You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us Live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App.
Or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Learning through some of the moves we're seen in the oil market, a market which is paying very close attention to each and every development in the Middle East, and there has been a number of them this week. The US Secretary of State, Anthony Blincoln is actually heading on another trip to the region now, after a string of developments in recent days. First you had Iron moving of
warship into the Red Sea. Then you had Israel striking Commas targets in Beirut on Lebanese soil for the first time since two thousand and six yesterday, to bomb blasts in Iran that killed nearly one hundred people that Islamic State today has claimed credit for. And also today drone attacks in Iraq that Iraq is blaming on US lead forces that killed at least two members of an Iranian backed militia. All of this together is adding up to
concerns growing about regional conflict in the Middle East. So just how dangerous is this moment we are in right now, Let's get an experts opinion on what exactly is happening here. Joining me now is Michael Knights. He is a fellow at the Washington Institute specializing in military and security affairs of Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf States. He's also co founder of the Militious Spotlight platform, which offers in depth analysis of developments related to Iranian backed militias in Iraq
and Syria. So, Michael, you are clearly the perfect person to speak with today. You could look at each of the events this week and understand why there may be growing fear out there that this is developing into something much greater than it is at the moment. What is your read on this situation?
Well, often, you know, we're tempted to try and link everything together, but in this case, it's in many ways, a lot of things happening at about the same time. Yeah,
they're broadly connected. But you know, so when we see the Islamic State blowing up a you know, a funeral commemoration in Iran, they're doing it opportunistically because a lot of attention is on Iran at that exact moment, because it's the fourth anniversary of the day when the US killed the two most senior Iran backed militia leaders in the Middle East back in twenty twenty. So that was opportunistic.
But what we just did in Baghdad, where the US probably killed two militia leaders just a day after the celebration of those you know, those killings in twenty twenty, it also in Baghdad, you know, demonstrates the Biden administration's risk tolerance is going up quite a bit. You know, that was a pretty bold thing to do one day after these militias were commemorating the loss of their key leaders four years ago, to then do almost exactly the same thing in Baghdad the day afterwards.
Okay, So if the US's risk tolerance is going up, does that mean that there is a rising risk of more direct confrontation with either Iran itself or these Iranian proxies.
Well, it shows the US's patients is wearing thin, and the Biden administration had a ton of patients, you know, two years ago. But now after the Hoothi's in Yemen have done so many attacks on shipping and generally been a pain in so many ways, and now, the Iraqi militias have been launching increasing numbers of attacks, over one
hundred and thirty against US forces since October seventeenth. You can see the Biden administration is signaling we don't want to have a broader conflict, but we're also not afraid to begin moving in that direction. Just recently that killed ten Hoothy boat crew who were trying to attack a vessel in the Red Sea. So the Biden administration is steadily moving up the ladder of escalation in an effort to escalate, to de escalate, to show these actors we're
really serious. Now stop what you're doing in the Red Sea and in Iraq, and will stop.
Well.
In the US, together with about a dozen other countries, yesterday issued a pretty cern warning to the Hoothies to stop their behavior in the Red Sea, talking about the consequences for any malign actors. And we actually heard from the commander of the US Naval Forces in the Middle East today that said, there is no sign that militants are backing off. So how close are we to the moment where the US decides outright offense here.
Well, if the US does go in a more offensive way, which is looking increasingly likely in the Red Sea against the Hoothies in particular, it'll probably be a disarming strike, and that means something that takes away the things the Hoothies used to actually attack shipping in the Red Sea, So an attempt to do a sort of one and done destruction of anti shipping missiles and fast attack boats and helicopters that opposing the real risk to Red Sea shipping.
Without those things, you know, the Houthees don't have so much ability to threaten the shipping.
Well, as we talk about trying to take out their infrastructure. Isn't that what Saudi Arabia tried to do for years, arguably without much success. Could there be more success this time around.
Yeah, it's a good point. The fact is the Hoo the Thees have, well, the US has a lot better capability to do this than the Saudias did, and the Saudis were not really focused on the Hoo They's anti shipping capabilities. They were focused on trying to kill the Hoothy leaders within the cities, which was disastrous in terms
of collateral damage. If the US does a lot more focused operation against things that can quite easily find like boats, helicopters and anti shipping results, it can probably have a significantly higher level of success than the Saudias did.
