when it was going to be. I was in the building that day. In fact, I was going to be in the office that we held the meeting in right after that, before the meeting was set up,

on another manner. So I said, well, I'm going to be there. If it's at that time, I'll show up. I said, but I'm not going to stay very long. And he said, okay, fine. But you know you can't take information from foreign sources like that. Well, she was a lawyer. She was not a government source. And excuse me, they get those kinds of things all the time. There's no question that it happens, but it doesn't make it right. Well, it doesn't make it wrong if somebody is coming up to you and says they want to tell you about something they know. You have to make your own assessment as to the value of the information.

But that's very different than hiring Fusion GPS to hire Christopher Steele, to hire Russians, to go to Russia to try and find dirt on me, Stone, and Trump. And so the meeting happened. It was actually, I thought I was in a Saturday Night Live situation because you had these burly, very Chechen-looking kind of men with the open shirts, and they're all on one side. We're in this big room. Trump has this big room that's twice the size of this, around the conference around the conference table and on one side we've got all these chechen type of guys this woman the lawyer's on the other side she claims she doesn't speak english so we're going to deal through a translator uh and the translator basically doesn't speak english very well and so don's on the other side and jared and i are sitting across the room from him.

And Jared and I look at this, and we sort of chuckle to each other and said, this is going to be what it looks like. And we didn't know where it was going. And they then introduce everybody, barely could understand the introductions. And then the woman opens up with doing a criticism of Bill Browder of Renaissance Capital. I happen to know who Bill Browder was because he had written a book that I had read as part of my anti-Russian work that I was doing in Ukraine. And so I find it interesting. She's talking about Browder and the McGinsky Act and the Congress that passed the McGinsky Act, which was punishing Russia for killing this lawyer who represented Bill Browder in legal matters in Russia.

And Putin had him arrested, and he died in prison. It was a tragic situation. And she says, all the reasons why Browder's a criminal, McGinsky Act was wrongly created, will Donald Trump please call for the repeal of the McGinsey Act if he's president. And Don has no idea what she's talking about. Jared didn't know what she was talking about. And then she said, if he could, we'll make it easier to adopt.

I think Russia will make it easier to adopt Russian babies, which had been a major pipeline for adoption that Putin had shut down as a punishment to the West for the McGinsky Act. And I usually had a meeting, you may remember, I've usually had my laptop, I make my notes. I didn't even bring my laptop to the meeting, but I had my phone, cell phone. And so I'm making sort of scribbled notations on my notes page, and it's Bill Browder, Renaissance, McGinsky, adoption, and then I stopped taking notes because it made no sense what was going on.

And meanwhile, I was getting ready to leave because this was a ridiculous meeting, and Jared, smarter than I am, had texted his assistant to call him to get him out of the meeting. And so he gets the call, and he says, I've got to go. And I look at it, and I knew exactly what he had meeting. And so he gets the call and he says, I've got to go. And I look at it and I knew exactly what he had to do. So he gets up and leaves. And I couldn't leave Don there alone. So I stayed. Five minutes later, the meeting ended. And that was it. Do you think Jared left because he thought the meeting was wrong or was just

boring? Well, I think it was a meeting that made no sense. We were never going to get Trump to repeal the McGinsky act. And they didn't offer you anything about Hillary Clinton. We never even talked about Hillary Clinton. That's the ironic thing. We never talked about it. At that point, Jared left,

you know, she had gotten to the adoption part. I look at Don, I sort of just roll my eyes in my head. And at an inflection point, Don said, well, thank you very much.

We appreciate it. And that was the end of the meeting. I didn't know this until about a year ago, maybe two years ago. That Russian lawyer, when she came to New York, first met with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS. And then after she met with us, she met with him again. She said on other matters. I don't know who was setting whom up here.

Was the Russians trying to set up Trump? Was Clinton trying to set up Trump? Well, here's my theory of the setup, okay? Your stuff comes out, and in short order, you leave the campaign, which I have every reason to believe was them throwing you to the wolves. He didn't want that stink around him, Trump, and he left you out there on your own. Am I wrong?

