You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Well, it seems there are more questions than answers after the Colorado Supreme courts unprecedented and stunning decision barring Donald Trump from appearing on the state's March fifth primary ballot. President Joe Biden refused to weigh in on the decision, but he did say, this is frump an insurrectionist, sir, well.
I think you start certainly yourself. Evntent is sawt all know whether the fourteenth none applies. I let to coordinate that decision, but he's certainly supporting an insurrection, no question about it, none zero.
And that was one thing that all the justice is in the forur to three Colorado decision agreed on. There was an insurrection and Trump incited it. Joining us to weigh in on the many many legal issues surrounding the election, and Trump is Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Arenberg, thanks so much for being here.
Dave, thanks for having me. June I'm going to.
Start with the question that legal scholars have been debating for months. The Colorado Supreme Court decided in europeanion the Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment bar Trump from running for president again.
Well, I read the one hundred and thirty three paid ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, and I thought they made some very compelling arguments. It's hard to argue from a substance standpoint that he did not engage in insurrection. Remember, the standard under section three is not that he'd be charged with insurrection, because no one's been charged with that. It's whether he engaged in it, whether he gave comfort or aid to the insurrection, and all the judges and justices,
as you correctly pointed out, said he did. Even the judge at the trial court level, the district court judge in Colorado who ruled for Trump, found that he engaged in insurrection. But when it comes to the US Supreme Court, I do think they're going to overturn this ruling. They
want to. The six to three concerned majority does not want to bar Trump from the ballot, and I think they're going to focus on procedure, perhaps say that due process was violated that there needs to be some sort of mechanism set up by Congress, who is empowered under Section five to do so, to make sure that each state doesn't go its own way, where individual secretaries of state don't go rogue and target their political enemies. And so I think they're going to punt on the substance
of issues. They're not going to touch insurrection, but instead they're going to find a procedural way out of this.
I agree. I would fall off my chair if the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court. So now Trump is going to appeal to the Supreme Court, and I've lost track of how many times he's done that. I take it from your answer that you think that the court is going to take this place. They almost have to take it.
Oh yeah, one hundred percent. And you know, like the District Court gave the Supreme Court a way out if they want to say that Section three doesn't apply to the president. There's some dispute over that, although I don't agree with it, because it would mean that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to bar traders and insurrectionists from lower level government offices, but not the top office, so like, there are ways if the court wants to
get out of this. But I think the best argument for Trump's side would be that his due process rights were violated because the Congress, based on Section five, needs to establish rules. They have not done so, and if you allow each individual state to do so, it would create mass chaos.
And that was one of the dissents went off on that. They gave a lot of ammunition, I guess to Trump to appeal this decision at the same time that Trump will be urging the Supreme Court to take up this Colorado case fast. He's asking them to slow down on the federal election interference case and turn down Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for them to decide the presidential immunity question right away. What do you think they should do here?
I think that the Supreme Court should expedite the matter. They know how serious this is, and they know that Trump's legal strategy has always been to delay matters, and this case was always going to get to the Supreme Court anyway, So why not get involved now? And so I think they will. But Trump doesn't mean like he reveals his code. He reveals in his pleadings by saying, hey, don't expedite this. In fact, even on the gag order,
he wanted that slowed down. He just wants to push us past the twenty twenty four election so that he could become president again, then order his attorney general to
drop everything. But Jacksmith's onto him. Jack Smith is a step ahead even when it comes to the case in front of Judge Chuckin in Washington, d C. Jack Smith wants to provide Trump with discovery the evidence and materials they have to move the case along, even while that case is stayed, which is paused pending the Supreme Court's review, and Trump saying no, I don't want this information. I don't want this evidence. I want this to be as
slow a process as possible. So, yeah, we all know what this is about, and so does the Supreme Court.
Yeah we do.
I mean delay, delayed, delay, And right now you said, as you mentioned, it's on pause. The judges put it on pause. But she says she hasn't given up the dates yet. She still has those dates. But does it look less and less like the March fifth date is doable.
It's unlikely that it goes in the first week of March. I think though, if it does get postponed, and I think it will, it won't get postponed too much. I think maybe a month, six weeks, and it could push up against the May trial in the Southern District of Florida from Judge Cannon. But you know what, that trial ain't going before the election. So I think the only criminal trial that I really believe we'll go to trial before the election against Trump will be the Washington d c. Case,
because that case was built for speed. The other possibility is the New York trial, which is the weakest of the four, the one involving the Stormy Daniels hush money payments. That could also go to trial before the election. But I don't think there's a chance at the other two, the one in Fulton County and the one in front of Judge Cannon in the Southern District of Florida, go anytime soon.
Is Judge Cannon still sort of pretending that that trial is going to take place before the election.
Yeah, she said that it's still on scheduled, but she's gonna revisit the deadlines as it gets closer. You know, that really hurts the whole cause of justice, because, like we all know that case is going to be moved, and as long as you continue to put it on the calendar in May, it prevents other cases from being scheduled at that time. We all know it's not gonna happen in May, so move it now instead of waiting
until the last minute. But Judge Chuck and eight messing around, is determined to have this trial heard well before the election, and so is Jack Smith. After all, that's why Jack Smith only pursued four counts against Donald Trump. He didn't pursue insurrection because he knew it would bog it down. He also had unindicted co conspirators which were not added to this case. That case in DC is only against Donald Trump because that case is built for speed.
