Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listening on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: We thank you and welcome you to the Wednesday edition
Speaker 2: of Bloomberg Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. It's
Speaker 2: good to see it on the radio, on the satellite,
Speaker 2: and on YouTube. You can find us there right now
Speaker 2: search Bloomberg Global News because I'm confused. And if you
Speaker 2: listen to this broadcast from time to time, you know
Speaker 2: that's not unusual as we talk about new deals on
Speaker 2: top line spending levels that are identical to the deals
Speaker 2: we saw back in June. When we have contempt hearings,
Speaker 2: in this case for the son of a president and
Speaker 2: he actually shows up. That happened today. We were going
Speaker 2: to talk to Michael Zeldon about Donald Trump, and we're
Speaker 2: going to do that in a moment. But who would
Speaker 2: have thought this would take place? Maybe you saw it
Speaker 2: coming Oversight Committee hearing holding Hunter Biden in contempt for
Speaker 2: not showing up to a deposition that he actually showed
Speaker 2: up for. They wanted to do it behind closed doors.
Speaker 2: This starts to get very complicated. Nancy Mace couldn't believe
Speaker 2: it when he walked in. The representative on the Republican
Speaker 2: side of the dais here had it out with Jared Moscowitz,
Speaker 2: the Democrat. This is just a taste of what.
Speaker 1: It was like.
Speaker 3: You're the epitome of white privilege, coming into the Oversight Committee,
Speaker 3: spitting in our face, ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed.
Speaker 4: What are you afraid of?
Speaker 2: You have no balls to come up here, mister chairman,
Speaker 2: point of inquiry, Mister Chairman, if the General, if the
Speaker 2: General lady wants to hear from Hunter Biden, we can
Speaker 2: hear from him right now.
Speaker 5: Chairman, Let's take.
Speaker 2: A vote and hear from utter Biden. What are you afraid?
Speaker 1: Order?
Speaker 2: And that's just how it started. I'm still not sure though,
Speaker 2: if you show up, how that means he didn't show up.
Speaker 2: But maybe Michael Zelden can help us. I've got a
Speaker 2: lot of questions for Michael. Of course, former federal prosecutor,
Speaker 2: former special counselor Robert Muller while at the DOJ. Michael,
Speaker 2: you've been on my mind and it's great to see you.
Speaker 2: I'm glad that you could come back to join us
Speaker 2: here early in twenty twenty four, because, boy, this is
Speaker 2: going to be a year, and not the least of
Speaker 2: which is because of this Hunter Biden case. I want
Speaker 2: to ask you about Donald Trump, but can you make
Speaker 2: sense out of this? Can you hold someone in contempt
Speaker 2: for a deposition they showed up for?
Speaker 5: Yeah, you can. You shouldn't, but you can. The proposition
Speaker 5: here is they gave him a subpoena to appear behind
Speaker 5: closed doors for a deposition. He says, I'm not showing
Speaker 5: up behind closed doors. I'm only showing up in public
Speaker 5: because I don't trust you. Well. People who receive subpoenas
Speaker 5: don't get determine the proto calls by which the testimony
Speaker 5: is taken. So that's sort of the pissing match, if
Speaker 5: you will, between the two sides. The question is, really,
Speaker 5: why are they even bothering to subpoena him in the
Speaker 5: first place? What value do they see? When if I
Speaker 5: were his lawyer and he's represented ably by Abby Lowell,
Speaker 5: I would just say I'm taking the Fifth Amendment with
Speaker 5: any question that you have to ask me in private,
Speaker 5: because I don't trust you guys, and I've been indicted
Speaker 5: in California, and I'm not about to jeopardize my legal
Speaker 5: case there by answering any questions that you guys have here.
Speaker 5: So it's really political theater. This is not really about
Speaker 5: truth gathering or fact finding. It's just about show.
Speaker 2: Well, that's a pretty clear answer, I suspect, but it
Speaker 2: won't stop the process to your point. In terms of
Speaker 2: that indictment. Though, in California, he's heading for la next. Apparently,
Speaker 2: what's in store for Hunter Biden when he gets.
Speaker 5: There ultimately a trial unless they work out a plea deal.
Speaker 5: He's facing tax charges out there that are serious. He
Speaker 5: failed to report income and failed to file timely his
Speaker 5: tax returns worth over a million dollars in lost tax revenue.
Speaker 5: He did ultimately pay it back, but you know, the
Speaker 5: fact that you sort of returned the money that you
Speaker 5: stole from the bank doesn't get you necessarily off the
Speaker 5: hook for bank robbery. It may get you a plea
Speaker 5: bargain to something less than bank robbery, but nonetheless, these
Speaker 5: are serious charges and he has to account for it.
Speaker 5: He has said that it was because of his drug addiction,
Speaker 5: and I understand, well, the problems of drug addiction in
Speaker 5: family members, and it's complicated stuff, but that's not a
Speaker 5: defense unless you're pleading some sort of diminished mental capacity.