So as we talk about the US and administration stance here, as mentioned, Secretary of State Anthony Blinkn is now heading back to the Middle East. He has made a number of trips to this region, six since October seventh, the initial attack on Israel by Hamas. How much leverage does the US realistically have to shape this scenario, not just militarily, but diplomatically as well well.
The US always has enormous leverage as long as it uses it. And you know now that the US is undertaking kinetic strike operations in both the Red Sea and Iraq Syria. It's opened up one part of its toolkit and that is having some effect on the bad guys, particularly in Iraq, where most of the militias have been quite careful around the US not to actually kill any Americans. This one militia that was particularly aggressive, Njaba, is the one that got hit today, So we'll see how they
react to that. But then the broader toolkit, I mean, the US when it comes to sanctions, access to the International Financial Institution's use of the dollar still has a tremendous amount of leverage.
What about leverage over Israel specifically, That's a question I've come back to often over the course of the last two months. Is increasingly the Biden administration is encouraging Israel to move into a new phase of this war, to be more mindful of the civilian casualties in Gaza as they go after Hamas. Are we starting to see signs that that messaging toward Israel is actually working when Israel makes announcements like they're pulling some troops out of Gaza.
I think the Israelis themselves understand that their operation ground operation in Gaza is only going to last another two to five weeks perhaps, and the Bide administration has given them as much time as they need to get it done. And even though they've had to say some things about restraining the scale or the destructiveness of operations, the Biden administration has not really taken any steps to actively change
the way the Israelis are OpEd. There's a bit of an understanding and the Biden administration that you cannot let Hamas come away from this jump out of the rubble and claim a win. You have to have decisive effect on her mass and as a result, the US has basically provided these roads with very strong support. I think if the Israelis are ramping down their operations in Gaza, that's because they are reaching the goals. The end line, finish line is in sight for them.
Okay, So let's expand on that point. You just gave a timeline of two to five weeks when we've heard from Israeli officials the idea that this warker could go on for the entirety of this year. So if we do in the two to five week period from here see Israel pull out of Gaza, does that mean this conflict is over and it's in its most immediate stage or what happens next?
Yeah.
I mean for any investors out in the international community, what you want to see is this conflict end in some way everyone can recognize, because that's probably when the who they stop attacking ships, and that's when all the militias stop foreign rockets at the US and the general war risk declines. So you know, when I say two to five weeks, I mean the Israeli intensive clearance operations on the ground where they're taking new territory. It's probably
going to end within that period. That's then when we move to what we call Phase three, which is where the Israelis are just doing targeted strikes or raids into essentially the refugee camps, the remaining areas they don't control. I don't think the Israelis are going to actually withdraw from areas of Gaza at all. Everything they've got they're going to hold onto for a while as they clear the underground tunnels and remove weapons and other things from the area.
Well, this is kind of that next day question, right, Okay, we get to the end of this war, and then what does Israel and Palestine look like in the immediate aftermath of that? From your point of view, is there any real chance of a two state solution here at all? In this generation?
There'll certainly be a lot of people pushing for that. They'll say, after this Gaza war, we need to prevent another one from happening in the future. This is the perfect time to think about an end state. What we'll probably find is that Israeli Prime Minister benj net Yahoo, in an effort to sort of create the next stage of his political career, may well emerge as an opponent to the two state solution, and there'll be a lot of Israelis that don't have the level of trust required
to give the Palestinians a state of their own. So there's going to be a big debate within Israel, and it's going to be very heavily pressurized by the international community, particularly the US, in favor of a two state solution. There are plenty of Israelis who probably want to see the end of this conflict as long as they can be a short of minimum level of security.
Well, and of course the US isn't really the only force or factor in this as well. Yes, the US has been very explicitly expressed its support for Israel continues to send weapons as well. But when we think about the US as more role more widely in everything that we're seeing in the Middle East, a lot of this is coalition efforts, be it the Maritime Task Force or other situations where Arab allies have to be considered in
the way the US moves forward. So how should we be thinking about these other actors here?
