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 roudo with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington as we turn to the other major story unfolding here, and of course, that's what happened over the weekend in the Middle East, as Iran unleashes an attack of hundreds of missiles and rockets directly against Israel. Not miraculously, and through remarkable technology and coordination, Israel, working with the US, the UK, France and Jordan, managed
to knock down ninety nine percent of them. The headline on the terminal Iran's attack on Israel sparks race to avert a full blown war as the world now waits to see what Israel will do. We spoke earlier with John Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Apparatus at the White House earlier today.
He was on Bloomberg Surveillance here.
He is the President was very direct that this was a huge success, that Israel can be proud that it doesn't stand alone and that it has superior military capability. Iran utterly failed and what they were trying to achieve, and that that success alone sends a strong message to Iran and to the region about Israel's place there.
Iran utterly failed, he says, a resounding success. So if the attacker doesn't manage to lay a glove on you, do you still punch back. That's where we start our conversation with Alex Fatanka. He's the Middle East Institute's director of the Iran program, and Alex, it's great to have you with us on this day. Your voice is important to us as we try to figure out the next move. Does the White House have the right posture when it
comes to dealing with Israel? Does Joe Biden have any leverage in helping to determine this outcome?
Fir's great to be with you. Look in terms of the messaging from the White House, I think it's very clear the US disadministration is not interested in that regional conflict broadening or dragon the United States into it. We all can appreciate why that is, and that's the administration's position. I know there will be some criticism whether the bidendministration
stood behind Israel the way it should or not. And I think the challenge for the administration is to convince the Israeli government, and that has been a challenge for successive American administrations in the last few years, to convince Israel that they're better off hand in hand with the United States than good at Iran alone. And I think that makes a lot of sense to me. You just heard that US certainly thinks this was a strategic win for Israel and a strategic defeat for Iran. And you
could make that case strongly. And if that's the case, then what's the rush? Why not wait before you retaliate against this Iranian strike on Israel?
Well, there you are.
Just imagine a world though, in which some of those rockets and missiles got through. It would have meant likely the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. So I understand the idea that a response of some sort is called for here, if only as a deterrent to keep Iran from doing it again. Is it possible, alex for Israel to respond without losing the alliance that it has created.
Look, the quick answer to that, the latter part of what you just said is that Iran basically was alone here. I mean, if you even look at the Arab countries, there was not much support, if any. I mean it might have been I'm sure there were some support on a street level in the Arab world. But Iran, this non Arab country that has try to use Palestine to make itself into the leader of the Islamic world, essentially failed.
And in some cases, as with the Jordanians, they were actively involved in stopping this Iranian attack on Israel, and others probably were involved. We just from the Wall Street Journal that UA in Saudi Arabia also played a role. So I think so much of what happens now going forward is whether Israel can turn around and use what happened over the weekend into strategic leverage against Iran, basically
to say, look, Israel is here to stay. Israel should, however, saying that, find ways to coexist with Arab countries that do want to accept it, most notably Saudi Arabia. And again that takes us to the issue of the Palestinians. If Israel tomorrow could somehow solve and I know I'm saying something that's much easier said than done. But if just say, Israel could somehow find a path to it to a solution to the Palestinian problem, then Iran's access
of resistance, it's proxy network. None of that makes no sense going forward. By the way, one thing we have to remember, the Iranian population is the most upset about what the regime in Tehran is doing in terms of its regional agenda. And there is no support of what I tell a comedy and the Revolutionary Guards are doing against the State of Israel.
Consistent with what we've frequently seen from the Iranian people. So then is the calculation correct, Alex that Iran does not want a wider war, that it is not interested in a conflict that involves the US.
You know, this is the basic bottom line for the Iranian regime. They don't feel if they get into a conflict with Israel, then that's the end of it. They feel that a conflict with Israel means a conflict when the United States, and in many ways they're right in thinking that that is their position, and they don't dare you know, you can put another thousand sanctions on the
Islamic Republic. They wouldn't blink. But you start seriously talking about the use of the United States military against Iran. That's when they're going to really seriously back away the track record of Islam and Grohog. But here's the big test for Israel going forward. I talk about strategic leverage.
