Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg's sound on
Speaker 1: it's very unfair to people who took other pathways in
Speaker 1: life that didn't require them to take out a lot
Speaker 1: of loans. I agree with this move and those same
Speaker 1: individuals who wanted to build out the banks and supported that.
Speaker 1: I'm not criticized and helping people in their critical need.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Sound on Politics, Policy and perspective from DC's tough name.
Speaker 1: As I am pleading with the Republican Party to please
Speaker 1: start taking this issue seriously. I don't want your vote.
Speaker 1: If you have that hate in your heart, keep it.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The
Speaker 1: White House plays defense on student debt. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: fastest hour in politics. As divisions emerge over this plan
Speaker 1: among Democrats and Republicans, and the next step could be court,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about that with Flinna, Eric's social policy expert
Speaker 1: at Third. The Department of Justice was just told to
Speaker 1: unseal the affidavit from the Marrow Lago search warrant. They
Speaker 1: must do by noon tomorrow. Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson
Speaker 1: will join us a bit later with more on what
Speaker 1: we may learn and how unusual this actually is. Analysis
Speaker 1: from our signature panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie Chantano and
Speaker 1: Rick Davis here for the hour. The White House wanted
Speaker 1: to come out of the box today with a positive message,
Speaker 1: and they got some music. This is actually sound from
Speaker 1: a rally this morning in Lafayette Square, across the street
Speaker 1: from the White House build as a celebration amongst student
Speaker 1: activists before like Jackson scrutiny. A news release announcing this
Speaker 1: rally came out shortly after President Biden announced his plan
Speaker 1: to forgive debt. List of the group's move on then
Speaker 1: doubled a CP National Education Association, Center for Popular Democracy
Speaker 1: and Rise Free. No one else will tell you that today.
Speaker 1: And yes they did promote the brass being end in
Speaker 1: the news release. They started playing at eight thirty in
Speaker 1: the morning. The zoning allowed that near the White House.
Speaker 1: The administration that has been besieged by questions about fairness,
Speaker 1: which Education Secretary Miguel Cordona addressed today on Bloomberg. You know,
Speaker 1: I've talked to folks who said, you know, yeah, I
Speaker 1: paid my college loan off, but if my neighbor goes
Speaker 1: into default, is gonna hurt my local economy, and what
Speaker 1: we're anticipating. What we were anticipating is that the number
Speaker 1: of defaults would be a lot higher um if we
Speaker 1: didn't provide support. But questions also remain about the legality
Speaker 1: of this move, and for more on that, we're joined
Speaker 1: by Lennai Ericson, senior vice president for Social Policy, Education
Speaker 1: and Politics at the Group Third Way. Lenny, Welcome to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for having me. Much of the argument
Speaker 1: right now about this whole story is about fairness, That's
Speaker 1: what I keep hearing. But you're pointing to authority and
Speaker 1: whether the president actually has the power to do this
Speaker 1: on his own. Are we're going to find out in court.
Speaker 1: I think we absolutely are going to find out in court.
Speaker 1: And you know, we've been kind of back and forth
Speaker 1: on this in terms of the legal authorities, but the
Speaker 1: situation really changed over this summer. You know, the Trump
Speaker 1: administration and several other legal authorities have said that the
Speaker 1: president absolutely cannot just cancel student debts, that Congress did
Speaker 1: not give him, um the chance to do that with
Speaker 1: the stroke of a pen um. But then there have
Speaker 1: been others that have argued that, well, maybe this is
Speaker 1: within his executive authority. Um, But the Supreme Court came
Speaker 1: out with a decision in June that really changed the
Speaker 1: whole landscape. UM. That's going to really put this decision
Speaker 1: in jeopardy because when they struck down the climate rules
Speaker 1: in their ep A decision, they said that any actions
Speaker 1: that the executive takes that have major political or economic
Speaker 1: significance has to have a higher level of congressional authority.
Speaker 1: They have to be clearly articulated by Congress. This is
Speaker 1: the you're talking. So what happens start to see you
Speaker 1: know how broad odd scale canceling student loan debt isn't
Speaker 1: a decision of political and economic significant Yes, okay, so
Speaker 1: let's assume it's going to court. Is there an injunction?
Speaker 1: What happens to this whole program? If I can call
Speaker 1: it that? In the meantime? Does this pause everything? You know?
Speaker 1: I think what what we'll see is who susan when
Speaker 1: and where? Um? You know, this is something that UM,
Speaker 1: A lot of folks have talked about, is who is
Speaker 1: going to have the right to do here? And certainly, UM,
Speaker 1: there are potentially student loan servicers who do not want
Speaker 1: to cancel the student debt and you would rather have
Speaker 1: it go back. UM. They may have the ability to
Speaker 1: sue in court. UM. The folks that aren't actually eligible
Speaker 1: for this forgiveness, like someone who makes a hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty six thousand dollars a year, that person might be
Speaker 1: able to sue in court because the limit is a
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty five thousand, and that wasn't really um
Speaker 1: made up from anything except for what the administration decided,
Speaker 1: so they could say, you know, I was harmed by that, UM.
Speaker 1: But we also know that at least by Jeane you worry. UM.