No, I mean, look, frankly, it was a mutual decision because I've been around this thing long enough. Once I saw what was happening, I was not going to be the issue. This was at an important part of the campaign. This was, this was, and I had just finished structuring the, the,

the general election structure was a state organizations, all the priority States. I had met with my political directors at all the, the strategy for how we can compete in each of the States hired the staff. So I had, we were ready for the general election. And the key now was Trump's messaging. And this dominated for about a week at the headlines. And I saw where it was going.

It was not going to stop. And as long as I was there physically, it was, it was going to be the hammer that they hit Trump on. You don't believe that the knives were out inside also? I mean, you know, you'd had, I don't know how much you believed you were participating in it, but there was a lot of beef with Corey Lewandowski, who was obviously out by then. He was gone.

There was stories about people within the family being jealous about all the power that you had gotten and the influence. You don't think it was a coincidence that all of a sudden they just threw you out? On the contrary, the family was my biggest group of supporters because when I came on board,

they were an asset that was not being used. And in a convention and delegate game with the primaries and everything else, it's credible surrogates, which Trump didn't have very many of, you know, the family was perfect group to be surrogates. They knew the't have very many of, the family was a perfect group to be surrogates. They knew the man. They could talk to his personality. The attacks on him were generally personality-driven. They call Paul the count, by the way.

People misunderstand this. They're like, what? He can do math? Who can't count delegates? That's not what it is. At a convention, it's all about working constituencies and understanding which group will go and what the leverage is and who's working behind the back. It's actually a little bit of an alchemy. And my brother, Andrew, is someone who is known for being good at it. But certainly at the top of that food chain was Paul Manafort. He was very helpful in keeping Reagan out of a primary once. He was then very helpful to Republicans in succession. And that was ostensibly what you were supposed to do here, was help him at the convention.

But obviously your role went well beyond. By the convention, it had grown way beyond. Yes. I was the campaign chairman. I was managing all the pieces. They sent you out to deal with, you were dealing with everything. You wound up coming unannounced to me on the morning show to discuss some who had written the speech that Melania had given.

They were putting you out for everything. Well, because that was the kind of thing I didn't want the candidates speaking about. Right. And there weren't a lot of surrogates. And that Melania situation was something that the family I didn't want speaking about. I put the family out in a number of places where they were talking about their father. But you say they were your supporters. And here's the big bone.

People can read the book for themselves. You can decide how you feel about the tax cases and why they were brought and when they were brought. And the jury said what they said in both cases. But here's where we disagree. You could have been pardoned. Trump was saying he didn't like the case. He thought it was politically motivated. He knew you and it was it. Then all of a sudden he starts saying he doesn't

really know you and the family's your supporter. They're quiet on it. And he leaves you in prison. Like, and I'll tell you, I think to me personally, it's a really interesting rendition of what it was like for someone who had no business, you know, knowing what prison was like and having to understand that culture. He could have pardoned you a lot sooner and didn't. How are you okay with that? Well, because I'm a strategist and I sit back and I see all sides. Obviously in this case, I had a very definite perspective on my side,

but I also had a perspective on Trump's side. It wasn't as if the controversies had finished. Trump was still getting attacked on all lines. And the Republican establishment in Washington was not supportive of Trump, and they weren't supportive of me. And they weren't supportive of me. People who should have been out there giving grief about what I was going through and probably knew me, knew who I really was, they were quiet too. But he was supposed to be anti the system. He does everything his own way.

He's not going to be told what to do. He's also the president and he's also dealing with all the political problems he was dealing with at the time and also had a reelection to look at. And I never asked. I mean, because part of the next question is, did you ever ask him to have a pardon? I never asked because I always felt he would do the right thing. I admit with you that, and I write this in the book.

You never asked for a pardon? You never had a lawyer go to them and say, can I get a pardon? No. It just happened? Well, it happened because I knew it would. Because I know the man. And it happened? Well, it happened because I knew it would. Because I know the man. And it happened at a time, I always thought, and I talk about this in the book, you must have missed this part. The only thing I worried about the White House worrying about was the unknown.

