Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on
Speaker 1: People's Republic of China launched in estimated eleven ballistic missiles
Speaker 1: towards Taiwan. Russia is wrongfully detaining Brittany. I've never met
Speaker 1: any lab here honestly today Bloomberg Sound on politics, policy
Speaker 1: and perspective. From DC's top names on this vote, they
Speaker 1: are the nays are one and one. Senator responded to President,
Speaker 1: this is coming after the families and the farmers and
Speaker 1: the small businesses of America. Your attorney's messed up in
Speaker 1: sitting an entire digital com of your entire self from
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sund On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. China
Speaker 1: reportedly fires missiles over Taiwan. Brittany Grinder gets nine and
Speaker 1: a half years of the Senator proved Sweden and Finland
Speaker 1: to join NATO with a single vote against. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the fastest hour in politics. As we gauge the fallout
Speaker 1: from Nancy Pelosi's trip to Asia with At Bruin, former
Speaker 1: White House Director of Global Engagement, and the impact of
Speaker 1: the Grinder sentencing with Thomas Firestone, former assistant U S
Speaker 1: attorney worked as a lawyer in Moscow. Later, reconciliation gets
Speaker 1: more complicated for Democrats. We'll get a behind the scenes
Speaker 1: view from Jim Kessler, a Third Way former legislative policy
Speaker 1: director for Senator Chuck Schumer. China ups the anti after
Speaker 1: Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip this week to Taiwan. Retired Admiral
Speaker 1: John Kirby, speaking for the National Security Council today at
Speaker 1: the White House. Overnight, People's Republic of China launched in
Speaker 1: estimated eleven ballistic missiles towards Taiwan, which impacted to the northeast,
Speaker 1: the east, and southeast of the island. We condemned these actions,
Speaker 1: which are irresponsible and at odds with our long standing
Speaker 1: goal of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Street
Speaker 1: and in the region. In Japan says five of those
Speaker 1: eleven ballistic missiles landed in its exclusive of Economic zone
Speaker 1: and four likely flew over Taiwan itself, a major escalation
Speaker 1: if confirmed. Kirby says, the US is not standing down
Speaker 1: in the region. We will not be deterred from operating
Speaker 1: in the seas and the skies of the Western Pacific
Speaker 1: consistent with international law, as we have for decades supporting
Speaker 1: Taiwan and defending a free and open indoor Pacific. To
Speaker 1: that end, Secretary Austin today is directed that the aircraft
Speaker 1: carrier USS Ronald Reagan and the ships in her strike
Speaker 1: group will remain on station in the general area to
Speaker 1: monitor the situation, but he says the US is also
Speaker 1: postponing a planned minute Man three I CBM tests so
Speaker 1: as to not further in flame tensions. Is that the
Speaker 1: price of the trip. Let's get into it now with
Speaker 1: ret ruined president of the Global Situation Room, former Director
Speaker 1: of Global Engagement in the Obama White House, Brett welcome back.
Speaker 1: Was at the right move now to postpone a planned
Speaker 1: US missile test. I think so you don't want to
Speaker 1: create a situation where we're in an escalatory pattern. Instead,
Speaker 1: the US needs to be a responsible party here trying
Speaker 1: to de escalate this situation, show that we are not
Speaker 1: giving ground, but at the same time we're not going
Speaker 1: to give Beijing an excuse to up their aggression. And
Speaker 1: I think that's what you saw come out of the
Speaker 1: decision by the Defense Department today. Uh seeing the reports
Speaker 1: that I'm assuming that the the reports from Japan are correct,
Speaker 1: that several of these missiles went over Taiwan. Is a
Speaker 1: new level? Does it require a response? Again? I think
Speaker 1: we should um be much more careful in how we respond.
Speaker 1: Beijing is looking to show strength after Secretary or rather
Speaker 1: Speaker Pelosi's visit, and and this was their attempt at that.
Speaker 1: Obviously it breaks with some past precedent UH and it
Speaker 1: it takes the efforts by I think the United States
Speaker 1: and our allies to show restraint in this moment and
Speaker 1: to show that this kind of force. And let's not
Speaker 1: forget Russia was also engaged in quote unquote training exercises
Speaker 1: that preceded their invasion of Ukraine, and so these kinds
Speaker 1: of exercises can be a prelude to further action. One
Speaker 1: of the concerns that I've been speaking with experts about
Speaker 1: is if China should occupy islands off of Taiwan's coast
Speaker 1: that are are part of UH Taiwan, what is our reaction?
Speaker 1: Do we call that an invasion? Do we respond? Right?
Speaker 1: Is that the same as invading UH Taipei. Look, we've
Speaker 1: got some some tough decisions to make here, potential Lee
Speaker 1: and I don't know where this is going, Brett, but
Speaker 1: China has essentially created a blockade around Taiwan. Over the
Speaker 1: coming days, as these exercises encircle the island UH, Taiwan
Speaker 1: is at the mercy of Beijing. How dangerous does this get?
Speaker 1: Are we're gonna be talking about this week's down the road?
Speaker 1: Or does China pack up its toys when this is
Speaker 1: over and go home? Well, I think most observers would
Speaker 1: see them packing up their toys for now and going home.
Speaker 1: This was a show of strength. It was an attempt
Speaker 1: to send a message. Should they stay there, the United
Speaker 1: States are allies, would need to challenge that presence, and
Speaker 1: you know we have a model for doing so. China
Speaker 1: has made claims to other parts of the Pacific Ocean,
Speaker 1: the South China Sea, and we have freedom of navigation
Speaker 1: movement similarly, So I think you would see a situation
Speaker 1: in which the United States would attempt to break that
Speaker 1: um UH blockade of the island of Taiwan. So what's
Speaker 1: going to happen the next time we send the Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan up the Taiwan straight Well, I think what we've
Speaker 1: seen in the past is that China will engage, whether
Speaker 1: it's UH on the the ocean, in the Sky in
Speaker 1: a series of aggressive maneuvers. But let's not forget that
Speaker 1: Chusing Ping is in a very difficult position right now.
Speaker 1: The economy back home in China has been suffering, showing
Speaker 1: anemic growth, and also, obviously his crackdown over the last
Speaker 1: several years has created a whole host of enemies animosity.
Speaker 1: He's got to be careful how he plays his cards here,
Speaker 1: and I think at the same time, the US is
Speaker 1: in a stronger position after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with
Speaker 1: a united West with a playbook for how we handle
Speaker 1: these kinds of situations brewing Global Situation Room Presidents, the
Speaker 1: former director of Global Engagement at the White House in
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. We appreciate it as always, Brett, thank
Speaker 1: you for the insights. As we we've turned to the
Speaker 1: Brittany Grinder sentencing today and boy nine and a half years.
Speaker 1: I guess no one's surprised, right They had asked for
Speaker 1: nine and a half, people thought you might get ten,
Speaker 1: And there it is. She spoke before the sentence came down.
Speaker 1: I've never met hurt anybody. I never meant to put
Speaker 1: in jeopardy the rest of population. I've never met any
Speaker 1: laws here I made an honestly state and I hope
Speaker 1: that and you're brewing that it doesn't end my life here.
Speaker 1: Reaction from the White House was swift. We got a
Speaker 1: statement from President Biden, came up in the briefing with
Speaker 1: Press Secretary Karine Sean Pierre. So today's sentencing is a
Speaker 1: reminder of what the world already knew. Russia is wrongfully
Speaker 1: detaining Brittany. She never should have had to endure a
Speaker 1: trial in the first place. Here's and else. The world
Speaker 1: already knew this likely ends with a prisoner swap. So
Speaker 1: did Russia just get more leverage? We bring in Thomas Firestone,
Speaker 1: partner at Struck and Struke and Lavan, former assistant U
Speaker 1: S attorney who actually worked in Moscow for some time
Speaker 1: as a lawyer. Thomas, thank you for being here. This
Speaker 1: seemed inevitable to most people watching it. Did you expect
Speaker 1: such a harsh sentence? I did expect a harsh sentence.
Speaker 1: You know, on the one hand, the typical sentences in
Speaker 1: Russian ordinary cases like this or about five years probation.
Speaker 1: Her lawyers made that point in recent cases involving Americans
Speaker 1: caught at the airport. The sentence has been much higher.
Speaker 1: Mark Fogel was sixty one year old school teacher got
Speaker 1: fourteen years for seventeen grahams Nami Soccer got seven and
Speaker 1: a half years for nine grams. This is one gram, right,
Speaker 1: this is less than one gram is less than one
Speaker 1: So she got nine years for less than one graham?
Speaker 1: In what world? Is not a reasonable sentence. There's no
Speaker 1: such thing as an appeal for an American or I'm
Speaker 1: assuming anyone in Russia. How does this work? No, there
Speaker 1: is an appeal. Her lawyers were file will file an appeal?
Speaker 1: Is it? Is it a sham appel? I wouldn't. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't bet on it succeeding. Put it that way, I
Speaker 1: think it's I think it's a long shot. She's got
Speaker 1: some other angles that she can pursue legally, but again
Speaker 1: I would not expect a positive result. So that said, well,
Speaker 1: we'll spend time I guess on that, or do we
Speaker 1: move ahead with the idea of the prisoner swap? And
Speaker 1: I know you're not uh an expert on that, But
Speaker 1: the analysis Thomas today was that this sentence was was
Speaker 1: the message from Moscow saying no, no, you know, we
Speaker 1: expect someone back for her and it might be more
Speaker 1: than one person. At this point, did they gain leverage
Speaker 1: along the way? Is that where we're going? I think
Speaker 1: I think they definitely gained leverage. I mean you said
Speaker 1: that at the beginning that where this ends, it's no
Speaker 1: surprise it will end with a prisoner exchange. I think
Speaker 1: that's the best case scenario. Let's not forget that. Already.
