You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to the Tuesday edition of Bloomberg's Balance of Power. We've got a lot to talk about here with breaking news you heard earlier on Bloomberg. The ruling came down on immunity for President Trump. Here the former president can be prosecuted for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election according to a federal appeals court. This is a three judge panel of fifty seven page ruling. This would then, of course, Donald Trump appealing. This goes to a wider
appeals court and then likely Supreme Court. The statement from the Trump campaign prosecuting a president for official acts violates the Constitution and threatens the bedrock of our republic. They write, President Trump respectfully disagree with the DC Circuit's decision, and we'll appeal it in order to safeguard the presidency and the Constitution. And so the lines are drawn. Let's bring in Eric Larson, Bloomberg's legal reporter with us from World
Headquarters in New York. Eric, it's good to see you. We didn't know exactly when we would get this ruling, but here we have it. What does it mean for the timing of this trial? Of course, the Special Council Jack Smith wanted to bring this in March, it fell off the calendar. What does it mean going forward?
Right? Well, as you said, we'd been waiting for this decision from the Appeals Court for a little while. I think folks were expecting it to come sooner. The judge in the case canceled the March fourth hearing. This sorry, trial was supposed to start March fourth, was potentially going to last several months, so it was not a small decision for this judge to cancel that date. It hasn't
yet been rescheduled. It's likely that that decision was just a result of this Appeals Court decision on immunity taking so long. So we'll see what happens in the lower court. We'll see what Trump does next. He could ask the Supreme Court to review this, or he could also, as you mentioned, seek a review from a larger panel of Appeals Court justices, is so called en banc review. Of course,
those are rarely granted and rarely succeed. But for now, the Court could not have been more clear that it disagrees with Trump's arguments, some of which were outlined in that statement you just read out. This three judge panel, two judges appointed by Biden, won by George Herbert Walker Bush, all agreeing that a former president can be charged with crimes related to their conduct in office, and that particularly
around this attempt to overturn the twenty twenty election. They said that that is something that must absolutely be checked by the courts. If it's true.
If the court had ruled in the other direction, would this trial, would this case be dead?
Well, it would definitely have put it on the back foot. The special counsel Jack Smith, who brought this case as well as the other federal case over Trump's handling of classified records in Florida Federal Court, Jack Smith could have appealed if it had been overturned. So we would have
either way seen an appeal, I would imagine. But once this does get to the Supreme Court, whether when a petition is filed to hear this, the Supreme Court could either just say no, we're actually not interested we're not going to hear this, in which case this decision today
would stand and the trial would go ahead. If they do the Supreme Court were to take it up, then of course we would potentially have additional arguments at the Supreme Court and then another wait for another historic decision, which of course could delay this even further.
The Supreme Court would have all the time it wanted to take right.
That's right, although I would think in a case like this, I wouldn't be surprised if they expedited it, just given the importance of the question here. It's not just any criminal case here against a former president. It's a case related to an alleged attempt to illegally overturn an election and stay in office despite losing. So it's something that the court may see to think would need a resolution before the next election.
Eric, does this impact the case in Georgia or is that different because it's on the state level.
Yeah, it's the ladder there. It doesn't impact the case in Georgia, which of course also relates to Trump's alleged effort to conspire to overturn the election that filed under state law in Georgia racketeering violations. Various defendants in that case, including Trump, are trying to have that case thrown out. No trial has been set yet in that case, notably, so it seems to be a bit further out.
Well, this is really fascinating here, if I'm understanding you correctly, Eric, everything is up in the air right now, and Donald Trump's attempts to delay, delay, delay as a strategy may have actually been strengthened by this ruling. Today. We could be in a situation where a trial is underway during the presidential the party's nominating convention, or not at all before the election. Is that right, sure?
I mean, it's this is all just so unprecedented. It's really unclear what the judge of the trial judge might might do here. Obviously there's an interest, the federal interest in speedy trials and having trials happened sooner rather than later. That's that's true in all courts. Of course, they're also going to weigh against Trump's rights as a candidate as this continues to push closer and closer to the election. But of course, all this whole case probably could have
moved along, you know, faster, it was delayed repeatedly. You know by the defendant in various legal maneuvers, which are his right to do. But the delay, the fact that this might be coming up closer to the election is it's not really they claim it's by design. Trump's defense is claiming that this is election interference. But I think that a lot of the timing and the delays are actually a result of the defense arguments here.
