Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon Eastern on Applecarplay.
Speaker 2: And then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Everybody's peeking out of one eye, clearing out the cobwebs,
Speaker 3: trying to start the week, fighting through traffic.
Speaker 1: To get to work unless you're in Washington.
Speaker 3: No traffic today because Whilemaker's just left town, or about
Speaker 3: two week recess.
Speaker 4: But i'll tell you.
Speaker 3: What Monday's looking up for Donald Trump. Think of the
Speaker 3: anxiety he might have felt going to bed last night
Speaker 3: thinking about the bond. This thing was what four hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty four million dollars. He said he only had
Speaker 3: one hundred million, not to mention the other one, the
Speaker 3: Stormy Daniel's case, is going to get a new trial
Speaker 3: date today at some point, we're told. But look at
Speaker 3: this headline. Trump bond cut by sixty eight percent. This
Speaker 3: just happened, So we're about to likely find out how
Speaker 3: much money Donald Trump actually has because he said previously
Speaker 3: he could only cover a bond of up to one
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars, otherwise he'd need to sell properties. Now
Speaker 3: it's one hundred and seventy five million while he appeals
Speaker 3: this verdict this just dropped a short time ago, while
Speaker 3: he awaits a trial date in the Brag case, and
Speaker 3: that's been a doozy if you listen to the judge
Speaker 3: in that courtroom this morning. Both of these are going
Speaker 3: to bring news today one way or the other. The
Speaker 3: moment of truth. As we said on the terminal, he'll
Speaker 3: either post bond or not, and they've already got apparently
Speaker 3: Lean's set to hit two properties of Donald Trump's in
Speaker 3: Westchester County, and then whether we're going to get an
Speaker 3: actual trial date for Brag. Both of these will tell
Speaker 3: us an enormous amount as we head into the throes
Speaker 3: of this general election campaign. And we start our conversation
Speaker 3: today with a new voice, Robert mc worder. We wanted
Speaker 3: to talk with somebody who had experienced, specifically in dealing
Speaker 3: with bond issues like this, a constitutional law expert and
Speaker 3: practicing criminal defense and civil rights lawyer in Maricopa County. Robert,
Speaker 3: it's great to see you. What's your reaction to this
Speaker 3: dollar figure being cut by so much. Why would they
Speaker 3: do this the day of if it just made life
Speaker 3: a lot easier for Donald Trump?
Speaker 4: Or was that the aim?
Speaker 5: Well, I think that was Trump's aim and the Trump
Speaker 5: defense teams aim. I think it's kind of sad. I've
Speaker 5: been practicing for over thirty years, and I have never
Speaker 5: seen a criminal defendant receive more consideration, more bend over
Speaker 5: backwards from the criminal justice system at all parts than
Speaker 5: has Donald Trump. There's an amount of loss here. The
Speaker 5: bond is meant to cover the loss so that when
Speaker 5: he eventually loses on appeal, that his victim, which is
Speaker 5: the people of the state of New York, can be
Speaker 5: made whole. And the court has just given him another pass.
Speaker 5: I got to tell you, Yeah, I'm really wondering whether
Speaker 5: he can even raise one hundred and seventy five million.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a great question right now. As I mentioned,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump says he has one hundred million, So we're
Speaker 3: about to find out exactly how much money he's got,
Speaker 3: although I suspect it would be a lot easier for
Speaker 3: him to loan or to borrow seventy five than it
Speaker 3: would have for the whole freight.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 3: Total damages in this case four hundred and sixty four
Speaker 3: million dollars, including ten million in penalties against his sons
Speaker 3: and Alan Weiselberg. And it's one hundred and twenty percent
Speaker 3: of the verdict. Right, so he owes even more than that.
Speaker 4: What would compel the court to do this?
Speaker 5: Well, you know, it is an unprecedented case in terms
Speaker 5: of its size and its scope. I also think what's
Speaker 5: compelling the court. There may have be some people on
Speaker 5: the court who are just pro Trump, but I think
Speaker 5: more than that is he keeps making claims that he's
Speaker 5: treated unfairly, and the courts have been known over backwards
Speaker 5: to make sure that they are treating him more than fairly,
Speaker 5: So that could be what's going on. Look, four hundred
Speaker 5: and whatever million dollars is a lot of money. You
Speaker 5: can accept that somebody maybe doesn't have that cash on hand.
Speaker 5: I think the underlying issue here, though, is that he
Speaker 5: does not have the value in his properties. He doesn't
Speaker 5: have the collateral to su wort. Look, a bond is
Speaker 5: nothing more than kind of a loan. It's a fancy loan.
Speaker 5: It's designed for.
Speaker 4: The criminal justice system.
Speaker 5: In this sense, it's kind of like when you post
Speaker 5: a bond to get out of jail before trial. Well,
Speaker 5: this is posting a bond so you keep going while
Speaker 5: your case is pending appeal. So it's kind of the
Speaker 5: same thing, right, And a bond is just a loan
Speaker 5: made by a bond company that intends to make a
Speaker 5: lot of money off of it and so that you
Speaker 5: don't have to post the fall amount in cash. But
Speaker 5: you got to put up something. You got to put
Speaker 5: up your house, you got to put up your valuable property.
