Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emo CarPlay and
Speaker 1: then Proud Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live
Speaker 1: on YouTube.
Speaker 2: We return to the situation in the Middle East. Is
Speaker 2: The White House at this hour is weighing potential responses
Speaker 2: to a drone strike conducted by iron Back militant that
Speaker 2: killed three US troops on a base in Jordan and
Speaker 2: injured dozens more. The President over the weekend said that
Speaker 2: those responsible will be held to account in a manner
Speaker 2: and at a time of his choosing. While there's some
Speaker 2: pressure coming from Congress hawkish senators like Lindsey Graham or
Speaker 2: John Cornyn who are actually pushing the administration to strike
Speaker 2: Iran directly, something that the US has not actually done
Speaker 2: in decades, and that they may be hesitant to do
Speaker 2: because of concerns around escalating what's happening in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: Ron I should point out has said that accusations it
Speaker 2: was directly involved in this attack are baseless and said
Speaker 2: that resistant groups in the region do not take orders
Speaker 2: directly from the Islamic Republic. So let's get the latest
Speaker 2: now with Peter Martin, who was Bloomberg's Global Defense and
Speaker 2: Intelligence correspondent and is joining me here in studio. So, Peter,
Speaker 2: do we know first of all how directly involved Iran was?
Speaker 2: Are we taking to Ran at its word here?
Speaker 3: I think it's fair to say that American and visuals
Speaker 3: treat those Iranian statements with a high degree of skepticism.
Speaker 3: Iran has, as you know, a network of proxies throughout
Speaker 3: the region. Some of those proxies are very tightly controlled,
Speaker 3: others there's a little bit more leeway. But when it
Speaker 3: comes to taking decisions about killing American soldiers, about supplying
Speaker 3: these proxy groups long term, I think it's fair to
Speaker 3: say that the administration looks at Iran is very much
Speaker 3: culpable here well.
Speaker 2: And the fact that three soldiers were killed in this
Speaker 2: this is the first time we have seen US troops
Speaker 2: as casualty of what has been going on in the
Speaker 2: Middle East since October seventh, and this war erupted between
Speaker 2: Israel and Hamas. So theoretically you would maybe expect that
Speaker 2: this would be the strongest response to anything we have
Speaker 2: seen because troops actually died. But how strong is strong
Speaker 2: here when they're saying it's going to be stronger than
Speaker 2: the current operations they're conducting going after the Houthis and
Speaker 2: these Iranian proxies. What options realistically around the table.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, the administration needs to tread a very
Speaker 3: careful line here. They've been worried ever since the outbreak
Speaker 3: of hostilities following the October percent the attacks that there's
Speaker 3: the potential here for a broader regional war. There have
Speaker 3: been clashes on Israel's northern border with Hesbala, there have
Speaker 3: been the hoothy attacks that you mentioned, and of course
Speaker 3: there have been these attacks by Iranian proxies from Iraq
Speaker 3: and Syria, which most recently led to this watershed moment
Speaker 3: where US soldiers died. So the administration is going to
Speaker 3: be looking to send a very strong message. Those that
Speaker 3: we've spoken to have said that they recognize that there
Speaker 3: response needs to go above and beyond what's happened before.
Speaker 3: When it comes to something like striking Iran directly, that's
Speaker 3: a pretty difficult decision to take, and it's something that
Speaker 3: certainly would risk a kind of broader regional conflict, and
Speaker 3: they're going to be pretty cautious about.
Speaker 2: That, and is the primary concern that Iran would retaliate
Speaker 2: in kind or that it would just kind of exacerbate
Speaker 2: what we're already seeing with these Iranian proxies and the
Speaker 2: activity and operations that they're conducting. Specifically, I guess my
Speaker 2: question is what Iran really want to go after the
Speaker 2: US directly either.
Speaker 3: The assumption ever since October seventh, by you know, from
Speaker 3: US officials, has been that Iran too has a lot
Speaker 3: to lose. Right they're on the threshold of having a
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon. They are benefiting in many ways from being
Speaker 3: able to strike at Israel through proxy attacks and also
Speaker 3: strike at US forces, but without very much direct risk
Speaker 3: to themselves. Now, Critics of the administrations approach have said
Speaker 3: that unless the US is willing to put a RAM
Speaker 3: and its own assets at risk, then there's the risk
Speaker 3: that these attacks will just continue to escalate and won't
Speaker 3: be deterred. The administration, on the other hand, has said
Speaker 3: that they need to take a cautious approach because there's
Speaker 3: a lot at stake here. It's the broader regional economy.
Speaker 3: There's the threat of prices increasing as attacks on shipping
Speaker 3: increase in the Red Sea, so a lot of different
Speaker 3: things to.
Speaker 2: Weigh well, And of course that's why it took so
Speaker 2: long for the US, together with allies, to actually move
Speaker 2: to offensive even against the Hoothies. For a long time,
Speaker 2: it was just defense and deterrence in the Red Sea
Speaker 2: until those strikes began a number of weeks ago. And
Speaker 2: of course, Peter, when we first saw that initial strike
Speaker 2: launched the US together with the UK, we've seen I
Speaker 2: believe about eight of them now. It was done while
Speaker 2: the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin was still at Walter
Speaker 2: Reed in the hospital as he was getting treated for
Speaker 2: prostate cancer, as we weighed the response. Here, he's back
Speaker 2: at the Pentagon today.
Speaker 4: Right, he is.
Speaker 3: He's meeting with the NATO Secretary General today. He's back
Speaker 3: in the saddle at the Pentagon after long delay.
Speaker 2: Does that actually impact anything other than optically? Is it
Speaker 2: easier to kind of conduct these conversations when the stakes
Speaker 2: are so high?
Speaker 3: I mean, the Pentagon has strenuously denied that his physical
Speaker 3: absence from the building has impacted operations. But I think
Speaker 3: it's fair to say that any organization works better when
Speaker 3: those in charge are close to what's happening, all.
