Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay and then Proud Ato with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
There is now a chance that we don't get a single fed rate cut before the election, and we might not get a second Trump trial before the election either, Joe, depending on how the Supreme Court rules after the arguments they heard today.
A massive rerating from the economy to the political world. Yes, and this is why you have to join us every day here on Bloomberg, because it really is remarkable how a narrative can shift overnight. And I think that we can say that's already happened today in the Supreme Court, regardless of how this turns out.
Yeah, we have to keep in mind here for our TV and radio audiences. There were already two lower courts that ruled Trump was not immune from prosecution. He had appealed it to the Supreme Court, and everyone was assuming the Supreme Court would decide on similar grounds. Some thought the Supreme Court wouldn't even take up this case at all, which,
of course they have done. But judging the way the arguments have gone today, maybe it's not as cut and dry as legal analysts initially thought when they were considering what these nine justices might do a lot of folks.
Told us the Supreme Court wouldn't even take this up at all because the Appeals Court's case was so strong, so well written. So let's explore some of the nuances here with Greg's store. As we mentioned reporting for Bloomberg on the Supreme Court, I can only imagine what your day has been like so far. It's very kind of you to spend some time with us. It's good to see you. Hearing from Chief Justice Roberts criticizing the DC Court of Appeals decision got everyone's attention today. Is it
possible they just kick it down to the court. What kind of options are you weighing in your head as you listen to the justices?
Yeah, the Chief Justice raised that very possibility. Maybe we should kick it back down to the appeals court, or at least we should tell them that reasoning is wrong sort of. The overall sense in the courtroom was, we want to draw a line here between what our official presidential acts and therefore potentially off limits for prosecution, and
what are not what are private acts? And the Chief Justices question and some other questions suggested they didn't think the lower courts had done enough analysis to try to separate out the you know, what's in and what's out?
Okay, So it kind of raises this question if they're just kicking it down to a lower court to ultimately decide if this is going to become more narrow just considering the specific things that Trump is charged with and what he did in office, or if I just wonder how narrow or sweeping and broad Ultimately this decision is whether or not it's made by the Supreme Court or by a lower court that they've kicked it back to.
Well, in terms of the big constitutional principles, they're clearly thinking about something sweeping. They really want to think about this, and Justice Kavanaugh talked about, you know, I'm thinking about
future presidents and how it's going to affect them. So in terms of the principles big, in terms of the Trump case, it really kind of depends that Jack Smith, special counsel, his lawyer in his office, Michael dreven was basically arguing, look, you know, just on stuff that is undisputably private actions by the president, we have plenty to go to trial here. And in fact, they say, you know, even if you think a few things are off limits, let the trial judge sort that out. Let's go ahead
right now. So the exact impact of this Supreme Court decision on the Donald Trump trial remains to be seen.
Is it unlikely or possible that the court completely agrees with Donald Trump and the presidency is almost re established or reinvented in a certain way.
Yeah, that didn't seem likely. I mean, Donald Trump's arguments were really really broad that he was making. And even you know, Clarence Thomas the very first question out of the box, you know, basically saying, where is this in the constitution, this notion of presidential immunity? You know, you know, and he said before it's not in there. So it's hard to see that Donald Trump, Donald Trump wins a
decision kicking out the case. That's that's not likely to happen, but it could be enough to kick the can far enough down the road that we get past the November election, and then if he becomes president, it'd be incredible, but he would have the power to say Justice Department drop this case.
Right, So, so much of this really just comes down to timing more than anything else. Greg, Obviously, the Supreme Court could wait until the last day of their term to rule on this or to issue an opinion on this, if they so choose, which would be end of June. If they're just going to kick it down to another court, would they wait that long or would is that something they typically would decide on faster?
You know, given the scope of the questions, they're clearly thinking about big things, and it's hard to imagine they're going to crank that out in just a matter of a few weeks. And this is the very last argument day of the term. And even under the best case scenario, even if this were an a risk case or some other kind of narrow area of law, you wouldn't expect the decision till June. So I would be surprised, given the way it went today, if we get a decision before the second half of June.
All right, Greg store Bloomberg, Supreme Court reporter, one of the best in the business. Thank you so much. And that just gets to the point, Joe of the election timeline, because if we're assuming June, and the judge in this case in DC, Tanya Chutkin, has said, I will give all parties three months to prepare at least for trial. Yes, realistically, assuming no further delays, which we know is always the effort of Trump's legal defense team is to delay, delay, delay.
It would be incredibly hard, if not just to begin the trial, certainly to finish it before voters are heading tone.