Great to have Eric Larson. I appreciated Eric Bloomberg, legal reporter as we add a voice of experience in Nick Ackerman, of course, founder of the law Office of Nick Ackerman, but also former assistant US attorney, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor. Mister Ackerman, It's great to see you, Welcome back. We've talked about the virtues of this argument a couple of times, but this must really hit close to home with you
having your experience on the Watergate case. Prosecuting a president we see for official acts violates the Constitution and threatens the bedrock of our republic. According to Donald Trump's spokesperson, what say you.
Well, first of all, he's not being prosecuted for official acts. He's being prosecuted for criminal acts that he did outside of his duties as president of the United States. So that's the first fallacy with his argument. No one has ever understood a president to be above the law, that a president can willing nelly break the law at his pleasure. That was never the law. We never assumed that in Watergate.
In fact, we assumed just the opposite. And we're investigating Richard Nixon for all kinds of violations, including obstruction of justice and income tax violations. The only reason he was not prosecuted in the end was because he was pardoned by President Trump. Other than that, we wouldn't be talking about this issue today. It would have been done and completed years ago.
President Ford. Of course, the pardon, right, Is this something that you considered during the Watergate era as a potential argument? Are you surprised Richard Nixon didn't make it?
This was never raised during the War Date era. No one ever had the audacity to say that the president was immune from obstructing justice and committing crimes. That just never came across our radar.
That says a lot. So we have a fifty seven page opinion here unanimous three judges. If this indeed goes to the wider repellate court, which we expect what happens.
Well, I think what's going to happen is he's probably going to appeal directly to the Supreme Court in order to not have this case go back to the district court. I think the Supreme Court is not going to take it. They've already got a full plate with this Fourteenth Amendment issue. I think they would prefer not to be involved in this particular case. Don't forget, if Donald Trump is convicted in the DC case, he then will have the right to appeal the entire conviction to the Supreme Court and
raise this issue at a later point. So I think that is more likely what is going to happen. The real ramifications here are that the case in DC is going to be put off a little bit yet, probably not till we'll say April or May. And what's going to happen instead is that the case criminal case pending in Manhattan is going to.
Go ahead first.
So I think what we're looking at is that the first case that Donald Trump is going to have to defend himself on criminal matters is going to be in New York County starting the end of March.
This is the Stormy Daniels case. Which is pretty remarkable to think that that would be the first to kick off here. But I just want to get a thirty thousand foot view, say again.
Not really, no, No, this case is just as important as any of the others. First of all, just Stormy Daniels. What this case has to do with is Donald Trump defrauding the US voting public in twenty sixteen. What he did was he engaged in a scheme that involved not just himself, but David Pecker at the National Inquirer and others, including his own attorney, to basically keep information relating to sexual affairs that he had with various women from the
voting public. Don't forget, at the point in time where he was doing this, there had already been the Access Hollywood tape that came out. There were twenty some odd women that had come out saying that he had abused them at some point, and this situation, if it had been released prior to the election, probably would have resulted
in Hillary Clinton being elected. So what you really have here is Donald Trump having essentially a hoodwink the voters in twenty sixteen by keeping this information from the voting public, which is what is charged in the Manhattan indictment and thereby getting himself elected. So this is a pretty significant case, not to mention the fact that the proof here is
pretty overwhelming. It's not just his former attorney Michael Cohen who's testifying, but it's also David Decker, who is then the owner of the National Inquirer, who's also going to testify. So you've got two main accomplished witnesses. Those are going to corroborate each other. You've got a tape recording between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen where they discuss the payment to another one of the women, Karen McDougall, and how they got the money to her, and the involvement of
mister Picker. And then you've got a whole bunch of other witnesses who are going to corroborate various little assa specks of this whole scheme. So the bottom line is, I think this is an almost certain conviction. It's a quick trial, it's no more than three weeks, and he's going to be convicted and then go down to DC for his second conviction. That's what I think is going to have.
Well, just that was incredible to listen to Nick Ackerman because so many folks, including by the way, many Democrats, have spent a lot of time trying to question the legitimacy of that case in how it reflects on the others. We hear about indictment fatigue, that Alvin Bragg bit off more than he could chew, that we should have allowed the special counsel to move forward. You see, all of these, it sounds like, is equally important.
Absolutely. The problem is people have not read the indictment. All you have to do is read the statement effects. What I just said is pretty much laid out there, and for some reason, the press, the public they've forgotten it. They haven't read it. But once you dig into it, this is a very significant case. In fact, what it shows at the end of the day is he cheated his way into the presidency and then after he lost the election, he tried to cheat his way to stay
in the presidency. That's what these cases are all about. With respect to the DC case and the Georgia case. Now, of course, the Florida case for the classified documents is a completely different situation, where he essentially stole classified information and obstructed the government obtaining those documents back.
Nick I only have a minute. If I'm understanding you correctly, and the question I wanted to ask you the broad view here. While this made this ruling today may delay the start of Jacksmith's trial, in the end, it strengthens jack Smith's hand.
No question, it absolutely does. It's just going to mean that one trial is going to go before another trial, and you're going to start in March with the Manhattan DA's office. Then you're going to go to DC. Then you're going to go to either Florida or Atlanta for the Hobby reco case. So these are all going to kind of go in succession. They could have never all gone at the same time for this simple reason that defendant can only be in one courtroom at one time.
Nick Ackerman, a great pleasure. We appreciate your jumping on this story for us with little notice. This broke just a couple of hours ago. Former assistant special Watergate prosecutor, former Assistant US Attorney Nick Ackerman.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Roynoo 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.
If you're just joining us. Though, it has been quite a day in Washington here with breaking news from the DC Circuit Court. We were waiting for this in the immunity case for Donald Trump. Unanimous ruling three judges on the Apeals Court ruling that Donald Trump can can be prosecuted, in other words, not immune for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election, and Donald Trump, shocker is going to
appeal it. Prosecuting a president for official acts, says the campaign violates the Constitution, threatens the bedrock of our republic. President Trump respectively disagrees with the DC Circuit Court's decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the presidency and the Constitution. This is where we begin with our panel. Glad to say, Rick and Jenie are with us on an important day here in Washington history. Bloomberg Politics contributors
Genie Shanzano and Rick Davis. Genie, your thoughts on Stormy Daniels being the first case that we hear, because that is likely what's going to happen. Delaying Jack Smith's case likely until what appears to be summertime, if not fall. What does it mean for the campaign?
Yeah, I mean I think this is more to the benefit of the campaign than not.
They would rather have cases.
That, if you've been discussing, meant some people at least feel should not have gone forward. So they'd rather have these cases. I don't want to describe it at all as frivolous, because it is not. But in the views of some people it is a political prosecution and that is clearly not the case when it comes to Jack Smith or documents.
So I think that works to their advantage.
But boy, this decision out of the Appellate Court today a victory for the rule of law. He is going to appeal it. But I can't imagine a world in which any Supreme Court, as conservative as they are, says that any president has absolute immunity. That is a violation of separation of powers of the likes of which our democracy has never even imagined. Talk about frivolous. That is frivolous delay tactic. He may get the delay, but ultimately he won't get the win on this.
Well, so there it is rick the impact on the Trump campaign near term benefit, long term liability.
Yeah, I'm not sure near term benefit. You know, I think the idea of like raising money off of these.
I think raising money, can you hear me, Yeah, we got you, We're goodhead, Okay.
Raising money off of these court cases? You know, I don't think it has the power that it once did early on in the process. I mean, voters in all the polls that I've seen are sort of accepting this as a process question now. And the trigger there in the process is if he's convicted. They don't seem to be that influenced by the process going on until then.
So the question is when does this case ultimately break through all these debates, all these barriers, and get get on the docket so that it can actually be tried. As you talked about earlier in your program, the amazing part of a presidential campaign that I don't think anybody ever contemplated is having a criminal trial ongoing in the middle of a you know, presidential campaign, you know, with
one of the presidential contestants. So I think it's hard to say whether or not this is actually going to order his benefit or not.
Well, he's going to have a lot of time in court, Genie, whether he can turn that into good optics or not. I mean, I can't really imagine it, but I know that a lot of people have spent time trying to delegitimize Alvin Bragg's case. But to Rick's point, how corrosive is it going to be to see Stormy Daniels up on the stand, to see David Pecker up on the stand telling these stories.
It will be corrosive. And the problem for Donald Trump here has never been a problem in the primary season. It is a problem in the general election. So, whether it's the Stormy Daniels case, Jack Smith, the documents, the reality is if this is an election which is going to be fought out in the middle in these six to seven battleground states, independence moderates are going to have
a very hard time. As the Bloomberg Morning Consul poll showed voting for somebody who has been convicted of a crime, I mean, that is a huge, huge problem. You know, he can spend all he wants, he can raise money, but we still, hopefully Joe Matthew, live in a world in which the conviction of a felony by our court system is seen as something that is not attractive to people as they look to vote for a president. So it's not to say that they may love the alternative
and Joe Biden so much. Yeah, but gosh, it's gonna be hard to choose somebody who's been convicted or in the midst of such tawdry details.
And so I don't think they move the base.
The base will stay with him, but certainly the independence and moderates are going to have second thoughts when it comes to this, all of these trials, not just the one involving Stormy Daniels.
Rick. I know it's serious when Genie uses my full name, uh, and I'm gonna have probably I'll get angry tweets for this, but I have to ask, with a headline like this and what I'm hearing you both say, did Joe Biden just win the election? No?
I mean, he's got a long way to go, and he's coming from behind in all our targeted states that we've been pulling at Bloomberg. So it's also predicated on his success. And part of his success is to have an ever improving economy that voters actually feel like they're getting a better economy, and he's still got to prove that he can do that.
Although I would say that's one of the.
More likely scenarios. But like he's got a major failure on his hands today. He's supposed to be addressing the nation an hour ago talking about why he needs border security legislation to tighten up a border that voters don't think he's doing a good job with. And if he isn't able to make the case that he can actually handle this border over the next four years, forget the fact that he's had an abject failure over the last two years, then he's still going to have a problem.
I mean, elections are always about a choice, and it's between two people as imperfect as they are, you know, and all the baggage that they both carry. Sooner or later, the voters are going to have to vote. Right now, they seem dead even split.
It's remarkable Rick Davis and Genie Shanzino with crack analysis here. This ruling is fresh.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then Brounoro with The Bloomberg Business at Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We knew the ruling was coming here today. We've been discussing our anticipation there, Kaylee. The question was where this court would come down and where we go from here. Of course, the campaign is going to appeal this, but Jack Smith's premise, his case against the former president is still alive.
It is, of course, the decision of this appeals court today is held for six days until February twelfth. The former president and his legal team have until that day to decide whether or not to appeal it to the
Supreme Court. And then if the Supreme Court ultimately decides to hear it, decides to rule, that's when we may have a better understanding of the actual timeline when this may indeed go to trial, because remember it was supposed to be March fourth, and Judge Chutkin already last week said, okay, well that's not going to happen because we didn't have an immunity decision.
Amazing. So this is where we begin with Michael Zelden, I'm glad to say is with us, the former federal prosecutor, former special council to Robert Muller while at the DOJ. Michael, it's good to see you here. We are we finally have a ruling. Nick Ackerman, the former Watergate prosecutor, was with us last hour. He suggests this in fact strengthens Jack Smith's hand, and we'll only delay the trial into summer or fall.
What do you think, Well, it's unknowable. However, I think that there is a reasonable opportunity here for the Supreme Court to decline to take cert in this case. You have Judge Chutkin, the trial judge, is issuing a very comprehensive ruling. Why the immunity argument that Trump put forth holds no water This three judge bipartisan appointed panel unanimously agrees with chuck Kin and says that the former president is just like any other citizen once he is a
former president. So you have four distinguished jurists saying this is not a close case. Why the Supreme Court would feel the need to intervene at all is in my mind questionable. They are risking always the view that they are putting their political fingers on scales. This is an opportunity for them to say, you know what, it's not a close case. We don't need to take sert, and this case can go forward to trial. When the trial
judge sets it down. If, however, they say, you know what, it's a case of first impression and we need to hear it. Then if you look at the timeline that took in the appellate court, this could be done by the end of April, aligned for a trial in mid May, I think, without any due process implications for the former president.
Okay, but how could the former president and his team potentially change that timeline, knowing that he has a tendency to always want to delay. What options does he really have here to do?
So? Well, this Court of Appeals said they will not stay this ruling pending his request to the Court of Appeals in Bank the total Court to hear it. So that doesn't stay the trial. It will only be stayed until February twelfth, to allow him the time to seek consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says yes. Then they set it down for briefing sometime later in the month of February. They said for argument in the
early part or the mid part of March. They issued the decision within thirty days, as this Court of Appeals did. Then we're in May, so he really doesn't have a lot of options. It seems to me unless the Supreme Court were to take this case, say we're not going to do it on an expedited basis, and not make a decision until June, end of June, their normal calendar. The Ackerman maybe right that we're looking at a fall trial, but I'd be surprised if we have to wait that long.
In that world, we could have a scenario in which, well, number one, if I guess, if it's late summer, it coincides with the Republican convention, that's something to consider the president ping ponging back and forth. But if it's fall, Michael Zelden, could we be in a situation where the trial is underway but not resolved when people vote.
Well, yes, because of early voting, it may well be that there are people who can vote while this trial is in full swing. Might mean that people decide to hold off on early voting until there is a resolution. But yeah, it's theoretically possible that that could be the case.
And it seems to me that those people who think that they don't need to hear the outcome of a criminal trial against the former president decide in the deciding whether to vote for or against him that's their prerogative, but it shouldn't define what the DOJ had and should do in a case like this.
Can you imagine that, Yeah, that would be something.
Indeed it would And I wonder if we can take you actually inside the opinion, Michael. The three judges on this panel essentially said, ultimately, this comes down to a question of checks and balances, and if the argument that President Trump were making former President Trump were making were true, that would mean that the judicial system can't check a president, that the legislative branch can't do it either, even the
executive wouldn't have the power to bring charges. I just wonder what you make of the actual arguments that the judges were making here and how bulletproof they would be when taken to a Supreme Court. A very originalist court has a conservative supermajority. Three justices were appointed by former President Trump himself. Are there holes that could be poked here?
I don't think in this separation of powers argument, as you articulated from the very beginning Marbury versus Madison, which gave the court's authority to look over the actions of others. This principle has allowed for judicial review. This notion of this unitary executive that has carte blanche to do what the executive wants without judicial review, I think has been rejected by this court and will continue to be rejected
by this court. The other argument that this will open up a Pandora's box for future presidents who will now be afraid to act because of the possibility of criminal liability once they leave office. This Court has resoundingly said that is too hypothetical, that is not something that can
factor into this. What we have here as a president who is under former president who is under indictment, and what the imperative of our society is that that person be held criminally accountable and not have that accountability be delayed for some theoretical hypothetical that Trump tries to pose tried to pose before the Court of Appeals. So I think he loses on all of the fundamental arguments that
he made to the Court of Appeals. And I think it should be pretty cut and drawing for the Supreme Court to say, you know what, we don't need to resolve this. This is black letter analysis and get on with the trial, all right.
Michael Zelden. We always appreciate your insight and expertise on the many legal matters we are dealing with when it comes to the former president. Michael Zeldon, of course, the former federal prosecutor and former special counsel to Robert Mueller,
while at the DOJ. We want to turn now to the halls of Congress joining us now and please to say, is Republican Congressman from Georgia, Buddy Carter and Congressman, we have much to discuss with you when it comes to a border deal that may not actually reach the House floor for you to vote up or down on it, and as well as the impeachment of the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandra Maiorcis. But first, if we could begin with you with the conversation we were just having
with Michael Zelden. This idea that former President Trump, despite his arguments to the contrary, per of this appeals court in Washington has decided he is not immune from prosecution as a former president, to the court makes the right to call here.
Well, you know, I'm not a lawyer, but I have to tell you I disagree with this and I don't think it's the right call. However, it's obvious that the President's going to ask the Supreme Court to UH to intercede on this and make a decision and from that, you know, that's why we have three separate branches of government, that's what the judicial branches to make these kind of decisions.
Doesn't make you question your recent endorsement though, of the former president, Congressman.
No, I'm not at all.
Listen this president, President Trump can do so much better of a job than President Biden has done. You know, if you look at the chaos, if you look at the at the southern border, if you look at the economy and people are struggling. I know in my district when I'm going home, those there are the two things that they're asking me to mind about. They're asking me about the economy, and they're asking me about that border. They want to see real change. We're not seeing change
here with the Biden administration. We need President Trump.
But Congressman, let's talk about the southern border, because do you know not, as a member of the House, have right now an opportunity to actually do something about it, to see changes to asylum and parole realized. For changes that we have seen hard to find in decades. Now essentially presented to you, and the House says that they don't want it. Can you help explain that thinking?
Well, first of all, that bill, as you so accurately have said, is dead on arrival, and there's a good reason for it. Look, we sent them two hr. Two is a great bill that addresses the situation. But let's keep in mind that this president has the authority to take care of what's going on in the border.
This is something he.
Created, and he is not taking care of it by executive action. If he were to put back the remain in Mexico policy, if he were to complete the construction of the wall, all of these things that he can do, he can correct this without us having to do anything here in Congress. Now, Yeah, we like to see some of these issues resolved that have been ongoing, and that is something that we're going to be working on, but
not with this current deal. Let me ask you, how many laws do we have on the book where after a certain number of people violate that law, then we're going to start prosecuting people.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, you just said a lot there, Congressman, and I'm just I'm sort of curious by this change in politics as Mitch McConnell himself put it, since Iowa, because it does seem that Donald Trump's front runner status now has changed the mood music here in Washington, d C. Some would suggest this bill actually could have passed with Republican support if it had happened toward the end of last year. But you're going to need Democrats for anything that passes Congress, right.
I realized you'd like to see the president act. But if there's a legislative answer to this, it's going to have to involve Democrats, and therefore some level of compromise.
No.
Obviously, with the tight majority that we have in the House, with the fact that the Senator is under democratic majority, we have a Democrat in the White House. Yes, it's going to take bipartisan work. And look, I'm not opposed to that. I checked my record. You'll see that I've I've legislated and governed in a bipartisan fashion. I know how to do that, and I'm willing to do that. However, this bill that they are sitting over, this border bill, is not what my constituents want.
It's not what's going to be best for this country.
Can you just help explain though, how not having anything whatsoever, no changes is better than the current status quo. When you talk about how for your constituents the border is so top of mind. Why is just some change, even if not perfect, the worst alternative to doing.
Nothing because of the other things that it does as well. And you know, and listen, I would beg to differ that when you've got to do something well, and you know, we could cause more harm. And I believe that this order bill would cause more harm if we were to enact it, then it would do us good. You know, I'm a healthcare professional, and as consultant nursing homes, I was always asked a question asking the question does the
benefit outwey to risk? And in this case, I don't think the benefit outweighs the risk of all the other things that this brings in with it.
To what extent, Congressman is Donald Trump running the House right now? This seemed to be a Republican priority until he told the speaker that it wasda No.
That doesn't have anything to do with it. I represent my constituents. I vote according to what my constituents feel and the way that I'm representing them as I hope every other member of Congress does so to think that, oh, this is the heavy hand of Donald Trump, I think is erroneous.
Well, as we've discussed, Congressman, you may not even have a chance to vote either way on this package if it is indeed dead on arrival in the House and never will make it to the floor. But you may have a chance today to vote as to whether or not to impeach the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Majorcis, your colleague. Congressman McClintock today said that he is a no vote on that and his reasoning he put in a memo today he said, the problem is that they've failed to
identify an impeachable crime that Mayorcis committed. He says this is a stretch and distortion of the constitution in order to hold the administration accountable for what he says is stretching and distorting the law. Congressman, from your perspective, what high crimes or misdemeanors has the Homeland Security committed?
Look, Majorcis needs to go, and I'm surprised he's lasted this long. It's bad enough the number of illegal immigrants who are coming across that border.
But my opinion That's not.
The worst thing. The worst thing is the drugs coming across that border, the Fentanil coming across that bard killing our citizens. Two hundred people every day in this country dying as a result of Finnyl poisoning. That to me is the reason why he should be impeached. That, to me is why I'm going to vote to impeach him. He should be ashamed and he should resign without us having to impeach him.
Is that because of Alejandro Mayorcis though, or Joe Biden, Congressman. I think that's the question people have. His job is to carry out the policy of the president. Right.
Well, you know, we're very fortunate in the House to have a constitutional lawyer as our speaker.
And look, our lawyers.
Have looked over this, and they've studied this, and they have advised us that our constitution gives the secretary and this situation authority to make changes here. If he's listening to Joe Biden, then Joe Biden should go down with him. But I'm telling you, my Orcus has got to go. If it's bad enough with the number of illegoimmigrants that are coming across that border. But the drugs that are infesting every community in America, killing two hundred people every day.
If we had a plane crashing that killed two hundred people, we'd stop every airplane that were flying in this country and we figured out what was going wrong. Yet we lose two hundred people every day, defend no poisoning, and we do nothing. Are this administration does nothing?
Well, Congressman, it sounds like you're a no on the border, you're a yes on impeaching Alejandro Majorcis. Where are you on a potential government shutdown in a month? Are you worried that we're going to have to do this all over again?
Well, my hope is that we can avoid a shutdown.
And I have voted for the CRS in the past, and I hope we don't have another short term CR. I hope this is the situation finally where we can get this done and pass a budget for the year. But I will tell you that a shutdown is not the worst thing that could happen. The worst thing that could happen would be for us to continue with this outland just spending that has got us thirty four trillion dollars in debt. You know, we're spending more money right now in the United States of America.
We're spending money more faster than the speed of light.
We spend two hundred and four one hundred thousand dollars every second. The speed of light's only one hundred and eighty six miles per second.
Buddy Carter, we thank you for the time, sir. The Congressman from Georgia with us Kaylee. Fascinating to speak with someone who's preparing to deliver these votes because the mood has changed so many times, it's hard to tell where they're going.
Here.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and Enrod Outo 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.
We just heard from the President of the United States on the border deal that he has agreed to with Senate negotiators. That seems like it may very well be dead in the Senate, not just dead un arrival in the House. The President making the case that there are many strict measures in there. The strictest we have seen proposed potentially in decades, and yet ultimately because in his words, former President Trump wants to be able to weaponize this
issue rather than solve it. He does not think that it will perhaps cross.
The finish line for that reason.
Well, yeah, look, we've talked about sticking points a lot when it came to issues like parole and redefining asylum. These were the things that we weren't supposed to be able to figure out, and they actually did. You might not like the bill, but there are compromises on both of those, along with enhanced rights to send undocumented immigrants
back to their home countries. So you wonder if it's as simple as Donald Trump leaning on this, Kayley, because this would have been considered a breakthrough it seems like in any other political world.
Yes, but we know that the political climate can change very very quickly from one administration to the next, even one month to the next.
Because that's really you know Davis who said it was Iowa when we were talking about Donald Trump flooring everybody in Iowa, that was the moment that the mood music changed.
Yeah, Well, as we talk about how things have changed to the current administration, the former administration. We want to bring now someone who formerly served under that administration. Former Ambassador Chris Lando is with us. He served as the US Ambassador to Mexico during the Trump administration from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty one. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us today. As we just heard President Biden outlined,
there are many potentially substantive policy changes here. He said that if this were to actually become law today, the border would be shut down because there would be enough crossings happening that it would require that there are changes here to asylum and parole. Is it not enough? Why is it not enough?
Thank you, Kaylee and Joe. It's a pleasure to be with you and your audience today. I mean, this bill is a travesty. I have to say that this is basically the Biden reelection bill. I mean to now after three months, specifically, specifically the parts that first of all give the president a lot of discretion in terms of even this emergon thing. The president can override that emergency
provision it provides. It actually locks in these provisions where it looks to me like the president can't close the border unless there is four thousand people a day, which is one point four million a year. I mean, let's just take a step back, and the Trump administration, the border was under control. All these EO executive orders and regulations that Biden made opened the border and incentivized people to come here in numbers like we've never seen in
our history. Give me a break. Now in the election year, after three years and maybe ten to twelve million people having come in illegally, now the president says he takes this seriously. I mean, he has authority. In fact, he has the obligation to detain people who are in their country illegally. He hasn't done that. I mean, this this bill is, you know, something that basically codifies Biden's disregard of the law and actually waters down current immigration law
in a lot of ways. I mean, the president has the obligation again not to let any of these people in. It doesn't matter whether it's a thousand a day. It's like you give a guard the responsibility and the duty to guard your house and say nobody can come into legal, legal to my house. The guard then decides to throw a massive party in the house and invite all kinds of people in, and then you have pass a bill saying well, okay, just keep the decibel levels down to
these levels and do this and that. I mean, no, the President had all the authority he needed to do this. Asylum reform is a separate kettle of fish that can be done in a regulatory capacity by the president saying if you transit through a third country where you can get asylum from the danger you claim to face, you can't claim asylum in the States. I mean, this is all stuff.
So, mister ambassador, sounds to me, I'm sorry to interrupt, it sounds listening to you like this is an issue of maybe timing or maybe like there was this was a big waste of time to begin with. HR two passed the House. It sounds like that might be a little bit more in line with what you're looking for, But we need Democrats to vote on this. So was was there never a legislative answer? You're saying this should be handled by the president through executive order? Am I right?
Yeah?
I think you know. Frankly, a lot of the problem can be handled by the president or executive order, particularly shutting down the asylum loophole, because the asylum provisions have basically swallowed up all of immigration law. Everybody knows this. I mean that ninety.
Three defined asylum. We didn't think we'd ever see that. Is that not a good part of this proposal. This is something that a couple of months ago we were told would never happen.
You don't need a legislative fixers on. The current asylum law is actually fine, and it says you have to have a reasonable fear of persecution based on certain narrow criteria. It's all the regulatory framework that's been put on top of that, and the procedures that allow people to come in here, say some magic words, and then be basically told, okay, see you in ten years that you're asylum hearing. I mean, that can't possibly be the way it works, because that's
a magnet for people to make bogus asylum claims. That's what we have now. I mean they coming up at the border and surrendering themselves to make asylum claims.
I'd like to ask you while we have just a minute or two left with you, mister former ambassador, knowing that you aren't just the former ambassador to Mexico but also an attorney. We separately got news related to former President Trump today from the Appeals Court here in Washington that he is not, despite his claims to the contrary, immune from prosecution in the case brought by Jack Smith as a former president. They say that he is not
now former President Trump. He is citizen Trump and therefore will be treated accordingly. What do you make of this ruling.
There's two issues here. The first is whether former presidents have any immunity at all for any kinds of action, for a drone strike they may order, for any kind of thing. The district court said no, that basically any president can be put on criminal trial by anybody for anything that they did during their administration. The appeals court
had a narrow ruling. What they said is that the specific indictments against President Trump just are not things that are within the president's purview at all for his official actions. I think, frankly that seems like a very sketchy decision for me, that the appeals court is a matter of law, would say that all of the allegations in the indictments are not even plausibly in the president's purview. So I think this is a very flawed decision from my quick
look at it. It's a fifty seven page opinion that just came down this morning. Yeah, but it seems to me a very aggressive opinion limiting presidential immunity.
Mister ambassador, We appreciate your joining us. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.