Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay.
And then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Everybody's peeking out of one eye, clearing out the cobwebs, trying to start the week, fighting through traffic.
To get to work unless you're in Washington.
No traffic today because Whilemaker's just left town, or about two week recess.
But i'll tell you.
What Monday's looking up for Donald Trump. Think of the anxiety he might have felt going to bed last night thinking about the bond. This thing was what four hundred and fifty four million dollars. He said he only had one hundred million, not to mention the other one, the Stormy Daniel's case, is going to get a new trial date today at some point, we're told. But look at
this headline. Trump bond cut by sixty eight percent. This just happened, So we're about to likely find out how much money Donald Trump actually has because he said previously he could only cover a bond of up to one hundred million dollars, otherwise he'd need to sell properties. Now it's one hundred and seventy five million while he appeals this verdict this just dropped a short time ago, while he awaits a trial date in the Brag case, and that's been a doozy if you listen to the judge
in that courtroom this morning. Both of these are going to bring news today one way or the other. The moment of truth. As we said on the terminal, he'll either post bond or not, and they've already got apparently Lean's set to hit two properties of Donald Trump's in Westchester County, and then whether we're going to get an actual trial date for Brag. Both of these will tell us an enormous amount as we head into the throes of this general election campaign. And we start our conversation
today with a new voice, Robert mc worder. We wanted to talk with somebody who had experienced, specifically in dealing with bond issues like this, a constitutional law expert and practicing criminal defense and civil rights lawyer in Maricopa County. Robert, it's great to see you. What's your reaction to this dollar figure being cut by so much. Why would they do this the day of if it just made life a lot easier for Donald Trump?
Or was that the aim?
Well, I think that was Trump's aim and the Trump defense teams aim. I think it's kind of sad. I've been practicing for over thirty years, and I have never seen a criminal defendant receive more consideration, more bend over backwards from the criminal justice system at all parts than has Donald Trump. There's an amount of loss here. The bond is meant to cover the loss so that when he eventually loses on appeal, that his victim, which is the people of the state of New York, can be
made whole. And the court has just given him another pass. I got to tell you, Yeah, I'm really wondering whether he can even raise one hundred and seventy five million.
Well, that's a great question right now. As I mentioned, Donald Trump says he has one hundred million, So we're about to find out exactly how much money he's got, although I suspect it would be a lot easier for him to loan or to borrow seventy five than it would have for the whole freight.
Here.
Total damages in this case four hundred and sixty four million dollars, including ten million in penalties against his sons and Alan Weiselberg. And it's one hundred and twenty percent of the verdict. Right, so he owes even more than that.
What would compel the court to do this?
Well, you know, it is an unprecedented case in terms of its size and its scope. I also think what's compelling the court. There may have be some people on the court who are just pro Trump, but I think more than that is he keeps making claims that he's treated unfairly, and the courts have been known over backwards to make sure that they are treating him more than fairly, So that could be what's going on. Look, four hundred
and whatever million dollars is a lot of money. You can accept that somebody maybe doesn't have that cash on hand. I think the underlying issue here, though, is that he does not have the value in his properties. He doesn't have the collateral to su wort. Look, a bond is nothing more than kind of a loan. It's a fancy loan. It's designed for.
The criminal justice system.
In this sense, it's kind of like when you post a bond to get out of jail before trial. Well, this is posting a bond so you keep going while your case is pending appeal. So it's kind of the same thing, right, And a bond is just a loan made by a bond company that intends to make a lot of money off of it and so that you don't have to post the fall amount in cash. But you got to put up something. You got to put up your house, you got to put up your valuable property.
What I think is this is all showing is he doesn't have the value. He is not worth enough off for anybody to give him that loan, that bond, And again the courts are just bending over backwards to make sure that it looks like he's being traded fairly, when no other criminal defendant in thirty years of practice if I've ever seen gotten that kind of consideration.
