Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay.
And then Rouno with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
And if anyone asks, from here on out, I am acting in my official duties as a Bloomberg employee and as host of this program. We're invoking broadcast immunity today as we turned to Trump versus the United States. Everybody got up early today in Washington, at least those of us who are left pretty quiet in town. Senate gone, the House is out. President making his way back from
Camp David. No traffic, but everyone dialed in on the Supreme Court, which rule Donald Trump has in fact immunity from criminal charges for his efforts to reverse the twenty twenty election results. Six to three ideological lines. Not a shock, but also not simple. They're basically kicking this back down to the Appeals Court to determine what counts as an official duty and official action versus a private one when it comes to in this case, Donald Trump or any president.
Moving forward here.
We're going to get into the contours of this ruling, a ruling for the ages we were told back in April by the Chief Justice. But in fact the court once again didn't really rule. They just kicked it back down in this case to the appeals court, and Jack Smith is left holding the bag in what looks like a January sixth trial that simply cannot begin before the election.
Get into it on.
This day that Donald Trump calls it a big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American, he writes in all caps exclamation point on truth. Social Eric Larson's been waiting for this ruling, just like we have reporting for Bloomberg, our legal reporter who spent many days in a criminal courthouse in Lower Manhattan following Donald Trump through his legal saga. Now to this ruling by the Supreme Court. Eric, it's great to see you. Donald
Trump is spending this as good news. Can we qualify it as such?
I suppose it is, and that you mentioned this trial is now very unlikely to happen before the election. And we know that Trump has said that if he wins the election, he would use the power of the presidency to direct the Justice Department to throw out this case, but generally, more generally speaking, Trump did want this entire case thrown out. He argued that everything he did around January sixth and the election was protected by immunity, and
the court did not go that far. These charges remain. At least one of the charges or some of the allegations now probably cannot be used in court. The Supreme Court said that some of Trump's communications with the Attorney General at the time around the election, trying to get the Justice Department to back his election fraud claims, which they did not do, some of that is of an official acts and probably cannot be used in the case
now going forward. But a lot of the other conduct alleged in the indictment is going to potentially be private conduct, in which means that those charges could go to trial. And so it's not a total win for Trump here, but this case survives and goes forward.
It does indeed, and I guess the Appeals Court will now have to create some sort of a test or a way to delineate what counts as official and what does not. Is that the next phase.
Yes, yeah, eventually, Judge Chuckkin in Washington is going to restart this long stalled case will probably have to have something like a mini trial to have Jackson, this special council come in and argue, give fresh evidence, maybe even have testimony from experts to explain why these allegations were private conduct by a losing presidential candidate and not by a president. So they're going to have to explain to the judge in more detail why some of these actions
just simply were not protected by immunity. And depending on how she rules eventually on that, it's likely that this case could find its way back to the Supreme Court and they'll have to decide whether she was correct and deciding what was official versus private, And if any of the charges survive that then eventually we'll have a trial.
Boy, Okay, but again, if Donald Trump is reelected, he could essentially defund this entire exercise.
Is that the way he would bring it to an end, I believe.
So if he wins the election, It's not as if he can just on day one order the Justice Department to do this. He's going to have to find you know, he's going to have to get an attorney general in place. No, there are steps he's going to have to go through. To have the prosecution thrown out, but certainly that is something that he will try to do, so of course everything hinges for him on whether he wins the election or not.
Eric, it's great to.
Have you a big day of Eric Larson Bloomberg Legal reporter, appreciate the insights and a ruling that is just not even two hours old here coming from the Supreme Court on what is now officially the last day of the term. This was the parting shot, as the Chief Justice suggested, adding the voice now of Robert mcwerder been looking forward to this criminal and constitutional law attorney. We've spent many hours talking about Donald Trump's criminal charges of Lower Manhattan.
This is a whole different can of worms here as we turn to the Supreme Court, and Robert has an expertise in constitutional law.
It's great to have you back here. Robert.
I want to point you to the Seal Team six argument because I'm trying to understand what we really just learned here, and I know that this is going to go down back down to the appeals court.
But you remember Trump's attorney.
John Sower, was asked in the throes of arguments here in April, if, in fact, the presidents had immunity, couldn't they then dispatch Seal Team six to kill a political opponent?
He said a qualified yes to that.
So could Joe Biden, now that we've got the ruling here, direct Seal Team six to start killing his opponents?
