So how consequential is this knowing? It's unclear when if ever this is going to trial. So
absolutely, there's no trial date set yet. There's not even a hearing been set by Judge
Chutkan who is overseeing the case. But what we're getting here are new details that give us
a flavor of how Jack Smith would argue the case when it goes to trial if and when it goes
to trial. And some of the most interesting details in this filing to do with Trump's
interactions with former Vice President, Mike Pence. And there are a lot of raised eyebrows
and even attacks by Trump's lawyers. When Jack Smith, the special counsel refiled this
indictment and left all the interactions with Pence in there. Why, you know, the Supreme
Court had ruled that anything that had to do with Trump's official line of duty was not
allowable in this case. He's got immunity for that. So Jack Smith is arguing that actually
these interactions with Pence were as two running mates on the same ticket, not as
official, you know, President and vice president. And therefore they are allowable if
this case goes to trial. A lot of people said the same thing when this hit today. Timing
shades of James Comey, less than five weeks out from an election. This is unsealed. How
come? Well, I mean, this is part of the case getting started again after the Supreme Court
handed it back to the lower court. There's no, you know, there's nothing official that's going
to actually be decided here and the judge is setting her schedule. The filing
also talks a lot about Trump's interactions with state election officials. And
in that case, Smith is arguing that the president has no official role in how the state
certified their election. So again, all of those conversations amounted to private
activities. Can we the redactions as well? I noticed redactions in some parts that were the
name eliminated but in parentheses, a description of that person's title like vice
president's chief of staff. Why is any of this redacted at all? Sarah? Well, that's, in fact,
that's a very good question. I mean, the reductions were minimal and as you said, sort
of questionable because it was clear who they're referring to. You don't need a decoder
ring to figure out who we're talking about here. Although you certainly need a lot of time
to work through it all. If you choose to read the whole thing. 165 pages long, 80 pages of
evidence. Yes, it's pretty substantive. We have, by the way, heard from the Trump campaign.
Yes, the spokesperson for the campaign calling this a witch hunt, which you would expect to
see and calling into question the activities of the special counsel suggesting that he was
jumping the gun with an official special counsel report. Will we hear back from Jack
Smith on that? Well, it's not likely at this point, it will go back to the Trump team and
then the government will be able to have a rebuttal before the end of October. So there
will be more filings all before the election. Amazing. We'll of course, be talking to Sarah
Ford and about it right here. Thank you Sara for being with us as the news breaks today in
Washington this afternoon, Vice President Kamala Harris stopping by Georgia on a visit to
tour some of the damaged areas from hurricane Helene. She and President Biden also on the
road today. He was in the Carolinas the trip including stops across multiple states. And as
I just mentioned, Carolina is Georgia two important swing states. We're now joined by
Bloomberg's Saleh Mosen for more on the political optics here against the backdrop of a
natural disaster sale. These are very delicate moments but can be opportunities for a campaign.
They're going to continue to travel like this tomorrow. Having already seen Donald Trump in
Georgia. How are they doing on the tour? You're right, delicate is the right word for
this, Joe because you don't want neither Kamala Harris or Donald Trump want to look
opportunistic at the same time, a former president and the sitting vice president, both
who are running for a term, they should be present in North Carolina. I mean, this is an
important region as well, but also bring a spotlight to the area, could unlock funding for
them on the state level, federal level, etcetera and get people's attention on this. I
think we're going to be seeing a lot of each candidate trying to go on the offense and kind
of own that story. Well, we've heard from each of them respectively. Harris announcing 100%
federal cost share for Georgia's aid that's needed while Biden will do the same for North
Carolina. Of course, this is not the only thing we heard from Joe Biden about today when
he was talking about a natural disaster. He also was warning of man made disaster today in
reference to the ongoing dock workers strike that of course began yesterday telling
reporters he'd like to see an agreement as soon as possible.
This natural disaster is incredibly consequential. The last thing we need on top of
that is a manmade disaster. What's going on at the ports? We're getting pushed back already
and we're hearing from the folks recently that they're having trouble getting the product they
need because of the port strike. So obviously, this is a difficult line for this
administration to walk sale. You want to be pro union, you want to be on the side of
collective bargaining, collective bargaining and organized labor. But also if you're warning
about manmade disaster, knowing this could bring severe economic consequences, how long
before push comes to shove? And the administration has to change its tune. Well,
Biden has so far said he's not going to intervene, but we could very well here in a
couple of days in a week that he's already intervened, he comes out to say, ok, I, I made
a phone call. This is an interesting moment though because just published a story last week
that I wrote about how a Harris presidency, a potential presidency may very likely be more
pro business than Biden was. Biden, really vilified business executives, corporations. And
this is a moment where like you're saying, he's walking this very careful line between
wanting to vilify again that the companies that are involved in this and raising prices
and how it's affecting union workers. But may if he had better ties to corporations,
he had a back channel to intervene through as opposed to Taft Hartley taking extreme
action which he says he will not do. Kamala Harris has found some nuanced areas of sunlight
between herself and Joe Biden since she's been at the top of the ticket. How about walk the
picket line while the president's working this out? Oh, I mean, you're right. She has found
these, these little areas to exploit and to kind of cast herself a little bit differently
from the Biden Harris administration to just the Harris Walsh campaign. I don't know. Let's
see if she, if she's able to pull that off, we'll see what happens over the next couple of
days. All right, Bloomberg sale and thank you so much for joining us. Now, President Biden
also today joined a call with other G7 leaders to discuss the allies response to Iran's
missile strike against Israel. Yesterday. He spoke with reporters earlier about those
discussions. Obviously, Iran has gone way out of, I mean, has way
off board. We'll be discussing with the Israelis what they're gonna do, but they all
seven of us agree that they have a right to respond to this response. Of course,
for more, we're joined now by Bloomberg's Courtney mcbride. Courtney, do we have an
understanding of what this administration thinks a proportionate response is knowing
Biden was also asked if he supported Israel hitting Iran's nuclear sites. And he said, no,
well, we don't have a clear understanding of what would be acceptable, but we know that the
nuclear sites and potentially some oil and gas infrastructure could precipitate another
Iranian response and trigger another cycle of escalating violence, which is exactly what the
Biden administration is trying to head off. So it sounds like that might be a bridge too far
for the White House and maybe for Israel nuclear sites are one thing, energy
infrastructure is off the table then Courtney, well, they haven't said that it's off the table
but I think the key really seems to be from the US perspective, calibrating a response that
they expect to come militarily from Israel, but making sure that it is the type of response
that is itself the end of this round of hostilities. And that doesn't precipitate a
tit for tat if you will. Well, tit for tat is something we've been hearing a lot about
Courtney. We also know that the US has been preemptively sending more assets and troops to
the Middle East. They were involved, of course , defensively yesterday, as we've talked about,
do we have an understanding of whether more assets are going to be deployed or they are
keeping positioning on the US part steady for now until they figure out how much tat is
titted back. I mean, at this stage, the US forces, you know, as you said, played a role
in the response to the Iranian attack in defending and intercepting some of those
incoming missiles. But at this stage, it seems to be status quo and really those us assets are
there as a deterrent against further Iranian action. So Courtney, what's the next move for
the administration? We've seen 10 visits by Anthony Blinken. We know almost Hochstein has
been deeply involved, apparently not very successfully in preventing this incursion into
Lebanon. Is the CIA director still engaged or are we just waiting like everyone else to see
what happens next? Well, I mean, the continuing message from us officials is that
all of those talks are ongoing. You know, you referenced CIA Director Bill burns' efforts to
secure a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas. All of
those efforts continue. But obviously, they have become a bit more complicated, perhaps a
bit more difficult with the events of the last week or so.