Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appocarplay and then roud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
New York certainly has been a busy town today is this morning near Trump Tower. There were a lot of protesters and a lot of media present as Donald Trump gave his day after press conference after being found guilty on thirty four felony accounts of falsifying business records. He had much to say, including flexing his ability to fundraise off of this verdict. Here he was earlier this morning.
Last night, we just got to report this morning. In the history of politics, I believe maybe I'm wrong.
Somebody will find that I'm wrong. Maybe, but I don't think so.
They raised with small money donors, meaning like twenty one dollars, forty two dollars, fifty three dollars, thirty eight dollars, a record thirty nine million dollars in about a ten.
Hour period, raising tens of millions of dollars off the conviction. By the way, the official number we got earlier was thirty four point eight. Maybe they're making more according to the President though, as he says, maybe someone will tell him that he's wrong. But it was it was a meandering speechers built as a news conference a press conference, Kaylee. Not one question was taken from a reporter, and there was laughter in the crowd when he called Joe Biden
the dumbest president in American history. So it's difficult to tell what the media contingent was compared to supporters who were in the room there. But we have a lot of questions about what's next for Donald Trump. He just got through the throws here of the verdicts. He's speaking to the American people today. Now what the answer, by the way, will include a meeting with approbation officer, and we want to bring in Jim's Iron, the former assistant
US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It's been awfully helpful with us through each stage of this trial. Is that the case, Jim? Will that be the next phase here for Donald Trump as his legal team cooks up an appeal.
Well, I think the next phase, you're absolutely right, is going to be an investigation by the Probation Department of the Court. There'll be a report to the judge, and then the judge first is going to entertain motions to dismiss the case, which pro form emotions and will undoubtedly be denied. The judge will impose sentence, and following the imposition of sentence, which I think is January July eleventh, the appellate process can begin.
Okay, so jim. While that process is happening, can I just get a point of clarification while all of that is under is Donald Trump still under the gag order? Because he seemed to suggest so during his news conference earlier today, yet also appeared to say a bunch of disparaging things about Michael Cohen, which theoretically could be in violation of the gag order. So where exactly does that stand here?
The gag order is still in place. He must not disparage the witnesses, court personnel, or the jurors. I think if he goes after the jurors, it'll be another citation for contempt in addition to the twenty or so citations that he now has. The judge seemed to be lenient with regard to disparagement of Michael Cohen. Where Cohen had attacked him, he had some sort of right of retort.
So although he didn't identify Cohen by name, it was obviously he was talking about Cohen, called him a sleeves bag, and he undoubtedly was advised or felt that he had a certain latitude in attacking Cohen, who's been on television attacking him.
Jim, We heard a lot about the trial itself from Donald Trump earlier said it was very unfair when the government wanted something that got everything they wanted. We wanted a venue change, we didn't get it. I paid a lawyer, totally legal. He says, it's a legal expense, not sheet rock, It's not construction. It's a legal expense. What would you say back to Donald Trump after what just transpired in court the last seven weeks, Well.
Tell me what legal services Cohen rendered. The jury believed Cohen. We have to accept that. And the expense was incurred to cloak in secrecy, the payment to the poorinn Star Stormy Daniels to cover up the tryst. No legal service were involved. This was arranged by Michael Cohen, and he was the fixer, the arranger, the enforcer for Donald Trump, and in fact, he went to jail over this very transaction because he was indicted for it in the federal court.
Yeah, indeed, And of course the fact that he was indicted and many other things came to light over the course of the trial or certainly were made note of repeatedly. To go back to something else, Joe was just talking about, though, in terms of what Donald Trump said this morning about what he perceived to be unfairness with the way all
of this played out. He had a few specific assertions about what wasn't allowed to happen in the courtroom, what testimony could not be heard from certain witnesses that he wanted. Is any of this, any of that going to have merit in the appeal process.
I don't think so. And whatever he asserts in the appeal process, he'll have to back up with facts, which he hasn't done this thirty three minute rant you just heard Trump Tower. It is not true that his witnesses were not permitted to testify. He wanted to call a campaign finance expert, and the judge allowed it, but narrow the scope of what he was going to be allowed to testify about. And that's standard practice. The law had to come from the judge. It doesn't come from an expert.
Otherwise you'd have a battle of experts, and that would preempt what the jury is supposed to do.
Donald Trump also talked to you about his decision, or at least what we thought was his decision to not testify. He said, I would have testified. This is a quote. I wanted to testify. The theory is though, you never testify, but I would have loved to. What would have happened if he chose to testify.
I think if he'd taken the stand. Number one, he would have been cross examined on the substance of the transaction and his role in the transaction, and there he would have had to admit his role, which was a contested issue in the case, or he would have been faced with further charges of perjury. Secondly, the judge did
allow limited cross examination. He made that in response to emotion that is always made at the beginning of the trial, and he said there were certain areas that the prosecutor could go into if Trump took the sand and certain which had bearing on credibility, and there were other areas he was not going to allow the prosecutor to go into So there's the so called bias judge making rulings in favor of Trump.
Well, and certainly the biased judge or the corrupt judge to use whatever language that Donald Trump has been using to describe one Mrshawn as well as the idea that this was, as he repeatedly has said a source funded district attorney in Alvin Bragg, the idea that all of
this was brought upon him for political reasons. I feel like it's worth just making it clear, though, Jim, even if that were true, if these charges should never have been brought, as Trump and many other Republicans have said, the fact that a jury found enough merit in the evidence to convict him in all thirty four counts should that then therefore essentially make moot that entire point, because even if you question the motive of these charges being brought,
ultimately twelve everyday Americans that the defense agreed could serve as adequate jurors decided Trump was guilty of these crimes.
Well, in the first place, the charges were brought by a grand jury in New York County. We don't know how many of those grand jurors, I suppose there were twenty three of them were Republicans. We don't know how many of them like Trump. We just don't know what their biases and prejudice were. They have said again and again and perpetuated the lie that Bragg ran for office on a platform of getting Donald Trump. That's not true.
In fact, he avoided discussing the Trump case when he was running in the primaries, and he got the Democratic nomination, which is tantamount to election. So you can say that Bragg brought these charges because he was a biased prosecutor determined to get Trump, or he was fulfilling a campaign promise. Letitia James, the attorney General, did run for office on a promise she was going to get Trump, but that's a different question. Bragg, I think showed tremendous courage here.
He's been a great district attorney. Crime is down, contrary to what Trump says, and Bragg was very reluctant to bring these charges until they were totally vetted and investigated. In fact, the fraud charges which were the subject of a civil case Letitia James brought against Trump, were not brought by Alvin Bragg. He declined on those charges. He went with these charges because he believed that this would
lead to a successful prosecution. He was vilified, he was called a racist, he was attacked, and he went ahead. He's really a profile and courage and the case before a judge in a court of law, and it was presented to a jury and the jury unanimously convicted and Bragg is completely vindicated.
Well, lastly, Jim, you know it's our job to ask you what you think is going to happen at sentencing. Is Donald Trump, or we to believe, going to be slicing garlic at Rikers Island?
I think it's entirely possible because in sentencing, the judge takes into account a number of factors. There is the factor of Trump's age. He's seven years old. That's in his favor. Unlikely to sentence a seventy seven year old man to jail. Trump even in his press conference spoke about his age, and then realizing that he used that weapon against Joe Biden, he sort of pulled away from it.
There's the point that Trump has never been convicted of anything. Well, he's never been convicted of anything because he's managed to delay the three other trials that would be had against him in the federal two in the Federal court and
in Illinois. What would be against him is the panoply of civil cases where he's been found liable, including the Egene Carroll case where he was adjudicated a sexual abuser where he defamed a woman with any basis whatsoever, and the civil fraud case where judgment was entered against him for a half billion dollars. So those are factors which would militate in favor of a jail sentence. Plus the fact that Trump is a public figure, and is a public figure who engaged in a corrupt and illegal act
in order to win the twenty sixteen election. And when a public figure engages in conduct like that, judges like to make an example of them, make an example of them, because it will deter such conduct in the future, raither on his part or the part of other people who were seeking public office.
All right, Jimsyron, it's always great to get your perspective. You've been with us through the very beginning, and it's great to have you back now that this has reached a conclusion, although the appeals process still needs to play out. Jim Zyron, former Assistant US attorney for the Southern District of New York. We appreciate your time, and now we want to consider the political ramifications here and bring in our signature political panel, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzy no
Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick, as we said at the top of the show, Donald Trump so far has raised more than thirty million dollars in the aftermath of this verdict. Is he winning this right now?
Well, I think he's taking advantage of it. I'd say that this is a long haul campaign. It only matters what happens in November. And so if he takes in thirty five million dollars, but he scares away a few hundred thousand potential voters for himself, which he needs to be able to compete in these states, it'll be a bad trade. All the money in the world can't buy you votes. And so the reality is we don't know
what net effect this will have on the voters. But we have seen things like this week's Marris poll, which indicates seventeen percent of his vote would be considered up to up for grabs potentially if he has a conviction.
Now we know he has a conviction, so we'll.
Start to see pulling data come in based on that, that'll tell us whether or not this is going to hurt him at.
The ballot box. Gendi, we heard Donald Trump talk about Joe Biden today, said he was the dumbest president we ever had. There was laughter in the crowd, called him a Manchurian candidate. What does Joe Biden do?
Now?
You know, he's got to keep reminding people that this is a convicted felon. He's got to keep reminding people that nobody's above the law, even a former president, that he was convicted by a jury of his peers, and he's got to use his bully pulpit to explain to people what Donald Trump was found guilty of. So he's got some work to do, but most importantly, he's got to do the work of the American public as it pertains to the economy, immigration, the border, of foreign policy.
And to his credit, that's what he's been doing while Donald Trump has been in Manhattan fighting off these charges as a convicted felon. So I think he can do it, but he has to make sure he focuses on the issues of concern to the people, all the while explaining what their choice is between him age and all and a convicted fellow.
Our great panel with us today this day after the verdict, Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis will have much more time to take a deeper dive with our signature panel coming up with Katie Lines. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to.
The Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast ken just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Enroid Oro with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Breaking news shocking to many people last evening thirty four Guilty counts, Donald Trump speaking about them earlier today from Trump Tower. A press conference, as it was built did not include a single question from a reporter in Trump Tower. Certainly not Gregory Cordy, who's with us today at the table here in Washington, Bloomberg White House and Politics reporter with his eyes on the campaign trail. Great to see Gregory.
We were talking shortly after this all transpired last night, and I'd love your take since you've been so steeped in the research here on what polls we're talking about. I know that we did have numbers going back to January at Bloomberg that asked independence swing state voters what they would think about a conviction, what they would think about incarceration. But there's been a lot of noise around this. Do we have any sense of what impact this will have?
Yeah, So here are the numbers if you look at the polls, and I'm going to talk about our Bloomberg News Morning Console poll of swing state voters because a the swing state voters are the most important to talk about here, but also it's a poll obviously that I know the best, but these are numbers that are reflecting on other poles that are out there, give or take.
So fifty three percent of swing state voters said they would be somewhat or very less likely to vote for Trump if you were convicted, and even less likely if he were sentenced on that crime. Now that fifty three percent many of them were going to vote for him to begin with, right, So it's really the seventeen percent is the number that I'm focused on. Seventeen percent of people who said they were going to vote for Trump said I would reconsider if I had that New Information
seventeen percent. Interesting number. That's about the number of the amount of support that Nicki Haley gets within the Republican Party. So if you want to think about these as those Nicki Haley more traditional Republicans, that's probably not a bad comparison to make. And of those seventeen percent, eight percent said they would be very less likely to vote for Trump if you were convicted. So those are considerable numbers given how close all of these races are in these swing states.
In a difference maker, Now.
I'm going to argue against our own poll here, and the reason is, if you ask a hypothetical question, you get a hypothetic answer, right, So these are these may well be voters who say, look, I wouldn't vote for him if he was convicted, but I don't think he's going to get convicted. That's now a counterfactual. Right, he
has been convicted. We know what has happened, and so it's gonna be very important and interesting to see over the next few days, and I would expect we would get some more data by Sunday from a number of different high quality polls that could give us a little bit more input on this president form. President Trump himself at his so called news conference. You don't get to call it a news conference now, they don't answer questions. But he signed this daily news poll that has him
continuing up. That's a flash overnight poll. Wouldn't put too much stock in it. But look, this is certainly going to energize this base. It has turbo charged his fundraising. Got thirty four million dollars in less than a day, is more than he usually gets in two or three weeks. And if you know he can continue to gin up his supporters on this issue, he's certainly going to energize his votes to show up and to support him with a check or till.
A million dollars for each count is quite amazing how that works out. So you just said a couple of interesting things, because this could be any number of trials we were asking people about back in January, right, We could still have, by the way, a January sixth Jack Smith trial. Do we know how these various indictments stack up in voters' minds?
That's very interesting because we asked the numbers that I just gave you were from our January poll, and we had that same follow up question, is okay do one of these cases matter more than others. So in our February poll, we asked on each one of these four criminal cases individually. What we found was it really doesn't matter.
Voters aren't really differentiating between this Alvin bradcase and Manhattan abount falsified business documents as opposed that Jack Smith case is abount election what happened on January sixth, or efforts to overturn the election, or the mar A Lago case in Florida that has to do with classified documents. Voters pretty much put those all into the same bag.
What did you make of the speech? By the way, he started on the border. This is supposed to be again a news conference on this first ever conviction, criminal conviction of a former president. Started on the border. They're ruining our country. They don't want to have cars, he said. Then he got into the case a little bit, talked about some of the stuff that we've heard before. It was riggs Joe Biden, even though it's a state court.
Was there anything new here or you surprised he showed up with kind of the same retribution speech.
If you missed it and you're wondering whether he said anything, you haven't heard before.
The answer is probably know.
This was, as you say, a little bit in between these daily statements that he's given outside of court for the past five six weeks and a rally. I liked what our colleague David Gera, how he put it from outside the courthouse or outside Trump Tower earlier this morning. It was kind of a supercut of Trump grievances over the trial, interspersed with of all of his usual campaign pronouncements about immigration and the stay of the country.
He called Joe Biden the dumbest president we've ever had. He got some laughter in the crowd, which also made me wonder how many reporters were there versus supporters he got into January sixth, whether he called the National Guard. I mean, this really was. We were all over the place on this. But he talked about whether he would have testified. He said, I wanted to testify. The theory is you never testify, but I would have loved to
have testified. He of course, never sat a chance of testifying in this trial.
Right he has the constitutional right to testify. He also has the constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment not to testify and not have that held against him. He chose not to testify. Look, and can you have it both ways in the court of public opinion. You know, that's the argument he's going to make. I think what he said was if he had said it's a beautiful day and it's raining outside, he might have been indicted for and then he sort of trailed off to talk about
the actual weather outside. So, look, it's Trump. You kind of expect that from him, and the jury made the decision based on the evidence they had without his deestimy.
Sometimes you say things enough times and people start to believe it or consider it to be fact or cannon. And he keeps talking about this weaponization of government and that this is Joe Biden's case. He said, quote, I'm the leading person for president. I'm under a gag order by a man that can't put two sentences together given by a court, and they are in total conjunction with the White House and the doj unquote do we have any reason to believe that?
We don't? And you know, a couple of weeks ago, Trump came out of the courtroom and made that exact same point, but then he added a qualification to it, is that I can't prove that but I think it's true. So again, this is one of those arguments that that the former president is going to make. Look, Alan Bragg is also a Democrat. In this super partisan, polarized country that we live in now, it's hard to dismiss the
political aspect to all of this. It's an open question if the same behavior had happened in a republican jurisdiction, would the former president have been indicted. I don't know that. I can only speculate that it would be less likely to happen that way, right, So does he have a point? Look at the That's up to each individual voter to decide, and people are going to bring their own partisan frames to that question.
We mentioned this thirty four point eight million dollar number small donner on small dollar online contributions. The whales are lying up too, though the mega donors are not spooked by this.
Yeah, and that's interesting. Even before the verdict yesterday, we started to see some of the Wall Street Titans, people like Bill Ackman, leaning towards supporting the former president. Here they have been somewhat on the sidelines. Bill Hackman is a very interesting guy because he's been looking for any alternative to a Trump Biden rematch right, he supported decent Phillips. He's been curious about Robert F. Kennedy Junior, and now
seems to be maybe landing back towards President Trump. This has been an agonizing election cycle for Wall Street to try to figure out who is in their best interests. They like Trump policies, they like the idea of tax cuts, they like his views on regulation. They're not always so sure about his respect for the rule of law, which is very important in markets.
And christ why we didn't hear about any issues today? Could and Donald Trump have gone in there and said, Hey, we're going to fight this. I've got the entire Republican Party America is at my back. We're going to make the tax cuts permanent. We're going to start going through a checklist of things that I can do if you just elect me one more time.
And in this case, I think you know, very often Donald Trump is his own worst enemy right on the messaging. He is so aggrieved by what is happening to him in the courtroom that it has distracted him. And look, he has been in the court room. He's been stuck there. This is the hand that he's dealt.
But you.
Yes, as of now, we have not seen a pivot back to the campaign. And look, the sentencing is going to be July eleventh, that's four days before the start of the Republican National Convention. You have to think that all of these legal issues are going to continue to color Trump's rhetoric up until the convention and through the convention.
We're going to be in a convention hall where he's doing a jailhouse call on the big screen.
That's going to be up to one person, and that's Judge.
I'm really glad you could come by today, Greg, recording with us from the campaign trail to Washington and right here to the table at Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon on EPO, car Play, and then broun Otto with the Bloomberg Business at Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
President Biden not answering questions shouted at him by reporters about Donald Trump's conviction yesterday, although he did in that those remarks from the State Dining Room at the White House address what happened yesterday, saying that it shows the American principle that no one is above the law that
that was reaffirmed. He noted that it was a state case, not a federal case, heard by a jury of twelve citizens, and he said that's how the American system of justice works, going on to say it would be reckless and dangerous and irresponsible for anyone to say that this was rigged
just because they don't like the verdict. But of course it was then followed by pretty remarkable remarks on the Middle East, the President Joe announcing in Israeli offer a comprehensive new proposal to use his words, and a roadmap to an enduring ceasefire and release of all hostages that has been transmitted through Cutter to hamas three phases here. The first is a temporary ceasefire that would last six weeks.
Phase two would be a permanent end to hostilities, and the President said if negotiations for that second phase take longer than six weeks, the ceasefire will continue until phase two is allowed to begin.
Yeah, this was an important moment here, Kayley. Three phases that would include the exchange of all remaining living hostages, hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, we want to assemble our panel to get their take on this. Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano are with us Bloomberg Politics contributors on a day we thought we'd be talking about Donald Trump's legal future, and in part we are with the remarks here. I'm
going to start there with you both. Going into this news conference, we were asking you or this set of remarks by the president if you thought he would or should address the case in New York. Genie. That is exactly where he began time well spent.
