Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Roudoo with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
As we come off a very important day in Washington yesterday that was shrouded by so much noise in the political space. In any other world, a trilateral meeting between the United States, Japan, and Philippines that will likely result in a more formal alliance in the South China Sea. An alliance against China would be front page news. But we've got Faiza coming and going, We've got Trump doing this and that. We've got the abortion ruling in Arizona
that's taking a lot of attention here. There's almost no time to get to it all. And I was heartened to see the column today by my colleague Andreas Kluth, reporting for Bloomberg Opinion from here in Washington, DC. Hail the trilateral chiefs, Biden, Keshita Marcos. Indeed, this is important and worth your attention as the president tries to put together a network of alliances that some people are calling
a Pacific version of NATO. Andreas is with US now on balance of power, and it's great to see you, sir. You talk about the lattice work of alliances, the many lateral partnerships. Is it possible to connect the dots on all of them?
It's hard.
In fact, I believe my title made fun of that, like mocked that because I think I said, hey, all the manilateral chiefs, you know, But basically what you have is by my count, three trilaterals and one quadrilateral, all overlapping in the Indo Pacific, all led by the US. And if forming what they call, you know, their metaphor now is a lattice, what does the lattice replace? It replaces what's emerged since World War Two in the Indo Pacific, but not in the Atlantic, which is in the Indo Pacific,
you've had a hub and spoke system. So the US has bilateral alliances with security guarantees with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, but there was no thought some of these countries were acting independently, or in the case of South Korea and Japan, were even hated each other and the US has been under Biden trying to bring some order into that and make it, as I said, a lattice. Whether whether that works for you or not,
we can debate. And of course there's one thought that they have in their mind is the other side of the world, which is NATO. Seventy fifth anniversary just passed and the and Biden will host in July, will host this year's NATO summit in Washington, which is this incredibly successful alliance. All alliances are supposed to deter the lattice, supposed to deter China. NATO is supposed to deter Russia always has done. But there's a problem in NATO, which
is burden sharing. So a lot of the allies are free riding on American defense spending. And Biden wants to prevent that. And I think, if you want to, if you want to be kind and generous, he wants to build a new and improved NATO and NATO a two point zero in the Indo Pacific for the what they view as the larger challenge for the next seventh years, which is likely going to be China.
Well, let's go a little deeper into that, because we heard from the President yesterday as part of that trilateral meeting. And I want to ask you, Andreas about enforcement. We talked so much about Article five in Europe. Listen to what he said about the Indo Pacific region when he spoke yesterday, and we'll talk about this on the other side.
Here's the president.
The United States defense commitments to Japan and to the Philippines are iron clad. They are iron clad, as I've said before, any attack on Philippine aircraft, vessels or armed forces. And so I'm trying to see when invoke our mutual defense treaty.
So, Andreas Kluth, it sounds like there is an equivalent to Article five in the Pacific, isn't that what he just said?
Yes and no. The difference so this defense treaty with the Philippines goes back to the fifties. I believe it's old mutual defense guaranteed. That's what all the treaties I mentioned earliers have. Article five of NATO different. It says an attack against one is an attack against all. In theory, it obliges all thirty two with Sweden now allies to come to the defense of any of them. It's only been in vocal well.
The Philippines in Japan would not come to our defense. In other words, if we were attacked.
Well, well, they're not in NATO. I was saying, that was Article five in NATO.
What he understood.
But I'm trying to discern the difference between these two exactly.
And so here the US would come to the defense of the Philippines or of Australia, but Japan wouldn't have to is not in the treaty. And that's the difference with the lattice and the trilaterals and quarter laterals. Biden wants in Japan a kashido in this very moving speech to Congress. Maybe we should go into that because I thought it was powerful essentially signals we're sharing this burden
with you. We would also help, even though Japan has no formal treaty at present with the phil for example. So you see, that's the difference a bilateral defense guarantee versus a multilateral And that's where the minilateral and the attempts come out that the US doesn't want all by itself to defend the Philippines against China and then Japan against you know, North South Korea against North Korea and
so forth. So it's multilateral versus bilateral, and the attempt through the lattice, through the minilaterals to bro to to have a collective defense in the in the Pacific.
