George Conway: Why impeaching Trump hasn’t worked

We got set up, I think, in less than a day. With very little effort, we could just focus on the supply chain to the product development. Shopify gives us the ability to customize without the complexity. We can change something without introducing fragility or having to pay a developer. We're thirsty total and we leveled up our business with Shopify.

Start your free trial at Shopify.com/au.

Think doesn't America have the appetite for a third impeachment that doesn't have any teeth.

“But look, I mean, I think we don't have a choice.”

I think that the things are going to get worse over the next few months because Trump doesn't isn't going to do anything to make them better using capable of it. And I do think we're going to have also a democratic Senate. And I don't know whether it'll be 52, 53, 54, maybe even more. And when you have control of Senate in that way, you can set the rules.

And the rules this time should be provided for a real trial. Welcome to the Tara Palmeri Show. You know him, George Conway. Once a Republican who cried tears of joy when President Trump won in 2016. Of course, then he was Kellyanne Conway's husband.

Now he's her ex. While he wants to use his prosecutorial skills, the ones he honed in an effort to impeach Bill Clinton in the 1990s to try to impeach President Trump. That's right, the former Federalist Society card carrier who just became a Democrat in December. He is running in the highly competitive New York 12 congressional race.

It spans most of Manhattan and he believes that most Americans, including Trump's own voters, have had it with Trump.

“And that's why it's his moral and civic duty to impeach him.”

But haven't we been down this road before?

This would be the third impeachment attempt.

Plus, doesn't it give Trump some more ammo to run on? They're going to impeach me again. Well, we get into all of this and more in the Kennedy that he's running against. Jack Schlossberg, who's gotten a boost from FX's love story about his deceased Uncle J.F. K. Jr. Take a listen to this episode.

It is an interesting one. And of course, I want to hear your thoughts in the comment section. But first, hit that subscribe button. And here is a moment from our sponsors. Picking the right medical coverage is stressful.

So with you or someone you love is on Medicare, you really need to pay attention here. Because it's confusing at times. And I actually think it's on purpose. Well, chapter has unbiased independent Medicare advisors that are salary-based. They're not looking to waste your time. In fact, they can scan through tons of plans under 20 minutes.

And they'll tell you, it's the one you have, is the right one. Or if you can save money as much as $1100, that's the average that people save. And the best part is it's totally free. It's a great way to find a plan that fits your needs. So for free, and on bias, Medicare help dial 305-515-5237 to speak with my trusted partner,

chapter or go to AskChapter.org/Terrain. Guys, thank you for coming back to the show. We've got George Conway on the line. After a number of misfires trying to send him invites on a sub-stag.

“But here he is. His Chelsea apartment. Is that right?”

No, I'm at my girlfriend's apartment on Central Park West. So that's all I'm going to circle in the background. But, I mean, it's a different view. Sometimes you walk past from there and sometimes that you walk past from here. Love it. Love it. And the heart of New York City.

Thanks for coming on the show to talk about your congressional race and your campaign. Yeah, that's great to have you. I have always thought that you would be an excellent congressional candidate. And I thought you'd be a great Congressman because, you know, we need good lawyers on the hell, right? We need people who come more than ever, now more than ever.

Exactly. And also, just people who can cross examine and do it properly at this time. And I get really frustrated some time, but I'm watching these hearings. Because, yeah, they have sometimes they do, they're like, I don't know. It seems like everything is for a viral moment, but we don't actually get down to the bottom of anything. Right? And it's possible to have a viral moment across examining.

It just takes a little build up. Right. But yeah, and the other problem with congressional hearings, at least in the house,

has always been in the five-minute rule where you're basically only at five minutes

to do something, and so they basically occupy the five minutes by giving speeches. Not sure what can be done about that, because it's just habitual.

witnesses in a way that pins them down, or at least highlights the fact that they're not answering

the questions. I mean, speeches don't do that. I mean, one of the things you learn as a litigator is that the longer you talk, the more the witness can go off in some other direction. And it's also true that I'm sure journalists that get interviews. If you, if you ask a question that's not precise or kind of is open, then you're going to get an open-ended answer, which may be something you want sometimes when

you just want to bring out something that your interviewe will expand on. But if you're trying to pin them down on, yes or no, did you do X? Is X true?

“Did you, you know, had, did you say X? You have to ask that question in the most precise terms,”

and then ask it again until they until they answer on to or until it becomes clear

that for some reason they don't want to answer, which gives you the answer you want, actually. Yeah. And I was sure, and I feel like we needed that last week or the week before that with Epstein's lawyers Richard Con and Darren Indy. When they said that they did pay a settlement to Jane Doe who accused both for Epstein and President Trump of rape. And I feel like they didn't get a, I mean, 10 the lawyers were tracked this. Should they be dragging them back to the house

oversight committee, can they do that at this point? Like, what could they have done better to make sure that they don't know? I confess, I guess I was distracted by events in the Middle East and

from from the Epstein matter, which, that's what they want. That's what they want.

“I didn't really see that episode. So I can't really, I mean, I could just make something”

up, but I'm not going to do that. I'm not that kind of guy. I, you know, I mean, you know, they can, if there's some, if look, if they can, frankly, bring somebody back if they think that there's another question to be asked, and also they can, you know, they can ask more for more documents or something like that. But it should be pretty clear whether or not they paid this woman or not because they'll, they'd have to be a, a paper trail on it. And it's, oh, I mean, I don't

can't admit, if you're paying somebody in a settlement, it's got to be documented. And so I mean, you certainly want to document it because one side gets a release from future assertions of, for damages. And the other side gets money. And, you know, nobody, you know, nobody does cash these days because that would be probably not, that would be questionable. So there's got to be a paper trail. And so if I were a investigator for the House Committee, and they may have

these documents already, I would absolutely be looking for the paper trail to figure out the circumstances under which this money was paid. And that's the only really nail down. Right. Yeah. Well, you professed the obscene case further if you're elected. Absolutely. 100%. You know, I mean, I don't who knows what's going to be front and center in January of 2027 because hopefully there will be more steps

investigating of investigation and more evidence coming out and more revelations between now in January. But, you know, certainly that investigation is worth pursuing not just because of Trump, but because of what it, you know, the damage it has done to so many women. And because it really says something about our society that this was able to be able to happen for so long and that there was, that there was covered up for so long, and that the justice department was

part of the cover up. And that is another aspect of it, too, is like, you know, a lot of what has happened in the Trump administration, Cooley has been driven by this scandal and that deserves to be investigated, too. You know, how, how, what was going on at the Justice Department at various points in time, both when the initial promises were made to produce the materials, and then the 180 was taken. What did they tell Trump? What did they find? And also, what have they

withheld? It's not, you know, they have, I mean, it's, I can't imagine it's ever going to be clear that they produced everything until somebody else gets in there and gets physical access

“to the materials, because they just have no credibility. And that's what, that's really something”

that needs me investigated, how this was handled, particularly in light of fact, if there was a federal statute enacted that required the production of these materials. And they still didn't produce them. So, you know, I mean, I understand it was a big, it was a huge task to produce that amount of material in that short appeared at the time, but they backed themselves up into

in the President and United States signed it, because he had no choice, though that it vetoed

“would have overridden him. And so they, they bought that, they paid for that scandal by their”

incompetence in their, in their malfeasance. And, you know, and Donald Trump deserves everything he's going to get for that. And as well as the people who who surrounded him and have helped him cover this up. And we need to know more about what the deputy attorney general was doing and conducting that interview of, of, of, Elaine Maxwell, and then sending Elaine Maxwell to a co-shere facility. And that that stinks to high heaven. We don't, we don't know what the, we don't

know what the, the internal communications were about that. And he needs to be, we need to see his optimists, the emails, the communications with their lame Maxwell's lawyers, the communications with within the bureau, with the bureau of prisons has to what the rationale was and who said what and who who was told about that. That needs to be fully investigated. I mean, the number, I mean, this is the most corrupted administration in American history in so many ways. I mean, you cannot eat,

it is impossible to count the number of issues that have been raised by everything from the handling of their 747 to the bombing of the people and the Caribbean to the, to the run up to this war, to the Epstein files to be the trading, the trading in advance of his announcements regarding the Iran war. You, you just can go on and on. You could talk for probably list the number of things that need to be investigated for a couple of hours and not get it all straight. And, you know,

“the problem is we're never going to be able to, we have to pick our, I mean, I think Congress isn't”

going to be able to do all of that. I think there probably needs to be some investigated commission at some time in the future, really to go back through this era and document it to show that we can show to the American public in the world that we are capable of self-correction and make a historical record on much in the way that, you know, when bad regimes fall throughout the world, you know, you get the Stasi files and you, you know, we, we, we got the files, some of the files left after

the fall and not see Germany. I mean, there's a full lot here that has gone on and what we see as being corrupt and dangerous and illegal. And we don't know that, we're just, we're just skimming the surface. We just see the tip of the iceberg above the ocean. And there's a lot underneath there that you don't know it's going to take years. And somebody has to do that, but also at the same time, it can all be Congress stepped after after investigations and impeachment and some of the

corrective legislation is done. There still needs to be an ongoing historical analysis and

“investigation and documentation of everything that happened here. And that's, so I, I think that's part”

of the part of what I would push for if elected. First of all, we have to deal with what's happening

now and deal with the corruption now and remove impeach and remove corrupt officials who are committing high crimes and misdemeanors, including the president. And the second is to make sure it doesn't happen again by enacting safeguards, you know, about how that's the part where functions and everything. But this, but impeachment hasn't really worked out in the past. And it hasn't, but, but if this, we have reached a new stage here. I mean, this is where we're dealing with now like a hundred,

with like a hundred Ukraine scandals. We're dealing with so many, it's so much worse now than each first, the situation in 2020 and 2021. If we can't, if we can't exercise the duty and power, the Congress has been given by the framers to remove this, the most corrupted administration in American history, the most violent administration, the most, the president who has most of violated its oath and violated the law. And we don't have a constitution. And, you know, just because

it hasn't worked in the past, it also doesn't mean it's not going to work now because we are starting to see cracks, even Republicans have had enough. And it may well be that it's, it's something like gas prices that drive Republicans say, "Basta." But so be it. We can't give up on this. We, we, we can't blast in month to my mind. 34 more months of what we've had happened over the last 14. He's only

going to get worse. And, you know, the fact that he basically started a war that could take the

global economy without any end in sight and without any plan. And, and without an exit strategy

And, and we can't survive this. I don't see. I just want to get down to, like, brass knuckles. You know, you can impeach in the house with a simple majority, right? But in the Senate for the trial, you need two thirds vote to convict. And I don't think you're going to get that in the Senate.

“I mean, well, I, here's the way I look at it. I, that's why I think does America have the”

appetite for a third impeachment that doesn't have any teeth. Look, I mean, I think we don't have a choice.

Well, I think that the things are going to get worse over the next few months because Trump doesn't, isn't going to do anything to make them better, using capable of it. And I do think we're going to have also a democratic Senate. And, yeah, I don't know whether it'll be 52, 53, 54, maybe even more. And, more, that, when you have control of Senate in that way, you can set the rules. And the rules this time should be provot should provide for a real trial. Not these show arguments,

these poll, you know, these statements on the floor by impeachment managers, where there's politicians giving speeches. But we put on live witnesses. And you can show that they're lying. And you can show how they're being deceptive. And they have to answer the questions. And the Chief Justice, the United States will direct them to answer questions. A trial, a real trial,

“what that's what the framers of the Constitution meant. And that will be, I think, an”

education for the American people who will be suffering from all of the, the deleterious effects of Trump's chaotic policies and his, you know, psychotic policies. Frankly, he's just, he's now just out of his mind. And at that point, we, you know, the trial will show people that this is not the way government is supposed to operate. This is corrupt, they're lying. And, you know, a good

trial presentation is going to basically, I think, flip enough Republicans who will be exhausted

by this, and who will want to rescue their party if they can be. And he has him, J.D. Vance. And, but J.D. Vance, but look, I mean, J.D. Vance is, you know, subject to impeachable offense. He may be impeached too and removed. That's, that's also possible, but also it will have, even if he, he is not, it will have a, a, a, a chilling or a, an effect on everybody else who comes after

“that, you know, we can't, you can't do this. You have to obey the law. You have to obey the”

Constitution. You have to obey your duties in your oath of office. And we need to reassert those standards that we used to accept and take for granted. And if we don't do that, there's no one else to do it. If Congress can't do it, nobody can. And it means the American people will not have the government that they are entitled to under the Constitution, the Ice Age, which is intended structurally to have this as the remedy for a corrupt, uh, administration.

Yeah. I, I, I, I do wonder, you know, as you said to the New York Times that you wanted to be Jamie Raskin's winged man who led the last impeachment, um, are you concerned that you're giving Trump an a message that activates his base when he's not on the ballot? They're going to impeach me. They're going to impeach me. Get off the couch because as we know, midterms are turnout elections. But if the maga base believes that he's going to be impeached based on what you're saying

right now and, and you seem to be in contact with Jamie Raskin, are you concerned that you're giving

him? No, I'm not. And, and again, I don't think, you know, I know there's always a political element

to everything. But I view this as a moral issue and a question of legal duty, not just a members of Congress who take an oath to the Constitution and have an oath, you know, to, uh, who are bound to enforce Article 1 of the Constitution, which provides for their power to impeach and to remove public officials under Article 2. Um, I got some moral obligation, a legal obligation, a constitutional obligation, and for those of us who are not in Congress, it's, it's our civic obligation to, uh,

encourage Congress to do that into urge Congress to, you know, follow its duty in that regard. And, again, I, I think that I, I, I do strongly believe that people will have had enough. I think people will have had enough people who are supporting Trump now. Um, they're fewer of them now. I mean, I, I, I was a perfectly example was this, uh, interview that, uh, I think Jonathan Allen, uh, did of, so I don't know if it'd be, it went viral of a woman in the central Pennsylvania

and she basically, yeah, I'm an idiot for voting for Trump. He's a PSPOS, basically. And I

“think there are enough of those people where, you know, yeah, you can activate the base, but the”

base is smaller and the middle of the country, you look at the look at the what he has lost among independence independence. I just hate him now. Um, he has lost the temporary sub-tick in his, in his spanics support that he had over the last few years. And it's just basically absolutely,

in the spanics support, it's dropped. Yeah, to 26% of people. It's never really low, down, like,

30 people realize that they've been duped, that they relied to. And that makes people mad. Now, what we've seen over the last few years, the Trump is that people basically have done, when they're being told bad things about Trump, that they have, that they have been duped, they've been doing this, but you can only do that for so long when you're going to the gas pumps. And now they're, you know, it's $4 a gallon and soon might be $5, $6 or $7. And everything,

a price of everything is going up. And you, you know, your people, you know, are being sent to the Middle East, and there's no plan, and there's no explanation, and there's no rhyme or reasons

“or what he's doing. And so I really think that in order to get to where we need to go,”

which is to remove this president. And I, I don't see how we can last, as I said, 34 months with this. We have to start talking about this now and not being, you know, not, there's this kind of this concept in psychology called learned helplessness where you, you know, you are pressing the button for the, the Pavlovian reward, and you don't get it, and you kind of the, the subject, whether it be a rat or a human being gets depressed and stops

wanting to play. It's like we can't beat that rat or that person we need, we need to look at it. It's like, this is, this is, we're in a totally new environment, a totally new ball game, and we cannot give up, because if we're giving up, we're giving up on our republic, we're giving up on our freedom, and we're giving up on our well-being. And I just think we, too many politicians are doing that. There are so many, and I don't mean that to criticize anybody,

but you're not going to be a dictator. I said, don't know other than day one. How did Donald Trump turn the presidency into a king? Well, it didn't start with him. It was the goal of a decade's long master plan. When the president does it, it is not illegal. I'm the destroyer, and I decide what is best. Where they won't act, I will. I'm David Sorota from the lever. On our new season of the award-winning master plan podcast, we uncover the stealth plot

to create an all-powerful president, or as some call it, the unitary executive, the unitary executive,

our journalist revealed a hidden scheme to eliminate checks and balances, crushed democracy, and turned government by the people into government by one man. I have the right to do whatever I want, as president. Check out master plans season two, the king makers. Visit masterplanpodcast.com or search master plan in your podcast app to start listening right now. Take one because there's so many tremendous fighters in the Democratic Party one,