They need to make the argument that yes, they have problems in terms of how what's going on in Gaza, but end of the day, if you believe in the Middle East, where the focus will be on economic development, economic integration, then nation states need to come around the table and have a honest conversation about the future and Iran's access of resistance, the use of proxies, non state actors, that is the opposite of economic development, economic integration and
prosperity for the region, and that Israel needs to bring as many Arab countries, others in the region and international community to that argument, convince them, and I think if you do that, then the Iranian regime and again reminding ourselves, they don't even have their own people behind them, then they will have a very tough position to argue for.
We're spending time with Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute. I'd love to know alex to the extent this attack was so carefully choreographed and telegraphed. Iran gave Israel a week's notice on this happening, and then they had something like five hours to prepare after the drones were launched on the way to Israel. And of course they knew the United States our Sentcom commander was in Israel working with the Israelis to prepare
for this. Did Iran know that the defense would be so capable that it was willing to attack Israel directly?
Right?
So I mean, just in terms of context, I'm sure you've covered this already plenty of times, but this Iranian retaliation, in terms of how to justified it was they said Israel hit them on the first of April their Damascus consulate and they had to retaliate. They had to recreate the deterrence that will had, you know, to pay a price.
But I will I will say, I will say that the way they went about it, as you just pointed out rightly, you know, to sort of take away the element of surprise, to give the other side plenty of time to prepare, you have to question what they were thinking. And this is what I think happened. They wanted to strike some military sites in Israel. I really don't think they intended to kill civilians, because they knew that would have been too much for anybody to bear and they
would have entered the phase of no return. But they didn't want to sort of strike the Israelis in terms of their military capacity, and they hit that air force base in the galv apparently with some minor damage done to it. But what I think surprised them is how incapable they were. When ninety nine percent of your projectiles are intercepted, you're not in a good place. So I think they were surprised that they were so unable to sort of strike some of those sites they wanted to hit.
But essentially, I don't think they ever meant to go out and bring about mask as in Israel, because they said the consequence that we've been that great.
Well that says a lot.
And I don't know to the extent that the US believed that it could block that much hardware, but we certainly learned something over the weekend. Alex, I only have a minute left. What's your gut do you believe israel response?
I think the Israelis are wiser than that. I think they recognize what Iran did here. He's really sort of put itself on the state as this spoiler of this mother of all spoilers, a country that, even if wants to fight for the Palestinian cause, there are much better ways to go about it. That this is a revolutionary,
militant state that has lost its own people. And really, if you recognize that as a starting point, I think perhaps going forward policies towards Iran, this regime, I should say, could be better, could change and hopefully get better results.
Alex, I'm really glad that you could talk to us today. I appreciate your time and your insights as we have a chance to tap the experience of Alex Vatanka. He's director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute. We'll have voices of experience throughout the program today as we try to unpack what happened last weekend and get a sense of where we're going forward. With an eye on a courthouse in New York, the Trump trial, the
hush money case getting underway today as well. I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington glad you came along on this Monday Ballance of Power only on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Catch 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.
Welcome to the Monday edition, the Patriots Day edition of Balance of Power here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. And Happy Marathon Monday if you're in the Boston area. This is an important start of the season for so many people, and we're trying to acknowledge the optimism here amid very complicated times on this fifteenth of April. Happy tax Day as well. A lot to unpack from over the weekend,
and we're going to do that. Following Iran's attack on Israel and now of course a global debate over what should happen next, We're going to spend some time ahead this hour, as I mentioned, with Congressman Zach Nunn, Republican, joining us live today as part of our conversation here on Balance of Power with a sense of what might
happen in terms of the funding debate. Some very important decisions need to be made later today, what's already underway is the historic trial in New York, the first criminal trial for a former president, and of course Bloomberg's Kaylee lines is therefore us. She's been outside the courthouse for the balance of the day. Donald Trump has already been through the building. Kaylee, what's going on inside it? I'm curious to know what's happening outside. Is this a carnival in Manhattan or what?
