Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: And welcome to the Wednesday edition of Sound On. I
Speaker 2: am Amy Morris and for Joe Matthew, and we start
Speaker 2: with our top story today, as Colorado's highest court ruled
Speaker 2: that Donald Trump is ineligible to service president because of
Speaker 2: his actions inciting the January sixth attack on the US Capitol.
Speaker 2: We're going to learn more about this right now. Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Supreme Court reporter Greg's Store joins us. Greg. The trial
Speaker 2: judge in this case several weeks ago said Trump could
Speaker 2: stay on the ballot, but the Supreme Court in Colorado
Speaker 2: has now overturned that exactly.
Speaker 3: The trial judge said that this provision that that issue
Speaker 3: in the case, the insurrection clause of the US Constitution,
Speaker 3: didn't apply to the president. The Colorado Supreme Court said, yes,
Speaker 3: it did. And in addition, we agree with the trial
Speaker 3: judge that Donald Trump actually engage in an insurrection when
Speaker 3: he incited those rioters to go into the Capitol on
Speaker 3: January the sixth.
Speaker 2: Well, that's really my main question, because has Donald Trump
Speaker 2: been convicted of insurrection? Are they setting themselves up for
Speaker 2: a question of due process?
Speaker 3: So he has not been been convicted, that is That
Speaker 3: is a really important point, and it may make a difference,
Speaker 3: It may not be framed in terms of due process,
Speaker 3: but this is a provision that has basically, you know,
Speaker 3: almost never been applied and certainly not applied in a
Speaker 3: situation like this. And so the question is do you
Speaker 3: need a criminal conviction or do you need an Act
Speaker 3: of Congress or something else, or can a state court
Speaker 3: just do what it did here, look at the evidence
Speaker 3: itself and make a decision.
Speaker 2: And time is of the essence here. We do expect
Speaker 2: Trump's lawyers to appeal this.
Speaker 3: We do so the chlora Supreme Court order said we're
Speaker 3: putting this order on hold. As long as Donald Trump
Speaker 3: appeals to the Supreme Court by January the four, which
Speaker 3: his campaign has said he's going to do, the rule
Speaker 3: is going to stay on hold. So he may end
Speaker 3: up still on the primary ballot there. But if the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court agrees to take up the appeal, it will
Speaker 3: be in a position of basically deciding whether he can
Speaker 3: be on general election ballots all across the country.
Speaker 2: So this could see up other fourteenth Amendment questions then.
Speaker 3: It could or the Supreme Court could just resolve everything now.
Speaker 3: And certainly there's a lot of reasons why one might
Speaker 3: think the Supreme Court would want to do this. Better
Speaker 3: to get a decision now one way or another, or
Speaker 3: decision soon, rather than have this issue, you know, you know,
Speaker 3: sort of drift on towards the fall when it gets
Speaker 3: harder and harder to make a change in terms of
Speaker 3: who the Republican nominee is.
Speaker 2: You know. Conventional wisdom has it that the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: moves quite slowly when it comes to certain cases, but
Speaker 2: they can actually move as fast as they like. Correct,
Speaker 2: So they could expedite this if they need to.
Speaker 3: Absolutely Bush they gore in two thousand. Think about that case.
Speaker 3: That appeal was actually filed on Saturday and the case
Speaker 3: was resolved on Tuesday, three days away. So if the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court feels the need, it can. Of course. The
Speaker 3: course also got this other matter before them involving Donald
Speaker 3: Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution. The Special Council
Speaker 3: there has asked the Supreme Court to decide that on
Speaker 3: an expedited basis, and the timeframe he is asking for
Speaker 3: there is two months, which is about what the court
Speaker 3: took in the Nixon tapes case back in the seventies.
Speaker 2: Assuming the Supreme Court does take it, well, first of all,
Speaker 2: let me ask you if you think they will. Does
Speaker 2: it look like is it a foregone conclusion the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court will take this up.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't say foregone conclusion, but most of the people
Speaker 3: I've been talking to you both before and after the
Speaker 3: decision came out, had been saying if a state supreme
Speaker 3: court says Donald Trump cannot be on our ballot, then
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court would have to get involved. It was
Speaker 3: one thing as long as lower courts were saying, no,
Speaker 3: nothing to see here, We're going to let the election
Speaker 3: go ahead. Like plan that the color Redo Supreme Court
Speaker 3: has intervened. It seems really hard for the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: to say, we're just going to let that decision go
Speaker 3: and wait a while until we see more from other courts.
Speaker 3: So odds are pretty good that the Supreme Court will
Speaker 3: agree to take this up.
Speaker 2: A bit of a touchy question here, but I think
Speaker 2: you can handle it. Is there expected pressure on Clarence Thomas.
Speaker 2: Justice Thomas to accuse himself considering some of the allegations
Speaker 2: regarding he and his wife.
Speaker 3: Well, there will certainly be pressure. There will be calls
Speaker 3: for him to recuse. That is a decision that has
Speaker 3: always been and looks like it will continue to be
Speaker 3: up to the individual justice. Justice Thomas for the most
Speaker 3: part has not recused from any cases connected to Jane
Speaker 3: Ray six. The one exception too, that had to do
Speaker 3: with John Eastman, the lawyer for President Trump. Former lawyer,
Speaker 3: he's a former Clarence Thomas law clerk, and that case
Speaker 3: also sort of involved talk about efforts to persuade Justice
Speaker 3: Thomas himself, So there were some special circumstances there. You know,
Speaker 3: there's nothing that I have seen that would indicate that
Speaker 3: Justice Thomas is going to change his approach and recuse
Speaker 3: from this case. But I'm sure there will be calls.
Speaker 2: Do you anticipate a national response to this? What sort
Speaker 2: of impact do you see from the ruling on the
Speaker 2: High Court?
Speaker 3: Well, it will have a huge national impact. I mean,
Speaker 3: it is possible this Supreme Court will take up this
Speaker 3: case and effectively declare Donald Trump cannot be a candidate
Speaker 3: for president and that is every bit that is big
Speaker 3: of a decision, as it sounds like, you know, an
Speaker 3: awful lot of people don't think the Supreme Court will
Speaker 3: be willing to do that. This is a court that
Speaker 3: doesn't always want to put itself in the middle of
Speaker 3: political battles, and this, you know, in addition to a
Speaker 3: legal battle, is very much a political battle. But if
Speaker 3: the Court were to do that, it would just have
Speaker 3: a seismic impact, and you know, you would certainly be
Speaker 3: ranking that up there with among the very biggest decisions
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court has ever issued.
