Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jailely.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. Of course,
Speaker 1: we can rip up the script with Brian Levet of
Speaker 1: Oppenheimer Funds. I mean, see if a one oh one
Speaker 1: rates start going up and every CFO says to the CEO,
Speaker 1: let's get going. I mean that's what happens, right. So
Speaker 1: rates are going up, but you also have companies with
Speaker 1: a lot of access to cash given the new changes
Speaker 1: in the tax policy, given a prolonged period of economic activity,
Speaker 1: so businesses are utilizing that cash. I think the bigger
Speaker 1: question for investors, when you think about it from a
Speaker 1: broad odd investment strategy, is whether or not this leads
Speaker 1: to new, higher sustained levels of growth in the United States. Uh.
Speaker 1: I'm somewhat skeptical. So while you might see some steepening
Speaker 1: in the yield curve and a rotation as we've seen
Speaker 1: a little bit to the more value oriented stocks, I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's gonna be prolonged. I think ultimately
Speaker 1: the US will slow within this environment, and um, we'll
Speaker 1: go back to the environment of flatter yield curve, more
Speaker 1: growth oriented names out performing well. Brian. If you believe
Speaker 1: that that's the case, where should you put your money?
Speaker 1: Should you be looking to Europe for example? I mean
Speaker 1: European stocks have been languishing the last couple of months.
Speaker 1: I suppose it depends on the time horizon. I mean,
Speaker 1: we probably have a last leg of US strengthen here
Speaker 1: in US dollar support and here. You know, ultimately, if
Speaker 1: you're looking over a five to seven year time period,
Speaker 1: you should consider that US equity returns are likely to
Speaker 1: be more modest than they are outside of the United States.
Speaker 1: And I know a lot of investors after a prolonged
Speaker 1: period of US out performance are gonna have a hard
Speaker 1: time reasoning what qualifies as modest. Because we've got the
Speaker 1: SMP up nine and a half percent this year. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's been a prolonged period of US you and that's
Speaker 1: not bad. Half ten percent? No, No, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think you're a hero. I think I think US equities
Speaker 1: over the next five to seven years probably returned something
Speaker 1: more like five percent rather than the eight percent average
Speaker 1: that investors have expected. You're likely to do better outside
Speaker 1: the United States, simply given where valuations are and where
Speaker 1: growth is likely to take. I think this is to me, folks,
Speaker 1: one of the arch decisions of Q four and and
Speaker 1: into two thousand nineteen. And I understand, you know the
Speaker 1: international it's a different feel. But Brian, we've all got
Speaker 1: to admit how humbling it's been that the single digit
Speaker 1: crowd has been so wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, for
Speaker 1: pushing ten years. We're only going to grow five or
Speaker 1: six percent. Maybe we'll get well as long as people
Speaker 1: have that kind of can't you be a contrarian and
Speaker 1: trade against that? Well you could. I mean, we we've
Speaker 1: we've been of the mind that this is the longest
Speaker 1: this was gonna be the longest cycle on record. Investors
Speaker 1: needs to own equities, um, and we were not of
Speaker 1: the view that this was going to be a prolonged
Speaker 1: period of modest returns in the United States. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is secular bull market that started at very low
Speaker 1: valuations and a zero interest rate. Where you are now
Speaker 1: or valuations are higher. I don't think they're excessive, this
Speaker 1: is not. But valuations are higher and the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: is raising interest rates. So it's a different part of
Speaker 1: the cycle, and you might again get some last leg
Speaker 1: of US strengthen here. But I'm talking more looking out
Speaker 1: over the next five seven years. Think about what happened
Speaker 1: in the late nineties, the the U s c O
Speaker 1: curve was flattening. You've got another great period of of
Speaker 1: of um US equity returns. Ultimately you had a recession
Speaker 1: and in the years like go three oh four, oh five,
Speaker 1: oh six, oh seven, emerging markets outperformed the United States considerably.
Speaker 1: So is that where you want to go right now?
