Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: As expected, the Department of Justice is moving through special
Speaker 2: counsel Jack Smith to drop the twenty twenty election obstruction
Speaker 2: case against the now President elect Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: There will have been.
Speaker 2: Signals that this would happen, as it is long standing
Speaker 2: DOJ policy not to prosecute a sitting president, which Donald
Speaker 2: Trump will become once again fifty six days from now.
Speaker 2: But it does end what was already a historic prosecution
Speaker 2: series of prosecution sprankly against Trump as an individual that
Speaker 2: are now going away as he gets set to take
Speaker 2: office for a second time, and of course the first
Speaker 2: time around when he was the forty fifth President of
Speaker 2: the United States, McK mulvaney was active in that administration.
Speaker 2: He's former acting White House Chief of Staff under Trump,
Speaker 2: former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and
Speaker 2: of course co founder as well of the House Freedom
Speaker 2: Caucus as a former congressman to boot make We know
Speaker 2: your resume is long. It's always good to have you
Speaker 2: here on Bloomberg TV and radio. There's a lot I'd
Speaker 2: like to get into when it comes to the Omb specifically,
Speaker 2: but if we could just first get your reaction.
Speaker 1: To this news.
Speaker 2: I know you had strong feelings about the events in
Speaker 2: and around January sixth. Now, Donald Trump not necessarily going
Speaker 2: to be held accountable for any of that alleged action
Speaker 2: that he took in the lead up to and during it.
Speaker 2: But this is largely to be expected.
Speaker 3: Right it is.
Speaker 4: In fact, I think it's probably the biggest story that
Speaker 4: everybody knew was going to happen anyway.
Speaker 3: You can't.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's been long standing policy, as you mentioned,
Speaker 4: that you don't prosecute a sitting president, which means it
Speaker 4: would have to sit there for at least four years
Speaker 4: the prosecution would, which is not tenable. So I guess
Speaker 4: this is an inevitable sort of side effect of the election.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and now we're getting a new announcement from the
Speaker 2: DJ also formally moving to drop the other federal case
Speaker 2: against Donald Trump, which was the classified documents case in Florida,
Speaker 2: So both federal prosecutions are now out of the picture.
Speaker 2: He of course, has had his sentencing in the case
Speaker 2: in New York, the state case around the falsification of
Speaker 2: business records in which he was convicted. That sentencing has
Speaker 2: been pushed back indefinitely. We're not quite sure at this
Speaker 2: time what's going to happen with the other state case
Speaker 2: down in Georgia. But this effectively Mick puts to bed
Speaker 2: all of his at least criminal legal issues. And I
Speaker 2: do wonder if he wouldn't be about to go back
Speaker 2: into the White House had they not happened, Had we
Speaker 2: not had these series of indictments throughout the course of
Speaker 2: what was his active presidential campaign, do you think he
Speaker 2: still would have won.
Speaker 4: I think it gave him and you and I have
Speaker 4: talked about this before a couple of times. It gave
Speaker 4: him a new message, It gave him a rallying cry.
Speaker 4: Some of the criminal charges were so weak, Kaylee, and
Speaker 4: I know I'm giving an opinion on that, but they
Speaker 4: were facially very weak. The basis of the case, and
Speaker 4: one of the cases in New York was that he
Speaker 4: that he paid back a loan early that the debtor
Speaker 4: didn't or the lender didn't complain about. Another case was
Speaker 4: revolving around it, you know, criminal charges for legal hush
Speaker 4: money payments.
Speaker 3: And it gave him, you know, it raised a lot of.
Speaker 4: Questions even with Democrats, as to whether or not he
Speaker 4: would have been charged with those things if his name
Speaker 4: wasn't Donald John Trump, and it gave him that new
Speaker 4: rallying cry that you know, look at what they're doing
Speaker 4: to me. If they can do it to me, they
Speaker 4: can do it to you. Elect me, and that won't happen.
Speaker 4: It reinvigorated his campaign. So from the very beginning, if
Speaker 4: there's one human being probably most response with Donald Trump
Speaker 4: going back to the White House, it's probably Alvin Bragg,
Speaker 4: followed closely by Letitia.
