Transcript

🚨 George Conway’s URGENT WARNING on Trump MORE RELEVANT Than Ever

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 1 h 1 min · 9,971 words · 123 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "🚨 George Conway’s URGENT WARNING on Trump MORE RELEVANT Than Ever", an episode of MeidasTouch published January 3, 2026 (1 h 1 min, about 9,971 words). It mentions 27 people, works and ideas, including Pardon power, Mark Rich, Congress, American democracy, Springfield, Ohio.

What this episode is about

The discussion highlights the alarming authoritarian tendencies displayed by Donald Trump as he approaches the presidency, underscoring the risks to American democracy and the unsettling normalization of such behavior. George Conway emphasizes the importance of recognizing these warning signs and the potential consequences of unchecked power, reflecting on how quickly democratic norms can deteriorate.

Key takeaways

  • When democracy turns chaos into 'organized chaos,' it's not just a political strategy, but an art form.
  • Ignoring authoritarian red flags is like skipping sunscreen—burns are inevitable and surprisingly painful.
  • Politicians' enemy lists aren't just for show—they're the adult version of middle school drama.
  • Authoritarianism never asks permission; it bulldozes through political norms like a kid in a Lego shop.
  • Voter apathy: the secret weapon of every wannabe despot—it’s the political equivalent of leaving the backdoor unlocked.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 10:00: American democracy, Alvin K. Hellerstein, Facebook
  2. – 20:00: Alyssa Farah Griffin, Selective Service, Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Southern District of Florida
  3. – 30:00: Mark Rich, Pardon power
  4. – 40:00: Congress, House Ethics Committee, Janet Reno
  5. – 50:00: Revenge
  6. – 1:00:00: Congress, Springfield, Ohio, Code of Hammurabi

Notable quotes from "🚨 George Conway’s URGENT WARNING on Trump MORE RELEVANT Than Ever"

  • The legal guard rails that he was already pushing against, and the already very real risks to American democracy.
    about American democracy · at
  • World. They choose, they scroll on their Tik Toks and Facebook feeds and they kind of get news occasionally, but that's distorted or warped or maybe appeals to their own predelections.
    about Facebook · at
  • In the fact that it happened to me. And you don't need to take Michael Cohen's word for it. Take Alvin Hellerstein's word for it when he talked about Bill Barr and under the…
    about Alvin K. Hellerstein · at
  • Precedent of the 199 1977 and Jimmy Carter amnesty given to people who failed to comply with their selective service requirements during the Vietnam War and also with the there…
    about Selective Service · at
  • Cassidy Hutchinson's talking Griffin. there's there's a hundred different names. let me tell you where the problem comes in with something like that. First and foremost, he gave his son a pardon.
    about Alyssa Farah Griffin · at
  • How do you think this compares to historical uses of the pardon power in the United States? Remembering that when Trump left office in 2020, there's all sorts of stories and allegations that it was a payforplay.
    about Pardon power · at
  • Actually designed to hold him accountable to the House Ethics Committee as a member of Congress when he stepped away. Technically, the way I see it, the report is moot. It's…
    about Congress · at
  • Going to do that anyway. the same way he made up the stuff about people eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, he's going to say what he's going to say and they're going to be large swaths of the public that find that appealing.
    about Springfield, Ohio · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Mark Rich — Person · 3 mentions · first at
    Administration. that includes Hunter the Hunter Biden pardon that includes the Mark Rich pardon at the end of the Clinton administration and includes a number of the pardons…
  • Boris Epshteyn — Person · 2 mentions
  • Alvin K. Hellerstein — Person · 1 mention · first at
  • Alyssa Farah Griffin — Person · 1 mention · first at
  • Janet Reno — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Real person who has at least on paper the credentials of a potential attorney general. Janet Reno was district attorney in Miami. Okay.
  • Anne Selzer — Person · 1 mention
  • Olivia Troye — Person · 1 mention
  • Paul Manafort — Person · 1 mention
  • Peter Navarro — Person · 1 mention
  • Roger Stone — Person · 1 mention

Books & papers

  • Revenge — Book · 1 mention · first at
    That I'm supposed to be on an expedited basis. This is the same where I wrote in my book, Revenge, that literally they claimed that there were zero documents that pertained to my foyer request.

Companies & orgs

Concepts & topics

Places & events

  • Springfield, Ohio — Place · 2 mentions · first at
  • Southern District of Florida — Place · 1 mention · first at
    And until you've been sued by Trump, as I have, all right, for $500 million in the Southern District of Florida, which he ultimately dismissed, he, he abandoned the case about…

Full transcript with timestamps

As we close out the year, I wanted to take a moment to look back at where we were just 12 months ago, before Donald Trump took office, before the chaos was fully unleashed, and before we knew just how far things could slide. Last December, I sat down with the great George Conway to talk about our country at the time. We spoke about the warning signs of Trump's authoritarian behavior, the legal guard rails that he was already pushing against, and the already very real risks to American democracy. Listening back then, it's hard not to feel that chill of recognition. I mean, literally, so much of what we feared didn't just happen, it accelerated. I mean, the conversation is truly a reminder of how quickly norms can collapse, how badly things can go wrong, and why speaking out early still matters.

All righty, George Conway, welcome back to Maya. Good to see you, my friend. Lots going on. I don't have to tell you that. Lots going on, lots to talk about. Not a lot of time. So, I want to start with something that affects both you and me because reports are indicating that President-elect Trump has compiled an enemy's list targeting individuals such as yourself and myself uh including President Joe Biden, Vice President Kla Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and many other people. How does this align with authoritarian tendencies observed in by you know by other global leaders and what precedent does it set for American democracy?

