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 Applecarplay and then Roudoo with the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 1: or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: As we come off a very important day in Washington
Speaker 2: yesterday that was shrouded by so much noise in the
Speaker 2: political space. In any other world, a trilateral meeting between
Speaker 2: the United States, Japan, and Philippines that will likely result
Speaker 2: in a more formal alliance in the South China Sea.
Speaker 2: An alliance against China would be front page news. But
Speaker 2: we've got Faiza coming and going, We've got Trump doing
Speaker 2: this and that. We've got the abortion ruling in Arizona
Speaker 2: that's taking a lot of attention here. There's almost no
Speaker 2: time to get to it all. And I was heartened
Speaker 2: to see the column today by my colleague Andreas Kluth,
Speaker 2: reporting for Bloomberg Opinion from here in Washington, DC. Hail
Speaker 2: the trilateral chiefs, Biden, Keshita Marcos. Indeed, this is important
Speaker 2: and worth your attention as the president tries to put
Speaker 2: together a network of alliances that some people are calling
Speaker 2: a Pacific version of NATO. Andreas is with US now
Speaker 2: on balance of power, and it's great to see you, sir.
Speaker 2: You talk about the lattice work of alliances, the many
Speaker 2: lateral partnerships. Is it possible to connect the dots on
Speaker 2: all of them?
Speaker 3: It's hard.
Speaker 4: In fact, I believe my title made fun of that,
Speaker 4: like mocked that because I think I said, hey, all
Speaker 4: the manilateral chiefs, you know, But basically what you have
Speaker 4: is by my count, three trilaterals and one quadrilateral, all
Speaker 4: overlapping in the Indo Pacific, all led by the US.
Speaker 4: And if forming what they call, you know, their metaphor
Speaker 4: now is a lattice, what does the lattice replace? It
Speaker 4: replaces what's emerged since World War Two in the Indo Pacific,
Speaker 4: but not in the Atlantic, which is in the Indo Pacific,
Speaker 4: you've had a hub and spoke system. So the US
Speaker 4: has bilateral alliances with security guarantees with Japan, Australia and
Speaker 4: New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, but there was no thought some
Speaker 4: of these countries were acting independently, or in the case
Speaker 4: of South Korea and Japan, were even hated each other
Speaker 4: and the US has been under Biden trying to bring
Speaker 4: some order into that and make it, as I said,
Speaker 4: a lattice. Whether whether that works for you or not,
Speaker 4: we can debate. And of course there's one thought that
Speaker 4: they have in their mind is the other side of
Speaker 4: the world, which is NATO. Seventy fifth anniversary just passed
Speaker 4: and the and Biden will host in July, will host
Speaker 4: this year's NATO summit in Washington, which is this incredibly
Speaker 4: successful alliance. All alliances are supposed to deter the lattice,
Speaker 4: supposed to deter China. NATO is supposed to deter Russia
Speaker 4: always has done. But there's a problem in NATO, which
Speaker 4: is burden sharing. So a lot of the allies are
Speaker 4: free riding on American defense spending. And Biden wants to
Speaker 4: prevent that. And I think, if you want to, if
Speaker 4: you want to be kind and generous, he wants to
Speaker 4: build a new and improved NATO and NATO a two
Speaker 4: point zero in the Indo Pacific for the what they
Speaker 4: view as the larger challenge for the next seventh years,
Speaker 4: which is likely going to be China.
Speaker 2: Well, let's go a little deeper into that, because we
Speaker 2: heard from the President yesterday as part of that trilateral meeting.
Speaker 2: And I want to ask you, Andreas about enforcement. We
Speaker 2: talked so much about Article five in Europe. Listen to
Speaker 2: what he said about the Indo Pacific region when he
Speaker 2: spoke yesterday, and we'll talk about this on the other side.
Speaker 1: Here's the president.
Speaker 5: The United States defense commitments to Japan and to the
Speaker 5: Philippines are iron clad. They are iron clad, as I've
Speaker 5: said before, any attack on Philippine aircraft, vessels or armed forces.
Speaker 5: And so I'm trying to see when invoke our mutual
Speaker 5: defense treaty.
Speaker 2: So, Andreas Kluth, it sounds like there is an equivalent
Speaker 2: to Article five in the Pacific, isn't that what he
Speaker 2: just said?
Speaker 4: Yes and no. The difference so this defense treaty with
Speaker 4: the Philippines goes back to the fifties. I believe it's
Speaker 4: old mutual defense guaranteed. That's what all the treaties I
Speaker 4: mentioned earliers have. Article five of NATO different. It says
Speaker 4: an attack against one is an attack against all. In theory,
Speaker 4: it obliges all thirty two with Sweden now allies to
Speaker 4: come to the defense of any of them. It's only
Speaker 4: been in vocal well.
Speaker 2: The Philippines in Japan would not come to our defense.
Speaker 2: In other words, if we were attacked.
Speaker 4: Well, well, they're not in NATO. I was saying, that
Speaker 4: was Article five in NATO.
Speaker 3: What he understood.
Speaker 2: But I'm trying to discern the difference between these two exactly.
Speaker 4: And so here the US would come to the defense
Speaker 4: of the Philippines or of Australia, but Japan wouldn't have
Speaker 4: to is not in the treaty. And that's the difference
Speaker 4: with the lattice and the trilaterals and quarter laterals. Biden
Speaker 4: wants in Japan a kashido in this very moving speech
Speaker 4: to Congress. Maybe we should go into that because I
Speaker 4: thought it was powerful essentially signals we're sharing this burden
Speaker 4: with you. We would also help, even though Japan has
Speaker 4: no formal treaty at present with the phil for example.
Speaker 4: So you see, that's the difference a bilateral defense guarantee
Speaker 4: versus a multilateral And that's where the minilateral and the
Speaker 4: attempts come out that the US doesn't want all by
Speaker 4: itself to defend the Philippines against China and then Japan
Speaker 4: against you know, North South Korea against North Korea and
Speaker 4: so forth. So it's multilateral versus bilateral, and the attempt
Speaker 4: through the lattice, through the minilaterals to bro to to
Speaker 4: have a collective defense in the in the Pacific.
Speaker 2: So there's work to be done here then obviously, I'm
Speaker 2: just trying to get to whatever the next step is, Andreas.
Speaker 2: If Joe Biden can create, to your point, a sort
Speaker 2: of NATO two point zero in that region is going
Speaker 2: to involve connecting the dots in all of these partnerships,
Speaker 2: and I wonder if Aucus is the starting point for that.
Speaker 2: Knowing that Japan talked about its role as a second pillar,
Speaker 2: why not pull all of these countries into the alliance
Speaker 2: with the UK and Australia. Wouldn't that be the closest
Speaker 2: thing to a formal partnership that we could start with.
Speaker 4: Yes, And in fact that's sort of the here inside
Speaker 4: the belt Way that's the most problem. The Australians have
Speaker 4: some concerns, But very briefly, Aucus could expand to become
Speaker 4: Jaucus or any number of other things. Aucus has two pillars,
Speaker 4: two parts. One is simply to get nuclear powered but
Speaker 4: conventionally armed American submarines to Australia. But the longer term
Speaker 4: but more interesting part is two is Pillar two where
Speaker 4: the three countries, which are also already three of the
Speaker 4: five countries in the Five Eyes common spying you know,
Speaker 4: spy intelligence network, so they trust each other, where they
Speaker 4: would collaborate on producing underwater robot warfare, a quantum warfare,
Speaker 4: artificial intelligence, and basically all the ways you would win
Speaker 4: fight and win the next war, which are very costly.
Speaker 4: And this goes to the burden sharing. They would from
Speaker 4: the start conceive build, invest in these myths together and
Speaker 4: based on that deep in their commitments to each other,
Speaker 4: and they could pull in other that could be widened
Speaker 4: to Japan and then possibly to others in the future.
Speaker 4: I'm thinking South Korea.
Speaker 2: For Shakkus and Alliance Andreas. Thank you so much. I
Speaker 2: wish we had more time, but I will again point
Speaker 2: everyone to the column. Hail the Trilateral Chiefs, and remember
Speaker 2: this conversation next time we're talking about the South China Sea.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast can
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: roun oo 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 6: I Am Kaylee lines alongside Joe Matthew in Washington, where
Speaker 6: the House seems to have done it, Joe actually passing
Speaker 6: a two year reauthorization of Faiza warrantless surveillance, a Warren
Speaker 6: amendment that was brought by Andy Biggs did not pass.
Speaker 6: It was tied hundred twelve two hundred twelve. So no
Speaker 6: shortage of drama on the House floor. But of course
Speaker 6: wrapping this up only eats into part of what the
Speaker 6: House has on its to do list. Still in question
Speaker 6: is supplemental funding for aid to US allies including Ukraine, Yes,
Speaker 6: but also Israel, as Israel we understand is facing down
Speaker 6: a threat that could be coming at it within the
Speaker 6: next forty eight hours according to our reporting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is really something. It's getting more complex as
Speaker 2: we approach the weekend, Kaylee, and you reminded us yesterday
Speaker 2: of the FBI Director Christopher Ray's warning of a potential
Speaker 2: terror attack imminently like we saw in Russia. That plays
Speaker 2: into the conversation around Piza, and now of course geopolitics
Speaker 2: popping on this president as well. These are dangerous times
Speaker 2: that we're living in here, and that's why we wanted
Speaker 2: to have Ian Marlow join as Bloomberg News senior reporter
Speaker 2: covering diplomacy. Ian, it's great to have you with us
Speaker 2: again on balance of power. The next forty eight hours
Speaker 2: are going to tell us a lot here. Bloomberg News
Speaker 2: is at least anticipating the potential for a direct strike
Speaker 2: on Israeli soil.
Speaker 3: How likely is that?
Speaker 7: Yeah, it seems to be what people are telling sources here.
Speaker 7: And also I think what Israel seems to be bracing
Speaker 7: for publicly as well as the US.
Speaker 8: The US State.
Speaker 7: Department has warned its own employees not to travel around
Speaker 7: Israel with this. Iran's warning of retaliation sort of sitting
Speaker 7: out there, and now we're seeing much more alarm that
Speaker 7: this attack could be imminent. It's not clear exactly what
Speaker 7: shape it will take. There's talk about Hesbalah militants, which
Speaker 7: are obviously funded and trained by Iran on Israel's northern
Speaker 7: border with Lebanon. There's talk of them, you know, raining
Speaker 7: down missiles or sending drones.
Speaker 8: There's even talk of.
Speaker 7: A potential strike emerging from Iranian territory itself. You know,
Speaker 7: it's not clear how much Israel's Iron Dome and other
Speaker 7: you know, missile batteries will be able to take down.