Speaker 5: I think that he has to figure out what is
Speaker 5: the best thing for him to do. I think the
Speaker 5: best thing for him to do is probably work out
Speaker 5: some sort of plea like they tried to do when
Speaker 5: he was facing charges in Delaware, misdemeanor charges. But we'll
Speaker 5: see now whether they prosecutors out in California or as
Speaker 5: willing to compromise with him as Delaware special counsel laws.
Speaker 2: Well, Hudter Biden was the big moment today. Donald Trump's
Speaker 2: moment came yesterday. Michael Zelden, this is really something as
Speaker 2: he tests this idea of presidential immunity, and his legal
Speaker 2: team got a fairly chillier reception from this three judge
Speaker 2: appellate panel. This is what Axios is now calling Trump's
Speaker 2: new Fifth Avenue moment. As his lawyer John Sower was
Speaker 2: asked by one of the judges about this idea of well,
Speaker 2: we'll let you listen.
Speaker 3: Could a president who ordered seale team sets to assassinate
Speaker 3: a political rival who was.
Speaker 5: Not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution.
Speaker 6: Were impeached and convicted?
Speaker 5: First, say, your answer is is.
Speaker 6: That My answer is qualified. Yes, there's a political process
Speaker 6: that have to occur under ours, the structure our constitution,
Speaker 6: which will require impeachment and conviction by the Senate.
Speaker 2: Imagine Seal Team six being used to assassinate a political rival.
Speaker 2: Maybe you can imagine that. The idea here, though, Michael,
Speaker 2: is that if not impeached and convicted, then you cannot
Speaker 2: in fact criminally prosecute a former president or a sitting president.
Speaker 2: Is that how you understand this argument? Does it hold
Speaker 2: any water?
Speaker 5: That's how I understand the argument. I don't think it
Speaker 5: holds any water. And in fact, in preparation for our conversation,
Speaker 5: I went back and read the Office of Legal Counsel
Speaker 5: memoranda on these issues. Remember this sort of came up
Speaker 5: in the Mueller investigation. Muller said he might have but
Speaker 5: couldn't indict Trump or the stuff that he investigated, because
Speaker 5: there is a memo that says you can't indict a
Speaker 5: sitting president. But that memo goes on to say, of
Speaker 5: course you can indict a former president, and the case
Speaker 5: law is pretty clear on that. And so it's pretty
Speaker 5: settled that the proposition that Trump is proposing is an
Speaker 5: outlier and probably will not be sustained by the Court
Speaker 5: of Appeals or even I think the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: Well, talk to me more about that, because a lot
Speaker 2: of folks seem to think that's where this will be decided. Well,
Speaker 2: will the Supreme Court take this up if it goes
Speaker 2: that far.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So that's a great question. And I think the
Speaker 5: answer to the question is it depends on the nature
Speaker 5: of the order that the appellate Court issues. So if
Speaker 5: this appellate Court gives a three to zero unanimous decision
Speaker 5: forcefully suggesting that the notion of immunity for a former
Speaker 5: president in criminal matters is absurd, then the Supreme Court
Speaker 5: might say, you know what, we don't have to decide
Speaker 5: this issue. We'll wait to a more complicated issue that
Speaker 5: raises this question. But in this case, the proposition that
Speaker 5: you're entitled to qualified immunity for inciting an insurrection is so,
Speaker 5: you know, sort of much a no brainer that we're
Speaker 5: going to just rely on the Court of Appeals and
Speaker 5: leave it there. And remember they ask Special Council Smith
Speaker 5: asked the Supreme Court to take this straight away to
Speaker 5: skip this middle ground and the court said no, no, no,
Speaker 5: we want to hear from this middle ground court. And
Speaker 5: so if this middle ground court gives them a very strong,
Speaker 5: analyzed decision, they might say, we don't need to do it.
Speaker 5: They got it right. Let's get this case to trial
Speaker 5: and then we'll have a trial in March.
Speaker 2: So it sounds like that's what you see happening, the
Speaker 2: skepticism on this three judge panel. If this goes all
Speaker 2: the way up to the full blown DC Appeals Court,
Speaker 2: do you assume those judges will feel the same way.
Speaker 2: I think that's what you're suggesting, and that means the
Speaker 2: trial does begin long before the election.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So the rights that Trump has are to one. Let's
Speaker 5: say he loses three to nothing in this court, or
Speaker 5: even two to one in this court. He can then
Speaker 5: go he can seek a review of that decision by
Speaker 5: the full members of that same court. I think they're eleven,
Speaker 5: and that's called en banc review total review, and that's discretionated.
Speaker 5: Those eleven judges can say you, no, no, we don't
Speaker 5: need to hear this. The three judge panel got it right.
