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: I'm June Brosso, sitting in for Joe Matthew in the
Speaker 2: first votes cast in the twenty twenty four presidential race.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump tightened his grip on the Republican presidential nomination,
Speaker 2: with Iowa voters delivering him a commanding win in last
Speaker 2: night's caucuses, moving him one step closer to returning to
Speaker 2: the White House. Trump won fifty one percent of the vote,
Speaker 2: with rivals Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley not even close.
Speaker 2: DeSantis came in second, winning twenty one point two percent,
Speaker 2: and Haley close behind, capturing nineteen point one percent. Here
Speaker 2: to discuss what it all means and how it happened
Speaker 2: is Terry Haynes, founder of Benjia Policy. Thanks for joining us, Terry.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Jane appreciate it.
Speaker 2: So it seemed like the ca BECAU says we're over
Speaker 2: before they began. What's the significance of Trump coming in
Speaker 2: with a majority of the votes here?
Speaker 3: Well, I'm going to give you a little bit of
Speaker 3: a non consensus view about that. Frankly, Trump was expected
Speaker 3: to come in with about fifty percent of the vote,
Speaker 3: and surprise, surprise, that's exactly what he came pretty much
Speaker 3: exactly what he came in with. Four takeaways for you. First,
Speaker 3: there's still a competitive race since fifty percent or more
Speaker 3: Republican voters don't want Trump and there are only two
Speaker 3: not Trump candidates left, either of which could carry that
Speaker 3: fifty percent forward. Secondly, I think a former president which
Speaker 3: is losing half of his party's primary voters is not
Speaker 3: good news for that candidate, even though he did win. Thirdly,
Speaker 3: looking ahead to New Hampshire next week, you're likelier to
Speaker 3: see a more competitive race there since Trump is polling
Speaker 3: a low to mid forties and right now, based on polling,
Speaker 3: you can expect to surge largely from Haley. Fourthly, I
Speaker 3: think I think this is not well understood at all,
Speaker 3: but the polling in Iowa, particularly the Iowa poll from
Speaker 3: the Des Moines Register, showed that thirty percent of likely
Speaker 3: caucus goers would not support Trump and would not vote
Speaker 3: for Trump and the general election whether or not Trump,
Speaker 3: if they'd voted for Trump and the caucus. That to
Speaker 3: me presages a Republican Party split that I've been talking
Speaker 3: about for some time.
Speaker 2: But as far as the numbers that we see now
Speaker 2: and what we see ahead, doesn't it appear that Trump
Speaker 2: is going to wrap it up?
Speaker 3: No, I don't think so at all, based on right now. No,
Speaker 3: I don't think so at all. If what you've got
Speaker 3: is a situation where where he wins the Iowa caucuses,
Speaker 3: but let's remember he wins with just over half the
Speaker 3: overall vote that came through, and the caucuses in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: he gets sort of the not Trump side, gets almost
Speaker 3: as many delegates as Trump did out of Iowa. Number one,
Speaker 3: number two. New Hampshire is right now, based on polling,
Speaker 3: more competitive than Iowa. So you're going to have a
Speaker 3: competitive race and where nothing is going to happen for
Speaker 3: the month after New Hampshire. So I think what you're
Speaker 3: going to see is you're going to see three main candidates, Trump, Haley,
Speaker 3: and DeSantis all scratching and bting for advantage. I think
Speaker 3: you're going to see a lot of visits from Haley
Speaker 3: and Desandis to Midtown Manhattan to pick up additional money.
Speaker 3: And additional support there. And I think it's right now,
Speaker 3: it's still anybody's ballgame. If you've got a situation where
Speaker 3: you're not going to have another vote until late late
Speaker 3: February in South Carolina or early March in the Super
Speaker 3: Tuesday States, that's an awful lot of time in politics.
Speaker 2: It certainly is so. Dessandis and Haley seem to be
Speaker 2: just battling each other rather than Trump. And you know
Speaker 2: their numbers are just about the same. So what did
Speaker 2: they learn, if anything, from Iowa.
Speaker 3: I think what they learned is that they need to
Speaker 3: be on top in order to be the candidate that
Speaker 3: consolidates the not Trump vote. What you have if you're
Speaker 3: DeSantis and Haley and you're thinking about this, what you
Speaker 3: think is, First, you know, I've leapfrogged everybody else. Now
Speaker 3: my task is I've got to leapfrog the other Not
Speaker 3: Trump candidate. I've got to be the alternative to Trump.
Speaker 3: The vast majority of that fifty percent vote comes to me,
Speaker 3: and then I can douke it out with Trump. I
Speaker 3: mean that that is what they're thinking about right now.
Speaker 2: Trump pulls strongly with working class white voters. He one
Speaker 2: with white evangelical Christians who are nearly half of the
Speaker 2: caucus goers in Iowa. Is there any chance for DeSantis
Speaker 2: or Haley to pick off those voters?
Speaker 4: Oh?
Speaker 3: I think some Iowa I think is unique or unusual
Speaker 3: in the in both the amount of Evangelicals that exist
Speaker 3: and how and how much and how well they're organized. Frankly, yeah,
Speaker 3: sure they could do that. But what you're I think
Speaker 3: what you're seeing is a situation where you know, Trump
Speaker 3: is kind of topping at fifty percent right now. He's
Speaker 3: not going to be fifty percent in New Hampshire almost certainly.
Speaker 3: If he does, you know, we'll have a different narrative
Speaker 3: next week. But almost certainly he doesn't get to fifty
Speaker 3: percent or close to it, you will have a more
Speaker 3: competitive race. And then what you're going to have is
Speaker 3: you're going to have a free for all in the
Speaker 3: first two weeks of March, where the voters starts sorting
Speaker 3: themselves out. So right now it's very much anybody's race.
