June 11, 2024 • 41 mins
It takes a strong voice to cut through the noise of today’s bitter bipartisan debate – and lawyer and activist George Conway does just that. The outspoken Trump critic co-founded The Lincoln Project, a super PAC whose core mission is to defeat the 45th President, while married to Trump Campaign Manager and White House Senior Counselor Kellyanne Conway. Today, the conservative commentator is a contributing writer to “The Atlantic,” host of the podcast “George Conway Explains It All (to Sarah Longwell)” and Board President of the Society of the Rule of Law. George Conway talks to host Alec Baldwin about how he formed his Republican values, his thoughts on the latest Supreme Court disclosures and how he predicts Democrats can defeat Trump at the ballot box this November.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Alec Baldwin and you're listening to Hear's the
thing from iHeart Radio. Almost exactly nine years ago, Donald
Trump descended the escalator at his Fifth Avenue residence to
announce his candidacy for president. Since that infamous moment, the
political discourse in the United States has disintegrated. We have
(00:25):
never been more angry, indignant, and divided than we are
today in the post Trump world. However, one voice that
cuts clearly through the noise is that of my guest today.
George Conway, the lawyer and commentator, has become a leading
voice in the conservative movement. He was originally a supporter
(00:47):
of the Trump campaign, but soon stood firmly against the president,
all while being married to Trump's senior counselor, Kelly Ann Conway.
George Conway is one of the founders of the Lincoln Project,
a super pac formed in twenty nineteen whose core mission
is to defeat Donald Trump. He's also a contributing writer
(01:09):
at The Atlantic and host of the podcast George Conway
Explains It All. Conway is so committed to the anti
Trump cause he recently donated more than nine hundred and
twenty nine thousand dollars to the Biden Victory Fund. Growing up,
Conway's father worked for defense contractor Raytheon. I was curious
(01:32):
to learn how his upbringing affected him politically.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
He tested missile defense systems on ships and so he would,
you know, they would install them and test them and
calibrate them, and he traveled a lot to go to
various ports to do that.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
You go to Harvard in eighty four biochemical sciences and
you graduate magna cum launde. Why that?
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Why the switch? Why? I don't know. I mean, I
think it.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Was because what was the original plan.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
My original plan was probably the major in economics and
then go to law school. But my parents kind of
was thinking, oh man, people lawyers not making any money.
You should become a doctor. And I had all these
friends who were pre mets, and I decided, okay, well
let me go. It was a mess, but I figured
it out.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
It was a pass.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
It was a second pass. And then I realized that,
you know, this is not what I wanted to do,
and I'd go back to plan A. But it was
too late to really change majors again. So I went
back to So I just finished off the biochemistry, just
applied to law school, and it kind of worked. It
was helpful because you know, there weren't that many biochem
majors applying to law school, so it was actually probably
advantageous to me.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
So I know, it just worked out. Now, your your
parents they were from where originally.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
My mother was from the Philippines and my father's from me.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
What was his educational background? Like, are you the golden
boy when you're going to Harvard and yeah, law.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
School, I guess you could say that. I mean she
had My mother had a master's in chemistry and a
master's in computer science. Your dad, my dad, I think
had an sociate's degree and something. He joined the Navy
at like eighteen or nineteen learned learned on the job
that way. Sure.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
And when you were going to Harvard and then you
go on to Yale Law School, you then of course
become the editor of the Yale Law chan editor one
of many. Well while you're an editor, I'm sorry, and
then the president of the school's chapter of the Federalist Society, Yes,
were your parent Was your household a conservative household? No,
I you know that's planting a flag, I would say,
(03:29):
the Federalist Society.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yeah, but it wasn't much. It wasn't really that much
of a flag back then in a way because it
wasn't I mean, the Federal Society didn't have all the
connotations it had today. It was much smaller, and it
was just sort of like it was where anybody who
was basically center or right could basically have a political discussion.
And those were different times, I think.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
No, So it was not you were sitting there saying
this is like.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
This was basically it was basically like you know, people
who was provoted for Reagan.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Essentially, what was the campus of Yale when you're there
for law school or either one? What was the campus
life in the eighties there?
Speaker 2 (04:05):
It was very nice, It was very peaceful, It wasn't
the only real controversy on the campus at that point
in time was there were these series of cafeteria workers
strikes which tended to divide people, and in one of
people that want to cross picket lines and come into
the law school and some people, you know, said, look,
we're paying twish we got to come into law school,
(04:27):
and and it was a little bit divisive to that extent,
and it was it was disruptive of campus life, but
it didn't last very long.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
Yeah. So the Vietnam thing in the seventies.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
There wasn't nothing. There was a contract. Now there was,
and then there were there were these very these encamped,
very small encampments by today's standard, pushing for divestment of
companies that did business in South Africa. But it wasn't
the kind of environment you Yeah, I mean it was,
it was. It wasn't a big deal. What did you
(04:56):
think of Reagan? I liked Reagan. I mean I I
grew up in the seventies and eighties, and I grew
up in the seventies basically, which was the shadow of
the sixties, where you still had a lot of people
thinking that if you just passed the right law and
came up with the right scheme, you could create nirvana
in society, and that could be very expensive. And I
(05:20):
came to the conclusion that people were overdoing it, that
you know, you kind of have to let things fall
where they may, and that the free market was sometimes.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Often there are winners and losers, that.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
There are winners and losers, and that you can't you
can't manipulate every outcome in society and try to make
it perfect, because if when you try to do that,
you basically end up squelching creativity and squelching the economy.
And I, you know, I became kind of a free marketeer,
and that's what, you know, I was persuaded. That's how
I became a Republican.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Really, But I would assume that your your leaning as
a free marketeer would include the people played by the rules.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Too, absolutely, power being absolutely obey regulation. Absolutely, And if
you would if I had come of political age in
nineteen seventy five, I would have, you know, I consider
my Actually, when I was in high school, I considered
myself a Scoop Jackson Democrat because at that point I
was anti Republican because of Nixon. I thought Nixon. My
(06:20):
first political memories were ten or eleven years old watching
the Watergate hearings, and you know, I found I found Nixon.
I found Nixon deeply offensive, and I found you know,
and that sort of I mean, I've I've hated corrupt
politicians ever since. But then the Republican Party kind of
cleaned up its act, in my view, and then when
(06:42):
they do that, it seemed like the late seventies and
it just seemed they, you know, once Nixon was gone,
things were better, but I felt, you know, I mean,
it was the era of stagflation and Ted Kennedy was
pushing wage and price controls, which I thought was absolutely insane.
You can't regulate the economy that way. And I kind
(07:02):
of drove me, drove me a little to the right.
And plus, you know, I grew up in Massachusetts, and
and you know, it's just you get kind of fed
up with the Liberals at a certain point growing up.
So I've always been a bit of a contrary and
you put me in one group, I kind of kind
of rebel against it and push back on things. And
that's I guess that's part of the party to me.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
I would love, I said to myself periodically, not often,
but I said periodically, because because I'm not some crazy
progressive in one sense, there's things I think there are.
There are conservative thoughts I think are admirable and practical.
But I mean I've always thought to myself, you know,
give me a Republican I could vote for in terms
of who they are as a person, and then of
(07:44):
course what their policies are. I can't hand in hand.
And I always viewed, you know, Reagan and then Bush
Junior as this guy that was like the guy you
brought with you to get you into the party. He
knew Jeff well that he was the front man they opened,
got the door open for you. Meaning I had zero
respects for Reagan as a person. Everybody and I know said,
(08:06):
I just said to you before, what do you think
of Reagan? And you said the same thing. Everybody I've
ever spoken to about Reagan said, they go, I like Reagan.
You know the likability fact. They like Reagan. And I
have many friends who worked for Reagan, where as I
got out of college. But my thing was Reagan and
Bush Junior. I thought to myself, these guys just have
no right to be president the United States. It's none.
They are hood ornaments on a vehicle and under the
(08:28):
hood of that car, or all the other people writing
the policy, creating the policy, explaining to him the policy.
He was a host of a show. And I thought
the same thing. For Bush Junior, I thought he would
go again eight more years of a guy who's I
go on the street and find a guy or a
woman started to be president United States right now rather
than him. These guys are all functionaries. Am I offending you?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
No, I'm not agreeing with you because you're I actually
thought Reagan had some good instincts. I would prefer more
intellect actual presidents, There's no question about that. But you
have to take what you can get. And you know,
I thought I thought Reagan's overall direction was good. I
thought George W. Bush I had mixed feelings about because
(09:11):
I was very much against the Iraq War, although I
liked him personally.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
How did you feel in twenty sixteen when Trump won
and of course Hillary lost. Was Hillary's Clinton someone who
troubled you?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
She did? I mean, I didn't like the ethos of
the Clinton administration. I kind of learned not to like them,
and I would vote her for her today over Trump,
knowing what I know today. But you know, at the time,
I thought that he would not be quite normal, but
I thought he was like the best we were going
to be able to do. When I thought that the
(09:47):
institutions and the people around him would cabin him and
kind of teach him how to get by. And I
thought that a normal person would, you know, even if
they were eccentric, would adapt their behavior to make it
functional for the job so that they would be remembered well.