Speaker 2: It's incredible and we're going to I can keep watching
Speaker 2: it with you, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Always
Speaker 2: a pleasure. Thanks so much for taking the time with us. Now,
Speaker 2: let's turn to the war between Israel and Hamas and
Speaker 2: the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the attacks in the
Speaker 2: Red Sea. Michael Knights is a senior fellow at the
Speaker 2: Washington Institute for Near East Policy and he joins us now, Michael,
Speaker 2: thank you for taking the time with us. We're just
Speaker 2: going to go with the top news of the day.
Speaker 2: A top political leader of Hamas was in Cairo in
Speaker 2: Egypt today holding talks with Egyptian officials about a possible
Speaker 2: truce in the war in Gaza and how to make
Speaker 2: that happen. What does that signal for.
Speaker 4: You, Well, it signals that Hamas is desperate for the
Speaker 4: action to stop. They want to a series of long
Speaker 4: lasting truces or cease fires and to get back to
Speaker 4: the business of horse trading for hostages. That's their survival
Speaker 4: technique to try and stop the Israeli military action and
Speaker 4: get into a space they're much more comfortable with, which
Speaker 4: is hostage exchange.
Speaker 2: Use How okay? Would a truce then, I'm trying to
Speaker 2: figure out how to frame this. Would a truce then
Speaker 2: help throughout the region as far as attacks from the
Speaker 2: Hooties and would it create more of a buffer to
Speaker 2: prevent other proxy type attacks.
Speaker 4: The Houthis and the other Iran backed members of the
Speaker 4: Axis of Resistance. We'll keep attacking as long as there
Speaker 4: is a ground war in Gaza. So it certainly would
Speaker 4: reduce the amount of military tension in the region, But
Speaker 4: the Biden administration still seems committed to allowing Israel to
Speaker 4: finish the job on Hamas. Before we moved to a
Speaker 4: full sease fire.
Speaker 2: Now Israeli President Isaac Herzog says his country is prepared
Speaker 2: to agree to a second humanitarian pause in fighting in
Speaker 2: exchange for these hostages. There are still more than one
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty hostages being held there. What does that
Speaker 2: tell you as far as over the next few weeks
Speaker 2: or even a few months, as far as how the
Speaker 2: fighting may rotate through, how they're going to be able
Speaker 2: to have these future pauses.
Speaker 4: Well, CIA Director Bill Burns and a number of other
Speaker 4: regional officials are working twenty four to seven to try
Speaker 4: and get both the foreign hostages and the Israeli hostages
Speaker 4: back from her Mass. The Israelis became very tired of
Speaker 4: her Masses negotiating tactics in which they would dangle the
Speaker 4: hostages and then pull them back at the last moment
Speaker 4: in search of a better deal. That's why we've got
Speaker 4: the collapse of the ceasefire and the new phase of
Speaker 4: ground operations. There's an attempt now to get a new
Speaker 4: set of hostage releases going, but if a mass uses
Speaker 4: its delay tactics again, that effort will probably collapse as well.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 2: That was what my concern is is that the hostages
Speaker 2: are a bargaining chip, and they're not going to be
Speaker 2: willing to give up that bargain. How far can this go?
Speaker 4: Well, the Israelis believe that they're about three to six
Speaker 4: weeks away from completing the operation, which would include overrunning
Speaker 4: the locations where the hostages would in theory be located.
Speaker 4: Those will be there's a smaller, smaller number of places
Speaker 4: where they can be and as those three to six
Speaker 4: weeks go by, Hamas's leverage is reduced because those hostages
Speaker 4: are going to get reached by the Israelis anyway. So
Speaker 4: the Israelis are counting on being able to reduce the
Speaker 4: masses leverage and eventually force them into a position where
Speaker 4: they give back the hostages in response for perhaps a
Speaker 4: deal where the Hamas leadership can relocate to another country
Speaker 4: like Cutter.
Speaker 2: So then who is operating under a greater sense of urgency?
Speaker 2: Would it be Israel or Hamas.
Speaker 4: Hamas gambled when it took the hostages that Israel would
Speaker 4: be feeling all the pressure, But in fact, Israel has
Speaker 4: been very steady in continuing its military operations and the
Speaker 4: US has provided very strong.
Speaker 5: Support to Israel to continue those operations.
Speaker 4: So that's probably surprised to mass and the broader access
Speaker 4: of resistance.
Speaker 2: We are talking with Washington Institute Senior fellow Michael Knights. Michael,
Speaker 2: you have a new study out on the tricky challenge
Speaker 2: posed by the Hooties for the United States. How much
Speaker 2: of a threat do they pose and to whom?
Speaker 4: L Huthi's posed a very significant threat to global trade
Speaker 4: moving through the Sewers Canal. You know what they've currently
Speaker 4: done with their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea,
Speaker 4: which is south of Israel, and you know, is the
Speaker 4: way that you reach the Sewers Canal to connect the
Speaker 4: Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. They've essentially put global shipping
Speaker 4: back to the eighteen fifties in some ways where you
Speaker 4: had to go around South Africa to get from Asia
Speaker 4: to Europe. So they've had a very significant effect in
Speaker 4: terms of affecting global shipping. You know, we remember when
Speaker 4: the ever Given tanker turned sideways in the Sewerz Canal
Speaker 4: and it caused enormous economic damage to both Asia.
Speaker 5: And to Europe. So that's the threat that they pose.
Speaker 4: You know, at the moment, the US is pulling together
Speaker 4: a escort mission with a variety of nations so that
Speaker 4: ships can feel and insurers can feel safer to use
Speaker 4: the Red Sea and the Sewiz Canal.
Speaker 2: Again, in your column that you the study that you wrote,
Speaker 2: you referred to them as the Axis of Resistance. I
Speaker 2: wonder if that was an intentional use of the terminology
Speaker 2: that we may remember from World War Two.
Speaker 4: And then there was also the Axis of Evil if
Speaker 4: we remember from two thousand and two as well.
Speaker 5: But it's what they call themselves.
Speaker 4: Actually, it's an attempt to bring together all the different
Speaker 4: Iran backed elements like Lebaniesays, Bulla, Hamas, the Iraqi militias,
Speaker 4: and the Huthis in one movement that is there to
Speaker 4: resist both Israel and the United States. So it's their
Speaker 4: own terminology, and the Huthis rather are trying to demonstrate
Speaker 4: that they're the most radical and risk acceptant member of
Speaker 4: the Axis of resistance.
Speaker 5: In this crisis.
Speaker 2: Now, we only have a couple of minutes here, and
Speaker 2: I don't want to get too deep into it, but
Speaker 2: I think it's important that we establish what the relationship
Speaker 2: is between the Hooties and Iran. Can you briefly explain
Speaker 2: that for our audience.
