Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 2: us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay.
Speaker 3: And then Rouno with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 2: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 2: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 4: And if anyone asks, from here on out, I am
Speaker 4: acting in my official duties as a Bloomberg employee and
Speaker 4: as host of this program. We're invoking broadcast immunity today
Speaker 4: as we turned to Trump versus the United States. Everybody
Speaker 4: got up early today in Washington, at least those of
Speaker 4: us who are left pretty quiet in town. Senate gone,
Speaker 4: the House is out. President making his way back from
Speaker 4: Camp David. No traffic, but everyone dialed in on the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court, which rule Donald Trump has in fact immunity
Speaker 4: from criminal charges for his efforts to reverse the twenty
Speaker 4: twenty election results. Six to three ideological lines. Not a shock,
Speaker 4: but also not simple. They're basically kicking this back down
Speaker 4: to the Appeals Court to determine what counts as an
Speaker 4: official duty and official action versus a private one when
Speaker 4: it comes to in this case, Donald Trump or any president.
Speaker 5: Moving forward here.
Speaker 4: We're going to get into the contours of this ruling,
Speaker 4: a ruling for the ages we were told back in
Speaker 4: April by the Chief Justice. But in fact the court
Speaker 4: once again didn't really rule. They just kicked it back
Speaker 4: down in this case to the appeals court, and Jack
Speaker 4: Smith is left holding the bag in what looks like
Speaker 4: a January sixth trial that simply cannot begin before the election.
Speaker 5: Get into it on.
Speaker 4: This day that Donald Trump calls it a big win
Speaker 4: for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American,
Speaker 4: he writes in all caps exclamation point on truth. Social
Speaker 4: Eric Larson's been waiting for this ruling, just like we
Speaker 4: have reporting for Bloomberg, our legal reporter who spent many
Speaker 4: days in a criminal courthouse in Lower Manhattan following Donald
Speaker 4: Trump through his legal saga. Now to this ruling by
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court. Eric, it's great to see you. Donald
Speaker 4: Trump is spending this as good news. Can we qualify
Speaker 4: it as such?
Speaker 6: I suppose it is, and that you mentioned this trial
Speaker 6: is now very unlikely to happen before the election. And
Speaker 6: we know that Trump has said that if he wins
Speaker 6: the election, he would use the power of the presidency
Speaker 6: to direct the Justice Department to throw out this case,
Speaker 6: but generally, more generally speaking, Trump did want this entire
Speaker 6: case thrown out. He argued that everything he did around
Speaker 6: January sixth and the election was protected by immunity, and
Speaker 6: the court did not go that far. These charges remain.
Speaker 6: At least one of the charges or some of the
Speaker 6: allegations now probably cannot be used in court. The Supreme
Speaker 6: Court said that some of Trump's communications with the Attorney
Speaker 6: General at the time around the election, trying to get
Speaker 6: the Justice Department to back his election fraud claims, which
Speaker 6: they did not do, some of that is of an
Speaker 6: official acts and probably cannot be used in the case
Speaker 6: now going forward. But a lot of the other conduct
Speaker 6: alleged in the indictment is going to potentially be private conduct,
Speaker 6: in which means that those charges could go to trial.
Speaker 6: And so it's not a total win for Trump here,
Speaker 6: but this case survives and goes forward.
Speaker 4: It does indeed, and I guess the Appeals Court will
Speaker 4: now have to create some sort of a test or
Speaker 4: a way to delineate what counts as official and what
Speaker 4: does not. Is that the next phase.
Speaker 6: Yes, yeah, eventually, Judge Chuckkin in Washington is going to
Speaker 6: restart this long stalled case will probably have to have
Speaker 6: something like a mini trial to have Jackson, this special
Speaker 6: council come in and argue, give fresh evidence, maybe even
Speaker 6: have testimony from experts to explain why these allegations were
Speaker 6: private conduct by a losing presidential candidate and not by
Speaker 6: a president. So they're going to have to explain to
Speaker 6: the judge in more detail why some of these actions
Speaker 6: just simply were not protected by immunity. And depending on
Speaker 6: how she rules eventually on that, it's likely that this
Speaker 6: case could find its way back to the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: and they'll have to decide whether she was correct and
Speaker 6: deciding what was official versus private, And if any of
Speaker 6: the charges survive that then eventually we'll have a trial.
Speaker 4: Boy, Okay, but again, if Donald Trump is reelected, he
Speaker 4: could essentially defund this entire exercise.
Speaker 5: Is that the way he would bring it to an end,
Speaker 5: I believe.
Speaker 6: So if he wins the election, It's not as if
Speaker 6: he can just on day one order the Justice Department
Speaker 6: to do this. He's going to have to find you know,
Speaker 6: he's going to have to get an attorney general in place. No,
Speaker 6: there are steps he's going to have to go through.
Speaker 6: To have the prosecution thrown out, but certainly that is
Speaker 6: something that he will try to do, so of course
Speaker 6: everything hinges for him on whether he wins the election
Speaker 6: or not.
Speaker 5: Eric, it's great to.
Speaker 4: Have you a big day of Eric Larson Bloomberg Legal reporter,
Speaker 4: appreciate the insights and a ruling that is just not
Speaker 4: even two hours old here coming from the Supreme Court
Speaker 4: on what is now officially the last day of the term.
Speaker 4: This was the parting shot, as the Chief Justice suggested,
Speaker 4: adding the voice now of Robert mcwerder been looking forward
Speaker 4: to this criminal and constitutional law attorney. We've spent many
Speaker 4: hours talking about Donald Trump's criminal charges of Lower Manhattan.
Speaker 4: This is a whole different can of worms here as
Speaker 4: we turn to the Supreme Court, and Robert has an
Speaker 4: expertise in constitutional law.
Speaker 5: It's great to have you back here. Robert.
Speaker 4: I want to point you to the Seal Team six
Speaker 4: argument because I'm trying to understand what we really just
Speaker 4: learned here, and I know that this is going to
Speaker 4: go down back down to the appeals court.
Speaker 5: But you remember Trump's attorney.
Speaker 4: John Sower, was asked in the throes of arguments here
Speaker 4: in April, if, in fact, the presidents had immunity, couldn't
Speaker 4: they then dispatch Seal Team six to kill a political opponent?
Speaker 5: He said a qualified yes to that.
Speaker 4: So could Joe Biden, now that we've got the ruling here,
Speaker 4: direct Seal Team six to start killing his opponents?
