Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon Eastern on Appo, CarPlay.
Speaker 2: And then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: New York is a place that Donald Trump may have
Speaker 3: to spend a whole lot less of time because the
Speaker 3: trial is about to wrap up. We still have one
Speaker 3: week to go. Joe, although he's not going to have
Speaker 3: to be in court every day for the rest of
Speaker 3: this week, closing arguments on Tuesday as his defense together
Speaker 3: with the prosecution, which of course was pleading the case
Speaker 3: on the behalf of a district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who
Speaker 3: was charged in with thirty four felon accounts of falsifying
Speaker 3: business records related to the hush money payments. Both the
Speaker 3: prosecution and defense are done trying to make the arguments.
Speaker 3: They're not testifying any witnesses. They'll have their final word.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's pretty remarkable to see how quickly we ran
Speaker 4: through this. And but you know, I thought he was
Speaker 4: going to start warming up to New York again. I
Speaker 4: thought staying at the night at Trump Tower. It might
Speaker 4: be something reinvigorating Fifth Avenue, but I think maybe that's
Speaker 4: not going to happen. He's back Tomorro A Lago as
Speaker 4: soon as physically possible, and next week it's going to
Speaker 4: be something you were there when jury selection began. Imagine
Speaker 4: the security that will come with the actual verdict being delivered.
Speaker 4: We're in for some pretty heavy stuff next week. So
Speaker 4: it's a good opportunity for us to see where we
Speaker 4: stand now and look at both arguments here both cases.
Speaker 4: Dave Ehrenberg joins US Palm Beach County State's attorney with
Speaker 4: his take on this. He's been walking us through the
Speaker 4: arguments since opening statements. David's great to see you. I
Speaker 4: wonder your thoughts on the way the defense brought this
Speaker 4: to a close largely yesterday with the man named Robert Costello,
Speaker 4: a lawyer on the stand who misbehaved so much during
Speaker 4: his testimony the judge had to clear the courtroom twice
Speaker 4: and threatened to strike his entire testimony from the record.
Speaker 4: Is that the best way to leave a final impression
Speaker 4: with the jury.
Speaker 5: No, Joe and Kayley, good to be with you. You know,
Speaker 5: I wonder why they called Robert Costello to the stand
Speaker 5: because it was going pretty well for Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer.
Speaker 5: Todd Blanch scored some impressive punches against Michael Cohen, and
Speaker 5: then they decided to call their only substance of witness,
Speaker 5: Robert Costello. Now, I think the reason why they called
Speaker 5: him is because Costello has been a darling on the
Speaker 5: far right, and if you watch far right media, they've
Speaker 5: been urging Trump's legal team to call Costello because Costello,
Speaker 5: who tried to be Michael Cohen's lawyer, apparently knew that
Speaker 5: con was lying and was going to expose him as
Speaker 5: a liar and a fraud, someone who said that Donald
Speaker 5: Trump was innocent all along, and.
Speaker 6: The defense called him.
Speaker 5: I think it was because Donald Trump, who watches those programs,
Speaker 5: probably urged his legal team call him, and they did,
Speaker 5: and it blew up in their face. What a debocle.
Speaker 5: They wanted Robert Costello. They got Abbot and Costello.
Speaker 2: It was a joke.
Speaker 5: They got a guy who was insulting the judge. Hayley's
Speaker 5: too younger, Remember Abbod and Costello.
Speaker 6: Joe, we're the.
Speaker 4: Old guys, so are we? What are you talking about?
Speaker 5: Got a guy who was insulting the judge who had
Speaker 5: to clear the core room. And then today he was
Speaker 5: under cross examination, and there were text messages between Costello
Speaker 5: and his law partner that pretty much said that Cohen's
Speaker 5: an a hole and that this guy Coen, we gotta,
Speaker 5: you know, help the boss. You know, he's he needs
Speaker 5: to play ball, essentially, and that's so devastating.
Speaker 3: Okay, so we obviously heard some testimony from Robert Costello,
Speaker 3: who we did not hear from, though Dave is Donald
Speaker 3: Trump himself, despite teasing on more than one occasion that
Speaker 3: he might indeed testify in his own defense, he very
Speaker 3: clearly did not take the stand before the defense rested today.
Speaker 3: If ultimately, a lot of this is going to down
Speaker 3: to the word of Michael Cohen, who, of course the
Speaker 3: defense tried to paint as an incredible witness considering he's
Speaker 3: perjured himself before versus the word of Donald Trump, and
Speaker 3: we didn't hear from Donald Trump. What does his lack
Speaker 3: of testimony if not surprising due to the case overall,
Speaker 3: it was.
Speaker 5: Smart that Trump did not take the stand because if
Speaker 5: he did, he'd be walking into a perjury trap. If
Speaker 5: he did, he'd be confronted with really embarrassing details about
Speaker 5: his affair with Stormy Daniels and others. I mean it
Speaker 5: would the Egen Carroll case would have been thrown in
Speaker 5: his face, really bad stuff. And so he listened to
Speaker 5: his lawyers and he did not take the stand. He
Speaker 5: was never going to take the stand in this case.
Speaker 5: But they don't have to. The prosecution has the entire burden,
Speaker 5: and so the defense didn't even really put on a case.
Speaker 5: They're just trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case.
Speaker 5: And they made some headway in poking holes in Michael
Speaker 5: Cohen's testimony, but in the end, the prosecution built up
Speaker 5: Michael Cohen with a lot of corrobbery evidence, not just
Speaker 5: testimony from other witnesses, which were important, but also Trump's
Speaker 5: own words in his tweets, in his court documents. Documents
Speaker 5: are much more powerful than any testimony because people can lie,
Speaker 5: but documents rarely do. And I think that's why this
Speaker 5: case is headed towards a guilty verdict. Because you may
Speaker 5: not want to like Michael Colin, you may not believe
Speaker 5: that he's always telling the truth. But when the prosecution
Speaker 5: shows you corroboration, it means that Yeah, he's telling the truth.