Speaker 1: The US already offered Victor Boot, our big trump card,
Speaker 1: all of this, doing twenty five years for Wheeling and Grinder,
Speaker 1: and the Russians apparently said no. So where does that
Speaker 1: leave us? Well, that's why I ask if it's gonna
Speaker 1: be both Wheelan and Grinder, we're gonna have to get
Speaker 1: to Russians back to Moscow, right right? And they've asked
Speaker 1: for I mean, they've really up the anty on this,
Speaker 1: and there you know, the State form said it's not
Speaker 1: a serious offer. They really up the anny and they
Speaker 1: said we don't we want Boot plus Vadim Krassokov, a
Speaker 1: convicted murderer in German custody. So talk about difficulties, but
Speaker 1: enough to give some you know from US custom. But
Speaker 1: here's a murderer got life in in in Germany. Are
Speaker 1: we gonna work that. So call your friend Sheelz and
Speaker 1: work it out. Thomas. I whenever I see images of
Speaker 1: Brittaney Grinder, she's wearing her own clothing. I've seen her wearing,
Speaker 1: you know, sports jerseys and so forth. At this point, now,
Speaker 1: is she in a jumpsuit in uh? In a prison?
Speaker 1: What what's happening with her? No, she's in a pre
Speaker 1: trial detention facility on the outskirts of Moscow, near the
Speaker 1: airport where she was arrested. Um, she's got she'll file
Speaker 1: the appeal and then it's only in most cases it's
Speaker 1: only after the appeal is rejected that the conviction becomes
Speaker 1: final and she gets sent to a penal colony that'll
Speaker 1: be god knows where in Russia. But she colony. So
Speaker 1: this is like hard labor we're talking. I don't know
Speaker 1: that it's gonna be hard labor. It's not a labor camp,
Speaker 1: thats necessarily, but it's not a pleasant place to be.
Speaker 1: Where she is right now is not a good place
Speaker 1: to be. The penal colonies are generally worse than the
Speaker 1: three trial facilities. Good lord, how long would the appeal take? Thomas?
Speaker 1: Do you have a sense of that or can you
Speaker 1: not predict with the Russian court. It's hard. It'll probably
Speaker 1: take several months. I mean there's a strategic choice here.
Speaker 1: Does she want to accelerate the appeal because if you
Speaker 1: assume the appeal is going to be unsuccessful, does she
Speaker 1: really wanted to decide it quickly and get sent to
Speaker 1: the colony? More fascter, So it'll probably take several months.
Speaker 1: Thomas Firestone fascinating and appreciate the insights here. We had
Speaker 1: to talk with an expert about that, so we can
Speaker 1: all have a better sense of what's actually going on
Speaker 1: before we assemble our panel. And we'll do that next
Speaker 1: after Traffic and Markets. Jeanie Schanzano and Doug high Or
Speaker 1: with us on the Fastest Hour in Politics. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Missiles over Taiwan Brittney
Speaker 1: Griner nine and a half years Geo politics not getting
Speaker 1: any easier for the Biden administration as a war continues
Speaker 1: in Ukraine and of course China is its own thing.
Speaker 1: Here is we assemble the panel with Bloomberg Politics contributor
Speaker 1: Democratic analyst Jennie Schanzano and Doug High is back with
Speaker 1: US today. Republican strategist former communications director at the r
Speaker 1: n C, Genie, let's start with the Taiwan here. As
Speaker 1: I asked Brett Bruin earlier, does this require a response
Speaker 1: of some sort? If it's confirmed that these four these
Speaker 1: ballistic missiles were shot over the island, an incredibly dangerous
Speaker 1: prospect as they were on their way to Japan, you
Speaker 1: know it is going to require a response of some kind.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's part of what Nancy Pelosi's
Speaker 1: trip did. Is it you know, invited if you will,
Speaker 1: This is the price of admission. This is the price,
Speaker 1: and we are now going to have to respond. Now
Speaker 1: I'm not saying we're going to have to respond militarily,
Speaker 1: but as she comes back, the question is what's next? Um,
Speaker 1: are we going to beef up our military? Are we
Speaker 1: going to take steps to help Taiwan defend itself? Possibly? Um?
Speaker 1: What is it due to our military budget? So I
Speaker 1: think those are the kinds of responses. And I think
Speaker 1: we're already seeing Blinkin over in Cambodia today as he's
Speaker 1: been trying to make the case that China is the
Speaker 1: aggressor here. We did nothing to change the status quo
Speaker 1: with this visit. They did that seems to be falling
Speaker 1: on deaf ears. However, Doug High, I wonder what you
Speaker 1: make of this decision to postpone the US missile tests
Speaker 1: in the region. Here's John Kirby today at the White House.
Speaker 1: We do not believe it is in our interest, Taiwan's interest,
Speaker 1: the region's interests to allow tensions to escalate further, which
Speaker 1: is why a long planned minute Man three I CBM
Speaker 1: test scheduled for this week has been rescheduled for the
Speaker 1: near future. You wouldn't say when that might happen, Doug,
Speaker 1: just soon? Is it the right thing to do? Well?
