Balance of PowerWatch Joe and Kailey LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
Bloomberg Washington Correspondents Joe Mathieu and Kailey Leinz deliver insight and analysis on the latest headlines from the White House and Capitol Hill, including conversations with influential lawmakers and key figures in politics and policy.
On this edition, Joe speaks with:
Kelly Grieco, Senior Fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center, on the future of Ukraine.
Frank Luntz, Founder and CEO of FIL Inc and Political Strategist, on whether America is more divided now.
Barbara Perry, Director of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, on Inauguration lookahead and Jan. 6th.
Robert McWhirter, Criminal Defense Attorney, on Trump legal update and end of year reflections.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Emo CarPlay and then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We had the voice of Kelly Grico with the questions that Tyler is presenting. We seek answers with the senior fellow for the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center. Kelly, it's great to have you back with us from your perch as a military strategist and knowing what we have already seen, of course take place in Ukraine. How impactful will this package be, if at all?
Chris, thank you for having me in. Happy New Year.
You know this is an expected aid package. It's an attempt by the Biden administration to send as much aid as possible for the next administration comes in.
I think the impact it will have is more.
About trying to sustain current Ukrainian operations, and that will be helpful to some extent because we're hearing increasingly stories about artillery shortage.
In particular, But it won't do much.
Ukraine is in a very difficult spot right now and is essentially slowly losing this war.
I spoke recently with Melinda Herring at the Atlantic Council on the prospect of buying different gear, and this came off of a question I was asking Melinda about a post that Elon Musk had made suggesting we need to be investing more in unmanned technology drones. This, of course, this conflict in Ukraine has reinvented the drone on a military level. Here's what Melinda Herring had to say about our purchasing requirements going forward.
Once the war Ukraine is over, Ukraine is going to be the leading player around the world with naval drones, long range drones and joe. They have huge capacity. That's another story that's not getting enough play. So the Ukrainians in the last year have maxed up their drone capacity internally in Ukraine, and they could increase it by a two thirds factor if they had more money.
What do you make of that, Kelly Griico, the use of drones. Should we have been sending drones instead of other things like tanks in F sixteen's this whole time?
Well, I think the issue is we actually don't really have the drones descend, as particularly the kinds of drones that Ukraine's using, these smaller quad copters, these racing drones, and even some of these long range drones. At the price points and the way that Ukraine's using them, we just don't have those. Believe it or not, China leads this market. Most of the commercial drones on the market, if you were to go to Amazon and try to buy one, are made by a company called Dji.
It's a Chinese company, So we don't have it descend.
And this is actually an area where we are really behind China and is a national security concern. So I think we've been giving things that play to our strengths.
In terms of Ukraine.
I don't think the.
F sixteen's was a wise discuss decision, as we've discussed, but things like artillery anti tank weapons have been very helpful.
I know you've had a very honest take on some of these programs, from the F sixteens to the Abrams tanks. So let's talk a bit about what's about to happen. Donald Trump says he can solve this war.
On day one.
We've seen a calcifying of lines in some areas. Some of Bloomberg's reporting would suggest that Russia is about to kick Ukraine out of the Kursk region. Who's got the stronger hand at the negotiating table.
Clearly Russia has a stronger hand. As you suggested.
They're pushing the Ukrainians in the Curse region. They've captured about forty percent of the territory that Ukraine took after August, and they're really pushing on don Boss. That's where I'm very concerned is the don Bos region in particular. There's a major city in the center of Doma's region that's a major logisticals hub and they're surrounding that and it's likely to fall. And we're seeing in all areas that they're really just pushing that front and Dawn Boss. So it's slowly but surely. You know, they're taking territory. It's very costly, but they're slowly winning this war. And so the Russians know that, and I think that they're going to play a very hard game in terms of any kinds of negotiations.
I don't think we can end it in twenty four hours.
I think we're likely there's a good chance we'll see a ceasefire this year, but not a real peace deal.
Fascinating, so that could take more time. With that said, are the lines in place now the lines that we'll be drawn in a peace deal?