Because in politics, it's what you don't know that causes the great fear and causes people to act. They act on the unknown for fear. And oftentimes, the unknown has no basis to be acted on. And I wanted Trump to know one thing, and only one thing, while I was in prison, I was not going to lie. Because I knew and he knew that there was no truth in the Russian collusion narrative. And so if he knew that i wasn't going to lie that was all

he needed to know to feel comfortable with my situation my position has always been this in covering it and obviously i covered it very intensely collusion is a behavior not a crime except in securities law and i felt all along with what was coming out in muller and eventually with the report i didn't like what bill barr did as AG with the report. I didn't like what Comey did before that in the Clinton situation. But I think there was collusion as a behavior, meaning sloppy, stupid things, whether it was Caputo and Stone meeting with the one guy or Trump saying what he said about WikiLeaks. Those are clumsy things that you're not supposed to do. I don't think that means that there was a conspiracy.

I never thought there was going to be criminality. I never thought that even the obstruction charge would stick. But I felt that that campaign had been sloppy and that he had been reckless in terms of asking for help, even standing next to Putin on the world stage and saying, I believe him over my intelligence people about who's messing with the campaign. That's what I saw. And I thought all of that was politically dynamite and bad, but not criminal, just so you know my position.

I appreciate that. But then you wound up being the fall guy for it. We don't fake the funk here. And here's the real talk. Over 40 years of age, 52% of us experience some kind of ED between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo, it's embarrassing, but it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS, and it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment, and it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care. Why? Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments.

And you do it right from your couch. HIMS provides access to clinically proven generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever. And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low as two bucks a dose. HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers. So if ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash CCP.

H-I-M-S.com slash CCP. And you will get personalized ED treatment options. HIMS.com slash CCP. Prescriptions, you need an online consultation with a healthcare provider, and they will determine if appropriate. Restrictions apply. You see the website, you'll get details and important safety information. You're going to need a subscription. It's required. Plus, the price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan. We don't fake the funk here. And here's the real talk. Over 40 years of age, 52% of us experience some kind of ED between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo, it's embarrassing, but it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS, and it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment, and it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care. Why?

Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments. And you do it right from your couch. HIMS provides access to clinically proven, generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever. And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low as two bucks a dose.

HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers. So, if ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash CCP. H-I-M-S dot com slash CCP. And you will get personalized ED treatment options. HIMS.com slash CCP. Prescriptions, you need an online consultation with a healthcare provider

and they will determine if appropriate. Restrictions apply. You see the website, you'll get details and important safety information. You're going to need a subscription. It's required. Plus, price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan.

Right. Because I was a means to Weissman's end, which was to get Trump. And Trump could have stopped it by pardoning you. He could have. It would have caused other implications. There would have been a lot of ripple effects. But to answer your question, in looking at it from Trump's side perspective, and knowing that pardon of me is only going to ripple off and cause other issues for him, maybe other issues for me.

I didn't know. And so the cautious conservative thing was to wait until the right moment. That's not what I wanted. And frankly, every Thanksgiving, I was in prison, I think two Thanksgivings and two Christmases. And every time I expected and hoped for something. Now, why didn't you ask? It's not wrong to ask. Because I didn't want to put him in a position to say no.

Because he couldn't do it at the time. And I didn't think it would be fair to him. I felt, media's always asking, you're going to pardon Paul Manafort? You're going to pardon Paul Manafort? He had the ability to say, I've never talked to Paul Manafort before. Because I never asked him. And you could say, well, that's dumb. You didn't feel that he dropped you?

Look, at the end of the day, he pardoned me, a full pardon. It gave me my life back. Once you've lost something, you really appreciate it when you get it back. You don't appreciate what you've lost until you've lost it. And the biggest moment to me was not, and it's true today still, it wasn't the two years I was in prison, including almost one year in solitary. The moment that is most in my mind was the day I was free when that pardon came down. Because when that pardon came down, I got my life back and he gave it to me. Now you could say, well, you lost your life

because of him, but he gave me back my life. And that was the most meaningful part of the two years to me. When I would go from the jail to the courtroom, handcuffed, shackled on my legs, in a jumpsuit, feeling like an animal, driving a road that I drove every day, across Pekee Bridge or Trafford Memorial Bridge, going to an area on Capitol Hill that I went to every day almost. And I longed in those trips for the day, not knowing when it would be, that I could be driving my own car again over that bridge, stopping wherever I want. And Trump gave that back to me.

And unless you- Trump also arguably took it from you. Well, no, Weissman took it from me. Weissman took it and Mueller, when they brought the charges that they knew were not appropriate. Fair point. What I'm saying is he could have ended it.

