Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 2: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play
Speaker 2: and then Rouno with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on
Speaker 2: demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live
Speaker 2: on YouTube.
Speaker 3: New York of course, Joe where Donald Trump has had
Speaker 3: to spend most of his days over the course of
Speaker 3: the many weeks since April fifteenth, when his criminal hush
Speaker 3: money trial began. But we could be closing in on
Speaker 3: the end of the amount of time he'll have to
Speaker 3: spend in New York. Not this week but next Tuesday.
Speaker 3: Closing arguments, according to Judge Murshawn in this case are set.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess the jury will have a long holiday
Speaker 4: weekend hopefully along with you as well, not sequestered as
Speaker 4: they deliberate until next week.
Speaker 5: So this will be interesting.
Speaker 4: Not that I expect a sequester that's probably not going
Speaker 4: to happen in this case, but interesting to watch Michael
Speaker 4: Cohen wrap up his testimony here because it's unclear Kayley,
Speaker 4: who's going to come next.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a question around FEC official former one whether
Speaker 3: he could testify on the depart on the part of
Speaker 3: the defense, because the defense would like to make clear
Speaker 3: what exactly the rules are here, I guess, but it
Speaker 3: seems that there's been a lot of back and forth
Speaker 3: with the judge and what in terms is actually permissible
Speaker 3: of testimony from that witness. And of course we also
Speaker 3: still have the question around Donald Trump himself whether he
Speaker 3: takes the stand. Most experts would tell you he won't.
Speaker 5: These are the big questions we posed to.
Speaker 4: Jim Ziron, I'm glad to say is back with us
Speaker 4: from World Headquarters in New York. Former Assistant US Attorney
Speaker 4: for the Southern Districts of New York. Jim, it's great
Speaker 4: to see you. Thank you as always for joining us.
Speaker 4: I'd love to know your thoughts on whether Donald Trump
Speaker 4: would maybe should or two different questions here testify. But
Speaker 4: first let's talk about Michael Cohen as he survives cross
Speaker 4: examination and is now going through redirector actually, I guess
Speaker 4: in a break at the moment, which gives us a
Speaker 4: good chance to take note of where we are. How
Speaker 4: did Donald Trump's defense attorneys do here in trying to
Speaker 4: frame the narrative around someone they say is a witness
Speaker 4: with no credibility.
Speaker 6: Well, I think they landed a few blows and perhaps
Speaker 6: showed some inconsistencies. They also brought out something which had
Speaker 6: been brought out on direct examination, that Cohen had stolen
Speaker 6: money from Trump. But all that simply goes to the
Speaker 6: issue of the ultimate issue of credibility, which is for
Speaker 6: the jury and on cross examination, defense lawyers often score
Speaker 6: some points the witness Cohen is now on redirect Susan
Speaker 6: Hoffinger is a terrific prosecutor, and I assume she's going
Speaker 6: to bring out through questioning Cohen's clarifying testimony about the
Speaker 6: famous telephone conversation that he claims he had with Trump
Speaker 6: when the text messages show that they were discussing some
Speaker 6: other subject. There were many other telephone conversations the October
Speaker 6: twenty six conversations, notably that Cohen had with Trump, and
Speaker 6: the basic point is that Trump approved of the payment
Speaker 6: to as Stormy Daniels and approved of it being delivered
Speaker 6: to Stormy Daniels in the way that it was with
Speaker 6: the circumstances of concealment.
Speaker 3: So Jim, as we think about whether or not ultimately
Speaker 3: the jury is going to find Michael Cohen to be
Speaker 3: credible and trustworthy as it formulates its thought process on
Speaker 3: exactly whether Donald Trump should be acquitted or convicted of
Speaker 3: these crimes. Would any further testimony from witnesses the defense
Speaker 3: calls ultimately matter, assuming one of them is not going
Speaker 3: to be Donald Trump. What does an FEC expert witness
Speaker 3: have to do with whether or not Michael Cohen told
Speaker 3: the truth?
Speaker 6: It's not going to really affect the credibility of Michael Cohen.
Speaker 6: And there are a number of witnesses they might call
Speaker 6: whom they're not going to call. They really the only
Speaker 6: person who can contradict Cohen as someone in the jury
Speaker 6: won't believe either, and that's Donald Trump. And if he
Speaker 6: takes the stand, he'll be subjected to vigorous cross examination
Speaker 6: and he'll have to commit perjury to deny that he
Speaker 6: knew about the reimbursement of payment. He can be asked
Speaker 6: a series of questions that he really can't answer without
Speaker 6: incriminating himself, such as, you sign nine checks. You're a micromanager,
Speaker 6: right right? And you sign checks unless you know what
Speaker 6: they're for? No, not usually? And did you see the
Speaker 6: invoices that related to those checks? No, I didn't I
Speaker 6: show you the voices they say they were for legal
Speaker 6: services from Michael Cohen. What legal services that Cohen rendered
Speaker 6: to you? It was supposed to be pursua to a
Speaker 6: retainer agreement. Where's the retainer agreement? And Trump can't answer
Speaker 6: those questions and without incriminating himself, And so most lawyers
Speaker 6: would say it's an act of malpractice if they call
Speaker 6: him to the stand, because he'll just dig himself in
Speaker 6: much deeper.
Speaker 4: He wrote a fascinating opinion piece in The Hill about
Speaker 4: this Jim in which you say that Donald Trump likely
Speaker 4: will not take the stand. But if he does not,
Speaker 4: as most people believe, there will always be the suspicion
Speaker 4: in people's minds about why.