Speaker 2: Right, Peter Martin Bloomberg's Global Defense and Intelligence correspondent.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much for joining me, and we want.
Speaker 2: To get more analysis on the situation now with Dan Muton,
Speaker 2: non Resident Senior Fellow at the Scoucroft Middle East Security
Speaker 2: Initiative at the Atlantic Council's Middle East Programs. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much, Dan for joining me today. I want to
Speaker 2: read you, if I could, a quote from a Bloomberg
Speaker 2: opinion piece that was written by Admiral James S. Tavetas,
Speaker 2: who wrote, the Pentagon should generate detailed strike plans to
Speaker 2: go after Iranian targets themselves. They could include warships operating
Speaker 2: in support of Yemen two this another target set could
Speaker 2: be Iranian oil and gas platforms in the Arabian goal.
Speaker 2: Even more controversially, he writes, the Pentagon could consider strikes
Speaker 2: against Iranian military command and control sites. Dan, what is
Speaker 2: your assessment of what a proportionate appropriate response would be?
Speaker 2: Here are any of those options on the table in
Speaker 2: your mind?
Speaker 6: Hi, Kayleian, good to join you today. I think what
Speaker 6: Admiral Stepriitez portrayed in his opinion piece is absolutely part
Speaker 6: of the menu of options that the Department of Defense
Speaker 6: as a matter of course, would generate for the president
Speaker 6: in terms of adhering to the President's remarks yesterday that
Speaker 6: we're going to respond appropriately at a time and place
Speaker 6: of our choosing. I do think though it's important to
Speaker 6: note some of the other pieces that I think Peter
Speaker 6: Martin also highlighted, which is this attack did not originate
Speaker 6: from Iran. It was an Iranian proxy group versus Iranian
Speaker 6: forces directly. Now, obviously there's there's culpability that Iran needs
Speaker 6: to be held accountable for, but in terms of the
Speaker 6: people and organization and kind of commands that were given
Speaker 6: to launch this attack, it's important to dig into that
Speaker 6: in terms of how we evaluate a proportional response. And
Speaker 6: when I say that, I would go back a little
Speaker 6: ways to highlight why, you know, the Department of Defense,
Speaker 6: at the President's direction, surged forces to the region after
Speaker 6: October seventh of last year, which was to prevent escalation
Speaker 6: into a regional conflict after the October seventh Hamas attack
Speaker 6: against Israel. I think, in terms of the president's choices,
Speaker 6: he's going to be given this menu, and it's going
Speaker 6: to involve either striking back against elements at Hezbollah in Syria,
Speaker 6: perhaps elements in Iraq, and obviously there's going to be
Speaker 6: Iranian targets, but he's going to have to win the
Speaker 6: likelihood of escalation. And I'm happy to dig into that
Speaker 6: a little bit more.
Speaker 2: If you'd like, Well, yeah, absolutely, I mean, how likely
Speaker 2: do you think it is that whatever measures the US
Speaker 2: takes here would be significantly more escalatory than the measures
Speaker 2: of the US already has taken the multiple strikes we
Speaker 2: have seen against Toothy targets in Yemen. Does the calculation
Speaker 2: change entirely or at least the stakes move consequentially higher
Speaker 2: if there were to be a strike directly on Iranian territory,
Speaker 2: which we haven't seen for decades, Haley.
Speaker 6: I do think that if we were to strike inside
Speaker 6: of Iran that would excuse me, Kaylee, I do think
Speaker 6: if we were to strike inside Iran that would increase
Speaker 6: the likelihood of regional escalation. Since this attack did not
Speaker 6: originate from Iran, and right now we don't know if
Speaker 6: there were Iranian, literal Iranian fingerprints on these one way
Speaker 6: attack UABS unman aied vehicles. It's hard to draw a
Speaker 6: direct line. That being said, if we move a little
Speaker 6: bit to the left and look at the organization responsible
Speaker 6: for launching the attack. There are a whole multitude of
Speaker 6: Shea militia groups and both Syria and Rock that have
Speaker 6: been involved in attacking US forces. I note that there's
Speaker 6: been close to one hundred and sixty attacks against US
Speaker 6: forces in Iraq and Syria following October seventh, and so
Speaker 6: all of those attacks were meant to kill US forces.
Speaker 6: There was an increasing likelihood over time that sooner or
Speaker 6: later something was going to, unfortunately and quite tragically, get
Speaker 6: through US defenses, and when they did on Saturday, it
Speaker 6: became inevitable for US to respond. I do think, in
Speaker 6: terms of the choices available, what we're likely to see
Speaker 6: is a much more comprehensive set of strikes against these
Speaker 6: SA militia groups that are direct responsible for the attacks.
Speaker 2: Well, and Dan, your point is well taken that this
Speaker 2: isn't necessarily a RON itself that is responsible here. And
Speaker 2: of course we've heard from Iran in the aftermath of
Speaker 2: these attacks that the groups IT backs operate independently from
Speaker 2: the direction of the Islamic Republic. They say, any allegations
Speaker 2: that they were directly involved are baseless. Nonetheless, though, if
Speaker 2: it's providing money and weapons to these groups Iran at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, if you go down, the
Speaker 2: line of fault is in that line, right. So I
Speaker 2: just wonder how the Iran's backing of these groups can
Speaker 2: realistically be stopped if the US is not willing to
Speaker 2: go after to Ron directly.
Speaker 6: And I think that's a very very valid point, Kayleie.
Speaker 6: I think where we are, where we're going to be
Speaker 6: right now is going back or the last probably till
Speaker 6: late October up through the last few weeks, we've heard
Speaker 6: statements from Secretary to Blinken you An, Ambassador Linda Thomas
Speaker 6: Greenfield in others Department of Defense, White House, and so forth,
Speaker 6: messaging directly to Iranian decision makers that there will be repercussions.