You have a different take on it. I get it. But just, this is something that kept coming back to me. One of the things I want you to explain differently than is in the book. And you're in there, the Italian guy, it has to be an Italian guy, comes up to you and says, we got your back. We're good. You're not a rat.

And you talk about that in there about how rats are seen. And that's always something that has been a point of conflict for me because I don't see it as being a rat when you're telling the truth about people who are doing criminal things. I agree with you. Right. And then there's a line in here where you say, just about how closely I read the book, I don't see it as being a rat when you're telling the truth about people who are doing criminal things. I agree with you. Right. And then there's a line in here where you say, just about how closely I read the book, a guard says to you, so was there any or what?

And you said, was there any what? And he says, Russian collusion. You say, I'll never tell. Now, just to be clear, the suggestion would then be you know things, but you're not going to ever tell because you're not a rat. Is that the impression that you want people to have, that know things that you could tell but you won't they i know that's not the meaning of what i said in there in that part of the book um yeah the i was very clear the whole time from august of 2016 till today talking to the media today, that I was innocent and wouldn't have been prosecuted but for the fact that I was a means to get Donald Trump.

I went to prison because I wouldn't lie. That's the key. I wouldn't lie. Gates didn't go to prison. Why? Because he lied. And Weissman got what they needed for him to get me and to get Trump in some respect. If you read Gates's early 302s with the FBI and his later 302s. 302s are FBI. They have to write down interview notes and statements. That's what he's talking about. Go ahead.

There's change in his story. Now you can say, well, that's because he got immunity. And he was now telling the truth. No. He changed because he got immunity and now he would lie. He could lie. And he was now telling the truth. No, he changed because he got immunity, and now he would lie. He could lie. And he did. And from my standpoint, by telling the truth always,

I was put in the crosshairs. If I had done what Gates did, I wouldn't have spent one day in jail. Not one day. I mean, I'm not saying I wouldn't have been convicted of something because they would have wanted me to plea to it, but I wouldn't have gone to jail. I mean, I'm not saying I wouldn't have been convicted of something because they would have wanted me to plead to it. But I wouldn't have gone to jail. I'm convinced of that. You didn't lie to them.

Never lied to them. And that's why my story was consistent. And that's why when I wrote this book, it flowed very easily. And if you go back and look at my notes from the proffers and you look at my book, there's a consistency that wouldn't be there if I was telling lies. Who was lying was Andrew Weissman, saying to me things that were true that weren't true. And I go through that in the book in specific incidents. And they were not issues that were not relevant to his case

is where he was lying to me because he was building a narrative and telling lies that he wanted relevant to his case is where he was lying to me. Cause he was building a narrative and telling lies that he wanted me to confirm. And when I wouldn't confirm. Why do you say lying? Why would Weissman want to lie? I use an example in the book. That's the ultimate one dealing with Kalemnik. You know, he, he needed to show the link to Russia. And so he was trying and his, his theory of the motive that Trump had or that Russia had to help Trump was

that Trump would let Russia take Eastern Ukraine. That was Weissman's theory. And, and that was the deal according to Weissman. I'm combining a lot, but that was the deal. And it's all laid out in the book. Right. And there was a meeting in Madrid that to Weissman. I'm combining a lot, but that was the deal. And it's all laid out in the book. Right.

And there was a meeting in Madrid that to Weissman, the timing was very important for his narrative. I did go to Madrid. I didn't see Kolevnik. I was there on a personal thing. I stayed three days. Kolevnik never was there. But now we're at now nine months into solitary.

My mind is fuzzy. I know he's trying to trick me on stuff. I'm trying not to say the wrong thing to a question that, and so he says to me, what did you meet with Klemnick about in Madrid? And I said, I didn't meet Klemnick in Madrid. He said, well, yeah, you did. And he was very adamant about it. And I said, I didn't meet me, Kalemnik in Madrid. He said, well, yeah, you did. And he was very adamant about it. And I said, I didn't meet Kalemnik in Madrid. Well, what if I told you I had a receipt of a ticket that he flew to Madrid and has a hotel in Madrid, the same hotel you were in? I said, that will surprise me because I know why I was in Madrid. I was there three days and then I left and I don't ever remember Klemek.

