Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: Well, it seems there are more questions than answers after
Speaker 2: the Colorado Supreme courts unprecedented and stunning decision barring Donald
Speaker 2: Trump from appearing on the state's March fifth primary ballot.
Speaker 2: President Joe Biden refused to weigh in on the decision,
Speaker 2: but he did say, this is frump an insurrectionist, sir, well.
Speaker 3: I think you start certainly yourself. Evntent is sawt all
Speaker 3: know whether the fourteenth none applies. I let to coordinate
Speaker 3: that decision, but he's certainly supporting an insurrection, no question
Speaker 3: about it, none zero.
Speaker 2: And that was one thing that all the justice is
Speaker 2: in the forur to three Colorado decision agreed on. There
Speaker 2: was an insurrection and Trump incited it. Joining us to
Speaker 2: weigh in on the many many legal issues surrounding the election,
Speaker 2: and Trump is Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Arenberg,
Speaker 2: thanks so much for being here.
Speaker 4: Dave, thanks for having me. June I'm going to.
Speaker 2: Start with the question that legal scholars have been debating
Speaker 2: for months. The Colorado Supreme Court decided in europeanion the
Speaker 2: Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment bar Trump from running
Speaker 2: for president again.
Speaker 4: Well, I read the one hundred and thirty three paid ruling
Speaker 4: from the Colorado Supreme Court, and I thought they made
Speaker 4: some very compelling arguments. It's hard to argue from a
Speaker 4: substance standpoint that he did not engage in insurrection. Remember,
Speaker 4: the standard under section three is not that he'd be
Speaker 4: charged with insurrection, because no one's been charged with that.
Speaker 4: It's whether he engaged in it, whether he gave comfort
Speaker 4: or aid to the insurrection, and all the judges and justices,
Speaker 4: as you correctly pointed out, said he did. Even the
Speaker 4: judge at the trial court level, the district court judge
Speaker 4: in Colorado who ruled for Trump, found that he engaged
Speaker 4: in insurrection. But when it comes to the US Supreme Court,
Speaker 4: I do think they're going to overturn this ruling. They
Speaker 4: want to. The six to three concerned majority does not
Speaker 4: want to bar Trump from the ballot, and I think
Speaker 4: they're going to focus on procedure, perhaps say that due
Speaker 4: process was violated that there needs to be some sort
Speaker 4: of mechanism set up by Congress, who is empowered under
Speaker 4: Section five to do so, to make sure that each
Speaker 4: state doesn't go its own way, where individual secretaries of
Speaker 4: state don't go rogue and target their political enemies. And
Speaker 4: so I think they're going to punt on the substance
Speaker 4: of issues. They're not going to touch insurrection, but instead
Speaker 4: they're going to find a procedural way out of this.
Speaker 2: I agree. I would fall off my chair if the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court. So now Trump
Speaker 2: is going to appeal to the Supreme Court, and I've
Speaker 2: lost track of how many times he's done that. I
Speaker 2: take it from your answer that you think that the
Speaker 2: court is going to take this place. They almost have
Speaker 2: to take it.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, one hundred percent. And you know, like the
Speaker 4: District Court gave the Supreme Court a way out if
Speaker 4: they want to say that Section three doesn't apply to
Speaker 4: the president. There's some dispute over that, although I don't
Speaker 4: agree with it, because it would mean that the framers
Speaker 4: of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to bar traders and insurrectionists
Speaker 4: from lower level government offices, but not the top office,
Speaker 4: so like, there are ways if the court wants to
Speaker 4: get out of this. But I think the best argument
Speaker 4: for Trump's side would be that his due process rights
Speaker 4: were violated because the Congress, based on Section five, needs
Speaker 4: to establish rules. They have not done so, and if
Speaker 4: you allow each individual state to do so, it would
Speaker 4: create mass chaos.
Speaker 2: And that was one of the dissents went off on that.
Speaker 2: They gave a lot of ammunition, I guess to Trump
Speaker 2: to appeal this decision at the same time that Trump
Speaker 2: will be urging the Supreme Court to take up this
Speaker 2: Colorado case fast. He's asking them to slow down on
Speaker 2: the federal election interference case and turn down Special Counsel
Speaker 2: Jack Smith's request for them to decide the presidential immunity
Speaker 2: question right away. What do you think they should do here?
Speaker 4: I think that the Supreme Court should expedite the matter.
Speaker 4: They know how serious this is, and they know that
Speaker 4: Trump's legal strategy has always been to delay matters, and
Speaker 4: this case was always going to get to the Supreme
Speaker 4: Court anyway, So why not get involved now? And so
Speaker 4: I think they will. But Trump doesn't mean like he
Speaker 4: reveals his code. He reveals in his pleadings by saying, hey,
Speaker 4: don't expedite this. In fact, even on the gag order,
Speaker 4: he wanted that slowed down. He just wants to push
Speaker 4: us past the twenty twenty four election so that he
Speaker 4: could become president again, then order his attorney general to
Speaker 4: drop everything. But Jacksmith's onto him. Jack Smith is a
Speaker 4: step ahead even when it comes to the case in
Speaker 4: front of Judge Chuckin in Washington, d C. Jack Smith
Speaker 4: wants to provide Trump with discovery the evidence and materials
Speaker 4: they have to move the case along, even while that
Speaker 4: case is stayed, which is paused pending the Supreme Court's review,
Speaker 4: and Trump saying no, I don't want this information. I
Speaker 4: don't want this evidence. I want this to be as
Speaker 4: slow a process as possible. So, yeah, we all know
Speaker 4: what this is about, and so does the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5: Yeah we do.
Speaker 2: I mean delay, delayed, delay, And right now you said,
Speaker 2: as you mentioned, it's on pause. The judges put it
Speaker 2: on pause. But she says she hasn't given up the
Speaker 2: dates yet. She still has those dates. But does it
Speaker 2: look less and less like the March fifth date is doable.
Speaker 4: It's unlikely that it goes in the first week of March.
Speaker 4: I think though, if it does get postponed, and I
Speaker 4: think it will, it won't get postponed too much. I
Speaker 4: think maybe a month, six weeks, and it could push
Speaker 4: up against the May trial in the Southern District of
Speaker 4: Florida from Judge Cannon. But you know what, that trial
Speaker 4: ain't going before the election. So I think the only
Speaker 4: criminal trial that I really believe we'll go to trial
Speaker 4: before the election against Trump will be the Washington d c. Case,
Speaker 4: because that case was built for speed. The other possibility
Speaker 4: is the New York trial, which is the weakest of
Speaker 4: the four, the one involving the Stormy Daniels hush money payments.
Speaker 4: That could also go to trial before the election. But
Speaker 4: I don't think there's a chance at the other two,
Speaker 4: the one in Fulton County and the one in front
Speaker 4: of Judge Cannon in the Southern District of Florida, go
Speaker 4: anytime soon.
Speaker 2: Is Judge Cannon still sort of pretending that that trial
Speaker 2: is going to take place before the election.
Speaker 4: Yeah, she said that it's still on scheduled, but she's
Speaker 4: gonna revisit the deadlines as it gets closer. You know,
Speaker 4: that really hurts the whole cause of justice, because, like
Speaker 4: we all know that case is going to be moved,
Speaker 4: and as long as you continue to put it on
Speaker 4: the calendar in May, it prevents other cases from being
Speaker 4: scheduled at that time. We all know it's not gonna
Speaker 4: happen in May, so move it now instead of waiting
Speaker 4: until the last minute. But Judge Chuck and eight messing around,
Speaker 4: is determined to have this trial heard well before the election,
Speaker 4: and so is Jack Smith. After all, that's why Jack
Speaker 4: Smith only pursued four counts against Donald Trump. He didn't
Speaker 4: pursue insurrection because he knew it would bog it down.