Speaker 4: Now, that's really interesting. Dave Arenberg says it will be
Speaker 4: a guilty verdict. That said, in that world, is this
Speaker 4: a jury that we'll have to chew on this for
Speaker 4: a long time? What will deliberations look like?
Speaker 1: Dave?
Speaker 5: Wow, the only thing that's predictable about juries is that
Speaker 5: they are notoriously unpredictable. So what's going to happen behind
Speaker 5: that closed door? I'll bet you we'll be talking about
Speaker 5: how the defense's only witness was chewed out by the judge.
Speaker 5: And although yes, I know the jury wasn't there when
Speaker 5: Judge Mr Shawn laid into Costello, they felt the vibe
Speaker 5: in the room. They saw how Costello is muttering under
Speaker 5: his breath and giving the judge a side eye. And
Speaker 5: you know that stuff is going to make it in
Speaker 5: the deliberation room, which will just credit the entire defense strategy,
Speaker 5: I think, and I think in the end, yeah, it's
Speaker 5: going to lead towards a guilty verdict. Now, could it
Speaker 5: be a hungary, sure, but I do not believe there's
Speaker 5: really any chance that this will be in a quittle
Speaker 5: So there could be a compromised verdict. Perhaps they convict
Speaker 5: on some counts and not all, and perhaps they have
Speaker 5: a hungary on somewhere all but Donald Trump's not walking
Speaker 5: totally free out of this, not based on what I
Speaker 5: saw for the past few weeks.
Speaker 3: Well, we won't know for at least a week longer, Dave,
Speaker 3: because as Joe and I have mentioned, closing arguments aren't
Speaker 3: until next Tuesday. Just how unusual is it to have
Speaker 3: a week long break like this between when they actually
Speaker 3: rest their cases and when the jury gets to take
Speaker 3: up the case.
Speaker 5: It is a bit unusual, but you're running up against
Speaker 5: the holl calendar and days where the court takes off anyways,
Speaker 5: and so you know what the Memorial Day. So what
Speaker 5: they didn't want was to have oral argument, excuse me,
Speaker 5: closing arguments, and then to send the jury home for
Speaker 5: the long Memorial Day weekend and then you start deliberating
Speaker 5: on Monday. You don't want the jury to talk about
Speaker 5: it with their families, with their friends. You wanted all
Speaker 5: the conversations to be done in the deliberation room, and
Speaker 5: you want it right after the closing argument. So it
Speaker 5: was the right move for the judge to postpone the
Speaker 5: closing until next weekend.
Speaker 6: Look, it gives commentators.
Speaker 5: Like me more of a chance to go on Bloomberg
Speaker 5: to discuss it.
Speaker 4: Well, God knows you're not going to be done after
Speaker 4: this one, Dave, I've got news for you. Can I
Speaker 4: just clarify, by the way, and I'll apologize in advance
Speaker 4: to my partner Kayley on this is is there a
Speaker 4: rule against side eye? The judges Mersehawan is calling out
Speaker 4: Costello for giving him side eye? How does that work?
Speaker 4: Dave Ehrenberg, It wasn't.
Speaker 5: Just side eye. It was that Costello was on the stand.
Speaker 5: And Costello comes from that right wing echo sphere were
Speaker 5: or ecosphere or whatever you want to call.
Speaker 7: It, where they hate Judge Murshon.
Speaker 5: I think he's corrupt and compromised, And so he took
Speaker 5: the stand and you can see his disgust on the stand.
Speaker 5: And when Judge Mrshon was sustaining the prosecution's objections, you
Speaker 5: had Costello from the witness stand saying things like geez
Speaker 5: and even saying struck, like like he's the judge the
Speaker 5: strike things from the record, and the judge was like
Speaker 5: excuse me, and you had Costell giving him side eye.
Speaker 5: So it was all of those things. And then after
Speaker 5: the jury was out of the room when the judge
Speaker 5: was dressing down Costello. The judge said, are you are
Speaker 5: you staring me down?
Speaker 4: Is that what you're doing?
Speaker 6: And he just kept getting worse from there.
Speaker 7: Oh, really bad shape.
Speaker 5: And that's why these judges wear the robes and have
Speaker 5: the big gabble.
Speaker 6: You have a stand up when the.
Speaker 5: Enter of the room because they're in control war room.
Speaker 3: Just more evidence of how difference this different, this all
Speaker 3: might feel if we actually saw these things playing.
Speaker 7: Out on camera, something.
Speaker 3: In real time. Dave Arenberg is always great to see
Speaker 3: you on camera and hear your voice for thank those
Speaker 3: who are listening on Bloomberg Radio. Dave Arenberg, of course,
Speaker 3: is the state attorney for Palm Beach County. Never a
Speaker 3: shortage of color in these cases, Joe, But it is
Speaker 3: worth keeping in mind for the vast majority of Americans,
Speaker 3: including us, we've only read about what has happened from
Speaker 3: that room. We did not get to see or hear
Speaker 3: it for ourselves.
Speaker 4: That's why I think we need more dramatic readings of
Speaker 4: what's happening in the court. I think there's a whole industry there.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple CarPlay and
Speaker 1: then Roud.
Speaker 2: Otto with 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 3: We're tracking where the money is going in terms of
Speaker 3: the presidential race because Joe in the month of April
Speaker 3: more money went to Donald Trump and the RNC than
Speaker 3: Joe Biden in the DNC. This is a change in
Speaker 3: the pattern we have seen up until day point in
Speaker 3: this election cycle. Joe Biden pulls in fifty one million dollars,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump seventy six million, and that's them and the
Speaker 3: parties combined.
Speaker 4: This is important because it's the first time it's happened
Speaker 4: in this campaign cycle. And I know that everyone's gonna say,
Speaker 4: but Joe cash on hand, Joe Biden still has an
Speaker 4: enormous advantage when it comes to money, and that's true.