Speaker 6: I think at this point we should expect, you know,
Speaker 6: any Iranian players in this attack scenario that are operating
Speaker 6: in Syria and Iraq that are directly aiding and abetting
Speaker 6: these attacks, I would expect them to be on the
Speaker 6: table in terms of what the United States is willing
Speaker 6: to target. I think thus far, it's going to be difficult,
Speaker 6: and this goes back to the desire by the US
Speaker 6: administration to not escalate. It'll be difficult to choose to
Speaker 6: strike directly into Iran. Now, to Admiral Stavritez's point, there's
Speaker 6: Iranian you know, warships if you will, or are Iranian
Speaker 6: ships affiliated with Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that are operating
Speaker 6: outside of our territorial waters that in some instances could
Speaker 6: be very well aiding and a betting these attacks. And
Speaker 6: so that can very well be on the menu of options.
Speaker 6: And I think the Iranian government needs to be made
Speaker 6: aware of the repercussions of this continued targeting or aiding
Speaker 6: and a betting, this continued targeting of.
Speaker 2: US forces, So Dan obviously while we await news on
Speaker 2: potential what the potential response from.
Speaker 5: The US could look like.
Speaker 2: Of course, all of this is happening against the backdrop
Speaker 2: of the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, and we
Speaker 2: know that also over the weekend there was a summit
Speaker 2: in Paris with spy chiefs and other officials from the US,
Speaker 2: Egypt Cutter, and Israel trying to reach some kind of
Speaker 2: ceasefire agreement in exchange for the rest of the hostages
Speaker 2: that are still being held in Gaza. And a headline
Speaker 2: actually just crossed the Bloomberg terminal from the Katari Prime
Speaker 2: Minister saying that hostage talks are in a better place
Speaker 2: than a few weeks ago. How hopeful are you that
Speaker 2: a deal like this could actually come to fruition and
Speaker 2: how could that change what we're seeing across the Middle East,
Speaker 2: Because theoretically, if there was a ceasefire, the Houthies wouldn't
Speaker 2: have as much reason to attack vessels in the Red Sea.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: Indeed, so I completely agree with kind of the connection
Speaker 6: you just drew, Kayley, to these attacks regional escalation from
Speaker 6: October seventh. I'm quite hopeful that what was going on
Speaker 6: in Paris this past weekend, as well as the work
Speaker 6: that preceded this, and this was White House Coordinator Brett
Speaker 6: McGirr going to going to Cairo, going to Doha, Qatar,
Speaker 6: This was in the lead up to Director Cia Bill
Speaker 6: Burns traveling to Europe the other day. I'm quite hopeful
Speaker 6: that this could in fact be an opportunity for both
Speaker 6: sides to de escalate. This is principally right now focused
Speaker 6: on helping the government of Israel find it a way
Speaker 6: out of the scenario that unfortunately it fell into following
Speaker 6: as a result of the October seventh attacks. But this
Speaker 6: is the best chance at the moment for us to
Speaker 6: find a de escalatory path to help the government of
Speaker 6: Israel find its way out and reduce civilian suffering in
Speaker 6: the Gaza Strip.
Speaker 2: And just finally, we have less than a minute left
Speaker 2: in but we know that there's been some discussion as
Speaker 2: to whether this should be, say, a two month ceasefire
Speaker 2: or a permanent seasfire. Can Israel really agree to a
Speaker 2: permanent ceasefire.
Speaker 5: At this point?
Speaker 6: That's going to depend on the political calculus, and it's impossible,
Speaker 6: I think for me to answer that, Kyle. It's going
Speaker 6: to be the political calculus inside of Israel. Of I
Speaker 6: personally do not think it's possible to destroy the foundations
Speaker 6: of a terror organization. Israel can kill a lot of
Speaker 6: members of Helmas, Yeah, but the cause of all this,
Speaker 6: that's going to be quite difficult, and it's going to
Speaker 6: be up to the Israeli government to determine when they've
Speaker 6: met that.
Speaker 2: All right, Danmuton of The Atlantic, thank you so much
Speaker 2: for joining me. Really appreciate your time.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Ken
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Enroud
Speaker 1: Oto 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 playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: I'm Kaylee Liones in Washington, where we have a border
Speaker 2: deal on the mind. And to put it in the
Speaker 2: words of the former President Donald Trump, a bad border
Speaker 2: deal is far worse than no border deal. That's what
Speaker 2: he said on True Social over the weekend. As we
Speaker 2: await the release of the actual text of this deal
Speaker 2: that Senate negotiators have been working on with the White
Speaker 2: House for some time now, and while we don't know
Speaker 2: for sure what's in it, we do know there already
Speaker 2: has been some pushback against it, specifically in the House
Speaker 2: of Representatives, even coming from the speaker himself, Mike Johnson.
Speaker 2: So is this effort really going anywhere? Joining me now
Speaker 2: to weigh in is the Republican Congressman from North Carolina,
Speaker 2: Greg Murphy, who was here with me in our Washington,
Speaker 2: d C.
Speaker 5: Studio. Congressman, thank you.
Speaker 7: So much, nice to see you, kill for coming in.
Speaker 2: It's great to see you as well. What needs to
Speaker 2: be in this deal for it to get your vote?
Speaker 5: Will you even have a chance.
Speaker 8: We have to go back to the stay in Mexico policy.
Speaker 8: I mean, I think that was the star wart of
Speaker 8: where all this began. We had Central American countries that
Speaker 8: had bought into this, that they folks that seek asylum
Speaker 8: in the country of entry rather than transgressing across all
Speaker 8: of Central America. You know, I've worked in some really
Speaker 8: desperate places in the world as a surgeon, so I
Speaker 8: understand people's desire to try to find something better. That said,
Speaker 8: we are a nation of laws. Unlike the last two years,
Speaker 8: our border has become wallless. We don't have operational control
Speaker 8: of our southern border. Drug cartels do. So we have
Speaker 8: to keep those who wanted this country that when we
Speaker 8: keep in Mexico, we have to get rid of the
Speaker 8: control of the border by drug cartels. We have to
Speaker 8: ensure safety to our own border and really adjudicate the
Speaker 8: processes a lot quickly. We have to make sure that
Speaker 8: those who do have true asylum desires that they get
Speaker 8: adjudicated much more quickly, and that we have to beef
Speaker 8: up security. You know, we've had what eight plus million
Speaker 8: individuals come in the country over the last two years.