And what happened as I watched that in twenty seventeen,
is like, this isn't happening. What is wrong with this guy?
(10:07):
And that's sort of what got me thinking about, well,
you know, the guy's psychological condition and whether or not
he was good for the country, and drew some negative
conclusions after that after watching him. He's worse. Basically everything
is about him. That's the thing that I thought makes
the difference with politicians who become present and is they
(10:29):
realize how much the office is greater than they are
and how much responsibility they have, and it chastens them
and it makes them more humble in a way. And
with Trump, there's nothing. Because Trump is the most narcissistic
human being you could ever imagine, and it's all about him.
Everything is about him. Pathologically, hath alot, He's no, He's
(10:51):
absolutely is narcissistic personality disorder. He's also antisocial, has an
antisocial personality disorder. I mean, he's a very very disturbed
human being. And that's why he could never adapt. He can't.
He can only he can only get worse, he can't
get better.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Well, the thing about him also is that when he
wins and Hillary loses, I thought to myself, for most
let's say Republicans were even undecided, even Independence was voting
against Hillary because of policies that she expounded, or was
it about her being a woman?
Speaker 2 (11:25):
No, I mean the country will ever vote for a woman. Oh, absolutely,
I think the country could vote for a woman. I mean,
I think there are some women I think would be
great presidents. I think, I mean, I don't. I'd want
to see them more of them in action, like an
Abigail Spamberger or I think there are some very very
good women in politics. I think Nikki Haley actually if
I mean there are things I don't like about her
(11:46):
and the way she conducted the campaign, there are things
I loved about her that in the way she conducted
a campaign, I think she actually would be potentially a
very good president. And I think that I think that
if she had gotten the nomination, which was never going
to happen, I think there's a good chance she could
have been resident. So, you know, I don't I don't think.
I mean, I think there's certain, no doubt there is
a certain element of the population that might not vote
(12:08):
for a woman for you know, because of that she's
a because she's a woman. But then there's gonna be
a portion of the population that will vote for a
woman because she's a woman, and maybe that cancels out.
I don't know. I'd leave that to a you know,
a very highly sent highly a large sample of a poll.
And then I think there are you know, the people
who would not vote for a woman are going to
be people who a probably not going to vote a
Democrat anyway. So it's I don't, I don't I think
(12:31):
at this point, I think, you know, a woman comes
along who is the place, in the right moment, at
the right time, could easily win the presidency. I mean, like,
look at these three women and who are basically running
the state of Michigan. Terrific, terrific, terrific politicians, terrific, very smart.
You know that That's the reason why it's it's good
to sort of let people percolate because then you can
(12:53):
see how they conduct themselves in different situations. But you
know that trifecta they have in Michigan. I mean, they're
a little to the left of me, but but I
just think like they are excellent public servants. Benson the
Secretary of State, and Dana Nessel. These are the type
of people. We need more of these people in politics,
and you know, I wish we had some on the
Republican side that you know, don't let me see.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Let me just say this. I was on vacation with
my family. We wanted to son dance. We're there at
stein ericson the lodge and there's Romney and he comes
in with his family and have brunch or something. And
he's there by himself of reading the paper waiting for somebody.
He sees me and I wave high and he stands
up and shakes my hands. He goes, he goes, don't
stand here for very long as that I want my
picture taken with you. And we both laughed and and
(13:37):
I said, and I chatted with him for like three minutes.
When I walked away and talked to friends of mine
and said, the guy's so much more three dimensional than
they packaged him during the campaigns. He had the worst
fucking campaign staff you could imagine. And I think to myself,
why does this party, what is the lure and the
fascination with Trump? When why not Romney someone like him?
(13:58):
It's beyond my comprehension.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
And you know, but I think it's I think your
observation is true about about people that they don't always
project what they are in private publicly. And I you know,
I don't know why that is. Maybe maybe he was
an actor could explain that a little better to me.
But I mean Romney was that way. Bob Dole was
that way. People said, you know, people who talked to
(14:21):
Bob Dole and met him privately said he was funny, warm, relaxed.
And on television he always was a high school gym teacher.
He always came off a stiff. So they, you know,
remember the Saturday Night Live impressions, they used to do
it him and exactly Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole
again and and and you know it was just and
then and and same was true of you know, I've
(14:43):
become friendly with a lot of people who worked for Hillary.
And I was friendly with my law partner who passed
away me rest in peace, Bernie Nusbaum, who is very
very close to missus Clinton. And you know, basically the
description age when you is that she is just the
warmest and just lovely, this person you could just sit
and have a chat with. But I don't know that
(15:03):
all of that, that all of that projected on television
as well. But that said, the attraction of Trump I've
always found mystifying. He doesn't say anything that's particularly intelligent.
He doesn't. He can be nasty, he can be funny,
he can actually be funny, but I don't think he
actually has a sense of humor in the sense that
(15:24):
normal people have a sense of humor. I think he
knows that if he says some things that people will laugh,
but I don't think he has a sense of irony.
I think his sense of humor what he thinks is
funny is mocking people, and that sometimes gets laughter. But
I don't I don't think he has aol of comedy.
We Well Rickles, though there would there be, there would
be twists to it, there was a there was funny,
(15:46):
actually funny, and and Trump Trump is is funny, but
he actually doesn't mean to be. At times he has
no idea why he's making people laugh. And and I
just don't the attraction of him. I think there's an
authority terrian streak among a lot of people that they
basically like him because he is all about himself. He
(16:08):
projects something that they want to be, which is the
worst in themselves. He brings out the worst in people
because they look at him and he doesn't have to
follow the rules. He just basically says, fuck the rules.
But he's also.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Capable of burrowing into and finding his way toward a
place where he has the least resistance. In his life.
Trump is someone who he just gets up every day
and there's no one there to say no.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Right, There's no one there to say no, because if
you say no, they're banished. Right, And that's been his
entire life. And you know, he has two modes of
operation to get what he wants. He can be extremely flattering,
but then he can be an incredible bully, and nobody
wants to deal with the bully, so they just give in.
And that's part of how he gets what he wants.
And I think, you know, for example, when his trial downtown,
(16:53):
he gets he got what he wants in certain ways
that may end up having bit him. But the other
thing is, I think part of his appeal is that
he creates a permission structure for people to be their
worst cells because you can let out your anger. These
people are bad, yeah, fuck them, And he brings out
the worst in people.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
George Conway, if you enjoy conversations with leading political voices.
Check out my episode with California Representative Adam Schiff.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
I felt during the Obama administration and during the first
Obama campaign that a lot of young people were inspired
the same way Democrats have been inspired by Kennedy and
Republicans have been inspired by Reagan.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Now I think that.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
They're you know, the vast reaction is just revulsion at
what they see going on. The one positive that comes
out of it, though, is that people have recognized that
they can no longer sit on the sideline. So I
can't tell you how many people have told me over
the last couple of years that they have never been
politically involved before, but now they realize they have to be.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
To hear more of my conversation with Adam Schiff, go
to Here's the Thing dot org. After the break, George
Conway shares the ways in which he agrees with a
position of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'm Alec Baldwin
(18:31):
and you're listening to Here's the Thing. Early in the
Trump administration, George Conway was vocal about what he saw
as instability and chaos within the White House. He was
instrumental in forming the group Checks and Balances to combat
the Trump administration's betrayals of bedrock legal norms. Czechs and
(18:53):
Balances eventually became the Society for the Rule of Law,
and Conway is its board president.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
This was a group that I formed in twenty eighteen
because I thought that the Federal Society and other conservative
legal groups weren't really taking seriously the threats to the
rule of law that Donald Trump presented. Remember this is
pre insurrection, pre January sixth, and the real threat there
(19:22):
was that, you know, his attacks on his own attorney
general and his attacks on courts. And so we formed
this group to basically speak out about these issues because
we didn't think that the you know, I mean, the
mainstream conservative legal organizations were too much trying to not
tick off Trump and were busy worrying about placing people
(19:46):
on the judiciary or placing people in the government. So
we were actually the opposite of that, and we were
basically we consisted mainly a lot of them were older
guys who worked in the Reagan administration where they basically said, well,
this is the conservatism that we had back in the day,
and then some younger people. So we weren't really into
(20:06):
judicial appointments. But now we have morphed that group into
a new group called the Society for the Rule of
Law Institute, and we've revamped it and we're you know,
we're totally talking about exactly the threat that we see
to the rule of law and to democracy that trump Ism,
the movement, and the way the direction of the conservative
(20:28):
movement is bringing us.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
When you see what Trump and his minions have wrought
in terms of judicial policy, Roe v. Wade is the
obvious example. Were you indifferent or do you consider the
Roe v. Wade the situation decision of victory?
