The thing to remember is, and the point I make to is like, he's been charged 91 felony counts in four different cases. Any combination, a conviction on any combination of those counts virtually could put him in jail the rest of his life. They don't have to win. They don't have to go. 91 for 91. These prosecutors.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to George Conway explains it all to Sarah. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the bulwark. And because I am not a lawyer, I have asked my good friend George Conway from the Society for the rule of law to explain the legal news to me. And we bring it to you roughly every week. How you doing, George?

I'm good. How are you?

It's very nice to be in person.

Yeah, absolutely.

Do you ever read the comments on YouTube?

No. Should I?

I don't. Well, they're just all about how handsome you are. Yeah. And I'm always like, I'm right here, guys, sitting right know.

Look, we all would dress similarly today.

I don't know who that's bad for.

I am.

Okay, whatever. So here's the deal.

Okay, the deal.

We are recording this on Wednesday, which means it is the day after the New Hampshire primary.

Yes.

And so politics are on my mind. I know we have to talk about real legal stuff. Politics are on my mind.

It sounds like a good song. Politics on my mind.

What is it, Georgia on my mind?

Yeah, something like that. New Hampshire on my mind. Okay.

New Hampshire is on my mind.

All right.

But also. So Ron DeSantis dropped out of the republican primary over the weekend. Yeah, I know. You've already forgotten about him, right, Ron?

What? Okay.

Long gone.

Long gone.

But it's.

I don't think. Is it technically possible to drop out of something you never really were in?

Well, so this is what I want to talk about. I don't know if you remember this, but I was doing focus groups at the end of 2022 and early 2020.

Imagine wearing those boots.

No.

And then just not getting any delegates.

Well, did you see there's a video.

And not even making it to the. Making it. Not even making it through the first primary. Sad. I feel bad for him.

No, I don't. But the number of people who were Ron DeSantis, curious. In the beginning of 2023, he was the obvious front runner, so much so that I think lots of people didn't run. They were like, ron DeSantis.

Oh, no. They were treating him as like he was the next. He was going to knock everybody out. The young guy and strapping, young ass kicking guy from Florida.

That's right.

I mean, I have a close friend who was like big budies with DeSantis and is always talking how great DeSantis was. And my reaction to him was, and this was even before I knew how bad a politician DeSantis was. Unless you have a one on one race against Donald Trump and you're willing to go at him hammer and tongue, it's a pointless exercise. And even if you go after him hammer and tongue, you might not win anyway, because people don't want to admit that they were wrong and they want to double down. A lot of them want to double down on Trump. And even if you win the nomination, it's not like Trump's just going to go away and say, congratulations, the best man won. I endorse you and I urge all of my supporters to go out and vote for you. I mean, if Nikki Haley runs away with a majority of the delegates, do you think he's going to say, I'm not going to call you, I'm sorry for calling you bird brain. I support you. It's a lose lose proposition for anybody to have run against.

This was always my argument about why it would be Trump is that the party was eventually going to realize he could walk with not half the party, but with like a solid 35% that would follow him anywhere and he would just burn the whole thing down because he doesn't care about.

And that's actually been part of his power over the republican party for the last several years. They know he's willing to torch the place down.

Yes.

So they have to be nice to him.

But here's the thing that was interesting to me about when DeSantis dropped out, suddenly there was a bunch know there are a lot of the anti antis, as we like to call them, in the commentariat, they were blaming.

I think they're anti, anti, anti antis.

And they're the worst. It's tough to follow that. But there was this line of thinking that it wasn't DeSantis's fault, it was Alvin Bragg's fault. That that was when DeSantis started dropping like a stone because Trump got indicted in the Stormy Daniels case. And it had this effect of, like, the rally around Trump effect happened. And DeSantis sort of said this, too. He tried to make this as an excuse that it was the legal cases, it was the fact that Trump was being indicted that was leading to nobody else being able to sort of get anywhere with this. Do you think? No, you don't think?

Please tell me think, and I think don't. I think the problem was they saw Ron DeSantis. I think the problem was that all of these people decided to attack each other instead of Donald Trump. I mean, this has always been the prisoner's dilemma problem of the republican party over the last. Nobody actually wants to go out and tell the truth about this guy because they don't want to be out there standing alone when all the other people around them chicken out. You have to have a pact where everybody goes in and does it all together, but they're not capable of doing that because they're not trustworthy. They can't trust each other. And the other problem is we have the same dynamic as we were just talking about, that there were so many alternatives to trump that all he had to do is sit back and let. They did exactly what they did to each other. A different group did to each other in 2016. It was a demolition derby and everybody, and Trump gets a pass. And Trump even engineered it by not showing up to any of these debates. I would have advised them not to show up to any of the debates.