Speaker 4: He also had unindicted co conspirators which were not added
Speaker 4: to this case. That case in DC is only against
Speaker 4: Donald Trump because that case is built for speed.
Speaker 2: You know, the Supreme Court has been under so much
Speaker 2: external pressure, so many scandals, ethical lapses, contentious decisions, and
Speaker 2: yet I was shocked that they decided to take the
Speaker 2: January sixth case that his implications for the obstruction charges
Speaker 2: against Trump. I mean, don't they have enough on their
Speaker 2: plate without getting involved in that case.
Speaker 4: I was surprised by that too. To mine nolge, only
Speaker 4: one judge ruled that the obstruction of an official proceeding
Speaker 4: did not apply to this case, and every other caurll
Speaker 4: is ruled the other way that, of course it applies.
Speaker 4: You don't need documents to be involved. You just have
Speaker 4: to obstruct an official proceeding. It is what it says
Speaker 4: it is. So I was surprised if Supreme Court took
Speaker 4: it up. And yes, it's a great point in June,
Speaker 4: I got all these other matters. Why bog it down?
Speaker 4: Because I think they're going to rule the way we
Speaker 4: expect on the rule that yeah, it's game on, you
Speaker 4: can use that statute. And if they don't rule that way,
Speaker 4: then it really does cripple all the prosecutions, not just
Speaker 4: against Trump, but against all the other j six defendants.
Speaker 2: So the court, with all these cases having to do
Speaker 2: with the election and more to come, most likely it's
Speaker 2: going to have it's going to be put in the
Speaker 2: center of the twenty twenty four presidential election in a
Speaker 2: way that echoes Bush vy Gore, a still controversial case
Speaker 2: from your state twenty three years ago. Or is this
Speaker 2: even worse.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, there's such a low estimation these days
Speaker 4: of the US Supreme Court that remember, after bushby Gore
Speaker 4: was decided, it was a five to four ruling, and
Speaker 4: the justices went along political lines, and the public accepted it.
Speaker 4: Al Gore accepted it. Do you think the same would
Speaker 4: happen now? Not a chance. Trump is not going to
Speaker 4: accept if it goes against the miss supporters won't accept it,
Speaker 4: and people on the other side of the aisle, the
Speaker 4: Democratic side, already have such a low estimation of the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court, they'll roll their eyes and stay of course,
Speaker 4: like why is Clarence Thomas even part of the deliberations
Speaker 4: when his wife was involved with January sixth? And it
Speaker 4: is kind of laughable when I see people like Lauren
Speaker 4: bober decrine the Colorado Supreme Court as activist judges. You
Speaker 4: know what, an activist judges, it's one to judge rules
Speaker 4: against you because Conservatives and Republicans they love activist judges
Speaker 4: when their rule on their side, like last year's Dobbs
Speaker 4: opinion overruling a fifty year president of Roe versus Wade.
Speaker 4: So when you claim activist judges, that's just hollow arguments
Speaker 4: for your own political echo chamber.
Speaker 2: The same with textualism, I think, because you know the
Speaker 2: Conservatives say with textualism, you come to the same decision well,
Speaker 2: they don't come to the same decision. They're split. The
Speaker 2: textualists are split sometimes on the court. So, you know it,
Speaker 2: it really comes down to politics a lot, and it's
Speaker 2: a shame. But I think people see the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: as political now.
Speaker 4: Well, and I understand why. You know, the public is smart.
Speaker 4: Chief Justice Roberts tears his hair out because he cannot
Speaker 4: understand why people don't respect the Supreme Court as an
Speaker 4: a political institution. But then when you have justices who
Speaker 4: take money and gifts from people who have interests in
Speaker 4: front of the court and don't report it, you know,
Speaker 4: when they're above the law literally where they create their
Speaker 4: own rules and they decide whether they violate their own rules.
Speaker 4: That doesn't seem like an institution that we should all,
Speaker 4: you know, be in awe of. That sounds like a
Speaker 4: political institution. And so I think there needs to be
Speaker 4: real reform on the court. And if Justice Roberts, Chief
Speaker 4: Justice Roberts wants to decry the act that the public
Speaker 4: doesn't approve of the Supreme Court, well look in the mirror,
Speaker 4: because he could do things to change that.
Speaker 2: Speaking of changing, and you referred to Justice Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 2: there are calls for him to recuse himself from any
Speaker 2: cases having to do with Donald Trump, and you know
Speaker 2: the presidency. He hasn't recused himself very much in the past.
Speaker 2: And we just saw that Justice Alito, despite the pressure
Speaker 2: for him to recuse himself in a case where the
Speaker 2: attorneys in a major tax case did a fluff piece
Speaker 2: in the Wall Street Journal editorial for him supporting him,
Speaker 2: he didn't recuse himself. And that you have any what
Speaker 2: do you think is there any chance that Thomas will
Speaker 2: recuse himself?
Speaker 4: Not a chance. You can't shameless, shameless. These guys have
Speaker 4: lifetime appointments. So why why would he give all that up?
Speaker 4: What to please the editorial boards, to please the progressives
Speaker 4: who never support him, to be in with He's all in.
Speaker 4: He and his wife are all in. They're part of
Speaker 4: a political movement. And I'm sorry he's a judge, but
Speaker 4: you know the you know which way is going to rule,
Speaker 4: and he should be recusing himself. And it's not a
Speaker 4: good look for the Supreme Court. Same thing for Alito.
Speaker 4: And I would say the same thing if it happened
Speaker 4: with members on the left of the court. But you know,
Speaker 4: there's a crisis of confidence with the US Supreme Court,
Speaker 4: and they continue to thumbd er nose at the public,
Speaker 4: and it really looks like a case elitism, a privilege
Speaker 4: that they don't have to listen to what the public says.
Speaker 4: They've got their black robes. We all have to stand
Speaker 4: up when they walk in the room, and they can't
Speaker 4: be fired, you know.
Speaker 2: Just going back for a moment too, the issue of
Speaker 2: presidential immunity. And at times it might be surprising, but
Speaker 2: at times this court has turned Donald Trump away in
Speaker 2: the election cases and in other cases that he's tried
Speaker 2: to push them to take on presidential immunity. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's an issue that if they decide, it's going to
Speaker 2: be landmark and it's going to stand not only for
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, but for Joe Biden every other president that comes.
Speaker 2: How do you think they're going to rule on that.
Speaker 4: I think that we will. They will reject presidential community
Speaker 4: because otherwise we don't have a president. We have a king.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's why we left the crown was because
Speaker 4: we didn't want to have a king. And so if
Speaker 4: it means that you can't indict a sitting president and
Speaker 4: you can't indict a former president for anything he or
Speaker 4: she did while they were president. Then you know, then
Speaker 4: this not a president, and it sends a very damaging
Speaker 4: precedent because then what happens is if Joe Biden decides
Speaker 4: that he does not want to abide by the election
Speaker 4: results and cancels the election and locks up Donald Trump well,
Speaker 4: presidential community. So be careful what you wish for. It's
Speaker 4: not so funny what happens on the other side of
Speaker 4: the aisle, is it.
Speaker 2: You know, we'll see what happens when these cases come down.
Speaker 2: What other well, we're running out of time, but I
Speaker 2: just want to get your take on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: Well in other cases too. They're taking all these big cases,
Speaker 2: the abortion pill case, the guns cases, and it's all
Speaker 2: going to come down in June when people are campaigning
Speaker 2: for president and other offices. So they're looking for trouble.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think it's a boon for the Democrats because
Speaker 4: the Dobbs apision excuse me, opinion has been a huge
Speaker 4: benefit for Democrats at the polls. The Supreme Court doesn't
Speaker 4: get the memo from Mitch McConnell to stay quiet before
Speaker 4: an election. They're going to come out and do their stuff,
Speaker 4: undoing years of precedent and it's going to be very unpopular.
