B (3:11)

Do you think your constituents in New York are seeing this?

A (3:15)

I think a lot of them are. I think as much as any place in the country, they are. There are some people who, you know, they'll say, oh, but, yeah, but what about all of these other things like affordability? And we can't just keep talking about Trump. There's, there's, there's affordability, there's health care. And it's like, no, it's one in the same. I mean, this guy is being president for himself. He's running the country to loot it. He's running the country as essentially a mob operation. And it's either him or us. He's taking money, you know, if he wants to spend 50, what, billion dollars on ice and take ACA subsidies away, he wants to. I mean, a perfect example out my window is, you know, I live in West Chelsea near Hudson Yards, and I have this apartment that overlooks this project called the Gateway Project. And that Gateway project is a new Amtrak tunnel that will go from, that will, you know, be provide some new, new rail line from Penn Station to Newark. And it's an important project for the entire Northeast Corridor because the existing tunnel is 100 and 100 years old at least, and falling apart. And it's way over capacity. And Trump basically is cutting off, has cut off the funding and the, and this project will shut down tomorrow. Thousand jobs out the door, other thousands of jobs, you know, and everybody on the east coast who travels, even by highway is affected by this. And he doesn't give a shit. And it's all because he wants to punish people who didn't vote for him and punish Democratic politicians for their position in not wanting Gestapo, arresting American citizens, wearing masks, and it's just crazy. And that's it. But that's just one example.

B (5:11)

That's one example. I mean, his policies are also hurting red states. I mean, and I hear it all the time here in Kentucky from the health care to the tariffs. You know, pulling back of the investments in electric vehicles hurts our, our manufacturers here. We had lots of jobs cut because of that. So, I mean, it's, it's everywhere. But what I hear from people is he's not focused on the things that he promised to do when one of those things was to bring down prices. I mean, I. It might feel like a million years. And you had mentioned, hey, we're only really a quarter of the way through Trump 2.0 right now with a very damaging term so far for our country. But. And there also feels like there's a new outrage every day. I mean, whether it's, you know, kidnapping of a Venezuelan president or threatening to invade Greenland, you know, another new tariffs. I feel like the economy isn't getting better, and that's what people really feel. And it doesn't matter what party you're in, if you're living in a red state like Kentucky or a blue state like New York, you know, prices are going up, you know, and millions of Americans have lost their Affordable Care act subsidies, which made health care more affordable. They're seeing it. They're. I've talked to a woman who had her premium go up from 450 bucks a month to about $1,500 a month. I mean, you just can't afford that.

A (6:42)

Yep.

B (6:43)

You know, and he said, and Donald Trump said he would bring down prices on day one, and now he says.

A (6:48)

Affordability is a hoax. Right. It's crazy.

B (6:53)

Do the people of New York think affordability is a hoax or do, you.

A (6:56)

Know, I mean, New York is one of the least affordable places in the country. So people are very focused on affordability. That's why Mayor Mandami was elected, because he spoke to those issues better than any other candidate. He was very, very effective in doing that. So the point I'm trying to make to the people of New York and ultimately to the people of the country is, you know, I've been a critic from the legal standpoint, a lawyer, because the guy's a crit criminal. He's, he's violating his oath of office because he's not doing, upholding the laws and Constitution in the United States. And he's conducting the government on his boat for him, his own benefit, and not the benefit of the people I want to marry that. Those points up, which are kind of abstract to people, to their daily lives. He's, he's running this government for himself and not for them. He's looting the government, profiting off the government and taking Away things for them. He's doing these tariffs. Why does he do the tariffs? Because it makes him feel like a big, you know, I'm not going to use a word but a big mahaf. And he, he does that because it makes him feel powerful. Everybody has to come to him and say, oh, Mr. President, your tariffs. Oh, we will, we will give you a. We will give you a plane or we will do this for you. We will, we will promise you this. And. And they grovel to him. It's all for his ego. Meanwhile, those tariffs raise costs for American consumers in Kentucky and in New York and everywhere in between, all the way to Hawaii. And it's all because he's about himself and not the people and, and everybody. He, this was, this is the ultimate scam. He's a scam artist. He scammed red America into thinking he gave a. About them. Excuse my language. He does not. He only cares about himself. He only cares about building this giant ark. He wants Art Lark Detro Trump that he wants to build and des. To desecrate Arlington National Cemetery. And he wants to tear down the Trump Kennedy center to the Kennedy center to make it the Trump Center. He wants to, you know, he wants his 747 from Gadar. He's basically selling crypto to foreign. Foreign sheikh so that he can, in exchange for things, for benefits from the U.S. government. Okay? This is. He's about himself. He's screwing America. It's either him or us. And that's why he needs to be impeached, to remove. It's not just an abstract legal thing. It's basically, this is a government that's run off the rails because he doesn't want to. He wants to run it for, like, the Trump Corporation.