Speaker 1: My concern is, and and it's part of the only
Speaker 1: real criticism I would have for Pelosi's visit is we
Speaker 1: don't really know what the strategy behind it was. We
Speaker 1: know the why now you know she's potentially wrapping up
Speaker 1: a speakership in a career in politics, and this has
Speaker 1: been a priority for a while, but we don't know
Speaker 1: what the strategy behind and what necessarily was going to
Speaker 1: be accomplished by going, and so unfortunately what we see
Speaker 1: time and time again, and reactions to China is when
Speaker 1: we hear we don't want things to escalate, that means
Speaker 1: that we're going to change our behavior. China doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: have to depend changed their behavior. And we see that politically,
Speaker 1: we see it culturally, economically. You know, all down the
Speaker 1: line Brittney Grinder sentencing, what what timing here, Genie on
Speaker 1: on the same day that we're reading headlines of missiles
Speaker 1: over at Taiwan nine and a half years I think
Speaker 1: you said it would be ten Uh, basically no matter
Speaker 1: what after the guilty verdict came in here. But my goodness, Uh,
Speaker 1: a prisoner swap has already been rejected by Russia. Do
Speaker 1: we offer more people? Where's this going? Yeah? This was
Speaker 1: a show trial. This is exactly what Vladimir Putin wanted.
Speaker 1: This is exactly what the Kremlin wanted. And even the
Speaker 1: language that you were using in your discussion with with
Speaker 1: with Thomas, this idea that she is eventually going to
Speaker 1: be sent to a penal colony. You know, Putin realizes
Speaker 1: that when the American public looks at a superstar like
Speaker 1: Brittney Grinner and they hear her heartbreaking statements, it's outrageous
Speaker 1: that she's gotten you know, even a day, let alone
Speaker 1: nine plus years there. They are going to push the
Speaker 1: administration to make a deal and this is going to
Speaker 1: in your words, or is the word you used, I
Speaker 1: think was leverage. It's absolutely right. Give Puttin the leverage
Speaker 1: he needs to get a two for two swap or
Speaker 1: whatever it is he's looking for, or she'll sit there
Speaker 1: and it's an absolute atrocity. This is high stakes dug
Speaker 1: certainly politically. How does the White House make this a win?
Speaker 1: Does it? Does it matter who they trade? I'm assuming
Speaker 1: that's where this is going, is getting her home under
Speaker 1: any circumstances of win. Well, I think you've got two
Speaker 1: different scenarios potentially playing out on how we define a win. Obviously,
Speaker 1: if she comes home and not, there are other Americans
Speaker 1: who are you know, they're not prisoners, their hostages at
Speaker 1: this point, you know, the footage of that will be warm,
Speaker 1: will all feel good about it, um and and it
Speaker 1: will be you know, a good moment, good visuals for
Speaker 1: the White House, But at what costs because you know,
Speaker 1: the prisoners swaps that we would be doing, you know,
Speaker 1: are not Russian basketball players who might have inadvertently made
Speaker 1: a mistake. Um. These are going to be hardened killers. Um.
Speaker 1: And so is the price worth it a B. But
Speaker 1: it's something this administration has to think carefully. Few you
Speaker 1: do wonder what kind of analysis it becomes subject to,
Speaker 1: just just in the you know, the general um consciousness
Speaker 1: here because so many people want her to come home.
Speaker 1: But when you see the victory parade that takes place
Speaker 1: in in Russia, you know that's gonna happen in Moscow.
Speaker 1: He's gonna be out there. My god, they'll they'll all
Speaker 1: have their shirts off. Genie. It's going to be a
Speaker 1: big arm wrestling contest or something. Yes, that's correct, very cold,
Speaker 1: thank you in apologies. So I have to ask you
Speaker 1: about one more here as while we're in the foreign
Speaker 1: policy sphere, an important vote yesterday in the US Senate
Speaker 1: to say yes to welcoming Sweden and Finland Tornato. On
Speaker 1: this vote, the the nays are one and one senator
Speaker 1: responded present two thirds of a senator's present, a quorum
Speaker 1: being present. Having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of
Speaker 1: ratification is agreed to. There it is that's Senator John
Speaker 1: ass Off Doug one man one voted against his name
Speaker 1: is Josh Holly have to do less in Europe in
Speaker 1: order to prioritize America's most pressing national security interest, which
Speaker 1: is in Asia with regard to China. So don't let
Speaker 1: Sweden and Finland in the NATO because we need to
Speaker 1: invent that would that would draw more investment. I guess
Speaker 1: in Europe's saying, Doug, is that going to become a
Speaker 1: more popular idea in the Republican Party or does he
Speaker 1: stand alone? Right now? He stands alone. That's one vote, right,
Speaker 1: It's not that core group of eight or ten. You know,
Speaker 1: the trumpiest of the trump he he's on his own.
Speaker 1: He clearly sees some kind of a political advantage on
Speaker 1: on this, but you know he's going to have to
Speaker 1: potentially on a debate stage defend his vote against the
Speaker 1: real other trumpy candidates say it Ted Cruz who voted
Speaker 1: for this, And that's you know, that's the political box
Speaker 1: that he's put himself in. But he sees as an opportunity.
Speaker 1: Doug High Genie Chanzano are sound on panel today. I'm
Speaker 1: Joe Matthew. This is Bloombird broadcasting live from our nation's capital,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg to New York Bloomberg eleven trio to Boston, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: one of six, one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty
Speaker 1: to the country, Serious x M General one nine and
Speaker 1: around the globe, the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio
Speaker 1: dot Com. This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: So a working weekend, it will be for the Senate's
Speaker 1: as the path to Democrats Climate and Tax bill gets
Speaker 1: a little bit longer as Senator Kirston Cinema pushes for changes.
