Trump is Desperate & More Dangerous Than Ever | George Conway

The Republican Party is in a full-blown moral collapse, and no one has been more clear-eyed or outspoken about this than George Conway. As a prominent lawyer and former Republican, he's now one of Donald Trump's most effective critics. On this episode, we discuss the state of the Republican Party, what a post-Trump GOP could look like,

and what may be next for George's own political journey. But before we get into any of that, make sure you subscribe to Democracy Docket to stay informed about what you can do to protect democracy. George Conway, welcome back to Defending Democracy.

Thanks for having me once again.

It is always great having you, and I always have a million questions for you. But let me start with kind of a big picture framing question about Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Now, you know Donald Trump particularly well, better than I do and better than most people. I mean, I know him well from having observed him for many years. I've only met him a few times.

And you know Republicans well as well. There are kind of two dominant narratives right now. The first is one that I ascribe to, which is that Donald Trump wants to be a dictator, is an authoritarian, has sycophants surrounding him in the White House and in the Department of Justice and other agencies, and they are systematically attacking democracy. So that's that's kind of thesis one. Thesis two is that Donald Trump is an addled old man who is

frankly losing his marbles and is surrounded by people who are not particularly competent.

Which is it? Is it that they are doing systematic damage to democracy or they are sort of chasing their tails? The answer is yes. Both statements are entirely consistent with one another. He is both an addled old man,

but also a personality, a diseased personality who seeks total control of everything and has sycophants around him and doesn't give one rat's ass about the rule of law and the Constitution. All of the above. He is both things. He is both incompetent, addled. He could absolutely just blow himself up any day. The question is, what's the blast radius? There's nothing inconsistent between those two theses. And in fact, both theses combined in some incomprehensibly absurd way is where we are.

To say you were never Trump before there was never Trump is like an understatement. You were very early to recognize who he was, and you showed tremendous courage in breaking with your party, you know, your former party a long time ago. Is he more dangerous the more addled he gets, or is he the less dangerous? In other words, is Trump worse, like worse for democracy now, or was he worse from democracy when you, you know, first really started, you know,

calling him out for what he is back in, you know, 2017, you know, in the first term?

I mean, the way I look at him is he's like some kind of battery acid. He's always been bad, but as the acid eats into more and more things, it gets more dangerous. That's the way I look at him. I mean, if I'm gonna use a metaphor, I mean, essentially he's gonna get worse as he gets more frustrated, more addled,

because unlike other people, I mean, unlike other people, he's got, he has a whole government to command. And those people are gonna be the last people to defy him because their jobs, their futures, their careers, even in some cases, their liberty depends on the survival of him and whatever remains of his organization or regime after he's gone. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

That's the thing that I've always, after the first couple of years, that's the thing I've always said. It's going to get worse before it gets better. I see that still being the case. I think, look, I mean, I feel better than I have had felt earlier in the year because both of the last No King's protest, and because of the midterms, and because of now the Epstein debacle.

But that being said, that's just gonna make him more and more desperate, make him more and more likely to do something to try to change the subject, see e.g. Venezuela. And what exactly that's going to be,

we don't know yet. It's very, very, we live in a, these are very, very volatile times.

You and I are recording this at kind of an interesting crossroads moment. The Epstein, he has totally lost the Epstein fight. Like the Epstein fight has been a debacle for him. I mean, the fact is both the House and the Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly in the Senate by unanimous consent.

Great move by Chuck there. I gotta give Chuck lots of props there. He gave the Republicans a chance not to go have a recorded vote and they just grabbed it.

And at the same time, you know, we are watching the Republican, the Donald Trump-inspired mid-cycle redistricting plan hit bumps in the road, both in court but also in Democratic states fighting back. I got asked this question actually literally just before I got on, particularly around the redistricting court fights, which is, does this mean that Donald Trump will now back away from this and sort of sue for peace?

And I was like, you gotta be kidding me. No, like that isn't the way he rolls. Like he will become worse. And they said, well, how could it become worse? And I said, look what happened after the 2020 election. After he lost court cases,

he instigated a violent insurrection in the nation's capital.

You know, it's like Jurassic Park, right? Or one of those Jurassic Park movies. I haven't seen all of them, but they do learn, the velociraptors or whatever they are, they kind of learn how to turn doorknobs, and he kind of knows how to turn lots of doorknobs, and he's gonna keep trying to turn doorknobs

until he gets through.