Speaker 7: Well, yeah, and let's let me show you. I could
Speaker 7: create it as part of an official act. Let's say
Speaker 7: that in all the documents that they found that Trump
Speaker 7: had squirreled away down at mar Lago, and he finds
Speaker 7: some indication that he was going to give those to
Speaker 7: Vladimir Putin so he could open a hotel in Moscow.
Speaker 7: Joe Biden could declare, as part of his official duties
Speaker 7: that Donald threat is Donald Trump is a threat, and
Speaker 7: he could eliminate that threat, and as part of his
Speaker 7: official duties, he could no longer be prosecuted. And according
Speaker 7: to the Supreme Court's argument, if he was ever prosecuted
Speaker 7: later for acts that were determined not to be official duties,
Speaker 7: they can't even refer to acts that he did as
Speaker 7: part of his official duties. I'll give you another example.
Speaker 7: The Supreme Court opinion said that the conversations Donald Trump
Speaker 7: had with the Department of Justice where he talked about
Speaker 7: overturning the election, that, according to the Supreme Court, is
Speaker 7: part of official duties. Even though Donald Trump was talking
Speaker 7: about overturning a fair and free election and instigating an insurrection,
Speaker 7: and so not only can he not be prosecuted for
Speaker 7: anything that's quote an official duty, things that arguably happened
Speaker 7: within the context of being president talking to an attorney general,
Speaker 7: even though it's talking about an insurrection and implementing an
Speaker 7: insurrection or a coup could not even come in as
Speaker 7: evidence in a later case.
Speaker 5: It's incredible.
Speaker 4: So I guess I'm left asking what doesn't count as
Speaker 4: an official acts if you're the president and you're thinking
Speaker 4: it and talking about it, where do we draw the line?
Speaker 7: Well, okay, stuff that he does outside of the scope
Speaker 7: of being president. So for instance, the Stormy Daniel's case,
Speaker 7: if it would have been federal, would not count stuff
Speaker 7: he does afterwards. Presumably, and it's a big presumably that
Speaker 7: let's say Donald Trump, while he was president made a
Speaker 7: deal to put up a hotel someplace, and he fraudulently
Speaker 7: built a bunch of investors or something like that. The
Speaker 7: Court says that the presumption is that it's part of
Speaker 7: his official duties. But a prosecutor could then fight against
Speaker 7: that presumption and bring a case. But it's presumably part
Speaker 7: of official duties. But supposedly he could do that. If
Speaker 7: Donald Trump decided to shoot somebody down Fifth Avenue, like
Speaker 7: he's bragged that he could do. If it's if it's
Speaker 7: during the time he's president, it probably could be prosecuted.
Speaker 7: But the prosecutor has to presume beat the presumption that
Speaker 7: it's not part of the official duties. The prosecutor now
Speaker 7: has the burden of proof to show it's not part
Speaker 7: of the official duties, rather than the other way around.
Speaker 4: To think that we're back to shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.
Speaker 4: This can't be real, all right, I've got a lot
Speaker 4: of questions for you, Robert. I'm supposed to tell everybody
Speaker 4: that this indefinitely delays I already did. This indefinitely delays
Speaker 4: Jacksmith's trial because smart people like you have suggested as
Speaker 4: much along the way. But why can't the judge Why
Speaker 4: not just start the trial right now and answer some
Speaker 4: of these questions about official acts during the trial. The
Speaker 4: Supreme Court doesn't say anything that would barrow that from happening.
Speaker 7: Does it well, the Supreme Court actually did. What they
Speaker 7: did is they said it has to be remanded to
Speaker 7: the lower court for proceedings to determine whether this was
Speaker 7: or was not an official act, which means they have
Speaker 7: to have a pre trial evidentiary hearing which could take
Speaker 7: weeks if not more, to determine and make a legal
Speaker 7: ruling whether this whatever Donald Trump was part of an
Speaker 7: official act. And of course every time the judge makes
Speaker 7: a ruling against Donald Trump, that ruling can now be
Speaker 7: appealed again to the higher courts, which takes time. So
Speaker 7: actually the Supreme Court is built in, baked in a
Speaker 7: complete delay or whatever happens, because you just can't go
Speaker 7: to the jury now and say this should be a
Speaker 7: jury question. The Supreme Court pretty clearly said this is
Speaker 7: a legal question for judges to determine.
Speaker 4: So that is why the ruling today is so important Politically.
Speaker 4: We're talking to a legal mind right now. And by
Speaker 4: the way, Robert's a pretty good political analyst from the
Speaker 4: conversations we've had. But that is one of the most
Speaker 4: important things that you're going to hear today. I wonder
Speaker 4: your thoughts on the dissent from Justice Soda mayor it
Speaker 4: makes a mockery of the principal foundation to our constitution
Speaker 4: and system of government, that no man is above the law.
Speaker 7: She right, yeah, she is right. You know, the country
Speaker 7: began with the Declaration Independence. I may have made this
Speaker 7: point before, and the declaration says we hold these choose
Speaker 7: to be self evident, that all men are created equal.
Speaker 7: After that, it goes through what's basically an indictment of
Speaker 7: the executive King George the third and one of those
Speaker 7: basis for indictments. For reason why King George should not
Speaker 7: be our sovereign anymore our executive leader is because quote
Speaker 7: he has incited domestic insurrection among us end quote. When
Speaker 7: we wrote the constitution as a country, when this country,
Speaker 7: he did it with the founding fathers, they did not
Speaker 7: want executives to have this kind of power. The president
Speaker 7: actually has very few powers under the Constitution. Most powers
Speaker 7: of president exercises are by Acts of Congress which he
Speaker 7: is obligated to execute as part of the executive branch.
Speaker 7: So I think Justice Sodo Mayor is absolutely correct, as
Speaker 7: are the other three dissenters, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Speaker 7: in her concurrence also said on that point about not
Speaker 7: letting juris hear what the president did during his official
Speaker 7: acts as it could reflect on his later criminal conduct.
Speaker 7: She was right as well in that part. She joined
Speaker 7: the dissenters, so they are correct on this in terms
Speaker 7: of the country that our framers wanted to correct. Remember,
Speaker 7: we didn't want King George the third, and what this
Speaker 7: immunity does is exactly what the king had, and that's
Speaker 7: why we didn't create our country that way.
Speaker 4: Yet here we are, Robert and I one of your thoughts. Then,
Speaker 4: on the timeline, Judge chuck In previously said she would
Speaker 4: allow three months to prepare for a trial that could
Speaker 4: last two to three months in duration. There's no chance
Speaker 4: this is going to happen, or are we going to
Speaker 4: find ourselves with potentially a president elect on trial.