Well, yeah, and let's let me show you. I could create it as part of an official act. Let's say that in all the documents that they found that Trump had squirreled away down at mar Lago, and he finds some indication that he was going to give those to Vladimir Putin so he could open a hotel in Moscow. Joe Biden could declare, as part of his official duties that Donald threat is Donald Trump is a threat, and he could eliminate that threat, and as part of his
official duties, he could no longer be prosecuted. And according to the Supreme Court's argument, if he was ever prosecuted later for acts that were determined not to be official duties, they can't even refer to acts that he did as part of his official duties. I'll give you another example. The Supreme Court opinion said that the conversations Donald Trump had with the Department of Justice where he talked about overturning the election, that, according to the Supreme Court, is
part of official duties. Even though Donald Trump was talking about overturning a fair and free election and instigating an insurrection, and so not only can he not be prosecuted for anything that's quote an official duty, things that arguably happened within the context of being president talking to an attorney general, even though it's talking about an insurrection and implementing an insurrection or a coup could not even come in as evidence in a later case.
It's incredible.
So I guess I'm left asking what doesn't count as an official acts if you're the president and you're thinking it and talking about it, where do we draw the line?
Well, okay, stuff that he does outside of the scope of being president. So for instance, the Stormy Daniel's case, if it would have been federal, would not count stuff he does afterwards. Presumably, and it's a big presumably that let's say Donald Trump, while he was president made a deal to put up a hotel someplace, and he fraudulently built a bunch of investors or something like that. The Court says that the presumption is that it's part of
his official duties. But a prosecutor could then fight against that presumption and bring a case. But it's presumably part of official duties. But supposedly he could do that. If Donald Trump decided to shoot somebody down Fifth Avenue, like he's bragged that he could do. If it's if it's during the time he's president, it probably could be prosecuted. But the prosecutor has to presume beat the presumption that
it's not part of the official duties. The prosecutor now has the burden of proof to show it's not part of the official duties, rather than the other way around.
To think that we're back to shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue. This can't be real, all right, I've got a lot of questions for you, Robert. I'm supposed to tell everybody that this indefinitely delays I already did. This indefinitely delays Jacksmith's trial because smart people like you have suggested as much along the way. But why can't the judge Why not just start the trial right now and answer some
of these questions about official acts during the trial. The Supreme Court doesn't say anything that would barrow that from happening.
Does it well, the Supreme Court actually did. What they did is they said it has to be remanded to the lower court for proceedings to determine whether this was or was not an official act, which means they have to have a pre trial evidentiary hearing which could take weeks if not more, to determine and make a legal ruling whether this whatever Donald Trump was part of an official act. And of course every time the judge makes a ruling against Donald Trump, that ruling can now be
appealed again to the higher courts, which takes time. So actually the Supreme Court is built in, baked in a complete delay or whatever happens, because you just can't go to the jury now and say this should be a jury question. The Supreme Court pretty clearly said this is a legal question for judges to determine.
So that is why the ruling today is so important Politically. We're talking to a legal mind right now. And by the way, Robert's a pretty good political analyst from the conversations we've had. But that is one of the most important things that you're going to hear today. I wonder your thoughts on the dissent from Justice Soda mayor it makes a mockery of the principal foundation to our constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.
She right, yeah, she is right. You know, the country began with the Declaration Independence. I may have made this point before, and the declaration says we hold these choose to be self evident, that all men are created equal. After that, it goes through what's basically an indictment of the executive King George the third and one of those basis for indictments. For reason why King George should not be our sovereign anymore our executive leader is because quote
he has incited domestic insurrection among us end quote. When we wrote the constitution as a country, when this country, he did it with the founding fathers, they did not want executives to have this kind of power. The president actually has very few powers under the Constitution. Most powers of president exercises are by Acts of Congress which he is obligated to execute as part of the executive branch.
So I think Justice Sodo Mayor is absolutely correct, as are the other three dissenters, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her concurrence also said on that point about not letting juris hear what the president did during his official acts as it could reflect on his later criminal conduct. She was right as well in that part. She joined the dissenters, so they are correct on this in terms
of the country that our framers wanted to correct. Remember, we didn't want King George the third, and what this immunity does is exactly what the king had, and that's why we didn't create our country that way.
Yet here we are, Robert and I one of your thoughts. Then, on the timeline, Judge chuck In previously said she would allow three months to prepare for a trial that could last two to three months in duration. There's no chance this is going to happen, or are we going to find ourselves with potentially a president elect on trial.
We could profine ourselves with a president elect on trial, but realize the moment he becomes president, he can shut the whole thing down. So presumably if they could get in well, you know, before January of twenty twenty five, they could probably do it. But I don't even see how that happens. Look, there's an old saying among lawyers that you know, any lawyer can win on good facts, but it takes a real lawyer to win on procedure. Donald Trump's winning on procedure, and so are his lawyers.
And they have a willing and able Supreme Court that's right in their pocket to do it. And that's what's happened.
That's amazing. So kudos Donald Trump's legal team.
Yeah, I suppose so. Yeah, they had a good environment though. I mean, look, the DC Court of Appeals, three rather conservative judges on the DC Court of Appeals, disposed of this case quickly, and the Supreme Court could have.
Let that sit.
It could have waited for another case where somebody brings some absurd kind of argument against a president or a former president. For instance, somebody, some county attorney someplace could say, oh, Joe Biden is been criminal in his actions of not defending the United States border. That could have been a case that could have gone up to define some of the boundaries of presidential immunity. This case is what almost amounts to what we call an advisory opinion, which Supreme
Court is not supposed to do. The Supreme Court doesn't give you opinions about what the law should be. It decides the cases and controversies that come before it. They actually reached down and created the case to bring up on this and to give this expansive power, which is nowhere in the constitution. You will not find one word in the United States Constitution about presidentially that's correct.
Immunity nowhere to be found. Take it from Robert macwurder. I'm sure glad you could talk to us today. Robert, many thanks for being with us criminal and constitutional law attorney, keeping us honest.
Here at Bloomberg, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens 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, the last day of a term that extended into July, and at the very last moment, the last opinion comes down, and it's a big one. The High Court ruling six to three that Donald Trump does have some immunity from prosecution for official acts he took during his presidency. But Chief Justice John Roberts Joe, writing in his majority opinion, the president is not above the law. I guess it's just a question of to what.
Extent, Yeah, where's the line, what's official?
And I guess we're going to go through this exercise now, Kaylee, to truly delineate what counts, and that's going to take a while, which is why it's likely now that Jacksmith's trial will not be able to take place before the election, and if Donald Trump wins the election, it probably will
never take place at all. It's where we start our conversation with Donald Ayir, a very important voice in this story you've heard for here on Bloomberg TV and radio, the former Deputy US Attorney General and former Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. Donald, Welcome back to the table. It's really great to see you, and thank you for being here on this day of days. I think we have to start by acknowledging the fact that once again this court didn't really rule in its ruling.
It simply remanded this back down to a lower court.
What the heck took so long?
Well, I don't know. And one can speculate about motives and.
Why, and they're already speculating.
I mean, there's a lot one can say, but I think probably for now, having just a couple hours ago gotten this decision, probably worth talking about what the decision is and says. And I guess what I would I would say is that it's got a plausible framework and a very pro immunity spin to it. Court basically starts out, you know, saying that conduct within the outer perimeter of duties is presumptive subject to immunity, and that conduct that's
not within the outer perimitive duties is not. And then you get into the question of what is and what is not within the outer perimeter of the duties. And the court ends up taking a very broad view of what is within the outer perimeter of the duties, and they do it in part by looking at specific of allegations within the Trump indictment and in the January sixth case. And we can go through that if you want to.
In terms of what they said and what they ended up saying was geez a lot of Effectively, there's possibilities that a lot of the things alleged could be subject to immunity well.
And so that gets down the delineation between official acts and unofficial acts and what exactly could be prosecuted. But what's noteworthy is. The Court today also ruled that even evidence regarding official acts cannot be incorporated into a trial whenever, if ever that takes place. How consequential is that part of the ruling that not only the prosecution is in question, but what you can enter into your arguments.
Well, if you're a pros it's quite consequential, and it's I think highly questionable because as just as Soda my Ort said and her descent, and as Amy Cony Barrett said in her concurrence, this is not what the law is, that's not what it's been. I think more consequential is the way the Court spun the questions about what is
two things, what is within the outer perimeter? And secondly, if it is within the outer perimeter and therefore presumptively subject to immunity, how do you decide whether there is immunity or not? And in both of those ways, the Court has sort of set this thing in an angle that makes you think. And then the other thing is
they're going to get the last word. They're going to get the last word because this is going to be bounced back to the distrect coord Distrecturt's going to have hearings, it's going to answer these questions that the Court has said have to be answered, then it's going to go back up on appeal, and I must just answer it now.
Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just make those delineations itself, knowing it'll ultimately come back to them anyway.
Well, they did in one instance do that. They made a ruling that the former president's actions with regard to the Attorney General the DOJ situation where he has control of who's that did in the attorney general and he took some steps to replace the Attorney general, and he leaned on the Attorney General to send a letter to Georgia and stuff like that. And essentially the Court said, well, well, that's within the outer perimeter of his duties. Clearly he's
in charge of the Justice Department. But with regard to three other categories of conduct, the Court said basically kind of said things that said, well, it could be subject to immunity, and we're going to remand it. But those categories are indicative of really that's really subject possibly to immunity, And so it puts a spin on it that causes one to wonder, really how accountable the president can be within this framework.
That's a great way of putting it. And I wonder broadly when you consider the fact that we're even having this conversation now, the American experiment rejected the idea of having a king. Now, I realize you still need to be elected, but it kind of sounds like you're a king for four years?
Is that not right?
Well, I know, let's hope not. But I you know, that's a spin one could put and wonder if it isn't true, because it depends a lot on how these issues turn out. I mean, for example, one of the categories that they focused on was the allegations, which we're all familiar with, about Trump interfering with calling state officials, calling local officials, trying to influence the state vote count, which is the job of the states to do. It's
not the federal job, it's not his job. It's not arguably really within the scope of any job he's got, unless you think he's in charge of everything. So and the court said, well, gee hmm, that could be within the outer perimeter. So we'll command that, we'll send that back to the disrecord.
You know.
The the ultimate thing that they did that's most alarming, one of the most alarming things to me about it is that for all these things that may be arguably within the outer perimeter of responsibility, which the Court seems to think is very very broad, including speeches given on January sixth, for example, communicating with the public. Well, that's
the president's job to communicate with the public. So what's the test for deciding whether you're going to defeat this presumptive immunity for things that are within the scope arguably, And it's whether whether a prosecution with regard to it the quote from the cases, could pose any dangers of intrusions on the authority and function of the executive, any dangers at all, will justify immunity, according to the court.
Well, so when you consider the kinds of questions that were raised in the arguments back in April, one of them was could the president tell Seals Team six to assassinate a political rival? Under this framework that the Court has just put forward, declaring that, including being commander in chief, whatever you're doing in actions officially as president is prone to immunity, you could be immune from prosecution. Would that too be inclusive? As we consider, well, what anyone could do in the.
Future, You tell me I mean, if the test is would it that this is the only test the court provided, would it pose any danger of intrusion on the president's exercise of his powers? And if you apply that test, tell me.
And in the case of Donald Trump, for instance, this is one example drawn by Robert McWhorter in our Last Hour. There are documents showing he talked to Russian authorities about opening a hotel in Moscow. If you decided that was a national security threat, that might fulfill the qualifiers it could.
And then just to stress the fact that what's been set up here, and this is getting to be a pattern when in the Court's cases more broadly, with regard to how ultimately issues are decided, they are centering more and more final authority on themselves. With regard to administrative law issues. I mean, we've we've just experienced the repeal essentially of the Chevron doctrine, which recognized discretion in administrative agencies. When the statute's ambiguous and they come up with a
reasonable interpretation, well that's gone. And so it's going to be the courts that are going to decide what the statute means. Bump it up to us, and we'll tell you we'll tell you how to read that statute. Well, this is the same thing. Bump it up to us, and we'll tell you whether or not this poses any danger to the exercise of discretion by the president. Well, good luck with that in terms of how that's going to turn out. It's going to turn out the way
five justices want it to turn out. That's right, and right now this group doesn't seem inclined to limit the president very much.
Well, I'm glad you brought up the other rulings that we have gotten from this court in this end of the term, because another one potentially relates to this case brought against Donald Trump and Washington last week when they essentially limit the use of the Enron doctrine over what constitutes is obstruction in the case of a January sixth defended that they ruled in favor of Donald Trump has been charged with obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an
official proceeding in this very case that we are talking about. How do those two opinions intersect, if at all?