And that was the one time he trapped me. He said, well, let's pretend that he was there. And he got into the what if game. And the more I got into the what if game, I was trying to answer his question, but it kept coming back. I would have to lie to answer the question and I wouldn't do it.

And it got very contentious. And, but that's when I realized that there was no interest in the truth. I mean, I'd realized it before, but it was a dramatic moment in my mind of there was no interest on the special counsel on the truth. They just needed to check the boxes that made their theories work. And they had to put, for some reason, they had to put Kalemnik and me in Madrid at this point in time in February of 2017. And they did, there were many other examples like that of when Trump first knew about the hacks being released at the DNC convention. It's because of how he ran his mouth about this stuff and how he seemed happy about it.

Well, he was happy about it. You know what? Why don't you judge that stuff? I mean, you are not that way. You've never been. You know, guys can talk about Roger Stone. They can talk about other partners. That's fine.

Everybody's got an opinion about players in the business, especially when they play hardball. But you are nothing like Donald Trump. And you say in the book that people will say to you, how can you still support him? You say that, I forget what the language is, but you use a very Manafort phrase in here, a vehicle. Trump was a vehicle. phrase in here, a vehicle. Trump was a vehicle. And if you can be dispassionate about his personality, then you can see him as a vehicle. Do you still feel like that? Yeah. Even after the January 6th and the election deniers and how he is stoking the flames of about as anti-democratic thing as we've ever seen a president do? No, it's, I could contend to what I think was more anti-democratic. Look-

Well, you don't believe what they're saying, right? About January 6th? About the election being stolen from Donald Trump. Well, look, there's election fraud in all elections. I also believe, as you would understand from your family history, that you win elections before the election day, not after the election day. And if the fraud has happened on election day, it's because you didn't prepare correctly. But I'm saying that what they've, fair point, it's an imperfect system. Okay.

It will always be an imperfect system. I marvel at why we haven't improved it. But that said, what his guys are putting out there, you know, is BS. And you know it's dangerous. And you know that he thinks it benefits him, so he's okay with it. No, I don't know that he thinks he benefits him. I don't know what he really feels because I've never talked to him about this. But I do know that the elections in 2020 were looser than they usually are.

Ballot harvesting was capable of drop boxes and things like that. And those kinds of things can be corruption. It'd lead to corruption. Do I know the corruption happened? No. No. And we know that they looked like crazy paul we've never had people look at an election the way we've been looking at

this one at the state level all the counting and the recounting the the i mean it's this is a very it's an emotional subject obviously but it's also one that requires analysis more than just broad strokes and i haven't done it. But the only analysis that I have done is I looked at the places where it was claimed there was corruption. And there are anomalies. Now, regardless of that, the election was over. Biden was certified, going to be certified.

It was over. That was certified, going to be certified. It was over. That should have been on. When the protests were being organized for January 6th, I wasn't for it. I wasn't even in Washington. I stayed away from Washington. Because to me, the election was over. Like it or not, I move on after election day and after the process is over.

And if I've lost, I want to do correct things so I win the next time, which, by the way, I think Republicans have done in a number of the states where there was alleged corruption. And so it doesn't behoove democracy. Now, do I think it was the biggest threat to democracy? No. No. No, I'm saying what he has been saying and doing. No, I'm saying what he has been saying and doing. I mean, your level of, boy, this guy, I hope the former president values your friendship and your stewardship of his best reckoning in people's minds. He, January 6th, are they going to get him?

Is he going to go to jail? I don't think so. I think that there's plenty of wrongdoing and things that look bad. And I think that's been true about him forever. Okay. And I think you got caught up in it and you had a past that made you vulnerable and they came after you for it. I don't believe that you had an agency with Russia that made you somehow a compromised person in the election process. I never saw any proof of it. I don't believe it. But he says the wrong thing almost all the time. And this January 6th is part of it, of him being okay that they were that angry going down there. What he said about Mike Pence, that kind of threat. How can you be this passionate about those kinds of qualities in the man?