Well, I mean it's consistent with the kind of behavior that you expect from a narcissistic sociopath who has authoritarian naturally has authoritarian tendencies. They think everything belongs to them, that everything is for their use, that the government belongs to him, that everything that the government can do should be done on his behalf. And if he doesn't like people, well, therefore the government should go after those people. And the government should, you know, leave him alone. And and the government belongs to him like his generals.

Remember how he used to always talk about his generals? Well, this is going to, you know, he's going to look at it that that this is his justice department. It's for him. It's his the United States of America and the executive branch are his play thing as of January 20th at noon. That's the way he views it in his own head. The same way he thinks, you know, this he thinks everything belongs to him, that he has the right to everything and um he knows no boundaries as as um you can attest better than I.

Yeah. Well, look, and obviously it's bad for the country because we need to have a president who's running the country for the country's sake and not for his own. Um, but you know, the people chose this is what they chose this time and and uh it's it's it's not great.

You see, but yet I blame Democrats in many respect during Yeah, I do. Um when Joe Biden was running and then followed by Kla Harris taking over as the nominee for the Democratic party, nobody talked about this specific issue with precision. They mentioned it that Donald Trump is an authoritarian. You know, they said they said all these things, but you know what they failed to acknowledge? You know what they failed to really smash home? Something you and I have spoken about many many times. It's not as if this didn't happen going back into 2018, right? When he first took um office as president number 45, they unconstitutionally remanded me off of a counterfeit document making me the first political prisoner held by this country because I refused to wave my first amendment constitutional right. And only thanks to Judge Alvin K. Ellstein did I ultimately get out? But this is not a new play in

the Trump playbook. It's just a play that's going to end up now taking place more and more and affecting more and more Americans. Something that I've been yelling about since day number one that I never ever ever wanted to see happen again in this country. But yet nobody really talked about it. Kla Harris didn't bring it up once. Joe Biden didn't bring it up once. Mistake.

I I'm gonna I'm gonna take a step back there. Biden wasn't as sharp on that, I think, as he could have been earlier on. I mean, I think a couple of times he talked about Trump's tendencies, but not that specifically. I agree with you. Kla Harris did talk about from she did talk about the fact that Trump wants to use the government as his own instrument of vengeance and she wants to use the government for the people. Um, again, I I I I I think she did point that out on on numerous occasions,

and I do think it fell upon deaf ears to a lot of people because they they kind of discount all political rhetoric. And I mean, your case is a great example of what he has done, but people, you know, I have to say and and it's disappointing me, people don't listen to the details and and they view they they discount rhetoric. um that they they think everybody is engaging in the same amount of rhetoric and same kind of blowhardism and and that's sort of why they kind of accept Trump and discount his his his his rhetoric and then they kind of discount everything that's said about him. They they don't really get it because they're not really tuned in and they haven't been paying attention. And that's really a, you know, it's I it's a real societal problem that we don't, you know, people don't really care enough to learn about what's happening in the real world. They choose, you know, they they

they scroll on their Tik Toks and and Facebook feeds and they they kind of get news occasionally, but that's distorted or or warped or or or maybe appeals to their own predelections. And um you know it it's I don't think that the message was lost for I mean at least on Vice President Harris's part her inability or unwillingness to express it. I just think I I just think that um people have to they have they have to see the negative effects of it and people have to learn the hard way. And I think a lot of people are going to learn the hard way when they see that the government is being run for not their behalf, but for the on behalf of people who um want to get rich off of the government and people who want to um uh punish others uh for their own flaws and and and to punish to get even with other people. So I I you know I I um I'm a little more forgiving I think of the Democrats than you are on this. Um, even

though I'm not a Democrat, but I but I am actually Well, maybe maybe that gives you more standing to be critical. Um, but I I I do think it's it's unfortunate that people really didn't tune into that.

But see, it's the really the messaging that was done wrong. So, in other words, when I would hear Kla Harris say it, I try to reach out to her people. It's not a question of a hypothetical because that's how they always pose the question. you know, Donald Trump, you know, wants to be a authoritarian. Donald Trump might and could use the Department of Justice to go against his critics. No. No. Donald Trump will do it. Why? Because he did it before. It's not new. It's just a different play um in his playbook. It's a more enhanced play in his playbook. You see, he realized that as the direct result of Alvin Helerstein's um granting of my habius corpus petition to be released, now you need to like a football like a football coach, you need to tweak the play, right? Maybe you don't, you know, um maybe you don't run it left, you run it right, you know, and that way you have um you know, a bigger open field. I

don't know. But they missed the whole point. You see, I'm factually accurate in the fact that it happened to me. And you don't need to take Michael Cohen's word for it. Take Alvin Hellerstein's word for it when he talked about Bill Barr and under the Trump administration being retaliatory and saying it's the first time in his entire career. It's like spanning more than 30 years on the federal bench that he's ever seen anything this despicable. And yet they didn't want to use it. You see, had they used it in the proper way, I think that at least some people might have gotten the message that this is really wrong and under his administration, it's not as if, like Trump said, the Biden administration is weaponizing the DOJ against him. It was actually his administration that that weaponized the DOJ against critics and enemies. Well, I'm certainly sympathetic toward your view and I do think that

your case deserved more attention than it got. But I'll say that the people who are who get that level of detail and would focus on one on your case in particular are people who already get it.