Speaker 7: So there is a lot of alarm growing concern. The
Speaker 7: US is kind of repositioning forces in the region, seems
Speaker 7: to be moving more assets into the region as well,
Speaker 7: and I think everyone is just bracing for this right now.
Speaker 7: And then, of course the big question is what comes next.
Speaker 7: And Israel has said that they will hit back.
Speaker 6: Well, especially Ian as the US has reiterated time and
Speaker 6: time again that what they would most like to avoid
Speaker 6: is a further escalation in the Middle East. But there
Speaker 6: are different degrees of escalation. Surely, how escalatory will it
Speaker 6: be if it is an Iranian proxy like HESBLA as
Speaker 6: you mentioned, versus Iron itself conducting an attack like this,
Speaker 6: What are the potential degrees of escalation here?
Speaker 7: I mean, it's a good question, I think definitely. I mean,
Speaker 7: has BLOT militants have already been in direct conflict with Israel.
Speaker 7: I don't think Israel will draw any distinction between you know,
Speaker 7: you know has bought militants necessarily in Iran per se,
Speaker 7: they have already hit Iranian assets in Syria and elsewhere.
Speaker 8: As this war has gone On. I think the big
Speaker 8: thing will.
Speaker 7: Be the degree to which this you know, this attack,
Speaker 7: if it comes, is successful.
Speaker 8: You know, what kind of damage it causes, what sort.
Speaker 7: Of you know, missiles or other you know, mil attack,
Speaker 7: drones or whatever it will be.
Speaker 8: How much actually.
Speaker 7: Gets through you know, Israeli defenses, and you know, the
Speaker 7: degree to which any damage is caused will probably shape
Speaker 7: the Israeli reaction. And I think the big open question is,
Speaker 7: you know, if it comes from Iran proper and there
Speaker 7: is you know, a significant degree of damage or casualties,
Speaker 7: you know, Israel would be forced, I think in terms
Speaker 7: of domestic pressure and in terms of its.
Speaker 8: Own war aims to respond.
Speaker 7: And that was, as you say, one of the US
Speaker 7: goals since this conflict began has been to avoid that
Speaker 7: sort of escalation, and we've seen their areas tip for
Speaker 7: tat escalations, you know, throughout the region, in Iraq and Syria,
Speaker 7: you know, with Lebanon, as this war has dragged on,
Speaker 7: and none of them have actually you know, led to
Speaker 7: that full blown you know, regional conflict in the US
Speaker 7: has been trying to avoid.
Speaker 8: And I think the.
Speaker 7: Real worry here is that this sort of response from
Speaker 7: Iran and An Israeli counter response could then engender that
Speaker 7: type of you know, regional conflagration that everyone's been trying
Speaker 7: to avoid.
Speaker 2: Well, I suspect we'll be hearing from Israel's ambassador to
Speaker 2: the United Nations either way. I've only got a minute
Speaker 2: left here, Ian, but your piece today on the ambassador
Speaker 2: is really worth talking about here and how strident he
Speaker 2: has been, the tough words that he's been using to
Speaker 2: clap back on calls for a ceasefire.
Speaker 8: Yeah, thank you for highlighting this piece.
Speaker 7: We had a couple of chances to talk to Gil Adderdan,
Speaker 7: the Israeli Ambassador of the UN, and he really has
Speaker 7: personified the Israeli response to critics of the war, which
Speaker 7: is a sort of uncompromising approach putting down Israel's critics.
Speaker 7: You know, Israel has a very interesting history with the
Speaker 7: with the UN it created. You know, I helped create Israel.
Speaker 7: And the ambassador told us in interviews that you know
Speaker 7: that is the UN that exists now where countries vote
Speaker 7: against Israel constantly, way more than they do against say.
Speaker 8: Russia or Iran or Mianmar. It's not the same United Nations.
Speaker 7: You know, he talks about it being utterly politicized, you know,
Speaker 7: just basically being isolated. And I think his uncompromising approach
Speaker 7: at the UN, people are saying is sort of alienating
Speaker 7: potential moderate countries in the middle who could be supporting Israel,
Speaker 7: but who might you know, who are on the fence
Speaker 7: that that sort of behavior and those sorts of words
Speaker 7: and some of that. You know, he's accused, you know,
Speaker 7: the United Nations of being anti Semitic. He's called for
Speaker 7: the chief you know, Antonio and Guitaras to step down,
Speaker 7: to resign over comments he made, and is constantly you know,
Speaker 7: saying Hitler would be singing the praises of.
Speaker 3: The UN these days.
Speaker 7: That kind of language, you know, people are saying is
Speaker 7: just kind of alienating potential Israeli supporters, and it's being
Speaker 7: a stance that looks, you know, to some observers and critics,
Speaker 7: particularly a little bit awkward or risky as this conflict
Speaker 7: has gotten much much worse, as the depth towl has climbed,
Speaker 7: as we've seen the awful humanitarian situation there. So it's
Speaker 7: a very I just thought he was a very interesting
Speaker 7: person to look at as his conflict is dragged on.
Speaker 7: As a way to look at Israel's own view.
Speaker 8: Of the conflict.
Speaker 6: Absolutely. Ian Marlow, thank you so much and it is
Speaker 6: a great plea piece. You could check it out on
Speaker 6: the terminal and online. Israel's and battled envoy takes on
Speaker 6: the UN as the Gaza crisis worsens, and of course, Joe,
Speaker 6: we have heard a lot from President Biden about the
Speaker 6: Gaza crisis worsening as well. He has had words for
Speaker 6: Netanyahu himself, as he has continually reminded us. This is
Speaker 6: what the President had to say most recently about the
Speaker 6: conversation that he has had with the Israeli Minister around
Speaker 6: humanitarian aid.
Speaker 5: Here is I have been very blunt and straightforward with
Speaker 5: the Prime Minister as well as his work cabinet as
Speaker 5: well as the cabinet. And the fact of the matter
Speaker 5: is that bb and I had a long discussion. He
Speaker 5: agreed to do several things that related to number one,
Speaker 5: getting more aid both food and medicine into Gaza and
Speaker 5: reducing significantly the attempts the civilian casualties in any action
Speaker 5: taken in the region.
Speaker 6: We want to have more now on what is happening
Speaker 6: in the region region with Kelly Grigo, she a senior
Speaker 6: Fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy program at the
Speaker 6: Stimson Center. So Kelly, great to have you with us. Obviously,
Speaker 6: we have heard in recent weeks the sharpening of US
Speaker 6: language around Israel and its policy in Gaza, suggestion that
Speaker 6: US policy may have to change if they don't see
Speaker 6: what they want from the Israelis in terms of humanitarian
Speaker 6: aid as we just heard the President talk about. But
Speaker 6: can the US really do that knowing that potentially is
Speaker 6: reel embracing for an attack from Iran or its proxies
Speaker 6: within the next forty eight hours in Israeli territory? Can
Speaker 6: the US do both here or do they really only
Speaker 6: have one option and that is to defend Israel if
Speaker 6: Iran makes this move.
Speaker 9: Yes, well, thank you for having me, and I think
Speaker 9: you just captured the essential challenge for US policy right now.
Speaker 9: Is that on the one hand, where we have increasingly
Speaker 9: frustrated with the Israelis and putting more pressure on them
Speaker 9: to move towards Subhio Ceaspire arrangement, but this as potential
Speaker 9: escalation with Iran is limiting our room for maneuver with that.
Speaker 9: As you said, you can't.
Speaker 3: Really have it both ways.
Speaker 9: If we're going to embrace defending Israel, standing by Israel
Speaker 9: if there is an attack, it will limit our ability
Speaker 9: to put pressure on Israel to also accept a ceasepire.
Speaker 2: Kelly, can we just slow down a minute here. It's
Speaker 2: great to have you back. We wanted to talk to
Speaker 2: you specifically today about all of this. We're talking about
Speaker 2: the potential for direct conflict between Iran and Israel. We
Speaker 2: have long heard that that's World War three.
Speaker 1: What do you think?
Speaker 9: You know, I have to say, I have a you know,
Speaker 9: my stomach is hurts right now thinking about this.
Speaker 3: You know, it's hard to say.
Speaker 9: I can't believe I'm going to say this, but after
Speaker 9: twenty years of the US military being actively involved in
Speaker 9: the Middle East and during my lifetime, I'm the most
Speaker 9: anxious today about what is going to happen this weekend
Speaker 9: and in the coming week in terms of this escalation,
Speaker 9: because I think, as you said, it is, if Iran
Speaker 9: does a lact for the most explatory option, which is
Speaker 9: a direct strike on Israel from Iranian soil, there is
Speaker 9: a really increased likelihood that this is going to very
Speaker 9: quickly become a regional war.
Speaker 6: Would the US get involved in a regional war like that, Kelly,
Speaker 6: would this potentially mean American troops back on the ground.
Speaker 9: Well, I think there are two questions around that that
Speaker 9: would need to be first to really know. Which is
Speaker 9: the first one would be how the Iranians conduct the strike.
Speaker 9: So they have publicly said that they hold us responsible
Speaker 9: for the strikes that Israel conducted into Bathket, even though
Speaker 9: we've said that we were not involved and did not
Speaker 9: know about them. So I think there is one question
Speaker 9: is would the Iranians actually strike US targets at the
Speaker 9: same time that they strike Israel itself. That would be
Speaker 9: one question. If that happens, certainly it would draw us in.
Speaker 9: And then I think the second one would be what
Speaker 9: the attack on Israel looks like, how extensive it is,
Speaker 9: what kind of damage it does in destruction, and if
Speaker 9: it is so large and so escalatory, the United States
Speaker 9: may feel that it has no other choice but to
Speaker 9: assist Israel in providing for its defense, and that could
Speaker 9: potentially draw us in.
Speaker 2: Kelly, the commander of US Central Command, General Eric Krilla,
Speaker 2: is in Israel right now. The US sent him there.
Speaker 2: The Pentagon dispatched him to be able to advise in
Speaker 2: person and in real time. What is he telling them.
Speaker 9: Yes, I mean, I think it's one thing that's worth
Speaker 9: noting is that he has been regularly visiting Israel during
Speaker 9: this war, so it's not entirely unusual. I would think
Speaker 9: that he's actually talking a lot about what they're planning
Speaker 9: to do if there's a direct strike on Israel, what
Speaker 9: kind of response they they're considering. I think there would
Speaker 9: have to be a lot of concern that if there
Speaker 9: is some kind of strike, even if it's very limited
Speaker 9: against Israel, that the Israelis will respond in a massive
Speaker 9: way of potentially directly strike I Ran, and at that
Speaker 9: point it's going to be really hard to get these
Speaker 9: parties to stand down.
Speaker 6: Kelly, can you just, especially given your areas of expertise,
Speaker 6: tell us how equipped Israel is not only potentially to
Speaker 6: conduct a retaliatory retaliatory strike, if you will, but also
Speaker 6: defense wise to withstand a potential attack like this, knowing
Speaker 6: that we don't actually know what form, if at all,
Speaker 6: this will happen in how strong are the is the
Speaker 6: Iron Dome or Israeli defense forces to withstand it from
Speaker 6: wherever it comes from.
Speaker 9: Yes, I mean the Israeli to have excellent air and
Speaker 9: missile defense systems. I mean, you know that should obviously
Speaker 9: be acknowledged. I think the issue is that any kind
Speaker 9: of air and missile defense system can eventually be swamped
Speaker 9: saturated by sheer numbers of incoming targets. So if the
Speaker 9: Iranians war to elect to strike Israel, if they make
Speaker 9: these bollies with missiles and drones large enough, they have
Speaker 9: the potential to leap through to be able to overwhelm
Speaker 9: these systems.
Speaker 2: Kelly, it's great to have you back, Kelly Griico as
Speaker 2: senior Fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy program at
Speaker 2: the Stimson Center.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast cats
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emo CarPlay and
Speaker 1: then roun Oo with the Bloomberg Business Listen on demand
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 6: We have learned many times, Joe, if at first you
Speaker 6: don't succeed, perhaps you try, try, try, try again. Whether
Speaker 6: it's the FISA vote that didn't succeed until the fourth time,
Speaker 6: or whether it's attempting to forgive student loans, you tried
Speaker 6: to do it in a broad based fashion. If you're
Speaker 6: President Biden, the Supreme Court strikes it down, and instead
Speaker 6: you try again in smaller increments, and once again we're
Speaker 6: getting more increments today another seven point four billion dollar
Speaker 6: in billion dollars in federal student debt going to be relieved.
Speaker 2: I like the way you did that. I feel like
Speaker 2: we all have second chances. Maybe that's the case for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. He's doing the same thing for the border,
Speaker 2: by the way, that might be his third swing at
Speaker 2: that one. Try try again with our panel. Rick Davis
Speaker 2: is with us, of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor, longtime Republican strategists,
Speaker 2: joined by Democratic strategist Pat Dennis. He's the president of
Speaker 2: American Bridge twenty first Century.
Speaker 1: Pat.
Speaker 2: This matter of forgiving student debt has been a sticky
Speaker 2: one for Joe Biden, and a lot of young people
Speaker 2: feel like he did simply did not make good on
Speaker 2: a promise, regardless of his try try again and the
Speaker 2: fact that the court, Supreme Court is the one that
Speaker 2: stopped it. How important will this be as a tool
Speaker 2: for him in the campaign.
Speaker 10: It's important, I mean, it's important that voters see you
Speaker 10: not giving up on delivering on your campaign promises, delivering
Speaker 10: for voters, you know, You're gonna see a ton of
Speaker 10: complaining from Republicans who are gonna sue or.
Speaker 3: Try to stop this.
Speaker 10: They're gonna try to, you know, prevent this debt from
Speaker 10: being forgiven life changing amounts of debt in some cases.
Speaker 10: And you know, if you show me a powerful Republican
Speaker 10: who opposes this measure, I'll show you somebody who got
Speaker 10: a PPP loan forgiven, either them themselves or you know,
Speaker 10: their biggest owners. So it seems to me like we're
Speaker 10: not so much arguing about like whether debt should be forgiven,
Speaker 10: It should be about who's.
Speaker 6: Well rick the words patch to use there, the idea
Speaker 6: that you need to be seen not giving up on something,
Speaker 6: continuing to try. Is that what this is really about,
Speaker 6: not so much the outcome as the effort. If you're
Speaker 6: a presidential candidate, or do you need outcomes for when
Speaker 6: voters go to the polls in November and think, Okay,
Speaker 6: what has he actually done for me?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 11: I think it's a good question. I think politically, you
Speaker 11: want outcomes. You want that money hitting the street before
Speaker 11: election day. None of these funds will actually make their
Speaker 11: way into I say funds reliefs will make its way
Speaker 11: into the balance sheet of most of these folks before
Speaker 11: election day, So it's you have to consider it mostly rhetoric.
Speaker 11: We know that the courts, not Republicans, have had a
Speaker 11: lot of problems with Mission creep by this administration around
Speaker 11: these kinds of debt relief efforts on the part of
Speaker 11: the administration. So that's going to play out in the
Speaker 11: courts regardless of what the politics of the situation is.
Speaker 11: And look, I mean, it's kind of a naked grab
Speaker 11: for youth votes, you know. And it's not the eighteen
Speaker 11: to twenty five year olds. They they're the ones who
Speaker 11: are generating the debt right now. It's mostly the thirty
Speaker 11: to fifty five year olds who still have been carrying
Speaker 11: around a lot of this debt for a long time.
Speaker 11: And I don't think anybody disagrees that student debt burdens
Speaker 11: are not good for the economy, but it's an incredibly
Speaker 11: unfair approach, which is those people who carried the most debt,
Speaker 11: not the ones who paid off their loans, not the
Speaker 11: ones who couldn't get a loan and didn't go to
Speaker 11: college and went to maybe community college or didn't go
Speaker 11: to you know, you know, anything other than a high
Speaker 11: school education. What's in it for them? They're taxpayers too,
Speaker 11: they're funding this, And so I think you know, Pats right,
Speaker 11: it's the issue isn't whether you're doing it, it's who's
Speaker 11: it go to. And right now it's going to a
Speaker 11: group of people who you know, it's just not in
Speaker 11: the doesn't pass the fairness quotion by American standards.
Speaker 2: Well, it's interesting, Pat, we talk about other people paying
Speaker 2: for stuff here because there's a story today by Axios
Speaker 2: that Joe Biden actually used campaign money was DNS see
Speaker 2: cash one and a half million dollars to pay for
Speaker 2: lawyers to pay for legal bills and the Special Counsel's
Speaker 2: probe into his handling of classified documents, remembering he spent
Speaker 2: a lot of time criticizing Donald Trump for using campaign
Speaker 2: money to pay for his attorney's fees. And I know
Speaker 2: we're talking about one and a half million versus in
Speaker 2: excess of fifty million dollars, but it's these little things.
Speaker 2: It's partly the reason why people aren't talking about Donald
Speaker 2: Trump's classified documents case because Joe Biden got one of
Speaker 2: his own, realizing there may not be a moral equivalency here.
Speaker 2: How tough is this headline when you see something like
Speaker 2: this in leaving Joe Biden incapable or maybe not credible
Speaker 2: in some of his attacks against Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's classic what about ism?
Speaker 10: Right, You do one one thousandth of something that totally
Speaker 10: makes sense but kind of rhymes in some way with
Speaker 10: something egregious that Trump did, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 10: you know, people are jumping down your throat about it.
Speaker 10: This is the kind of thing where there's absolutely no
Speaker 10: equivalents between what the DNC did. Hear some like, you know,
Speaker 10: routine legal bills. You know, I run a super pack.
Speaker 10: I wish I could get legal bills down to a
Speaker 10: million and a half sometimes.
Speaker 3: But you know, and what Trump.
Speaker 10: Has done, which is frequently deceive his donors, you know,
Speaker 10: folks who thought they were giving to win elections or
Speaker 10: folks who thought they were you know, giving based on
Speaker 10: big live rhetoric, and he just took that money and
Speaker 10: put it in his own pocket for his own personal
Speaker 10: legal bills.
Speaker 3: There's no equivalence here.
Speaker 6: Well, pat it all speaks to this idea that there
Speaker 6: is legal trouble surrounding the former president as he is
Speaker 6: campaigning against Biden in the general election, and really it's
Speaker 6: going to come to the forefront of attention on Monday
Speaker 6: when his trial, the first ever criminal trial of a
Speaker 6: former president, begins in New York. It could last six
Speaker 6: to eight weeks, but realistically we're talking before the convention here.
Speaker 6: This could be wrapped up and he could There is
Speaker 6: a chance he ends up a convicted felon. What would
Speaker 6: change for the Biden campaign at that point if he's
Speaker 6: or if he's not.
Speaker 10: Yeah, and it's important people don't forget, like Michael Cohen
Speaker 10: went to jail over this exact thing, not something similar,
Speaker 10: this exact issue.
Speaker 3: It's really serious for him.
Speaker 10: And look, Republicans will do everything they can to cover
Speaker 10: up for him, to act like this is no big deal,
Speaker 10: to act like this is some kind of parison which hunt.
Speaker 3: But this is the legal system.
Speaker 10: This is a legal system that sent Michael Cohen to
Speaker 10: jail when he was Trump's enemy at the time.
Speaker 3: And it's you know, it's a big deal.
Speaker 10: I'm not going to talk about the who's up who's
Speaker 10: down of a major candidate being found guilty of felonies.
Speaker 10: I think we can all agree that that's not good.
Speaker 10: But ultimately, like Republicans are going to have to decide
Speaker 10: exactly how far down this doom loop they're going to
Speaker 10: follow him.
Speaker 2: Well, that's right, Rick, I'd love to hear you weigh
Speaker 2: in on this. Joe Biden having the DNC pay for
Speaker 2: his attorneys, does that not sound like Donald Trump? You
Speaker 2: can talk about equivalency, but perceptions reality.
Speaker 11: Well, I mean, this is all self inflicted pain. I mean,
Speaker 11: the campaign's finance chairman goes out and says, we don't
Speaker 11: spend money on legal bills in the DNC, and their
Speaker 11: filings shows clearly that they spent money over a million
Speaker 11: bucks for Bob Bauer, who was representing the president in
Speaker 11: his you know, documents case. You know, so that's exactly
Speaker 11: what they did. And if they just kept their mouth
Speaker 11: shut and didn't make a big deal of it, it wouldn't
Speaker 11: be such a big deal. But don't you know, don't
Speaker 11: cast stones into that glasshouse if yours is still pretty
Speaker 11: thin itself. Look, I mean, I think the issue of
Speaker 11: those documents cases, with the with the sensitive and confidential
Speaker 11: information that Trump had and Biden had were handled differently
Speaker 11: by each individual, and I think, you know, the President
Speaker 11: handled his more responsibly. But then don't go lying about
Speaker 11: you know, whether or not you spent DNC money on it,
Speaker 11: because you did, and and and just come clean. That's
Speaker 11: what American voters want. They want someone who they don't
Speaker 11: really care whether you use the money at the DNC
Speaker 11: for this, but they care about it is you weren't
Speaker 11: really straight with him about it. And I think that
Speaker 11: could be a breakaway moment for this campaign, you know, Biden,
Speaker 11: you know, because there's no chance that Donald Trump's ever
Speaker 11: going to be straight with anything or apologize, and Biden
Speaker 11: does have the opportunity to be running a campaign that
Speaker 11: actually is more transparent and honest with the press and
Speaker 11: with the voters.
Speaker 6: So Rick, essentially, what you're saying is while sometimes the
Speaker 6: former president can say things that are outright untruthful and
Speaker 6: either people believe him or decide that it's just Trump
Speaker 6: being Trump, that Biden is not held to that same standard,
Speaker 6: or rather Trump is not being held to the same
Speaker 6: standard Biden is.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I just don't think there's an expectation that you're
Speaker 11: ever going to get a truthful statement out of Trump,
Speaker 11: So he kind of gets a pass right go lie
Speaker 11: all day long and the press doesn't even report it,
Speaker 11: you know, but Biden holds himself out as being the
Speaker 11: truth teller, right, and that's a very good place to
Speaker 11: be in this election. I think you want to own
Speaker 11: that ground. You want to be the fact based campaign,
Speaker 11: So you should kind to be a little more careful
Speaker 11: with how you then represent yourself when things like this happen.
Speaker 11: It would have been absolutely fine for the Biden campaign
Speaker 11: to say, yeah, we probably should have told the press
Speaker 11: that you know, we were using you know, over a
Speaker 11: million bucks to pay for our bills. I don't think
Speaker 11: anybody would have cared at that stage, and it would
Speaker 11: have drawn a contrast to, you know, the kind of
Speaker 11: transparency that the Trump campaign's given their donors versus those
Speaker 11: that are being given by the DNC. I guarantee you
Speaker 11: the DNC donors were happy to do that. It wasn't
Speaker 11: an egregious amount, but you know, they never gave them
Speaker 11: a chance because they really didn't, you know, come.
Speaker 6: Straight with them, all right. Rick Davis Republican strategist, and
Speaker 6: Pat Dennis are Democratic strategist. Joining us today from American Bridge.
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 Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can
Speaker 1: also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
Speaker 1: York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 6: I will be heading to New York on Monday for
Speaker 6: the beginning of a historic proceeding the first criminal trial
Speaker 6: if a former US president Joe Donald Trump, unless we
Speaker 6: see a delay he's asking for, Yeah, right, We'll go
Speaker 6: on trial in New York in the hush money case
Speaker 6: involving Stormy Daniels.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: We feel like we've done this already. Obviously, people have
Speaker 2: gone through this case. They've heard about the hush money payments.
Speaker 2: They remember Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Lanny Davis on TV
Speaker 2: every night. But this is the actual trial. And when
Speaker 2: you're up there on Monday, they're going to start assembling
Speaker 2: a jury, and based on this questionnaire, Kaylee, jury's selection
Speaker 2: in itself could be wild.
Speaker 6: Yeah, they need to find a dozen jurors and they
Speaker 6: are going to be essentially judging someone who yes, is
Speaker 6: their peer, but also as a former president of the
Speaker 6: United States, current presidential candidate, someone with incredible name recognition.
Speaker 6: So they're going to be asked things like do they
Speaker 6: have political, moral intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions that
Speaker 6: may slant their approach to this case. It's going to
Speaker 6: be tough work to actually I do these dozen individuals,
Speaker 6: and you need the alternates as well. And that is
Speaker 6: where we begin with Nick Ackerman, former Watergate prosecutor who
Speaker 6: is joining us now. Nick, is always great to have
Speaker 6: you on the show. We will get to jury selection
Speaker 6: in a moment, But first, do you see any possible
Speaker 6: chance that this is delayed and this doesn't in fact
Speaker 6: start on Monday the fifteenth.
Speaker 12: Boy, I don't see it. I know Trump is probably
Speaker 12: trying every trick in the book, but I just don't
Speaker 12: see there being a delay. He tried three times this
Speaker 12: week and was denied by the appeals court all three.
Speaker 2: Times that said will start Monday. And I was just
Speaker 2: referencing the questionnaire for jurors, Nick, what is this going
Speaker 2: to be like? They're going to be asking people if
Speaker 2: they have truth, social accounts, among other things. Everybody in
Speaker 2: New York knows about this story. Is it possible to
Speaker 2: find an assemble a fair jury?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 12: Definitely. You will be surprised how many people in New
Speaker 12: York have not paid attention to this story or paid
Speaker 12: attention to the fact that this case it never ceases
Speaker 12: to amaze me. I've had other jury selections and high
Speaker 12: profile cases where I thought for sure it would be difficult,
Speaker 12: but it never is. And it wasn't difficult to find
Speaker 12: two juries in the eg and Carrol case, and that
Speaker 12: didn't take too wrong. The real key here is whether
Speaker 12: or not the individuals who are going to be on
Speaker 12: that jury can be fair and impartial, even if they
Speaker 12: know who the defendant is and they have some rough
Speaker 12: idea about the case.
Speaker 6: Well, so let's get into the details of the case then, Nick,
Speaker 6: because obviously what we're talking about here is thirty four
Speaker 6: counts of falsifying business records, and New York typically this
Speaker 6: would be a misdemeanor. The reason why this is a
Speaker 6: felony in this case is because Alvin Bragg, the district attorney,
Speaker 6: is arguing that this was used in violation of election
Speaker 6: law because this was done during the twenty sixteen election allegedly.
Speaker 6: How hard is this case going to be to prosecute.
Speaker 12: Sure, it's not going to be election law. It's not
Speaker 12: just federal, it's not just it's also state election law,
Speaker 12: and it's also tax violations. So what Alvin Bragg has
Speaker 12: to prove is that there was an intent to commit
Speaker 12: those crimes. And it's not that unusual. I mean, this
Speaker 12: is a pretty run of the mill charge that's made
Speaker 12: on the state level, and the fact that it's made
Speaker 12: into a felony is not that unusual either.
Speaker 6: So you think this case is easier for the prosecution
Speaker 6: than the defense.
Speaker 1: Well much easier.
Speaker 12: I mean, they've got two cooperating witnesses. It's not just
Speaker 12: Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, it's also David Pecker, who
Speaker 12: was the owner of the National Inquirer, who together met
Speaker 12: with Donald Trump to come up with this catching kill
Speaker 12: scheme whereby they would try and look for stories that
Speaker 12: were derogatory of Donald Trump and make payoffs like they
Speaker 12: did with Stormy Daniels and Kieren McDougall, to keep those
Speaker 12: stories from ever seeing the light of day before the
Speaker 12: presidential election in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: I know this trial is supposed to last six weeks.
Speaker 2: That's the estimation.
Speaker 1: Make.
Speaker 2: If jury selection becomes painful, maybe it won't in your view,
Speaker 2: as they talk about everything from QAnon to Antifa. But
Speaker 2: if that became a more protracted process, does the trial
Speaker 2: creep into two months. What's your thought now on duration.
Speaker 12: Well, it's very hard to tell. I really don't think
Speaker 12: jury selection is going to be that long. You talk
Speaker 12: about Antifa and QAnon. The fact of the matter is
Speaker 12: jurors are going to have to express certain knowledge about
Speaker 12: these areas. It all goes to whether they can be
Speaker 12: fair and impartial. Both the defense and the government have
Speaker 12: the opportunity to raise with the judge disqualifications of jurors
Speaker 12: for cause. But on top of that, they each have
Speaker 12: what are known as peremptory challenges, means that they can
Speaker 12: essentially dismiss a certain number of jurors. Each side has
Speaker 12: those because they just don't feel comfortable with them for
Speaker 12: whatever reason, as long as it's not based on a
Speaker 12: racial or ethnic reason.
Speaker 6: Nick, Something else I want to bring up is the
Speaker 6: gag order that the judge has put into place for
Speaker 6: this trial. It has actually been expanded to include the
Speaker 6: judge himself and his family, but also other officials of
Speaker 6: the court and other potential likely witnesses like Stormy Daniels
Speaker 6: or Michael Cohen, who we've talked about and on True
Speaker 6: Social on Wednesday, Trump said that those two are two
Speaker 6: sleeves bags who have with their lives and misrepresentations cost
Speaker 6: our country dearly. Where is the line of what violates
Speaker 6: this gag order?
Speaker 12: No doubt, in my mind, that violates the gag order.
Speaker 12: This is a case that absolutely needs a gag order.
Speaker 12: It's like an organized crime case to the extent that
Speaker 12: people's lives witnesses in particular family of the court, are
Speaker 12: really put in jeopardy. It's not so much by Donald
Speaker 12: Trump himself, but what he says to some of his
Speaker 12: supporters who are clearly a bit unhinged. We saw that
Speaker 12: happen in North Carolina where an individual showed up with
Speaker 12: a loaded gun at an FBI office. Ultimately he was
Speaker 12: killed in the process. We saw this happen in Utah.
Speaker 12: There is a real present danger here that what Trump
Speaker 12: says is going to have a real life impact on
Speaker 12: the safety of witnesses, jurors, and court personnel. So I
Speaker 12: think the judge is going to handle this somehow. We'll see.
Speaker 3: I think the real.
Speaker 12: Problem is that most all of these judges are afraid
Speaker 12: to put Trump in jail, which they would do with
Speaker 12: any other defendant who violated this kind of a gag order.
Speaker 12: And they're afraid to do that until such time as
Speaker 12: a jury of twelve people a convictim of a crime. Now,
Speaker 12: he's got other possibilities here in terms of how he
Speaker 12: could punish him, either through fines or through other parts
Speaker 12: of the trial, which you know, he could wind up
Speaker 12: giving a charge on this issue that would not be
Speaker 12: too helpful to Donald Trump. What's so unusual here is,
Speaker 12: in all my years of experience, I've never seen a
Speaker 12: defendant go this far attacking people involved in the case,
Speaker 12: particularly the judge. I mean, that's the last person you'd
Speaker 12: ever want to attack, because at the end of the day,
Speaker 12: that judge is going to have total discretion as to
Speaker 12: whether the defendant goes to jail, gets probation, whatever that
Speaker 12: sentence is. You don't want If it's my client, I
Speaker 12: would not want him doing anything that in any way
Speaker 12: undermine the judge's ability to look at him in a
Speaker 12: complete void of any kind of threats like Donald Trump
Speaker 12: is making.
Speaker 2: Nick Ackerman is always great to have you back. We'll
Speaker 2: be thinking about this talk when the trial starts on Monday.
Speaker 2: Of course, former assistant US Attorney and former special Watergate
Speaker 2: prosecutor with US. Thanks for listening to the Balance of
Speaker 2: Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already,
Speaker 2: at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and
Speaker 2: you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC
Speaker 2: at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com