From the world of politics to the world
of business. This is balance of power. Live from Washington, D.C.,
From Bloomberg's Washington, D.C. studios to our TV and radio audiences
worldwide welcome the balance of power alongside Kailey Leinz.
I'm Joe Matthew. President Biden and former President
Trump say they're up to debate each other.
As Trump wraps up another week in court, we'll get reaction to the testimony
we've heard so far in the hush money trial with former White House counsel Ty
Cobb. The Pentagon announcing $6 billion in
weapons for Ukraine just days after foreign aid made it from Congress to the
president's desk. A lot more on the effort with Republican
Congressman French Hill of Arkansas. And fresh inflation data today
reinforces the Fed's higher for longer message, with consumer sentiment taking
a hit. Jared Bernstein, chair of the White
House Council of Economic Advisors, will join us this hour.
So, Joe, clearly a busy day in terms of the economy.
A lot for Wall Street to pay attention to and a lot to captivate Washington as
well as certainly the economy and politics right now are not really able
to be extracted from each other. Well, that's for sure.
It's been interesting this week, you know, trying to cover news here in the
capital with an eye on New York where so much has been happening from Donald
Trump in a courtroom. Joe Biden there for a number of reasons,
campaigning, showing up in a Howard Stern interview today.
And all of this, Kelly, has been against the backdrop of these massive student
protests at Columbia University. It's all happening in New York for some
reason this week. Yeah, it does seem to be that New York
is the center of the universe in many ways.
And to your point about those protests, that is something that is problematic
for Biden as he considers trying to continue to court these young voters who
are unhappy with his policy around Israel and Gaza.
But he has other headaches as well, including some of the economic data.
We've gotten softer growth data, hotter inflation data in the last two days.
Well, yeah, look, that's the other big story here today.
It's a huge playing huge on Wall Street. And we saw a very negative reaction to
the data yesterday. A bit of a relief today when we saw the
actual monthly p e data. None of it brings great news, Kelly, for
this White House, though. That, of course, is very concerned about
the fight against inflation. Absolutely.
And this is something that we discussed with Mark Zandi over at Moody's earlier
today. Take a listen.
Today's data reaffirm that while inflation remains sticky, it's not
coming in quite as fast as everyone would like know, It's not hair on fire.
You know, it is coming in and it will continue to come in, you know, over the
course of the next several months. So I think everyone's just a bit more
relaxed today. Part of our conversation with Mark Zandi
earlier as we try to pass through all of the different data that we have gotten.
And we want to get a take now on this economic data from the White House,
Jared Bernstein, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, is joining
us now. Jared, happy Friday.
Thank you so much for being with us on Bloomberg Television and radio this
evening and has been something of a mixed bag.
We know that the growth data that came in softer in part had a lot to do with
with trade, not necessarily that the consumer engine is faltering, but you
look at consumer sentiment and it does suggest that there is concern out there.
What can you tell them about the degree of concern they should have?
Well, first of all, consumers should have whatever degree of concern they
have. We're not in the business of telling
people how they should feel about the economy.
It is true that the Michigan sentiment indicator is up 25% since November.
We've seen increases, interestingly, among Democrats, independents,
Republicans, and that's been been good to see.
And I think it's tracked some of the improvements that we saw in inflation,
especially the disinflation in the latter half of last year.
Now, look, inflation is still down 60% from its peak.
It was nice to hit the expectations number for the PC both headline and core
this morning. And in terms of the GDP growth, the 3%
year over year. It is true that there's some noisy
sectors there. Inventories is another one along with
net exports. But as long as real consumer spending
fueled by the tight job market, rising real wages continues to help support
consumers in their in their spending and their incomes and their rising
disposable incomes even after inflation. I think that's a good sign for
consumers. And probably behind that improvement
that we've seen over the longer term sentiment indices.
Well, take us under the hood for a minute here, Jared.
It's great to have you back from the North Lawn.
By the way, the markets had a bit of a freak out
yesterday and we saw some relief today. But the narrative yesterday was that
we've plateaued, that this this trains run in too hot and inflation is just
going to keep on steaming ahead here. Forget interest rate cuts for the rest
of the year. And that part may not have changed.
But you made an interesting point here. When you start looking at our trade
imbalance that imports and exports and some of the other noise that that
created the headline. I wonder how you frame the data from
yesterday and where we really are here in the fight against inflation.
I think it's very important to kind of look at as many kind of core or
underlying trend indicators as you can. Obviously, core inflation fulfills that
role. That's why the Fed elevated so much.