Let them all trash each other.

That's what's crazy. It actually seems like Trump learned a lot from 2016, like that he didn't need to show up to the debates.

Well, he needed to show up in the debates in 2016 because he wasn't this time.

Of course, he knew that they could stand there and drive up each other's negatives. Didn't seem like the other candidates learned anything.

No, they didn't learn anything because they all wanted to be the alternative to Trump. And that's what happened last time. Know, Trump got ahead a little bit and then everybody just sort of like, they wanted to make it a one on one. And the problem was it never became a one on one quickly enough. Now it is a one on one before Super Tuesday, unlike what happened eight years ago. But he's got so much the base locked in already. They didn't have that in 2016. So they needed to do this earlier, they needed to eliminate each other earlier, and they needed to go in at him like Christie did all at once. They just never did that. And I think even if they had done that, I think there's just a ceiling to what they could have accomplished because these people out there don't want to admit they're wrong. And also, there was this article, I'm sure you saw it in Politico by Michael Cruz just the other day, about how interviewing one voter and this one voter who was military colonel, was it, I think Marine Corps or army, I don't remember. And he's a reasonably well off GOP voter in New Hampshire.

And basically the upshot is he wants to destroy the country.

It's like burn it all down.

Burn it all know, and Trump is the right candidate for that. I mean, his view is, I mean, it is a very nihilistic mentality. It's just like he doesn't like, there's nothing in particular that he gets that upset about. I mean, maybe immigration, maybe this, but he's really just mad at the forces that he thinks controls the country, that control the country. And he wants to take those people down. And he doesn't care. I mean, he basically admitted he doesn't care if that hurts him. At the same just, it's just inconceivable to me that people can think that way.

I don't do a lot of comic book references, but Bane in the Batman movies, is it bane? Is that who, I mean, who just says some people just like to watch the world burn about the feels that feels right. And this idea that people are just, and I hear this in the focus groups all the time where you say, like, well, how do you think things are going in the country? And it's not that they're wrong track or I don't like, it's like we're losing the country. The country is over. It is the level of catastrophizing. Then you look around and you think, stock market all time, the economy is bouncing back. We've moved on from COVID Is it?

Everybody has a cell phone. Everybody has, you don't hear about the people don't want to launch another war on poverty like they did in the 60s because we don't have as much of it. We just don't know. People are pretty well off in this country compared. And if you look back at human history, we have it as good as anybody has ever had it in terms of material wealth. I just think people are just, maybe that's the problem. That's the problem. I mean, Tom Nichols point is, like, everybody's bored, and it's not an exciting life to watch tv, go home, go to work in the morning, go home, watch tv, watch Fox News. But Fox News gives everybody, I guess, some kind of outlet where they can feel like we're in a battle with somebody. And that's exciting. It gets people's juices flowing.

All right? So I want to get the whole thing with DeSantis and the idea of that somehow Alvin Bragg was the cause and not his catastrophic candidacy and or bad strategy. It got me thinking about the election going forward and how the criminal trials are going to impact it. Because in focus groups with two time Trump voters, a lot of people said, like, a conviction isn't going to change how they think about Trump. And some of them, the ones who really love him, said it made them want to vote for him even more. So, in terms of perception, with his base, criminal convictions don't hurt Trump at all and might help him. But criminal convictions aren't just about perceptions. They have real consequences, like prison. Prison, potentially. So, first, I want to ask you, what is Trump's 30,000 foot strategy for the criminal stuff? Is he trying to run out the clock in hopes of being president again before he's convicted of anything like big picture?

Well, Trump is not a strategizer. I mean, the point I've been trying to make to a lot of people is he personally doesn't have a strategy, okay. Because he is a short term thinker. He's a sociopath, he's impulsive, but he has certain instincts that come into play. And one of the instincts is if something, you put off something bad and delay. And that's something he's learned in engaging in decades of litigation, mostly against him, but also, he wants to basically freeze everything, but also play the victim at the same time. And those are just instincts. I don't think there's much of a strategy there, because if he had actually been thinking about what he was doing when he does things, he wouldn't have taken the documents to Mar a Lago. He would have just given them back. He's not capable of thinking more than a step ahead. But I think that what he is capable of doing is he understands that he doesn't want to be convicted, and he understands that if he's president again, the convictions may not stand, or at least the sentences could not be enforced against him, at least while he is sitting in the Oval Office.