I can meet with the metaphors today, I don't know. Some of the absolute best analysis about the Democratic Party, its strengths, its weaknesses, the Republican Party and its weaknesses are frankly coming not from longstanding Democrats like myself, but people like you, people like Sarah Longwell, Tim Miller at the Bulwark,

former Republicans. So what is it you all know about the Democratic Party and about politics that those of us who have been part of it

don't know? I don't profess to have any expertise on the Democratic Party, and I don't think I know anybody who really does. I think the reason why people look to us, if you want to call us the bulwark types

or the never Trump types types is we don't have any loyalties to anybody at this point, right? We don't we just we don't we're not afraid of saying what we think is true because we have a political establishment that, you know, we don't quite want to rub the wrong way. So we just lay it out there. And if we're wrong, fine. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I do think it's just, I think with me, to speak of my own personal experience, I think it's just the

liberating aspect of not having to tell a lie.

Yeah, you know, it's funny you say that because I've been around a lot of politicians in my career, probably thousands at this point, senators, members of Congress, governors, presidents. Every so often you meet one who is, you can just sense they are like not afraid.

I'll give you an example. One of the most impressive politicians I've ever been around, elected officials, was Bob Kerrey, a senator from Nebraska. And I knew him when he was the senator from Nebraska.

He's a good man.

Yeah. And the thing about him is, as you know, he won the Congressional Medal of Honor, lost a leg in combat in Vietnam. You could tell by being around him, even though he was representing, even at that point was a pretty red state, was not quite as red as it is now, but even though he's representing a red state, like he just like was not afraid.

Like he wasn't afraid he was gonna say you the wrong thing. He wasn't afraid he was gonna be like caught in a gotcha moment. He was just totally comfortable with himself. And he would say what was on his mind, and he would speak candidly, and there was just, like, this calm about him. Like, the worst thing that will happen to me

will never happen to me by being embarrassed in the U.S. Senate, right? Like, you know, like, he just was not worried about it. And I sensed that when I watch you talk about American politics, when I watch you talk about Donald Trump.

Frankly, when, you know, I watched you, some of the stuff you posted on No King's Day, you were like more full-throatedly unafraid to be critical of Donald Trump than, frankly, a lot of Democrats who feel like we want to stay within sort of bounds of, you know, not being viewed as overboard.

Well, I mean, I guess that's right. I think that's true. I mean, maybe if someone were elected official, they wouldn't want to be holding up a cabba bag to a Trump full of cash, fake cash to a Trump costume or Trump face. I don't have any fucks to give. I don't know what else to say it. And it's, it's, you know, I mean, that's what I meant by liberating. It's like, fine, if you don't like what I have to say, that's fine. It's like, that's fine. I don't know how to describe it. I just, I don't give a shit. I mean, I'm going to say what I'm going to say.

Look, I have an advantage that a lot of people don't have, right? I don't need anything. I had a career. I'm old, right? I don't have, I spent 30 years at a law firm. I have enough money to retire comfortably. I mean, I really should be skiing or playing the guitar somewhere. But this is what I've chosen to do because I can't help myself.

I can't help it.

And one of the places where I think you've done, I mean, I think you've done enormous good in calling out Donald Trump for what he is and actually moving the needle. Like you have moved the national discourse and the comfortable range, the Overton window, I think by your advocacy.

I'm flattered by that because I don't, I can't, that is something I would not say, I would not describe myself as having done that. I try, I feel like I'm pounding my head against the wall. You know, I've been talking about the guy's psychological disorders now for seven, six and a half, seven years. And, you know, I'm just going to keep saying what I say. I mean, because it's like it doesn't it's a great thing about saying what you say and you believe what you say is you end up being consistent with yourself

and you don't have to think about new things to say because everything that happens with this guy is like, see, it's just, this is more of the same. Like being a trial lawyer, like you have all the evidence and you rest your case and there it is. Like, no, no, the trial, the evidence keeps coming in.

It keeps pouring in. We're not going to close our case because the evidence is not is going to keep coming in. So that's where we are.

So George, the other place where I think you have been very, very effective and really important and this is a place where honestly I've tried. Like I feel like you and I are I won't say we are the only ones, but we are certainly both banging our heads against the wall is about big law. Like you and I have been, I think, big law. All big law.

And I think that you and I are among a handful of lawyers who come from that world. You practiced law, I think you said, at Big Law for 30 years. I was at a large law firm for just shy of that before starting my own smaller firm. And you know, I was surprised. I was less surprised to watch Paul Weiss and the large law firms capitulate.

I was more surprised that not that more partners at those firms didn't leave, that more of the other law firms were not willing to be critical. I mean, I went so far as when the American Bar Association at one point filed a brief. I like called them out.