Speaker 1: The House of Representatives, if it's under Republican control, absolutely
Speaker 1: continued to stop this can sue if not right legislation,
Speaker 1: although we should also know this is executive order, which
Speaker 1: can always be reversed by the next executive. But let's
Speaker 1: pick through this a little bit for a moment, because
Speaker 1: there are different components here. You've got the loan forgiveness,
Speaker 1: which is what everyone's talking about. You've also got this
Speaker 1: five percent cap one's discretionary income on loan repayments moving
Speaker 1: forward that could potentially impact far more people and of
Speaker 1: course go on indefinitely. Could we find ourselves with a
Speaker 1: split ruling where they take these one on one or
Speaker 1: just throw out the whole thing and start over. I
Speaker 1: think most likely what will be challenged as to learn
Speaker 1: forgiveness pieces because there are people that feel that they've
Speaker 1: been harmed from that. Um. I think the income based
Speaker 1: free payment pieces are really taking We already have income
Speaker 1: based ree payment plans on the books. If this is
Speaker 1: just making them more on earst and making more people
Speaker 1: able to access them, so it costs money, um, but
Speaker 1: it's not. There's not necessarily someone who's actively harmed by
Speaker 1: that that might have standing in court to sue as
Speaker 1: there are under the under the forgiveness rules. And just
Speaker 1: to to give you a sense of why, um, you
Speaker 1: know the House of Representatives might have standing, it's because
Speaker 1: they are saying, this is actually Congress's job. This isn't
Speaker 1: the executive jobs. This is Congress's job, and um, and
Speaker 1: we don't want to um, we don't want you to
Speaker 1: do this. And so you know, obviously the Democratic House
Speaker 1: won't act in that way, but we could see in January. UM,
Speaker 1: you know, if Republicans take over them them go in
Speaker 1: that direction. You can just imagine the hearings right now.
Speaker 1: And I think the hearings will start soon. And you know,
Speaker 1: part of the announcement was that the application this is
Speaker 1: not automatic. People are going to have to apply for it,
Speaker 1: and the application process has not yet been decided and
Speaker 1: is going to take a while. And so they said
Speaker 1: they will have form out by the end of the
Speaker 1: year for people to start applying. Um, but that means
Speaker 1: we've got a couple of months before maybe people can't
Speaker 1: even start filling out their paperwork, let alone having that
Speaker 1: paperwork process. The White House actually went out of its
Speaker 1: way to get ahead of conversations like the one we're
Speaker 1: having right now by laying out what it saw is
Speaker 1: the legal rationale here, and they pinned on the Department
Speaker 1: of Education, suggesting that it has the right to do this.
Speaker 1: You used to work as a lawyer, you have a
Speaker 1: constitutional law background. What's your gut say on what you're
Speaker 1: hearing from the White House? Well, you know, I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting. I think it actually, Um, it indicates that
Speaker 1: they're scared about court decision because, um, what they have
Speaker 1: been saying and what the advocates who have been pushing
Speaker 1: this and folks like Elizabeth Warren have been saying, is
Speaker 1: that the reason that the Executive could Act was based
Speaker 1: in the Higher Education Act, which is a law um
Speaker 1: Congress passed in the nineteen six season, has passed repeatedly
Speaker 1: since then, updating act. And they said, well, there's a
Speaker 1: provision in there that says, UM, people can the executive
Speaker 1: can compromise and settle UM different kinds of loans and
Speaker 1: and that has to do with, you know, the contracts
Speaker 1: on different lontainment systems and things like that. Well, they
Speaker 1: had argued that that was enough um for the President
Speaker 1: just to wipe away all student loan. But I think
Speaker 1: that the White House realized that that was not going
Speaker 1: to withstand scrutiny after this ep A decision, So they
Speaker 1: changed their legal analysis and instead said, oh, this is
Speaker 1: part of the pandemic. This is part of the Heroes
Speaker 1: Act public emergency UM powers that were given to the
Speaker 1: Department because of covid UM. And so that was a
Speaker 1: huge shift that no one expected and really surprised everyone
Speaker 1: yesterday did they didn't need reference the Higher Education Act
Speaker 1: at all. In fact, the President invoked the impact of
Speaker 1: the pandemic in his remarks. You're write, that is the
Speaker 1: language that we're hearing. Along with the fairness issue. Every
Speaker 1: time this comes up in front of the White House,
Speaker 1: whether it's the President yester day or the Press secretary today,
Speaker 1: the White House continues to point back to the Trump
Speaker 1: tax cuts to to say, hey, at least we're helping
Speaker 1: people here, and they're saying that it's paid for, which
Speaker 1: has its own argument that we don't need to get
Speaker 1: into now. But the talking points have evolved dramatically since
Speaker 1: this was first promised. They have, and I think that's
Speaker 1: because this is a super novel use of executive authority.
Speaker 1: No one a couple of years ago would have thought
Speaker 1: that the president would even try this. Um. And you know,
Speaker 1: every everyone from uh former General counsels of the Education
Speaker 1: Department to Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said the president does
Speaker 1: not have the power to do this. So I think
Speaker 1: that you'll see folks who are opposed to this decision
Speaker 1: using those statements in court to say, look, this this
Speaker 1: is kind of a an extreme use of power that
Speaker 1: that should not be tolerated by a single executive. Well,
Speaker 1: you're no stranger to politics, um, And I don't want
Speaker 1: to get you into political argument here, but you know,
Speaker 1: if you step back and consider what is likely to
Speaker 1: happen in the way that you're outlining it, that doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily present a political problem for the White House, right
Speaker 1: The President and his surrogates can still say in November, hey,
Speaker 1: we tried, we did this, We had it all mapped
Speaker 1: out for you. And you know what, the Republicans suit
Speaker 1: us to stop giving money back to people. And that's
Speaker 1: not a bad line to tell on the eve of
Speaker 1: an election. That I think that's their theory. But I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, I think they're they're forgetting two things.