Speaker 2: James's incredible to consider, and of course, yes, we did
Speaker 2: hear a lot about this from Donald Trump on the
Speaker 2: campaign trail. Something else we heard from Trump frequently while
Speaker 2: he was campaigning is that he had nothing to do
Speaker 2: with the Heritage Foundation's Project twenty twenty five. And yet
Speaker 2: we have seen a number of people named to be
Speaker 2: part of his second administration who were affiliated or contributed
Speaker 2: to that project. And in fact, just a few weeks ago,
Speaker 2: Joe got to sit down with the pressident of Heritage,
Speaker 2: Kevin Roberts, who told him this about the way in
Speaker 2: which it could be informing this incoming administration's policy decisions.
Speaker 5: We think that this is the beginning of a golden
Speaker 5: era of conservative reform.
Speaker 3: I will say that because the work.
Speaker 5: Of Project twenty twenty five represents the conservative movement. It
Speaker 5: would be very difficult for anybody to implement policies on education,
Speaker 5: on the border, on taxation without at least consulting those
Speaker 5: ideas in people. That's not some arrogant or hubistic comment
Speaker 5: on our part. That's just the nature of how policy
Speaker 5: making works.
Speaker 2: And one of those people make that contributed to Project
Speaker 2: twenty twenty twenty five has now been tapped to take
Speaker 2: your old job, OMB Director Russ Vote will be reprising
Speaker 2: his role.
Speaker 1: And I do wonder what you make of that choice.
Speaker 2: And if it actually does signal anything about the way
Speaker 2: in which Project twenty twenty five could be working its
Speaker 2: way into outcomes in this administration.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, look what I think the guy Heritage
Speaker 4: was trying to say, in so many words, is twenty
Speaker 4: twenty Project twenty twenty twenty five is just Republican conservative
Speaker 4: orthodoxy in a lot of different places. So if you're
Speaker 4: going to be a Republican president, you're going to probably
Speaker 4: put into place a lot of things that happened to
Speaker 4: be in Project twenty twenty five. I do think that
Speaker 4: the Trump campaign sort of moved away from the project because,
Speaker 4: in large part of the positions on abortion, which they
Speaker 4: considered to be a liability politically. But look, it's conservative
Speaker 4: orthodoxy and that's what's going forward.
Speaker 3: You asked me about Russ. I'm very excited about this.
Speaker 4: In fact, I think, you know, Elon Musk and Vivek
Speaker 4: Ramaswami get all the attention for this Department of Government efficiency,
Speaker 4: and they should, and it's an important thing that they're doing.
Speaker 4: But in order to implement the things that I think
Speaker 4: they're going to start recommending, you have to have Omb
Speaker 4: on board. And nobody knows more about government works or
Speaker 4: it doesn't work than Russ's votes. I thought it was
Speaker 4: a really really solid decision at Omb, and he'll make
Speaker 4: a good member of that government deficiency team. Keep in mind,
Speaker 4: the last time President Trump asked somebody to restructure the
Speaker 4: federal government, it was me, and we didn't have much
Speaker 4: because the whole of the deep state was against us, and.
Speaker 3: Some of our cabinet secretaries were against us.
Speaker 4: I think I don't think that that troika of Elon,
Speaker 4: Vivek and Russ are going to have the same impediments
Speaker 4: that we had in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: Well, and you could potentially add another name to that team,
Speaker 2: as well as Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia. Apparently
Speaker 2: we'll be leading a House oversight subcommittee helping implement the
Speaker 2: DOGE recommendations. I do wonder though, as we know that
Speaker 2: that Department quote unquote does have intel July fourth of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six to make these proposals. To do this work,
Speaker 2: there are going to be spending battles being thought in
Speaker 2: Congress well before then. Basically right when we get into
Speaker 2: the new year, the new Congress and the new administration
Speaker 2: make we're going to have to deal not just with
Speaker 2: regular appropriations, but a debt stealing fight as well. And
Speaker 2: I wonder how you think russ vote will navigate those
Speaker 2: what it means for the ultimate outcomes of what those
Speaker 2: deals could look like.