I'm like, why are you making Paul Weiss the victim? Like you, like these firms that capitulated, they're not the victims. I mean, they may have started as victims, now they're co-conspirators. Co-conspirators. Now they're great ventures. And I feel like this is a place where you have been comfortable

speaking out. And I'm wondering, like, you know, in some ways it's easy for me. I'm in Washington, D.C. Most of these law firms are in New York City. But you come out of that

legal world. Has it been, have you received a chilly reception from your former colleagues? Not really. I mean, look, I mean, I clearly have called out some people, including at least one close friend for doing things that I think are harmful to our country, but I haven't gotten any blowback from that generally from lawyers. In fact, if anything, lawyers are supportive. I mean, because it's sort of like the my advocacy generally. I mean, one of the things that I think people like about me is I can I say stuff they want to say and lawyers wanted to hear

somebody say what I was saying just the same way. I think people want to hear, you know, people want to hear what I mean. I think it's sort of the same attraction that people have to the war people is like we are saying we are putting into words what people feel, but they may not have the platform or they may not be positioned economically or career wise or for some other reason, just to say it. But it'll be interesting because next Wednesday,

I'm going to the annual Federal Bar Council Thanksgiving day lunch. And I don't know if you know anything about the Federal Bar Council.

So what is the Far Billion?

The Federal Bar Council is sort of the premier lawyers organization in New York City in terms of like just socially and it's supposed to be like a federal bar practitioners but it's become much more than that. It's a way, it's a connecting place for judges and lawyers.

And it really take to large segments of the bar, basically almost the entire bar in a lot of ways. And so it'll be interesting to see. But the reactions I've had in the past have been very positive. But I guess this will be the first time since the attacks

on the law firms. But I really do believe, just from having talked to friends in New York who are practicing law in New York, that people were very, very angry at Paul Weiss and very, very angry at these other firms for capitulating, angry at Sullivan and Cromwell

for representing Trump in that criminal case. I think there's a lot of very, I mean, I don't think it gets voiced at a lot of cocktail parties, but it's there. And so it's going to be interesting to see when I go up there next week, what that's going to be like.

I'll be right back with more of my conversation with George Conway in a moment. But you know, I founded Democracy Docket in 2020 to shine a spotlight on Republican efforts to undermine free and fair elections. And today it is working harder than ever before to hold Donald Trump's feet to the fire. The Democracy Docket team tracks the anti-democratic groups

working to undermine free and fair elections, Republican voter suppression tactics, and much, much more. But in order to keep up this important fight, the team needs to keep growing, and for that it needs your help. Support their work by becoming a premium member now at the link in the description below. Is your sense of the legal establishment that it has found its footing, is your sense that it has not found its footing but Donald Trump has moved on to other things? Like, what is your sense of where the large law firms stand today?

I mean, I think in the sense, they have found their footing in the sense that they now realize, I think, that capitulating to the administration is not the way to go. First of all, it earns the enmity of other lawyers

and of people who support democracy. Secondly, it even pisses off clients. I mean, there are circumstances where clients were very supportive of firms that did, that fought Trump, like your former firm. They had a lot of positive response from its clients,

giving it, trying to give it more business. But that's the positive side. And I think, you it, trying to give it more business. But that's the positive side. And I think, you know, related to that is that I think Trump and Steve Miller have realized they, they, that's it. They're not going to really be able to get any more people to capitulate now, because I think the, the, the barricades are up and now the pressure on people who are capitulating would be too great. There'd be backlash.

But the bad news is, and I was talking to Peter Keisler, a very good longtime friend of mine, who started, you know, like you are, you know, doing doing the Lord's work and not necessarily for profit. Um, you know, he, he, he started this thing called he and a bunch of lawyers started this thing called the Washington litigation, which is designed to help.

Oh, you're with it.

Yeah. I mean, you know, I mean, I, I, I went to a fundraiser where I spoke and I heard some amazing things. It's like $2 million is that's like the year in boat, you know, $2 million at a law firm. I mean, it's-

Is that the Danish budget at Paul Weiss?

Right, you know, $50,000 to represent someone. I'm like, I'm listening to these numbers and I'm just saying, you know, I'm just saying, these numbers are insane when you look at what these lawyers could be making or have made in the private sector. And the reason why though,

I mean, I made that point and then Peter stood up and made a point that I hadn't really thought deeply about, but is absolutely true is there's one of the most pernicious effects of Trump's attacks on the law firms. And an effect that you could basically say made it all worthwhile for him is that firms have been deterred from litigating against the governor.

Absolutely true. And you've got, you know, Peter was telling stories about how there are law firms that say, well, we can't, we're not gonna, you know, we're not gonna sign pleadings.