And the people who are the marginal voters, if you will, the swing voters in the swing states, they don't absorb that degree of detail. They don't know what a what a United States District Judge is. And um you know I think that that's that's the difficulty that you face in political messaging is that you are not just appealing to one kind of person. You're appealing to millions of people who fit different levels of knowledge um intellect uh education interest and and and an understanding of what the government is for and how it's how it can be used and misused. So, it, you know, it's it's not an easy thing. I I I I do give Vice President Harris a lot of credit for for speaking out and calling, you know, basically calling him, you know, calling him out for his criminality and the fact that she was a prosecutor. I think she did the best she could. um you know, keeping at the level of generality that you need to keep in

an election campaign where where where people you know they they don't get into the level of detail that you or I or the viewers of this podcast do.

Yeah. So, let me ask you this because then you have people like Cash Patel who's Trump's nominee for FBI director. The guy in a book identified 60 individuals that he deems part of the executive branch deep state which critics are now dubbing his enemies list.

Question what it I mean they don't have to dub it. I mean is what it is. It is his enemies list. Sure. Absolutely. My question to you,

my question is what legal or ethical consequences could arise from such public vendettas against political opponents and private citizens?

Well, yeah, look, I think the problem is that who's, you know, this is the classic who's watching the watchman problem. I mean, if the FD, you know, the person to investigate this, you know, criminal use, potentially criminal use of the criminal justice system, cr justice system against the enemies of people who happen to be in government service. Um, if those people are the people who are engaging in those bad acts, there's no one to watch the watchman. And that's the big problem here. That's the the craziness of it all that that people like Cash Patel and and you know we we saw the release of the House uh ethics committee report on Matt Gates. I mean, Matt Gates, I mean, it would be one thing if, you know, we there are some people who are very very talented and very very experienced who could have been prosecutors and and whatnot who who go into government service and then something comes out

about a fault that they had or a a a bad day that they had or or a bad incident in their home life or something. You you you know, you get these scandals that come up when people are vetted for high public office. And here you have this just outright rampant um misbehavior it with a man who had zero qualifications to be attorney general. Absolutely none. I mean he never was even a you know he wasn't not only was he not a prosecutor. Um he was never even a litigator. He spent like a year in a law firm. He did le you know he he he I I I know parallegals in New York City. you've done more legal legal work or show more skill than than than Matt Gates did. And and that's just a and that just shows you that his Trump doesn't care about any of that. He only cares about loyalty. He only cares about whether somebody is going to do his bidding and is someone motivated to do his bidding. And that's

what that's what Cash Patel is all about. It's actually what many of them are all about. Let me ask

Yeah. So let me ask you this then because you know President Biden is reportedly considering issuing you know preemptive pardons and pardons for individuals like yourself, myself and many many others who might be unjustly targeted by this incoming administration. Is this legally and politically viable? And what precedent do you think that it'll set for future administrations taking into consideration that he issued commutations on what was it 37 uh inmates federal inmates who were slated for execution. He issued commutations and Trump is already talking about trying to figure out how to put it back.

Yeah. Well, I you know I I think it's going to be a very difficult thing for I mean I in principle the president could craft a a pardon announcement a pardon proclamation that's very broad but I you know h how you draw unless you're naming specific names and I don't think

got to name them got to name them not necessarily I mean that's that's not necessarily true I mean I think there's a lot of been a lot of discussion about what the Biden administration might do is patterned after is is invoking the precedent of uh the 199 1977 and Jimmy Carter uh amnesty given to people who um failed to comply with their selective service requirements during the during the Vietnam War and also with the there were some low-level marijuana use um pardons that were issued by by President Biden early in his term. I I I think I think actually it would make more sense to pardon specific individuals um that you know might be subject to persecution if under some circumstances.

But I don't know how you I don't know how you make that list. Um and I and I the list is already made.

The list is already made. Look, I mean, I have a let me go back to the more general problem I have with it is which is I just, you know, people haven't done anything wrong, shouldn't receive or take pardons. Um, that's my problem. But I I do understand the plight of people like yourself, Olivia, Troy, a lot of names have been thrown about um of people who just could get sucked into some ridiculous investigation. Um, I think the best course there is that that is that they these these investigations have to be dealt with on the merits. And I think people have to band together to support people who who are who who've done nothing wrong and and have simply just stood up for for what is right.

I mean, Cassidy Hutchinson's talking Griffin. I mean, there's there's a hundred different names. You know, let me tell you where the problem comes in with something like that. First and foremost, he gave his son a pardon. Well, I'm somebody's son, too. You're somebody's son, also. Alyssa Farah, Cassidy Hutchinson, Olivia Troy, so many others are daughters of somebody. You know, you can't take, you know, I get it. You got to worry about your kids, but technically to the president, we're all supposed to be his children, right?

And until you've been sued by Trump, as I have, all right, for $500 million in the Southern District of Florida, which he ultimately um dismissed, he, you know, he abandoned the case about three days or so before he was to sit for depositions, court ordered depositions. It cost me over $300,000 to defend that case. a $500 million action against you. Number one, it completely takes over your life. Two, it makes you sick to your stomach because you never know what can happen in any lawsuit. Three, you're throwing money out that you just don't have and you're asking people to help you, which many people did, and I'm thankful for that.

But it cost you money. What happens to everybody else? You know, we don't have the Elon Musk in the Democratic party that's willing to put up a George Conway firm so that everybody can be protected legally. And by the way, I didn't ask to be a witness. I didn't ask going back into 2017 when I was subpoenaed by the Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. My biggest mistake is that I actually showed up and that I didn't do what everybody else did and say, "Go [ __ ] yourselves. I'm not going. I'm not doing it." What are you gonna do? Give me a 100 days in jail like they did for Navaro? I did almost half of that in solitary confinement.

