Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. If you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast, catch Just Live weekdays
Speaker 1: at noon Eastern on Appo, car Play, and then Freud
Speaker 1: Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Live from Washington, where most of Congress is back today.
Speaker 2: The Senate doesn't actually get back to business and tell tomorrow,
Speaker 2: but the House is in session. It is not, however,
Speaker 2: on the floor of the House that the Speaker, Mike Johnson,
Speaker 2: is making news. He took to Twitter just a few
Speaker 2: minutes ago to talk about what we're seeing happening on
Speaker 2: college campuses in Columbia, which we've discussed on this program,
Speaker 2: but elsewhere as well, saying we cannot allow the lawlessness
Speaker 2: we've seen recently on college campuses. Congress will take action
Speaker 2: to protect Jewish students and hold these pro Hamas protesters accountable.
Speaker 3: Joe, the idea would be cutting FED funding, which is
Speaker 3: something that he did float when he was on campus
Speaker 3: at Columbia. That was less than a week ago, right,
Speaker 3: I'm trying to remember if he was Wednesday last week,
Speaker 3: something like that. It's an idea that's come up before.
Speaker 3: I just wonder if he could potentially string together some
Speaker 3: sort of alliance of progressive left and conservative right to
Speaker 3: make that happen in the House. Is he going to
Speaker 3: cut a deal with Primeila Giapol or is this just messaging?
Speaker 2: Well, it's an excellent question. And then even if you
Speaker 2: could form kind of an unusual coalition to get this
Speaker 2: done in the House, what would happen in the Senate
Speaker 2: and what would the Presidence.
Speaker 3: Is another big question. Yeah, I wonder how the panel
Speaker 3: feels about this. We've talked about these campus protests quite
Speaker 3: a bit and their political impact with Rick Davis and
Speaker 3: Jeanie Shanzano, and they are with us now Bloomberg Politics contributors,
Speaker 3: our signature panel here on Balance of Power. Genie, what's
Speaker 3: your thought on this when you hear Mike Johnson floating
Speaker 3: the idea of cutting federal funding for these universities, You,
Speaker 3: of course work for Iona University and you spend every
Speaker 3: day working with young people, many of whom are very
Speaker 3: upset about this. Now we've got a wrecked message coming
Speaker 3: out of Washington. Will it be any more than that?
Speaker 4: You know, I think it possibly could be so we
Speaker 4: have Mike Lawler from New York who has this draft
Speaker 4: of an anti Semitism bill, if you will. It has
Speaker 4: bipartisan support. It requires the Department of Education to change
Speaker 4: broad in its definition of anti semitism and to enforce
Speaker 4: the rules on the books after that redefinition, if you will.
Speaker 4: And you know, Lawler has said he thinks it will
Speaker 4: help decrease the amount of intimidation of Jewish students on campus.
Speaker 4: And I think that's something that we could very well
Speaker 4: and should in my mind, see bipartisan support for. So
Speaker 4: I think we may get some action like that. I
Speaker 4: think the one thing that we should keep in mind
Speaker 4: well two things from my perspective. Number One, as much
Speaker 4: as there is a lot of protests over the weekend
Speaker 4: and on college campuses, there are a lot of students
Speaker 4: who are protesting lawfully, and equally, their rights to pro
Speaker 4: test lawfully need to be protected. And of course, when
Speaker 4: you protest lawfully, you take the repercussions if you are
Speaker 4: arrested or thrown off campus, and they need to know
Speaker 4: that that is what happens as well. So I think
Speaker 4: there's a way to both support the right to speak
Speaker 4: and to certainly ensure against anti semitism or any kind
Speaker 4: of abuse of any student or any person in the country.
Speaker 2: Well, so, Rick, I guess it just begs the question
Speaker 2: on how easily this could happen in the United States Congress,
Speaker 2: where we'd love to talk on this program and others
Speaker 2: about how little they've been able to get done. Is
Speaker 2: this an issue where you could actually get enough like
Speaker 2: minds together to do something, perhaps a little bit more
Speaker 2: drastic than you might expect.
Speaker 5: Well, you've seen resolutions pass recently by the House in
Speaker 5: a bipartisan fashion overwhelmingly condemning the anti semitism that we're
Speaker 5: seeing on these college campuses. So I don't think there's
Speaker 5: a lack of support. I think everybody's kind of hoping
Speaker 5: right now now that with schools getting out that it
Speaker 5: diminishes the nature of the debate here students go home,
Speaker 5: or there's less activity or public attention on these campuses,
Speaker 5: and that somehow this will debate. But the reality is
Speaker 5: we should have zero tolerance for this kind of behavior,
Speaker 5: you know, a month ago, today, or anytime in the future.
Speaker 5: And so my guess is that we're in a period
Speaker 5: now with Congress where there are just going to be
Speaker 5: a bunch of messaging bills. Right, other than maybe FAA
Speaker 5: reauthorization and a couple other relatively minor things that will
Speaker 5: be very bipartisan, You're going to see the Democrat Party
Speaker 5: in the Republican Party putting up resolutions and bills that
Speaker 5: aren't expected to ever make it to the President's desk,
Speaker 5: but will make a very strong statement. I would anticipate
Speaker 5: this week getting something like that out of the House
Speaker 5: of Representatives from the Republican leadership. Frankly, even you know,
Speaker 5: pressing the Democrats suspect the squad, you know, to take
Speaker 5: a vote on something that is very pro Jewish, very
Speaker 5: anti anti Semitism, and we'll see if that plays out politically.
Speaker 3: Ginnie, as we've noted, Columbia's graduation is set for May fifteenth,
Speaker 3: We've already seen one major graduation ceremony canceled because of
Speaker 3: this nationally. If students don't leave at two o'clock that's
Speaker 3: half an hour away, should they be forcibly removed so
Speaker 3: the school can get on with its planning for graduation?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, this is.
Speaker 6: What I'm talking about.
Speaker 4: One thing we teach students is you should speak your mind,
Speaker 4: but you need to do so lawfully. You need to
Speaker 4: do so peacefully. And when we protest peacefully, we have
Speaker 4: to accept the repercussions, which are if you are in
Speaker 4: violation of the law, you have to go peacefully with
Speaker 4: police officers who will.
Speaker 7: Escort you out.
Speaker 4: And in this case, the added issue here is that
Speaker 4: these are students. If they want to finish the semester,
Speaker 4: which is what Columbia is allowing them to do, if
Speaker 4: they leave peacefully by two, the threat is if they
Speaker 4: do not leave peacefully, they may not be able to
Speaker 4: get their credits for this semester or graduate in the future.
Speaker 4: That is what you have to accept if you are
Speaker 4: going to protest, and so yes, I think the university
Speaker 4: will have to take steps. You simply cannot protest and
Speaker 4: expect to disrupt everybody else's lives, and so they are
Speaker 4: going to have to accept whatever those repercussions are. But again,
Speaker 4: if the police come in, they need to do so peacefully.
Speaker 4: Keeping in mind, by the way, that all of these
Speaker 4: protesters are not students. There are many outside agitators and
Speaker 4: that has complicated this as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a very good point. Genian point will taken
Speaker 2: as well on the fact that some actions have consequences,
Speaker 2: whether or not you are prepared to meet them. Speaking
Speaker 2: of consequences for actions, Rick, as Congress comes back this week,
Speaker 2: we all are still kind of dealing with the question
Speaker 2: as to whether or not Mike Johnson is going to
Speaker 2: face a real motion to vacate as consequence for passing
Speaker 2: aid for Ukraine and other US allies. Before the break,
Speaker 2: Are we about to find out that Marjorie Taylor Green
Speaker 2: was just bluffing?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think sometimes you're gonna get called on the
Speaker 5: sky is falling strategy, and maybe that's the case. The
Speaker 5: reality I think that she has come to conclude is
Speaker 5: that even if she pulls the trigger on the motion
Speaker 5: of vacate, there're gonna be enough votes to keep him
Speaker 5: from getting thrown out, and probably likely with the help
Speaker 5: of the Democrats, the motion wouldn't even go to its maturity.
Speaker 3: It would just be tabled.
Speaker 5: So nothing looks weaker than pulling a trigger on something
Speaker 5: like this and then nothing happens. That kind of takes
Speaker 5: away her ability to ever try this again. I'm sure
Speaker 5: she understands that the one thing she knows is how
Speaker 5: to get attention. If she wants attention in the future,
Speaker 5: she can't diminish herself too much, although there's a new
Speaker 5: level for that every day in the House of Representatives.
Speaker 3: But the reality is there's no.
Speaker 5: Consequence to her anymore, at least not until after November,
Speaker 5: and so regardless of what she does, Johnson's going to
Speaker 5: be speaker for the Balance.
Speaker 3: It's Marjorie Monday, Jeanie. I don't know what timeline we're
Speaker 3: looking at here, but the last thing she said was
Speaker 3: his days as speaker are numbered? Is she talking about
Speaker 3: to Rick's point at the end of this Congress.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I wouldn't pretend to know what Marjorie Taylor Green
Speaker 4: is talking about. You know, it was interesting to hear
Speaker 4: Joe Biden raise her name as well in the context
Speaker 4: of his jokes at the White House Correspondence dinner, So
Speaker 4: you know, she's gotten her fair share of attention. But
Speaker 4: I think the real fact is is that this is
Speaker 4: going to be all up to Hakem Jeffries if she
Speaker 4: does pull the trigger. And I do think Democrats we
Speaker 4: heard from Jared Moskowitz, for instance, over the weekend saying
Speaker 4: Democrats obviously will follow uh Hakeen Jeffries, but they are
Speaker 4: inclined not to allow her to do this. I think
Speaker 4: Jared Moskowitz said, we wouldn't even let her name a
Speaker 4: post office, let alone remove a speaker. You know what
Speaker 4: that happens to him after that? If he's saved by Democrats,
Speaker 4: I don't know what that means for him going forward
Speaker 4: in his own caucus. But I think all eyes on
Speaker 4: Haqem Jeffries. If she does pull the trigger on this.
Speaker 2: Well, a lot of it comes down to Donald Trump too, right,
Speaker 2: who hasn't, outright, I guess, said absolutely no to the
Speaker 2: idea of vacating the speaker, but has come to my
Speaker 2: Johnson's defense not once but twice. Is it ultimately the
Speaker 2: former president that is going to make the call for her? Genie, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think so.
Speaker 7: I mean, Mike Johnson.
Speaker 4: Have you ever seen somebody hug anybody as close as
Speaker 4: Mike Johnson is hugging on to Donald Trump right now.
Speaker 4: He knows that the closer he gets to Trump, the
Speaker 4: least less likely she's going to pull the trigger or
Speaker 4: he'll get kicked out. So that is the strategy. She's
Speaker 4: probably trying to draw a wedge between them. It's going
Speaker 4: to be crazy to watch in the next couple of weeks,
Speaker 4: as Congresses and session for four weeks. Theoretically, if they
Speaker 4: stay that long.
Speaker 2: It's like a lot of work for them, four weeks
Speaker 2: in a row.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that can change, by the way, Let's see if
Speaker 3: they really make.
Speaker 2: It to four weeks, all right, Jeanie Shanzano and Rick Davis,
Speaker 2: Bloomberg's Politics contributors, of course, our signature political panel, kicking
Speaker 2: things off on this Monday. It is a question, though, Joe,
Speaker 2: of even if they stay all four weeks, how much
Speaker 2: gets done in a four week Perer.
Speaker 3: Well, that's true, and I will note this moment in
Speaker 3: which we just went through a whole conversation about the
Speaker 3: rest of the congressional agenda and stable coin never came up.
Speaker 3: That's fair point something to note.
Speaker 2: Yes, that effort is probably still ongoing. It's just a
Speaker 2: question of whether it can get across the finish line
Speaker 2: and through what vehicle if it's not the FAA reauthorization.
Speaker 2: So that's a story we'll continue to keep on top of.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays in Eastern on Applecarplay and then ron
Speaker 1: Oto with the Bloomberg Business Ad. 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.
Speaker 2: Kicking off the week, and of course Joe. That puts
Speaker 2: us just about an hour from the deadline. For students
Speaker 2: at Columbia University who have been in this encampment. Of
Speaker 2: course pro Palestinian protesters, some of them perhaps outright anti Israel.
Speaker 2: Colombia putting out a note to students in that encampment
Speaker 2: today saying please promptly gather your belongings, leave the encampment.
Speaker 2: If you voluntarily leave by two pm and sign a
Speaker 2: provided forum where you commit to abide by all university
Speaker 2: policies through June of next year, twenty twenty five, you
Speaker 2: will be eligible to complete the semester in good standing.
Speaker 3: This could be a dicey moment here. We've seen evictions
Speaker 3: of these encampments fall into violence more than once. They're
Speaker 3: certainly recovering from that in Austin and in Boston. The
Speaker 3: Speaker of the House was standing on that campus. It's
Speaker 3: just days ago, Kaylee. This has really become the center
Speaker 3: of this at least campus angle on this story, and
Speaker 3: it's one that's very divisive. We spoke earlier with our
Speaker 3: White House correspondent Josh Wingrove. The White House Correspondent's dinner
Speaker 3: actually was the site of a pretty large pro Palestinian protest,
Speaker 3: shouting at people as they went inside the party. They're
Speaker 3: trying to get as much coverage as they can with
Speaker 3: enormous pressure domestically here on Joe Biden. And that's where
Speaker 3: we start our conversation, Kaylee, with Hagar Shomali. The idea
Speaker 3: of a potential truce here, a breakthrough and a deal
Speaker 3: on hostages would be enormous for this administration and of
Speaker 3: course all the parties involved. Hagar is a former National
Speaker 3: Security Council where she specialized in Syria and Lebanon, now
Speaker 3: at Greenwich Media Strategies, where she has founder har Gar,
Speaker 3: It's great to see you. Are we on the verge
Speaker 3: of a breakthrough?
Speaker 8: Well, it seems very close, and it seems have been
Speaker 8: very tenuous, and you've got pressure kind of building on
Speaker 8: both sides, and it looks hopeful. You have Secretary Blinking
Speaker 8: in Saudi Arabia today where he has been working with
Speaker 8: them and has made the call on Hamas from there
Speaker 8: to accept this proposal, which he called quote extraordinarily generous
Speaker 8: coming from the Israelis and UH.
Speaker 6: And that's something that's very significant because these.
Speaker 8: Talks have been going on for a while and the
Speaker 8: fact is that they keep getting these proposals get narrower
Speaker 8: and narrower.
Speaker 6: And right now the latest proposal from what we.
Speaker 8: Know, is that it would include a lower number of
Speaker 8: hostages exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, and it would also allow Palestinians,
Speaker 8: gaz and civilians to return to their homes in northern
Speaker 8: Gaza and UH and so hopefully, hopefully it'll get it'll
Speaker 8: get somewhere. Hamas for the last few proposals has been
Speaker 8: the sticking point, and it feels as though, you know,
Speaker 8: and Secretary of Lincoln has made a point of saying
Speaker 8: that he he reiterated that today that it's on Hamas.
Speaker 8: Hamas is the one blocking Gassy's fire. But I do
Speaker 8: have more hope for this one.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, there's always risk of disruption, Hagar and
Speaker 2: Bloomberg is reporting today that you the US and its
Speaker 2: allies are concerned that the International Criminal Court could soon
Speaker 2: issue arrest warrants for a number of Israeli officials, reportedly,
Speaker 2: according to other outlets, could include prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
Speaker 2: and the concern is that this would be something that
Speaker 2: really jeopardizes any kind of ceasefire deal. Just how problematic
Speaker 2: would that be And is the ICC, in your mind,
Speaker 2: likely to put off something like that in the name
Speaker 2: of reaching an agreement.
Speaker 8: You know, when I saw that news, it surprised me,
Speaker 8: mainly because of its timing. Typically these types of issues
Speaker 8: happen they take much longer. So for example, when I
Speaker 8: handled Syria, it took the ICC much longer to issue
Speaker 8: an arrest warrant and to put President Usad, who is
Speaker 8: a butcher and murderous dictator, to put them on their list.
Speaker 8: Then it has the Israeli officials I have heard. I
Speaker 8: did see that the news would include both Israeli government
Speaker 8: officials and hamas leaders. And that's also important because you
Speaker 8: obviously have hamas leaders and Cutter right now. I believe
Speaker 8: in Turkey as well, and so it would include both.
Speaker 8: But it's very significant you're talking about. It's almost like
Speaker 8: a well, an international restaurant means that to wherever they
Speaker 8: travel outside of their own country, they're going to get arrested,
Speaker 8: and sometimes within the country if there is, for example,
Speaker 8: an uprising against Nathan Yahoo. Then they could also arrest
Speaker 8: him domestically. It just kind of depends how goes. Israel's
Speaker 8: not a party to the ICC, so they probably wouldn't
Speaker 8: arrest him domestic, but they would recognize it.
Speaker 6: But you never know how the future holds.
Speaker 8: But that said, the timing also, these are serious, the arrestaurants.
Speaker 6: It sounds a little bit like a game, but it's not.
Speaker 8: These are very serious things and could definitely play out negatively.
Speaker 8: But I believe that the Israel government at this time
Speaker 8: is so focused on what's happening with the ceasefire talks
Speaker 8: and in Gaza itself that they're probably not paying much
Speaker 8: attention to it. They're hoping that the US is able
Speaker 8: to push the icy seats.
Speaker 6: Into lay well.
Speaker 3: The talks are supposed to begin Tuesday in Cairo here
Speaker 3: and as the US urges Hamas to accept a deal, hgard.
Speaker 3: We don't even know if Hamas is going to be there.
Speaker 3: They haven't responded to questions about Israel's offer or whether
Speaker 3: it will send a delegation. So I guess we're going
Speaker 3: to learn imminently here. If this is possible, we can't
Speaker 3: obviously move forward without Hamas, can.
Speaker 8: We no, not really, No, you can't move forward without them.
Speaker 8: But that said, Israel is holding in its hand a
Speaker 8: very large stick, and that stick is going into Rafa.
Speaker 8: And they and they've made it very clear that they're
Speaker 8: they're they're not going to hold back no matter what
Speaker 8: the US or other international partners say about their desire
Speaker 8: to go into Rafa and to target the Hamas battalions
Speaker 8: and and and sales and leaders who they believe are
Speaker 8: still there. They've already pursued air strikes against Rafa. They
Speaker 8: haven't pursued yet this ground invasion. And we know from
Speaker 8: satellite imagery that they that we've seen new tents erected
Speaker 8: to the north of Rafa. So it's believed that those
Speaker 8: tents are part of the Israeli plan to evacuate over
Speaker 8: one million people who are in Rafa. But that said,
Speaker 8: that is a very big threat and very credible threat
Speaker 8: that Israel holds, and that you can see them using
Speaker 8: that that they're not afraid to go win and the
Speaker 8: ceasefire deal is the only thing keeping them from pursuing
Speaker 8: that operation.
Speaker 2: Well, we know that's part of the message that Anthony Blinkn,
Speaker 2: the Secretary of State, is bringing to the region trying
Speaker 2: to persuade Israel against an eminent invasion of Rafa, given
Speaker 2: how many hundreds of thousands, if not over a million,
Speaker 2: Palestinians could be caught up in that. Can we just
Speaker 2: talk about his role though, as a mediator in all
Speaker 2: of these varying different areas with the Israeli government and IDF,
Speaker 2: with the other parties involved in these negotiations. He's been
Speaker 2: to the Middle East seven times in less than seven months, Hagar,
Speaker 2: and what does he really have to show for it?
Speaker 6: It's stunning.