Speaker 7: We could profine ourselves with a president elect on trial,
Speaker 7: but realize the moment he becomes president, he can shut
Speaker 7: the whole thing down. So presumably if they could get
Speaker 7: in well, you know, before January of twenty twenty five,
Speaker 7: they could probably do it. But I don't even see
Speaker 7: how that happens. Look, there's an old saying among lawyers
Speaker 7: that you know, any lawyer can win on good facts,
Speaker 7: but it takes a real lawyer to win on procedure.
Speaker 7: Donald Trump's winning on procedure, and so are his lawyers.
Speaker 7: And they have a willing and able Supreme Court that's
Speaker 7: right in their pocket to do it. And that's what's happened.
Speaker 5: That's amazing. So kudos Donald Trump's legal team.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I suppose so. Yeah, they had a good environment though.
Speaker 7: I mean, look, the DC Court of Appeals, three rather
Speaker 7: conservative judges on the DC Court of Appeals, disposed of
Speaker 7: this case quickly, and the Supreme Court could have.
Speaker 2: Let that sit.
Speaker 7: It could have waited for another case where somebody brings
Speaker 7: some absurd kind of argument against a president or a
Speaker 7: former president. For instance, somebody, some county attorney someplace could say, oh,
Speaker 7: Joe Biden is been criminal in his actions of not
Speaker 7: defending the United States border. That could have been a
Speaker 7: case that could have gone up to define some of
Speaker 7: the boundaries of presidential immunity. This case is what almost
Speaker 7: amounts to what we call an advisory opinion, which Supreme
Speaker 7: Court is not supposed to do. The Supreme Court doesn't
Speaker 7: give you opinions about what the law should be. It
Speaker 7: decides the cases and controversies that come before it. They
Speaker 7: actually reached down and created the case to bring up
Speaker 7: on this and to give this expansive power, which is
Speaker 7: nowhere in the constitution. You will not find one word
Speaker 7: in the United States Constitution about presidentially that's correct.
Speaker 4: Immunity nowhere to be found. Take it from Robert macwurder.
Speaker 4: I'm sure glad you could talk to us today. Robert,
Speaker 4: many thanks for being with us criminal and constitutional law attorney,
Speaker 4: keeping us honest.
Speaker 2: Here at Bloomberg, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of
Speaker 2: Power podcast kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on
Speaker 2: Applecarplay and then.
Speaker 3: Roun Oo with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 8: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 8: flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven.
Speaker 9: Thirty, the last day of a term that extended into July,
Speaker 9: and at the very last moment, the last opinion comes down,
Speaker 9: and it's a big one. The High Court ruling six
Speaker 9: to three that Donald Trump does have some immunity from
Speaker 9: prosecution for official acts he took during his presidency. But
Speaker 9: Chief Justice John Roberts Joe, writing in his majority opinion,
Speaker 9: the president is not above the law. I guess it's
Speaker 9: just a question of to what.
Speaker 5: Extent, Yeah, where's the line, what's official?
Speaker 4: And I guess we're going to go through this exercise now, Kaylee,
Speaker 4: to truly delineate what counts, and that's going to take
Speaker 4: a while, which is why it's likely now that Jacksmith's
Speaker 4: trial will not be able to take place before the election,
Speaker 4: and if Donald Trump wins the election, it probably will
Speaker 4: never take place at all. It's where we start our
Speaker 4: conversation with Donald Ayir, a very important voice in this
Speaker 4: story you've heard for here on Bloomberg TV and radio,
Speaker 4: the former Deputy US Attorney General and former Principal Deputy
Speaker 4: Solicitor General of the United States. Donald, Welcome back to
Speaker 4: the table. It's really great to see you, and thank
Speaker 4: you for being here on this day of days. I
Speaker 4: think we have to start by acknowledging the fact that
Speaker 4: once again this court didn't really rule in its ruling.
Speaker 4: It simply remanded this back down to a lower court.
Speaker 5: What the heck took so long?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know. And one can speculate about motives and.
Speaker 5: Why, and they're already speculating.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot one can say, but I
Speaker 1: think probably for now, having just a couple hours ago
Speaker 1: gotten this decision, probably worth talking about what the decision
Speaker 1: is and says. And I guess what I would I
Speaker 1: would say is that it's got a plausible framework and
Speaker 1: a very pro immunity spin to it. Court basically starts out,
Speaker 1: you know, saying that conduct within the outer perimeter of
Speaker 1: duties is presumptive subject to immunity, and that conduct that's
Speaker 1: not within the outer perimitive duties is not. And then
Speaker 1: you get into the question of what is and what
Speaker 1: is not within the outer perimeter of the duties. And
Speaker 1: the court ends up taking a very broad view of
Speaker 1: what is within the outer perimeter of the duties, and
Speaker 1: they do it in part by looking at specific of
Speaker 1: allegations within the Trump indictment and in the January sixth case.
Speaker 1: And we can go through that if you want to.
Speaker 1: In terms of what they said and what they ended
Speaker 1: up saying was geez a lot of Effectively, there's possibilities
Speaker 1: that a lot of the things alleged could be subject
Speaker 1: to immunity well.
Speaker 9: And so that gets down the delineation between official acts
Speaker 9: and unofficial acts and what exactly could be prosecuted. But
Speaker 9: what's noteworthy is. The Court today also ruled that even
Speaker 9: evidence regarding official acts cannot be incorporated into a trial whenever,
Speaker 9: if ever that takes place. How consequential is that part
Speaker 9: of the ruling that not only the prosecution is in question,
Speaker 9: but what you can enter into your arguments.
Speaker 1: Well, if you're a pros it's quite consequential, and it's
Speaker 1: I think highly questionable because as just as Soda my
Speaker 1: Ort said and her descent, and as Amy Cony Barrett
Speaker 1: said in her concurrence, this is not what the law is,
Speaker 1: that's not what it's been. I think more consequential is
Speaker 1: the way the Court spun the questions about what is
Speaker 1: two things, what is within the outer perimeter? And secondly,
Speaker 1: if it is within the outer perimeter and therefore presumptively
Speaker 1: subject to immunity, how do you decide whether there is
Speaker 1: immunity or not? And in both of those ways, the
Speaker 1: Court has sort of set this thing in an angle
Speaker 1: that makes you think. And then the other thing is
Speaker 1: they're going to get the last word. They're going to
Speaker 1: get the last word because this is going to be
Speaker 1: bounced back to the distrect coord Distrecturt's going to have hearings,
Speaker 1: it's going to answer these questions that the Court has
Speaker 1: said have to be answered, then it's going to go
Speaker 1: back up on appeal, and I must just answer it now.