Speaker 5: Then that will closed as that. Then he can file
Speaker 5: what's called a writ of Circiori or a quest by
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court to hear it, and the Supreme Court
Speaker 5: can say yes or no to that. If they say yes,
Speaker 5: and let's say that makes it to them sometime in
Speaker 5: early February, then I think the March trial date is unlikely,
Speaker 5: but it doesn't mean that it can't happen in May
Speaker 5: or June. If the Supreme Court acts quickly as they
Speaker 5: did in the Nixon Watergate tapes, and they have that
Speaker 5: power to.
Speaker 2: Do that, wow, that would be the one trial though
Speaker 2: you see happening before the election, right.
Speaker 5: I think it's most likely because Eileen Cannon, the judge
Speaker 5: who has the Maro a Lago case, seems to be
Speaker 5: slow walking it a bit. Now if this case gets delayed,
Speaker 5: If there is a long delay in this case, Eileen
Speaker 5: Cannon could set her trial date in May and go
Speaker 5: forward with it. But I expect that Trump will raise
Speaker 5: the same immunity in that case too, So I think
Speaker 5: we need to get an answer on immunity before we
Speaker 5: know what the trial schedules are, both in Mario Lago
Speaker 5: case and in January sixth case.
Speaker 2: Well, it's great to talk to you. Good to see you, Michael, Zelden.
Speaker 2: We thank you former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden with us
Speaker 2: once again here on Bloomberg as we assemble our panel
Speaker 2: can't wait to hear what they think. Rick Davis is
Speaker 2: with us, of course, Republican strategist, Bloomberg Politics contributor, joined
Speaker 2: today by Democratic analyst Kaitlyn Lagaki at Four Corners of
Speaker 2: Public Affairs. Rick, We've talked a lot about the idea
Speaker 2: of Donald Trump's spending the bulk of his campaign in
Speaker 2: a courtroom, and it is sounding like, after we talked
Speaker 2: to Michael Zelden, that that's exactly what's going to happen.
Speaker 2: He'll be back in New York tomorrow for the civil trial.
Speaker 2: How do you do both at once?
Speaker 7: Yeah, Well, I mean he's making that decision. I mean,
Speaker 7: yesterday's appearance was totally elective on his part. He didn't
Speaker 7: have to go there, he didn't do anything, and he
Speaker 7: could have been in an Iowa campaign. He could have
Speaker 7: been a New Hampshire campaigning. Look, if he loses New Hampshire,
Speaker 7: his campaign is going to look at him, go, what
Speaker 7: the heck were we doing sitting in a courtroom when
Speaker 7: we could have been in the state campaigning. So I
Speaker 7: feel for those guys. I mean, they're sharing, you know,
Speaker 7: the former president with the legal system, and that that
Speaker 7: can't be a very you know, constructive way to spend
Speaker 7: time in the middle of an election. So it's his
Speaker 7: choice in many of these cases, and he chooses to
Speaker 7: not campaign and to defend his rights as a plaintiff.
Speaker 2: So Caitlin, at what point does that become advantage Biden,
Speaker 2: assuming that these are the nominees, and where I guess
Speaker 2: I shouldn't assume that, but let's say it's a rematch,
Speaker 2: At what point does this start to count against Donald
Speaker 2: Trump when he enters a general election field.
Speaker 4: I mean, it immediately reminds moderate and independent voters of
Speaker 4: the chaos that he created while he was president. So,
Speaker 4: you know, while he believes that going to court every
Speaker 4: day and presenting himself as a victim of political persecution
Speaker 4: works to his benefit, I think where it really, you know,
Speaker 4: helps Biden is that it just, you know, time warps
Speaker 4: everyone back four years to what we went through with
Speaker 4: the chaos and the legal issues, and reminds anyone who's
Speaker 4: even remotely open to either candidate what they should expect
Speaker 4: for the next four years out of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: In the meantime, though, Rick, it seems like it's advantage
Speaker 2: Trump as long as it it's the primary field, the
Speaker 2: Republican primary field that we're talking about. Or do you
Speaker 2: see that start to flip at some point in the
Speaker 2: next couple of months.
Speaker 7: Well, there's no question that Trump's campaign started to improve
Speaker 7: once Bragg in New York indicted him, and you saw
Speaker 7: an increase in fundraising and he became the victim. As
Speaker 7: Caitlin said, this is his entire campaign message. I am
Speaker 7: a victim. You're victims. We're all defending each other here.
Speaker 7: You know, they're really coming after you. And it's all
Speaker 7: very populist and very outsider and very anti government. So
Speaker 7: I don't think that's ever going to change. And the
Speaker 7: fact that he gets a stage to do that, you know,
Speaker 7: in a courtroom where he can walk out and give
Speaker 7: his talking points of the day in front of a
Speaker 7: massive crowd of reporters, you know, that's just as good
Speaker 7: to him as a rally and a lot cheaper.