Speaker 1: One is when you look at say, you know, the
Speaker 1: Harvard Institute Politics just had a poll of young people
Speaker 1: eighteen to They said their number one issue and priority
Speaker 1: was inflation. That was ten times more young people said
Speaker 1: inflation was their number one issue than the number of
Speaker 1: folks who said student debt was their number one issue.
Speaker 1: And this has been said to be and predicted to
Speaker 1: be inflationary, and so I think, you know, they they're
Speaker 1: thinking this is going to be a great boon for
Speaker 1: young voters. But I just don't know that that's going
Speaker 1: to come to fruition. And then what about all those
Speaker 1: folks who never attended higher education. Democrats have really been
Speaker 1: hemorrhaging with non college voters, non college, white voters, Latino voters,
Speaker 1: black voters, and what are they going to think about this?
Speaker 1: I think there's already a perception that the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is focused on elites and doing what's good for leaps
Speaker 1: and seeing you know a lot of the um talk
Speaker 1: about this on Twitter. This is this is really mostly
Speaker 1: going to impact people who have attended higher education and
Speaker 1: got a degree. Some people attended and didn't get a debriece,
Speaker 1: but a lot of them have it and they're actually
Speaker 1: set up to be okay in this economy and a
Speaker 1: lot of other people want It's pretty insightful if non college,
Speaker 1: working class voters in the suburbs decide the balance of
Speaker 1: power in Washington this November, this may not play well
Speaker 1: for Democrats. I think that's right. The Night ericson, Senior
Speaker 1: VP for Social Policy, Education and Politics A Third Way,
Speaker 1: really appreciate your insights to Night come back and talk
Speaker 1: to us. Thanks so much for having me, of course, Kreene.
Speaker 1: John Pierre, the White House Press Secretary, was just asked
Speaker 1: about this. What we have done is taken, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: taken a look of our legal authority and how we
Speaker 1: can make this happen. And we we uh went with
Speaker 1: the heroes act and we feel pretty confident about that
Speaker 1: went with the Heroes acts. Will assemble the panel next
Speaker 1: for their take. Rick Davis and Jeanie Chanzano straight ahead
Speaker 1: on sound On. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The
Speaker 1: headlines about the President's student loan forgiveness plan on the
Speaker 1: terminal say at all. If you just do a search,
Speaker 1: you can see where the narrative is going here. Student
Speaker 1: loan plan divides Democrats, New York Times, Bloomberg. Biden's student
Speaker 1: loan relief ads new wrinkle to inflation debate. It's hard
Speaker 1: to find a positive note here. As we just discussed
Speaker 1: with Lina, it's likely to go to court. Let's assemble
Speaker 1: the panel now. Jennie Chanzano and Rick Davis are with
Speaker 1: us Bloomberg Politics contributors. We took a first dip into
Speaker 1: this as we had just come off the announcement this
Speaker 1: time yesterday. Jennie, if this ends up in court, is
Speaker 1: it over? It very well could be. You know, I
Speaker 1: think your discussion previously was so important because a huge
Speaker 1: question here is on the impact on the economy, the
Speaker 1: deficit inflation. Another aspect is fairness. And then there's the
Speaker 1: legality issue in the question of separation of powers, as
Speaker 1: you laid out, and whether the president has the authority
Speaker 1: to do this in fact, and as you have the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court laying out this major questions challenge in the
Speaker 1: previous term, it's going to come back and the question
Speaker 1: is gonna be who has the standing to sue on this?
Speaker 1: But once it gets into court, it will be debated
Speaker 1: and this power may be stripped. And it was Joe
Speaker 1: Biden himself who said that. And I was always listening
Speaker 1: to your discussion. I kept thinking, you know, when Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is Joe Biden, the moderate Joe Biden that he's
Speaker 1: always and he doesn't seem to get into this trouble,
Speaker 1: but when he goes too far down this progressive path,
Speaker 1: he does. And I'm concerned here that's what happened. What
Speaker 1: are you thinking about this? When Rick did? Did the
Speaker 1: White House know this was going to court? I mean,
Speaker 1: they had a preamble on the legal grounds because obviously
Speaker 1: they saw the question coming. Sure, I'm sure that they
Speaker 1: saw the question coming, and I think that's why they
Speaker 1: chose to embed this in the wording of the Heroes
Speaker 1: Act and not the Higher Education Act because I think
Speaker 1: they just assumed everybody was expecting an h A appeal.
Speaker 1: But but I would say, the one thing you gotta
Speaker 1: understand those the Supreme Court does not like to accept
Speaker 1: UH cases like this unless there is a real good
Speaker 1: instanding person and that's what Genie is saying. I mean
Speaker 1: the Virginia the case. Virginia Laview did an analysis of
Speaker 1: this exact thing back in April, and they said that
Speaker 1: the former borrowers, Congress, state governments, and loan services are
Speaker 1: outside the current standing doctrine of the Supreme Court. So
Speaker 1: if those people can't get standing to appeal this case,
Speaker 1: who is Well that's a that's a good one. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what. It's gonna be an issue on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail. It's already started. Rhndes Santa Is seized on
Speaker 1: this and has been talking about it ever since the
Speaker 1: governor of Florida. Here's the taste. It's very unfair to
Speaker 1: people who took other pathways in life that didn't require
Speaker 1: them to take out a lot alan So maybe people
Speaker 1: that went into business immediately, people that went into trades.