Speaker 4: Well, what Russ is going to do, and this is
Speaker 4: what's good staff as are supposed to do. And Russ
Speaker 4: was a good staffer in the previous administration. I have
Speaker 4: every expectation he's going to be a good staffer going forward.
Speaker 4: Is simply laying out the facts and the arguments for
Speaker 4: the President. Russ is a lot more fiscally conservative than
Speaker 4: the president.
Speaker 3: United States is, just as I was Trump wanted to.
Speaker 4: Hear from the fiscally conservative wing of the party, and
Speaker 4: he wanted to hear from other folks as well, and
Speaker 4: Russ will be the loudest voice in those discussions. You're right,
Speaker 4: we've got appropriations bills to deal with, You've got the
Speaker 4: debt ceiling to deal with.
Speaker 3: You've got to look very closely.
Speaker 4: Kailey, to that first sort of that thin budget that
Speaker 4: will come out in the first couple of weeks of
Speaker 4: the administration, because that will be the first indication is
Speaker 4: what their priorities. Our president's budget is a messaging budget,
Speaker 4: you know, what are their priorities going to be? And
Speaker 4: Russ will be obviously have his hand in that. So
Speaker 4: it's going to be a very quick or a fast
Speaker 4: moving couple of weeks on those spending issues.
Speaker 3: And it will be interesting to see.
Speaker 4: Whether or not Trump comes down sort of with that more,
Speaker 4: you know, the heavier spending side of the party or
Speaker 4: the fiscally conservative side of the party that Russ represents.
Speaker 3: So well well.
Speaker 2: And in those initial those first weeks, Mick, there also
Speaker 2: is going to be a really narrow majority in the chamber.
Speaker 2: You used to sit in the House of Representatives. It's
Speaker 2: really going to be only a few votes that Mike
Speaker 2: Johnson can afford to lose as Speaker because Trump has
Speaker 2: pulled three members of the House for this administration, or
Speaker 2: I guess when you include Matt Gates having resigned no
Speaker 2: longer being part of the administration, that's still a vote
Speaker 2: gone in a special election that's not being held until
Speaker 2: April first. How hard is this going to be to
Speaker 2: get done with such a slim majority?
Speaker 3: Really hard.
Speaker 4: I think people lose sight of the fact it's not
Speaker 4: quite as bad as it sounds, just because technically Waltz
Speaker 4: is still a member of the House and can still vote.
Speaker 3: Traditionally you don't, but you can.
Speaker 4: I never voted after I was nominated for the OMB
Speaker 4: back in twenty seventeen, but I could have.
Speaker 3: It would have been legal for me to do that.
Speaker 4: So until those folks are confirmed, all those House members,
Speaker 4: they are still sitting and can vote, so they don't
Speaker 4: really lose those Republican votes. Mike Johnson doesn't lose those
Speaker 4: Republican votes until those folks resign. Now, yes, obviously mentioned
Speaker 4: Matt Gates has already gone, so that narrows it a
Speaker 4: little bit. But to your point, it's going to be tight.
Speaker 4: There's no question about that. And he's not going to
Speaker 4: be able to afford to lose any folks, I think,
Speaker 4: any votes. I think the one thing that's sort of
Speaker 4: sitting there, the eight hundred pound gerrill in the room,
Speaker 4: is it.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump still.
Speaker 4: Has a lot of influence over the Republican Party, probably
Speaker 4: never more so than now, and if they want to
Speaker 4: whip votes, they should be very successful in doing that well, perhaps.
Speaker 2: Though not enough influence over at least the Republicans in
Speaker 2: the Senate to be able to get someone like Gates
Speaker 2: through the confirmation process, hence himself gains taking.
Speaker 1: Himself out of contention for that role.
Speaker 2: When we look at some of these other nominees Toolsey Gabbard,
Speaker 2: RFK Junior, Pete Hegseeth, do you think there could still
Speaker 2: be Republican resistance adequate enough to potentially tank those nominations, Mick?