Yeah, I think that's you know, we've seen indications that that's probably going to be the case. Vice President Vance gave an interview in the fall where he suggested essentially a frozen conflict, freezing the territorial gains where they are.
I think both sides recognize that.
I think that's why, in particular, Russians are really pushing in the Dawnbass, even overcursed and recapturing Russian territory, They're prioritizing Ukrainian territory to try to gain as much territory as they can before that freeze happens.
I want to ask you, Kelly Grico a little bit more about the DIB as Tyler Kendall was just reporting the defense industrial base that was a big part of the debate here right Getting this money cleared was a big reminder for some Republicans who had an allergy to sending more money to Ukraine that most of that cash was going to stay right here in the US. To go to American based defense contractors. But you just reminded us again of what we don't have. And in some cases it's not just drones, it's old fashioned stuff like shells, mortar rounds.
What progress did.
This Congress make in fixing that along with our defense partners.
I don't think we made very much progress at all on these issues. You know, there are a couple issues here.
One is that if you look at the budget consistently, we talk about munitions, the fact that we need munitions, especially long range missiles, but each of the services tends to cut the missiles in their budget and prioritize sort of the flashier, big spending programs, and so that's just an easy place where every year it gets cut, and so that's not helping in order to putting these kinds of purchases with companies so they actually build these missiles we need. And the other area I would just say is in terms of Ukraine, is that the kind of systems that are needed to fight a land war in Europe are very different from what's needed, for example, in the Endo Pacific, where it's primarily an air and maritime environment. So even if we are making more artillery for example, now, which is the case, it's not going to be all that useful probably if there's an Indo Pacific conflict.
So we really need to.
Think about where the defense industrial base needs to be scaled up and how to do that.
That's a big conversation.
I don't know if you see this administration getting closer to the mark on that, whether it's working with the Raytheons, or the lock keys, or or general dynamics of the world.
What do you think.
Is that a different story under a Trump administration than Biden.
I think it is, and I'd say I'm actually a little optimistic about this because one of the things we've seen is not for the big primes, the companies you mentioned, I don't know how well they'll fare under the Trump administration, but there are a lot of Silicon Valley people that are backing the Trump administration. We've seen some of the recent appointments to DoD leadership positions are being given to tech investors defense industry executives, and so I think some of these newer startup defense techs are going to probably see a bigger role and access to actually more of the budget, and I think that would actually be a very good thing. For the reasons must emphasize, particularly that we need more drones and uncrewed systems in the US military, and these are the kinds of firms that can develop that and develop it quickly for the United States.
It's a really important point.
As we spend some time with Kelly Grico on the prospect for a peace deal in UCA, Bloomberg News sat down with Anthony Blinkin. Kelly, my colleague David Goura asked him about motivations at the bargaining table. Here is what we heard from the Secretary of State. This is just a couple of days ago on Bloomberg.
In his mind is the recreation of a greater Russia. And you don't have to believe me, just read what he said.
He's been very clear about it. He's failed in Ukraine.
That proposition that he could erase Ukraine from the map subsume it into Russia has failed. And that's a result of the incredible courage of Ukrainian people, but it's also a result of the dozens of countries that we rallied in defense of Ukraine.
Kelly, I won't ask you about the prospect of peace again but you're a military expert, a military analyst, and I wonder if that is in fact his goal, the recreation of a greater Russia, what that means for Russia as a military presence and a superpower in the world.
Yes.
I mean, it's clear that there's a notion here of some kind of greater Russia, or at least increase seeing Russian influence in its traditional neighborhood. And there's particular sensitivities around Ukraine, in part because it's the natural invasion pathway into Russia going back to the time of Napoleon. And so I think there is some truth to that, and I think the fact that Blincoln is right that he has failed in his goal in terms of taking Ukraine and bringing it into the Russian orbit, that is clearly failed. My criticism, though, of the to Blincoln and the Biden administration is that it endorsed Ukraine's maximalist aims in this war of taking back every inch of territory and returning to its nineteen ninety one borders, when that was never a realistic option. I wish they had been sending that message a lot more, that this was actually a victory for Ukraine.