Speaker 4: So that is a wildcard we have not considered when
Speaker 4: it comes to the twenty twenty four elections. That's something
Speaker 4: the polls are not indicating yet.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for being here, Dave, it was a pleasure.
Speaker 2: That's Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in aut Bloomberg dot Com.
Speaker 6: And the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso sitting in for Joe Matthew Today. A
Speaker 2: new poll conducted by the Saint Anselm College Survey Center
Speaker 2: at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics finds that former
Speaker 2: United Nations Ambassador NICKI Haley has doubled her support from
Speaker 2: fifteen percent in the survey Center's last poll in September.
Speaker 2: She's now at thirty percent with just over a month
Speaker 2: before the First in the Nation primary. My Politics Panel
Speaker 2: today is Bloomberg Politics contributor Rick Davis and Democratic strategist
Speaker 2: Al Matterl. How much does this have to do with
Speaker 2: the New Hampshire Governor Chris Sanunu endorsing Haley over his
Speaker 2: supposed good friend Chris Christy.
Speaker 7: I think it certainly helps this new new name is
Speaker 7: gold in New Hampshire. But I would also note that
Speaker 7: New Hampshire has a particularly unique electorate. Their primary has
Speaker 7: allows crossover voting. I remember when I was canvassing there
Speaker 7: in twenty sixteen for then Secretary Clinton. I would encounter
Speaker 7: voters who told me they couldn't decide between her and
Speaker 7: John Kasick, and I would encounter voters who told me
Speaker 7: they couldn't decide between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. So
Speaker 7: I think that it's a state uniquely suited for someone
Speaker 7: with her message, and I wouldn't be surprised if she
Speaker 7: pulls the upset.
Speaker 6: Rick.
Speaker 2: What is she doing?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 9: You know, I've had a lot of experience in New
Speaker 9: Hampshire and you know, sort of the god of New
Speaker 9: Hampshire Republican primary politics as John McCain, And she's doing
Speaker 9: a lot of what he used to do, which is
Speaker 9: go into town halls, you know, meeting with voters in
Speaker 9: those town halls, answering their questions, not giving sort of
Speaker 9: set answers, but really having a dialogue. As Al pointed out,
Speaker 9: New Hampshire voters are unique. They are used to being
Speaker 9: able to interact with candidates, and when they're denied that opportunity,
Speaker 9: you know, they punish you. And there's this great line
Speaker 9: that you know, John McCain was going to see some
Speaker 9: voters and he said, Hi, I'm John McCain. I'm run
Speaker 9: for president and i'd love to have your support. And
Speaker 9: one of them said to him, yeah, well, i've only
Speaker 9: met you twice, so you know, hang out and I'll
Speaker 9: consider it maybe after the third or fourth meeting. And
Speaker 9: they really do believe that they expect you to come
Speaker 9: see them. And she's done that much more so than
Speaker 9: other candidates who have kind of placed their bets like
Speaker 9: Ronda Santis in Iowa and hasn't spent the time doing
Speaker 9: on the ground work. I would say the difference here
Speaker 9: is she has connected with New Hampshire voters in a
Speaker 9: way that Chris Christy hasn't. He devoted himself to New
Speaker 9: Hampshire and and and you know, just hasn't connected the
Speaker 9: way she has, and so kudos to her. I think
Speaker 9: that she's got a lot of wind at her back.
Speaker 9: It'll be very interesting to see how this turns out,
Speaker 9: because right now I would say it's probably you'd have
Speaker 9: to consider it a dead heat because she has, as
Speaker 9: this poll indicates, been moving up while Donald Trump is
Speaker 9: literally where he was a year ago when this polling
Speaker 9: took place. And so her ability to add voters between
Speaker 9: now and the primary on the twenty third of January
Speaker 9: is already proven. Can she get enough between now and
Speaker 9: then to actually win?
Speaker 2: So, Trump still maintains a significant lead with forty four percent.
Speaker 2: Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's at twelve percent. Florida
Speaker 2: Governor Ron Dessantis support all but disappeared. He's now at
Speaker 2: six percent. Al do you agree with what Rick was
Speaker 2: talking about that Haley can make up the really significant
Speaker 2: lead of Donald Trump.
Speaker 10: I do.
Speaker 7: And look, Trump is very likely to win Iowa, not
Speaker 7: sure by how much, but he's very likely to win.
Speaker 7: New Hampshire has a history of saying hold on, what
Speaker 7: about us and saying we have a different opinion and
Speaker 7: upsetting the race in a number of historically significant times.
Speaker 7: I remember Hillary was out of it in eight all
Speaker 7: of a sudden, she stunned the world and beat Obama
Speaker 7: and then it became a race all the way to
Speaker 7: the convention. Practically, so I if I was a betting person,
Speaker 7: I would say it's going to be very tight and
Speaker 7: that she very well might win. And by the way,
Speaker 7: if she wins by more than a few points, that'll
Speaker 7: cause some consternation in the Trump camp. But he's still
Speaker 7: the prohibitive favorite. The one thing I would say about
Speaker 7: her that's really interesting from a macro perspective is if
Speaker 7: she were somehow able to win the nomination, that would
Speaker 7: be probably the death knell for Trump politically. If he
Speaker 7: were to be the nominee and lose to Biden, there's
Speaker 7: really nothing that stops him from just sticking around again.
Speaker 7: And you know, back to the earlier discussion with your
Speaker 7: legal expert about keeping him off the ballot. The best
Speaker 7: way to end Trump's influence it's over the Republican Party
Speaker 7: and to a degree our country, is to beat him
Speaker 7: at the ballot box and really ideally to beat him
Speaker 7: in the Republican primary. Not sure if it's possible, but
Speaker 7: if anyone can do it, it's her.
Speaker 2: Rick, I mean beat Donald Trump, and he's lost the
Speaker 2: presidential election. He you know, during the mid terms, his
Speaker 2: candidate's lost, and yet he's still he still has a
Speaker 2: commanding lead against his Republican rivals. I mean, would another
Speaker 2: loss even make a difference. He just doesn't seem to
Speaker 2: go away.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Look, I mean we've talked about it a lot, but
Speaker 9: like he's got this core support let's call it, anywhere
Speaker 9: from thirty to forty five percent within the party, right,
Speaker 9: it's not a majority, it's within the party, is his core,
Speaker 9: and he uses that to better advantage than any politician
Speaker 9: I've ever seen, to intimidate senior members of the Republican Party,
Speaker 9: to intimidate the media, to intimidate you know, the legal say.
Speaker 9: And he's not a majority candidate. He can't win a
Speaker 9: majority of the country. He hasn't proven he can get
Speaker 9: anywhere near that in a general election, and he's never
Speaker 9: won a majority of a primary other than in twenty
Speaker 9: twenty when it didn't matter. And so you know, he's
Speaker 9: a he's a minority candidate in the sense that he
Speaker 9: is successful without ever getting close to fifty percent. And
Speaker 9: I agree, I think the best way to dispatch him
Speaker 9: from actively exerting his influence in the Republican Party is
Speaker 9: for someone to beat him in the primary straight up,
Speaker 9: I would say my concern about him is always he'll
Speaker 9: never declare defeat, even in a primary. He'll claim it's stolen.
Speaker 9: He'll claim he's the nominee of the party, I mean
Speaker 9: like it's and if he does become the nominee, regardless
Speaker 9: of the outcome of the election in November of twenty
Speaker 9: twenty four, he will also claim that he's the winner.
Speaker 9: And so we we have our work cut out in
Speaker 9: this country to try and create stable democratic institutions to
Speaker 9: handle a guy like him.