Speaker 1: They made those decisions, uh, to not have that debt,
Speaker 1: and now the debts being put on them, and some
Speaker 1: have estimated it could represent about two thous dollars per
Speaker 1: taxpayer when all is said and done with this. And
Speaker 1: so it's very unfair, you know, to have a truck
Speaker 1: driver have to pay back a loan from somebody that
Speaker 1: got like a PhD in gender studies. That's not fair,
Speaker 1: it's not right. Take ground of aplause on that one. Genie.
Speaker 1: We even got the gender whistle in that answer, and
Speaker 1: he's used that line before back in a will, almost
Speaker 1: exactly word for word on this, just knowing that this
Speaker 1: was going to be a juicy campaign issue. What's the
Speaker 1: Democratic answer? With the Democratic answer should be to ask
Speaker 1: Governor to Santis exactly what he has done to address
Speaker 1: the huge issue of college affordability in his state and
Speaker 1: across the country, and he can, you know, do use
Speaker 1: these dog whistles on gender studies and everything else. But
Speaker 1: the reality is people who go to college are able
Speaker 1: to get more income throughout their lifetimes. And if that's
Speaker 1: the case, he should want that for everybody in the
Speaker 1: state of Florida across the nation. If people can't afford it.
Speaker 1: That's what he should be telling us what he's going
Speaker 1: to do about that, not these dog whistles about people
Speaker 1: who actually went I agree with him. The fairness issue
Speaker 1: is enormously important, but he is not answering the big question,
Speaker 1: which is what would you do about the price of
Speaker 1: college today? He has no answer to that. Charlie Chris
Speaker 1: took a swing at it. Of course, he is the
Speaker 1: Democratic nominee. Now he's running against Rhand de Santis, a
Speaker 1: little bit different than the approach that Jennie just took.
Speaker 1: I agree with us move a hundred percent. President Biden
Speaker 1: is leading so well. You know, the price of gas
Speaker 1: has gone down now seventy days in a row. He's
Speaker 1: just announced reducing the price of a college education. Everybody
Speaker 1: should be able to afford a college college education. Can
Speaker 1: can you win the governorship in Florida talking like that?
Speaker 1: Rick Well, I can't see. I can't wait to see
Speaker 1: all the commercials that pose Charlie crist as a Republican
Speaker 1: and what he said then with what he's saying today. Look,
Speaker 1: I mean he's all in right, I mean like he's
Speaker 1: going to take the Democratic line all the way to
Speaker 1: the election. Day. And and this is a classic political
Speaker 1: case of picking winners and losers, right, the administrations decided, Hey,
Speaker 1: we're gonna count ow to people with these these debts,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna do exactly what we want to do.
Speaker 1: We're gonna we're gonna relieve them of the debt, and
Speaker 1: and we're going to give the Republicans a great political issue.
Speaker 1: But we think we're gonna get more out of it,
Speaker 1: so it's worth the trade. That's well, yeah, talk about this.
Speaker 1: It's it almost rights itself run to see again, he
Speaker 1: wants to have the average American foot the bill for
Speaker 1: student loans. For somebody who's making six figures and has
Speaker 1: a law degree or a medical degree, that's what will
Speaker 1: happen on this. There's many other people who took out
Speaker 1: loans and paid them off. So don't you feel like
Speaker 1: a sucker? Now that by that the line, right, we
Speaker 1: can demonize people who went to college, I guess. And
Speaker 1: you know we're gonna make fun of people with pH
Speaker 1: d s, which is ridiculous, genie, But it comes down to, hey,
Speaker 1: I paid my loan, what's the problem with you? That's right,
Speaker 1: but we should also mention what you mentioned previously, which
Speaker 1: is that CAP is incredibly important because it does help
Speaker 1: mitigate you know, it doesn't, in my mind, do it
Speaker 1: do enough to address apporda getting no coverage. I haven't
Speaker 1: heard anyone talk about it outside of this program. And
Speaker 1: that's the problem with the administration. They've got to be
Speaker 1: talking about that, not just the you know, not forcing
Speaker 1: people to pay the ten thousand. Yeah, Genie Chanzano and
Speaker 1: Rick Davis, our signature panel, first swing of the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in politics, and we're gonna turn to hey, how
Speaker 1: about more court. They're unsealing the warrant tomorrow mar Lago.
Speaker 1: Eric Larson, Bloomberg Legal reporter, will be with us. Give
Speaker 1: us a sense of what we're gonna learn. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: President Biden was asked about the search on Mara Lago
Speaker 1: just yesterday at a completely unrelated event. He was talking
Speaker 1: about the student loan forgiveness in fact, and based on
Speaker 1: his answer, I'm guessing he doesn't know what's in this affidavit.