So there's work to be done here then obviously, I'm just trying to get to whatever the next step is, Andreas. If Joe Biden can create, to your point, a sort of NATO two point zero in that region is going to involve connecting the dots in all of these partnerships, and I wonder if Aucus is the starting point for that. Knowing that Japan talked about its role as a second pillar, why not pull all of these countries into the alliance
with the UK and Australia. Wouldn't that be the closest thing to a formal partnership that we could start with.
Yes, And in fact that's sort of the here inside the belt Way that's the most problem. The Australians have some concerns, But very briefly, Aucus could expand to become Jaucus or any number of other things. Aucus has two pillars, two parts. One is simply to get nuclear powered but
conventionally armed American submarines to Australia. But the longer term but more interesting part is two is Pillar two where the three countries, which are also already three of the five countries in the Five Eyes common spying you know, spy intelligence network, so they trust each other, where they would collaborate on producing underwater robot warfare, a quantum warfare, artificial intelligence, and basically all the ways you would win fight and win the next war, which are very costly.
And this goes to the burden sharing. They would from the start conceive build, invest in these myths together and based on that deep in their commitments to each other, and they could pull in other that could be widened to Japan and then possibly to others in the future. I'm thinking South Korea.
For Shakkus and Alliance Andreas. Thank you so much. I wish we had more time, but I will again point everyone to the column. Hail the Trilateral Chiefs, and remember this conversation next time we're talking about the South China Sea.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roun oo with 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.
I Am Kaylee lines alongside Joe Matthew in Washington, where the House seems to have done it, Joe actually passing a two year reauthorization of Faiza warrantless surveillance, a Warren amendment that was brought by Andy Biggs did not pass. It was tied hundred twelve two hundred twelve. So no shortage of drama on the House floor. But of course wrapping this up only eats into part of what the
House has on its to do list. Still in question is supplemental funding for aid to US allies including Ukraine, Yes, but also Israel, as Israel we understand is facing down a threat that could be coming at it within the next forty eight hours according to our reporting.
Yeah, this is really something. It's getting more complex as we approach the weekend, Kaylee, and you reminded us yesterday of the FBI Director Christopher Ray's warning of a potential terror attack imminently like we saw in Russia. That plays into the conversation around Piza, and now of course geopolitics popping on this president as well. These are dangerous times that we're living in here, and that's why we wanted to have Ian Marlow join as Bloomberg News senior reporter
covering diplomacy. Ian, it's great to have you with us again on balance of power. The next forty eight hours are going to tell us a lot here. Bloomberg News is at least anticipating the potential for a direct strike on Israeli soil.
How likely is that?
Yeah, it seems to be what people are telling sources here. And also I think what Israel seems to be bracing for publicly as well as the US.
The US State.
Department has warned its own employees not to travel around Israel with this. Iran's warning of retaliation sort of sitting out there, and now we're seeing much more alarm that this attack could be imminent. It's not clear exactly what shape it will take. There's talk about Hesbalah militants, which are obviously funded and trained by Iran on Israel's northern border with Lebanon. There's talk of them, you know, raining down missiles or sending drones.
There's even talk of.
A potential strike emerging from Iranian territory itself. You know, it's not clear how much Israel's Iron Dome and other you know, missile batteries will be able to take down. So there is a lot of alarm growing concern. The US is kind of repositioning forces in the region, seems to be moving more assets into the region as well, and I think everyone is just bracing for this right now. And then, of course the big question is what comes next. And Israel has said that they will hit back.
Well, especially Ian as the US has reiterated time and time again that what they would most like to avoid is a further escalation in the Middle East. But there are different degrees of escalation. Surely, how escalatory will it be if it is an Iranian proxy like HESBLA as you mentioned, versus Iron itself conducting an attack like this, What are the potential degrees of escalation here?
I mean, it's a good question, I think definitely. I mean, has BLOT militants have already been in direct conflict with Israel. I don't think Israel will draw any distinction between you know, you know has bought militants necessarily in Iran per se, they have already hit Iranian assets in Syria and elsewhere.
As this war has gone On. I think the big thing will.
Be the degree to which this you know, this attack, if it comes, is successful.
You know, what kind of damage it causes, what sort.