We'll send you memos that don't have our names on them. And all sorts of ruses to that effect, because people, even if they would not capitulate to Trump in the way that Paul Weiss did and these other firms did, they're not going to put themselves out there leading the charge. So it's a mixed bag. I think it really depends on, you can look at it as half empty and half full, but it's

a mixed bag. The attacks were detrimental to the rule of law. They were detrimental to the country. Fortunately, I think it didn't turn out as badly as it started to look like it was going to turn out earlier in the year. And, geez, it seems like three years ago. I know, right? I can personally confirm that one of the

things that has gone on behind the scene that is not been, you know, it's not as prominent is that a lot of the major law firms have simply cut back on their willingness to do progressive advocacy pro bono. Like, you know, look, remember back in the first Trump administration, when there were those, when there were lawyers lined up at airports, remember that?

Every big firm wanted a photo of their lawyers at the airports. Now, you don't hear a single big law firm at all involved in any of these immigration detention cases. You don't, I mean, I do a lot of work in the redistricting and voting rights space. You don't see big law firms in these, in these voting cases. Like they just don't want to

be on the other side of the Trump administration. They'll do pro bono, but not, not where it involves taking on Donald Trump. I want to talk to you about a different group of lawyers, and those are the government's lawyers. So we can start with Pam Bondi and her Cracker Jack team of lawyers. We could talk about now Judge Bové, as well as who's the other guy who's from the New York, who's still in DOJ? My friend, my friend who attacked me on Twitter Todd Blanche.

Todd Blanche.

It was the dumbest thing he ever did. What do you make of these lawyers some of whom have pretty good pedigrees? And I think Blanche's pedigree was pretty was pretty strong. Right. Bovey, I think, was also had a pretty. They were they were former.

You know, they were former assistant United States attorneys in the Southern District of New York. They had perfectly fine credentials. When you talk to Southern District alumni, they're really shocked, particularly at Blanche. I mean, Bovey, nobody really liked Bove. Blanche, they kinda liked,

and they didn't think he was bad in any way, and then now he's doing this stuff, threatening judges, and it's just crazy. I don't get it. I think it's just that some people, you know, this is what power does to some people.

And because Donald Trump was there, you know, their ticket to power and to fame and to, you know, be top of the attorney general as a career capper for a lot of would be great for anybody. They basically commit themselves to do his bidding. And that's what he seeks from people. And it continually amazes me that there are people

who are willing to sacrifice their dignity and their honor and their integrity if they ever had it. For that, I just don't know how people look themselves in the mirror every day. I mean, my own personal experience was I could have been on the second circuit in the first Trump administration.

Absolutely.

I could if I kept my mouth shut, just nodded appropriately at the right moment, you know, just really just kept my mouth shut. Okay, kept all my thoughts to myself. I'd be a federal judge right now, ruling against him probably, but you know, but I couldn't, I couldn't do it. I could not, I even told Leonard Leo this once at lunch when we were, when he was still talking to me in 2018. I just said, I don't know if I can take a piece of paper from this piece of shit. And, meaning in a commission, there's all these stories I've never really told, but you get them.

Yeah, I don't know how people do it. And I just, it is just amazing to me. And that's the thing actually that has come, I find most difficult to accept about Trumpism. I can accept that there are evil men in the world, and evil political leaders,

and that the kind of person that the framers were trying to keep out of government could ultimately get, be in charge of the government. The willingness of so many people just to roll over and lie and just sacrifice, just truth and honor, I can't fathom it. and just sacrifice just truth and honor.

I can't, I can't fathom it. I was watching, I mean, today I was watching this good Christian man, the Speaker of the House talking about how the Epstein-Files vote was just a show, something just for show and it was terrible. And the real culprits for the Democrats, like, what the fuck was he even talking about? I don't even

like, how can you just just like every word in there was just basically a lie. And he's just, you know, like, like, he's just like, he's just breathing air. I'm not they do it.

So speaking of how we started, you got me started. No, that's just breathing air. I don't know how they do it.

So speaking of how we-

Got me started. You got me started, Mark. No, that's okay. Speaking of how they do it and how Democrats will do it, we are a little less than a year from the midterm elections in 2026. And your name has come up as a potential congressional candidate.