Speaker 4: They've been outraising on a campaign level and on a
Speaker 4: party level almost two to one for the better part
Speaker 4: of this cycle. But to see this, whether it's an
Speaker 4: outlier or a turning point is the question, and that's
Speaker 4: what we want to get into with our panel. Genie
Speaker 4: Shanzano was with us today Bloomberg Politics contributor of course,
Speaker 4: a Democratic strategists, joined by Lester Munson, Republican strategist principle
Speaker 4: at bg R Group. Great to see you both, Lester,
Speaker 4: how do you read this unless you're going to tell
Speaker 4: me that we're data dependent? And I understand that you
Speaker 4: do need a couple of months to realize a trend.
Speaker 4: But the fact is donors have been warming up to
Speaker 4: Donald Trump, not the opposite during his criminal trial.
Speaker 8: Well, I think it's two things. One, it appears Trump
Speaker 8: has a little bit of a lead in the polls
Speaker 8: one or two points if you average it out. That
Speaker 8: helps excite his donor base. Also the fact that he's
Speaker 8: appears to be being persecuted, if you will, certainly by
Speaker 8: his supporters, he's perceived as being persecuted, and so they
Speaker 8: want to come to his aid. And I think the
Speaker 8: you know, he's really worked this trial in New York
Speaker 8: to his advantage, whether it's a press conference outside the
Speaker 8: court room or railing at the judge or you know,
Speaker 8: the perfidy of Michael Cohen or whatever the little mini
Speaker 8: drama is, he's turned it into a real opportunity for
Speaker 8: fundraising here, So I guess we give him some credit
Speaker 8: for creativity.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, but there also is the consideration that that
Speaker 3: funding mechanism, at least the ability to stand outside the
Speaker 3: courthouse and plead your case each and every day, is
Speaker 3: about to potentially go away. The case is the defense
Speaker 3: and prosecution rested their cases. We just wait until closing
Speaker 3: arguments next week and then jury deliberation, and Genie, this
Speaker 3: may be the only trial that actually happens. All of
Speaker 3: the other ones are on hold right now, basically and definitely.
Speaker 3: So by getting rid of a legal headache, potentially, does
Speaker 3: it open up a new fundraising headache when you lose
Speaker 3: the opportunity to potentially you have the visuals to pull
Speaker 3: in more dollars.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I mean, I can't believe we're at a point where
Speaker 9: we're talking about Gosh, isn't a presidential candidate going to
Speaker 9: miss being under indictment for thirty four felony cops and
Speaker 9: that trial ends. But you're right, that's where we are.
Speaker 9: You know, these numbers are important. I was going to
Speaker 9: be one of those people that said, oh, Joe, but
Speaker 9: Democrats have more cash on hand, which is true.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but I'm there.
Speaker 9: But what I will say is that there is also
Speaker 9: a regular expectation that this happens, putting aside the trial
Speaker 9: and everything else, because, of course Donald Trump has just
Speaker 9: recently got into the nomination, and of course when you
Speaker 9: get to the nomination it opens up the ability to
Speaker 9: collect money with the RNC, so he can collect these
Speaker 9: big checks. So there's other aspects of this. If it
Speaker 9: becomes a pattern, then that's going to be a problem
Speaker 9: for the Biden team. But right now they feel pretty
Speaker 9: good about fundraising. Less so about what Lester mentioned, which
Speaker 9: is the poll, so that is a problem, But fundraising
Speaker 9: they feel okay about right now.
Speaker 4: All right, Well, Genie, let's say it out loud here.
Speaker 4: Joe Biden's campaign ended April with eighty four and a
Speaker 4: half million dollars on hand eighty four. Donald Trump's campaign
Speaker 4: had forty eight million dollars net cash on hand. But
Speaker 4: we've also talked to your Genie a lot recently about
Speaker 4: whether money matters, or to the extent to which money
Speaker 4: will matter in this general election campaign, when the king
Speaker 4: of earned media is running against Joe Biden. How do
Speaker 4: you square these two?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, these are two people with one hundred
Speaker 9: percent name recognition. Donald Trump is the king of earned media,
Speaker 9: so he's been able to win campaigns having less money.
Speaker 6: Just look back at twenty sixteen.
Speaker 9: You know that said, there's a different component here because
Speaker 9: of course he not only has less money on hand,
Speaker 9: but he's burning through cash because of his legal challenges,
Speaker 9: and that is a problem. They also are lagging behind
Speaker 9: on their ground game. He can with earned media make
Speaker 9: that up, particularly because we're talking about you know, six
Speaker 9: to seven states.
Speaker 6: But it is a problem. So I'm one of those people.
Speaker 9: Money is not determinative in these things with this kind
Speaker 9: of name recognition, but it is an asset.
Speaker 6: So you'd rather have more of it than less.
Speaker 3: Okay, so you'd rather have more than less. It also
Speaker 3: just isn't about having it in your possession lesser, but
Speaker 3: using it effectively. Have we seen either of these campaigns
Speaker 3: use it effectively so far in the cycle or are
Speaker 3: they all just hoarding it for the final push later?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 8: Acculle, great question. I you know, I think the real
Speaker 8: campaign pros look at the burn rate, right, what does
Speaker 8: it cost you to raise the money? And then are
Speaker 8: you using it effectively with respect to the polls. Let's
Speaker 8: Let's give both of these candidate's credit. They won the
Speaker 8: nominations of their parties. It was a little bit harder,
Speaker 8: arguably for Trump than Biden. Biden kind of stacked the
Speaker 8: deck as the incumbent. But they're here, they are, and
Speaker 8: they were both the nominees last time, so they must
Speaker 8: be doing something right. I think the question is going
Speaker 8: to be does Trump need more money this go round
Speaker 8: than he did four years ago or eight years ago
Speaker 8: in order to deliver his message of putting the onus
Speaker 8: on Biden. He failed to do that last time. He
Speaker 8: was the You know, the election was about Trump in
Speaker 8: twenty twenty. If he can make the election about Biden
Speaker 8: this year, then he's probably going to prevail. What does
Speaker 8: Biden need to make the election about Trump? Probably he's
Speaker 8: a little bit more than he's raising right now, so
Speaker 8: he's gonna have to step up his game. But I
Speaker 8: think that's this This question of the burn rate, are
Speaker 8: you using the money effectively? Is exactly the right question.