Speaker 2: Well how about that the king of free media, There
Speaker 2: is something to be said for that, I suppose, Caitlin,
Speaker 2: because he's going to end up leading the newscast every
Speaker 2: time he shows up in a courtroom, he.
Speaker 4: Is, although you know, we've already seen him run into
Speaker 4: issues related to gag orders and you know in some
Speaker 4: of his other trials, and so I wouldn't you know,
Speaker 4: if that is their entire strategy, then I think that
Speaker 4: they should at least have a plan to be in place,
Speaker 4: because I can't imagine that, especially judges in the DC
Speaker 4: circuit are going to have a high tolerance for those shenanigans.
Speaker 2: Well, part of the strategy apparently includes a return to
Speaker 2: Fox News tonight, counterprogramming the final GOP debate. We'll talk
Speaker 2: about it next with the panel. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: Last time Donald Trump appeared live on Fox News was
Speaker 2: back in April of twenty twenty two, almost two years,
Speaker 2: and it hasn't been the smoothest ride since then. He's
Speaker 2: spent a lot of time criticizing the network, and tonight
Speaker 2: will make his big returns ought to be interesting. Of course,
Speaker 2: it's all part of counter programming the actual debate that's
Speaker 2: taking place around the same time on CNN. That'll be
Speaker 2: between Nicky Haley and rond De Santis. This is the
Speaker 2: last throwdown before actual voting takes place, actual caucusing on Monday.
Speaker 2: And look, Donald Trump could be on that stage if
Speaker 2: he wanted to be, but not again. So this is
Speaker 2: going to be an interesting exercise to see the former
Speaker 2: governor of South Carolina and Nicky Haley and now the
Speaker 2: governor of Florida, Ronda Santis, just the two of them
Speaker 2: on stage. They're both going to get a lot of
Speaker 2: time and presumably we'll have a chance to talk about
Speaker 2: actual policy. What a concept. Let's reassemble the panel because
Speaker 2: you know a lot of people are going to be
Speaker 2: watching Trump for the fireworks. Rick Davis is with us,
Speaker 2: of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor, Republican strategist Caitlin Legacki from
Speaker 2: Four Corners Public Affairs is here too, Democratic analyst Rick.
Speaker 2: It's going to be interesting another split screen night here,
Speaker 2: and I wonder for the candidates themselves. The Trump Show
Speaker 2: is its own thing, but for the candidates themselves, if
Speaker 2: there's going to be any real opportunity to move the
Speaker 2: needle here, yeah, I think.
Speaker 7: There'll be an interesting debate between Nicki Haley and Ron
Speaker 7: de Santists. Look, I mean they're running neck and neck
Speaker 7: in Iowa for second place. We've all been talking about
Speaker 7: the second place matter in Iowa this year, and I
Speaker 7: think the conclusion is yes, certainly for Nicki Haley, and
Speaker 7: it may be the only thing that sustains for Ondo
Speaker 7: Santists beyond Iowa. So I think there are real stakes
Speaker 7: tonight's debate. It's unfortunate that the real contest in this
Speaker 7: case Nicki and Ron are going to be on CNN
Speaker 7: and most of the Republican caucus goers, I promise you
Speaker 7: we'll be watching the Fox News interview with Donald Trump
Speaker 7: because that's what they watch every night. It's nothing special.
Speaker 2: Well, then, I guess it's a pretty good strategy, Caitlin.
Speaker 2: He's never had to show up at a debate. He
Speaker 2: has held a commanding lead throughout the process, and we're
Speaker 2: reminded by the New York Times this is his first
Speaker 2: live interview on any major news network since that so
Speaker 2: called town hall last May on CNN that got the
Speaker 2: head of the network fired, and that was because Donald
Speaker 2: Trump just ran all over the whole process. And I
Speaker 2: suspect he will do the same tonight. What are these
Speaker 2: folks going to see when they tune into Fox? Does
Speaker 2: he take the opportunity to insult the network?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 4: I think he can't help himself. I think that's absolutely
Speaker 4: what he's going to do. But I think he's also
Speaker 4: doing this because he does see the numbers coming out
Speaker 4: of New Hampshire. He does see Nicki Haley closing in
Speaker 4: on him there, and he really needs to re establish
Speaker 4: his leadership there. So what he's doing is actually pretty smart,
Speaker 4: which is that, as Rick said, your average conservative, Caucasco
Speaker 4: or primary voter in New Hampshire is going to be
Speaker 4: watching Fox, and so he is owning all of that
Speaker 4: oxygen while you know, Governor's Haley and DeSantis fight it
Speaker 4: out for second place on a network that your average
Speaker 4: Republican primary or voter or caucas Goo or just is
Speaker 4: it going to be watching.
Speaker 2: Well, it sounds to me like the field is set then, Rick.