Speaker 1: Now we'll talk about what's going on behind the scenes
Speaker 1: coming up with Jim Kessler of Third Way spent time
Speaker 1: as the legislative policy director for Senator Schumer. He's been there.
Speaker 1: If you you have to wonder what Senator Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: is thinking right now as he looks ahead of this weekend,
Speaker 1: waiting for the parliamentary and to rule and a relatively
Speaker 1: short window of time left to work on the Climate
Speaker 1: and Tax bill. Having already learned and we talked about
Speaker 1: it at this time yesterday that Senator Kirston Cinema does
Speaker 1: have some issues with the deal that Schumer struck with
Speaker 1: Joe Manchin. Wants to drop carried interest for instance, wants
Speaker 1: to narrow the scope of the corporate minimum tax. But
Speaker 1: if you listen to Chuck Schumer on the floor of
Speaker 1: the Senate today, you wouldn't know about it. Democrats are
Speaker 1: going to deliver on all these things and more when
Speaker 1: we passed the Inflation Reduction Act in coming days, coming days,
Speaker 1: the same exact language that he used on the floor yesterday.
Speaker 1: So is he whistling past the graveyard? Does he know
Speaker 1: something we don't know? We bring in Jim Kessler, co
Speaker 1: founder of Third Way, Democratic strategist, former legislative policy director
Speaker 1: for Senator Chuck Schumer. Jim, it's great to have you back.
Speaker 1: What's going on in the office at this point? Here
Speaker 1: is do you suspect Chuck Schumer directly involved with Senator
Speaker 1: kirston cinema on on changes that she wants to see?
Speaker 1: What's this conversation? Like he's always directly involve, Didn't I
Speaker 1: expect he's directly involved in this? Look, this was a
Speaker 1: confident Chuck Schumer who went to the floor and said,
Speaker 1: this is going to happen, you know, in the next
Speaker 1: few days. My guess is this time next week a
Speaker 1: bill will be through the Senate. There are a couple
Speaker 1: of hurdles. Some are procedural. The parliamentarian is looking at
Speaker 1: this bill. There's always things that don't pass what's called
Speaker 1: the bird bath, some of the procedural rules with reconciliation,
Speaker 1: which means language will need to be tweaked. And then
Speaker 1: there are whatever demands that Kyrsten Cinema has and whether
Speaker 1: they can be a commodating or the best way they
Speaker 1: can be accommodated. But this feels like we're getting close.
Speaker 1: It feels like we're getting to the finish line. What
Speaker 1: doesn't make it out of the bird bath? And if
Speaker 1: it were in the bill now, would it include this
Speaker 1: drought protection money that cinema is asking for. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: the parliamentarian, you know, ultimately has the final call. But
Speaker 1: generally anything that is that is dealing with with revenue
Speaker 1: and epics of reductions and those sort of things, um
Speaker 1: can make it through the parliamentarian. Certain things that have
Speaker 1: to do with policy but don't have a real revenue
Speaker 1: components sometimes get struck down. But there's always ways that
Speaker 1: you can craft the language to the parliamentarian says, well
Speaker 1: it works this way, it doesn't work that way. What
Speaker 1: we don't know is what's going to happen with carried interest,
Speaker 1: which news reports say that he's in Cinema would like
Speaker 1: to strip out. And there are some reports that some
Speaker 1: of the corporate tax piece she doesn't like, but there's
Speaker 1: other reports to say that she's fine and she carried
Speaker 1: interest out. It doesn't really put that big of a
Speaker 1: dent in the bill. Should Chuck Schumer be open to that?
Speaker 1: I mean, it is a very tiny amount. It's fourteen
Speaker 1: billion dollars over ten years. It's about two percent of
Speaker 1: the size of the bill. Look, it's one of those
Speaker 1: things that Democrats have been trying to do for a long, long,
Speaker 1: long long time. It would be great if it could
Speaker 1: stay in there. It's not going to be the thing
Speaker 1: that since the bill or makes it swim. Okay, there
Speaker 1: you go. Why are you so confident this gets done
Speaker 1: next week? Is it because of how close they are? Because, boy,
Speaker 1: this kind of feels familiar. It does feel familiar, but
Speaker 1: you know, look, Joe Mansion was a huge hurdle. It
Speaker 1: got through that the things that Kirsten Cinema are raising
Speaker 1: really seemed like mostly minor issues, particularly if it's just
Speaker 1: carried interest piece, and she really does care about the
Speaker 1: climate pieces and the deficit reduction pieces. You know, how
Speaker 1: Republicans are playing this as we're talking taxes is in
Speaker 1: terms of hikes. Joe Mansion keeps making the point there's
Speaker 1: no tax increases in the bill. We're simply closing tax loopholes.
Speaker 1: But this is how it's playing on the other side
Speaker 1: of the aisle. Mitch McConnell on the floor today, not
Speaker 1: much later than Chuck Schumer was talking they want to
Speaker 1: ram through giant new Cox socks in the middle of
Speaker 1: the recession, new multi hundred dollar talk talks on American
Speaker 1: jobs that especially target the manufacturing sector, leaving Americans with
Speaker 1: your jobs. And Laura wagers Jim that the whole deal
Speaker 1: is being framed as a win for Democrats, a win
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden, something to crow about on the campaign trail.