Of you know, missiles or other you know, mil attack, drones or whatever it will be.
How much actually.
Gets through you know, Israeli defenses, and you know, the degree to which any damage is caused will probably shape the Israeli reaction. And I think the big open question is, you know, if it comes from Iran proper and there is you know, a significant degree of damage or casualties, you know, Israel would be forced, I think in terms of domestic pressure and in terms of its.
Own war aims to respond.
And that was, as you say, one of the US goals since this conflict began has been to avoid that sort of escalation, and we've seen their areas tip for tat escalations, you know, throughout the region, in Iraq and Syria, you know, with Lebanon, as this war has dragged on, and none of them have actually you know, led to that full blown you know, regional conflict in the US has been trying to avoid.
And I think the.
Real worry here is that this sort of response from Iran and An Israeli counter response could then engender that type of you know, regional conflagration that everyone's been trying to avoid.
Well, I suspect we'll be hearing from Israel's ambassador to the United Nations either way. I've only got a minute left here, Ian, but your piece today on the ambassador is really worth talking about here and how strident he has been, the tough words that he's been using to clap back on calls for a ceasefire.
Yeah, thank you for highlighting this piece.
We had a couple of chances to talk to Gil Adderdan, the Israeli Ambassador of the UN, and he really has personified the Israeli response to critics of the war, which is a sort of uncompromising approach putting down Israel's critics. You know, Israel has a very interesting history with the with the UN it created. You know, I helped create Israel.
And the ambassador told us in interviews that you know that is the UN that exists now where countries vote against Israel constantly, way more than they do against say.
Russia or Iran or Mianmar. It's not the same United Nations.
You know, he talks about it being utterly politicized, you know, just basically being isolated. And I think his uncompromising approach at the UN, people are saying is sort of alienating potential moderate countries in the middle who could be supporting Israel, but who might you know, who are on the fence that that sort of behavior and those sorts of words and some of that. You know, he's accused, you know,
the United Nations of being anti Semitic. He's called for the chief you know, Antonio and Guitaras to step down, to resign over comments he made, and is constantly you know, saying Hitler would be singing the praises of.
The UN these days.
That kind of language, you know, people are saying is just kind of alienating potential Israeli supporters, and it's being a stance that looks, you know, to some observers and critics, particularly a little bit awkward or risky as this conflict has gotten much much worse, as the depth towl has climbed, as we've seen the awful humanitarian situation there. So it's a very I just thought he was a very interesting person to look at as his conflict is dragged on.
As a way to look at Israel's own view.
Of the conflict.
Absolutely. Ian Marlow, thank you so much and it is a great plea piece. You could check it out on the terminal and online. Israel's and battled envoy takes on the UN as the Gaza crisis worsens, and of course, Joe, we have heard a lot from President Biden about the Gaza crisis worsening as well. He has had words for
Netanyahu himself, as he has continually reminded us. This is what the President had to say most recently about the conversation that he has had with the Israeli Minister around humanitarian aid.
Here is I have been very blunt and straightforward with the Prime Minister as well as his work cabinet as well as the cabinet. And the fact of the matter is that bb and I had a long discussion. He agreed to do several things that related to number one, getting more aid both food and medicine into Gaza and reducing significantly the attempts the civilian casualties in any action taken in the region.
We want to have more now on what is happening in the region region with Kelly Grigo, she a senior Fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center. So Kelly, great to have you with us. Obviously, we have heard in recent weeks the sharpening of US language around Israel and its policy in Gaza, suggestion that US policy may have to change if they don't see what they want from the Israelis in terms of humanitarian
aid as we just heard the President talk about. But can the US really do that knowing that potentially is reel embracing for an attack from Iran or its proxies within the next forty eight hours in Israeli territory? Can the US do both here or do they really only have one option and that is to defend Israel if Iran makes this move.
Yes, well, thank you for having me, and I think you just captured the essential challenge for US policy right now. Is that on the one hand, where we have increasingly frustrated with the Israelis and putting more pressure on them to move towards Subhio Ceaspire arrangement, but this as potential escalation with Iran is limiting our room for maneuver with that. As you said, you can't.
Really have it both ways.
If we're going to embrace defending Israel, standing by Israel if there is an attack, it will limit our ability to put pressure on Israel to also accept a ceasepire.
Kelly, can we just slow down a minute here. It's great to have you back. We wanted to talk to you specifically today about all of this. We're talking about the potential for direct conflict between Iran and Israel. We have long heard that that's World War three.
What do you think?
You know, I have to say, I have a you know, my stomach is hurts right now thinking about this.
You know, it's hard to say.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but after twenty years of the US military being actively involved in the Middle East and during my lifetime, I'm the most anxious today about what is going to happen this weekend and in the coming week in terms of this escalation, because I think, as you said, it is, if Iran does a lact for the most explatory option, which is a direct strike on Israel from Iranian soil, there is a really increased likelihood that this is going to very
quickly become a regional war.
Would the US get involved in a regional war like that, Kelly, would this potentially mean American troops back on the ground.
Well, I think there are two questions around that that would need to be first to really know. Which is the first one would be how the Iranians conduct the strike. So they have publicly said that they hold us responsible for the strikes that Israel conducted into Bathket, even though we've said that we were not involved and did not know about them. So I think there is one question is would the Iranians actually strike US targets at the same time that they strike Israel itself. That would be
one question. If that happens, certainly it would draw us in. And then I think the second one would be what the attack on Israel looks like, how extensive it is, what kind of damage it does in destruction, and if it is so large and so escalatory, the United States may feel that it has no other choice but to assist Israel in providing for its defense, and that could potentially draw us in.
Kelly, the commander of US Central Command, General Eric Krilla, is in Israel right now. The US sent him there. The Pentagon dispatched him to be able to advise in person and in real time. What is he telling them.
Yes, I mean, I think it's one thing that's worth noting is that he has been regularly visiting Israel during this war, so it's not entirely unusual. I would think that he's actually talking a lot about what they're planning to do if there's a direct strike on Israel, what
kind of response they they're considering. I think there would have to be a lot of concern that if there is some kind of strike, even if it's very limited against Israel, that the Israelis will respond in a massive way of potentially directly strike I Ran, and at that point it's going to be really hard to get these parties to stand down.
Kelly, can you just, especially given your areas of expertise, tell us how equipped Israel is not only potentially to conduct a retaliatory retaliatory strike, if you will, but also defense wise to withstand a potential attack like this, knowing that we don't actually know what form, if at all, this will happen in how strong are the is the Iron Dome or Israeli defense forces to withstand it from wherever it comes from.
Yes, I mean the Israeli to have excellent air and missile defense systems. I mean, you know that should obviously be acknowledged. I think the issue is that any kind of air and missile defense system can eventually be swamped saturated by sheer numbers of incoming targets. So if the Iranians war to elect to strike Israel, if they make these bollies with missiles and drones large enough, they have the potential to leap through to be able to overwhelm these systems.
Kelly, it's great to have you back, Kelly Griico as senior Fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast cats just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emo CarPlay and then roun Oo with the Bloomberg Business Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We have learned many times, Joe, if at first you don't succeed, perhaps you try, try, try, try again. Whether it's the FISA vote that didn't succeed until the fourth time, or whether it's attempting to forgive student loans, you tried
to do it in a broad based fashion. If you're President Biden, the Supreme Court strikes it down, and instead you try again in smaller increments, and once again we're getting more increments today another seven point four billion dollar in billion dollars in federal student debt going to be relieved.
I like the way you did that. I feel like we all have second chances. Maybe that's the case for Joe Biden. He's doing the same thing for the border, by the way, that might be his third swing at that one. Try try again with our panel. Rick Davis is with us, of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor, longtime Republican strategists, joined by Democratic strategist Pat Dennis. He's the president of American Bridge twenty first Century.
Pat.
This matter of forgiving student debt has been a sticky one for Joe Biden, and a lot of young people feel like he did simply did not make good on a promise, regardless of his try try again and the fact that the court, Supreme Court is the one that stopped it. How important will this be as a tool for him in the campaign.
It's important, I mean, it's important that voters see you not giving up on delivering on your campaign promises, delivering for voters, you know, You're gonna see a ton of complaining from Republicans who are gonna sue or.
Try to stop this.