Speaker 2: As we head into Iowa, Nikki Haley, Ronda Santis aren't
Speaker 2: going to have a breakout based on what happens tonight, right.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think tonight's see an end debate is more
Speaker 7: about what ad goes up as a closing argument the
Speaker 7: next morning, right. I mean, if somebody falters, if there's
Speaker 7: a punch well landed on the job of one of
Speaker 7: the other candidates, that could actually make it into the
Speaker 7: weekend close. But otherwise, most Republicans aren' going to see
Speaker 7: what happens on that CNN debate. Lots of Democrats will
Speaker 7: watch it, but because I'm sure it's good theater. But yeah,
Speaker 7: I think we've all agreed that once again, Donald Trump
Speaker 7: gets the lifeline from Fox Media to give him something
Speaker 7: to do. Any otherwise would be left out of the narrative.
Speaker 2: Latest numbers coming from Trafalgar Group on the Iowa Republican
Speaker 2: caucus Donald Trump fifty two and then you've got Nicki
Speaker 2: Haley and Ron DeSantis tied at eighteen. So Donald Trump
Speaker 2: has a thirty four point lead going into the caucus.
Speaker 2: At this stage here, Caitlin an Seltzer and others would
Speaker 2: tell you that that's a done deal. Will he win Iowa?
Speaker 4: Oh of course?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, anyone who's ever done. The Iowa caucus has
Speaker 4: dreamed of a scenario where they're at fifty two percent.
Speaker 4: It's unprecedented. So I think that's absolutely locked. The real
Speaker 4: question is, how does this affect New Hampshire. Does this
Speaker 4: kill Nicky Haley's momentum, or does this you know, basically
Speaker 4: put the last nail in Ronda Santras's coffin, which would
Speaker 4: give you know, theoretically Haley a clearer path in New Hampshire.
Speaker 4: And so I agree that that's the whole ballgame for
Speaker 4: what Iowa means.
Speaker 2: Rick, I want you to take us to school on
Speaker 2: something called momentum, which we talk about affectionately around this
Speaker 2: time of the election cycle, but you've actually harnessed it,
Speaker 2: You've actually realized it. When we look at the numbers
Speaker 2: moving beyond Iowa and New Hampshire right now, all of
Speaker 2: that could change immediately based on the performance that we
Speaker 2: see specifically coming out of New Hampshire. I know you've
Speaker 2: got your eyes on Nicki Haley, but talk about that
Speaker 2: just kind of more in general, how she could turn
Speaker 2: this around, how any candidate might based on momentum in
Speaker 2: the first two states.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think people need to really understand the dynamic politically, right,
Speaker 7: the Iowa caucus is an organizational nightmare.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 7: It is not a primary. It doesn't have a lot
Speaker 7: of people participate. In fact, considering how cold it's going
Speaker 7: to be and how snowy it is in Iowa right now,
Speaker 7: you've got to assume participation is going to be way down.
Speaker 7: But that is usually what upsets the apple cart. In
Speaker 7: other words, it hurts more people than it helps over time.
Speaker 7: In New Hampshire, it is a true primary and everybody
Speaker 7: can vote, right, it's an open primary, independence participate. Sometimes
Speaker 7: as much as forty percent of the turnout on primary
Speaker 7: day is non Republican. And so this is a chance
Speaker 7: for people to really speak the first chance, and that
Speaker 7: usually has a different outcome than Iowa, and that usually
Speaker 7: is a lifeline to challengers, challengers like Nikki Haley in
Speaker 7: this case, because you've got to remember Donald Trump's running
Speaker 7: as an incumbent. None of these people should even be
Speaker 7: close to running against an incumbent. I mean, you know,
Speaker 7: Joe Biden's an incumbent running and he's in the sixty
Speaker 7: percent and he's not even on the ballot. So this
Speaker 7: is this is the chance that everybody has to try
Speaker 7: and play catch up, and then it is all about momentum.
Speaker 7: Every poll you've seen in South Carolina, Florida, the Super
Speaker 7: Tuesday dates, they change overnight depending upon the outcome of
Speaker 7: this race in New Hampshire.
Speaker 2: I hope you heard what Rick said. They change overnight.
Speaker 2: That's why it's comical that we're obsessing over polls nine
Speaker 2: months ago, national polls, but even calls into question what
Speaker 2: we're looking at here in the next month of voting.
Speaker 2: Even Caitlin can Nicki Haley pull that off?
Speaker 4: I mean, anything is possible in politics. I think one
Speaker 4: of the things about the primary calendar that a lot
Speaker 4: of folks don't appreciate is that all of these campaigns
Speaker 4: have been spending the last year really focused on two
Speaker 4: states maybe and where this really tests a campaign's ability
Speaker 4: to function and organize is Let's say Nikki Haley comes
Speaker 4: out of New Hampshire with an upset victory. She's going
Speaker 4: to have a huge influx of money, but she's also
Speaker 4: going to have to carry that momentum forward. Luckily, she
Speaker 4: has South Carolina probably in her pocket. But then there's
Speaker 4: all the Super Tuesday states where if you know your
Speaker 4: campaign has not previously had the opportunity to build up
Speaker 4: that staffing, build up that strategy. You're really playing whack
Speaker 4: a mole and leap frogging from one state to the next,
Speaker 4: and it's it's hard, but that's kind of why this
Speaker 4: is so exciting and interesting, and it really is a
Speaker 4: good test for who is going to be the best
Speaker 4: general election candidate.