So we're back in this world now where we're talking about it. Imagine a president elect potentially on trial like that after the election and before the inaugural. This is a possibility, just like so many are. And I'll remind everybody that Donald Trump is actually back in court today, not in the Supreme Court, but New York with his criminal trial, the hush money case, resuming testimony. David Pecker, former National Inquirer publisher, on the stand, and we did
hear from Donald Trump outside the court room. He stopped to talk to some workers on the side of the road. Kaya you talked to some reporters as well. Here he is.
We have a big case today. This judge isn't allowing me to go. We have a big case. Sendent the Supreme Court of a presidential immunity. A president has.
To have immunity.
If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.
So for more on this, we turn to an expert on constitutional law. Elizabeth Widra is joining us now. She is the Constitutional Accountability Center President Supreme Court litigator herself. She's here with us in our Washington, DC studio. Elizabeth,
thank you so much for being with us. I wonder if you could just first give us your take on what you heard in the arguments today, the kind of questions the justices were asking, the answers they elicited, and ultimately how you think that will shape what ultimately is decided here.
Yeah, I mean, it was really an extraordinary morning at the Supreme Court. Here we have this unprecedented argument for broad sweeping permanent immunity from criminal prosecutions for former presidents. We've never heard that before. This is definitely, as many things with Donald Trump, something that's unprecedented. And the justices were extremely skeptical, I would say most of them, of
that broadest possible claim that Donald Trump is making. There did see to seem to be some interest in providing some protections for presidents for clearly official acts, keeping those in some ways protected from criminal prosecution. But what I heard today.
From the justices.
Was really a reaffirmation of the very important principle that goes back to the very beginnings of our nation that no one is above the law, including the president, perhaps especially the president. You know, when our constitution was drafted, it was very important that our chief executive not be a king. An absolute immunity was something that the King obviously would have enjoyed in Great Britain and something we did not want to replicate here in the United States.
So the Supreme Court, of course, seemed to recognize that. And we're troubled by the assertion from Donald Trump's lawyer that he should be entitled this type of immunity. You know, some of the arguments were about line drawing, you know, what actions might be immune from criminal prosecution, and that's very few cool speak to.
Us about that. The difference between an official and a private act. How is that being redefined right now?
Yeah, So they were trying very hard not to redefine it, but rather to try to draw lines based on what we already know. So the lawyer for the United States. Michael Dreven did a very good job of saying, you know, there's a few core things that only the president can act, ample recognizing foreign nations or making appointments where that's just
beyond the reach of congressional legislation, including criminal laws. But pretty much everything else is fair game, except if there's an as applied challenge, which was very legal ease, but basically it means that otherwise the president can be criminally
liable if the facts suggest. One thing that I thought was extremely interesting that came out today was several justices, notably Amy Cony Barrett, questioned Trump's lawyers very closely about the indictment from Jack Smith and said, okay, let's go through some of these acts. You know what he was trying to assuming the indictment is correct, And that was an assumption that Trump's lawyer had to do when he was trying to find these votes, when he was trying
to get this fake slate of electors. Was that an official presidential act or was that a private act? And Trump's lawyer did concede that several of these indicted actions were private and not official even under their definition. And what that means is that the trial could go forward even if Trump's argument about official acts were to be accepted.
And I'm not sure it will be really important.
It's very important now that, of course the question then gets to timing, but I thought it was really important that there was that concession that the trial could go forward at least in some way.
Well, and it's worth keeping in mind that while we did see specific questioning around the case here in Washington, he's claimed immunity from prosecution in the Document's case as well down in Florida, which is another federal case. So how are all of these things potentially tied together? What implication could there be not just for the case in Washington,
but the case in Florida. And then also I'm assuming this doesn't apply to the state cases like in Georgia for the election subversion, because there's multiple criminal cases that we're dealing with here.
Yes, it's a little hard to keep track, but for sure, So he's also planning immunity exactly right in the document's case in Florida. You know, I think one of the things that's really important about this case, especially in terms of the timing, is that if it isn't finished before the election, and if Donald Trump were to win reelection, because it's a federal case, presumably once he took o
for the Justice Department could make it go pardon. Yes, that is not the case, of course, when it comes to this new Arizona indictment or the New York case that's currently underway, because those are state criminal indictment. So that's an important distinction.
It absolutely is. As we spend time with Elizabeth Widra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Supreme Court litigator, we have a voice of experience here at the table, and I want to ask you about history President here. Twenty twenty, the Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity. To what extent could that lead us to a decision here?