And I'm going to ask you about that in a moment, but before I do, because before we get to 2026, we're still in 2025. And you have the distinction of having spent a good portion of your adult life in New York City, where I read that there were mayoral elections. And also- Allegedly, yeah. I heard something about that. And also a portion of your life, your adult life in New Jersey, in Bergen County,

where there was a governor's race. And so I am sure that you were avidly watching probably the television commercials. Probably if you live in New York City, you're not used to what happens with the poor people of Iowa and New Hampshire during presidential years

or Michigan and Pennsylvania during presidential years, what they experienced, but you got a flavor for that. Well, I had a trifecta actually, because in my past, I have been a registered voter in New York City for many years, in New Jersey for a few years, and for a couple of years in Virginia.

So it was like a- Oh, I did not know you had a- It was a total, total trifecta there.

Okay, so what is-

So it was very interesting to me.

I understand.

What do you make of the night? I mean, obviously Democrats won everywhere, but what do you make of it?

Well, I think today in 2025, all politics are national. We always talk about, people always talk about, all politics is local, like that old adage. It's like everything's national now. And people are fed up and God bless them. And I mean, I mean, it's a really, really good omen for 2026 and a real, a real boost. That being said, I think we need to be more on guard than ever about attempts to undermine the integrity of our elections because we can't, you know, every time you think, oh,

what can they do?

What can they do?

Look at what they've tried to do already. And I, you know, and you obviously can speak to that better than I can since you actually litigate these cases. But we're going to see some screwy shit next year. I mean, because they're gonna be desperate. He's desperate.

I mean, you know, he's the, I mean, as I said earlier, he is, you know, he is old and he is incompetent and he is addled, but he's angrier than ever and more desperate than ever. And that's the most important thing. That's the thing that makes him

scary. You know, we just need to ride this momentum and keep standing up to him. And I think the important thing too is, and I think both the No King's events and the elections show that you can stand up to the guy. And, you know, I've been waiting, you know, courage is contagious. And I think we are starting to see more of it. Even from people who you might think are may not be fully sincere,

like a Marjorie Taylor Greene, people are starting to just sort of like, I don't need to sign onto this. I'm not afraid anymore. Look at Massey. Right. Right. I was watching Massey to tonight going right back toe to toe with Trump about, you know, the attacks on his late wife and the attacks on his current wife and just saying how terrible that was and how awful Trump was for withholding the Epstein files. I mean, it's like a dam bursting and we just have to keep encouraging that.

It was sort of funny because one of the reasons why I started speaking out, and I think I've mentioned this on past shows with you, but in 2018 was I naively thought that given where I was and given the fact that my now ex-wife was in the White House, people would say the things publicly that they were saying privately. And, you know, it happened to some extent. I mean, I formed that the group that I still am in charge of, it's now Society for the Rule of Law, my group with Peter Keisler, who I mentioned earlier.

But it was just a handful of people, really, at the time time and then all the good Republicans who were willing to go toe to toe with him, they lost or they quit. I thought the day that the kind of day that we are seeing today was going to come earlier. That's what I originally thought. I mean, if you told me in 2018, we'd be talking about Donald Trump in 2025, you and I in particular, I would just say, oh my god, how do I get off this planet? So I want to go back to politics a second, but I'm just curious as a litigator and a lawyer and a pretty keen observer of Donald Trump,

I assume you think Trump finds a way to not honor this law. In other words, do you think the Epstein files actually get released or do you think this law is going to be circumvented in some fashion? Well, look, I mean, he I mean, it's sort of weird that he how this all transpired because we didn't need a law. OK, he told everybody they could go vote for this. But it's like,

you just really you could just release these files, dude, right? So why do we actually need a law? The reason why he caved, at least in terms of releasing Republicans, allowing them to vote their consciences, so to speak, on this was he knew he was going to lose. He knew they were just going to have 100 defections in the House. So he just basically threw in the towel on that. And so I make sure it does make you wonder what plan B is. I thought the first we thought plan B is going to be, oh, they'll never let

have a vote in the Senate, but which is too much. The dam, I mean, the dam just burst on him. So I, I think that the, you know, his, because he was so desperate not to produce these things, it's hard for me to imagine that he's just going to go produce these things, even though, you know, he's going to have to sign this thing. That's going to be the most amazing thing. He can't not sign this because it would be even more embarrassing to have a Senate back

and have him lose a veto override. So he's going to sign this thing. It would be too embarrassing for him not to. But I, you know, I don't, why was he so adamant about not producing these files in the first place? Now, maybe some, you could,

let's play devil's advocate for a second. Maybe he thinks, maybe he's been persuaded that the materials produced by the Epstein's estate were so, were basically all the worst items that could possibly have been in the hands of the Justice Department.

