Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to the Tuesday edition of Balance of Power. Here we are again on the radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube, and we do have breaking news. If you've been with us just a couple of hours ago, Hunter Biden. Has it even been that long, not even an hour ago? Hunter Biden convicted on gun charges by a jury in Delaware.
We saw it coming.
It's only three counts, and we were told, with overwhelming evidence, this should not be a long deliberation.
And it wasn't.
Three up and three down. And as you wonder, we keeps asking, what's Joe Biden going to do? What'll he say? How does the White House handle this? We got the statement, this is officially from the President of the United States.
I'm going to read the whole thing for you. Quote.
As I said last week, I am the president, but I am also a dad. Jill and I love our son and we are so proud of the man he is today. So many families who have had loved one's battle addiction understand the feeling of pride seeing someone you love come out the other side and be so strong and resilient in recovery. Joe Biden goes on to write, as I also said last week, I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the
judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal. Jill and I will always be there for Hunter and the rest of our family with love and support. Nothing will ever change that, unquote. So that's how he's going to handle it. He will be speaking later today. Questions about whether he might indulge the press with something in person, we'll find out about that.
But this is the first statement, the first reaction from the White House.
June Grosso has been all over this from the beginning, and she's with us now from New York. Of course, the host of Bloomberg Law. We knew it would be pretty quick here, June, three counts guilty. Do we have a sentencing date? What actually happens next? Procedurally?
The judge didn't set a sensing date yet, but she said it's within usually about one hundred and twenty days, So that puts it in October, I think, and then we'll, you know, we'll find out. I mean, it's not though he is facing you know, and we say facing like
the max he could get is twenty five years. There is also a chance that he could get probation because and we have to go through the sentencing guidelines to look at you know, this is like a mathematical calculation that federal prosecutors who do these kinds of cases and defense attorneys know how to do. But there is a chance that he could just get probation according to what I'm seeing, because the gun wasn't used in any kind of a crime and he only had it for eleven days.
But we'll learn more about that as we go through the guidelines.
Well understood, Yeah, it's just to your point. Two of the gun counts carry a prison term as long as ten years, another punishable by as many as five brings us to a potential twenty five year term. How about fines though, would they not be more likely?
Well?
I think you know, fines would be in order. I think is it two hundred and fifty thousand for the two counts.
Each of the two counts.
You're the expert I have.
Yeah, well, I'm not actually expert on the on the sentence in guidelines unless I study them. So I think that the fines are pretty high, and yeah, she might she might do a fine as well. But what's important here is that, you know, despite what Donald Trump has been saying about the justice system, here you have a case where the Biden Justice Department prosecuted the president's son and there is a guilty verdict and you're going to
have a Trump appointed judge give the sentence. So it's kind of hard to argue, although I'm sure they will, it's kind of hard to argue that the system is you know, biased, right.
And this is federal court as opposed to the New York court that Donald Trump was in. Are we going to hear from the Department of Justice? Is there a news conference? Are they treating it that way? June because of the level of scrutiny that this case is getting.
You know, that's an interesting question because it is the Special Council here, and you know that special councils have been subject to a lot of criticism. This special council was appointed at the sort of the last minute because he requested. And there's this mystery about why he needed
to be a special council. Was it just so he could bring because he's it's the same counsel who was investigating Hunter Biden in Delaware, so he could bring cases in Delaware, and he could bring the case in California, the tax case. So it'll be interesting to see. I would think not, because you know, federal prosecutors are different from state prosecutors who go out there a lot of them elected, and they go out and they talk after the verdict and you know, give themselves kudos, et cetera.
So federal prosecutors keep it close to the vest. And since there's another case pending, I would think that he might not do a press conference. I mean, look at how many press conferences Jack Smith has given and how you know, how illuminating they've been, you know, five minutes of a statement. So I don't think so, but it's always possible, and.
It's really interesting.
You've been good at crystallizing this case because, as we write, there's been some very sensational and emotional testimony family members and ex lovers. You can read about it on the terminal talking about Hunter's drug fueled lifestyle when he was in the throes of addiction to crack cocaine. But what we're talking about here, in a deeply personal matter for the Biden family, is whether he checked a box June.
As you've stated, I.
Know it's and the prosecution the closing argument said we had to do this. But did they really have to do it the way they did it. I mean, they dragged him through the mud in you know ways that you mentioned, and also you know the kind of pictures that they show the laptop, and they had the evidence, so I don't think they had to really go to that length to do it, but maybe they just wanted to make sure the jury saw him for who he was.
What's interesting is I think that the the defense kind of blew up its case because on during their case, they had Naomi Biden and she was supposed to testify, which she did that her father she saw him around that time and he seemed really good, he seemed healthy. But on cross examination, the prosecution brought out these text messages from the time when around the time when the gun was being purchased that showed that he was, you know, he couldn't be found. She was like where are you
am I going to see you? And then all of a sudden he pops up and says, you know, I need the car and it was two am. So that and then you saw what happened was all of a sudden, the defense said, no more witnesses today when his uncle was supposed to testify, and there was apparently, you know, some yelling, according to one report from the room, and then the defense rested without calling Hunter Biden. So the
defense had a tough road. I think the only thing they were hoping for was jury nullification, that some of the jurors would say, we have people in our family who are addicted, and there are several jurors who do who've been through the whole process, and we don't think that he should be, you know, prosecuted or sentenced for filling that box out. But that obviously didn't happen at all.
The jurors were you know, didn't I guess, didn't let their family experiences get in the way of their decision.
Yeah, all right, June Grosso, we thank you, as always the host of Bloomberg Law, thanks for being with us here in the clutch as we had the voice of Nick Ackerman I'm glad to say he's with us, the former assistant US Attorney, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, mister Ackerman. Great to see you here, Thanks for joining. Now that we have a verdict, has this whole argument about the weaponization of the Justice Department been put to bed?
Yeah?
I think so.
I mean, it's pretty obvious if the Department of Justice is going out after the president's son that you can't very well say the Department of Justice is weaponized, not to mention the fact that you also have the prosecution of Senator Menendez that's going on in the Southern District of New York, a Democratic senator from New Jersey. So I think it's pretty obvious that the Department of Justice
is an equal opportunity prosecutor. Whether you're a Democrat, an Independent, or anything else, if you commit a crime, you're going to pay for it.
What's your take on this case.