But if you look at the domestic demand measure, PDP, which you know is an
acronym for all it means, is real consumer spending and real business
investment. Now, together, those are more than 80%
of nominal GDP. But you can think of that as kind of a
core GDP. It's actually a fact that that measure,
though, combining those two real values, predicts where GDP is going better than
GDP itself, and that that was up 3.1% in the quarter.
We have a blog on that, by the way, on the K blog this morning.
So check it out. A lot of nice graphics on this point.
So, look, I think underlying the economy is still as strong as ever.
The job market continues to put out great numbers.
I don't know if you noticed the initial claims that got a little bit buried on
Thursday. I think it was 207,000.
I mean, that is a really solid job market number when it comes to
inflation. I think the question there, we should
get into it if you want, which is is is are the forces that helped with the
disinflation in the second half of this year, are they just on a break or are
they gone? And obviously, we've argued that they
are and that they're still there and that we expect inflation to continue a
bumpy path down towards target? Well, Mr.
Chairman, yeah, we do want to talk more about inflation with you, because as you
as you say, there's this question as to whether or not progress is going to
continue. And I wonder to what degree you assign
progress on the fact that we do have tighter monetary policy right now that
the Fed embarked and I know you won't comment directly on that policy itself,
but that we have seen things tighten substantially in a very short period of
time. And we did see inflation come down.
We're no longer actively tightening. The Fed is not talking about hiking
rates further. So if that doesn't happen, how confident
are you that the rest of the way of the inflation progress will actually be
made? Well, look, there's an old kind of rule
of thumb that says as as inflation comes down, the real interest rate, if you
hold the Fed policy constant, the real interest rate does get tighter.
And we've seen the real interest rate cut come up significantly over this
period. So I think you can't just look at steady
as she goes without taking into account some of the moving variables when it
comes to the housing market, which is where, of course, Fed policy always
bites first. I mean, there is a really remarkable
kind of a gap between the effective mortgage rate, which is the average of
all the outstanding mortgages. It's in the 3 to 4% range and the
mortgage rate, you know that 7%, if you go out and get a new mortgage, that's
the lock in effect right there, that that spread.
That's a really important and kind of overlooked spread.
And so I think Fed policy is very much again, I won't talk about the granular
policy, but I think it's it's incorrect to conclude that it isn't having, you
know, an effect or even much of an effect on the economy.
Now, I understand the idea that this is this is another way of saying the
neutral interest rate. Must be higher because, you know, we're
posting some great numbers with a relatively high Fed funds rate.
That's a a complicated and that's one of those conversations that involves
invisible variables. So that's that's always tricky to talk
about. But I do think there's definitely some
bite from interest rates. Jared, There's reporting today that some
of Donald Trump's allies are suggesting to him that he restructure the Federal
Reserve and in fact, if it were elected again, would make the commander in chief
would make the president actually involved in setting interest rate
decisions in Fed policy, subject essentially to White House approval.
You tend to bend yourself into a pretzel to not comment on the Fed, which I
realize is kind of the opposite we're living in right now.
But I wonder I just wonder, is is that actually something that the president,
whether it's yours or any other. Okay, you watch me try to thread the
needle here. So, look, you've just you've just raised
two issues that I can't talk about. One is Federal Reserve monetary policy.
The other is, you know, politics. But I'm not going to stay silent on this
because I think it's so important. Let me say the following way.
I am a I am a I am a very active reader of the history of monetary policy.
And I can spend a long time talking to you about economies that have been
brought to their knees when the independence of the central bank has
been compromised. That's one of the main reasons why this
President takes the stance that he does and follows it assiduously.
And it's one it's a history that people should think about when evaluating the
question you just asked me. Let me just leave that there.
Wow. What do you think?
Pretty decisive from Mr. Chairman.
Jared Bernstein, we thank you for being with us from the North Lawn.
I hope we see this weekend. Thanks for coming back to talk to us
some Bloomberg. Coming up, we'll see a debate between
President Biden and Donald Trump after all.
We've heard from both of them on this matter today and we'll get into it next
on the balance of power on Bloomberg TV and radio. This is balance of power on bloomberg tv
and radio. I'm joe matthew alongside kelly lines in
washington. Welcome to friday.
We just heard from the white house on today's economic data on inflation and
economic growth for how this may play out on the campaign trail with a direct
line to Joe Biden, we're joined now by Bloomberg's Gregory Cordy.
It's great to see you. GREGORY You have a great piece on the
terminal today showing how the matter of inflation is overshadowing what is
otherwise a very strong economy that this president could otherwise be
bragging about. Today's numbers don't help this
argument, right? Yeah, Inflation is is sort of the
albatross here that just won't entirely go away.
And this, you know, is the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Jared
Bernstein, just said on on the program here, there has been if you if you look
at it over the past year, there has been progress made, but it's still sticky
enough that people aren't quite feeling it.