Speaker 8: Well, you know, I handled the Middle East, as you know,
Speaker 8: and I can tell you one of the common frustrations
Speaker 8: is that you can travel a thousand times and you
Speaker 8: churn your wheels. You can create policy after policy, and
Speaker 8: it can be very difficult to have any movement and
Speaker 8: break any ground. I personally wish that I wish to
Speaker 8: see from the US government louder calls for the release of.
Speaker 6: All I mean law of all hostages. But we have
Speaker 6: to remember there are apparently about.
Speaker 8: Five US nationals as well taken hostage in Gaza right now,
Speaker 8: and one of whom was on the videos that were
Speaker 8: released by Hamas last week, and those videos came out
Speaker 8: only because Cutter pressured Hamas to release them, to give
Speaker 8: some kind of proof of life for individuals. And so
Speaker 8: the thing is my answer to that is really that
Speaker 8: that's just kind of how it goes. And to be fair,
Speaker 8: it would be similar whether it's in Russia or China.
Speaker 8: Those negotiations with sides that are either adversary in this
Speaker 8: case you've got a terrorist organization which is even worse,
Speaker 8: are always going to be extremely difficult and tenuous. And also,
Speaker 8: by the way, with the Israeli government also, the conversations
Speaker 8: are always difficult and and you keep seeing these they
Speaker 8: take inches forward, they say, they make these steps forward,
Speaker 8: but they're unable.
Speaker 6: To seal these deals.
Speaker 8: But the whole point is to try and get to
Speaker 8: to get to some negotiation.
Speaker 6: All wars end in a negotiation and showing.
Speaker 8: That kind of effort is something that they have to
Speaker 8: do because they have to try for it, even if
Speaker 8: it's far fetched. But I do think that this time
Speaker 8: they are nearing something.
Speaker 3: Realgar We have to ask you again about what's happening
Speaker 3: at Columbia University, something Kaylee was mentioning a bit earlier
Speaker 3: this hour, and we'll remind our listeners and viewers that
Speaker 3: you are a professor at Columbia School of International and
Speaker 3: Public Affairs. Two pm is the new deadline that authorities
Speaker 3: have provided students to break up their encampment and leave
Speaker 3: the central lawn so they can start preparing for graduation
Speaker 3: ceremonies in the middle of May. There are a lot
Speaker 3: of things I'd like to ask you about all this,
Speaker 3: including what you're hearing might happen today at two o'clock.
Speaker 3: But to what extent is this You're at the microcosm
Speaker 3: here of this argument on the campus of Columbia University,
Speaker 3: the extent to which it's impacting national public opinion.
Speaker 8: Yes, so it's what we're seeing is quite stunning, actually,
Speaker 8: and I really don't think anybody, any one of us,
Speaker 8: could have expected things.
Speaker 6: To go the way they did, with the protests.
Speaker 8: At Columbia inspiring these other protests across the country, some
Speaker 8: of which have been very loud and have faced really
Speaker 8: some you know, brutal crackdowns if you will, I don't
Speaker 8: know if that's the right word, but where you're seeing
Speaker 8: the police arrest and those arrests are not going very peacefully,
Speaker 8: if if I could, I think that's the most accurate
Speaker 8: way I could say, and so what you have now.
Speaker 8: So on one hand, the way it's inspired these protests
Speaker 8: across the country came after Columbia invited the New York
Speaker 8: Police Department on campus to arrest the students there, and
Speaker 8: it ended up causing a backlash on campus that also
Speaker 8: inspired movements across the country.
Speaker 6: And I don't think it's going to end anytime soon.
Speaker 6: And this is the thing a lot of I think a.
Speaker 8: Lot of folks hope that that professors are hoping, okay,
Speaker 8: but the summer is coming and then students are going
Speaker 8: to go home. But the administration seems to believe and
Speaker 8: expects that these protests are going to continue until the
Speaker 8: election at least, and.
Speaker 6: That they're going to use the election and the political
Speaker 6: de banter and focus to highlight this issue even more.
Speaker 6: They're going to feel quite strongly about that.
Speaker 8: Now, if you're going to have a ceasefire now, or
Speaker 8: even if it delays and it's in a month or so,
Speaker 8: that is going to ease tensions.
Speaker 6: A little bit.
Speaker 8: But the fact is that these these protests have devolved
Speaker 8: into numerous demands. They are not just demanding divestment or
Speaker 8: for a ceasefire or against aid to Israel. They're demanding
Speaker 8: things like you know, for at Columbia at least, they're
Speaker 8: demanding that they get rid of the exchange program we
Speaker 8: have with the University of Tel Aviv. They're demanding even
Speaker 8: included demands related to Harlem residence there. The devestment has
Speaker 8: to do with not it's not in Israeli companies, it's
Speaker 8: you're talking in American companies that work in Israel, for example,
Speaker 8: Google and Blacky Martin and.
Speaker 6: Things like that.
Speaker 8: These just not very realistic demands and and so you're
Speaker 8: just they've reached this standoff and impass. They've reached an
Speaker 8: impasse is the right word. And I expect at two pm.
Speaker 8: I do expect students, some students to accept to stay
Speaker 8: and knowing that they might get arrested or that the
Speaker 8: security might take them off. They will be suspended if
Speaker 8: they stay past two pm. And the university was clear
Speaker 8: that they've been able to identify who they are that's
Speaker 8: not difficult, and that they will be suspended. And if
Speaker 8: they're suspended, then they've been then they're trespassing on the campus,
Speaker 8: and so they will be removed somehow.
Speaker 6: But I expect it to get very tense.
Speaker 9: All right.
Speaker 2: Hagarshamali is an adjunct professor at Columbia University, also the
Speaker 2: founder and CEO of Greenwich Media Strategies and formerly of
Speaker 2: the National Security Council. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: No shortage, Joe of Intensity and Drama in Upper Manhattan.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. It's
Speaker 1: live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Android Otto
Speaker 1: with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Monday edition of Balance of Power. I'm
Speaker 3: Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio, on the satellite and on YouTube.
Speaker 3: It's great to see you and have everyone back together
Speaker 3: as we try to follow the bead here on what
Speaker 3: might happen, if anything next in Congress. And there's a
Speaker 3: fair chance that the store is basically closed after the
Speaker 3: funding bills for Ukraine and Israel past just about a
Speaker 3: week ago. Here it's Marjorie Monday in Washington. Everybody wondering
Speaker 3: about the Motion to vacate, whether it's even still alive
Speaker 3: because Marjorie Taylor Green's language has changed a lot. Remember
Speaker 3: she threatened to fire Mike Johnson. It only takes one
Speaker 3: in the House to get this motion to vacate on
Speaker 3: the floor if he brought Ukraine funding to the floor. Well,
Speaker 3: now it's law, the money's already going out, the weapons
Speaker 3: are on the way, and well there's still no privileged
Speaker 3: resolution yet to make this happen. And her language has
Speaker 3: changed quite a bit. Remember a week ago she was
Speaker 3: vowing to bring this to the floor if the Speaker
Speaker 3: did not resign. He called her bluff, and we're still waiting.