Speaker 8: We have a close to I think it was one
Speaker 8: point seven million individuals come. We don't know who they are,
Speaker 8: where they're from, where they're going, why they're here, and
Speaker 8: then record numbered of individuals who were caught on the
Speaker 8: terrorist watch list. We don't even know who the ones
Speaker 8: who've gotten away because they're going to seek other methods
Speaker 8: to get in any way. So this is not only
Speaker 8: a humanitarian crisis. It's one that the president and his
Speaker 8: administration have broken our own laws. It's also one of
Speaker 8: national security even more importantly, so this this has to
Speaker 8: be done. It almost takes primal immediacy above almost anything else.
Speaker 8: And you get into the debate with Ukraine, it almost
Speaker 8: has to take a president's over that, because we have
Speaker 8: to protect our own border really before we worry about
Speaker 8: other countries.
Speaker 2: Well, the president is at the table now, he's been
Speaker 2: involved in these negotiations. He put out a statement lead
Speaker 2: Friday that said what the negotiators are working on would
Speaker 2: give him the authority to shut down the border if
Speaker 2: it was becoming overwhelming. He says he would use that
Speaker 2: authority on day one after signing this bill. Do you
Speaker 2: take him at his word.
Speaker 7: On that he had the authority right now? He doesn't
Speaker 7: need authority.
Speaker 8: He could have the authority to stay in Mexico policy boom.
Speaker 8: He had this authority when he was sworn in, and
Speaker 8: so he basically invited our countries to be invaded, because
Speaker 8: that's nonsense from President Biden.
Speaker 7: He has the authority right now to do this.
Speaker 2: So when it comes to the feate of this package
Speaker 2: in the House, do you think you will even have
Speaker 2: a chance to vote on it up or down.
Speaker 8: I have to see what it really entails, because I
Speaker 8: haven't seen the text yet. As they pointed out, we
Speaker 8: want something. Yeah, honestly, Joe Biden has the tools right
Speaker 8: now to close the border or close it appreciably.
Speaker 2: Well, you haven't seen the text. The Speaker of the
Speaker 2: House hasn't seen the text either, and already, just based
Speaker 2: on the rumors that were floating around, he said it's
Speaker 2: dead on arrival. And we know that he has a
Speaker 2: close relationship with the former president. The former president has
Speaker 2: thoughts on this. How does Donald Trump factor into this calculus?
Speaker 8: Well, I think, honestly, we have to see what's going on,
Speaker 8: because you know, it's presumed nominee that Donald Trump is
Speaker 8: going to be the Republican nominee. This is going to
Speaker 8: be a factor, because this is one of the biggest
Speaker 8: things that all Americans now care about, not just not
Speaker 8: just in Texas or Arizona, but they care about it
Speaker 8: in New York City and other places. About the absolute
Speaker 8: explosion of this humanitarian ciasis. And Kelly, to be very
Speaker 8: honest with you, this is one caused by certain releasings
Speaker 8: of policy by the Biden administration. We should not be
Speaker 8: where we were. We weren't this way two and a
Speaker 8: half years ago. We have to get back to some
Speaker 8: sensible things about immigration within this country.
Speaker 2: Well, when you talk about how immigration is an issue
Speaker 2: not just at the border, but in states really all
Speaker 2: across the country, it's been described to me as every
Speaker 2: state now is a border state because of the way
Speaker 2: this has spread around own What justification would there be
Speaker 2: to not bring it to the floor, to not give
Speaker 2: members like you even a chance to cast their votes
Speaker 2: on an issue that is so important to voters.
Speaker 8: Well, I don't disagree with that thought, but I think
Speaker 8: it's also up to the Speaker that he'd be involved
Speaker 8: in this process. It's not just one by the Senate
Speaker 8: and do with the with the White House. And remember
Speaker 8: there is another chamber. We are the ones who are
Speaker 8: considered in the in the in the House, to.
Speaker 7: Be quote, closest to the people.
Speaker 8: This is a people issue, and I think it needs
Speaker 8: to be not you know, debated or guaranteed and silent.
Speaker 8: It needs to be festered. Especially we have a new
Speaker 8: Speaker of the House. He needs to be intimately involved
Speaker 8: in these negotiations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's questions as to how the Speaker is
Speaker 2: not just going to deal with potentially bringing this issue
Speaker 2: to the floor, but also a vote on a tax agreement.
Speaker 2: I know, sir, that you sit on the Ways and
Speaker 2: Means Committee. Obviously this is bipartisan, it's bi cameral. Would
Speaker 2: it have your support if you had a chance to
Speaker 2: vote on it this week or next?
Speaker 8: Well, we had a forty to three vote in the committee.
Speaker 8: I voted for it in committee. Is it perfect? There
Speaker 8: are some things that I may have recommended differently. I
Speaker 8: think if we bring it to the floor, I think
Speaker 8: it would pass just on a suspension vote. We're going
Speaker 8: to have some folks having problems because it didn't have
Speaker 8: the salt issues with it.
Speaker 7: Some of the others who vote.
Speaker 8: Against everything seemingly this Congress are going to vote against it.
Speaker 8: But I think it may have a good chance of
Speaker 8: passing as a suspension. We need to do something in
Speaker 8: the tax realm because of expiring tax revisions from TCGA
Speaker 8: that are really going to be helping American business, especially
Speaker 8: small businesses. I'll give you an example with the quote
Speaker 8: Inflation Reduction Act. This really absolutely destroyed pharmaceutical industries from
Speaker 8: being able to take new drugs and bring new indications
Speaker 8: for drugs along the line.
Speaker 7: You know, it is thought.