Speaker 5: He chose not to.
Speaker 4: Is this a real conversation you think inside his legal
Speaker 4: team right now?
Speaker 6: Well, there are two courts that are considering the guild
Speaker 6: or innocence of Donald Trump. One is the Court of
Speaker 6: Justice on Center Street in downtown Manhattan, and the other
Speaker 6: is the Court of Public Opinion. In the Court of Justice,
Speaker 6: the prosecution is not permitted to comment on the defendant's
Speaker 6: failure to take the stand. In fact, the judge can
Speaker 6: charge the jury that they had draw no inference from
Speaker 6: his failure to take the stand, Although judges frequently talked
Speaker 6: to defense counselor before they even give such a charge.
Speaker 6: The prosecutor can say that you heard the evidence presented
Speaker 6: by Michael Cohen. It's largely corroborated, and none of it
Speaker 6: is contradicted, and that will have a telling effect on
Speaker 6: the jury. In the court of public opinion, the political court,
Speaker 6: it certainly ought to weigh strongly with voters who haven't
Speaker 6: already committed themselves that Donald Trump did not take the
Speaker 6: stand and never denied the charge that he made this
Speaker 6: secret payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels in order
Speaker 6: to influence the outcome of the twenty sixteen election. That's
Speaker 6: the charge on which the jury will deliberate.
Speaker 3: And of course, Jim we also know, based on polling,
Speaker 3: including polling Bloomberg has done with Morning Consult in the past,
Speaker 3: that if he becomes a convicted felon, especially in swing states,
Speaker 3: voters may be less likely to vote for him. So
Speaker 3: it just does become a question of whether ultimately that
Speaker 3: conviction happens. How difficult is it going to be in
Speaker 3: your mind, given all of the testimony that has been heard,
Speaker 3: the arguments have been made for this to not end up,
Speaker 3: say in a hung jury or even an acquittal.
Speaker 6: Well, the jurors will be instructed that what they bring
Speaker 6: to the courtroom is not their biases, not their political leanings,
Speaker 6: not their attitudes as to whether they like or dislike
Speaker 6: Donald Trump. But they're common sense And if you look
Speaker 6: at the totality of these transactions, they were only accomplished
Speaker 6: for one purpose, and that was to benefit Donald Trump,
Speaker 6: to shut up Stormy Daniels and run up to the election,
Speaker 6: and to make sure she stayed silent until after the
Speaker 6: election was over. Because the timing was such that it
Speaker 6: came on the heels of the Billy Bush tape and
Speaker 6: Trump just couldn't take another sex scandal, according to his
Speaker 6: advisors in the Trump campaign. Now the jury understands that,
Speaker 6: and in closing arguments, you can be sure the prosecutors
Speaker 6: will make them understand that they're going to return a
Speaker 6: verdict of guilty after hearing the judge's instructions.
Speaker 5: Huh.
Speaker 4: I wonder your thoughts on duration here, the extent to
Speaker 4: which jurors need time. I know that deliberations can take
Speaker 4: on a lot of different forms. Here, Jim, when this
Speaker 4: goes to the jury, how long will we wait?
Speaker 6: Well, it's hard to say. I think if it's going
Speaker 6: to be an acquittal, they could come back within an hour.
Speaker 6: If they're were mowing over the various thirty four counts
Speaker 6: and mowing over the evidence and asking for the testimony
Speaker 6: of witnesses to be read back to them. If they're
Speaker 6: asking for exhibits, it's more likely to lean toward a conviction.
Speaker 6: If it goes on too long, the judge may deliver
Speaker 6: to the jury the famous Allan charge. Allen was a
Speaker 6: case in the Supreme Court of the United States in
Speaker 6: eighteen ninety six, and the Allen charge, which is sometimes
Speaker 6: called the Dynamite charge, basically tells the minority jurors, without
Speaker 6: probing what the vote is at that point, that they
Speaker 6: have to follow their conscious consciences and come to a
Speaker 6: conscientious inclusion individually. But they should take into account that
Speaker 6: the majority of the jurors believes something that's different from
Speaker 6: the conclusion they've reached, and consider whether they have to
Speaker 6: change their conclusion based not on the fact that the
Speaker 6: majority rules, but on the fact that the majority may
Speaker 6: have reasoning for their conviction that is persuasive.
Speaker 3: All Right, Jim Zyron, former Assistant US Attorney for the
Speaker 3: Southern District of New York. Thank you so much, as
Speaker 3: always for joining us on balance of power. He of
Speaker 3: course joining us from our headquarters up in New York
Speaker 3: and the New York City is where Donald Trump is
Speaker 3: again today as we have this trial continuing to play out,
Speaker 3: and we know it will do so for at least
Speaker 3: the next week is closing arguments are set for Tuesday.
Speaker 3: In the meantime, when Donald Trump was spending time in
Speaker 3: New York, he was traveling this weekend, including an appearance
Speaker 3: at the NRA where he gave a speech in Dallas.
Speaker 3: Joe over the weekend can get into that in a
Speaker 3: moment while, But Joe Biden was doing some traveling of
Speaker 3: his own, including to Atlanta where he gave the commencement
Speaker 3: address at Morehouse College. There were some silent protesters while
Speaker 3: he was speaking, and he referenced specifically the ongoing war
Speaker 3: in Gaza.