Okay, so there's going to be four criminal trials against Trump this year, right?

Well, four are currently scheduled. Whether they all go off is a fair question, but yes.

All right, let me see if I can get through this. So one is the DC election interference case, which is Jack Smith's case. That's a federal case. Right. One is the Florida, like you just mentioned, the confidential documents case, which is also by Jack Smith. Also a federal case, correct. Jack Smith is very busy.

He is a very busy man. Yes.

I had not quite realized he was doing both. Okay.

He's a very special special counsel.

Okay. And then one is the hush money case in Manhattan.

That's the Alvin Bragg case.

All right. New York state case. And then one is the Georgia RICo case. Okay. So I'm going to probably ask you to do a deep dive into all these cases as those trials get going. But for now, let me just ask you about the trial timeline. So which trial is going to go first and how has that get decided?

Well, I don't have my calendar in front of me, but DC election interference trial is scheduled to go on March 4. I don't think that's necessarily going to happen because of the delay that has been caused by Trump's assertion of presidential immunity. And I think we talked about in a prior episode how that was argued in the DC circuit now, two weeks ago. I think it's possible that if the decision comes down this week, the trial could occur in March or maybe early April. It could get delayed further, though. If Trump is successful in, he's going to lose in the DC circuit. I'm pretty confident, based on the argument, it could get delayed further if Trump tries to take it to the Supreme Court, which he absolutely will try. And the question is whether the Supreme Court will bother to take it. And if they do, then they in all likelihood decide the immunity issue, which isn't a hard issue, to my mind, by June. And then you'd end up with a trial, probably. My guess would be August. I don't remember what the trial date is for the Florida documents case, but you just get the feeling that the judge is putting that on a slow boat, and she hasn't postponed the trial date.

I think it's sometime in the summer. But you just get the feeling she's not all that anxious to push the case, and she's doing things that people read as potentially slowing the case down. But we'll see. The Bragg case, I think, is sometime in April. And then the question is, is that going to interfere with any of the other cases? And it may or may not, depending on what happens in the DC circuit with the immunity case and the Georgia case, it's also scheduled to go sometime this year. But that's a much more complicated case. And so it's not clear that that's going because it's a RICO case. It involves so many defendants, although quite a number of them have pleaded, and they're working on delay, trying to delay that. And there's this little controversy that Fonnie Willis stepped into with hiring her boyfriend to be a prosecutor in that case.

Which wasn't, side note, can we talk about that really quickly? Why would one, do.

He, you know, I don't think it was a thing where she's trying to reward him and I'm just guessing for his love, shall we say. My guess is she wanted somebody she could trust and she felt close to this man and can trust him and that he's a good lawyer. Problem is, it looks bad. The other problem is he doesn't really have a prosecutorial pedigree. He's a very good civil lawyer, and he's done, from what I can tell, from what he's done, from the work that they produced, including and especially the extensive indictment, they're doing a good job. And nobody has said he's not. But that said, it looks bad because it looks like it's nepotism. I mean, far be it for Donald Trump to be critical of that, but he will. But I don't think anything. I mean, these all raise issues about public administration and about the ethics of maintaining, not engaging in, mixing personal and professional. But it's got nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the. I don't, nobody that I have talked to can see how it can possibly help the defendants legally. It may help them politically in some sense, because it gives them something to bash Fonny Willis with.

On the other mean, this thing could just go away because it's not clear that it's even relevant to the divorce case that Wade is involved with because there's an agreement already he had with his ex spouse. They've been separated for three years. And it's just unclear why all of a sudden this got resurrected or got put on the radar screen, other than. I don't know, other than politics, knowing.

Nothing about it, other than really what you just told me and what I've read. I do. It drives me crazy when people just.

Got a big job, a big important.

Thing to do, why muck it up with something that's deeply important in this moment? All right, but back to the calendar you were just doing. If I heard you correctly, it sounded like the case most likely to move is the Alvin Bragg case, which I don't even think you and I have discussed that. Would you agree that that's the weakest from a. The offense is just kind of like everyone's like, okay, the guy paid off a porn star.

Yeah. I mean, it is a not, it doesn't have as much oomph as some of the other offenses, like stealing classified documents containing nuclear secrets and trying to overthrow the constitution of the United States, it looks pretty trivial.

Those are bad.