Speaker 8: CBO said maybe one drug would be taken out because
Speaker 8: of all this price shifting. It's actually been more than
Speaker 8: one hundred. And these are days of new cures. You know,
Speaker 8: in medicine I practice now for thirty five years. It's
Speaker 8: been an explosion in the last five or ten years
Speaker 8: of new drugs and new therapies, and so many of
Speaker 8: the now now have come to a screeching halt because
Speaker 8: of the rules within the Inflation and Reduction Act. But
Speaker 8: if we're able to get these companies started back up again,
Speaker 8: we're going to go back to making land breaking and
Speaker 8: really world breaking cures for many different things, cancers and
Speaker 8: other disorders.
Speaker 2: Well, so obviously there's a lot in this agreement. As
Speaker 2: you point out, there's a lot that's not in it either,
Speaker 2: maybe not getting this salt action that some would like.
Speaker 2: Others are taking issue with the expansion of the child
Speaker 2: tax credit.
Speaker 5: Do you think any of.
Speaker 2: These issues are enough that this bill stands a real
Speaker 2: chance of not getting through the House because the suspension
Speaker 2: of the rules as a decision, the Speaker will have
Speaker 2: to make sure sure.
Speaker 8: And that's I think that's a fair criticism of this.
Speaker 8: You know, we live in a divided Congress with a
Speaker 8: one seat majority. We don't own the Senate, we don't
Speaker 8: own the White House, and if we want to get
Speaker 8: a tax package out, there has to be negotiation and compromised.
Speaker 8: Do I think twenty five hundred should be the bottom part?
Speaker 8: Absolutely not, I mean absolutely not. Should I think that
Speaker 8: we have persons one year income being able to count
Speaker 8: for the next. No, But then again, you know this
Speaker 8: is all negotiated. Do I think four hundred thousand dollars really?
Speaker 8: I think we actually probably should lower that. I don't
Speaker 8: see a couple making four hundred thousand dollars needs assistance.
Speaker 7: With their kids.
Speaker 8: But again, this is negotiation, and you know this is
Speaker 8: one of the I've only been in politics, I guess
Speaker 8: now seven years now in the effort, we can't make
Speaker 8: everything perfect. It's not going to be perfect because we
Speaker 8: don't have supermajorities in either chamber, we don't have the
Speaker 8: White House. We have to make compromises, and so yeah,
Speaker 8: sometimes there are some things in there you don't want.
Speaker 8: But if you look at the bigger picture, I think
Speaker 8: there's a lot more positives than negatives.
Speaker 2: And of course, in addition to sitting on ways and
Speaker 2: means where you are very hands on with this issue,
Speaker 2: you also a remember of the Veteran Affairs Committee, so
Speaker 2: I know you pay close attention to matters regarding the
Speaker 2: US military. And of course we had news over the
Speaker 2: weekend three US troops killed in Jordan and a drone
Speaker 2: strike by an Iranian backed militant group. The US has
Speaker 2: value to respond. What do you think that response should
Speaker 2: look like?
Speaker 8: You know, Kaylee, I come from a very strong military district.
Speaker 8: We have Camp Ler, June, Cherry Point, other military bases.
Speaker 8: One out of ten of my constituents are veterans, and
Speaker 8: in dealing with Iran and dealing with these axes really
Speaker 8: truly of evil. As Reagan said, the only thing they
Speaker 8: know is power. The only thing they know is strength.
Speaker 8: And this is what we have to show, you know.
Speaker 8: Of course Iran has said they didn't have to do
Speaker 8: anything with this. No one can trust the Ukrainians, no
Speaker 8: one at all. I don't trust them at all. We
Speaker 8: have to show them power. I do believe a lot
Speaker 8: of the strength we lost in the way we left
Speaker 8: Afghanistan in the Middle East, and so it's time for
Speaker 8: Biden to step up. You know, we have to go
Speaker 8: after these folks. We have to go with the origin
Speaker 8: of them. We have to take out their leaders, we
Speaker 8: have to take out their ability to kill Americans.
Speaker 2: There have been some Senators John Corny and Lindsay Graham,
Speaker 2: for example, who have said strike Iran directly on its
Speaker 2: own territory. Do you think that would be too far?
Speaker 8: You know, just on first thought, I think that may
Speaker 8: be a little bit. We're not ready for that yet
Speaker 8: because here we are trying to keep Israel alive. There's
Speaker 8: a China's threat with this in the southeast, with Taiwan.
Speaker 8: Our utter disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, in my opinion, led
Speaker 8: to the Ukrainian conflict. I think that that's going to
Speaker 8: be difficult. Sadly enough, you know, during the Trump administration,
Speaker 8: the enrichment of uranium in Iran was around four percent.
Speaker 8: We know Iran has now gotten it up to at
Speaker 8: least sixty percent. Some reports have been eighty percent. Once
Speaker 8: they get ninety percent.
Speaker 5: He left that nuclear deal with that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but the thing is that gave them all of
Speaker 7: the cards.
Speaker 8: It gave him all the cards. And so now Iran
Speaker 8: may very well have a nuclear bomb. And so you know,
Speaker 8: I understand that sentiment, but I think a lot of
Speaker 8: thought needs to go into before that happens.
Speaker 2: All right, well, we appreciate you giving us your thoughts today. Congressman,
Speaker 2: very good to see you. Thank you for coming and
Speaker 2: joining us in our Washington, d C.
Speaker 4: Studio.
Speaker 2: That is Republican Congressman from North Carolina, Greg Murphy. Now
Speaker 2: we want to go back to our signature loical panel.
Speaker 2: Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzeno are with me. Genie, just
Speaker 2: to begin with you on this idea of potential retaliation
Speaker 2: here coming from the Biden administration. How difficult politically, let
Speaker 2: alone militarily is this to make.
Speaker 5: It's going to be.
Speaker 9: Very difficult, and I think you just heard it from
Speaker 9: the representatives thoughtful reply to your question, and you know
Speaker 9: the differences he may have from some other Republicans and
Speaker 9: some other Democrats on where the United States should strike
Speaker 9: and how. And you know, because we know that there
Speaker 9: will be a retaliation, We know there will be a strike,
Speaker 9: and the question now is where and against who and how?