Speaker 4: Yes, the Huthis built their movement as a clone of Lebanese,
Speaker 4: says Buller, which was itself a clone of the post
Speaker 4: revolution Iran's government. So if you imagine, the Huthis would
Speaker 4: be the younger brother to Lebanese, says Buller, and they
Speaker 4: both look up to their parents, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Speaker 4: And there are very strong Commond control links between the
Speaker 4: Iranians and the Huthis, including the provision of all of
Speaker 4: these advanced weapons which have been at Israel or at
Speaker 4: international shipping.
Speaker 5: So there's very tight connections.
Speaker 2: Indeed, And in our last minute here, Michael, how does
Speaker 2: the US then secure its own interests while keeping in
Speaker 2: mind the future of the NY people? What sort of
Speaker 2: position does this put our US military?
Speaker 4: US military is in a strange position because it's facing
Speaker 4: an opponent, the Houthis, who don't fear America. And it's
Speaker 4: also coming at a time when the Yemen peace process,
Speaker 4: which might end the nine year long war, the world's
Speaker 4: greatest humanitarian crisis, is almost ready to be signed. So
Speaker 4: the US doesn't want to do anything to disrupt that.
Speaker 4: And as a result, the Houthis are kind of bulletproof
Speaker 4: right now. They can do this to global shipping and
Speaker 4: nobody's going to do anything back to them.
Speaker 2: What should we be watching for over the next few weeks.
Speaker 2: We have about thirty seconds here.
Speaker 4: We should be watching to see how many more nations
Speaker 4: do in the US in the escort mission in the
Speaker 4: Red City.
Speaker 2: All right, we're going to continue to watch that with you.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for filling us in and for
Speaker 2: bringing us up to speed on how this is developing.
Speaker 2: Michael Knights is a Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute.
Speaker 2: He specializes in the military and security affairs of Iran, Iraq,
Speaker 2: and the Gulf States. We have much more still to come.
Speaker 2: Stay with us. You are listening to sound On. This
Speaker 2: is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: You are listening to sound On, and I'm Amy Morris
Speaker 2: in for Joe Matthew. Let's turn out to our political panel.
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Politics contributor Rick Davis and Democratic strategist Jim Kessler,
Speaker 2: you're vice president of Third Way, joining me today. Thanks
Speaker 2: so much for being here. We want to begin with
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court of Colorado the ruling that Donald Trump
Speaker 2: cannot be on the primary ballot in that state because
Speaker 2: of his action surrounding the January sixth attack on the
Speaker 2: capitol back in twenty twenty one. First, I'm interested in
Speaker 2: each of your reactions to that Supreme Court decision that
Speaker 2: they overturned the trial court's decision. Was that a surprise
Speaker 2: to either of you.
Speaker 6: Well, take a stab at that, Amy, and welcome to
Speaker 6: the show. We love having you.
Speaker 7: What an interesting day.
Speaker 6: I would say that it wasn't a surprise that the
Speaker 6: Supreme Court took it up. I mean, it's a pretty
Speaker 6: weighty issue, and anytime you're debating a constitutional issue like this,
Speaker 6: especially something as hyper sensitive as a presidential election, you're
Speaker 6: going to get the priority. So nobody, I don't think
Speaker 6: in the political world was surprised that they would take
Speaker 6: it up. I think you know they were. I think
Speaker 6: it was a flip of a coin as to whether
Speaker 6: or not they would rule the way they did, because
Speaker 6: you know, four other states have said basically no We're
Speaker 6: not gonna we're not gonna take this moment to uh
Speaker 6: make a decision uh based on the fourteenth Amendment that
Speaker 6: Donald Trump you shouldn't be on a ballot. So this
Speaker 6: is this is a surprise outcome, a close one four
Speaker 6: to three. Uh. And yet I think, uh, we're gonna
Speaker 6: we're gonna probably see that Donald Trump will make better
Speaker 6: use of the propaganda around this. You know, the systems
Speaker 6: against me, these are all Democrats who got put on
Speaker 6: the bench, and and and and he'll make incredibly good
Speaker 6: use of this. Now the media will try to uh
Speaker 6: talk about it as if it's a problem for him,
Speaker 6: But I think we're going to find out that, you know,
Speaker 6: this is another way that Donald Trump turns title on
Speaker 6: us and and we'll make it actually a centerpiece of
Speaker 6: his campaign.
Speaker 8: Jim your thoughts, well, I think Donald Trump will sink
Speaker 8: or swim based on what voters do, not on what courts.
Speaker 8: Do you know. I was I wasn't overly surprised at
Speaker 8: the Colorado decision because a lot of secretary of Secretaries
Speaker 8: of state in many different states are doing legal actions
Speaker 8: to try and prevent Donald Trump from being on the ballot.
Speaker 8: Based on January sixth, and you know, eventually one of
Speaker 8: these cases was going to go through. I expect that
Speaker 8: the Supreme Court will overturn that ruling and Donald Trump
Speaker 8: will be on the ballot in Colorado. I don't think
Speaker 8: this is a clear victory for Donald Trump, although I
Speaker 8: agree with Rick Davis that he'll make hay out of it.
Speaker 8: Is what I think is very possible is the Supreme
Speaker 8: Court will have this ruling in front of it and say,
Speaker 8: look for due process reasons, donald Trump has not been
Speaker 8: found guilty of insurrection. He should stay on the ballot.
Speaker 5: It.
Speaker 8: But there's another case that's heading to the Supreme Court
Speaker 8: that is Jack Smith's case at the federal level and
Speaker 8: whether Trump is immune from prosecution, you know, as as president.
Speaker 8: And it could very easily be a split decision where
Speaker 8: the Supreme Court says Trump can be on the ballot
Speaker 8: in Colorado, but we're also going to rule that he's
Speaker 8: you know, he's not immune from prosecution. So that case
Speaker 8: is actually more serious for Donald Trump for his political future.
Speaker 2: Both of you, gentlemen, agree that Donald Trump is likely
Speaker 2: to make hay of this. But we'll say, Nikki Haley
Speaker 2: make hay of it, or Joe Biden make hay of it.
Speaker 2: Does this move the needle for any of his opponents,
Speaker 2: whether Democrat or Republican.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm much more confident amy that Joe Biden is
Speaker 6: going to make better use of this than the Republicans
Speaker 6: running directly against Donald Trump, you know, who are on
Speaker 6: a ballot with him. In two weeks. This has been
Speaker 6: the most docile primary I've ever seen, where, you know,
Speaker 6: Donald Trump has a big lead, and everyone's trying to
Speaker 6: catch up with him, and somehow we're going to try
Speaker 6: and catch up with him by not even talking about him.