People don't process economic information, especially inflation in
terms of the core inflation rate yet that Mr.
Bernstein was just talking about. They think about, okay, what did things
cost before the pandemic and what am I paying for those same things now?
And that's a harder thing for Joe Biden to shake, especially now.
We are six months away from an election and people are really starting to pay
attention and they're really starting to form their opinions about how good this
economy is and if they're better off now than they were four or five years ago.
Well, and President Biden also has the kind of headache, if you will, of having
a lot of policy that has not yet taken hold to be tangibly seen in terms of
infrastructure or other elements of the Inflation Reduction Act, though
certainly he tries to talk about them a lot.
We have a fresh question today as to whether or not he'll be trying to talk
about that policy and perhaps policy differences with Donald Trump on the
debate stage. Yes, right.
In the future, because President Biden on the Howard Stern Show today said he's
up for it. This is him earlier today.
Can I tell you a fantasy I had if you I don't know if you're going to debate
your your opponent. I am somewhere.
I don't know where I'm happy and. And then we heard Gregory from Donald
Trump outside the courthouse, as well as on through social or social.
He said any time, anywhere, any place, even suggested the venue tonight at the
courthouse in New York. Is this really going to happen?
I mean, it's sort of remarkable just because in any other election year, the
incumbent president saying, of course, there's going to be a debate and there's
challengers saying, well, of course there's going to be a debate would not
be news because we would just expect that.
But we can't expect that this year. The Republican National Committee has an
official policy that their party's candidate does not participate in
debates or saw at the Commission on Presidential Debates for a number of
reasons. And then you've had the Biden campaign
for months now being noncommittal about whether the president will participate.
So now we have both candidates on record saying they want to participate in the
bid. But, you know, the Trump answer there
just sort of underscores the split screen campaign we've been seeing in
that Trump actually came out and said, look, I'm happy to be here, but he's got
to come to the courthouse in Manhattan because that's where I'm fired up right
now defending myself against criminal. And that's, you know, entertaining.
That's a good line. Obviously, he wants to do the whole.
Yeah. Why don't you come here and say it's in
my face routine because it's Donald Trump.
But the fact is, we've had no real conversation about rules around a
debate. There's a big preamble that goes into
this planning. To your point, they've got a problem
with the commission. GREGORY We could really have a campaign
with no debates in the end, isn't that right?
The commission has set the dates and the places for these debates.
So it's just a matter of the campaign showing up.
And by the way, any candidate that gets 15% in the polls can show up.
So there's pressure of whether John robert F Kennedy Jr might be able to
cross that threshold and show up. Maybe you'll have two of the three
there, but not by a third. But, yes, we're in this phase that the
political strategist call the debate about the debates, the better debates.
Yeah because even though we know the time and place, we don't know who the
moderators are going to be, they'll negotiate everything down to the length
of answers from the to the height of the podiums on that stage.
And there's going to be a lot of reasons why either campaign might
eventually back out on short notice and and we may or may not have these
debates. And so it's not a foregone conclusion.
The debate about the debate. Bloomberg ETF IQ recording.
Thank you so much for joining us. Plenty to talk about in domestic
politics today, but also in geopolitics. As US Secretary of State Antony Blinken
is on his way back from China right now following a meeting with President Xi.
And the tone was confrontational. If we don't see a change, we have to
face the United States. We've already imposed sanctions on more
than 100. Chinese entities, export controls, etc.
And we're fully prepared to to act, take additional measures.
And I made that very clear in my meeting today.
Bloomberg's Megan Scully is joining us now.
She leads our congressional coverage. And we were speaking with one of the
kind of China hawks in Congress, if you will, Yesterday on this program, the
ranking member of the China Select Committee, Congressman Raja
Krishnamoorthi, was with us and he was like, this is an area of bipartisanship.
Our committee perhaps does the most bipartisan work of any on Capitol Hill
right now. Everybody wants to be tough on China,
whether it's tech policy and a tick tock, divest or ban or otherwise when
they come back next week. Should we expect to have China is going
to be one of the few areas in this election year that they'll be able to
continue to work on? We're going to see them continue to do
things like investigations. I'm not sure how much we're going to see
in terms of actual legislation. What happened with Tick Tock, I think
caught us all by surprise in terms of how quickly it moved through and with
tremendous bipartisan support. There's nothing quite in the pipeline
like that. But you are right, it is still going to
be a huge part of the conversation. It is bipartisan.
That committee, the China committee, doesn't actually have any direct
jurisdiction, unfortunately, for their members.
So they don't have a pipeline through which they can they can funnel out
legislation. And we're getting closer to the
election. So we're going to see less and less
legislation moving. But the campaigns, the presidential
campaigns are trying to outdo themselves in terms of China policy.