Speaker 9: And there's so much difference of opinion on that. So
Speaker 9: it is, you know, going to be threading an evil
Speaker 9: and a needle. Rather for the Biden administration to try
Speaker 9: to do this in a way that doesn't escalate tensions.
Speaker 9: Keeping in mind, we have heard that this strike back
Speaker 9: is welcome, and so this is something they also have
Speaker 9: to keep in mind. And politically they are going to
Speaker 9: be walking a very fine line and trying to make
Speaker 9: this happen.
Speaker 2: Well and Rick, of course they're doing so not just
Speaker 2: in any year, but in an election year. How does
Speaker 2: this kind of geopolitical tension factor into electoral politics at
Speaker 2: home for an incumbent president.
Speaker 10: Yeah, Look, it's one of the fundamental things that voters
Speaker 10: look at, is, you know, are you equipped to be
Speaker 10: commander in chief? Obviously both these candids, Donald Trump and
Speaker 10: Joe Biden have direct experience in this and can evaluate that.
Speaker 10: But some of Biden's biggest hurdles. Biggest problems in his
Speaker 10: administration have been related to the military. Afghanistan was the
Speaker 10: beginning of the decline of his popularity around the country,
Speaker 10: and some blame that as being a really proxy for competency.
Speaker 4: And so this is.
Speaker 10: Really important to Joe Biden that he get this right.
Speaker 10: He's given full support against a lot of headwinds to Israel,
Speaker 10: and a lot of voters have rewarded him with some
Speaker 10: very positive numbers in that regard, but the blowback is
Speaker 10: still coming. When this occurred, but let's be straight, this
Speaker 10: is a retaliation against Us for the proper killing of
Speaker 10: their head of the Kudz forces, Solamani, and two other
Speaker 10: senior operatives that were killed in Lebanon recently. I mean,
Speaker 10: we are already in a shooting war with Iran and
Speaker 10: their proxies, and I can't imagine a scenario where we
Speaker 10: don't get more escalation as a result of this latest attack.
Speaker 2: Well, and of course the background to this is the
Speaker 2: ongoing war between Israel and Hamas and Genie. There was
Speaker 2: a great piece in the New York Times over the
Speaker 2: weekend about black pastors, more than a thousand of them
Speaker 2: that represent hundreds of thousands of congregants nationwide issuing a
Speaker 2: demand to the Biden administration for a ceasefire in Gaza,
Speaker 2: especially knowing how important that demographic is to the president
Speaker 2: as he seeks re election. Should we expect that he
Speaker 2: is going to put more pressure on Israel specifically to
Speaker 2: end these hostilities.
Speaker 9: Yeah, and I think they are already, And I'm so
Speaker 9: glad you raised the pastors. They have joined with the
Speaker 9: pro Palestinian groups primarily headquartered in Michigan, a critical electoral
Speaker 9: state for both the president and the former president to win.
Speaker 9: And of course you see Burns already trying to negotiate
Speaker 9: at least a ceased fire. So I do think that
Speaker 9: is something the president has been doing, will continue to do.
Speaker 9: And this pressure is important because this is a constituency.
Speaker 9: We saw in South Carolina over the weekend that the
Speaker 9: president does need to come out and support him. And
Speaker 9: you hear the pastor is drawing a very clear red line,
Speaker 9: we cannot support you if you don't move forward on
Speaker 9: a cease fire and negotiate a settlement or push Israel
Speaker 9: to negotiate a settlement in the Gods Strip. So a
Speaker 9: lot of pressure on the administration to do that at
Speaker 9: this point.
Speaker 2: All right, Genie Shanzeno and Rick Davis, our signature political panel,
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for joining me. Of course, there
Speaker 2: are those ceasefire negotiations that are happening. They happened over
Speaker 2: the weekend in Paris, and those conversations are continuing, the
Speaker 2: Katari Prime Minister saying in the last hour that they're
Speaker 2: in a better place than they were a few weeks ago.
Speaker 2: Stick with me on Balance of Power on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 2: and Radio.
Speaker 5: This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on APO car Play
Speaker 1: and then proudet with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live
Speaker 1: on YouTube.
Speaker 2: He tracked the money on this show as well as
Speaker 2: it relates to politics, including as it relates to former
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump, because talk about money.
Speaker 5: We all know. On Friday he was.
Speaker 2: Ordered to pay eighty three million billion dollars to Egene
Speaker 2: Carrol in damages to faming her, and then a separate
Speaker 2: civil fraud trial in New York in which we could
Speaker 2: get a verdict. This week he could be on the
Speaker 2: Hook to pay three hundred and seventy million dollars in
Speaker 2: what prosecutors say was a legal profit reaped by his
Speaker 2: Trump organization by lying to banks about his wealth to
Speaker 2: get better terms on loan. So when you add all
Speaker 2: that together, three hundred and seventy million plus eighty three million,
Speaker 2: we're talking more than four hundred and fifty million dollars
Speaker 2: that he could be forced to pay. Maybe that's not
Speaker 2: that much for a billionaire, except that he's a billionaire
Speaker 2: on paper, not necessarily when it comes to liquid assets.
Speaker 2: According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Indexed, he has about six
Speaker 2: hundred million dollars in cash, so more than four hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty million, and that would be a big chunk
Speaker 2: of it. Joining me next here on Balance of Power
Speaker 2: on both Bloomberg Television and radio to talk about this,
Speaker 2: I'm pleased to.
Speaker 5: Say, is David Ehrenberg.
Speaker 2: He is the attorney state attorney for Palm Beach County
Speaker 2: down in Florida.
Speaker 5: Dave, great to say you here in our Washington studio.
Speaker 2: If we just begin with the Egen Carroll case, this
Speaker 2: eighty three million dollars he was ordered to pay. He
Speaker 2: says he will appeal it. How long should we expect
Speaker 2: this process to take and is it likely that that
Speaker 2: dollar amount is going to move significantly lower?