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Neither. My thing about Roe v. Wade was, Look, if
I were a state legislator in nineteen seventy three, the
year that Roe was adopted, I would probably have adopted
you know, I probably would have voted for a statue
that was not dissimilar to what Roe came up with.
The problem with Roe was that it wasn't judging. It
(21:07):
was basically the creation of a statutory scheme, and it
was beyond the can of judges to do and the
ability of judges to do. And you know, there was
no there's no clear guidance in the Constitution or even
a warrant in the Constitution to do it. So I
always thought that Roe was wrongly decided that said, the
time to overrule it would have been in the years
(21:28):
immediately following that, And I think the Court missed its
last chance to do that in the nineteen eighties, and
the notion of overruling something forty nine years later was
insane and was destined to, you know, create as many
problems as had been created by the original that basically settled. Yeah,
I mean, you know, I mean, I think that there
(21:48):
was room for sort of cutting back a little bit,
cutting back what cutting back the scope of the abortion
and privacy right to what is more typical, say in
a Western European country, because Row is much more permissive
than what I think a legislative the natural legislative solutions
would have ended up to be. But then you know
what we have now are these states going completely insane
(22:11):
five ten weeks just which is absolutely crazy. It's just
not something that can be regulated with bright lines, frankly,
because of all of the complications that can occur, And
it was just something that you know, it was damaging
to the court to get into it, and damaging of
the court to extract itself out of it. So suddenly
I believe in incarnalism. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg had issues
(22:35):
with Roe v. Wade. Not that she didn't think there
shouldn't be a right to an abortion that's protected, but
she believed that Roe, by basically setting forth this a
detailed scheme, went too far, and what they should have
done struck down the more extreme statutes and let the
legislative process take care of itself after that. And I
always thought she was right because if they've done it
(22:55):
that way, abortion would never have become the political issue
that it became, and the courts would have never become
the political football that they became, and we would be
better off today. That's all water under the bridge. They
did what they did, and they did at both times,
and I think the courts have been damaged by it.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
Now you tilt slightly in that discussion, and you look
at the court now itself, and I'm you know, I
view obviously, I'm fully I'm completely enthralled by how Alito
and Thomas have real liabilities in their marriage. But I wonder,
what do you think about that? What do you think
about a guy and his wife hanging in the flag upside.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I think it's insane.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
And the other one's wife is a big you know,
Trump's support and everything, and he's and he and both
of them getting whacked about all this.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yeah, I mean I would separate them because I think
they're dissimilar in certain ways. I think you have to
take each case separately. In the case of Alito, I
understand that it can be difficult for a conservative judge.
Judges are isolated to begin with. There's a limit to
what they can say, the limit to who they can
talk to, limit to who they can hang around with publicly,
(24:02):
and they can become very isolated any judge. But it's
particularly true of the conservatives and the Republicans, because you know,
Washington's basically much a liberal town. And I think that
there is this sort of persecution complex that sometimes takes
hold of the conservative mind of people who serve in
government in Washington, in particular in the judicial branch. And
(24:23):
I think that's what happened. I think that just got
out of hand here where people who were you know,
upset about Trump or putting up signs, and Missus Alito
or and maybe Justice Alito tolerated it basically sought to
give the finger to everybody by putting a flag upside it,
which is just absolutely better if she didn't, even better
if she didn't. It's just yeah, I mean you would.
(24:44):
I wouldn't do that if I were if I held
no public position, you just you know, But to basically
do that and people knowing that you're that the family
member is on the Supreme Court, it's just I cannot
fathom it.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Well, this hearkens back to when I said emboldened people
to say whatever they want. Little did he realize it
would include the spouses of Supreme Court jell Yes.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
And and the Thomas thing is is a bit different. I mean,
I think so, well, because he's committed actual financial and
ethical breaches there that you know, whether or not they're
strictly prohibited by well, there's no judicial ethics rules that
apply to Supreme Court justices. I think, you know, these
filings that he made are completely false, and I think
a case could be made and has been made by
(25:27):
some people, but I don't think it'll ever be brought that.
You know, those those filings were criminal, you know, even
making false statements of the government's violation of eighteen USC.
One thousand and one and those you know, if and
if he didn't pay for to give one of the
number of examples, you know, they had this guy he
borrowed money for an r V, a two hundred and
fifty thousand dollars r V, and then didn't got the
(25:49):
that the loan forgiven, that's taxable income. If he didn't
report that, that's you know, that's tax fraud. And there
are just some real issues there with Thomas that I found,
you know, and as someone who has a hired him
in the past, I just find that just extremely, extremely disturbing.
The stuff with the wife. On January sixth, I with Ginny.
I mean, Ginny has all, you know, everybody in the
(26:11):
conservative move kind of knew that she's a little bit
out there and has to say the least, you know,
they could. They kind of discounted her. I mean, I
think the press on the left tend to overstate her importance.
She's not that important, you know, her sending emails to
people and so on and so forth. The thing that
really bothers me about Justice Thomas is the financial stuff.
(26:32):
It's really really very troublesome. And if you remember, you
go back to the the late sixties, early right in
nineteen sixty nine, I think, or nineteen sixty nine, ers
nineteen seventy, I mean Justice Fortis Abe for Abe Forest
Abe fortis right, and he, you know, he accepted some
money for I think it was like an honorarium. It
(26:53):
wasn't even that much money. Even if you if you,
if you, even if you scale it up by inflation,
I don't think it would get you a two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars RV today. Maybe it would, I
don't know, but you know, the Nixon administration went to
Chief Justice Warren and said we're going to prosecute this.
And Earl Warren and his colleagues went to Fordest saying
you need to resign, and they made him resign. And
(27:13):
there was who was who appointed him, Fortis Fortest was
a Johnson appointee and he was eventually he actually I
think it was a yeah, he was. It was a
Johnson appointee, and you know, in close to President Johnson,
and and you know, Nixon and his people saw an
opportunity to get a seat on the court, and at
that point in time, it was not tolerable for a
(27:35):
justice to take that kind of take money from somebody
who had a case in a lower court somewhere. It
wasn't even there wasn't even a direct conflict. And you know,
if you applied the fordest standard today, Thomas would be gone.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
George Conway, if you're enjoying this conversation, tell a friend
and be sure to follow. Here's the thing on the
iHeartRadio app, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. When
we come back, George Conway shares why he made a
rather large donation to the Biden victory Fund. I'm Alec
(28:26):
Baldwin and you're listening to Here's the thing. I spoke
with George Conway just days before Trump's hush money trial
in New York City reached a verdict. Conway's opinions hold
significant weight from many conservatives. I wanted to know if
there was ever anyone He provided his stamp of approval
for that.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
He later regretted Donald Trump. Okay, I mean you know, judiciary, No,
I don't. I don't think so, I don't. I mean
I never you know, I don't. I don't think you
know when you don't know exactly how it's reading tea
leaves And I think I've supported most of all of
(29:07):
the Republican nominees, and I don't really have issues with
I don't think that I have issues with Democratic nominees either.
I would I would be you know, my view would
be if if the person's qualified and selected by the president,
unless they have views that are so extreme that they
can't be acceptable in the normal course of of what
(29:29):
we see in constitutional discussion, I would vote for you know,
I would have voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I would
have voted for Sonya Soto my R. I don't think
there are any of these people who have been nominated.
The only one I ever opposed was Harriet not that,
not that you know, not that my seal of endorsement matters.
(29:51):
I was just a guy, you know, practicing law in
New York. But the one time I ever I did
think that someone was not qualified to be on the
Supreme Court was when President George W. Bush nominated Harriet
Myers to become a Supreme Court justice. She was his
White House counsel. And there was just no evidence that
she knew anything, you know, that she had any while
(30:12):
you know, she was a member of the bar, she
was a member of a big law firm in Dallas,
you know. But when you looked up at things she
had written, it was shocking that she could not really
express herself. She hadn't really litigated, as far as I
could tell that much. And she it turned out that
they withdrew her, not because of the opposition among conservatives
(30:34):
and others to her nomination. She couldn't be prepped. She
could hold a lot of jobs, but being on the
Supreme Court, she was not qualified for that.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
As we learned when I was at GW study in
political science with one of our professors said they were
very kind and respectful toward each other. So the worst
thing you could say is the Senator would say, I
have the least amount of higher regard from my colleague
from Virginia. And now, in the time we have left,
I want to obviously go into the Carville Madelon nature
(31:03):
of your life and so you're in that rarefied sphere.