Well, I didn't say I was dispassionate about it. I said, I look at the whole being, and that's what I say in the book. And the people can't get by the personality. And does he say things that I wouldn't say? Absolutely. But I also believe that what he was trying to do as president on what is important to this country were things that I agree with. I got out of Washington, U.S. politics during the bomb return, as I said earlier, because I was tired of what I called the

hypocrisy of the system, where Republicans and Democrats promising to do certain things, going to Washington, caring more about their own career, control of the Congress changes. They take the exact opposite position on the same issue that they had when they were in the majority and both sides do it. And that turned me off. That's why he got elected. And that's why he got elected. Because people thought that whatever is wrong with him personally, Because people thought that whatever is wrong with him personally, they're all kind of like that. At least he sees what I see in the rest of them and he wants to fight for me. And that's why if he runs again, I think he will be a very formidable candidate because they still see that. And now they see things like what happened at Mar-a-Lago as the system being afraid of him again and going after him.

happened at Mar-a-Lago as the system being afraid of him again and going after him. You don't think he's too tarnished by the January 6th and his obvious enthusiasm for that type of animus and the election denial stuff? You understand more than most people would understand in your family history that elections get down to who the two people are running. You think he can beat DeSantis? Well, I don't think DeSantis runs against him. Why not? Because he doesn't have to. Because he can wait becauseSantis? Well, I don't think DeSantis runs against him. Why not? Because he doesn't have to. Because he can wait because he's young. Yeah.

You think he joins his ticket? No, I don't think he gets asked. Really? Why not? It doesn't give Trump what he needed. What does he need? Somebody like Tim Scott. You think that that would be his move? I don't know what his move is. You asked me what I think. Does he reach out to you? I told you I don't talk about conversations. Well, I hope he

does because he owes you. And I'm sure his guys around him know that. What would you, if you and I were going to bet, how confident are you that he runs? At least at the beginning. I don't know that he stays in, but how confident are you? I guess I would vacillate between 96 and 97%. Really? Would you help him? I'm pretty sure. Would you help him? Look, am I willing to get back in again? I don't think so. I mean, I'll help whoever the Republican nominee is, but now at this stage of my life, after what I've just gone through,

my focus is my family, enjoying my grandkids, enjoying my friends. I mean, I'm committed to changing this country and doing the things that are important. So, yes, I'll be involved in some capacity. But will I dedicate two years to it like I did before? Probably not. And you believe that Donald Trump is the right guy to heal the division and the rancor in this country? You know, the thing is, you're jumping to the end of what he has to do.

I look at the beginning of what he has to do. And if Donald Trump is out of the equation, there's still going to be enormous disunity and conflict between the two parties. We're at that phase, unfortunately. I think that we have to end the two-party system and that we should have at least four or five parties. What do you think of that? Well, then we'd end up being France and I don't think that's a good idea. Well, there is no other mature democracy that has only two parties. Well, there is no other mature democracy that has only two parties. Well, there is no other mature democracy that has done for democracy what the United States has done. Oh, absolutely. I'm not bashing us. I'm

saying that our system forces us into these, like this is very rare. You know, even when you were at the top of the Trump pyramid, and I believe carrying arguments that were weak, you know, when I would test them with you, there was never personal animus. I never wanted to insult you. I never want to insult the former president. He loves insulting me, loves running down my family, everybody but my mother.

But this is very rare these days. I will get a ton of shit for how I'm talking to you in this. I'm telling you that people will watch this and they'll say- And I probably will too. Right? And I think talking to you in this. I'm telling you that people will watch this and they'll say- And I probably will too. Right? And I think that's the main problem. And I think the only way to get away from it is to not have us and them. Well, I don't agree with that. I think the two-party system is our strength. I think the problem is the structure that we conduct politics in today is very different than what I grew up with. I mean, the media today, I mean, when I grew up in politics in the Reagan days, for example,

we did something very unique in communications. We created a two-cycle news day. We had a morning news cycle and we had an afternoon cycle. And we'd sit in Jim Baker's office and we'd figure out what we wanted to play out for the day and they every everyone would plug into it and then we put the message out to everybody now we have 24 hours cycles and you make a very smart point in this book I don't believe that I mean I've been in this business a long time I've never been any extension of any party or any government anything ever we used to be in the business of chasing after the government only with Trump did we have to become defenders of government institutions. The media was our job to poke holes in them. Now that's changed. But you talk about the

advent of digital aggregation in media and what that does in terms of what we know as SEO, search engine optimization, and what you believe reporters have to do to follow the algorithms that are getting things attention online and that that has changed everything. I think it has. And that's one of the reasons I wrote the book is because I wanted to have a view that had all the components in one place. Because there have been books on Russian collusion. There have been books on Russian collusion. There have been books on the media, the great reset, the woke left. But there's not been anything that tied it all together in politics.