Yeah, those are bad. Those are bad in my book. But paying off the porn star and then creating false books and records, that is a crime under New York law. I mean, you are not allowed to create false books and records. Even if you have a privately owned family company, you're not allowed to do. You know, what happened here was they created false records in the books of the Trump corporation, but it was also an effort to cover up from the public what this man was about. So it was, in a sense, kind of a low level election interference case. You could call it that. But it pales in comparison to the other stuff. I mean, it is something, though, that the Justice Department should, to my mind, should have brought on January 21, 2021. But they did not. They brought a case against. Once upon a time, they brought a case against John Edwards. John Edwards had a baby and a baby mama, and he got some old lady donor to give money to support the baby mama, and he was prosecuted for that. Now, he was acquitted, but people say that he was acquitted because the old lady who gave him the money was sold.

She couldn't testify, and there were gaps of proof. But the fact is, they charged a crime because you're not allowed to create in that case, that was a federal election. Those were donations to the campaign, because they were done for purposes of advancing his candidacy or preventing something from derailing his candidacy. And you could make that same. That same argument could have been made about Trump.

Okay. But again, so just on the timeline, it doesn't sound like there would be a conviction in anything before the convention in July.

I'm not certain of that. I think it's possible I could work out a timeline for the election interference case in DC that would get that case to trial before the conventions.

Okay, tell me what that would be.

Okay. What would be. Would be that this afternoon, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will just hypothetically affirm Judge Chuckin's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss on grounds of presidential immunity. They could then say that the mandate, which is the order that they issue, saying this judgment shall take effect immediately. They could issue an order saying that the judgment is affirmed and the mandate shall issue immediately, in which case that would lift the stay of proceedings in the district court and cause things to happen, like all the Supreme Court. Well, he could. He could. But here's the rub, is that he wants to stop the proceedings in the district court. And if the DC Circuit issues a mandate saying that the judgment is affirmed and essentially lifts the stay, they're off to the races in the district court, unless Trump goes somewhere and gets someone else to stop it. And there is two places he can go. One is to the full DC circuit. On bonk? On bonk, yes. And the other is to the Supreme Court of the United States. He could easily lose those stay applications. I think what would happen most likely is that the Supreme Court would enter a stay, or maybe even the DC circuit could enter a stay until the disposition of a petition for Sergea Rarei.

If the petition is filed by X date, which is what happened, essentially, in the Colorado case, which forced Trump to file a quick cert petition to the Supreme Court, which is why that case is moving like the speed of light. That same thing could happen in the immunity case. And if the court were to deny cert, you could see basically trial proceedings recommencing, assuming that the PC circuit ruled today in a couple of weeks or three weeks. And if that were true, then you'd probably get another month of delay, basically, to make up for January and part of December. And the case could get tried in May or June.

Okay.

Or April. May or June. So I think it's possible. I don't think we know. It really depends on how quickly the DC circuit rules. And I actually would thought they would have ruled by now, or they could rule any day now. And whether the Supreme Court wants to take the case, that's fundamentally two things. But the one thing the Supreme Court cannot do, because it would get roasted, it would be to take the case on some kind of a slow track, such that it would be argued in the fall, in which case you'd never get a trial before the election. Yeah, that's just not going to happen, because they're going to understand there's a fire that's going on in the district court. This thing is ready for trial, and they certainly don't want to look like they're trying to delay things for Trump.

But I've always wondered this. What if they take the opposite view, which is not that delaying it makes it look like they're helping Trump, but that they decide to delay it because they think we cannot rule on this before an election, because we don't want to interfere.

They can't do that. Their job is to decide cases, and they're not going to put this off. It's just inconceivable to me that they would do that. And I think the perfect example of that is it's illustrated by the 14th amendment case, which is going to be argued on February eigth. Now, that said, I mean, the 14th amendment case is a little different. This disqualification case is different because the argument for expedition is that state election officials need to know the answer to this question because they're printing ballots and they're printing ballots for Super Tuesday, although I don't know whether this decision is going to be able to affect that. But there are still going to be some primaries left over going into April, and we need resolution for the fall since he probably is going to be the republican nominee. Almost certainly going to be the Republican.

Certainly going to be, I mean, literally, unless a health event, I think, barring a health event. But you just said something that I don't know why this keeps reoccurring to me. That is four criminal cases, two civil cases, and then there's also the cases of, like, can he be on the.

Ballot or mean the civil cases? Which civil cases you think of? You think of, E. G. Carol, which.

Is a Trump organization.

Yeah, but there's another one, too.

What's the other one?