Speaker 9: Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just make those delineations itself,
Speaker 9: knowing it'll ultimately come back to them anyway.
Speaker 1: Well, they did in one instance do that. They made
Speaker 1: a ruling that the former president's actions with regard to
Speaker 1: the Attorney General the DOJ situation where he has control
Speaker 1: of who's that did in the attorney general and he
Speaker 1: took some steps to replace the Attorney general, and he
Speaker 1: leaned on the Attorney General to send a letter to
Speaker 1: Georgia and stuff like that. And essentially the Court said, well, well,
Speaker 1: that's within the outer perimeter of his duties. Clearly he's
Speaker 1: in charge of the Justice Department. But with regard to
Speaker 1: three other categories of conduct, the Court said basically kind
Speaker 1: of said things that said, well, it could be subject
Speaker 1: to immunity, and we're going to remand it. But those
Speaker 1: categories are indicative of really that's really subject possibly to immunity,
Speaker 1: And so it puts a spin on it that causes
Speaker 1: one to wonder, really how accountable the president can be
Speaker 1: within this framework.
Speaker 4: That's a great way of putting it. And I wonder
Speaker 4: broadly when you consider the fact that we're even having
Speaker 4: this conversation now, the American experiment rejected the idea of
Speaker 4: having a king. Now, I realize you still need to
Speaker 4: be elected, but it kind of sounds like you're a
Speaker 4: king for four years?
Speaker 5: Is that not right?
Speaker 1: Well, I know, let's hope not. But I you know,
Speaker 1: that's a spin one could put and wonder if it
Speaker 1: isn't true, because it depends a lot on how these
Speaker 1: issues turn out. I mean, for example, one of the
Speaker 1: categories that they focused on was the allegations, which we're
Speaker 1: all familiar with, about Trump interfering with calling state officials,
Speaker 1: calling local officials, trying to influence the state vote count,
Speaker 1: which is the job of the states to do. It's
Speaker 1: not the federal job, it's not his job. It's not
Speaker 1: arguably really within the scope of any job he's got,
Speaker 1: unless you think he's in charge of everything. So and
Speaker 1: the court said, well, gee hmm, that could be within
Speaker 1: the outer perimeter. So we'll command that, we'll send that
Speaker 1: back to the disrecord.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 1: The the ultimate thing that they did that's most alarming,
Speaker 1: one of the most alarming things to me about it
Speaker 1: is that for all these things that may be arguably
Speaker 1: within the outer perimeter of responsibility, which the Court seems
Speaker 1: to think is very very broad, including speeches given on
Speaker 1: January sixth, for example, communicating with the public. Well, that's
Speaker 1: the president's job to communicate with the public. So what's
Speaker 1: the test for deciding whether you're going to defeat this
Speaker 1: presumptive immunity for things that are within the scope arguably,
Speaker 1: And it's whether whether a prosecution with regard to it
Speaker 1: the quote from the cases, could pose any dangers of
Speaker 1: intrusions on the authority and function of the executive, any
Speaker 1: dangers at all, will justify immunity, according to the court.
Speaker 9: Well, so when you consider the kinds of questions that
Speaker 9: were raised in the arguments back in April, one of
Speaker 9: them was could the president tell Seals Team six to
Speaker 9: assassinate a political rival? Under this framework that the Court
Speaker 9: has just put forward, declaring that, including being commander in chief,
Speaker 9: whatever you're doing in actions officially as president is prone
Speaker 9: to immunity, you could be immune from prosecution. Would that
Speaker 9: too be inclusive? As we consider, well, what anyone could
Speaker 9: do in the.
Speaker 1: Future, You tell me I mean, if the test is
Speaker 1: would it that this is the only test the court provided,
Speaker 1: would it pose any danger of intrusion on the president's
Speaker 1: exercise of his powers? And if you apply that test,
Speaker 1: tell me.
Speaker 4: And in the case of Donald Trump, for instance, this
Speaker 4: is one example drawn by Robert McWhorter in our Last Hour.
Speaker 4: There are documents showing he talked to Russian authorities about
Speaker 4: opening a hotel in Moscow. If you decided that was
Speaker 4: a national security threat, that might fulfill the qualifiers it could.
Speaker 1: And then just to stress the fact that what's been
Speaker 1: set up here, and this is getting to be a
Speaker 1: pattern when in the Court's cases more broadly, with regard
Speaker 1: to how ultimately issues are decided, they are centering more
Speaker 1: and more final authority on themselves. With regard to administrative
Speaker 1: law issues. I mean, we've we've just experienced the repeal
Speaker 1: essentially of the Chevron doctrine, which recognized discretion in administrative agencies.
Speaker 1: When the statute's ambiguous and they come up with a
Speaker 1: reasonable interpretation, well that's gone. And so it's going to
Speaker 1: be the courts that are going to decide what the
Speaker 1: statute means. Bump it up to us, and we'll tell
Speaker 1: you we'll tell you how to read that statute. Well,
Speaker 1: this is the same thing. Bump it up to us,
Speaker 1: and we'll tell you whether or not this poses any
Speaker 1: danger to the exercise of discretion by the president. Well,
Speaker 1: good luck with that in terms of how that's going
Speaker 1: to turn out. It's going to turn out the way
Speaker 1: five justices want it to turn out. That's right, and
Speaker 1: right now this group doesn't seem inclined to limit the
Speaker 1: president very much.
Speaker 9: Well, I'm glad you brought up the other rulings that
Speaker 9: we have gotten from this court in this end of
Speaker 9: the term, because another one potentially relates to this case
Speaker 9: brought against Donald Trump and Washington last week when they
Speaker 9: essentially limit the use of the Enron doctrine over what
Speaker 9: constitutes is obstruction in the case of a January sixth
Speaker 9: defended that they ruled in favor of Donald Trump has
Speaker 9: been charged with obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an
Speaker 9: official proceeding in this very case that we are talking about.
Speaker 9: How do those two opinions intersect, if at all?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, again, it's ultimately I hate to be cynical,
Speaker 1: but it's however, this court says, they interact. But but
Speaker 1: if to try to analyze it. You know, they decided
Speaker 1: that Fisher case on the ground that you should read
Speaker 1: the statute's two sections, one of which is about messing
Speaker 1: around with documents, and the other of which doesn't mention
Speaker 1: documents but specifically but just talks about interfering with an
Speaker 1: official proceeding otherwise interfering with an official proceeding, which government,
Speaker 1: I think totally persuasively argued meant otherwise meant meant apart
Speaker 1: from documents. Did you interfere with the proceeding? Well, the
Speaker 1: court rejected that and said, no, you have to limit
Speaker 1: this along the lines of things to do with documents
Speaker 1: and evidence. Well, I think here again a even even
Speaker 1: that ruling if you take it as a face value,
Speaker 1: when when you apply it to the case of Trump
Speaker 1: and the indictment on these charges. There the allegations with
Speaker 1: regard to Trump are really allegations with regard to lots
Speaker 1: of things related to documents. They're related to these lists
Speaker 1: of electors that were submitted and other documentation that was included,
Speaker 1: and a reasonable reading would say, well, this comes within
Speaker 1: it anyway. Now it depends specifically on what the prosecution
Speaker 1: intends to rely upon. But I think I think it
Speaker 1: could very well be fine even under that reading. But again,
Speaker 1: if it goes to the Supreme Court and they say
Speaker 1: it's not, it's not, and that's the end of it.
Speaker 4: You reference the fact that it says nothing about immunity
Speaker 4: and presidential immunity in the US Constitution. Should there be
Speaker 4: will there need to be language in the Constitution an
Speaker 4: amendment that follows this clarifies this concept.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I don't think there's any way practically
Speaker 1: politically that that could happen now. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: I think up until now, at least most people have
Speaker 1: been comfortable. One of the trends of this court is
Speaker 1: a basic distrust, a public distrust of exercising of judges
Speaker 1: exercising judgment. At the same time, as you know, from
Speaker 1: year to year now we're experienced the Court ironically itself,
Speaker 1: just by Fiot deciding certain things are a certain way
Speaker 1: and just announcing them and saying them. And I think
Speaker 1: you know, everybody's understood that there is a concept of
Speaker 1: immunity that's very much a balancing process. It depends on
Speaker 1: judgment exercised by judges, and it starts with a premise
Speaker 1: that judges can be trusted to exercise judgment. And it's
Speaker 1: not an objective thing. It's not you read the word
Speaker 1: and say, well, that's what this is, and bingo, it's automatically.
Speaker 4: Wasn't It also based on the premise that even a
Speaker 4: president's not above the law.
Speaker 1: Well, that's right in the United States, that's right. I
Speaker 1: mean that that's the basic premise. And that's the thing
Speaker 1: I think that's so alarming to a lot of people
Speaker 1: about this decision is that when you read it, it
Speaker 1: seems like a majority here is ready to let the
Speaker 1: president do a lot of things. And where what is
Speaker 1: it that they're going to say is not within his
Speaker 1: outer perimeter of his of his duties?
Speaker 9: In the Descent that Justice sodom or which you've reference wrote,
Speaker 9: she ended it by saying she dissents with fear for
Speaker 9: our democracy? Do you share that fear to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do. I Well, there's a lot of things
Speaker 1: that's happened lately that are that are causing fear for
Speaker 1: our democracy because I think I think Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: someone who has, i mean said all manner of things
Speaker 1: that would cause a lot of fear in terms of
Speaker 1: respecting elections and doing what he can to undermine them,
Speaker 1: and his whole campaign has been focused on the fact
Speaker 1: that the election was allegedly stolen from him, even though
Speaker 1: there's not a shred of evidence to support it, you know,
Speaker 1: and he wants to be a dictator on day one
Speaker 1: and all of this stuff. It's it's horrifying, and then
Speaker 1: you look at the polls and he may well get
Speaker 1: that chance. And it's really really scary.
Speaker 4: Remarkable to spend time with Donald Air on a day
Speaker 4: like this. We're really glad that you could come back
Speaker 4: to talk to us today.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: Former Deputy US Attorney General, former Principal Deputy Solicitor General
Speaker 4: of the United States, a man who knows what it's
Speaker 4: like to argue a case before the Supreme Court. Remarkable
Speaker 4: reaction to your last question.
Speaker 2: There, Kayleie.
Speaker 9: Yeah, concern for democracy not just being voiced by mister
Speaker 9: err or justice so to my war, but many in
Speaker 9: reaction to this ruling today. Not so though, for Donald
Speaker 9: Trump himself, who, when this ruling came down, posted on
Speaker 9: true social big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud
Speaker 9: to be an American. Of course, Trump not dealt a conclusive,
Speaker 9: decisive victory with this case. But certainly, if nothing else,
Speaker 9: a partial victory, because this is very unlikely to go
Speaker 9: to trial before the election.
Speaker 5: That's right.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ketch
Speaker 2: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Evocar Play and
Speaker 2: then Roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business Listen on demand
Speaker 2: wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 5: Thank you for joining us on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
Speaker 4: The Monday edition of Balance of Power on this Supreme
Speaker 4: Court ruling day. It's the final day of the term
Speaker 4: and the major ruling that we've been anticipating on presidential immunity.
Speaker 5: Dropped a few hours ago.
Speaker 4: There are still a lot of questions though, about the
Speaker 4: impact of this ruling politically. I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee
Speaker 4: Liones Kayley. There are questions about the legal outcome of
Speaker 4: this ruling as well, because it's been romanted to a
Speaker 4: lower course, so we're not.
Speaker 5: Done with this yet.
Speaker 9: No, it's going to be up to lower courts to
Speaker 9: decide what is an official act versus an unofficial act.
Speaker 9: As we consider the powers of the presidency or the
Speaker 9: president himself as not just the leader of the United
Speaker 9: States and the free world, but also a private citizen
Speaker 9: engaging in private activity in some instances. And that's really
Speaker 9: the question that to a large extent today the court
Speaker 9: has left unanswered. What the Court has succeeded in doing, though,
Speaker 9: is effectively making sure that this case brought against Donald
Speaker 9: Trump here in Washington will not go to trial before
Speaker 9: the election in November. So as we consider the consequence
Speaker 9: of this ruling and it's out impact on the election,
Speaker 9: we assemble our political panel. Rick Davis is with US
Speaker 9: Bloomberg Politics contributor and partner at Stone Court Capital, together
Speaker 9: today with Brad Howard, democratic strategist and Corkoran Street Group
Speaker 9: founder and president. Rick just to begin with you, we
Speaker 9: can discuss whether or not this was a legal victory
Speaker 9: for Donald Trump, but certainly can we call this a
Speaker 9: political one for him?
Speaker 7: Sure?
Speaker 10: I think it's easily a political victory. He's been using
Speaker 10: it all day since the ruling was released to take
Speaker 10: a victory lab claiming that he's been unfairly prosecuted and
Speaker 10: that he should be free of any of these charges
Speaker 10: because of this new immunity standard, one of which he
Speaker 10: claims he is set all along that he should have
Speaker 10: been immune. So sure he's making good use of it.
Speaker 10: I'm sure he'll raise money off of it. I'm sure
Speaker 10: he'll create some advantage with people who are Trump voters
Speaker 10: who are leaning the other way, you know, potentially going
Speaker 10: against him. And so this might take one of the
Speaker 10: questions out of the matrix of issues they might have
Speaker 10: about concerns about Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: Brad, does this go both ways?
Speaker 4: Is Joe Biden going to have a major fundraising week
Speaker 4: or day or quarter In the end, we'll hear that
Speaker 4: Democratic donors were activated by this ruling.
Speaker 11: I hope so, and I think it might just because
Speaker 11: it dramatically raises the stakes of the election. Right, it's
Speaker 11: no longer about you know, whether or not you think
Speaker 11: Joe Biden is maybe too old for or Donald Trump is,
Speaker 11: you know, two rambling at rallies, like it's now about
Speaker 11: the survival of our democracy. Like if you have lacked
Speaker 11: the wrong person with the wrong impulses here, there's no
Speaker 11: longer those checks and balances to prevent them from having
Speaker 11: any fear of persecution when they leave office or if
Speaker 11: they ever leave office. Considering Donald Trump tried everything he
Speaker 11: could within the bounds that existed at the time, to
Speaker 11: try to He even stepped over those bounds I think
Speaker 11: into criminal behavior, into staying in office. Now that he
Speaker 11: doesn't have to worry about prosecution afterwards, he can declare
Speaker 11: everything an official act. What's to say he's ever going
Speaker 11: to leave office? And I think these are really strong,
Speaker 11: powerful considerations that voters are going to have to take
Speaker 11: into account.
Speaker 9: Well, Brad, as you talk about checks and balances, obviously
Speaker 9: the three branches are supposed to work in a way
Speaker 9: that they can check each other. Would you say with
Speaker 9: this decision today that the judicial branch is checking the
Speaker 9: executive or just empowering it.
Speaker 11: Well, you're essentially turning the Supreme Court to the nine
Speaker 11: unelected bureaucrats into the arbiters of what's you know, what's
Speaker 11: legal and what's not in terms of what a what
Speaker 11: a president can or cannot do. They're going to become
Speaker 11: the arbiters of everything. Every little remote Congress does have
Speaker 11: a role here in the sense they should have impeached,
Speaker 11: and they did. They impeached Donald Trump for his actions
Speaker 11: on jan six. They should have removed him from office
Speaker 11: or at the time he was out office, so they
Speaker 11: should have prevented him running for future office.
Speaker 3: As punishment.
Speaker 11: But Congress has demonstrated that they just the partisanship is
Speaker 11: so strong that the Republicans can't look past their own
Speaker 11: partisan politics to prosecute someone who clearly did something criminal.
Speaker 11: On January sixth, we all saw with their own eyes
Speaker 11: what happened that day. And so I think you're starting
Speaker 11: to see this erosion of these checks and bounces, and
Speaker 11: you're starting to see an empowered Supreme Court with not
Speaker 11: elected bureaucrats. AOC this morning or just moments ago, announced
Speaker 11: she's going to start filing impeachment charges against Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 11: So this is going to have a lot of consequences
Speaker 11: throughout Congress as well.
Speaker 4: In the meantime, though, Rick, you're managing a presidential campaign,
Speaker 4: and if you're Donald Trump's a campaign manager or his
Speaker 4: campaign advisors, you're now looking at a summer it's wide open.
Speaker 4: It's the first of July. I realized there's a sentencing
Speaker 4: thing going on here between now and the convention. But
Speaker 4: after that, you know now for a fact that your
Speaker 4: candidate is not going to be locked in a courtroom.
Speaker 5: What do you do with the time.
Speaker 10: Yeah, from now to probably inaugural you know you're not
Speaker 10: going to be sitting in a courtroom like you did
Speaker 10: for five weeks weeks up in New York during that case,
Speaker 10: and you're free to schedule. And scheduling is a really
Speaker 10: critical aspect of this campaign. I mean, putting Donald Trump
Speaker 10: in the key battleground states to try and take advantage
Speaker 10: of some of the momentum he's gotten off of the
Speaker 10: debate last week is now going to be more certain
Speaker 10: than it's ever been. I mean, this is a campaign
Speaker 10: that's been rocked by having to appear in these various
Speaker 10: court cases during the indictment phase, and frankly one that
Speaker 10: took advantage of that. I mean, one of the things
Speaker 10: we have to remember is Donald Trump has used these
Speaker 10: court cases to his political advantage. He was down and
Speaker 10: out in twenty twenty one prior to the first indictment
Speaker 10: and has ridden these indictments and frankly, the convictions to
Speaker 10: his political advantage. Maybe now it makes it harder for
Speaker 10: him because he doesn't have that tool to use every
Speaker 10: week at his disposal. So we'll see what happens next.
Speaker 10: But I mean, you know, I remind everybody Judge Chutkin's
Speaker 10: going to have something to say about what she considers
Speaker 10: in and outside the bounds of immunity, and so I
Speaker 10: don't think we've heard the last of this. She's going
Speaker 10: to opine on this as she has in the past,
Speaker 10: and she was pretty aggressive when it came to what
Speaker 10: she thought the vulnerabilities community were for Donald Trump, and
Speaker 10: I don't think the Supreme Court has really taken that
Speaker 10: club away from her in many ways.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it's an excellent point, Rick, A lot of these
Speaker 9: decisions will now be up to her, even if ultimately
Speaker 9: they do end up back at the Supreme Court at
Speaker 9: the end of the day. If we continue to consider
Speaker 9: though this idea of scheduling you were speaking to. If
Speaker 9: you're scheduling for Joe Biden in the aftermath of Thursday's debate,
Speaker 9: is it now effectively your job to get the president
Speaker 9: and as many unscripted scenarios as you possibly can be
Speaker 9: that sit down interviews or other appearances in which she
Speaker 9: needs to add lib.
Speaker 10: I'd hate to say it, but I think the one
Speaker 10: thing he needs to schedule is the speech where he
Speaker 10: withdraws from the campaign and endorses somebody else prior to
Speaker 10: the Democratic Convention. But outside of that, yes, I think
Speaker 10: that he has a credibility problem that is showing up
Speaker 10: in the surveys. There's a new CBS survey out that
Speaker 10: shows almost half his party wanting to withdraw from the campaign.