Speaker 11: Good to be with you, Kayley. First, I think it's
Speaker 11: going to take a while. It could take several months
Speaker 11: to get through the appeals. But as far as whether the.
Speaker 4: Verdict is going to be dropped, I doubt it.
Speaker 11: And that's because the big whammy here, the punitive damages
Speaker 11: were only about three and a half times.
Speaker 4: A compensatory damages.
Speaker 11: So a lot of times appelle courts will say it's
Speaker 11: way out of whack, let's reduce to punitives, but that's
Speaker 11: not the case here. Plus, if they want to dispute
Speaker 11: the evidence that was admitted into trial, well tough luck
Speaker 11: because Trump's overmatched attorney and Lena Habah did not object
Speaker 11: to a lot of the evidence, and so you wave
Speaker 11: your right to appeal it. So I think this verdict
Speaker 11: will stand. Just a question of when the money will
Speaker 11: flow to Eagen Carroll.
Speaker 2: Well, and of course that's not the only money we
Speaker 2: have to consider here. As I mentioned, there also is
Speaker 2: potentially going to be a verdict coming down this week
Speaker 2: for his other civil trial in New York, the fraud trial.
Speaker 2: As it relates to the Trump organization. How do you
Speaker 2: how likely do you think it is that he'll actually
Speaker 2: be on the hook for more than three hundred million
Speaker 2: dollars in that case.
Speaker 4: I think the sweet spot is probably around three hundred million.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 11: Originally the Attorney General of New York was seeking up
Speaker 11: to two hundred and fifty million, and then she expanded
Speaker 11: it to three hundred and seventy million. So I think
Speaker 11: it's going to be around the amount between two fifty
Speaker 11: and three seventy And I think it's because the evidence
Speaker 11: has been really strong that Trump did inflate the value
Speaker 11: of his assets.
Speaker 4: Plus he was allowed.
Speaker 11: By the judge Judging Goron to issue broadsides against the court.
Speaker 11: He even was allowed to give his own partial closing
Speaker 11: argument without having to be subject or cross examination for it.
Speaker 11: And I think the reason why Judge and Gron did
Speaker 11: that is because he was set in the stage for
Speaker 11: a massive verdict in favor of the Attorney General and
Speaker 11: wanted to protect himself on appeal.
Speaker 4: So that's why I think Trump got his day in court.
Speaker 11: He got to lash out of the judge, but in
Speaker 11: the end, he's going to pay for it well.
Speaker 2: And he may have many days in court still ahead,
Speaker 2: not just when it comes to potentially appeals in these cases,
Speaker 2: but he still is awaiting trial in criminal cases, four
Speaker 2: of them, it's been indicted on ninety one different fellow
Speaker 2: need charges across these for indictments. So just not even
Speaker 2: thinking about monetary damages he has to pay, but just
Speaker 2: legal fees to fight all of these different battles. I mean,
Speaker 2: how much do you think realistically he's racked.
Speaker 11: Up here millions and millions, but he's able to convince
Speaker 11: gullible supporters to pay.
Speaker 4: For some of his fees. Remember, he had this huge
Speaker 4: account to pay for the stop.
Speaker 11: The steal, to fight the election fraud, but then he
Speaker 11: diverted a lot of that away. And I think you'll
Speaker 11: see the same thing here as people who donate to
Speaker 11: his packs, some of that money or most of it
Speaker 11: will go to his attorney's fees, and it will hit
Speaker 11: him in the end because he'll have to pay himself
Speaker 11: the money that goes to Egan Carroll, He'll have to
Speaker 11: pay himself the money that goes to the State of
Speaker 11: New York in the civil fraud case. But as far
Speaker 11: as the expenses for his attorneys, as long as he's
Speaker 11: got these rabbit supporters who will pay the left last
Speaker 11: fifty bucks from their Social Security disabilities checked to a billionaire,
Speaker 11: he'll be able to pay his lawyers.
Speaker 2: Well. Maybe one of the ways it helps to be
Speaker 2: actively campaigning for president of the United States is you're
Speaker 2: fighting legal battles. But of course there's also difficulty with
Speaker 2: fighting these legal battles while you're trying to campaign, especially
Speaker 2: if you're tied up in a courtroom during the primary
Speaker 2: process or onto the convention in the general election as well.
Speaker 5: But a lot of that will come down to the timeline.
Speaker 2: Realistically, we're still awaiting a decision on his argument that
Speaker 2: he should have immunity as a former president from prosecution
Speaker 2: in the case here in Washington where Jack Smith has
Speaker 2: brought charges against him related to efforts to overturn the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty election. Jack Smith would like that to go
Speaker 2: to trial on March fourth, but it can't until we
Speaker 2: have a conclusion to the immunity dispute while we wait
Speaker 2: for that to come down from the appeals court here
Speaker 2: in DC.
Speaker 5: Why do you think this is taking so long?
Speaker 11: You know, I thought this would be decided already. It's
Speaker 11: a kind of an obvious question. No, a president cannot
Speaker 11: send hitmen to go kill their political opponents. I mean,
Speaker 11: come on, right, But this court I think is taking
Speaker 11: on a bigger issue, the extent of presidential immunity beyond
Speaker 11: this case, perhaps does it apply to the outer layers
Speaker 11: of your power, your decision making, because right now the
Speaker 11: courts have said you've got civil immunity, but they haven't
Speaker 11: really weighed in on the extent of criminal immunity. And
Speaker 11: that's where I think the court is working of decisions.
Speaker 11: This could tell me that you could have a concurring
Speaker 11: opinion perhaps by the lead judge, Judge Henderson, who was
Speaker 11: appointed by George H. W.
Speaker 4: Bush. He may want to weigh in on this.