You know, the Supreme Court has been under so much external pressure, so many scandals, ethical lapses, contentious decisions, and yet I was shocked that they decided to take the January sixth case that his implications for the obstruction charges against Trump. I mean, don't they have enough on their plate without getting involved in that case.
I was surprised by that too. To mine nolge, only one judge ruled that the obstruction of an official proceeding did not apply to this case, and every other caurll is ruled the other way that, of course it applies. You don't need documents to be involved. You just have to obstruct an official proceeding. It is what it says it is. So I was surprised if Supreme Court took it up. And yes, it's a great point in June, I got all these other matters. Why bog it down?
Because I think they're going to rule the way we expect on the rule that yeah, it's game on, you can use that statute. And if they don't rule that way, then it really does cripple all the prosecutions, not just against Trump, but against all the other j six defendants.
So the court, with all these cases having to do with the election and more to come, most likely it's going to have it's going to be put in the center of the twenty twenty four presidential election in a way that echoes Bush vy Gore, a still controversial case from your state twenty three years ago. Or is this even worse.
Well, you know, there's such a low estimation these days of the US Supreme Court that remember, after bushby Gore was decided, it was a five to four ruling, and the justices went along political lines, and the public accepted it. Al Gore accepted it. Do you think the same would
happen now? Not a chance. Trump is not going to accept if it goes against the miss supporters won't accept it, and people on the other side of the aisle, the Democratic side, already have such a low estimation of the Supreme Court, they'll roll their eyes and stay of course, like why is Clarence Thomas even part of the deliberations when his wife was involved with January sixth? And it is kind of laughable when I see people like Lauren
bober decrine the Colorado Supreme Court as activist judges. You know what, an activist judges, it's one to judge rules against you because Conservatives and Republicans they love activist judges when their rule on their side, like last year's Dobbs opinion overruling a fifty year president of Roe versus Wade. So when you claim activist judges, that's just hollow arguments for your own political echo chamber.
The same with textualism, I think, because you know the Conservatives say with textualism, you come to the same decision well, they don't come to the same decision. They're split. The textualists are split sometimes on the court. So, you know it, it really comes down to politics a lot, and it's a shame. But I think people see the Supreme Court as political now.
Well, and I understand why. You know, the public is smart. Chief Justice Roberts tears his hair out because he cannot understand why people don't respect the Supreme Court as an a political institution. But then when you have justices who take money and gifts from people who have interests in front of the court and don't report it, you know, when they're above the law literally where they create their own rules and they decide whether they violate their own rules.
That doesn't seem like an institution that we should all, you know, be in awe of. That sounds like a political institution. And so I think there needs to be real reform on the court. And if Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts wants to decry the act that the public doesn't approve of the Supreme Court, well look in the mirror, because he could do things to change that.
Speaking of changing, and you referred to Justice Clarence Thomas, there are calls for him to recuse himself from any cases having to do with Donald Trump, and you know the presidency. He hasn't recused himself very much in the past. And we just saw that Justice Alito, despite the pressure for him to recuse himself in a case where the attorneys in a major tax case did a fluff piece in the Wall Street Journal editorial for him supporting him,
he didn't recuse himself. And that you have any what do you think is there any chance that Thomas will recuse himself?
Not a chance. You can't shameless, shameless. These guys have lifetime appointments. So why why would he give all that up? What to please the editorial boards, to please the progressives who never support him, to be in with He's all in. He and his wife are all in. They're part of a political movement. And I'm sorry he's a judge, but you know the you know which way is going to rule, and he should be recusing himself. And it's not a good look for the Supreme Court. Same thing for Alito.
And I would say the same thing if it happened with members on the left of the court. But you know, there's a crisis of confidence with the US Supreme Court, and they continue to thumbd er nose at the public, and it really looks like a case elitism, a privilege that they don't have to listen to what the public says. They've got their black robes. We all have to stand up when they walk in the room, and they can't be fired, you know.
Just going back for a moment too, the issue of presidential immunity. And at times it might be surprising, but at times this court has turned Donald Trump away in the election cases and in other cases that he's tried to push them to take on presidential immunity. I mean, that's an issue that if they decide, it's going to be landmark and it's going to stand not only for Donald Trump, but for Joe Biden every other president that comes. How do you think they're going to rule on that.
I think that we will. They will reject presidential community because otherwise we don't have a president. We have a king. I mean, that's why we left the crown was because we didn't want to have a king. And so if it means that you can't indict a sitting president and you can't indict a former president for anything he or
she did while they were president. Then you know, then this not a president, and it sends a very damaging precedent because then what happens is if Joe Biden decides that he does not want to abide by the election results and cancels the election and locks up Donald Trump well, presidential community. So be careful what you wish for. It's not so funny what happens on the other side of the aisle, is it.
You know, we'll see what happens when these cases come down. What other well, we're running out of time, but I just want to get your take on the Supreme Court. Well in other cases too. They're taking all these big cases, the abortion pill case, the guns cases, and it's all going to come down in June when people are campaigning for president and other offices. So they're looking for trouble.
Yes, I think it's a boon for the Democrats because the Dobbs apision excuse me, opinion has been a huge benefit for Democrats at the polls. The Supreme Court doesn't get the memo from Mitch McConnell to stay quiet before an election. They're going to come out and do their stuff, undoing years of precedent and it's going to be very unpopular. So that is a wildcard we have not considered when it comes to the twenty twenty four elections. That's something the polls are not indicating yet.
Thanks so much for being here, Dave, it was a pleasure. That's Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg.
You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in aut Bloomberg dot Com.
And the Bloomberg Business app.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
I'm June Grosso sitting in for Joe Matthew Today. A new poll conducted by the Saint Anselm College Survey Center at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics finds that former United Nations Ambassador NICKI Haley has doubled her support from fifteen percent in the survey Center's last poll in September. She's now at thirty percent with just over a month before the First in the Nation primary. My Politics Panel today is Bloomberg Politics contributor Rick Davis and Democratic strategist
Al Matterl. How much does this have to do with the New Hampshire Governor Chris Sanunu endorsing Haley over his supposed good friend Chris Christy.
I think it certainly helps this new new name is gold in New Hampshire. But I would also note that New Hampshire has a particularly unique electorate. Their primary has allows crossover voting. I remember when I was canvassing there in twenty sixteen for then Secretary Clinton. I would encounter voters who told me they couldn't decide between her and John Kasick, and I would encounter voters who told me
they couldn't decide between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. So I think that it's a state uniquely suited for someone with her message, and I wouldn't be surprised if she pulls the upset.
Rick.
What is she doing?
Right?
You know, I've had a lot of experience in New Hampshire and you know, sort of the god of New Hampshire Republican primary politics as John McCain, And she's doing a lot of what he used to do, which is go into town halls, you know, meeting with voters in those town halls, answering their questions, not giving sort of set answers, but really having a dialogue. As Al pointed out,
New Hampshire voters are unique. They are used to being able to interact with candidates, and when they're denied that opportunity, you know, they punish you. And there's this great line that you know, John McCain was going to see some voters and he said, Hi, I'm John McCain. I'm run for president and i'd love to have your support. And one of them said to him, yeah, well, i've only met you twice, so you know, hang out and I'll
consider it maybe after the third or fourth meeting. And they really do believe that they expect you to come see them. And she's done that much more so than other candidates who have kind of placed their bets like Ronda Santis in Iowa and hasn't spent the time doing on the ground work. I would say the difference here is she has connected with New Hampshire voters in a way that Chris Christy hasn't. He devoted himself to New Hampshire and and and you know, just hasn't connected the
way she has, and so kudos to her. I think that she's got a lot of wind at her back. It'll be very interesting to see how this turns out, because right now I would say it's probably you'd have to consider it a dead heat because she has, as this poll indicates, been moving up while Donald Trump is literally where he was a year ago when this polling took place. And so her ability to add voters between now and the primary on the twenty third of January
is already proven. Can she get enough between now and then to actually win?
So, Trump still maintains a significant lead with forty four percent. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's at twelve percent. Florida Governor Ron Dessantis support all but disappeared. He's now at six percent. Al do you agree with what Rick was talking about that Haley can make up the really significant lead of Donald Trump.
I do.
And look, Trump is very likely to win Iowa, not sure by how much, but he's very likely to win. New Hampshire has a history of saying hold on, what about us and saying we have a different opinion and upsetting the race in a number of historically significant times. I remember Hillary was out of it in eight all of a sudden, she stunned the world and beat Obama and then it became a race all the way to
the convention. Practically, so I if I was a betting person, I would say it's going to be very tight and that she very well might win. And by the way, if she wins by more than a few points, that'll cause some consternation in the Trump camp. But he's still the prohibitive favorite. The one thing I would say about her that's really interesting from a macro perspective is if she were somehow able to win the nomination, that would
be probably the death knell for Trump politically. If he were to be the nominee and lose to Biden, there's really nothing that stops him from just sticking around again. And you know, back to the earlier discussion with your legal expert about keeping him off the ballot. The best way to end Trump's influence it's over the Republican Party and to a degree our country, is to beat him at the ballot box and really ideally to beat him
in the Republican primary. Not sure if it's possible, but if anyone can do it, it's her.
Rick, I mean beat Donald Trump, and he's lost the presidential election. He you know, during the mid terms, his candidate's lost, and yet he's still he still has a commanding lead against his Republican rivals. I mean, would another loss even make a difference. He just doesn't seem to go away.
Yeah.
Look, I mean we've talked about it a lot, but like he's got this core support let's call it, anywhere from thirty to forty five percent within the party, right, it's not a majority, it's within the party, is his core, and he uses that to better advantage than any politician I've ever seen, to intimidate senior members of the Republican Party, to intimidate the media, to intimidate you know, the legal say. And he's not a majority candidate. He can't win a
majority of the country. He hasn't proven he can get anywhere near that in a general election, and he's never won a majority of a primary other than in twenty twenty when it didn't matter. And so you know, he's a he's a minority candidate in the sense that he
is successful without ever getting close to fifty percent. And I agree, I think the best way to dispatch him from actively exerting his influence in the Republican Party is for someone to beat him in the primary straight up, I would say my concern about him is always he'll never declare defeat, even in a primary. He'll claim it's stolen.
He'll claim he's the nominee of the party, I mean like it's and if he does become the nominee, regardless of the outcome of the election in November of twenty twenty four, he will also claim that he's the winner. And so we we have our work cut out in this country to try and create stable democratic institutions to handle a guy like him.
