Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then Proud.
Otto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We also need to talk about what's going on in the Middle East. Is Israel has just said it hit Hesbela's main headquarters in southern Bay Route the Israeli Defense Forces on x saying that the IDF conducted what it's calling a precise strike on the central headquarters of the Hesbela terrorist organization, embedded under residential buildings in the heart
of a part of Beyrout. This, of course, is coming after we heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahoo at the UN General Assembly in New York earlier today saying Israel has no choice but to keep fighting as.
Long as kz Balachu this is the path of war. Israel has no choice, and Israel has every right to remove this threat and return our citizens to their home safely. And that's exactly what we're doing.
If you're watching on YouTube, you can see that he was addressing a room that was more empty than it was full. We want to get the latest now on this conflict. In turn to an expert on armed conflict, ke Grico, the senior fellow with the Stimpson Centers reimagining US Grand Strategy is with us here on balance of power. Kelly, it's always great to have you. So, I guess my first question is we've been seeing Israel conducting these strikes
for well over a week now. Seven hundred people according to Lebanese authorities, have been killed, including some fifty children, and now they hit Hesbulah's main headquarters. Is this not something they should have done first?
Well, first of all, thank you for having me. It's quite an escalation, I would say, I think that's probably why it was not struck first. You know, both sides Hesbelah and Israel have been trying to take actions increasingly at gradual escalatory actions, but trying to keep it below the threshold that will result in a full out war. And as they're preceding up this sort of escalation ladder,
they're getting closer and closer to that. And I think that that's what this strike is meant to signal, is that Israel is willing to escalate further.
Well, so if Israel is willing, it becomes a question of how Hesbelah meets that escalation if it has the desire to do that as well. What kind of response would you expect from this Iranian peroxy when it's headquarters, we're hit and it is escalatory in your view, yes, I mean.
I think the challenge here is that there are no good options for Israel right now, and there are no good options for Hesbelah. We see a lot of signs that has Blood is not want to in all out war. It doesn't really serve its groups, its group's interests, and so it's been trying to respond in some way to re established deterrence with Israel, so trying to respond to these in these these hit per top moves, but again
without triggering a larger response from Israel. But if it tries to at this point, you know, back down it does It's it's that risk of losing some kind of face, right It's spent years trying to build up this deterrence against Israel, and so backing down is really hard for it because there's going to be concerns that it looks weak and that's really the last thing that it wants. But at the same time, it's losing some of the support of the local population, and so it's really boxed
in in its choices. And I think they're going to be trying once again to thread this very thin needle of responding in a forceful way without hopefully without triggering an all out war. But this is a very dangerous dance. In each round, it's getting more and more dangerous.
Well, and I wonder, Kelly, if this really is about what has below or at the end of the day, if it's about what Iran wants of Hesbela.
Yeah, I mean, I think this is a great question.
You know.
One of the things that I think is sort of ironic is that I think Iran in the United States find themselves in similar positions right now in terms of the Middle East, and that Iran does not seem to want an all out war, the United States does not
want an all out war. But we're also both trying to support our local partners, you know, We're trying to support Israel, They're trying to support Hesbelah, which is a really important proxy actor for them, and so trying to almost restrain our partners so that we don't end up in this all out war, but while still being seen as supporting that local partner ally. And so there is a role here though for Iran to step in and to try to restrain Hasblah and try to get them
to back away from the brink. And I think that's actually going to be critical and helping to calm things down.
I just want to quickly mention some breaking news as we've been monitoring the New York courthouse in which New York City Mayor Eric Adams, after yesterday being indicted on federal fraud and bribery charges, is being arraigned. He has pleaded not guilty to those federal charges. Of course, he was facing five charges in total. That is the latest ass expected. He has entered a not guilty plea and will continue to keep you updated on that story, especially if we hear from him.
Outside of the courthouse.
Kelly, I'd like to move on to a different conflict because also in New York today we saw a meeting take place between Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and Donald Trump. It of course comes after Zelenski met with Biden and Harris at the White House yesterday and after. Zelensky and Trump have exchanged some public criticism of each other in recent days while Zelenski has been here in the US now.
Trump said after their meeting that he had quote learned a lot, but that he has not changed his stance that negotiations could bring an end to the war. Are we really at that point, Kelly, where this only ends with a negotiated settlement of some.
Oh?
Yes, I think we've been at that point for a very long time, that this will ultimately end in some kind of negotiated settlement. I think it's important to remember that the vast majority of wars do end that way. They do not end in outright victory for one side or the other. The real challenge, I think right now is convincing both parties that they would be better off going to a negotiating table and settling the war rather
than continuing to pursue it on the battlefield. And right now, certainly the Russians want to continue to pursue on the battlefield. They're making gains in eastern Ukraine. They obviously want to see who's going to win the next presidential election, and the Ukrainians, it seems, are also not ready to negotiate, although that one I think is a little harder to
understand because their position is quite difficult. They're very overstretched, particularly with this offensive and Cursk, But I think trying Ultimately, we're going to have to get to the negotiating table, and that's really I think the question we should be asking is what is the plan to get there. That's one that has not been articulated by Ukraine or the Biden administration.
Well, in the meantime, Kelly, we know Ukraine has been making asks of the Biden administration to try to strengthen its position, including the desire for them to be able to use long range weapons systems to target to target targets deeper in Russian territory. What actually changes about the state of this conflict if the Biden administration finally relents on that.
Yes, so you know, this is part of the so called victory plan that Zelenski came to Deceit or to visit Biden to discuss. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be much of a victory plan. It's, as you kind of point out, it's more of a shopping list, and one
of those items is long range strike permissions. I think the idea that the Ukrainians have is they'd like to be able to hit airfields, in particular that where the Russians are launching fighter bombers that are carrying these glide bombs that have been used against their poss at the front, So that would be one of the key things. And they'd like to hit infrastructure, probably some energy infrastructure as well.
The problem though, I think with this is it might provide some tactical benefits, you know, early on, but very quickly the Russians are going to move these things. Russia is a large country. They'll move them back a couple hundred miles and it won't really impact the battlefield or the course of the war in a very significant way, which I think is why the Biden administration has not provided these permissions, is that it doesn't have a huge
impact potentially on the battlefield. But we have a very small supply of these kinds of long range weapons and we need them ourselves, and there are of course these significant escalation risks, so it is.
Just quickly here, Kelly. It's in part a defense industrial base issue too.
It's a defense industrial based issue, and it is an escalation issue. You know, Putin announced a change to the nuclear policy, essentially saying that any non nuclear country that strikes Russia, if they have assistance from a nuclear armed state, it is considered a joint attack, and that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons. And that's something that we have to still take very seriously. It's not a good sign anytime a country changes its official nuclear policy.
All right, Kelly, Always great to have you.
Kelly Griico, Senior fellow with the Stimpson Centers Reimagining US Grand Strategy program.
Appreciate your time.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay 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.
Then keilely Lines in Washington. Welcome back to Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and Radio, where we've been keeping an eye on the Middle East today, as Israel says it struck Hesbela's headquarters in Lebanon as it continues its
fight against the Iranian proxy. This is something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyah, who talked about on the floor at the United Nations General Assembly in New York earlier today, just before we learned about this strike, saying that Israel has no choice but to continue as.
Long as Kizbala chooses the path of war. Israel has no choice, and Israel has every right to remove this threat and return our citizens to their home safely. And that's exactly what we're doing.
Again, what they are doing appears to be going after Hesbela headquarters, at least that's what they've said. And we've just learned within the last few moments that the Pentagon did not know in advance that Israel was going to conduct this operation, Sabrina saying, a spokesperson at the Pentagon briefing reporters saying that the US had no advance warning of Israel's attack in Lebanon, and that in fact, Defense Secretary of Lloyd Austin was speaking with Israel's Jav Gallant
when the attack was already underway. So for more on this, I'm pleased to stay. Joining me here in our Washington, d C studio is Hagar Shamali. She is former formerly of the National Security Council, where she was director for Syria and Lebanon and is now founder and CEO of Greenwich Media's Strategieshigar, Welcome.
Back, Kaylie.
Good to see you in person.
It's great to see you as well, especially when we have news developing like this. Does it surprise you that Israel did not tell the US what it was about to do when it is a strike that largely was seen or is being seen as an escalatory one.
It doesn't.
First of all, if you look at similar assaults like this or attacks in in Israel's history, they don't always give the US a heads up when they've been targeting terrorist commanders and so on, things like that. They don't often because these are very sensitive operations. Often they have to verify for sure that their target is in fact there, and then sometimes those decisions are made within minutes.
Sometimes they take longer, but often minutes. But also on the US.
Side, they're worried for a league, and if a league happens, that target moves and they lose the opportunity. They see it, and the US operates so differently. When we targeted in Laden, we certainly didn't give the Pakistani is a heads up that we were going into their territory on top of it, and so that did not surprise me at all.
Okay, well, fair enough, I wonder if it surprises you then net Niyahu was saying, we have to keep going. We will continue to do this even in the face of US and other allies pushing for a three week ceasefire with Hezballah.
He is saying that Israel has no choice. To what extent is that true?
Okay, well, a few things here, So first, his remarks don't surprise me.
And part of it.
One of the things you know that I really think we need to notice is that over the last few months, in particular, the Israeli government has really been the Natiyahu government has been quite public and very clear on its intentions, and the international community, the United States, Egypt and Cutter, who are mediating a ceasefire, are still pushing for a ceasefire.
And that is the noble and right thing to do.
We should be pushing both sides to a ceasefire, even if we drag both sides to the table kicking and screaming. But at the end of the day, both sides are also communicating very clearly that they're not ready, that they don't want they want to continue fighting, and even with what's happening in Lebanon now, very quickly the United States put forward sees fibroposal, and just as quickly as they put it down, the Israelis and Hisbella shot it down. And so there is no appetite at the moment on
Israel's side when it comes to Lebanon. In particular, they view that the fact that the north of the country is completely empty undermines the integrity of their territory.
And the problem with that is.
That they genuinely fear that Hisbela is going to do in October seven style incursion, to go in to invade or to compromise that border. And it's also a reflection of the failure of the UN, because the UN is supposed to maintain the blue line between both and maintain that line as disarmed, and they clearly haven't been able
to do that. And so that's Israel's view here. But the problem is, while while they're saying, you know, Hisbela, you've been lobbing missiles at us NonStop, and we kept it kind of the secret understanding at a tit for tet level and now we're done, you have to stop. We want to return our citizens to the North and we can't have this land be empty. The problem is
is are the assaults they're pursuing now. While it shows that Israel is not afraid of a full scale escalation, it could also it's just going to create another generation of people, and it's going to further undermine what is already a failed state in Lebanon and create a generation of people who are going to run to the arms of terrorism as a method.
And that's my concern for Israel's long term security.
But I understand why Israel it feels they need to approach Zballah through military action.
As well well.
And we should point out Lebanese authorities say more than seven hundred people have been killed and strikes just over the course of the last week or so, fifty of them children. It does raise the question, though, Hagar, of what kind of retaliation you would expect from Hesbela, who maybe doesn't have great incentive to escalate this conflict if they don't have to. But also if your headquarters have just been hit, you don't want to be seen as weak.
Right yes, they've actually been seen as quite weak over the last few weeks, in particular because the tit for tat that's been going on for the last eleven months between Hesbela and Israel seems to have actually genuinely weakened Hasbella's leadership.
For sure.
They've targeted apparently five hundred comand their communications, as we've seen, are all compromised and they feel they can't communicate with each other. And you also have weapons depots and so on that have been targeted. That doesn't mean that they don't have more operatives, that they don't have many thousands more operatives, thousands more missiles, and that could cause a great destruction, of course, but we're seeing them struggle. The Iron Dome is intercepting many.
Of the missiles.
Of course, some of them are hitting. It's still not safe in the north of Israel.
But Hisbela is.
Showing, in my opinion, a weakness automatically, and it makes me wonder if they're going to try to go try to go back to the status quo because Iran doesn't want to confront Israel directly, they want their proxies to do it.
Well, I was just going to ask about the role of Iran in this. Does what Iran rather has Bla be perceived is weak but not actually have this escalating into a wider regional conflict or do they want to have their proxies still be able to fight their fights for them and therefore would be encouraging Hasbela to do what it means to do to showcase strength.
Yes, well, so it is absolutely no interest to have its proxies continue to attack Israel, continue to bother Israel and undermine Israel for sure, without Iran being roped in in any way. And we saw that after Israel attack Hamas's leader in Iran is Haniya back over the summer, you saw Iran respond with a lot of bluster and promising to respond.
Well, we haven't seen that response, Yett.
And it was because ceasefire talks started to become very serious, because a ceasefire ultimately benefits Iran. Iran is weak right now, the regime is weak. Their people don't really want the regime, and so they know there's only so far they can go. And the threat of the US getting involved if Israel is attacked by Iran is a deterrence that serves quite.
Well in pushing back on Iran.
But that's why they're happy having the Huthis attack, has Bella attack, Hamas attack, and Israel views this it seems as a war to fundamentally change things on the ground, like a nineteen sixty seven war, like a nineteen seventy three war. Not in terms of length, the length they think will be much longer. But this isn't any more
more about punishing Hamas defeating Hamas. This seems to be for them more about their existential This this threat to their existence, and that they want to fundamentally change how terrorists are operating on the ground and posing a threat to them.
Well, that does make me wonder about Israeli public sentiment because we have seen domestic pressure on Netanyahu, especially as it pertains to Gaza, given the hostages that remain there, especially in the aftermath of the death of the six hostages that were executed by Hamas most recently. I wonder how sentiment factors into the conversation around the North and Lebanon, and if there may be more support domestically for what Israel is doing there then there may be in Gaza at this.
Time domestically in israel I mean, yeah, I do believe.
There doesn't matter frankly at all to the Natanyahu government.
Well, you know what matters to the Natiyahu government or Netiyahu's himself, is that he wants to remain in power, and he knows that if he doesn't he cuts a ceasefire deal, not on his terms or even on his terms, his far right cabinet members who are extreme will could collapse his government and then it will go into an election. He'll lose that election, and then he'll face corruption charges that he's going to that he's going to face at some point inevitably, and so on.
There's on that side.
Domestically, you do have a very strong push for citizens to return to the North and to feel safe returning to the North. And so I don't see yet. I don't see yet a pushback in Israel. It could change, though, it could shift in Lebanon. In Lebanon, nobody is Nobody wants to invite a war. Nobody who doesn't support Hasbola is excited about a war being invited into the country. But there is a deep understanding that Hesbelah is the one that invited this war. For not Hasbella supporters, meaning
Christians and Sunny for the larger part. But that doesn't mean that they also want Israel pursuing these attacks in Lebanon in general, even though they know that Habela is the one launching these missiles in the north.
Finally, hagar Is we consider it the domestic pressure on Netanyahu and some of these other domestic pressures within all of these different countries. There are also as great domestic pressure in the US on this administration to get a ceasefire done in Gaza. We've heard from President Biden after announcing he would not seek reelection, one of the things he said he wanted to accomplish before leaving office is not just a ceasefire between Israel and Amas, but peace
in the Middle East. It feels like we have gotten significantly farther away from that goal than we've gotten towards it. And I wonder if you think any of what he wants to accomplish is realistically going to get done before he leaves office in January.
Well, the short answer is no, I don't think any of it will get done.
But unfortunately, when he said the part about the ceasefire, I do think that at that time in the summer that he could believe that.
I believed it. I said it on this show.
There were a lot of factors that seemed like a ceasefire was near. And I will say in history, in many Israel peace negotiations, you've had US officials that they still say the same thing.
You know, it's down to the ten percent.
It's down as Secretary Blincoln sent to the last three paragraphs of an eighteen para proposal negotiation, and even with that, many times negotiations have failed over not being able to agree on those that last ten percent. And the ADMINISTRACI itself seems to have itself lost hope in the idea that a ceasefire is achievable by the election.
Middle East piece, I don't think is a chieved.
I'm so sorry, but I don't think that's achievable for a while, certainly not now, But no think I don't think that even they believe it's achievable at this point.
All right, Well, we have just had a headline cross the Bloomberg Terminal that Biden has been briefed on these Bay Route strikes by his national security team. Again, this is after the Pentagon said that the US was not told in advance that these strikes were coming.
Hungarre.
Great to have you here in studio, especially as we're dealing with news like this. A Garshamali, of course, formerly of the National Security Council, now founder and CEO of Greenwich Media Strategies.
Enjoy the rest of your time in Washington.
Appreciate you being here on balance of power and especially the conversation around the proxies of Iran and Iran itself. We're going to continue talking about Iran in our next conversation. Is The US Justice Department today unveiled charge it's against a number of Iranian operatives for allegedly carrying out the Iranian hack on Donald Trump's twenty twenty four presidential campaign
earlier this year. It claims these individuals gained access to internal documents of people working on the campaign, then shared that with journalists and officials working for what was then the Biden campaign. We're going to have more on this in an exclusive conversation coming up in just a moment with Lisa Monico. She is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, So stick with us for that. We'll have more ahead here on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emocarplay and then froud Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
This is Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio, where we are about to have a very important conversation as we are just weeks away from the twenty twenty five or presidential election. The Department of Justice this afternoon just announced new charges against multiple people for allegedly carrying out an Iranian backed operation to hack the campaign of Donald Trump. That hacker, remember, was first confirmed by the
campaign last month. Security officials said Iron had sent the stolen material to people linked to what was then the Biden reelection campaign, journalists as well, And we want to have more on this in the wider efforts of foreign actors to interfere in the US election, and turn for an exclusive interview to the US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monico, who is joining us now. Ma'am, thank you so much for being with us here on Bloombery. This is incredibly
important conversation. If we could begin with just the charges that were unveiled today in these specific actors who have now been indicted, What do you know about the intentions of them? Is this part of a wider effort Aroan is using to turn the tide against Donald Trump in this election.
Good afternoon, Kley, and thanks very much for having me. What we've announced today are charges against three Iranian hackers who are engaging in a malign foreign influence campaign. The charges we have laid out today and announced today lay out a year's long hacking campaign targeting current and former government officials, targeting journalists, and most recently, targeting US political campaigns.
As you indicated, these charges include discussion and laying out of a malicious cyber activity that the intelligence community in the FBI has previously referenced. These efforts included a malicious Iranian cyber actors sending unsolicited emails to individuals then associated with the campaign of President Biden, and those emails contained stolen excerpts excerpts of stolen non public material from the Trump campaign. I should point out, Kayley, that there's no
indication that the recipients replied to those emails. To your question about intent, the hackers made clear in their very own words, and we've laid this out in the charging document we unsealed today, and that intent is to undermine the campaign of former President Trump in advance of the election.
And I wonder, ma'am, how you see these efforts differing or working in tandem with the efforts of other adversaries, be it Russia or China for example. Are they working in concert or are they all working in different ways with similar motives.
Well, look, this is part of the charges we announced today, and the broader aggressive activity that we are seeing from Iran, from Russia, from China are part of a very complex, diverse and aggressive foreign malign influence effort that we are seeing from our adversaries in this election cycle. So the charges we've announced today, I think are consistent with what
we have been seeing and warning about. The intelligence community has been quite clear over the last weeks and months about what we are seeing in the way of foreign malign influence. You have seen the Justice Department take aggressive action in the last several weeks. We unveiled the operations
of Russian actors. In the last couple of weeks, we exposed Russian foreign malign influence campaigns, again all directed at and an effort to sow discord, to so mistrust, and to undermine our confidence in our election process.
Well, of course, what you're alluding to the seizure of dozens of domains that the DOJS alleging have been propagating Russian backed efforts to spread foreign malign influence, including around the presidential election. I believe there was some thirty two of those. Man, how far does that web go and what else is Russia specifically doing? Are you seeing it having an impact?
That's exactly right, kaylie. What we exposed a few weeks ago were Putin directed efforts using a Russian state operated media arm RT to spread Russian propaganda, to spread pro Russian narratives, using unwitting American commentators to do so, to funnel millions of dollars to a US company in order to do that, And we also exposed the work of a proxy company again Putin Directed, called the Social Design Agency, which a proxy company used by Russia to push out
AI generated content, again pushing out Russian propaganda targeting US voters and specific voter demographics, all in an effort to influence the election, to undermine confidence in our election process, to undermine also from the Russi perspective to undermine our support for Ukraine. So this is part of a broader scheme and efforts, very aggressive efforts by Russian foreign malign actors.
Again, we're in conversation here with the US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco on Bloomberg Television and Radio. Obviously, ma'am, there are a number of channels and ways in which miss and disinformation that could be aimed at influencing voters can circulate in the modern age, including on social media, on platforms for example like X. Is the DJ working with X and elon Musk to try to tamp down
on that missed and disinformation. And if you're trying, are you seeing cooperation on the other side.
Well, look, what we're doing is doing everything we can
to investigate, to expose, and to disrupt these activities. When we see foreign malign influence activity on platforms across the United States, we are taking that information, using that information, and sharing it with platforms including X. We are very focused on providing social media platforms information, actionable information in real time so that they can take action under their own discretion, making their own judgments consistent with the first Amendment.
We are providing them information and then they are taking action at their own discretion to address that activity that we point out to them. So we will continue to do that. Our focus is on making sure we are exposing this activity so that Americans can be discerning consumers, because kayleie, American voters should be deciding our election, not our foreign adversaries.
Well, on that point, ma'am, it's one thing to put out information, be it disor missinformation, aimed at influencing American votes. It's another thing entirely to actually try to disrupt or tamper with the electoral process itself. To what extent is the Department of Justice concerned about potential cybery, even physical disruptions to the election process, be it on election Day in November or in the early voting leading up to it.
So two things I would say on this, Kaylee. One, we see our foreign adversaries trying to put into their malign influence campaigns disinformation and misinformation about the vulnerability of our voting systems. Our voting systems are quite resilient, and they are quite diffuse, and they are by and large not connected and almost a majority not connected to the Internet.
My colleagues at SISA over at DHS have the lead for the federal government in working to protect our critical infrastructure and importantly working with state and local officials to protect that infrastructure, that voting infrastructure. Remember, the voting in this country is control, owned, operated, and administered all at
the state and local level. So our job in the federal government, working across the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, is to assist our state and local partners
in that effort. We are sharing information about efforts to influence those that electoral process, but the election systems and the infrastructure themselves are very diffuse and very diffuse across the state and local jurisdictions and not connected to the Internet, so people should be on the lookout for misinformation about.
That, Madam, Deputy Attorney General. I'd like to turn to another issue is yesterday the DOJ also charged to Russian nationals in a crypto laundering scheme. What can you tell us about how pervasive these potential laundering networks are, what their aims are, and how the DOJ is working in concert with other agencies like say the SA and cracking down in this regard.
So you're quite right, Kelly. We took action yesterday to disrupt a number of malicious cyber criminals and to disrupt the criminal ecosystem that fuels their activity to Russian nationals, and also we disrupted an illicit crypto exchange called cryptics. This is part of our overall effort to disrupt wherever we can, the criminal ecosystem that is fueling everything from ransomware to darknet, drug trafficking to money laundering. And it
was money laundering that was really at issue here. These are two Russian nationals engaged in a massive money laundering schemes that were fueling criminal activity across a whole spectrum of areas. As I said, ransomware and drug trafficking. What we are seeing is crypto, for instance, is the lifeblood
of a lot of this illicit activity, including ransomware. It may be advertised as borderless, but what we are showing, including with yesterday's charges that we brought, is that we will follow it wherever it goes, including to the darkest corners, and hold individuals to account.
Finally, ma'am, while we have you, I won't ask you to comment directly on the indictment of Eric Adams, but I do have a wider question for you about the perception and institutional trust in the Department of Justice. After that indictment came down, we heard from Donald Trump calling the Justice Department quote dirty players. I don't have to tell you he's argued consistently that the DOJ is being weaponized against him. Many of his supporters believe that largely
to be true. How much harder is it for you to do your work when your credibility is being questioned by people at the highest levels of American politics.
I'm not going to comment on those attacks, Kayley, except to say that the men and women of the Justice Department are doing their job every single day, without fear or favor, without regard to any political affiliation, following the facts wherever they lead. And yesterday's charges announced by the Southern District of New York I think reflect exactly that principle.
All right, we will leave it on that note. We sincerely appreciate your time US Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco for an exclusive interview here on Bloomberg TV and radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then.
Roud Oro 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've got some figures for you as well, fresh data out of the swing states thanks to Bloomberg's new polling with Morning consult that finds Kamala Harris up three points against Donald Trump across the seven battlegrounds that could ultimately decide this election. To run you through the headline figure, She's up seven percentage points in Nevada.
That is her widest lead.
She leads by five in Pennsylvania, three in Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Up by two points in North Carolina. The only state in which she and Donald Trump are tied.
Is in Georgia.
But all of these figures are within the poll's margin of error. It's important to note. But what's also important to note is that these figures also suggest that the improvement she's seeing in the polls is coming simultaneously with improvement on the issue of the economy. So for more, let's turn to Elioakley. He is Morning consults Us politics analysts joining me here on Bloomberg TV and Radio, as he does every month when this poll comes out. Always
good to see you, Eli. Let's just start with the economy overall first, because this data is striking for us here at Bloomberg. Trump only up four percentage points on her on the economy overall, and when likely voters were asked who they trust more to handle the cost of everyday goods, it's a virtual tie forty seven Trump forty six Harris.
What has changed here, Well, Kamala Harris is getting good marks on just about everything we're testing right now, and that's translating to how voters are perceiving her on the issues we saw even improvements one she's like immigration. But look when you dive into the economic issues, I mean, the cost of living, healthcare, and housing are the top three concerns for likely voters across the swing state map,
and on all those issues she is making games. She already had an advantage on healthcare, she's picked up an advantage on housing, and she's tied with Trump on the issue of costs. Voters are taking a look at her. It seems that it's one of her economic messaging is breaking through to them and that's translating it to a big growth in trust across a lot of these states.
Well, so let's think about how this breaks down state by state, because obviously she's looking at varying degrees of leads here or lack thereof in Georgia, for example, where she's tied.
Is there a relationship between how.
Voters in these states are viewing the economy and how well she is performing, or is it other issues depending on which state we're looking at.
I mean, this electorate is so parison at this point. I think a lot of this is coming down to the kinds of voters who say they're likely to vote in the members election. I think that we're seeing in some of these other states more enthusiasm among Democratic voters. I think that in Georgia perhaps it's a little less among Democrats.
You know.
That's Donald Trump's big play here in the next few weeks is whether he can change this likely voter sample that we're getting right now that has been as political magic when he has won elections, is bringing in voters who do not say today that they're likely to vote right now. Among these people who are excited about showing up at the polls, he is not performing that great across the Swing States. On the economy in particular, we have seen a bit of an improvement in how voters
are perceiving their personal situation the country's situation. That is something that I think, if it continues, seems to be something that would benefit Kamala Harris. But look, it's gonna be along a few weeks as Donald Trump tries to try to win back some of these folks.
Yeah, well, I wonder how these results may have been changed by a FED rate cut as well or the expectation that it was happening. We know that borrowing costs could have a big deal, a big impact into terms of how people are thinking about their own balance sheets, in the cost of buying a home or what have you, Right, Eli, Yeah.
I mean is a big deal. A lot of voters, about half of voters I think, said that that might have a positive impact on the economy. You know, Kamala Harris has been out front on this housing issue in a way that President Biden really wasn't. I think voters, particularly in Nevada, are thirsty for answers on this issue as they face housing costs there. She's taken plans to the electric to deal with this issue in a way Donald Trump hadn't, and it appears that's resonating. She's doing
very well in Nevada in a way Biden wasn't. Donald Trump is not competitive there currently, and some of this stuff seems to be breaking through to folks.
I also want to talk about the issue of immigration, because that's the one she's focused on today. She will be this afternoon traveling to Arizona making a trip to the border, which of course Republicans have been critical of her not doing during her time as candidate and vice president as frequently as they believe that she should. On immigration, that does still appear to be a weakness for her
in these states. Eliah fourteen percent lead enjoyed by Donald Trump on that issue, and it is a wide margin as well in states like Arizona and Nevada.
Yeah.
I mean since Joe Biden took office, even back when he was very popular at the beginning of his term, this immigration issue has weighed on him and the Democratic Party overall. I think what Kama Harris is trying to do today is to go on the offense against Donald Trump and highlight the fact that he helped kill a
bipartisan immigration bill in Congress this year. You know, a lot of things that happen on Capitol Hill don't break through to the electorate the big way, and so it's incumbent on her to try to raise that to voters. I don't know how trusted she is on that issue right now, just given the postured voters half towards the Democratic Party. But you know, addressing the issue taking a head on is something that could break through and help her with some of these remaining undecided voters.
Finally, Eli, as we consider the sun Belt states, the border states are border rejacent states like Arizona or one thing. Then there's states like North Carolina, which have had their own kind of disrupted, disruptive events, if you will. Over the course of the last several weeks. When it comes to the Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, who of course was endorsed by Donald Trump, has faced allegations of making some pretty disturbing messages on a number of peorn platforms.
For example, have we started to see that show up in the data? Do you think that has any role in the two point advantage Harris is currently enjoying in that state.
I don't think we saw much change month over month. I mean, this survey was conducted just after some of these revelations about Bark Robinson came down. In our surveys we've seen at hereporning Console he was already trailing Jeff Stein by double digits in that state. He was underperforming Donald Trump really really significantly. The voters of North Carolina do not seem that interested in what he has to offer them. The question will be the amount of energy
that folks put into that state. Now though, is this our Republican's going to write this off a bit? They probably shouldn't. It's a very important state for their chances. But you know, democrats in market Stein has a great opportunity here to try to lift up Kamala Harris with a campaign that's going to have a lot of energy among Democrats who see victory coming up in no effort.
All right, Eli Yoakley, always great to have you morning consult at US Politics Analyst.
Thank you very much for joining me. Now we want to turn back on.
These poll results to our signature political panel Rick Davis Stone Court Capital partner and Republican strategist alongside Jeanie Shanzeno, Senior Democracy fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, and democratic strategists, both of them Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick, I'd like to begin with you, just given your deep knowledge of the state of Arizona.
She is obviously going there today. This poll shows her leading Trump by three points within the margin of error. She's specifically going there to address the issue that she perhaps is weakest on if our polls are to be believed, immigration. How capable of moving the needle on this issue will she be if she goes and goes to the border. Does it actually make a difference with forty days to go until the election, Well, I definitely think.
It makes a difference. This is the biggest hesitation about Kamala Harris that voters have, especially in the Sun Belt states, and doesn't rank as big an issue in the blue Wall states. But if you want to compete in Georgia, in Arizona, and Nevada in North Carolina, you have to have something to say about immigration. And she's been relatively quiet. I mean, she has been going heavy on economic issues and then obviously starting to show in the pulling douta
that you just discussed. But this is a chance for her to change the script a little bit, and she's got something to say. I mean, Donald Trump killed a bill that would have been a significant change in border policy for the first time in decades, that was supported actively by the Biden Harris administration. So that'll be your
talking point today. And if she can create some comfort that she isn't the raging liberal with open borders that Donald Trump has painted her as, then I think she will will satisfy some of the questions that undecided voters might have about her. And she's not only showing up at the border, but she's also posting up a new border ad that will help echo whatever happens today on the border.
So Jennie, I'd love for you to weigh in on this as well. Knowing that Harris at the same time, she's tried to showcase that she has been a prosecutor. She repeatedly says that she has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations and targeted the flow of illegal substances and activity over the border. She has also talked about, and we saw her do this in an interview on MSNBC earlier this week, how she also supports creating more legal pathways to immigration.
What is the appropriate balance for her here if she does want to draw in these independent voters but also not alienate certain portions of her party.
Yeah, it's a tough app for her to walk, But I think you used exactly the right word, Kaylee, and that is prosecutor. She has today got to prosecute Donald Trump for killing the bill and leaving us in the position where we are.
Now.
That's what she's got to say. We had a bill we were pushing forward for change. It was bipartisan, The Wall Street Journal, conservatives all described it as the toughest border security bill, and yet you killed it solely so you could run for president and have a chance of
being elected. She's got to prosecute that case. And then she's got to make the case that this is part of her economic security care economy, that she is both tough on the border, tough on security, and she also recognizes that we have a society in which immigrants and migrants have played a critical role in making us who we are today, and we should be proud of them and welcome them when they come here legally. And she's going to ensure that happens, So she has a lot
to say today. I think she should have been doing this earlier, but it's important she's doing it now because, as you were just mentioning, the Morning Council poll, all poll show she's behind on Donald Trump when it comes to this issue of the border in the minds of many voters.
But is gaining ground on him when it comes to the economy, which you were just alluding to, Genie and Rick also mentioned. So I guess to some extent that does show us that her messaging and the policy idea
she has put forward are resonating. I just wonder, Genie, if you think we're starting to reach the point in the election cycle where economic feeling is going to be to a large degree already banked in, even if we have seen it change over the course of the last several months since Joe Biden was the candidate to now Harris, things can only move so much from here, I would imagine, right.
That's true, and I think, you know, Harris has done a good job, But I also think two other factors are important. Number one, the numbers and what has happened economically. I've worked in her favor. Consumer sentiment out that you were just talking about. That's to her favor. The Fed's decision September eighteenth, that's to her favor. So she's benefiting from a stronger economic numbers that people are feeling and
seeing on the ground. And she's also benefiting, quite frankly, from the fact that Donald Trump sam simply seems not to be able to prosecute the case against her. He is out hawking commemorative coins when he should be making the case that she and Joe Biden have been bad
for the economy and bad for security. So I think she's benefiting from those two things almost as much as she has from her ability to sell her plan and this care economy, and all of those things have allowed her to decrease the amount by which voters see him as good for the economy. Now, let's not forget voters have something to lose. She's got to keep saying, do you want to take somebody who's threatening sixty percent tariffs,
that's inflationary, that hurts our jobs. Don't let him do that, and don't let him risk what we've done, as we've come so far and people don't want to risk that. And so that's to her benefit. As well.
So, Rick, what do you do if you're Donald Trump? Do you double down on economic attacks to try to stem the tide of her progress on this issue? Where do you pivot to other areas of weakness more aggressively, like the border or something else.
Well, I would remind everybody that it was September seventeenth in two thousand and eight, in the middle of a winning campaign that John McCain was running against Barack Obama that changed the entire world's economic point of view when Lehman Brothers failed and completely upset the campaign. So I would not say it's too late for economics to play a significant role in this campaign, And unfortunately for Donald Trump, it seems to be headed in the opposite direction. Record
that Wall Street has had this week. These things add to the flavor of voters' views about Kamala Harrison her economy. It's not just the speeches and the ads that she's running. She has an environmental picture that seems to be helping her. That being said, the biggest hurdle I think that Donald Trump has right now as he's getting out spent four to one on TV in the targeted swing states. So when she says something four times more people are hearing it than when Donald Trump says it. And we know
Donald Trump is a master of earned media. But unless he can stay disciplined on the messages that he is talking about, he's going to get out shouted on all these issues by the Harris campaign. And so I know Republicans are particularly concerned about the fact that Donald Trump is getting drowned out. And the facts are that he is running out of time to prosecute this attack on Kamala Harris, whether it is on immigration or the economy or any other issue that is current in the news today.
Donald Trump spent the whole day today getting basically news around meeting with Zelensky on Ukraine, not an issue that is going to be particularly helpful to him. It's stunning to see Kamala Harris actually up by a point in our pool on Commander in Chief ratings. So right now is a bad cycle for Donald Trump.
All right, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzino, our signature political panel.
Thank you so much for joining me.
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.