Speaker 4: We saw the Biden of campaign make a big investment
Speaker 4: this month, Genie, a fifteen million dollar ad buy. Not
Speaker 4: just an ad buy, it's a fifteen million dollar spend
Speaker 4: that will also partially go to organizing on the ground,
Speaker 4: hiring up in different swing states. Could we be in
Speaker 4: a world where next month, the next time that we're
Speaker 4: looking at fundraising for a couple of months down the road,
Speaker 4: we start seeing the fruits of that spending.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean they hope that they do. Because this
Speaker 6: is going to be.
Speaker 9: So focused on these key states, they understand the importance
Speaker 9: of organizing and because it's going to be so tight
Speaker 9: in each of these states. I think the Biden team
Speaker 9: does have a more difficult path for that reason, and
Speaker 9: also as the incumbent.
Speaker 6: So it is a good campaign.
Speaker 9: It has been run well so far, but they come
Speaker 9: with their deficits, and we see the President with the
Speaker 9: recent announcement about the bait, trying to change the trajectory
Speaker 9: because it has been the pull so far that have
Speaker 9: left them in the position of feeling like they're a
Speaker 9: bit of the underdog at this point. But I agree
Speaker 9: with Lester. If Biden can make this about Trump, he's
Speaker 9: got a better shot. But if Trump can make this
Speaker 9: about Biden, then Trump has a better shot. The one
Speaker 9: good thing for Biden is Trump likes to make everything
Speaker 9: about himself, So you know, what's the likelihood he wants
Speaker 9: the focus to be on Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Well, he may not like the focus that is on
Speaker 3: his true Social account today for at least one reason,
Speaker 3: and that is after a video was posted on his
Speaker 3: true social platform on his account that essentially showed a
Speaker 3: bunch of newspaper clippings talking about what would happen in
Speaker 3: a hypothetical Trump victory in twenty twenty four, and under
Speaker 3: the headline what's next for America, it referred to the
Speaker 3: creation of a unified Reich. This video was up for
Speaker 3: about twenty four hours ultimately before it was taken down.
Speaker 3: Lester the campaign said that it was posted by a
Speaker 3: staff member while Donald Trump was in court. But does
Speaker 3: it matter who posted it if it lived out there
Speaker 3: in the world for a full day.
Speaker 8: No, it doesn't, Kaylee. Then it's shameful that stuff shouldn't happen.
Speaker 8: And you know, I'm under the impression that Susie Wilds
Speaker 8: and Chris Lsovita, who are here to be very good
Speaker 8: campaign managers, should have better control over the message than
Speaker 8: to allow something like that to happen. It's that's atrocious.
Speaker 4: Does the Biden campaign call these out one by one
Speaker 4: as they happen, Genie, or do you just continue to
Speaker 4: give the other campaign rope on.
Speaker 9: This you call them out. I mean, this is a
Speaker 9: despicable pattern. I couldn't agree more with Lester on this.
Speaker 9: It shouldn't have happened. But it's not the first and
Speaker 9: only time. This goes back to Charlottesville, This goes back
Speaker 9: to the twenty sixteen campaign. This goes back to comments
Speaker 9: that he made to General Kelly. I mean, the list
Speaker 9: of anti semitic tropes by the Trump are long, and
Speaker 9: I hope that Republicans who have been railing against young
Speaker 9: people for protesting the war, accusing them of being anti
Speaker 9: Semitic or equally as offended by this video that Trump's
Speaker 9: campaign put up, whether he was responsible for that or not.
Speaker 3: All right, Jeanie Shanzeno and Lester Munson our wonderful political
Speaker 3: panel today. Thank you so much for joining us. Genie
Speaker 3: of course as a Bloomberg Politics contributor. She's also Senior
Speaker 3: Democracy Fellow at the Center for the Study of the
Speaker 3: Presidency in Congress. And Lester Munson is a Republican strategist,
Speaker 3: as I said, but BGR Group co head of the
Speaker 3: International Practice and certainly that video which stayed up for
Speaker 3: a considerable period of time. As I mentioned, Joe getting
Speaker 3: a lot of attention.
Speaker 4: To Yeah, to think we were reading about this this
Speaker 4: morning and it was still there says a lot about
Speaker 4: the operation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, although we have had reported consistently by us
Speaker 3: here at Bloomberg and others that the campaign by and
Speaker 3: large is more organized this time, a lot is more
Speaker 3: disciplined with the messaging, which raises a question of how
Speaker 3: something like this would.
Speaker 4: Have Well, there's a bit of a distraction in over Manhattan.
Speaker 4: I realized they were in court yesterday. It's not there
Speaker 4: any longer, but the conversation will continue.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern.
Speaker 2: On Emo CarPlay and then Roudoro with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube from Washington.
Speaker 4: I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines, and it's pretty remarkable. Kaylee,
Speaker 4: here we are again talking about the potential for some
Speaker 4: votes in the capital. Yet no one seems to think
Speaker 4: these bills are going to become law.
Speaker 3: Yeah, one of them a border bill that's going to
Speaker 3: get a vote for the Senate very likely will not
Speaker 3: get adequate votes to even send it to the House.
Speaker 3: Then some cryptorelated bills that are very likely to pass
Speaker 3: in the House that may not go anywhere in the Senate,
Speaker 3: where there is much more skepticism about the industry overall.
Speaker 3: We got the chance to speak with Congressman Tom Emmer,
Speaker 3: who's on the House Mynancial Services Committee, also serves of
Speaker 3: course as the House Majority whip, who told us yesterday
Speaker 3: he does think the two crypto pieces of legislation will
Speaker 3: pass on the House floor. But we also got to
Speaker 3: talk with him about something else, because just minutes before
Speaker 3: our conversation, we got the news from the chair of
Speaker 3: the fdiic Martin Gruenberg, that he would indeed step down
Speaker 3: once the successor was named. And this was Congressman Emmer's reaction.
Speaker 10: He should have resigned weeks ago, perhaps years ago, based
Speaker 10: on the hundreds of pages of report that showed this
Speaker 10: toxic work environment with sexual harassment and all kinds of
Speaker 10: awful things with the employees. And yet here he goes again, Hey,
Speaker 10: I'm going to resign. I'm prepared to do that, but
Speaker 10: not until we have a successor. Well, guess what, Kaylee,
Speaker 10: We've got six months left, roughly six or seven months left,
Speaker 10: Marty Greenberg. Greenberg needs to go yesterday, so he should
Speaker 10: resign and get out of there.
Speaker 3: Congressman Tom Memory the House Majority with how do you
Speaker 3: really feel last night? Not holding back? Joining us now
Speaker 3: for more on this conversation, and please to say is
Speaker 3: Barat Rama Murti. He is formerly Deputy Director of the
Speaker 3: National Economic Council, now Senior Advisor for Economic Strategy at
Speaker 3: the American Economic Liberties Project, and he is here with
Speaker 3: us in our Washington, d C. Studio. So Barat, great
Speaker 3: to have you. Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Speaker 3: Mister Groomberg, much to the chagrin of Say, Congressman Number
Speaker 3: has said he will step down once a successor is
Speaker 3: not just named but confirmed. Would you take that job?
Speaker 11: Well, I appreciate the offer, but no I had any discussion.
Speaker 11: I haven't and there's a lot of good candidates for
Speaker 11: that job, but I assume that the White House will
Speaker 11: pick one of them. But it's not something I'm interested
Speaker 11: in at the moment. I do think it's really important
Speaker 11: to take a step back at number one. It's pretty
Speaker 11: commonplace for an outgoing chair to say that they will
Speaker 11: leave if and when somebody is confirmed for that role,
Speaker 11: so that there's a smooth transition there. And when Congress
Speaker 11: wants to act quickly, they can act very quickly and
Speaker 11: confirm one of a qualified nominee. So it should not
Speaker 11: take that long if Senate Republicans cooperate. Number two, I
Speaker 11: think it's important to remember that the FDIC is an
Speaker 11: extraordinarily important agency in all of this. I remember when
Speaker 11: I was in the White House last February during the
Speaker 11: Silicon Valley bank situation. The FDIC was critical and making
Speaker 11: sure that that issue didn't spiral out into a much
Speaker 11: larger problem with the banking system and played a big
Speaker 11: role in containing that. So it's important that we get
Speaker 11: somebody into that role who's experienced and who has a
Speaker 11: strong hand on the till when it comes to financial regulation.
Speaker 4: You wonder who would want this job if you read
Speaker 4: that report. The current state of the culture of the
Speaker 4: workplace cultural alone in this agency is deeply troubled. This
Speaker 4: is going to require a fixer. Do you have a
Speaker 4: sense of what it would take to repair the problems
Speaker 4: that the FDI see?
Speaker 7: Yeah, Look, I.
Speaker 11: Think it is going to take some time. When you
Speaker 11: have that type of issue at an agency which employs
Speaker 11: hundreds and hundreds of people and where there's clearly some
Speaker 11: systemic issues, it's going to take somebody who comes in
Speaker 11: and makes it a real focus of theirs to turn
Speaker 11: those issues around. It involves sitting down with the employees,
Speaker 11: really listening to what the concerns are, putting in measures
Speaker 11: that would address those concerns. But it can be fixed,
Speaker 11: and I've seen it happen with other agencies that have
Speaker 11: had these types of systemic problems that have really improved
Speaker 11: over the years.
Speaker 3: Well, certainly that effort, I'm sure even now is underway,
Speaker 3: even if Marty Greenberg says he's outgoing. There also is
Speaker 3: the consideration though, as to what might not happen if
Speaker 3: he does indeed step down, or if we can't get
Speaker 3: someone else confirmed in time, which includes Basil three capital
Speaker 3: reform for some of the biggest banks that are out there. Obviously,
Speaker 3: that is something this administration has been pushing very heavily
Speaker 3: across all of these different regulatory bodies. When it comes
Speaker 3: to the prudential regulators at least, is that realistically going
Speaker 3: to happen now that all of this is happening or
Speaker 3: is it time to call time on the end game
Speaker 3: of bozzle three.
Speaker 11: Look, I think that there's a number of complicating factors
Speaker 11: on Basle three. The end of the day, there's a
Speaker 11: very strong case for higher capital standards on big financial institutions,
Speaker 11: but it takes a lot of coordination across agencies and
Speaker 11: these types of issues, along with what's clearly been a
Speaker 11: big pushback from the industry and from some folks on
Speaker 11: the Hill is going to complicate that timeline. Generally speaking,
Speaker 11: not a lot gets done in Washington a few months
Speaker 11: before the presidential election, so it wouldn't surprise me if
Speaker 11: the resolution of the Basil three issue happens after November.
Speaker 11: But this is another complicating factor in all of that.
Speaker 4: We started by talking about the potential for a vote
Speaker 4: here on a crypto framework bill. Is this something that
Speaker 4: needs to happen because it's going nowhere it seems in
Speaker 4: the Senate.
Speaker 11: I'd say on crypto there's a pretty strong case for
Speaker 11: legislation that does a couple of things. Number one, really
Speaker 11: protecting consumers from the kinds of frauds and scams that
Speaker 11: are quite frequent in this industry. Based on what we've seen,
Speaker 11: and number two, making sure that whatever the use of
Speaker 11: these assets, they're not going to spill out into a
Speaker 11: broader risk to the financial system, or broadly.
Speaker 4: Are we giving enough money to the CFTC to do
Speaker 4: this right.
Speaker 11: Well, my concern with this bill is that it falls
Speaker 11: short on both of those measures, and that a good bill,
Speaker 11: I think would be a step forward in terms of
Speaker 11: protecting consumers, in terms of addressing any systemic risk that
Speaker 11: crypto poses. My concern is that this bill isn't that bill,
Speaker 11: and that it'd be good for Congress to go back
Speaker 11: to the drawing board and take another crack at this again.
Speaker 11: I'm in favor of doing that for the right piece
Speaker 11: of legislation. I'm just concerned that this isn't the right approach,
Speaker 11: and I think that those concerns are reflected in the Senate.
Speaker 12: Well.