Speaker 7: Here he is, it's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That's
Speaker 7: why I've called for an immediacasfire, an immediacy squire stopped
Speaker 7: the fighting, bringing the hostage's hold, and I've been working
Speaker 7: on a deal as we speak working around the clock,
Speaker 7: the leading international offer to get more aid into Gaza.
Speaker 7: Three Bill's Oza. I'm also working around the clock for
Speaker 7: more than just one ceasefire. I'm working to bring the
Speaker 7: region together, working to build a last endurable peace.
Speaker 4: President Biden at Morehouse College over the weekends and anticipated address.
Speaker 4: There were a lot of concerns about protesters.
Speaker 5: In that speech.
Speaker 4: It largely did not materialize, though there were a handful
Speaker 4: about a half dozen students and I believe one educator
Speaker 4: who turned their backs to Joe Biden while he was speaking.
Speaker 5: One raised a fist. That was it.
Speaker 4: He did acknowledge them during his speech and talked about
Speaker 4: the right peaceful protest. Laura Davison is with us right
Speaker 4: now at the table, Bloomberg Politics editor. Coming off of
Speaker 4: all of these speeches over the weekend, Laura, it's good
Speaker 4: to see you. Did Joe Biden get done what he
Speaker 4: was looking to get done here in terms of delivering
Speaker 4: a message. It wasn't just more House last week. He
Speaker 4: had a series of events over the course of four
Speaker 4: days to address black voters in this country, which has
Speaker 4: been a real deficit for him for many issues, including
Speaker 4: his policy in Gaza.
Speaker 8: He did he got through all these events without any
Speaker 8: sort of major flub as well as, you know, without
Speaker 8: facing the protesters that were considered to be a major
Speaker 8: threat to the speech. Potentially very disruptive, you know, silent protesting,
Speaker 8: and in some ways it's sort of a smart strategy
Speaker 8: because you get to remain in the room, you become mbunctious,
Speaker 8: of course security will escort you out. So this is
Speaker 8: both sides were able to sort of notch a win
Speaker 8: in this one. You'll note that Donald Trump is also
Speaker 8: taking note of Biden's outreach to black voters. He himself
Speaker 8: has an event planned in the South Bronx later this
Speaker 8: week kind of build as being a way to reach
Speaker 8: out to minority voters and talk about how Joe Biden's
Speaker 8: policies have you know, in his words, failed black and
Speaker 8: Hispanic voters. So we're kind of seeing that both both
Speaker 8: sides play this out in their own way.
Speaker 3: On the subject of Donald Trump over the weekend, we
Speaker 3: heard him say a number of things in that speech
Speaker 3: in Dallas, but among them suggestions that maybe he could
Speaker 3: be in not just for a second term, but a
Speaker 3: third Laura, is that real? We've seen iterations of that
Speaker 3: kind of language from him before.
Speaker 8: Yes, So this is this is the way that Trump
Speaker 8: sort of like hintset ideas without totally crossing the line.
Speaker 8: So the way he kind of talked about this was like, well,
Speaker 8: if we want in twenty twenty, technically I would be
Speaker 8: winning a third time and so this would be like
Speaker 8: be my third term. But though obviously he hasn't been
Speaker 8: president for the past you know, three and a half years,
Speaker 8: and so this is you know, him sort of flirting
Speaker 8: with different ideas, flying floating a trial and seeing what
Speaker 8: kind of reaction it gets. This is the same thing
Speaker 8: with the Dictator for a Day kind of comment. You
Speaker 8: saw a really you know, strong reaction on that. So
Speaker 8: this is kind of what he's doing of playing around,
Speaker 8: being careless with language and sort of seeing what the
Speaker 8: response is.
Speaker 4: It's hard not to note that Donald Trump had some
Speaker 4: trouble on stage at both of his events this weekend
Speaker 4: in a way that would have probably been very big
Speaker 4: news if it had happened to Joe Biden. On Saturday nights,
Speaker 4: he almost kind of stumbled off the podium, which was rickety.
Speaker 4: To his credit, he called out the contractors in the
Speaker 4: room for it, and he froze in front of the NRA,
Speaker 4: it would appeared to be freezing at least he stopped
Speaker 4: talking for longer than thirty seconds at one point yesterday.
Speaker 4: Wouldn't that be a big story if it were Joe Biden?
Speaker 4: How come it's not for Donald Trump?
Speaker 8: This is he has been able to evade the age
Speaker 8: issue in a way that Joe Biden all include Mitch
Speaker 8: McConnell as well, has not been able to. You know,
Speaker 8: he famously had you know, froze in several high profile
Speaker 8: speeches and press conferences, and it's been a major issue
Speaker 8: and you know, kind of effectively ended his terms as
Speaker 8: majority leader in the Senate or a Republican leader in
Speaker 8: the Senate. So this is the thing though, that if
Speaker 8: it keeps coming, it's going to be a problem for
Speaker 8: him over the next several weeks and months.
Speaker 3: All right, Laura Davison, Bloomberg Politics Editor, thank you so much.
Speaker 3: I would note that when he did pause there was
Speaker 3: music playing. That's true, so maybe it was partially for
Speaker 3: dramatic effect, but to your point, show it lasted for
Speaker 3: a considerable amount of time.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and it look at maybe nothing, But I always
Speaker 4: find it interesting what people pay attention to.