Speaker 3: And there are a lot of variables here, you know,
Speaker 3: including the desire to want to stop Trump from getting
Speaker 3: the nomination. You know that I think, frankly haven't crystallized yet.
Speaker 2: So Haley is heading to New Hampshire. Dessantis is heading
Speaker 2: to South Carolina. Tell us about the importance of New Hampshire.
Speaker 3: Well, I think New Hampshire is much more of a
Speaker 3: hinge for the race than Iowa might be. You know,
Speaker 3: your colleague Mike McKee points out that drilled down even
Speaker 3: farther than I did on results in discussing this today,
Speaker 3: and you know, points out essentially that there's about two
Speaker 3: and a half percent of Iolands that actually voted in
Speaker 3: the Iowa caucus. And this is a state that has
Speaker 3: a seventy five percent or had it in twenty twenty
Speaker 3: a seventy five percent turnout rate statewide. So this is
Speaker 3: a very very tiny sliver of Iowan's Generally, New Hampshire
Speaker 3: I think is more of a more of a hinge
Speaker 3: because what you have is a situation where Hayley looks
Speaker 3: like she's surging, looks like she's competitive, and the not
Speaker 3: Trump vote today exceeds the Trump vote. And so if
Speaker 3: that's a trend and that continues over the next month
Speaker 3: or so, you know, then you've got a much bigger race.
Speaker 3: But if over the next week Trump tamps that down
Speaker 3: and New Hampshire rights come away from this thinking, well,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm probably going to vote for Trump over Haley.
Speaker 3: Let's say then that narrative gets shot to pieces. But
Speaker 3: right now it's still much, very much anybody's ballgame in
Speaker 3: New Hampshire. And what happens in New Hampshire frankly flavors
Speaker 3: the race going forward, where people will spend the next
Speaker 3: month after New Hampshire saying, well, is Trump you know,
Speaker 3: is Trump Ashley invincible? Well, you know, it seems like
Speaker 3: he was in Iowa, but maybe not in New Hampshire.
Speaker 3: And that provides alone, provides some running room for Haley
Speaker 3: and DeSantis to try to keep consolidating the vote.
Speaker 2: And Desanti is going to South Carolina and basically skipping
Speaker 2: New Hampshire. What is he giving up by doing that.
Speaker 3: Well, he's giving up a New Hampshire caveness, obviously. But
Speaker 3: the but de Santis's uh, the Santas's idea all along
Speaker 3: was he was going to go as hard into Iowa
Speaker 3: as he possibly could. He was going to be as
Speaker 3: well organized as possible. That probably brought him the uh,
Speaker 3: the the scraping out the second place that in fact happened.
Speaker 3: He got the endorsement of the vast majority of the
Speaker 3: regulars in the Iowa Republican Party from Governor Reynolds on down,
Speaker 3: and he also got the evangelical endorsement.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: I think he thinks that he could play whatever the
Speaker 3: whatever the result in New Hampshire is, he can play
Speaker 3: well in South Carolina. Firstly, Secondly, it's it's an awfully
Speaker 3: good opportunity for him to go take Haley out. Uh,
Speaker 3: since if she's weak in her own home state. Uh,
Speaker 3: DeSantis would think that would that would turn the not
Speaker 3: Trump side of the vote much more to DeSantis.
Speaker 2: So do you think that DeSantis has an advantage over
Speaker 2: Haley at this point?
Speaker 3: I think it's a little too soon to say. What
Speaker 3: you've got is a situation. I don't have the exact
Speaker 3: numbers in front of me, but you've got a situation
Speaker 3: whereas Desanta's is second place is basically eked out about
Speaker 3: four thousand more votes than Haley did, with about on
Speaker 3: Haley and Desantas together roughly about forty five to fifty
Speaker 3: thousand votes cast. So you know, I think he probably
Speaker 3: thinks he has the ability to have an advantage over
Speaker 3: Haley if he spends a month hammering away in South Carolina.
Speaker 3: Certainly that that will weaken Haley and enhance his chances
Speaker 3: to some extent, but I doubt very much that he
Speaker 3: sees the opportunity to be free and clear. I think
Speaker 3: this is going to be a race for the half
Speaker 3: of the vote that's not Trump for the next four
Speaker 3: to five weeks.
Speaker 2: Frankly, and as far as fundraising does, DeSantis have more
Speaker 2: of an uphill battle there than.
Speaker 3: Haley right right now. And I mean this includes Wall
Speaker 3: Street of course, but right now a lot of the
Speaker 3: Wall Street money has gone to Haley, frankly, because based
Speaker 3: on polling, Haley has seems to be a better matchup
Speaker 3: candidate against Biden in the fall general election. And certainly,
Speaker 3: what a lot of deep pocketed Wall Street people have
Speaker 3: wanted and a lot of other people have wanted is
Speaker 3: a candidate that most clearly can beat Biden and most
Speaker 3: clearly is business friendly. Both of these candidates are certainly
Speaker 3: business friendly. Where Haley's advantages that she looks more electable,
Speaker 3: it's going to be up to Disantus to counter that
Speaker 3: narrative he does to some extent already by talking about,
Speaker 3: you know, he's the only person that's actually got a
Speaker 3: track record of doing a bunch of things that are
Speaker 3: business friendly and economically positive. But he's going to have
Speaker 3: to ramp that up in order to separate himself from Haley.
Speaker 3: I think, so.
Speaker 2: Does he have to win one of these early states
Speaker 2: in order to continue.
Speaker 3: I think what he has to do is he has
Speaker 3: to have a very good showing in South Carolina or
Speaker 3: it's going to be difficult for him. And then he's
Speaker 3: going to have a situation where there are in the
Speaker 3: first two weeks of March alone, there's something there's something
Speaker 3: like something like eleven primaries and six caucuses, I mean,
Speaker 3: a real dump of information and voting all at once.
Speaker 3: His job is going to have to be coming out
Speaker 3: looking like the better alternative than Haley in the early
Speaker 3: Super Tuesday states in order to remain viable.
Speaker 2: So tell us more. You think that if Trump is
Speaker 2: the nominee, the Republican Party won't unite behind him, even
Speaker 2: though you hear even from the former governor of New Hampshire. Well,
Speaker 2: if it's Trump, I'll vote for Trump. Of course, I'll
Speaker 2: support the Republican nominee. You think that that won't happen,
Speaker 2: Republicans won't fall in line.
Speaker 3: I'll take the quote that you just gave me. I
Speaker 3: will vote for Trump and I will support the nominee.
Speaker 3: What isn't said there is that I will actively go
Speaker 3: out and try to and try to make the nominee win.
Speaker 3: I think what you're going to have as a situation,
Speaker 3: and you know, this is developing, and I think it
Speaker 3: develops into the spring and summer. Frankly, but if Trump
Speaker 3: is the nominee, uh, You're going to have a situation
Speaker 3: where uh, Republican luminaries in the Republican Party are going
Speaker 3: to are going to say to themselves, what's better for me?
Speaker 3: Is it better for me to firstly say I won't
Speaker 3: vote for Trump and you shouldn't either, or should I
Speaker 3: say I'm gonna you know, I'll absolutely support the nominee,
Speaker 3: but then absolutely do nothing other than say that in
Speaker 3: order to support uh. You know, there's that number one.
Speaker 3: Number two. I point out the and have for the
Speaker 3: last several days. One of the most interesting findings of
Speaker 3: the Iowa poll the Moines and the Des Moines Register
Speaker 3: runs a very accurate kind of gold standard poll, which
Speaker 3: showed him that that about thirty percent of Iowans who
Speaker 3: were going to vote in the caucuses said they wouldn't
Speaker 3: support Trump in the general. I think you get a
Speaker 3: voter split here too. And you know, the way I
Speaker 3: look at Trump, and have looked at him for some time,
Speaker 3: is a lot like a pig and a python. You know,
Speaker 3: what's what's really if you're an officeholder, if you're a
Speaker 3: republic what I call a Republican luminary, your interest is
Speaker 3: in getting past Trump as much as possible. You know,
Speaker 3: if you if you're not enamored of Trump in the party,
Speaker 3: you know you want him past you. If you if
Speaker 3: you were very enamored with Trump but he loses, well
Speaker 3: then maybe you become more prominent as a result of that.
Speaker 3: But either way, the way to get past Trump is
Speaker 3: to is to have him lose. And and you know
Speaker 3: that's why politicians think. And I think you'll see a
Speaker 3: lot more of that coming up.
Speaker 2: Terry, I think we'll leave it with pig and the python.
Speaker 2: And thank you so much for being with us. That's
Speaker 2: Terry Haynes, founder of penji A.
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 2: It was Taiwan's most hotly contested election in decades, and
Speaker 2: Taiwan elected current Vice President b Ching Day as leader
Speaker 2: of the country at the center of US China tensions,
Speaker 2: putting in power a man Beijing has branded an instigator
Speaker 2: of war. What happens next is anyone's guests joining us
Speaker 2: is Sean King, senior vice president at Park Strategies. Sean
Speaker 2: just set the stage a little bit explain China's warnings
Speaker 2: before the election.
Speaker 6: Beijing had said, well, you know, Beijing is uncomfortable even
Speaker 6: discussing Taiwan's elections because their theory is that people who
Speaker 6: are Chinese are incompatible with Western style demoscery democracy. So
Speaker 6: even acknowledging that people in Taiwan have a choice to
Speaker 6: their leader sort of betrays their own system at home.
Speaker 6: But they had let it be known that they were
Speaker 6: interested in either one of the opposition candidates winning and
Speaker 6: not the current vice president who is now the president elect.
Speaker 6: So if anybody at all listen to what Beijing was saying,
Speaker 6: however cryptically they said it, they rejected it, and now.
Speaker 2: So the situation is China says Taiwan is part of China,
Speaker 2: even though the Communist Party that has never controlled Taiwan.
Speaker 2: What is this a source of continuing animosity between China
Speaker 2: and the US and does this election threaten to ratchet
Speaker 2: that up?
Speaker 6: While starting first in the late seventeenth century, Taiwan has
Speaker 6: been part of China for a total of two hundred
Speaker 6: and seventeen years, but only for four years since eighteen
Speaker 6: ninety five and not at all since nineteen forty nine,
Speaker 6: at least governed by the mainland. But the fact is
Speaker 6: that it's never been under PRC control and the PLA,
Speaker 6: the People's Liberation Army, has never set foot on any
Speaker 6: part of Taiwan. So even though Taiwan has been part
Speaker 6: of China historically at different points in its history, and
Speaker 6: before that it was actually home to Dutch and Spanish
Speaker 6: settlements and settled originally by austron Asian aboriginal peoples, it's
Speaker 6: never been under PRC control. So if you listen to
Speaker 6: Mao and Kissinger from the old days and PRC officials today,
Speaker 6: Taiwan is the main irridant or the main issue in
Speaker 6: US PRC relations because until nineteen seventy nine, we recognized
Speaker 6: the government in Taipei as the Chinese government as opposed
Speaker 6: to Beijing. We never recognized Taiwan as Taiwan, say, but
Speaker 6: we just recognized the government there as a sole legitimate
Speaker 6: Chinese government. So for US, I think the issues with
Speaker 6: the PRC are much bigger, whether it's freedom or religion,
Speaker 6: freedom of expression, the South China Sea, Beijing's backstopping North Korea.
Speaker 6: There are a lot of different things that play. It's
Speaker 6: refusal to take a clear moral stand on the Ukraine War.
Speaker 6: But for Beijing, the Taiwan issue is front and center
Speaker 6: because the Communist Party of China has staked itsself on
Speaker 6: Chinese nationalism, and also getting Taiwan would allow it to
Speaker 6: project naval power into the Western Pacific. So right now,
Speaker 6: I would say, especially from Beijing side, Taiwan is the
Speaker 6: number one issue in US PRC relations.
Speaker 2: So then how big of a loss was this for
Speaker 2: Beijing to have Taiwan ignoring its warnings, however subtle they
Speaker 2: may have been.
Speaker 6: Well, the fact that people on Taiwan are voting at
Speaker 6: all as a loss for Beijing. But this in particular
Speaker 6: is an extra special loss. But people have been ignoring
Speaker 6: or turning their noses up at Beijing's warnings ever since
Speaker 6: nineteen ninety In nineteen ninety six, when Taiwanese had the
Speaker 6: audacity or temerity, as you would hear PRC officials say it,
Speaker 6: to actually vote for their first freely elected president, Lee
Speaker 6: Dung Wai, who got his PhD at Cornell. I might add,
Speaker 6: they shot missiles into the Taiwan straight hoping to intimidate
Speaker 6: people from going to the polls. Even more people showed
Speaker 6: up when ju Umji, the premiere of the PRC in
Speaker 6: two thousand, voted people not to vote for Tchenhubien. He
Speaker 6: did end up winning in a three way race, and
Speaker 6: most people think that got Chen at least two to
Speaker 6: three extra points in the polls. So I'm sure whatever
Speaker 6: interference Beijing tried this time only made people more sympathetic
Speaker 6: to lie. Also, former taiwan President Maying Joe, who's drifted
Speaker 6: closer to the PRC in retirement, said that Taiwanese who
Speaker 6: welcome unifications so long as that's peaceful, and Toy told
Speaker 6: deuts Cheavella German TV that Taiwanese should trust Shijingping that
Speaker 6: I'm sure only increased support for Lie. But even the
Speaker 6: KMT candidate who's thought to be China friendly, which is
Speaker 6: kind of a mischaracterization, he's native Taiwanese. He spoke in
Speaker 6: the Taiwanese and he rejected Beijing's Hong Kong one country,
Speaker 6: two systems proposal for Taiwan. Only one to two percent
Speaker 6: of people on Taiwan support immediate unification of any kind,
Speaker 6: So for years and years, and even more so echoed
Speaker 6: on Saturday, Taiwanese categorily reject any overture from the mainland.
Speaker 2: Is there a fear among Taiwanese that China might take
Speaker 2: some action, you know, military exercises or otherwise in light
Speaker 2: of the election returns, We seem to be.
Speaker 6: More worried about Taiwan security than Taiwanese themselves are. After
Speaker 6: Nancy Pelosi, a freely elected leader, was welcomed to Taiwan
Speaker 6: by another freely elected leader and exchange in democratic exercise
Speaker 6: and exchange of ideas. Beijing, of course did these made
Speaker 6: for Hollywood exercises around Taiwan. And you know, most people
Speaker 6: there in Taiwan, they've learned to live with it. You know,
Speaker 6: for seventy years they've feared Beijing invading the island, so yes,
Speaker 6: I mean this is on their mind long term, but
Speaker 6: that's not going to stop them from living their lives,
Speaker 6: and they don't expect any immediate action, nor do I.
Speaker 6: You know, people compare it to Ukraine, but I don't
Speaker 6: see the comps Russian soldiers were able to waltz across
Speaker 6: an unguarded Ukrainian land border where many senior Russian officials
Speaker 6: had actually served in the Soviet Army. It's one hundred
Speaker 6: miles between Taiwan and the mainland rough seas we would
Speaker 6: see it coming, and Biden has said four times we
Speaker 6: would defend Taiwan in the case of attack, even though
Speaker 6: there's obviously no treaty obligation to do so, because you
Speaker 6: can't have a treaty with someone you don't recognize.
Speaker 3: But I think that.
Speaker 6: Taiwan is too important for the free world to lose,
Speaker 6: so the US would intervene if Beijing unprovoked attack the island.
Speaker 6: So most people don't expect an invasion anytime soon, and
Speaker 6: that's my feeling as well.
Speaker 2: Well. Those are good words, good thoughts. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: For joining us on the show. That's John King, Park Strategy,
Speaker 2: Senior Vice President.
Speaker 1: Your Last Thing, 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: Fresh off his victory in the Iowa Republican Caucuses, Donald
Speaker 2: Trump arrived in a Manhattan courtroom this morning for the
Speaker 2: next trial of his crowded legal calendar, this time in
Speaker 2: a defamation lawsuit by e. Gene Carroll, the writer who
Speaker 2: won a separate sexual abuse case against him last year.
Speaker 2: My guest is Dave Ehrenberg, the Palm Beach County state attorney.
Speaker 2: He joins us in our New York studios. Dave, you
Speaker 2: left sunny Palm Beach to be here in New York
Speaker 2: for the snowstorm.
Speaker 3: And there's no place I'd rather be.
Speaker 2: All right, fair enough, Well, Donald Trump is here too.
Speaker 2: He continues his tour of courtrooms around the country, like
Speaker 2: the DC Appellate Court last week. He doesn't have to
Speaker 2: be in the courtroom, but he is for the very
Speaker 2: beginning of the trial. So what do you make of this?
Speaker 2: Is he trying to impact the jury or impact the voters.
Speaker 5: Impact the voters. This is all about public relations. This
Speaker 5: case has already been lost. The judge said, we're not
Speaker 5: going to relitigate the past trial, which said, according to
Speaker 5: the jury, that Donald Trump committed sexual assault against Egene
Speaker 5: Carroll and committed defamation against her. So now we're just
Speaker 5: talking about damages. How many millions in compensatory and possible
Speaker 5: punitive damages will be assessed. So the only reason why
Speaker 5: Trump is there, I think, is to try to gain
Speaker 5: political points, to show that he is being derided as
Speaker 5: the leading candid for president. This is the Biden administration
Speaker 5: doing this, even though that doesn't make sense, and ultimately
Speaker 5: nothing fuels his magabase more than martyrdom and grievance.
Speaker 2: Now, I want to talk about what his defense could
Speaker 2: possibly be here, because the judge has basically cut off
Speaker 2: every avenue of defense that I can see. He can't
Speaker 2: say that he can't deny that sexual abuse happened, or
Speaker 2: that he believed his statements were true. He can't comment
Speaker 2: on Carol's prior romantic relationships or the lack of DNA.
Speaker 2: I mean, what is his defense here?
Speaker 5: He doesn't have a defense In fact, I don't think
Speaker 5: it's a good move for him to try to testify
Speaker 5: it because if he tries to pull what he did
Speaker 5: in the New York civil fraud trial in this trial,
Speaker 5: he's going to get sanctioned. He's going to get cut off.
Speaker 5: This is a jury trial, this is not a bench
Speaker 5: trial like the last trial. And you have a federal
Speaker 5: judge and Judge Kaplan who's not messing around judging Goron.
Speaker 5: A state court judge in New York gave him a
Speaker 5: wider latitude, and he allowed Trump to bash the judge
Speaker 5: and the process and the attorneys. That's not going to
Speaker 5: happen here. And in this case, he's limited to what
Speaker 5: he can say, as you correctly pointed out, they can't
Speaker 5: relitigate the last case. He can't attack Egene Carroll. And
Speaker 5: so what is he going to say. He's not going
Speaker 5: to be able to go on a political rant. So
Speaker 5: there really is nothing he could say that could influence
Speaker 5: a jury here. Best, he just not testified at all.
Speaker 2: So he says he wants to testify. Of course, he
Speaker 2: said he wanted to testify at the last Egene Carroll trial.
Speaker 2: So who knows the judge is saying that he can
Speaker 2: do so if he wants to testify on Monday, January
Speaker 2: twenty second, which is the day before the New Hampshire primary.
Speaker 5: So maybe maybe Well, he had a lawyer the last time,
Speaker 5: this Tacapina guy, and Tacopina and Trump split up. They
Speaker 5: just had a divorce and he's been represented. Now Trump
Speaker 5: is by Elena Haba, and Alena Habba is gung ho
Speaker 5: on Trump testifying. The word was that Tacopina did not
Speaker 5: want Trump to testify. So this is Trump saying, I
Speaker 5: am going to do it.
Speaker 3: I am going to.
Speaker 5: Show that the whole process is of fraud, but he's
Speaker 5: not going to be allowed to testify that way. So
Speaker 5: in the end, I think he just does what he's
Speaker 5: done before, which is to promise that he's going to testify,
Speaker 5: but then in the end he does not.
Speaker 2: So Joe Takapina is a well experienced trial lawyer, so
Speaker 2: there is the reason why he doesn't want Trump to testify.
Speaker 2: Alena Habba I don't think has much trial experience at all.
Speaker 2: And again today she was, you know, sort of the
Speaker 2: same thing that happened in the trial, the New York trial.
Speaker 2: They seem to be trying to get on the judge's
Speaker 2: bad side, challenging the judge and you know, arguing with
Speaker 2: the judge. I mean in the New York trual, in
Speaker 2: the trial that was ended last week with judge and
Speaker 2: gorn I mean, it was it was crazy, some of
Speaker 2: the things that they did and said to this judge
Speaker 2: who was going to be making the decision without a jury.
Speaker 2: So I'm not sure about her courtroom tactics.
Speaker 5: Now, one of the first things they teach you in
Speaker 5: law school is never upset the person wearing the black
Speaker 5: robe and wielding that gavel. Big mistake, But yet they
Speaker 5: keep doing it. And they got away with it with
Speaker 5: the judge and Gorin because they knew their goose was
Speaker 5: cooked in the New York civil fraud case, so what
Speaker 5: do they have to lose? But by attacking judge and
Speaker 5: girl on, I think it gave Trump a false sense
Speaker 5: of confidence that he can do it again.
Speaker 3: This federal judge.
Speaker 5: We're talking about lifetime appointments, and these guys run their
Speaker 5: court room like a tight ship. And there's no way
Speaker 5: that Trump's going to be able to get away with
Speaker 5: any of this stuff, especially because it is a jury trial.
Speaker 5: So although he promises he's going to testify. I think
Speaker 5: this is like other promises where he said he would
Speaker 5: promise to testify earlier in the New York Civil Froud case,
Speaker 5: which then he didn't do, or in the first trial
Speaker 5: in this matter, he said he would testify and he
Speaker 5: didn't do. Just like he said he would meet with
Speaker 5: Bob Muller during the investigation, which he didn't do. And
Speaker 5: just like he said he was going to have a
Speaker 5: health care plan that comes out in two weeks.
Speaker 2: Oh, you're going back far now, but you have a
Speaker 2: lot to work with. So what's interesting is the Council
Speaker 2: for Egene Carroll Roberta Kaplan expressed concern in recent days
Speaker 2: that Trump would attempt to turn the trial into a circus,
Speaker 2: and she suggested the judge be prepared to hold Trump
Speaker 2: or his lawyers in contempt of court or issue punitive
Speaker 2: fines and monetary sanctions. Was that necessary for her or
Speaker 2: just for publicity. Everyone knows Judge Caplin. Judge Caplin is
Speaker 2: no nonsense, and he's not going to He doesn't need, it,
Speaker 2: seems to me direction from an attorney how to run
Speaker 2: his courtroom.
Speaker 3: I agree it does.
Speaker 5: Caplin is not going to suffer fools lightly, And I
Speaker 5: do understand why miss Kaplin no relation. Eging Carroll's lawyer
Speaker 5: wanted Trump to say under oath that I will not
Speaker 5: violate the court's order. But you know what, she also
Speaker 5: wanted Trump to admit under oath that he committed sexual
Speaker 5: assault against Eging Carroll. And although the jury found it,
Speaker 5: in our country, we still don't force defendants to incriminate
Speaker 5: themselves or to stay certain things like I did it,
Speaker 5: I'm guilty. So I think she was asking for too much,
Speaker 5: and the judge is not going to go there.
Speaker 2: What's unusual in this case is you talk about secret juries,
Speaker 2: anonymous juries. This jury is so anonymous that the judge
Speaker 2: issued an order. First of all, he issued an order
Speaker 2: that bars Trump and his team from saying a lot
Speaker 2: of the things that they have said before. But he
Speaker 2: told potential jurors that if they're selected for the trial,
Speaker 2: they should use fake names when discussing the case with
Speaker 2: each other, and they wouldn't be permitted to disclose their
Speaker 2: role to anyone, including family members. So this judge is
Speaker 2: trying to avoid what we've seen Trump before do, which
Speaker 2: is issue these sort of either direct or indirect threats.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I've seen anonymous juries before, but I've never seen
Speaker 5: an order where you can't even communicate with each other
Speaker 5: using your real name. But it makes sense, you want
Speaker 5: this to be air tight, But it really tells you
Speaker 5: what kind of political culture we're in now, what kind
Speaker 5: of country we're in now where you have the threat
Speaker 5: of violence against your political and legal opponents that's so
Speaker 5: pervasive that you need an anonymous jury like you do
Speaker 5: in mafia cases. When you are trying a former president
Speaker 5: and the leading candidate for president in the Republican side.
Speaker 5: This should never be normalized. The fact that the person
Speaker 5: who won the Iowa Coxes has to get on a
Speaker 5: plane and go to a courtroom where he's already been
Speaker 5: found liable for sexual assault should never be normalized in
Speaker 5: this country.
Speaker 2: Well. Also, increasingly judges are being threatened. In fact, in
Speaker 2: the civil fraud trial before the closing arguments, Judge Angern
Speaker 2: was also threatened. And it's it's very difficult to you know,
Speaker 2: to be able to protect the judges. Now another you know,
Speaker 2: another kind of area where we hadn't been used to
Speaker 2: that before.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, judges get their houses swatted, they get threatened,
Speaker 5: their families get threatened. And you know, we just seem
Speaker 5: to accept that this is not how a functioning democracy
Speaker 5: is supposed to work. We're not a fascist country, at
Speaker 5: least not yet, and you're not supposed to threaten your
Speaker 5: political or legal enemies. But that is what certain elements
Speaker 5: of the MAGA movement have done. And look, it's not everyone,
Speaker 5: but you have extremists within the movement who think that
Speaker 5: anyone who attacks the leader needs to be threatened and
Speaker 5: really possibly even killed. And that is absolutely unacceptable, and
Speaker 5: we need leaders to stand up and say no, this
Speaker 5: is not to go on any longer.
Speaker 2: Now, Trump, what's curious to me, but he has escalated
Speaker 2: his attacks against Egene Carroll. He's repeated what's already been
Speaker 2: determined in the last trial to be defamatory. So after
Speaker 2: his after the actually it wasn't after the close of
Speaker 2: the closing arguments, it was during the during the New
Speaker 2: York Attorney General's closing arguments, Trump held his own press
Speaker 2: conference downtown in his building on the Woolworth Building, and
Speaker 2: he repeated that he'd never heard of her before, he
Speaker 2: didn't know who she was. So I mean, we're going
Speaker 2: to keep having trial after trial after trial if he
Speaker 2: repeats the defamation.
Speaker 5: Yes, until the cost of saying these things is so
Speaker 5: great where he gets hit with such punitive damages that
Speaker 5: it's not worth it anymore. So one of two things
Speaker 5: has to happen for this to stop. Either the punitive
Speaker 5: damages in this case or a subsequent case has to
Speaker 5: be so great that he assides not worth it, or
Speaker 5: he actually gets a political hit from it where his
Speaker 5: poll numbers drop, and then I think he'll back away
Speaker 5: from it. But right now, neither of these things has happened.
Speaker 5: He got fined five million dollars in the first case.
Speaker 5: That's not enough for him to change his behavior. And
Speaker 5: he just won the Iowa caucus. So as long as
Speaker 5: he keeps winning, he's not going to change his behavior.
Speaker 2: Let's turn to it could come down this week. Let's
Speaker 2: turn to the case of Trump's claim of absolute presidential
Speaker 2: immunity in the DC Circuit Court and the question that
Speaker 2: was heard around the country from Judge Florence Pan about
Speaker 2: whether or not he could assassinate You could assassinate your
Speaker 2: political rivals and still and get away with it because
Speaker 2: of presidential immunity. Do you think that's going to come fast?
Speaker 5: That decision I do, and you can see by the
Speaker 5: judges questioning it was just such a no brainer. Where
Speaker 5: of course a president doesn't have absolute immunity. Of course
Speaker 5: they can't kill their political rivals. And look, it's not
Speaker 5: so funny when it happens to the other guy. So
Speaker 5: if you give Joe Biden this kind of power, he
Speaker 5: can cancel the election, arrest Donald Trump, and be president
Speaker 5: for life. So of course they're not going to rule
Speaker 5: for apsolt immunity. Now the question is how long will
Speaker 5: the decision take. I think it'll be soon.
Speaker 2: The d C.
Speaker 5: Circuit Court of Appeals has expedited its review. And then
Speaker 5: the question is when it's not if when DC Circuit
Speaker 5: rules against Trump, what does a Supreme Court do. I
Speaker 5: would bet that they're going to defer to the d
Speaker 5: C Circuit and deny review, and then it's game on
Speaker 5: in the election interference case in Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: I agree with you, but we are in the minority.
Speaker 2: I have to say, I think we're in the minority.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of you know, legal scholars, legal experts,
Speaker 2: think the Supreme Court has to take that case, has
Speaker 2: to make the decision, but they already have so many
Speaker 2: different issues related to the election coming up that I'm
Speaker 2: not sure they want to, you know, go into another
Speaker 2: one yet.
Speaker 5: Right, this is a no brainer. This is not a
Speaker 5: hard one, and the Supreme Court, I think, would rather
Speaker 5: deal with others things and it'd be easy. I think
Speaker 5: the reason why the Supreme Court one of the reasons
Speaker 5: why they denied their own expedited review, because remember Jacksmith
Speaker 5: wanted the Supreme Court to bigfoot the d C Circuit
Speaker 5: Court of Appeals, and they said, now we're going to
Speaker 5: let the DC Circuit handle it. I think one reason
Speaker 5: why they did that was that they were going to
Speaker 5: defer to the ruling of the d C Circuit, knowing
Speaker 5: they would deny presidential absolute immunity.
Speaker 2: Do you think that the decision will just be we're
Speaker 2: denying absolute presidential immunity, or the judges might have to
Speaker 2: set out some of the parameters where presidential immunity might apply.
Speaker 5: Judges generally like to rule on the narrowest issue possible,
Speaker 5: don't get too ambitious, especially when there's an expedited review.
Speaker 5: So I think they're just going to deny it here.
Speaker 5: I don't think they're going to go much further, because
Speaker 5: you do that, then you open it up to more delays,
Speaker 5: and this case, the one Washing d C for election interference,
Speaker 5: is the one that's most likely to be tried before
Speaker 5: the election. It's in that sense, the most important case
Speaker 5: because all the others, I think, with the possible exception
Speaker 5: of the New York State case on Stormy Daniels, will
Speaker 5: be tried after the election. So that's why I think
Speaker 5: these courts want to get started as soon as possible.
Speaker 2: Now. The judge, Judge Tanya Chuckkin, has not she's sort
Speaker 2: of put everything on hold, but she hasn't actually you know,
Speaker 2: taken it off the docket. The March fifth trial. Do
Speaker 2: you think that there's any way they could meet that
Speaker 2: if let's say the DC Circuit comes down this week
Speaker 2: and says no presidential immunity, the Supreme Court says, no,
Speaker 2: we're not going to review it. How long?
Speaker 3: Oh, then it's immediate.
Speaker 5: I think also the DC Circuit will remove the gag
Speaker 5: excuse me, the stay the state of the case immediately,
Speaker 5: and then it goes to Tanya chuck and Judge Chutkin,
Speaker 5: she will calendar it. Now it's set for March fourth,
Speaker 5: I think within sixty days of that is the trial
Speaker 5: that's what I have been saying from the beginning. I'm
Speaker 5: going to stick to my prediction, and this case will
Speaker 5: be decided well before the election. And you see the polls.
Speaker 5: Even though Trump won pretty handily in Iowa, still a
Speaker 5: certain segment that says, if he's found guilty of in
Speaker 5: one of these trials, people would switch their vote away
Speaker 5: from him.
Speaker 2: And very quickly, very briefly, what about your Florida trial
Speaker 2: down there on classified documents. You have a date for that.
Speaker 5: It's scheduled going May. It ain't going. Here's the thing,
Speaker 5: Judge Cannon is slow walking this case. That case in
Speaker 5: my neck of the woods is the strongest of all
Speaker 5: the four cases against Trump. He has no defense, but
Speaker 5: that case is going to be delayed past the election.
Speaker 5: And that's a shame.
Speaker 2: It is a shame. I'm so happy that you came
Speaker 2: in today though through all the snow. It was hard
Speaker 2: for me to get in from seventy ninth Street to
Speaker 2: fifteen Mine Street, so I appreciate your coming in from
Speaker 2: however you got here from Pombe.
Speaker 5: It's worse. It's frozen rain.
Speaker 1: Now you're listening to the Bloomberg sound on podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 1: the tune in alf Bloomberg dot Com and the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa
Speaker 1: from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played
Speaker 1: Bloomberg eleven.
Speaker 2: The drowning deaths of a woman and two children in
Speaker 2: the Rio Grande River as they tried to enter the
Speaker 2: United States from Mexico on Friday have intensified tensions between
Speaker 2: Texas and the federal border officials. US border officials say
Speaker 2: Texas officers prevented federal border officials from helping them, and
Speaker 2: that is in dispute. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a
Speaker 2: partner at Holland and Knight and the former head of
Speaker 2: the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration. Leon,
Speaker 2: what happened? What do we know happened on Friday? Because
Speaker 2: it seems like there were conflicting reports.
Speaker 4: Well, there were conflicting reports, including one from the Congressman
Speaker 4: Henry Quaar, who's the esteem congressman along the border. And
Speaker 4: so the Department of Justice actually filed a brief of
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court that actually discussed this issue slightly more.
Speaker 4: And it seems like there were six migrants that were
Speaker 4: actually in distress, but three by the time the Mexican
Speaker 4: government reported this to the Department of Homeland Security, and
Speaker 4: by the time the Department of Homeland Security would have responded,
Speaker 4: it seems like even if Texas had let them in,
Speaker 4: three of them would have already been found deceased. Unfortunately,
Speaker 4: there were two others that were rescued by the Mexican
Speaker 4: government that presumably would have been rescued by the border patrol.
Speaker 4: Have they've been allowed to enter, But there is no
Speaker 4: dispute that the Texas state officials are blocking this park
Speaker 4: in Eagle Past, Texas and not permitting the Department of
Speaker 4: Homeland Security officials enter the part which the Department of
Speaker 4: Homeland Security officials say is a violation of their right
Speaker 4: to enter in times of emergency, that they have a
Speaker 4: federal right under the supremacy clause to do that.
Speaker 2: And do you agree which side do you agree with?
Speaker 2: Does Texas have the right or does the Department and
Speaker 2: Homeland Security have the right.
Speaker 3: It's clear that.
Speaker 4: If there's any kind of transnational emergency that's happening on
Speaker 4: the border, that the federal officials have the ability to
Speaker 4: access the border to be able to respond to that
Speaker 4: transnational emergency where they can't necessarily do things. Is that
Speaker 4: they were just patrolling this park, and the State of
Speaker 4: Texas said, this is our park to patrol. The federal
Speaker 4: officials who don't have jurisdiction here, that's fine, but in
Speaker 4: these situations of an emergency, there's no doubt that the
Speaker 4: federal government has the authority to enter. And so the
Speaker 4: Texas government not allowing them to enter will probably lead
Speaker 4: at some point to some sort of injunctive relief that
Speaker 4: will then, if it happens again, could lead to contempt
Speaker 4: of court findings.
Speaker 2: So Texas Governor Greg Gabbitt has been escalating the tensions
Speaker 2: with the federal government over immigration at the border. Is
Speaker 2: this was this part of the new law that's been
Speaker 2: passed that hasn't gone into a chair yet where Texas
Speaker 2: says that it can its local official officers can arrest migrants,
Speaker 2: which is normally what is a job for the federal government.
Speaker 7: Well, this is.
Speaker 4: Part of that overall strategy. The law itself, what it's
Speaker 4: going to do is it's going to say that if
Speaker 4: you're not in Texas legally, it's a misdemeanor that you
Speaker 4: can then be taken to the border, and if you
Speaker 4: don't actually cross back into Mexico, you can be re
Speaker 4: arrested again for a felony. And so all of these
Speaker 4: areas that are being enclosed are part of this overall
Speaker 4: strategy to be able to have places to take people
Speaker 4: to along the border and say you are your two
Speaker 4: choices either go back into Mexico or if you try
Speaker 4: to come back in, we will arrest you under the
Speaker 4: Texas Law. Of course, the legality of that Texas Law
Speaker 4: is currently under review at the courts and it's probably
Speaker 4: going to work its way all the way up to
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: This is all part of the bigger problem of immigration
Speaker 2: and the security at the southern border, and in the
Speaker 2: Iowa caucuses, that was one of the major concerns of
Speaker 2: the caucus goers there, of course Republicans, but one of
Speaker 2: the major concerns what is the status there. We were
Speaker 2: talking before about negotiations over immigration among you know lawmakers.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard about that for a while. What's the
Speaker 2: status of that.
Speaker 4: Well, one of the biggest problems happened in the last
Speaker 4: few days where House Speaker Mike Johnson said that he
Speaker 4: thought that there wasn't any legislation that would be able
Speaker 4: to be created by this semic group of negotiators that
Speaker 4: would be acceptable to the House, such that this needed
Speaker 4: President Trump to be able to come in and be
Speaker 4: able to solve this problem, and that what President Biden
Speaker 4: needed to do was just unilaterally act with any powers
Speaker 4: that he had, but that the legislation to solve the
Speaker 4: border problem would be too weak if it was the
Speaker 4: current legislation that's being talked about by the Senate. I
Speaker 4: don't think that's going to be the last word. I
Speaker 4: think that's posturing in many cases. I do think the
Speaker 4: White House wants a deal. The White House is actually
Speaker 4: brought in all the relevant negotiators and chairmen to speak
Speaker 4: later today at the White House to try to get
Speaker 4: a deal. The White House very much wants a deal.
Speaker 4: They're negotiating in areas that make many very Democrats very
Speaker 4: uncomfortable with regard to what kinds of limitations they're willing
Speaker 4: to accept along the border. But at the end of
Speaker 4: the day, it's going to come down to can the
Speaker 4: Senate pass something? And if the Senate can pass something
Speaker 4: on a bipartisan basis, then they can make the House
Speaker 4: look really badly they refuse to pass something, then it
Speaker 4: becomes evident that the House would be the ones blocking progress.
Speaker 2: And there are some areas where the Senate negotiators have
Speaker 2: come to agreement right.
Speaker 4: The Senate has some spots with regard to sort of
Speaker 4: a re implementation of Title forty two authority, which was
Speaker 4: the auplority to automatically expel people at the border who
Speaker 4: don't come in through the ports of entry, who actually
Speaker 4: try to come in illegally in between the ports of entry,
Speaker 4: with limited exceptions for very extreme humanitarian cases. Also an
Speaker 4: expansion of detention for those kinds of people who enter
Speaker 4: the United States and are waiting for their cases to
Speaker 4: be heard. But the area that's not yet resolved is
Speaker 4: there are these thirty thousand people per month that the
Speaker 4: Biden administration is allowing legally to enter the United States
Speaker 4: from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, that the Biden administration
Speaker 4: argues is necessary so that people don't enter illegally, so
Speaker 4: that people wait in their countries and applied for this program.
Speaker 4: That Republicans want that program eliminated, and they also want
Speaker 4: it to be eliminated. That basically, under almost all circumstances
Speaker 4: that the Biden administration couldn't find someone with urgent circumstances
Speaker 4: on the border and admit them I legally, And so
Speaker 4: those two areas are under debate about whether those will
Speaker 4: be accomplished for them.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Leon, that's Leon Fresco, a partner at
Speaker 2: Holland and Knight.
Speaker 7: Thanks for listening to the Sound on Podcast. Make sure
Speaker 7: to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and
Speaker 7: anywhere else you get your podcasts, And you can find
Speaker 7: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm
Speaker 7: Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.