And where did you meet her? Where did you first meet?
Speaker 2 (31:10):
We met it out in the Hampton's one time. God
it was doomed. No, we had twenty good years.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Yeah, No, I'm well aware of how many kids. You
guys have four four kids, that's great, that's great now.
But when you're there and you're going through that process,
and I see this to you, and I don't know you,
but I mean i've actually I see you on TV
all the time, and what I was really intrigued about
you is a is your evolution. You've evolved over time,
And no.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
I don't really think I've evolved that much. I think
that everyone else kind of evolved in a bad direction.
I don't think. I don't think my views on substantive
issues or my temperament has changed really for a very
long time. I just think that what I react to
is what I would have reacted to if it happened
(31:58):
ten years ago or twenty years ago, I'd be where
I am.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
But these two points go hand in hand to me,
which is that a while ago, we talked about Trump
and his nature and I thought to myself, how does
Trump maintain his support? And they are key business people,
billionaires with no obstructions to their giving, and they can
just pump all the money and they can buy Trump
the White House, and they want Trump in there because
unlike other conservative or Republican presidential administrations, they look like
(32:25):
what Trump will provide them is beyond their wildest dreams.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
But I think they're mistaken, and I make this point regularly.
I think that the reason why the United States of
America has as strong an economy as it still has
is its stability. It's political stability and the rule of law.
And I think that these people who think that well,
(32:49):
Trump is good for them because they might get capital
gains taxes are being very very short sighted. They're being
morally they're morally bereft, but they're all so being very
economically and politically shortsighted because I think that Trump, if
he's elected, will create political disorder. I think the country
will become ungovernable, ungovernable and vulnerable to you know, I
(33:14):
mean capital flight and human capital and financial capital flight.
And I don't think that's good for the economy. And
that's I think people underestimate that.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Do you ever think you could be you? You could find
it in your soul to donate money. You give a
very large donation to who was the nine hundred and
thirty two thousand dollars donations is coming out of my kids.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Drust nine and twenty nine thousand, six hundred. But who's
counting to the Biden Victory Fund, which is is an
amalgamation of the Biden campaign and various the National Democrats.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Ate supporting that kind of work. I maybe not him personally.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
No, I mean no, I support I Look, I mean
I disagree with him on many issues. I think if
you gave me a policy menu, checklist, and where I
come out would be different on a lot of things,
although frankly in foreign policy, I think he's actually done
a pretty good job. But the different that the thing
about it is is that the difference is between the
danger that I think is presented by his opponent is
(34:14):
is so great that I think there's there there's it's
a binary choice between those two, and I think there's
there's only one choice for the survival of the of
this democracy.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
You're excellent to law school, Yes, yeah, so I g
w yes.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
So.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
My my joke is that your kids who are in
the other room reading and doing their homework, and you
and she are at the kitchen table arguing, and you're
whipping out all these law books to each other.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
No, No, it was never like that. We agree. You know,
if on a lot of things we agree and we
still agree, it's just that I I just think that
I just think that Trump has drawn people off course
and and and that's not you know that, that's not
I don't want to get into the personal stuff. But
that's not that's not that's not what that story is about.
(34:58):
Maybe she feels that I don't know on substance issues,
I don't know that we disagree that much. And I
don't understand how people who I otherwise might agree with
can justify supporting someone who tried to overturn the Constitution
of the United States, to give one minor example. But again,
(35:18):
that's just I think that a lot of Republicans just
went off the rails and they're just forgetting first principles
and and they're just they've they've allowed partisanship to basically
consume them. And I was, you know, I was a
Republican because Republicans. Republicans tended to support things they've they
(35:40):
more closely approximated my views. Okay, And that's why you
vote for candidates. So you try to figure out who's
going to do what you think most likely comports with
where you are, and you may change your mind because
you don't know everything and these people actually know more
than you. But that's what that's what you do. But
then when you have also you know, there's just how
(36:01):
can you support some somebody who's just so bad because
that you being bad morally affects how you govern. And
that's another aspect of Trump is it's just I don't
know how you know, people with the complete lack of
moral character of Donald Trump should not be in public life, period.
(36:21):
And that's my view, and I don't care, you know,
I'd say that of a Democrat. I'd say that of anybody.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Listen, Being a Democrat is not an easy road to
hoe these days, because it's like, if Biden wins, which
is looking dicey, but if Biden wins, then he drops
out mid term. I mean, I know a lot of people,
let's cut the bullshit. I know a lot of people
who are terrified by the idea of Harris becoming the president.
They don't think she's ready for that at all, and
they're worried that with the Biden things, they don't want
(36:48):
to vote for Biden because if it doesn't make it
all the way she becomes president. This is very nervous
about that. Does that make any sense to you without
any of you making any assessments about her.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
I'm not going to make an assessment about her, I think.
Speaker 1 (37:00):
But you see how people feel that way.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
I think it's nuts you do, right, because basically anybody
is going to be better than Donald Trump. Right, I'd
vote for you over over Donald Trump. I mean that
enough money in it? There's not enough money. I got
I need a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
But the other thing I want to ask you that
if we're getting off to think about your wife and everything,
is that So here we are in late May of
the election year. How are things looking right now? I'm
not saying you have to call it, but the election. Yeah, well,
I'm fully confident. I've been saying this.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
This is not something I just pulling out at one
fifty eight pm today as I think Trump's going to
blow it. I think the way that the Biden people
will beat Trump is to make him the issue. And
Trump cannot help but make himself the issue. And basically
there's a feedback loop where you just basically you point
out this man is nuts, he's psycho, and you point
out the crazy things that he does that makes him mad,
(37:55):
and it makes him say and do crazier things. And
then you point that out and I think that's actually
what what they're going to try to do in this
debate that they've agreed to at the end of June.
I think that Biden people completely get the psychology of
Donald Trump, and I think they have not. They are beginning.
You can see signs of what they're doing. It's going
to be I think the way you beat Donald Donald
(38:15):
Trump is basically conduct the campaign as a syop, and
he manipulate his brain and he's very He's so manipulable.
He's uncontrollable, but he is manipulable as his own people
find out. They try to manipulate them, but they can't
control them. And so what you do is you can
manipulate him into being out of control.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
So with the Supreme Court basically punting the January sixth trials,
or at least for them, think the Supreme Court wants
him to be president, obviously, No, I think.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
A lot of people are overreading what the Supreme Court
did there. I don't think that's what they're doing. I
think I would have preferred them to have taken a
different course, namely not to have taken this case. But
I think they really do. They really are looking at
this in sort of an apt academic way, and they're saying, okay, well,
there are some things obviously that a president can be
prosecuted for, but there have to be limits, because what
(39:09):
if I don't know, what if a Republican Congress were
elected and along with President Biden reelected, and the Republican
Congress pas some bill and somehow managed to get it
over the president's veto. This is a wild hypothetical. It
would never happen. Where it said that if the president
didn't propose a balanced budget by January one every year,
(39:30):
I'm just making something up. You know, he shall go
to jail, you know after his term. You know, there
are just some things that you could you could just
see crazy laws that would be that could be passed,
and crazy the applications of existing laws that could have
had that would that would impinge upon the Article two duties.
Speaker 1 (39:47):
What hush hush money.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
Oh he's going down, you think, so, yeah, he's going down?
Really yeah?
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Wrong.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
But you can get people in here who were so
I'm not saying this to flatter you. You can get
people here who are less influential than you are, and
they're so cagy.
Speaker 2 (40:02):
They're like, well, you know, look, I look, I mean,
I'm not I'm not saying when I say that, I
accept the risk that you can't predict what twelve you're
Michael are going to do in a room. But to
unpack my I think he's going down is I just
think it's highly likely that they're going to be a
conviction on some are all of the thirty four counts.
(40:23):
And I think there's only a small possibility but not
non zero, I mean ten twenty percent maybe that that
there could be a hung jury. I don't think there
is any chance that there would be all out acquittal, right, Okay,
So that's what I mean when I say you know
he's going down, I think it's like, Okay, I think
that you know. I'm going to the Rangers game tonight.
I think the Rangers are going to win, but you
(40:44):
know who.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Knows my Thanks to George Conway. Here's the Thing is
recorded at CDM Studios. This episode was produced by Kathleen Russo,
Zach MacNeice, and Maureen Hoban. Our engineer is Frank Imperial.
Our social media manager is Daniel Gingrich. Hi'm Alec Baldwin.
(41:07):
Here's the Thing is brought to you by iHeart Radio.
This is Alec Baldwin and you're listening to Hear's the
thing from iHeart Radio. Almost exactly nine years ago, Donald
Trump descended the escalator at his Fifth Avenue residence to
announce his candidacy for president. Since that infamous moment, the
political discourse in the United States has disintegrated. We have
(00:25):
never been more angry, indignant, and divided than we are
today in the post Trump world. However, one voice that
cuts clearly through the noise is that of my guest today.
George Conway, the lawyer and commentator, has become a leading
voice in the conservative movement. He was originally a supporter
(00:47):
of the Trump campaign, but soon stood firmly against the president,
all while being married to Trump's senior counselor, Kelly Ann Conway.
George Conway is one of the founders of the Lincoln Project,
a super pac formed in twenty nineteen whose core mission
is to defeat Donald Trump. He's also a contributing writer
(01:09):
at The Atlantic and host of the podcast George Conway
Explains It All. Conway is so committed to the anti
Trump cause he recently donated more than nine hundred and
twenty nine thousand dollars to the Biden Victory Fund. Growing up,
Conway's father worked for defense contractor Raytheon. I was curious
(01:32):
to learn how his upbringing affected him politically.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
He tested missile defense systems on ships and so he would,
you know, they would install them and test them and
calibrate them, and he traveled a lot to go to
various ports to do that.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
You go to Harvard in eighty four biochemical sciences and
you graduate magna cum launde. Why that?
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Why the switch? Why? I don't know. I mean, I
think it.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Was because what was the original plan.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
My original plan was probably the major in economics and
then go to law school. But my parents kind of
was thinking, oh man, people lawyers not making any money.
You should become a doctor. And I had all these
friends who were pre mets, and I decided, okay, well
let me go. It was a mess, but I figured
it out.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
It was a pass.
Speaker 2 (02:18):
It was a second pass. And then I realized that,
you know, this is not what I wanted to do,
and I'd go back to plan A. But it was
too late to really change majors again. So I went
back to So I just finished off the biochemistry, just
applied to law school, and it kind of worked. It
was helpful because you know, there weren't that many biochem
majors applying to law school, so it was actually probably
advantageous to me.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
So I know, it just worked out. Now, your your
parents they were from where originally.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
My mother was from the Philippines and my father's from me.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
What was his educational background? Like, are you the golden
boy when you're going to Harvard and yeah, law.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
School, I guess you could say that. I mean she
had My mother had a master's in chemistry and a
master's in computer science. Your dad, my dad, I think
had an sociate's degree and something. He joined the Navy
at like eighteen or nineteen learned learned on the job
that way. Sure.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
And when you were going to Harvard and then you
go on to Yale Law School, you then of course
become the editor of the Yale Law chan editor one
of many. Well while you're an editor, I'm sorry, and
then the president of the school's chapter of the Federalist Society, Yes,
were your parent Was your household a conservative household? No,
I you know that's planting a flag, I would say,
(03:29):
the Federalist Society.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yeah, but it wasn't much. It wasn't really that much
of a flag back then in a way because it
wasn't I mean, the Federal Society didn't have all the
connotations it had today. It was much smaller, and it
was just sort of like it was where anybody who
was basically center or right could basically have a political discussion.
And those were different times, I think.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
No, So it was not you were sitting there saying
this is like.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
This was basically it was basically like you know, people
who was provoted for Reagan.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Essentially, what was the campus of Yale when you're there
for law school or either one? What was the campus
life in the eighties there?
Speaker 2 (04:05):
It was very nice, It was very peaceful, It wasn't
the only real controversy on the campus at that point
in time was there were these series of cafeteria workers
strikes which tended to divide people, and in one of
people that want to cross picket lines and come into
the law school and some people, you know, said, look,
we're paying twish we got to come into law school,
(04:27):
and and it was a little bit divisive to that extent,
and it was it was disruptive of campus life, but
it didn't last very long.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
Yeah. So the Vietnam thing in the seventies.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
There wasn't nothing. There was a contract. Now there was,
and then there were there were these very these encamped,
very small encampments by today's standard, pushing for divestment of
companies that did business in South Africa. But it wasn't
the kind of environment you Yeah, I mean it was,
it was. It wasn't a big deal. What did you
(04:56):
think of Reagan? I liked Reagan. I mean I I
grew up in the seventies and eighties, and I grew
up in the seventies basically, which was the shadow of
the sixties, where you still had a lot of people
thinking that if you just passed the right law and
came up with the right scheme, you could create nirvana
in society, and that could be very expensive. And I
(05:20):
came to the conclusion that people were overdoing it, that
you know, you kind of have to let things fall
where they may, and that the free market was sometimes.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Often there are winners and losers, that.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
There are winners and losers, and that you can't you
can't manipulate every outcome in society and try to make
it perfect, because if when you try to do that,
you basically end up squelching creativity and squelching the economy.
And I, you know, I became kind of a free marketeer,
and that's what, you know, I was persuaded. That's how
I became a Republican.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
Really, But I would assume that your your leaning as
a free marketeer would include the people played by the rules.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Too, absolutely, power being absolutely obey regulation. Absolutely, And if
you would if I had come of political age in
nineteen seventy five, I would have, you know, I consider
my Actually, when I was in high school, I considered
myself a Scoop Jackson Democrat because at that point I
was anti Republican because of Nixon. I thought Nixon. My
(06:20):
first political memories were ten or eleven years old watching
the Watergate hearings, and you know, I found I found Nixon.
I found Nixon deeply offensive, and I found you know,
and that sort of I mean, I've I've hated corrupt
politicians ever since. But then the Republican Party kind of
cleaned up its act, in my view, and then when
(06:42):
they do that, it seemed like the late seventies and
it just seemed they, you know, once Nixon was gone,
things were better, but I felt, you know, I mean,
it was the era of stagflation and Ted Kennedy was
pushing wage and price controls, which I thought was absolutely insane.
You can't regulate the economy that way. And I kind
(07:02):
of drove me, drove me a little to the right.
And plus, you know, I grew up in Massachusetts, and
and you know, it's just you get kind of fed
up with the Liberals at a certain point growing up.
So I've always been a bit of a contrary and
you put me in one group, I kind of kind
of rebel against it and push back on things. And
that's I guess that's part of the party to me.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
I would love, I said to myself periodically, not often,
but I said periodically, because because I'm not some crazy
progressive in one sense, there's things I think there are.
There are conservative thoughts I think are admirable and practical.
But I mean I've always thought to myself, you know,
give me a Republican I could vote for in terms
of who they are as a person, and then of
(07:44):
course what their policies are. I can't hand in hand.
And I always viewed, you know, Reagan and then Bush
Junior as this guy that was like the guy you
brought with you to get you into the party. He
knew Jeff well that he was the front man they opened,
got the door open for you. Meaning I had zero
respects for Reagan as a person. Everybody and I know said,
(08:06):
I just said to you before, what do you think
of Reagan? And you said the same thing. Everybody I've
ever spoken to about Reagan said, they go, I like Reagan.
You know the likability fact. They like Reagan. And I
have many friends who worked for Reagan, where as I
got out of college. But my thing was Reagan and
Bush Junior. I thought to myself, these guys just have
no right to be president the United States. It's none.
They are hood ornaments on a vehicle and under the
(08:28):
hood of that car, or all the other people writing
the policy, creating the policy, explaining to him the policy.
He was a host of a show. And I thought
the same thing. For Bush Junior, I thought he would
go again eight more years of a guy who's I
go on the street and find a guy or a
woman started to be president United States right now rather
than him. These guys are all functionaries. Am I offending you?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
No, I'm not agreeing with you because you're I actually
thought Reagan had some good instincts. I would prefer more
intellect actual presidents, There's no question about that. But you
have to take what you can get. And you know,
I thought I thought Reagan's overall direction was good. I
thought George W. Bush I had mixed feelings about because
(09:11):
I was very much against the Iraq War, although I
liked him personally.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
How did you feel in twenty sixteen when Trump won
and of course Hillary lost. Was Hillary's Clinton someone who
troubled you?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
She did? I mean, I didn't like the ethos of
the Clinton administration. I kind of learned not to like them,
and I would vote her for her today over Trump,
knowing what I know today. But you know, at the time,
I thought that he would not be quite normal, but
I thought he was like the best we were going
to be able to do. When I thought that the
(09:47):
institutions and the people around him would cabin him and
kind of teach him how to get by. And I
thought that a normal person would, you know, even if
they were eccentric, would adapt their behavior to make it
functional for the job so that they would be remembered well.
And what happened as I watched that in twenty seventeen,
is like, this isn't happening. What is wrong with this guy?
(10:07):
And that's sort of what got me thinking about, well,
you know, the guy's psychological condition and whether or not
he was good for the country, and drew some negative
conclusions after that after watching him. He's worse. Basically everything
is about him. That's the thing that I thought makes
the difference with politicians who become present and is they
(10:29):
realize how much the office is greater than they are
and how much responsibility they have, and it chastens them
and it makes them more humble in a way. And
with Trump, there's nothing. Because Trump is the most narcissistic
human being you could ever imagine, and it's all about him.
Everything is about him. Pathologically, hath alot, He's no, He's
(10:51):
absolutely is narcissistic personality disorder. He's also antisocial, has an
antisocial personality disorder. I mean, he's a very very disturbed
human being. And that's why he could never adapt. He can't.
He can only he can only get worse, he can't
get better.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Well, the thing about him also is that when he
wins and Hillary loses, I thought to myself, for most
let's say Republicans were even undecided, even Independence was voting
against Hillary because of policies that she expounded, or was
it about her being a woman?
Speaker 2 (11:25):
No, I mean the country will ever vote for a woman. Oh, absolutely,
I think the country could vote for a woman. I mean,
I think there are some women I think would be
great presidents. I think, I mean, I don't. I'd want
to see them more of them in action, like an
Abigail Spamberger or I think there are some very very
good women in politics. I think Nikki Haley actually if
I mean there are things I don't like about her
(11:46):
and the way she conducted the campaign, there are things
I loved about her that in the way she conducted
a campaign, I think she actually would be potentially a
very good president. And I think that I think that
if she had gotten the nomination, which was never going
to happen, I think there's a good chance she could
have been resident. So, you know, I don't I don't think.
I mean, I think there's certain, no doubt there is
a certain element of the population that might not vote
(12:08):
for a woman for you know, because of that she's
a because she's a woman. But then there's gonna be
a portion of the population that will vote for a
woman because she's a woman, and maybe that cancels out.
I don't know. I'd leave that to a you know,
a very highly sent highly a large sample of a poll.
And then I think there are you know, the people
who would not vote for a woman are going to
be people who a probably not going to vote a
Democrat anyway. So it's I don't, I don't I think
(12:31):
at this point, I think, you know, a woman comes
along who is the place, in the right moment, at
the right time, could easily win the presidency. I mean, like,
look at these three women and who are basically running
the state of Michigan. Terrific, terrific, terrific politicians, terrific, very smart.
You know that That's the reason why it's it's good
to sort of let people percolate because then you can
(12:53):
see how they conduct themselves in different situations. But you
know that trifecta they have in Michigan. I mean, they're
a little to the left of me, but but I
just think like they are excellent public servants. Benson the
Secretary of State, and Dana Nessel. These are the type
of people. We need more of these people in politics,
and you know, I wish we had some on the
Republican side that you know, don't let me see.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Let me just say this. I was on vacation with
my family. We wanted to son dance. We're there at
stein ericson the lodge and there's Romney and he comes
in with his family and have brunch or something. And
he's there by himself of reading the paper waiting for somebody.
He sees me and I wave high and he stands
up and shakes my hands. He goes, he goes, don't
stand here for very long as that I want my
picture taken with you. And we both laughed and and
(13:37):
I said, and I chatted with him for like three minutes.
When I walked away and talked to friends of mine
and said, the guy's so much more three dimensional than
they packaged him during the campaigns. He had the worst
fucking campaign staff you could imagine. And I think to myself,
why does this party, what is the lure and the
fascination with Trump? When why not Romney someone like him?
(13:58):
It's beyond my comprehension.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
And you know, but I think it's I think your
observation is true about about people that they don't always
project what they are in private publicly. And I you know,
I don't know why that is. Maybe maybe he was
an actor could explain that a little better to me.
But I mean Romney was that way. Bob Dole was
that way. People said, you know, people who talked to
(14:21):
Bob Dole and met him privately said he was funny, warm, relaxed.
And on television he always was a high school gym teacher.
He always came off a stiff. So they, you know,
remember the Saturday Night Live impressions, they used to do
it him and exactly Bob Dole talking about Bob Dole
again and and and you know it was just and
then and and same was true of you know, I've
(14:43):
become friendly with a lot of people who worked for Hillary.
And I was friendly with my law partner who passed
away me rest in peace, Bernie Nusbaum, who is very
very close to missus Clinton. And you know, basically the
description age when you is that she is just the
warmest and just lovely, this person you could just sit
and have a chat with. But I don't know that
(15:03):
all of that, that all of that projected on television
as well. But that said, the attraction of Trump I've
always found mystifying. He doesn't say anything that's particularly intelligent.
He doesn't. He can be nasty, he can be funny,
he can actually be funny, but I don't think he
actually has a sense of humor in the sense that
(15:24):
normal people have a sense of humor. I think he
knows that if he says some things that people will laugh,
but I don't think he has a sense of irony.
I think his sense of humor what he thinks is
funny is mocking people, and that sometimes gets laughter. But
I don't I don't think he has aol of comedy.
We Well Rickles, though there would there be, there would
be twists to it, there was a there was funny,
(15:46):
actually funny, and and Trump Trump is is funny, but
he actually doesn't mean to be. At times he has
no idea why he's making people laugh. And and I
just don't the attraction of him. I think there's an
authority terrian streak among a lot of people that they
basically like him because he is all about himself. He
(16:08):
projects something that they want to be, which is the
worst in themselves. He brings out the worst in people
because they look at him and he doesn't have to
follow the rules. He just basically says, fuck the rules.
But he's also.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Capable of burrowing into and finding his way toward a
place where he has the least resistance. In his life.
Trump is someone who he just gets up every day
and there's no one there to say no.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Right, There's no one there to say no, because if
you say no, they're banished. Right, And that's been his
entire life. And you know, he has two modes of
operation to get what he wants. He can be extremely flattering,
but then he can be an incredible bully, and nobody
wants to deal with the bully, so they just give in.
And that's part of how he gets what he wants.
And I think, you know, for example, when his trial downtown,
(16:53):
he gets he got what he wants in certain ways
that may end up having bit him. But the other
thing is, I think part of his appeal is that
he creates a permission structure for people to be their
worst cells because you can let out your anger. These
people are bad, yeah, fuck them, And he brings out
the worst in people.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
George Conway, if you enjoy conversations with leading political voices.
Check out my episode with California Representative Adam Schiff.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
I felt during the Obama administration and during the first
Obama campaign that a lot of young people were inspired
the same way Democrats have been inspired by Kennedy and
Republicans have been inspired by Reagan.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Now I think that.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
They're you know, the vast reaction is just revulsion at
what they see going on. The one positive that comes
out of it, though, is that people have recognized that
they can no longer sit on the sideline. So I
can't tell you how many people have told me over
the last couple of years that they have never been
politically involved before, but now they realize they have to be.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
To hear more of my conversation with Adam Schiff, go
to Here's the Thing dot org. After the break, George
Conway shares the ways in which he agrees with a
position of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'm Alec Baldwin
(18:31):
and you're listening to Here's the Thing. Early in the
Trump administration, George Conway was vocal about what he saw
as instability and chaos within the White House. He was
instrumental in forming the group Checks and Balances to combat
the Trump administration's betrayals of bedrock legal norms. Czechs and
(18:53):
Balances eventually became the Society for the Rule of Law,
and Conway is its board president.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
This was a group that I formed in twenty eighteen
because I thought that the Federal Society and other conservative
legal groups weren't really taking seriously the threats to the
rule of law that Donald Trump presented. Remember this is
pre insurrection, pre January sixth, and the real threat there
(19:22):
was that, you know, his attacks on his own attorney
general and his attacks on courts. And so we formed
this group to basically speak out about these issues because
we didn't think that the you know, I mean, the
mainstream conservative legal organizations were too much trying to not
tick off Trump and were busy worrying about placing people
(19:46):
on the judiciary or placing people in the government. So
we were actually the opposite of that, and we were
basically we consisted mainly a lot of them were older
guys who worked in the Reagan administration where they basically said, well,
this is the conservatism that we had back in the day,
and then some younger people. So we weren't really into
(20:06):
judicial appointments. But now we have morphed that group into
a new group called the Society for the Rule of
Law Institute, and we've revamped it and we're you know,
we're totally talking about exactly the threat that we see
to the rule of law and to democracy that trump Ism,
the movement, and the way the direction of the conservative
(20:28):
movement is bringing us.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
When you see what Trump and his minions have wrought
in terms of judicial policy, Roe v. Wade is the
obvious example. Were you indifferent or do you consider the
Roe v. Wade the situation decision of victory?