Speaker 5: Lot more ahead on Balance of Power. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Kens
Speaker 2: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play
Speaker 2: and then roud Oto with the Bloomberg Business App. You
Speaker 2: can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship
Speaker 2: New York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: It's a new week here in Washington as well, although
Speaker 3: it seems like at least in the United States Senate,
Speaker 3: they're going to be dealing with an old issue because,
Speaker 3: according to the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who sent
Speaker 3: a Dear Colleague letter out ye yesterday, the Senate will
Speaker 3: return to the pressing issue of our nation's border security.
Speaker 3: He went on to say, Joe, the Senate is prepared
Speaker 3: to take up the Bipartisan Border Act as a standalone
Speaker 3: measure this coming week. For those who forgot, this was
Speaker 3: the deal negotiated between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate,
Speaker 3: and the White House never made it for a vote
Speaker 3: the first time around. Donald Trump maybe had a helping
Speaker 3: hand and killing that effort. But I guess if at
Speaker 3: first you don't succeed, Joe, try try again.
Speaker 4: Or message message again. Because no one sees this passing.
Speaker 4: And we're going to spend the next ten minutes with
Speaker 4: our panel here looking at this same strategy being employed
Speaker 4: on both sides of the aisle. This is Washington. This
Speaker 4: is also partly why people hate Washington. So let's get into.
Speaker 5: This right now. Kaylee, you're right.
Speaker 4: The border is coming to the floor this week in
Speaker 4: the Senate, and there are about five Democrats who this
Speaker 4: is happening for as Chuck Schumer tries to get everybody
Speaker 4: on the record, So frontline democrats course running for reelection
Speaker 4: in difficult states, we'll be able to say, hey, I
Speaker 4: fought for securing the border. Genie Shanzino is with us
Speaker 4: Bloomberg Politics contributor of course, democratic analyst, and I should
Speaker 4: note as well now senior Democracy fellow with the Center
Speaker 4: for the Study of the Presidency in Congress. Congrats on
Speaker 4: that new addition to the business card. Genie Chapin Fay,
Speaker 4: republican strategist from Actum, is also with us here. So Genie,
Speaker 4: why don't you get us started on what it is
Speaker 4: we're actually seeing because nobody expects that border bill to pass.
Speaker 5: What's Chuck Schumer trying to do?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 9: This is what we see in Washington during the summer
Speaker 9: of a really tough election year. And so Chuck Schumer
Speaker 9: is reading the same polls we are, and he knows
Speaker 9: that Democrats have a problem when it comes to immigration.
Speaker 9: He wants to mitigate that problem as much as possible.
Speaker 9: He wants to give his five really vulnerable senators, you
Speaker 9: know Rose in Baldwin, Tester, the group Casey vote that
Speaker 9: they can go back to their constituents and say we
Speaker 9: voted for a tougher border bill. And of course it
Speaker 9: doesn't hurt if he also is able to say that
Speaker 9: Democrats are not in this box that Republicans seem to
Speaker 9: think they are in immigration, that they have a plan
Speaker 9: and a policy to address it. But oh, Donald Trump
Speaker 9: sunk that some time ago for political reasons. So it
Speaker 9: is a purely political vote. It has no hope of
Speaker 9: going forward. And of course it's not just Republicans who
Speaker 9: will vote against it. It's Democrats, some progressives, and some
Speaker 9: Hispanics like Padia and Menendez. So it's going to be
Speaker 9: a show vote, if you will, of the best kind
Speaker 9: in an election year.
Speaker 3: Well for those Republicans who vote against it. Chapin, how
Speaker 3: problematic is this for them. Our voters not wise to
Speaker 3: the idea that they may have had a chance to
Speaker 3: vote for some stronger measures of the border and didn't.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think you always run that risk. But I
Speaker 10: think that if you look at the data and the
Speaker 10: polling and sort of in these areas, I don't think
Speaker 10: that Republicans are getting the blame for immigration. So I
Speaker 10: think the American voters know that this is a show vote.
Speaker 10: They know that it's a little cynical. And again I'm
Speaker 10: not really disparaged Democrats for doing it. Republicans do it
Speaker 10: as well, but it is certainly cynical election.
Speaker 5: To your deploy.
Speaker 10: I think voters can see through that, right, and they
Speaker 10: know that allegis piece of legislation is not going to
Speaker 10: fix everything that's broken in immigration system. So it may
Speaker 10: have somewhat of a small desired effect, but it's not
Speaker 10: going to It's not really going to hurt the Republicans
Speaker 10: on immigration. I just don't see anything the left or
Speaker 10: Biden can do that would hurt or take the issue
Speaker 10: away unless Biden came out with some very forceful plan
Speaker 10: on closing the border even temporarily, you know, or doing
Speaker 10: any of that kind of stuff.
Speaker 5: That might have an effect.
Speaker 10: That might if you you know, a good test case
Speaker 10: is if you look at what Congressman Swasey said in
Speaker 10: his election in this special election against Mazie Phillips recently,
Speaker 10: he took immigration away from her. But he's a moderate,
Speaker 10: almost a conservative on some issues, and he went all
Speaker 10: the way to the right on that issue. That was
Speaker 10: the way he took it away from her successfully. I
Speaker 10: don't see the Democrats doing that, So I don't think
Speaker 10: this vote is going to have as big a desired effect. Well,
Speaker 10: like you just said, Chapin, this is a strategy employed
Speaker 10: by both sides, and I think this is indicative of
Speaker 10: where we are here in the congressional calendar and the
Speaker 10: election cycle. Pretty much everything from here on out is
Speaker 10: probably going to be a messaging bill. There's a new
Speaker 10: one on in vitro fertilization. Katie Britt and Ted Cruz,
Speaker 10: two Republican senators of course, out with this bill to
Speaker 10: protect IVF following the Alabama state ruling that got this
Speaker 10: onto the front pages of the front burners and so forth.