And my life over the last six years does give me a platform to talk about it. You've certainly been in the crucible of it. I've been in the crucible of it. You've certainly been in the crucible of it. I've been in the crucible of it. And I think one of my concerns is that young reporters don't understand what journalism ethics really was, at least, and is. And the need to get the clicks versus the need to get the facts, I think, is what's causing a lot of the distortions that cause the conflict that you're talking about. And I say that from personal experience. Yeah, I hear you. I hear you. I guess I'm, I don't know, maybe I'm just personally closed off from blaming the media because I'm in it. Although I'm a fair critic of the media in a lot of ways. I've lived it myself, obviously, but I see it as the

few, not the many. And I don't see the media as driving the game. I see them as caught up in the game. And I see the two parties and opposition as a legitimate position these days as what runs it. See, and I think the problem with opposition, and this will be true regardless if you have four parties or two parties, is nobody, it used to be there was a conservative view of something and a liberal view of something. Now, there's a power view of something and a minority view of something. The same fact. And they change on the same fact with no change in facts. That's what bothers me about politics today. That's not going to get repaired by,

get better by having more parties to do that. Why not? Why couldn't you have coalitions where you make a deal? Because coalitions don't work. Coalitions end up being compromises and the compromises end up leading to bad consequences. Whereas in the political system that we have, there is a definitiveness to it. And what bothered me

and the way I got out of it, what Trump got me back into was he put a definition to it that said, this is what I believe and I'm going to do this. And that wasn't true in Washington. That's why I left. Today, I think that the system is looking to destroy Trump. But once they destroy Trump, that doesn't mean they're going to come together in a kumbaya moment. And so then it just transfers to politicians. And my concern is if they see the guy who's going to change the system get sidelined, then the willingness to change the system becomes more difficult. See, I agree with everything that you just said, except the effects of coalitions. I think we can't say what it would do because we've never really been able to try it

here. And France is a problem. Israel has its problems, third election cycle, fifth election cycle in three years. But they still get a lot more done in those countries than we do here, by the way. As bad as it is, as messy as it is, it's pretty messy and sloppy and angry and ugly here right now. Character counts, though. That used to be your party's big thing. I don't know how you can see Trump as the cure to something that he curates. He thrives in division. He makes things personal and insulting by reflex. Character is a flaw on both sides. I mean, Joe Biden standing up and saying, I have one number today, zero inflation. To the American people who are going to the grocery store every day paying way more than

zero for inflation on. I mean, until politicians are willing to be credible as opposed to political, you're going to have the kind of conflict you're talking about. And the reason Trump- You don't see Trump as outside the realm of, like you really think he's going to change things for the better systemically that we saw that when he was in office? Look, I think the policies of Trump during his presidency were good for this country. I mean, I think the economic, all strategies in the economic cycle improved in his term. You know, we became energy independent. I mean, you know the list.

I don't need to go through the list. The point is that I believe Trump symbolizes something that if we destroy that symbol, the American people will just fall back into accepting whatever. And that's- Well, that's still good because the real thing that came out of the Trump experience that I think has real value is our leaders have to remember who this country is. And I know I know that there are a lot of people who will say, no, they voted for Trump. This is what they get. I think that people have to develop a nuance of understanding that the desperation is real. White fright in certain manifestations is real. Whether it's justified or not, it's real. And when people are afraid and they get desperate, they want help and that you shouldn't punish people for wanting help and being desperate. Their choice of Trump, I think, speaks to a paucity of leaders. But that would be the real shame, is that if those people are forgotten and that fear isn't addressed, I think we have worse days ahead. I agree with that. But flip it around and look at it. I don't like being called a racist. My whole life, my father taught me growing up, you know, the value of reaching out to help people. I was an NAA lifetime member at 16 years old.