And no matter what he says, no matter how frightening it may be. For example, he's commented that he would be on day one a dictator. In that Quinnipiac poll, fifty three percent of voters are concerned with that comment, but forty four percent aren't, and eighty four percent of Republicans say they aren't worried about that remark. So it seems like it doesn't even matter what he says at this point, or how frightening that may be. But more
to come, as there always is. Thank you so much, both of you that's politics contributor for Bloomberg, Rick Davis and Democratic strategists Al Mater.
You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Followed by the sound of almost deafening silence here in Washington because everybody's gone home. It's just me, Kaylee Lynes and Mike Dorning, who helps Lee Bloomberg's congressional coverage that seemed to be in the building or in the city today because Congress isn't here, Mike. They've wrapped up twenty.
Twenty three phone home for a nice three week holiday.
They got on their planes. They're taking the holiday break. But when they come back, they're going to have a lot to deal with because they didn't wrap up a lot of business before its time, before they got out of town. So let's talk about that timeline.
They come back.
What January eighth, January eighth and ninth.
And then January nineteenth, parts of the government could shut down if they haven't figured out appropriations. How hard is it going to be to get things done in that narrow a window.
Pretty hard, and there's wide disagreements between the House and the Senate. The House couldn't even agree among Republicans on what they wanted to do on a lot of these things, much less adding in Senates and Democrats in the White House. So it's going to be pretty hard to come to an agreement before this shutdown deadline. You have to figure the odds of parts of the government shutting down then are very high.
So it's no work going to get done between now and then. I know everybody goes home to the districts for a holiday, but there were people who were here actively negotiating, at least on the Senate side with the White House, trying to get something done with border security and Ukraine A. Does any of that work continue or they just pause everything.
We'll turn to it later. They say, quote unquote that they're going to work around the clock the whole time, which is, of course, you know, not really true. But some work will get done on that. There is a smaller negotiating group of about three senators who will be working and consulting, and they'll be in touch with the White House. But there probably won't be a lot done until you have the forcing mechanism of them coming back
into session. Now, as you're pointing out, that's just one slice of what needs to be done soon, we're just looking that they're just dealing with the Ukraine aid and the border security. What they've got to get done by the nineteenth is funding a whole segment of government, and there's a big risk that even the Ukraine and the border raid stuff will slip into that bigger morass that will then get even bigger in early February when the
rest of the government needs to be funded. So it's quite possible all of this could be kicking around a while. The optimistic view would be maybe they can at least get the Ukraine and border security piece done before everything falls apart. It's a possibility, but it's not necessarily a great one.
Okay, maybe possible, but low probability. When we're reflecting on the year that was in twenty twenty three, the fact that we are still fighting over top line appropriations figures when this was the fight we were having back during the debt stealing drama. Yet when they agreed on top line figures and we're still litigating the top line figures, are we just in for more of this in twenty twenty four? Mike, you make a deal and then don't you don't stick to it? If you can make the deal.
At all, well, I think that there's a good chance that there will be a big conflict in you know, January and early February, and that they will ultimately perhaps with a government shutdown that might possibly go on a while, have a resolution to that at least until September thirtieth, because Speaker Johnson has said, we're not doing any more temporary stopgap measures like we did at the end of at the end of September and then again in November.
And there's a logic to having your conflict now. If you need to shut down the government, you're doing it early in the year. Maybe Americans will have forgotten about it by the time they go, you know, vote in November, and you know, why do another extension if you're not going to make any more progress at least this way, you've gotten past acting like Scrooge and sending the government
workers and the soldiers home without pay for Christmas. Now you're at least having the shutdown outside the holiday season, all right.
Well, I guess they're going to enjoy their holiday season while they can before things get real difficult a couple of weeks here. Mike Dorning, of course, thank you so much for joining us. He helps lead our congressional coverage here at Bloomberg. But we want to get an inside look now from someone who sits in the House of Representatives, even if he's not physically in the Capitol building right now. Congressman John Garrimendi, I'm pleased to say, is joining us.
He is a Democrat from California. Congressman, thank you very much for being with us. When you return in January. Is there just going to be so little time that the only thing really to do is hold your nose and swallow down whatever compromise can be come up with.
Well, let's just be very clear here. This last year, the twenty twenty three year, was the least productive Congress perhaps in the last century. Twenty three bills, about half of them, are naming post offices somewhere across the United States. The work of the government simply is not happening. The Chaos Caucus, otherwise known as the Congressional Republicans, are simply
unable to function. They are so badly split, with a mega extremist on one side, a few moderates still left in the moderate side of it, and the rest of them all lurking to their primary and wondering if they step out of line and make Trump unhappy in some way, then they will get primaried. It's a very very serious
problem when the Congress simply cannot function. Mike Johnson, the new Speaker, is totally incapable of leading because he knows that at any moment, one member of his caucus could put his can leadership at risk and call for a vote that is to vacate the share, and so we're really stuck. Also keep in mind that what has been done, that is the funding of government through the first half through the first year, has been done principally by the Democrats.
We put up two thirds of the votes, we put up our two hundred or so, and then the Republicans add on, and so it's just a terrible situation, and frankly, it is not going to get better. The margin for the Republicans has actually declined. We see further members of the Republican caucus retiring midyear, Kevin McCarthy being Kevin McCarthy.
George Santos, of course is out to your point, Congressman, though, on Democrats having provided the majority of the votes for some of the most crucial must pass bills this year, when it comes to a vote that you could be facing potentially early on in twenty twenty four on the supple mental something being negotiated between the White House and primarily the Senate right now Ukraineate an exchange for border
security measures, potentially changes to asylum and parole rules. What are Democrats going to be able to tolerate in those negotiations?
There is a compromise available in that supplemental bill. There's almost three billion dollars for border security, hiring border patrol agents, court and on and on to deal with the crisis. There are within the Republican proposal. My analysis is there are some things in the Republican proposal that could be part of a deal, although probably need to be modified in some way, but nonetheless a deal could be had. But on the House side there are no negotiations at all.
Speaker Johnson has not put forward anybody in his caucus to negotiate, but we're willing to do so. We know that we can get it done. The problem for Ukraine is absolutely horrible. They will be out of money the first of January. They will not be able to pay for their first responders, the medical services, the ambulances, and the military equipment that they need to continue to defend themselves and to push back Russia is not going to
be available. They're going to have to limit their munitions, They're going to have to be able to just hang on. The United States Congress is absolutely derelict in providing the support that is essential for Ukraine. Keep in mind that Ukraine is fighting on behalf of NATO. We are all NATAL allies protected by Ukraine. It's the Ukrainians that are dying. It's the men and women and children in the cities that are being bombed by Russia. And what is the Congress?
What are the Republican leadership doing? Nothing? Not at all. A compromise is available, but we're seeing total total chaos in the leadership of the House on the Republican side. We stand ready, the Democrats stand ready to put together a compromise. The Senate will see if they could do it. If they can, then perhaps we'll get it done. That's just one of the pieces the funding the government will half of the government will not be funded on January nineteenth, There'll be no man.
That deadline is quickly quickly approaching. Yeah, that deadline is not far away, Congressman. Of course, when we think about the supplemental in particular, though, it's not just Ukrainey that's in question wrapped up here, it's Israel as well. And I just wonder if the Israel AID and just the administration support for Israel is also going to be harder to support going forward when we're looking now at Palestinian casualties that authority in Gaza say have breached over twenty thousand.
The Gaza situation is horrible, It's inhumane, and is this horrible. My view of this is that Israel absolutely has to stop aerial bombardment. Most of the casualties are a direct result of aerial bombardment. Most of those bombs are American bombs, and it has to stop. About fifty to forty percent of those bombs are not guided. They simply fall out of the sky and hit something. What they're hitting are
the civilians, and it has to stop. Israel has every right to continue to pursue its goal of eradicating hamas, and they should do so, but they absolutely must do it in a different manner. They cannot continue to do this. Their support is rapidly eroding around the world, and I would dare say it is also in Congress now. Humanitarian aid is also in THELA and that is essential. We're seeing the need not only in Gaza, but also in other parts of the world, Ukraine specifically, and that's another
piece of this puzzle. Now we have work to do, we can do it, we must do it, we have no choice. And the supplemental Ukraine Israel border as well as the humanitarian support is necessary. Also, we need to understand that we have to continue to fund the government. Reported from the Congress suggested that a CR is not
going to happen. Well, if a CR doesn't happen and the appropriations don't happen, then government will shut down and it will have a horrendous effect on America, not only on the operations of everything from the air traffic control systems to highways other essential programs. The military will probably
continue to be paid, but the police will not. So it's a terrible problem if we don't continue to fund the government and Finally, the status of America in the world has already been seriously jeopardized by the unwillingness and the inability of the Republican led Congress to operate. Right now, Putin is having a very very good Christmas holiday because he is simply laughing at America and he's telling the world you do not want America as your ally, because
they will back away. They will leave you in the field without guns, without ammunition, and without the supplies you need. Putin's having a very very good Christmas. Ukraine is not, and America is suffering as a result of the inability of the Republican led Congress to get the job done.
So there's a lot to unpack in that answer there, Congressman, I want to combine a few issues that you mentioned here. You talked about America and it's standing in the world, the US military, whether or not troops will continue to be paid, and we were originally talking about the conflict between Israel and Hamas. There's one thing that kind of bridges a lot of this, and that is what we're
seeing happening in the Red Sea right now. Obviously, there is a lot of naval vessels in that region, the US already has been actively engaged in defensive measures shooting down hoothy drones as they are attempting to strike merchant vessels bound for Israel, or perhaps it has become a bit more indiscriminate. Now, how concerned should we be by
what's happening in the Red Sea? And I ask you this knowing you serve on the Armed Services Committee and the Transportation Committee, the Subcommittee on Maritime Transport in particular.
Well, it is a very very serious international problem, but it is not a new problem. We've seen periodically the interruption of shipping, both in the Red Sea years ago it was the pirates taking over ships. Obviously problems in the Gulf also, So this is not new. America has
always been there, and we are there today. We're calling on allies, other countries, some of whom are NATO, others are not NATO countries, to join with US in providing the necessary naval support to make it clear to the Houthis and more importantly to Iran that they cannot interrupt the international flow of shipping, not only oil and gas, but also all kinds of goods that are shipped through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. It's important that the United States does this. We do this all the time.
We have been the leader since the Siuez Canal crisis way back in the sixties. We've been the leader in the Middle East, providing the stability and the support for the open seas. Will continue to do that. Now there is a problem here. It takes us back to the funding of government. We are using very expensive missiles, a couple million dollars a missile to shoot down two thousand dollars drones. It's not a good situation those missiles. So if I could replace, yes, go ahead.
Well, would it be more strategically optimal for the US to instead use its ammunition to just go after the Hoothies directly direct strikes where they are or is that too escalatory?
Well, there's certainly excavatory. But we might want to talk to the Saudi Arabias who attempted to do that for ten for nine years unsuccessfully. The Saudis used the American equipment of all kinds to try to do precisely, that is, to stop the Hooties and to remove their military capability. They failed. Now would we be more successful? Probably not.
What we need to do here is to be there to do what we can do, and it's it's difficult because of the symmetry between the cost of the missiles that we're using to defend and the drones that are being used by the Houthis. The real issue here is Iran. All of this goes back to Iran, and clearly the Houthis are supported by Iran. Those missiles are Iranian missiles, the drones are Iranian drones, and the issue of Iran remains front and center in most of the issues. Certainly
the Hamas, that's Iran. Further north in the Lebanon area, that's Iran. Syria, that's Iran. The current attacks that are going on against the American military in Iraq. So we must recognize and we do that Iran is the central cause of most of the disruption that occurs in this region. How to deal with Iran.
We were on a path during the pre Trump administration, the Obama administration to rein in Iran on their nuclear and other activities. Unfortunately Trump terminated that turned Iran loose to pursue its nuclear ambitions and simultaneously to continue to pursue its ambitions to dominate the Middle East. So this is a very difficult but a very very important one. The showerforce by multiple countries is extremely important.
Will it stop it? Well, let's hope it does, because the alternatives are just not good. The alternatives being perhaps trying to attack the Huthis. I suspect that will ultimately unsuccessful. The negotiations between Saudi Arabia and a Rod are on a hold because of the Homus attack on Israel and then Israel's attack in d Gaza, but those may be able to bear fruit in the days and months ahead. Hopefully it will.
Congressman. Finally, I want to return to another issue that has been in the headlines that refers to someone you are actually just alluding to their speaking of the Trump administration, the former president. The Supreme Court in the state of Colorado, of course, ruled earlier this week that he is ineligible to be president again because of his actions on January sixth, when in what they say was inciting and insurrection. He
would be removed from the ballot. If this holds. Now, you have the Lieutenant governor in your state requesting that the state look into every legal option to do the same. Is this appropriate in your mind? Or is the issue of whether or not Trump should serve again, that should be left to voters, not the courts.
I think every state in this nation should pursue this. However, and this is a big however, However, believe the Supreme Court will overrule these individual state actions and allow Trump to stay on the ballot. Two good things if this were to happen. First of all, multiple states would take up the issue of the insurrection that Trump created and hold him accountable state by state. That would be good for the American public to know. This is not just
a Washington thing. This is something that states across this nation are observed and are taking action on. Ultimately, I believe that Trump should be given the chance to be on the ballot, and I suspect the Supreme Court will so rule. Were that not to happen, I believe we'd have a very serious, very very serious political crisis in the United States if, in fact, Trump were not allowed to be on the presidential on the ballots in November.
Between now and November, let the states act, let them go through the process as did Colorado and put the proof on the table, which Colorado did, and I believe other states should do that. Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court will say no, that can't happen.
That way.
Trump will be on the ballot, and he should be defeated for multiple reasons. He is a direct threat to our democracy. He's already talking about being a dictator. Oh, for only one day, Well, that would be the first dictator ever that was there for only one day. But this is a very serious threat to our democracy in multiple ways. And this is complex as I've described it, but I think ultimately indeed the state should take it up.
They should come to a conclusion, and then ultimately the Supreme Court should take it and allow Trump to go on the ballot in November.
Well, Congressman, I really appreciate you weighing in on the complexity not just of this issue, but of issues foreign policy as well. Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate your time. That is Democratic Congressman John Garrimandi of California.
You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
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.
All right, well, we want to return to a conversation we were just having in regard to what is happening in the Middle East. There have been renewed talks in recent days attempts to broker a deal to release more hostages being held by Hamas, but Hamasa said in the last twenty four hours it would not discuss a new deal to release hostages and tell and this is a quote from their statement, there is a comprehensive secession of aggression. This is of course as Israel is stepping up its
operations in Gaza. So we want to get more on this now, and please to say joining us is Carmeil Arbitch. She is joining us from the Atlantic Council. She's a
senior fellow there and focuses specifically on the Middle East. Carmil, we've spoken with you before here at Bloomberg on our TV program Balance of Power, and you suggested that once that first brief deal to halt hostilities for a period of time and exchange hostages expired, which of course it has, it would be much harder to make a second deal happen. Do you still feel that way, or do you think there is actually potential for another agreement here?
Thank you so much for having me on again.
I do think there is potential for a deal here, and I think that actually the parties are quite close, and I believe that for a few reasons that we can go too.
But this will be a much more difficult deal, specifically.
For the Israelis in so far as they received in the first cease fire and exchange of a ratio of about one to three hostages for Palestinian prisoners, the prisoners who were released had very low level or in some cases no crimes hadn't been charged at all, and that largest wanthor of prisoners that excuse me, of hostages that
released from Gaza were youth and elderly woman. The situation that we have now is that Israel has already said publicly that it is willing to engage in a ceasefire for seven days in exchange for forty hostages, about half
of what they got last time. And the demands from Hamas are expected to include prisoners who have blood on their hands, and so what that means is prisoners who are kind of high value, who have been involved in serious or significant crimes, which will of itself be a much higher price than Israel will have to pay well.
In the meantime, while they're trying to work out whether or not there can be a deal that's made here. As I said, things are escalating in Gaza. The IDEF, it seems, has found more Hamas centers, it says, in the strip right now, and the civilian death toll, at least according to Palestinian authorities has authorities, has surpassed twenty thousand.
I was just speaking with Democratic Congressman John Gary Mendi of California, who said Israel needs to stop this basically to paraphrase paraphrase his words, and he said that sentiment is turning against them. Garmiel, do you think that's true.
Yeah, I think that the atrocities as we've seen them in Gaza are just agonizing for anyone who is watching TV. Watching images of children, of women, of families that have been killed, of houses that have been demolished, to the images are absolutely heart wrenching. And with that, public opinion in the United States and around the world is shifting, and pressure on Israel is growing to if not.
Entirely end the war.
Through a permanent ceasefire, to at least pursue a temporary ceasefire and to move to the next phase of this war. The Israeli government had said that they were going to engage in a multi phase war that included a bombing campaign, a ground operation, and then ultimately to move to the next phase, which would be a bit more surgical, which would not be this high level of intensity of conflict, and we're seeing preparations for that starting to take place.
So one of the early indications that there is a ceasefire on the horizon is the intensification of that ground operation, which we often see frankly by both sides in anticipation of a pause.
Well, as you talk about the intensity of the operations, the US would like to see the temperature lowered here. This is actually something we heard the Secretary of State Antime blink and talking about just yesterday. Here is what he had to say on this.
It's clear that the conflict will move and needs to move to a lower intensity phase, and we expect to see and want to see a shift to more targeted operations with a smaller number of forces that's really focused in on dealing with the leadership of AMAS, the Tunnel Network.
And Kermielle. It's interesting as we hear Secretary blink In there suggesting that in Gaza, specifically in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the intensity needs to be lowered. At the same time Bloomberg is reporting that the US is actually considering perhaps upping the intensity when it comes to action against Toothy rebels, which are of course based in Yemen sponsored by Iran. It's another proxy for run because of what's happening in the Red Sea, the disruption to
merchant trade flows and just maritime behavior. If the US were to go on offense against the Houthis, would that be a mistake.
I think that the threat posed by the Hutis is not limited to Israel.
It is really at this stage of global threat to.
International shipping, as different companies who have been trying to send goods via the Red Sea are now under attack, and so we have.
Seen the UTIs designated in the past.
I think that the HUTI threat as an Iranian back group has long been a priority for the US, including as demonstrated through their support of Saudi Arabia and the UAE during their war against the UTIs. I think that this is an important and obvious next step frankly from the US, I do think it's useful to think about
the different dimensions of this conflict. It is not only what's happening in Gaza, but also what's taking place right now in Syria, in Lebanon, and of course in Yemen, as different actors, in many cases backed by Iran, are continuing to threaten Israel, and Israel is responding in kind.
And so even as the assaults and.
Gaza may wind down, we may see a wind up on the northern border in.
Addition to what we may see visa the US and the Putis.
Well.
And it becomes, I guess, a calculation for the US as well as to what other Arab countries and Arab allies would would like to see done here, because you take the Saudi's for example, which have actually seen their energy infrastructure in the past damage by who the attacks and by all accounts, would like to see them handled in a bit more of a measured way. If the US were to escalate this to a certain degree, would that be problematic for our partners in the Middle East.
I think our partners in the Middle East have been very vocal in terms of both their involvement in these conflicts and what they are and are not.
Willing to tolerate from the US.
Fortunately, the United States has very close relationships with Sudney countries across the Gulf who have been engaged in differing degrees in terms of how we engage with the Jutis and their involvement with Israel. So I wouldn't actually expect escalated tensions with Sunny countries. If we were to escalate with the Houtis to the country, I think there would be quiet support for that.
And while we think about conflict or at least disruption in the Red Sea, obviously conflict when it comes to Israel and Hamas, it keeps bringing us back to this very same question, Karmil, which is what is the endgame, the day that this all ends. Whenever that day is, however far out into the future, what does the order actually look like? How are you thinking about that next day?
Yeah?
I think that this is really the million dollar question, and it's something that the Israelis have not been serious about grappling with but are starting to get to.
I think the question is in the region, how can we.
Ring about more peaceful, stable Middle East, starting with Gaza, but really across the Levant, and this is going to be a huge challenge. I think that we are potentially facing a long period of continued violence and instability, even if we are entering into a lower intensity conflict, one that will then create space for what I hope will be political negotiations that could yield some kind of a
two state outcome between Israelis and the Palestinians. That would include the Palestinian authority retaking control and administering Gaza and essentially uniting the two territories.
I think that would be.
Pretty significant change and one that could at least be a positive outcome from what has been a very difficult seventy six days of war.
Yeah, and difficult is almost understating it. We appreciate your insight, Carmil, thank you so much for joining us. That's Carnil Arbit of the Atlantic Council, where she is a senior Fellow. Will have much more coming up on sound on This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com.
And the Bloomberg Business app.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
I am indeed Kaylie Lines here on the fastest show in Politics. Joe Matthew is taking a well deserved day off, but we have much to discuss, as we have been discussing over the course of the last two days, specifically when it comes to former President Donald Trump. Colorado State Supreme Court making history in many ways this week when it ruled he is ineligible to be president on grounds of the fourteenth Amendment because of his actions on January sixth.
But ultimately this very likely is going to end up being a decision that the Supreme Court of the United States has to make. I actually on this program yesterday spoke with Lawrence Tribe, who is a well known Supreme Court expert and professor at Harvard Law, and he told me he thinks the High Court will uphold the ruling here.
He is, well, I don't have a crystal ball. I think as they follow the law. Judge Michael Ludig, a very distinguished conservative, and I think they will have to affirm the decision and render an unexpected, perhaps in many ways unpopular ruling that keeps him off the ballot. They find some way consistent with the fourteenth Amendment and their host of the Constitution, some exit ramp, some way of
not keeping him off the ballot. I don't really see what it could be, but it's a pretty ingenious court and they have found ways to do some pretty strange things.
So contrast that with what I was just told earlier this hour by Democratic Congressman from California, John garri Mendi.
Here he is, I believe that Trump should be given the chance to be on the ballot, and I suspect the Supreme Court will so rule. Were that not to happen, I believe we'd have a very serious, very very serious political crisis in the United States if, in fact, Trump were not allowed to be on the presidential on the ballots in November.
So I want to get another take now by actually someone who sat on the January sixth committee in the House of Representatives. The report that came from that committee actually showed up not just in the Colorado District courts of ruling that was in question here, but the Supreme Court said that it had every right to be used as evidence in this case. In particular, joining me now, I'm pleased to say, is former Congressman Stephanie Murphy. So, Congressman,
thank you very much for being with us. As someone who sat as I said, on the January sixth Committee, who of those two individuals do you think is right in this case?
Well, I think one person was arguing the legal and judicial angle of the case and the other was looking at it through the political lens. I have all the respect in the world for a Congressman Gary Mundy, but as he explained himself that he was concerned about the political consequences of a Supreme Court ruling that kept the former president off the ballot, I think, you know it's going to be up to the courts to apply Section
three of the fourteenth Amendment. But without a doubt, the January sixth Committee did show that the former president engaged in insurrection or gave aid or comfort to those who engaged in insurrection, which is the language that is used in the fourteenth Amendment that would prohibit people who conducted such activities from being on a batot.
So do you feel good about the fact that the Committee's work is being used as a legal basis here for this. Do you think that that's justified or should he be actually charged with insurrection and formally convicted?
First, you know, I think that the January sixth Select Committee provided a lot of information that has been used not just in this court case, but in a number of cases, whether that's Georgia or otherwise as it relates to prosecuting the folks who committed crimes on January sixth. You know, January sixth Select Committee really was the first time where we painted a full picture of what happened.
As you might recall, in the days and months before the January sixth Select Committee began our hearings, the American people saw bits and pieces, you know, the phone call to the Georgia state officials. They got little pieces of what happened in the run up to January sixth, But really it was the Select Committee that painted the broader picture, the full narrative of all of the activities at the local, state, and federal level to try to change the outcome of
a fare and free election. It's not a surprise to me that that information, that evidence is being used by the courts.
So if it is indeed being used in the courts, and therefore matters to the courts. Do you think it matters enough to the American electorate, to the base that this former president appeals to that does not seem to be swayed by what the committee presented or what, frankly, the courts or other legal authorities have to say about the matter.
I've been a bit dismayed by the short term memory of the American electorate. I think we did see an initial impact from the January sixth elect Committee hearings in the election that immediately followed. We saw the American people reject election deniers pretty much across the board across this country.
But now there are other issues that are crowding the voters' minds, and they're starting to sort of set aside the shocking and stunning activities of the former president on January sixth and focusing on some of the other issues that are more important as voters go to the polls. You know, as an elected official, you know, I was a member of Congress, and every campaign we always talked about what matters to people when they go to the polls, and
usually it's about economic security and physical security. These more lofty ideas of democracy sometimes are a bit harder to ask people to cast their ballot purely based around that, And unfortunately that's really really problematic because you can't have a strong economy and you know, physical community security without having a functioning democracy.
And finally, Congressman, we only have about a minute left. But when we think about voters heading to the polls and deciding who ultimately is going to be in power, do you worry about potentially the precedent that could be said here if indeed someone is kept off the ballot and it's seen as political.
I think right now, no matter how the Supreme Court finds in this case, it's going to be seen as political.
They are under a lot of scrutiny at this point because of some of the misconduct, the accepting of gifts, and so there are a lot of questions about the Supreme Court's legitimacy as well as its ethical obligations, and so whichever way they find in this case is going to be unfortunately seen as political, and that hurts our country broadly when our institutions are undermined and people who's faith in that way.
All right, Congresswoman, thank you so much. For joining us. That's former Congresswoman and member of the January sixth Select Committee, Stephanie Murphy. This is sound On on Bloomberg.
Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast.
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already had Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.