Speaker 2: And no matter what he says, no matter how frightening
Speaker 2: it may be. For example, he's commented that he would
Speaker 2: be on day one a dictator. In that Quinnipiac poll,
Speaker 2: fifty three percent of voters are concerned with that comment,
Speaker 2: but forty four percent aren't, and eighty four percent of
Speaker 2: Republicans say they aren't worried about that remark. So it
Speaker 2: seems like it doesn't even matter what he says at
Speaker 2: this point, or how frightening that may be. But more
Speaker 2: to come, as there always is. Thank you so much,
Speaker 2: both of you that's politics contributor for Bloomberg, Rick Davis
Speaker 2: and Democratic strategists Al Mater.
Speaker 1: You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 11: Followed by the sound of almost deafening silence here in
Speaker 11: Washington because everybody's gone home. It's just me, Kaylee Lynes
Speaker 11: and Mike Dorning, who helps Lee Bloomberg's congressional coverage that
Speaker 11: seemed to be in the building or in the city
Speaker 11: today because Congress isn't here, Mike. They've wrapped up twenty.
Speaker 5: Twenty three phone home for a nice three week holiday.
Speaker 11: They got on their planes. They're taking the holiday break.
Speaker 11: But when they come back, they're going to have a
Speaker 11: lot to deal with because they didn't wrap up a
Speaker 11: lot of business before its time, before they got out
Speaker 11: of town. So let's talk about that timeline.
Speaker 9: They come back.
Speaker 5: What January eighth, January eighth and ninth.
Speaker 11: And then January nineteenth, parts of the government could shut
Speaker 11: down if they haven't figured out appropriations. How hard is
Speaker 11: it going to be to get things done in that
Speaker 11: narrow a window.
Speaker 5: Pretty hard, and there's wide disagreements between the House and
Speaker 5: the Senate. The House couldn't even agree among Republicans on
Speaker 5: what they wanted to do on a lot of these things,
Speaker 5: much less adding in Senates and Democrats in the White House.
Speaker 5: So it's going to be pretty hard to come to
Speaker 5: an agreement before this shutdown deadline. You have to figure
Speaker 5: the odds of parts of the government shutting down then
Speaker 5: are very high.
Speaker 11: So it's no work going to get done between now
Speaker 11: and then. I know everybody goes home to the districts
Speaker 11: for a holiday, but there were people who were here
Speaker 11: actively negotiating, at least on the Senate side with the
Speaker 11: White House, trying to get something done with border security
Speaker 11: and Ukraine A. Does any of that work continue or
Speaker 11: they just pause everything.
Speaker 5: We'll turn to it later. They say, quote unquote that
Speaker 5: they're going to work around the clock the whole time,
Speaker 5: which is, of course, you know, not really true. But
Speaker 5: some work will get done on that. There is a
Speaker 5: smaller negotiating group of about three senators who will be
Speaker 5: working and consulting, and they'll be in touch with the
Speaker 5: White House. But there probably won't be a lot done
Speaker 5: until you have the forcing mechanism of them coming back
Speaker 5: into session. Now, as you're pointing out, that's just one
Speaker 5: slice of what needs to be done soon, we're just
Speaker 5: looking that they're just dealing with the Ukraine aid and
Speaker 5: the border security. What they've got to get done by
Speaker 5: the nineteenth is funding a whole segment of government, and
Speaker 5: there's a big risk that even the Ukraine and the
Speaker 5: border raid stuff will slip into that bigger morass that
Speaker 5: will then get even bigger in early February when the
Speaker 5: rest of the government needs to be funded. So it's
Speaker 5: quite possible all of this could be kicking around a while.
Speaker 5: The optimistic view would be maybe they can at least
Speaker 5: get the Ukraine and border security piece done before everything
Speaker 5: falls apart. It's a possibility, but it's not necessarily a
Speaker 5: great one.
Speaker 11: Okay, maybe possible, but low probability. When we're reflecting on
Speaker 11: the year that was in twenty twenty three, the fact
Speaker 11: that we are still fighting over top line appropriations figures
Speaker 11: when this was the fight we were having back during the
Speaker 11: debt stealing drama. Yet when they agreed on top line
Speaker 11: figures and we're still litigating the top line figures, are
Speaker 11: we just in for more of this in twenty twenty four? Mike,
Speaker 11: you make a deal and then don't you don't stick
Speaker 11: to it? If you can make the deal.
Speaker 5: At all, well, I think that there's a good chance
Speaker 5: that there will be a big conflict in you know,
Speaker 5: January and early February, and that they will ultimately perhaps
Speaker 5: with a government shutdown that might possibly go on a while,
Speaker 5: have a resolution to that at least until September thirtieth,
Speaker 5: because Speaker Johnson has said, we're not doing any more
Speaker 5: temporary stopgap measures like we did at the end of
Speaker 5: at the end of September and then again in November.
Speaker 5: And there's a logic to having your conflict now. If
Speaker 5: you need to shut down the government, you're doing it
Speaker 5: early in the year. Maybe Americans will have forgotten about
Speaker 5: it by the time they go, you know, vote in November,
Speaker 5: and you know, why do another extension if you're not
Speaker 5: going to make any more progress at least this way,
Speaker 5: you've gotten past acting like Scrooge and sending the government
Speaker 5: workers and the soldiers home without pay for Christmas. Now
Speaker 5: you're at least having the shutdown outside the holiday season,
Speaker 5: all right.
Speaker 11: Well, I guess they're going to enjoy their holiday season
Speaker 11: while they can before things get real difficult a couple
Speaker 11: of weeks here. Mike Dorning, of course, thank you so
Speaker 11: much for joining us. He helps lead our congressional coverage
Speaker 11: here at Bloomberg. But we want to get an inside
Speaker 11: look now from someone who sits in the House of Representatives,
Speaker 11: even if he's not physically in the Capitol building right now.
Speaker 11: Congressman John Garrimendi, I'm pleased to say, is joining us.
Speaker 11: He is a Democrat from California. Congressman, thank you very
Speaker 11: much for being with us. When you return in January.
Speaker 11: Is there just going to be so little time that
Speaker 11: the only thing really to do is hold your nose
Speaker 11: and swallow down whatever compromise can be come up with.
Speaker 10: Well, let's just be very clear here. This last year,
Speaker 10: the twenty twenty three year, was the least productive Congress
Speaker 10: perhaps in the last century. Twenty three bills, about half
Speaker 10: of them, are naming post offices somewhere across the United States.
Speaker 10: The work of the government simply is not happening. The
Speaker 10: Chaos Caucus, otherwise known as the Congressional Republicans, are simply
Speaker 10: unable to function. They are so badly split, with a
Speaker 10: mega extremist on one side, a few moderates still left
Speaker 10: in the moderate side of it, and the rest of
Speaker 10: them all lurking to their primary and wondering if they
Speaker 10: step out of line and make Trump unhappy in some way,
Speaker 10: then they will get primaried. It's a very very serious
Speaker 10: problem when the Congress simply cannot function. Mike Johnson, the
Speaker 10: new Speaker, is totally incapable of leading because he knows
Speaker 10: that at any moment, one member of his caucus could
Speaker 10: put his can leadership at risk and call for a
Speaker 10: vote that is to vacate the share, and so we're
Speaker 10: really stuck. Also keep in mind that what has been done,
Speaker 10: that is the funding of government through the first half
Speaker 10: through the first year, has been done principally by the Democrats.