Well, you know, again, it's ultimately I hate to be cynical, but it's however, this court says, they interact. But but
if to try to analyze it. You know, they decided that Fisher case on the ground that you should read the statute's two sections, one of which is about messing around with documents, and the other of which doesn't mention documents but specifically but just talks about interfering with an official proceeding otherwise interfering with an official proceeding, which government, I think totally persuasively argued meant otherwise meant meant apart
from documents. Did you interfere with the proceeding? Well, the court rejected that and said, no, you have to limit this along the lines of things to do with documents and evidence. Well, I think here again a even even that ruling if you take it as a face value, when when you apply it to the case of Trump and the indictment on these charges. There the allegations with regard to Trump are really allegations with regard to lots
of things related to documents. They're related to these lists of electors that were submitted and other documentation that was included, and a reasonable reading would say, well, this comes within it anyway. Now it depends specifically on what the prosecution intends to rely upon. But I think I think it could very well be fine even under that reading. But again, if it goes to the Supreme Court and they say it's not, it's not, and that's the end of it.
You reference the fact that it says nothing about immunity and presidential immunity in the US Constitution. Should there be will there need to be language in the Constitution an amendment that follows this clarifies this concept.
Well, you know, I don't think there's any way practically politically that that could happen now. I think, you know, I think up until now, at least most people have been comfortable. One of the trends of this court is a basic distrust, a public distrust of exercising of judges exercising judgment. At the same time, as you know, from year to year now we're experienced the Court ironically itself, just by Fiot deciding certain things are a certain way
and just announcing them and saying them. And I think you know, everybody's understood that there is a concept of immunity that's very much a balancing process. It depends on judgment exercised by judges, and it starts with a premise that judges can be trusted to exercise judgment. And it's not an objective thing. It's not you read the word and say, well, that's what this is, and bingo, it's automatically.
Wasn't It also based on the premise that even a president's not above the law.
Well, that's right in the United States, that's right. I mean that that's the basic premise. And that's the thing I think that's so alarming to a lot of people about this decision is that when you read it, it seems like a majority here is ready to let the president do a lot of things. And where what is it that they're going to say is not within his outer perimeter of his of his duties?
In the Descent that Justice sodom or which you've reference wrote, she ended it by saying she dissents with fear for our democracy? Do you share that fear to.
Yeah, I do. I Well, there's a lot of things that's happened lately that are that are causing fear for our democracy because I think I think Donald Trump is someone who has, i mean said all manner of things that would cause a lot of fear in terms of respecting elections and doing what he can to undermine them, and his whole campaign has been focused on the fact that the election was allegedly stolen from him, even though there's not a shred of evidence to support it, you know,
and he wants to be a dictator on day one and all of this stuff. It's it's horrifying, and then you look at the polls and he may well get that chance. And it's really really scary.
Remarkable to spend time with Donald Air on a day like this. We're really glad that you could come back to talk to us today.
Thank you, Thank you so much.
Former Deputy US Attorney General, former Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, a man who knows what it's like to argue a case before the Supreme Court. Remarkable reaction to your last question.
There, Kayleie.
Yeah, concern for democracy not just being voiced by mister err or justice so to my war, but many in reaction to this ruling today. Not so though, for Donald Trump himself, who, when this ruling came down, posted on true social big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American. Of course, Trump not dealt a conclusive, decisive victory with this case. But certainly, if nothing else, a partial victory, because this is very unlikely to go to trial before the election.
That's right.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ketch just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Evocar Play and then Roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Thank you for joining us on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
The Monday edition of Balance of Power on this Supreme Court ruling day. It's the final day of the term and the major ruling that we've been anticipating on presidential immunity.
Dropped a few hours ago.
There are still a lot of questions though, about the impact of this ruling politically. I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Liones Kayley. There are questions about the legal outcome of this ruling as well, because it's been romanted to a lower course, so we're not.
Done with this yet.
No, it's going to be up to lower courts to decide what is an official act versus an unofficial act. As we consider the powers of the presidency or the president himself as not just the leader of the United States and the free world, but also a private citizen engaging in private activity in some instances. And that's really the question that to a large extent today the court
has left unanswered. What the Court has succeeded in doing, though, is effectively making sure that this case brought against Donald Trump here in Washington will not go to trial before the election in November. So as we consider the consequence of this ruling and it's out impact on the election, we assemble our political panel. Rick Davis is with US Bloomberg Politics contributor and partner at Stone Court Capital, together today with Brad Howard, democratic strategist and Corkoran Street Group
founder and president. Rick just to begin with you, we can discuss whether or not this was a legal victory for Donald Trump, but certainly can we call this a political one for him?
