Gloria and Paula, thank you
both very much.
I want to now turn to
conservative lawyer George
Conway.
George, thank you for joining
us here tonight.
We were just discussing this
issue of whether trump's
explanations are believable.
I want to play here what former
governor Chris Christie had to
say about that.
He is getting cornered.
I think the latest law is the
one that he said just yesterday,
where he said it was just
bravado.
He is essentially saying he was
lying to the people he was
sitting with.
Mark meadows biographers and
his own staff.
But, let me tell you something.
That's what he does.
He admitted that he had the
documents, he knew about the
grand jury subpoena, but he was
cute busy to go through the
boxes.
To see what was classified and
what was it.
And he didn't want to just turn
the boxes over because he had
golf shirts and golf pants and
they're.
I mean, come on.
There is nobody in America who
believes that story.
>> So George, I assume all of
these public statements are
potentially admissible in
court.
How much they matter?
>> They matter a lot.
Because, he is lying about
everything.
We all know, we've had
experiences when people have
been caught with their hands in
the cookie jar, dealing with
people who are telling lies and
making up stories.
Nothing like this, he is just
not very good at it.
But he is a pathological liar,
he will say anything that comes
to his head at any given moment
to convince somebody to divert
attention, or to convince
somebody that accusations
against him is untrue.
But the problem is that he has
no defense.
We have been watching this
since last August, and they
have yet to come up with a
coherent, factual, or legal
defense to these charges.
And the reason is is because he
did it.
He did it, and it was illegal.
And there is just no argument
that he has.
And that's why you see him
cycling and feeling about, and
going from saying the FBI
planted the documents, I was
entitled to the documents, I
didn't have any documents,
literally, there is no lie that
he --
I think he's run out of lies.
The last one where he saying
that these were plans for a
golf course or something like
that?
I know that the Pentagon does
own some golf courses somewhere,
but it's ridiculous.
That's not what he was talking
about and we have the tape.
>> We will find out if there
are more explanations to come
for sure.
But on this special counsel
investigation to January 6th,
what does it say to you that
Brad raffensperger was brought
in to testify today?
>> Yeah.
Again, Georgia is going to be
one threat.
It's a very complicated case,
which is why I think as Gloria
just pointed out a couple
minutes ago, it's why I think
the special counsel proceeded
with the documents case, which
is just a single timeline.
Whereas --
is multiple timelines, people
doing various things and trump
being involved basically
everywhere, trying to get the
vice president to violate the
law, trying to create slates of
fake electors, trying to
persuade the secretary of state
in Georgia raffensperger and
people in Michigan in other
states.
It's just very complex.
But the raffensperger thing is
really significant because
there is the tape.
And you are putting
raffensperger on to explain the
context of how the tape came
about, is very, very important.
And when you combine --
>> Do you think the tape alone
though is enough to
substantiate a some kind of
charge here when it comes to
trump?
>> I don't think that it's
enough, but you have to
remember, it's pretty
significant.
He's basically asking for one
more vote than he needs to win
the election.
He did --
he is annexing --
it's not legitimate count.
He is basically asking somebody
to fix the result.
But you have to do that in the
context of all the evidence
that we've seen so far that
came out, especially during the
January 6th committee hearings
in the house.
And how basically everybody
told him, everybody with every
sense, lawyers in the
government, lawyers out side
the government, his own
attorney general, his own staff,
and everybody was telling him,
you lost buddy.
You lost.
And that's the context.
>> He is just pushing all of
this anyway.
So George, also today, if there
weren't enough illegal dealings
having to deal with former
president trump, he was --
>> There's only going to be
more.
>> He was countersuing E. Jean
Carroll for defamation after a
jury found that he was liable
for sexual salt and that he
defamed her.
So it's important to point out
here that Carroll testified
that a conversation with you in
2019 led her to seriously
consider suing trump.
But, do you think that trump
has a case here, a counter case
to sue her for defamation?
>> It is the most ridiculous
thing.
We've seen so much that's
ridiculous.
This is one of the more
ridiculous things we've ever
seen.
Because, the fact of the matter
is, the jury found that he
sexually molested Jeanne.
And, whether it's technically
rape under New York law or not,
it would be rape in many other
states what the jury found that
he did.
But the jury didn't find that
she was not raped.
They said, we find that it was
sufficient for the purposes of
the verdict that they find that
she was sexually molested.
In a very unspeakable fashion.
So, it's any libel case that he
seeks to bring upon a
proposition that he didn't
commit technical rake under new
York law, is just ridiculous.
And I think what we're going to
see is Alina hubbub, who filed
this thing, Joe tacopina didn't
dare file this, I think she's
going to get sanctioned like
she did in Florida, by the
judge in Florida with that case
involving the DNC.
>> Interesting.