Speaker 10: We put up two thirds of the votes, we put
Speaker 10: up our two hundred or so, and then the Republicans
Speaker 10: add on, and so it's just a terrible situation, and frankly,
Speaker 10: it is not going to get better. The margin for
Speaker 10: the Republicans has actually declined. We see further members of
Speaker 10: the Republican caucus retiring midyear, Kevin McCarthy being Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 11: George Santos, of course is out to your point, Congressman, though,
Speaker 11: on Democrats having provided the majority of the votes for
Speaker 11: some of the most crucial must pass bills this year,
Speaker 11: when it comes to a vote that you could be
Speaker 11: facing potentially early on in twenty twenty four on the
Speaker 11: supple mental something being negotiated between the White House and
Speaker 11: primarily the Senate right now Ukraineate an exchange for border
Speaker 11: security measures, potentially changes to asylum and parole rules. What
Speaker 11: are Democrats going to be able to tolerate in those negotiations?
Speaker 10: There is a compromise available in that supplemental bill. There's
Speaker 10: almost three billion dollars for border security, hiring border patrol agents,
Speaker 10: court and on and on to deal with the crisis.
Speaker 10: There are within the Republican proposal. My analysis is there
Speaker 10: are some things in the Republican proposal that could be
Speaker 10: part of a deal, although probably need to be modified
Speaker 10: in some way, but nonetheless a deal could be had.
Speaker 10: But on the House side there are no negotiations at all.
Speaker 10: Speaker Johnson has not put forward anybody in his caucus
Speaker 10: to negotiate, but we're willing to do so. We know
Speaker 10: that we can get it done. The problem for Ukraine
Speaker 10: is absolutely horrible. They will be out of money the
Speaker 10: first of January. They will not be able to pay
Speaker 10: for their first responders, the medical services, the ambulances, and
Speaker 10: the military equipment that they need to continue to defend
Speaker 10: themselves and to push back Russia is not going to
Speaker 10: be available. They're going to have to limit their munitions,
Speaker 10: They're going to have to be able to just hang on.
Speaker 10: The United States Congress is absolutely derelict in providing the
Speaker 10: support that is essential for Ukraine. Keep in mind that
Speaker 10: Ukraine is fighting on behalf of NATO. We are all
Speaker 10: NATAL allies protected by Ukraine. It's the Ukrainians that are dying.
Speaker 10: It's the men and women and children in the cities
Speaker 10: that are being bombed by Russia. And what is the Congress?
Speaker 10: What are the Republican leadership doing? Nothing? Not at all.
Speaker 10: A compromise is available, but we're seeing total total chaos
Speaker 10: in the leadership of the House on the Republican side.
Speaker 10: We stand ready, the Democrats stand ready to put together
Speaker 10: a compromise. The Senate will see if they could do it.
Speaker 10: If they can, then perhaps we'll get it done. That's
Speaker 10: just one of the pieces the funding the government will
Speaker 10: half of the government will not be funded on January nineteenth,
Speaker 10: There'll be no man.
Speaker 11: That deadline is quickly quickly approaching. Yeah, that deadline is
Speaker 11: not far away, Congressman. Of course, when we think about
Speaker 11: the supplemental in particular, though, it's not just Ukrainey that's
Speaker 11: in question wrapped up here, it's Israel as well. And
Speaker 11: I just wonder if the Israel AID and just the
Speaker 11: administration support for Israel is also going to be harder
Speaker 11: to support going forward when we're looking now at Palestinian
Speaker 11: casualties that authority in Gaza say have breached over twenty thousand.
Speaker 10: The Gaza situation is horrible, It's inhumane, and is this horrible.
Speaker 10: My view of this is that Israel absolutely has to
Speaker 10: stop aerial bombardment. Most of the casualties are a direct
Speaker 10: result of aerial bombardment. Most of those bombs are American bombs,
Speaker 10: and it has to stop. About fifty to forty percent
Speaker 10: of those bombs are not guided. They simply fall out
Speaker 10: of the sky and hit something. What they're hitting are
Speaker 10: the civilians, and it has to stop. Israel has every
Speaker 10: right to continue to pursue its goal of eradicating hamas,
Speaker 10: and they should do so, but they absolutely must do
Speaker 10: it in a different manner. They cannot continue to do this.
Speaker 10: Their support is rapidly eroding around the world, and I
Speaker 10: would dare say it is also in Congress now. Humanitarian
Speaker 10: aid is also in THELA and that is essential. We're
Speaker 10: seeing the need not only in Gaza, but also in
Speaker 10: other parts of the world, Ukraine specifically, and that's another
Speaker 10: piece of this puzzle. Now we have work to do,
Speaker 10: we can do it, we must do it, we have
Speaker 10: no choice. And the supplemental Ukraine Israel border as well
Speaker 10: as the humanitarian support is necessary. Also, we need to
Speaker 10: understand that we have to continue to fund the government.
Speaker 10: Reported from the Congress suggested that a CR is not
Speaker 10: going to happen. Well, if a CR doesn't happen and
Speaker 10: the appropriations don't happen, then government will shut down and
Speaker 10: it will have a horrendous effect on America, not only
Speaker 10: on the operations of everything from the air traffic control
Speaker 10: systems to highways other essential programs. The military will probably
Speaker 10: continue to be paid, but the police will not. So
Speaker 10: it's a terrible problem if we don't continue to fund
Speaker 10: the government and Finally, the status of America in the
Speaker 10: world has already been seriously jeopardized by the unwillingness and
Speaker 10: the inability of the Republican led Congress to operate. Right now,
Speaker 10: Putin is having a very very good Christmas holiday because
Speaker 10: he is simply laughing at America and he's telling the
Speaker 10: world you do not want America as your ally, because
Speaker 10: they will back away. They will leave you in the
Speaker 10: field without guns, without ammunition, and without the supplies you need.
Speaker 10: Putin's having a very very good Christmas. Ukraine is not,
Speaker 10: and America is suffering as a result of the inability
Speaker 10: of the Republican led Congress to get the job done.
Speaker 11: So there's a lot to unpack in that answer there, Congressman,
Speaker 11: I want to combine a few issues that you mentioned here.
Speaker 11: You talked about America and it's standing in the world,
Speaker 11: the US military, whether or not troops will continue to
Speaker 11: be paid, and we were originally talking about the conflict
Speaker 11: between Israel and Hamas. There's one thing that kind of
Speaker 11: bridges a lot of this, and that is what we're
Speaker 11: seeing happening in the Red Sea right now. Obviously, there
Speaker 11: is a lot of naval vessels in that region, the
Speaker 11: US already has been actively engaged in defensive measures shooting
Speaker 11: down hoothy drones as they are attempting to strike merchant
Speaker 11: vessels bound for Israel, or perhaps it has become a
Speaker 11: bit more indiscriminate. Now, how concerned should we be by
Speaker 11: what's happening in the Red Sea? And I ask you
Speaker 11: this knowing you serve on the Armed Services Committee and
Speaker 11: the Transportation Committee, the Subcommittee on Maritime Transport in particular.
Speaker 10: Well, it is a very very serious international problem, but
Speaker 10: it is not a new problem. We've seen periodically the
Speaker 10: interruption of shipping, both in the Red Sea years ago
Speaker 10: it was the pirates taking over ships. Obviously problems in
Speaker 10: the Gulf also, So this is not new. America has
Speaker 10: always been there, and we are there today. We're calling
Speaker 10: on allies, other countries, some of whom are NATO, others
Speaker 10: are not NATO countries, to join with US in providing
Speaker 10: the necessary naval support to make it clear to the
Speaker 10: Houthis and more importantly to Iran that they cannot interrupt
Speaker 10: the international flow of shipping, not only oil and gas,
Speaker 10: but also all kinds of goods that are shipped through
Speaker 10: the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. It's important that
Speaker 10: the United States does this. We do this all the time.
