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 listening on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
We thank you and welcome you to the Wednesday edition of Bloomberg Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. It's good to see it on the radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube. You can find us there right now search Bloomberg Global News because I'm confused. And if you listen to this broadcast from time to time, you know that's not unusual as we talk about new deals on top line spending levels that are identical to the deals
we saw back in June. When we have contempt hearings, in this case for the son of a president and he actually shows up. That happened today. We were going to talk to Michael Zeldon about Donald Trump, and we're going to do that in a moment. But who would have thought this would take place? Maybe you saw it coming Oversight Committee hearing holding Hunter Biden in contempt for not showing up to a deposition that he actually showed up for. They wanted to do it behind closed doors.
This starts to get very complicated. Nancy Mace couldn't believe it when he walked in. The representative on the Republican side of the dais here had it out with Jared Moscowitz, the Democrat. This is just a taste of what.
It was like.
You're the epitome of white privilege, coming into the Oversight Committee, spitting in our face, ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed.
What are you afraid of?
You have no balls to come up here, mister chairman, point of inquiry, Mister Chairman, if the General, if the General lady wants to hear from Hunter Biden, we can hear from him right now.
Chairman, Let's take.
A vote and hear from utter Biden. What are you afraid?
Order?
And that's just how it started. I'm still not sure though, if you show up, how that means he didn't show up. But maybe Michael Zelden can help us. I've got a lot of questions for Michael. Of course, former federal prosecutor, former special counselor Robert Muller while at the DOJ. Michael, you've been on my mind and it's great to see you. I'm glad that you could come back to join us here early in twenty twenty four, because, boy, this is going to be a year, and not the least of
which is because of this Hunter Biden case. I want to ask you about Donald Trump, but can you make sense out of this? Can you hold someone in contempt for a deposition they showed up for?
Yeah, you can. You shouldn't, but you can. The proposition here is they gave him a subpoena to appear behind closed doors for a deposition. He says, I'm not showing up behind closed doors. I'm only showing up in public because I don't trust you. Well. People who receive subpoenas don't get determine the proto calls by which the testimony is taken. So that's sort of the pissing match, if you will, between the two sides. The question is, really, why are they even bothering to subpoena him in the
first place? What value do they see? When if I were his lawyer and he's represented ably by Abby Lowell, I would just say I'm taking the Fifth Amendment with any question that you have to ask me in private, because I don't trust you guys, and I've been indicted in California, and I'm not about to jeopardize my legal case there by answering any questions that you guys have here. So it's really political theater. This is not really about truth gathering or fact finding. It's just about show.
Well, that's a pretty clear answer, I suspect, but it won't stop the process to your point. In terms of that indictment. Though, in California, he's heading for la next. Apparently, what's in store for Hunter Biden when he gets.
There ultimately a trial unless they work out a plea deal. He's facing tax charges out there that are serious. He failed to report income and failed to file timely his tax returns worth over a million dollars in lost tax revenue. He did ultimately pay it back, but you know, the fact that you sort of returned the money that you stole from the bank doesn't get you necessarily off the
hook for bank robbery. It may get you a plea bargain to something less than bank robbery, but nonetheless, these are serious charges and he has to account for it. He has said that it was because of his drug addiction, and I understand, well, the problems of drug addiction in family members, and it's complicated stuff, but that's not a defense unless you're pleading some sort of diminished mental capacity. I think that he has to figure out what is
the best thing for him to do. I think the best thing for him to do is probably work out some sort of plea like they tried to do when he was facing charges in Delaware, misdemeanor charges. But we'll see now whether they prosecutors out in California or as willing to compromise with him as Delaware special counsel laws.
Well, Hudter Biden was the big moment today. Donald Trump's moment came yesterday. Michael Zelden, this is really something as he tests this idea of presidential immunity, and his legal team got a fairly chillier reception from this three judge appellate panel. This is what Axios is now calling Trump's new Fifth Avenue moment. As his lawyer John Sower was asked by one of the judges about this idea of well, we'll let you listen.
Could a president who ordered seale team sets to assassinate a political rival who was.
Not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution.
Were impeached and convicted?
First, say, your answer is is.
That My answer is qualified. Yes, there's a political process that have to occur under ours, the structure our constitution, which will require impeachment and conviction by the Senate.
Imagine Seal Team six being used to assassinate a political rival. Maybe you can imagine that. The idea here, though, Michael, is that if not impeached and convicted, then you cannot in fact criminally prosecute a former president or a sitting president. Is that how you understand this argument? Does it hold any water?