Speaker 6: That is really difficult. And so I've been woefully unimpressed
Speaker 6: with the competitiveness of this field from the perspective of
Speaker 6: willing to take on Donald Trump to try and beat
Speaker 6: him in a nomination. If they're trying to get him
Speaker 6: the nomination, I think they're doing a great job, but
Speaker 6: certainly not from that perspective. And it's only been recently
Speaker 6: that Joe Biden has gotten into the act of sort
Speaker 6: of checking Donald Trump. And that's equally baffling to me,
Speaker 6: knowing that it's highly likely for the last six months
Speaker 6: that Donald Trump was going to be the nominee of
Speaker 6: the party and for all intentsive purposes, the Biden campaign
Speaker 6: has been willing to let him consolidate his hold on
Speaker 6: the Republican Party without having any noise coming from the
Speaker 6: White House.
Speaker 2: I'm a question for you. In New York Times Siena
Speaker 2: poll see in a College poll finds nearly a quarter
Speaker 2: of Trump supporters believe that he shouldn't be the GOP
Speaker 2: nominee if he is found guilty of a crime. Does
Speaker 2: that move the needle at all?
Speaker 8: Possibly? I mean, look, I think what these polls show
Speaker 8: is that Donald Trump has a commanding lead, but not
Speaker 8: a stranglehold on the nomination. I do believe that Nikki
Speaker 8: Haley has a shot. A second place finish in Iowa
Speaker 8: might mean a first place finish in New Hampshire. And
Speaker 8: then at that point, I think every media outlet, from
Speaker 8: the Weather Channel to ESPN, the o Cho will be
Speaker 8: wondering if Donald Trump is vulnerable. But you know, this
Speaker 8: goes back to I think an original sin from the
Speaker 8: Republican Party, which was you had the January sixth insurrection,
Speaker 8: and then many Republicans thought, Okay, that's the end of Trump,
Speaker 8: so we let you know, we'll just we'll let him die.
Speaker 8: There and then they all rallied back in support of him.
Speaker 8: So the situation where you know, the court can rule
Speaker 8: in a certain way, you know, and allow Trump on
Speaker 8: the ballot. The reason why that helps Trump is because
Speaker 8: Republicans after January sixth decided to hold back rather than
Speaker 8: to say this was truly a serious crime, he should
Speaker 8: no longer be part of our party. And they're paying
Speaker 8: the price right now.
Speaker 2: And Rick, to you, what stood out to me in
Speaker 2: that poll is that nearly a quarter of Trump supporters
Speaker 2: believe he shouldn't be the nominee. To me, it sounds
Speaker 2: like just a quarter, Like why would his supporters or
Speaker 2: why would the GOP think this is okay to nominate
Speaker 2: someone who may be convicted of a crime.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think you got to take in a context.
Speaker 6: This is a national survey. Very few states are actually
Speaker 6: well represented the survey where the campaign is actually happening.
Speaker 6: I mean, when you look into where Donald Trump is
Speaker 6: on the ballot, most of these states as polls taken,
Speaker 6: he's at like sixty sixty five percent, right, I mean,
Speaker 6: there really isn't a primary going on in the rest
Speaker 6: of the country. When you then look at places like Iowa,
Speaker 6: New Hampshire, where the campaigns have been going at it
Speaker 6: for the last year. You have a lot more, almost
Speaker 6: a third, if not half, in New Hampshire of Donald
Speaker 6: Trump's ballot support. You know, people who are saying they
Speaker 6: plan to vote for him, who are saying, but they
Speaker 6: look at other options right now, right, So you do
Speaker 6: see echoes of a willingness to move off of Trump,
Speaker 6: especially based on well, if he gets convicted or you know,
Speaker 6: if some of these other things happen, or just in general,
Speaker 6: are you willing to look at other people? And that's
Speaker 6: where the field has their hopes, right that they can
Speaker 6: peel off some of these folks off of the Trump
Speaker 6: ballot in the late hours of the primary in both
Speaker 6: Iowa and New Hampshire to do exactly what Jim Kessler
Speaker 6: talked about in this case, Nikki Haley actually, you know,
Speaker 6: overperforming in Iowa and beating Donald Trump in New Hampshire
Speaker 6: and all of a sudden we're having a completely different
Speaker 6: conversation about Fortress Trump, you know, down in mar A Lago,
Speaker 6: thinking he's unbeatable.
Speaker 2: All right, One more quick question for Jim. If the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court does decide to take this up and it
Speaker 2: looks like they may. Is there going to be a
Speaker 2: more national impact from this ruling? What sort of impact
Speaker 2: do you anticipate.
Speaker 8: I anticipate that the Supreme Court will say that Donald
Speaker 8: Trump should be on the ballot in Colorado. I think
Speaker 8: they will cite due process that he has not been
Speaker 8: convicted of a crime, and the net result will be
Speaker 8: further i'd say, distrust of the Supreme Court in some
Speaker 8: ways and feeling like, well, this is a Trump appointed court.
Speaker 8: But you know, I think that Jack Smith case is
Speaker 8: the one that has more weight here than the Colorado case.
Speaker 8: So we'll see what happens there with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listening on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 9: The top story in politics today very much is that
Speaker 9: court decision out of Colorado, the state Supreme Court ruling
Speaker 9: that former President Donald Trump is ineligible to be president
Speaker 9: because of his actions and what they say was inciting
Speaker 9: insurrection at the capitol on January sixth, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 9: This was a four to three decision the majority, writing quote,
Speaker 9: President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection. Even when
Speaker 9: the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued
Speaker 9: to support it. And what this comes down to in
Speaker 9: terms of the legal question here really is the fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 9: which says that no one can hold public office who
Speaker 9: has engaged in insurrection or rebellion. And this is actually
Speaker 9: a question that President Biden himself had to address today
Speaker 9: when a reporter asked him about it.
Speaker 10: Here he is, well, I think you start freightening yourself.
Speaker 10: Evident he saw it all know whether the fourteenth nine
Speaker 10: of the five I let the courtinke that decision.
Speaker 8: But he's certainly supported any.
Speaker 10: Insurrection, no question about it, none, zero, And he seems
Speaker 10: to be doubling down about everything.
Speaker 9: Joining me now for more on this is Gregory Cordy,
Speaker 9: who is one of our great politics reporters here at Bloomberg. So, Gregory,
Speaker 9: we just heard the president say it's self evident it
Speaker 9: was insurrection issue? Is President Trump? Former President Trump has
Speaker 9: been charged with many things, insurrection is not one of them,
Speaker 9: and he's been convicted of nothing. So how does this work?
Speaker 7: So the fourteenth Amendment was passed, was adopted by Congress
Speaker 7: and the States and incorporating the Constitution after the Civil War,
Speaker 7: when we had all these Confederate officers returning in to
Speaker 7: the fold, and the idea was that they shouldn't be
Speaker 7: able to hold office, certainly in Congress if they had
Speaker 7: sworn to uphold the Constitution, and then they were traders
Speaker 7: to the Union cause. And so now we're applying that
Speaker 7: one hundred and fifty, one hundred and sixty years later,
Speaker 7: right in an unprecedented case. We've never in all that time,
Speaker 7: we've never gotten this before. And so there's a lot
Speaker 7: of questions, a lot of legal questions here. One is,
Speaker 7: what is the definition of insurrection? How does that apply
Speaker 7: to what happened on January sixth? Can we say that
Speaker 7: President then President Trump engaged in that insurrection on the
Speaker 7: Capitol when he wasn't physically at the Capitol. But also
Speaker 7: does this apply to the office of the President of
Speaker 7: the United States. There's an argument that it doesn't. Who
Speaker 7: enforces it? Right, does Congress enforce it or does the
Speaker 7: Colorado Secretary of State essentially enforce it by determining whether
Speaker 7: or not he can appear on the ballot. And so
Speaker 7: all of these are brand new questions that because they're
Speaker 7: novel questions, the Supreme Court of the United States will
Speaker 7: almost certainly have to take this up.
Speaker 9: Well, the Colorado State Court has stayed this decision until
Speaker 9: January fourth to give Trump that opportunity to appeal it
Speaker 9: to the highest court in the land, and he has
Speaker 9: said he will do so. So it's very, very likely
Speaker 9: that this is going to come down to nine justices,
Speaker 9: three of which Trump appointed. Is the feeling here in
Speaker 9: Washington today essentially that the court, the Supreme Court of
Speaker 9: the United States, is going to overturn the Supreme Court
Speaker 9: of Colorado.
Speaker 7: That's obviously unknown. I mean, if you are I have
Speaker 7: a political mind, you look at the composition of the court.
Speaker 7: It's a super majority for conservatives six to three, and
Speaker 7: as you point out, three of those six were appointed
Speaker 7: by President Trump himself. But also there's a lot of
Speaker 7: legal issues here. And one thing we do know about
Speaker 7: this John Roberts Court is that it likes to decide
Speaker 7: cases on the narrowest possible grounds they can, and so
Speaker 7: they may try to find some procedural grounds. One of
Speaker 7: the issues that came up in the descent in the
Speaker 7: Colorado case was the descending justices pointing out that President
Speaker 7: Trump really didn't have any right to do process here,
Speaker 7: as you point out, he's not criminally charged with insurrection.
Speaker 7: The fourteenth Amendment doesn't say explicitly you have to be
Speaker 7: criminally charged. But there is also due process built in
Speaker 7: the Fourteenth Amendment other sections of the fourteenth Amendment that
Speaker 7: give people the right to be heard, And the question
Speaker 7: is whether or not Trump had an adequate defense here
Speaker 7: in the Colorado case, that could be more narrow grounds
Speaker 7: for the Spree Court to overturn this, but then that
Speaker 7: would open the floodgates for potentially a dozen different mini
Speaker 7: trials over the course of the next election year, as
Speaker 7: different states that are trying to exclude Trump from the
Speaker 7: ballot basically put him on trial for insurrection against the
Speaker 7: United States.
Speaker 9: Well, and with a lot of these crimes that the
Speaker 9: president has been charged with the former president ninety one
Speaker 9: total felony charges across four different criminal cases, all of
Speaker 9: those legal issues to this point have just galvanized his
Speaker 9: base of supporters. Really, this legal issue, though, could actually
Speaker 9: have an impact on attempt to once again be seated
Speaker 9: in the oval office. Right if you're not on the ballot,
Speaker 9: how do you win the presidency if this grows larger
Speaker 9: than it is right now.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and so that's certainly an argument that say Chris Christie,
Speaker 7: the former governor of New Jersey, has been making all along,
Speaker 7: is that Republicans shouldn't be putting all their eggs into
Speaker 7: the Trump basket at this point because we don't know
Speaker 7: what the outcome of those criminal trials will be for
Speaker 7: different criminal trials in four different jurisdictions. But then there's
Speaker 7: also this case of the fourteenth Amendment. And I should
Speaker 7: say that Chris Christy did come out last night and
Speaker 7: say this isn't his preferred way to do it. He
Speaker 7: would prefer to beat Trump on the ballot rather than
Speaker 7: have a court decide whether Trump can compete in the
Speaker 7: first place. But yes, that's certainly been an argument that
Speaker 7: Republicans should begin to look at other options, just because
Speaker 7: there's so many unknowns with Trump and his legal problems
Speaker 7: over the next year.
Speaker 9: And it wasn't just Chris Christie who was saying leave
Speaker 9: it up to the voters, not the courts. Nikki Haley
Speaker 9: said something similar.
Speaker 7: As Rondosantus as well.
Speaker 9: Yeah, all right, Gregory, always wonderful to talk to you,
Speaker 9: thank you so much for joining us, and if you
Speaker 9: have any more questions around the fourteenth Amendment. Gregory does
Speaker 9: have a great quick take piece out today breaking it
Speaker 9: all down, so make sure to check that out. We
Speaker 9: want to get the reaction from Congressman Brian's Style of Wisconsin,
Speaker 9: who we are very lucky to say is joining us now. Congressman,
Speaker 9: obviously it's been a big twenty four hours in the
Speaker 9: legal Trump universe. What is your reaction to the decision
Speaker 9: out of the state of Colorado.
Speaker 11: I think it's actually pretty simple. Voters should deest side elections,
Speaker 11: not judges, and I think people are frustrated when they
Speaker 11: have to listen to all the legal ees debate back
Speaker 11: and forth rather than just simply allowing voters to have
Speaker 11: their say in our upcoming elections.
Speaker 9: So Congressman, that you think the former president has done
Speaker 9: nothing wrong, or just that you think it should be
Speaker 9: voters that dictate whether or not he has done anything wrong.
Speaker 11: The basis of our entire democracy is that voters get
Speaker 11: to choose who their elected representatives are. And when judges
Speaker 11: put themselves in the position of making those decisions rather
Speaker 11: than voters, were moving in the wrong direction. Trust the voters.
Speaker 11: Put the decision in the hands of the voters, and
Speaker 11: I think we're far better off in our democracy.
Speaker 9: Well, and it's voters that aren't just going to have
Speaker 9: to make a decision about who they want to be
Speaker 9: the president of the United States. They're going to be
Speaker 9: making decisions about who they want representing them all over
Speaker 9: the country at all different levels of office. And when
Speaker 9: you have just questions around whether a former president seen
Speaker 9: as the leader of the Republican Party inside in an insurrection,
Speaker 9: whether he's even eligible to hold office, let alone all
Speaker 9: of the other rhetoric we have heard debated repeatedly over
Speaker 9: the course of the last several days. What does it
Speaker 9: mean more broadly for your party.
Speaker 11: I think people are just simply frustrated with the fact
Speaker 11: that there's individuals that want to have their say override
Speaker 11: the will of the voters. I think people just want
Speaker 11: to simply go through this primary process, go through the
Speaker 11: presidential electional at the voters make the decision as to
Speaker 11: who the next president of the United States is. Right now,
Speaker 11: President Biden is in my home state of Wisconsin with
Speaker 11: me here. He's in Milwaukee touting Biden nomics. We should
Speaker 11: be talking about the economic policies, in my opinion, the
Speaker 11: failed economic policies of this administration. Rather than allowing our
Speaker 11: entire conversation to be gobbled up by legal lease, let
Speaker 11: the voter speak. Let's actually talk about the issues that
Speaker 11: Americans are facing right now. And we're facing a lot
Speaker 11: of significant issues in this country that need to be addressed.
Speaker 9: All right, Well, Congressman, since you brought it up. President
Speaker 9: Biden has just wrapped up his remarks in Milwaukee, who
Speaker 9: was addressing the Black Chamber of Commerce. You just were
Speaker 9: talking about Bidenomics and how it failed. I was taking
Speaker 9: a look at some numbers before the show. According to
Speaker 9: the latest figures we have from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Speaker 9: the unemployment rates in Wisconsin is lower than the national
Speaker 9: average three point two percent. According to Triple A, the
Speaker 9: average price of a gallon of gas is two seventy six.
Speaker 9: That's down more than two dollars from the high in
Speaker 9: June of last year. Inflation, as we know, has come
Speaker 9: down more broadly, So what's wrong with that?
Speaker 11: Simply go to any grocery store in the state of
Speaker 11: Wisconsin with me, and let's talk to the customers as
Speaker 11: they're checking out. Recognizing that their grocery bill is up
Speaker 11: to twenty twenty percent since President Biden took office, and
Speaker 11: everything they're purchasing is up seventeen percent. Wage growth going
Speaker 11: into the pandemic was robust and across the board, people
Speaker 11: were moving ahead in their lives. Now as we came
Speaker 11: out of the pandemic, what we've seen is stagnant or
Speaker 11: falling wage growth. Is inflation has outpaced wages. In many cases,
Speaker 11: families can't afford the things that they need. People are frustrated,
Speaker 11: and it's the economic policies of the Biden administration that
Speaker 11: has brought us here. Everything from his war on energy
Speaker 11: on day one, beginning with the killing of the Keystone
Speaker 11: XLE pipeline, and continuing on is the president's policies of
Speaker 11: paying people not to work after the pandemic, massive multi
Speaker 11: trillion dollar spending bills that drove inflation. And the end
Speaker 11: result is if you speak to people here in Wisconsin,
Speaker 11: regular folks on the street, they're getting clabbered by Bidenomics
Speaker 11: and they want to see Washington change course.
Speaker 5: And I agree with them.
Speaker 9: So when you say Washington changed course, can we talk
Speaker 9: about what specific policies is This mostly on the tax
Speaker 9: side of the equation. No, that this administration also has
Speaker 9: made a lot of investment into infrastructure with bipartisan support,
Speaker 9: as well investments in cleaner energy that are at the
Speaker 9: end of the day, argued to reduce these inflationary pressures.
Speaker 9: What is it that needs to be done that isn't
Speaker 9: being done right now?
Speaker 11: A lot of spending decisions are about prioritization. So it's
Speaker 11: just like your family budget. There's a lot of things
Speaker 11: you'd like to spend down, but at the end of
Speaker 11: the day, you come to the table and sit down
Speaker 11: and identify what your priorities are. Washington continues to fail
Speaker 11: to do that, and in particular, in the first two
Speaker 11: years the Biden administration under Democratic one party control, what
Speaker 11: we saw was massive spending bills where everything including the
Speaker 11: kitchen sink, got into those bills, and those that vast
Speaker 11: amount of new federal government spending in large part drove
Speaker 11: the inflation that clobbered people on the back end. And
Speaker 11: when you recognize that family budgets are stretched in large
Speaker 11: part because of seventeen percent of cumulative inflation since the
Speaker 11: president came to office, explains a lot of the frustration.
Speaker 11: But it carries over into other areas. We could look
Speaker 11: at the median mortgage in the United States America went
Speaker 11: from two hundred dollars a month to four hundred dollars
Speaker 11: a month, doubling over the course of the last three years.
Speaker 11: So to come and speak to a young couple here
Speaker 11: in James Lil, Wisconsin who's trying to move into their
Speaker 11: first home, trying to go from paying the rent to
Speaker 11: paying a mortgage, it just got a whole heck of
Speaker 11: a lot harder. And so getting inflation control to allow
Speaker 11: the Federal Reserve to bring the interest rates back down
Speaker 11: is going to have a huge impact. You can't do
Speaker 11: that if you continue the inflationary policies that we've seen
Speaker 11: from this administration.
Speaker 9: Just on the subject, Congressman of the FED bringing interest
Speaker 9: rates back down, how hard do you think the Fed
Speaker 9: should be cutting knowing you're on the Financial Services Committee,
Speaker 9: and how soon?
Speaker 11: Well, ultimately that's going to be a decision for the
Speaker 11: Federal Reserve. I'm not going to supplant the FED and
Speaker 11: their decision making process, but as policy makers, we should
Speaker 11: be working on policies that assist the FED to bring
Speaker 11: inflation down. There's a lot of Congress could be doing that,
Speaker 11: it hasn't. In particular, as we look at the War
Speaker 11: on Energy and the impact that energy has had on
Speaker 11: driving inflation higher, we should be working to increase the
Speaker 11: domestic supply of energy here in the United States. Coming
Speaker 11: out of the pandemic, this administration was literally paying people
Speaker 11: not to work. The key there is to get more
Speaker 11: people into the workforce and assisting them and gaining the
Speaker 11: skills they need to prepare them for the jobs of
Speaker 11: the future. If we were focused in Congress on economic
Speaker 11: growing opportunities that would bring inflation down, it would allow
Speaker 11: the Federal Reserve to be able to bring that rate
Speaker 11: down faster.
Speaker 9: It's just worth noting, because you've referenced the War on
Speaker 9: Energy a few times here, that we got shale figures
Speaker 9: out just a few days ago. US production of oil
Speaker 9: is actually at a record right now. But because you
Speaker 9: were just talking about the work Congress needs to do,
Speaker 9: obviously you're now at home. The Senate's heading out of
Speaker 9: town today. We have wrapped up the year of twenty
Speaker 9: twenty three, and we don't have top line appropriations figures.
Speaker 9: We don't have a deal when it comes to border
Speaker 9: security and Ukraine funding Congressman, how much are you dreading
Speaker 9: returning to all the work Congress has to get done
Speaker 9: in January.
Speaker 11: Well, let me go on record and saying I was
Speaker 11: disappointed that we all left Washington, DC. We should have
Speaker 11: kept Congress in place to get that work done. It's
Speaker 11: far too important to take the break that Congress is doing.
Speaker 11: That said, when we come back, we have a ton
Speaker 11: of really important issues.
Speaker 8: Probably number one.
Speaker 11: On that list is, as you noted, the top line
Speaker 11: number for appropriations is still not agreed to. That makes
Speaker 11: me more and more concerned every day as we head
Speaker 11: towards the next potential lapse in funding in mid January.
Speaker 11: And so we got to get our act together. Congress
Speaker 11: has been abysmal this year working with the President to
Speaker 11: get things done. I remain probably as frustrated as anybody,
Speaker 11: and we have some huge topics on the table when
Speaker 11: we return in the new year.
Speaker 9: When we think about those top line appropriations figures, would
Speaker 9: you be encouraging Speaker Johnson and Republican leadership to stick
Speaker 9: to what was agreed to in the debt ceiling deal
Speaker 9: midway through this year? Are those the numbers we should
Speaker 9: be working with here?
Speaker 11: Well, why we're having this difficult debate after we passed
Speaker 11: the legislation that said here are the top line numbers,
Speaker 11: and now we have centered Chuck Schumer trying to increase
Speaker 11: that number unilaterally is beyond frustrating. And so the fact
Speaker 11: that we reached an agreement across the board by cameral
Speaker 11: bipartisan deal to say here are the top line numbers
Speaker 11: to actually get spending under control, and then we're allowing
Speaker 11: Chuck Schumer to hold us all hostage as he tries
Speaker 11: to rework that negotiated deal and increase total spending is frustrating.
Speaker 11: The Appropriations Committee has a ton of work to do
Speaker 11: between now and our opportunity to pass that legislation on
Speaker 11: the House floor. I'm concerned we're going to be in
Speaker 11: a position at either a kick the can down the
Speaker 11: road or a worst case scenario where we would allow
Speaker 11: government funding to actually lapse.
Speaker 9: So there's the shutdown question. There also is the question
Speaker 9: around supplemental funding. And we have about a minute left. Congressman,
Speaker 9: how confident are you that a deal can be made
Speaker 9: on the border and is the House willing to give
Speaker 9: the White House a win potentially on border security.
Speaker 11: I think the focus is let's get a win for
Speaker 11: the American people. The border needs to be secure. We
Speaker 11: have an opportunity to do that. The House past comprehensive
Speaker 11: Border Security legislation in HR two. The Senate has yet
Speaker 11: to take it up. I think we have a big
Speaker 11: opportunity here to leverage potential supplemental funding to actually get
Speaker 11: the border secure. I'm less concerned about who gets the win,
Speaker 11: other than making sure the American people win and the
Speaker 11: American people win if we truly secure the US Mexico border.
Speaker 9: All right, Congressman, always great to talk to you. Thank
Speaker 9: you very much for joining us, and if we don't
Speaker 9: see you beforehand, happy holidays to you in a very
Speaker 9: happy new year. We'll look forward to having you back
Speaker 9: in twenty twenty four. That's Congressman Brian Style, the Republican
Speaker 9: from Wisconsin and chair of the House Administration Committee. And
Speaker 9: as I mentioned, also on financial services.
Speaker 1: You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in alf, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station. Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 9: I'm Kaylee Lyons in for Joe Matthew today and yes,
Speaker 9: we call this the fastest show in politics, and headlines
Speaker 9: certainly are flying fast today. We just got news from
Speaker 9: former President Trump and the Supreme Court. The former president
Speaker 9: saying the US Supreme Court should hold off on intervening
Speaker 9: in the federal criminal case against him over his efforts
Speaker 9: to overturn the twenty twenty presidential election. Remember, Jack Smith
Speaker 9: is the Special Council who brought these charges against trumb
Speaker 9: here in Washington. He has asked the Supreme Court to
Speaker 9: weigh in fast track consideration on the former president's claim
Speaker 9: of immunity from prosecution. But former President Trump and his
Speaker 9: legal team today are saying the court should not do so.
Speaker 9: His lawyer's arguing the Special Council has identified no compelling
Speaker 9: reason for the extraordinary haste he proposes, They say in
Speaker 9: they're filing the only injury the Special Council asserts in
Speaker 9: this appeal, possible delay of the trial date, remembering he's
Speaker 9: trying to take this to trial in March, even if
Speaker 9: it is cognizable at all, is not caused by the
Speaker 9: District Court's decision in the prosecution's favor on all issues.
Speaker 9: Let's bring in a real expert on this now to
Speaker 9: help break down what this means for this case. Lawrence
Speaker 9: Tribe is joining us. He is the Karl M. Lobe
Speaker 9: University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University. He's
Speaker 9: also served as lead counsel in three dozen Supreme Court cases. So, Professor,
Speaker 9: thank you very much for being with us here. Are
Speaker 9: you surprised that the former president is asking the court
Speaker 9: not to weigh in on this in an expeditious manner?
Speaker 12: Well, I'm not surprised, Kaylee, because that's his go to strategy, delay, delay, delay,
Speaker 12: But he is contradicting himself. Usually, when you have an
Speaker 12: argument about what's wrong with a criminal prosecution, you wait
Speaker 12: to see if you're convicted, and then you have an appeal.
Speaker 12: In fact, that's usually the only time you can raise
Speaker 12: an issue. Here, the president former president called him president
Speaker 12: because that's what he insists on calling himself. But here
Speaker 12: the former president is the one who said, hurry up.
Speaker 12: Every minute that this indictment hangs over my head, claiming
Speaker 12: that I tried to seize power after losing an election,
Speaker 12: every minute that I am accused of the crime of
Speaker 12: obstructing Congress. Is a minute that I am irreparably harmed.
Speaker 12: I'm entitled to go up and get a court to
Speaker 12: decide right now that Tanya Chuckkin is wrong in putting
Speaker 12: me on trial because as a former president, I should
Speaker 12: never be on trial for anything I did. And besides
Speaker 12: this double jeopardy since I wasn't convicted by the Senate.
Speaker 12: They're very weak arguments, but normally you would wait. In
Speaker 12: his case, he says, don't wait, rush, rush, hurry, consider
Speaker 12: it now. Oh you want to really hurry rush? Oh,
Speaker 12: I take it back, slow it down. That's ridiculous. He
Speaker 12: can't have it both ways. If he has a right
Speaker 12: and he does have this appeal considered immediately, then the
Speaker 12: government has the right to step on the gas and
Speaker 12: not the breaks and have it considered really immediately. Why
Speaker 12: wait to see what the Court of Appeals says? These
Speaker 12: are purely legal questions. The Court of Appeals has no
Speaker 12: special expertise. Whatever it says is going to be subject
Speaker 12: to review by the US Supreme Court. Anyway, there's no
Speaker 12: reason to wait. His own arguments are the reason not
Speaker 12: to wait. And of course it's hugely important that it
Speaker 12: be decided so that voters know when they're going to
Speaker 12: the polls whether they're voting for a convicted felon or
Speaker 12: for someone who was wrongly accused. There's a huge overwhelming
Speaker 12: national interest in resolving that question before the election, indeed,
Speaker 12: before the Republican Convention.
Speaker 9: So, Lawrence, if all of this comes down to timing
Speaker 9: and understanding, you think these are contradictory arguments here that
Speaker 9: the former president and his legal team are making. What
Speaker 9: do you make of their argument that, essentially the special
Speaker 9: counsel's desertion that the injury is possible delay of the
Speaker 9: trial date is not adequate enough injury when he's seeking
Speaker 9: a trial date that is just less than three months away.
Speaker 9: March fourth is when Jack Smith would like it to begin.
Speaker 9: What do you make of that argument in particular? And also,
Speaker 9: do you think a March trial is realistic? Knowing as
Speaker 9: you said, that the former president in his legal camp
Speaker 9: tend to delay in every way they can.
Speaker 12: Well, it's realistic if his attempts to delay are turned down,
Speaker 12: and in this case there is no basis for delay.
Speaker 12: He says, there's no good reason for the trial to
Speaker 12: occur in March. Why not hold it after the election. Well,
Speaker 12: we know that that's ridiculous. People then won't know whether
Speaker 12: they're voting for a convicted criminal or not. And if
Speaker 12: he happens to win, for managers to act as though
Speaker 12: he has won the election, and we know the first
Speaker 12: thing he does after he is born in is get
Speaker 12: rid of this prosecution, fire the attorney general who brought it,
Speaker 12: pardon himself. So it's overwhelmingly important if people are to
Speaker 12: be accountable under the law, if no one is above
Speaker 12: the law, that people not be able to delay a
Speaker 12: trial until it's too late to have a trial, the
Speaker 12: old thing.
Speaker 9: So lawrence on that point of no one being above
Speaker 9: the law. Really, the root of this question is whether
Speaker 9: or not a former president of the United States can
Speaker 9: be prosecuted. So in your legal opinion, the answer is yes,
Speaker 9: just as any other citizen can.
Speaker 12: Absolutely, and I expect the US Supreme Court to agree
Speaker 12: as well. Otherwise, a sitting president can just shoot someone
Speaker 12: on Fifth Avenue, maybe a familiar example, and as long
Speaker 12: as he does it, well he's president. He can never
Speaker 12: reprosecute it. That can't be the law. And if he says, oh, well,
Speaker 12: but this wasn't shooting someone. It was just trying to
Speaker 12: hold on to power. That's also not part of the
Speaker 12: president's job. So it's absolutely crucial if we're going to
Speaker 12: have a democracy and the rule of law, that he
Speaker 12: beheld accountable, that anyone be held accountable. And as I
Speaker 12: was earlier saying, justice delayed, is really justice denied in
Speaker 12: this case, whether you think he's guilty or innocent, We're
Speaker 12: entitled to have the answer from a jury of his
Speaker 12: peers in a trial that begins on schedule on March
Speaker 12: fourth or soon thereafter, and that requires us Okay, soupe.
Speaker 9: This so what you're describing though, in terms of the
Speaker 9: rule of law, of law, a jury of Pierre's actual
Speaker 9: conviction or not. This is due process, right, this is
Speaker 9: how the system works. So i'd like to get your
Speaker 9: thoughts on another matter very much in the news today,
Speaker 9: the Supreme Court of Colorado ruling that former President Trump
Speaker 9: should be removed from the ballot in that state because
Speaker 9: he incited the insurrection at the capitol on January sixth,
Speaker 9: twenty twenty one, and in doing so violated the fourteenth
Speaker 9: Amendment of the Constitution. What do you think of that ruling?
Speaker 9: Knowing he hasn't even been charged with insurrection, let alone
Speaker 9: convicted of any federal crime.
Speaker 12: Whether you're charged or convicted has everything to do with
Speaker 12: whether you should go to jail. It has nothing to
Speaker 12: do with whether you're disqualified. The whole point of putting
Speaker 12: in this democracy protecting provision in the Fourteenth Amendment after
Speaker 12: the Civil War was that people who are found in
Speaker 12: a fair proceeding, and the week long trial that Colorado
Speaker 12: held in this case was very fair proceeding. The president
Speaker 12: had every opportunity to put in evidence. If you're found,
Speaker 12: after a fair proceeding to have taken an oath to
Speaker 12: uphold the Constitution and then turned against it by engaging
Speaker 12: in an insurrection against the Constitution, you can't be trusted
Speaker 12: with power again, because that's the path to destroy democracy.
Speaker 12: That's why that provision is in. There has nothing to
Speaker 12: do with whether you are tried and convicted of a
Speaker 12: crime or held civilly liable. The president had a week
Speaker 12: of detailed hearings. There were two hundred and ninety eight
Speaker 12: baptual findings made by the trial court in Colorado. They
Speaker 12: were not upset on appeal. None of the justices of
Speaker 12: the Supreme Court of Colorado, including the ones who descended
Speaker 12: on different grounds, found any fault with those findings. And
Speaker 12: now it's time for the US Supreme Court, which is
Speaker 12: certainly going to have to decide that case as soon
Speaker 12: as the former president asks it to do so. It's
Speaker 12: time for the US Supreme Court to weigh in on
Speaker 12: whether he is disqualified under those provisions of the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 9: And knowing that this court is a conservative supermajority, frankly,
Speaker 9: there's six conservative justices, half of which were appointed by
Speaker 9: the former president. What way would you expect the Supreme
Speaker 9: Court to rule on that matter?
Speaker 12: Well, I don't have a crystal ball. I think as
Speaker 12: they follow the law. Judge Michael Ludig a very distinguished conservative,
Speaker 12: and I think they will have to affirm the decision
Speaker 12: and render an unexpected, perhaps in many ways unpopular ruling
Speaker 12: that keeps them off the ballot. They find some way
Speaker 12: consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and their post of the Constitution,
Speaker 12: some exit ramp, some way of not keeping him off
Speaker 12: the ballot. I don't really see what it could be.
Speaker 12: But it's a pretty ingenious court and they have found
Speaker 12: ways to do some pretty strange things.
Speaker 9: All right on that note, we will leave it. Thank
Speaker 9: you very much for hopping on with us on this
Speaker 9: breaking news. We really really appreciate your legal insight. That
Speaker 9: was Lawrence Tribe, Professor Emeritus of the Carl M. Lob University,
Speaker 9: Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University. We sincerely appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to the Sound on podcasts.
Speaker 7: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and.
Speaker 6: Anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 6: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm
Speaker 6: Eastern
Speaker 2: Time at Bloomberg dot com