Speaker 1: I notice you have of the FBI's plan to search
Speaker 1: mar Lago. I didn't have any advanced notice, none, zero, no,
Speaker 1: one single bit. Thank you. I wonder what he's learned
Speaker 1: since then. Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson among those going
Speaker 1: to be clicking refresh around noon tomorrow. I just wonder
Speaker 1: maybe they'll drop this thing early Friday, right, just drop
Speaker 1: it early in the morning, Eric, What do you think
Speaker 1: we were just talking about that? Actually we noon tomorrow
Speaker 1: is the deadline, but the Justice Department really could file
Speaker 1: this at any time. So, uh, yeah, we're gonna be
Speaker 1: doing a lot of clicking. You do a lot of clicking,
Speaker 1: and but I don't know if you're gonna be doing
Speaker 1: a lot of reading. Eric. We understand that that a
Speaker 1: lot of this will be redacted, but then again, the
Speaker 1: judge has made clear that that it's still a worthy
Speaker 1: move better than at least keeping this sealed. Do you
Speaker 1: expect much to write about? You know, we're we really don't,
Speaker 1: to be honest, but I'm happy to be surprised. You know.
Speaker 1: The judge did say that because of the historical significance
Speaker 1: of this search, he thought that if there was any
Speaker 1: details that all that could be made public without you know,
Speaker 1: injuring the investigation, then they should be made public. So
Speaker 1: today the Justice Department file it's proposed redactions earlier today.
Speaker 1: It was a pretty quick turnaround. By the judge. He said, okay, um,
Speaker 1: if he made any of his own redactions, we we
Speaker 1: don't know that. But he ordered them to go ahead
Speaker 1: and make the redacted version public tomorrow. Uh, no idea.
Speaker 1: How much is going to be redacted? Probably a significant amount,
Speaker 1: because the judge said that they could protect the identities
Speaker 1: of witnesses, law enforcement agents, people who haven't been charged,
Speaker 1: in the scope and sources and methods of the investigation.
Speaker 1: So that's a lot. That's everything. I mean, what is
Speaker 1: outside of that of that list? And honestly, Eric, you know,
Speaker 1: that's a good question. I've thought about it. You know,
Speaker 1: this is just me thinking potentially, based on their adaptions,
Speaker 1: we might at least still get a hint of perhaps
Speaker 1: how many witnesses there are, um, you know, some idea
Speaker 1: of whether or not they're in Florida or DC. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, whether or not there are some informants. You know,
Speaker 1: we obviously we won't get the identity and they'll hide
Speaker 1: information that could lead to that person being identified. But
Speaker 1: if there is an informant, maybe we'll get a hint
Speaker 1: of that. And even like when they decided that the
Speaker 1: search was warranted, we know that in June one of
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyers assured the Justice Department in the science statement
Speaker 1: that there were no more classified records at Mara Lago.
Speaker 1: Clearly something happened after that that made the government believe otherwise.
Speaker 1: So maybe we'll get a hit about what that was.
Speaker 1: Should we believe that Donald Trump has all of this
Speaker 1: in his hands, and we understand that he had the
Speaker 1: search warrant? Would that include the affidavit? Could he have
Speaker 1: released this at any time? I don't believe so. I
Speaker 1: don't think that he had, as David Um, and you know,
Speaker 1: we have heard some folks say that the affidavit might
Speaker 1: not be really great for Trump, you know, if it
Speaker 1: really does sell out of a solid justification, it has
Speaker 1: asked for it to be released though, right to be clear, Yeah,
Speaker 1: he has to be clear. He has Um And you know,
Speaker 1: just some legal experts that I've spoken to over the
Speaker 1: last few weeks question whether or not that that really
Speaker 1: was a great idea. I mean, maybe he didn't think
Speaker 1: that it would actually happen. But the judge clearly is
Speaker 1: interested in some level of transparency here. We'll see how
Speaker 1: far that goes tomorrow. Eric Larson, Bloomberg Legal reporter. We
Speaker 1: appreciate it as always, Eric, thank you for the insights
Speaker 1: I want to hear from the panel on this, just
Speaker 1: just for a moment. Rick Davis, Jeanie Schanzana have been
Speaker 1: following this since, of course the search of Mara Lago.
Speaker 1: What do you make of this, Rick, If we don't
Speaker 1: learn much tomorrow, that's all we're gonna get between now
Speaker 1: and November. Yeah. I think this is uh a real
Speaker 1: sort of no brainer. I mean, now that they've got
Speaker 1: the redactions accepted, d o J has gotten Trump to
Speaker 1: take de bait. I mean, Donald Trump, I think, walked
Speaker 1: into a trap on this one. I wouldn't do tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised to see Donald Trump trying to
Speaker 1: do a temporary restraining order on getting this out. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: surprise me for him to backtrack on this as opposed
Speaker 1: to a bunch of pages that are just blacked out
Speaker 1: in redaction, Well, they're gonna be blacked out, but they
Speaker 1: I guarantee you the parts that they didn't black out
Speaker 1: are probably critical of Donald Trump and his lack of
Speaker 1: willingness to abide by the law. And and I think
Speaker 1: that rationale probably will be spelled out loud and clear.
Speaker 1: He did ask for it to be released, Genie, Let's
Speaker 1: be careful what you ask for. That's right. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think the Justice Department here, by filing not for
Speaker 1: to have this be released and working hard on these redactions,
Speaker 1: has really called his bluff. Because to Rick's point, if
Speaker 1: there are signs that that there are, you know, bad
Speaker 1: news for Donald Trump here, that is a real loser
Speaker 1: for him. And of course his attorneys have had a
Speaker 1: hard time responding and almost haven't responded to all at all.