There is a case called ACN. And ACN was this multi level marketing.

Scheme like Trump University.

Basically what it was is it was advertised on the Apprentice. And basically you send in money, and then they're supposed to teach you how to get money, make money. But the way they make money is they just keep taking the mean. It's like a chain. So that was a fraud. And the same lawyer who brought the E. Jean Carroll case, my friend Robbie Kaplan is the plaintiff's lawyer in that case. Why is very interesting now, because the litigation takes a long time. This case was brought in. I think it was brought before 2017 or 2018 because it was brought before the E. Jean Carroll story came out. And it's actually how I met Robbie Kaplan. I saw the complaint in this. It was a RICO, it was originally charged as a RICO case or alleged as a RICO case. And I was very impressed with the complaint. And I then went back and I looked at the various news articles that were written about it. And so for the life of me, I don't understand why federal prosecutors didn't get involved in that one. All right. It's just outright fraud, three civil, four.

Criminal, and one that I'll call procedural.

It's not for liability, but it's for all the marbles, whether he gets to.

Be on the, and then they have these tentacles of the immunity and all these other things that end up in their own. You can forgive voters for feeling like the legal stuff is white noise.

Yeah, because there's just so much of it. It's overwhelming much.

And one of the things you said this earlier, and it struck, the thing.

To remember is, and the point I make to is like he's been charged with 91 felony counts in four different cases. Any combination, a conviction on any combination of those counts virtually could put him in jail the rest of his life. They don't have to go 91 for 91.

These prosecutors, not the Alvin Bragg case, though, would he go to jail for that?

Is potentially, yes.

Okay, well, then what happens if he goes to jail? Or what happens if he's convicted, given a sentence of jail time and he's.

Present the United States, the sentence would not be, I don't think you could execute the sentence. I don't think you could put him in. Mean, there's a history here of, there are these memos written by the Justice Department's office of legal Counsel, which is basically the legal brains of the Justice Department, where they think about hard issues and they give advice to the president and give advice to other people in the executive branch. And in the Nixon administration, the question came up, could a president be indicted? And also it came up in the Clinton administration. And both the Nixon and Clinton administration justice departments wrote memos saying, no, you can't. And the argument is that you can't criminally prosecute the president of the United States because you can't prevent him from being president. The proper remedy is to impeach and remove him, and then you can prosecute him. Now, I'm not sure that's completely correct, because I think just in the same way that you can bring civil cases that was shown by the Paula Jones case against the president, if they don't have sufficient connection to his office. I don't know why you can't actually bring a criminal case, but I think it's pretty clear.

I think it's pretty clear you couldn't incarcerate him because if you incarcerated him, either pretrial or after sentencing, after a conviction, you would prevent him from doing his job, and that would violate article two of the Constitution. So I think he's got a pretty good argument that even if he were in lockup, a federal or state lockup on January 20 for breakfast, if he won the election, he'd have to be sprung at noon.

That's why he's running.

Of course it is. And in fact, in fact, Maggie Haverman reported a few times in 2019 and 2020 that one of the reasons why he ran for reelection was because he wanted to make sure that nobody could prosecute him?

Yeah.

I mean, this is a man who would never admit his guilt, but knows that he's at risk. He's always known that he has risk. And this goes back to, I mean, a story that haunts me is about two days before the inauguration, I was on a plane, it was the Trump plane, and there were four people in the cabin. There was the president elect of the United States, hope Hicks, my then wife and me. And we're just sitting like, I was sitting about this far from the president elect, and he asked me this question. He goes, should I fire the US attorney of the Southern District of New York, replace him? Who is pre barra? And my answer was, well, I mean, generally speaking, it's better to have your people in positions of power than not. I mean, I just was giving just a generic answer. We want people who are going to be, if you have some kind of a priority, and I'm thinking here of a prosecutorial priority of some sort, like a legitimate one, I guess it would be better to have your own person in there. Although I didn't elaborate on this, I mean, the practice is mixed on whether or not people stay on from administration to administration in the US attorney's office.

And there's a special kind of aspect to the US attorney's office in the southern District of New York is that it considers itself kind of independent of everybody and independent of the Justice Department. The joke in the Justice Department, I learned when I was contemplating going into the Justice Department in 2017, was they call it the sovereign District of New York. But that said, there have been lots of circumstances where new presidents replace us attorneys, not because they think they're going to be charged in any particular district, but in this case, years later, I realized this guy had something on his mind. Why did he care so much about that, about that district? It wasn't just hometown.