Yeah, Joe, it's been buzzing all morning. There are, as of course, a very large media presence here. There are also plenty of protesters, both in support of and against Donald Trump, who have shown out today and right now there actually isn't anything happening in the room on the fifteenth floor where all of this is happening. There is a lunch break until one thirty pm when they return. Though we could see a ruling potentially on the question of whether or not Trump should be held in contempt
of court. The prosecution has asked for him to be held in content because of true social posts he has made related to Michael Cohen, who very likely could be a test witness in this case, and there is a gag order in place from the judge that bars Trump from talking about potential witnesses, as well as the judge and his family and others tied to this case as well. So we'll wait for a decision on that. We already have seen a decision on several motions before the jury
selection process can begin. That work has not yet begun, Joe. And still they are going to need to sort through hundreds of potential jurors and find twelve jurors and six alternates who meet the criteria of being able to be impartial and unbiased in assessing this case, in which, of course Trump is charged with thirty four felony counts of falsifying business records.
Pretty remarkable.
And the president, apparently the former president Kaylee will be of course in court four days a week, has got to be. Therefore, we'll be sleeping at Trump Tower. Is Manhattan going to be compromised by street closures by Secret Service?
How are they going to manage all of this?
Yeah, Joe, it's definitely a logistical nightmare. Frankly, if you're a security personnel who of course have to work in conjunction with the Secret Service, and there's a lot of gateways that have been closed off, a lot of police presidence here on the scene in Lower Manhattan, and that is going to have to continue for the duration of this trial, which could be about six to eight weeks. You're right to point out that Trump is required to
be here in person as a criminal defendant. He will have to be here every day, but Wednesday's weekdays i'm speaking of. There will be a few exceptions though in the coming weeks, the jury will be excused for half days or at least the proceedings will end after a half day two week for passover. There also will be a break entirely days off on April twenty ninth and thirtieth, and frankly, that could just prolong the process of jury selection. This,
frankly is something that could take weeks. And then after that is when you actually get to the arguments and the testimony and the rest of the trial. And of course we'll see at the end of it, Joe, if Donald Trump ends up a convicted felon.
If you're with a some on Bloomberg TV, you're seeing images from Donald Trump earlier today at the courthouse, Kaylee. They will give him venue to speak to reporters outdoors or in the lobby. How's that going to work?
Yeah, he has the option to speak to reporters in
the hallway, should he so choose. He did do so heading in to the proceedings earlier this morning, arguing that this is a political persecution, saying that this is an assault against America, that these charges have never should never have been brought in the first place, many arguments we have heard him make before, and kind of repeating a pattern that we have consistently seen, which is that Trump uses these court appearances as a way to court free media,
to have kind of de facto campaign events, speaking not just to his base of supporters, but anyone who could potentially vote for him in November. And we do know that voter opinion of him may very well change depending on the outcome of this case. Is voters and swing states, according to Bloomberg's pulling with Morning Consult, abruptly half of them had said they would not vote for Trump if
he were to be convicted of a crime. So certainly a lot does at stake here for the former president, not just politically, but also the fact that he could be facing prison time at the end of this show.
Remarkable. Kaylee lines, it's great to have you in New York. Of course, typically my partner here on Balance of Power in Washington. We're straddling two cities today and appreciate the coverage from Kailey this Monday, after, of course, the attack against Israel by Iran, a remarkable weekend that took place, of course, the attacks overseas, but was very busy here in Washington, with the President of the United States returning early from Rehoboth to get in the situation room with
his advisors and try to manage the situation. And we've been hearing about what the White House is framing as a remarkable success, the fact that some ninety nine percent of the hardware thrown by Iran at Israel was blocked by defensive systems and in some cases, in many cases, in fact, American fighter pilots flying F fifteen's shooting down these rockets and missiles.
Air to air.
We heard earlier today from John Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Operation at the White House. He spoke with us on Bloomberg surveillance here.
He is I can't speculate about future operations one way or another or future decisions that we might have to make. The President has been clear we're going to hold Iran accountable for their destabilizing activities.
He's also been clear.
That we don't want a war with Iran.
We're not looking for another war in the Middle East or to see the conflict that's currently underway in Gaza broadened or deepened across the region. Now we'll have to see how things unfold over the next coming days here, but we don't want a war with Iran, and everything the President has been doing since the seventh of October has been designed to try to bring the tensions down into make sure that the United States is best posture to defend our interests there.
In the region.
John Kirby on a noisy North lawn at the White House. The question is how to hold Iran accountable and what Israel should do now, what the White House, what congressional leaders have the stomach for. That's where we start our conversation with Congressman Zach Nunn, the Republican from Iowa, is joining us now from Capitol Hill.
Congressman, it's great to see you.