Speaker 1: I mean, you want to look for things that people
Speaker 1: on that the crowd is not interested in buying, So
Speaker 1: move out of US equities, take your profits, pay your taxes,
Speaker 1: and find something better again. I think we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a last leg of dollar strength. What we would we
Speaker 1: would favor is what's going to continue to be in
Speaker 1: our mind, growth in a slow growth world. So people
Speaker 1: viewing this as a new you know, higher sustained growth
Speaker 1: in the United States, and that's gonna persist forever. It's
Speaker 1: not so what kind of stocks, what kind of companies
Speaker 1: are industries? I mean I would favor I would continue
Speaker 1: to favor technology and discretionary in the United States and
Speaker 1: outside of the United States, it's a it's a growth
Speaker 1: story as well. I mean what we're looking at is,
Speaker 1: you know, particularly places like China, which has been on
Speaker 1: loved recently, you're looking at four hundred million millennials that
Speaker 1: are that are shop. It's lunning. I mean, that's bigger
Speaker 1: than the Later America of millennials. Just in China. It's
Speaker 1: bigger than the labor force of the US, Canada, and
Speaker 1: Europe combined. So how do you buy a bear market?
Speaker 1: If we say Shanghai's creator, Shanghai tech is created, how
Speaker 1: when do you know to buy? Or do you just
Speaker 1: with your time frame of five to seven year hold?
Speaker 1: That solves a lot of problems, right, I think too
Speaker 1: often investors are trying to time these things. We need
Speaker 1: to make sure that we we can't do this back
Speaker 1: tober First, we need to make sure we've got our
Speaker 1: policy statements right, we know why we do what we do,
Speaker 1: and if we're looking for long term growth as investors,
Speaker 1: a lot of that's going to be an emerging market.
Speaker 1: What do you do on your I mean, there's all
Speaker 1: the focus on Europe and of course it's overarching theme
Speaker 1: of immigration and migration. But how does Oppenheimer Funds find opportunity,
Speaker 1: particularly in Eastern Europe. That's very different than inn Asia analysis, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the big story in Europe is going to
Speaker 1: be a lot of the you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: the brand names that we all love UM, So it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a more of a company specific story than
Speaker 1: a broad macro story. Yeah, we had some synchronized growth
Speaker 1: in UM in seventeen. That's more of an abnormality than
Speaker 1: the norm and that a lot of that was based
Speaker 1: on Chinese stimulus. So we shouldn't expect UM significant economic
Speaker 1: growth out of Europe because of the demographic issues, because
Speaker 1: of some of the structural issues in the periphery. But
Speaker 1: it really comes down more to brands and luxury and
Speaker 1: so what are we talking about LVMH. I mean, do
Speaker 1: you want to be buying LVMH because of those four
Speaker 1: million millennials, You probably not want to. Maybe Michael Core's
Speaker 1: you heard the news today, Michael core is buying. That
Speaker 1: is a big growth story UM in the world is
Speaker 1: that citizens in the emerging markets are are starting to
Speaker 1: wear wealth like we do in the United States. Did
Speaker 1: you see how Oh Michael Barr walked into the studio
Speaker 1: different than the Michael Barr. We all need something to
Speaker 1: do with a football. Oh he was just like you were,
Speaker 1: just looking like you know, the distant days, I would
Speaker 1: have played a theme song. How much money did you
Speaker 1: make on this game? You bet like your middle child? Right,
Speaker 1: you know, tell people, come on, I could tell Detroit
Speaker 1: that Detroit Tom Brady, that's all that matter. That's the
Speaker 1: New York Giants won a game, and we're talking about
Speaker 1: Detroit Lions. Well exactly. You see how he wears Detroit
Speaker 1: Lions blue. Not only is it blue, but it's a
Speaker 1: correct Thanksgiving Day blue. I got my red and blue time, Michael,
Speaker 1: like forty of those, forty of these shirts worn just
Speaker 1: to give the Detroit Lions feel. How did they do this?
Speaker 1: So wise? One? Well we look secondary for the Patriots,
Speaker 1: they're not all that great, so careful not good morning
Speaker 1: one of six weeks. I know, listen, and I love
Speaker 1: you guys out in Boston. But like I said, I'm
Speaker 1: a native Detroit and I guess Matt Patrician those a
Speaker 1: little bit about the Patriots. That's where I was heading.
