Why Trump’s Corruption Matters — ft. Hillary Clinton & Anthony Scaramucci

Oh my god, you do not know what you're talking about.

Also, your dick joke is old. Just so you know, this is the voice of God talking to you, Scott Galloway.

So... hey everybody. Hey. Hug. It's okay. It's all right. The other man. The other man. So, I'm actually not the surprise guest in my ongoing...

So... okay. Um, but this is just likely like you criticize, but you don't come up with... you're not... that's not that helpful. Who would you have to talk about? Who?

Okay. Uh, because you know, you're frequently wrong but never in doubt. Uh, but I, you know, I wanted to bring you a special surprise just to show, as always, I am the top and you are the bottom. And so I programmed your very special guest. And I thought, who could I bring who knows something about Iran and about Ukraine and about the entire world? So I would like to introduce the author of Project 2029. I hope... the most badass woman I know, someone who probably should have been president: Secretary Hillary Clinton.

All right. All right, everybody. We will now hear actually what's happening in Iran, and my work is done. I maintain the hegemony over Scott Galloway. Have a great time.

Absolutely. Glad to be with you.

Well, I think number one, this was so ill-conceived and even more poorly executed in terms of any outcome that is going to restrain Iran, enhance our security and our other interests, particularly our economic interests. I was stunned when reporting started coming out about conversations in the White House because in the years I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee and I was Secretary of State, anytime we talked about Iran, any kind of war game scenario that we discussed, among the very first questions was: what if they close the Strait of Hormuz? What do we do? And then from the reporting, it sounded as though that just hadn't been really discussed, or at least not brought to the highest levels of the administration.

And I think now, sadly, and I really do say this with a lot of regret because this should be an American issue that we have to deal with together, not a partisan issue. I think we are in a weakened position. I think Iran is in a stronger position than it was before we did this. I actually approved of the strikes on the nuclear facilities back in June, a year ago. They had a clear objective. They were carried out effectively. They didn't accomplish all that they claimed, but they did accomplish enough to argue that the nuclear weapons program was set back. But now I think the Iranians are really playing a stronger hand vis-à-vis Trump, and he's kind of flummoxed. He doesn't know what to do. I mean, on his Truth Social, he talks about how he doesn't find it interesting pursuing these peace negotiations. He's bored by it. And you know, when you think about the hard work of both waging war and everything that it entails, and then trying to extricate yourself from a conflict with some sort of advantage, that's really hard work, and that's not being done. So I can't tell at this point where we're going to be in a week or two or three. But if we end up, number one, where the Iranians control the Strait of Hormuz and are actually exacting tolls from commercial shipping, if we don't get any kind of realistic agreement — certainly not one better than the one I worked on when I worked with President Obama and started the negotiations that led to the agreement — and if we don't really have evidence that we have seriously damaged their ballistic missile and other drone capability, then what have we gained? And it just will further weaken us. And if you're sitting in Moscow or you're sitting in Beijing and you're following this, you are, you know, just first of all probably dumbstruck that any American president would do this, because I know from my own experience, we were often urged to do it but did not for all kinds of reasons. And I really worry about not just what it means for the relationship in the region and specifically what Iran can continue to do, but what messages it sends to everybody else.

So I guess my bottom line would be that, and I don't think this would happen, it would be extremely reassuring if we had a real team of negotiators who knew enough about what needed to happen with Iran, and they had the patience and the discipline and could drive a very strong argument as to why Iran would suffer consequences if they didn't reach an agreement. But Iran is not only on the ground stronger, but they're playing a really effective social media game. I don't know if you've seen their Mr. Explosive, the explosive Lego character that they are using that is all over social media. And it is just mocking us. And it's not just mocking our current president, it's mocking our country. So I would like to see a serious, dedicated effort to try to actually get as much out of this unfortunate situation that we could right now.

Yes.

Well, I can give you an analogy from my own experience. When I started the secret negotiations that tested whether we could negotiate with Iran, I did it through the good offices of the Omani government, the then Sultan of Oman. And Oman, as you know, was on the other side of the strait. We have leverage with Oman. We have unfortunately misused it, but we have leverage. And the other argument I made, which ended up getting a UN Security Council resolution imposing universal sanctions, was to make the case particularly to China and to India that there will be a price to pay if you don't help us rein in Iran. Our goal is to prevent them from ever getting a nuclear weapon arsenal. So you have to demonstrate real allegiance to that idea, because if we launch a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, that is not good for any of us. And I think that kind of tough diplomacy — none of which I heard coming out of the recent meeting that Trump had with Xi Jinping — would lead to putting together a coalition of diplomatic support for exercising leverage with the Gulf States, with China, in a way that makes it very clear. We may have given that away, but if we could rebuild it to basically say, you know, we want to get back to free navigable waters in the strait, that's in your interest. You're the one who's buying most of that oil. You've got to weigh in. You could look at this and see all the different players who have their own individual leverage and then aggregate that and begin to put it together. It doesn't happen overnight. It would be painstaking diplomacy, but it could be done if we had the right approach.