That's how I understand the argument. I don't think it holds any water. And in fact, in preparation for our conversation, I went back and read the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda on these issues. Remember this sort of came up in the Mueller investigation. Muller said he might have but couldn't indict Trump or the stuff that he investigated, because there is a memo that says you can't indict a
sitting president. But that memo goes on to say, of course you can indict a former president, and the case law is pretty clear on that. And so it's pretty settled that the proposition that Trump is proposing is an outlier and probably will not be sustained by the Court of Appeals or even I think the Supreme Court.
Well, talk to me more about that, because a lot of folks seem to think that's where this will be decided. Well, will the Supreme Court take this up if it goes that far.
Yeah, So that's a great question. And I think the answer to the question is it depends on the nature of the order that the appellate Court issues. So if this appellate Court gives a three to zero unanimous decision forcefully suggesting that the notion of immunity for a former president in criminal matters is absurd, then the Supreme Court might say, you know what, we don't have to decide this issue. We'll wait to a more complicated issue that
raises this question. But in this case, the proposition that you're entitled to qualified immunity for inciting an insurrection is so, you know, sort of much a no brainer that we're going to just rely on the Court of Appeals and leave it there. And remember they ask Special Council Smith asked the Supreme Court to take this straight away to skip this middle ground and the court said no, no, no,
we want to hear from this middle ground court. And so if this middle ground court gives them a very strong, analyzed decision, they might say, we don't need to do it. They got it right. Let's get this case to trial and then we'll have a trial in March.
So it sounds like that's what you see happening, the skepticism on this three judge panel. If this goes all the way up to the full blown DC Appeals Court, do you assume those judges will feel the same way. I think that's what you're suggesting, and that means the trial does begin long before the election.
Yeah.
So the rights that Trump has are to one. Let's say he loses three to nothing in this court, or even two to one in this court. He can then go he can seek a review of that decision by the full members of that same court. I think they're eleven, and that's called en banc review total review, and that's discretionated. Those eleven judges can say you, no, no, we don't need to hear this. The three judge panel got it right.
Then that will closed as that. Then he can file what's called a writ of Circiori or a quest by the Supreme Court to hear it, and the Supreme Court can say yes or no to that. If they say yes, and let's say that makes it to them sometime in early February, then I think the March trial date is unlikely, but it doesn't mean that it can't happen in May or June. If the Supreme Court acts quickly as they did in the Nixon Watergate tapes, and they have that power to.
Do that, wow, that would be the one trial though you see happening before the election, right.
I think it's most likely because Eileen Cannon, the judge who has the Maro a Lago case, seems to be slow walking it a bit. Now if this case gets delayed, If there is a long delay in this case, Eileen Cannon could set her trial date in May and go forward with it. But I expect that Trump will raise the same immunity in that case too, So I think we need to get an answer on immunity before we know what the trial schedules are, both in Mario Lago case and in January sixth case.
Well, it's great to talk to you. Good to see you, Michael, Zelden. We thank you former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden with us once again here on Bloomberg as we assemble our panel can't wait to hear what they think. Rick Davis is with us, of course, Republican strategist, Bloomberg Politics contributor, joined today by Democratic analyst Kaitlyn Lagaki at Four Corners of
Public Affairs. Rick, We've talked a lot about the idea of Donald Trump's spending the bulk of his campaign in a courtroom, and it is sounding like, after we talked to Michael Zelden, that that's exactly what's going to happen. He'll be back in New York tomorrow for the civil trial. How do you do both at once?
Yeah, Well, I mean he's making that decision. I mean, yesterday's appearance was totally elective on his part. He didn't have to go there, he didn't do anything, and he could have been in an Iowa campaign. He could have been a New Hampshire campaigning. Look, if he loses New Hampshire, his campaign is going to look at him, go, what the heck were we doing sitting in a courtroom when we could have been in the state campaigning. So I
feel for those guys. I mean, they're sharing, you know, the former president with the legal system, and that that can't be a very you know, constructive way to spend time in the middle of an election. So it's his choice in many of these cases, and he chooses to not campaign and to defend his rights as a plaintiff.
So Caitlin, at what point does that become advantage Biden, assuming that these are the nominees, and where I guess I shouldn't assume that, but let's say it's a rematch, At what point does this start to count against Donald Trump when he enters a general election field.
I mean, it immediately reminds moderate and independent voters of
the chaos that he created while he was president. So, you know, while he believes that going to court every day and presenting himself as a victim of political persecution works to his benefit, I think where it really, you know, helps Biden is that it just, you know, time warps everyone back four years to what we went through with the chaos and the legal issues, and reminds anyone who's even remotely open to either candidate what they should expect for the next four years out of Donald Trump.
In the meantime, though, Rick, it seems like it's advantage Trump as long as it it's the primary field, the Republican primary field that we're talking about. Or do you see that start to flip at some point in the next couple of months.
Well, there's no question that Trump's campaign started to improve once Bragg in New York indicted him, and you saw an increase in fundraising and he became the victim. As Caitlin said, this is his entire campaign message. I am a victim. You're victims. We're all defending each other here. You know, they're really coming after you. And it's all very populist and very outsider and very anti government. So
I don't think that's ever going to change. And the fact that he gets a stage to do that, you know, in a courtroom where he can walk out and give his talking points of the day in front of a massive crowd of reporters, you know, that's just as good to him as a rally and a lot cheaper.
Well how about that the king of free media, There is something to be said for that, I suppose, Caitlin, because he's going to end up leading the newscast every time he shows up in a courtroom, he.
Is, although you know, we've already seen him run into issues related to gag orders and you know in some of his other trials, and so I wouldn't you know, if that is their entire strategy, then I think that they should at least have a plan to be in place, because I can't imagine that, especially judges in the DC circuit are going to have a high tolerance for those shenanigans.
Well, part of the strategy apparently includes a return to Fox News tonight, counterprogramming the final GOP debate. We'll talk about it next with the panel. 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 played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Last time Donald Trump appeared live on Fox News was back in April of twenty twenty two, almost two years, and it hasn't been the smoothest ride since then. He's spent a lot of time criticizing the network, and tonight will make his big returns ought to be interesting. Of course, it's all part of counter programming the actual debate that's taking place around the same time on CNN. That'll be
between Nicky Haley and rond De Santis. This is the last throwdown before actual voting takes place, actual caucusing on Monday. And look, Donald Trump could be on that stage if he wanted to be, but not again. So this is going to be an interesting exercise to see the former governor of South Carolina and Nicky Haley and now the governor of Florida, Ronda Santis, just the two of them on stage. They're both going to get a lot of time and presumably we'll have a chance to talk about
actual policy. What a concept. Let's reassemble the panel because you know a lot of people are going to be watching Trump for the fireworks. Rick Davis is with us, of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor, Republican strategist Caitlin Legacki from Four Corners Public Affairs is here too, Democratic analyst Rick. It's going to be interesting another split screen night here,
and I wonder for the candidates themselves. The Trump Show is its own thing, but for the candidates themselves, if there's going to be any real opportunity to move the needle here, yeah, I think.
There'll be an interesting debate between Nicki Haley and Ron de Santists. Look, I mean they're running neck and neck in Iowa for second place. We've all been talking about the second place matter in Iowa this year, and I think the conclusion is yes, certainly for Nicki Haley, and it may be the only thing that sustains for Ondo Santists beyond Iowa. So I think there are real stakes
tonight's debate. It's unfortunate that the real contest in this case Nicki and Ron are going to be on CNN and most of the Republican caucus goers, I promise you we'll be watching the Fox News interview with Donald Trump because that's what they watch every night. It's nothing special.
Well, then, I guess it's a pretty good strategy, Caitlin. He's never had to show up at a debate. He has held a commanding lead throughout the process, and we're reminded by the New York Times this is his first live interview on any major news network since that so called town hall last May on CNN that got the head of the network fired, and that was because Donald Trump just ran all over the whole process. And I suspect he will do the same tonight. What are these
folks going to see when they tune into Fox? Does he take the opportunity to insult the network?
Oh?
I think he can't help himself. I think that's absolutely what he's going to do. But I think he's also doing this because he does see the numbers coming out of New Hampshire. He does see Nicki Haley closing in on him there, and he really needs to re establish
his leadership there. So what he's doing is actually pretty smart, which is that, as Rick said, your average conservative, Caucasco or primary voter in New Hampshire is going to be watching Fox, and so he is owning all of that oxygen while you know, Governor's Haley and DeSantis fight it out for second place on a network that your average Republican primary or voter or caucas Goo or just is it going to be watching.
Well, it sounds to me like the field is set then, Rick. As we head into Iowa, Nikki Haley, Ronda Santis aren't going to have a breakout based on what happens tonight, right.