It absolutely was and his tone was absolutely right. As Kaylee just went through. He talked about the fact that he was judged by a jury of his peers at the state level, that this is the reality in the United States, that nobody is above the law, and the fact is Donald Trump can appeal this decision. But I think one of the most important things I heard was when he said it is irresponsible for anybody to be talking about this decision as rigged and to try to
delegitimize our judiciary. And that is something we've heard not just from Donald Trump, but from the other leaders of the Republican Party right up to the highest elected official, Mike Johnson to Governor Reynolds, to Lindsey Graham, to Marco Rubio. I mean, the list goes on and on. It is irresponsible. And when you know, the former governor of Marilynd, Larry Hogan, came out yesterday and he said that the reality is
is that we should respect the decision. He was warned the Trump campaign that his election bid for the Senate is over. So the President was right on that and his remarks were on point.
Rick. We'll get to what he said actually about the proposal that Israel has put on the table here, but first, do you agree with Genie's characterization? Did he strike the right tone here?
Yeah?
I certainly created a pretty stark contrast to what Donald Trump did at the Trump Tower today with this rambling one hour diatribe about grievances, So you know, makes a good contrast, and I think did the basic minimum that he could do. I would hope that Democrats would fan out now and really go on the offensive, because we've seen this act before, after Bill Clinton and the Star report. He went in and really defined it and Republicans got on defense. And so this is exactly the opposite from
a partisan nature. But I think the Biden folks are going to have to go out and do more than he did today.
Let's talk about this proposal. We should make clear this has not been accepted. What we just heard's been transmitted, as the President told us by Cutter to Hamas. But Genie, there are progressive Democrats who have been waiting for some news here and a Biden Whitehouse and campaign looking for a breakthrough. We just heard the details again summarized by Kayley, a complete cease fire, withdrawal of Israeli forces, release of hostages,
living hostages, and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Does this sound like a breakthrough moment to you?
You know, I hope it is. You know, it is really hard to tell. While the President was talking, I was thinking about the fact that the Middle East, going all the way back to Richard Nixon, if not before, has been really a stumbling block for American presidents left right and center, Republican and Democrat, from Richard Nixon all the way through, and so, you know, this is very tough. The President said that we all want to see a breakthrough. I think his tone is right, but I think it
is very very early to declare something a breakthrough. You know, it's very hard to trust Hamas. It's very hard to know what they will do. We're talking about a six week temporary cease fire in phase one and a permanent ceasefire in phase two. That would be an amazing step forward,
but hard to say we're there at this point. But I give the President and his team, including the CIA director and the Secretary of State, you know, a lot of credit for working on this, and Cutter for working at it as it has in terms of being a middle manor state if you will, to try to make progress on this. It is so much needed. And that the remarks about the hostages, I think that's where all of our minds should be. They have been suffering there for far too long.
Well, Rick, the President essentially said that this deal is on the table. Hamas says it wants to cease fire, and he says this deal is an opportunity to prove whether they really mean it, Seemingly addressing those words at Hamas also, though seeming to speak to a domestic audience, he said everyone who wants peace now must raise their voices, suggesting they need to be pressuring Hamas to accept the
terms of this agreement. Does this help him domestically with those people at home who have been pleading for peace.
Now, yeah, I think this is pretty smooth move on the President's part. I mean, this is an Israeli offer, looks really generous and reasonable, and I would say most people don't think of the Israeli position on this as being generous or reasonable lately, and he's putting.
It all on Hamas now.
And I thought what was really interesting about his comments is he said that Israel has accomplished its goal, which was to devastate Hamas and basically take them out as a entity. And that's the first I've heard of that being determined. Israel I don't think has actually articulated that themselves. So all this becomes available now that Hamas has been devastated, and now all this is on the desk of the
Hamas leadership. And I think it was pretty interesting negotiating strategy for the President to go out and use the bullypull pit in the United States to put all the heat now on Hamas. If this fails, it's Hamas. Only anybody wants to criticize Joe Biden. All he can say is, hey, we put this deal on that would end the hostilities for good and Hamas didn't take it. It's all on Hamas, So I like it. I think it's an appropriate way
to use the presidency. And you know, now we look like we're part of the campaign to get Hamas to do the right thing. Hopefully it works out, because it's better for everybody if it does.
Remarkable timing this day after the Trump verdict, and thanks to our great panel for staying over time to help us understand what we just heard, the implications here at home and globally. Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano, Bloomberg's signature political panel here will have more with Rick and Jeanie in the late edition of Ballants of Power that starts at five pm Washington time, as we add the voice pick the Brain of Nick Wadams, who runs our national
security team here in Washington. A breaker that not everyone saw coming today. This is a late ad on the president's schedule. What do you make of the timing and what we just heard.
Well, you know, obviously the timing is pretty interesting. I think you're seeing a president who wants to put the focus very much back on policy, and it's also an element of deflection a little bit. He wants to put the pressure on Hamas. He also wants to make a clear show to folks back home, both Republicans and Democrats, progressives, kids on college campuses, who have been protesting all through
the spring. He is in the thick of this. He is pressing for a solution and essentially saying, listen, this is our best chance right now.
Well, best chance doesn't necessarily mean a guaranteed outcome. Israel has made a proposal in the past, is has not accepted proposals Hamas has made. So if this is now in the hands of Hamas, how likely is it that they're going to readily agree to this?
Well, you know, that is the question. But the other question I also have is how genuine is this proposal. I mean, it was only a couple days ago that Israel said we're going to need at least another seven months to keep going after Hamas. So what Prime Minister Benjamin na Who has made clear is they do not want a situation where Hamas remains in operation. So how can you do a ceasefire with an entity that you
say you are determined not to let exist? And Israel so far has just not answered that question.
Palestinian civilians would return to their homes, he says, including in the north. Under Phase one, this I presume would resonate in Gaza. What would be the impact for Joe Biden's image on that side.
Well, I mean, I think what you're seeing here as a president who is trying to walk a very fine line between the pressure from those who support Israel, which is a significant portion of the Democratic Party and also among Republicans, but the very vocal wing, increasingly vocal wing of the Democratic Party that I believe he needs to
do a lot more to help Gosen. So when he's saying things like that people will be allowed to return home, he is making an explicit plea and sending an explicit message to those progressives who really feel that he has not done enough to support the people doesn't And this is.
All coming directly from President Biden himself. What should we make of, Nick that this was announced not by Israel, not by Cutter or Egypt, who have served as mediators. Hamaus didn't say it had received this proposal President Biden, Right is where we heard this from?
Well, I mean, I think what you're We've had a lot happening in the shadows. The broad outlines of this proposal were not a huge surprise. We had no own about this idea of a phased approach. Some of the specifics we're new, specifically on the number of humanitarian trucks with humanitarian aid that would go in some of the details of the release. But all of that, I mean is essentially he acknowledged is still stuff that needs to
be worked out. But I think what you're seeing as a president who has had a CIA director over in the region of quietly pushing for trying to get these talks going and trying to just inject more momentum to say, listen, I mean, everything that's going on Israeli troops in Rafa, the campaign continues, we have a possibility for a pause in the fighting. And he's really sending that message to both sides to show that he's right in the thick of this.
Does a ceasefire, if this is accepted, a complete cease fire, a permanent ceasefire, keep the ICC from pursuing the arrest of Benjamin Etna.
Well, I mean, it would certainly help defuse some of the tension there. But you know, the ICC prosecutor is look making his case based on evidence that they have accumulated in the past, already committed, that's been already committed. I mean he is coming under a lot of pressure right now. I mean they are seeking those warrants. The arrest warrants have not been issued. That is a huge focus for the US and Israel. But certainly if there is a ceasefire, it gives them another case to make.
All right.
Nick Wadams, who leads our US national security team here at Bloomberg, thank you for running into the studio for us after we had this three phase plan outlined by President Biden. The ONUS is now on Hamas to accept it. And of course this comes the day after Donald Trump was convicted on thirty four felon accounts of falsifying business records. A lot of news here in Washington.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, 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.