Yeah. Uh, look, I mean, again, obviously the pardons can't help with civil litigation, so that's that's a separate issue. um and he's going to do that and they don't necessarily help with tax investigations um that that could you know where where civil penalties are are being sought. So I you know I mean there's a limit to what the outgoing president can do to help potential victims of retribution in the next administration. I I and I think at the end of the day um you know we're going to have to rely on the courts.

we're going to have to rely on people who are are willing to help uh people who are in being persecuted in the manner that we anticipate they may be um just the way people help you. And I I know that is not that is not a satisfactory answer for somebody's somebody whose life is is turned upside down by by by by this kind of of retributive action by the government or people in people in government. But I, you know, I I think that's that's ultimately where where the action is going to be because I I don't think I don't think that that we're going to see a a blanket pardon of people. And I think a lot of people will reject um a blanket pardon or a pardon that names them because they because they simply have done nothing wrong.

If so what as far listen they can reject whatever they want. I'm sure there's plenty of us that would say, you know, we would accept. I mean, the Guardian as an example, you know, as

Yeah. What's that? No, I I would not I would not accept a pardon. I've done nothing wrong and I will absolutely

I would force you to No, I would I would come to DC and I'd force you just keep it in your pocket and keep it there. I mean because like the Guardian is reporting that people like Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, Nancy Pelosi to name just a few,

right, are you know people who are going to get um let me just say incoming administration.

They they may and they or they may not because you have to say I mean this is a lot of people on that list.

Yeah. Okay. And there are going to be there are a lot of people on the list who are going to fight back and can fight back and can can join together with others to fight back. And again, that's what I think has to be done at the end of the day. If if these

Let let me let me just say this to you, George. As somebody that's been on that retribution side as well, that $500 million lawsuit, as ridiculous as it was, every legal scholar that read that complaint turned around and said the lawyer should be sanctioned

for filing such a frivolous case. And the lawyer should be sanctioned who filed who filed that lawsuit against Anne Seltzer the pollster for pollster for the de mo register and I think there will be some sanctions at the end of the day. I mean we Alina Haba had to pay sanctions and and I think that um you know and I think that's that's that's all fair and I think that's the way to fight back actually.

Yeah. Well, until it makes Well, you know, we have a disagreement on that, but we we we we know what the Yeah, we have we have we have a difference in philosophy there, but I understand, you know, I I greatly, as you know, sympathize where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm just coming from a guy who actually has been abused by the system, by the DOJ time and time and time again. But let me ask you this then because you know considering the unprecedented nature of these preemptive pardons or pardons altogether to protect you know individuals from potential retribution. How do you think this compares to historical uses of the pardon power in the United States? Remembering that when Trump left office in 2020, there's all sorts of stories and allegations that it was a payforplay.

I mean, there's stories galore. New York Times reported it over and over and over again that there are individuals who paid for their pardons.

I you know it it's I think you have to look at everything pardon by pardon. I mean there are always been some pardons that sort of raised hackles and raised eyebrows at the end of an administration. Um that includes Hunter the Hunter Biden pardon that includes the Mark Rich pardon at the end of the Clinton administration and includes a number of the pardons um that former president and soon to be president again Trump issued u in in 2020 and 2021. So I I don't I I you know I don't think you can compare them because I think I could compare that to what we are talking about the president Biden doing on the way out because the the the pardons were for people who had already done something and also usually found to have done something. I mean Mark Rich was a fugitive from justice. Hunter Biden was had a conviction. um the you know as the difference would be the pardons that we're talking about here are be

preemptive pardons I get for people who may who probably have done nothing will likely have done nothing wrong and I I I just I don't know that one justifies the other but I will agree with you that um it's a you know it's not abusive in the in the same way that you know a pardon of a of a rich friend or somebody who's a who who is a rich contributor to the to to to a campaign or you know a a friend of the Democratic party like Mark Mark Rich was or or a son like Hunter Biden was although th those are peculiar circumstances there and I I I kind of cut a little slack for President Biden there. I you know again I I I don't think you can I think it's an apples and oranges comparison and um you know I I I don't know that all those bad pardons justify ones that might be perceived as better

because you know here on Maya I had for example Lev Parnes on a couple of times and during the time that he is a character he's a great dude but what ultimately happened is here on the show he explain complained that during the time where Trump was leaving, Rudy Giuliani came to him and this is from again Lev's mouth that Giuliani came to him and said, "Hey, Lev, if you know anybody that needs a pardon, have them reach out to me." They, according to Lev, were selling pardons. I mean, that's just not normal behavior. In fact, to make matters even worse, they took the whole thing out of the hands of the pardon pardon attorney at the

DOJ directly. Jared Kushner took the whole thing over. Yeah. And of course his father gets a pardon. [snorts]

Well, I mean, who wouldn't do it for dear old dad, right? I mean that the point is here Lev was saying that Rudy was asking him to go find you know people who may need

you get no argument from me that Rudy Giuliani is a sleas ball and that the pardons the pardon power was greatly abused at the end of President Trump's last term. So I you get no argument there from me.

Well then really it was outrageous. I I I agree. Um, and I guess we're talking about the history and

and the pardon of Maniffort and the pardon of stone or the commutation of Stone sentence and I mean there were there were just so many bad things that happened and then we're going to see on probably on January 20th at like 12 12:05 a.m. right after he sw takes the oath of office and gives his speech maybe 15 minutes later you know he's going to sign these pardons for all the Jan January 6ers. I have no doubt he's going to do that. He just promised to do that and that's going to be, you know, those people committed real crimes on his behalf.

And that will be, I think, the most abusive use of the pardon power in history given that he incited an insurrection to overthrow the Constitution and use those people to do it.

And interestingly enough, he'll probably get accolades by his MAGA supporters and the Republican party for doing the right thing, right? I mean, it's not We live in a world where everything's upside down in that regard. Yes. So I'm not I agree with you there.

So let's jump back to obviously the uh ethics report um on Representative Matt Gates that came to light.

I confess I confess Michael I didn't actually read the report. I went I went straight to the exhibits.

Oh you did the emails and texts or the text. So well there's something I mean whoa. I mean, I I read I read it twice. There 42 pages in total. Um, you know, which

I I like looking at the emails. I mean, yeah, it's crazy stuff. [clears throat]

Yeah, that is it highlights the allegations of a whole slew of misconduct here. I'm amazed. I'm amazed that you know

how Speaker Johnson could justify withholding that report is just be this m this holy Christian uh you know I mean I just it's just be the whole thing is just unfathomable. But anyway,

so my question to you that I want to ask you is how does this development affect the internal cohesion and public perception of the Republican party? You think it's making anybody, you know, take a look at them in a different way, especially in light of what you just brought up? How does Magnamite Johnson, a guy who is supposedly holier than thou,

turn around and accept this sort of report and try to hide it despite the fact you and I may disagree on this as well. I actually don't think they should have released the report at all.

Well, that's interesting. Yeah. Well, that's that's interesting. That's that's an interesting point of discuss. I I I just think one of the things that we are seeing in the Trump era and it's certainly true of Trump himself, but it's also true of the people who are enabling him is there is no bottom. They they they they there is no end to the degree to which they corrupt themselves or they behave in a craven fashion. And the fact that, you know, the the the Matt Gates that Matt Gates was nominated and that and and and or proposed to be nominated and that this report I mean and that that he even it's absurd. It's just absurd. There's no there's no end to the misbehavior here. And I I don't I I don't know.

Words escape me on how to how to describe it because I guarantee you there'll be something worse down the line.

So, let me ask you this then. All right. Cuz as I was reading this report, and again, I still don't believe that they should have released it. The report was actually designed to hold him accountable to the House Ethics Committee as a member of Congress when he stepped away. Technically, the way I see it, the report is moot. It's not supposed other than the salacious, you know, the salaciousness of it and the fact that it appeals to our purant, you know, uh, interests and so on because we're living in like a Kardashian country right now where the dirtier it is, the happier everybody is in order to read it and talk about it and so on.

what I think they should have done with it, if in fact the um the report is accurate in all of the 15 witnesses that came forth and the thousands of documents that supported the um response by the ethics committee, which by the way, I want to remind my my listeners and my viewers here that it was bipartisan that in order for it to be released, it was Republican and Democrat that released released um this report.

My feeling is there's no point in releasing it to us, the public. Why not release it to the attorney general? Uh why not release it to the state attorney general of Florida, which would have the jurisdiction over this case?

Well, that that's what I think that they should have done instead of turning around and doing this. That's I think that's that's a valid point that that that law enforcement should have been given a copy of the report. On the other hand, um, this this ethics investigation probably should have, and I think did, I don't know the facts of how they collected their information, tracked a long a long-standing Justice Department investigation of Gates. Um, that ultimately did not result in a prosecution of Gates for whatever reason. because I I I I don't know. But I've it's said that maybe some of the witnesses would not have been credible enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But I but your your point is well taken. And I think another point that kind of relates to your point would be well taken as well is that imagine knowing that this report is on its way and is probably been drafted and

is about to be released and knowing based upon the public record that there are probably some bad details in there. Imagine having the gall to not nominate this man, notwithstanding the assistance of the report and notwithstanding the fact that you, the president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, did not even bother to ask what was in it or what might be in it. That's the real that that's a real that that's a point.

Can I give a little twist to that? Like a New York City pretzel. All right. I actually don't hold Donald Trump accountable for that. You know Donald for many, many years. In fact, George, I know you uh and Kellyanne longer than I actually know Donald, right? Going back to our going back to our earliest days.

Let me be very clear about something. You know as well as I that Donald didn't look through any of this. He wasn't involved in the vetting or anything. I blame the transition team. I think the transition team that's doing this

right now, wait, hear me, hear me on it, right? I I blame the transition team in the fact that they're giving him really [ __ ] advice that what they're doing is this happened to By the way, in 2017, right after the win in 2017, there was no transition book. I had been pushing for the transition book weeks before, but nobody wanted to do it. Donald didn't want to do it. So, the day after the win, what ends up happening, Jared starts running around and handing out big gigantic thick um you know, documents that have all the names of these positions that are open with lines underneath it saying fill in whoever you think should be ambassador to the court of St. James or the ambassador to Mexico or the chief of staff for the department of defense, uh the secretary of veterans affair, who by the way I put in um as well as Woody Johnson for uh ambassador and you know, interestingly enough, this

is the same thing that they're doing now. They're all running around like a bunch of chickens without heads enjoying making tick tock and and videos of their massive win doing the YMCA jerkoff dance. I mean, that's exactly what's going on here, right? They look like that when they start doing it like they're jerking off a giraffe, right? It's the truth. So, you sit there

that image. I can't I can't I can't. Now, you'll see it every single time. I'm not joking here. This is absolutely ridiculous. All right. It's the transition team that's supposed to be putting in competent people. Otherwise, who needs

I'm not going to def I will not defend the trans the transition team, but you know Donald Trump very well. And you can't do anything in an organized fashion with him. and and and apparently according to the press reports I read, the way that the Matt Gates thing happened is that Boris Epstein got was in the cabin of the plane alone with Trump and Gates and talked Trump into it when Susie Wilds was, you know, in another part on another part of the airplane. Didn't know anything about it. Okay. If Donald Trump just decides arbitrarily and and very impulsively to make decisions without ba without sufficient factual information, without caring about having sufficient factual information and creates chaos in his own transition.