Speaker 11: So that's why I'm thinking that this thing, it's a
Speaker 11: little troublesome because it's going to delay the trial in Washington,
Speaker 11: DC beyond that March fourth date. But the more complicated
Speaker 11: the decision will be, the more likely the Supreme Court
Speaker 11: steps in and that will lead to further delays.
Speaker 2: So you think it makes it more likely if this
Speaker 2: is a broader reaching ruling that the Supreme Court takes
Speaker 2: it up then versus it's very narrow.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I think they should just take the narrow question
Speaker 11: because the justice will be delayed and denied.
Speaker 7: I think.
Speaker 11: I think if this thing is pushed past the twenty
Speaker 11: twenty four election, it is Trump's best legal defense to
Speaker 11: delay this matter and then become president again and then call.
Speaker 4: Off the dogs, drop it all.
Speaker 11: So it's really imperative for the courts to weigh in
Speaker 11: and do it fast, because right now the court is
Speaker 11: supposed to have a trial march forward.
Speaker 4: That's not going to happen. But the longer you wait, the.
Speaker 11: Worse it is for the cause of justice to prove
Speaker 11: that no one is above the law.
Speaker 2: Well, and you talk about how if this happens after
Speaker 2: the election, if he ultimately is elected, he theoretically could
Speaker 2: pardon himself. That's not true of state cases though, like
Speaker 2: in Georgia. But the difficulty there maybe the question of
Speaker 2: the district attorney who brought the charges against him and
Speaker 2: all of those other defendants. Fannie willis because of these
Speaker 2: allegations that essentially she has a romantic relationship with someone
Speaker 2: employed to work on the case who has made hundreds
Speaker 2: of thousands of dollars. Dave, what do you make of
Speaker 2: that and how that case is likely to move forward
Speaker 2: with these questions hanging in the air of what exactly
Speaker 2: she's done here.
Speaker 11: Kaylee, I admit it doesn't look good. This is my
Speaker 11: counterpart up there, Fani Willis, it doesn't look good. But
Speaker 11: the evidence is the evidence, and so this case will
Speaker 11: move forward whether or not she has to take the
Speaker 11: lead prosecutor off the case, or whether she's removed.
Speaker 4: From the case herself.
Speaker 11: The facts are still the facts here, and if there
Speaker 11: wasn't enough facts here to get to the jury, the
Speaker 11: judge would have already dismissed the case.
Speaker 4: He hasn't.
Speaker 11: We've already seen multiple defendants cut plea deals. That's because
Speaker 11: they've got a decent case here. But admittedly there looks
Speaker 11: to be something wrong there when you have this kind
Speaker 11: of relationship, But in the end, it's not a true
Speaker 11: conflict of interest because it's not like the prosecutor and
Speaker 11: the lead prosecutor are on separate sides. It's not like
Speaker 11: one's a prosecutor, one's a defense lawyer. They're both on
Speaker 11: the same side here. So I think a lot of
Speaker 11: this is smoke, but you know, that's enough to get
Speaker 11: someone removed from the case.
Speaker 2: But even being on the same side, does that really matter?
Speaker 2: If someone is reaping financial benefit from being on this case,
Speaker 2: being paid to work this case, is there not a
Speaker 2: conflict of interest argument.
Speaker 11: To be made there, Well, he's getting paid like all
Speaker 11: the other prosecutors.
Speaker 4: Now there are special prosecutors.
Speaker 11: He's one of three on the case, so he's not
Speaker 11: the only one. He's been paid the most because he's
Speaker 11: build the most. I think to me, the thing that
Speaker 11: bothers me the most in all this is not the relationship,
Speaker 11: but it's the fact that he's been billing, for example,
Speaker 11: twenty four hours in a single day. Well, you know,
Speaker 11: maybe we're under a big law firm in your double billing.
Speaker 11: You know, you can get away with that, but when
Speaker 11: you're working for the government, you really shouldn't be doing that.
Speaker 11: So it raises some questions in my mind.
Speaker 2: Well, and of course, because this case has so many
Speaker 2: different defendants, we were expecting that this may be one
Speaker 2: that takes a really long time to actually actually get
Speaker 2: to trial. To go back to your point on the
Speaker 2: idea that this March fourth trial probably is not going
Speaker 2: to happen on that data could be delayed because of
Speaker 2: this question of immunity. Obviously, the document's case in your
Speaker 2: home state of Florida is another one to consider here.
Speaker 2: Is it likely in your mind that any of these
Speaker 2: actually come to a conclusion before the election in November,
Speaker 2: or even before that the Republican convention in July.
Speaker 11: Of the four cases, two of the four will definitely
Speaker 11: not be tried before the election. And that is the
Speaker 11: strongest case, which is the mar Lago Document's case in
Speaker 11: my neck of the woods. That is the best case
Speaker 11: for prosecutors that got him dead to rights. But with
Speaker 11: Judge Cannon, who's been slow walking this case, they're not
Speaker 11: trying that case before the election. The other one is
Speaker 11: the one we just discussed Fannie Willis in Fulton County
Speaker 11: because it's a complex reco case with so many co defendants,
Speaker 11: and now with this controversy that's not happening before the election.
Speaker 4: That leaves the Washington d C.
Speaker 11: Election interference case, which is a strong case, and that
Speaker 11: case was built for speed by Jack Smith, only four counts,
Speaker 11: no other co defendants.
Speaker 4: But we've got that issue of presidential community.
Speaker 11: I still believe it will be decided before too long,
Speaker 11: and then it's game on in front of Judge Chuck
Speaker 11: and here in Washington, d C. And the fourth case
Speaker 11: is the one in New York, the one on the
Speaker 11: Stormy Daniels. Yeah, that one I think could go before
Speaker 11: the election as well. It's just not the strongest case.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Dave Ehrenberg, thank you so much, as always for joining
Speaker 2: us the state attorney for Palm Beach County.
Speaker 5: We appreciate your time.
Speaker 10: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Speaker 1: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apples,
Speaker 1: Spotify
Speaker 10: Or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 10: us live every week day from Washington, DC at noontime
Speaker 10: Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.