You know, you have Biden going to the Rust Belt and saying in Pennsylvania
state that he desperately needs to win, that he would triple tariffs on Chinese
steel. And then you have Trump saying that he
would put a 60% tariff on all Chinese goods coming into the U.S..
So it is there is bipartisan cooperation and it's also a hot campaign topic.
You'll need our congressional coverage here in Washington.
And I'm kind of amazed that we have had such a concerted debate about Ukraine
funding and actually Israel funding with a lot of upset among progressive
Democrats. We've spoken really very little about
funding for Indo-Pak and specifically Taiwan.
We're talking about a lot of Ticktalk made a lot of news, but the funding for
Taiwan elsewhere in these spending bills.
Drew, what kind of reaction from Beijing, what kind of a message are we
sending there? Well, I think it's all sort of packaged
together in these tensions. Right.
You know, the tensions with China escalated last year when we shot down
the weather balloon, as I'm sure we remember all watching that.
Yes. And then things have stabilized.
But we have had sort of this escalating, you know, because it is a campaign year
because of the money for Taiwan. It was a statement in itself.
It certainly is, as is the curbs that we're putting on China for for producing
microchips and and importing them. So it's it's all wrapped into this
national this larger national security debate.
The attention has been on these other issues, particularly on on the tariffs
and on tick tock. But I do think that certainly the money
for Taiwan is ruffling feathers in Beijing.
Yeah, it's great to have you. Megan, thanks for joining Megan Scully
at the table here for us at Bloomberg. Joining us now as we add another voice
to this conversation is Congressman French Hill, the Republican from
Arkansas, back with us on balance of power.
It's great to see you, sir. Welcome back to the conversation.
What is the statement in this case that Congress sent to China by approving that
money for Taiwan? It's had very little talk compared to
more controversial elements in the legislation.
Well, thanks, Joe. It's good to be with you.
Yes. These conflicts that the United States
finds itself in are interconnected. China's buying 90% of its oil from Iran.
Iran takes that money and uses it to support terrorism in Lebanon, Syria.
Hamas's attack on Israel backing the Houthis against international trade.
North Korea and China are on the side of Russia in the war in Ukraine.
So this is interconnectedness. And that's why I think that the national
security bill, Joe, was so important because it sends the same message to
Tehran, Beijing and Moscow, which is we don't tolerate and our Western allies
don't tolerate big authoritarian countries invading other nations.
And we're going to be in a defensive posture there and provide those nations
the weapons, the economic support they need to defeat that sort of threat.
And Taiwan is a case in point. Well, Congressman, you also just raised
Ukraine and Russia. Part of this package was not just the
$60 billion in aid, but also the repo act.
And my question to you is, I know you were a big advocate for that legislation
allowing those seized assets to be used to fund Ukraine's war effort or whatever
else. But knowing so much of that money is
actually in Europe, what actually happens next?
How hard is this going to be to get done, especially get done with allies
buy in as well? Well, every journey starts with a small
step, and it was important for the United States to deliver military
certainty and financing, but also economic deterrence and passing the repo
act and showing Europe a good example of what that statute might look like.
Yes, it's true. We only have 5 to $7 billion here in the
United States of Russian central bank assets, and it's closer to 200 billion
in Europe. But just as we were voting to pass that
bill here in the United States, the Council of Europe voted unanimously on
April 16th to convert frozen Russian assets to a fund for the benefit of
Ukraine. So we have advocates on both sides of
the Atlantic for this policy. Congressman, I want to ask you about
your role on the Financial Services Committee, about an important issue to
us here at Bloomberg. I know it's one to you as well, and
that's the prospect of Stablecoin legislation emerging.
We spoke with Congresswoman MAXINE Waters, of course, from your committee,
who spoke to the idea of a potential way forward, a path forward that would maybe
attach this to the FAA extension bill, if you could come up with a compromise
and also add something called safe banking with that.
Here's what she had to say and we'll have you respond.
It's about making sure that investors and that the people are protected and
that we don't have, you know, a stablecoin bill where people who are,
you know, basically the companies don't have the assets that they say that they
have. We have to ensure that they have those
assets to back up Stablecoins. We're on our way to getting a stablecoin
bill and in the short run. How short is that run going to be?
Congressman, what are you hearing on the committee and would you vote for it if
it was coupled with a cannabis banking bill as well?
Well, Joe, I would vote for if it were coupled.
I have supported the Safe Banking Act for nine years in Congress now, which
would allow cannabis dealers in states where it's
legal to have access to the banking system.
I think it's a lot easier to catch bad actors and illegal activity if those
companies are participating in the banking system.