And actually not falling in four days.
And perhaps if they had really gone more in that direction and been a little bit more realistic about expectations of what could be achieved, Ukraine today would actually be in a better position to negotiate a piece.
We're out of time in one minute, Kelly. Is all the money gone in this Congress for Ukraine?
Yeah? I mean most I would say it's gone. And the question is will we ever see another bill like that? I am not particularly optimistic.
I didn't think you would be.
She's senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grant Strategy program at the Stibson Center. Kelly Greco, Thank you so much, Kelly for a smart year of analysis here on Bloomberg. We really do appreciate your take, be as we learned something whenever we talk to Kelly Grico about, of course, one of the most pivotal stories of twenty twenty four.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Oro with a Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
This is our New Year's broadcast New Year's Eve. I guess we're not going to be here tomorrow, so this is the last hour we're going to spend together at the end of a wild year in politics. Think of what we've gone through since the beginning of the year. From Des Moines, where we were packing our bags about a year ago, right now, to Manchester Super Tuesday, the Early States, Butler, Pennsylvania, Milwaukee, Joe Biden drops out of the race. We're in Chicago straight through an election that turned so many expectations on their heads. And of course it happened in a year in which we watched the Speaker of the House dispatched, fired by members of his own conference, and so much division that followed. When our great producers asked me, who would you like to talk with on the last show of the year, we didn't have to think very hard about it, I said Frank Frank Luntz, founder CEO fil Inc. Political strategist. I'm supposed to say celebrity polster too, right, Frank.
It's great to see you.
I hope the holiday season is going well for you. Happy New Year in advance, with everything that I just said. Is our nation or less divided now than it was at the beginning of the year.
Well, here's what's interesting. And you and I spend an afternoon in the freezing cold of Des Moines, Iowa. Your set was only one block from my hotel, and I almost didn't make it. And now we end the year so still so angry, with half of America in disbelief and the other half celebrating looking ahead to twenty twenty twenty five as being the best year ever. Are we divided? Yes? Are we polarized? Yes? Is there pressure to bring us together? Not really. Now that said, let me give you three findings over the last few days. Number one is that Donald Trump's popularities favorability is higher now than it was when he became president back in twenty seventeen. Number two, there are groups within the electorate, particularly Latinos, younger men, union members, who are considering voting Republican more so now than they ever have in modern times. And number three, the Democrats are divided as to what to do, how to move forward, And the only advice I can give them as we end this year is this idea being the resistance is not what America wants, even those that did not vote for Donald Trump, don't want resistance. What they want is an alternative vision, an alternative approach, And everyone across America watching right now want results, results that they can count on, results that are both meaningful and measurable. That's what the American people are asking for.
Well, so then would it be a misstep for Democrats to not help elective Speaker of the House on Friday, knowing that Mike Johnson has four votes to play with Frank.
Well Hakeem Jefferies is one of the best communicators in America today, and he has the ability to reach across the aisle. Whether he chooses to, it's probably The answer is probably no, because he has a different point of view than the Republicans, and it's not the job of the Democrats to help the Republicans. That said, it would be a shock and two tens of millions of Americans a disappointment if the Republican Party, after waiting this long to have a president, a Senate, and a House, end up tearing themselves apart. The American people want you to stand up for your convictions. They don't want you to give up on your beliefs. But they even more so want to get things done on immigration, They want to solve the border, on prices, they want to do policies that affect affordability, and they're just tired of this yelling and screaming in Washington, DC. That's the message that they need to take home.
This New Year's even Well, so are we going to find a Republican conference that is united on Friday? Where of course, that's the intrigue right now is whether we're going to have multiple rounds. Maybe Mike Johnson can't survive the Tom Massey's or Chiff Roy's of the world, depending on how they end up voting. Or is there some real discord inside this Republican party despite the mandate that Donald Trump talks about.