You served our country for almost two decades in the United States Air Force, You've worked as an airborne intelligence officer and you are still serving in the Air Force Reserve. Our audience should know. Do you believe that Israel should respond to Iran?
Joe?
Israel is our most important ally in the region. They're one of the strongest democracies, and they are certainly the frontline in defending.
Folks right here at home.
Now.
I've flown combat operations in the Middle East for several decades, and I know exactly the threat that Iran poses, both in arming most hospital adversaries Hamas has Blah now the Houthi rebels who are firing on US forces. But the reality here is that only the United States and Israel could build this coalition of European partners and Arab partners to stop the onslaught of three hundred plus weapons meant
to destroy the lives of innocent civilians in Israel. That effectively and only deters them, But it shows a level of strength that Iran will have to.
Compete if they ever want to do this again.
It's a dramatic change in tone from Tehran to come after and enter in directly into a war against Israel. I hope that this is their last strike but I know the United States standing with Israel is our best deterrent to prevent a larger regional conflict.
Well, there seems to be this feel this morning, Congressman, and I'm sure you've heard this, that the fact that none of these missiles or rockets got through, the fact that no one was killed in Israel should essentially pre empt a military response. There are a lot of folks in Israel who feel differently about this, knowing that if some of those missiles had gotten through, we'd be having
a very different conversation today. And the fact that Iran was willing to actually go there, should it be a military response with that in mind.
That's a great question.
The point here is we were ninety nine percent successful this time, and the concern here is going forward, we have.
Got to stop Iran now moving forward.
It's one of the reasons I've led in Congress and making sure that we cut off their funding. Eighty billion dollars under this current administration is going directly to Tehran. That goes to proxy fighters. Equally important, a number of the sanctions that the Biden administration rolled back months ago are now empowering them with more funding. That's directly funding this fleet of drones that are being sent not just
against Israel, but against other allies in the region. This cascade of missiles, including cruise missiles, that are targeting folks everywhere from Tel Aviv to the gol On Heights to write in Jerusalem itself.
This is a real threat.
The States has been a military deterrent in the region, but we also have to be a diplomatic and economic powerhouse and holding Iran accountable from selling its ghost fleet of oil all over the world, particularly to China and other places that are also hostile to us, bring that money back and then directing it. So I want to hold a government defined strategy here. Congress needs to do its part and make sure that it funds the weapons
systems that protect Israelis. But equally, the administration has to have a strategic deterrent that's more than just parking destroyers off the coast of Iran. We have got to stop the way the Mullahs and the Ayahtola are controlling this environment.
Well, let's get into this, Congressman. You've said it yourself. The matter of funding is on the front burner in Congress, and there's an important meeting later on today with Speaker Mike Johnson, members of your Republican conference in the House about how you're going to get to this. There's of course an emergency supplemental package that we've talked up and down that's past the Senate that could come in that form.
This could be in several different forms. The Speaker could choose to do all of these one by one, and I wonder your preference. Should it be a fourteen billion dollar Israel bill and then come back later to talk about a sixty eight billion dollar Ukraine bill or is it all one vote?
Well, first, I'm very proud of my colleagues in the House moving forward early on this being able to get funding for Israel that actually took money that would have otherwise been spent on things like hiring more IRS agents to be able to deliver it. Unfortunately, the Senate chose not to take that up. What we know this morning is that folks went to bed on Saturday night in Israel and woke up to a barrage of missile attacks. Iran needs the funding cut from them and Israel needs
US funding. Now we have the ability in Congress to move that forward. Now there is a conversation about a compendium of supporting our allies here. I have very much supported our allies in this region. But let's be clear about what is the most direct need, and that is the ability to resupply Israel today for the weapons systems
that kept it safe. That's iron Dome, that's the F sixteen, that's the aired air missiles, as well as their ability for things that we don't see behind the scenes, cybersecurity and defense of the air. Most of these weapons systems will be produced right here in the United States. This is a return on investment for both Israel and the American worker.
Well, you know, and of course the people of Ukraine would probably beg to differ as they see their situation as quite urgent, if not more so with actual ammunition shortages here.
Would you vote for a bill.
That included both you mentioned money is going to our defense contractors here in the US and the bulk of that sixty billion for Ukraine would do the same. They're actually running out of ammunition. Congressmen, are you a yes, a Ukraine fund?