Speaker 2: Fascinating what we're about to learn, and great analysis from
Speaker 2: Rick and Caitlin. I'm glad you're both with us.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one eastern Howkwyburg dot com, the iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: app and the Big Business app, or listen on demand
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: Welcome to our two of sound On. I'm Joe Matthew
Speaker 2: alongside Kaylee Lines. And it looks like we're getting ready
Speaker 2: for the hearings already. Kaylee. It was right around this
Speaker 2: time yesterday we got the statement from Walter Reeds that
Speaker 2: kind of blew our minds about what had happened to
Speaker 2: the Secretary of Defense. Prostate cancer was the answer, but
Speaker 2: there was so much that we still didn't understand, and
Speaker 2: they want answers on Capitol Hill now Mike Rogers House
Speaker 2: Armed Services Committee in a letter says it's unacceptable that
Speaker 2: the Department of Defense, the White House in Congress were
Speaker 2: not informed of the Secretary's position or capacity, and they
Speaker 2: are scheduling a hearing into this. So the inquiries underway.
Speaker 3: Well, and of course the White House is acting as well.
Speaker 3: The chief staff at the White House is now directed
Speaker 3: all not just the Department, but everything in the cabinet essentially.
Speaker 2: The say tolls well.
Speaker 3: That the fact that this system wasn't in place already
Speaker 3: blows my mind.
Speaker 6: I mean, Joe.
Speaker 3: The other thing about yesterday was as we learned the
Speaker 3: news that prostate cancer is the reason for Secretary Austin's hospitalization,
Speaker 3: So too, apparently did the White House, even though they
Speaker 3: knew he was hospitalized days after the fact, Mine, they
Speaker 3: didn't know either that it was prostate cancer he was
Speaker 3: dealing with. And the lack of communication here I think
Speaker 3: has baffled everyone, Congress included.
Speaker 2: Well, that's for sure, he's still hospitalized.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, to our knowledge, although the prognosis, according
Speaker 3: to Walter Reed, yes.
Speaker 2: Of course we don't know what brought the severe pain
Speaker 2: that sent him back to the hospital or frankly, much
Speaker 2: else after that. Certainly when it comes to the line
Speaker 2: of communication. That's why I wanted to talk to the
Speaker 2: general about this, because I suspect he's got feelings about it.
Speaker 2: General Mark Kimmitt retired Army General. Of course, with us
Speaker 2: back on Bloomberg in general, it's good to see you.
Speaker 2: How did this hit you when you first heard about it?
Speaker 2: Were you surprised that there was not more protocol in place,
Speaker 2: or at least protocol followed in this case.
Speaker 6: Well, I think it's as the latter protocol not followed. Look,
Speaker 6: I know Lloyd Austin, have known him for thirty five years.
Speaker 6: Intensely private man. But in some cases you give up
Speaker 6: that privacy when you take a position like Secretary Defense.
Speaker 6: There are protocols. I remember in two thousand and eight
Speaker 6: when I was at Department of Defense, Secretary Gates had
Speaker 6: broken his arm in a slip at his quarters. The
Speaker 6: next morning, I'm at a meeting with him. In a sling,
Speaker 6: I'm briefing him. Photographer comes in takes a picture of
Speaker 6: the secretary, completely functional, completely operational. It's a Secretary of
Speaker 6: Defense and probably bored by the guy briefing in. But
Speaker 6: that was information that got out quickly, and as a result,
Speaker 6: nobody ever heard of this issue because it was handled
Speaker 6: so well. This, in my mind was just mistakes of
Speaker 6: not a comedy of errors.
Speaker 3: Okay, but what's the consequence of these mistakes general? Is
Speaker 3: this just frankly a bad look the idea that the
Speaker 3: White House and the Pentagon are not communicating that protocol
Speaker 3: wasn't for followed or was there real risk here given
Speaker 3: that during this hospital say according to Walter Reed, he
Speaker 3: hasn't actually been incapacitated, he hasn't gone under anesthesia or
Speaker 3: anything like that.
Speaker 6: I don't think there's any risk at all. There is
Speaker 6: a procedure by which transfer of authority happens in this
Speaker 6: case between the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Sectary Defense,
Speaker 6: very similar to what happens when the President goes under anesthesia.
Speaker 6: So if there was a problem because that's because of
Speaker 6: that transfer of authority to the deputy, because that's the
Speaker 6: wrong person, well then you picked the wrong deputy. But
Speaker 6: in fact, Secretary Hicks is eminently qualified to stand in
Speaker 6: for the Secretary Defense.