Sure?
I think it's easily a political victory. He's been using it all day since the ruling was released to take a victory lab claiming that he's been unfairly prosecuted and that he should be free of any of these charges because of this new immunity standard, one of which he claims he is set all along that he should have been immune. So sure he's making good use of it.
I'm sure he'll raise money off of it. I'm sure he'll create some advantage with people who are Trump voters who are leaning the other way, you know, potentially going against him. And so this might take one of the questions out of the matrix of issues they might have about concerns about Donald Trump.
Brad, does this go both ways?
Is Joe Biden going to have a major fundraising week or day or quarter In the end, we'll hear that Democratic donors were activated by this ruling.
I hope so, and I think it might just because it dramatically raises the stakes of the election. Right, it's no longer about you know, whether or not you think Joe Biden is maybe too old for or Donald Trump is, you know, two rambling at rallies, like it's now about the survival of our democracy. Like if you have lacked the wrong person with the wrong impulses here, there's no longer those checks and balances to prevent them from having any fear of persecution when they leave office or if
they ever leave office. Considering Donald Trump tried everything he could within the bounds that existed at the time, to try to He even stepped over those bounds I think into criminal behavior, into staying in office. Now that he doesn't have to worry about prosecution afterwards, he can declare everything an official act. What's to say he's ever going to leave office? And I think these are really strong, powerful considerations that voters are going to have to take into account.
Well, Brad, as you talk about checks and balances, obviously the three branches are supposed to work in a way that they can check each other. Would you say with this decision today that the judicial branch is checking the executive or just empowering it.
Well, you're essentially turning the Supreme Court to the nine unelected bureaucrats into the arbiters of what's you know, what's legal and what's not in terms of what a what a president can or cannot do. They're going to become the arbiters of everything. Every little remote Congress does have a role here in the sense they should have impeached, and they did. They impeached Donald Trump for his actions
on jan six. They should have removed him from office or at the time he was out office, so they should have prevented him running for future office.
As punishment.
But Congress has demonstrated that they just the partisanship is so strong that the Republicans can't look past their own partisan politics to prosecute someone who clearly did something criminal. On January sixth, we all saw with their own eyes what happened that day. And so I think you're starting to see this erosion of these checks and bounces, and you're starting to see an empowered Supreme Court with not
elected bureaucrats. AOC this morning or just moments ago, announced she's going to start filing impeachment charges against Supreme Court justice. So this is going to have a lot of consequences throughout Congress as well.
In the meantime, though, Rick, you're managing a presidential campaign, and if you're Donald Trump's a campaign manager or his campaign advisors, you're now looking at a summer it's wide open. It's the first of July. I realized there's a sentencing thing going on here between now and the convention. But after that, you know now for a fact that your candidate is not going to be locked in a courtroom.
What do you do with the time.
Yeah, from now to probably inaugural you know you're not going to be sitting in a courtroom like you did for five weeks weeks up in New York during that case, and you're free to schedule. And scheduling is a really critical aspect of this campaign. I mean, putting Donald Trump in the key battleground states to try and take advantage of some of the momentum he's gotten off of the debate last week is now going to be more certain
than it's ever been. I mean, this is a campaign that's been rocked by having to appear in these various court cases during the indictment phase, and frankly one that took advantage of that. I mean, one of the things we have to remember is Donald Trump has used these court cases to his political advantage. He was down and out in twenty twenty one prior to the first indictment and has ridden these indictments and frankly, the convictions to
his political advantage. Maybe now it makes it harder for him because he doesn't have that tool to use every week at his disposal. So we'll see what happens next. But I mean, you know, I remind everybody Judge Chutkin's going to have something to say about what she considers in and outside the bounds of immunity, and so I
don't think we've heard the last of this. She's going to opine on this as she has in the past, and she was pretty aggressive when it came to what she thought the vulnerabilities community were for Donald Trump, and I don't think the Supreme Court has really taken that club away from her in many ways.
Yeah, it's an excellent point, Rick, A lot of these decisions will now be up to her, even if ultimately they do end up back at the Supreme Court at the end of the day. If we continue to consider
though this idea of scheduling you were speaking to. If you're scheduling for Joe Biden in the aftermath of Thursday's debate, is it now effectively your job to get the president and as many unscripted scenarios as you possibly can be that sit down interviews or other appearances in which she needs to add lib.