Yes.
So that's exactly why I spoke to both the Speaker and the Leader to be able to bring both of these items forward. It's a top priority that along with supporting our allies in Taiwan as well as border security, all four of these issues are things that we have to address now, and we cannot continue to kick them down the road. The Senate has been just derelict in respect on border security, but there's a direct threat in
all four of these areas. It's one of the reasons I've led the ability to help support our allies in Ukraine, not by sending more US tax dollars directly to Kiev, but by seizing the three hundred billion dollars in Russian assets that are right here in Europe and the United States help them resupply, provide them those loans that get ammunition directly to the front in Ukraine, support our allies in Israel, but also support the Indo Pey com theater,
and stop terrorists coming across the southern border directly supported by Iranian elements. In the same way that the Middle East has been under attack from these insurgents. We've got to be able to defend our own country on the home front. These four together are not only a good common sense national security solution, they're what money for national security is intended for, and let's begin by doing that conversation today and not waiting any longer.
Well, it sounds a lot like that Senate though that passed. Congressman, there's a threat hanging over your speaker's head. Margie Taylor Green sales.
Yeah.
The one thing I'll say differently is the Center Bill did nothing for the southern border of the United States, and I am.
All for HEP.
You'd like to see a different border package. I understand slightly different language on the border. What if your boss gets fired on this, Congressman, do you believe Marjorie Taylor Green would trigger that motion to vacate if Mike Johnson brings Ukraine to the floor.
So you know, I had this conversation with Speaker Johnson, and as a veteran of multiple tours in Afghanistan, I handed him two bullets. One was the shot that was taken that ended up saving American lives. The other round was a shot that was not taken that resulted in, you know, US forces coming under a greater attack. Whenever we have the opportunity to help our allies to help defend the country. I told the speaker take the shot.
I believe firmly that Speaker Johnson is going to do the right thing to protect American citizens, and at the end of the day, if that means jeopardizing his career to do the right thing, I stand one hundred percent behind him.
How about that, Congressman, You're part of something that our audience should know about, and that's the Four Country Caucus, which helps to connect military veterans who are serving in Congress, like yourself from both sides of the aisle to talk about issues like these. Is the Four Country Caucus in favor of funding Ukraine and Israel.
You know, I went directly to Ukraine on the overnight train to talk with President Zelenski myself just a few weeks ago, and we heard directly that this is a country that's under siege from elements that are supported not only by Russia but by other axes of evil that want to do harm.
My guy's back in Iowa.
They recognize this as farmers fertilizer prices in Ukraine go up.
It impacts folks here at home.
So we have a national security strategy that has got to be focused on terminating the threat. At the same time, I don't want to see another forever war. We have got to have vision from this White House on how it's going to defend this country and our allies. And I'm looking forward to working with anybody Democrat or Republican who will help move that national security strategy forward.
Zach Nunn, publican from Iowa.
We thank you, Congressman for joining us, and we'll of course keep you posted on the funding debate in Washington.
This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay.
And then roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Thank you for being with us on Bloomberg TV and radio. I'm Joe Matthew Indeed in Washington. Kayley Lines is in New York at the courthouse. As you saw earlier following day one of Donald Trump's trial. The big question in Washington following the weekend that was.
Is what now?
And that goes for both how to handle the situation in the Middle East with regard to a military response potentially by Israel, one that the White House is trying to prevent or at least content, and then there's the
situation on Capitol Hill. What now, mister Speaker Mike Johnson back from a weekend visit tomor A Lago and a brief conversation on Sunday Morning television with some very difficult decisions to make regarding Israel and Ukraine for that matter, and we assembled our panel to get going on this now. Bloomberg Politics contributors Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis are with us our signature panel. Rick, there's an important meeting right
around five thirty Eastern time today. Speaker Johnson is going to be meeting with members of his conference, having spoken with the leaders of the intelligence committees, those that are related to the subject matter at hand, and he's got a decision to make. Does he put his career on the line and bring Ukraine funding to the floor that's somehow tied to Israel or does he just deal with
the Israel matter this week alone. None of the leadership have given us a sense of what might get a vote this week.
What are you hearing?