Well, Look, you know, generally speaking, the US is still the hull, and it's still the glue that holds these things together. And without the US, there is no coalition of any kind, typically both because of political convening power, because of pure military capability and breadth of relations. But you know, what we're interested in to see particularly is how the Golf States integrate themselves with any of these efforts.
You know, the Gold States have got the money to rebuild Gaza, and perhaps to rebuild it in a way that Hamas doesn't come back into the picture. The Gold States have also got a strong incentives bill to work with Israel or normalization and to create these kind of infrastructure and energy corridors that could run between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, and also a lot of defense
integration between these places, the Gold States and Israel. Those things probably haven't been ruined by the gods of war. And so what we're really watching is how Saudi Arabia the UAE act in the middle of this year, when we move past the main combat operations of the Gods of war and we move into the sort of stabilization and rebuilding phase. A lot of people are going to be keeping their eyes on.
That absolutely, And I think something else that already what people were keeping their eyes on is Iran, specifically in US policy toward Iran. Just a final note here, Michael, when you are seeing Iranian proxies acting against or putting US forces potentially in harm's way of ramping up not just necessarily of proxy activity, but something like Iran sending a warship into the Red Sea, how does this change
policy toward Iran moving forward? Even if the conflict between Israel and Hamas eventually comes to an end.
Well, one warship from the Iranians is not too much of a trouble a worry. That's just, you know, a reef that hasn't been sunk yet. Realistically, if they ever come toe to toe, you know it'll be very quick and simple probably. But you know, when we look a little bit further out, you know, ultimately the US and Iran are not on the right track. Three years ago, you would have said there's a chance we could move to a nuclear deal to longest, longer term SANCTU relief.
No one could look at the situation now and say that's going to happen. Whether it's a republican government in the US in twenty twenty five or a Democrat, you don't have that same feeling that a deal is possible you instead of a feeling that Iran and its proxies have to be contained all across the region or they'll do more things like October seventh, or what the hoo things are doing in resity or indeed nuclear bright.
Now all right, Michael, we have to leave it there, but great to get your insight on the matters in the Middle East. That is Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute. And we'll have more on domestic affairs coming up with our political panel. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the.
Bloomberg Business App.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station.
Just say Alexa play Bloomberg.
Eleven thirty, Iowa is in the news for a much more somber reason. A school shooting today at Perry High School, about twenty five miles outside Des Moines. There is a lot that we don't know at this point, but according to reports that site law enforcement officials, this is expected. Shooter did die from a self inflicted gunshot wound and
multiple others were injured. It was the first day of the semester at Perry High School after their winter break, and of course it comes just days ahead of those all important Iowa caucuses. So on that note, we bring
back Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzy know Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick, again, we don't know all of the details about today's event, but we do know that events like this have the power to shake communities, and it is these very same communities that are getting ready to make a selection on who they would like to be president. How does this affect the mind of a caucus goer.
Yeah, first, I'd like to say, you know, we pray for the families and the individuals affected by this tragedy. It's just one more example of the fact that our school system, you know, is still a threat to our children and our administrators and parents. So, you know, we hope the families the best look. I mean, this kind of wrinkle, this kind of impact, this kind of an event that happens as close to the caucuses, we'll certainly
have an impact on the caucus goers. You know, these are people who are very attuned to the issues of their state. Many of them are very active in politics, hold public office in the You know, maybe two hundred thousand people who show up on caucus night are going to be impacted by this. How that's a big question one.
How do the candidates respond to this. We've started seeing candidates responding to it already, and they'll take that into consideration as so whether they think it's appropriate or whether they have answers that makes sense to them as people who are going to be casting a ballot in just the next few weeks. But for sure, something like this will have an impact, and I think it's too early to tell how well.
Ricky mentioned that we have seen some candidates respond the viag Ramaswami was actually in Perry, Iowa this morning. He posted on x that he had canceled his event. He converted it to a prayer and conversation. He described it as a psychological sickness at the core of the country right now. And meanwhile, Ron DeSantis sat down in an interview with NBC after this shooting, said it's more of
a local and state issue. So, Genie, while you of course get the thoughts and prayers as you often do, it doesn't necessarily seem like it changes any minds on positions on gun policy.