There is discord. And when your majorities are barely over a minority, you have nothing, You have no give. And the fact is that the public does support most of the Republican positions. But mark my words, you can play this tape again December thirty first, twenty twenty five. If they do not solve the border issue, if they do not bring down and permanently address affordability, and if they continue to fight among each other rather than get stuff done. The public will punish them on the reverse or on the contrary, if they do solve these challenges, you can see a Republican majority for years to come.
Producers are pulling that cut right now, Frank, to play back a year from now, when you consider what we're left with here at the end of this year. I can't talk to Frank Lunz without getting philosophical. I just walked through a couple of pretty wild stages that we all experienced in the world of politics this year. They included two attempted assassinations, of course, a lot of arguing, Frank, and a lot of uncertainty as we went into this election.
What is the electorate left with? How do we feel?
Where are the bruises and the wounds that could be exposed in the new year.
We have a look, okay, I'm going to just make everything worse. So if you want to be excited and optimistic, you need to. I don't want to tell them when to turn off their TV or their radio, but this is not going to go well for you. We have a lower degree of trust and confidence in our institutions than at any time in forty years. We do not believe we're being told the truth by the media, by journalists, by the politicians, and the various elites in America. And finally, we are the belief that the country is seriously off on the wrong track. Although those numbers have begun to change in the last two months. If you, I've been doing this now for over thirty five years and have not seen a time of more anger and division. But what concerns me the most is two data points. A third of America don't believe that they are invested in the future of the country, and two thirds of America believe that their country is not invested in their own future. That is horrific. We need to address that, not just for right now, but for the long term, because in the end, our economic success depends on it. Our political our democratic institutions depend on trust and confidence. We have to get to the truth, and we have to do so now because we've done so much damage to our politics and to our faith and confidence in the future. It's time to turn that around.
Well, let's talk about who's invested in America, Because, as we've discussed, Frank, you spend a lot of time at West Point, and you've conducted some fascinating conversations with the cadets.
They are focused groups that we can learn a lot from.
You just had one recently that I had a chance to watch and it was inspiring, and you asked the cadets in the room, tell me what you love about America. Here's a sample of what frank her.
Tell me what you love about this country?
The values that we are a country build on values. We all hear officers and the cadets swhere knows to the Constitution that not to a president, not to a leader, and that the standard in America, because we're based on values, is set so high that we're striving towards more profession.
So you just mentioned the Constitution.
This is the single greatest misconception I think Americans have is that they don't realize that that's where your oath is. What does the Constitution mean to you?
America?
The Constitution means America because the Constitution is the soul of America.
That's what it is.
When the Constitution and its ideas were first written over two hundred years ago, it was an experiment. It was an idea. They didn't know it was going to work. Just like with the revolution. They had no idea if it was going to work or not, but they had the dream and they had the hope. And for me, that inspires my dreams and my hopes.
Our future leaders.
Talking with Frank Lunz at West Point, Frank Short of our listeners and viewers all in listening in the military on this New Year's Eve?
What should they learn from this?
That there was a group of young people and I swaw, I was not gonna be get emotional because it's the end of the year. I want you to have me back. But they inspire me, and they should inspire the country. Service with character and sacrifice, a commitment to the Constitution, not partisanship, not politics, but the most important document in global history. These cadets work harder, train harder, and make a greater effort for the country. And they do so because they love their country, and they will protect each other and they protect us. And Thet'll give you one phrase the Army Navy game. I wasn't too happy about the outcome this year, but this is the only game that is played for the people on the field. Commit to defend everyone in the stands and everyone watching. The people in the field will give their lives for the people watching. That's west point. That is what makes America great. And thank God and God bless these cadets because they were the last of.
Them and you can bring this to us, Frank.
They are indeed, and this is why we wanted to talk with Frank Luntz on our final show of twenty twenty four.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live week days at News on Emo, CarPlay, and then Rouno with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts. Watch us live on YouTube.
At this important moment in time.