Speaker 1: Too much of this already. The language from Judge Bruce Reinhardt, Uh,
Speaker 1: the government met its burden of showing that it's proposed
Speaker 1: redactions are narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate interest
Speaker 1: in the integrity of the ongoing investigation, but says they
Speaker 1: were the least onerous alternative to keeping the entire documents sealed.
Speaker 1: Does that give us any sense, Rick, of how valuable
Speaker 1: this might be? Oh? Yeah, I think uh, I think
Speaker 1: that that that is the indication that there's going to
Speaker 1: be some news around this, right that that it will
Speaker 1: occupy time tomorrow by people saying, holy smokes, you know,
Speaker 1: this is a bad thing for Donald Trump. There's nothing
Speaker 1: bad In this release tomorrow of the Justice Department, nobody
Speaker 1: will be able to criticize the Justice Department of saying, oh,
Speaker 1: they did this, you know, with no reasonable search. All
Speaker 1: that's is blacked out. And I think that the onus
Speaker 1: is going to fall back on Donald Trump. And it
Speaker 1: will really interesting to see the GOP reaction all these
Speaker 1: guys that went out and stuck their neck out for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, you know, calling it a raid and all
Speaker 1: these awful things. Are they going to shut up or
Speaker 1: are they going to go on the offense? And that
Speaker 1: will be I think what really is telling tomorrow boit.
Speaker 1: You know, there could be evidence in there, I suppose, Jeannie,
Speaker 1: but the Department of Justice didn't want this unsealed at all.
Speaker 1: And this is a pretty unusual move for an ongoing investigation.
Speaker 1: It is, and it sets quite a precedent because while
Speaker 1: there won't be to Rick's point, you know, revealing negative
Speaker 1: information about the Justice Department in the document, certainly, the
Speaker 1: fact that they are now forced to disclose even a
Speaker 1: partial version of this is not only highly unusual, it
Speaker 1: reveals to the other side where they are headed in
Speaker 1: this investigation, something the Justice Department is loath to do.
Speaker 1: And of course questions. Now, this is an unusual case
Speaker 1: involving a former president, but is there going to be
Speaker 1: pushed to release partial affidavits or full affidavids in other
Speaker 1: types of cases? This is not something the Justice Department
Speaker 1: wants to set as a precedence. The case isn't need
Speaker 1: clear though, Rick. If the justification isn't laid out, d
Speaker 1: o J is gonna get crushed with Republican criticism. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I think the leaks to date have already done that. Right,
Speaker 1: How much have we learned as we've gone along here
Speaker 1: without this? Um? You know, we thought this was six,
Speaker 1: five or eleven files that they picked up of top
Speaker 1: secret information, and now it's now it's three with seven pages.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, so, so I think we're gonna
Speaker 1: learn some I think that they already have them dead
Speaker 1: to rights on violating the rules handling this kind of documentation.
Speaker 1: So that will just be laid out in black and white,
Speaker 1: reminding us there is no such thing as a slow
Speaker 1: news week, not in this town, not anymore. August, cancel
Speaker 1: your vacations. But then again, that's why we have this program.
Speaker 1: Sound on, This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg. Sound on
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. So it's the end of the road
Speaker 1: for the tail pipe in California. Well, at least we
Speaker 1: know when the road will end. Regulators in the state
Speaker 1: just today of proving a plan to ban the sale
Speaker 1: of new gasoline powered cars by the year band they'll
Speaker 1: be required to run on either hydrogen or electricity. Governor
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom talked about it with ABC News. This idea
Speaker 1: of a tailpipe, we don't need it anymore. That's freedom.
Speaker 1: This is about freedom. This is about real choice. This
Speaker 1: is about lowering costs, no more dependency, freedom from the tailpipe.
Speaker 1: Let's reassemble the panel for their take on this. Genie
Speaker 1: Chanzano and Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributors. Uh. This this
Speaker 1: is someone Rick, who is frequently referred to as a
Speaker 1: presidential hopeful, might be the future of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: as he leading the way for the party agenda. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's cutting edge. I mean this is uh, this is
Speaker 1: pretty far out there. When I was sixteen years old,
Speaker 1: I thought a car where the tail paper was my tailpipe,
Speaker 1: was my freedom. And now I'm told it's not so. Look,
Speaker 1: I mean he's got an agenda California is I'm Slay
Speaker 1: a lot more progressive on climate issues and environment than
Speaker 1: virtually any other state in the country. But honestly, they
Speaker 1: have led the country towards a greener future. So, um,
Speaker 1: I think he's trying to put that mantle on his shoulders.
Speaker 1: And this is a good way to start. California. The
Speaker 1: incubator in this case, Genie progressives have said for years
Speaker 1: the only way to really get to this is to
Speaker 1: eliminate the internal combustion engine. He's he's actually doing it.
Speaker 1: He is, and it is a historic move. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm so glad we're talking about this. It's, as we understand,
Speaker 1: the first band of its kind in the world, not
Speaker 1: to mention the country. And many people suggest to your
Speaker 1: incubator point that multiple states will follow in this direction.
Speaker 1: And so this is what the heck you're gonna do.
Speaker 1: If you have a gas powered car, you have to
Speaker 1: stop at the border in certain states. In in calin Uber,
Speaker 1: they're going to allow for They're going to allow for
Speaker 1: cars that are used. Um, and you know, I like
Speaker 1: I like the free from the tail pipe. That was great, Joe,
Speaker 1: and uh that that will be the new bumpers ticker.