Yeah, I mean, I think you know, the Court has on many occasions pushed back on the most extreame legal claims that Donald Trump has made. You know, he has often whether it's the election fraud so called election fraud claims that he did bring before courts over and over again, and he was repeatedly rebuked on those, even by judges that he himself appointed. So he's often lost on these major legal claims that he's brought before.
They seem to be questioning that today, though, are you Are you sensing that this is a different conversation than we predicted or expected.
I think what they are concerned about is drawing the line. I think in some ways the indicted actions here, the alleged actions in this particular case, subverting of the will of the people, trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power, which go to the very heart of American constitutional democracy. That seems pretty clear that it's not within you know, the president's duty to take care of the laws to
violate them. But I think they are concerned, as they should be the Supreme Court, about what happens in the future. So that's what I think a lot of what we heard today was about.
And just we have less than a minute left. But to go back to your point about the thinking of the founders when they were actually forming our system of government and writing the Constitution with the separation of powers in three different branches. If you are a strict constitutionalist, is there any other way to read the question here and to read the document that would suggest that there is credibility to Trump's argument If you are a strict constitutional.
Absolutely not so there's sometimes where history is ambiguous. This is not one of those cases. They sold the Constitution to the people in part because this president would not be a king, and in part because he could be potentially criminally liable if he committed crimes, which is a
major change from the British system. So if you're an originalist, if you're a strict constitutionalist, there's really only one outcome here, and it's that Trump's really outrageous claim of immunity, unprecedented claim is rejected.
We're really glad you could come talk to us today. Thank you for being with us. Hasty day of arguments, Elizabeth Widraw. Fascinating conversation, especially to hear this from an act Supreme Court litigator. Keep this conversation in mind as we wait for a ruling in this case. I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines in Washington. Will assemble the panel next. The political side of this is ahead only on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast.
Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Enroid Oro with a Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play, Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Moving on to our panel here, Kayley, it's not just the economic news in the market reaction today. It's a very significant set of arguments being heard before with the Supreme Court. They've actually wrapped their session for the day, the arguments over Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity. Our signature panel is with us now, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano,
Bloomberg Politics contributors. Having heard some skepticism from Swing Justice is when it comes to Jack Smith's arguments against Genie. I wonder your thoughts today. This could go a couple of different ways. But based on what we heard and I realized we're reading Tea Leave's we're trying to understand what justices mean with their statements and their questions. This day actually went better for Donald Trump than a lot of people thought it did, didn't.
It It really did, you know. And I think back to when they granted cert in this case. I think that's when I was most surprised, because I thought, for sure, this close to an election, they would let the Circuit Court's decisions stand. They did not, And so that was the biggest surprise. But once they had done that, I think the thinking was for most of us that they would put this to rest fairly quickly. They didn't do that, and now, based on the oral arguments today, it looks
like they could send it to a lower court. We certainly won't get a decision from them, you know, arguably until late June, the term ends. And so this is a win from Donald Trump just from the calendar perspective, because it really won't give enough time to have the
January sixth trial before the election. And of course, even if they have the trial, you are so dangerously close to an election that for supporters of Trump and opponents, that raises all kinds of questions about the political machinations of the court in the electoral context. So I think it was a win for him as far as the schedule is concerned, at.
The least, well Rick, as we consider the potential political ramifications in terms of the election cycle itself. Obviously, Trump's base of supporters, as we know has been proven time and again, is not likely to leave his side. Believes that he is being targeted by this Justice Department as being weaponized against him. This is a witch hunt, while as whereas those who are not in Donald Trump's can't believe that he's done things wrong, deserves to be prosecuted,
what have you. There's already two very firm sides here. I just wonder the basket of minds were realistically thinking about that would care whether or not he goes to trial, that care about the outcome, that will change their vote because of it.
Yeah, I think I'd be watching two distinct groups. One, we know from our Bloomberg Swing state survey that anywhere, depending upon the state, from six to fifteen percent of Donald Trump's supporters are willing to not vote for him if he is quote convicted of a crime. And that goes without saying for now which court case includes. I think it's general enough to say if he's convicted of a criminal act, he loses support some of it amongst
that group. Then I would also say, there are the undecided voters, and there are plenty of them in some of these states, and the main focus of the Trump campaign and the Biden campaign has been to how to have a conversation with them. And these are primarily suburban women vote and they could determine the outcome of the election,
regardless of a conviction or an acquittal. And this isn't the kind of topic you'd want to be having six months before a presidential election with a targeted voter like a suburban woman. Hey I won today, I've got immunity. I can do whatever I want to do. I don't think that's going to be any commercials coming out of the Trump campaign. So yeah, I think it's a problem. I think it delays the conversation that they're trying to have,
and of course there's these ripple effects. Today, a targeted state, Arizona, has announced eighteen defendants are indicted because of election activity, including a unindicted co conspirator named Donald Trump, whose name will be on the ballot in November. I would say I'd rather have a good, clean win in Arizona than worrying about what's going to happen in the Supreme Court today. Today was a bad day for Donald Trump in Arizona.