So the marginal harm to him of producing the Justice Department materials isn't great. I mean, that's possible, maybe that's part of his thinking, but I really do think it was because he realized he was gonna lose by lopsided margins. So what's the play now

is that he's going to have to sign the law and I guess what they're going to do I mean look I mean they don't particularly I mean this is the one case where he wants a law and he doesn't seem to need a law to do all the illegal things he wants to do and is doing anyway and the laws that tell him not to do some of the things that he's doing he just ignores. So yeah, yeah, I think it's going to have something to do with you know how this play is going to have something to do with how they play with the statute and possibly ignore it. And I actually pulled it up just because I'd seen the news that

the Senate had approved the bill by unanimous consent, I pulled out the actual text of the bill. Okay, so it lists all the things, like a document request, it lists all the things that they have to produce, everything relating to Epstein, Maxwell, flight logs, individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in the stuff, entities, known or alleged ties to ebbs and ebbs trafficking,

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then it says, no record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary intent.

OK, so far, so good. And then we get to permitted withholdings. The attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that one contain personally identifiable information of victims, depict or contain child sexual abuse materials

as defined under my statute, in other words, stuff that you would go to jail for passing around. If it would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided the statute withholding is narrowly tailored. So that is one thing that I think we're going to end up focusing on because he did this bullshit thing where he's going to say, well, I'm, you know, let's investigate Bill Clinton and whoever, um, all these other people, people other than

himself for the references in the Epstein file. So maybe they're going to take the position that they're going to withhold a lot of stuff because of an investigation, but that it shouldn't work because it's got to be narrowly tailored according to the statute. And okay. So you're investigating Bill Clinton

with all the stuff that's the first of Bill Clinton, but that means you still gotta produce the stuff that refers to you, asshole. So, you know, that shouldn't work, but you know, they're capable of anything. And then the last one would be,

there's images of death, physical abuse, or injury. E, contains information specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order. Uh-oh. To be secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. Everything that mentions me. Affects foreign policy. Affects foreign policy and my ability to bomb Caracas and maybe they'll go there.

But then again, then there's some other good stuff in this statute that they have to justify every single redaction in the federal register and file a report to Congress and basically list anybody who's, and they have to list everybody who's named in there other than the victim.

So I, you know, we'll see. I don't I, you know, I don't know how they're going to play with this. I think that they're going to play games with the redactions and they're going to be slow about it. That's my guess. But the problem that they have is this this this cat is way out of the bag.

They have so bollocks themselves up with this that even if they actually did produce everything in unredacted form other than the victims names, tomorrow people would suspect they're withholding something. They can't be trusted. So I don't know how they turn this into a winning hand. I think what they're, I think if I were evil and others if I were them, I basically say,

yeah, we'll mess around with these exclusions and we'll take our time about it. And hopefully something will happen between now and then that will cause this to die down in the natural course of events. That's the only play I can see. I'm not sure that's going to work, but it really depends on what else is out there.

I'm with you. So for people who are watching this as a video, this was recorded as a premium Democracy Docket event. And so we're going to go to some questions from the members who have joined this event. If you want to participate in future events like this, make sure to subscribe to Democracy Docket and to become a premium member.

All right.

Well- You should do this every week, this is fun.

Well, you're on. I promise you. If you'll do it every week, I'll do it every week. So while the team gathers some questions for us, I said that I want to take a brief detour from politics, but I now want to go back to politics. It has been rumored, it has been reported, that you are considering a run for Congress from New York City.

When you do, I want to be the first endorser, so, like, let me know where I can add my name, because we sure as hell need fighters like you in Congress. So I'm on board.

I'm honored that you would say that. I'm really honored. So I'm on board, but is this true? I'm not on board. But is this true? I'm not denying it. I, you know, I don't have anything really to say publicly about it. This is sort of a semi not so public domain. So I feel a little freer to say something or I don't really know what I'm going to say other than I'm thinking

about. And I have to say, I mean, it started out with a conversation with a friend, my friend Molly John Fast, who said to me, you know, we were talking about the, you know, we were dead. She was down in the dumps on Monday of last week. I mean, this is this literally this idea came to me in the last seven days, you know, because of the caving on the Affordable Care Act thing and reopening the government.

And she felt that the Democratic senators, she was kind of upset at the Democratic senators, including Schumer. And we were talking about, yeah, well, you know, the Democrats do need more fight in them, I think. I think that's it. I mean, I love a lot of people who are fighting up there

like my own Congressman Jamie Raskin. And she said, well, why don't you run? And I was like, I like my Congressman. Right now I'm sitting in Maryland eight and I like Jamie Raskin, we need more Jamie Raskins. And she'll go run in my district.

And I'm like, wait, I'm thinking, okay, she's on the East side, I lived on the East side. I look at the map for the first time since I've lived in New York, the new congressional map. It's basically river to river 14th to 96th street. And it's like, hey, those, I know that district.