Speaker 10: And we should note that the Alabama legislature has already active.
Speaker 10: This is not a thing, but they're looking for a
Speaker 10: national answer to this with a op ed on the
Speaker 10: Wall Street Journal this morning. In a sit down interview
Speaker 10: with Bloomberg's and Marie hor Dern, who asked why this
Speaker 10: is needed.
Speaker 1: Here's Ted Cruzma Supreme Court decision came out. There was
Speaker 1: a lot of confusion, there was a lot of fear,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of misunderstanding, and people did not
Speaker 1: want anything to threaten IBF. I agree with that, Katie
Speaker 1: agrees with that, and so we came together and said,
Speaker 1: let's draft a simple, straightforward federal bill that creates a
Speaker 1: federal right that you, as a parent, have a right
Speaker 1: to have access to IVF. If you want to have
Speaker 1: a child and you need medical assistance to do so,
Speaker 1: that should be your right. This is a bill I
Speaker 1: think that should be overwhelmingly by partisan. The Senate should
Speaker 1: pass this bill one hundred to nothing. We'll see if
Speaker 1: they do or not, but on the merits, that's what
Speaker 1: should happen.
Speaker 5: GD.
Speaker 4: Is this any different than what we're seeing Democrats do
Speaker 4: with the border. We're certainly tackling two of the most
Speaker 4: divisive issues in the twenty twenty four campaign here.
Speaker 9: Absolutely, you know, I do see differences. The similarities or
Speaker 9: these are both election year bills. But the reality is
Speaker 9: Republicans are in this position, and we are in a
Speaker 9: position in our country where we are being told that
Speaker 9: women and their fetuses have the same rights under the Constitution.
Speaker 9: Because of the rights push on Row and because of
Speaker 9: the overturning of Dobbs. It was a fringe legal theory.
Speaker 9: It has now burst up into a national discussion of
Speaker 9: which Republicans, to your point, are having a difficult time
Speaker 9: at the ballot box and so they're trying to wiggle
Speaker 9: their way out of it. Of course, we saw in
Speaker 9: the bill, and Anne Marie brought this up in her
Speaker 9: interview with Senator about Senator Tammy Duckworth's bill and the
Speaker 9: response from Cindy Hyde Smith when she blocks it was
Speaker 9: while she wants women and men to be able to
Speaker 9: have access to IVF, she believes human rights or human
Speaker 9: life should be protected, and that's the problem Republicans find
Speaker 9: that sells in people like Cyndy Hyde Smith, and that's
Speaker 9: why she blocked that bill. Will have to see what
Speaker 9: she does on this one.
Speaker 3: Well, Chapin if they're trying to get it protecting IVF
Speaker 3: in virtual fetilization specific fertilization specifically. Obviously, that is a
Speaker 3: very narrow targeted bill in this wider question of reproductive rates,
Speaker 3: which seemingly is how increasingly President Biden is framing it.
Speaker 3: It's not just about the issue of production of abortion
Speaker 3: but overall reproductive rights. Is one bill on IVF going
Speaker 3: to be able to fix the messaging problem for Republicans
Speaker 3: on the wider issue.
Speaker 10: I don't think so, but I do think you know,
Speaker 10: I do see some differences. Yes, this is an election
Speaker 10: year bill. Yes this is done because Republicans have an
Speaker 10: issue on this, but it is a substantive fixed to
Speaker 10: one particular problem. And one of the problems that happens
Speaker 10: all the time, the one to go back to something
Speaker 10: earlier that I was asked about, you know, whether these
Speaker 10: elect year bills are gonna have any effect. One of
Speaker 10: the problems is they get loaded up and it's not
Speaker 10: as clean it's not as clean cut. And we've been
Speaker 10: through this rodeo before, so the American people know that
Speaker 10: when an abortion bill is coming to you know, if
Speaker 10: Ted Cruz is going to get as abortion bill considered,
Speaker 10: it's going to go way farther once everyone else has
Speaker 10: their say in it. Same thing with the immigration bills
Speaker 10: that have been raised in voter a punt like there's
Speaker 10: some fixes, but then they get laiden down. Sometimes it's
Speaker 10: or sometimes it's other things, and there's overreach. It seems
Speaker 10: that neither party can just do a simple bill and
Speaker 10: introduce it and get it.
Speaker 5: Passed, right.
Speaker 10: It always comes out looking crazy, and that's you know
Speaker 10: why nothing ever gets done. So I do think there's
Speaker 10: all those issues that go into it, though, I would
Speaker 10: just say, on the Republican bill, you know, it's one
Speaker 10: of those things. Do we want to protect the right
Speaker 10: to IVF?
Speaker 5: I mean, yes or no.
Speaker 10: It's pretty simple. We could just do a clean bill
Speaker 10: on that, or we could complicate. They didn't have a
Speaker 10: go nowhere. I think we know where.
Speaker 9: It's going to go.
Speaker 4: I guess it is indicative, as we mentioned in the
Speaker 4: outset though, of the congressional agenda here, Genie, is there
Speaker 4: anything worth paying attention to between now and November?