We spent so much time talking about Donald Trump's legal journey. I'm not sure you've spoken to the veracity of this case or what many people say in the legal community, is the unusual nature of this case for someone to be brought down on felony charges like this in the case that involves addiction.
How do you see it in a cap of it.
Oh, it's pretty unusual and so unusual. I don't know why they even bothered to go to trial in a sense, because either they should have made a or he should have just eaten the indictment and pled to all three counts before the trial started. They had to have known right from the get go that there were these text messages during the period of time when he signed that form and filled in those boxes and also possessed the gun, even though it was for a short period of time.
They knew that there was evidence that Hunter Biden was still addicted and was still taking crack cocaine. So I don't understand for a second why they even bothered to go to trial on this thing. Because if he had just pled guilty and decided right from the beginning he was going to eat the indictment all three counts, he would have at least under the federal sentence in guidelines gotten two points for basically admitting his guilt, which is
a big item. And so I think all of this augurs for the other case in California, I just think he has to plead guilty to that. Well, he's got to make a deal or guilty. The amount of time he's going to get is not going to be significant, if at all, And there's just no point in going through with this.
So Nick Ackerman says, plead guilty in the tax evasion. That's a million dollars in taxes he allegedly did not pay. Nick, what kind of a sentence would he be in for if he played along like that?
Well, again, a million dollars, yes, but he's already paid back the taxes. He's paid back. I believe all the penalties, he's already made his amends with the irs. Normally, under circumstances like that, where somebody's addicted, there is a good shot that the person wouldn't even be prosecuted in the first instance. So to me, as a criminal defense lawyer, as well as having been a prosecutor, I think you just have to go in, take your lumps and argue
that this is a case for probation. I mean, I think that is the approach he should be taken at this point, and should have taken before.
We saw a statement.
Well, and of course there was a plea deal at one point in this case, and I want to ask you about the statement from the President of the United States. He's already said he will not pardon Hunter Biden. He says, I will accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process. As Hunter considers an appeal. Will there be an appeal? What's their case going to be?
I think there is going to be an appeal based on the Second Amendment. It's hard to believe that that's going to go very far or it's going to be successful. But I suppose he's got nothing to lose by doing that. Even after he's sentenced, an appeal will go before the Circuit Court and then possibly the Supreme Court. I just find it hard to believe that a court, the appellate court, is going to say that this statute is some way violative of the Second Amendment.
Fascinating.
We're spending time with Nick Ackerman, as he just said, a criminal defense attorney, but also noted former Watergate prosecutor. As we consider the last twenty four hours in which Donald Trump sat down for his first interview with a probation officer. That's not getting any conversation today, Nick, because this Hunter Biden news just broke but I wonder your
thought on the way this was handled. He was allowed to do this virtually, and he was allowed to have his lawyer in the room, which we understand is not typical for most defendants in a criminal case like this. Should he have been afforded those exceptions?
Well, First of all, I think the interview by Zoom is not necessarily a big exception since the pandemic. I know that there are others who have also had that ability to be able to be interviewed by probation over Zoom see that being a big deal. The fact that his lawyer was there. Normally in the federal system, the lawyer is present for those kinds of conversations. So I don't you know, I know the judge allowed this exception based on the request by the attorneys. I don't see
this being a big deal. And look, he's being treated just like anybody else. He's being interviewed by probation. The big issue I suppose with probation is going to be whether he respect essentially evinces any kind of remorse for what he did, which it's hard to believe he would based on the statements he's been making since the conviction. So I don't see how this interview is going to
help him anyway. If anything, I think it's going to be a big negative that's going to be given to the judge for sentencing purposes.
How about that, say, No, I ask you this because there was a statement from a group of public defender groups including the Legal Aid Society, the Bronx Defender and said these exceptions made for Trump are not typically afforded to low income defendants. I think the idea here is if I had a public defender, they would not be
allowed to join me in that room. Whether that moves the needle for you at all, Nick, worry you on potential sentencing because to your point, that's where this interview is heading.
Yeah, well obviously, I mean I saw that statement, and like, I don't think materially it makes a difference that Trump did it by zoom or that he has lawyer present. I think the real question comes down to just what you just asked. What is the sentence going to be? And I would be surprised if he does not get some jail time, mainly because Michael Cohen, the witnesses who testified against him, served three years as a result of
this crime. In part also Alan Weiselberg, who was one of the architects of setting up this false document scheme with Trump's approval, has already set is going to be at the end of the day have served six months at Rikers Island for other offenses. So I think it's going to be hard for the judge to justify why those two people serve time and Donald Trump is not.
So I think that's his big problem here is that there are others that were as culpable, more and less culpable than him that we're involved in this, that have spent some time in jail.
Wow.
July eleventh, right, I don't know if you're busy, Nick, but we're going to be calling you. Great to see you again, Nick Ackerman with us on Bloomberg, I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington the fastest show in politics. On this day, Hunter Biden becomes the first son of a president of the United States to be convicted on criminal charges. We'll have much more ahead on the fastest show in politics.
This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Ken just live weekdays at noon Eastern on applecarp Ronoto with the Bloomberg Business ad. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven.
Thirty building shook a little bit when the Hunter headlines broke redhead on the terminal. Hunter Biden convicted gun charges by a jury in Delaware. No one surprised. We were told yesterday overwhelming evidence, only three charges. The liberations should not take long.
And here we are.
As we tried to pick through this from a legal perspective and explore the potential political ramifications. As I already told you, we've heard from Joe Biden today saying he will stand by his son. This is a personal matter obviously for the Bidens. The first lady was in the courtroom for the bulk of this roughly week long trial. But I have an important conversation to bring you, and it's a familiar voice if you watch or listen to
this program. Denver Riggleman, the former Republican congressman, former Air Force intel diligence officer, former member of the House Freedom Caucus, is also a data analyst and has a firm that specializes in data forensics, and in fact went to work with as a consultant with Hunter Biden's legal team to take a look inside the laptop and follow any number of allegations that had been brought by Republicans. And Denver's with us right now. It's good to have you back, sir.
I wonder your thoughts. Having spent the time that you did also as a technical consultant for the January sixth committee, you actually looked inside this laptop. You've been around the horn a number of times on this, and as you've told us, you have a personal relationship a friendship, if I can call it that, with Hunter Biden. Did you ever think that the conviction, if there was going to be one, would come from a check box here in this case, on a gun form.