I lived and worked in that district for three decades. And, you know, I lived in the district for 20 years. I had a residence in the district for probably like 24, 25 years. I worked in that district for 30 years. And it's an open seat.

This is, you know, I thought about it, I was like, okay, this is crazy, but the crazy thing about it is- And it's an open seat just so everyone understands and can follow. Yes, Nadler's seat. Okay. Jerry Nadler's district, he's retiring. I'm starting to think, well, it's not crazy. And, you know, I've run as a Democrat, and that's going to, that'll put some people off, I think. On the other hand, I think- It'll put off Republicans. I guess it will. I guess so. I mean, I don't know. I mean, maybe maybe some of

the I don't know, there are there are Democrats out there. You see the comments on Blue Sky that like, you know, oh, wow, yes, he got us into this mess. It's like, yeah, I you know, I enjoy it. You know, I get it. I've been I've been a Democrat my entire life. I have fought hard for the Democratic Party and I am proud for anyone who doesn't think George is doing everything he can to help Democrats win control of the House and the Senate

and fight Donald Trump.

And the presidency.

You can, and the presidency, you guys can come through me. Okay, tell me that I don't have the judgment of a Democrat.

Okay, this is gonna be, this is the first endorsement video of the campaign. Thank you very much, Mark. So where was I? Yeah, I mean, it isn't crazy. And I think there's something,

look, if there's ever going to be, I think everything, we all want different things for the government, including Democrats. Democrats, you know, you get five Democrats in the room and they're gonna disagree on everything,

which is great because it's actually a political party and not a cult. And, but the thing is like everything that people want in government or from government, this guy's trashing lawlessly. And that's why everybody has to stick together on this. That's why the differences

among us, you know, that we might have otherwise have. I'd like to go back to those times where we're arguing about stuff that is so small compared to whether or not we are bombing innocent well not innocent but bombing murdering people on the high seas and attacking people in cities and people, ICE agents rappelling down on apartment complexes in Chicago and dismantling government agencies

without statutory authority and the attacks on judges. I mean, it just goes on and on and on and on and on. Like all of these things are absolutely, we have to be united against this stuff. And we're never gonna get back to a normal political environment.

And the pitch I would make if I run would be basically I'm for two things fundamentally. I mean, a bunch of things, but accountability and normalcy. We need to do things to make sure that there's accountability. We cannot have what happened, frankly,

in the Biden administration. Now I've read Carol Lennox and Aaron Davis's book. It's like, no, no, no, no, you cannot let these people go. People who committed crimes need to be held responsible for them or they need to be called out.

I mean, we're going to need some kind of a accounting of it. Maybe it's, you know, not everybody should go to jail, but, you know, we need an account. We need an accounting of this, like a truth and reconciliation commission of some sort, something like that, because we need to take stock of ourselves. And then the other thing is we need to undo the damage. We need to undo the damage that he has done to the justice. I mean, basically we have to reconstruct the Justice Department by the time, by the time somebody else takes it over, hopefully not too distant future. And then we have to create new safeguards that are going to make the Watergate safeguards look like, you know, child's play. And I, you know, that's going to require some,

you know, that's required that this is this a time for a lawyer who's never been in politics to go into politics. This is lawyering now. Okay. This is what the next two years are going to be. There's not going to be much legislating, but I can do legislate. I can read a statute. We just read a statute. But we, you know, we, this is, this is about, you know, it's going to be, they're going to be investigation, investigations. I mean, I, you know, I, I, I think I'd be a great wingman for Raskin and for Dan Goldman. But again, we'll see. I think there's something to, in this age, they need people, we need people who don't have any more Fs to give, as I put it earlier.

And that's the advantage I have. I would be not, I'm not going to run for anything else. I'm 60 years old. I'm going to be done soon. And I got a few good years left and I want to give something back. And it would be kind of cool to give it back in a district where, you know, I made my career. I'm going to get misty-eyed about it, but it was like, oh, it's just the center of the greatest city in the world. There's a lot of reasons why it would be kind of cool to do this and not because I want

to age and self-aggrandize. I want to fight these mothers. This kind of all of a sudden looks like a way to do it. So that's I'm taken with the idea. I, you know, I I'm not so arrogant that I think it would be a cakewalk or anything like that.

And, you know, I mean, there are good people already in the race.