I want to join forces with us. I've mentioned Jamie Raskin and others. We have to fight. This is fighting for our survival. Well, we have to give it our best gone. Robert Schmidt, who is following us right now on the show. He says everyone who has taken a flight

in the last week will never vote for Trump again. I mean, there's a pretty true word. So thank you

for adding that to the conversation, Robert. He has certainly ridden the highs of a good economy,

“and I think that was partially why he was re-elected. But I want to talk about actually getting you”

into Congress, getting you elected. Your opponent looks a lot like John F. Kennedy, Jr., and he's got the Kennedy machine behind him and Hollywood buzz with love story out on Hulu, and everyone is watching it. It's all over my Instagram feed. How do you break through that? Look, I mean, I break through it because, look, I mean, there are two people in the race who have named recognition and people who they know. They know Jack because he's colorful and he has a social

media presence and he's a Kennedy and they know me because I've been banging this Trump about Trump for a number of years. And, you know, I get that he's been in the race long, or he has the advantage of being a Kennedy, but at the end of the day, people are going to, I think people are going to take a good hard look at both of us and they're going to make a judgment as to who has the experience at this point to to help the most. And that's not a diss on Jack. I like Jack personally. I've

I admire his youthful exuberance and I think he's got a tremendous future ahead of me. And if you Winston, so be it. I'm going to support him out every step of the way. But I do think, you know, I do think it's going to be a, you know, I do think it's, you know, I mean, the polls that we have

show a second to him. I think people are going to look at us, particularly since we are the two

outsiders, if you will, and not part of the inside democratic machine. And I think people,

“people are looking for something different. And that's why they're going to take a look at Jack”

and they're going to take a look at me. And we'll see how it goes. And I'm, you know, I'm certainly not going to, I respect Jack. I'm a big fan of, of Caroline Kenjies. Well, I wouldn't exactly call you outsiders. He did get the endorsement of Nancy Pelosi. Do you think that they're still this poll toward political dynasties in the party? Oh, I, you know, yes and no. I mean, I think they're in politics.

There are dynasties on the other hand, the democratic party does best. Historically, and this is

something, and I'm, I've watched this for 62 years as a student of politics. When they go to something new and different, and that was Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy wasn't a dynasty. He started a dynasty, but he wasn't a dynasty. What made him special was that he was, he's a fresh face with a lot of energy and a lot of gumption. And that was also Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. So yeah, I mean, there are dynasties, but there are also, there's also a need to kind of mix it up

“and bring new blood into the system. And the, I think the democratic party is at its best when”

when it is doing that. And one of the things that's great about the democratic party generally is it's this incredibly deep edge of very, very, very talented people, any of whom I think, for example, if we're talking about the presidential race, I mean, you know, the Abigail Spamberger, Pritzker, Newsom. There's some Mark Kelly. I don't think the dynasties are to do all an end all of, of a healthy political party. I think they may be part of it,

but I do think that there is just so people want choices. And they want choices and they don't want to have the same old faces again and again. And they don't want, they don't want, they don't want their politics to be static because when it's static, then it becomes, you know, it lacks energy and, and, and we need, you know, we need continual things to get better. Well, that kind of he was a decorated world, world war two veteran and had a father who was quite a political operator.

It was great. And Josh, Jack Schlossberg, excuse me, he is a social media star, you could say, TikTok star. So, this is obviously very different. I don't know that he would necessarily be a star if he didn't have that name behind him. So is this a race about substance versus brand for you?

“Well, I mean, I'm going to worry about my substance. That's what I'm going to worry about.”

And, you know, I, I think Jack is, is, I think he's very well-meaning and I think he does want to shake things up and bring change. And I think he, he wants to bring new energy to Congress. And I, you know, I'm okay with that. But I just, you know, I think I'm going to worry about what I'm telling the people of New York, New York's 12th congressional district. I'm like, you know, obviously he has his message and he, he's going to, you know, he's fully capable of getting it

across to voters. I'm sure he'll do very well. And, you know, I, I look forward to, you know, I have to look forward to running this race. Yeah, he said, he's at 25% according to your poll and you're at 16%. Yeah. But there's, and, and, and, and, and Mr. Undecided, Ms. Undecided is 33. So we got, we all have to catch up to the, to, to captain undecided. Yeah, knock on those doors, but we do know that there's only, of your district, only one out of

every seven people is a Republican. I want to talk to you about reinventing your own brand for democratic voters, because obviously you are associated with the federalist society,

you're part of the team that basically propel the Winsky scandal. A lot of people are suspicious.

I mean, should they be skeptical? You were, you were celebrating when President Trump won.

and you have been working on your anti-Trump efforts. But you did just become a Democrat in December before that you were an independent. So, yeah, I was an independent since 2018 when I became, yeah, when I became completely disillusioned with the direction of the party of the Republican party that had really become a cult, and I really, you know, seeing that debacle at first year

“of me think about, well, why am I a Republican? I'm a Republican because that's what I was in 1980”

and what's happened since then. Where are we now? And, you know, it's, it's, you kind of a develop your identity when you're young, and it may fit you, the labels that you applied yourself and they fit you then. But when you take a step back at which Trump isn't forced, you need to do to think about, well, what are my values? What do I believe in? The rule of law. I believe in

limit, I do believe in limited government because, you know, because I was always fearful as,

as classical liberals, classical liberals who are conservatives, and to use the classical liberal phrase, though, is really what is a philosophical term. You know, I have a fear that a powerful government could be abused by bad people, and here we are. And the things that the Republican Party, I thought stood for were for, you know, three markets and three trade and three speech, and all of these things have been just trodden upon by modern republicanism,

which is this totally unethetical to what people thought Republicanism used to be or conservatism. And, you know, I mean, look at, look at what's going on to these tariffs, right? This is these the biggest tax increase in American history, owning 10% of Intel, making decisions about who owns media corporations. The government interfering in that, as opposed to, as opposed to

“winning the dollar records for example, do it, right? I mean, you take over more and that's how”

you're always used to happen. And, um, um,

schon wieder be wearber flaute, sich halten anzeigom anzeige. That's nerve, and it's doch viel zu teuer. Stop, raus, dass der recruiting spirale, mit Stepstone All Jobs bekommen sie alle anzeigen für ein Jahr in einen Paket zu einem fixenpreis. So sparen sie bis zu 75% kosten pro Bewerbung und sind jederzeit flexibel. Yet's to mean fine by them of Stepstone.de/alljobs Stepstone.

Einfach die richtigen talentefinden für alle Jobs. You know, being a scoop jacks in Democrat in high school, I think we kind of a Reagan Republican after Reagan won. This is not Ronald Reagan. We'll be rolling his grades at the grave at this. And, you know, he used to work with Tip O'Neill very closely. And they got things done. And here we have situation. We're in a lot of ways. The

conservative party today is the Democratic party. And I mean that in this classic conservative

“sense of we of gradual managing change. You have to manage change. You can't do radical”

change. You don't want to upset the Apple Cart too much. You don't want to destroy institutions that people rely on and that people that do people good. And when you have a current Republican party and Trump is in this, they want to destroy everything nihilistically. Maybe that you, there's some part of the government or some program that you might not have done you might not have voted for back in the day or you might have done differently or you might

want to reform. But that doesn't mean you take a sledgehammer to it. That's not conservative. That's not conserving. And that's, it's completely infetical to the way I look at how you have to manage change and manage government and deal with societal changes. And frankly, the only sensible people out this now are our Democrats who want to make things better with

and work on improving things, at least incrementally and not basically just trashing everything

like the Republicans are. So I think the modern conservatives frankly are the Democrats. Could you ever see yourself voting with Republicans like Fetterman? I mean, I can't explain Fetterman no more than I can explain Kristen Cinema or some other people. I can't, you know, I got to the point over the last few years where I couldn't vote for

other than maybe Adam Kinzig or a, or a, or not. I mean, vote with Republicans. No, no, no, I mean, I don't, I don't want to, I mean, I have to pick an issue. I mean,

“it, I, I don't know what issue there would be. I mean, you must still be a fiscal conservative,”

at least, right? Yeah, but the fiscal conservatives now are the Democrats. Okay, they believe, they, you know, we got to pay for what we, the Democrats want to actually pay for what we spend. The Republicans, they just want to cut taxes for, you know, that they just want to cut taxes without, and, and still spend money, spend money on ice and all, I mean, the, the, the, if you look at the fiscal responsibility, you look at the growth in, in, in, in, in, in, in,

debt. Trump is off the charts. He's running. He's running the United States government at the way he ran his businesses that he took into chapter 11. That's not a business. But fiscal conservatives today are the Democrats because they actually like, they're trying to figure out how to pay for stuff. You're in New York. They're trying to figure out, you know, Kathy Hockel is trying to figure out how to, you know, pay for initiatives that are necessary for people to state of New York and

and holding Mayor Mundani to, you know, to say, you know, you got to get your fiscal house in order. And we, you know, we like you, you know, we, we know how you want to help people with all these programs. And we got to, we got to make the books balance tighter. So I, you know, my fiscal conservatism, and frankly, which is historic, um, you know, after watching decades of Republicans cutting taxes

and never really, and just creating more deficits, um, I, you know, I, I, I, it doesn't appeal to me anymore.

You did call for the overturning of Rovers way at one time. Yeah. And that was, um, no, I never call for the overturning of it. I was critical of it. I would never have voted to overturn it in, in, in, in the 21st century after 50 years. I was critical of it's rationale. And, and, and, and so was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, um, I, you know, I'm, as a legislator. Now I was thought it was a legislator matter. And, and I think the court got ahead of itself by taking it out of the legislator realm. I mean,

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her critique of Ro at, kind of, in 1991, basically said, mentioned how there was an incredible reform movement in the states in your cad, you know, from York was an example of it. And that was stopped in its tracks by a decision that then inflamed

the issue because people didn't have a say. Um, it always was a legislative issue. And today,

I support, um, the Women's Health Protection Act, um, that Senator Baldwin has, has proposed and has sponsored in the Senate, um, that would basically codify Rovie Wade because Rovie A. Way was essentially a statute. It was a carefully crafted statute, you know, um, of a sort of charges. Really, we're not in a position to, um, enforce, uh, because it's, it really was a legislative compromise.

“And that's what we, that's exactly what we need, uh, and I, you know, I support the legislative”

solution of the, you know, Senate 2150, the Women's Health Protection Act. So I'm asking you this because you did wait a long time to switch from independent to Democrat, but if a Normie Republican was elected, like a George Bush Republican, somehow came back, MAGA just blew up, everyone realized it was too hardcore, right, leaning, causing to misdestruction, would you switch back to the GOP? Um, I'm done switching, okay, I'm, but I'm 62 years old. The next time in Normie Republican,

it's, no transition for you. No, no, it's, it's, it's like, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, uh, once is enough. And, um, by the time that happens, I'm, I'm, I'm gonna have gray hair and I'll be using a cane and I will do long beyond a public life. Yeah, you did say to our, our friend Steve Schmidt, if Trump wasn't president, you would not be running, you would be skiing in Park's flow. No, Park's city, not Park's flow, Park's flow, Park's flow, like a go running in Park's flow,

and walk away. That's your, I'm thinking of Brooklyn, you know, I know, girl. I mean, you know,

“that's a different district. That's, uh, you're 12, but yeah, um, um, is that right?”

11, 10, I mean, I'm sorry, New York 10, um, no, I would be Park's in Park City. That's actually where Steve is. And, um, yeah, yeah, yeah. But is that true? Would you, would you, would you not be

running if Trump wasn't president? If Trump, if Connelly had won, I would never have even thought

of running for Congress. And I didn't even think, you know, um, my girlfriend asked me this summer when we first met, uh, whether I would ever run for a public office, and I told my basis that

a friend of mine who, uh, mutual friend of ours, um, uh, said to me, like, you should run,

“because she was fed up with what, you know, the Democratic Senate,”

caving on the budget in past. And, and I, and that was the first time I actually thought about it,

and then I thought about, you know, I spent all the time back in New York anyway. I really should have, I should have rented a apartment a long time ago, because I spent so much time coming back. I did, you a lot at Molly Jungfast's parties. Molly Jungfast also considered running in the race. Did you know what you're doing? No, she, she was the one who actually, um, suggested I should think about it. And, um, he's the one to blame. Um, okay. We'll blame her. And she was, yeah.

So, okay. Well, I, I'm going to ask you a news-related question before we wrap up because I

“wanted to be quite amusing. Trump call is now calling the more a military operation. Clearly,”

someone has told him the word word doesn't matter. Well, yeah, exactly. But, you know, he said that he told that I believe this was at the NRCC's fundraising dinner. He didn't, he says he's not going to use word war because he didn't get congressional approval. What do you think of that? I mean,

it's, it's, it's like cleaning gilpy. I mean, he's basically, he's basically admitting that what

he's doing is illegal. He would use the word war. He has used the word war because it is a war. I mean, they've hit what 10,000 targets with high precision bombs in just a matter of weeks. This is a war. People have been dying. There is no other word for it than war. And because it's a war,

“it has to have Congress has to either declare it or authorize it with a resolution. And that's what”

the War Powers Act provides. That's what Article 1 of the Constitution provides and giving Congress

the War Powers. And, you know, he's basically, you know, confessing that he's not going to use the

word war because people have told him that's legally problematic because and it's clearly, I mean, he has a total of not puppeteer. I didn't get to pass it off. Take it everyone. It's fun again. Well, no. He, sometimes tells the truth in a revealing way. Right. Usually, he's, he's most truthful when he's at his most malicious and malevolent. And sometimes he's also, you know, he also often confesses to things without even realizing because he's not very bright. And this

is a perfect example. I mean, it's like, you know, you can't, you know, lawyer tells, tells, "Client, you can't use the word X because if we use the word X, then we will lose the case." So, he goes, you know, the guy goes to his deposition says, "Well, I would have used the word X, but my lawyer told me we'd lose the case if I used the word X so I'm going to use the word Y." I mean, how stupid is that? And it just shows you both stupidity and a level of end of the

acidity. And that's, that's dumb, Trump and not Trump. I like to end with a comment from our insightful audience. So, this is from Tess Trailer. She says, quote, "It appears he's a conservative looking for a label that fits what he believes in his ethics. Being able to shift is one one's reality changes. It's indicative of a person withins." I've been in the logistics centre for a long time and I can't wait to see who's in the robot. So, that's my job. A career.

Rule of law. I want to conserve our freedoms. I want to conserve the institutions that serve people well, but could serve people better by reform. And as I say, the conservative party now is the Democratic party in that sense. Got it. All right. Well, George, thank you so much for figuring it out. I'm kidding. I'm getting on the show. I'm not having a show. We'll stay tuned to your primary and see what happens. And if you are in Congress, it'll be fun to see you at the stand and

Appreciate that. Thank you, Tara. Bye.

“That was another episode of the Tara Palmeri Show. Thanks so much for tuning in. I hope you enjoyed it.”

Please follow, share, subscribe. Leave a comment. I want to hear from you. This is a community

after all. I want to thank my producer on this, Mia Kasarik. I want to thank Abby Baker,

“who booked, produced, helped me with everything. Research and does the social media. I want to”

thank Adam Stewart on the graphics and Dan Rose and my manager. As always, you can support my

independent journalism by going to Tara Palmeri.com and by becoming a paid subscriber so that you can get my exclusive reporting straight to your inbox. See you again soon.