Speaker 1: But I do think you know, the the the impact
Speaker 1: on the car industry in this country is going to
Speaker 1: be enormous, and of course, California's economy so large that
Speaker 1: it can have that kind of impact. And it's going
Speaker 1: to be curious to see what this does for Newsom
Speaker 1: as he tries potentially to buy for the presidency or
Speaker 1: at least the nomination on the Democratic side, should Biden
Speaker 1: drop out. If Gavin Newsom keeps going Rick, maybe he
Speaker 1: gets Elon Musk to move back to California. Uh, He's
Speaker 1: got a lot more work to do to get you
Speaker 1: up back to California. But look, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: about buying new cars in This isn't about the gas
Speaker 1: guzzlers that we haven't our garages in California. They still
Speaker 1: hit the road, They'll still be carn there exactly. But
Speaker 1: that being said, this is a movement. As Genie says,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of car companies that are converting
Speaker 1: the too electric. They're redoing their balance sheets to afford
Speaker 1: the conversion. And and you know, this is a classic
Speaker 1: case of going where the puck is going, not where
Speaker 1: the puck is. Well, that's that's a great point, Genie.
Speaker 1: I mean, GM and Ford, Uh, you know, put Tesla
Speaker 1: aside for a second. If you if you listen to
Speaker 1: the White House, the Big three are fully invested in
Speaker 1: this and by that's that's all they're going to be selling. Well,
Speaker 1: that's right, and and that's why you know, this move
Speaker 1: is you know, leading to a certain extent, but it's
Speaker 1: also following where the industry is going. It depends on
Speaker 1: how fast they get there. But let's also not forget
Speaker 1: how important this is in our fight against climate change.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a you know, the threat to
Speaker 1: all of us around the world, and it is good
Speaker 1: to see public officials and public institutions leading the way.
Speaker 1: Whether you think this is the right move to make
Speaker 1: or not, something has got to be done. And so
Speaker 1: this is where he's trying to go. And he's got
Speaker 1: a lot of support on that, not just in the
Speaker 1: car manufacturing community, but with voters, particularly young people who
Speaker 1: are really concerned about this issue. Whether Gavin Newsom is
Speaker 1: the nominee for Democrats in twenty four or four years
Speaker 1: after that, Rick, is this the future of the Democratic platform?
Speaker 1: Does that need to be essentially on the ballot in
Speaker 1: twenty four It will be on the ballot in twenty four.
Speaker 1: I think that part of what the Biden administration's most
Speaker 1: recent UM congressional proposal putting an enormous amount of money
Speaker 1: into climate has done is has grabbed that headline into
Speaker 1: their administration, into the Democratic platform, and and the Republican
Speaker 1: opposition to it put them on the defense. And so
Speaker 1: absolutely this is going to be something Democrats are gonna
Speaker 1: have on the top of their agenda alongside of economic issues,
Speaker 1: just like they've done right before going into the midterms.
Speaker 1: He're gonna need a lot of charging stations. That is
Speaker 1: a big state. As we spend time with our panel,
Speaker 1: I have to ask you about this back and forth today,
Speaker 1: and that's not even a back and forth, it's just
Speaker 1: a fourth Rhonda Santis, who we talked about earlier in
Speaker 1: the broadcast, the governor of Florida, just unleashing on Dr
Speaker 1: Anthony Fauci, who reacted to this today on Bloomberg. I
Speaker 1: want to let you listen to what he said, both
Speaker 1: of you. It recalls recent conversations that we have had
Speaker 1: about politicians inciting violence without quite going that far, but
Speaker 1: it's it's pretty tough stuff. I mean, he kind of
Speaker 1: did go this far. This is Rhodes Santis on the
Speaker 1: stump today talking about the outgoing White House Chief Medical Advisory. Yeah,
Speaker 1: people like Fauci saying that his lockdowns didn't cause any
Speaker 1: permanent damage to any young kids. I got news for you.
Speaker 1: It did. And we are gonna reap those rewards across
Speaker 1: the whole country for years and years and years because
Speaker 1: they treated kids so poorly. And I'm just sick of
Speaker 1: seeing him. I know he says he's gonna retire. Someone
Speaker 1: needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across
Speaker 1: the Pacomba. Listen to the applause. Let it rod just
Speaker 1: love this stuff. A little elf, who, of course is Look.
Speaker 1: I agree whatever think about he's He's given his life
Speaker 1: to public service. I think we can all agree on
Speaker 1: at But to suggest he be thrown across the Potomac. Uh. Look,
Speaker 1: I don't want to be, you know, too sensitive about
Speaker 1: this here, but but it really adds to this narrative
Speaker 1: that it might be okay a genie to take this
Speaker 1: out physically. That's right. I was remembering remember Michael Graham
Speaker 1: from the Gray Island of Staten Island in New York
Speaker 1: when he threatened to throw New York One reporter off
Speaker 1: the balcony and you know, he was basically run out
Speaker 1: of Congress, not just as a result of that, but
Speaker 1: the criticism was loud and enormous for that kind of threat.