Did he fire preet? Yeah, I forgot about that.

He did, one of the first podcasts I ever did was with preet.

Did you tell him that story?

Absolutely, I did.

Oh, yeah. Was he mad at.

I mean, he understood why I said what I said. I didn't say he should fire him. I said all other things. I did it the way the economists do. Cetera parabis. I said, all other things being equal. Yeah, all other things being equal. You'd rather have your own person somewhere important.

I would spend the rest of the time talking about just what else happened on that plane.

That's the only thing I remember. Yeah, that's the only thing I remember. The only other thing I remember, the rest of it was just, I don't know whether there was much talking. I remember taking a selfie and the kind of things that you do when you're riding on a big 757 where the guy is about to be sworn in as president of the United States.

Yeah, I don't know. That's never happened to me.

No, I don't think it's going to.

Invite me their private.

It's never going to happen to me again. It was unique.

So what's the difference? If Trump's convicted in one of the state cases for the federal cases, does that have any bearing on what we just talked about?

No, I don't think that a state could incarcerate a president of the United States while he is president.

Okay.

The only difference would be that as president, he can fire the federal prosecutors. He has that power, but I don't think he'd even need to do that. He certainly will, but he can't fire the state prosecutors. But I do think in either situation, if he's incarcerated, found, if he's convicted and incarcerated by either state authorities or federal authorities, they'd have to spring him at noon on January 20, 2025. Wild.

It all feels so unprecedented because we've never had a president try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power before. Like, we've never had a.

He's got 91 problems. I won't say the rest of it.

But the base ain't one. But I have to keep reminding myself that it is. Jay Z. I have to keep reminding myself that it is not uncommon for government officials to prison.

Absolutely.

And no one says we're a banana Republican. Rod Blagovich.

Yeah. I mean, this guy is a, I mean, I made the same point about the Ukraine situation. Right, Ukraine. He basically, he's got these federal funds that he is required by law. The spending authorization has been made, and he was required to disperse military aid, security aid to Ukraine, and he ordered that it be all held. And he strongly intimated, as we all infamously, and as we know, in the perfect phone call, he basically said, hey, listen, you can do me a favor. Quid pro quo. And the point I always made about that is if a state official had done that with federal highway funds in order to encourage a prosecution or some kind of a negative action to be taken against a political rival, I mean, this is a hypothetical I would think of. Let's say you're the governor of Longwell state. Oh, that's a great. And in the Capitol, the Capitol also named Longwell has a mayor named Joe. And the governor wants to. Joe decides to run for governor, and his successor as mayor takes over. And the governor then says, I'm not going to give you those highway funds unless you announce you're conducting an investigation into bad acts of your predecessor.

Same thing that would not stand in the state of Longwell. The US attorney for the district of Longwell would convene a grand jury, and in the Longwell Times, and the next morning they'd be saying, people have received grand jury subpoenas, the governor, Blah, Blah's office, and we'd be off to the races.

It's like a Malkovich, Malkovich, Malkovich. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah.

All right. Now that I'm telling stupid jokes, it's probably me. Time to go.

I had my stupid joke. 91 charges and something isn't one.

The base ain't won.

Yeah. Base ain't one.

Okay, so anything we should be looking out for this coming week in the well.

Okay, so what's going on this week is we're awaiting the DC circus decision in the immunity case. We are also watching the weird situation in Georgia involving Fonnie Willis. And the E. Jean Carroll trial has been delayed because nobody knows exactly why, but there was a sick juror who had symptoms of COVID and nobody has said that anybody has Covid, but the supposition is that there's somebody in that courtroom got know. But it's been day to day. They've been delaying each day. Probably going to get kicked over till next week because it's like what the CDC guidelines are, like five days or something like that. I don't know. And the real issue then is that Trump was supposedly going to testify this May. The supposedly court's going to happen tomorrow if they don't kick it again. And he could testify tomorrow. If he does testify tomorrow, that'll be the last thing that happens this week. And then they'll probably charge the jury Monday or Tuesday, and the jury will get the case Monday or Tuesday. We got to have a verdict Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. If there's no court tomorrow, then it'll probably get pushed another day, but we'll see.

Okay, well, I'll look forward to having you explain it all to me then.

Yeah. Hopefully a week from now, we'll have something to talk about.

Sounds great. George Conway.

Thank you, ma'am.

Great to have you here.

Always nice to be here.

Thanks to all of you for joining us for another episode of George Conway explains it all. Don't forget to hit subscribe and we will see you next week.