Yeah. I mean I think you know, when you look at it first of all, you know, really it's really hard to get your arms right. I had a brother convicted of a minor drug offense that ended up being actually a felony, and you're thinking, well, it's just marijuana, but he had broken the law. And I remember the sadness in our family when he went to jail. And I can't imagine the sadness, you know, the Hunter Biden's
family has right now. But when you look at the evidence and what had happened, regardless of the years that had passed, and the effort that Hunter has put into his own life, which is extraordinary, I think when you look at the black and white language of the law, I'm not surprised at the guilty verdict, Joe. It's just not really surprising at all. And when you talk about looking in the laptop, I know, it's an incredible question.
Is I actually looked at the data supposedly from the laptop and there's multiple laptops, which a lot of people don't know, and that's another question. That another thing, But there's multiple lawsuits out there about that specific data that's supposedly from the laptop. That that's why I don't get into it too much, even with idiots on Twitter and X. You know, but I think that you know, I think that you know, like, well, prove the negative. It's ridiculous.
But looking at you know, there's really no impeachment thing going to happen. We know there's no huge you know, there's financial crime you know, uh, stuff that's coming out of the Comer Committee or things like that. That's sort of gone. But this right here is a specific charge, and I think Joe that I think it's no surprise, you know, to anyone that he was found guilty on this.
We've got a statement both from Hunter Biden and from his attorney, Abby Lowell. We're naturally disappointed by today's verdicts law rights. We respect the jury process, and as we've done throughout this case, will continue to vigorously pursue all the legal challenges available to Hunter.
So what will this appeal look like or what should it look like?
Then? You know, it's interesting, you know, and Joe, you know, I'm not a lawyer. I'm you know, just a lowly former congressman and data analytic counter terrorism expert and company owner and distillery owner. But I think I think what this means Abby Lowe is an incredible attorney. You know, I know him personally. Also, I think what they're going to look at again is really how long the charges are, but almost a compassionate look at the at what has
happened to Hunter since then. But as far as the appeals, I think it's really going to depend on the sentencing. I'm really wondering, you know, if Hunter gets jail time. I think it's possible he does get some jail time here, and again, what does that do with the ridiculousness that we saw before the verdict, where you had the far right or people that were Trump supporters saying he was going to get off. I mean, it destroys that narrative.
I don't think that makes any difference with the breathlessness of deep state and globalist conspiracy theories that seemed to have you know, captured Maga Joe. But I think the appeals process with Abby he knows, you know, where he really does know where the gaps are in a prosecutorial case and what he can exploit based on the rule of law. But think about what he said he respects the jury process. That's really not something you got out
of the Trump team on his thirty four conviction. So I think it's just that stark contrast the rule of law and individuals who respect American institutions and those who don't.
So let's get to the politics of it, Denver. That's the world in which you come from, and we tend to talk about here. You mentioned some important names. Really one of them and James Comer. I could mention Jim Jordan as well, everyone's asking what this means for the presidential election. I'm curious what it means for these two chairs in the Republican House who wanted to impeach Joe Biden.
It might be emboldened by this verdict.
You know, if they're emboldened by a guilty verdict of a recovering addict, that really you know, I think I think it would be pretty amazing for them to try to pursue this based on the fact that the gun charge was a specific thing that Hunter Biden did that really had nothing to do with the laptop politics. It's it's a really specific charge, and there's so much there's so many differences to say between the gun charge, the
tax charges, and what the impeachment proceedings are. These are three huge different wickets, you know that they're going after. So if they try to reboot this, I think what's gonna happen is they got to you know what they're
gonna do. They're gonna war game this out. There's gonna be a political backlash because now you have this duplicity right where you have Hunter Biden being convicted and Donald Trump with his thirty four counts, where the question is going to be Hold on a second, you guys certainly have failed up to this point. It was actually legal. We have a legal proceeding for this. What are you guys doing where you're trying to reboot this We're using
American tax payer money where it's already been discredited. I think there is going to be some war gaming on that side, but we're also so close to the election. Joe, I don't know if it matters that much. I don't think the far right's going to change. I don't think there's going to be anybody else who changes or vote, you know, to Trump, you know, based on the fact
that they're doing this. I don't think that happens. I think the gas lighting and the deep state conspiracy theories are so entrenched in a large portion of our population. I just don't know if it matters.
We talked earlier with Nick Ackerman, the former Watergate prosecutor, who suggested that if you were giving Hunter Biden legal advice, he just go ahead and plead guilty in the next trial for more favorable treatment.
What do you think about that?
You know, listen, when I think for me, you know, if you're trying to fix your life and you've done things in the past, and you're talking about, you know, offenses that happened years and years ago. I think there's a willingness or a pride to where you want to fight. It depends, I think, on what they see the sentence thing. Again, I don't think he's going to plead guilty on the tax charges. I just don't see that happening. The fact that he paid, you know, paid those taxes back. I
think it's going to be an interesting case. I think it's probably more complex than the gun case. To be honest, I think this was rather straightforward. I don't see him pleading guilty on those charges, or maybe some limited plea on specific charges, maybe another plead deal. But again, I just don't see if they if they don't offer them a plea deal, I just don't see him pleading guilty
at this point. Of course, you know, Joe, sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong, but I just don't I just don't see him doing I don't see him pleading guilty at this point.
It's a very insightful statement. When you're trying to fix your life, you might be more likely to fight. As we spend time with Denver, Riggelman. In our last minute or two here Denver, we're going to hear from the special counsel David Weiss. Looks like coming up top of the hour about a half an hour from now, we're told he will not take questions.
What do you think he'll say.
I think he's going to say that he's going to have to really toe the line. I think he's going to say he rejects you know, he respects the jury process also. But here's what I want to watch for. If it's something like nobody's above the law and it's cockshore and it's preening, I think it's going to come off as ludicrous because he is a Trump appointed attorney.
I think what they need to say is they need to respect somebody who's trying to come back from addiction and all the addicts that are out there, including members of my family who've gone through this, and I think they need to recognize that, yes, he broke the rule of law and he needs to be held accountable, but this is somebody trying to fix their life. So I would actually hope that David Weiss would go for leniency on sentencing. I don't see that happening. But I think
that's the right thing to do. But you know, right and politics are sometimes mutually exclusive, my friend, and so it could be you know, so it could be a cockshore preening. You know, we knew we were right the whole time. But my guess is it won't be because I think it comes off as gratuitous.
If he does that, well, you and I both know that everyone's family is exposed to this somehow, I refuse to believe that any family has spared this experience when it comes to addiction.
I have less than a minute as the weaponization argument over.
Oh no, no, I mean, oh no, I mean I still think it should be over if you're saying and you have any rational thought in your pee brain, right, But I think that honestly, I think they're going to try to find another way to slant angle this on the far right and Trump supporters, and now it's going to be always going to get out of jail time. I don't think he does, but we'll see. I hope he does. But I don't think it's really going to change the weaponization argument at all from the far right.
I think they're so embedded in it and they really have no way to get out of it that they're going to try to continue it in some ridiculous, conspiracy infested way.
I told you I was going to bring you a different conversation, and that's always what it is with Denver Wriggleman. It's great to have you back, and I appreciate your personal insights. To Denver, you can't talk about this without feeling some level of personal impact, knowing that this is a story of addiction, it's a story of personal behavior. It's a very messy story here if you want to read about it on the criminal and one that the Biden family was obviously struggling with.
For the last week, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Eppo car Play, and then Proudo with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
All of our attention here in Washington has been in William Wilmington, Delaware today, where we got the verdict from the jury twelve peers finding Hunter Biden guilty of three different crimes. It's worth pointing out, Joe that those three crimes combined could carry a maximum sentence of twenty five years in prison, although that sentencing has not happened yet. The judge did not set a date for that today.
Yeah, the fact that we don't have a sen sentencing date is interesting because obviously we're just trying to get a sense of what that could mean and whether there's going to be an appeal. Based on the statement from Abby Loohola, it looks like there will be one. It's just a question of what form that appeal takes, and
we want to hear about it. From Eric Larson, Bloomberg legal reporter who has gone from one courthouse at Lower Manhattan covering Donald Trump's trial, to one in Wilmington with Hunter Biden, and back with us from World Headquarters in New York.
Eric, it's great to see you here. The next phase would be sentencing. How long will we wait?
Well, the judge ended the hearing today without giving any indication other than to say that normally, in most cases, it would be about one hundred and twenty days out. That's what the judge said. That would put his sentencing in October, which of course would be just about a month before the election. So it's unclear what the parties
will argue. Hunter Biden could argue for later sentencing, suggesting that it could go after the election, or make some other arguments for or prosecutors could try to have it happen sooner just to get it out of the way.
Well, and how would that timeline and potentially the appeal process if the defense does indeed pursue that interact with the separate trial that he is facing in California in September on tax charges, could failure to wrap up this case entirely be justification for a delay in that case.
Potentially, you know.
It's possible, but that could also go the other way. The prosecutors could argue to have a sentencing happen faster to get it wrapped up before the next trial begins.
It's kind of a similar argument and discussions that we've had around Trump with his four competing criminal cases, and of course most of those did end up getting delayed, but we do have sentencing happening anyway in that first Trump case, So these will happen eventually, will happen, but this September trial is really going to be a huge, a huge threat to Biden. I think much more significant than this gun case. So they're going to have a lot of preparation and getting ready for that one.
Eric, we're waiting to hear from the Special Council. David Weiss will be holding forth soon from Wilmington. Less than a year ago, he was on Capitol Hill in a closed door hearing with lawmakers professing to the level of authority that he had in this case to bring charges. Republicans were concerned that there was interference in this case. He made clear there was not. What's he going to say today.
You know, I think he's going to make a very strong case for his independence. He's going to point out that he was going to say that he wasn't being told what to do in any way. Of course, Trump and his allies insists that Joe Biden has been pulling the strings behind the scenes here. The Special Council is going to insist on the independence. In fact, that's the
whole point of a Special Council. That's why Merrick Garland appointed him, was to get rid of any suggestion of involvement by the White House.
Well, Eric, it'll be interesting to hear the Special Council speak to the nature of these charges as well that he was found guilty of considering we've heard repeatedly that it's a bit abnormal for a case like this to be going into court. This question around lying on the forms when purchasing a gun, we have heard usually wouldn't have been prosecuted in this way. A case pursued this heavily. Can you just provide some context here as to how unusual this is?
Well, I think arguments can be made on both sides there. Perhaps it's possible that individuals who are caught lying on a form like this may not be charged, but in a case is high profile, is this when you have a defendant who is being investigated so deeply, it's difficult for a prosecutor or an investigator to uncover significant wrongdoing and then just not charge it. I mean, that would have played into the allegation that hunter Biden was receiving
special treatment. We did see that there was this plea agreement that was reached. Of course, that all fell apart because largely, you know, the judge questioned whether or not Hunter Biden should be free from any future prosecution, basically saying that the deal was too sweet for hunter Biden, and sort of played into the Republican criticisms there. So you know clearly the jury agreed here whether or not
every single case like this would have been brought. It was put before a jury and they deliberated for just three hours before deciding that the government was correct and that Hunter Biden had broken this law.
Yeah, the whole thing did happen relatively quickly. Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, thank you so much for joining us, helping us break things down. We want to get some more reaction now from Nicole Bernecki. She is a partner at Jodre Bernecki and is joining us now from New York. Nicole, welcome to Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio. We were just speaking with Aaron Eric there about the relatively unclear timeline as to when sentencing could actually happen.
But do you expect that Hunter Biden will serve at least sometime in prison for these crimes he was found guilty of.
Good afternoon. Thank you for having me.
I honestly do not expect that he will serve any time, and this has nothing to do with him being a public figure. Sentencing in federal courts is a process. It's a mechanical process that requires practically going down checklist of many factors. You have to see if there's factors that are aggravating, factors that are mitigating potentially. Right now, he's accused of these tax crimes as well. That has not been resolved, so the issue of whether there will be
any priors to consider is still open. But there's other factors as well, whether the crime was violent, whether there were any victims that had to be made whole. As we know, this is not really applicable here, so I don't think that this will result in incarceration, but we will obviously see what will happen depending on the outcome of the other case and how quickly this will go.
Nicole, As we wait to hear from the Special Council in this case, he's going to be speaking from the podium in Wilmington shortly here. I wonder your thoughts on the quick nature of these deliberations only three hours, and what type of case Hunter Biden's attorneys will bring on appeal.
I think the reason that it went so fast with the deliberations is that, if you think about it, this case actually is pretty simple on his face. That's why there was not a lot of witnesses, not a lot of evidence, because this case revolved around his intent and whether he committed these acts that he was accused of knowingly. So the jury can consider credibility issues, can consider circumstantial evidence to create a picture of whether this was knowing
and intentional. And I think that in their minds that given his prior history of drug use and his own candor in discussing his drug use problems, I think they just didn't have a big dilemma right there in order to determine that he was actually guilty and committed it knowingly.
So what could the defense do on appeal realistically to change the narrative, to change mindsn cole or do you not really see a path for that?
I think it will be very complicated. First of all, the successive appeal depends on what objections they asserted on the record. There is certain procedure in bringing an appeal you have to preserve it during the trial, So we need to know reading the transcript how effective they were doing that. But in terms of the legal theory, and in terms of the jury's decision, and in terms of the fact that there was not a lot of witnesses
not a lot of evidence. I don't think this will be an easy appeal for them to.
Be successful on.
It's interesting to consider.
We spoke earlier with Nick Ackerman, the former Watergate prosecutor Nicole. He said it would be hoof Hunter Biden and his legal team to plead guilty at the next trial that's tax evasion trial to get preferred favorable treatment.
Do you agree.
There is some merit to that. It really depends on the evidence in the other case. But I think it's also pretty straightforward. I don't think he has a lot of defense, so it would be better to just just get it out there and be proactive about finalizing these cases instead of dragging them to trial. If the evidence is overwhelming and if your chances are slim to none at prevailing, so I would they have to have an honest discussion and see what's the best course of proceeding.
But I think that a guilty please would make a lot of sense.
Wow, well, Nicole. I also wonder about whether or not Hunter Biden, having made the decision not to testify in his own defense this time around, maybe should consider doing so and the appellate process. I mean, if all of this is about his state of mind and his intention when he bought that gun in twenty eighteen. Can anyone else really describe that other than he himself.
You make a great point, but in the legal process it's a little different.
It's usually advisable.
Not to put the defendant on the stand because that opens a lot of doors to questions that can just ruin their defense and ruin their case. And I think that in his particular case, given the books that he wrote, given the statements that he made, I think it's better that he just does not testify on his own behalf.
That would be a better legal strategy.
But as I said, these two cases are slightly different, So we'll see what they decide.
Thanks for being with us year on Bloomberg TV in radio. As we anticipate commentary from David Weiss the Special Council, Nicole, if we have to interrupt you, our apologies in advance. The podium has been set and we understand that he's going to be speaking about five minutes from now. Nicole, What will he tell us about this case? What point does he need to make today? Is the political world as well as the legal world watches.
In case of this particular case, as well as the Trump case that ended in New York. As you stated, these are very popular defendants, these are public figures. But he needs to definitely emphasize the fact that we need to look at the evidence and the law and not just not be influenced in anyone by the fact that he's the son of a sitting president.
Well a sitting president for now Nicole, who has promised that he would not pardon Hunter Biden for these crimes. But he, of course is competing for reelection right now. Say he loses in November and becomes a lame duck and decides maybe he has nothing else to fear politically and pardons Hunter Biden at that time. Could that be something then undone by Donald Trump if he wins a second term in office.
It could. But you're also making a great point.
I know that right now he's saying that he will not pardon him, but you know he can change his decision later. We need to remember that he's also currently an actively campaigning politician, so he needs to say things that are right in the eyes of the public, especially right now. It's a very sensitive time given that the political polls state that they have each have fifty to fifty.
Chants of winning.
So everything that they do going forward will will have a lot of significance for the campaign. So he's saying that right now. It makes a lot of sense, but we'll see what he does later.
Nicole Brenecki, partner at Jodre Brinecki. We appreciate your insights, Nicole. Thank you for being with us here on this breaking news day.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kench just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roun Oo with a Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano are with us Bloomberg Politics contributors for their take on this.
It's great to have you both with us here.
Genie, now that you've heard from the special counsel, your feelings on this day, Hunter Biden is found guilty and I'm asking you this from a political perspective. I don't want to turn either of you into legal analysts here, but this is important. There seems to be an equivalency in many minds between this case and that of the former president Donald Trump, who's running for reelection.
Do you see it that.
Way to a certain extent, I mean, we are hearing that. I will tell you what comes top of mind for me amidst all of this stunning news that we've had in the last couple of weeks, but certainly today is really the fact that, you know, the Trump campaign is having sort of machinations going on behind the scenes as to how they're going to respond to this. And I think this is important to underscore he's been empathetic in
the last week to this issue of addiction. We just heard the special counsel say this case wasn't about addiction, it was about lying on a form. But there's also the underreported reality here that this is a Second Amendment case, a case that many Second Amendment supporters feel that Hunter byte Biden can and should take to the Supreme Court and potentially win. And of course I'm not clear as to why the President's team line has him lined up
today to go talk about gun prevention. It's just sort of the conflation of odd realities here that are creating a mishmash, and the Trump campaign issues a statement pulls it back. So it's hard for both of these campaigns
to respond to this given all that it entails. But I do want to underscore the two AA community very very supportive of Hunter Biden on this, nothing to do with his father, but to do with the issue of the Second Amendment and the fact they think that this could expand access to guns, something that would be ironic if Hunter Biden takes that to the Supreme Court, given the fact where his father is right now and always has been politically on guns.
Yeah, and he quite literally today is at in every town for gun safety event. The split screen is pretty remarkable. Genie was mentioning the reaction from the Trump campaign. Rick we got in a statement a quote, this trial has been nothing more than a distraction from the real crimes of the Biden crime family. Of course, those crimes have not been fully born out in a formal prosecution or a jury of peace finding them guilty of anything. That is just the case in this case where Hunter Biden
was found guilty of these three crimes. How difficult is it for the Trump campaign to seize on this conviction? Is this actually potentially just difficult water to navigate considering we are talking about addiction here, something that also has played Donald Trump's own family.
That's right. I'm glad you mentioned Accilla because you know, a lot of people don't realize that Donald Trump's brother, Fred Junior died of alcohol addiction, and it's an issue that he doesn't talk openly about. But did you know after becoming president. And I think it was one of the most honest moments of the Trump presidency in twenty seventeen. So I'm sure that part of this informs, you know, that opinion of the Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself.
That being said, if they thought this could be exploited to hurt Joe Biden, I think they would, And I think that's why they're being cautious because I don't think they see an opening in the exploitation. I'm sure they've pulled it. I'm sure Tony Ferbrizio is sitting in there saying, be careful, guys, this is likely to blow back on you if you go after the sins of the sun. And frankly, the Judiciary Committee under Jim Jordan has failed miserably at trying to connect the two and create an
impeachment process for Joe Biden. So, as you point out, nobody's been able to find the goods on the Biden crime family, and so I think this was a head nod in that direction. But I don't think it goes very far from here.
As we're talking politics here, Genie and I know this stuff is very deeply personal for a lot of families, many of whom we're hearing from on social media, who can relate with the Bidens today. Is there an empathy vote? Is that part of this for the Biden campaign?
There could be.
We haven't seen that show up in the polls yet. Of course, we're just an hour or two out of the conviction, so we may see that. But I'm reminded about the twenty twenty debate when one of the most important statements that Joe Biden made, the most remembered, if you will, after the debate, was the fact that he said I love my son when it was brought up, and I support him and he's struggling with addiction. That was something a lot of voters looked at him and said,
we feel your pain, so to speak. We understand because so many of us, including as Rick just mentioned, the former president, have dealt with this issue. You know, one other thing we should keep in mind as we think of the politics. And you were just talking to Nicole about this prior to the Special Council statement, was on this issue of the pardon, the President said, I will
not pardon my son. What he hasn't said as far as I know, And I'm curious for one of the great Bloomberg reporters to ask, does that include commuting a sentence? Because he can pardon, he can also commute, And depending on what happenings with what happens in the sentencing phase in this and or the tax case, would he consider
commuting that sentence. I don't think he wouldn't. I don't think he should, but he hasn't as far as I know, gone on the record of the difference between the pardon and the commutation, and he could constitutionally do both.
It's an excellent point, jeaning, I wonder if that is a question he may end up being asked in a presidential debate in this cycle, keeping in mind that the first one is just sixteen days away, scheduled for June twenty seventh in Atlanta, Rick, And as we consider what the tenor of that debate may be like, how these various legal troubles plaguing both the Biden family through Hunter Biden and Donald Trump through his myriad legal cases that
he is facing, may come up. Does this conviction today take away a talking point from Donald Trump about the weaponization of a justice system considering that very same system just convicted the son of a president.
Yeah, he has to be careful. It's not an easy attack now because the parry on this by Biden could be very powerful. Could be that, you know, if there was any political manipulation that the Justice Department, wouldn't I have done it for my own son. That could be a big moment in the debate. And so I think Donald Trump has to be extraordinarily cautious, you know, and
even because he's got sentencing after that. And so the last thing you want to do is use a national debate to work the ref the judge in this case in a way that is going to have the judge basically say, look, obviously there's no remorse for Donald Trump. You know, let's put him in a who scout Rikers Island is not a bad place to spend the weekend. So I think that I think that it's a very treacherous issue for Donald Trump. Now, it was kind of
a free option for the last year. He could say and do pretty much whatever he wanted to, got a couple of fines for, you know, breaking gag orders which were totally irrelevant. And now it'sactly going to potentially hurt himself. And that's when I think you'll see Donald Trump's self interests to the four and probably temper anything he says about these legal issues.
Genie, I want you to go a little bit further down the road you were just driving here, whether it's a commutation or a pardon. If Joe Biden changes his mind, how does that play publicly here? If we're looking at what appears to be a benign reading on the campaign trail, Now, what would an action like that mean?
Very very tough for Joe Biden, because of course he has publicly said he won't pardon. He would have to go back on his word, and that never, you know, sort of sits well with people because it's considered a lie. Now he could try to explain it away, this is my son, but that would play right in the hands of this two tier justice system that the Republicans keep talking about and of course, if we go further down the line, imagine if Donald Trump wins and Joe Biden
is a lame duck, does you know legacy reasons? He may care, but otherwise he may say, I am going to make a really tough sort of Sophie's choice, if you will, between my duties as a parent and my love for my son and my duties as the president of the United States. Now that I'm a lame duck, I'm going to think about seriously pardoning or commuting. You know,
there's no good option here. Again, I think most of us would empathize that this is a tough decision, But how he manages that I think is going to be fascinating to watch. And of course we've got the tax trial coming up in LA and people are going to be a lot less forgiving, I think, on that than they are on this gun issue. So that is going to complicate things further for the president.
Yeah, especially considering the timing with that scheduled for September, where we are much closer to the vote on November fifth. I also want to talk about how this reflects not just on Hunter Biden and the Biden family, but the Department of Justice. We heard Special Counsel David Weiss and his remarks just moments ago, specifically calling out Attorney General mare Garla and thanking him for providing them the resources
and the independence to bring this prosecution forward. But Merrit Garland also, as soon as this week could be held in contempt of Congress, at least on the floor of the House. That's something that they are pursuing, and has been last week before, testifying before a chamber in the House and in a Washington Post OpEd today defending the
Justice Department. The op ed published said, in recent weeks, we've seen an escalation of attacks that go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and necessary oversight of our work. They are baseless, personal and dangerous. Rick, how do you think Hunter Biden now being convicted may alter the way in which Congress pursues these questions around the Justice Department?
Can you hold Merret Garland in contempt over her audio tapes if he did just allow all of this to happen to an unpopular president's son.
Yeah, I think it's arguable that there's been open warfare between the House Judiciary Committee. Jim Jordan and the Department of Justice since Jordan became chairman, and this is very unhealthy for democracy and for the legal system. Jordan went all over he could late last year bring Weiss, the special prosecutor, into a hearing in the Justice Committee, first time anybody can remember a special counsel actually testifying to Congress before there's any trial at all and any prosecution.
So it broke a lot of ground, new ground and not positive ground. I mean that was the beginning of a very bad cycle. And now, as you say, has presented itself here. I think this verdict completely undermindes Jim Jordan's entire premise, which is the Department of Justice is cooking the books for Hunter Biden and in reverse going after actively prosecuting Donald Trump. So right now, I think
it makes Jordan look bad. I think it undermines the ability to go after I think they'll be Republicans who say, why are we talking about this? This is not something that we want to go into the election year to discuss. This is fundamentally the problem with the right wing of
the Republican Party. They want to go down swinging, even if that means losing, and the vast majority of Republicans in the House want to be in the majority next year and continue to make policy changes they think are important. So this is as much a conflict within the Republican Caucus as it is in between the Department Justice and Jim Jordan.
Isn't that type of overreach, Genie the best thing that could happen in the Biden campaign.
It is, It's one of the best things that could happen to them. But I am just I'm listening to Rick and I am agreeing with him personally. But then I'm thinking back to what Jim Comer said when the conviction came out, and he's the chair of the Oversight and Accountability Committee, and what did he say. You hear them saying that the dj tried to give Biden a sweetheart clee deal that was smoked out by a federal judge.
Today is a step forward in accountability, he says. But until the DOJ investigates everyone involved in the corrupt you know family, I can't remember the exact words, Biden family that generated like almost twenty million dollars according to his account, then the DOJ is going to continue to be in the pocket, so to speak, for the big guy Joe Biden.
Now that was some of that is by memory, so I didn't get his exact words right, but you could hear the tone, which is that this is not going to put this to rest, at least according to Jim Comer and that committee apparently. And they are saying this only happened because the federal judge you know, smoked out the sweetheart deal and put you know, a made Hunter Biden go on trial. So this is where we stand, and I think they're going to continue running down this
road as fast as they can. They can't get Joe Biden yet for an impeachment, but they're darn sure going to keep going after Hunter and the rest of the family.
Yeah, it's great to point out that a statement from Chairman Comer. Certainly, we've seen a lot of statements flying thick and fast to day, including the statement that we got from the President. But Jeanie, do we also need to actually hear from him on this, not in written form, should he say something to address cameras, address the media. We just got an update and guidance from the White House. He's going to go to Wilmington this afternoon after his
remarks here in Washington. At that Everytown event. He'll be in Wilmington, Delaware, presumably going to the side of his son. Does he need to say much more?
I think he should. I have not surprised he is going to be with Hunter on this very tough day for his son. But I think he should say exactly what their statement said in his own words. I love my son, Jill, and I support him. We're proud of him for his recovery. We also respect the justice system and the jury verdict, and we will support him as he continues to look forward to appeals and I am going to go, you know, spend some time with my
family in private. I think all of us as human beings could respect a statement like that, and I think he should say it. I don't know if he will. I think if he does, it'll probably be like with helicopters spinning around, so it's hard to hear him. But I think he should try to say it and get that word out all right.
Jeanie Schanzeno and Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributors, thank you so much for joining us on what is another historic day in American political history. The first time ever that a child of a sitting President has been convicted.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then broud Outo with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Here on Bloomberg TV and radio.
It's been spending a lot of time on the Hunter Biden verdict, as we promised you that we would. But Kaylee, we also have to turn our attention to this very slowly developing story in Israel. Anthony Blincoln on his eighth trip now to the Middle East, and of course a wait on what's going to happen with a potential ceasefire that the Biden White House rolled out some time ago.
Now the UN Security Council voting to endorse the ceasefire deal on the table yesterday, and now reporting that Hamas says that it is accepting that UN Security Council ceasefire resolution. Anthony Blincoln met with Benjamin nett Yahoo to talk about this.
Here's what he had to say.
I met with Prime Minster Netanyahu last night and he reaffirmed his commitment to the proposal. Everyone's vote is in except for one vote, and that's from US, and that's what we wait for for more.
We turn now to Hadar Suskin. He is Americans for Peace Now, President and CEO. As we make sense of what we're hearing from the Secretary of States, from the Israeli Prime Minister, and from Hamas itself. Hadar, it does feel like the messages are running potentially into some conflict here. As Blincoln says, yes, Israel is behind this. Netanyahu has reaffirmed this, But Netanyahu and his government also reaffirmed that they want to see Jamas entirely destroyed, and a ceasefire
agreement would potentially make that difficult to accomplish. And for Hamas saying that it does support the UN ceasefire resolution, we haven't seen all of the parties come out and say the ceasefire begins. So what is your understanding of what exactly is happening here?
Well, Kayley, I think what we're seeing is both the Nittanyahu government and the Hamas leadership want to be seen by the US, by the UN globally as saying yes to this. They want to be seen as the party that is moving toward peace. At the same time, while Natignano just reaffirmed it, and Hamas has now welcomed the UN resolution. Neither one has said, okay, let's sit down,
let's let's start talking, let's implement the ceasefire. They both agreed in prince and said all right, now, let's start talking about the details, while at the same time both telling their domestic audiences nothing has changed on the Israeli side, and ten Yahou and others in his government are still saying they're going to completely destroy Hamas, the war is not over until again Hamas is completely eliminated, and other very non specific goals like that that are frankly pretty
impossible to measure. And Hamas quite similarly has you know, accepted the principle, but is still launching attacks, obviously has not released hostages, and is still telling it's its constituency that you know, its plans haven't changed either.
So bring us to a finer point here, Hidar.
We all saw the president roll out a fairly detailed, three phased plan that seemed to be something everybody had their eyes on here.
But your point is a good one.
Once all the parties sit down, they have to hammer out the fine print. What will be this sticking points when that happens.
Well, there's really one big one, right. The president's plan that he that he proposed, which again was presented as an Israeli proposal, not the president's proposal himself, said a six week ceasefire during which certain hostages would be released and negotiations would start for a long term ceasefire, for a secession of hostilities, actually not just a ceasefire. And the president said if after those six weeks everything has not been finalized yet but negotiations are ongoing, then that
the ceasefire would hold. And the real difference, the breakpoint here is this insistence by Nitin Yahu that they will not end the war until Hamas is completely eliminated, and Hamas is of course assistance insistence that they are not going to disappear. So that's that's the difference. The six weeks can be worked out, even the hostage release and the prisoner exchange, because part of this is of course Palestinian prisoners who are held in Israeli prisons being released.
All of that could be worked out if the two sides would be willing to sit down and do so. But the whole plan here is to get to an actual endgame. It's not just to have this short term and this prisoner hostage exchange. And that's where the seemingly unbridgable difference is.
Well, it seemed it was unbridgable even inside the Israeli government because it was a disagreement over what exactly the endgame should be that drove Beny Gantz out of the government, out of the war cabinet. He was unhappy with the Prime Minister not meeting his demands. What influence do you think that departure ultimately has on how this moves forward to dark.
Well, you know, Gance and his folks leaving still leaves Nita Nyahu with a sixty four seat majority in the one hundred and twenty seat Kness. So it doesn't change anything immediately in terms of going to new elections, but it's one more sort of push, one more data point, because ultimately what we're going to need is to get to this agreement is is a call for new elections
in a new government. There is no way that this government, with not only Nita Nyahu but the parties led by ben Vier and Smotrich, those two in particular, will absolutely never agree to any kind of agreement. They've been quite clear on that.
Now.
The opposition parties, led by Yeah you're Lapide, Yeah your Golan and others have said that should Nita Naho move forward with this agreement, they would support his government from the outside, not as members, to implement the agreement. But that would mean that that sort of starts the clock
ticking on the process of moving toward new elections. And the thing that is maybe the most interesting thing that came up this week is there's a lot of talk now that Nitayahu himself maybe getting to the point where he realized he's played out this line this government. You know, he's dragged it out in all these different ways. He's done all these different things, and he may be ready to start organizing for new elections sooner rather than later.
Fascinating.
How about the war cabinet so called headar is Benny Gance replaced by a hard liner or does the war cabinet begin to fracture?
Well, the only people left in the government are very hardliners. And you know Ben Vier, who has not had a seat in that war cabinet, has been demanding one. It's one of the things he wants to see happen Frankly, I don't think it makes a very big difference whether he has that seat or not, because there are now
no contrasting voices within the government. So the war cabinet becomes largely irrelevant, frankly, because you did have Gance and his deputy Eisenkott sitting there with presumably at least some differing views, some moderating views. Now that they're out, the
only voices in the government are very hard lined. You also really have only one leader in the government with significant military experience, which is Joav Galan, the Secretary of Defense, because again Smotriz ben Vere, the Religious Party leaders, none of those people even served their regular you know, three years of military service, much less were they generals and military leaders. So they've really thinned the bench there within the coalition.
Hadar, do you think visits, repeated visits like what we're seeing from the Secretary of State are actually helpful in all of this. He's been to the Middle East now eight times since October seventh, and it seems pretty consistently he leaves empty handed, even though he says things like Netanyahu when he spoke with him, still reaffirmed his commitments to a ceasefire agreement is the is the US government helping?
Well, they're certainly trying to help. And I think that there are benefits to these visits. Remember they're not solely for the purpose of meeting with Ninitayahu or Israeli leaders. I met with Palestinian leaders, Jordanians, many others as well, and it's part of patching together, you know, the Nessy Coalition to have the political backing to move this forward. But I think the US government can and should do more, and can and should take a stronger position visa VI
the Israeli government. But what's sure is that this is not moving forward without that significant push from the Americans, and so having Secretary Blink in there. President Biden has been himself, so many of our of our other leaders Burns, Jake Sherman and others have been there, I think is important in trying to move these conversations forward. The question is you know what's going to be the ultimate push,
the ultimate declaration that nudges n across the line. Because we can talk and talk and talk, and what we've seen now as many months of talking about ce spires, talking about process, talking about different opportunities and different deals, but at the end there's a binary decision, right yes or no? Is there a ceasefire and whatever it is.
You know, we haven't gotten to that point yet. And I think the next big question that or the next big moment out there is, of course, we have Nittanyahu scheduled to come here to Washington on July twenty fourth, now, and we'll see what the situation is you on that day.
We're going to be calling you for insights.
I think, Kadar Suskin, it's great to have you back to DAR Americans for Peace now, President and CEO. A story that we'll keep tabs on here on Bloomberg TV and radio. It's worth mentioning, Kaylee, because we spent so much time and you actually made tracks to Baltimore when it happened that Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, the deadly collapse, and a major milestone and the cleanup here is Baltimore's main shipping channel finally reopens.
Yeah, reopened yesterday, which is pretty remarkable and it's actually something we had the chance to speak to Maryland Governor Wes Moore about a few weeks ago on May thirtieth, including the economic ramifications the collapse had for the state of Maryland and when he can confidently say things would get back to normal.
We saw during the month of April where there was a real concern about where unemployment rate for the state of Maryland was going to go for the month of April. And we're proud that because we were able to work with the private sector, work with our partners and all of our port partners, that not only for the month of April, has Maryland continued to have amongst the lowest unemployment rates in the entire country. We actually gained thousands of jobs during that same time period and watch labor
participation actually increase during the month of April. So I could not be more proud of the response of this state. We've got a long road to go and I will not stop until we have a new bridge, a new Francis Scott Key Bridge built and overlooking the skyline of Baltimore. But the speed of this recovery really has been a marvel, and it's really been because we've had a coordinated effort in getting.
It done well.
You do have a lot to be proud of, Governor, and the heroic actions of the public safety officials in Baltimore and the state of Maryland, including the divers who have been risking their lives to comb the bottom of the floor, of the remarkable stories to tell. But then it becomes a question about money. And we've talked about
this before on Bloomberg. In fact, we had a conversation earlier with Republican Congressman Patrick McHenry, chairs the House Financial Services Committee, and we asked him directly about the chances for a supplemental budget to rebuild the bridge passing this Congress, and he talked about offsets that would be needed, other budget cuts, suggesting that we're spending too much. What are you hearing from leaders in the House about that making that happen to rebuild the bridge.
You know, I've been incredibly encouraged by the amount of bipartisan support that we've received, you know, people from from not just the Democratics side of the House, but also people from Chair Womack and Chair Cole from Oklahoma and from Arkansas and Oklahoma respectively, people who have said, we understand the importance of getting this bridge rebuilt because it's a core artery for the Port of Baltimore, which is indispensable to the American economy, and what we're asking for
the one hundred percent cost share is just not saying all the American people are going to pay for it. I'm very confident that the American people will be made whole when you look at everything from insurance to potential pending litigation. Lloyd's of London has indicated this is going to be the most expensive maritime tragedy in our nation's history. So the American people will be made whole. The reason our ask for the one hundred percent cost share is
essentially it's essentially bridge financing. It's saying that while we're going through the process of a potential litigation, which we know could take years, we've got to get moving. We've got to get building because my commitment to the people of my state and the people of this country, frankly, is that we are going to build this thing on time and on budget and effectively, and we're going to get the Port of Baltimore going again because it's important
to the largest supply chain of our nation. But we've got to get moving. That's the importance of the bipartisan support for the one hundred percent cost share, and we've been incredibly heartened by the amount of by the encouraging words and supports that we've received from members from both sides of the aisle on this issue.
Maryland Governor west More talking with us last month about today's development. Now this week at least to port of Baltimore's main shipping channel fully reopen Power.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify.
Or wherever you get your podcasts, and
You can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at Noontimeeastern at Bloomberg dot com.