My father made me join it and made me go to the meetings. It made me understand, you know, the different things. And the fact that I support Donald Trump, I'm called a racist. The fact that Trump was accused of Russian collusion, I'm called a traitor. And I'm not a traitor. I've spent my whole life fighting for this traitor. And I'm not a traitor. I've spent my whole life fighting for this country. And I'm not a racist. I've spent my whole life trying to help all people, regardless of race.

But that conflict is embedded in the system today. And you could say, well, Trump brings out the worst of it. But I'm not Donald Trump. They shouldn't be saying that about me. But that's the nature of the game. He's your guy. And I accept that. But that's the nature of the game. He's your guy. And I accept that. But that's the point is if you're going to let.

I'm not saying it's okay. I'm saying that's the game. That's right. And I've accepted it as the game because I know I'm not a racist. Do you know that he's not a racist? Yeah, I do know that. I do believe that in my heart because I've had sought with him. I've been to places with him.

I mean, he knows family members of the janitorial staff in all of his properties. And he'll ask, I've been with him, where he'll see somebody, not wearing a name tag. Hi, John, how are you doing? How's your son doing? Has he gotten over? This is in Trump Tower in Las Vegas, where he doesn't hang out. And I see the way those workers look at him and appreciate him. And so I can honestly say I've never seen a racial moment, a racist moment in my relationship with Donald Trump. You don't think he fomented racial tensions in this country with the way he speaks about this?

I think some of the things he said were sloppy and they were distorted deliberately to create a caricature that, you know, over time became embedded. Um, you know, again, at your point of he's careless with his words, it's one thing. Uh, and you should, and you say, well, he should be disciplined. True. No, I think he should be decent. Uh, it's different. It's not just about, that's your job is keeping people on message, understanding what message is. And you did a good job with that. And you are not easy to deal with when you are bringing somebody's perspective. And that's great. That is a tribute to time and intelligence. And it's my job to figure out what the straight line is. But he does not, you know,

there are too many guys around this former president who say, look, I don't say that stuff. I'm not like that. But, yeah, but he's the guy that you chose. And I've never seen a moment with him where I saw anything of that trait ever. And I'm 100%. And I spent a lot of time with him. Now, you know, mine did not, you know, years, but I've never saw. And what I saw during my time with him was very different than that caricature.

I mean, and spontaneous from other people to him, not just him to the people. And so he's a complicated guy. There's no question about it. And I understand people why they don't like him, but people didn't like Ronald Reagan. But you don't destroy and destroy somebody. And you certainly don't destroy people around them just because you don't like the person. And in my case, in this book, it talks about how I was a target because people hated Trump and the excesses in the system, two-tier justice. Look, do I call for Hunter Biden to be prosecuted? No. But tell me why he

hasn't been when you did me, as an example. And so the hypocrisy, the two-tiered system, the deep state having one side, the media issues of getting clicks and importance, all of that creates a composite that is complicated, but it's clear in my mind. And so when you say, how could you do that? I don't judge the man by his personality, although I recognize there are issues in his personality that cause problems, but I do judge him by his results. If he hadn't been a successful president on results, we'd probably be having a different conversation. I will always appreciate that he gave me my freedom back. And until you've lost your freedom, you can't appreciate how significant that is.

Paul Manafort, I appreciate you taking the time, having this in-depth conversation, and it's the kind of conversations that we need more of. So what do you think? Is Paul Manafort telling the truth? Is he owning his responsibilities to his own action? Does he see Trump for who and what he is? Did he change your mind about anything?

Let me know. I appreciate you taking the time to listen to that conversation. You have to have more dialogue like this. Sure, I'm pushing back. Sure, I'm disagreeing with things that he's saying, but that doesn't make him my enemy. I'm not going to sit there and insult him. Negativity is not a proxy for insight. What that means is just being a nasty ass doesn't mean that you're being tough or smart. We got to talk. You have to be open to why someone disagrees with you, to why they see someone, even if it's Donald Trump, differently than I do, differently than you do. That's how you reinforce your own position at a minimum. And that's how you may expand your position, which should be the goal.

More understanding, getting to a better place, understanding things better. That's the goal of the Chris Cuomo Project. And I appreciate you being a part of it. Please subscribe. Please follow. Please tell your friends. It's free. It's going to stay free. But I want to spread this. You can leave me a message. You can leave me a comment. Put your email in there. And let's keep the conversation going. Let me help you help me help you. I'll see you next time.