Speaker 3: It's the matter of an FAA extension that needs to
Speaker 3: be handled, a reauthorization of the FAA, and it could
Speaker 3: become a big old Christmas tree. This could be the
Speaker 3: last train leaving the station, assuming they get that done.
Speaker 3: And Jonathan Tamari joins us now from Bloomberg Government to
Speaker 3: pick up the pieces from there. It's great to see you, Jonathan.
Speaker 3: We're going to start dealing with the FAA, I presume eminently.
Speaker 3: Is the Speaker going to get fired this week?
Speaker 6: That's the big question.
Speaker 10: And we're waiting to hear what lawmakers say when they
Speaker 10: come back to vote this evening. You know, we as
Speaker 10: you mentioned, Marjorie Taylor Green had talked about that she
Speaker 10: was going to bring this motion, that the vote on
Speaker 10: floor and aid was crossing.
Speaker 7: A line for her.
Speaker 10: But really things have been pretty quiet in the day since,
Speaker 10: in the week since, as you know, you know, people
Speaker 10: leave town kind of tempers can settle very often, the
Speaker 10: heat of the moment can dissipate, and so we've not
Speaker 10: seen anybody else publicly join in her call to get
Speaker 10: rid of Speaker Mike Johnson. There's a lot of Republicans,
Speaker 10: even those who don't like him, who don't want to
Speaker 10: go back through the whole tumult that they already went
Speaker 10: through of trying to replace a speaker. And so there's
Speaker 10: no sign yet of growing momentum. But I think we'll
Speaker 10: be checking with lawmakers as they show back up tonight
Speaker 10: to see if anybody has anything new to say when
Speaker 10: they return.
Speaker 3: Yeah, she filed the motion to vacate thirty eight days ago,
Speaker 3: which is pretty interesting to see. Nothing yet. So let's
Speaker 3: talk about actual business if we can for a moment, Jonathan.
Speaker 3: We've got two weeks here to reauthorize the FAA, and
Speaker 3: it looks like we've got some deal making underway. There
Speaker 3: is reporting on the way this reauthorization may look, and
Speaker 3: it may not come with what some people expected in
Speaker 3: the form of a stable coin bill or a Safe
Speaker 3: Banking Act. What are you hearing?
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean the there was a release last night
Speaker 10: from the relevant chairs in both both houses, the Senate
Speaker 10: and the House, and both parties, so all four got
Speaker 10: together and they released an FAA reauthorization bill that they
Speaker 10: say is a compromise that they've all agreed on. So
Speaker 10: that signals that it could be on you know, the
Speaker 10: not upon here a glide path towards getting done in
Speaker 10: the coming weeks. The Senate has a procedural vote already
Speaker 10: tied up for Wednesday, and so we'll see how different
Speaker 10: lawmakers react to the compromises here. But when you've got
Speaker 10: the top the chairs and the top ranking members in
Speaker 10: both parties in both houses on board with something, it
Speaker 10: signals that it's probably going to get done. And this
Speaker 10: carries a lot less of the kind of political weight
Speaker 10: and political divides some of the things that we've been
Speaker 10: dealing with in Congress recently, like four and eight or
Speaker 10: the FIZA spying bill, or debt ceiling your budget. You know,
Speaker 10: this is something that's pretty much a straight policy issue,
Speaker 10: and I would imagine that it does get done, and
Speaker 10: as you point out, it could be the last really
Speaker 10: big thing that Congress gets done. So we'll see if
Speaker 10: people try to pile on other elements into this bill
Speaker 10: to kind of get one last bite at the apple.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, yeah, that's just in our last minute, Jonathan.
Speaker 3: What's the conversation about amendments going to look like, because
Speaker 3: this could be carrying a whole lot by the time
Speaker 3: it's passed.
Speaker 10: If it does pass, Yeah, I think you're going to
Speaker 10: see a lot of rank and file members wanting to
Speaker 10: get amendments on this things that they've been working on
Speaker 10: throughout this Congress, knowing that by the time they leave
Speaker 10: for their summer break, there's not going to be a
Speaker 10: whole lot of legislating done for the rest of the year,
Speaker 10: and there's the uncertainty of who's going to win the
Speaker 10: White House and that might delay any further action. So
Speaker 10: I think you're going to see people wanting to put
Speaker 10: their pet projects onto this bill. And of course the
Speaker 10: issue for leaders is always that the more you do that,
Speaker 10: the more you risk adding something that is objectionable to
Speaker 10: one faction or the other, and that could actually stop
Speaker 10: the bill in its tracks. So it's a careful balancing
Speaker 10: act as always that I think we'll see play out
Speaker 10: over these next few weeks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this thought'll be fun to watch. Jonathan Samari, great
Speaker 3: to see you. Say hi to everybody as they're rolling
Speaker 3: back in Bloomberg. Government Congress reporter with us live on
Speaker 3: Balance of Power. As we add the voice now of
Speaker 3: Maya McGuinness, I can only imagine what Maya has been
Speaker 3: thinking in these final throws here of getting something passed
Speaker 3: after the Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan passed the House and Senate. She's,
Speaker 3: of course the president for a Committee for a Responsible
Speaker 3: Federal Budget, Maya. It's great to see you. Surely a
Speaker 3: balanced budget amendment will be added to this FAA.
Speaker 11: Bill, right, Yeah, and any new things that they tack on,
Speaker 11: they'll definitely pay for it, because they've been demonstrating with
Speaker 11: such fiscal responsibility.
Speaker 3: Well we're being cute here, of course, but what do
Speaker 3: you think about this? Just before we move on to
Speaker 3: what's next, we just passed a ninety five billion dollar
Speaker 3: for an aid bill. It was originally an emergency request.
Speaker 3: I know a slice of that Ukraine money is alone,
Speaker 3: should it be offset.
Speaker 11: You know, emergency spending, one doesn't generally feel like you
Speaker 11: have to offset it because it's truly for emergencies. That said,
Speaker 11: the fiscal environment in which we are right now means
Speaker 11: that anything that adds to the debt, no matter what
Speaker 11: the purpose, it could be very important, it could be
Speaker 11: a real emergency, but debt is debt, and that still
Speaker 11: puts upward pressure on inflation, on an interest rates, it
Speaker 11: compromises our national security integrity. So there are a lot
Speaker 11: of reasons that no matter how important something is, it
Speaker 11: would still be preferable to offset the costs. There was
Speaker 11: some interest in the House. Jody Arrington, the chairman of
Speaker 11: the Budget Committee, had talked about some very smart healthcare
Speaker 11: reforms that we could have used to offset the costs,
Speaker 11: but there was no real that didn't get any real momentum.