Speaker 10: We have been the leader since the Siuez Canal crisis
Speaker 10: way back in the sixties. We've been the leader in
Speaker 10: the Middle East, providing the stability and the support for
Speaker 10: the open seas. Will continue to do that. Now there
Speaker 10: is a problem here. It takes us back to the
Speaker 10: funding of government. We are using very expensive missiles, a
Speaker 10: couple million dollars a missile to shoot down two thousand
Speaker 10: dollars drones. It's not a good situation those missiles. So
Speaker 10: if I could replace, yes, go ahead.
Speaker 11: Well, would it be more strategically optimal for the US
Speaker 11: to instead use its ammunition to just go after the
Speaker 11: Hoothies directly direct strikes where they are or is that
Speaker 11: too escalatory?
Speaker 10: Well, there's certainly excavatory. But we might want to talk
Speaker 10: to the Saudi Arabias who attempted to do that for
Speaker 10: ten for nine years unsuccessfully. The Saudis used the American
Speaker 10: equipment of all kinds to try to do precisely, that is,
Speaker 10: to stop the Hooties and to remove their military capability.
Speaker 10: They failed. Now would we be more successful? Probably not.
Speaker 10: What we need to do here is to be there
Speaker 10: to do what we can do, and it's it's difficult
Speaker 10: because of the symmetry between the cost of the missiles
Speaker 10: that we're using to defend and the drones that are
Speaker 10: being used by the Houthis. The real issue here is Iran.
Speaker 10: All of this goes back to Iran, and clearly the
Speaker 10: Houthis are supported by Iran. Those missiles are Iranian missiles,
Speaker 10: the drones are Iranian drones, and the issue of Iran
Speaker 10: remains front and center in most of the issues. Certainly
Speaker 10: the Hamas, that's Iran. Further north in the Lebanon area,
Speaker 10: that's Iran. Syria, that's Iran. The current attacks that are
Speaker 10: going on against the American military in Iraq. So we
Speaker 10: must recognize and we do that Iran is the central
Speaker 10: cause of most of the disruption that occurs in this region.
Speaker 10: How to deal with Iran.
Speaker 12: We were on a path during the pre Trump administration,
Speaker 12: the Obama administration to rein in Iran on their nuclear
Speaker 12: and other activities. Unfortunately Trump terminated that turned Iran loose
Speaker 12: to pursue its nuclear ambitions and simultaneously to continue to
Speaker 12: pursue its ambitions to dominate the Middle East. So this
Speaker 12: is a very difficult but a very very important one.
Speaker 12: The showerforce by multiple countries is extremely important.
Speaker 10: Will it stop it? Well, let's hope it does, because
Speaker 10: the alternatives are just not good. The alternatives being perhaps
Speaker 10: trying to attack the Huthis. I suspect that will ultimately unsuccessful.
Speaker 10: The negotiations between Saudi Arabia and a Rod are on
Speaker 10: a hold because of the Homus attack on Israel and
Speaker 10: then Israel's attack in d Gaza, but those may be
Speaker 10: able to bear fruit in the days and months ahead.
Speaker 10: Hopefully it will.
Speaker 11: Congressman. Finally, I want to return to another issue that
Speaker 11: has been in the headlines that refers to someone you
Speaker 11: are actually just alluding to their speaking of the Trump administration,
Speaker 11: the former president. The Supreme Court in the state of Colorado,
Speaker 11: of course, ruled earlier this week that he is ineligible
Speaker 11: to be president again because of his actions on January sixth,
Speaker 11: when in what they say was inciting and insurrection. He
Speaker 11: would be removed from the ballot. If this holds. Now,
Speaker 11: you have the Lieutenant governor in your state requesting that
Speaker 11: the state look into every legal option to do the same.
Speaker 11: Is this appropriate in your mind? Or is the issue
Speaker 11: of whether or not Trump should serve again, that should
Speaker 11: be left to voters, not the courts.
Speaker 10: I think every state in this nation should pursue this. However,
Speaker 10: and this is a big however, However, believe the Supreme
Speaker 10: Court will overrule these individual state actions and allow Trump
Speaker 10: to stay on the ballot. Two good things if this
Speaker 10: were to happen. First of all, multiple states would take
Speaker 10: up the issue of the insurrection that Trump created and
Speaker 10: hold him accountable state by state. That would be good
Speaker 10: for the American public to know. This is not just
Speaker 10: a Washington thing. This is something that states across this
Speaker 10: nation are observed and are taking action on. Ultimately, I
Speaker 10: believe that Trump should be given the chance to be
Speaker 10: on the ballot, and I suspect the Supreme Court will
Speaker 10: so rule. Were that not to happen, I believe we'd
Speaker 10: have a very serious, very very serious political crisis in
Speaker 10: the United States if, in fact, Trump were not allowed
Speaker 10: to be on the presidential on the ballots in November.
Speaker 10: Between now and November, let the states act, let them
Speaker 10: go through the process as did Colorado and put the
Speaker 10: proof on the table, which Colorado did, and I believe
Speaker 10: other states should do that. Ultimately, I think the Supreme
Speaker 10: Court will say no, that can't happen.
Speaker 6: That way.
Speaker 10: Trump will be on the ballot, and he should be
Speaker 10: defeated for multiple reasons. He is a direct threat to
Speaker 10: our democracy. He's already talking about being a dictator. Oh,
Speaker 10: for only one day, Well, that would be the first
Speaker 10: dictator ever that was there for only one day. But
Speaker 10: this is a very serious threat to our democracy in
Speaker 10: multiple ways. And this is complex as I've described it,
Speaker 10: but I think ultimately indeed the state should take it up.
Speaker 10: They should come to a conclusion, and then ultimately the
Speaker 10: Supreme Court should take it and allow Trump to go
Speaker 10: on the ballot in November.
Speaker 11: Well, Congressman, I really appreciate you weighing in on the
Speaker 11: complexity not just of this issue, but of issues foreign
Speaker 11: policy as well. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 11: We really appreciate your time. That is Democratic Congressman John
Speaker 11: Garrimandi of California.
Speaker 1: You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
Speaker 6: The Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 11: All right, well, we want to return to a conversation
Speaker 11: we were just having in regard to what is happening
Speaker 11: in the Middle East. There have been renewed talks in
Speaker 11: recent days attempts to broker a deal to release more
Speaker 11: hostages being held by Hamas, but Hamasa said in the
Speaker 11: last twenty four hours it would not discuss a new
Speaker 11: deal to release hostages and tell and this is a
Speaker 11: quote from their statement, there is a comprehensive secession of aggression.
Speaker 11: This is of course as Israel is stepping up its
Speaker 11: operations in Gaza. So we want to get more on
Speaker 11: this now, and please to say joining us is Carmeil Arbitch.
Speaker 11: She is joining us from the Atlantic Council. She's a
Speaker 11: senior fellow there and focuses specifically on the Middle East. Carmil,
Speaker 11: we've spoken with you before here at Bloomberg on our
Speaker 11: TV program Balance of Power, and you suggested that once
Speaker 11: that first brief deal to halt hostilities for a period
Speaker 11: of time and exchange hostages expired, which of course it has,
Speaker 11: it would be much harder to make a second deal happen.
Speaker 11: Do you still feel that way, or do you think
Speaker 11: there is actually potential for another agreement here?
Speaker 13: Thank you so much for having me on again.
Speaker 8: I do think there is potential for a deal here,
Speaker 8: and I think that actually the parties are quite close,
Speaker 8: and I believe that for a few reasons that we
Speaker 8: can go too.
Speaker 13: But this will be a much more difficult deal, specifically.
Speaker 8: For the Israelis in so far as they received in
Speaker 8: the first cease fire and exchange of a ratio of
Speaker 8: about one to three hostages for Palestinian prisoners, the prisoners
Speaker 8: who were released had very low level or in some
Speaker 8: cases no crimes hadn't been charged at all, and that
Speaker 8: largest wanthor of prisoners that excuse me, of hostages that
Speaker 8: released from Gaza were youth and elderly woman. The situation
Speaker 8: that we have now is that Israel has already said
Speaker 8: publicly that it is willing to engage in a ceasefire
Speaker 8: for seven days in exchange for forty hostages, about half
Speaker 8: of what they got last time. And the demands from
Speaker 8: Hamas are expected to include prisoners who have blood on
Speaker 8: their hands, and so what that means is prisoners who
Speaker 8: are kind of high value, who have been involved in
Speaker 8: serious or significant crimes, which will of itself be a
Speaker 8: much higher price than Israel will have to pay well.
Speaker 11: In the meantime, while they're trying to work out whether
Speaker 11: or not there can be a deal that's made here.
Speaker 11: As I said, things are escalating in Gaza. The IDEF,
Speaker 11: it seems, has found more Hamas centers, it says, in
Speaker 11: the strip right now, and the civilian death toll, at
Speaker 11: least according to Palestinian authorities has authorities, has surpassed twenty thousand.
Speaker 11: I was just speaking with Democratic Congressman John Gary Mendi
Speaker 11: of California, who said Israel needs to stop this basically
Speaker 11: to paraphrase paraphrase his words, and he said that sentiment
Speaker 11: is turning against them. Garmiel, do you think that's true.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think that the atrocities as we've seen them
Speaker 8: in Gaza are just agonizing for anyone who is watching TV.
Speaker 8: Watching images of children, of women, of families that have
Speaker 8: been killed, of houses that have been demolished, to the
Speaker 8: images are absolutely heart wrenching. And with that, public opinion
Speaker 8: in the United States and around the world is shifting,
Speaker 8: and pressure on Israel is growing to if not.
Speaker 13: Entirely end the war.
Speaker 8: Through a permanent ceasefire, to at least pursue a temporary
Speaker 8: ceasefire and to move to the next phase of this war.
Speaker 8: The Israeli government had said that they were going to
Speaker 8: engage in a multi phase war that included a bombing campaign,
Speaker 8: a ground operation, and then ultimately to move to the
Speaker 8: next phase, which would be a bit more surgical, which
Speaker 8: would not be this high level of intensity of conflict,
Speaker 8: and we're seeing preparations for that starting to take place.
Speaker 8: So one of the early indications that there is a
Speaker 8: ceasefire on the horizon is the intensification of that ground operation,
Speaker 8: which we often see frankly by both sides in anticipation
Speaker 8: of a pause.
Speaker 11: Well, as you talk about the intensity of the operations,
Speaker 11: the US would like to see the temperature lowered here.
Speaker 11: This is actually something we heard the Secretary of State
Speaker 11: Antime blink and talking about just yesterday. Here is what
Speaker 11: he had to say on this.
Speaker 14: It's clear that the conflict will move and needs to
Speaker 14: move to a lower intensity phase, and we expect to
Speaker 14: see and want to see a shift to more targeted
Speaker 14: operations with a smaller number of forces that's really focused
Speaker 14: in on dealing with the leadership of AMAS, the Tunnel Network.
Speaker 11: And Kermielle. It's interesting as we hear Secretary blink In
Speaker 11: there suggesting that in Gaza, specifically in the conflict between
Speaker 11: Israel and Hamas, the intensity needs to be lowered. At
Speaker 11: the same time Bloomberg is reporting that the US is
Speaker 11: actually considering perhaps upping the intensity when it comes to
Speaker 11: action against Toothy rebels, which are of course based in
Speaker 11: Yemen sponsored by Iran. It's another proxy for run because
Speaker 11: of what's happening in the Red Sea, the disruption to
Speaker 11: merchant trade flows and just maritime behavior. If the US
Speaker 11: were to go on offense against the Houthis, would that
Speaker 11: be a mistake.
Speaker 8: I think that the threat posed by the Hutis is
Speaker 8: not limited to Israel.
Speaker 13: It is really at this stage of global threat to.
Speaker 8: International shipping, as different companies who have been trying to
Speaker 8: send goods via the Red Sea are now under attack,
Speaker 8: and so we have.
Speaker 13: Seen the UTIs designated in the past.
Speaker 8: I think that the HUTI threat as an Iranian back
Speaker 8: group has long been a priority for the US, including
Speaker 8: as demonstrated through their support of Saudi Arabia and the
Speaker 8: UAE during their war against the UTIs. I think that
Speaker 8: this is an important and obvious next step frankly from
Speaker 8: the US, I do think it's useful to think about
Speaker 8: the different dimensions of this conflict. It is not only
Speaker 8: what's happening in Gaza, but also what's taking place right
Speaker 8: now in Syria, in Lebanon, and of course in Yemen,
Speaker 8: as different actors, in many cases backed by Iran, are
Speaker 8: continuing to threaten Israel, and Israel is responding in kind.
Speaker 13: And so even as the assaults and.
Speaker 8: Gaza may wind down, we may see a wind up
Speaker 8: on the northern border in.
Speaker 13: Addition to what we may see visa the US and
Speaker 13: the Putis.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 11: And it becomes, I guess, a calculation for the US
Speaker 11: as well as to what other Arab countries and Arab
Speaker 11: allies would would like to see done here, because you
Speaker 11: take the Saudi's for example, which have actually seen their
Speaker 11: energy infrastructure in the past damage by who the attacks
Speaker 11: and by all accounts, would like to see them handled
Speaker 11: in a bit more of a measured way. If the
Speaker 11: US were to escalate this to a certain degree, would
Speaker 11: that be problematic for our partners in the Middle East.
Speaker 8: I think our partners in the Middle East have been
Speaker 8: very vocal in terms of both their involvement in these
Speaker 8: conflicts and what they are and are not.
Speaker 13: Willing to tolerate from the US.
Speaker 8: Fortunately, the United States has very close relationships with Sudney
Speaker 8: countries across the Gulf who have been engaged in differing
Speaker 8: degrees in terms of how we engage with the Jutis
Speaker 8: and their involvement with Israel. So I wouldn't actually expect
Speaker 8: escalated tensions with Sunny countries. If we were to escalate
Speaker 8: with the Houtis to the country, I think there would
Speaker 8: be quiet support for that.
Speaker 11: And while we think about conflict or at least disruption
Speaker 11: in the Red Sea, obviously conflict when it comes to
Speaker 11: Israel and Hamas, it keeps bringing us back to this
Speaker 11: very same question, Karmil, which is what is the endgame,
Speaker 11: the day that this all ends. Whenever that day is,
Speaker 11: however far out into the future, what does the order
Speaker 11: actually look like? How are you thinking about that next day?
Speaker 13: Yeah?
Speaker 8: I think that this is really the million dollar question,
Speaker 8: and it's something that the Israelis have not been serious
Speaker 8: about grappling with but are starting to get to.
Speaker 13: I think the question is in the region, how can we.
Speaker 8: Ring about more peaceful, stable Middle East, starting with Gaza,
Speaker 8: but really across the Levant, and this is going to
Speaker 8: be a huge challenge. I think that we are potentially
Speaker 8: facing a long period of continued violence and instability, even
Speaker 8: if we are entering into a lower intensity conflict, one
Speaker 8: that will then create space for what I hope will
Speaker 8: be political negotiations that could yield some kind of a
Speaker 8: two state outcome between Israelis and the Palestinians. That would
Speaker 8: include the Palestinian authority retaking control and administering Gaza and
Speaker 8: essentially uniting the two territories.
Speaker 10: I think that would be.
Speaker 8: Pretty significant change and one that could at least be
Speaker 8: a positive outcome from what has been a very difficult
Speaker 8: seventy six days of war.
Speaker 11: Yeah, and difficult is almost understating it. We appreciate your insight, Carmil,
Speaker 11: thank you so much for joining us. That's Carnil Arbit
Speaker 11: of the Atlantic Council, where she is a senior Fellow.