And it's whoever talks to him last, you know, who can have the most influence in any given moment. And then, you know, he he's just incredibly impulsive and and you know, you you can't have that there is no way there would ever be a coherent cohesive transition process with him in charge. There's never going to be a coherent a cohesive presidency, a functional presidency with him in charge. And that's one of the reasons that, you know, with that long list of enemies that we were talking about earlier, you know, he's not going to do very well with that long list because it's way too long and he's going to, you know, he's like a fire hose. It just goes he's going to go one way the other and just all over the place. But you see, I remember I remember George in 2017 when the transition team, which was at one point uh run again by Jared because Ivanka set him up to be the secretary of everything. I do remember

that there was a whole slew of individuals and they were actually doing as much vetting as they possibly could. Now, everybody knew about these allegations uh regarding Matt Gates. So while Trump and you're right would turn around the guy who owns the ear last owns the brain, right? What what ultimately I think

well especially Boris I mean you know Boris is a [ __ ] clown no matter how you want to slice it, right? He just is. I mean I know Boris when he was just we used to call him a lap dog that all he want do was just be seen by Trump. Okay, now you're being seen by Trump. But my understanding is Trump hasn't even offered him anything yet. Um, as far as in the administration, whether he wants it or not, I don't know. But it but how could you take somebody like Matt Gates seriously for attorney general when he just doesn't fit even one of the boxes like, okay, you may not like Pam Bondi, right? You may not think,

yeah, but she's a she was a prosecutor in office. She's a she's, you know, I mean,

she's a real player. She's a she's a real person who has at least on paper the credentials of a potential attorney general. I mean, you know, Janet Reno was district attorney in Miami. Okay. They they actually there's you know that that but I I mean I I have I I have issues with Pam Bondi, but but um yeah, she was actually

a prosecutor, right? Like people like Marco very general of a state. Absolutely.

Exactly. Exactly. I just think of Matt Gates who you know worked at a law firm about 6 months ago.

That's why I turn around experience was being investigated for um sleeping and giving drugs to 17 year olds. I mean you know with I mean

but that's why I say I blame the transition team. Now let me ask you let me ask you this.

It's look I mean everything flows from him. Okay. All the chaos all the lunacy flows from him. I mean I think Susie Wilds left to her own devices. I don't know her, but she wouldn't have picked Matt Gates. But you've got this guy, and this guy is going to do what he's going to do. And if you tell him not to do things, sometimes he's going to do them just to show you that he can do them.

Um, you know, he's completely woo and Yep. I mean, I don't know what else to say about him.

So, let me ask you this because again, here's another thing that's now occupying the news. Trump made some recent comments about taking back the Panama Canal. This really raised it's raised a ton of eyebrows. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the treaty done like in 1999? I mean, you're talking about almost 25 years ago that the canal was turned over to Panama.

Yeah, the canal was turned over I I think in the '9s, as you say. I don't remember the precise date. The treaty was uh uh was voted on in the 1970s and under the Carter administration. It was controversial at the time because many people felt that the United States had built this canal although you know and it should keep the canal and then you know but ultimately the decision was made and it is you know smack in the middle of Panama. It's it it bicts Panama. it's their country and um you know as long as people have free access to it not free access but it you know international you know fair international access to it which is I think provided for in the treaty um why why we'd want to upset that apple cart and what basis we have to do it other than brute force and intimidation I I I don't see

the my understanding is that again somebody's is whispering in his ear that China is in cahoots with Panama, that there's all these tariffs in terms of the shipping lanes going through, they're charging x amount of dollars, and you know that the United States is getting ripped off by Panama. To me, it says a couple of things. First and foremost, I don't think that whoever's feeding him this information has any comprehension about or understanding of historical international agreements and foreign policy. I think they've just thrown that to the wind and say, "We're the United States. We're bigger than you. We're stronger than you and we can do whatever we want." But there's also a belief that one of the reasons that Trump is so angry at Panama is because they made uh they brought an action against him for failing to pay. They held him um where 12 a.5% he had a Trump Tower in Panama that they pulled the

name off of the building, but that based upon the management agreement they were supposed to pay taxes of 12.5% as per the agreement to the Panameanian government. They never did that. And now the new owner is stuck with millions of dollars in fines and this and that and so because it got out there that Trump is angry at Panama.

I you know who who's to say? I mean he has gripes and you know he he he doesn't like windmills because whatever he he's got problems with the Scottish government. He's got problems with everybody and you can't always sort out the narcissistic motivations that are floating around randomly in his head. I will say that, you know, we're seeing a very interesting kind of parallel to um other authoritarians in the kind of expansive expansionist inquisitiveness that he seems to be expressing favor for. Talking about Canada becoming the 51st state and referring to the prime minister of Canada as Governor Trudeau.

uh talking about uh taking Greenland from from from the from the Kingdom of Denmark. Uh and and and this bit with the Panama Canal. I mean, he he it it just seems to be um un unrestrained megalamania that is driving him. And there may be some lesser motivations involved like as you say this bit with the the the Panameanian Trump property but um you know I think there's also a big thing going on that he he he he is so consumed with his visions of grandeur that he he he wants to now become a conqueror you know and and and exert his power elsewhere in the world. Um and and and you know, I mean, it's almost Putin if you will. [snorts]

Yeah. Let me ask you, do you think that there's a domestic political strategy behind these comments regarding the Panama Canal? Because at this recent um speech that he gave in Arizona,

right, when he brought this up, the crowd went [ __ ] wild. Well, I couldn't believe it. They were they go [ __ ] wild about a lot of what he says. I don't, you know anytime I have this reflex action that occurs anytime somebody utters a question or a makes a declarative statement that contains a sentence that has the both the words Trump and strategy in it. I don't think the man has any strategy at all in him and he's capable of strategy. I think he's pure impulsiveness, pure uh he has this reptilian uh instinct of taking more than he's entitled to, grabbing more than he should have, uh asserting more authority or wisdom or power or intelligence or anything. or money than he actually has or deserves. And I I I think this this sort of this expansionist rhetoric referring to Panama and Greenland and Canada and I mean we're probably going to hear more about something else. Maybe it'll be about the Caribbean Mexico.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mexico, you know, that's just what he does. And I think people who find that bra this that bravora entertaining or appealing that that kind of authoritarian that kind of of of strongman kind of attitude um appealing are going to react positively to that and that is his base. But I don't think it's a strategy. I think it's just a marrying up of his base instinct with their base instincts, the base's base instincts, if you will. So, I, you know, I I I I don't think it's strategy, but I do think it's sort of a symbiosis of a sort, um, where his bad tendencies reinforce the bad tendencies of others and then those reinforce his bad tendencies. It's a vicious vicious cycle.

Yes. But it has to be acknowledged that that vicious cycle worked. That's the craziest

No, here we Absolutely. Absolutely, Michael. Because that's why we're here talking about it.

Exactly. You know, we're going to talk going back for like um criminal justice reform. You see, what Trump does is he says what I deem to be the obvious. Our immigration system is broken. Everybody Republican Democrat independent, will acknowledge that our immigration process is no good. They'll also say that criminal justice that the Department of Justice that there's all these the IRS they are all [ __ ] up as organizations. They just are. You know, you want to get a document by foyer got good luck to you. And that, by the way, even existed in the Matt Gates um ethics report. They sent 14 or 15 requests for documents. DOJ said, "No, well, we still want to work with you, but we're not giving you the documents yet. We have this to do. We have that to do. I'm going through it for four and a half years on my case, and they haven't turned over a single document despite the fact that the court, the judge said

that I'm supposed to be on an expedited basis." This is the same where I wrote in my book, Revenge, that literally they claimed that there were zero documents that pertained to my foyer request. After we sent them the lawsuit showing that there are documents, in fact, I had several, four or five of them, they acknowledged they made a mistake and found that there's 486,000 documents that um, you know, pertain to my request and asked me if I would even limit the request because there's no way that they could ever comply. Imagine that sort of 0 to 486,000.

So when Trump says that it's all [ __ ] up or we need this, we need that, he's not wrong. It's just the method that he wants to go about the change is the part that's bad. And I bring this question up because like with the commutation of those 37 federal death row inmate sentences to the pardons to the whole nine yards. as we're now concentrating and discussing on the 2026 midterm elections with a House and a Senate so close it's like the numbers are like one or two seat differences. What do you think that the potential political risks for Democrats as a result of Biden's decision to say for example commute these sentences or give the pardon to his son and to some others? What do you think that the political risk could be calculated as? I don't think there's a huge even though I disapproved of the b of the Hunter Biden pardon and I don't really have an opinion about the commutation of the

death row sentences. I have to see the individual cases to really make an assessment. um I don't think it's going to have much of a political effect because I think that that you know the country has the attention span of a gnat and um we are going to see so much happen so quickly that is bizarre and new and different um and that's going people will have forgotten about Joe Biden by February. So I don't I I don't see a lasting political impact to any of that.

I mean I you know why I you know why I do? Yeah. I do. I really think that we that the Democrats we're all playing this all wrong. I wish that they would have reached out to me. I'll tell them why they're doing it wrong. Tell me what you think about this one. So while Joe Biden's position is we need to be more humane and these you know executions are wrong and so on and so forth. What is Donald Trump saying? He's saying he wants to actually bring back public executions. He wants to maybe create on a channel WWE wide world of executions.

[ __ ] Madison Square Garden, right? They're going to have a whole But he's going to do that anyway. He's going to do that anyway. the same way he made up the stuff about people eating cats and dogs in in Springfield, Ohio, he's going to say what he's going to say and they're going to be large swaths of the public that find that appealing.

Yes. and and and again I don't I you know it's uh I mean that's where we are and and I don't know that I don't know frankly that that Joe Biden's going to add or detract from that at this point. Um I I I just think people have moved on.

See what he's going to do is he's going to claim my administration quite frankly is all about law and order. We have lost our we're we're a completely disordered dislawed country and I need to bring it back. And the only way that I can convince John Doe or Jane Doe not to do the things that they're doing, which puts you and your family in jeopardy, is we have to make the penalty so severe that you'd have to be out of your mind, which too many of them are, in order to go ahead and to even want to be anywhere near a firearm. Imagine we parade you through Madison Square Garden and then we hang you in front of a whole place.

Yeah. They should I mean for stealing classified documents for example the punishments maybe maybe should be higher. Absolutely.

You're talking about the code of Hammurabi now my friend. Yes. Off with his hands and so on. So let me let me ask you this right because there's obviously shifting public opinion on capital punishment. You know, again, my concern, and I think we need to get ahead of it as Democrats, Trump's push for these harsher penalties. Um, I believe that there is a large swath of society, contemporary society, that views this as a positive thing because he's just going to couch it as being

protective for you. I understand I understand your point. Um, on the other hand, he's been on both sides of this. I mean, remember Jared and his initiative about giving clemency to people who to to I mean, prison reform and that kind of thing, you know, they're all over the place. It's it's what you it's just the impulsive randomness of of what he does um that this all reflects. and nothing is ever going to be pursued to completion. It's like the wall. The wall was like, "Oh, we're going to build this great wall." And they didn't really ask for very much money for it and then very little of it ends up getting built. You know, all with with Trump, it's all it's all showmanship. It's all [ __ ] And yeah, he's going to make this [ __ ] about executions at Madison Square Garden or whatever. It's never going to happen. But yeah, he's going to he's going to he's going to do he's going to mouth off and say these crazy things and

it's not serious. It's not serious governance. It's it's it's clownish demagoguery and a lot of people fall for it,

you know, but he's and it doesn't stop just there. I mean, you may have heard as well that, you know, there's a lot of rhetoric coming out of the, you know, incoming Trump administration about removing, for example, transgender individuals from schools and eliminating critical race theory, which, you know, they have somehow managed to make into a polarizing topic. In fact, he wants to at that same Arizona conference or at that uh rally, he turned around, he said, "I want to go back to nothing other than either you're a male or you're a female. There's no more of these they, them, him, this, and so."

And again, the crowd went wild. So my question to you is, what do you think of the potential impacts of such policies on, for example, marginalized communities? Look, I mean, I I think it's a classic authoritarian move to pick on and exaggerate the significance of people who are relatively powerless. Okay? Because one of the things that draws people to an author authoritarian leader, a megalamomaniac, is the feeling of being on the team that's powerful and the team that's fighting something and looking for scapegoats to blame the world's their own personal failings or their own personal uh grievances on. And that's what Trump does, always has does, always has done and always will do. And you know, it used to be caravans of of of people coming from South America or Central America. And then it's uh people eat eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. and and then it's, you know, transgender kids, even though

they're very few and far between and most people aren't affected. 99% of all people aren't affected by it, but they want to talk about it because it allows people to have a scapegoat, something to hate, something to to to feel angry about. And that's what he does. And that's what people like him do. And that's not serious governance. It's it's it's it's completely counterproductive. Increases societal divisions that and distracts from the actual work that that that people should be doing to make the world a better place.

I mean, think about like Nancy Mace walking down the halls of Congress. They have cameras everywhere than now. I mean, they must have 10,000 cameras in in the halls of Congress. Anytime anybody walks out the door, there's four or five cameras on anybody. And she's talking about the one incoming um member of Congress who's transgender. I'm not going to made an entire thing that occupied people's attention for a week. For a week. And you're right, you're talking about one member of of Congress. I mean, I just thought,

you know, the funny thing is the funny thing is I you know, like you've been in courouses and legislative buildings is

the the legislators don't use the public bathrooms, I don't think, most of the time because they have their own they have their own private bathrooms in their offices. Okay? I mean, this is all just madeup [ __ ] I mean the same judges I mean judges have you know I mean a judge wants to change to a tuxedo at a court at his at his chambers in court her you know courthouse he goes into to his own he's got his own private bathroom. I mean this is what this is what h you know it's it's just it's all [ __ ] I mean it's all complete.

So look George the hour goes by very quick. I have one last question for you. One last question. Okay.

So obviously you know Elon Musk is playing a major major role. There's uh even on his own social media platform X, everything trending now is President Musk. We know Donald Trump well. You know him a long time. I know him a long time. How do you think that he's really feeling about all of this? President Musk, Vice President.

Oh, he's got to hate it. He's got to hate it. And but he bought it. He bought this this pro this this this whole problem. And and it's funny. It's because one one thing that's sort of ironic and funny about it is he made this deal, but this is one it's going to be harder for him to get out of just the same way that well the same way the Republicans sort of made a deal with the devil in basically deciding that they had to live with Trump. Okay, now they can't get rid of him, right? You know, Mitch McConnell screwed that up. Trump's going to find it hard. Trump's going to this stuff's going to drive Trump crazy and it already starting to for given the comments from the last couple days. But he's the one who invited Musk into the house and he's the one who empowered Musk and he's pro the problem with it is like he has to face possibility of Musk doing to him what he would do to somebody else

that that he that that who cast him aside which is retribution. And and Musk has a lot more ability to exact retribution from Donald Trump than Donald Trump actually has for him. He could just bomb the [ __ ] out of Trump with with ads and things. So Trump's got to be really really careful. Same way he's probably careful about Putin for some reason. You know, you you make a deal with the devil. Even the devil makes it if devil when the devil makes him deal with another the another devil, you know, not such a great idea.

You know how the saying goes there, be careful when you knock on the door of the devil. Sometimes he answers.

Yeah, exactly. And um maybe he's met his match this time. Who knows? We'll see. No, it's gonna it's going to be

We will see. And um where she stops, nobody knows. And it's um you know I wish it all weren't happening but you know to the it's going to be a spectacle.

Yeah. Every day we're going to see chaos. George, thank you so much for joining me. Appreciate you my friend and um

have a happy holiday to you and to everybody the whole family the same. Thank you brother. Bye.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "🚨 George Conway’s URGENT WARNING on Trump MORE RELEVANT Than Ever"?

Michael Cohen (Host), George Conway (Guest).

What is "🚨 George Conway’s URGENT WARNING on Trump MORE RELEVANT Than Ever" about?

The discussion highlights the alarming authoritarian tendencies displayed by Donald Trump as he approaches the presidency, underscoring the risks to American democracy and the unsettling normalization of such behavior. George Conway emphasizes the importance of recognizing these warning signs and the potential consequences of unchecked power, reflecting on how quickly democratic norms can…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

27 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Pardon power, Mark Rich, Congress, American democracy, Springfield, Ohio, Boris Epshteyn. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "🚨 George Conway’s URGENT WARNING on Trump MORE RELEVANT Than Ever"?

The episode runs 1 h 1 min; the transcript is about 9,971 words in 123 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.