Speaker 1: But how do you get around that narrative before November?
Speaker 1: You know, I think if Republicans were being really honest
Speaker 1: in the Senate, if it was a secret ballot, I
Speaker 1: bet about fifteen or twenty Republicans would vote for this bill.
Speaker 1: That it really is closing a tax to the poll
Speaker 1: in which very large corporations that report huge profits. But
Speaker 1: then for tax purposes say they have ritually no profits
Speaker 1: will actually be taxed on those profits. It is, It
Speaker 1: is very minor in terms of the revenue increases in there.
Speaker 1: I think this is a little bit of the partisanship
Speaker 1: that you've just seen in Washington. So when you look
Speaker 1: back on this period of time, whether they get at
Speaker 1: this done or not, and this would be a huge
Speaker 1: piece of legislation, Chuck Schumer looks back to November and
Speaker 1: he says, we got the gun safety bill, We've got
Speaker 1: the Chips Act passed, that the Pact Act passed, and
Speaker 1: they got NATO done for Sweden and Finland yesterday. How
Speaker 1: does that compare in terms of productivity to a typical session. Well,
Speaker 1: and don't forget the bipartisan infrastructure build the past. Sure
Speaker 1: if you want to go back last year, sure, Yeah.
Speaker 1: So if you look at this entire Congress, I think
Speaker 1: this is the most consequential Congress for legislation since Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan in his first term. That's quite a statement. I mean,
Speaker 1: after build back better blew up. But in terms of
Speaker 1: actual pieces of legislation and and in in scope, can
Speaker 1: you compare that? Is that what you're looking back to,
Speaker 1: then that's the that's the best comparison. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: this has been. The Infrastructure Bill was enormous. This um
Speaker 1: UH Infliction Reduction Act is a very significant piece of legislation.
Speaker 1: CHIPS is major, The Russia sanctions legislation was major, The
Speaker 1: NATO expansion, if you add domestic and foreign policy together,
Speaker 1: really one of the most significant two year periods of
Speaker 1: the presidency since Ronald Reagan. I mean, look, Barack Obama's
Speaker 1: first two years, a lot happened. George W. Bush's first
Speaker 1: two years, a lot happened, saming Bill Clins, and it
Speaker 1: will soon be compared to to Joe Biden's first two years.
Speaker 1: Jim Kessler A third way, We thank you so much
Speaker 1: for the insights. You know, you wonder how much could
Speaker 1: be undone as well by a Republican majority. Quick on
Speaker 1: the heels of this Congress, we reassemble the panel next
Speaker 1: and we go to school. Uncarried interests right here on
Speaker 1: sound on This is Bloomberg. You're listening to blue Berg.
Speaker 1: You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Well,
Speaker 1: it sounds like the carried interests tax blophole in the
Speaker 1: Democrats Reconciliation Bill may not make the cut, which would
Speaker 1: not be a deal breaker. As Jim Kessler just told us,
Speaker 1: we're talking about what fourteen billion dollars in more than
Speaker 1: seven hundred billion dollar bills. So what's all the fuss
Speaker 1: about Kirsten Cinema's subjection of the carried interests been hearing
Speaker 1: about it for days now. So before we reassemble the
Speaker 1: panel for their take on this, we thought we would
Speaker 1: go to school for a moment and get smart with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's Shini bus. So if the carried interest tax break
Speaker 1: went away, what would it mean for investment managers? What
Speaker 1: would it actually mean? Some of them would have to
Speaker 1: pay a lot more taxes. Of course, they are very wealthy.
Speaker 1: Remember these are the wealthiest of most of Wall Street.
Speaker 1: These are private equity professionals. These are hedge fund professionals.
Speaker 1: So yes, this would eat into their own profits and
Speaker 1: their own earnings. However, there are a lot of firms
Speaker 1: that have already started to move away from this model
Speaker 1: and start to pay people based on the stocks of
Speaker 1: their own companies instead. There's also a question I look
Speaker 1: at what the Americans for a financial reform is calculated.
Speaker 1: For example, how much does this raise in terms of
Speaker 1: tax income, right, how much? It's a pretty small chunk
Speaker 1: of what we're talking about here. Remember these are large
Speaker 1: political donors as well, so there is a sense that
Speaker 1: a lot of lawmakers do not want to frustrate them.
Speaker 1: Now we're getting closer to the Chewy center. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: so you know, if you go to lunch in New
Speaker 1: York with any of these private equity firms, they crap
Speaker 1: about it absolutely. Okay, Professor Bostick, thanks for the lesson.
Speaker 1: Oh any time. I feel so much smarter now, don't you.