Speaker 5: What I think is this is all showing is he
Speaker 5: doesn't have the value. He is not worth enough off
Speaker 5: for anybody to give him that loan, that bond, And
Speaker 5: again the courts are just bending over backwards to make
Speaker 5: sure that it looks like he's being traded fairly, when
Speaker 5: no other criminal defendant in thirty years of practice if
Speaker 5: I've ever seen gotten that kind of consideration.
Speaker 3: Well, there you have it. Your experience speaks for itself.
Speaker 3: I can only imagine what Letitia James thinks about all
Speaker 3: of this, because if Donald Trump doesn't have the money,
Speaker 3: there is potentially another answer, and that is this SPAC deal.
Speaker 4: It's about to happen.
Speaker 3: And Bloomberg just now is reporting that Trump media and
Speaker 3: the folks he's working with are set to begin trading.
Speaker 3: This is the truth Social Spack March twenty six. That's tomorrow.
Speaker 3: DJT and djt WW are going to be the ticker symbols.
Speaker 3: We knew this was coming, of course, Robert. The problem
Speaker 3: is Donald Trump can't actually get that money without special
Speaker 3: approval until a lock up period ends down the road.
Speaker 3: He could, however, borrow against that as collateral. I suppose,
Speaker 3: because you pointed out something interesting. If they start seizing
Speaker 3: properties here, he's already got a debt against those properties, right,
Speaker 3: So how do you value them?
Speaker 5: Well, you have to take a look at how much
Speaker 5: leans are on those properties. And so the first thing
Speaker 5: is Donald Trump slaps his name on a lot of properties.
Speaker 5: That doesn't mean he owns the majority interests in those properties.
Speaker 5: In many cases, he might own a little bit more
Speaker 5: than the sign that's on the front of the building.
Speaker 5: I mean, he doesn't necessarily own the whole building. Right
Speaker 5: then what he owns he is also borrowed in order
Speaker 5: to make another purchase. So it's this little kind of
Speaker 5: domino thing that he's got going. And I've seen many
Speaker 5: clients with it. That happens what happens eventually is one
Speaker 5: of the properties goes bad and then the dominoes all
Speaker 5: start to fall backwards and somebody's charged.
Speaker 4: With the crime.
Speaker 5: Well, the event here was basically a criminal charge. And
Speaker 5: after a very long deliberative process, found that Donald Trump
Speaker 5: and his organization as a fraud. And now you got
Speaker 5: to go back and see if there's any value in
Speaker 5: all these these properties, when in reality did he inflated
Speaker 5: all those values when he wanted to get loans, and
Speaker 5: then he deflated the values when he had to pay taxes.
Speaker 5: So he's defrauded the taxpayers in doing this. And frankly,
Speaker 5: if I can just go on here, I think a
Speaker 5: point needs to be made about where the injury is
Speaker 5: to people. Donald Trump and his team have made this
Speaker 5: big claim that hey, all these deals went through the banks,
Speaker 5: made money, there's no victims. Well that's not really true.
Speaker 5: Donald Trump, by making fraudulent loan applications, has taken money
Speaker 5: out of the system that would have otherwise gone to
Speaker 5: valid loan applications. So if you own a restaurant and
Speaker 5: let's say in Manhattan, and you want to add a
Speaker 5: dining room and you need to go get a loan
Speaker 5: to do it, you make a valid loan application. You
Speaker 5: show your assets and the bank decides whether you're a
Speaker 5: good risk to loan money to Right well, right now,
Speaker 5: that money isn't there because Donald Trump took it when
Speaker 5: he made a false loan application. And that's what's so
Speaker 5: important about this Attorney General's case, because you've got to
Speaker 5: maintain the validity of the system in order to make
Speaker 5: sure people are treated fairly when they go into their
Speaker 5: loan applications. That's the damage to people, and that's the
Speaker 5: damage to the system.
Speaker 3: We're spending time with Attorney Robert McWherter on balance of power,
Speaker 3: and Robert, as I'm listening to you, we are getting
Speaker 3: some insight as to what is happening inside the courtroom
Speaker 3: in New York. Now, this is of course Alvin Bragg's case,
Speaker 3: the hush money case against Donald Trump, that had been delayed.
Speaker 3: This was supposed to be the first day of the trial.
Speaker 3: In fact, now it's a hearing that will likely establish
Speaker 3: a new date. It had been delayed because of a
Speaker 3: big dump of evidence that fell on the case a
Speaker 3: couple of weeks back. Here we go, Robert, this is
Speaker 3: breaking news right now, April fifteen. The judges, speaking as
Speaker 3: I talk to you. The US Attorney's office is not
Speaker 3: under the district attorney's control. He says, the Manhattan Attorney's
Speaker 3: office did due diligence. This defendant will not suffer any
Speaker 3: reasonable prejudice because he has received enough time. The judge says,
Speaker 3: jury selection will begin on April fifteenth. Robert, what do
Speaker 3: you think.