They're gonna try to, you know, prevent this debt from being forgiven life changing amounts of debt in some cases. And you know, if you show me a powerful Republican who opposes this measure, I'll show you somebody who got a PPP loan forgiven, either them themselves or you know, their biggest owners. So it seems to me like we're not so much arguing about like whether debt should be forgiven, It should be about who's.
Well rick the words patch to use there, the idea that you need to be seen not giving up on something, continuing to try. Is that what this is really about, not so much the outcome as the effort. If you're a presidential candidate, or do you need outcomes for when voters go to the polls in November and think, Okay, what has he actually done for me?
Yeah?
I think it's a good question. I think politically, you want outcomes. You want that money hitting the street before election day. None of these funds will actually make their way into I say funds reliefs will make its way into the balance sheet of most of these folks before election day, So it's you have to consider it mostly rhetoric.
We know that the courts, not Republicans, have had a lot of problems with Mission creep by this administration around these kinds of debt relief efforts on the part of the administration. So that's going to play out in the courts regardless of what the politics of the situation is. And look, I mean, it's kind of a naked grab for youth votes, you know. And it's not the eighteen to twenty five year olds. They they're the ones who
are generating the debt right now. It's mostly the thirty to fifty five year olds who still have been carrying around a lot of this debt for a long time.
And I don't think anybody disagrees that student debt burdens are not good for the economy, but it's an incredibly unfair approach, which is those people who carried the most debt, not the ones who paid off their loans, not the ones who couldn't get a loan and didn't go to college and went to maybe community college or didn't go to you know, you know, anything other than a high
school education. What's in it for them? They're taxpayers too, they're funding this, And so I think you know, Pats right, it's the issue isn't whether you're doing it, it's who's it go to. And right now it's going to a group of people who you know, it's just not in the doesn't pass the fairness quotion by American standards.
Well, it's interesting, Pat, we talk about other people paying for stuff here because there's a story today by Axios that Joe Biden actually used campaign money was DNS see cash one and a half million dollars to pay for lawyers to pay for legal bills and the Special Counsel's probe into his handling of classified documents, remembering he spent a lot of time criticizing Donald Trump for using campaign
money to pay for his attorney's fees. And I know we're talking about one and a half million versus in excess of fifty million dollars, but it's these little things. It's partly the reason why people aren't talking about Donald Trump's classified documents case because Joe Biden got one of his own, realizing there may not be a moral equivalency here.
How tough is this headline when you see something like this in leaving Joe Biden incapable or maybe not credible in some of his attacks against Donald Trump.
Yeah, it's classic what about ism?
Right, You do one one thousandth of something that totally makes sense but kind of rhymes in some way with something egregious that Trump did, and all of a sudden, you know, people are jumping down your throat about it. This is the kind of thing where there's absolutely no equivalents between what the DNC did. Hear some like, you know, routine legal bills. You know, I run a super pack. I wish I could get legal bills down to a million and a half sometimes.
But you know, and what Trump.
Has done, which is frequently deceive his donors, you know, folks who thought they were giving to win elections or folks who thought they were you know, giving based on big live rhetoric, and he just took that money and put it in his own pocket for his own personal legal bills.
There's no equivalence here.
Well, pat it all speaks to this idea that there is legal trouble surrounding the former president as he is campaigning against Biden in the general election, and really it's going to come to the forefront of attention on Monday when his trial, the first ever criminal trial of a former president, begins in New York. It could last six to eight weeks, but realistically we're talking before the convention here. This could be wrapped up and he could There is
a chance he ends up a convicted felon. What would change for the Biden campaign at that point if he's or if he's not.
Yeah, and it's important people don't forget, like Michael Cohen went to jail over this exact thing, not something similar, this exact issue.
It's really serious for him.
And look, Republicans will do everything they can to cover up for him, to act like this is no big deal, to act like this is some kind of parison which hunt.
But this is the legal system.
This is a legal system that sent Michael Cohen to jail when he was Trump's enemy at the time.
And it's you know, it's a big deal.
I'm not going to talk about the who's up who's down of a major candidate being found guilty of felonies. I think we can all agree that that's not good. But ultimately, like Republicans are going to have to decide exactly how far down this doom loop they're going to follow him.
Well, that's right, Rick, I'd love to hear you weigh in on this. Joe Biden having the DNC pay for his attorneys, does that not sound like Donald Trump? You can talk about equivalency, but perceptions reality.
Well, I mean, this is all self inflicted pain. I mean, the campaign's finance chairman goes out and says, we don't spend money on legal bills in the DNC, and their filings shows clearly that they spent money over a million bucks for Bob Bauer, who was representing the president in his you know, documents case. You know, so that's exactly what they did. And if they just kept their mouth shut and didn't make a big deal of it, it wouldn't
be such a big deal. But don't you know, don't cast stones into that glasshouse if yours is still pretty thin itself. Look, I mean, I think the issue of those documents cases, with the with the sensitive and confidential information that Trump had and Biden had were handled differently by each individual, and I think, you know, the President handled his more responsibly. But then don't go lying about you know, whether or not you spent DNC money on it,
because you did, and and and just come clean. That's what American voters want. They want someone who they don't really care whether you use the money at the DNC for this, but they care about it is you weren't
really straight with him about it. And I think that could be a breakaway moment for this campaign, you know, Biden, you know, because there's no chance that Donald Trump's ever going to be straight with anything or apologize, and Biden does have the opportunity to be running a campaign that actually is more transparent and honest with the press and with the voters.
So Rick, essentially, what you're saying is while sometimes the former president can say things that are outright untruthful and either people believe him or decide that it's just Trump being Trump, that Biden is not held to that same standard, or rather Trump is not being held to the same standard Biden is.
Yeah, I just don't think there's an expectation that you're ever going to get a truthful statement out of Trump, So he kind of gets a pass right go lie all day long and the press doesn't even report it, you know, but Biden holds himself out as being the truth teller, right, and that's a very good place to be in this election. I think you want to own
that ground. You want to be the fact based campaign, So you should kind to be a little more careful with how you then represent yourself when things like this happen. It would have been absolutely fine for the Biden campaign to say, yeah, we probably should have told the press that you know, we were using you know, over a
million bucks to pay for our bills. I don't think anybody would have cared at that stage, and it would have drawn a contrast to, you know, the kind of transparency that the Trump campaign's given their donors versus those that are being given by the DNC. I guarantee you the DNC donors were happy to do that. It wasn't an egregious amount, but you know, they never gave them a chance because they really didn't, you know, come.
Straight with them, all right. Rick Davis Republican strategist, and Pat Dennis are Democratic strategist. Joining us today from American Bridge.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple CarPlay and then Roud Oto with 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.
I will be heading to New York on Monday for the beginning of a historic proceeding the first criminal trial if a former US president Joe Donald Trump, unless we see a delay he's asking for, Yeah, right, We'll go on trial in New York in the hush money case involving Stormy Daniels.
Yeah.
We feel like we've done this already. Obviously, people have gone through this case. They've heard about the hush money payments. They remember Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Lanny Davis on TV every night. But this is the actual trial. And when you're up there on Monday, they're going to start assembling a jury, and based on this questionnaire, Kaylee, jury's selection in itself could be wild.
Yeah, they need to find a dozen jurors and they are going to be essentially judging someone who yes, is their peer, but also as a former president of the United States, current presidential candidate, someone with incredible name recognition. So they're going to be asked things like do they have political, moral intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions that may slant their approach to this case. It's going to be tough work to actually I do these dozen individuals,
and you need the alternates as well. And that is where we begin with Nick Ackerman, former Watergate prosecutor who is joining us now. Nick, is always great to have you on the show. We will get to jury selection in a moment, But first, do you see any possible chance that this is delayed and this doesn't in fact start on Monday the fifteenth.
Boy, I don't see it. I know Trump is probably trying every trick in the book, but I just don't see there being a delay. He tried three times this week and was denied by the appeals court all three.
Times that said will start Monday. And I was just referencing the questionnaire for jurors, Nick, what is this going to be like? They're going to be asking people if they have truth, social accounts, among other things. Everybody in New York knows about this story. Is it possible to find an assemble a fair jury?
Oh?
Definitely. You will be surprised how many people in New York have not paid attention to this story or paid attention to the fact that this case it never ceases to amaze me. I've had other jury selections and high profile cases where I thought for sure it would be difficult, but it never is. And it wasn't difficult to find two juries in the eg and Carrol case, and that
didn't take too wrong. The real key here is whether or not the individuals who are going to be on that jury can be fair and impartial, even if they know who the defendant is and they have some rough idea about the case.
Well, so let's get into the details of the case then, Nick, because obviously what we're talking about here is thirty four counts of falsifying business records, and New York typically this would be a misdemeanor. The reason why this is a felony in this case is because Alvin Bragg, the district attorney, is arguing that this was used in violation of election law because this was done during the twenty sixteen election allegedly. How hard is this case going to be to prosecute.
Sure, it's not going to be election law. It's not just federal, it's not just it's also state election law, and it's also tax violations. So what Alvin Bragg has to prove is that there was an intent to commit those crimes. And it's not that unusual. I mean, this is a pretty run of the mill charge that's made on the state level, and the fact that it's made into a felony is not that unusual either.
So you think this case is easier for the prosecution than the defense.
Well much easier.
I mean, they've got two cooperating witnesses. It's not just Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, it's also David Pecker, who was the owner of the National Inquirer, who together met with Donald Trump to come up with this catching kill scheme whereby they would try and look for stories that were derogatory of Donald Trump and make payoffs like they did with Stormy Daniels and Kieren McDougall, to keep those stories from ever seeing the light of day before the
presidential election in twenty sixteen.
I know this trial is supposed to last six weeks.
That's the estimation.
Make.
If jury selection becomes painful, maybe it won't in your view, as they talk about everything from QAnon to Antifa. But if that became a more protracted process, does the trial creep into two months. What's your thought now on duration.
Well, it's very hard to tell. I really don't think jury selection is going to be that long. You talk about Antifa and QAnon. The fact of the matter is jurors are going to have to express certain knowledge about these areas. It all goes to whether they can be fair and impartial. Both the defense and the government have the opportunity to raise with the judge disqualifications of jurors for cause. But on top of that, they each have what are known as peremptory challenges, means that they can
essentially dismiss a certain number of jurors. Each side has those because they just don't feel comfortable with them for whatever reason, as long as it's not based on a racial or ethnic reason.
Nick, Something else I want to bring up is the gag order that the judge has put into place for this trial. It has actually been expanded to include the judge himself and his family, but also other officials of the court and other potential likely witnesses like Stormy Daniels or Michael Cohen, who we've talked about and on True Social on Wednesday, Trump said that those two are two sleeves bags who have with their lives and misrepresentations cost
our country dearly. Where is the line of what violates this gag order?
No doubt, in my mind, that violates the gag order. This is a case that absolutely needs a gag order. It's like an organized crime case to the extent that people's lives witnesses in particular family of the court, are really put in jeopardy. It's not so much by Donald Trump himself, but what he says to some of his supporters who are clearly a bit unhinged. We saw that happen in North Carolina where an individual showed up with a loaded gun at an FBI office. Ultimately he was
killed in the process. We saw this happen in Utah. There is a real present danger here that what Trump says is going to have a real life impact on the safety of witnesses, jurors, and court personnel. So I think the judge is going to handle this somehow. We'll see.
I think the real.
Problem is that most all of these judges are afraid to put Trump in jail, which they would do with any other defendant who violated this kind of a gag order. And they're afraid to do that until such time as a jury of twelve people a convictim of a crime. Now, he's got other possibilities here in terms of how he could punish him, either through fines or through other parts of the trial, which you know, he could wind up giving a charge on this issue that would not be
too helpful to Donald Trump. What's so unusual here is, in all my years of experience, I've never seen a defendant go this far attacking people involved in the case, particularly the judge. I mean, that's the last person you'd ever want to attack, because at the end of the day, that judge is going to have total discretion as to whether the defendant goes to jail, gets probation, whatever that
sentence is. You don't want If it's my client, I would not want him doing anything that in any way undermine the judge's ability to look at him in a complete void of any kind of threats like Donald Trump is making.
Nick Ackerman is always great to have you back. We'll be thinking about this talk when the trial starts on Monday. Of course, former assistant US Attorney and former special Watergate prosecutor with US. 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 noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com