Speaker 1: Is this coaching advantage had to be tangible. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: well we liked the kid that found a ten dollar
Speaker 1: bill on the curb. And it's now a later for everybody,
Speaker 1: and so later on, you know, we'll come back to
Speaker 1: earth the next one. Michael Barre say, good morning SEM
Speaker 1: Boston FM, Washington, Good morning at Bay or PIM. We
Speaker 1: gotta go back to gridlock. This is the week where
Speaker 1: I get cut and chiseled everywhere. Don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: You're tall. Well that's true, but just say hi to
Speaker 1: the came down here. You know, the Sikorski was down
Speaker 1: because of the clouds of the rain, and I took
Speaker 1: the car down Fifth Avenue and you just stop at
Speaker 1: sixty Street. They won't let you buy so a little walking.
Speaker 1: Never heard anybody. I had to walk three blocks store. Goodness,
Speaker 1: you're gonna wear out the shoe leather on those loafers. Right.
Speaker 1: You want to talk giants football. That's why you haven't
Speaker 1: talked to the last giants football. I do want to
Speaker 1: talk giants. I mean I worked downtown, so the gridlock.
Speaker 1: I can't add much to the conversation. Brian Levitt, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for and I have friends coming up
Speaker 1: one hour on the New York football giants. Right now,
Speaker 1: Vers Yorks joins US with the National Foreign Trade Council
Speaker 1: messaging of course on trade and all uh ruvers. Wonderful
Speaker 1: to have you with us. How fragile is our trade
Speaker 1: right now? Well, obviously we're in a period where we're
Speaker 1: having significant fights with a number of countries. The biggest
Speaker 1: one now, of course, this US China fight. But you know,
Speaker 1: concerning that, we've also had restrictions imposed on a number
Speaker 1: of other countries in sectors like steel, wominum talk about
Speaker 1: doing on tariffs retaliation by those countries. For the time being,
Speaker 1: we've had retaliation on about two hundred and fifty billion
Speaker 1: dollars of US exports. Uh increases on imports, increased tariffs
Speaker 1: on imports. Of course, in the nineteen trillion dollar economy,
Speaker 1: you know, that's not major mat eco economic effects. Economy
Speaker 1: is still strong, but long term there's a lot of
Speaker 1: concern about how this will impact our international trade relations.
Speaker 1: US raising terrace for a number of other countries are
Speaker 1: making deals. Well, it's different this time around. Perhaps, is
Speaker 1: the idea of intermediate processes of all the back and
Speaker 1: forth between nations is I think it's identified that the
Speaker 1: President and his team is simplistic about a true bilateral
Speaker 1: trade debate which involves many different nations that many different
Speaker 1: back and force of a given product. Within your National
Speaker 1: Foreign Trade Council, do you see that UH constituent to
Speaker 1: a constituent, that they're all dealing with these complex processes
Speaker 1: versus the president's simple message. Yeah, I think that's the
Speaker 1: biggest concern. You've hit your You've hit the mark very
Speaker 1: well there, because you know, if you have global rules
Speaker 1: and they're strong and they reflect us kind of market
Speaker 1: based principles, which obviously we're concerned about China not meeting
Speaker 1: those standards. But if you can strengthen the international rules
Speaker 1: multilaterally and business knows what the rules are, they can
Speaker 1: plan their global supply chains. You know, it helps both
Speaker 1: our exports and the costs of our imports. But if
Speaker 1: those rules start to break down and you start having
Speaker 1: a lot of bilateral tit for tat fights and bilateral agreements,
Speaker 1: the rules become murkier. It's a more mercantilist environment for
Speaker 1: companies operate and they're not certain where to move their
Speaker 1: supply chains to UH, and that becomes you know, kind
Speaker 1: of a longer term uncertainty that undermines their their their
Speaker 1: competitiveness and their cost structure. Rufus, you are previously Deputy
Speaker 1: Director General of the World Trade Organization also US Ambassador
Speaker 1: to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Do you
Speaker 1: feel that those various bodies were effective in dealing with
Speaker 1: what many countries have said is unfair trade practices by China.