Speaker 9: Oh, of course, a lot to pay attention to, but
Speaker 9: probably not much action on the floor in Congress beyond
Speaker 9: these types of messaging bills. You know, I think the
Speaker 9: big question in my mind is about funding for next year.
Speaker 9: But I don't think we're going to get very far
Speaker 9: at least this summer on that. But you know, my
Speaker 9: hope and prayer would be that they could do it
Speaker 9: a lot quicker than they did last year. But don't
Speaker 9: hold me to.
Speaker 3: That, all right, we won't. Geenie Shanzeno, Bloomberg Politics contributor
Speaker 3: and senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for the Study
Speaker 3: of the Presidency in Congress, thank you for joining us
Speaker 3: alongside Chap and Faye today. He's Republican strategist and managing
Speaker 3: director at ACTAM.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 2: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then
Speaker 2: Rouno with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 2: you get your podcasts. A watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 4: As we turn our attention to a whole different policy,
Speaker 4: and that is foreign policy. The operation that's happening in
Speaker 4: the waters off of Gaza, this temporary peer that the
Speaker 4: United States has built at great cost to try to
Speaker 4: get humanitarian aid into Gaza and around some of the
Speaker 4: choke points that we've seen on land. There are still
Speaker 4: a lot of questions, Kiley, about whether this is working.
Speaker 4: But there's actually some great reporting in the New York
Speaker 4: Times today, now that it has been put in place,
Speaker 4: aid starts entering Gaza through US built peer, but officials
Speaker 4: say it is not enough, and based on our prior
Speaker 4: conversations with Cindy McCain at the World Food Program, we
Speaker 4: have a long way to.
Speaker 3: Go because we're talking here about hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 3: people essentially on the brink of famine. Can you get
Speaker 3: enough aid in to match the scale of the need
Speaker 3: is really the question. And sure this flow peer may
Speaker 3: go some way into trying to bridge that gap, but
Speaker 3: can it go all the way? The answer is probably not.
Speaker 3: But let's get an experts perspective on this now, and
Speaker 3: please to say joining us here on balance of power.
Speaker 3: Dave Harden the managing director at Georgetown Strategy Group. He
Speaker 3: is also former USAID Mission Director to the West Bank
Speaker 3: and Gaza and served as a senior advisor to President
Speaker 3: Barack Obama's Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. Dave, thank
Speaker 3: you so much for coming here to Bloomberg Television and Radio.
Speaker 3: Just how far in your mind does this peer get
Speaker 3: us toward the goal of being able to provide food
Speaker 3: aid at scale for those in Gaza. Surely it makes
Speaker 3: a difference, but just how consequential of one.
Speaker 11: It's not enough, and I think you light it out.
Speaker 11: So Cindy McCain, the Republican, the wife of John McCain,
Speaker 11: a strong supporter of Israel historically the head of the
Speaker 11: World Food Program, said that Gaza is facing famine and
Speaker 11: that famine is creeping south. On the Biden administration side,
Speaker 11: Samantha Power has also said the same. So what needs
Speaker 11: to happen is every crossing, all the time, without limit,
Speaker 11: not includes Rafa and cam shlom Ares, Route ninety six
Speaker 11: and more, plus the peer. We need it all. And
Speaker 11: by the way, the more access points you have, the
Speaker 11: least valuable anyone particular access point is, and so that
Speaker 11: reduces risk and chance of attack.
Speaker 4: I appreciate the comprehensive nature of your answer there, Dave,
Speaker 4: but specifically with the peer, this was just anchored in
Speaker 4: place on Friday and an important step here to completing
Speaker 4: this maritime corridor.
Speaker 5: How much time.
Speaker 4: Will you give this before you actually judge whether this
Speaker 4: is a successful operation.
Speaker 11: I mean, I think we need to measure it now
Speaker 11: because famine is now. But addition, any food coming in
Speaker 11: is an addition, it's an additive component and it's coming
Speaker 11: into the middle. The other reason why I actually like
Speaker 11: this is because it sets a precedent facts on the ground,
Speaker 11: so to speak, in favor of the Palestinians, where food
Speaker 11: and commodity and basic imports can come in through a
Speaker 11: maritime route. But again, you know, the proof ultimately will
Speaker 11: be the results as it relates to famine and violence,
Speaker 11: and this peer will not solve the fundamentals.
Speaker 3: Well two, that exact point on the fundamentals, Dave, you say,
Speaker 3: famine is now, is there any way to bring that
Speaker 3: famine to an end without a temporary ceasefire agreement between
Speaker 3: Israel and a MUSS because increasingly it looks like that
Speaker 3: is farther out of reach.
Speaker 11: Possibly. Let me just note that in the Israeli cities
Speaker 11: of Ashkalon and Ashdahl, which are very close to Gaza,
Speaker 11: there is no famine, and so famine is hyper localized
Speaker 11: into this conflict zone. It's manufactured. Therefore it can be unmanufactured.
Speaker 11: I actually have been arguing that the private sector needs
Speaker 11: to be able to import, as they did prior to
Speaker 11: October seventh, the Gosen private sector, the Palestinian private sector,
Speaker 11: they were able to solve the last mile. The UN
Speaker 11: agencies and the donor community were never designed to provide
Speaker 11: all food for all people indefinitely. So I do think
Speaker 11: you need a cease fire for shore, but you need
Speaker 11: a more comprehensive system and marketplace that allows more food
Speaker 11: to just go in and it kind of reduces the
Speaker 11: price and the cost you need to flood the market,
Speaker 11: so to speak.
Speaker 4: Spending time with Dave Harden from the Georgetown Strategy Group,
Speaker 4: I want to get back Dave to the original premise here,
Speaker 4: because it really is incredible what we're seeing the US
Speaker 4: going to such lengths involving our millionlitarian a very expensive
Speaker 4: operation to put this temporary peer in place, knowing of
Speaker 4: course that our ally may be part of the problem.
Speaker 4: Right Otherwise we wouldn't have had to go to this extreme.
Speaker 4: The gates would be opening for our trucks. We may
Speaker 4: not have had to resort to an air drop either.
Speaker 4: So I guess I wonder at this point, when you
Speaker 4: see the trucks coming in, even those that aren't allowed
Speaker 4: to come in, is Israel still a threat to humanitarian aid?
Speaker 4: Or is it about getting past hamas?
Speaker 11: I mean, I do I think it's both, but the
Speaker 11: primary responsibility rests with Israel. Israel is the occupying authority
Speaker 11: of ourgaza, and so therefore the responsibility to mitigate famine
Speaker 11: rests with them, and that requires all access from all
Speaker 11: points all the time. And again it's just separately the
Speaker 11: case that we have the flood the marketplace. But let
Speaker 11: me just point out an obvious cognitive dissonance. The US
Speaker 11: is funding the bombs, the attacks by Israel, the food,
Speaker 11: the peer, all sides of this chaotic situation. And I
Speaker 11: do think that the gap between Net and Yahoo and
Speaker 11: Biden is deepening. And I like the fact that Gallant
Speaker 11: has kind of thrown that's the defense minister and in
Speaker 11: the warkout and on Israel side threw down a gauntlet
Speaker 11: to Net and Yahoo saying that there had to be
Speaker 11: a day after plan. Without a day after planning, Homos
Speaker 11: stays and power, the conflict continues and the famine will
Speaker 11: not be resolved. And at the at the end of this,
Speaker 11: we have two point two million people that are not
Speaker 11: only in famine, but bearing grievances that will last generations
Speaker 11: and by the way, malnutrition that will last a lifetime.
Speaker 3: Dave, we got news today from a prosecutor from the
Speaker 3: Intern National Criminal Court. He was asked for applied for
Speaker 3: arrest warrants to not just officials from HAMAS, but including
Speaker 3: Israeli officials and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is one of him.
Speaker 3: And in this request, in the statement in part it reads,
Speaker 3: on the basis of evidence collected and examined by my office,
Speaker 3: I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin Netanyahu goes
Speaker 3: on to say has responsibility for the following war crimes.
Speaker 3: The first one listed Dave is starvation of civilians as
Speaker 3: a method of warfare as a war crime, contrary to
Speaker 3: the statute. Is that a valid assessment in your mind?
Speaker 11: I mean, the International Criminal Court is not going to
Speaker 11: be the solution here and it's not going to bring
Speaker 11: about a resolution more quickly. I agree with the Biden
Speaker 11: administration on this, But the burden of mitigating famine, which
Speaker 11: is slightly different than what ICC is saying one hundred percent,
Speaker 11: rests with Israel as occupying authority. Just there's just no
Speaker 11: way beyond that. Whether or not, you know, at the
Speaker 11: end of the day, they're they're culpable as a legal
Speaker 11: matter in an international court that probably doesn't have jurisdiction
Speaker 11: and isn't widely recognized except in you know, a host
Speaker 11: of other countries, but certainly not in Israel in the
Speaker 11: United States. I don't know if that matters, but matters
Speaker 11: I think will be a diplomatic solution where Netanya who
Speaker 11: sees a path forward that includes a governing Poalestanian authority
Speaker 11: in Gaza, a ceasefire, a return of the hostages, and
Speaker 11: really very quickly an end to the famine. So, I,
Speaker 11: you know, the IC ces not really the analysis. It
Speaker 11: could be right, it might not be right. It's not
Speaker 11: really the analysis that I think is helpful and kind
Speaker 11: of unwinding and blunting this famine.
Speaker 4: He's former USAID Mission director of the West Bank and Gaza,
Speaker 4: so he knows what he speaks. Steve Harden, it's great
Speaker 4: to have you back. Dave now Managing director at Georgetown
Speaker 4: Strategy Group, and always fascinating conversation kale As. We just
Speaker 4: try to get a sense of what's going on the ground.
Speaker 4: It's not always that simple.
Speaker 5: Here in Washington.
Speaker 4: We're hearing new calls now, additional calls for the resignation
Speaker 4: of the head of the FDIC. This is something we
Speaker 4: spent time on last week Kayley. Of course, the chair
Speaker 4: Gruenberg was up there for two brutal days of testimony
Speaker 4: House and Senate last week. He was grilled by lawmakers,
Speaker 4: many of them asked for his resignation. Some even went
Speaker 4: further to call for the stripping of his pension. But
Speaker 4: now the chairman is speaking, shared Brown, along with others.
Speaker 3: The Democrat of the Senate Banking Committee the chair shared
Speaker 3: Brown today saying in a statement, there must be fundamental
Speaker 3: changes at the FDIC. Those changes begin with new leadership.
Speaker 3: That's why I'm calling on the present cident to immediately
Speaker 3: nominate a new chair who can lead the FDIC at
Speaker 3: this challenging time. Again, this is a Democrat, very powerful
Speaker 3: one in terms of financial regulator's oversight.
Speaker 5: The scene is potentially the death knell when it comes
Speaker 5: to his tenure. Ben Bain knows more than we do
Speaker 5: about it.
Speaker 4: He covers this for a living here at Bloomberg, and
Speaker 4: Washington is with us now at the table. Are we
Speaker 4: done here? Need a new leader at the FDIC?
Speaker 12: Well, Sharon Brown coming out today and calling around the
Speaker 12: White House to replace him is certainly a significant development.
Speaker 12: I think some people thought if he was able to
Speaker 12: make it through these, as you said, two brutal hearings
Speaker 12: last week, maybe we would get a better sense if
Speaker 12: he was able to kind of stick around for a while,
Speaker 12: maybe make it over that really tough hump. Today this
Speaker 12: injects a new sense of urgency. Last week we saw
Speaker 12: Maxim Waters, who chairs the House Financial Services Department, who's
Speaker 12: the top Democrat in the House Financial Services Committee, come
Speaker 12: out and actually defends him. Elizabeth Warren also said that
Speaker 12: he should stay. So there was kind of a feeling
Speaker 12: that Democrats were going to kind of rally here, and
Speaker 12: the White Houses avoided saying that he should indeed step
Speaker 12: down or be replaced. But yeah, this is a pretty
Speaker 12: significant development today politically, and.
Speaker 3: It's not just Shared Brown who has come out today.
Speaker 3: Sheila Bear, a former FDIC chair herself, posted on x
Speaker 3: I have known and worked with the chair for years,
Speaker 3: but goes on to say this controversy is hurting him
Speaker 3: and his agency. For his own sake and everyone at
Speaker 3: the FDICE, he should announce his intention to resign effective
Speaker 3: with the appointment. The problem is ben if Marty Grimberg
Speaker 3: goes out, who steps in, who can do so in
Speaker 3: time to still try to wrap up the job. On
Speaker 3: this administration's financial regulatory agenda.
Speaker 12: That's a very big question. There is this kind of
Speaker 12: broader political context here that we really can't divorce from
Speaker 12: all this. The FDI, see, the FED and the Office
Speaker 12: of the Controller Currency have proposed this big, sweeping plan
Speaker 12: to increase capital requirements in Wall Street banks, and Marty
Speaker 12: Grimberg is seen as a very important piece of getting
Speaker 12: that done, and any hope of getting that done before
Speaker 12: November certainly very complicated. Should he leave, resign be replaced,
Speaker 12: whatever it might be, because then you would have two
Speaker 12: two at this agency on the board, two Republicans, two democrats,
Speaker 12: and Republicans have not shown a lot of love for
Speaker 12: this proposal, if you will, to put it, to put.
Speaker 4: It mildly well, and at the moment when we're seeing
Speaker 4: some of the more ambitious approaches to that be scaled.
Speaker 12: Back, right, So, I mean, this just adds a whole
Speaker 12: new sense of kind of complexity to this plan. I mean,
Speaker 12: and that plan really is kind of the cornerstone banking
Speaker 12: regulation plan during the Biden administration, obviously coming off of
Speaker 12: last year's regional banking crisis, this was really seen as
Speaker 12: a really big thing that these regulars were going to
Speaker 12: get done now without Martin Groomberg. If you were to
Speaker 12: step down, if you were to be replaced or whatever
Speaker 12: it might be, that gets a lot more complicated.
Speaker 3: So, just to be clear, if someone were to be
Speaker 3: put into an acting role, they can't cast a vote
Speaker 3: on that. Shoretically, it has to be a confirmed chair.
Speaker 12: So my understanding is that it would be too too
Speaker 12: and then it would really be on the Biden administration
Speaker 12: to quickly nominate and confirm someone to actually change the
Speaker 12: balance there.
Speaker 5: That's awfully important.
Speaker 4: I mean, there has been reporting this morning that Jamie
Speaker 4: Diamond is kind of getting what he wants here in
Speaker 4: this case, or something closer to what he wants.
Speaker 5: How would you frame them?
Speaker 12: So, I mean so certainly, certainly the banks and bank
Speaker 12: lobby pushed back vigorously against this, this capital plan. They
Speaker 12: spent millions, and we saw ads on NFL games, we
Speaker 12: saw CEOs testifying in Congress. We even saw small business
Speaker 12: owners fanning out across Capitol Hill talking about how this
Speaker 12: would potentially, you know this, they would say, impact their businesses.
Speaker 12: So anything that slows that down or anything that changes
Speaker 12: that plan is certainly a win for the big banks
Speaker 12: because they have fought vigorously to you know, to keep
Speaker 12: this from really taking.
Speaker 5: Hold as it was proposed.
Speaker 12: Now it could still change, It could still be altered
Speaker 12: as it typically would be, and to to to understand,
Speaker 12: both the FED Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr and
Speaker 12: FED Chair j Powell have both said to expect broad
Speaker 12: material changes to that plan. So we do expect some changes.
Speaker 12: How far they go is the ultimate question?
Speaker 3: All right? Ben Bain is always looking for the answer
Speaker 3: to that question a lot with his team here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: It governs financial regulation for us, Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: So this really is the question, Joe, what is the
Speaker 3: end game of the Basil three end game? And if
Speaker 3: Martin Lumberg does indeed resign, is that wood.
Speaker 4: Game be a wrinkle in this After all the months
Speaker 4: that has gone into this, all the effort, it would.
Speaker 5: Be quite remarkable.
Speaker 4: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
Speaker 4: sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 4: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 4: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 4: at Bloomberg dot com.