So if someone's trying to take advantage of legal cannabis in an illegal way,
it's a lot better to have those companies participating in the banking
system. I think Ranking Member Waters is correct
that we're very close to completing our bipartisan work together on a payment
stablecoin bill that will protect consumers and enhance innovation here in
the United States and make the U.S. more competitive.
We'll see other countries adopt our rules once we put that law in place, and
we're working on it in a bipartisan way as soon as we can to find the floor time
and the compromise in both the Senate and the House to move that legislation.
All right. So bipartisan and bicameral.
We have less than a minute left with you, Congressman, but is it your
understanding that perhaps the easiest vehicle to do this would be the FAA
bill? I think that's a call that leadership
has to make. I think there are other ways that we can
do it during the course of the year. But if we get an agreement, then House
and Senate leadership can work on the best floor strategy for moving the
legislation forward. Bottom line is, we've made a lot of
progress in the last year. Our country will benefit if we get both
these bills passed. All right.
Republican Congressman French Hill of Arkansas, of course, the chair of the
Subcommittee on Digital Assets. We appreciate your time, sir, and
travels back to Washington next week. Now, coming up, still, former White
House counsel Ty Cobb will join us to break down what we've heard this week in
Trump's hush money trial. A lot of testimony over the course of
the four trial days. This week, we'll get his reaction to
that next. On balance of power on Bloomberg TV and
radio. Welcome back to Balance of Power on
Bloomberg Television and radio live from Washington, D.C..
But we want to turn now to what happened up in New York this weekend.
Today, as Donald Trump spent another day in the courthouse where it was day four
of testimony in his hush money trial. Joining us now for more is Ty Cobb,
former federal prosecutor and then special counsel to the president.
Ty, always great to have you here on the program.
So we've heard from a number of witnesses now, but perhaps the biggest,
at least thus far was David Pecker, who, of course, was the former CEO of
American Media, talking about the kind of catch and kill strategy, the defense
trying to spin it as him, not trying to help Trump politically, but perhaps
trying to help the Playboy model. Karen McDougal, with a reset in her
career. What have you made of the testimony
we've heard thus far and whether things are getting easier or more difficult for
Trump and his defense team? This is going to be very difficult for
Trump and his defense team. Nice to be with you, Kelly and Joe.
This is very difficult for them because there's really not much they can dispute
in terms of actual events. And frankly, one of the things that
Trump does dispute greatly handicaps his lawyers, I think, in terms of their
ability to cross-examine the prosecution's witness and to look
credible in front of the jury, because Trump insists that they try this case
with one arm on their back, supporting his lie, that he didn't have either of
these, you know, sexual relationships. You know, nobody in the world believes
that it would be much easier to cross-examine, you know, Karen McDougal
and Stormy Daniels if you could say, well, that's not really what happened,
is it? You know, this happened.
And, you know, he doesn't have that is he's in, you know, total denial just the
way he thought. You know, he won the Supreme Court
argument yesterday, notwithstanding the fact that there wasn't a single judge
who, you know, is going to is going to accept
absolute immunity or the impeachment judgment clause.
I mean, he just makes stuff up and it's his truth.
But it's a problem for them. Litigating is.
Well, Ty, there were some remarkable stories from David Pecker on the stand
yesterday as he cross-examination today. But he described a series of meetings
that he was brought into, including one at the White House that President Trump
invited him to in 2017, a meeting that included the FBI director, James Comey,
that included the secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, the chief of staff, Reince
Priebus, and other high ranking officials.
You were special counsel to the president.
Can you speak to this element of the Trump White House?
And were you ever in a meeting with David Pecker?
No, I was never in a meeting with David. I was in I was in meetings, Yeah,
not many, but I was in a few meetings where I was scratching my head going,
Why is that person here? Yeah, it was sort of, you know, Trump
had all these, you know, compartmentalize aspects of his life.
Bedminster, Mar a Lago, New York, Trump Tower, The Apprentice.
So he had a lot of he had a lot of business.
And, you know, someone showed up at an unusual place.
Well, and certainly there were those who might be less surprising being in a
meeting like those who actually worked for the White House.
There was testimony involving Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for example, as well
as Hope Hicks. And we actually were speaking to Palm
Beach State Attorney Dave Aronberg earlier today, talking about the
witnesses we could still hear from. And he was like, it's not going to be
Stormy Daniels or even Michael Cohen that ultimately are the real zingers.
It's going to be Hope Hicks. And I just wonder what you think about
the kinds of testimony we could see from her.
Well, I think you see people speculating that she's going to do a mea culpa and
not remembering this meeting that she was apparently briefly in, or at least
long enough to talk individually to Cohen.