Speaker 10: And he has no time to lose this idea that
Speaker 10: he took the weekend off and went to Camp David
Speaker 10: to confer with his family about staying in the race.
Speaker 10: I mean, frankly, he should have been out trying to
Speaker 10: do what he did right after the debacle of a
Speaker 10: debate and do more campaign rallies and frankly do with
Speaker 10: some sit down interviews just as you described Kayley about
Speaker 10: you know, unscripted, non teleprompter interviews where he actually can
Speaker 10: show people that he has the capacity to govern.
Speaker 4: Brad, I want you to weigh in on this and
Speaker 4: bring you back to a suite from Jon Favreau, who
Speaker 4: is an Obama speech writer and now pretty well known
Speaker 4: for his podcast as a Democratic advisor from the Obama campaign,
Speaker 4: I would simply say, calling nearly half your party's voters
Speaker 4: the bed wedding brigade is not the most effective strategy
Speaker 4: to assuage their concerns about your candidate and get them
Speaker 4: to the polls. What is the real conversation that's happening
Speaker 4: now inside Democratic circles following the freak out on Thursday night.
Speaker 11: Well, look, I think there's always been kind of bad
Speaker 11: blood between some folks in the Obama world, including David
Speaker 11: Axelrod and John Favreau and Joe Biden. You know that
Speaker 11: friction was evident all eight years and when Barack Obama
Speaker 11: was president and in the primaries where none of them
Speaker 11: really thought he would win, and he did. And I
Speaker 11: think that's part of Joe Biden's strength is that every
Speaker 11: time he's been counting out and down, he has come back.
Speaker 11: I think at the rally they played Chumbawamba, I get
Speaker 11: knocked down, I Get back up again, which I thought
Speaker 11: was kind of a genius theatrical move.
Speaker 5: So are they bedwetders?
Speaker 11: Well, I mean, look, every day of the week, Democrats
Speaker 11: are freaking out about something. It's what motivates us, is
Speaker 11: what keeps us going, and we should be so what
Speaker 11: makes our candidates stronger, you know? I think again my
Speaker 11: concern is this is the debate is not going to
Speaker 11: have that much of an effect on swing voters who
Speaker 11: are swing voters because they haven't been convinced that he
Speaker 11: is up to the job.
Speaker 3: Just yet.
Speaker 11: Otherwise they do with Joe Biden squarely. Note they're not
Speaker 11: going to Donald Trump because they think he's too mentally unstable,
Speaker 11: but they've been a little word of his age, and
Speaker 11: that worry is continuing. What your hast seeing is the
Speaker 11: base has been confronted with concern over his age for
Speaker 11: the first time. We've been told he's sharp behind the scenes.
Speaker 11: We've been told that he can do the job, and
Speaker 11: from trust to people we trusted in the party, and
Speaker 11: then what was displayed on Thursday night did not reflect
Speaker 11: what we had been told. And so I think there's
Speaker 11: a lot of base voters that want to see here
Speaker 11: an explanation and see more proof that he is the
Speaker 11: best individual to take on Donald Trump, because if we
Speaker 11: fail in this endeavor and Donald Trump returned to the
Speaker 11: White House, it could very well be the end of democracy.
Speaker 9: Brad, we just have thirty seconds left. But how long
Speaker 9: of a grace period is there for that proof to
Speaker 9: show up?
Speaker 11: Well, I would say a week or two, because then
Speaker 11: we start heading into convention planning and you know, a
Speaker 11: delegate race going to be pretty pretty insane. I do
Speaker 11: think the idea of an open convention is not a
Speaker 11: terrible idea in the sense that you get to see
Speaker 11: some of the brightest stars of Deocredit Party fight for
Speaker 11: the votes of the delegates and then kind of announced
Speaker 11: with this energy enthusiasm. But if Joe Biden remains and
Speaker 11: thinks he thinks he's the best one to take on,
Speaker 11: he's going to have my full support, and I hope
Speaker 11: the Democratic Party will rally behind him because the stakes
Speaker 11: are too high here to head into an election. Because
Speaker 11: your feelings were hurt by being called a name from
Speaker 11: the White House staff.
Speaker 4: All right, two weeks we're writing it down. Brad Howard
Speaker 4: and Rick Davis, thank you for a great conversation.
Speaker 2: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 2: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play
Speaker 2: and then.
Speaker 3: Roud Oro with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 8: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 8: flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven
Speaker 8: thirty as.
Speaker 4: We had the voice of Jane Hall at American University.
Speaker 4: She's Professor of Journalism and Media Studies here author of
Speaker 4: Politics and the Media, Intersections and New Directions. Jane looking
Speaker 4: forward to talking with you about the debate last week
Speaker 4: and the aftermath more specifically, but with regard to today's
Speaker 4: Supreme Court ruling, when you back off and look at
Speaker 4: this from your perch at American University, is the presidency
Speaker 4: being redefined?
Speaker 12: You know, I think that it probably is.
Speaker 13: And I appreciate the fact that you all led with
Speaker 13: the facts of the case and the impact potentially on democracy,
Speaker 13: and now it's going to be analyzed and used by.
Speaker 12: Each side in the debate in the politics.
Speaker 13: We are seeing in real time, a decision comes down
Speaker 13: and cable news has people coming on immediately analyzing it,
Speaker 13: legal experts and then political experts and all together analyzing
Speaker 13: how this will be portrayed.
Speaker 12: Will will it be helpful to Donald Trump? Will it
Speaker 12: be helpful to Joe Biden?
Speaker 13: So you know, this is sort of a follow on
Speaker 13: what you saw with the disastrous performance and the visuals
Speaker 13: of Joe Biden and how that has played out.
Speaker 12: And you can see it in the people who came.
Speaker 13: Out and who were put out frankly to speak on
Speaker 13: Sunday shows and are talking now about don't abandon Biden,
Speaker 13: as well as the people who immediately said I'm close
Speaker 13: to Joe Biden coming out of the debate on CNN
Speaker 13: and on MSNBC.
Speaker 12: I'm close to him, he should resign.
Speaker 9: Well, let's talk about one of those voices on the
Speaker 9: Sunday shows. We did hear on NBC's Meet the Press
Speaker 9: yesterday from the Senator from Georgia of Raphael Warnock, who
Speaker 9: was essentially acknowledging Biden's poor debate performance, but still had
Speaker 9: this to say.
Speaker 14: There have been more than a few Sundays when I
Speaker 14: wish I had preached a better sermon, But after the
Speaker 14: sermon was over, it was my job to embody the message,
Speaker 14: to show up for the people that I serve. And
Speaker 14: that's what Joe Biden has been doing his entire life,
Speaker 14: his entire life of public service. And over the last
Speaker 14: four years, Joe Biden has demonstrated not over ninety minutes,
Speaker 14: but over the last four years, the character and the
Speaker 14: metal of the man that he is.
Speaker 9: So, Jane, I guess my question to you is what
Speaker 9: is four years when a short span of time that
Speaker 9: captured the attention of tens of millions and hundreds of
Speaker 9: millions more when you look at what was cut up
Speaker 9: and consumed in the aftermath on social media, what becomes
Speaker 9: more important in making a decision as to how you're
Speaker 9: going to vote.
Speaker 12: Well, you know, I think that is the key question.
Speaker 13: And from what I understand and what I know about
Speaker 13: the media, there's an attempt by Biden's supporters to say,
Speaker 13: including Rolf Moarnock and others, that this was ninety minutes,
Speaker 13: that he has a three and a half year long
Speaker 13: presidency in a decades long history.
Speaker 12: People are acknowledging that.
Speaker 13: He did not make the case that they expected him
Speaker 13: to make, and you see that being played out. And
Speaker 13: I guess what I'm seeing and thinking about is they're
Speaker 13: probably going to wait for the polls and see what
Speaker 13: is the polling on this? What does the so called
Speaker 13: average voter think is the damage from seeing these bites
Speaker 13: replayed in the split screen that many people were shocked by.
Speaker 13: I think even Biden's supporters, is that the measure of
Speaker 13: the manor? Or can they reframe it? What should they
Speaker 13: be doing to put him out there? And how loud
Speaker 13: will the voices be if his poll numbers drop significantly
Speaker 13: and people are concerned about whether they can win in Congress.
Speaker 4: Well, we did get a quick turn poll from CBS
Speaker 4: News and Yugo of you might have seen Jane. When
Speaker 4: asked whether the President was quote or had quote the
Speaker 4: mental and Cognitive Health to Service president unquote, only twenty
Speaker 4: seven percent of respondents said yes.
Speaker 5: The two percent said no.
Speaker 4: So how should the media be covering this right now?
Speaker 4: Because there are two conversations going on. There's the one
Speaker 4: we just heard from Rafael Warnock, and I can add
Speaker 4: a whole bunch to that list. Chris Coons has been
Speaker 4: working overtime, and a lot of other very loyal Democrats.
Speaker 4: Even Wes Moore was out yesterday morning making the case
Speaker 4: for Joe Biden. You can see the public tweets at
Speaker 4: least from Barack Obama and others. But there's another conversation
Speaker 4: apparently happening behind closed doors, And that's what to do
Speaker 4: if this is not going to be Joe Biden's convention
Speaker 4: in Chicago, how do we handle it? To what extent
Speaker 4: is that the responsible story to be covering here and
Speaker 4: knowing that that's the less likely outcome.
Speaker 13: You know, I think the media are going to have
Speaker 13: to cover all of them, are going to have.
Speaker 12: This is an extraordinary news period.
Speaker 13: I mean, it is in some ways heartening to me
Speaker 13: to see the news coverage and see the analysis that
Speaker 13: we're seeing. Largely, I think that a good job is
Speaker 13: being done by what I would call the establishment legacy media,
Speaker 13: mainstream media. I think that, in large part, just like
Speaker 13: the Supreme Court decision is consequential historically and how will
Speaker 13: it play out, we will have to cover I still
Speaker 13: count myself as a reporter and as a journalist in
Speaker 13: many ways, the news media will have to cover this
Speaker 13: scenario of could this actually happen? I think to your question,
Speaker 13: it would be a disservice to say this can't happen.
Speaker 13: You need to point out this could happen. Here's how
Speaker 13: it could, here are the difficulties, Here's the conversation going
Speaker 13: on behind the scenes, here's the conversation that's going where
Speaker 13: they are huddled. And you know, much as being made
Speaker 13: of Jill Biden's role in this, you know, and what
Speaker 13: she said afterwards. You know, you have to cover all
Speaker 13: of this as responsibly and as fully as you can.
Speaker 13: And I think that's all that the news media can
Speaker 13: do at this point.
Speaker 9: Well, as we consider what the news media does in
Speaker 9: the aftermath, there also are still remaining question Jane, about
Speaker 9: the way that some members of the media, specifically at
Speaker 9: CNN handled the actual event itself, in that the moderators
Speaker 9: did not fact check Donald Trump in real time, left
Speaker 9: that entirely to the president, and we know that he
Speaker 9: struggled to a large extent with that. Is that responsible
Speaker 9: in twenty twenty four when we know that Donald Trump
Speaker 9: lied outright on some thirty occasions.
Speaker 12: Well, you know, that is a complicated question.
Speaker 13: My understanding and my perception of that was that when
Speaker 13: I watched it, I said, I think that it may
Speaker 13: not be possible to completely fact check Donald Trump in
Speaker 13: real time. He has confounded every format that has ever
Speaker 13: been put forward. CNN and the Biden campaign and the
Speaker 13: Trump campaign set those rules. They have said that it
Speaker 13: was not their job to fact check. Now, you can
Speaker 13: be critical of that and say, there were some things
Speaker 13: that were so egregious. Should they have stepped in some
Speaker 13: of the things that he said about being able to
Speaker 13: deliver a baby and then murdering the baby.
Speaker 12: You did see.
Speaker 13: Dana bash As asked Donald Trump several times questions about
Speaker 13: would he honor the results of the election. You know,
Speaker 13: I think that unfortunately Biden did not make the case.
Speaker 13: And yet this campaign sought this debate and people thought,
Speaker 13: now we look at it erroneously that it would be
Speaker 13: helpful not to have not to have Donald Trump able
Speaker 13: to be unleashed and few lized. I have to say
Speaker 13: I said before this that I thought it might actually
Speaker 13: help him. He could look more presidential, he could hold
Speaker 13: himself in check, and Biden was not able to vote him.
Speaker 4: Gene, It's great to have you back. Thanks for the insights.
Speaker 4: As always, Jane Hall at American University. I'm Joe Matthew
Speaker 4: alongside Kaylee Lines on the fastest show in politics, only
Speaker 4: here on Bloomberg TV and radio.
Speaker 5: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 4: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 4: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 4: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 4: at Bloomberg dot com.