I'd hate to say it, but I think the one thing he needs to schedule is the speech where he withdraws from the campaign and endorses somebody else prior to the Democratic Convention. But outside of that, yes, I think that he has a credibility problem that is showing up in the surveys. There's a new CBS survey out that shows almost half his party wanting to withdraw from the campaign.
And he has no time to lose this idea that he took the weekend off and went to Camp David to confer with his family about staying in the race. I mean, frankly, he should have been out trying to do what he did right after the debacle of a debate and do more campaign rallies and frankly do with some sit down interviews just as you described Kayley about you know, unscripted, non teleprompter interviews where he actually can show people that he has the capacity to govern.
Brad, I want you to weigh in on this and bring you back to a suite from Jon Favreau, who is an Obama speech writer and now pretty well known for his podcast as a Democratic advisor from the Obama campaign, I would simply say, calling nearly half your party's voters the bed wedding brigade is not the most effective strategy to assuage their concerns about your candidate and get them
to the polls. What is the real conversation that's happening now inside Democratic circles following the freak out on Thursday night.
Well, look, I think there's always been kind of bad blood between some folks in the Obama world, including David Axelrod and John Favreau and Joe Biden. You know that friction was evident all eight years and when Barack Obama was president and in the primaries where none of them really thought he would win, and he did. And I think that's part of Joe Biden's strength is that every time he's been counting out and down, he has come back.
I think at the rally they played Chumbawamba, I get knocked down, I Get back up again, which I thought was kind of a genius theatrical move.
So are they bedwetders?
Well, I mean, look, every day of the week, Democrats are freaking out about something. It's what motivates us, is what keeps us going, and we should be so what makes our candidates stronger, you know? I think again my concern is this is the debate is not going to have that much of an effect on swing voters who are swing voters because they haven't been convinced that he is up to the job.
Just yet.
Otherwise they do with Joe Biden squarely. Note they're not going to Donald Trump because they think he's too mentally unstable, but they've been a little word of his age, and that worry is continuing. What your hast seeing is the base has been confronted with concern over his age for the first time. We've been told he's sharp behind the scenes. We've been told that he can do the job, and from trust to people we trusted in the party, and then what was displayed on Thursday night did not reflect
what we had been told. And so I think there's a lot of base voters that want to see here an explanation and see more proof that he is the best individual to take on Donald Trump, because if we fail in this endeavor and Donald Trump returned to the White House, it could very well be the end of democracy.
Brad, we just have thirty seconds left. But how long of a grace period is there for that proof to show up?
Well, I would say a week or two, because then we start heading into convention planning and you know, a delegate race going to be pretty pretty insane. I do think the idea of an open convention is not a terrible idea in the sense that you get to see some of the brightest stars of Deocredit Party fight for the votes of the delegates and then kind of announced
with this energy enthusiasm. But if Joe Biden remains and thinks he thinks he's the best one to take on, he's going to have my full support, and I hope the Democratic Party will rally behind him because the stakes are too high here to head into an election. Because your feelings were hurt by being called a name from the White House staff.
All right, two weeks we're writing it down. Brad Howard and Rick Davis, thank you for a great conversation.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play 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 playing Bloomberg eleven thirty as.
We had the voice of Jane Hall at American University. She's Professor of Journalism and Media Studies here author of Politics and the Media, Intersections and New Directions. Jane looking forward to talking with you about the debate last week and the aftermath more specifically, but with regard to today's Supreme Court ruling, when you back off and look at this from your perch at American University, is the presidency being redefined?
You know, I think that it probably is.
And I appreciate the fact that you all led with the facts of the case and the impact potentially on democracy, and now it's going to be analyzed and used by.
Each side in the debate in the politics.
We are seeing in real time, a decision comes down and cable news has people coming on immediately analyzing it, legal experts and then political experts and all together analyzing how this will be portrayed.
Will will it be helpful to Donald Trump? Will it be helpful to Joe Biden?
So you know, this is sort of a follow on what you saw with the disastrous performance and the visuals of Joe Biden and how that has played out.
And you can see it in the people who came.
Out and who were put out frankly to speak on Sunday shows and are talking now about don't abandon Biden, as well as the people who immediately said I'm close to Joe Biden coming out of the debate on CNN and on MSNBC.
I'm close to him, he should resign.