Well, there you have it. Your experience speaks for itself. I can only imagine what Letitia James thinks about all of this, because if Donald Trump doesn't have the money, there is potentially another answer, and that is this SPAC deal.
It's about to happen.
And Bloomberg just now is reporting that Trump media and the folks he's working with are set to begin trading. This is the truth Social Spack March twenty six. That's tomorrow. DJT and djt WW are going to be the ticker symbols. We knew this was coming, of course, Robert. The problem is Donald Trump can't actually get that money without special approval until a lock up period ends down the road. He could, however, borrow against that as collateral. I suppose,
because you pointed out something interesting. If they start seizing properties here, he's already got a debt against those properties, right, So how do you value them?
Well, you have to take a look at how much leans are on those properties. And so the first thing is Donald Trump slaps his name on a lot of properties. That doesn't mean he owns the majority interests in those properties. In many cases, he might own a little bit more than the sign that's on the front of the building. I mean, he doesn't necessarily own the whole building. Right then what he owns he is also borrowed in order to make another purchase. So it's this little kind of
domino thing that he's got going. And I've seen many clients with it. That happens what happens eventually is one of the properties goes bad and then the dominoes all start to fall backwards and somebody's charged.
With the crime.
Well, the event here was basically a criminal charge. And after a very long deliberative process, found that Donald Trump and his organization as a fraud. And now you got to go back and see if there's any value in all these these properties, when in reality did he inflated all those values when he wanted to get loans, and then he deflated the values when he had to pay taxes.
So he's defrauded the taxpayers in doing this. And frankly, if I can just go on here, I think a point needs to be made about where the injury is to people. Donald Trump and his team have made this big claim that hey, all these deals went through the banks, made money, there's no victims. Well that's not really true. Donald Trump, by making fraudulent loan applications, has taken money out of the system that would have otherwise gone to
valid loan applications. So if you own a restaurant and let's say in Manhattan, and you want to add a dining room and you need to go get a loan to do it, you make a valid loan application. You show your assets and the bank decides whether you're a good risk to loan money to Right well, right now, that money isn't there because Donald Trump took it when
he made a false loan application. And that's what's so important about this Attorney General's case, because you've got to maintain the validity of the system in order to make sure people are treated fairly when they go into their loan applications. That's the damage to people, and that's the damage to the system.
We're spending time with Attorney Robert McWherter on balance of power, and Robert, as I'm listening to you, we are getting some insight as to what is happening inside the courtroom in New York. Now, this is of course Alvin Bragg's case, the hush money case against Donald Trump, that had been delayed. This was supposed to be the first day of the trial. In fact, now it's a hearing that will likely establish a new date. It had been delayed because of a big dump of evidence that fell on the case a
couple of weeks back. Here we go, Robert, this is breaking news right now, April fifteen. The judges, speaking as I talk to you. The US Attorney's office is not under the district attorney's control. He says, the Manhattan Attorney's office did due diligence. This defendant will not suffer any reasonable prejudice because he has received enough time. The judge says, jury selection will begin on April fifteenth. Robert, what do you think.
Well, here's what's going on here. The Trump team had made a request of the US attorneys, the federal US attorneys, the federal prosecutors for their information on this case, and the federal prosecutors then turned that over to the state prosecutors Braggs team, and then they turned it over to
the Trump team. Now, this information is pretty much redundant to what the Trump team already had from the state prosecutors, but Trump's team used that as an excuse to go into court and accuse Bragg of withholding evidence when the evidence wasn't even in his hands, and then arguing that they should get a continuance in order to deal with all this evidence, majority of which I would think is nothing more than redundant to what they already had from
the state case. So once again you have to look at you know, there's trial tactics, but then there's an overall strategy here. Donald Trump's overall strategy is to delay, delay, delay. Every case is a delay, and then he thinks he's going to become president and he'll get them all dismissed or he'll be beyond Well, is.