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Neither. My thing about Roe v. Wade was, Look, if
I were a state legislator in nineteen seventy three, the
year that Roe was adopted, I would probably have adopted
you know, I probably would have voted for a statue
that was not dissimilar to what Roe came up with.
The problem with Roe was that it wasn't judging. It
(21:07):
was basically the creation of a statutory scheme, and it
was beyond the can of judges to do and the
ability of judges to do. And you know, there was
no there's no clear guidance in the Constitution or even
a warrant in the Constitution to do it. So I
always thought that Roe was wrongly decided that said, the
time to overrule it would have been in the years
(21:28):
immediately following that, And I think the Court missed its
last chance to do that in the nineteen eighties, and
the notion of overruling something forty nine years later was
insane and was destined to, you know, create as many
problems as had been created by the original that basically settled. Yeah,
I mean, you know, I mean, I think that there
(21:48):
was room for sort of cutting back a little bit,
cutting back what cutting back the scope of the abortion
and privacy right to what is more typical, say in
a Western European country, because Row is much more permissive
than what I think a legislative the natural legislative solutions
would have ended up to be. But then you know
what we have now are these states going completely insane
(22:11):
five ten weeks just which is absolutely crazy. It's just
not something that can be regulated with bright lines, frankly,
because of all of the complications that can occur, And
it was just something that you know, it was damaging
to the court to get into it, and damaging of
the court to extract itself out of it. So suddenly
I believe in incarnalism. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg had issues
(22:35):
with Roe v. Wade. Not that she didn't think there
shouldn't be a right to an abortion that's protected, but
she believed that Roe, by basically setting forth this a
detailed scheme, went too far, and what they should have
done struck down the more extreme statutes and let the
legislative process take care of itself after that. And I
always thought she was right because if they've done it
(22:55):
that way, abortion would never have become the political issue
that it became, and the courts would have never become
the political football that they became, and we would be
better off today. That's all water under the bridge. They
did what they did, and they did at both times,
and I think the courts have been damaged by it.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
Now you tilt slightly in that discussion, and you look
at the court now itself, and I'm you know, I
view obviously, I'm fully I'm completely enthralled by how Alito
and Thomas have real liabilities in their marriage. But I wonder,
what do you think about that? What do you think
about a guy and his wife hanging in the flag upside.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I think it's insane.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
And the other one's wife is a big you know,
Trump's support and everything, and he's and he and both
of them getting whacked about all this.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yeah, I mean I would separate them because I think
they're dissimilar in certain ways. I think you have to
take each case separately. In the case of Alito, I
understand that it can be difficult for a conservative judge.
Judges are isolated to begin with. There's a limit to
what they can say, the limit to who they can
talk to, limit to who they can hang around with publicly,
(24:02):
and they can become very isolated any judge. But it's
particularly true of the conservatives and the Republicans, because you know,
Washington's basically much a liberal town. And I think that
there is this sort of persecution complex that sometimes takes
hold of the conservative mind of people who serve in
government in Washington, in particular in the judicial branch. And
(24:23):
I think that's what happened. I think that just got
out of hand here where people who were you know,
upset about Trump or putting up signs, and Missus Alito
or and maybe Justice Alito tolerated it basically sought to
give the finger to everybody by putting a flag upside it,
which is just absolutely better if she didn't, even better
if she didn't. It's just yeah, I mean you would.
(24:44):
I wouldn't do that if I were if I held
no public position, you just you know, But to basically
do that and people knowing that you're that the family
member is on the Supreme Court, it's just I cannot
fathom it.
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Well, this hearkens back to when I said emboldened people
to say whatever they want. Little did he realize it
would include the spouses of Supreme Court jell Yes.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
And and the Thomas thing is is a bit different. I mean,
I think so, well, because he's committed actual financial and
ethical breaches there that you know, whether or not they're
strictly prohibited by well, there's no judicial ethics rules that
apply to Supreme Court justices. I think, you know, these
filings that he made are completely false, and I think
a case could be made and has been made by
(25:27):
some people, but I don't think it'll ever be brought that.
You know, those those filings were criminal, you know, even
making false statements of the government's violation of eighteen USC.
One thousand and one and those you know, if and
if he didn't pay for to give one of the
number of examples, you know, they had this guy he
borrowed money for an r V, a two hundred and
fifty thousand dollars r V, and then didn't got the
(25:49):
that the loan forgiven, that's taxable income. If he didn't
report that, that's you know, that's tax fraud. And there
are just some real issues there with Thomas that I found,
you know, and as someone who has a hired him
in the past, I just find that just extremely, extremely disturbing.
The stuff with the wife. On January sixth, I with Ginny.
I mean, Ginny has all, you know, everybody in the
(26:11):
conservative move kind of knew that she's a little bit
out there and has to say the least, you know,
they could. They kind of discounted her. I mean, I
think the press on the left tend to overstate her importance.
She's not that important, you know, her sending emails to
people and so on and so forth. The thing that
really bothers me about Justice Thomas is the financial stuff.
(26:32):
It's really really very troublesome. And if you remember, you
go back to the the late sixties, early right in
nineteen sixty nine, I think, or nineteen sixty nine, ers
nineteen seventy, I mean Justice Fortis Abe for Abe Forest
Abe fortis right, and he, you know, he accepted some
money for I think it was like an honorarium. It
(26:53):
wasn't even that much money. Even if you if you,
if you, even if you scale it up by inflation,
I don't think it would get you a two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars RV today. Maybe it would, I
don't know, but you know, the Nixon administration went to
Chief Justice Warren and said we're going to prosecute this.
And Earl Warren and his colleagues went to Fordest saying
you need to resign, and they made him resign. And
(27:13):
there was who was who appointed him, Fortis Fortest was
a Johnson appointee and he was eventually he actually I
think it was a yeah, he was. It was a
Johnson appointee, and you know, in close to President Johnson,
and and you know, Nixon and his people saw an
opportunity to get a seat on the court, and at
that point in time, it was not tolerable for a
(27:35):
justice to take that kind of take money from somebody
who had a case in a lower court somewhere. It
wasn't even there wasn't even a direct conflict. And you know,
if you applied the fordest standard today, Thomas would be gone.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
George Conway, if you're enjoying this conversation, tell a friend
and be sure to follow. Here's the thing on the
iHeartRadio app, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. When
we come back, George Conway shares why he made a
rather large donation to the Biden victory Fund. I'm Alec
(28:26):
Baldwin and you're listening to Here's the thing. I spoke
with George Conway just days before Trump's hush money trial
in New York City reached a verdict. Conway's opinions hold
significant weight from many conservatives. I wanted to know if
there was ever anyone He provided his stamp of approval
for that.
Speaker 2 (28:46):
He later regretted Donald Trump. Okay, I mean you know, judiciary, No,
I don't. I don't think so, I don't. I mean
I never you know, I don't. I don't think you
know when you don't know exactly how it's reading tea
leaves And I think I've supported most of all of
(29:07):
the Republican nominees, and I don't really have issues with
I don't think that I have issues with Democratic nominees either.
I would I would be you know, my view would
be if if the person's qualified and selected by the president,
unless they have views that are so extreme that they
can't be acceptable in the normal course of of what
(29:29):
we see in constitutional discussion, I would vote for you know,
I would have voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I would
have voted for Sonya Soto my R. I don't think
there are any of these people who have been nominated.
The only one I ever opposed was Harriet not that,
not that you know, not that my seal of endorsement matters.
(29:51):
I was just a guy, you know, practicing law in
New York. But the one time I ever I did
think that someone was not qualified to be on the
Supreme Court was when President George W. Bush nominated Harriet
Myers to become a Supreme Court justice. She was his
White House counsel. And there was just no evidence that
she knew anything, you know, that she had any while
(30:12):
you know, she was a member of the bar, she
was a member of a big law firm in Dallas,
you know. But when you looked up at things she
had written, it was shocking that she could not really
express herself. She hadn't really litigated, as far as I
could tell that much. And she it turned out that
they withdrew her, not because of the opposition among conservatives
(30:34):
and others to her nomination. She couldn't be prepped. She
could hold a lot of jobs, but being on the
Supreme Court, she was not qualified for that.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
As we learned when I was at GW study in
political science with one of our professors said they were
very kind and respectful toward each other. So the worst
thing you could say is the Senator would say, I
have the least amount of higher regard from my colleague
from Virginia. And now, in the time we have left,
I want to obviously go into the Carville Madelon nature
(31:03):
of your life and so you're in that rarefied sphere.