Speaker 1: It's because of the donations, right, Isn't that where we're
Speaker 1: going here? Follow the money. We reassemble the panel Genie
Speaker 1: chanzy O Boomberg, politics contributor, Democratic Analysts to Day, along
Speaker 1: with Doug High, Republican strategist former communications director for the
Speaker 1: r n C. What do you think about that? Doug
Speaker 1: is show only on is something? I mean, why even
Speaker 1: bring it up? Is there are other items that that
Speaker 1: would be uh, the same fourteen billion dollar value in
Speaker 1: this legislation that people would never hear about whether they
Speaker 1: were in or out. Well, first off, Sonali is literally
Speaker 1: on my TV right now, So how you got her
Speaker 1: to these three places at once is just man magic
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg. Um, No, it's you know, it's interesting that
Speaker 1: it came up and was one of the first things
Speaker 1: to be removed. And you know, one of the things
Speaker 1: that that always happens with legislation like this is as
Speaker 1: you get closer to it, it's not about what you
Speaker 1: can put into incentivize people to vote for it. It's
Speaker 1: about what you take out. And clearly there was an
Speaker 1: issue with Cinema. It's one of the things that she
Speaker 1: wanted to see out of this bill. And when you're
Speaker 1: at a fifty Senate you know, fifty Senate vote majority, um,
Speaker 1: with only fifty members of your party either way, every
Speaker 1: vote really counts on this one. And that's why she
Speaker 1: and as we've so often seen what Joe Manchin have
Speaker 1: a lot of leverage. Does this not smack though, of
Speaker 1: lawmakers trying to make Wall Street happy, even though it
Speaker 1: might be just a little thing her But remember me
Speaker 1: in the full gie. Yeah, And that's essentially what Dick
Speaker 1: Durbin said when he said she should support this absolutely. Um.
Speaker 1: And I would just ask you to play that music
Speaker 1: again when I talked Joe, because it sounds so much better. Yeah, Dog,
Speaker 1: don't you want to? Um, But you know the thing
Speaker 1: is is that they are you know, they were not
Speaker 1: even talking really about closing this essentially, but narrowing it
Speaker 1: to your point. They could take it out. It's a
Speaker 1: relatively small part of a seven forty billion dollar bill.
Speaker 1: But again, as Doug was just saying, they can't lose
Speaker 1: one of these people. And I mentioned yesterday Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: who described this bill as doing virtually nothing. He's going
Speaker 1: to vote for it. He's not happy, but you know,
Speaker 1: you lose one of these people, and that raises big questions.
Speaker 1: Are Democrats gonna once again be you know, promising they
Speaker 1: got this over the line and then get it pulled back?
Speaker 1: And I would just say briefly, I was listening to
Speaker 1: Megan McCain talk about what's happening in Arizona, and it
Speaker 1: made you know, whereas I think, you know, certain cinema
Speaker 1: will go along with this, when you listen to the
Speaker 1: politics out in Arizona, it can't be a huge shock
Speaker 1: if she doesn't go along with this either. They really
Speaker 1: like their Mavericks, well, yes they do. Um. I I
Speaker 1: just I wonder why we're why we're spinning wheels on
Speaker 1: this dug I guess that was the exercise with Shinali
Speaker 1: to understand, uh, what the actual context is here, and
Speaker 1: it put it in some perspective with the rest of
Speaker 1: the bill. Chuck Schumer gets this done, right? Are we
Speaker 1: assuming carried interest is out? Kirston Cinema get what you want?
Speaker 1: Or should kirston Cinema be careful here? A no vote
Speaker 1: on this bill, especially being a loan no vote on
Speaker 1: this bill could mean her political career. Well, you know, absolutely,
Speaker 1: and if you talk to Arizona Democrats, they're not happy
Speaker 1: with her, and they haven't been for a while. She's
Speaker 1: certain to face, you know, a primary regardless. This would
Speaker 1: just put that in a little bit more of an
Speaker 1: overdrive context. For it's why she's trying to get to yes.
Speaker 1: And again, we see this so often and Washington. It's
Speaker 1: when things get removed from legislation that you actually see
Speaker 1: the wheels of government working or not working as the
Speaker 1: case maybe it's not as things get added to it.
Speaker 1: That's fascinating. Though you don't see her as an obstruction.
Speaker 1: You see her as trying to get to yes. Genie,
Speaker 1: did Democrats see it that way? I think they're frustrated.
Speaker 1: They see her as an obstruction and yes, what do
Speaker 1: I have to do to get you in this car?
Speaker 1: That's right? And you know she's talking also about the
Speaker 1: minimum corporate tax, even though a while back she said
Speaker 1: that was common sense. So you know, they've got to
Speaker 1: be incredibly frustrated and we're hearing that now. And to
Speaker 1: Doug's point, she is going to face a primary. But again,
Speaker 1: Arizona politics today, it's really really fraught out there. I
Speaker 1: would never ask you guys about Alex Jones in any
Speaker 1: other world, but there's a screamer headline on Bloomberg law
Speaker 1: Info wars Alex Jones must pay four million dollars in
Speaker 1: Sandy Hook case. This is a lawsuit brought by the
Speaker 1: parents of victims in the Sandy Hook shing. They sought
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty million dollars in defamation charges damages.