There a way for him to delay this now? Robert, we have April fifteenth, and if just if, I want to make sure our listeners and viewers understand if they're just joining us, this is breaking news now the first criminal trial of a former president is set now to begin April fifteenth. Number one, Does he have a chance to delay it? And Robert, knowing this would be a six week trial that would allow ample room for Jack Smith to conduct his trial, should the Supreme Court allow him?
Right?
Yes, absolutely. I think what's going on is things are finally coming to a head now. These cases were all filed before Donald Trump was ever a candidate, So his claims that this is all motivated, et cetera, are just wrong, that the facts don't bear that out. It is kind of coming to a head. People are finally trying to get these cases to come to resolution despite Trump's work to delay them all. And that's where we are now. I do not see anything coming up at this point
that would delay the April fifteenth trial. And so now it's time for Donald Trump to face the music. You know, I'll make another quick point here. You know, Donald Trump keeps talking about everything being a witch hunt, etc. Well, if that's the case, he should be asking for his jury as soon as possible. He should be saying, I want my trial right now because I want to show how this is a witch hunt and how I'm innocent.
Now he doesn't do that.
What he does is he wants to avoid the jury, he wants to avoid the court, and meanwhile makes these political arguments that it's a witch hunt when it's nothing of the sort. If it's truly as a witch hunt, then we go and protect that with a jury of our peers in America. That's how we do it in America.
Well, we've got a redhead on the terminal. People's phones are buzzing around the country right now, around the world who subscribe to Bloomberg. Trump's hush money trial date now set for April fifteenth. According to the judge, this happening just a moment ago. And if Donald Trump speaks, we will bring you some remarks. I suspect he did speak on the way in, and there's a fair chance that he will on the way out.
Here.
This is a former president of the United States now set for criminal trial, and based on what we're hearing from Robert mcwerder here, it's unlikely that he will have any further opportunity to delay this case. So that's going to be one trial, Robert that takes place before the election of twenty twenty four.
I don't see how that's avoidable. I think that's going to happen now.
In terms of the Supreme Court, there will be arguments heard on April twenty fifth when it comes to the presidential immunity question. That would likely then mean a ruling at some point from the Court in June, maybe late June, maybe the last thing they do before they walk out the door. Here in that world, that leaves enough time for a second trial in this case, Jack Smith's trial.
Yes, you know what I find interesting about that is Donald Trump on truth social I think it was just last night of the night before was saying that Joe Biden should be prosecuted for his witch hunt and all that kind of stuff for what he's doing. But if you take Trump's own arguments in the presidential immunity case, then Joe Biden shouldn't be prosecuted for anything while he acts as president. Donald Trump is claiming the president should
have these broad powers to do anything in office. Well, if that's the case, then Joe Biden should not be prosecuted for anything. Even though I think Trump's claims are outlandish, but he's defeating his own arguments quite frankly by making those kinds of statements. What's going on with the Supreme Court is interesting. I don't see how they're going to give Donald Trump this broad immunity that he's asking for. The case President is the case that's happened in the
United States versus Nixon. And what I think the Court is going to do is they gave Trump the win on the Colorado case, but I don't think they're going
to give him the win on that. And the Court under John Roberts is very concerned, especially Chief Justice Roberts, about maintaining the Court's legitimacy as an institution, and this is their way to do it, is to maintain that legitimacy by finding against the president president, which is really what the law should dictate anyway, So that would be my prediction of what's going to go on with that.
Spoken from a man who literally wrote the book on the fourteenth Amendment, Robert, I'm glad we could talk today.
How could we have imagined what.
We would experience here together? I'm glad you joined us. Robert mcwherterer criminal attorney Slayton Roebuck. And he's got his own office as well, having spent to his point thirty years doing this. The bond has been reduced by more than two thirds. We'll find out if he can pay it. And we have trial date now April fifteenth. That's the Alvin braggcase. Both of these issues resolved this Monday morning in New York with the Echo Chamber here in Washington.
I'm Joe Matthew And speaking of which, we'll have a.
Lot more on this.
Our panel will be here a little later in the hour to react to what we have learned here together today. Aren't you glad you tuned in at high noon? That's why you take this show live on the lunch break.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then.
Royd Otto 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.
Should we get back to Jim Ziron? He was interrupted.
We were interrupted in our conversation when Donald Trump started speaking something.
We wanted to make sure you heard.
Former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern Districts of New York and he's the host of conversations with Jim Ziron on PBS.
It's good to have you back here, Jim.
After what you just heard, I think we can bank on a trial beginning on April fifteenth.
Did you learn anything else?
Well, it was hard to learn anything because there was a lie after lie after lie, misstatement after misstatement after misstatement. What he said was classic Roy Kohane, going after the prosecutors, going after the judges, going after the justice system. And there's absolutely nothing he said which could be said in court. At the time of the trial. He did move to dismiss the case on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct by the case, I mean the case in New York, and the judge
dismissed it out of hand. He did move to delay the case. Although he's complaining now about the delay, He's constantly moved to delay the case, and that was denied out of hand. His dates are absolutely cock eyed. Alvin Bragg did not take office until January one, twenty twenty two. Pomerantz was in the brag office only a short period of time. He was in the Vance office before that. And this is a case that was brought in the normal course. They had to be investigated by the grand jury.
The witnesses had to be interviewed and had to testify before the grand jury. And there is no basis whatsoever to his statements, as he pointed out so much. He says his speculative. He said October seventh wouldn't have happened if he'd been president. What's the basis for that? He said that Ukraine wouldn't have happened had he been president. What's the basis for that? Because his pal Putin wouldn't have done it as a favor to him. It's ridiculous. There was inflation when he was the president.
As well. Jim to talk about how his house was rated at Moro Lago. In fact, there was a search warrant when the FBI conducted that search, and he used though as evidence, even though rated perhaps is not the proper way to characterize it. It was a warrant, a warranted search. He said that was evidence of weaponization by
the DOJ and FBI. Just to remind us here, if you will, of what the actual relationship is between the Department of Justice as it pertains to these cases with the former president and what role, if any, President Biden has in any of this.
Well, first of all, as President Biden has had no role in our federal system. The president appoints the attorney general, and here the Attorney General appointed Jack Smith as special counsel. You're absolutely right about the Fourth Amendment. This was not a warrantless search. It was a search with a warrant that issued out of the district court on the showing of probable cause. And he calls it a raid. The courts have said it was not a raid, and he
can't characterize it as a raid. This is all meet for his base, but he persists in telling these lies on the premise that if he tells them over and over again, someone may believe it. Now, Trump, it's Trump who tried to who says he's going to weaponize the justice system. He wants to execute the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Millie. He wants to be a dictator for a day, and don't believe it's
only going to be for one day. And his rhetoric and his lies are the classic rhetoric of a dictator, because the dictators Hitler Perone others, first talk about the decline in the country. It's called decline. People have written about it, and you say the country is going to the dogs. And then you have to blame someone. So whom is he blaming. He's blaming the immigrants, and he's
blaming the justice system. And it's classic Roy Kohane for him to blame individuals in the justice system and to personalize the justice system, which is completely contrary to an undermines our rule of law.
Well, Jim, I appreciate how listen closely you were listening to Donald Trump and helping us clear up some of this stuff in real time.
Here.
If Donald Trump cannot post bond in the civil case today, do you believe Letitia James will begin seizing properties or is that a threat?
Oh?
No, she certainly will begin seizing properties. But I believe that, based on every indication, that he has the wherewithal to post a cash bond or to post a bond for the one hundred and seventy five million dollars which he'll post within the ten day period. The real question is what's going to happen to the appeal on the merits. And this is just a little bit of gamesmanship, but it's very well settled in the law that you don't
get a stay of a judgment because you appeal. You get a stay of the judgment only if you post a bond. Lawyers call it a supersedious bond because it supersedes the judgment. And here Donald Trump had to post a bond, and he said that he didn't have the money to post the bond for a half million dollars, and he said that in court, and then he publicly and said he had the money and that there would be no wordship. So he's all over the lot.
Well and Jim. Of course, in the civil case, it is a civil case. This was a ruling by a judge both that the fraud had been committed and then what he needed to pay in damages as a result. In the criminal case. Though this will be a trial by jury, it will be a jury of his peers. This is how the system works here in the United States. And just keeping in mind here that this is historic and that we are talking about a former president, someone the American people probably know best out of any public
figure out there. How hard will it be come April fifteenth, when they begin jury selection to actually find a jury that can be unbiased against Trump.
Well, Trump is of course a national figure. It'll be very difficult to find jurors who have not heard of him and have not formed some opinion about him. But through examination of the jurors, the court can probe whether there is any bias against him that would prevent the juror from deciding the issue based on the evidence presented to them in court.
Now, in the E.
Gene Carroll case, which Trump lost, the jurors were asked questions like have you ever attended a Trump rally? Do you believe that Biden won the last presidential election? And answers to questions like that would disclose bias. There might be other questions that might disclose bias. But the real question is you'd say to the juror can you serve as a fair and impartial juror and decide the question in accordance with the evidence presented to you at the trial.
Most of these arguments that Trump has made, if not all, would never be admissible in a court of law.
The case is going to be.
Decided the evidence which involves the payments to the porn star and Stormy Daniels and his efforts to conceal it, and the judge will give instructions to the jury as to whether that involves a violation of New York law. It's called falsification of business records, with the underlying crimes being election fraud and tax fraud. And that's what's in the indictment, all.
Right, Jim Siron, thank you so much for reacting in real time, not just to the ruling from the judge about when this trial will begin today, but of course the remarks we got the former president as we heard them.
Jims Iron, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on.
Apple car Play and then Roudo with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzy, no Bloomberg Politics contributors, are both with us. So I'm sure Rick and Jeanie that you heard the former president speaking just as we did once again and an opportunity to, I guess, address a legal issue he is facing, but really use it as a campaign speech to talk about Russia, the border evs worked their way in there a few other policy areas
as well. I guess, Rick, at what point does it have to stop being campaign speeches when he's fighting these legal battles or is this going to keep working for him?
No, I have no doubt that in Donald Trump's mind, maybe different than his campaign managers, he sees this as part of the campaign, that it's a forum that he otherwise wouldn't get. If he had held an event somewhere today, we would not be broadcasting live his comments, and so I think in his mind this is a higher better use of his time is sitting in a courtroom. In most cases, he has not been required to be there.
He's elected to do.
It because he sees the value in getting this kind of attention, and arguably it's not been a problem for him. You look at the survey. There's never been a instance that I recall where the numbers dip because of an appearance he had at one of these trials. And the fact that he says that he's willing to testify probably strikes fear in the hearts of the campaign and the lawyers that represent him. But he sees it as an unbelievable opportunity. It's like a debate without the opposition, or
the opposition who you can pummel all day long. And so the reality is he's he's going to do what he thinks is in his self interest right now. Using the legal system to run for president is what he's doing. There's really very little about the case he talked about today.
It was really all about running for president. And so if he can make these things, these cases about him trying, you know, Biden, trying to deny him the presidency, then voters will believe these are a campaign stop and then that's when he gets his victory that he's looking for.
That's a pretty remarkable world to be in here, Genie. Joe Biden takes a lot of flack for when he's having a bad day. Maybe he's a little difficult to understand maybe he just downright looks tired.
People say he looks old.
Can't always understand what you're saying, depending on the day.
I don't know.
Again who the audience was for that address, but it strikes me that these stem winders that are just going with no direction. He's not reading a speech, He's just kind of following this stream of thought. Naming names would be very confusing for voters. Does this change anyone's mind? Does this convince an independent, undecided voter that the government is targeting Donald Trump?
Joe?
Are you saying that Mark Pomeranz is not on the lead mind of all voters across the country. I mean, there was so much of this that was just you know, non sequiturs winding around, and you guys covered so beautifully so many of the foods, from the idea that there is collusion with the Justice Department at the federal level and the state to the idea that there was no inflation under Trump and the Ukraine withdrawal and all the rest.
But you know, while I was listening to it, I was just thinking, you know, a few hours earlier, we had Senator Marco Rubio on ABC the Sunday Morning Show and what was he talking about? And I think this gives us a sense as to how much what Trump is saying resonates with people, including mainstreamers. Theoretically, like Marco Rubio, he was talking about how he would be honored to
be considered a vice presidential nominee for Donald Trump. He was talking about the fact that the world was safer under Donald Trump, that there were, you know, challenges in the twenty twenty election. I mean, the list goes on and that is a sitting senator from the state of Florida. So I think if you know as much of these falsehoods as Donald Trump lays out in these speeches, there is a big chunk of not only his voters, but the republic Party and Independence across the country who believe
what he says. And that does bring us to the fence sitters and the Independence and the moderates. But the reality is there is an audience for what he is saying. And my question to this judge is are we going to have to hear this every day or is there going to be some kind of gag order when this trial goes into effect on April fifteenth to shut some of this down.
Well, Jenny brings up a really good point, Rick, that there is obviously a sizable chunk of the electorate, the electorate that is voting for Trump and the Republican primaries that has made him at this point the presumptive Republican nominee that does believe a lot of what he says to be true. This idea that the Department of Justice, the FBI, the judicial system overall is being weaponized against him.
And at a certain point when you look at the facts and look at perhaps the fiction isn't perception reality, And how do you deal with that if you're an opposing campaign.
Yeah, no, Look, this is the challenge for even news organizations to cover him, not just the opposing campaign, is that he does throw out all these statistics. He talked about fifteen million illegal immigrants. There's no data to support that. When you ask his campaign we'd like you to tell us where you got that number, they give you links that actually have nothing to do with that. So, yeah, I mean, do you let him say these things unchallenged like we did today? Do you stop in the middle
of broadcasts and say this is actually incorrect. We've seen a lot of news organizations struggle with that. I think it's easier actually for the campaign because the Biden campaign can just put commercial after commercials saying you know, Donald Trump led about this, Donald Trump led about that, and they can use their money and advertising strength and a bully pulpit of the presidency to push back on that.
And frankly, part of the complaint that a lot of Democrats have had about this campaign is they haven't been doing that.
They kind of let.
Trump be Trump all during the early primary stages. Maybe they were optimistic that some Republican would emerge and give them a hard time. That didn't happen, And only now have they become sort of more aggressive and pushing back on some of these things. But some of that damage
is done. I mean, you've seen how he's consolidated his strength around the party to the point where senators like Marco Rubio have completely changed their tune about some of his policies are now willing to participate in his administration. Do not underestimate, as our previous guest said, the power of the Roy Cohen. You know, attack, attack, attack right, and just attack your opponent, attack the judges, attack anybody
who disagrees with me what I say is right. And that's all that matters, and that's the campaign for Donald Trump. And so you know, the question that the Biden campaign has to do is what's the most effective way of tamping that down so that it is not something that voters start to agree with only because Donald Trump says so.
All right, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzino our signature panel with us today in the heat of the moment, and we have had some breaking news today. Thanks to both of you Bloomberg Politics contributors for the insights on what we heard from Donald Trump.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Rodoto 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 joining us.
I'm pleased to say is Jonathan Panicoff, Atlantic Council Gocroft Middle East Security Initiative Director. Jonathan. Great to have you back here on Bloomberg Television and Radio. I would just love to get your reaction to the consequence of this Security Council resolution, what real impact it will have on the behavior of Israel, considering it did draw an immediate reaction from the Israeli government in terms of canceling this delegation's visit.