And where did you meet her? Where did you first meet?
Speaker 2 (31:10):
We met it out in the Hampton's one time. God
it was doomed. No, we had twenty good years.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Yeah, No, I'm well aware of how many kids. You
guys have four four kids, that's great, that's great now.
But when you're there and you're going through that process,
and I see this to you, and I don't know you,
but I mean i've actually I see you on TV
all the time, and what I was really intrigued about
you is a is your evolution. You've evolved over time,
And no.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
I don't really think I've evolved that much. I think
that everyone else kind of evolved in a bad direction.
I don't think. I don't think my views on substantive
issues or my temperament has changed really for a very
long time. I just think that what I react to
is what I would have reacted to if it happened
(31:58):
ten years ago or twenty years ago, I'd be where
I am.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
But these two points go hand in hand to me,
which is that a while ago, we talked about Trump
and his nature and I thought to myself, how does
Trump maintain his support? And they are key business people,
billionaires with no obstructions to their giving, and they can
just pump all the money and they can buy Trump
the White House, and they want Trump in there because
unlike other conservative or Republican presidential administrations, they look like
(32:25):
what Trump will provide them is beyond their wildest dreams.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
But I think they're mistaken, and I make this point regularly.
I think that the reason why the United States of
America has as strong an economy as it still has
is its stability. It's political stability and the rule of law.
And I think that these people who think that well,
(32:49):
Trump is good for them because they might get capital
gains taxes are being very very short sighted. They're being
morally they're morally bereft, but they're all so being very
economically and politically shortsighted because I think that Trump, if
he's elected, will create political disorder. I think the country
will become ungovernable, ungovernable and vulnerable to you know, I
(33:14):
mean capital flight and human capital and financial capital flight.
And I don't think that's good for the economy. And
that's I think people underestimate that.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Do you ever think you could be you? You could find
it in your soul to donate money. You give a
very large donation to who was the nine hundred and
thirty two thousand dollars donations is coming out of my kids.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Drust nine and twenty nine thousand, six hundred. But who's
counting to the Biden Victory Fund, which is is an
amalgamation of the Biden campaign and various the National Democrats.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
Ate supporting that kind of work. I maybe not him personally.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
No, I mean no, I support I Look, I mean
I disagree with him on many issues. I think if
you gave me a policy menu, checklist, and where I
come out would be different on a lot of things,
although frankly in foreign policy, I think he's actually done
a pretty good job. But the different that the thing
about it is is that the difference is between the
danger that I think is presented by his opponent is
(34:14):
is so great that I think there's there there's it's
a binary choice between those two, and I think there's
there's only one choice for the survival of the of
this democracy.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
You're excellent to law school, Yes, yeah, so I g
w yes.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
So.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
My my joke is that your kids who are in
the other room reading and doing their homework, and you
and she are at the kitchen table arguing, and you're
whipping out all these law books to each other.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
No, No, it was never like that. We agree. You know,
if on a lot of things we agree and we
still agree, it's just that I I just think that
I just think that Trump has drawn people off course
and and and that's not you know that, that's not
I don't want to get into the personal stuff. But
that's not that's not that's not what that story is about.
(34:58):
Maybe she feels that I don't know on substance issues,
I don't know that we disagree that much. And I
don't understand how people who I otherwise might agree with
can justify supporting someone who tried to overturn the Constitution
of the United States, to give one minor example. But again,
(35:18):
that's just I think that a lot of Republicans just
went off the rails and they're just forgetting first principles
and and they're just they've they've allowed partisanship to basically
consume them. And I was, you know, I was a
Republican because Republicans. Republicans tended to support things they've they
(35:40):
more closely approximated my views. Okay, And that's why you
vote for candidates. So you try to figure out who's
going to do what you think most likely comports with
where you are, and you may change your mind because
you don't know everything and these people actually know more
than you. But that's what that's what you do. But
then when you have also you know, there's just how
(36:01):
can you support some somebody who's just so bad because
that you being bad morally affects how you govern. And
that's another aspect of Trump is it's just I don't
know how you know, people with the complete lack of
moral character of Donald Trump should not be in public life, period.
(36:21):
And that's my view, and I don't care, you know,
I'd say that of a Democrat. I'd say that of anybody.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
Listen, Being a Democrat is not an easy road to
hoe these days, because it's like, if Biden wins, which
is looking dicey, but if Biden wins, then he drops
out mid term. I mean, I know a lot of people,
let's cut the bullshit. I know a lot of people
who are terrified by the idea of Harris becoming the president.
They don't think she's ready for that at all, and
they're worried that with the Biden things, they don't want
(36:48):
to vote for Biden because if it doesn't make it
all the way she becomes president. This is very nervous
about that. Does that make any sense to you without
any of you making any assessments about her.
Speaker 2 (36:58):
I'm not going to make an assessment about her, I think.
Speaker 1 (37:00):
But you see how people feel that way.
Speaker 2 (37:02):
I think it's nuts you do, right, because basically anybody
is going to be better than Donald Trump. Right, I'd
vote for you over over Donald Trump. I mean that
enough money in it? There's not enough money. I got
I need a lot of money.
Speaker 1 (37:18):
But the other thing I want to ask you that
if we're getting off to think about your wife and everything,
is that So here we are in late May of
the election year. How are things looking right now? I'm
not saying you have to call it, but the election. Yeah, well,
I'm fully confident. I've been saying this.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
This is not something I just pulling out at one
fifty eight pm today as I think Trump's going to
blow it. I think the way that the Biden people
will beat Trump is to make him the issue. And
Trump cannot help but make himself the issue. And basically
there's a feedback loop where you just basically you point
out this man is nuts, he's psycho, and you point
out the crazy things that he does that makes him mad,
(37:55):
and it makes him say and do crazier things. And
then you point that out and I think that's actually
what what they're going to try to do in this
debate that they've agreed to at the end of June.
I think that Biden people completely get the psychology of
Donald Trump, and I think they have not. They are beginning.
You can see signs of what they're doing. It's going
to be I think the way you beat Donald Donald
(38:15):
Trump is basically conduct the campaign as a syop, and
he manipulate his brain and he's very He's so manipulable.
He's uncontrollable, but he is manipulable as his own people
find out. They try to manipulate them, but they can't
control them. And so what you do is you can
manipulate him into being out of control.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
So with the Supreme Court basically punting the January sixth trials,
or at least for them, think the Supreme Court wants
him to be president, obviously, No, I think.
Speaker 2 (38:45):
A lot of people are overreading what the Supreme Court
did there. I don't think that's what they're doing. I
think I would have preferred them to have taken a
different course, namely not to have taken this case. But
I think they really do. They really are looking at
this in sort of an apt academic way, and they're saying, okay, well,
there are some things obviously that a president can be
prosecuted for, but there have to be limits, because what
(39:09):
if I don't know, what if a Republican Congress were
elected and along with President Biden reelected, and the Republican
Congress pas some bill and somehow managed to get it
over the president's veto. This is a wild hypothetical. It
would never happen. Where it said that if the president
didn't propose a balanced budget by January one every year,
(39:30):
I'm just making something up. You know, he shall go
to jail, you know after his term. You know, there
are just some things that you could you could just
see crazy laws that would be that could be passed,
and crazy the applications of existing laws that could have
had that would that would impinge upon the Article two duties.
Speaker 1 (39:47):
What hush hush money.
Speaker 2 (39:49):
Oh he's going down, you think, so, yeah, he's going down?
Really yeah?
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Wrong.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
But you can get people in here who were so
I'm not saying this to flatter you. You can get
people here who are less influential than you are, and
they're so cagy.
Speaker 2 (40:02):
They're like, well, you know, look, I look, I mean,
I'm not I'm not saying when I say that, I
accept the risk that you can't predict what twelve you're
Michael are going to do in a room. But to
unpack my I think he's going down is I just
think it's highly likely that they're going to be a
conviction on some are all of the thirty four counts.
(40:23):
And I think there's only a small possibility but not
non zero, I mean ten twenty percent maybe that that
there could be a hung jury. I don't think there
is any chance that there would be all out acquittal, right, Okay,
So that's what I mean when I say you know
he's going down, I think it's like, Okay, I think
that you know. I'm going to the Rangers game tonight.
I think the Rangers are going to win, but you
(40:44):
know who.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Knows my Thanks to George Conway. Here's the Thing is
recorded at CDM Studios. This episode was produced by Kathleen Russo,
Zach MacNeice, and Maureen Hoban. Our engineer is Frank Imperial.
Our social media manager is Daniel Gingrich. Hi'm Alec Baldwin.
(41:07):
Here's the Thing is brought to you by iHeart Radio.
Host
Alec Baldwin
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.