Yeah, well, I'm hearing that he did make some progress, evidently in mar A Lago on getting Trump to back off the anti Ukraine emphasis. But at the end of
the day, You're exactly right. He's got to decide whether he can put a supplemental package that looks something like what the President gave them months ago onto the floor, and Marjorie Taylor Green is not backing off of her demands that the Speaker withdraw that, not present it, and if he does, she potentially could begin to start the process of selecting a new Speaker.
So you're right.
I mean he's got a decision to make, doesn't necessarily
mean he gets out to a speaker. We got a lot of Democrats who would like to see that Ukraine piece part of the package of supplemental funding and would be willing to back the Speaker in his job vote if that is a net result, but likely they'd want something for that, And those negotiations, from what I'm hearing, have not even begunne So it's a very dicey period of time and the House of Republicans, and at an incredibly important time to the country and to our allies.
So I think that we still don't know now is remarkable.
Of course, he could move that Senate Bill Genie, remembering there's fourteen billion dollars for Israel in that bill. Following our conversation just now with Congressman None, I'm thinking maybe not if they're still, of course concerned about the border component. And Mike Johnson told Fox News on Sunday morning that Donald Trump was supportive of conditioning Ukraine aid as a loan. It sounds like we're going to get a new bill or several this week, don't you think.
Yeah. I do think they're going to try to go with a new bill.
I think all indications from Mike Johnson at this point is they're going to try to fund Israel without Ukraine, so he's able to appease those people on his right, and that, of course itself has its challenges. As we remember, it was just a few months ago they try to standalone bill for Israel and that went down.
And let's not.
Forget he's got a two seat majority today Monday, and I believe as of Friday, Mike Gallagher leaves early the House.
And they are down to one.
So this thin majority that he has now is going to make this all that much trickier. I do think Donald trump support public support of him on Friday is going to help, But of course it still hasn't publicly deterred Marjorie Taylor Green.
What's your thought on this motion to vacate now that we've had a little bit of time for this to wash around here, Rick, Is Marjorie Taylor Green really trying to get the speaker fired or trying to determine the outcome of the House agenda to the extent that she can and raise some money while she's at it. Not a lot of people take her seriously on the former.
Yeah, I'd say none of the above. I think it's all performance act on her part. I don't think she's trying to influence an agenda, and I don't think she really cares about Speaker Johnson. I think he's just a means to an end. Just when things were starting to really create her for Mike Johnson, she pulled out this device and campaigned on it, spent a lot of time over the last two weeks getting in the news, none of which has resulted in any productive outcomes around any agenda items.
So you have to just.
Mark it up to her typical performance requirements. She's got to get the attention, she wants to be looking powerful, and in this case, she really is a lone wolf in the house and very disruptive force. Even Donald Trump wouldn't back her up when Johnson went back down to mar Lago. And he's one of her biggest supporters. So in this case, it's a high wire act on her part. It makes Matt Gatz's initial effort to aust McCarthy look
like child's play. She's really drawn this thing out and creating a lot of tension.
Amazing stuff is We spend time with our panel Rick Davis in Genie Shanzo Donald Trump in New York today in a courthouse as his name keeps coming up in this conversation about funding. And there's a new poll out today Siena College, New York Times. It's one that we follow pretty closely here on balance of power. The headline is good for Joe Biden Genie Biden shrinks Trump's edge in latest Times Siena poll. They're basically tied in this case forty six percent of forty five percent, one percent
for Donald Trump. But there was something more interesting in this poll to me. It f on a big increase in registered voters nine percent nine points registered voters who believe that Donald Trump left the country better off that's going to be the question that voters consider when they
walk into a voting booth. And I wonder your thought on that, because a lot of people have a hard time revisualizing the world in the midst of a pandemic and a lot of the confusion that surrounded that period of time where we were four years ago.
What does a Democrat do with a piece of information.
Like that, Yeah, it's fascinating.
I think one of the challenges is that Donald Trump has been less in the headlines than Joe Biden. Obviously is the sitting president, but as he begins to consume all the oxygen in the room, people will be reminded of the chaos that is Donald Trump, and that may help in that regard. But I think for me, one of the fascinating things about this poll was they talked to this woman, Beth from Connecticut and she said, you know, she's gonna lean towards Biden because he's the lesser of
two evils. And they talked about the fact that this is how so many voters feel that they don't like either one of them, but it's gonna be the lesser of two evils. And that's why I think this trial that Donald Trump is just sitting in today or starting today is so important because people are going to be reminded as to the fact that this is a man on trial for facing thirty four counts, each of which
carries a four year potential sentence of he's convicted. And if we're talking about one hundred thousand voters and a few swing states deciding this thing, it can impact some people's views, and that can have a big impact on a very tight election.
I'm just fascinated by the rear view mirror in this case. Rick, you're both polling experts. Donald Trump beats Joe Biden. When people are asked how they remember their presidencies, forty two percent rate Trump's term as mostly good for America, compared to twenty five percent for Joe Biden. What does the headline number count for when you have lines like this.
Yeah, it's it's a complexity for Biden. He has to sell the future and he's in the middle of a morass. I mean, this is where incumbency doesn't really do you any favors.
There are a lot of.
Positives about incumbents when you're running for president, but this is the state of American economy today, still the vast majority of voters are voting on the economy, they are hit by inflation. That is something that is going to perplex this administration, probably through the election.
They've got to get.
Used to it.
And in that regard, it's very easy to say, you know, it just seemed better before. This is the classic Ronald Reagan line, where you get better off today than you were four years ago. And the reality is what Biden, I think really needs to focus on is making sure that he's got a vision for the next four years, right because this is one thing that Donald Trump can't give is a picture of the future that's anything other than sort of what Genie was saying, a crisis unfolding
every day from the Oval office. And so if Biden could come up with a plan that says, here's what the future the next term of office for Joe, Biden's going to look like he's got a chance to get people to quit thinking about how they feel today are to look forward to tomorrow.
Well, it's really interesting, Genie. You know, people talk about it.
They're paying too much for cookies and stuff at the store right now, but four years ago you couldn't walk into the store half the time because of COVID and they weren't making cookies.
I don't know.
Is it worth redrawing the world in a pandemic if you're the Biden administration.
Yeah, you know, it's very tough to do. So he's got a big challenge on his hands.
You know.
I do think he is going to have to address head on the fact that so many voters are still feeling this way about inflation. It would be great if you could bring them back and show them what it was like when Trump was president and during COVID and all those things. But you can't talk people up with something. So he's going to have to present, as Rick said, a vision for going forward, what he's achieved and what
he's going to do going forward. But the bottom line is these are two very unpopular candidates.
Great conversation with our signature panel. Great to see you both on this month. Genie Shance no Rick Davis our signature Panel.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and.
Royd Oo with the Bloomberg Business Ad.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our Flagship New York station.
Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
I'm Joe Matthew in the Nation's capital, Kayley Lines normally at my side at this time is in New York covering the Trump trial Manhattan Criminal Court, where jury selection.
Is grinding.
Just getting it started has been a task after quite a bit of jostling from both sides. Here with a couple of wins for the prosecution. The judge refusing to recuse himself from the case, as Donald Trump had asked, Judge Marshawn will continue. He also ruled that Karen McDougall, I know you're familiar with the Stormy Daniels part of this story is the other woman who says she had an affair with Donald Trump and that the National Inquirer was essentially bought off to keep the story from running.
Can in fact testify in this trial, Judge Mrshaun ruling as well, prosecutors cannot play tapes from the Access Hollywood recordings, so getting to jury selection has been, as I mentioned, a bit of a grind. It will continue and last the better part of two weeks. Something we wanted to discuss with the case at large, with Michael Zelden, the former federal prosecutor is with US now former special counsel to Robert Muller while at the DOJ. It's great to see you back Michael. Here we are a lot of
folks thought this day would not arrive. Ever, in some cases some thought maybe, if so, it would be after the election. But this is it. What does this initial jostling tell you about the nuances of this trial we're about to work.
Well, what the judge is doing here is making sure before trial, before there's a jury, that there are clear rules about what evidence can and cannot come in. What you want to do in this pre trial stage is make sure nothing is uncertain that would result in a mistrial. That is, you bring in something that is so prejudicial that it results in a mistrial. So the judges properly setting the parameters of what the evidence can be, what arguments can be made from it, so that everybody has,
if you will, the scorecard by which they're operating. Once that's all clear, once everyone knows who can testify, what they can testify to, who can testify, what documents are not allowed in, then they can begin the process of picking the jury and Hopefully that will take about a week or two and then the evidence will start coming in.
Michael Cohen, I'm assuming, is going to testify at some point in this trial. This is Donald Trump's former fixer, is former attorney here, and Trump went on the attack against him over the weekend. There are questions about that, whether I should say that violates a gag order.
How do you see it, Michael.
Well, I think it did violate the gag order, But in some sense we're beyond that point. Trump has said repeatedly everybody is persecuting him. This is attack against America, and he's standing up for us. He's proud to be here in the courtroom. But once the doors of the courtroom close and the evidence starts coming in, his rants about Michael Cohen and his lack of credibility, I think
are beside the point. It'll have to be a matter of whether or not they can convince a jury that his prior history of untruthfulness is that which merits an acquittal, or whether, as the prosecution hopes, that Cohen, buttressed by the testimony of others from Nash Inquirer and within the White House, and particularly the Trump records themselves, support the Cohen story that this was a business fraud intended to suppress the story about Stormy Daniels's affair with the present
with then candidate Trump in order to have it not impact the outcome of the election. So there's two battles for narratives here. Cohen is at the center of them, and we'll see who the jury believes.
You mentioned the jurors. This is going to be a painful process.
Apparently.
The forty two questions, as we've discussed on the questionnere here about where they live, their education status, marital status, who they work for, their hobbies, just not their political motivations. But there are a lot of subparts to these questions, and many of these could take some time. Donald Trump's jury consultants, according to The New York Times, are hoping to spot sympathizers, as I read here, focusing on younger
black men and white working class men. What's behind that strategy, Michael, and will.
It work well? I think it's rather cynical that they would think that young African American males would be sympathetic to Trump on the theory that he is going to argue he's been railroaded, and they these young African Americans know about railroading so that they will be sympathetic to him. I think that's very cynical, and I think it misses
the point of who those prospective jurors are. We know from the polls that those without a college degree, white, more rural than urban voters, tend to be his base. There aren't that many rural voters in Manhattan. So he's going with the white and probably non college educated perspective jurors to think that they will side with him politically.
And you know, we'll see each prospective witness, each perspective durer has all sorts of complications, and the lawyers have to sort of sort out what they think will be the best approach to everything and then make determinations of how to attack each or how to select a jurer.
We should let our listeners and viewers know. Judge Marshawn says he will hear oral arguments on Wednesday, the twenty fourth of April, week from Wednesday over the Trump gag order potential violation.
That's a day before the.
Supreme Court Michael hears oral arguments in the presidential immunity question that is preventing Jack Smith's January sixth trial from getting underway here in Washington. That, of course, could have far reaching implications even beyond Donald Trump. So what's a more important day in Donald Trump's legal journey? Is it today the beginning of this criminal trial, or is it in fact the arguments that will be heard before the Supreme Court lay this month.
Well, I think, big picture, the decision by the Supreme Court on the immunity issue has more implications for Trump because he is arguing immunity precludes the or aspects of the morologal case from going forward and from the essentially entire January sixth case. So we're the Supreme Court to argue to rule in his favor. That would be a much bigger win than this case. But he's on trial, he faces years in prison if he is convicted, and so you know, you've got to pick your poison, and
I think they're both pretty bad for him. So but I think, Joe to the answer to your question, if I were given a choice, as Donald Trump, which case do I want to prevail on, I'll take the January sixth immunity argument over this.
One fascinating six to eight weeks.
Lastly, my is that what we're going with here, or does that depend on how protracted this jury selection is.
Well, they say one to two weeks for jury selection and four to six for the trial itself. Now, the judges made pre trial ruling sort of narrowing the scope of the evidence and what can be argued for it, and so if stuff comes in, you know, sort of ordinarily without a lot of interruption, I think this trial could take three or four weeks, and so you could really get a verdict in about six weeks time, or at least it be sent to the jury in six
weeks time. And remember that which is important in a criminal case, which is there must be a unanimous verdict. And so if you have one holdout or two holdouts for either side, that could keep the jury deliberations going on for a very long time. And so I think Trump's hope here is to find a juror who will hang this jury, because if they have to retry it, that might not get done before the election.
Always a fascinating conversation with Michael Zelden. Of course we'll continue talking with Michael about it. Former federal prosecutor. You'd great to have you back, Michael Zelden on day one of Donald Trump's criminal trial in New York.
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.