Well, well, this is all super important, Genie, but you can see this coming, right, and let's the Supreme Court completely rules against Donald Trump. If there's any sunlight here, you can write the truth social posts now vindicated. We brought our claim to the Supreme Court and showed the world that Joe Biden's weaponization of government was illegal. And that's going to be the perception, right.
Yeah, that's going to be what Donald Trump and his campaign team say. Quite frankly, what else can they say, So that is what they're going to say. I don't think we know yet how this plays out.
I am a polster, but one.
Thing we know about polling is it's very difficult to pull people on future behavior, particularly when they don't have a good sense of the scenario.
So, you know, we.
Always ask them who they're going to vote for, but there who they support. But to ask voters you know, what you would do if somebody is acquitted or if somebody is found guilty, it's really hard to know, at least for me as a polster, if you could trust the data coming out of that. So we really are truly in uncharted territory in terms of how this all
plays out. Donald Trump will surely say that this was a witch hunt and he was vindicated by the Supreme Court if that happens, but I'm not sure how that lands with these voters. So we really have to wait and see. You know, it's one of the cases in which for me as a social scientist, there's not a lot of research you can do to get to an answer, and we can't look back in history because we've never been here before.
It's a point very well taken, Genie and of course Rick. The other side to this is that it's not just about what people do with their vote. It's also about what people do with their dollar. And to this point, Donald Trump has proven an incredible ability to fundraise off of these legal challenges, at least since his court trial has kicked off in New York State, where he is again today. Mind you, he's been able to raise millions of dollars. So how should we be thinking about that
dynamic here? As well?
Everything is relative, relevant or relative. His first quarter fundraising lagged his previous fundraising in twenty twenty three. So sure, he is raising money today while he sits in the court, but he's not raising as much today as he did a year ago. Today if under the same circumstances, and he is plowing more and more of that money into legal fees, so the net to him keeps getting smaller, So smaller overall base, smaller ability to spend. We even saw data off of this report that Obama for the
first time surpassed Trump on small dollar donors. That used to be what Donald Trump had is his special sauce. He had more small dollard donors than anybody, and those people would be with him no matter what thickened thin and that money would just roll in. So those times may be a change it.
All right.
Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano are Bloomberg Politics Contributor's point. While taken from Rick on Biden pulling in those small dollar donations as well. There's so many different facets to this conversation, and we're keeping our eye on the court, not just here the Supreme Court in Washington, but up in New York as well.
Joe, Yeah, We've got a lot more to follow here on Balance of Power. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then Roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube as.
We talk about politics. We've always got our eyes on Wall Street for you, and in the case of today, a courtroom in New York and the Supreme Court here in Washington. This is a heck of a day for Donald Trump. I'm not even done there. I haven't mentioned Michigan yet. Here like a triple split screen for the former president. Arguments are being heard today before the Supreme
Court on the presidential immunity claim. This is what will either prevent or precede Jack Smith's January sixth trial here in Washington, even as Donald Trump goes through the criminal trial in New York, the hush money trial. And he spoke from New York this morning. Remember he's got to be in the courthouse for that, so not in Washington today, but he spoke in advance of the arguments in the Supreme Court. Let's listen to what he said.
We have a big case today. This judges in allowing me to go. We have a big case today in the Supreme Court. Or presidential immunity. A president has.
To have immunity.
If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial President.
Donald Trump stopping on his way to the courthouse earlier today to talk with workers, a lot of whom were wearing red Maga hats, and reporters who were across the street making a little moment there on the campaign trail. But if you're actually paying attention, you can hear these arguments. I realize you don't have cameras in the courtroom, but we've been listening to the conversation inside the Supreme Court, and we're going to talk in a moment with Robert
macwerter about this. What I read is a bad sign for Jack Smith on the terminal. Our top live coverage has been excellent today. If you want to follow the bouncing ball. Here in some pretty dense material the Chief Justice, Justice Roberts criticizing the DC Court of Appeals today it's decision that a president can be prosecuted for his official acts quote because the fact of the prosecution means that
the former president has allegedly acted in defiance unquote. Robert said, such a broad statement concerns him as we read the tea leaves. It's great to have constitutional law attorney Robert McWherter back with us. Robert, thank you for joining. What are you gleaning from the arguments today?