Well, great to be back with you, Thanks for having me. Look, I don't think there's actually going to be much changed one way or the other. At the end of the day, what's gonna change is really behavior, even in the short term, is whether or not there's a hash that's negotiation deal that comes about, and that's a negotiation happening with Egypt, with cut there and with the US that was recognized
in the UN Security Council resolution. I don't think this resolution that was actually going to make a huge difference, at least in the immediate term.
So Israel wanted a veto, they did not get it. What does that mean now for the chances of a ceasefire or is it on to Rafa?
Yeah, I don't think it really changes the chance of a ceasefire. Blincoln's been in the region, They've been meeting quite a bit. These really sent a delegation. There was a report this morning that they actually have closer numbers about seven hundred Palestinian prisoners, including one hundred serving life, sent says in exchange for about forty Israeli hostages. So
I think they're making progress, slow progress. I think this really is more about the politics Netanya, who's really upset, because when Natanya who wanted was a direct link between the hostages and a ceasefire, no ceasefire without the hostages, which the US tried to do in the resolution last Friday vetoed by Russia and China. This says a ceasefire and release of the hostages. The US is saying it's
still connected. Israel is saying it's insufficient. The Arab world thinks that they're happy that something has just passed finally.
Well, Jonathan, it seems that increasingly there is somewhat of a disconnect between what the US is saying and what Israel is saying. Be it in regard to a potential ceasefire dealer, the attempts to reach one, or just what will happen in Rafa. We heard from Vice President Kamala Harris speaking over the weekend, saying that she was ruling out nothing in terms of consequences if Israel were to
pursue a military salt into Ruffa. What realistically, though, could those consequences looked like, and how likely is it in your mind that the US would actually move to.
Enforce any I think it really depends on what an Operation Rafa looks like. And that's frankly, what Ron Dermer and Hanegbi's visit to the US was supposed to discuss. If the US has said now clearly that they're going to be consequences, I think there will be. But that's only if Israel goes into Rafa with multiple brigades and really storms through it in the same way it worked through Conunis and Gaza City. If what Israel really does
is say, Okay, we recognized there's a challenge. We really do need to move as many of these people out of Offa as possible. At the same time, we'll make this operation less of a full scale operation and much more counter terrorism, which is what the US is butching, then I think the US actually would probably accept that.
And my guess is, especially if there is a hotge deal, that's going to be much easier to complete because any hostage deal is going to have within it a temporary pause in fighting, and Israeli operations can't just resume as they were. You have already moved the brigades out, they'll have to come back in. So I think that there is still some opportunity to work together between the US and Israel, but clearly tensions arising.
I thought you might point to conditions as part of your answer on that, Jonathan, and I wonder what your thought is. Having heard outrage over the weekend from some progressive Democrats twenty two of which in the House voted against the government funding bill because it included almost four
billion dollars for Israel. Alexandria Costio Cortes on Sunday morning, talking on television and on the House floor on Friday, she referred to this as an unfolding genocide on the floor of the House and called on the administration to stop sending weapons to Israel. Well conditions, or at least additional conditions have to be attached to any further aid.
I don't know that they'll have to be attached. I mean, there was already, you know, an executive order issued by the Biden administration making clear the humanitarian conditions related to all countries, including Israel, for US weapons. I think the question is going to really be one of whether you
have a temporary cease fire and how Israel approaches this. Look, if they have a full scale operation, then yes, I would expect many Democrats, and that includes folks like Chris Murphy and Senator Van Holland, who have been pretty aggressive in this in the Senate, pushing back and saying, look,
we have to condition to aid. But if it's a smaller operation, if it's more precise, if it's what the US has been trying to push Israel toward for a number of months now, Frankly, then I don't think you'll get those same conditions. The reality is a lot of the weapons that we're talking about are things that are defensive in nature. I don't see the US cutting iron dome missile resupply, so that's defensive to protect Israel.
I'm glad we could get you back on Jonathan Panakoff.
It's good to see Jonathan at the Atlantic Council and more specifically the Atlantic Council Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative.
Good to have you back on Bloomberg.
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.