That's right, and you know you hope, I hope it changes the minds of some people who are going to support some of these candidates. I mean, we have at the top of the ticket in Iowa, as you mentioned Kaylee eleven days away, Donald Trump, who describes himself as the most pro gun, pro Second Amendment president that we've ever had. You have the vag Ramaswami in Perry. This is somebody who did not want to take guns away from convicted felons. You have run the Santis who signed
legislation in April for a permitless carry in Florida. You assume if he's elected president, he would be interested in doing the same nationally. This is what these people are
talking about. And you contrast that with President Biden, who Monday is going to be going down South and speaking at the place, the church where the shooting, horrific shooting occurred several years ago, and talking about what he has been talking about for a long time, which is the need for serious and meaningful gun control in this country. We got a little taste of that after the horrific shooting in Texas. But we have not seen a concerted
effort by the National Legislature Congress to act. And we just finished a year six hundred and fifty mass shootings in the country. That's more than days in the year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, six hundred and fifty shootings in this country, and we start the year yet again at a school. It's devastating and it's hypocritical to hear some of these statements coming out from these candidates who are going around Iowa today.
Well, two of the candidates, Rick Ron Dea Santis, who I just mentioned, and also Nicki Haley, will be appearing in back to back town halls on CNN this evening. If you were part of these campaigns, if you were advising them, how would you be telling them to approach this issue tonight?
Well, I think for Nicki Haley, she has some unique experience in that she was governor when the horrific church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, heard spent an enormous amount of time dealing with issues of grief and healing related
to that. She can tap into that experience and could be a very effective and articulate voice in the aftermath of this shooting, if Ron de Santis continues to mimic the line that he did today, which in immediate after math of this year, that the federal government really doesn't have any business being in the situation keeping your children safe in schools, and that states are the ones who have to do it. I just don't see anybody getting
excited about that solution, right. It seems to me that he's running for president, he wants to have his hand on the till till her to make sure that our country hits in the right direction. And as Janie very aptly pointed out, there's an epidemic of these shootings across America, and the federal response is important.
And finally, Genie, as we reflect on really just the horrifying statistics looking ahead tonight, how important is this town hall to Nikki Haley, who is trying to cement herself really as the alternative to Donald Trump, knowing the misstaps she has had in recent weeks on the question of slavery in the Civil War.
Yeah, I think it's really important, you know, and I wish she had Rick or somebody like him on her side, because you know, she has gotten tripped. You mentioned the Civil War a few days ago. Issue. I wonder if she's going to get tripped up on this issue of gun control, because, to Chris Christie's point, this is somebody who seems to want to be all things to all people. She describes herself as really pro Second Amendment despite all
the experiences she had as governor. So I think this question about what you do about violence in our schools, which is at epidemic proportions, is when she's going to have to answer, and how would you curb this and address this? She can answer it, I think she's going to be very scared about sending people on the far right. So we'll have to see if she becomes what Desanta's described as nicky.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App.
We're listening on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm here in Washington. My Dorning, who helps lead our congressional coverage, is here in Washington, but most of Congress is not yet back in Washington. They come back next week Monday or Tuesday, depending on if if you're the Senate or the House. But that's not to say they haven't been on the move. In fact, there were over roughly sixty Republican lawmakers and equal past Texas yesterday on a trip to the border led by House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Border security one of the issues that Congress is going to be trying to grapple with when they finally make their return for the new year. So joining us now with more on this is Mike Dorning. As I said, he's here in Washington with me in studio. In fact, so Mike, obviously they made a lot of noise at the border yesterday. Does that actually translate to higher odds of legislative policy happening when they get back.
What it translates into is more and more of what's going on in Congress starting to get wrapped up into this immigration fight. Even before we went away for the holidays, the Ukraine aid and to Israel was wrapped up in the immigration fight. It looks like it's getting more likely that even the government shut down now maybe wrapped up in the immigration fight. Whether it winds up that way in the end or not not clear, but at least
in the early stages. They're looking to add this to that shutdown fight.
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, because there was a bunch of Freedom Colocus members, Bob good who of course leads it now, Eli Crane, Andy Biggs, Matt Gates too, all said yesterday while they were an eagle pass, shut down the border or we shut down the government. That's just a handful of members, though that's not necessarily the message we got from Speaker Johnson himself.
Yeah, so I don't think that Speaker Johnson or the sort of center of gravity in the Republican Party is to totally shut down the border. But they want to further restrict and particularly stop some of this migration that's coming into the United States through the southern border, and they see that, you know, rightly, as a big campaign issue this year, when in our polling we're seeing that as the second most important issue to voters after of
course the economy. But the economy looks like it's starting to get better. Consumer sentiment is improving, inflation is going down, so you can see looking ahead in the election year, the economy might be a little less of a worry to voters. But on immigration, that's a concern. That's a concern where a lot of voters are closer to the Republican party at the moment than the Democratic position on this, So they want to ramp that up as something that's front and center in the debate.
But Democrats are willing, it seems largely to make a deal of some kind when it comes to the border, knowing that it is a political headache for them and that there is a crisis there, and everybody seems to
be on the same page about that. Where in the Van diagram is the policy that Democrats can agree to that will be signed into law by a Democratic president and what the House will pass because they still keep saying it's Hr two HR two and we know that was dead on arrival as soon as they passed it in the first place.
So in the Senate, the Democrats and Kristen Cinema, the Independent, and some Republican negotiators are centering are sort of circling around a potential deal that includes some limits on asylum and a few other restrictions. There have been a lot more migrants coming in that have been claiming asylum, and that is a big increase from prior years, So there's a potential deal, at least from the Senate standpoint, around asylum and a few other concrete issues that may or
may not be acceptable to the House. Some people in the center of the Republican Party that are more obviously anti immigration than the Democratic Party want to also address something called parole authority that the president has, which is basically, the president has authority to let people stay in the United States, you know, regardless of the law. Almost and president have used this authority for refugees, for other specific measures, and that's something that a lot of Democrats are leery
of giving up because it's a key presidential power. So that's something that where you could see it might go either way that there might be some restriction on that
or not. The HR two sort of more sort of ardent Republicans they want to do like they want to build that border wall that Trump was promising, they want to make other more extreme changes there, and so you could see that's an unlikely to reach a deal, But you could see a deal that starts with something that the Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree on, and then maybe when it goes over to the House it gets a little bit more robust from the Republican standpoint.
All right, Mike Dorning, who helps lead Bloomberg's congressional coverage, thank you so much. So let's go now to someone who used to sit in the very same house to which we are referring. Former Congressman Denver Rickleman of Virginia is joining me now. Congressman, thanks so much for coming on the program. What do you think the real prospects are here of this House of Representatives agreeing with the White House and a Democratic controlled Senate on border security.
Well, with the amount of fingerpointing, I think it's going to be very difficult in the short term. You know, I've been there, as you know, I'm very familiar with the Freedom Caucus. And the issue that you have really is that you have people trying to use i think today, trying to solve problems today right with yesterday's technology and
yesterday's thought process. And I think the real issue that we have right now is going to be very difficult for the Republicans who support HR two to actually come in and say, hey, we want to do this right now, right We're willing to make a deal, because all you do is look at their districts. If their PBI, their political voting indexes R plus eight or larger, it's going to be really hard to make a deal, especially in the election season that's coming up right now. So I
think it's a I think it's all. It's a long haul. I just I think it's a real long haul. But the issue that you have right now, the pressure is this, there are issues at the border, let's be honest, and I do think the American public is starting to get fed up with it, so that might put a little bit of pressure on modern Democrats to try to come to the table.
What about if that pressure comes in the form of threatening a government shutdown if there is no deal on the border. Should these two things be tied together?
Well, the Freedom Caucus is going to go hyperpolic you know, that's their mo I don't think they should be tied together at all. And that's just, you know, that's sort of political hostage taking, you know, by the Freedom Caucus or what they want to do. Should not tie that to shutting down the government. I mean, that's a lot worse, right as funding for the border actually is affected by
a government shutdown. I know, I'm stating the obvious, but you do need adults in a room, and right now, the Freedom Caucus are not the adults in a room. It's gonna be those in the middle. It's gonna be you know, I would say center right Republicans, what's left of them modern Democrats, they're the people that they are adults in the room. It's not the Freedom Caucus. And to link that is really irresponsible.
Would you describe Sir Speaker Johnson as an adult in the room.
Not from what I saw with his press conference. Now, you know, it's almost like there's no wiggle room for any type of negotiation based on how they have to be. And I know that, right that's the messaging that you're doing for your district. You know, Speaker Johnson just isn't messaging for his district. He's messaging is the speaker now, so he has to protect those people in those R plus eight you know, over districts. But right now, I
just don't think he really is serious enough. I don't think he has a gravitas or he has the ability to control the far right. I mean, you already saw Bannon coming out, another far right sort of mouth breathers already coming out and saying, you know that he's not living up to the standard that they need on the far right or as conservatives, or whatever that definition is today. So I think he's going to have a real tough time.
I just don't think he has the gravitas to really pull it off unless you got some more sane people that get to in here. Again, we need adults in the room here at this point.
Okay, So you don't think Speaker Johnson necessarily will remain Speaker Johnson at the end of these fights, knowing how things went with Kevin McCarthy, who.
Knows, you know, trying to predict Congress is very difficult. As somebody who was there, I remember when I was in intelligence training, I had a mentor tell me, like, the only way you can tell the future is after it happens. But I do think he's starting to get exceptional pressure from the far right. And I think that's why you saw what he was doing. You talked about the economy earlier. I thought it was really prescient. I
think it was a great point by you. I think with the economy actually starting to improve, they need another issue to splinter in twenty twenty four, and that's why you saw that many people at the border. This was a political well, this was just politics. This really had nothing to do with actually getting anything done. This was just them fundraising and trying to get as many people on their size as account.
Of the far right.
That's it.
Okay, So on the subject of politics, I wonder what role you think former President Trump plays in all of these conversations. Knowing that Speaker Johnson is a longtime supporter of the former president, he already has endorsed him. Now you have essentially endorsements clean sweeping all of the Republican leadership because Steve Scalize and Tom Emmer both through their
support behind the former president this week. How does he factor in here into a calculus over something like potentially giving Biden a win on border security.
Trump is the elephant in the room. I mean not to do a horrible pun there, but really they're actually found in the marching orders of Donald Trump. That's all they're doing. They were down there trying to impress their guy mar A Lago. You know, we have a real issue on the border, We have real security concerns. Somebody who did twenty years you know, Air Force contract NSA offico secretary of Defense, somebody who's a counter terrorism expert,
which I am, only owned data of targeting. I think it's ridiculous right that we have a Congress that can't come together about border security in a sane and humane way. So Donald Trump is not sane or humane in any way. So he is the one pushing the message here and Mike Johnson is just going to be a mouthpiece. And again it comes down to, you know, if he's just sort of towing the Donald Trump line, he's not in a position to really make deals, have the gravitas, you know,
or the capability to do that. I think that's what should scare the American public is that you still want to have funding. You do not want to tie border security to funding the government. I think that's an irresponsible move. It's not fair to all Americans, and it's not fair to cpp to.
Be honest with you.
Okay, so you mentioned the American public, which brings me to another question that also pertains to your intelligence experience and the way that was used in assisting the work of the January sixth Committee. Because Congressman, we are approaching the third anniversary of January sixth, it's this weekend obviously we all know what happened on that day. That day is the subject of many legal issues for the former president, but it hasn't necessarily seemed to resonate with his base
at all. It hasn't really changed any minds about him. Do you think that January sixth has potency still in the American electorates view?
Boy, that's a great question, because I think, you know, you always, you know, look at the three to five percent in the middle that you can sway one way or another. And I would like to think, I know, hope is not a viable course of action. So I hate to use the word hope, but I would like to hope there's three to five percent that still think about January sixth and saving democracy that are going to vote because democracy need to be saved. But when it comes to the base, I would say it's much more
than thirty five percent. I know people like to throw that number out, but even here in the fifth district to Virginia, or even when you're looking what's going on right now, you're looking at this sort of the breathlessness and the hyperbole that's coming out about January sixth, I mean, you just have a new you know, specialist coming out from far right media on the truth of January sixth. I just don't think it reverberates.
I don't.
I think January six is actually a real rallying point for most of Trump Trump supporters. I think they bought into the stuff from the Tucker Carlsons and things like that. So I really think the myth and the conspiracy theories are something that's a real advantage for Donald Trump and
the Republicans going into twenty twenty four. We just have to look at we have to message to that three to five percent in the middle, maybe a little bit more, that we do not want to repeat of January sixth, or a president who would allow that type of nonsense and criminal activity to happen. I mean, it's really that simple. You know, either you're on the side of democracy and you believe that, you know, what happened on January sixth was heinous, or if you think it was just a
peaceful gathering gone bad. You know, really, you know, you are already unreachable after three years. There's nobody going to change their mind in the next day or two, and there's certainly not going to be anybody change their mind about January sixth. Before November of twenty twenty four.
Finally, Congressman, just in our final minute with you on the idea of January sixth, Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to take up the Fourteenth Amendment case overturn Colorado's ruling. He says in his filing that January sixth was not insurrection and he did not engage in it. And I know you're not a constitutional law expert, but you were enmeshed in the events of that day. What actually happened was it insurrection?
It was absolutely you know, when you look at command and control, we don't have to be ensconced in politics or in legal you know, sort of maneuvering to see that there were people who coordinated that day all the way up to White House staff. And we know that White House staff was involved or at least texting, you know, with people like the oath Keepers. That is a fact. We know about phone records, we know the linkages, We know the amount of people that really thought that they
were there in a coordinated fashion. We know about the youarth keepers, we know about you know, the convictions of seditious conspiracy and the Proud Boys. So as an insurrection. You just have a guy who wants to win. But again, if a majority of the public or the majority of the Republicans excuse me, believe it wasn't an insurrection, he's going to get those votes. And you know so, yeah, I mean, it doesn't have to do with legal maneuvering
at all. It's about It's actually about data, and the data shows what happened that day period.
All right, a very clear answer from Denver Riggleman, former Republican Member of Congress from Virginia. Thank you so much for joining us. Sir, this is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
The Bloomberg Business app.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
We know that Donald Trump yesterday has asked the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn a ruling from Colorado which bars him from the ballot on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump and the filing, saying that he did not engage in insurrection, that the events of January sixth were not insurrection in the first place. So let's get more on this now from an actual legal export. Joining me now, expert Nick Ackerman is with me now.
He is a former Watergate prosecutor. Nick, thanks so much for coming up back on the program. It's always great to speak to you. First of all, is there any world in which the Supreme Court would decide not to take up this case.
I can't imagine that the Supreme Court is not going to take this case. I mean, they just have the practical problem that if they don't take it, they're going to get decisions from all different states and it's just going to be a patchwork of inconsistencies in what is supposed to be a national election.
Well, Nick, you mentioned all these different states. Obviously there's a number at play here. Maine also has a ruled to keep him off the ballot that has too been challenged. I know you think that the Supreme Court ultimately should uphold Colorado's ruling on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment.
But if they don't, how will it impact the cases in the other states, Because if they don't actually make a decision around insurrection if they want to avoid that and they find, you know, a procedural means or something like that, would that necessary be applicable to the main case or any other case.
Oh. I think whatever they do, it's going to be applicable to all fifty states, and there's just no way they can get around that. If they don't do that, it's going to be really kind of bedlam in the sense of he's on the ballot in some states and not on the ballot in other states. That just wouldn't make any sense.
Okay, So it'll be a blanket ruling regardless in your mind, When do you think we'll actually get it? How quickly would you expect the court to act on this?
Well, I mean they just filed the Trump just filed his cert petition yesterday asking the Court to review it. If the Court first has to decide whether it will do so, which I think it will, and then there'll be a briefing schedule. So we're looking at probably at least a month before oral argument on this, unless they really try and expedite it. They could as possible.
I wonder if the pressure of the primary in Colorado actually being an early March may dictate how they think about timing here. Something else that's supposed to happen in early March, or at least Jack Smith would like to see happen in early March, is the start of the trial in the case here in Washington, where federal charges have been brought against the former president for his actions
around the twenty twenty election. Jack Smith, though in that case, didn't actually charge Trump with insurrection, and I wonder if if the court were to make a decision around the insurrection question in some form, does that undermine potentially any of the other charges that Smith actually brought. In terms of the strength of his case, it.
Should have absolutely no impact on his case. His case is a criminal case. The issue about whether or not Donald Trump is qualified to be on the presidential ballot is purely a civil matter, and it's totally aside. Both
issues are completely different. Now, it could be that the Supreme Court, and I've suggested this, is that in order to determine and to at least if there's any question in their mind whether or not the evidence that was presented before the January sixth House Committee was sufficient on insurrection, they certainly have the right to reach down into the grand jury that brought that indictment and review some of
that testimony that has a bearing on this issue. For example, the testimony of Vice President Pence would be highly relevant to this question, And I think if the Supreme Court were to do that, it would certainly show that they're taking the extra mile to look at the issue and come up with a decision based on not just the January sixth Committee but also other testimony, including Donald Trump's own vice president.
So do you think the time it takes them to do that work, even if the Jack Smith case technically is unrelated, could actually cause a timeline issue for the Jack Smith case. Again, this is a trial that he wants to begin in early March. If the court is still enmeshed in this fourteenth Amendment question, does that move that timeline farther out?
Totally irrelevant to that has nothing to do with it, Okay. The only issue that right now is delaying the DC case is this issue about presidential immunity, which is going to be argued before the DC Circuit this Tuesday. I would suspect that they are going to deny Trump's claim for immunity. It's going to be very quick, and I also suspect the Supreme Court will not take up that issue. They have enough problems already now with the Fourteenth Amendment.
So I think this case is going to go in March as scheduled.
On the subject of scheduling and dates around this case in regard to it specific Trump today accused Jack Smith of violating a stay order and wants him held in contempt as a result. What's your thought on that matter?
Total nonsense. All political has nothing to do with what Jack Smith is doing. He is entitled to file motions in the case in DC. The only thing that the stay does is it means that Trump's lawyers don't have to do anything until the DC Circuit rules. Again, it's just posturing by Donald Trump.
Well, so let's turn to not Donald Trump, but the role of other actors in this including the justices. This is something you and I have discussed before the issue of Clarence Thomas, knowing how closely his wife Jinny Thomas is tied to many of these issues that this court is dealing with or going to have to deal with. How should we be thinking about what happens if Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself and what it means for the court going forward.
Well, certainly he should recuse himself. His wife was involved with Mark Meadows and discussions with people in the White House that all surrounded this insurrection and what occurred on January sixth, So by every right he should not be deciding this case. However, there's really nothing to enforce that. If Clarence Thomas decides that he wants to decide the case and be involved, he can do it. So we'll
just have to see what happens if he does. It's certainly not going to help the reputation of the court, and I'm sure that others on the Court aren't going to be too happy about it, But there is nothing really with any teeth to enforce that kind of refusal.
Yeah, I guess we will have to wait and see. Finally, Nick, I'd love to get your sense of something we've talked about a few times on this program and over the course of the last several weeks, which is the notion of the judicial branch of the court system deciding these things that are so crucial to American democracy, rather than all of it being in the hands of the American voter.
What rules should the courts serve here? Do you see merit to that argument that this is up to the electorate, it shouldn't be up to people on a bench.
Well, it's not really up to the electorate. There are a whole series of items in the Constitution that are prerequisites and pre qualifiers before somebody can even run for president.
He has to be thirty five years old, at least has to have been born in the United States, has to have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years, cannot if he's been re elected twice as president, cannot be elected a third time, and the next The last requirement is this one that he cannot have been in a situation where he took an oath to defend the constitution, engaged in insurrection, and then hold office in
the federal government president and other offices. So these are all prerequisites before you even get into the game, before you even get into the election, And the obvious branch of our government to enforce those rules is the Supreme Court. Now keep in mind, this has never happened before with any.
Of these rules.
No one who's been fourteen or twenty has tried to run for president and taking this up with anybody to try and determine whether the person was really thirty five or fourteen, or where they were a citizen born in the US. And certainly no president before this has ever been involved in an insurrection against his own government.
Yeah, these are unprecedented times that we're in and we're very glad that you can join us to shed some light and insight into them. Nick Ackerman, former Watergate prosecutor, Thank you so much.
Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast.
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm
Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.