Speaker 11: I think if you take a step back, the point
Speaker 11: is in order to do a urgency spending or foreign
Speaker 11: aid when it's necessary, you have to be fiscally secure.
Speaker 11: We need to get our fiscal situation in better shape.
Speaker 11: So even if it's not a direct offset, we should
Speaker 11: turn our attention to bringing the national debt down. You've
Speaker 11: heard me say it before, and I'm sure having to.
Speaker 3: Say it, well, gush, they have all summer to work
Speaker 3: on it. Just imagine what we could get done if
Speaker 3: we actually were serious about that. Maya, are you worried
Speaker 3: about this FAA bill being loaded up with expensive Christmas ornaments?
Speaker 7: I am worried about it.
Speaker 11: I actually don't think that will ultimately be what happens.
Speaker 11: I think there'll be many people who make runs at
Speaker 11: attaching their bills the things they prefer. But listen, everybody
Speaker 11: in the House has an election that they want to
Speaker 11: get back home and start focusing on. It's a very
Speaker 11: difficult tight rope to walk to get certain things attached
Speaker 11: or not. So I think there's a risk of a
Speaker 11: Christmas tree, but I think the most likely outcome is
Speaker 11: that it passes without anything major being.
Speaker 6: Attached to it.
Speaker 3: Wow, that's sands something is that just because everyone's exhausted
Speaker 3: of the division in Congress?
Speaker 11: Right the patchwork of getting things that would be attached
Speaker 11: that enough people could agree to would be very complicated.
Speaker 11: Even if someone supported some of the amendments, they might
Speaker 11: be resentful they didn't get their own amendments. And because
Speaker 11: there is not a commitment to which things should be attached.
Speaker 11: Like there's division on the tax bill, which is the
Speaker 11: kind of thing that you could think of as being attached.
Speaker 7: There's division on a lot of the different policies.
Speaker 11: So I don't see it falling into place in an
Speaker 11: elegant enough way that leadership is able to craft a
Speaker 11: bigger package.
Speaker 7: Could happen, definitely, people will give a try.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm glad you mentioned the tax bill, because this
Speaker 3: must be a head scratcher to you. They were practically
Speaker 3: celebrating its passage a couple of months ago. This was
Speaker 3: said to be look, we can get along and get
Speaker 3: things done. It moved pretty quickly. The chairs of the
Speaker 3: two related tax committees in the House and Senate came
Speaker 3: to terms, and then it got bogged down in the Senate.
Speaker 3: With a lot of different concerns about this. Some people
Speaker 3: wanted to make changes that essentially brought the bill to
Speaker 3: a halt. Is there any chance now that even though
Speaker 3: we're past April fifteenth, this tax deal, a multi billion
Speaker 3: dollar tax deal that had bipartisan support, could actually see
Speaker 3: the light of day.
Speaker 7: There is a chance.
Speaker 11: I mean, this has been a really interesting and complicated
Speaker 11: process from our perspective, non partisan worrying about fiscal issues.
Speaker 11: It's even been complex to make sense of it because
Speaker 11: it is a deal that puts together a lot of
Speaker 11: different taxes, the child tax credit, the business taxes, and
Speaker 11: what I don't think is smart about it is that
Speaker 11: they're temporary, and when you do temporary tax policy, you
Speaker 11: know you're setting yourself up for a cliff.
Speaker 7: You're not looking at the full costs.
Speaker 6: On the other.
Speaker 11: Hand, they did put forth offsets for this, and that's
Speaker 11: it's a very important precedent, which is, if something is
Speaker 11: worth doing, it's worth finding a way to offset the
Speaker 11: cost rather than borrowing for And I thought that they
Speaker 11: worked very hard to come up with that. I thought
Speaker 11: there was a lot of bipartisan agreement that they should
Speaker 11: offset the cost, and they came up with and approach
Speaker 11: do that, So it was a policy that I.
Speaker 7: Thought made sense.
Speaker 11: Listen, I think the thing we should be focusing on
Speaker 11: more than anything right now is fiscal overall, getting our
Speaker 11: fiscal house under control before you're adding tax cuts or
Speaker 11: spending increases. But at least things that are offset are important.
Speaker 11: But there is a lot of resistance. My again, I
Speaker 11: think where everything's headed is, oh my gosh, we can't
Speaker 11: get anything else done in twenty twenty four, Let's push
Speaker 11: it to twenty twenty five, when all of these tax
Speaker 11: cuts are going to be firing.
Speaker 7: There's going to be so much work to do. Let's
Speaker 7: just throw it into the big soup.
Speaker 3: Well, the lobbying money is coming in on extending the
Speaker 3: twenty seventeen tax cuts, the lobbying and the organization. We
Speaker 3: actually talked to Cavin Brady, of course, a former Ways
Speaker 3: and Means A chair, about his new efforts coming back
Speaker 3: into the fold here in Washington. This is going to
Speaker 3: be a big part of the conversation, Maya. What's your
Speaker 3: thought on this? What would happen if those tax cuts
Speaker 3: were made permanent?
Speaker 11: Well, yeah, twenty twenty five, let me just say it
Speaker 11: is going to be a huge year because those tax
Speaker 11: cuts are expiring, and we're going to have a debt
Speaker 11: sealing situation to deal with again. So there's going to
Speaker 11: be a lot of moving pieces and very important pieces.
Speaker 11: The cost of extending the tax cut is phenomenally large.
Speaker 11: You're talking about well over three trillion dollars at a time,
Speaker 11: whereas you know, the debt's near record levels, interest payments
Speaker 11: are soaring. We can ill afford to have trillions more
Speaker 11: added to the debt. Offsetting the cost is certainly something
Speaker 11: that can be done. We should be focusing on real
Speaker 11: tax reform, not tax cuts. And there's a lot of
Speaker 11: base broadeners in the tax code that you can go
Speaker 11: through and.
Speaker 7: Limit, expand some.
Speaker 11: Of the offsets that we're used before, a lot of
Speaker 11: things that would bring the costs down. But that's exactly
Speaker 11: what those lobbying groups are lobbying against. Everybody wants to
Speaker 11: preserve their favorite hole in the tax code that benefits
Speaker 11: their constituencies. So this will be as difficult as tax
Speaker 11: reform originally was in terms of making sure that it
Speaker 11: doesn't add to the debt. And you have a very
Speaker 11: very strange Bedfellow situation here where most Republicans would like
Speaker 11: to extend those tax cuts, though significant amount would like
Speaker 11: to pay for part of them, and the President, of
Speaker 11: course has said he won't like taxes be cut for
Speaker 11: anybody below four hundred thousand dollars. So that's a lot
Speaker 11: of tax cuts that people are supporting without talking about
Speaker 11: how they.
Speaker 6: Do the costs.
Speaker 11: And again, everybody in their budget says we're going to
Speaker 11: pay for it, Nobody says.
Speaker 3: How yeah, the proposal will be paid for, right, but
Speaker 3: then maybe reality will kick in here. This is really
Speaker 3: interesting as we spend time with Maya McGuinness considering that
Speaker 3: effort in twenty five and whether anything can actually happen now.
Speaker 3: The billionaire's tax is supported by according to our polling, Maya,
Speaker 3: I say, the billionaire's tax, the concept of a billionaire's tax,
Speaker 3: as President Biden is proposing, is supported by Democratic and
Speaker 3: Republican voters by vast margins. This includes Donald Trump supporters,
Speaker 3: the same people who would probably celebrate extending the twenty
Speaker 3: seventeen tax cuts. And I'm not sure I understand the
Speaker 3: rationale there, But could a billionaires tax help offset some
Speaker 3: of the rest of this if it happens.
Speaker 11: Yes, I think that those are the proposals that you're
Speaker 11: going to hear much more about.
Speaker 7: And you're exactly right.
Speaker 11: From both sides, it's no longer a Republican or a
Speaker 11: Democratic issue because populism and kind of the populist approach
Speaker 11: to taxes is something that has gained traction in both sides,
Speaker 11: and there is a real resentment about the huge levels
Speaker 11: of income inequality as billionaires.
Speaker 7: Continue to get more and more billions.
Speaker 11: I think that the popularity of these tax increases on
Speaker 11: the very wealthy are going to grow, and I think
Speaker 11: one of the questions will be as they start trying
Speaker 11: to figure out, how do you actually structure these so
Speaker 11: that they're constitutional, so that they're workable, so you don't
Speaker 11: have people who are leaving the country hiding their assets.
Speaker 11: There's all sorts of ways to avoid them, but I
Speaker 11: think that you will see biparers and support for all
Speaker 11: sorts of different approaches to middle class tax cuts and
Speaker 11: higher taxes on the wealthy.
Speaker 7: It's no longer the domain of just Democrats.
Speaker 3: As you pointed out, that's really interesting, an interesting time
Speaker 3: that we're in. I don't always quite understand the way
Speaker 3: they come out on the wash Here maya I've got
Speaker 3: less than a minute left when we talk about the
Speaker 3: tax deal on the table. You and I talked about
Speaker 3: this for a couple of moments. Does the Committee support
Speaker 3: this current framework now the exchange for a wider child
Speaker 3: tax credit in exchange for lower corporate taxes in some cases,
Speaker 3: does it work for you?
Speaker 6: Well, it's interesting.
Speaker 11: I mean, our take is generally policy neutral. There are
Speaker 11: many policies that could make sense, but we're not going
Speaker 11: to say this is the right wrong policy. We're going
Speaker 11: to say, does it add to the debt. It's okay
Speaker 11: to borrow when there's things like COVID or emergencies, it's
Speaker 11: certainly not okay to borrow now. So something that either
Speaker 11: reduces the debt, which is our first choice, or doesn't
Speaker 11: add to it, then we would say that's fiscally responsible,
Speaker 11: and then we can fight out the details of the
Speaker 11: tax policy.
Speaker 7: But do we need to continue to reform our tax code.
Speaker 7: We do.
Speaker 11: We need it to be pro growth, and we need
Speaker 11: it to be so those are all important considerations, along
Speaker 11: with let's not add more to.
Speaker 3: The debt, crystallizing the philosophy at the Committee for a
Speaker 3: Responsible Federal Budget. We don't always get to talk about
Speaker 3: that part of things. She's the President. Maya mcgainn. It's
Speaker 3: great to see you. I hope you had a fun weekend.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroyd
Speaker 1: Oro 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.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Monday edition of Ballance of Power on
Speaker 3: Bloomberg TV and Radio. Court is not in session in
Speaker 3: Lower Manhattan today, Kayley and the Donald Trump hush money case.
Speaker 3: He'll be back there tomorrow. He was a big topic
Speaker 3: of conversation at the White House Correspondence dinner, and as
Speaker 3: you might suspect, as he has been historically, the butt
Speaker 3: of many jokes that.
Speaker 2: Night, Yeah, including jokes from Colin jos who was the
Speaker 2: comedian of the evening, talking about how nice it was
Speaker 2: to see the President of the United States in an
Speaker 2: event which didn't begin with a bailiff saying all rise,
Speaker 2: basically suggesting that Donald Trump is spending a lot of
Speaker 2: days in the courtroom today not today, and he won't Wednesdays.
Speaker 2: Wednesday is the day off of this trial, but Tuesday,
Speaker 2: Thursday and Friday, and Thursday, of course is the gag order.
Speaker 2: Here is the second one where the judge will hear
Speaker 2: arguments as to whether or not Trump is in violation
Speaker 2: of that gag order that is supposed to prohibit him
Speaker 2: from doing things like disparaging witnesses, and the prosecution says
Speaker 2: he's been.
Speaker 3: Doing a lot of that well, that's right. The reporting
Speaker 3: from inside the courtroom has actually been quite lively on
Speaker 3: the daily basis a lot of questions about the essence
Speaker 3: of this trial, Kayley. Of course, with the four potential
Speaker 3: trials that this president former president could endure here, this
Speaker 3: was always seen as the weakest by a lot of
Speaker 3: the folks we talked to. I think Nick Ackerman might
Speaker 3: be an exception there who really cites the strength of
Speaker 3: this case. But defining it has been a real problem
Speaker 3: for a lot of people. Is it actually that Alvin
Speaker 3: Bragg is bringing Donald Trump into court for Is this
Speaker 3: a manipulation of documents case, a falsifying documents case, or
Speaker 3: is it an election interference case? Or is it actually both?
Speaker 2: I think they're trying to make the argument that it's
Speaker 2: actually both. Yes, he falsified business records, facing thirty four
Speaker 2: counts of that, but it's a felony because it was
Speaker 2: done so with the intent to violate election. Yes, is
Speaker 2: our understanding, But of course Jim Zsiren probably has a
Speaker 2: better understanding than we do because he is a legal professional,
Speaker 2: former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Speaker 2: New York. Jim, it's always great to have you here
Speaker 2: on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. Joe
Speaker 2: brings up an interesting point because a lot of the
Speaker 2: questioning of witnesses that we saw last week included David
Speaker 2: Pecker was around whether or not this really was intended
Speaker 2: to help Trump politically. So far, do you think the
Speaker 2: prosecution is having success making that case?