Speaker 1: And I'm not just talking about pricing, I'm talking about
Speaker 1: things like intellectual property theft. Yeah, I think there's a
Speaker 1: consensus that, you know, the rules have not been as
Speaker 1: effective as we had hoped they would be on China.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're totally ineffective. I mean, China has
Speaker 1: reformed in a number of areas since the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 1: for example, but recently under Sijan thing there's obviously been
Speaker 1: more of a trend towards a harder edged economic nationalist approach,
Speaker 1: things like force technology transfer. Like you say, still very
Speaker 1: big problems in the intellectual property realm. Concerned that even
Speaker 1: the Chinese state is involved in helping companies with theft
Speaker 1: of trade secrets and things like that. So clearly we're
Speaker 1: not satisfied with how the rules are working. But the
Speaker 1: question becomes how do we best get China to begin
Speaker 1: to abide by those rough as the President has just
Speaker 1: started speaking at the United Nations with Secretary and that
Speaker 1: sort of Hailey rather and Secretary of State Pompeo and
Speaker 1: Mr Bolton sitting next to them, what should he say
Speaker 1: to the U n about trade? Well, hopefully from our
Speaker 1: point of view, he would say, we want to work
Speaker 1: with a number of countries in strengthening rules and disciplines
Speaker 1: and do it in a way that's convincing enough that
Speaker 1: we gained the support of Japan, of Europe, of other
Speaker 1: Asian countries. Uh impressing China to play more within the
Speaker 1: rule book of of sort of you know, market principles.
Speaker 1: But I'm fearful that it's going in the other direction,
Speaker 1: that he's starting a bilateral fight with kind at the
Speaker 1: same time that we're fighting with the Europeans over automobiles
Speaker 1: in Canada and Mexico. We're not building the global coalition.
Speaker 1: Mr Years, So thank you so much, greatly, greatly appreciate that.
Speaker 1: This morning, Rufus, he said, the National Foreign Trade Council,
Speaker 1: if you move north from Pretoria and we begin really
Speaker 1: our coverage here of United Nations week across South Africa
Speaker 1: and into Botswana and pim I I said this earlier
Speaker 1: to the Minister. I've never known anyone who's going to
Speaker 1: Botswana that was just not absolutely blown away by the
Speaker 1: beauty of the country, the wildlife, Kalahari desert. Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm waiting for someone to give me a negative vibe
Speaker 1: in Botswana and hasn't happened. And also since nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: six after its independence from Britain has been a well
Speaker 1: run electoral based democracy and there it is. And that's
Speaker 1: two and a half to earn a quarter million people.
Speaker 1: Someone messaging the Botswana word is boholo kind of window. Uh.
Speaker 1: She is up Botswana Minister of Investment, Trade in Industry
Speaker 1: and joins us from New York where she is here
Speaker 1: for the week. What do you hope to accomplished, Minister
Speaker 1: as you come to UH in New York? What do
Speaker 1: you want to accomplish for your Botswana? Thank you very
Speaker 1: much and a very good morning to earth of you.
Speaker 1: We are here to share the Bozana story. We are
Speaker 1: having by a lot of bilateral meetings, but most importantly
Speaker 1: we want to ensure that by the time we leave
Speaker 1: New York we have left Bosana in people's minds and
Speaker 1: in people's tongues that you're talking about it and where
Speaker 1: of our story and that those that would like to
Speaker 1: come in and invest in Bosana because it is a
Speaker 1: fantastic investment destination and an even more fantastic tourism destination.
Speaker 1: I know that, and I hope that no one will
Speaker 1: ever give a negative review about the visit to Bosana.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering, Minister, if you could just share a little
Speaker 1: bit of your background so people can understand your perspective.
Speaker 1: You are the youngest minister ever in Botswana's cabinet. Congratulations,
Speaker 1: thank you very much. I am youngest minister in Bozonna's
Speaker 1: cabinet and I joined parliament two years ago and I
Speaker 1: have been given this responsibility of head in the Ministry
Speaker 1: of Investment, Trade and Industry. And I am from one
Speaker 1: of the most remote areas in Bosana, but very much
Speaker 1: a very beautiful part of Bazana along the river. And
Speaker 1: I pride myself with my heritage and having been a
Speaker 1: diamond baby. And in that I mean you know, I
Speaker 1: was born in a government hospital, went to government school,
Speaker 1: I was sent to university by the government and I
Speaker 1: think I'm very much the Bozona diamond story. Can you
Speaker 1: tell people a little bit about the economy of Botswana
Speaker 1: and how it has changed over your thirty one years
Speaker 1: and the competition that exists not just in natural resources
Speaker 1: but in the banking industry, and how that has helped
Speaker 1: the economy of Botswana. Right well, about thirty years or
Speaker 1: thirty one years ago or Bosana was heavily dependent on
Speaker 1: our agricultural base. It used to contribute to well over
Speaker 1: fifty percent of our very small g d P. But
Speaker 1: there was a rev up in the economy when diamond
Speaker 1: revenue started increasing and then we became heavily dependent on
Speaker 1: our diamonds. We produced and I'd like to say the
Speaker 1: world's best diamonds um And we have since managed to
Speaker 1: diversify to some extent into financial services and the banking
Speaker 1: industry has really driven very good growth in the economy
Speaker 1: and we are seeing investment and good productive sectors that
Speaker 1: we are hoping will continue to increase the wealth in
Speaker 1: Boslana end uplift the lives of Bosana. But most importantly,
Speaker 1: the opportunities remained vast and we're aiming at increasing our
Speaker 1: GDP growth from four percent to eight percent, so that
Speaker 1: we can see that transition from a middle income country
Speaker 1: to a high income country by twenty thirty six. Can
Speaker 1: I interrupt the show to just the standout effort you did,
Speaker 1: which you were single handedly, Uh, you got it done, minister.
Speaker 1: Kind of window that the Duchess of Sussex has on
Speaker 1: her left hand abouts Wana diamond. Is it true that
Speaker 1: Princess Megan has a Botswana diamond on her left hand?
Speaker 1: She she she does have a Bosona diamond on her
Speaker 1: left hand, and we're very proud of that, and we're
Speaker 1: very proud that we've played a part in that love story.
Speaker 1: In that day it said that they fell in love
Speaker 1: in Bosona and most importantly and where I'm from, so
Speaker 1: I feel very proud to have contributed. I saw you
Speaker 1: at the wedding. I understand that. But seriously, this is
Speaker 1: Kimberly Process certification and it's about conflict free diamonds. How
Speaker 1: does bots want to do that? The conflict free diamonds,
Speaker 1: And what we keep saying is a piece as so much,
Speaker 1: very much and economic issue. And when you are able
Speaker 1: to keep increasing the piece of cake and the pressures
Speaker 1: on that national cake are not that strong, then you
Speaker 1: have stability, and that stability comes from good governance and
Speaker 1: being able to provide equitable distribution of our resources. And
Speaker 1: over the years we've managed to reinvest the rents that
Speaker 1: we're getting from our diamonds, so that that very much
Speaker 1: people centered and they are not blood diamonds. And like
Speaker 1: I said earlier, i am a Bazona diamond. Sorry, and
Speaker 1: so many other Bazana share that history with me. Now,
Speaker 1: just to note that democratic self government in Botswana was
Speaker 1: established in the mid sixties and it has continued. What
Speaker 1: would you say to business leaders that may want to
Speaker 1: participate in the growing tool is some industry in Botswana?
Speaker 1: What kind of incentives and what kind of government support
Speaker 1: is there for foreign investment? Well, we you're right to say,
Speaker 1: we've had in democracy since nineteen sixty six, and we
Speaker 1: are proud to say that we have the longest running
Speaker 1: stable democracy in the continent and an open economy without
Speaker 1: any exchange controls. And we have a lot of incentives,
Speaker 1: including corporate text at five percent for some industries and
Speaker 1: ten per cent for others. And we have land banks,
Speaker 1: particularly in my ministry, to facilitate investors that come in
Speaker 1: to ensure that they are able to set up, and
Speaker 1: we also have an office at one stop shop that
Speaker 1: facilitates from registering all the way to markets. And we
Speaker 1: consider ourselves a very well centered economy that is lend
Speaker 1: linked to the rest of the region. And we are
Speaker 1: able to facilitate trade two countries like Zambia, Zimbabwe and Golambia.
Speaker 1: That's our neighbors and we we we see to it.
Speaker 1: That's all um foreign investors that come in. As a
Speaker 1: government we rule out that red COPT Minister, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. As we look at the United Nations week
Speaker 1: in the Bloomberg form, Botswana's Minister of Investment, Trade and
Speaker 1: Industry Bhola kind of window joins us this morning. We
Speaker 1: now turned what is completely and totally in entirely consumed
Speaker 1: the Beltway, and that is the Kavanaugh hearings plural that
Speaker 1: we're moving forward and rather than the politics and all that,
Speaker 1: we talk about the long term damage or I guess
Speaker 1: it's stands to be fair of the Supreme Court. There's
Speaker 1: no one better to do that within Greg's store of Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: a student and reporter of all Supreme Court. Gregg, is
Speaker 1: there any damage that will come out of this to
Speaker 1: this most important American institution. Oh, absolutely, Tom, And that's
Speaker 1: really no matter how this comes up comes out. The
Speaker 1: Court has tried to over the decades keep itself out
Speaker 1: of politics. It has been harder and harder to do
Speaker 1: that as court appointments have become more political. This nomination
Speaker 1: at Brett Havanaugh was already intensely political beforehand. Uh. Now
Speaker 1: you have this specter of of the sexual assault allegations
Speaker 1: against him. If he is confirmed, it will be probably
Speaker 1: with entirely Republican votes. Uh. And there will be opponents
Speaker 1: will say a big cloud over him. If he is
Speaker 1: not concerned, we're gonna have a whole another fight coming
Speaker 1: up soon. Does it go into let's say he is confirmed.
Speaker 1: Does it go into the operations of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Does this whole debate in fact, the choosing of cases,
Speaker 1: the debate of cases, the outcome of cases. It could,
Speaker 1: but a lot of that depends on something we don't know,
Speaker 1: which is what effect is this having on Brett Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: if he is confirmed. Um. You know, personally, we've seen
Speaker 1: with uh, some of the other Justices Clarence Thomas, certainly
Speaker 1: Justice sam Alito as well, who had somewhat difficult confirmation fights.
Speaker 1: That they've gone on the court and they have really
Speaker 1: dug in. Uh As as you know, they were always
Speaker 1: going to be conservative justices, but but uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's possible they are are even more conservative now. It
Speaker 1: could happen to Brett Kavanaugh too, if he has confirmed.
Speaker 1: We we don't really know now. One other possibility is
Speaker 1: that some of the other justices, like Chief Justice John Roberts,
Speaker 1: may say that, at least for the time being, we
Speaker 1: need to try to not get ourselves in the middle
Speaker 1: of controversial and take fewer really controversial cases so that
Speaker 1: we can kind of lay low a little bit um
Speaker 1: and get ourselves out of the political spotlight. Greg Store,
Speaker 1: talking about the political spotlight, can you give us an
Speaker 1: update on what Senator Diane Feinstein notified the FBI about
Speaker 1: and how this plays into the ongoing hearings. The uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I may not have the very latest information
Speaker 1: on that. Um. She she has called for an FBI investigation. Uh,
Speaker 1: these new allegations that were published in The New Yorker
Speaker 1: last night, the um uh you know, Democrats have been
Speaker 1: saying throughout that they want an FBI investigation of the
Speaker 1: earlier allocations involving Christine Ford Uh, the Republicans have resisted,
Speaker 1: and at this point there is no indication that there
Speaker 1: will be an FBI investigation. Would there be an investigation
Speaker 1: just generally, I mean for anybody that is coming up
Speaker 1: as a potential nominee, would there be some kind of
Speaker 1: background check and so on? There is always a background check,
Speaker 1: But as a general matter, the FBI is gathering information
Speaker 1: for the the White House. And it's not something where
Speaker 1: the FBI is investigating as they would in a criminal case,
Speaker 1: where they are determining whether there is probable cause to
Speaker 1: determine whether you know something happened, whether a crime was committed.
Speaker 1: There they would be gathering facts and they will do that.
Speaker 1: They have done that on Brick, with Brick having off
Speaker 1: on many issues, and they will do that on any
Speaker 1: future nominee. But they're not they're not equipped or they're
Speaker 1: not prepared in a situation like this to sort of
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of us and tell get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of it and tell us all what what
Speaker 1: the correct answer is. Is there any way that this
Speaker 1: makes or creates even more bad blood between Republicans and
Speaker 1: Democrats in the Senate, or is it just so bad
Speaker 1: to begin with that nothing's going to change it. It's
Speaker 1: hard to imagine it could be even worse. And you know,
Speaker 1: with these new allegations, Senator Grassley, the Republican chairman, was, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, is accusing Democrats of withholding information. The New
Speaker 1: York report indicates that some Democratic staff members were aware
Speaker 1: of the allegations, and Grassley says, we didn't know about these.
Speaker 1: Uh So there there is certainly mistrust and it may
Speaker 1: well explode if if indeed we do have the hearing
Speaker 1: that currently is scheduled for for Thursday of this week,
Speaker 1: if Kevana steps aside in some form, how does that
Speaker 1: change the process for the president in nomination? So you know,
Speaker 1: the president, of course we get to nominate somebody knew
Speaker 1: the kind of the wild card in here are the
Speaker 1: two wild cards together? Or that we have the midterm
Speaker 1: election coming up. Uh, it seems impossible that somebody could
Speaker 1: get confirmed before the midterm election, which means we move
Speaker 1: into the the lame duck Senate period and Republicans would
Speaker 1: still have a majority no matter what happens in November. Uh,
Speaker 1: it is at least theoretically possible that especially Republicans, uh you,
Speaker 1: maintain or enlarge their majority. In the Senate that we
Speaker 1: could have to push this into next year in the
Speaker 1: and the new Senate that starts in early January. Alright,
Speaker 1: So if that's part of the plan, don't they need
Speaker 1: to actually vote on a variety of other measures. And
Speaker 1: I know that's outside of your wheelhouse, really, but they
Speaker 1: need to get the government funded. They do need to
Speaker 1: get the government government funded. You know, that is still
Speaker 1: on the table. Um. There are plenty of other issues
Speaker 1: out there. I mean, Kavanaugh is the Kavanaugh issue is
Speaker 1: attempting to suck all the year out of the room.
Speaker 1: But but you're correct that there's some uh, you know,
Speaker 1: traditional business that needs to be needs to be done.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like it's like there's a lot more
Speaker 1: that they can disagree on and and mess up. Yes, absolutely, well,
Speaker 1: I mean the prospect of a government shutdown is is
Speaker 1: hanging out there. Um, and uh, you know there are
Speaker 1: a lot of senators who would like to leave town
Speaker 1: and go campaign as well. Let's move one them forward
Speaker 1: before you let you go. Greg Noah Phelbin, Professor Phelman
Speaker 1: of Harvard has a terse essay out Rosenstein must go
Speaker 1: so Mueller can stay. It's a gamble but it's at
Speaker 1: least the least bad option for continuing the Trump investigation.
Speaker 1: Do you just presume a Supreme Court guy, that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court gets involved as they did with Nixon slash,
Speaker 1: Watergate and all this Rosenstein's sessions Trump festivities. I don't
Speaker 1: presume it is certainly know there's some issues out there,
Speaker 1: like if Mueller decides the subpoena as the president, that
Speaker 1: is an unresolved legal issue that could get up to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. In terms of you know, just say
Speaker 1: that the question of Ken Robert Mueller be fired. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that that is a Supreme Court issue. This
Speaker 1: is not a case like um, you know, Ken Starr,
Speaker 1: who was an independent council. It's it's clear that Bert
Speaker 1: Mueller could be fired through the proper channels, UM, and
Speaker 1: that would be a huge political controversy, but it wouldn't
Speaker 1: necessarily be something that would rise to the Supreme the
Speaker 1: level of the Supreme Court. There's a good chance something
Speaker 1: we'll get to the Supreme Court involving the Mueller investigation,
Speaker 1: but but but very hard to say that it's imminent
Speaker 1: or or to say what it is. Greg S, thank
Speaker 1: you so much greatly, appreciated, of course, on edge of
Speaker 1: legendary and Supreme Court balance and coverage. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio m