You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emo CarPlay and then Proud Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We return to the situation in the Middle East. Is The White House at this hour is weighing potential responses to a drone strike conducted by iron Back militant that killed three US troops on a base in Jordan and injured dozens more. The President over the weekend said that those responsible will be held to account in a manner
and at a time of his choosing. While there's some pressure coming from Congress hawkish senators like Lindsey Graham or John Cornyn who are actually pushing the administration to strike Iran directly, something that the US has not actually done in decades, and that they may be hesitant to do because of concerns around escalating what's happening in the Middle East.
Ron I should point out has said that accusations it was directly involved in this attack are baseless and said that resistant groups in the region do not take orders directly from the Islamic Republic. So let's get the latest now with Peter Martin, who was Bloomberg's Global Defense and Intelligence correspondent and is joining me here in studio. So, Peter, do we know first of all how directly involved Iran was? Are we taking to Ran at its word here?
I think it's fair to say that American and visuals treat those Iranian statements with a high degree of skepticism. Iran has, as you know, a network of proxies throughout the region. Some of those proxies are very tightly controlled, others there's a little bit more leeway. But when it comes to taking decisions about killing American soldiers, about supplying these proxy groups long term, I think it's fair to say that the administration looks at Iran is very much culpable here well.
And the fact that three soldiers were killed in this this is the first time we have seen US troops as casualty of what has been going on in the Middle East since October seventh, and this war erupted between Israel and Hamas. So theoretically you would maybe expect that this would be the strongest response to anything we have
seen because troops actually died. But how strong is strong here when they're saying it's going to be stronger than the current operations they're conducting going after the Houthis and these Iranian proxies. What options realistically around the table.
Well, you know, the administration needs to tread a very careful line here. They've been worried ever since the outbreak of hostilities following the October percent the attacks that there's the potential here for a broader regional war. There have been clashes on Israel's northern border with Hesbala, there have been the hoothy attacks that you mentioned, and of course there have been these attacks by Iranian proxies from Iraq and Syria, which most recently led to this watershed moment
where US soldiers died. So the administration is going to be looking to send a very strong message. Those that we've spoken to have said that they recognize that there response needs to go above and beyond what's happened before. When it comes to something like striking Iran directly, that's a pretty difficult decision to take, and it's something that certainly would risk a kind of broader regional conflict, and they're going to be pretty cautious about.
That, and is the primary concern that Iran would retaliate in kind or that it would just kind of exacerbate what we're already seeing with these Iranian proxies and the activity and operations that they're conducting. Specifically, I guess my question is what Iran really want to go after the US directly either.
The assumption ever since October seventh, by you know, from US officials, has been that Iran too has a lot to lose. Right they're on the threshold of having a nuclear weapon. They are benefiting in many ways from being able to strike at Israel through proxy attacks and also strike at US forces, but without very much direct risk
to themselves. Now, Critics of the administrations approach have said that unless the US is willing to put a RAM and its own assets at risk, then there's the risk that these attacks will just continue to escalate and won't be deterred. The administration, on the other hand, has said that they need to take a cautious approach because there's a lot at stake here. It's the broader regional economy.
There's the threat of prices increasing as attacks on shipping increase in the Red Sea, so a lot of different things to.
Weigh well, And of course that's why it took so long for the US, together with allies, to actually move to offensive even against the Hoothies. For a long time, it was just defense and deterrence in the Red Sea until those strikes began a number of weeks ago. And of course, Peter, when we first saw that initial strike launched the US together with the UK, we've seen I
believe about eight of them now. It was done while the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin was still at Walter Reed in the hospital as he was getting treated for prostate cancer, as we weighed the response. Here, he's back at the Pentagon today.
Right, he is.
He's meeting with the NATO Secretary General today. He's back in the saddle at the Pentagon after long delay.
Does that actually impact anything other than optically? Is it easier to kind of conduct these conversations when the stakes are so high?
I mean, the Pentagon has strenuously denied that his physical absence from the building has impacted operations. But I think it's fair to say that any organization works better when those in charge are close to what's happening, all.
Right, Peter Martin Bloomberg's Global Defense and Intelligence correspondent.
Thank you so much for joining me, and we want.
To get more analysis on the situation now with Dan Muton, non Resident Senior Fellow at the Scoucroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council's Middle East Programs. Thank you so much, Dan for joining me today. I want to read you, if I could, a quote from a Bloomberg opinion piece that was written by Admiral James S. Tavetas, who wrote, the Pentagon should generate detailed strike plans to
go after Iranian targets themselves. They could include warships operating in support of Yemen two this another target set could be Iranian oil and gas platforms in the Arabian goal. Even more controversially, he writes, the Pentagon could consider strikes against Iranian military command and control sites. Dan, what is your assessment of what a proportionate appropriate response would be? Here are any of those options on the table in your mind?
Hi, Kayleian, good to join you today. I think what Admiral Stepriitez portrayed in his opinion piece is absolutely part of the menu of options that the Department of Defense as a matter of course, would generate for the president in terms of adhering to the President's remarks yesterday that we're going to respond appropriately at a time and place
of our choosing. I do think though it's important to note some of the other pieces that I think Peter Martin also highlighted, which is this attack did not originate from Iran. It was an Iranian proxy group versus Iranian forces directly. Now, obviously there's there's culpability that Iran needs to be held accountable for, but in terms of the people and organization and kind of commands that were given to launch this attack, it's important to dig into that
in terms of how we evaluate a proportional response. And when I say that, I would go back a little ways to highlight why, you know, the Department of Defense, at the President's direction, surged forces to the region after October seventh of last year, which was to prevent escalation into a regional conflict after the October seventh Hamas attack
against Israel. I think, in terms of the president's choices, he's going to be given this menu, and it's going to involve either striking back against elements at Hezbollah in Syria, perhaps elements in Iraq, and obviously there's going to be Iranian targets, but he's going to have to win the likelihood of escalation. And I'm happy to dig into that a little bit more.
If you'd like, Well, yeah, absolutely, I mean, how likely do you think it is that whatever measures the US takes here would be significantly more escalatory than the measures of the US already has taken the multiple strikes we have seen against Toothy targets in Yemen. Does the calculation change entirely or at least the stakes move consequentially higher if there were to be a strike directly on Iranian territory, which we haven't seen for decades, Haley.
I do think that if we were to strike inside of Iran that would excuse me, Kaylee, I do think if we were to strike inside Iran that would increase the likelihood of regional escalation. Since this attack did not originate from Iran, and right now we don't know if there were Iranian, literal Iranian fingerprints on these one way attack UABS unman aied vehicles. It's hard to draw a direct line. That being said, if we move a little bit to the left and look at the organization responsible
for launching the attack. There are a whole multitude of Shea militia groups and both Syria and Rock that have been involved in attacking US forces. I note that there's been close to one hundred and sixty attacks against US forces in Iraq and Syria following October seventh, and so all of those attacks were meant to kill US forces.
There was an increasing likelihood over time that sooner or later something was going to, unfortunately and quite tragically, get through US defenses, and when they did on Saturday, it became inevitable for US to respond. I do think, in terms of the choices available, what we're likely to see is a much more comprehensive set of strikes against these SA militia groups that are direct responsible for the attacks.
Well, and Dan, your point is well taken that this isn't necessarily a RON itself that is responsible here. And of course we've heard from Iran in the aftermath of these attacks that the groups IT backs operate independently from the direction of the Islamic Republic. They say, any allegations that they were directly involved are baseless. Nonetheless, though, if it's providing money and weapons to these groups Iran at the end of the day, if you go down, the
line of fault is in that line, right. So I just wonder how the Iran's backing of these groups can realistically be stopped if the US is not willing to go after to Ron directly.
And I think that's a very very valid point, Kayleie. I think where we are, where we're going to be right now is going back or the last probably till late October up through the last few weeks, we've heard statements from Secretary to Blinken you An, Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield in others Department of Defense, White House, and so forth, messaging directly to Iranian decision makers that there will be repercussions.
I think at this point we should expect, you know, any Iranian players in this attack scenario that are operating in Syria and Iraq that are directly aiding and abetting these attacks, I would expect them to be on the table in terms of what the United States is willing to target. I think thus far, it's going to be difficult, and this goes back to the desire by the US administration to not escalate. It'll be difficult to choose to
strike directly into Iran. Now, to Admiral Stavritez's point, there's Iranian you know, warships if you will, or are Iranian ships affiliated with Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that are operating outside of our territorial waters that in some instances could be very well aiding and a betting these attacks. And so that can very well be on the menu of options.
And I think the Iranian government needs to be made aware of the repercussions of this continued targeting or aiding and a betting, this continued targeting of.
US forces, So Dan obviously while we await news on potential what the potential response from.
The US could look like.
Of course, all of this is happening against the backdrop of the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, and we know that also over the weekend there was a summit in Paris with spy chiefs and other officials from the US, Egypt Cutter, and Israel trying to reach some kind of ceasefire agreement in exchange for the rest of the hostages
that are still being held in Gaza. And a headline actually just crossed the Bloomberg terminal from the Katari Prime Minister saying that hostage talks are in a better place than a few weeks ago. How hopeful are you that a deal like this could actually come to fruition and how could that change what we're seeing across the Middle East, Because theoretically, if there was a ceasefire, the Houthies wouldn't have as much reason to attack vessels in the Red Sea.
Right.
Indeed, so I completely agree with kind of the connection you just drew, Kayley, to these attacks regional escalation from October seventh. I'm quite hopeful that what was going on in Paris this past weekend, as well as the work that preceded this, and this was White House Coordinator Brett McGirr going to going to Cairo, going to Doha, Qatar, This was in the lead up to Director Cia Bill Burns traveling to Europe the other day. I'm quite hopeful that this could in fact be an opportunity for both
sides to de escalate. This is principally right now focused on helping the government of Israel find it a way out of the scenario that unfortunately it fell into following as a result of the October seventh attacks. But this is the best chance at the moment for us to find a de escalatory path to help the government of Israel find its way out and reduce civilian suffering in the Gaza Strip.
And just finally, we have less than a minute left in but we know that there's been some discussion as to whether this should be, say, a two month ceasefire or a permanent seasfire. Can Israel really agree to a permanent ceasefire.
At this point?
That's going to depend on the political calculus, and it's impossible, I think for me to answer that, Kyle. It's going to be the political calculus inside of Israel. Of I personally do not think it's possible to destroy the foundations of a terror organization. Israel can kill a lot of members of Helmas, Yeah, but the cause of all this, that's going to be quite difficult, and it's going to be up to the Israeli government to determine when they've met that.
All right, Danmuton of The Atlantic, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate your time.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Ken Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Enroud Oto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
I'm Kaylee Liones in Washington, where we have a border deal on the mind. And to put it in the words of the former President Donald Trump, a bad border deal is far worse than no border deal. That's what
he said on True Social over the weekend. As we await the release of the actual text of this deal that Senate negotiators have been working on with the White House for some time now, and while we don't know for sure what's in it, we do know there already has been some pushback against it, specifically in the House of Representatives, even coming from the speaker himself, Mike Johnson.
So is this effort really going anywhere? Joining me now to weigh in is the Republican Congressman from North Carolina, Greg Murphy, who was here with me in our Washington, d C.
Studio. Congressman, thank you.
So much, nice to see you, kill for coming in.
It's great to see you as well. What needs to be in this deal for it to get your vote?
Will you even have a chance.
We have to go back to the stay in Mexico policy. I mean, I think that was the star wart of where all this began. We had Central American countries that had bought into this, that they folks that seek asylum in the country of entry rather than transgressing across all of Central America. You know, I've worked in some really desperate places in the world as a surgeon, so I understand people's desire to try to find something better. That said, we are a nation of laws. Unlike the last two years,
our border has become wallless. We don't have operational control of our southern border. Drug cartels do. So we have to keep those who wanted this country that when we keep in Mexico, we have to get rid of the control of the border by drug cartels. We have to ensure safety to our own border and really adjudicate the processes a lot quickly. We have to make sure that those who do have true asylum desires that they get adjudicated much more quickly, and that we have to beef
up security. You know, we've had what eight plus million individuals come in the country over the last two years. We have a close to I think it was one point seven million individuals come. We don't know who they are, where they're from, where they're going, why they're here, and then record numbered of individuals who were caught on the terrorist watch list. We don't even know who the ones who've gotten away because they're going to seek other methods to get in any way. So this is not only
a humanitarian crisis. It's one that the president and his administration have broken our own laws. It's also one of national security even more importantly, so this this has to be done. It almost takes primal immediacy above almost anything else. And you get into the debate with Ukraine, it almost has to take a president's over that, because we have to protect our own border really before we worry about other countries.
Well, the president is at the table now, he's been involved in these negotiations. He put out a statement lead Friday that said what the negotiators are working on would give him the authority to shut down the border if it was becoming overwhelming. He says he would use that authority on day one after signing this bill. Do you take him at his word.
On that he had the authority right now? He doesn't need authority.
He could have the authority to stay in Mexico policy boom. He had this authority when he was sworn in, and so he basically invited our countries to be invaded, because that's nonsense from President Biden.
He has the authority right now to do this.
So when it comes to the feate of this package in the House, do you think you will even have a chance to vote on it up or down.
I have to see what it really entails, because I haven't seen the text yet. As they pointed out, we want something. Yeah, honestly, Joe Biden has the tools right now to close the border or close it appreciably.
Well, you haven't seen the text. The Speaker of the House hasn't seen the text either, and already, just based on the rumors that were floating around, he said it's dead on arrival. And we know that he has a close relationship with the former president. The former president has thoughts on this. How does Donald Trump factor into this calculus?
Well, I think, honestly, we have to see what's going on, because you know, it's presumed nominee that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. This is going to be a factor, because this is one of the biggest things that all Americans now care about, not just not just in Texas or Arizona, but they care about it in New York City and other places. About the absolute explosion of this humanitarian ciasis. And Kelly, to be very honest with you, this is one caused by certain releasings
of policy by the Biden administration. We should not be where we were. We weren't this way two and a half years ago. We have to get back to some sensible things about immigration within this country.
Well, when you talk about how immigration is an issue not just at the border, but in states really all across the country, it's been described to me as every state now is a border state because of the way this has spread around own What justification would there be to not bring it to the floor, to not give members like you even a chance to cast their votes on an issue that is so important to voters.
Well, I don't disagree with that thought, but I think it's also up to the Speaker that he'd be involved in this process. It's not just one by the Senate and do with the with the White House. And remember there is another chamber. We are the ones who are considered in the in the in the House, to.
Be quote, closest to the people.
This is a people issue, and I think it needs to be not you know, debated or guaranteed and silent. It needs to be festered. Especially we have a new Speaker of the House. He needs to be intimately involved in these negotiations.
Yeah, and there's questions as to how the Speaker is not just going to deal with potentially bringing this issue to the floor, but also a vote on a tax agreement. I know, sir, that you sit on the Ways and Means Committee. Obviously this is bipartisan, it's bi cameral. Would it have your support if you had a chance to vote on it this week or next?
Well, we had a forty to three vote in the committee. I voted for it in committee. Is it perfect? There are some things that I may have recommended differently. I think if we bring it to the floor, I think it would pass just on a suspension vote. We're going to have some folks having problems because it didn't have the salt issues with it.
Some of the others who vote.
Against everything seemingly this Congress are going to vote against it. But I think it may have a good chance of passing as a suspension. We need to do something in the tax realm because of expiring tax revisions from TCGA that are really going to be helping American business, especially small businesses. I'll give you an example with the quote
Inflation Reduction Act. This really absolutely destroyed pharmaceutical industries from being able to take new drugs and bring new indications for drugs along the line.
You know, it is thought.
CBO said maybe one drug would be taken out because of all this price shifting. It's actually been more than one hundred. And these are days of new cures. You know, in medicine I practice now for thirty five years. It's been an explosion in the last five or ten years of new drugs and new therapies, and so many of the now now have come to a screeching halt because
of the rules within the Inflation and Reduction Act. But if we're able to get these companies started back up again, we're going to go back to making land breaking and really world breaking cures for many different things, cancers and other disorders.
Well, so obviously there's a lot in this agreement. As you point out, there's a lot that's not in it either, maybe not getting this salt action that some would like. Others are taking issue with the expansion of the child tax credit.
Do you think any of.
These issues are enough that this bill stands a real chance of not getting through the House because the suspension of the rules as a decision, the Speaker will have to make sure sure.
And that's I think that's a fair criticism of this. You know, we live in a divided Congress with a one seat majority. We don't own the Senate, we don't own the White House, and if we want to get a tax package out, there has to be negotiation and compromised. Do I think twenty five hundred should be the bottom part? Absolutely not, I mean absolutely not. Should I think that we have persons one year income being able to count for the next. No, But then again, you know this
is all negotiated. Do I think four hundred thousand dollars really? I think we actually probably should lower that. I don't see a couple making four hundred thousand dollars needs assistance.
With their kids.
But again, this is negotiation, and you know this is one of the I've only been in politics, I guess now seven years now in the effort, we can't make everything perfect. It's not going to be perfect because we don't have supermajorities in either chamber, we don't have the White House. We have to make compromises, and so yeah, sometimes there are some things in there you don't want. But if you look at the bigger picture, I think there's a lot more positives than negatives.
And of course, in addition to sitting on ways and means where you are very hands on with this issue, you also a remember of the Veteran Affairs Committee, so I know you pay close attention to matters regarding the US military. And of course we had news over the weekend three US troops killed in Jordan and a drone strike by an Iranian backed militant group. The US has value to respond. What do you think that response should look like?
You know, Kaylee, I come from a very strong military district. We have Camp Ler, June, Cherry Point, other military bases. One out of ten of my constituents are veterans, and in dealing with Iran and dealing with these axes really truly of evil. As Reagan said, the only thing they know is power. The only thing they know is strength. And this is what we have to show, you know. Of course Iran has said they didn't have to do anything with this. No one can trust the Ukrainians, no
one at all. I don't trust them at all. We have to show them power. I do believe a lot of the strength we lost in the way we left Afghanistan in the Middle East, and so it's time for Biden to step up. You know, we have to go after these folks. We have to go with the origin of them. We have to take out their leaders, we have to take out their ability to kill Americans.
There have been some Senators John Corny and Lindsay Graham, for example, who have said strike Iran directly on its own territory. Do you think that would be too far?
You know, just on first thought, I think that may be a little bit. We're not ready for that yet because here we are trying to keep Israel alive. There's a China's threat with this in the southeast, with Taiwan. Our utter disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, in my opinion, led to the Ukrainian conflict. I think that that's going to be difficult. Sadly enough, you know, during the Trump administration, the enrichment of uranium in Iran was around four percent.
We know Iran has now gotten it up to at least sixty percent. Some reports have been eighty percent. Once they get ninety percent.
He left that nuclear deal with that.
Yeah, but the thing is that gave them all of the cards.
It gave him all the cards. And so now Iran may very well have a nuclear bomb. And so you know, I understand that sentiment, but I think a lot of thought needs to go into before that happens.
All right, well, we appreciate you giving us your thoughts today. Congressman, very good to see you. Thank you for coming and joining us in our Washington, d C.
Studio.
That is Republican Congressman from North Carolina, Greg Murphy. Now we want to go back to our signature loical panel. Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzeno are with me. Genie, just to begin with you on this idea of potential retaliation here coming from the Biden administration. How difficult politically, let alone militarily is this to make.
It's going to be.
Very difficult, and I think you just heard it from the representatives thoughtful reply to your question, and you know the differences he may have from some other Republicans and some other Democrats on where the United States should strike and how. And you know, because we know that there will be a retaliation, We know there will be a strike, and the question now is where and against who and how?
And there's so much difference of opinion on that. So it is, you know, going to be threading an evil and a needle. Rather for the Biden administration to try to do this in a way that doesn't escalate tensions. Keeping in mind, we have heard that this strike back is welcome, and so this is something they also have to keep in mind. And politically they are going to be walking a very fine line and trying to make this happen.
Well and Rick, of course they're doing so not just in any year, but in an election year. How does this kind of geopolitical tension factor into electoral politics at home for an incumbent president.
Yeah, Look, it's one of the fundamental things that voters look at, is, you know, are you equipped to be commander in chief? Obviously both these candids, Donald Trump and Joe Biden have direct experience in this and can evaluate that. But some of Biden's biggest hurdles. Biggest problems in his administration have been related to the military. Afghanistan was the beginning of the decline of his popularity around the country, and some blame that as being a really proxy for competency.
And so this is.
Really important to Joe Biden that he get this right. He's given full support against a lot of headwinds to Israel, and a lot of voters have rewarded him with some very positive numbers in that regard, but the blowback is still coming. When this occurred, but let's be straight, this is a retaliation against Us for the proper killing of their head of the Kudz forces, Solamani, and two other
senior operatives that were killed in Lebanon recently. I mean, we are already in a shooting war with Iran and their proxies, and I can't imagine a scenario where we don't get more escalation as a result of this latest attack.
Well, and of course the background to this is the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas and Genie. There was a great piece in the New York Times over the weekend about black pastors, more than a thousand of them that represent hundreds of thousands of congregants nationwide issuing a demand to the Biden administration for a ceasefire in Gaza, especially knowing how important that demographic is to the president
as he seeks re election. Should we expect that he is going to put more pressure on Israel specifically to end these hostilities.
Yeah, and I think they are already, And I'm so glad you raised the pastors. They have joined with the pro Palestinian groups primarily headquartered in Michigan, a critical electoral state for both the president and the former president to win. And of course you see Burns already trying to negotiate at least a ceased fire. So I do think that is something the president has been doing, will continue to do. And this pressure is important because this is a constituency.
We saw in South Carolina over the weekend that the president does need to come out and support him. And you hear the pastor is drawing a very clear red line, we cannot support you if you don't move forward on a cease fire and negotiate a settlement or push Israel to negotiate a settlement in the Gods Strip. So a lot of pressure on the administration to do that at this point.
All right, Genie Shanzeno and Rick Davis, our signature political panel, Thank you so much for joining me. Of course, there are those ceasefire negotiations that are happening. They happened over the weekend in Paris, and those conversations are continuing, the Katari Prime Minister saying in the last hour that they're in a better place than they were a few weeks ago. Stick with me on Balance of Power on Bloomberg Television and Radio.
This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on APO car Play and then proudet with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
He tracked the money on this show as well as it relates to politics, including as it relates to former President Donald Trump, because talk about money.
We all know. On Friday he was.
Ordered to pay eighty three million billion dollars to Egene Carrol in damages to faming her, and then a separate civil fraud trial in New York in which we could get a verdict. This week he could be on the Hook to pay three hundred and seventy million dollars in what prosecutors say was a legal profit reaped by his Trump organization by lying to banks about his wealth to
get better terms on loan. So when you add all that together, three hundred and seventy million plus eighty three million, we're talking more than four hundred and fifty million dollars that he could be forced to pay. Maybe that's not that much for a billionaire, except that he's a billionaire on paper, not necessarily when it comes to liquid assets.
According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Indexed, he has about six hundred million dollars in cash, so more than four hundred and fifty million, and that would be a big chunk of it. Joining me next here on Balance of Power on both Bloomberg Television and radio to talk about this, I'm pleased to.
Say, is David Ehrenberg.
He is the attorney state attorney for Palm Beach County down in Florida.
Dave, great to say you here in our Washington studio.
If we just begin with the Egen Carroll case, this eighty three million dollars he was ordered to pay. He says he will appeal it. How long should we expect this process to take and is it likely that that dollar amount is going to move significantly lower?
Good to be with you, Kayley. First, I think it's going to take a while. It could take several months to get through the appeals. But as far as whether the.
Verdict is going to be dropped, I doubt it.
And that's because the big whammy here, the punitive damages were only about three and a half times.
A compensatory damages.
So a lot of times appelle courts will say it's way out of whack, let's reduce to punitives, but that's not the case here. Plus, if they want to dispute the evidence that was admitted into trial, well tough luck because Trump's overmatched attorney and Lena Habah did not object to a lot of the evidence, and so you wave your right to appeal it. So I think this verdict will stand. Just a question of when the money will flow to Eagen Carroll.
Well, and of course that's not the only money we have to consider here. As I mentioned, there also is potentially going to be a verdict coming down this week for his other civil trial in New York, the fraud trial. As it relates to the Trump organization. How do you how likely do you think it is that he'll actually be on the hook for more than three hundred million dollars in that case.
I think the sweet spot is probably around three hundred million.
Now.
Originally the Attorney General of New York was seeking up to two hundred and fifty million, and then she expanded it to three hundred and seventy million. So I think it's going to be around the amount between two fifty and three seventy And I think it's because the evidence has been really strong that Trump did inflate the value of his assets.
Plus he was allowed.
By the judge Judging Goron to issue broadsides against the court. He even was allowed to give his own partial closing argument without having to be subject or cross examination for it. And I think the reason why Judge and Gron did that is because he was set in the stage for a massive verdict in favor of the Attorney General and wanted to protect himself on appeal.
So that's why I think Trump got his day in court.
He got to lash out of the judge, but in the end, he's going to pay for it well.
And he may have many days in court still ahead, not just when it comes to potentially appeals in these cases, but he still is awaiting trial in criminal cases, four of them, it's been indicted on ninety one different fellow need charges across these for indictments. So just not even thinking about monetary damages he has to pay, but just legal fees to fight all of these different battles. I mean, how much do you think realistically he's racked.
Up here millions and millions, but he's able to convince gullible supporters to pay.
For some of his fees. Remember, he had this huge account to pay for the stop.
The steal, to fight the election fraud, but then he diverted a lot of that away. And I think you'll see the same thing here as people who donate to his packs, some of that money or most of it will go to his attorney's fees, and it will hit him in the end because he'll have to pay himself the money that goes to Egan Carroll, He'll have to pay himself the money that goes to the State of
New York in the civil fraud case. But as far as the expenses for his attorneys, as long as he's got these rabbit supporters who will pay the left last fifty bucks from their Social Security disabilities checked to a billionaire, he'll be able to pay his lawyers.
Well. Maybe one of the ways it helps to be actively campaigning for president of the United States is you're fighting legal battles. But of course there's also difficulty with fighting these legal battles while you're trying to campaign, especially if you're tied up in a courtroom during the primary process or onto the convention in the general election as well.
But a lot of that will come down to the timeline.
Realistically, we're still awaiting a decision on his argument that he should have immunity as a former president from prosecution in the case here in Washington where Jack Smith has brought charges against him related to efforts to overturn the twenty twenty election. Jack Smith would like that to go to trial on March fourth, but it can't until we have a conclusion to the immunity dispute while we wait for that to come down from the appeals court here in DC.
Why do you think this is taking so long?
You know, I thought this would be decided already. It's a kind of an obvious question. No, a president cannot send hitmen to go kill their political opponents. I mean, come on, right, But this court I think is taking on a bigger issue, the extent of presidential immunity beyond this case, perhaps does it apply to the outer layers of your power, your decision making, because right now the courts have said you've got civil immunity, but they haven't
really weighed in on the extent of criminal immunity. And that's where I think the court is working of decisions. This could tell me that you could have a concurring opinion perhaps by the lead judge, Judge Henderson, who was appointed by George H. W.
Bush. He may want to weigh in on this.
So that's why I'm thinking that this thing, it's a little troublesome because it's going to delay the trial in Washington, DC beyond that March fourth date. But the more complicated the decision will be, the more likely the Supreme Court steps in and that will lead to further delays.
So you think it makes it more likely if this is a broader reaching ruling that the Supreme Court takes it up then versus it's very narrow.
Yeah, I think they should just take the narrow question because the justice will be delayed and denied.
I think.
I think if this thing is pushed past the twenty twenty four election, it is Trump's best legal defense to delay this matter and then become president again and then call.
Off the dogs, drop it all.
So it's really imperative for the courts to weigh in and do it fast, because right now the court is supposed to have a trial march forward.
That's not going to happen. But the longer you wait, the.
Worse it is for the cause of justice to prove that no one is above the law.
Well, and you talk about how if this happens after the election, if he ultimately is elected, he theoretically could pardon himself. That's not true of state cases though, like in Georgia. But the difficulty there maybe the question of the district attorney who brought the charges against him and all of those other defendants. Fannie willis because of these allegations that essentially she has a romantic relationship with someone employed to work on the case who has made hundreds
of thousands of dollars. Dave, what do you make of that and how that case is likely to move forward with these questions hanging in the air of what exactly she's done here.
Kaylee, I admit it doesn't look good. This is my counterpart up there, Fani Willis, it doesn't look good. But the evidence is the evidence, and so this case will move forward whether or not she has to take the lead prosecutor off the case, or whether she's removed.
From the case herself.
The facts are still the facts here, and if there wasn't enough facts here to get to the jury, the judge would have already dismissed the case.
He hasn't.
We've already seen multiple defendants cut plea deals. That's because they've got a decent case here. But admittedly there looks to be something wrong there when you have this kind of relationship, But in the end, it's not a true conflict of interest because it's not like the prosecutor and the lead prosecutor are on separate sides. It's not like one's a prosecutor, one's a defense lawyer. They're both on
the same side here. So I think a lot of this is smoke, but you know, that's enough to get someone removed from the case.
But even being on the same side, does that really matter? If someone is reaping financial benefit from being on this case, being paid to work this case, is there not a conflict of interest argument.
To be made there, Well, he's getting paid like all the other prosecutors.
Now there are special prosecutors.
He's one of three on the case, so he's not the only one. He's been paid the most because he's build the most. I think to me, the thing that bothers me the most in all this is not the relationship, but it's the fact that he's been billing, for example, twenty four hours in a single day. Well, you know, maybe we're under a big law firm in your double billing. You know, you can get away with that, but when you're working for the government, you really shouldn't be doing that.
So it raises some questions in my mind.
Well, and of course, because this case has so many different defendants, we were expecting that this may be one that takes a really long time to actually actually get to trial. To go back to your point on the idea that this March fourth trial probably is not going to happen on that data could be delayed because of this question of immunity. Obviously, the document's case in your home state of Florida is another one to consider here.
Is it likely in your mind that any of these actually come to a conclusion before the election in November, or even before that the Republican convention in July.
Of the four cases, two of the four will definitely not be tried before the election. And that is the strongest case, which is the mar Lago Document's case in my neck of the woods. That is the best case for prosecutors that got him dead to rights. But with Judge Cannon, who's been slow walking this case, they're not
trying that case before the election. The other one is the one we just discussed Fannie Willis in Fulton County because it's a complex reco case with so many co defendants, and now with this controversy that's not happening before the election.
That leaves the Washington d C.
Election interference case, which is a strong case, and that case was built for speed by Jack Smith, only four counts, no other co defendants.
But we've got that issue of presidential community.
I still believe it will be decided before too long, and then it's game on in front of Judge Chuck and here in Washington, d C. And the fourth case is the one in New York, the one on the Stormy Daniels. Yeah, that one I think could go before the election as well. It's just not the strongest case.
All right.
Dave Ehrenberg, thank you so much, as always for joining us the state attorney for Palm Beach County.
We appreciate your time.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apples, Spotify
Or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every week day from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.