Speaker 2: Should she have been given a heads up. They found
Speaker 2: Kathleen Hicks in Puerto Rico on vacation. I guess it's
Speaker 2: a good thing that there would be US backhaul US
Speaker 2: infrastructure there for her to do her job. But should
Speaker 2: she had been allowed to go on vacation this was scheduled, Well.
Speaker 6: Sure, because again, first of all, the Deputy Secretary travels
Speaker 6: with a pretty extensive comm steam for this very reason
Speaker 6: that if there's a need for her to take over,
Speaker 6: that she's ready to do it on a moment's notice.
Speaker 6: I used to do that when I was an assistant
Speaker 6: to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Huge comms package
Speaker 6: it was formerly done handed over to her. She was ready.
Speaker 6: The fact that she was in Puerto Rico shouldn't make
Speaker 6: a difference. She could have been at fifty thousand feet
Speaker 6: in an airplane. So this continuity of command is something
Speaker 6: that's important, if not almost sacred, to the military.
Speaker 3: Does it strike you as odd, General, that it took
Speaker 3: days for the White House to learn this information, that
Speaker 3: no one at the White House realized there hadn't been
Speaker 3: communication with Austin for days. What is that signal about
Speaker 3: the cooperation between the Pentagon and the other end of
Speaker 3: Pennsylvania Avenue.
Speaker 6: Well, I would say that it is rare that on
Speaker 6: a daily Base, Secretary Defense calls the White House. On
Speaker 6: the other hand, there are dozens of staff officers that
Speaker 6: are talking to the White House, the State Department, and
Speaker 6: other agencies every day. So the real question is did
Speaker 6: that lack of conversation between Austin himself and the White
Speaker 6: House affect the normal continuity of operations? And I would
Speaker 6: say probably not.
Speaker 2: How does this end, General, We've got a few other
Speaker 2: things we want to ask you about, but I just
Speaker 2: wonder what is going to come, for instance, of this
Speaker 2: inquiry on Capitol Hill. Maybe new protocol that we're hearing
Speaker 2: about from the White House. Well, they'll be a full
Speaker 2: readout on what took place here.
Speaker 6: Oh, I'm sure there. Well, that's the purpose of congressional investigations,
Speaker 6: and I hope that there won't be a new protocol
Speaker 6: but just a message of reinforcing the existing protocol that
Speaker 6: has worked so well for years and years.
Speaker 3: General, to switch gears here, you alluded to the idea
Speaker 3: that this is obviously a time in which the US
Speaker 3: hasn't meshed in many different conflicts around the world, including
Speaker 3: of course what's happening in the Middle East. We know
Speaker 3: overnight that the Huthies in the Red Sea have launched
Speaker 3: an attack a scale at which we hadn't seen yet
Speaker 3: at this point. Eighteen drones, three anti ship missiles, all
Speaker 3: of those intercepted by US and UK forces. But we
Speaker 3: understand here at Bloomberg that the US is now considering
Speaker 3: retaliation for that. What would appropriate retaliation look like?
Speaker 6: Well, look, it should be a comprehensive approach. We shouldn't
Speaker 6: rush into this blindly, but candidly, I think we've been
Speaker 6: preparing these options for quite some time. I think the
Speaker 6: real question, and the only question for Central Command and
Speaker 6: the other warfighting headquarters is do we wait until a
Speaker 6: ship gets hit and the crew possibly injured, or do
Speaker 6: we take a preemptive strike knowing that they're going to
Speaker 6: continue to fight, or tell something drastic is done. So
Speaker 6: I think all I would say at this point is
Speaker 6: we get the right in the command positions. Let's wait
Speaker 6: to see what happens. But I have no doubt that
Speaker 6: those radar sites that are directing some of these operations
Speaker 6: will be the first to go. If there is that
Speaker 6: tough decision to send an armed capability into Yemen to
Speaker 6: wipe out their capabilities.
Speaker 2: What capability would that require?
Speaker 1: General?
Speaker 2: What would that look like, I'm assuming we're not talking
Speaker 2: about boots on the ground.
Speaker 6: Oh no, no, you know, we can do this with
Speaker 6: cruise missiles, we can do this with jade M's fired
Speaker 6: from the sky. There are a lot of different capabilities,
Speaker 6: and I'm glad you asked that question, Jo. I don't
Speaker 6: see anything in the offing that would have American boots
Speaker 6: on the ground or anybody's boots on the ground. These
Speaker 6: are static targets for the most part, some mobile, but
Speaker 6: we've got some pretty good intelligence capability that doesn't really
Speaker 6: need eyes on the prize or boots on the ground.
Speaker 3: But isn't the concern that ultimately it could escalate the
Speaker 3: situation to a point where potentially boots on the ground
Speaker 3: may be necessary. Right now, we're talking about Iranian proxies here,
Speaker 3: but upset them too much, don't you risk awakening the
Speaker 3: actual bear and potentially direct confrontation with Iran.
Speaker 6: Well, that's a choice that Iron has to make if
Speaker 6: in fact the bear is actually not the bear but
Speaker 6: the cat's paw that is directing Hazbola, the Huthi's Hashid
Speaker 6: in Iraq Hamas inside of Gaza. It seems like every
Speaker 6: terrorist organization starts with h then eventually there's going to
Speaker 6: have to be some sort of decision about what to
Speaker 6: do next. I wrote an article this morning for Political EU,
Speaker 6: parenthetically in a blatant attempt to do some self promotion,
Speaker 6: talking about what I believe to be the next step,
Speaker 6: which is we sent a pretty clear message with the
Speaker 6: Carter doctrine, and sitting inside that capital when Carter delivered
Speaker 6: that State of the Union speech was a young senator
Speaker 6: named Biden. It's time for us to restate that doctrine,
Speaker 6: which says, if any nation or their proxies attack American
Speaker 6: vital interests, then we need to respond in any way appropriate,
Speaker 6: to include military force. We need to give Iran sort
Speaker 6: of that last chance to do the right thing.
Speaker 2: Well, we talk about last chances. Are you among those
Speaker 2: worried about a wider conflict, General, or can we keep
Speaker 2: this contained?
Speaker 6: That's a question you really asked, how to ask Tehran?
Speaker 6: I mean, they're the ones that are inflaming. We're trying
Speaker 6: to contain. They're trying to inflame. Hopefully they're still at
Speaker 6: a position where they can reel in these terrorist groups,
Speaker 6: because I think Iran probably has woken up to the
Speaker 6: fact that the region doesn't need a regional war, and
Speaker 6: some of that back splies can certainly come into Iran well.
Speaker 3: As of now, the actual war is still contained between
Speaker 3: Israel and Hamas. But the other message, in addition to
Speaker 3: concerns around escalation of this conflict to something more broader regionally,
Speaker 3: that we heard from Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln while
Speaker 3: he was traveling throughout the Middle East, is this idea
Speaker 3: that he presented in Israel yesterday that Israel essentially needs
Speaker 3: to be pulling back its operations in Gaza and part
Speaker 3: because of humanitarian considerations. What phase of the war are
Speaker 3: we now in. Does the phase of the war we
Speaker 3: are in match where the US would like it to be.
Speaker 6: Well, I think the United States is sort of nudging
Speaker 6: Israel to get to that phase. Israel will say that's
Speaker 6: already happening inside of Gaza's city. We're not doing bombing there.
Speaker 6: We still have some problems that we've got to clean
Speaker 6: up down in him Unis. But the United States wants
Speaker 6: them to start focusing not on aggregate targets, but high
Speaker 6: value targets. I think we've seen the attack and the
Speaker 6: strike on both the Hasbola leader and the Hamas leader
Speaker 6: in Lebanon are two good examples that I think where
Speaker 6: the United States is pushing the Israelis, and because as
Speaker 6: Secretary B. Lincoln said yesterday, we've got to focus on
Speaker 6: a ceasefire, resettlement of the internally displaced Gosins back to
Speaker 6: their homes, feeding them, and getting some international reconstruction in there.
Speaker 6: So I think the United States is trying to lead
Speaker 6: rather than push, and try to create incentives for the
Speaker 6: Israelis to wrap this thing up, because in many ways
Speaker 6: that's the only way they're going to get their hostages back,
Speaker 6: the infrastructure Hamas destroyed, and the opportunity to take out
Speaker 6: the Hamas leaders, all of which are the terminal objectives
Speaker 6: announced on October eighth by the government of Israel.
Speaker 2: We have just a minute left, General kimm It, how
Speaker 2: long will the US keep all of these assets in
Speaker 2: the region.
Speaker 6: The nice thing about American capability, and at the benefit end,
Speaker 6: at the behest of the United States taxpayers, is that
Speaker 6: we have a lot of flexibility. We have a lot
Speaker 6: of capability. We'll keep it in as long as it's necessary,
Speaker 6: we'll replace it if necessary, and then we'll pull it
Speaker 6: out when no longer necessary. We can do that for
Speaker 6: an extent period of time. As you saw with the
Speaker 6: USS four being pulled out and the Baton Ready group
Speaker 6: being pulled in, we can do this for an awful
Speaker 6: long time.
Speaker 2: It's good to see you, General Mark kimmittt with US
Speaker 2: retired General Mark Kimmett on Bloomberg with some important insights
Speaker 2: as we try to figure out the way forward here
Speaker 2: in Israel, and Kayley understanding what might happen next with
Speaker 2: the Secretary of Defense still an elusive question, I guess.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast. Make sure
Speaker 2: to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and
Speaker 2: anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 2: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm
Speaker 2: Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com