But I don't I frankly don't think she's going to be
as a consequential witness. I mean, think about what happened today.
You know, last night people are going. Ronna McDaniel Oh, my gosh.
You know, she knows where all the bodies are buried.
This is going to be this is going to be gangbusters.
This will be huge. Huge.
And, you know, they introduced six emails and, you know, had her talk
about, you know, her familiarity with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
And, you know, she was on and off in no time.
It's pretty remarkable. What should we be looking for next week
when it comes time to issue a ruling on the gag order?
Tai We thought we might get this today, maybe yesterday.
But there are five more now alleged violations, according to the
prosecution. At some point, the judge is going to
have to do something here. And I know we're not putting Donald
Trump in jail. So what could be the penalty?
So so the penalty is a statutory penalty in New York for these events, you know,
one $1,000 per violation. And then in terms of secondary, I mean,
if there are future violations, the judge has discretion to do more.
And I think it's very surprising, frankly, that this judge has not already
penalized Trump, you know, two or $3,000 for a couple of violations because
they're they're egregious, they're clear violations.
And it would present an opportunity to explain to him what the consequences of
future violations of that type would be.
I think every time, every delay that he enters poses in terms of making
a decision is an advantage to Trump. And those delays would not be afforded
most litigants. Well, speaking of delays, sir, we'd like
to ask you about another case as well, one that is here in Washington and that
the Supreme Court was dealing with yesterday, or at least dealing with
tangentially, this question of presidential immunity from prosecution
in the case brought by Jack Smith here in Washington.
The court seemed skeptical of this kind of broad idea of community.
But even Chief Justice John Roberts was teasing the idea of perhaps sending this
back down to a lower, lower court to really tease out what is an official act
and what is not. How do you see this playing out from
here? How delayed are we talking this trial
here in Washington could be. So if I can go to 30,000 feet for a
second here, the reality is the real delay here was
the January six Commission. They they did not share their
transcripts or witness interviews with the Justice Department for months.
Something like eight months, give or take a month.
They had plenty of time to make their rulings, give their findings, make their
recommendations, but they had to sit on it because the speaker at the time was
adamant that they not issue anything until shortly before the midterms.
You know, but for that delay, we'd already be in trial.
This has gone from, you know, its first breath to today in four months.
That's light speed in the legal system and particularly the Supreme Court
system. I think that I think what happened
yesterday, you saw some frustration from Chief Justice Roberts that about the
fact that the D.C. Circuit, while it issued a ruling that
made it very clear that under the existing facts and the existing
indictment, you know, there was no immunity.
You know, the Supreme Court clearly didn't think that was enough.
And not just Roberts. I mean, obviously that's why they
granted cert. They think there has to be a line.
They think that they have to craft some guidance for the lower courts in terms
of how to apply this in connection with this trial.
But I think, as people pointed out yesterday, I mean, almost all the
judges, when they when they tried to be specific about this case, made it very
clear they really weren't so much interested in this case, particularly
after Sauer, President Trump's lawyer, gave away the form, acknowledging that
virtually all the conduct alleged in the in the indictment was private acts.
So they're not out to help Trump. Not a single thing that the right in
this opinion will be actually helpful to Trump.
The only thing that's helpful to Trump is the delay.
And frankly, I think it's a little hyperbolic the way
people approach that, because, A, it's moving very quickly for a legal matter
of this consequence. This is the most important separation of
powers case in the history of our country since Marbury versus Madison.
It's very difficult to manage that and get it right without going through, you
know, some analysis. And it's unfortunate that it will
likely, I think, in my view, at least prevent a trial before the election.
But it's it's not surprising, given the stakes.
So that would have been my next question tie if this does go back to the appeals
court. Is it curtains then for this trial or
could Jack Smith still find time to do this even if it was a president elect
Trump? So Jack Smith could find the time.
Jack Smith would try this, you know, tomorrow night in an hour.
Well, sure he would. You know whether Jack.
Good time, right? What we whether judge checking can give
him the time. You know, in good conscience, that'll be
the that'll be the difficult thing. I don't think we're going to have a
bunch of, you know, sending it back down and having come back out.
But I think that it's quite likely that, you know, this will be remanded at some
point to to her and she'll and to pass the issue of
separating official acts from purely private conduct.
As I said, the president's lawyer did a good job of that yesterday under the
withering examination of Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative.
She got him to concede that virtually all the conduct in an indictment is
private acts. So it's not really a heavy lift.
But she's going to be applying a new rule, a
new rule that this court will that the Supreme Court will provide her and
provide to the to the country for the constitutional analysis required should
these circumstances ever occur again. Ty, it's good to see you.
Come and pay us a visit next time you're in the capital.
Ty Cobb, former special counsel to the president, with us today on Bloomberg.
As we look ahead to what's coming next on Donald Trump's legal saga.
And coming up, a very busy week for him overall as we bring in the voices of our
political panel on the legal and political sides of all of this, Rick
Davis and Ginny Shan Zeno will be here. Coming up next on the balance of power
on Bloomberg TV and radio. I just want to say that I've been
invited by you to debate, and he can do it anytime he wants, including tonight.
Ready? We are standing right at the courthouse
and he has us tied up in anticipation for us to go to Washington.
It's all a well coordinated attack on a political opponent.
But I'm here. I'm ready, willing and able.
And if you watch, I'll do it on Monday night, Tuesday night or Wednesday, I
will be in Michigan, a state that he's destroyed.
Former President Trump, of course, as he left court today in lower Manhattan,
wrapping the eighth day of the trial, the fourth day of witness testimony, an
hour closers are with us now to help us make sense of another doozy of a week.
Rick Davis of Stone Court Capital is here.
Jeannie and Zaino, political science professor at Iona University.
They are Bloomberg political contributors.
And great to see you both. Rick, we went from thinking maybe
there'd be no debates in the general election campaign to now everybody's a
tough guy. Joe Biden is asked about it on Howard
Stern today. He indicates he's going to meet him
somewhere sometime. Donald Trump says, why don't you come up
here to the courthouse? We'll do it tonight.
But you have intimate knowledge of how these things are put together.
And there's been zero progress on an agreement or any rules are making this
happen. Do you think they'll take place?
I think it's a long shot. I mean, we're seeing the debate over
debates. Right.
And and the first one wouldn't be until September anyway.
So there's some time to posture and that's what we're seeing.
But I remember the first meeting I had with Bill Clinton's team when Bob Dole
was running against Clinton. And we went to see their debate team and
we said, okay, we'd like three debates. We like them in these states and, you
know, this time and they're like, Oh, we're not prepared to debate you at all.
And so we're just getting to that part of the story.
Incumbent presidents have all the leverage.
They they're busy guys. They don't have to debate come at me.
But like in this case, because, you know, Trump's bout strength, you know,
Biden may be drawn into a debate as a potential, you know, scene center for a
general election. It isn't going his way right now.
So it's it's going to be completely a game day decision, right?
I mean, they're they're they've got the presidential commission on debates that
have offered dates and locations. And both campaigns have said that's not
really what they want. So we're pretty far away from knowing
that there's actually going to be a debate.
Well, into Rick's point, Jeannie, on how incumbent presidents usually would have
the leverage. It kind of raises the question of
whether or not Biden or perhaps more specifically Biden's campaign
realistically wants to debate or just has to say answer the question when
asked that. Yeah, I would.
Yeah, it's hard to tell. You know, I think Joe Biden feels like
he's ready. He's done it before.
He would do it again and he would win. You know, so much would have to be
worked out before they actually did it. But, you know, he was on Howard Stern.
Stern asked him, you know, I'd love to see a debate face to face.
He says, Of course I will. You know, what's stunning to me is
Donald Trump with, you know, the anywhere, any way, any time Monday
through Thursday, you know, going on and on.
Because, of course, you know, the reality for Donald Trump is he's also a
former president. So, you know, he seems very eager to get
out there, whereas in Joe Biden's case, I thought he handled it well.
He said, yeah, I'll do it. And, you know, we'll see what happens.
So it's just fascinating to me how this has
taken on a life of its own. And I think Joe Biden got the better of
Trump today by, you know, responding like this and getting Donald Trump all
heated up on this. You've actually prepared candidates for
these kind of debates. Rick, How do you prepare a candidate to
debate Donald Trump, though? I mean, I think maybe you're alluding to
a different structure is needed here. Maybe the commission is not the way
forward. If these two guys are on the same stage
and you need some sort of live fact checking, that's proven to be
impossible, a point that you made earlier.
So how do you do it? You know, I think it's campaign
malpractice to put a normal person on a stage with Donald Trump.
Right. Something like that just doesn't work.
Donald Trump is a unguided missile, right?
I mean, he can say and do anything on the stage, regardless of what rules have
been negotiated or what plan that the network or the the commission has in
place. So so you have to be willing to
basically take whatever Donald Trump decides he wants to do.
And we've seen it time and time again when CNN or one of these other networks
have put him into town halls. You know, he breaks all the rules.
He says whatever he wants. There's no fact checking.
That's your real time effective. And so I don't know how you do it.
I think that you would have to literally stop the debate after every answer
that's not factual and say, okay, now we need to tell you what is actually the
truth. Wow.
Now, I don't know anybody who wants to watch that debate.
Right, right, right. But but, look, I mean, these are two of
the best known candidates in the history of presidential.
Campaigns. It's not like we're going to find
something out in that debate that we didn't otherwise already know.
So I think there's going to be this look at these and say they're out of control
potential and it's not good for for Biden.
Trump, I think, would take any opportunity to throw a haymaker.
But remember, he hasn't debated in a long time.
Right. And he didn't get any practice during
the presidential primary, which is always a good thing to do, even if
you're winning. So I don't know.
I think it's a long shot. Well, it might be a long shot.
It might be messy if it happens, but at least it would be both of them on the
same screen when so often these days we're talking about split screens.
Even if they're in the same city, they're dealing with completely
different situations, Rick. This week, Trump was in court in New
York, as we know. Biden was also in New York fundraising.
But also there just down the street were protests at Columbia University.
That in part has a lot to do with his policies toward Israel.
Just speak to how interesting this moment was.
Oh, I think the Manhattan zip code got more action in one day than the country
is going to see in the rest of the campaign.
I mean, you just think about it. Biden is out there raising money, doing
these set of events, being presidential. And yet because of his policies, you
have this wild, basically semi riot on the campus of of Columbia University
that he has yet to really in you know like take as ownership and communicate
to young people as to why the administration is doing the things are
doing. And yet while all that is going on the
good and the bad, you've got Donald Trump sitting in a courtroom listening
to what is the most embarrassing situation any human being could ever be
in while all this campaigning is going on.
And he's stuck there and then he comes out, you know, and says, The guy's in my
zip code. I'm going to, you know, throw some
haymakers and try to get him to debate. Let's go down to, you know, the local Y
and see who's there. And we can have a have a go around.
But it's I've honestly never seen much like this day.
I mean, really amazing. Well, pretty amazing week all the way
around. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
As someone who makes a living on a college campus, we saw at least one
major graduation canceled this week. Some folks think Columbia might be
compelled to do the same as the risers are set up for the graduation ceremony.
Should Joe Biden weigh in on that? You know, I think he's already spoken
out and I think he does need to continue to speak his truth, which is obviously
antisemitism is not acceptable. We need safety and security.
We need to get a cease fire. We need our hostages home.
You know, I would just say, though, on this split screen, where was Joe Biden
today? He was comforting the families of two
police officers in Syracuse, New York, who lost their life in the line of duty.
And he was talking about a major investment in chips.
That's what a president does. And, of course, he's dealing with world
events and they have an impact here at home.
But that is a far cry from what Donald Trump is doing in Manhattan as he
listens to the stories about porn stars and payoffs and those kinds of things.
So, you know, I think if you're from a campaign perspective, you would take Joe
Biden's position any day of the week versus where Donald Trump finds himself.
All right. Gina Shannon Zaino and Rick Davis are
going to stick with us because coming up, it's the eve of a big night in
Washington. President Biden set to speak at the
White House Correspondents Dinner tomorrow.
We'll have more next on the balance of power and anger, TV and radio. You. Well, tomorrow night, SNL with Colin
Jost is set to host the White House Correspondents Dinner here in
Washington. We'll get a quick thought on that now
from our political panel, Rick Davis and Jenny Shand.
ZAINO Jenny, it's not just Colin Jost that we'll be hearing from tomorrow.
President Biden is set to speak as well, maybe try to crack some jokes for a
president who's always questioned around his stamina, stamina and wherewithal.
How important is a night like this for him?
It's very important. I think he'll pull out those Brandon
glasses again. Maybe he'll definitely have some
self-deprecating jokes. You know, I think one thing I'll be
watching for, you know, and is the issue of any protests.
That's been a key concern of the campaign and the president as they've
gone across the country. So whether that comes up is a big, big
question. But I think it is a time for him to, you
know, sort of make light of so many things that are, you know, truly a
concern to voters like his age. And I think he'll roast the press as
they usually do as well. This can be a high risk environment
depending on who you're talking to. You know, Joe Biden, he likes to have a
laugh. He likes to have a laugh.
And I agree with Jenny. I think it's could be a big protest
because I think the entire New York Times table could turn around and give
him his backside because he won't do a private interview with them.
So I think that could be the biggest thing that happens at the event.
Oh, gosh. If that's the case, we'll have to ask
him for our own interview, I guess. I guess so.
Fascinating conversation, as always with Rick Davis and Jeannie Chansey.
And I hope we have some fun stuff to share with you following the big weekend
on Monday. Great panel.
Thank you both for being here. And check out the Washington Edition
newsletter on the terminal and online. Have a great weekend, everyone.
We'll see you back here on Monday. This is balance of power on Bloomberg TV
and radio.