Right.

Look, I think it means the difference between a peaceful, secure Europe and what that means for a peaceful, secure United States, and a further opening of a door to Russian aggression if we are not on Ukraine's side. It is one of the great tragedies of modern history that we have a president who doesn't support the Ukrainian people. But the Ukrainian people have demonstrated through their own sacrifice how worthy they are of everybody's support. And what they have done in building up their own military-industrial complex in the midst of a war is nothing short of remarkable. I mean, the only thing I can think of, Scott, that is even comparable is when the Blitz started against Great Britain, you know, when the Luftwaffe planes were bombing the heck out of London and other sites. You know, Britain was not prepared; they didn't have the kind of air force to fight back. But boy, did they put it on a fast burner, and pretty soon, you know, within months, they were sending up fleets of airplanes to do battle with the German aircraft. Well, what the Ukrainians have done is certainly the help that they got since they were first invaded in February of 2022, they put to very good use. But then they quickly realized that they had to be as self-reliant as possible. So what they have pioneered with drone technology in particular is the new form of warfare, and we all should be learning. In fact, you know, Zelensky went to the Middle East. He went to the Gulf States. He went to Saudi Arabia and the UAE and others to give them support when they were all of a sudden being attacked by the same kind of drones that Iran had sold to Russia. And those drones were being used against Ukraine. Now they were being used by Iran against the Gulf States. So we all should be expressing a great debt to Ukraine for, number one, holding out, and number two, demonstrating what modern warfare is going to evolve toward, whether people are ready for it or not. But number three, and most importantly, they have held the Russians at bay. Now, if you're running a country the way Putin is, and you could care less how many of your young men are killed in battle — and he doesn't care, and he's emptied the jails, and he's dragooned people off the streets, and he's given bonuses to men in Africa to come fight who didn't know what they were doing, and he's taken North Korean troops — he has thrown everything he knows to throw against the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians have held the line. And you know, it's like a back-and-forth, almost World War I situation, where it's a couple of feet here, a couple of feet there. But now, because of Ukraine's own development of weapons, particularly missiles and more advanced drones, they are starting to hit sites within Russia, and not just border sites, but much further. So I think that now is a time, and I'm glad to see, you know, Europe is stepping up. I think that Ukraine, partly because of what they offered and delivered to the Gulf States, including trainers to show them how to use these drones, how to defend against the Iranian drones, I think that Ukraine can withstand this barrage, you know, this constant nightly aiming at civilian targets. Again, like the Blitz, these are not military targets. These are civilian targets. And Russia and Putin need to be defeated. And Ukraine is on the front line of doing that. And we all should do everything we can to help them succeed.

Well, first of all, I think he is a brilliant politician, and I think he ran an absolutely superb modern campaign and caught the imagination of voters, as you say, and particularly young voters. And you know, the day after the election, I didn't endorse anybody. I didn't get involved. You know, I certainly congratulated him and wished him well because I love New York, and I love what you said at the beginning, Scott. Like, if you want to be in the midst of creating the future, be in New York. I love this city and I love everything it stands for. And I really, really want him to succeed. I don't care what label he puts on his politics or himself, as long as he proves that his brand of politics works.

That's what I'm interested in. You know, look, I am a very pragmatic person. I can look at somebody and say, prove to me, you know, show me that what you think will work to better people's lives, to create the investments we need to prosper together, to keep us secure, to give us opportunity, to inspire young people — everything you want from good political leadership. I want to see that, and I see some of it, and the jury is out. I want to see what he can actually produce. You know, Mario Cuomo famously said, 'You campaign in poetry and you govern in prose.' The campaign is fun. It's exciting. It's a roller coaster ride. Having done a few myself, it's incredibly exhilarating, and either works or it doesn't. But nevertheless, and so then the hard work starts. I mean, you just work 24/7 to get yourself elected, and it's like, you know, the dog that catches the car, and all of a sudden you're like, okay, how am I going to actually govern? And I see some good things. A lot is still unclear, but I really hope for the sake of, you know, this city that I love and that I was proud to represent for eight wonderful years, that we really can see New York be a laboratory of democracy. If he wants to promote his policies, prove them. Let's have proof of concept. You know, call yourself whatever you want, but let's show that what you are standing for and implementing is actually going to work. And I am like that with people across the political lines. You know, if you have a good idea, I want to hear it, and I don't really care where it comes from. But I do think there's a cautionary lesson: you know, don't govern to your base. Trump has governed to his base, and he's driving a stake through the heart of American democracy. He's undermining the incredible engine of the American economy, in my opinion, but he's satisfying the 35% of the people who are still with him, not others. And that doesn't work. It doesn't work in America. And so broaden your aperture. Get a broader base of people, because these are the people whose policies you are implementing are going to be affected by.

Everything you just said. I mean, obviously, and I would add our international position because I think it has an impact. And then I would also mention what I consider to be the two overriding themes: affordability and accountability. How do you make life affordable for particularly young people? Because it does seem to me that, you know, we've given them a really tough deal in terms of what they can expect and whether they can feel that their future is going to be better than their present, and certainly is it going to be better than their parents or their grandparents in terms of not just aspiration but actual reality. But I honestly think that you've got to look again to the cities and the states right now. The federal government is broken, and a lot of what Trump has done has rendered it dysfunctional. You know, cleaning out experts who knew anything. This Ebola epidemic — boy, I hope it doesn't get as bad as some of the folks whose opinions I respect say that it could in terms of its spread. But, you know, we got rid of our surveillance. We got rid of the infrastructure we had built over decades to be alerted to these kinds of things and act on them. So it's both international and national. But focusing just here at home, I want to see states and cities do a lot more. And let's see what a good housing policy in New York looks like. Let's see what a good economic mobility plan from Illinois looks like. I know you guys were in Chicago with my friend JB Pritzker last night. Let's see what the states do to govern AI, because the federal government isn't doing it. So let's turn back to laboratories of democracy, you know.

Yeah. I know something about that, too.

Well, before the tsunami of redistricting started at Trump's demand to Texas, I was extremely optimistic. I saw all of the ingredients for a big midterm win for Democrats. Obviously, what the states themselves did, and then what Democratic states responded with, and then what the Supreme Court did, and what I view as a truly disgraceful decision throwing out the guts of the Voting Rights Act, means that it will be harder. But I am still very optimistic. And the reason I'm very optimistic is, number one, if you look at the elections that have been held over the last year, Democrats have done really well. And not just, you know, the governor of New Jersey, the governor of Virginia, the redistricting votes in places like California, but I mean, public service commissioners in Georgia and preserving Supreme Court justices in Pennsylvania, and getting really into the nitty-gritty of who was winning and where those victories were happening. So I think that the underlying conditions are still very favorable. But I also think that you've got to stress these two big overriding themes: affordability and accountability. And I mentioned them both together because on affordability, I think a lot of people who voted for Trump actually thought that he cared enough about them to do something about affordability. And lo and behold, that was not the case. And so their disappointment, or their feeling that, wait a minute, you're doing stuff I didn't vote for, and you're not paying attention to what I need, and now you're starting a war that has already raised gas prices, and by the time we get done with fertilizer and supply chain disruption and everything else, it's going to cost all of us more. So I think that on the affordability issue, the Democrats have a pretty wide open door. And I think again, what you say and how you say it may differ from district to district and state to state. And it's not a national campaign exactly, although you need a national umbrella message, like a presidential campaign is. So when you're running to defeat a Republican incumbent in a purple swing district, you're not going to say the same thing that somebody who is running in a deep blue district is going to say. And you just have to accept that. That's the way politics works when you're running for the midterms. You've got to make your case in language that your voters will agree with. And then on the accountability issue, I just want to say a quick word about the Hungarian election because I think there's a real lesson to be learned. So other opposition parties and leaders tried to defeat Orbán over a couple of election cycles and were unsuccessful. So what made it different this time was not only a charismatic, effective, really hard-working candidate, Magyar, who was a truly dedicated opposition figure having come out of Orbán's party, but he was able to tie the corruption of the Orbán government to the lives of the Hungarian people. I mean, when you look at the explosion of corruption in this administration, you know, I know some people have a tendency to say, 'Ah, you know, they're all politicians, whatever.' And that's not true. But I can understand why people might think that. But with Trump, it's corruption that is hurting people. You know, because while war is being waged in Iran, members of his family are making money from some of the very same interests and parties involved in this war. While you have the very clear economic disparities and the wealth inequality exploding because of the big beautiful bill that they passed, you know, all of a sudden people are feeling like, wait a minute, what is happening to me and my family compared to, you know, the top one-tenth of 1%? So I think that there is a lot of correlation between the corruption and the accountability that needs to be expected, not in a partisan way, not in a using-prosecution-to-settle-personal-grievance way, but in a rule-of-law way. If we do not restore the rule of law. And I was so encouraged to see that the pushback on this terrible grievance fund that they were setting up to reward people like the January 6th instigators. And so there is finally a kind of recognition that the corruption personally benefits the president and his family, rewards people who committed crimes, and really went after our democracy as well as all the other things that they did. That is encouraging. And so I really think the messaging needs to be focused on what we're going to do to actually help people and solve some of these problems, and what we're going to do to restore the rule of law. And so I am optimistic as long as people turn out and vote. That's always the big question.

Oh, wow. Oh.

Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Wow. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Scott. Appreciate both of you. Secretary Hillary Clinton.