Speaker 3: What the industry will say is the concerning approach should
Speaker 3: be the approach taken by the regulator, specifically the chair
Speaker 3: of the sec Gary Gensler, who is instead, because there
Speaker 3: is no existing regulation written by Congress, is trying to
Speaker 3: apply securities law and basically just sue the way to authority.
Speaker 3: Can that status quo stay.
Speaker 7: The same no again.
Speaker 11: I think that there's a strong case for having some
Speaker 11: kind of legislated outcome here. When you have these types
Speaker 11: of new technological developments, it makes sense for Congress to
Speaker 11: step in and fill in some gaps that may exist
Speaker 11: in the current regulatory framework. They need to be very
Speaker 11: thoughtful about that. Look, my head goes back to pre
Speaker 11: two thousand and eight, where the financial industry came in
Speaker 11: repeatedly from two thousand onwards and said these rules are
Speaker 11: too onerous. We need to make it easier to do
Speaker 11: subprime lending because it's easy. We've got to get access
Speaker 11: to credit for folks. And Congress listened to those industry requests,
Speaker 11: and what happened was that we set the conditions for
Speaker 11: a financial crisis that put the entire economy into a recession.
Speaker 11: We just need to be very, very careful when it
Speaker 11: comes to these types of changes to our financial system,
Speaker 11: because the risks of getting it wrong are so large.
Speaker 4: Spending time with rot Ramamerti, who is working as well
Speaker 4: with the groundwork collaborative and addressing the tax code, I
Speaker 4: want to ask you about the twenty seventeen tax cuts,
Speaker 4: which we're hearing a lot about now, an effort to
Speaker 4: be made permanent. Here you're on the other side of
Speaker 4: this argument. How do you tell Americans that they're better
Speaker 4: off with higher taxes?
Speaker 11: Well, I think it's actually quite popular with Americans to
Speaker 11: make sure that they're rich and big corporations are paying
Speaker 11: more in taxes. And what the Trump tax cuts did
Speaker 11: in twenty seventeen, if you recall number one, there was
Speaker 11: a massive and permanent cut to the corporate tax rate
Speaker 11: from thirty five percent to twenty one percent, and then
Speaker 11: there was a series of individual changes like, for example,
Speaker 11: increasing the estate tax threshold so fear people pay that
Speaker 11: increase are reducing the top tax rate for people making
Speaker 11: well over four hundred thousand dollars in income each year.
Speaker 11: Those are set to expire in twenty twenty five. The CBO,
Speaker 11: the Congressional Budget Office disc did a report that the
Speaker 11: cost of extending all of those expiring tax cuts is
Speaker 11: four point six trillion dollars and the majority of those
Speaker 11: benefits go to higher income household people.
Speaker 4: Have an association, though, with those tax cuts and a
Speaker 4: strong economy, a very difficult association, I.
Speaker 11: Would I would respectfully disagree on that. Do you know
Speaker 11: that the single most unpopular moment of the Donald Trump
Speaker 11: presidency wasn't when he was trying to go after healthcare.
Speaker 11: It wasn't when he was saying crazy statements about COVID.
Speaker 11: It was the week before he.
Speaker 7: Tried to pass the tax cut and job sect.
Speaker 11: And that's because the public really revolted against the idea
Speaker 11: that we should be spending trillions of dollars on tax
Speaker 11: cuts that primarily go to big corporations.
Speaker 9: And the wealthy.
Speaker 11: And so when you're setting a poll or there's a
Speaker 11: survey research, go look at it, gallop and so on.
Speaker 11: He was in the low thirties when it came to
Speaker 11: his approval rating at that point in time. And so,
Speaker 11: and that's one of the reasons why every single Democrat
Speaker 11: in Congress, from the most liberal to the most conservative,
Speaker 11: voted happily against that piece of legislation. And so now
Speaker 11: we have a chance in twenty twenty five, that's what
Speaker 11: this letter is about to take a fresh look at
Speaker 11: all of this because a lot of those provisions are
Speaker 11: expiring in the Trump tax bill, and so rather than
Speaker 11: thinking about which ones are we going to extend, which
Speaker 11: ones do we want to modify, we should be looking
Speaker 11: at the tax code holistically and say we need to
Speaker 11: reverse this decades long trend that we have towards bringing
Speaker 11: in less and less revenue. Just one final data point
Speaker 11: in all of this. Before the Bush tax cuts in
Speaker 11: the two thousands, we were bringing in the federal government
Speaker 11: about twenty percent of GDP and tax revenue each year.
Speaker 11: After the Bush tax cut and the Trump tax cuts
Speaker 11: closer to sixteen percent. And that reduction in revenue by
Speaker 11: itself explains why our national debt is growing. And by
Speaker 11: the way, a lot of those benefits went to the
Speaker 11: very highest income household. So we need to reverse this trend.
Speaker 11: And twenty twenty five soar opportunity to do that.
Speaker 4: Well, this is going to be a big fight. We'd
Speaker 4: like to stay in touch with you, of course, barat
Speaker 4: Rama Murdy with us in his post White House life
Speaker 4: now senior advisor for Economic Strategy at the American Economic
Speaker 4: Liberties Project BROT. Thank you for your insights today, Kayleie.
Speaker 4: We're talking as well about an important day in Lower
Speaker 4: Manhattan as the defense rests in the Trump trial, and
Speaker 4: we want to go to New York where June Grosso
Speaker 4: at Bloomberg Law is standing by with her take on
Speaker 4: what we learned here today, not a huge change as
Speaker 4: the defense wrapped its case here June. Not a huge
Speaker 4: change with what we had seen yesterday with Robert Costello,
Speaker 4: for instance, But tell us the significance of this moment,
Speaker 4: now that we've seen both sides have their say.
Speaker 13: Well, I think the prosecution actually made some good points
Speaker 13: and did an aggressive cross of Costello. So I don't
Speaker 13: know what you know how the jury's viewing it, but
Speaker 13: I think one thing that you have to remember is
Speaker 13: he's the last witness. The defense put on two witnesses,
Speaker 13: and he was really the only witness of substance, and
Speaker 13: the jury's going to go home for how many days
Speaker 13: now until Tuesday with that on their minds. So I
Speaker 13: think the defense sort of went out with a whimper.
Speaker 13: But remember, the defense only needs one juror in order
Speaker 13: to hang up the jury, and that's probably what they're thinking.
Speaker 13: And their whole approach has really been to attack the
Speaker 13: credibility of the state star witness, my uncle Cohen. The
Speaker 13: state on the prosecution, on the other hand, has been
Speaker 13: trying to pump up his testimony and use documents and
Speaker 13: texts and other witnesses testimony to.
Speaker 6: Back him.
Speaker 13: Up today's jury instructions to fight about jury instructions, and
Speaker 13: those are really the most important part of a trial,
Speaker 13: even though they're not the most interesting for the you know,
Speaker 13: for people are who are there, but they're critical, and
Speaker 13: especially in this case where there's such a conundrum about
Speaker 13: what are the federal or tax or state tax crimes
Speaker 13: associated here to make this a felony. So that's really important.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm so glad you brought that up June, because
Speaker 3: things aren't all done and dusted at court today at
Speaker 3: two point fifteen is when this meeting on jury instruction
Speaker 3: between the judge and the attorneys is set to happen.
Speaker 3: Just what exactly is involved in jury instructions what we
Speaker 3: will be looking for.
Speaker 13: So jury instructions, So the jury, through the witnesses, saw
Speaker 13: the evidence, but how do they apply the evidence? What's
Speaker 13: the law that they'll apply the evidence with? And that's
Speaker 13: something that the judge is going to give them in
Speaker 13: the instructions. It's not going to come from you know,
Speaker 13: what they saw at trial. It's going to come from
Speaker 13: the judge. So it's very important. And what's going to
Speaker 13: what's happening at the charge is each side is going
Speaker 13: to try to influence the judge in what the instructions are.
Speaker 13: There are standard instructions. The judge might just use standard
Speaker 13: instructions in some of these cases, he might use something
Speaker 13: that the defense proposes, something that the prosecution proposes, or
Speaker 13: a combination of each. But it's really critical. And you know,
Speaker 13: in appellate procedure, when there's an appeal, a lot of
Speaker 13: times it's reversed based on the jury instructions that were given.
Speaker 13: It's always a way for uh, you know, the defense
Speaker 13: to attack a verdict is the judge gave the wrong
Speaker 13: jury instructions. So in this case, the jury instruction on
Speaker 13: what the election crime is connected to the falsifying the
Speaker 13: business records to make this a felony is going to
Speaker 13: be critical. And everybody knows that. The judge knows that,
Speaker 13: and so I'm sure he's going to be very careful
Speaker 13: and it's going to be interesting to see what he says,
Speaker 13: what he decides.
Speaker 4: It's interesting entourage in court today, we've seen you know
Speaker 4: who's who of Capitol Hill. We had more members of
Speaker 4: Congress there. Eric Schmidt showed up. Ronnie Jackson was there today.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 4: A Kaylee, the former White House doctor now a member
Speaker 4: of Congress, Dan Muser, Dale Strong, a few others, but
Speaker 4: Joe Piscopo also made his way to the courthouse today June,
Speaker 4: and I'm just wondering, well that have any impact on
Speaker 4: the jury to see Joe Piscopo at court.
Speaker 13: You know, I don't think the jury is really influenced
Speaker 13: by who's coming into the court. Unless Milania Trump came
Speaker 13: to the courtroom. I think that would be an impact.
Speaker 13: Considering what the case is about and her connection to it,
Speaker 13: that would be an impact. But I don't think they're
Speaker 13: influenced by any of these people that come into the
Speaker 13: courtman sit there. I know that the reporters who are
Speaker 13: covering the trial are perturbed that these people are coming
Speaker 13: in and getting seats when you know they're a lot
Speaker 13: of times are waiting online for hours. They get there
Speaker 13: at five in the morning or whatever to get seats
Speaker 13: because they are only a certain number allocated. Even the
Speaker 13: overflow room is overflowing. So I know that the reporters
Speaker 13: are not happy about it. I doubt the jurors pay
Speaker 13: any attention.
Speaker 4: Wow, all right, June Grossel Blomberg lost six pm Eastern
Speaker 4: time on Bloomberg Radio. A fascinating day in court once again, Kaylie.
Speaker 4: We'll wait for the instructions next.
Speaker 1: Your listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: roud Oro with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also
Speaker 1: listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 1: Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 4: One of the other big stories that we're covering today
Speaker 4: here on Balance of Power is a new wrinkle on
Speaker 4: the US policy in Israel and the very real challenges
Speaker 4: domestically politically that Joe Biden is facing here as the
Speaker 4: President now calls outrageous the story that we discussed a
Speaker 4: bit yesterday, the International Criminal Court working up arrest warrants
Speaker 4: for the leaders of Hamas and Israel, including Prime Minister
Speaker 4: Benjamin Nett Yahoo at once. Outrageous, says Joe Biden, and
Speaker 4: that has become the conventional wisdom. We heard from Secretary
Speaker 4: of State Anthony Blincoln earlier. He called the decision to
Speaker 4: seek these arrests quote extremely wrong headed, echoing the President.
Speaker 4: We heard earlier today on Bloomberg on Bloomberg TV and
Speaker 4: Radio from Ron Dermer as we continue this messaging clearly
Speaker 4: speaking in this case for the Israeli government. The Israeli
Speaker 4: Minister of Strategic Affairs, he's part of the war cabinet.
Speaker 4: His reaction to this news, let's hear what he said
Speaker 4: on Blooma.
Speaker 12: I agree with the President Biden that it was outrageous.
Speaker 12: I'd also say that it was dangerous. Why is it
Speaker 12: outrageous because they're creating a false symmetry between Israel and Kamas,
Speaker 12: and they're basing it on false charges.
Speaker 4: Challenging the conventional wisdom today in Washington is a voice
Speaker 4: that you've heard before on this program. Writing for Bloomberg Opinion,
Speaker 4: Andreas Klouth with a smart column and one that we
Speaker 4: should consider. Andreas is with me here, as you can
Speaker 4: see on YouTube, at the table, writing if the US
Speaker 4: now scorns the it helped to create the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 4: it will undermine the international regime of law and order
Speaker 4: that it claims to defend. It's great to see you, Andreas.
Speaker 4: Thank you for joining me here. Walk me through your
Speaker 4: rationale here. Because this is an administration that is specifically
Speaker 4: focused on equivalency. That's what Joe Biden said that maybe
Speaker 4: if this had come in a different consideration, it would
Speaker 4: be a different story. But you're putting Israel and Hamas
Speaker 4: on the same stage here.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and that's very interesting. So you heard in the
Speaker 7: sound about just now he used the word symmetry and
Speaker 7: you use the word equivalents. You heard that from Jim
Speaker 7: Rish in the Senate, you heard that from Biden from Lincoln,
Speaker 7: and it's interesting. It is absolutely true, in my opinion,
Speaker 7: that the two sets of applications for an arrest warrant
Speaker 7: three Hamas, two Israeli are not equivalent morally or illegally.
Speaker 7: The interesting thing is that this has become such a
Speaker 7: talking point in this news cycle because it's a red herring.
Speaker 7: The prosecutor, Kareem Khan, in no way implied an equivalence.
Speaker 7: He did make a decision and that may may have
Speaker 7: been a mistake in communicating this news to bungle the
Speaker 7: five cases into one announcement, and that gives an opening
Speaker 7: to people who will politically defend and this is understandable
Speaker 7: that they want that the US wants to back Israel,
Speaker 7: which will counter this. And you know, and of course
Speaker 7: Hamas was equally offended and rejected at it as well.
Speaker 7: So just for equivalents, but that gives him one opening,
Speaker 7: and the US is now rejecting this on the basis
Speaker 7: of a if you listen to the press conference yesterday,
Speaker 7: a number of confused So sometimes with this argument, sometimes
Speaker 7: one another one is does the court even have jurisdiction?
Speaker 7: Now it's not equivalent, And everyone needs to remember that
Speaker 7: this is an application for an arrest warrant which was
Speaker 7: recommended unanimously by a panel of legal experts chosen from
Speaker 7: around the world, after enormous body of evidence, and it
Speaker 7: now goes to a panel of independent judges to even
Speaker 7: become a warrant, and then it will not go to
Speaker 7: trial for reasons we can revisit. But if it did
Speaker 7: ever come to trial, each of the five would have
Speaker 7: a separate case presumed innocence and all of that. And
Speaker 7: I'm saying the US has a much larger strategic interest
Speaker 7: with a view to being called hypocritical and the global
Speaker 7: South with a view to what it stands for, what
Speaker 7: it has stood for since World War Two in being
Speaker 7: on the side of international law. So whether it's domestic courts,
Speaker 7: so you just had another context to domestic law and
Speaker 7: order or international you cannot pick and choose. You cannot
Speaker 7: be for the rule of law and courts and independence
Speaker 7: of the judiciary only when it suits you.
Speaker 4: We should have frontloaded this conversation, and you just alluded
Speaker 4: to it by the fact that likely no one's going
Speaker 4: to be arrested because of these warrants. With that said, though,
Speaker 4: it sounds like you're isolating a communications problem here more
Speaker 4: than a procedural or legal one.
Speaker 7: I think it is a communications problem. And he was
Speaker 7: trying the Kareem Khan, the prosecutor, was trying to He
Speaker 7: said explicitly, you know, we have to choose. And this
Speaker 7: is the same for the International Court of just As,
Speaker 7: a different court in the Hague, and in general for
Speaker 7: the organs and bodies of international law. We have to
Speaker 7: decide are we going to apply the law equally or not.
Speaker 7: By the way, a while back, I wrote a column
Speaker 7: the United States is usually not in favor of applying
Speaker 7: the law equally, which would apply even to itself.
Speaker 4: Nobody complained when they went to arrest Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 7: Though, well, for instance, let's go to that that is
Speaker 7: very similar. If you take the point of jurisdiction, neither
Speaker 7: Ukraine nor Russia is a signatory to the Rome Statute
Speaker 7: which established the court. Therefore, that didn't bother the United States,
Speaker 7: because here it's in its interest to support the same
Speaker 7: court in going after prudent story in building the evidence.
Speaker 7: It's a good storyline. But when the US is afraid
Speaker 7: that the Court might investigate an American or in this case, Israel,
Speaker 7: the Trump administration slapped sanctions on a judge and a
Speaker 7: lawyer of the ICC. And there is even a law
Speaker 7: passed by Congress called facetiously that the Hague Invasion Act.
Speaker 7: If weever bring an American to the Court, and the
Speaker 7: Hague will invade and get them out. So you cannot no,
Speaker 7: And you mentioned I think in the in the intro,
Speaker 7: even the US, in this case the Roman Statute, as
Speaker 7: in so many cases of other treaties, was actually the
Speaker 7: leader in getting it done. It wanted this and then
Speaker 7: decided and got cold feet and says, oh no, no,
Speaker 7: they might turn it against us. Well, we only want
Speaker 7: it when it suits us, or when it's against other people,
Speaker 7: and not against us. And I'm saying that is a
Speaker 7: bad look. And so there is more at stake. And
Speaker 7: actually I firmly happened to believe. I said the outset
Speaker 7: that even though I or not even I believe they're
Speaker 7: not equivalent. I think Natanyahu and as Defense Minister, if
Speaker 7: it ever were to go to trial, which it won't,
Speaker 7: would be found innocent about that. But why not trust
Speaker 7: the court to find that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is all about optics and a great piece
Speaker 4: that I'll point you to from Andreas Kluth on the
Speaker 4: Terminal OPI n Go or of course online Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 4: Andrea's great to see you, great writing and a great
Speaker 4: case to make here. Don't be a stranger. Thanks for
Speaker 4: listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to
Speaker 4: subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever
Speaker 4: you get your podcasts, and you can find us live
Speaker 4: every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg
Speaker 4: dot com