B (9:28)

It's definitely hurting people in the pocketbooks. And you had mentioned, you know, tariffs are paid by Americans. 96% of tariffs. They are a tax on Americans. We're paying 96 cents out of every dollar to pay for these. And, you know, I have asked from the very beginning, what is the purpose of this? Because initially, you know, the administration kind of covered it up saying, well, it's going to. We're going to fix our national debt. Well, that's a bunch of BS that, that, that's not, we're not even close to that. It's not, you know, and then it was, well, it's going to. These tariffs are going to bring back manufacturing. Well, come on. Manufacturing jobs have declined.

A (10:07)

Right.

B (10:07)

Manufacturing Investment is declining 100%.

A (10:10)

Right.

B (10:10)

None of this stuff is happening. Prices are Rising faster than, than paychecks.

A (10:16)

Right.

B (10:16)

And I just feel like nothing that he has done has strengthened the economy for working class working families at all.

A (10:27)

It's absolutely. He's raising prices for American consumers. And then he's also at the same time making it harder for American manufacturers to sell their goods abroad. I mean, I've read stories about distillers in your state trying to sell whiskey to Canada and they won't buy it anymore because they're pissed because of, because we won't buy their stuff without slapping tariffs on it. It's hurting everybody. Free trade helps people. And that used to be. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans believed in free trade. If you choke off trade, you're killing jobs. They're now. Absolutely. We want more manufacturing in the United States. But the way, the way, you know, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, that's essentially what he does. And it's not because he thinks, it's not really because there's an economic theory or logic behind it. It's because it makes it something he can do with the stroke of the pen and be, be the king, the emperor. And that's. It's all about his ego and it's all about him exceeding the powers of his office because the Supreme Court's going to strike this down and screwing America. Because it's. When it comes to Trump versus America, Trump makes the choice all the time.

B (11:36)

Trump, he's always been about self enrichment. We talked about that. But get this. Spending right now in every income class is down except for the super rich.

A (11:48)

Right.

B (11:49)

I think that's a, that's a pretty interesting fact there. That, that's. And it just shows paychecks aren't, aren't keeping up. People aren't investing. They're not wanting to spend money. They're not confident. Nobody knows where the stuff is going or where the economy's going.

A (12:04)

Absolutely.

B (12:05)

Yeah. And meanwhile, Americans are losing their health insurance.

A (12:09)

Yeah. I mean, he doesn't care about Americans losing their health insurance. I mean, where's his health, where's his Obama substitute plan that he talked about five years ago or six years ago? It doesn't exist. It's all bullshit. And not only that, he's using those things, like those ACA subsidies and other things for political retribution.

B (12:31)

Honestly, I never thought I would see the day in our country. A lot of the stuff that's happening. I want to ask you as a lawyer, you know, did you hear about this secret ICE memo? So there was this communication from the ICE director. His name is Todd Lyons, on January 28th. And it was addressed to all ICE personnel. And it says that immigration law authorizes ICE to execute warrantless arrests.

A (13:01)

I'm old enough to remember when conservatives believed in the original understanding of the constit. You got this written document. It says what it says, and if you want to change it, you have to add something to it or take something out. Here's what the, here's what the Constitution says. The original understanding is written in plain language. The people shall be secure in their homes and persons, and no warrants shall issue without probable cause. You have to have probable cause to issue a warrant to enter somebody's home for you know, whether or not, you know, if, unless. Unless you see a bank robber running into a house, in which case you have problems, you don't. You need a warrant. You need a warrant. And issued by judges. Issued by actual judges. And you know what's funny is this argument that immigration law somehow trumps the Constitution. Let's say, first of all, no act of Congress can trump the Constitution. But second of all, the notion that immigration law could. We didn't have immigration law until basically the late 19th century, 100 plus years after the hundred years after the Constitution was enacted and the fourth Amendment was put into place. So basically they, you know, they're basically running roughshod over ideas, over the ideas, over the Constitution. Some of the very ideas, the foundational ideas that they profess to rely on. It's like, you know, it's the Constitution, you know, the Constitution, whenever they think it benefits them or. And then if they don't like it, they rewrite it. And this was always what the conservatives would complain the liberals were doing. It's crazy. It's crazy.

B (14:39)

What I have to remind people, and I, I taught us constitutional development at the U.S. naval Academy and I taught government at. Every midshipman who goes through that institution has to take a course because they swear no to defend the Constitution. So, right, they have to take a course on the U.S. constitution and U.S. government, the basics of U.S. government. And so I taught that. That was one of several courses that I taught. And one of the things that maybe a lot of students didn't know or didn't fully appreciate until that moment is the Constitution applies to anyone who is here in the United States, correct? Not just U.S. citizens. So the First Amendment doesn't say, well, all U.S. citizens have the right of free speech.

A (15:27)

Right.

B (15:28)

And everyone else doesn't. You know, it doesn't. The Second Amendment, the, the Fourth Amendment, the 14th Amendment, due process. It doesn't say, well, if you're a green card holder, you don't have the right of due process. So, you know, or if you're, if you're here on vacation from Europe, you know, we, we can, we can go into your home and seize things. The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to you. No, it is. The Constitution is a restriction on government itself.

A (15:54)

Correct?

B (15:54)

It's not, you know, the Bill of Rights is a restriction on government itself for any persons in the United States. If you want to change that, as you, as I hear you saying, if you want to change that, you have to change the Constitution. Right? And so what's happening right now with ICE in this overreach in this memo is it's awful for, for non citizens, it's awful for green card holders or, or people who may be here legally. But now ICE is saying they can enter US Citizens private property without a warran, you know, your home, your business. I mean, this, it's way overreach.

A (16:32)

No, it's, it's complete overreach. And it's, it's not what, what Americans bargain for. I mean, look, I'm, I'm, we need, do need strong immigration laws and enforcement so that it. But, you know, because that, that's what fairness requires for the people who follow the rules to come into the country. But that said, we have an obligation, a moral and legal and constitutional obligation to enforce all our laws with humanity and with due process and according to the book. And, and that's, you know, their view is we can throw the book out because we want, we can do whatever they want. And it, ultimately, it's not about immigration. Right? They say it's about immigration because that gives them the, that gives them the excuse to tell people that there are other people that are different from them and we're, it's us against them and it creates this. And this is classic fascism, okay? Classic authoritarianism. This is what we saw that Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, you create a demon, you demonize other people and you make them your victims. And you know, it's dividing people. It's dividing American citizens even, because they're basically saying that these people who had different views than you do about immigration, they're just as bad. They're criminals. They're conspiring. The Democrats are all criminals. They are creating enemies within America to divide it. That's what this is about. And they're doing it to retain power. Example, one of the things that happened very recently after the after the two shootings in Minneapolis was that Pam Bondi wrote the Governor Waltz a letter saying, hey, well, we'll take ICE out if you, among other things, give us your voting rolls, your state voting rolls. That's got nothing to do with immigration. Absolutely nothing. It's got to do with screwing around with the midterms. And that's, you know, ultimately, you know, and you look at the patterns and history of fascist regimes, which I'm sure they, they used to teach at the Naval Academy. I actually heard that, you know, they're being careful about that now. I mean, I had a friend who was Ruth Ruthven guy who was invited to talk about, about fascism and the fascist use of military last year at the Naval Academy. And some reason, you know, in 2025, they canceled the lecture. This is the kind of thing that the fascists do. They use, they try, they use these things to create, they use their own police forces to try to retain power. And this is what's going on in America, which is why, like, you know, I was saying earlier, we don't have three years. This guy, you know, we saw what he did on January 6, 2021. He's already talking about do we actually need to have an election in 2026. He's also talking about, oh, it's going to be rigged. He's not doing the same thing again because he knows, and he even openly mused about this in his delirious state that he walks around in, that if the Democrats get control of Congress, he's going to be impeached and damn well straight he's ought to be impeached. Now if the Republicans had any gumption.

B (20:01)

The stuff in Minneapolis is so bad, with a mother shot in the face, a nurse shot in the back, a five year old that being nabbed and from his father.

A (20:14)

Yeah.

B (20:14)

And a judge having to come in and say, oh, you got to release the five year old. You know, I mean, they're sending, apparently they're sending children to Texas from Minnesota now and putting them in these, you know, detention facilities. I mean, kids, five year old kids.

A (20:33)

Yeah, yeah, it's.

B (20:35)

And apparently it's in Dilly, Texas. And there's a, there's actually a measles outbreak in Dilly. So I'm sure that's going to go out well. But you know, we've got to have immediate. Right now, when Democrats don't have the power in Congress, there still has to be immediate oversight hearings. I mean, I, I'm just so the Republicans have they. Somebody has to have A spine here.

A (21:00)

Yeah, I, I absolutely agree. Yeah.

B (21:02)

Warrants have to be required. We have to follow the Constitution. These, these masks have to come off from, from these, these shock troops that are around the country saying that they're enforcing immigration. It appears that they're not doing that. They're. They're really just shock troops. I mean, we gotta change things.

A (21:22)

Yeah. No, and we have to be absolutely relentless about it. I don't, I don't think, you know, I mean, there are so many good members of Congress who are relentless. I mean, I don't think there are enough of them. And we have to be absolutely relentless and every day, Every day fighting and stop, you know, and, and the, one of the, you know, the two powers that Congress had. Congress is basically. Congress was supposed to talk about the original understanding of the Constitution. Congress was supposed to be the most powerful branch.

B (21:50)

Right. Article one.

A (21:51)

Article one. And not only one, for a reason. The framers were so concerned that Congress would be so powerful. That's why they created checks and balances. Not that you put checks and balances on the President because they didn't think the President was going to be all that power. They'd be appalled at what they're seeing today. That you have a president who thinks he can run roughshod and over, over, over Congress. And it's. Look, it's something that's been happening over the last half century or more where the presidency has become more powerful, but it's completely gone off the rails now. And Congress has. The Congress has the power to defend itself in two ways. One is impeachment and removal. But even before you get to impeachment, removal. The power of the purse. The power of the purse. We don't have to fund ice. The money has to be appropriated by Congress. We don't have to fund any of this. And, and, and we, you know, basically, we have to draw the line and say we aren't.

B (22:54)

Yeah. I mean, Congress is capitulating. They're. They've given up all of their power. It's almost like I feel like I look at some of these guys in Congress and I'm like, really? Why are you there? No, I mean, the office space. I mean, the wonderful office space up there on Capitol Hill. Is that, Is that, is it. That's where you. Because you're not doing anything. You know, hundreds of US Citizens have been detained in these ICE raids. It's not what people voted for.

A (23:18)

Yeah, you know, I agree with you. And, and it's like, I don't understand why anyone would want. I mean, I, I'm 62 years old. I never considered running for Congress before or any elected office because it's just not something I wouldn't want to be. I don't want to be a career politician. I can't be a career politician. I don't understand the whole concept of a career politician. It's like, why would you sacrifice your principles or things that you believe in just to keep a job where you could probably do, you know, if you're a smart person, you could do better in the private sector. I don't understand that. And, but anyway, my theory about my running for public office is I'm 62. I can't do this for very long. And I don't want to do this for. It's not something for me. I don't want to be the career politician who was there for 30 years and holds the same job. Okay. I want to make it. I want to go in and be a special teams player and help fix the problem and right the ship so that we can have a normal democracy again and have the arguments and debates that we ought to be having about policy. You may want, you know, you may want more government involvement or less government involvement on a particular issue or higher taxes or lower taxes or more spending and less money. These are normal debates to have, but we cannot have them if we don't have a democracy. And we can't have them if we have an imperial emperor.

B (24:45)

Yeah.

A (24:46)

Deciding. Deciding that he gets to say what the law is and nobody else does.

B (24:51)

I've always said we can't fix the major problems that we have in this country unless we fix our democracy at first. And I, I'm in agreement with you. We have a, we have a lot in common. Because I actually think nobody should be in office for 30 some years. This is why I like term limits. This is why I feel like not only for Congress but also for the Supreme Court. I know that the arguments of term limits. Oh well, the institutional knowledge and yada yada, that's a bunch of bs. We have four star generals that are heads of combatant commands. They're not heads of combatant commands for 30 years.

A (25:28)

No, they move around.

B (25:30)

They did. They do a tremendous job. They work to that level. They are at the peak of their career and that, guess what? They're there for four or five years.

A (25:38)

Right.

B (25:39)

Four or five years. And then they move on. And you know, and you can be a very spec. In a very special case, you could go from one combatant command to the other but many of them, you know, don't and they just retire. And you know what, our military works pretty darn well, much better than Congress. And so I feel like these, these guys that have been there for that long, you know, forget it, do, do a one term or two, whatever the term limit is, and then get out and do something else.

A (26:07)

Absolutely. And the military does another thing. I mean, it's not just that, you know, you kind of, it's an up and out system, but it's also, you know, they, they, they make an incredible effort to, I mean, I, I'm not, I'm a civil, a lifelong civilian, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong. But they make an eff from different areas so that they have broader experience.

B (26:29)

Right.

A (26:30)

So they're not just doing one thing for their entire, if they, even if they become a four star general and make it to the Joint Chiefs or something, they've done a bunch of different things. I mean, they may have a specialty, but they, they've gone around and it's.

B (26:45)

It'S and, and it's, George, that's not just. They make an effort that's actually enshrined in policy, in law. You know, if you get to the higher levels, you have to have a certain amount of joint time and things like that, or you can't get to that level.

A (26:58)

Right.

B (27:00)

It was actually the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was waived. He, he did not have some of his credentials that normally, you know, and he was waived by this, this current president. You know, it is what it is. But there's a reason why at those levels that you have, you have to have those, that credibility there. You have to have those qualifications.

A (27:23)

And that's why we need, frankly, we need more former officers in Congress, frankly, because they really. One of the things that impresses me about people like you is they're very well rounded, more well rounded than any other profession. Because if you think about it, to go into the military you have to know a lot of different things. First of all, you have to know science, natural sciences, you have to know history and social sciences because you, you have to know natural science because you know, sometimes you have to blow stuff up and that's, there's some, there's technical things and physics, you have to know some physics and chemistry to blow stuff up and then, but you have to know a lot of history because you know, you, you have to know history and world history and, and, and, and international affairs because what you do, you're interacting with the rest of the world. And you have to understand that world you're interacting with, and you have to understand American politics and American government so that you understand your role in the constitutional order. And then you have to be able to, you know, and then they're the humanities. You have to be able to express all of that and communicate all of that.

B (28:30)

People who have served in the military, particularly overseas, really do have an understanding of the culture, different differences in international relations a lot more than maybe somebody that. That doesn't. Why? Because we've served with our allies. We. We know what that trust is like.

A (28:48)

Right. We know how not just officers, enlisted people. I mean, it's one of the things that sort of was. I mean, I'm not going to say there was a benefit to the, you know, World War II. After World War II, America had a much better understanding of the rest of the world and more. And its role in the world after the World war is precisely because millions of Americans had to go to foreign countries.

B (29:10)

Some of the biggest proponents of USAID are from the military.

A (29:15)

Absolutely. Why?

B (29:16)

Because they bring a huge punch. It's a different punch than. Than the, Than the, you know, the bomb. It's different. Different than the. The sword, shall we say. But it's a really important punch. And they have a treme. And some of the strategic things that we want to see happen overseas that would help us and our national security. And unfortunately, we have a president that has just demolished that entire agency. It just, It's.

A (29:51)

It's.

B (29:51)

To me, it's shocking. And it's still one of the things that just really hits me hard as somebody who served for 24 years.

A (30:00)

And they left people. They left people abroad without a way to get home when they cut the funding off. It's crazy what they said.

B (30:06)

Yeah.

A (30:06)

So many crazy things.

B (30:08)

Well, I want to ask you also, as a lawyer, what is Tulsi Gabbard doing in Georgia? I mean, she is the Director of National Intelligence, which is supposed to be intelligence from the foreign intelligence perspective, not domestic. Right. We have domestic intelligence called, like, the FBI. Right. But foreign intelligence. And she is photographed going on an FBI raid of election offices in Fulton County, Georgia. She's wearing this, like, dark black jacket, like she's some sort of movie character. And the Wall Street Journal is reporting that she has turned her attention as the Director of National Intelligence to investigating the 2020 election. Are they really doing this again? What are we doing?

A (31:00)

Look, it's just more insanity, and it is more example of Donald Trump running the government like a mob operation. He's just assigning his, his, his capos to do whatever task he feels they should be doing at a moment. And it doesn't, has nothing to do with their titles and nothing to do with the law, nothing to do with reality. Since the, we, we know. I mean, he's still looking for those 11,400 votes. Right? I guess that's, that's what he's doing. And, and, you know, she's completely not, you know, her, her is not within her, her, her proper ambit as that holding that position. It's not within her skill set. And it's also just not. It's bullshit and it's complete, it's just a complete abuse of power. And, and from her standpoint, she'll do anything to serve him because, you know, that's how, that's how you, you survive in Trump world is you, you, you compete to do the most outrageous thing that will please him. And it doesn't, doesn't necessarily have to be. It doesn't necessarily mean you're doing the job that the American taxpayers are paying you to do.

B (32:03)

It's terrible. I mean, she is the Director of National.

A (32:06)

National Intelligence. Right?

B (32:07)

Okay. The Director of National Intelligence should not be doing work on Americans or doing any kind of domestic role.

A (32:15)

Right. All the agencies, all the agencies that report to her are prohibited. No. From doing domestic work. The only, the only domestic intelligence work that's permissible is, is, goes through the Justice Department, the counterintelligence bureau of the FBI, and the doj. I mean, it's crazy. It's just absolutely crazy. And, and it's, it's, it's corrupt and it's dangerous, frankly.

B (32:43)

It is dangerous because we've already done the recounts on this particular thing way back in 2020 and 2021. And, you know, Trump and his allies lost 60 different lawsuits dealing with this particular issue. They never came up with a shred of evidence of fraud. And, you know, somebody said this morning she's, she's going out there just trying to cook up some, some evidence.