Speaker 9: Well, I think Pecker was a very damaging witness against Trump.
Speaker 9: He professor to be a friend of his to this day,
Speaker 9: and Trump may conclude, with friends like that.
Speaker 12: Who needs enemies? Because Pecker really set the table.
Speaker 9: He put flesh on the bones of the whole case
Speaker 9: of how from the time Trump first announced for the presidency,
Speaker 9: the National Inquirer was publishing damaging information about his political
Speaker 9: rivals and also trying to take polls that weren't necessarily accurate,
Speaker 9: which showed that Trump would be a viable candidate as
Speaker 9: later he turned out to be.
Speaker 3: How difficult will it be for Alvin Bragg or are
Speaker 3: you already seeing the path here to make this an
Speaker 3: election interference case?
Speaker 9: At the same time, Well, I'm not convinced that calling
Speaker 9: an election interference case is the greatest way forward.
Speaker 12: It is an election.
Speaker 9: Interference case, and there are political legal scholars in my respect,
Speaker 9: like Norm Eisen who first brought it out, and who
Speaker 9: stress it's the twenty sixteen preview to what happened in
Speaker 9: twenty twenty making fraudulent statements in order to seize power.
Speaker 12: So there is a parallel there.
Speaker 9: But I'm not so sure the jury is willing to
Speaker 9: buy that because it plays into Trump's claim.
Speaker 12: That this is all a political prosecution. There is the
Speaker 12: other side of the coin. This is really a.
Speaker 9: Business integrity case. It's a simple case. It's a case
Speaker 9: of falsifying business records with the intent to commit a crime,
Speaker 9: the crime being either election in a fiperence or tax fraud,
Speaker 9: or both the federal and state election interference. Now that
Speaker 9: in mind, there really isn't that much to it. You
Speaker 9: have thirty four obviously false documents business records of the
Speaker 9: Trump organization, which are the mute witnesses that really put
Speaker 9: Trump in the soup. He falsified those documents, He knew
Speaker 9: about those documents, seven of the nine checks he personally signed.
Speaker 9: There is testimony of Michael Cohen, whose credibility they will challenge.
Speaker 9: But Cohen's testimony is going to be corroborated. First corroborated
Speaker 9: by Pecker. It'll be corroborated by other witnesses as the
Speaker 9: prosecution moves along. So I don't think it's that difficult
Speaker 9: a case if Bragg plays his hand deftly sizes that
Speaker 9: it's a white collar crime case. My old boss in
Speaker 9: the US Attorney's Office, Bob Morgenshaw, the legendary prosecutor, used
Speaker 9: to say, you can't prosecute the streets unless you prosecute
Speaker 9: the suites and sees.
Speaker 12: And meeting the business suites. And he didn't.
Speaker 9: Other prosecutors have, and that makes this case not that unusual,
Speaker 9: and not a selective prosecution where they've singled out Trump,
Speaker 9: but rather a prosecution that's a garden variety case involving
Speaker 9: business integrity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, except this one just happens to involve a former
Speaker 2: president and current presumptive Republican nominee. But I do take
Speaker 2: your point, Jim. Of course, there's something else in regard
Speaker 2: to this case. In addition to witness testimony that we're
Speaker 2: waiting for this week, on Thursday, we will have a
Speaker 2: second hearing of arguments related to whether or not Trump
Speaker 2: has violated the gag order, he is under even more
Speaker 2: count of this, according to the prosecution, have come up
Speaker 2: since the last time Judge Marshawn heard these arguments. But
Speaker 2: what can he actually do here? What consequence does this
Speaker 2: ultimately have if he is found to have violated it
Speaker 2: and gets what a thousand dollars fine for each thing?
Speaker 2: That's not really a big number for a billionaire.
Speaker 12: Well let me get to that for a moment.
Speaker 9: But I want to answer you because he is the
Speaker 9: former president of the United States, and never before in
Speaker 9: history has a former president of the United States been
Speaker 9: charged with felonies. But the law is not supposed to
Speaker 9: be about who the defendant is. The law is supposed
Speaker 9: to be about what the defendant does, and that's what
Speaker 9: this case is all about.
Speaker 12: Now. As to the gag order hearings, I.
Speaker 9: Don't believe that the judge is going to clap Trump
Speaker 9: and irons and put him in jail for a day,
Speaker 9: for an hour, or for a year for violating a gagorer.
Speaker 12: I think he'll be very tough.
Speaker 9: On Trump and say the next time it happens, it's
Speaker 9: going to be very difficult for you. But I think
Speaker 9: he will find them. He doesn't have to limit himself
Speaker 9: to a fine. He can put him in jail for
Speaker 9: contempt of court, even if the DA hasn't asked for that.
Speaker 9: But the DA has been very moderate. He's asked to
Speaker 9: find him. There's really the issue of delay, because if
Speaker 9: he puts him in jail for any significant period of time,
Speaker 9: it's going to delay the trial. And that's the last
Speaker 9: thing the judge wants. That's the last thing the prosecutor wants.
Speaker 9: Undoubtedly Trump will appeal, and undoubtedly by the time the
Speaker 9: appeal has heard, they'll say Trump has served enough time,
Speaker 9: let's go on.
Speaker 12: With the trial.
Speaker 9: But it may delay the trial for thirty to sixty days,
Speaker 9: which nobody wants. So I think that they're probably will
Speaker 9: be a fine imposed and there probably will be a
Speaker 9: very stern Dutch uncle talk from the judge that what
Speaker 9: he's done violated the order. What he's done in terms
Speaker 9: of attacking witnesses and families of prosecutors is intolerable and
Speaker 9: violates the order, and next time he does it, the
Speaker 9: judge is going to be very hard on it.
Speaker 3: Jim, we're out of time, just very quickly, just to
Speaker 3: make sure that our listeners and viewers understand, and I'm
Speaker 3: asking you legitimately if you or I were in that position,
Speaker 3: if we had violated the gag order to that extent,
Speaker 3: what would happen to us?
Speaker 12: I think we'd go to jail, no question about it.
Speaker 12: And so then the Trump.
Speaker 3: Obviously then the law does not apply equally. Already we've
Speaker 3: established that.
Speaker 9: I think we've seen, as we saw in the immunity
Speaker 9: argument in the Supreme Court, Trump has gotten a deference
Speaker 9: from the courts unlike anyone else in a country where
Speaker 9: no man is supposed to be above the law.
Speaker 7: Yeah, all right.
Speaker 2: Jim Ziron, former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District
Speaker 2: of New York. Always great to have you on the
Speaker 2: program sir, Thank you so much.
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 3: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 3: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at
Speaker 3: Bloomberg dot com.