And this is what I'll say. I'm there are very good people in the race. This is what I'll say. There are very good people in the race. I wish them well, and I hope if you don't run, one of them, you know, goes on. You're a fighter. You will fight as hard or harder than anybody else. And that is what we need right now, standing up to Donald Trump. I mean, to take it from someone who has, I have been targeted by Donald Trump. I've been called out by Donald Trump. He's called me a communist. He's said I'm destroying the country. He's tried to intimidate me.

He's sued me. In fact, just earlier today, the 11th Circuit heard a court case in which he sued me for racketeering along with Hillary Clinton and others that got dismissed at the trial court level. He's appealed to the 11th Circuit. I'm not settling that case. wouldn't settle with Donald Trump for anything. And so we need people like you who are just going to be willing to fight and not be like

trying to second guess, like what's the angle or what's, you know, what's the risk? Like you've taken the risks. And so that's, you know, to me, why I hope you will come back and discuss this. We have time for a couple of questions. One is Pat asks about the Texas redistricting decision and if it has any impact on the redistricting vote in California, I'll answer that really quickly. It should not have any impact on the California redistricting. California's redistricting will go forward, but don't think that this fight is over either in

Texas or around the country. Republicans are going to fight us every step of the way, but we're going to fight them back in court as well. And finally, we have a question that I want to end with, which several people in the audience asked. And it goes a little bit to why I said you'd be a great candidate for Congress and a great member of Congress. But I want you to expand it beyond, since not everyone here is going to run for Congress, expand it to kind of like what everyone can do, not just yourself. They asked, you know, we seem to be perpetually on defense. And that sucks. And so, you know, like, how can we get our elected officials? How can we get our leaders? How can we get ourselves? Like, what can we do to be playing

offense? Because you, my friend, and I do mean that, you are a good friend, like you are always playing offense. So what's your advice to other people about how we get ourselves and others onto offense?

Just keep yapping. I mean, just, I think one of the problems we have that led led Trumpism

is that there's, we're too polite in a lot of ways.

And we don't wanna talk politics at the dinner table. We don't wanna talk politics at the water cooler. It's like, we don't wanna, we're afraid of people fighting. And so I don't wanna give offense by saying to somebody that I don't I mean, I'll take other people, but I think Donald Trump is off his rocker. People won't say that. A lot of people, Democrats, not enough Democrats have said that over the years. And so that that creates this sort of disadvantage, because they're because they're willing to do anything.

They're willing to make the very accusations they would complain that you are making about them, even though you're making them that's true and they're making them and they're lying. We just can't be afraid of basically just stating the truth in the bluntest possible way. Donald Trump is a sociopath. Donald

Trump is evil. Donald Trump is trying to destroy democracy because he only thinks of himself. These things are all inescapably true. Only a few people will say them. So, you know, it's like people don't want to say that. A lot of people, including like people don't want to say that in a lot of people, including Democrats, don't want to say that a lot of people are saying it. More people than ever before, which is great. But I mean, you know, we saw right after the election where everybody was like, oh,

we can't criticize Trump anymore. It's just we just we have to let go of that. And there's a way of doing it without this is a way to actually restore and preserve the civil discourse. Okay we preserve it by being honest we preserve it by valuing honesty and integrity and valuing the truth and speaking the truth and if somebody is lying you, it's not impolite.

It's not wrong to say this person is lying through his teeth. See EG speaker Johnson today, man is lying. If I ever met the guy I'd walk up to and say, he's like, did you learn how to do that? Did you have to train yourself to lie like that?

I really would. I don't give a fuck. Like I don't care if it offends him.

He should be offended.

He should look himself in the mirror in the morning and say, why did I do that? Why am I, where am I? Well, how did I become this person? And we have to restore shame in public life. You know, and the only way to do that

is for people at every opportunity, whether they're walking down the street, or whether they're at a rally, whether in the voting booth, to basically say what they believe, you know, while being open to truthful and honest differences of

opinion.

Okay, I don't have problems with truthful and honest disapproval. I mean, the problem is that we have so many people who have infected the public discourse with lies.

So you and I have one big agreement and one honest disagreement. Our agreement is we both love dogs. Our disagreement is the dogs we love. So this is my latest puppy. He's a Portuguese water dog. I'm a big Corgis fan.

But Portuguese water dogs are the sweetest. That's a typical, that's a Democrat dog because I know Teddy Kennedy had a Portuguese water dog.

That's exactly right.

Remember his name was Splash.

That's where I got the idea from.

His name was Splash, which was pretty funny. I remember, God, it's like the political tribute. I'm just showing my age.

So George Conway, thank you for joining today. Thank you for everything you're doing. And Blue says goodbye.

All right.

Bye everyone.

Thanks.

Bye. Bye everyone. Bye everyone. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Music