Well, let's talk about one of those voices on the Sunday shows. We did hear on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday from the Senator from Georgia of Raphael Warnock, who was essentially acknowledging Biden's poor debate performance, but still had this to say.
There have been more than a few Sundays when I wish I had preached a better sermon, But after the sermon was over, it was my job to embody the message, to show up for the people that I serve. And that's what Joe Biden has been doing his entire life, his entire life of public service. And over the last four years, Joe Biden has demonstrated not over ninety minutes, but over the last four years, the character and the metal of the man that he is.
So, Jane, I guess my question to you is what is four years when a short span of time that captured the attention of tens of millions and hundreds of millions more when you look at what was cut up and consumed in the aftermath on social media, what becomes more important in making a decision as to how you're going to vote.
Well, you know, I think that is the key question.
And from what I understand and what I know about the media, there's an attempt by Biden's supporters to say, including Rolf Moarnock and others, that this was ninety minutes, that he has a three and a half year long presidency in a decades long history.
People are acknowledging that.
He did not make the case that they expected him to make, and you see that being played out. And I guess what I'm seeing and thinking about is they're probably going to wait for the polls and see what is the polling on this? What does the so called average voter think is the damage from seeing these bites replayed in the split screen that many people were shocked by. I think even Biden's supporters, is that the measure of the manor? Or can they reframe it? What should they
be doing to put him out there? And how loud will the voices be if his poll numbers drop significantly and people are concerned about whether they can win in Congress.
Well, we did get a quick turn poll from CBS News and Yugo of you might have seen Jane. When asked whether the President was quote or had quote the mental and Cognitive Health to Service president unquote, only twenty seven percent of respondents said yes.
The two percent said no.
So how should the media be covering this right now? Because there are two conversations going on. There's the one we just heard from Rafael Warnock, and I can add a whole bunch to that list. Chris Coons has been working overtime, and a lot of other very loyal Democrats. Even Wes Moore was out yesterday morning making the case for Joe Biden. You can see the public tweets at
least from Barack Obama and others. But there's another conversation apparently happening behind closed doors, And that's what to do if this is not going to be Joe Biden's convention in Chicago, how do we handle it? To what extent is that the responsible story to be covering here and knowing that that's the less likely outcome.
You know, I think the media are going to have to cover all of them, are going to have.
This is an extraordinary news period.
I mean, it is in some ways heartening to me to see the news coverage and see the analysis that we're seeing. Largely, I think that a good job is being done by what I would call the establishment legacy media, mainstream media. I think that, in large part, just like the Supreme Court decision is consequential historically and how will it play out, we will have to cover I still count myself as a reporter and as a journalist in many ways, the news media will have to cover this
scenario of could this actually happen? I think to your question, it would be a disservice to say this can't happen. You need to point out this could happen. Here's how it could, here are the difficulties, Here's the conversation going on behind the scenes, here's the conversation that's going where they are huddled. And you know, much as being made of Jill Biden's role in this, you know, and what
she said afterwards. You know, you have to cover all of this as responsibly and as fully as you can. And I think that's all that the news media can do at this point.
Well, as we consider what the news media does in the aftermath, there also are still remaining question Jane, about the way that some members of the media, specifically at CNN handled the actual event itself, in that the moderators did not fact check Donald Trump in real time, left that entirely to the president, and we know that he struggled to a large extent with that. Is that responsible in twenty twenty four when we know that Donald Trump lied outright on some thirty occasions.
Well, you know, that is a complicated question.
My understanding and my perception of that was that when I watched it, I said, I think that it may not be possible to completely fact check Donald Trump in real time. He has confounded every format that has ever been put forward. CNN and the Biden campaign and the Trump campaign set those rules. They have said that it was not their job to fact check. Now, you can be critical of that and say, there were some things
that were so egregious. Should they have stepped in some of the things that he said about being able to deliver a baby and then murdering the baby.
You did see.
Dana bash As asked Donald Trump several times questions about would he honor the results of the election. You know, I think that unfortunately Biden did not make the case. And yet this campaign sought this debate and people thought, now we look at it erroneously that it would be helpful not to have not to have Donald Trump able to be unleashed and few lized. I have to say I said before this that I thought it might actually
help him. He could look more presidential, he could hold himself in check, and Biden was not able to vote him.
Gene, It's great to have you back. Thanks for the insights. As always, Jane Hall at American University. I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines on the fastest show in politics, only here on Bloomberg TV and radio.
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.