Well, I think you just said it. It's like reading tea leaves. Often justices will say stuff in oral arguments because they want to hear what the responses are, and they're not always signaling where they're going to go. Look, just in terms of this case in general, I think it's kind of good to keep in mind. In a way, Donald Trump is already won. His goal was to delay Jack Smith's prosecution, and he effectively did so by getting
the Supreme Court to even take this case. I think most people would say that Trump's legal arguments are rather weak. The Court may modify that and give a few things, But if you listen to Donald Trump and his claims for absolute immunity, what he is literally saying is that a president can do anything, so that if Joe Biden was to order Seal Team six to kill Donald Trump and take him out, Joe Biden could not be prosecuted,
according to Donald Trump's own arguments. Well, I don't think most of us want to live in America where the president with that kind of power. And it's kind of interesting because on the campaign trail, Donald Trump keeps saying Joe Piden needs to be criminally prosecuted for what he's doing to me. Now, well that kind of cuts against Trump's argument in the Supreme Court, where a president's not supposed to be prosecuted for anything. And I just have
to say just to give a little history here. You know, America began, of course with the Declaration of Independence. You know, we hold these tchooths to be self evident that all men are created equal, everyone's equal before the law. But you know, right after that first part of the declaration, the preamble, it's an indictment of King George the Third for his criminal acts, which basically disqualified him from being
our sovereign. That's why we went on. Of course. Well, one of those indictments is he has incited domestic insurrection among us. Well, that was the indictment of King George.
You know, with that history and the charge of Donald Trump for inciting domestic insurrection among us, which is what he has already been found to have done with the January sixth Commission and others, I would find it shocking that a Supreme Court would cut out this broad immunity for him, given our history that we didn't want to elect King George. We got rid of King George. And that's one of the reasons.
Why really great analysis, Robert. You mentioned the timeline here, and I realized it's a win for Donald Trump to delay anything at this point with November in mind, but it wouldn't be outside of the realm for the Court to rule on this by June, and that would leave time, presumably for Jack Smith's trial, wouldn't it.
Well, yes, you know, in the United States versus Nixon, they ruled in sixteen days, which, okay, if you wait sixteen days for a haircut, that's a heck of a long time. But that is blazingly fast to the Supreme Court. So just to give some sense of how the Court does its work, so if they ruled before June, it would be considered blazingly fast. Now I hope the Court does and I hope we get some answer to this.
But you know, again, to go back to history mentioning Richard Nixon, I remember he had that interview with David Frost where he said, and it was a real gaff on his part, but he said, you know, when the president does it, that means it's not illegal. Well, everybody widely condemned that and legally condemned that, And so I don't see how Donald Trump's arguments should get much more attention or credits than Richard Nixon's arguments. Did you know some forty years ago, fifty years ago, you.
Know, we live in an idol of Donald Trump's and Richard Nixon told Donald Trump reportedly that he wished he had fought harder at the time instead of resigning, just for the sake of everyone following along on their home games. Here, Robert, for our audience to understand, what are the options for the court into the include just sending this back to the appeals court?
Oh yes, they could actually keep this thing going for a long time. The options is they could sit on it for months and months. They could even kick it off to the next year. The court can take has a lot of power in terms of when this thing and everything is on hold until they do so. They can move quickly or they can move slowly, and historically speaking, they have done both things in different cases. They could send it back to the DC Court of Appeals to
modify their judgment somehow. They could create an entirely new test about well, here's when a president might be prosecuted, here's when the president might not be It's going to be hard. You're going to get I would guess what's called a plurality decision. Even if Trump wins, it would be what's called a plurality, which means the justices won't all agree on the same reasoning about why. And you're going to have some very vigorous descents, and frankly, you're
going to get some interesting alignments. You know, you can expect the so called liberal justices will go against this, but you might get some of the others that will join them for matters of just originalism. Outlining kind of following some version of the argument I just gave about what America was intended to be.
I've only got a minute left, Robert, and I don't want to have to cut you off here, but you're so good at framing the significance of this. Historically, this ruling will end up applying to much more than Donald Trump. This is going to impact the presidency as we know it, right.
Yes, And that's really the most frightening thing for me. It's not just Donald Trump and his peccadillos. It's what it means for us in the future going forward as a democracy. And you know, the Constitution actually gives the president very few direct powers. Most power president has comes from Acts of Congress, and that was by design. We
wanted to limit that power. We didn't want a king of the United States, and George Washington set that president and that's something we need to keep in mind the implications for the future.
Love talking with Robert mcwhorth. We learn a lot, as always with your expertise, Robert, thanks for being with us criminal and constitutional law attorney. 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.