Speaker 1: I should say, uh, and and it has been a
Speaker 1: very dramatic trial here. It's one that we've all been
Speaker 1: kind of watching with one eye, but became much bigger
Speaker 1: today and not because of this fine. I'll walk you
Speaker 1: through this for a moment. This is Alex Jones, the
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist. Talk show hosts and I don't know what
Speaker 1: other qualifier you want me to give him, but he
Speaker 1: was on the stand and uh, a lawyer by the
Speaker 1: name of Mark Bangston, who represents the parents here who
Speaker 1: brought the suit just dropped a bombshell in the middle
Speaker 1: of the courtroom yesterday. Imagine Alex Jones's face becoming very
Speaker 1: red while this happens. Let me start this series. I've
Speaker 1: been generously submitte. All right, I'll have to find this
Speaker 1: for you because this is not the one I was
Speaker 1: looking for. Fast forward to today. The January six Committee
Speaker 1: gets involved, and that's why I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: you guys about this. It's it's awfully important stuff if
Speaker 1: you're concerned about the future of the committee. Here now,
Speaker 1: I'll bring it back to again. This involves Alex jones
Speaker 1: cell phone with the lawyer from yesterday. Mr Jones, did
Speaker 1: you know that twelve days ago, twelve days ago, your
Speaker 1: attorney's messed up and sitting an entire digital copy of
Speaker 1: your entire cell phone with every text message you've sent
Speaker 1: for the past two years, and when informed, did not
Speaker 1: take any steps to identify it as privilege or protected
Speaker 1: in any way, And as of two days ago, it
Speaker 1: fell free and clear into my possession. And that is
Speaker 1: how I know you lied to me when you said
Speaker 1: you didn't have text message about saying did you know that?
Speaker 1: I see? I told you the truth. This is your
Speaker 1: Perrymason moment I gave my phone. And then Mr Jones,
Speaker 1: you need to answer the question, No, I don't know
Speaker 1: this that didn't know that happen. They sent Jeannie the
Speaker 1: entire cell phone. They've got the contents every text he
Speaker 1: ever sent or received. Presumably now the January six Committee
Speaker 1: has asked for that information and they have it. That
Speaker 1: means they could see all the texts between potentially here
Speaker 1: Alex Jones, Roger Stone and Company on the day's leading
Speaker 1: up to and including January six. Did the trial just
Speaker 1: change to the January six committee just changed because of
Speaker 1: this trial? It could have. I mean, he testified before
Speaker 1: January six. He pleaded the fifth over I guess a
Speaker 1: hundred times. And you know, I was just riveted by
Speaker 1: this this attorney yesterday as he made this case and
Speaker 1: he said Alex Jones' lawyers didn't even even a few
Speaker 1: days in say that this information was privileged. So it's
Speaker 1: all out there. And as they said in their closing
Speaker 1: speech is free, but lies you're going to pay for,
Speaker 1: and he is going to pay big for this. This
Speaker 1: is the first of three big trials and it very
Speaker 1: well could change the January six Committee. At least much
Speaker 1: of the information that they have could be enhanced by
Speaker 1: what they get by these texts from that country song, Doug,
Speaker 1: what do you make of this? Uh, not the future
Speaker 1: of Alex Jones, but what these texts could mean for
Speaker 1: the committee and for the outcome of this investigation. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, in full disclosure, I've watched none of this trial.
Speaker 1: When I see kind of the Adams family esque characters,
Speaker 1: that's kind of orbit around Trump World changed the channel.
Speaker 1: That's why I was watching. So now just a few
Speaker 1: minutes probably why. But clearly what we see the committee
Speaker 1: doing is they're going wider to go narrower. They're casting
Speaker 1: their net wider to see how much further up the
Speaker 1: pyramid they can get. Does that include a White House
Speaker 1: Chief of staff, does that include a National Security advisor
Speaker 1: and ultimately the president itself. They're going to continue to
Speaker 1: cast that net as wide as possible in directions we
Speaker 1: may not see coming, to get as high up as
Speaker 1: they can do You start wondering if the do O
Speaker 1: J is getting busy here, Jeanie, when do we hear
Speaker 1: from the Attorney General about all this? You know, it
Speaker 1: sounds what we're hearing is they have been very, very busy.
Speaker 1: I think we will hear. I mean, the tough thing
Speaker 1: for them is the closer you get to say a
Speaker 1: potential Trump announcement he is going to run, and the
Speaker 1: more he is likely a candidate, that makes it a
Speaker 1: little bit tougher for them. So I think they're working
Speaker 1: diligently and we don't know if it will reach up
Speaker 1: to him, but they certainly seem like the news is
Speaker 1: closing around some of the upper echelons of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: All right, you two less than a minute left. We've
Speaker 1: got the jobs report tomorrow. Doug. Is this gonna be
Speaker 1: good news for Joe Biden? Well, if we you know,
Speaker 1: what we've seen in past months is most of the
Speaker 1: of the news we see economically is rocky. You know,
Speaker 1: the jobs numbers are good, everything else seems to be bad.
Speaker 1: So you'll see potentially, you know, depending on where it
Speaker 1: falls with expectations, you'll see the Biden administration talking about
Speaker 1: jobs that doesn't address where everybody really is in the country.
Speaker 1: Does it has that this is not a recession Genie,
Speaker 1: It does as long as they stay solid, and they
Speaker 1: have been for a while now. Forty year highs meet
Speaker 1: you this time tomorrow to talk about it on the
Speaker 1: fastest hour in politics. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.