Yeah, I think tonight's see an end debate is more about what ad goes up as a closing argument the next morning, right. I mean, if somebody falters, if there's a punch well landed on the job of one of the other candidates, that could actually make it into the weekend close. But otherwise, most Republicans aren' going to see what happens on that CNN debate. Lots of Democrats will
watch it, but because I'm sure it's good theater. But yeah, I think we've all agreed that once again, Donald Trump gets the lifeline from Fox Media to give him something to do. Any otherwise would be left out of the narrative.
Latest numbers coming from Trafalgar Group on the Iowa Republican caucus Donald Trump fifty two and then you've got Nicki Haley and Ron DeSantis tied at eighteen. So Donald Trump has a thirty four point lead going into the caucus. At this stage here, Caitlin an Seltzer and others would tell you that that's a done deal. Will he win Iowa?
Oh of course?
Yeah.
I mean, anyone who's ever done. The Iowa caucus has dreamed of a scenario where they're at fifty two percent. It's unprecedented. So I think that's absolutely locked. The real question is, how does this affect New Hampshire. Does this kill Nicky Haley's momentum, or does this you know, basically put the last nail in Ronda Santras's coffin, which would give you know, theoretically Haley a clearer path in New Hampshire. And so I agree that that's the whole ballgame for what Iowa means.
Rick, I want you to take us to school on something called momentum, which we talk about affectionately around this time of the election cycle, but you've actually harnessed it, You've actually realized it. When we look at the numbers moving beyond Iowa and New Hampshire right now, all of that could change immediately based on the performance that we
see specifically coming out of New Hampshire. I know you've got your eyes on Nicki Haley, but talk about that just kind of more in general, how she could turn this around, how any candidate might based on momentum in the first two states.
Yeah, I think people need to really understand the dynamic politically, right, the Iowa caucus is an organizational nightmare.
Right.
It is not a primary. It doesn't have a lot of people participate. In fact, considering how cold it's going to be and how snowy it is in Iowa right now, you've got to assume participation is going to be way down. But that is usually what upsets the apple cart. In other words, it hurts more people than it helps over time. In New Hampshire, it is a true primary and everybody can vote, right, it's an open primary, independence participate. Sometimes as much as forty percent of the turnout on primary
day is non Republican. And so this is a chance for people to really speak the first chance, and that usually has a different outcome than Iowa, and that usually is a lifeline to challengers, challengers like Nikki Haley in this case, because you've got to remember Donald Trump's running as an incumbent. None of these people should even be close to running against an incumbent. I mean, you know, Joe Biden's an incumbent running and he's in the sixty
percent and he's not even on the ballot. So this is this is the chance that everybody has to try and play catch up, and then it is all about momentum. Every poll you've seen in South Carolina, Florida, the Super Tuesday dates, they change overnight depending upon the outcome of this race in New Hampshire.
I hope you heard what Rick said. They change overnight. That's why it's comical that we're obsessing over polls nine months ago, national polls, but even calls into question what we're looking at here in the next month of voting. Even Caitlin can Nicki Haley pull that off?
I mean, anything is possible in politics. I think one of the things about the primary calendar that a lot of folks don't appreciate is that all of these campaigns have been spending the last year really focused on two states maybe and where this really tests a campaign's ability to function and organize is Let's say Nikki Haley comes out of New Hampshire with an upset victory. She's going to have a huge influx of money, but she's also going to have to carry that momentum forward. Luckily, she
has South Carolina probably in her pocket. But then there's all the Super Tuesday states where if you know your campaign has not previously had the opportunity to build up that staffing, build up that strategy. You're really playing whack a mole and leap frogging from one state to the next, and it's it's hard, but that's kind of why this is so exciting and interesting, and it really is a good test for who is going to be the best general election candidate.
Fascinating what we're about to learn, and great analysis from Rick and Caitlin. I'm glad you're both with us.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one eastern Howkwyburg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Big Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to our two of sound On. I'm Joe Matthew alongside Kaylee Lines. And it looks like we're getting ready for the hearings already. Kaylee. It was right around this time yesterday we got the statement from Walter Reeds that kind of blew our minds about what had happened to
the Secretary of Defense. Prostate cancer was the answer, but there was so much that we still didn't understand, and they want answers on Capitol Hill now Mike Rogers House Armed Services Committee in a letter says it's unacceptable that the Department of Defense, the White House in Congress were not informed of the Secretary's position or capacity, and they are scheduling a hearing into this. So the inquiries underway.
Well, and of course the White House is acting as well. The chief staff at the White House is now directed all not just the Department, but everything in the cabinet essentially.
The say tolls well.
That the fact that this system wasn't in place already blows my mind.
I mean, Joe.
The other thing about yesterday was as we learned the news that prostate cancer is the reason for Secretary Austin's hospitalization, So too, apparently did the White House, even though they knew he was hospitalized days after the fact, Mine, they didn't know either that it was prostate cancer he was dealing with. And the lack of communication here I think has baffled everyone, Congress included.
Well, that's for sure, he's still hospitalized.
Yeah, I mean, to our knowledge, although the prognosis, according to Walter Reed, yes.
Of course we don't know what brought the severe pain that sent him back to the hospital or frankly, much else after that. Certainly when it comes to the line of communication. That's why I wanted to talk to the general about this, because I suspect he's got feelings about it. General Mark Kimmitt retired Army General. Of course, with us back on Bloomberg in general, it's good to see you. How did this hit you when you first heard about it?
Were you surprised that there was not more protocol in place, or at least protocol followed in this case.
Well, I think it's as the latter protocol not followed. Look, I know Lloyd Austin, have known him for thirty five years. Intensely private man. But in some cases you give up that privacy when you take a position like Secretary Defense. There are protocols. I remember in two thousand and eight when I was at Department of Defense, Secretary Gates had broken his arm in a slip at his quarters. The next morning, I'm at a meeting with him. In a sling,
I'm briefing him. Photographer comes in takes a picture of the secretary, completely functional, completely operational. It's a Secretary of Defense and probably bored by the guy briefing in. But that was information that got out quickly, and as a result, nobody ever heard of this issue because it was handled so well. This, in my mind was just mistakes of not a comedy of errors.
Okay, but what's the consequence of these mistakes general? Is this just frankly a bad look the idea that the White House and the Pentagon are not communicating that protocol wasn't for followed or was there real risk here given that during this hospital say according to Walter Reed, he hasn't actually been incapacitated, he hasn't gone under anesthesia or anything like that.
I don't think there's any risk at all. There is a procedure by which transfer of authority happens in this case between the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Sectary Defense, very similar to what happens when the President goes under anesthesia. So if there was a problem because that's because of that transfer of authority to the deputy, because that's the
wrong person, well then you picked the wrong deputy. But in fact, Secretary Hicks is eminently qualified to stand in for the Secretary Defense.
Should she have been given a heads up. They found Kathleen Hicks in Puerto Rico on vacation. I guess it's a good thing that there would be US backhaul US infrastructure there for her to do her job. But should she had been allowed to go on vacation this was scheduled, Well.
Sure, because again, first of all, the Deputy Secretary travels with a pretty extensive comm steam for this very reason that if there's a need for her to take over, that she's ready to do it on a moment's notice. I used to do that when I was an assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Huge comms package it was formerly done handed over to her. She was ready. The fact that she was in Puerto Rico shouldn't make a difference. She could have been at fifty thousand feet
in an airplane. So this continuity of command is something that's important, if not almost sacred, to the military.
Does it strike you as odd, General, that it took days for the White House to learn this information, that no one at the White House realized there hadn't been communication with Austin for days. What is that signal about the cooperation between the Pentagon and the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Well, I would say that it is rare that on a daily Base, Secretary Defense calls the White House. On the other hand, there are dozens of staff officers that are talking to the White House, the State Department, and other agencies every day. So the real question is did that lack of conversation between Austin himself and the White House affect the normal continuity of operations? And I would say probably not.
How does this end, General, We've got a few other things we want to ask you about, but I just wonder what is going to come, for instance, of this inquiry on Capitol Hill. Maybe new protocol that we're hearing about from the White House. Well, they'll be a full readout on what took place here.
Oh, I'm sure there. Well, that's the purpose of congressional investigations, and I hope that there won't be a new protocol but just a message of reinforcing the existing protocol that has worked so well for years and years.
General, to switch gears here, you alluded to the idea that this is obviously a time in which the US hasn't meshed in many different conflicts around the world, including of course what's happening in the Middle East. We know overnight that the Huthies in the Red Sea have launched an attack a scale at which we hadn't seen yet at this point. Eighteen drones, three anti ship missiles, all of those intercepted by US and UK forces. But we understand here at Bloomberg that the US is now considering
retaliation for that. What would appropriate retaliation look like?
Well, look, it should be a comprehensive approach. We shouldn't rush into this blindly, but candidly, I think we've been preparing these options for quite some time. I think the real question, and the only question for Central Command and the other warfighting headquarters is do we wait until a ship gets hit and the crew possibly injured, or do we take a preemptive strike knowing that they're going to
continue to fight, or tell something drastic is done. So I think all I would say at this point is we get the right in the command positions. Let's wait to see what happens. But I have no doubt that those radar sites that are directing some of these operations will be the first to go. If there is that tough decision to send an armed capability into Yemen to wipe out their capabilities.
What capability would that require?
General?
What would that look like, I'm assuming we're not talking about boots on the ground.
Oh no, no, you know, we can do this with cruise missiles, we can do this with jade M's fired from the sky. There are a lot of different capabilities, and I'm glad you asked that question, Jo. I don't see anything in the offing that would have American boots on the ground or anybody's boots on the ground. These are static targets for the most part, some mobile, but we've got some pretty good intelligence capability that doesn't really need eyes on the prize or boots on the ground.
But isn't the concern that ultimately it could escalate the situation to a point where potentially boots on the ground may be necessary. Right now, we're talking about Iranian proxies here, but upset them too much, don't you risk awakening the actual bear and potentially direct confrontation with Iran.
Well, that's a choice that Iron has to make if in fact the bear is actually not the bear but the cat's paw that is directing Hazbola, the Huthi's Hashid in Iraq Hamas inside of Gaza. It seems like every terrorist organization starts with h then eventually there's going to have to be some sort of decision about what to
do next. I wrote an article this morning for Political EU, parenthetically in a blatant attempt to do some self promotion, talking about what I believe to be the next step, which is we sent a pretty clear message with the Carter doctrine, and sitting inside that capital when Carter delivered that State of the Union speech was a young senator
named Biden. It's time for us to restate that doctrine, which says, if any nation or their proxies attack American vital interests, then we need to respond in any way appropriate, to include military force. We need to give Iran sort of that last chance to do the right thing.
Well, we talk about last chances. Are you among those worried about a wider conflict, General, or can we keep this contained?
That's a question you really asked, how to ask Tehran? I mean, they're the ones that are inflaming. We're trying to contain. They're trying to inflame. Hopefully they're still at a position where they can reel in these terrorist groups, because I think Iran probably has woken up to the fact that the region doesn't need a regional war, and some of that back splies can certainly come into Iran well.
As of now, the actual war is still contained between Israel and Hamas. But the other message, in addition to concerns around escalation of this conflict to something more broader regionally, that we heard from Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln while he was traveling throughout the Middle East, is this idea that he presented in Israel yesterday that Israel essentially needs to be pulling back its operations in Gaza and part because of humanitarian considerations. What phase of the war are
we now in. Does the phase of the war we are in match where the US would like it to be.
Well, I think the United States is sort of nudging Israel to get to that phase. Israel will say that's already happening inside of Gaza's city. We're not doing bombing there. We still have some problems that we've got to clean up down in him Unis. But the United States wants them to start focusing not on aggregate targets, but high
value targets. I think we've seen the attack and the strike on both the Hasbola leader and the Hamas leader in Lebanon are two good examples that I think where the United States is pushing the Israelis, and because as Secretary B. Lincoln said yesterday, we've got to focus on a ceasefire, resettlement of the internally displaced Gosins back to their homes, feeding them, and getting some international reconstruction in there.
So I think the United States is trying to lead rather than push, and try to create incentives for the Israelis to wrap this thing up, because in many ways that's the only way they're going to get their hostages back, the infrastructure Hamas destroyed, and the opportunity to take out the Hamas leaders, all of which are the terminal objectives announced on October eighth by the government of Israel.
We have just a minute left, General kimm It, how long will the US keep all of these assets in the region.
The nice thing about American capability, and at the benefit end, at the behest of the United States taxpayers, is that we have a lot of flexibility. We have a lot of capability. We'll keep it in as long as it's necessary, we'll replace it if necessary, and then we'll pull it out when no longer necessary. We can do that for an extent period of time. As you saw with the USS four being pulled out and the Baton Ready group being pulled in, we can do this for an awful long time.
It's good to see you, General Mark kimmittt with US retired General Mark Kimmett on Bloomberg with some important insights as we try to figure out the way forward here in Israel, and Kayley understanding what might happen next with the Secretary of Defense still an elusive question, I guess.
Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at 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