Speaker 1: And now you see the change, and it's kind of
Speaker 1: this suggery that's going on and these sort of violent
Speaker 1: threats that you know, it's not even been ten years
Speaker 1: since the Michael Grim issue, and you've got the governor
Speaker 1: of a major state of potential nominee for presidents making
Speaker 1: these kind of comments about a public official. It's it's
Speaker 1: pretty depressing. And of course all the reports were you know,
Speaker 1: he is five seven, but run to Santas is just
Speaker 1: five nine, So there's not that much difference between their
Speaker 1: heights a little elf Rick, I don't know what was
Speaker 1: more disturbing their the the line or the reaction from
Speaker 1: the crowd. Yeah, at least it wasn't locked him up.
Speaker 1: I mean that was certainly something that Donald Trump like
Speaker 1: mantra Um. Look, I I do think part of what
Speaker 1: the santist has got to figure out. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is kind of an easy layup for him to be
Speaker 1: this kind of uh, you know, demonizing of of of
Speaker 1: public servant like Faucci. But you know, part of what
Speaker 1: kept Donald Trump from winning re election, um, and which
Speaker 1: is very unusual for a sitting present to not win,
Speaker 1: was the people's fatigue with this kind of rhetoric. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so if he thinks he's going to sort of
Speaker 1: be different than Donald Trump, then he's got to curtail
Speaker 1: this kind of conversation with the American people. At sure
Speaker 1: gets crowd fired up, They're gonna really be entertained. But
Speaker 1: you know, he's gonna need a lot more than that
Speaker 1: crowd he had today to get elected to anything in
Speaker 1: the future. And he's on a ballot this year in Florida.
Speaker 1: And so whether or not this kind of act plays
Speaker 1: is going to be seen soon. Interesting you say that.
Speaker 1: Alie Christ who we also heard from briefly earlier this hour,
Speaker 1: reacting to the idea of well just having received the nomination,
Speaker 1: and asked about you, how do you convert these to
Speaker 1: Santas vote? How do you bring the Santas voters into
Speaker 1: the Democratic fold? His answer was remarkable, Those who support
Speaker 1: the governor should stay with him and vote for him.
Speaker 1: And I don't want your vote. Wow, if you have
Speaker 1: that hate in your heart, keep it there. I want
Speaker 1: the vote of the people of Florida who care about
Speaker 1: our state. Good Democrats, good independence, good Republicans. Is that
Speaker 1: a good strategy, Genie, I do not I'm running for governor.
Speaker 1: I do not want your vote. It's not one I
Speaker 1: would recommend. And and I'm curious to see if Rick
Speaker 1: Davis would have recommended his candidates. You know. But but
Speaker 1: I will say a big challenge for De Santis is
Speaker 1: not only that, in my mind, he's got to win,
Speaker 1: you know, beat Christ He's got to beat him pretty
Speaker 1: handily if he wants to show that he can win nationally.
Speaker 1: And I think it's going to be an uphill battle
Speaker 1: because he did not win handily last time around. Rick,
Speaker 1: should Charlie Chris not welcome the Santis supporters big tents
Speaker 1: something like that, you know, It's it's not a shock
Speaker 1: to me that that he would sort of lay down
Speaker 1: the gauntlet. Um, you know, most of them. I would say,
Speaker 1: virtually every De Santist voter is highly unlikely, if not absolutely,
Speaker 1: will not support Charlie Chris. Right, So if you already
Speaker 1: think the Santis is a good governor, you're not going
Speaker 1: to vote for Charlie Cris. But and the Santis has
Speaker 1: about a fifty approval rating, but I would say that's
Speaker 1: come down from almost sixty just a few months ago. So, um,
Speaker 1: this is a way to divide the house. This is
Speaker 1: a way to create a clear distinction between who you're
Speaker 1: four uh and he's playing. There is a method here,
Speaker 1: there is a strategy. Absolutely. I think this is clear.
Speaker 1: You know, divide the house and start putting pressure on
Speaker 1: people who are soft onto Santists to come over to
Speaker 1: the Chris side. You guys see the top gun ad.
Speaker 1: Should I say the topic of add this is Rhonda
Speaker 1: Santis again? Well, I mean guess he's running for office.
Speaker 1: But peculiar that they put this ad together where he's
Speaker 1: like that, he's Tom Cruise, he's dressed up as a
Speaker 1: fighter pilot, he's Maverick, he's walking out of the hangar.
Speaker 1: Let's see what the F fourteen's going over. Good morning,
Speaker 1: ladies and gentlemen. This is your governor speaking today's training evolution,
Speaker 1: dog fighting thinking on the corporate media. Rules of engagement
Speaker 1: are as follows. Number one, don't fire and less fire
Speaker 1: to get when they fire, you fire. Couple example, does
Speaker 1: it say that in the bill, I'm asking you to
Speaker 1: tell me what's in the bill? You see him facing
Speaker 1: off with reporters that he's knocking them down and telling
Speaker 1: them where it's at and pointing. But he's wearing the helmet, Genie,
Speaker 1: And I'm seeing everywhere on Twitter comparisons Rhoda Santis now
Speaker 1: and Michael Dukakis in the tank. Is that a win
Speaker 1: or a loss? It's a loss if that's the comparison,
Speaker 1: I think, Rick, would you ever put a candidate in
Speaker 1: a helmet? After what we saw with Michael Cannida. I
Speaker 1: had war a helmet in Vietnam and that was the
Speaker 1: best thing that ever happened to him, and an actual fight.
Speaker 1: Utter better be careful appropriating those kinds of symbols. I'm
Speaker 1: Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg