George Conway

- A prominent conservative attorney and fierce critic of Donald Trump.

This week on "Firing Line."

- He's a narcissistic sociopath, and that is someone who is unfit for office.

- [Margaret] Midway through Donald Trump's presidency, George Conway emerged as one of Donald Trump's sharpest critics.

- [George] You know, it's like the administration is like a [censored] show in a dumpster fire.

- [Margaret] A stance that was notable because his then wife, Kellyanne Conway, was a senior counselor to the president.

- He's a whack job, there's no question about it.

I call him Mr. Kellyanne.

- [Margaret] George Conway has long been well-known in conservative legal circles.

- I grew up watching American politics as a kid, and becoming a Reaganite.

And so I still believe in that.

- [Margaret] He supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

- I think he effectively committed obstruction.

I found it deeply offensive.

- [Margaret] And was once considered for a post in Trump's Department of Justice.

Now, he is one of the strongest voices supporting the prosecutions of Trump.

- This man's a criminal, and I don't think he deserves a pass on anything.

- [Margaret] And has donated nearly $1 million to President Biden's reelection effort.

- The reason why I'm supporting Joe Biden is because I worry that our constitutional democracy would not survive another Trump term.

- [Margaret] As Trump's first criminal trial, involving hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, approaches jury deliberations, what does George Conway say now?

- [Narrator] "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, The Asness Family Foundation, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, The McKenna Family Foundation, Charles R. Schwab, The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation, and by the following.

Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc and by Pfizer Inc. [soft upbeat music] - George Conway, welcome to "Firing Line."

- Thank you, Margaret.

Thank you for having me.

- Donald Trump's first criminal trial will be deliberated by a jury next week.

You were initially critical of that case, but last week you wrote that this is in some ways the perfect case against Trump.

Has your legal theory changed or your political analysis?

- Neither, really.

I always thought it was a legally sound case.

What I thought was that it wasn't the most important or impactful case because he's committed much, much more serious offenses.

And so I thought it would be much more appropriate for him to be charged and prosecuted with the more significant offenses, like the attempt to overthrow American democracy and the stealing of highly classified documents.

But, you know, that wasn't to be.

And I found, as I was watching the trial, and listening to Stormy Daniels' testimony, I just realized that it was the perfect case for him, just because it really shows you who he is and how tawdry he is.

And the case really bothers him, precisely because it reveals him for what he truly is, which is just that a man who just, you know, does whatever he wants, then pretends not to have done it, lies and lies again.

And it's just very embarrassing for him.

And it's just, that's what narcissists are all about.

He's a quintessential narcissist, and this is just horribly embarrassing to him.

- Of course, the thing that has been most debated about this case is the novel legal theory upon which it rests, right?

You, first of all, you said you never had a quibble with that in the first place, that that part never bothered you.

- Yeah, it's not that novel.

- Okay, but then it has...

I mean, conservatives and liberals all sort of opine that it hasn't actually been tested in court yet.

So I guess my question is whether it's worth prosecuting, for the first time in American history, a former American president who's the presumptive nominee of a party on an untested legal theory.

- Well, I disagree with that it's an untested legal theory.

If it's an untested legal theory, it's because we've never had anybody do something as crazy as Donald Trump does.

And that's sort of like everything that happened-- - But the fact that it's a misdemeanor upon a misdemeanor and furtherance of another crime, it then bumps it up to a felony.

- That's bread and butter.

That's a bread and butter prosecution for the Manhattan DA's office.

- Except for the previous Manhattan DA didn't do it.

- He didn't do it.

He should've done it.

But what really should have happened was, the United States government should have brought this case as a Federal Election Campaign Act violation on February, January-- - Why didn't they?

- I don't know.

That's an interesting question.

Why did... Well, they didn't do it during the Trump administration because there is a standing interpretation of-- - Can't prosecute a sitting president.

- Article [indistinct], can't prosecute a sitting president.

Why they let it go after that, I don't know.

It could be that people felt that it was too late to do it, or that they wanted him to go away, or that they were exhausted by him.

I honestly don't know.

But it should have been prosecuted.

And it was, you know, they prosecuted John Edwards for it.

Now, Edwards got a hung jury.

But the evidence there was much, much shakier.

- Prominent democratic lawyer David Boies has suggested that this is a political prosecution, that Donald Trump would not have been indicted on these charges if his name were Donald Smith.

Your response?

- I don't think it's a political prosecution.

I think the fact that he is prominent makes a difference in whether or not you were prosecuted.

If you commit crimes and you are prominent, you're more likely to be prosecuted.

And in addition, when prosecutors exercise prosecutorial discretion, they look at who the offender is and what other offenses they have committed.

This man's a criminal.

He's a criminal in multiple respects.

He's behaved like a criminal his entire life.

And I don't think he deserves a pass on anything.

And I made that point in a "Washington Post" editorial piece I wrote in 2021, the day after Biden took office, where basically I said, whatever grace you might extend to a former president for his offenses, whether they be private, personal, during, in office or out of office, should not be extended to this man, who basically tried to destroy American democracy.

He committed the gravest offense that anyone could commit, and whatever they can get him for is fine with me.

- Here's the question.

Does the fact that he is the former president and the current major party nominee create a set of circumstances where he's treated with kid gloves, he's actually treated better?

- I agree with that.

I think that's always been the case with Donald Trump.

For example, I'll give you an example-- - What would've happened if somebody broke their gag order 10 times?

- They'd already be in jail.

But I have another example.

Look at how long it took for the Justice Department to act on the stolen classified documents.

If you or I had worked in the White House and we had taken documents, that many documents, home and there was an investigation into it, we wouldn't have gotten multiple chances to give the documents back.

Our homes would've been raided, and we would've been arraigned the next day.

- And now that case is delayed and-- - And now that case is delayed.

- What is your view of how Judge Aileen Cannon has handled the proceedings?

- I have always hesitated in criticizing judges as corrupt or biased because of their rulings.

But in this case, I think her behavior has been so extreme and has manifested itself, you know, as a bias against the prosecution so many times and in such extreme ways, that I cannot help but think that she is essentially corrupt.

And I never say that about a judge, even judges I don't like.

And she has this unique combination of incompetence and corruption, I think, that that is very, very disturbing.

- One explanation, generous explanation, that other people have given is that perhaps she just is not familiar enough with, I don't know-- - At first, I thought-- - You think it's corruption?

- I mean, I don't think it's corruption in the sense that I don't think she's being paid or anything like that.

But I think it's a kind of political or moral corruption in the sense that she has decided that she is going to put her finger on the scale in favor of this man who appointed her to the bench and someday, you know, if he's reelected, could appoint her to another position.

I just think that that's...

I can't find any other rational explanation for her behavior.

I do think she is not competent.

And I think we actually should be grateful that she is not that competent, because I think right now the record is such that it would not take much for Jack Smith to decide to make some kind of a motion to recuse or to take it up to the Eleventh Circuit and have the Eleventh Circuit reassign the case.

So we'll see.

- You now regularly refer to Donald Trump as a sociopath, a narcissistic sociopath.

You are supporting Joe Biden.

I mean, you've studied all of the DSM terms.

- Yeah.

- And, you know, you wrote a very long, thorough piece in "The Atlantic" a few years ago, sort of breaking down your justification for using these terms, despite the fact that you're not a trained professional.

- Right, right, he is a narcissistic sociopath, and he's everything-- - But what does that mean?

- A narcissist is somebody who basically cares about no one but himself or herself.

And there are degrees of narcissism, and we all can be narcissistic to some extent.

We kind of, you know, we might blow our own horn [indistinct].

But this is a man who cares about absolutely nothing-- - No empathy.

- But himself.

No empathy, no remorse.

And everything is about him.

And he's jealous and angry all the time.

And that's what he is.

And that kind of person, that extreme kind, the extreme kind of narcissist, is unfit for any public position because, at the end of the day, when you serve in public office, and particularly in the presidency, you have to put the nation's interest first.

And he's not capable of doing that.

He's never been capable of doing that.

He never will be capable of doing that.

And there's no question he's a...

I mean, if you go through the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, you will see, I mean, he just, he checks all nine boxes.

And you only have to meet six or seven of them in order to, you know, to diagnose someone as a narcissist.

And it's not, it doesn't require a lot of detailed knowledge.

These are simple, simple characteristics.

And we see more of Donald Trump than most psychiatrists or psychologists see of their patients in a lifetime.

He's also a sociopath.

And a sociopath is someone basically who is without conscience, has no morals, does not believe in right and wrong, continually lies, a pathological liar, which Donald Trump is, and does not care about the rights of others, and is prone to committing violations of norms and laws.

And that's also Donald Trump.

I mean, you know, he's an adjudicated rapist.

He is someone who is, who told, according to "The Washington Post," like 30,000+ lies in office.

Only rarely does he tell the truth, and often it's only when he's at his most malevolent.

I mean, this is a man who lies literally about everything, from the trivial to the significant.

He lied about the documents that he stole.

He tried to move the documents.

He lies about the stolen election, most significant.

He's in the courthouse this week, lying about the temperature in the courtroom.

People have thermometers in there.

It's 74, 75 degrees, and he's saying, "It's freezing.

"I'm being subjected to freezing cold here."

And he says that there's an encampment around the courthouse that keeps all of his supporters from going down there.

No, there isn't.

Anybody can go down there.

You know, he's a narcissistic sociopath, and that is someone who is unfit for office, because historically, those are the authoritarian leaders that we see who do a great deal of harm.

The Putins, the Hitlers, the [indistinct] to a lesser extent, all the, basically, the bad dangerous people who are a threat to democracy are malignant narcissists who rise to a position of power.

- Do you think this upcoming election is a choice between democracy and authoritarianism?

- Yes.

- Is it existential for the United States?

- Quite possibly.

I think that what will happen if he is elected is he will do exactly what he promises to do, and what you can expect-- - Well, he promised he might be a three-term president in a rally the other day.

- He promises that, or he promises that he's going to use the government for retribution against his enemies.

It's all, again-- - He has also promised that he would pardon the January 6th rioters.

- The hostages, he calls them.

- The hostages.

He has promised that he would deport all migrants who are here illegally in the country, 11 million of them.

- And he would attack the free press.

- And he will go after his enemies.

- Yeah.

- There are plenty of Republicans who say there's really no reason to get upset.

We've seen what he did in office before, and the institutions held and the economy was great and the border was more secure.

And why would this time be any different?

- Because he's much worse now.

And we were very lucky last time.

So I think he's in a much worse psychological state than he was four years ago.

And he knows more about how to get his way in government.

There are not going to be people who are gonna say, "No, we're not going to do that" in the next administration.

Like the people in the Justice Department who, in December of 2020 and January 2021, said, "We're not gonna do this.

"We're not gonna try to help you steal this election" and threaten to resign en masse.

I think the country would become ungovernable if he became president again.

- How?

- I think that basically he would attempt to do things that were illegal.

He would defy court orders.

And then I think you'd end up with people on the streets.

He's a threat to all of our institutions.

And because he, all of the institutions in our country, he thinks should bend to his will because he is the only person he believes in.

- Let me ask you about where the Republican Party is right now, since Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee.

Of course, we know that the majority of Republicans already supported him.

They began falling in line pretty quickly in the primary.

There were some holdouts, some Nikki Haley supporters.

But even Governor Sununu, who was a strong supporter of Nikki Haley, has said that, of course, he will support Donald Trump.

He actually always said that.

A few, like Mike Pence, have said that they won't endorse Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

Why do you see this election so differently from so many Republicans?

- Well, I think that there are a couple, a lot of things going on.

I mean, first of all, there's a grift aspect to it.

If you are in the Republican political business, if you will, whether you be a consultant or a politician, you are kind of cutting your own towline if you go too far in criticizing Trump.

And at the end of the day, people are fearful of doing that.

I think there's a lot of cowardice, that people are afraid of being attacked.

People are afraid of losing friends, and people are afraid of losing business.

And I think there's just a lot of that, that just, to my mind, is just incredibly surprising.

Maybe it's not, shouldn't have been surprising, but I always thought people would have more courage than they've shown and more principle than they've shown.

- You've spent your legal career involved in the conservative movement, conservative activism.

Are there any tenants of conservatism to which you still ascribe?

- Yes, I'm an economic conservative.

I believe that less government generally is better than more.

I don't think that the government is capable of, or should attempt to basically regulate everything that is perceived to be wrong.

And that's, you know, that's something I grew up with, you know, watching American politics as a kid, and becoming a Reaganite.

And so I still believe in that.

You know, I believe in incrementalism.

I mean, that's what... To me, the word conservative means conserve.

You know, just because the world isn't perfect, your institutions aren't perfect doesn't mean you smash them to bits and try to rebuild them.

It means that you try to make choices and try to persuade your fellow citizens to make changes in certain ways.

And then to try to say, listen, you know, William F. Buckley's [indistinct] warn history and say stop.

Yeah, sometimes you have to do that.

And right now, the people who you have to stand up for history and tell to stop are on the right.

- We've established that you voted for Trump in 2016, and there were a lot of conservatives who voted for Trump in 2016 because of the judges.

Because of these judicial appointments.

Now that it's all said and done, we have had four years of Trump, and we have seen how it ended.

We've also got three judicial appointments.

Conservatives got three judicial appointments to the high court.

Was it worth it?

- No.

- Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch weren't worth it?

- No.

I mean, I think the damage that has been done... Look, I particularly like Justice Barrett, and I was very concerned about her appointment when she was appointed because of how it put the court in the crosshairs of politics in the middle of an election campaign.

And so, at the time I felt... You know, I was concerned about her nomination, even though I thought she was highly qualified.

Actually, I think she's the best one of the Trump appointees.

And I think having followed her and watched her and watched her opinions and listened to her questions at argument, I think she's gonna be completely fantastic.

- And what about...

I mean, one thinks traditionally of the justices as being above the politics of the day, and yet we've now seen images of Justice Alito's house with a "Stop the Steal" symbol in front of it.

What do you make of that?

- I honestly don't know what to make of that.

I mean, I've met the Alitos, and they seem perfectly nice.

I think Alito is a brilliant jurist.

But to do that and to have that flag upside down... - Do you think they actually believe the election was stolen?

Do you think they believe in the-- - I don't-- - Lack of legitimacy of the election?

- I can't tell you.

I mean, I could not tell you that.

I can't imagine that they actually believe that because I think they're too smart.

But I do think that what, you know, the story that came out was that, you know, they were being, they were perceived as being harassed by their neighbors, and they were basically giving the finger.

They were giving the finger to the neighbors by turning that flag upside down.

You take that shot, you can't do that.

- Yeah, but it doesn't, I mean, at the very minimum, represents a politicization at the highest levels of the institution, which is supposed to be least political.

- It's very damaging.

The perception is very damaging.

If it shows your mindset, it's very damaging.

And I think there's something, too, that's problematic about the way a lot of conservatives in Washington feel isolated.

Then it makes them behave in ways that are not helpful to themselves or helpful to the public discussion.

And there is this kind of psychology to it that I find disturbing.

But you know, it's like when Justice Kavanaugh had his hearings and started to get angry.

It's like, you can't do that.

You have to be above that.

It's your mission to be above that.

If you can't do that, don't take the job.

- Conservative attorney Ann Coulter, who is an old friend of yours, and a legal colleague of yours, was on the original "Firing Line" in 1998 with William F. Buckley, Jr. And she expressed frustration with public support for Clinton, President Clinton, despite his behavior and what had led to an impeachment.

Take a look at that.

- I mean, we basically are just saying the country doesn't give a damn about decency or care about honor, and as long as you have a pack of good lawyers and spinners to go out, you can lie and cheat and steal.

I think it's disruptive to the entire society, to capitalism and to a democracy.

We're just saying our leaders lie to us and they lie to us repeatedly, and we don't care because our mutual funds are doing well?

- The worm has turned.

- Right?

Do you see a through line between-- - Oh, absolutely.

- Voters excusing Bill Clinton's actions to the apparent acceptance of Donald Trump's behavior?

- Yes, and it's basically that treatment of Bill Clinton on steroids.

It's much worse now in the other direction.

And I guess maybe I'm the one consistent person in America.

- Well, let's, I mean, just to remind our audience, you were deeply involved in the efforts to impeach President Clinton.

You wrote the legal briefs behind the scenes for Paula Jones's lawyer.

You were the source of the biggest leak story in the 1990s that Ken Starr was investigating Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

How do you reflect on that, on the Clinton impeachments now?

- I basically hold the same views I held then.

I thought that, you know, what he did was absolutely inexcusable.

- President Clinton.

- President Clinton.

- By perjuring himself.

- By perjuring himself and by committing... You know, I think he effectively committed obstruction.

But he's a piker compared to this guy, Trump.

I mean, that's the thing that just gets me.

And then to...

There's sort of the... That's sort of the legal aspect to it.

And then there's the whole Me Too aspect of it, okay?

I mean, how...

If you talk to liberals today, liberal feminists today, they will say that they were wrong about Clinton, that was not right, what he did.

And, you know, it's funny, it was like I was Me Too before they were.

I mean, 'cause what got me involved in that case, in the Paula Jones case was just this feeling of, what a, just a gross abuse of power.

First of all, you call this woman up to your hotel room using a state trooper, and then you proposition her and then she sues the... As governor, he was governor.

And then years later, you're president, and you used the presidency to prevent yourself being held accountable.

I just thought that was so abusive.

And so I found it deeply offensive.

But Trump has made that all look, that's nothing.

- You've supported President Biden not just in terms of a personal endorsement, but you've supported him with a substantial financial commitment, close to a million dollars.

Of course, you've been very successful.

And so you're in a position to be able to give maximally to a federal candidate and to the president of the United States.

But how do you think about, sort of, the future you leave to your children against the backdrop of whether President Trump or President Biden wins?

Obviously you believe that it's worth a million dollars of your own money to get President Biden reelected.

- I mean, it would be worth more than that.

And that's kind of how I got to that legal maximum amount, $929,600.

Who's counting?

I was like, okay, well, I'm asking people to give money.

I was asked to participate in a fundraiser, to headline a fundraiser.

And I thought about, well, what am I gonna give?

And I thought, well, why am I doing this?

Why am I going out of my way to help the Biden campaign?

Why did I even vote for Biden in 2020 when I've been a registered Republican for, I guess, 38 years, you know, basically most of my adult, all of my adult life?

And I was getting very tearful about it.

And I realized, the reason why I'm supporting Joe Biden is because I don't, I worry that our constitutional democracy would not survive another Trump term.

And to get back to my children, I mean, yeah, it's money that comes out of their inheritance.

They'll do fine.

But what's the most important thing that we can give to our children is a strong country, a country that, you know, where we have freedom and democracy and the rule of law.

That's why I did it.

- George Conway, thank you for joining me on "Firing Line."

- [Narrator] "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible in part by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, The Asness Family Foundation, The Beth and Ravenel Curry Foundation, The McKenna Family Foundation, Charles R. Schwab, The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation, and by the following.

Corporate funding is provided by Stephens Inc. and by Pfizer, Inc. [upbeat music] [upbeat tune] [gentle music] - [Announcer] You're watching PBS.