Speaker 5: Well, here's what's going on here. The Trump team had
Speaker 5: made a request of the US attorneys, the federal US attorneys,
Speaker 5: the federal prosecutors for their information on this case, and
Speaker 5: the federal prosecutors then turned that over to the state
Speaker 5: prosecutors Braggs team, and then they turned it over to
Speaker 5: the Trump team. Now, this information is pretty much redundant
Speaker 5: to what the Trump team already had from the state prosecutors,
Speaker 5: but Trump's team used that as an excuse to go
Speaker 5: into court and accuse Bragg of withholding evidence when the
Speaker 5: evidence wasn't even in his hands, and then arguing that
Speaker 5: they should get a continuance in order to deal with
Speaker 5: all this evidence, majority of which I would think is
Speaker 5: nothing more than redundant to what they already had from
Speaker 5: the state case. So once again you have to look
Speaker 5: at you know, there's trial tactics, but then there's an
Speaker 5: overall strategy here. Donald Trump's overall strategy is to delay, delay, delay.
Speaker 5: Every case is a delay, and then he thinks he's
Speaker 5: going to become president and he'll get them all dismissed
Speaker 5: or he'll be beyond Well, is.
Speaker 3: There a way for him to delay this now? Robert,
Speaker 3: we have April fifteenth, and if just if, I want
Speaker 3: to make sure our listeners and viewers understand if they're
Speaker 3: just joining us, this is breaking news now the first
Speaker 3: criminal trial of a former president is set now to
Speaker 3: begin April fifteenth. Number one, Does he have a chance
Speaker 3: to delay it? And Robert, knowing this would be a
Speaker 3: six week trial that would allow ample room for Jack
Speaker 3: Smith to conduct his trial, should the Supreme Court allow him?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 5: Yes, absolutely. I think what's going on is things are
Speaker 5: finally coming to a head now. These cases were all
Speaker 5: filed before Donald Trump was ever a candidate, So his
Speaker 5: claims that this is all motivated, et cetera, are just wrong,
Speaker 5: that the facts don't bear that out. It is kind
Speaker 5: of coming to a head. People are finally trying to
Speaker 5: get these cases to come to resolution despite Trump's work
Speaker 5: to delay them all. And that's where we are now.
Speaker 5: I do not see anything coming up at this point
Speaker 5: that would delay the April fifteenth trial. And so now
Speaker 5: it's time for Donald Trump to face the music. You know,
Speaker 5: I'll make another quick point here. You know, Donald Trump
Speaker 5: keeps talking about everything being a witch hunt, etc. Well,
Speaker 5: if that's the case, he should be asking for his
Speaker 5: jury as soon as possible. He should be saying, I
Speaker 5: want my trial right now because I want to show
Speaker 5: how this is a witch hunt and how I'm innocent.
Speaker 4: Now he doesn't do that.
Speaker 5: What he does is he wants to avoid the jury,
Speaker 5: he wants to avoid the court, and meanwhile makes these
Speaker 5: political arguments that it's a witch hunt when it's nothing
Speaker 5: of the sort. If it's truly as a witch hunt,
Speaker 5: then we go and protect that with a jury of
Speaker 5: our peers in America. That's how we do it in America.
Speaker 3: Well, we've got a redhead on the terminal. People's phones
Speaker 3: are buzzing around the country right now, around the world
Speaker 3: who subscribe to Bloomberg. Trump's hush money trial date now
Speaker 3: set for April fifteenth. According to the judge, this happening
Speaker 3: just a moment ago. And if Donald Trump speaks, we
Speaker 3: will bring you some remarks. I suspect he did speak
Speaker 3: on the way in, and there's a fair chance that
Speaker 3: he will on the way out.
Speaker 1: Here.
Speaker 3: This is a former president of the United States now
Speaker 3: set for criminal trial, and based on what we're hearing
Speaker 3: from Robert mcwerder here, it's unlikely that he will have
Speaker 3: any further opportunity to delay this case. So that's going
Speaker 3: to be one trial, Robert that takes place before the
Speaker 3: election of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 5: I don't see how that's avoidable. I think that's going
Speaker 5: to happen now.
Speaker 3: In terms of the Supreme Court, there will be arguments
Speaker 3: heard on April twenty fifth when it comes to the
Speaker 3: presidential immunity question. That would likely then mean a ruling
Speaker 3: at some point from the Court in June, maybe late June,
Speaker 3: maybe the last thing they do before they walk out
Speaker 3: the door. Here in that world, that leaves enough time
Speaker 3: for a second trial in this case, Jack Smith's trial.
Speaker 5: Yes, you know what I find interesting about that is
Speaker 5: Donald Trump on truth social I think it was just
Speaker 5: last night of the night before was saying that Joe
Speaker 5: Biden should be prosecuted for his witch hunt and all
Speaker 5: that kind of stuff for what he's doing. But if
Speaker 5: you take Trump's own arguments in the presidential immunity case,
Speaker 5: then Joe Biden shouldn't be prosecuted for anything while he
Speaker 5: acts as president. Donald Trump is claiming the president should
Speaker 5: have these broad powers to do anything in office. Well,
Speaker 5: if that's the case, then Joe Biden should not be
Speaker 5: prosecuted for anything. Even though I think Trump's claims are outlandish,
Speaker 5: but he's defeating his own arguments quite frankly by making
Speaker 5: those kinds of statements. What's going on with the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court is interesting. I don't see how they're going to
Speaker 5: give Donald Trump this broad immunity that he's asking for.
Speaker 5: The case President is the case that's happened in the
Speaker 5: United States versus Nixon. And what I think the Court
Speaker 5: is going to do is they gave Trump the win
Speaker 5: on the Colorado case, but I don't think they're going
Speaker 5: to give him the win on that. And the Court
Speaker 5: under John Roberts is very concerned, especially Chief Justice Roberts,
Speaker 5: about maintaining the Court's legitimacy as an institution, and this
Speaker 5: is their way to do it, is to maintain that
Speaker 5: legitimacy by finding against the president president, which is really
Speaker 5: what the law should dictate anyway, So that would be
Speaker 5: my prediction of what's going to go on with that.
Speaker 3: Spoken from a man who literally wrote the book on
Speaker 3: the fourteenth Amendment, Robert, I'm glad we could talk today.
Speaker 4: How could we have imagined what.
Speaker 3: We would experience here together? I'm glad you joined us.
Speaker 3: Robert mcwherterer criminal attorney Slayton Roebuck. And he's got his
Speaker 3: own office as well, having spent to his point thirty
Speaker 3: years doing this. The bond has been reduced by more
Speaker 3: than two thirds. We'll find out if he can pay it.
Speaker 3: And we have trial date now April fifteenth. That's the
Speaker 3: Alvin braggcase. Both of these issues resolved this Monday morning
Speaker 3: in New York with the Echo Chamber here in Washington.
Speaker 3: I'm Joe Matthew And speaking of which, we'll have a.
Speaker 1: Lot more on this.
Speaker 3: Our panel will be here a little later in the
Speaker 3: hour to react to what we have learned here together today.
Speaker 3: Aren't you glad you tuned in at high noon? That's
Speaker 3: why you take this show live on the lunch break.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then.
Speaker 2: Royd Otto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 4: Should we get back to Jim Ziron? He was interrupted.
Speaker 3: We were interrupted in our conversation when Donald Trump started
Speaker 3: speaking something.
Speaker 4: We wanted to make sure you heard.
Speaker 3: Former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern Districts of New
Speaker 3: York and he's the host of conversations with Jim Ziron
Speaker 3: on PBS.
Speaker 4: It's good to have you back here, Jim.
Speaker 3: After what you just heard, I think we can bank
Speaker 3: on a trial beginning on April fifteenth.
Speaker 4: Did you learn anything else?
Speaker 6: Well, it was hard to learn anything because there was
Speaker 6: a lie after lie after lie, misstatement after misstatement after misstatement.
Speaker 6: What he said was classic Roy Kohane, going after the prosecutors,
Speaker 6: going after the judges, going after the justice system. And
Speaker 6: there's absolutely nothing he said which could be said in court.
Speaker 6: At the time of the trial. He did move to
Speaker 6: dismiss the case on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct by the case,
Speaker 6: I mean the case in New York, and the judge
Speaker 6: dismissed it out of hand. He did move to delay
Speaker 6: the case. Although he's complaining now about the delay, He's
Speaker 6: constantly moved to delay the case, and that was denied
Speaker 6: out of hand. His dates are absolutely cock eyed. Alvin
Speaker 6: Bragg did not take office until January one, twenty twenty two.
Speaker 6: Pomerantz was in the brag office only a short period
Speaker 6: of time. He was in the Vance office before that.
Speaker 6: And this is a case that was brought in the
Speaker 6: normal course. They had to be investigated by the grand jury.
Speaker 6: The witnesses had to be interviewed and had to testify
Speaker 6: before the grand jury. And there is no basis whatsoever
Speaker 6: to his statements, as he pointed out so much. He
Speaker 6: says his speculative. He said October seventh wouldn't have happened
Speaker 6: if he'd been president. What's the basis for that? He
Speaker 6: said that Ukraine wouldn't have happened had he been president.
Speaker 6: What's the basis for that? Because his pal Putin wouldn't
Speaker 6: have done it as a favor to him. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 6: There was inflation when he was the president.
Speaker 7: As well. Jim to talk about how his house was
Speaker 7: rated at Moro Lago. In fact, there was a search
Speaker 7: warrant when the FBI conducted that search, and he used
Speaker 7: though as evidence, even though rated perhaps is not the
Speaker 7: proper way to characterize it. It was a warrant, a
Speaker 7: warranted search. He said that was evidence of weaponization by
Speaker 7: the DOJ and FBI. Just to remind us here, if
Speaker 7: you will, of what the actual relationship is between the
Speaker 7: Department of Justice as it pertains to these cases with
Speaker 7: the former president and what role, if any, President Biden
Speaker 7: has in any of this.
Speaker 6: Well, first of all, as President Biden has had no
Speaker 6: role in our federal system. The president appoints the attorney general,
Speaker 6: and here the Attorney General appointed Jack Smith as special counsel.
Speaker 6: You're absolutely right about the Fourth Amendment. This was not
Speaker 6: a warrantless search. It was a search with a warrant
Speaker 6: that issued out of the district court on the showing
Speaker 6: of probable cause. And he calls it a raid. The
Speaker 6: courts have said it was not a raid, and he
Speaker 6: can't characterize it as a raid. This is all meet
Speaker 6: for his base, but he persists in telling these lies
Speaker 6: on the premise that if he tells them over and
Speaker 6: over again, someone may believe it. Now, Trump, it's Trump
Speaker 6: who tried to who says he's going to weaponize the
Speaker 6: justice system. He wants to execute the former Chairman of
Speaker 6: the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Millie. He wants to
Speaker 6: be a dictator for a day, and don't believe it's
Speaker 6: only going to be for one day. And his rhetoric
Speaker 6: and his lies are the classic rhetoric of a dictator,
Speaker 6: because the dictators Hitler Perone others, first talk about the
Speaker 6: decline in the country. It's called decline. People have written
Speaker 6: about it, and you say the country is going to
Speaker 6: the dogs. And then you have to blame someone. So
Speaker 6: whom is he blaming. He's blaming the immigrants, and he's
Speaker 6: blaming the justice system. And it's classic Roy Kohane for
Speaker 6: him to blame individuals in the justice system and to
Speaker 6: personalize the justice system, which is completely contrary to an
Speaker 6: undermines our rule of law.
Speaker 3: Well, Jim, I appreciate how listen closely you were listening
Speaker 3: to Donald Trump and helping us clear up some of
Speaker 3: this stuff in real time.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 3: If Donald Trump cannot post bond in the civil case today,
Speaker 3: do you believe Letitia James will begin seizing properties or
Speaker 3: is that a threat?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 6: No, she certainly will begin seizing properties. But I believe that,
Speaker 6: based on every indication, that he has the wherewithal to
Speaker 6: post a cash bond or to post a bond for
Speaker 6: the one hundred and seventy five million dollars which he'll
Speaker 6: post within the ten day period. The real question is
Speaker 6: what's going to happen to the appeal on the merits.
Speaker 6: And this is just a little bit of gamesmanship, but
Speaker 6: it's very well settled in the law that you don't
Speaker 6: get a stay of a judgment because you appeal. You
Speaker 6: get a stay of the judgment only if you post
Speaker 6: a bond. Lawyers call it a supersedious bond because it
Speaker 6: supersedes the judgment. And here Donald Trump had to post
Speaker 6: a bond, and he said that he didn't have the
Speaker 6: money to post the bond for a half million dollars,
Speaker 6: and he said that in court, and then he publicly
Speaker 6: and said he had the money and that there would
Speaker 6: be no wordship. So he's all over the lot.
Speaker 7: Well and Jim. Of course, in the civil case, it
Speaker 7: is a civil case. This was a ruling by a
Speaker 7: judge both that the fraud had been committed and then
Speaker 7: what he needed to pay in damages as a result.
Speaker 7: In the criminal case. Though this will be a trial
Speaker 7: by jury, it will be a jury of his peers.
Speaker 7: This is how the system works here in the United States.
Speaker 7: And just keeping in mind here that this is historic
Speaker 7: and that we are talking about a former president, someone
Speaker 7: the American people probably know best out of any public
Speaker 7: figure out there. How hard will it be come April fifteenth,
Speaker 7: when they begin jury selection to actually find a jury
Speaker 7: that can be unbiased against Trump.
Speaker 6: Well, Trump is of course a national figure. It'll be
Speaker 6: very difficult to find jurors who have not heard of
Speaker 6: him and have not formed some opinion about him. But
Speaker 6: through examination of the jurors, the court can probe whether
Speaker 6: there is any bias against him that would prevent the
Speaker 6: juror from deciding the issue based on the evidence presented
Speaker 6: to them in court.
Speaker 2: Now, in the E.
Speaker 6: Gene Carroll case, which Trump lost, the jurors were asked
Speaker 6: questions like have you ever attended a Trump rally? Do
Speaker 6: you believe that Biden won the last presidential election? And
Speaker 6: answers to questions like that would disclose bias. There might
Speaker 6: be other questions that might disclose bias. But the real
Speaker 6: question is you'd say to the juror can you serve
Speaker 6: as a fair and impartial juror and decide the question
Speaker 6: in accordance with the evidence presented to you at the trial.
Speaker 6: Most of these arguments that Trump has made, if not all,
Speaker 6: would never be admissible in a court of law.
Speaker 4: The case is going to be.
Speaker 6: Decided the evidence which involves the payments to the porn
Speaker 6: star and Stormy Daniels and his efforts to conceal it,
Speaker 6: and the judge will give instructions to the jury as
Speaker 6: to whether that involves a violation of New York law.
Speaker 6: It's called falsification of business records, with the underlying crimes
Speaker 6: being election fraud and tax fraud. And that's what's in
Speaker 6: the indictment, all.
Speaker 7: Right, Jim Siron, thank you so much for reacting in
Speaker 7: real time, not just to the ruling from the judge
Speaker 7: about when this trial will begin today, but of course
Speaker 7: the remarks we got the former president as we heard them.
Speaker 1: Jims Iron, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 1: Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on.
Speaker 2: Apple car Play and then Roudo with the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 7: Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzy, no Bloomberg Politics contributors, are
Speaker 7: both with us. So I'm sure Rick and Jeanie that
Speaker 7: you heard the former president speaking just as we did
Speaker 7: once again and an opportunity to, I guess, address a
Speaker 7: legal issue he is facing, but really use it as
Speaker 7: a campaign speech to talk about Russia, the border evs
Speaker 7: worked their way in there a few other policy areas
Speaker 7: as well. I guess, Rick, at what point does it
Speaker 7: have to stop being campaign speeches when he's fighting these
Speaker 7: legal battles or is this going to keep working for him?
Speaker 8: No, I have no doubt that in Donald Trump's mind,
Speaker 8: maybe different than his campaign managers, he sees this as
Speaker 8: part of the campaign, that it's a forum that he
Speaker 8: otherwise wouldn't get. If he had held an event somewhere today,
Speaker 8: we would not be broadcasting live his comments, and so
Speaker 8: I think in his mind this is a higher better
Speaker 8: use of his time is sitting in a courtroom. In
Speaker 8: most cases, he has not been required to be there.
Speaker 4: He's elected to do.
Speaker 8: It because he sees the value in getting this kind
Speaker 8: of attention, and arguably it's not been a problem for him.
Speaker 8: You look at the survey. There's never been a instance
Speaker 8: that I recall where the numbers dip because of an
Speaker 8: appearance he had at one of these trials. And the
Speaker 8: fact that he says that he's willing to testify probably
Speaker 8: strikes fear in the hearts of the campaign and the
Speaker 8: lawyers that represent him. But he sees it as an
Speaker 8: unbelievable opportunity. It's like a debate without the opposition, or
Speaker 8: the opposition who you can pummel all day long. And
Speaker 8: so the reality is he's he's going to do what
Speaker 8: he thinks is in his self interest right now. Using
Speaker 8: the legal system to run for president is what he's doing.
Speaker 8: There's really very little about the case he talked about today.
Speaker 8: It was really all about running for president. And so
Speaker 8: if he can make these things, these cases about him trying,
Speaker 8: you know, Biden, trying to deny him the presidency, then
Speaker 8: voters will believe these are a campaign stop and then
Speaker 8: that's when he gets his victory that he's looking for.
Speaker 3: That's a pretty remarkable world to be in here, Genie.
Speaker 3: Joe Biden takes a lot of flack for when he's
Speaker 3: having a bad day. Maybe he's a little difficult to
Speaker 3: understand maybe he just downright looks tired.
Speaker 4: People say he looks old.
Speaker 3: Can't always understand what you're saying, depending on the day.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Again who the audience was for that address, but it
Speaker 3: strikes me that these stem winders that are just going
Speaker 3: with no direction. He's not reading a speech, He's just
Speaker 3: kind of following this stream of thought. Naming names would
Speaker 3: be very confusing for voters. Does this change anyone's mind?
Speaker 3: Does this convince an independent, undecided voter that the government
Speaker 3: is targeting Donald Trump?
Speaker 5: Joe?
Speaker 9: Are you saying that Mark Pomeranz is not on the
Speaker 9: lead mind of all voters across the country. I mean,
Speaker 9: there was so much of this that was just you know,
Speaker 9: non sequiturs winding around, and you guys covered so beautifully
Speaker 9: so many of the foods, from the idea that there
Speaker 9: is collusion with the Justice Department at the federal level
Speaker 9: and the state to the idea that there was no
Speaker 9: inflation under Trump and the Ukraine withdrawal and all the rest.
Speaker 9: But you know, while I was listening to it, I
Speaker 9: was just thinking, you know, a few hours earlier, we
Speaker 9: had Senator Marco Rubio on ABC the Sunday Morning Show
Speaker 9: and what was he talking about? And I think this
Speaker 9: gives us a sense as to how much what Trump
Speaker 9: is saying resonates with people, including mainstreamers. Theoretically, like Marco Rubio,
Speaker 9: he was talking about how he would be honored to
Speaker 9: be considered a vice presidential nominee for Donald Trump. He
Speaker 9: was talking about the fact that the world was safer
Speaker 9: under Donald Trump, that there were, you know, challenges in
Speaker 9: the twenty twenty election. I mean, the list goes on
Speaker 9: and that is a sitting senator from the state of Florida.
Speaker 9: So I think if you know as much of these
Speaker 9: falsehoods as Donald Trump lays out in these speeches, there
Speaker 9: is a big chunk of not only his voters, but
Speaker 9: the republic Party and Independence across the country who believe
Speaker 9: what he says. And that does bring us to the
Speaker 9: fence sitters and the Independence and the moderates. But the
Speaker 9: reality is there is an audience for what he is saying.
Speaker 9: And my question to this judge is are we going
Speaker 9: to have to hear this every day or is there
Speaker 9: going to be some kind of gag order when this
Speaker 9: trial goes into effect on April fifteenth to shut some
Speaker 9: of this down.
Speaker 7: Well, Jenny brings up a really good point, Rick, that
Speaker 7: there is obviously a sizable chunk of the electorate, the
Speaker 7: electorate that is voting for Trump and the Republican primaries
Speaker 7: that has made him at this point the presumptive Republican
Speaker 7: nominee that does believe a lot of what he says
Speaker 7: to be true. This idea that the Department of Justice,
Speaker 7: the FBI, the judicial system overall is being weaponized against him.
Speaker 7: And at a certain point when you look at the
Speaker 7: facts and look at perhaps the fiction isn't perception reality,
Speaker 7: And how do you deal with that if you're an
Speaker 7: opposing campaign.
Speaker 8: Yeah, no, Look, this is the challenge for even news
Speaker 8: organizations to cover him, not just the opposing campaign, is
Speaker 8: that he does throw out all these statistics. He talked
Speaker 8: about fifteen million illegal immigrants. There's no data to support that.
Speaker 8: When you ask his campaign we'd like you to tell
Speaker 8: us where you got that number, they give you links
Speaker 8: that actually have nothing to do with that. So, yeah,
Speaker 8: I mean, do you let him say these things unchallenged
Speaker 8: like we did today? Do you stop in the middle
Speaker 8: of broadcasts and say this is actually incorrect. We've seen
Speaker 8: a lot of news organizations struggle with that. I think
Speaker 8: it's easier actually for the campaign because the Biden campaign
Speaker 8: can just put commercial after commercials saying you know, Donald
Speaker 8: Trump led about this, Donald Trump led about that, and
Speaker 8: they can use their money and advertising strength and a
Speaker 8: bully pulpit of the presidency to push back on that.
Speaker 8: And frankly, part of the complaint that a lot of
Speaker 8: Democrats have had about this campaign is they haven't been
Speaker 8: doing that.
Speaker 4: They kind of let.
Speaker 8: Trump be Trump all during the early primary stages. Maybe
Speaker 8: they were optimistic that some Republican would emerge and give
Speaker 8: them a hard time. That didn't happen, And only now
Speaker 8: have they become sort of more aggressive and pushing back
Speaker 8: on some of these things. But some of that damage
Speaker 8: is done. I mean, you've seen how he's consolidated his
Speaker 8: strength around the party to the point where senators like
Speaker 8: Marco Rubio have completely changed their tune about some of
Speaker 8: his policies are now willing to participate in his administration.
Speaker 8: Do not underestimate, as our previous guest said, the power
Speaker 8: of the Roy Cohen. You know, attack, attack, attack right,
Speaker 8: and just attack your opponent, attack the judges, attack anybody
Speaker 8: who disagrees with me what I say is right. And
Speaker 8: that's all that matters, and that's the campaign for Donald Trump.
Speaker 8: And so you know, the question that the Biden campaign
Speaker 8: has to do is what's the most effective way of
Speaker 8: tamping that down so that it is not something that
Speaker 8: voters start to agree with only because Donald Trump says so.
Speaker 3: All right, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzino our signature panel
Speaker 3: with us today in the heat of the moment, and
Speaker 3: we have had some breaking news today. Thanks to both
Speaker 3: of you Bloomberg Politics contributors for the insights on what
Speaker 3: we heard from Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: Rodoto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen
Speaker 1: live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 1: Just say Alexa Play. Bloomberg eleven thirty joining us.
Speaker 7: I'm pleased to say is Jonathan Panicoff, Atlantic Council Gocroft
Speaker 7: Middle East Security Initiative Director. Jonathan. Great to have you
Speaker 7: back here on Bloomberg Television and Radio. I would just
Speaker 7: love to get your reaction to the consequence of this
Speaker 7: Security Council resolution, what real impact it will have on
Speaker 7: the behavior of Israel, considering it did draw an immediate
Speaker 7: reaction from the Israeli government in terms of canceling this
Speaker 7: delegation's visit.
Speaker 10: Well, great to be back with you, Thanks for having me. Look,
Speaker 10: I don't think there's actually going to be much changed
Speaker 10: one way or the other. At the end of the day,
Speaker 10: what's gonna change is really behavior, even in the short term,
Speaker 10: is whether or not there's a hash that's negotiation deal
Speaker 10: that comes about, and that's a negotiation happening with Egypt,
Speaker 10: with cut there and with the US that was recognized
Speaker 10: in the UN Security Council resolution. I don't think this
Speaker 10: resolution that was actually going to make a huge difference,
Speaker 10: at least in the immediate term.
Speaker 3: So Israel wanted a veto, they did not get it.
Speaker 3: What does that mean now for the chances of a
Speaker 3: ceasefire or is it on to Rafa?
Speaker 10: Yeah, I don't think it really changes the chance of
Speaker 10: a ceasefire. Blincoln's been in the region, They've been meeting
Speaker 10: quite a bit. These really sent a delegation. There was
Speaker 10: a report this morning that they actually have closer numbers
Speaker 10: about seven hundred Palestinian prisoners, including one hundred serving life,
Speaker 10: sent says in exchange for about forty Israeli hostages. So
Speaker 10: I think they're making progress, slow progress. I think this
Speaker 10: really is more about the politics Netanya, who's really upset,
Speaker 10: because when Natanya who wanted was a direct link between
Speaker 10: the hostages and a ceasefire, no ceasefire without the hostages,
Speaker 10: which the US tried to do in the resolution last
Speaker 10: Friday vetoed by Russia and China. This says a ceasefire
Speaker 10: and release of the hostages. The US is saying it's
Speaker 10: still connected. Israel is saying it's insufficient. The Arab world
Speaker 10: thinks that they're happy that something has just passed finally.
Speaker 7: Well, Jonathan, it seems that increasingly there is somewhat of
Speaker 7: a disconnect between what the US is saying and what
Speaker 7: Israel is saying. Be it in regard to a potential
Speaker 7: ceasefire dealer, the attempts to reach one, or just what
Speaker 7: will happen in Rafa. We heard from Vice President Kamala
Speaker 7: Harris speaking over the weekend, saying that she was ruling
Speaker 7: out nothing in terms of consequences if Israel were to
Speaker 7: pursue a military salt into Ruffa. What realistically, though, could
Speaker 7: those consequences looked like, and how likely is it in
Speaker 7: your mind that the US would actually move to.
Speaker 10: Enforce any I think it really depends on what an
Speaker 10: Operation Rafa looks like. And that's frankly, what Ron Dermer
Speaker 10: and Hanegbi's visit to the US was supposed to discuss.
Speaker 10: If the US has said now clearly that they're going
Speaker 10: to be consequences, I think there will be. But that's
Speaker 10: only if Israel goes into Rafa with multiple brigades and
Speaker 10: really storms through it in the same way it worked
Speaker 10: through Conunis and Gaza City. If what Israel really does
Speaker 10: is say, Okay, we recognized there's a challenge. We really
Speaker 10: do need to move as many of these people out
Speaker 10: of Offa as possible. At the same time, we'll make
Speaker 10: this operation less of a full scale operation and much
Speaker 10: more counter terrorism, which is what the US is butching,
Speaker 10: then I think the US actually would probably accept that.
Speaker 10: And my guess is, especially if there is a hotge deal,
Speaker 10: that's going to be much easier to complete because any
Speaker 10: hostage deal is going to have within it a temporary
Speaker 10: pause in fighting, and Israeli operations can't just resume as
Speaker 10: they were. You have already moved the brigades out, they'll
Speaker 10: have to come back in. So I think that there
Speaker 10: is still some opportunity to work together between the US
Speaker 10: and Israel, but clearly tensions arising.
Speaker 3: I thought you might point to conditions as part of
Speaker 3: your answer on that, Jonathan, and I wonder what your
Speaker 3: thought is. Having heard outrage over the weekend from some
Speaker 3: progressive Democrats twenty two of which in the House voted
Speaker 3: against the government funding bill because it included almost four
Speaker 3: billion dollars for Israel. Alexandria Costio Cortes on Sunday morning,
Speaker 3: talking on television and on the House floor on Friday,
Speaker 3: she referred to this as an unfolding genocide on the
Speaker 3: floor of the House and called on the administration to
Speaker 3: stop sending weapons to Israel. Well conditions, or at least
Speaker 3: additional conditions have to be attached to any further aid.
Speaker 10: I don't know that they'll have to be attached. I mean,
Speaker 10: there was already, you know, an executive order issued by
Speaker 10: the Biden administration making clear the humanitarian conditions related to
Speaker 10: all countries, including Israel, for US weapons. I think the
Speaker 10: question is going to really be one of whether you
Speaker 10: have a temporary cease fire and how Israel approaches this. Look,
Speaker 10: if they have a full scale operation, then yes, I
Speaker 10: would expect many Democrats, and that includes folks like Chris
Speaker 10: Murphy and Senator Van Holland, who have been pretty aggressive
Speaker 10: in this in the Senate, pushing back and saying, look,
Speaker 10: we have to condition to aid. But if it's a
Speaker 10: smaller operation, if it's more precise, if it's what the
Speaker 10: US has been trying to push Israel toward for a
Speaker 10: number of months now, Frankly, then I don't think you'll
Speaker 10: get those same conditions. The reality is a lot of
Speaker 10: the weapons that we're talking about are things that are
Speaker 10: defensive in nature. I don't see the US cutting iron
Speaker 10: dome missile resupply, so that's defensive to protect Israel.
Speaker 4: I'm glad we could get you back on Jonathan Panakoff.
Speaker 3: It's good to see Jonathan at the Atlantic Council and
Speaker 3: more specifically the Atlantic Council Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.
Speaker 4: Good to have you back on Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
Speaker 3: sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify.
Speaker 4: Or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: And you can find us live every weekday from Washington,
Speaker 3: DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.