Speaker 11: Will have much more coming up on sound on This
Speaker 11: is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com.
Speaker 6: And the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 11: I am indeed Kaylie Lines here on the fastest show
Speaker 11: in Politics. Joe Matthew is taking a well deserved day off,
Speaker 11: but we have much to discuss, as we have been
Speaker 11: discussing over the course of the last two days, specifically
Speaker 11: when it comes to former President Donald Trump. Colorado State
Speaker 11: Supreme Court making history in many ways this week when
Speaker 11: it ruled he is ineligible to be president on grounds
Speaker 11: of the fourteenth Amendment because of his actions on January sixth.
Speaker 11: But ultimately this very likely is going to end up
Speaker 11: being a decision that the Supreme Court of the United
Speaker 11: States has to make. I actually on this program yesterday
Speaker 11: spoke with Lawrence Tribe, who is a well known Supreme
Speaker 11: Court expert and professor at Harvard Law, and he told
Speaker 11: me he thinks the High Court will uphold the ruling here.
Speaker 15: He is, well, I don't have a crystal ball. I
Speaker 15: think as they follow the law. Judge Michael Ludig, a
Speaker 15: very distinguished conservative, and I think they will have to
Speaker 15: affirm the decision and render an unexpected, perhaps in many
Speaker 15: ways unpopular ruling that keeps him off the ballot. They
Speaker 15: find some way consistent with the fourteenth Amendment and their
Speaker 15: host of the Constitution, some exit ramp, some way of
Speaker 15: not keeping him off the ballot. I don't really see
Speaker 15: what it could be, but it's a pretty ingenious court
Speaker 15: and they have found ways to do some pretty strange things.
Speaker 11: So contrast that with what I was just told earlier
Speaker 11: this hour by Democratic Congressman from California, John garri Mendi.
Speaker 10: Here he is, I believe that Trump should be given
Speaker 10: the chance to be on the ballot, and I suspect
Speaker 10: the Supreme Court will so rule. Were that not to happen,
Speaker 10: I believe we'd have a very serious, very very serious
Speaker 10: political crisis in the United States if, in fact, Trump
Speaker 10: were not allowed to be on the presidential on the
Speaker 10: ballots in November.
Speaker 11: So I want to get another take now by actually
Speaker 11: someone who sat on the January sixth committee in the
Speaker 11: House of Representatives. The report that came from that committee
Speaker 11: actually showed up not just in the Colorado District courts
Speaker 11: of ruling that was in question here, but the Supreme
Speaker 11: Court said that it had every right to be used
Speaker 11: as evidence in this case. In particular, joining me now,
Speaker 11: I'm pleased to say, is former Congressman Stephanie Murphy. So, Congressman,
Speaker 11: thank you very much for being with us. As someone
Speaker 11: who sat as I said, on the January sixth Committee,
Speaker 11: who of those two individuals do you think is right
Speaker 11: in this case?
Speaker 16: Well, I think one person was arguing the legal and
Speaker 16: judicial angle of the case and the other was looking
Speaker 16: at it through the political lens. I have all the
Speaker 16: respect in the world for a Congressman Gary Mundy, but
Speaker 16: as he explained himself that he was concerned about the
Speaker 16: political consequences of a Supreme Court ruling that kept the
Speaker 16: former president off the ballot, I think, you know it's
Speaker 16: going to be up to the courts to apply Section
Speaker 16: three of the fourteenth Amendment. But without a doubt, the
Speaker 16: January sixth Committee did show that the former president engaged
Speaker 16: in insurrection or gave aid or comfort to those who
Speaker 16: engaged in insurrection, which is the language that is used
Speaker 16: in the fourteenth Amendment that would prohibit people who conducted
Speaker 16: such activities from being on a batot.
Speaker 11: So do you feel good about the fact that the
Speaker 11: Committee's work is being used as a legal basis here
Speaker 11: for this. Do you think that that's justified or should
Speaker 11: he be actually charged with insurrection and formally convicted?
Speaker 16: First, you know, I think that the January sixth Select
Speaker 16: Committee provided a lot of information that has been used
Speaker 16: not just in this court case, but in a number
Speaker 16: of cases, whether that's Georgia or otherwise as it relates
Speaker 16: to prosecuting the folks who committed crimes on January sixth.
Speaker 16: You know, January sixth Select Committee really was the first
Speaker 16: time where we painted a full picture of what happened.
Speaker 16: As you might recall, in the days and months before
Speaker 16: the January sixth Select Committee began our hearings, the American
Speaker 16: people saw bits and pieces, you know, the phone call
Speaker 16: to the Georgia state officials. They got little pieces of
Speaker 16: what happened in the run up to January sixth, But
Speaker 16: really it was the Select Committee that painted the broader picture,
Speaker 16: the full narrative of all of the activities at the local, state,
Speaker 16: and federal level to try to change the outcome of
Speaker 16: a fare and free election. It's not a surprise to
Speaker 16: me that that information, that evidence is being used by
Speaker 16: the courts.
Speaker 11: So if it is indeed being used in the courts,
Speaker 11: and therefore matters to the courts. Do you think it
Speaker 11: matters enough to the American electorate, to the base that
Speaker 11: this former president appeals to that does not seem to
Speaker 11: be swayed by what the committee presented or what, frankly,
Speaker 11: the courts or other legal authorities have to say about
Speaker 11: the matter.
Speaker 16: I've been a bit dismayed by the short term memory
Speaker 16: of the American electorate. I think we did see an
Speaker 16: initial impact from the January sixth elect Committee hearings in
Speaker 16: the election that immediately followed. We saw the American people
Speaker 16: reject election deniers pretty much across the board across this country.
Speaker 16: But now there are other issues that are crowding the voters' minds,
Speaker 16: and they're starting to sort of set aside the shocking
Speaker 16: and stunning activities of the former president on January sixth
Speaker 16: and focusing on some of the other issues that are
Speaker 16: more important as voters go to the polls. You know,
Speaker 16: as an elected official, you know, I was a member
Speaker 16: of Congress, and every campaign we always talked about what
Speaker 16: matters to people when they go to the polls, and
Speaker 16: usually it's about economic security and physical security. These more
Speaker 16: lofty ideas of democracy sometimes are a bit harder to
Speaker 16: ask people to cast their ballot purely based around that,
Speaker 16: And unfortunately that's really really problematic because you can't have
Speaker 16: a strong economy and you know, physical community security without
Speaker 16: having a functioning democracy.
Speaker 11: And finally, Congressman, we only have about a minute left.
Speaker 11: But when we think about voters heading to the polls
Speaker 11: and deciding who ultimately is going to be in power,
Speaker 11: do you worry about potentially the precedent that could be
Speaker 11: said here if indeed someone is kept off the ballot
Speaker 11: and it's seen as political.
Speaker 16: I think right now, no matter how the Supreme Court
Speaker 16: finds in this case, it's going to be seen as political.
Speaker 16: They are under a lot of scrutiny at this point
Speaker 16: because of some of the misconduct, the accepting of gifts,
Speaker 16: and so there are a lot of questions about the
Speaker 16: Supreme Court's legitimacy as well as its ethical obligations, and
Speaker 16: so whichever way they find in this case is going
Speaker 16: to be unfortunately seen as political, and that hurts our
Speaker 16: country broadly when our institutions are undermined and people who's
Speaker 16: faith in that way.
Speaker 11: All right, Congresswoman, thank you so much. For joining us.
Speaker 11: That's former Congresswoman and member of the January sixth Select Committee,
Speaker 11: Stephanie Murphy. This is sound On on Bloomberg.
Speaker 9: Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast.
Speaker 1: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already had Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can
Speaker 1: find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one
Speaker 1: pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.