Speaker 1: Or is everyone else going to get through?
Speaker 4: You know, it's a really good questions, one of those
Speaker 4: inside the Beltway questions, because oftentimes it's not every single administration,
Speaker 4: but oftentimes what will happen is an incoming administration will
Speaker 4: offer up a sacrificial lamb somebody they know they can't
Speaker 4: get confirmed because they're too extreme one way or the other,
Speaker 4: but it satisfies their base and it gives sort of
Speaker 4: a little sop to the minority party in the Senate.
Speaker 4: We saw this back in twenty twenty one with Nero Tieten,
Speaker 4: who was nominated for omb by the Biden administration, even
Speaker 4: though a lot of Democrats thought she was too progressively
Speaker 4: left to get confirmed, and indeed she wasn't. They took
Speaker 4: that name down. Was Matt Gates that sacrificial lamb? Or
Speaker 4: was he sort of a different thing entirely. I think
Speaker 4: if you look at the if you look at the
Speaker 4: names you just gave, I gotta think Kennedy's got the
Speaker 4: toughest road.
Speaker 3: Just because he's such a weird guy.
Speaker 4: I mean, I hate to use the word that you
Speaker 4: know that were meant something before Tim Wall start using
Speaker 4: on the campaign. But he's he's he's an unusual human being,
Speaker 4: and it should make for an interesting confirmation process. Haig
Speaker 4: Seth will get the attention because of the post. Obviously, HHS,
Speaker 4: which Kennedy's nominated for, is not as critical, is not
Speaker 4: as perceived as being you know, as high rankings as
Speaker 4: the Secretary of defense is But every time people ask
Speaker 4: about Hegseth, I say, look, if he wasn't on TV,
Speaker 4: and he was just somebody with degrees from Princeton and
Speaker 4: Harvard who had written a couple of books on the topic,
Speaker 4: had two Bronze stars, served overseas two different times, I
Speaker 4: don't think you'd be getting the negative attention that you were.
Speaker 3: So I think Hegseth is fine. I think tool Ce
Speaker 3: is fine.
Speaker 4: I think if anybody is going to have the biggest challenge,
Speaker 4: it's going to be Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Well and finally Mick.
Speaker 2: As we consider here the notion of future challenges around
Speaker 2: all of these things, I do wonder, assuming that these
Speaker 2: people can't even get confirmed, what challenges they may face
Speaker 2: upon actually stepping into the job if this transition is
Speaker 2: delayed because of a lack of signing of ethics and
Speaker 2: transparency pledges in order to get access to the classified
Speaker 2: or at least not public information they need to do
Speaker 2: their roles.
Speaker 1: What do you make of the slow walking here?
Speaker 3: Listen, that's slow walking. It works both ways. There's a net.
Speaker 4: You're seeing a natural tension now between the administrative of
Speaker 4: the executive branch and the legislative branch. It has very
Speaker 4: little to do with part and everything to do with structure.
Speaker 4: The incomeing administration doesn't want to sort of give everything
Speaker 4: to the Senate all at one time, and the Senate
Speaker 4: doesn't want to move very quickly. Keep in mind, I've
Speaker 4: often said that, you know, advise and consent has in
Speaker 4: large part become extort and delay. I can't tell you
Speaker 4: the number of Republican centers who called me when I said,
Speaker 4: OHMB trying to get stuff out of me in exchange
Speaker 4: for lower level confirmations moving forward.
Speaker 3: And so forth. So there's that natural tension.
Speaker 4: I think it's important that the Treasury Secretary go early,
Speaker 4: Secretary of State Defense go early, and that the OMB
Speaker 4: go early, just because you do have to write that
Speaker 4: budget very quickly.
Speaker 3: My guess is those.
Speaker 4: Will be the first ones confirmed, and then the other
Speaker 4: ones may drag out over the course of the next
Speaker 4: couple of months.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, he used to be director of the
Speaker 2: UMB himself. Mick Malvaney also former acting chief of Staff
Speaker 2: in the first Trump White House. Joining us here on
Speaker 2: balance of power. Thank you so much.