Indeed, next month is going to be something We're going to witness a lot of important moments together. Barbara Perry is no stranger to them, director of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
She's with us now. Barbara, it's great.
To see you before we get into the throes of January here. I would love to get your take on that remarkable moment that we will witness a presidential funeral, Jimmy Carter's funeral with Joe Biden, his friend, the first man in the Capitol to endorse him for president delivering the eulogy.
How fitting in your view.
Very fitting, And I guess it does show the cycles of history and how one element so many years ago, so many decades ago, Joe Biden. And as he said in his remarks most recently after the president passed, he said, I told Governor Jimmy Carter that it wasn't going to really matter if I supported him, because I was so new to the Senate at that time. But I just think that it ties those two men together in the old school of politics, although Jimmy Carter was the fresh new view and voice of politics in nineteen seventy six, and so was Joe Biden, and so that the two should intersect at this moment, and right before another historic moment of only the second president to be inaugurated for a non consecutive second term. For those of us who study history and presidential history, it's a real moment.
To reflect well, and from the history repeats itself.
File the idea that there would not have been a Ronald Reagan without Jimmy Carter, similar to the idea there would not have been a Donald.
Trump without Joe Biden.
But of course Barbara there wouldn't been aj o'biden without Donald Trump. Won't that be going through your mind when you watch them both on the West front of the Capitol on January twentieth.
It will.
Joe and I love to play out those what ifs. One little movement in history can reshape the world. I think it was Archimedes said, you know, give me a lever and a spot of the globe, and I can move the globe. And that's what This little series of steps or missteps in fact, can cause a change in history. I've also been thinking about the fact that Jimmy Carter was unlucky enough not to have one appointment to the US Supreme Court in his four years as president, one of only four presidents who fall into that unfortunate category as far as they're concerned. But he did name Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Court of Appeals in Washington, d c. Which is most people know as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. So in some ways, Jimmy Carter is responsible for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and for those people who support her and what she did. You can say that's a good thing, but you could also say that what if if she hadn't been there and therefore stayed on the court, and therefore cause Donald Trump in a way to take over the court. All sorts of different decisions would be coming down from the court. Perhaps so great, what if games? It's a parlor game for New Year's Eve?
As an historian, Barbara, what do you make of the fact that there is so little talk right now about January sixth. Denver Wriggleman, the former congressman, who was, of course an advisor of the January sixth Committee.
Was on the program yesterday.
He said that goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Nobody wants to remember it, nobody wants to relive it. And we're about to have the certification of the vote next week. How should we be looking at this for the first time, well since the riot.
First of all, former Congressman Rigelman was my congressman in the fifth District of Virginia, Charlottesville, where I'm based, although I'm in Louisville, Kentucky today. But you know, I actually don't agree with him on that. I think it would be as if we would say, you know, no one talks about the Civil War anymore. Let's just put that behind us. You know, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Now.
I'm not arguing that we will this January sixth, but I don't think we should ever forget what happened that day. But it appears that seventy plus million Americans decided to put that behind them and vote for Donald Trump.
Well, so is that just the process of compartmentalizing or did half the country think that it was in fact a tourist joint through the Capitol.
I don't think half the country thought that. A major portion did perhaps that third or now maybe a slightly larger proportion of people say Donald Trump can do no wrong and did think it was just a nice tourist trip through the capital. But I think the other proportion of people who voted for him decided that that was something they could put behind them and that it didn't bother them enough not to vote for Donald Trump.
It's really remarkable when you consider the national dialogue from four you years ago as we now walk into the next January sixth, Barbara, Donald Trump will address the nation on that day on the twentieth, from the West front of the Capitol.
What will he say, Oh, if I were only a soothsayer, I could make a killing in predicting.
We remember a pretty dystopian speech on his first inauguration.
Is that the trumpet.
I've given up predicting Donald Trump. I suspect a lot of that inaugural address will be formed by Elon Musk, and so, you know, elements related to defense, elements related to America First, elements related to the common people. I think he'll be reaching out to them and saying that he's going to lower inflation and make America great again. And that's I think the theme that he will propound, but maybe it'll be in a slightly more positive vein than in twenty seventeen.
I think he goes into the White House and pardons the January sixth offenders.
On that same day.
I do, I do.
Yeah, he said that that's what he's going to do that I certainly believe that that's one of the truths that he has been propounding and that he'll make good on it.
So it's already in the water.
I guess people won't be surprised, But how will that play nationally? Having seen the reaction that we did, for instance, to Joe Biden pardoning his son Hunter.
No, it's sort of less personal. I guess you would say for Donald Trump, and that these people aren't by kin or blood related to him, so it's it won't have that same impact. But on the also, the seventy plus million people who voted for Kamala Harris, and I presume many of those were very upset over what happened in the insurrection of January sixth of twenty twenty one. It will be shocking to think that those who so not only disrupted a constant tutional process but also attempted to tear down the very sacred precincts of our government and our politics. It'll be a sad day for them.
Well, we're about to see a new construct, if I can use that word, in this administration, and I picture Barbara Perry writing new chapters here on what it is to be the executive in this country. When you've got the doge on one side, the Elon musk a Vegu Ramaswami experiment that is not actually a governmental department, and a series of czars who are going to be setting policy above and a side, I guess the actual cabinet officials who are confirmed by lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Is Donald Trump about to reinvent the presidency?
I think so, And you spoke of a chapter that I could write. I did write a chapter in twenty seventeen and eighteen that's in a book that is called The Presidency and the Constitutional Crossroads that we believed at the Miller Center that we faced when Donald Trump was first elected. And I think he's made, if you think of a crossroads analogy, I think he's made a complete turn in our presidency as an office, but also in our constitutional construct that the founding fathers created, our system of checks and balances and balance of power, if I may use that term, of three branches of government that were meant to be more or less equal and that would check and balance each other. This concept of a unitary president, which is seemingly all powerful under Donald Trump, will utterly upturn and upset and overturn. I think the Framers and their intentions to prevent what they had fought against in the revolution against the King of England, and that was concentrated power. So that would be the epilogue to that chapter, in the start of a new chapter for me to write, what.
Does that mean if you're s in Congress.
If you're the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, or you're the Leader of the Senate John Thune, that means you don't have the power you thought you had.
Barbara Well, we saw, for example, just recently, and you mentioned this in the previous segment about the budget negotiations just before Christmas.
That there were members of Congress who stood up to the president and to Elon Musk, and they were members of the president's own party, those thirty eight Republicans who said, no, I ran on budget. It was discipline. So I'm not going to vote to raise the dead limit. So there will still be some people who will try to hold the line in Congress. And I'm not arguing that everything Donald Trump would put before it would get through. But you also have mentioned the pardon power, which is his sole power, executive order power, which is the president's sole power. So it's a bit worrisome for those of us to support the constitution and those balances of power and Jeckson balances.
Well, let's get you back in twenty twenty five to talk about it, because it looks like, based on this calendar, the news is going to be fast and furious Barbara, it's been a wonderful year comparing notes with you and appreciate all of your insights in.
Twenty twenty four.
Barbara Perry, Director Presidential Studies, the University of Virginius Miller Center, thank you so much for being with us here on Bloomberg TV and radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enron Oo 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.
I want to bring in the voice of Robert mcwherterour in our closing conversation here on the broadcast, because we spent so much time with Robert this year talking about the legal travails of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. By way of Hunter Biden, he is a criminal defense attorney who could be a political analyst, I think in anyone's book, Robert. It's great to see you. Welcome. There's actually a headline on Donald Trump's legal saga right now, the Federal Appeals Court upholding e Gen Carroll's five million dollars civil judgment against the president elect.
They wanted a new trial to see out of the woods.
Believe he still in the woods on that. I'm not sure when he will be sentenced on that. But the federal issues that he tried to raise going to the Second Circuit Court of.
Appeals were very, very weak.
And this is still a state case, and the federal Court of Appeals just wasn't going to wait in and help him from himself in this situation. So that's pretty much there, and I don't think the Supremes are going to take this one either.
Well, you and I.
Talked about a lot of cases, Robert, there were four specifically, I believe. Of course, we had the bragcase in New York. We went through the Jack Smith cases, if I can call them that. At this point, we had Georgia the document. It's January sixth. My god, here we are, a couple of weeks before the inauguration of Donald Trump.
Doesn't have a mark on him.
After all of that, did the media just get over as skis on Donald Trump's legal woes?
Well, I think it gets a little complicated. That keeps them all straight.
Look, the bottom line is him becoming the president elect, and he's going to take office of course, on January eighteenth. Really kind of puts a wrench in going forward with the cases.
At least four.
Now it's very hard to maintain a prosecution against the sitting president.
Although not impossible.
Remember back in the civil case of Paula Jones versus Clinton, the US Supreme Court said that that case could go forward, and that's a civil case. Presumably criminal case is more important and more public import so they presumably could go forward. But I think what's going to happen is everyone's just going to put a hold on this. Jack Smith is gone ahead and resigned because he wasn't going to give Donald Trump the satisfaction of.
Firing him, and everything goes on hold.
Donald Trump is out of office, either at the end of his term or if Donald Trump is impeached again and then convicted in the Senate, all these cases come back for him to face.
Okay, what does that look like?
Though, So we freeze everything in our game of musical chairs here on January twentieth. Which of these cases, how would they be pursued? Would you need a new special council, for instance, to go after Donald Trump on the documents.
Case, well probably would, and also the January sixth case, so the election interference with the federal election interference case, now the New York hush money case. What the judge could do is impose a sentence and then suspend imposition or when he starts to serve the sentence for after his presidency or when he's no longer president. So he could impose a sentence of let's say what six months or whatever, or it could impose a fine and just suspend imposition of it. So the sentence just sits there, and it waits until Donald Trump is amendable to actually serve in the sentence. And that's the New York case. Presumably the same thing could happen in Georgia. See Donald Trump has no control over those two. Now with the federal cases, this raises this specter of can Donald Trump pardon himself? Which I think is an utterly absurd reading of the pardon power. I mean, if you, I mean, I don't know, if you're having an argument with your significant other, decide to pardon yourself.
I'm not sure how far that's going to go. I mean, that's just going to be a problem.
Right.
So the pardon is something you do for somebody else, it's not something you give yourself. But if he wants to push that, it's hard to see what mechanism could challenge it. My guess is Jack Smith, being the careful lawyer that he is, has probably wrapped all of this up in a bow and a package for somebody else to pick up at a later date.
Yeah, I don't think my wife would go for that. Robert I might try it to find out. But in a couple of minutes we have left here. Let's talk about the pardons, not just the idea of Donald Trump partning himself, but what January sixth rioters, who else are we going to hear from when.
He moves back into the White House.
Well, he could do that.
I think you're going to look for possible pardons of Peter Navarro and Stone, and he'd already commuted the sense of Stone. Anybody who's connected with him in his ambit, he's going to think that he should pardon, you know, and that would be really absurd. I mean, these are clear cases of criminal contempt of Congress with the action of Peter Navarro. But if you're Trump's friend, that's all that really matters, and if you join in the kind of Trump littany about the twenty twenty election, you somehow are beyond reproach.
So that's what could happen that January sixth.
Pardons are very interesting. There is a historical president for that. The first use of the pardon power was George Washington with Shay's rebellion. And this was a protest, although they did not directly lee democracy itself, but it was a protest and it was put down and in a way to kind of quell domestic insurrection and the kitchena problems.
Washington exercide the parton power, which, by the way, as Alexander.
Hamilton wrote in Federals seventy four, that is the use of the pardon power to get people past things.
And go on right republic.
So Donald could make that argument.
The trouble is, unlike with George Washington, these are all Donald Trump's people, and he probably incited this riot and could be criminally prosecuted himself, which you could never say that about George Washington.
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.