A (33:10)

Absolutely. And it's dangerous on another level, too, because, and it's the point that, that, that you let off with, which is we have had a history where there has been concern about using foreign intelligence assets for domestic political purposes or domestic investigative purposes. And one of the things that we have learned as a country, and this is a bipartisan consensus, is that we have to separate out domestic and foreign intelligence. I mean, there has to be some cooperation. But we do not want to use foreign intelligence and foreign. Foreign intelligence assets and techniques to investigate our citizens and to investigate things domestically. And to have the Director of National Intelligence, who is in charge of coordinating information from these foreign intelligence agencies, foreign US Intelligence agencies, for the president to have that person involved in domestic law enforcement, although it's not law enforcement, it's bullshit. To have that person mucking around in Fulton County, Georgia, is profoundly, profoundly dangerous because it breaks that line that has protected our civil liberties. And it's just, I mean, just add it to the list of a thousand other things that it's just there's so many outrages here that it's impossible to.

B (34:35)

Keep up when I hear from people. And some people are saying, hey, you know, he's trying to influence future elections. And it certainly appears that way. I mean, not only the memo that in Minnesota and now this, this stuff in Georgia, it's sometimes hard to connect the dots for people, you know, who are like, well, how are they trying to influence the next election by looking at the last one?

A (35:03)

Well, because basically they're trying to undermine. They're trying to prove things that didn't happen to prove. To undermine faith in elections generally. And it's sort of like what Donald Trump once actually said to a CBS reporter. Very famous anchor, I forgot her name. I can't remember her name off the top of my head, but she's very famous. Everybody recognized her. He once said to her, the reason why I trash the media all the time is so that when you say something bad about me, no one will believe it. And that's what he's doing with elections. He's trashing the process. He started doing it in 2020, saying, oh, because of COVID we won't be able to these elections where the elections are rigged or we need to postpone the elections. He even said at one point, when he feels like he is going to lose, when he fears that he is going to lose an election, he starts trashing the process in advance. And part of, you know, and part of what. And what he did in 2020 was to trash the results after they happened. But he's doing it again because he wants people to believe that 2020 was rigged and that if something happens in 2026, you know, even though it's manifest that even in, you know, you don't see as many Trump signs, I'm sure, where you are now, because he's becoming less popular, even though it's manifest that he's becoming increasingly unpopular, he wants a certain core of people to disbelieve the election. Results. And that's just fundamentally dangerous for democracy. It's fatal to democracy because the most important thing that we have in the democratic order is that we accept the results of elections. We accept that the way we resolve our differences is peacefully at the ballot box. You may not like the result from moment to moment. You may not like your congressman or your senator for a while. They may pass laws that you don't like, but then you get to go and say, aha, I told you so when you get the next election. And he wants to undermine all that. He wants to end this process because it doesn't serve him.

B (37:15)

Yeah. And we've never had a president in American history that has undermined and discounted American elections like he has. You know, we have to remember that in 2020, some of the president's advisors urged him to use the military to seize voting machines. And now he says he regrets not doing it. And so after this search just last week of, in Atlanta of the, you know, and the seizure of these ballots, you know, two Republican appointed members of the state election board said that it was on their radar as an avenue that they could take to seize control of elections in the future in Fulton County. I mean, that's 90% of Atlanta lies within that county.

A (38:06)

And it's just, it's just so, on a, on a micro level and a practical level, it's offensive, but it also, it's just so fundamentally unamericable.

B (38:18)

Yeah.

A (38:18)

Our first president, George Washington, who, you know, represents the best tradition of the American military and being a jack of all trades and being showing respect for the political order and really being a, being the kind of person that we were describing earlier, he could have won a third term instead, and everybody wanted him to run for a third term. He could have been president for eight or 12 more years, however long he lived. And he said no because he understood that the process required, and this goes back to your term limits point, it requires people to understand that the system is more important than any one person or individual or party. And Donald Trump couldn't give a flying about that.

B (39:09)

Yeah, we're in it. We're in a whole new area. I want to get your, your quick take on a few topics. One that came up just in the last couple days in a story from, I think it was from the Wall Street Journal came out the days before the inauguration last year. A foreign government took major ownership stake in the United States president's new crypto company. Okay. So there's this guy named, I guess they call him the spy Sheikh but he's connected to the government of the UAE and he bought 49, a 49% stake in Trump's new crypto company. Okay. And you might think, well, okay, what's the big deal there? The big deal is the money that the Sheik made that investment, a large portion of it went to the Trump family and to Trump's buddy Witkoff, who then became the special envoy to the Middle East. And what concerns me, George, is the fact that then the US Government gave the UAE access to the most advanced chips, AI chips. That's a national security concern.

A (40:20)

It's beyond, It's a national security concern. It is actually kind of the, kind of a national security concern that the framers of our constitution were concerned with when they created the foreign emoluments clause that basically said the President can't receive benefits from foreign countries. And that's what this is. I mean, his family benefits from the, he benefits from this. And it was basically cash and carry. Paying, paying for this crypto, this crypto stuff. I mean, it, you know, I mean, there's legit crypto. And I gotta say, I don't know what this crypto is. If it involves Donald Trump, it's, you know, you gotta think it's like Trump wine and Trump, Trump stakes and what all this other stuff, stuff. But why is a foreign government paying for that? And then how could it not? I mean, we know what this man is like, we know what his people are, are like. They respond to financial incentives. They, I, this is, this is like, okay, maybe there's not a contract saying you're getting these AI chips for the, for the deal, but you know, in your heart of hearts that it made a difference. And you know, it smells so bad.

B (41:33)

The last administration said we're not going to give these chips to these countries because they were worried about it handing over, you know, going to China. If it goes to China. These chips, folks, can be used, these high speed, high tech chips can be used to create and develop high tech weapons that we don't want our adversaries having access to. So it is a national security concern. And now you have the US President saying, you know, give me some money, give me some personal money and I'll hand you over that technology.

A (42:05)

Yeah, no, and, and it's crazy because it's like the hypocrisy. I mean, remember the, all the complaints about Hunter Biden being a member of a board of a, of a Ukrainian company. It's like, like, you know, there was no family business, family Biden Business the way there is a family. Trump business didn't involve this kind of money. And the Republicans went batshit about it. And this is like, this is like a hundred thousand. A million times worse. And what do we get? Crickets.

B (42:36)

Nothing. Nothing.

A (42:37)

Crickets. It's just so unbelievably corrupt.

B (42:40)

It's.

A (42:40)

It's so unbelievably corrupt and so unbelievably hypocritical. I don't know how some of these people who keep their mouth shut about Trump, these Republicans who know better the Susan Collins is of the world, how can they look themselves in the mirror and just pretend that this is okay and not say anything? I don't get it.

B (42:59)

I don't get it. They just, they just love that office space, I guess.

A (43:02)

I don't know.

B (43:04)

Speaking of crickets, this. Then, this is really important to me because I spent a lot of time focused on weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapon policy. The new START Treaty is actually terminated today. And you START Treaty that, that caps the number of operational missiles and warheads in the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, ours and Russia. We had this treaty with them for decades, and basically it's ended. And it didn't have to end. We, you know, the Biden administration had some talks with Russia. They were, they were halted because of the Ukraine war. But, I mean, Trump basically didn't do anything. And here we are looking at potentially a new era of great power nuclear arms races. I mean, I am worried. I just think this is, this is, and this is also a result of the diplomacy corps being gutted, because that's, Those are the folks that do these.

A (44:09)

Right. And, and it's, it's a, it's basically, you have an administration that doesn't. Only responds to things that affect the President's perception of his own power and authority, not the national interests of the United States, not, you know, traditional foreign policy issues that, that, that basically bound United both parties. And, you know, I mean, that. And it's that and, and, and basically we virtually are faced with it. I mean, NATO doesn't exist for all intents and purposes anymore. It doesn't. Right. I mean, it just really doesn't because, you know, the, the certainly not being.

B (44:53)

Led by the United States.

A (44:55)

Right. No, I mean, NATO doesn't, you know, NATO, the fundamental, you know, the fundamental idea behind the national. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was to bind the United States, the European defense and bind each other, you know, have a transatlantic alliance. Doesn't, you know, for all intents and Purposes, it doesn't exist anymore. And you know, he's not pursuing American interests, he's pursuing his own interests and he's actually pursuing Russia's interests.

B (45:21)

Yeah, I mean, this is so far out, out of bounds from, from the bipartisan national security. I don't even say consensus. It's just like something that we, we all agreed upon for many years that was good for the world. I mean.

A (45:38)

Right.

B (45:39)

And there was like not, not having a nuclear weapon arms race.

A (45:43)

Right.

B (45:43)

That's a good thing for the world trying to get rid of these weapons or at least bring, bring down the numbers. Right, right.

A (45:52)

Nixon, Nixon. Nixon. The Republican President was the one who started, you know, started salt. Yeah. Which was the, which was the predecessor to start. And, and that's been a bipartisan thing. You know, we made this. They may be disagreements about the precise terms as we've gone along and, and, and tactics. You know, I remember the, remember the SS 20s and the, you know, and the debates about, about like, you know, whether we should be deploying medium range missile. There's always debates, but it was always within the concept of we have our interests, the Russians have theirs. And we have to figure we have to protect the western democracies from encroachment by, you know, non democratic expansionist regimes. And now we're the expansionist regime. It's, it's, it's so upsetting.

B (46:44)

It's, it's crazy. But I want to end on a good note because.

A (46:49)

Is that even possible?

B (46:51)

It's possible. I think it is possible because we had big Democratic gains in, in a deep red Texas state Senate seat in Fort Worth where the Democrat who basically spent no money defeated the Republican by 14 points. And this was a district that Trump won by like 17 points. That's huge swing. It's like a 30 point swing.

A (47:19)

Yeah.

B (47:19)

And that, that I think. Wow, cheers to that.

A (47:23)

Yeah. No, we see, we've seen, you know, it's, it's, it's an absolute pattern. And I think, you know, there's a lot of evidence that Republicans are panicking. There was that Axio story about Ted Cruz telling Trump we're going to get the. Kicked out of us. And Trump's saying you. Ted. And then there was, you know, there were the, there were the midterms. Not the midterms. They were the, the, the elections. Yes.

B (47:46)

Governorship.

A (47:47)

The governorships. Yeah. The Virginia and New Jersey elections. And, and then we have this remarkable incident in Minnesota, which is a purple state. Right. I mean it has, it's had some, it elects Some pretty conservative red Republicans to office with some frequency. And the Republican candidate for governor had to stand down because it became toxic to be a Republican in Minnesota.

B (48:11)

Right.

A (48:12)

Okay. So. So stuff's happening out there, and, And I think that's hopeful. But at the same time, what concerns me is it's going to make him more desperate to do something, to screw around in 2026 this year. So we really have to be on our toes and, and we're going to have to be out there marching and making our voices heard to make sure that democracy survives this year.

B (48:45)

I 100% agree. I worry about him starting a war. I worry about invoking the Insurrection Act. There's a lot out there. And I think the best way to stand up for American values and to stand up for our country right now is to, you know, peacefully make your voice heard in wherever way you can, whether that is on social media, whether it is talking to your families, whether it is walking in a protest, you know, going out. I've talked to many people who have never processed in their entire life who are now out there walking, just silently walking in, in, you know, in solidarity.

A (49:27)

In the cold in Minnesota.

B (49:29)

Right.

A (49:29)

New Kings rallies.

B (49:30)

Absolutely.

A (49:31)

I mean, I know that is a way. I never protested before, and I, I went to multiple rallies last year. No Kings, hands off. I mean, you know, it was actually fun. I brought my dog, too, and he liked it.

B (49:41)

Yeah. I mean, it's, it's. It's about speaking up. It's about not being silent right now. And some people can do it differently. I mean, we're, we're running for office. If you can run for office, you know, find back somebody who's.

A (49:54)

But it's also the kitchen table, the dinner table, the Thanksgiving dinner table. You know, this is not a time to basically say, oh, let's not talk politics, because it's just, you know, it's upsetting to people. You know, we have to tell people what we think and why we think that and not say this is okay by, by our silence. And, yeah, it's going to be unpleasant. Some people aren't going to want to hear it, but we're right. And five years from now, 10 years from now, everybody's going to know. I mean, most people should know by now, but we're right. And it's not about being right. It's about saving our country. This is the time we have to speak out, whether it be quietly at the, in the line, at the, at the, at the grocery store, or out at a rally or on a podcast or on the floor of the House or the Senate. This is the time where we have to lay it all out there and tell people what is at stake, because everything is at stake.

B (50:57)

The most patriotic thing that we can be doing right now is not stick your head in the sand. It is speak out. It is stand up whatever way you can. That is the most patriotic thing that you can do as an American at this moment. Thank you so much, George, for being on this show. We really appreciate it. This again, tomorrow, we could definitely do it again. I want to. I want to see, you know, maybe in a month or so how things are going on the campaign trail.

A (51:26)

Yeah, absolutely. And I'm supposed to. And I've been. They've been teaching me how to be a candidate. I know you went through these lessons, too, over the past few years. I'm required by my campaign people to say, www. George conwayfor Congress.com I have to say it twice, www. George conway for Congress.com because if I don't do it, they will yell at me.

B (51:48)

That is awesome.

A (51:49)

Do you.

B (51:49)

Do you also get the. Do you need to smile more? You need to smile more?

A (51:53)

Smile. Talk less, Smile more. No, I talk. I talk a lot, and I smile a lot. I guess that's awesome.

B (51:58)

All right. Thanks, George.

A (51:59)

Thank you. You're really wonderful.