Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on.
Speaker 1: There's been a tremendous economics flode down in China. Members
Speaker 1: of Congress visiting Taiwan is entirely in line with our one,
Speaker 1: our long standing one China policy. Bloomberg Sound on, Politics,
Speaker 1: Policy and perspective from DC's top names. The Department of
Speaker 1: Justice has complete complete independence. You can't when you're county,
Speaker 1: You're can't win Pennsylvania Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. Well, I've got a number of updates
Speaker 1: for you regarding the legal pressure rising around former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Is a few stories crossing today, big news
Speaker 1: for Rudy Giuliani, Senator Lindsay Graham. But this just crossed
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg terminal right before we started this show. The
Speaker 1: Justice Department opposes the release of the affidavit in the
Speaker 1: Trump search, in the search of the mara A Lago,
Speaker 1: a state down in Florida that has significant implications, as
Speaker 1: we see, not only media but obviously lawmakers want information
Speaker 1: on what was found, what were what they were searching for,
Speaker 1: uh and everything that happened at mara A Lago. On
Speaker 1: the show, I'm Jack Fitzpatrick standing in today for Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have Congressman Raja Christian Chrishna Morthy come on
Speaker 1: and talk to us. He's a member of the Intelligence
Speaker 1: Committee in the House. Very key person in these conversations.
Speaker 1: John Barrett, Law, professor from St. John's University, is going
Speaker 1: to help us sift through the legal implications of everything
Speaker 1: in the news today. And of course we've got Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributors Rick Davis and Genie she and Zano. Big
Speaker 1: news day, We've got a case of the Mondays if
Speaker 1: that means a ton of news. Uh, First we have
Speaker 1: to get to this headline on the Bloomberg terminal that
Speaker 1: the just Just Department opposes the release of the affidavit
Speaker 1: in the search of Mara Lago. Let's go to our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jennie she and Zano
Speaker 1: to start the show. Uh, guys, I'm curious what your
Speaker 1: initial reaction is, Rick, Do we know yet why oppose it?
Speaker 1: This was something Uh that there's a request from the
Speaker 1: media to get more information about this. What do we
Speaker 1: know now about why the Justice Department would oppose the
Speaker 1: release of that affidavit. Well, I think the information that's
Speaker 1: incorporated in the affidavit is uh much more to um
Speaker 1: what is uh the sources of the investigation. Uh, you
Speaker 1: could extrapolate pretty easily as to who they're talking to
Speaker 1: and what they're uh saying, and and and and as
Speaker 1: we know, for instance, you know, one of the things
Speaker 1: that have been speculated within Trump organization it self is,
Speaker 1: you know, do we have a mole? Who's the mole
Speaker 1: who's been telling them what's going on inside of mar Lago?
Speaker 1: And so there there might be information incorporated in those
Speaker 1: documents that would lead the Trump people to to to
Speaker 1: maybe potentially identify someone who they worry is cooperating with
Speaker 1: the authorities. UM. And it also pretends to the larger investigation.
Speaker 1: I mean right now, we don't know actually if there
Speaker 1: is a potential charge against the present maybe that the
Speaker 1: d o J was satisfied to get the documents back
Speaker 1: and underlock and key by the federal government, but it
Speaker 1: may be that this is part of a larger investigation
Speaker 1: and other issues. The affidavit may actually indicate that, which
Speaker 1: would then uh to potentially uh impact the investigation itself.
Speaker 1: So Jennie, I Walk us through here. Uh as Rick
Speaker 1: just touched on the possibility that this may speak to
Speaker 1: the breadth of the investigation. What we had heard about
Speaker 1: the Mara Lago raid was that this was part of
Speaker 1: an attempt to find possible violations of the Espionage Act,
Speaker 1: among other allegations. Uh you had heard according to the
Speaker 1: documents that came out, some of some of those documents
Speaker 1: were marked with the highest level of secrecy, the Top
Speaker 1: Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information classification. If they are concerned about
Speaker 1: UM showing their hand the Justice Department, what does this
Speaker 1: tell us about the breadth of the investigation that they
Speaker 1: are continuing, Jennie, You know, I don't think it's a
Speaker 1: surprise that the Department opposes releasing this AFFID David. You know,
Speaker 1: the release of the search warrant and the receipt, those
Speaker 1: were things that Donald Trump and his lawyers had access to,
Speaker 1: and they do give us important information, as we saw
Speaker 1: late last week. But to unread, unleashed, or release rather
Speaker 1: the AFFID David that accompanied it, these were things that
Speaker 1: Trump and his lawyers do not have access to, and
Speaker 1: they would be highly unusual for a federal judge to
Speaker 1: sign off on something like that because it would show
Speaker 1: us information that that may reveal things like sources, It
Speaker 1: may reveal the extent of an ongoing investigation, It may reveal,
Speaker 1: you know, top secret security information. These are things, again
Speaker 1: that a judge had to sign off on, but to
Speaker 1: release them to the press and release them publicly highly
Speaker 1: unusual in a case like this. I don't you know,
Speaker 1: I would just be cautioning against reading something into the
Speaker 1: fact that the Department is opposing this. To me, it
Speaker 1: is standard practice in an investigation like this for them
Speaker 1: to oppose the release of any of these documents. And
Speaker 1: if we go back to what Marrick Garland said late
Speaker 1: last week, he said the search warrant and the receipt,
Speaker 1: they don't usually request that those being sealed, but given
Speaker 1: it was a former president president and the amount of
Speaker 1: public interest, they asked for that to be unsealed. This
Speaker 1: is a completely different ball game. And I'm not surprised
Speaker 1: that they have said that they won't take this step. Genie,
Speaker 1: So it sounds like you aren't necessarily thinking this is
Speaker 1: good news for former President Trump, then no, I don't
Speaker 1: think we can read into this either good or bad
Speaker 1: news for former President Trump. So much of this remains
Speaker 1: things that we are speculating about but don't actually know.
Speaker 1: To start off with, we don't know who the focus
Speaker 1: of this investigation is. We don't know, for instance, if
Speaker 1: the Department is even going to pursue legal charges. They
Speaker 1: could very well have taken those eleven boxes and they
Speaker 1: could say we've gotten back what the what the government,
Speaker 1: what the National Archives needed. We're not going to pursue
Speaker 1: this any further. So I wouldn't you know, begin to
Speaker 1: speculate on what this says about where he is legally. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, the one piece of news that we got
Speaker 1: out today in addition to this breaking news on this
Speaker 1: was the fact that the one of Trump's attorneys did
Speaker 1: apparently sign a declaration that nothing else was being held
Speaker 1: at Marrow Lago that the government was asking for. That
Speaker 1: presents a risk for the person who signs it, potentially,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe for Trump himself if he lied to
Speaker 1: the attorney. But you know, again, these are things I
Speaker 1: don't think we can extrapolate much further without hearing from
Speaker 1: the Justice Department as to who is targeted and what
Speaker 1: indeed any charges might be, if any. Now, just for
Speaker 1: a little more context, I'm reading the initial uh coverage
Speaker 1: of this on the Washington Post that says media outlets
Speaker 1: have asked the judge to unseal this document, which would
Speaker 1: offer more detail about the FBI's decision to make this
Speaker 1: search of Mara Lago. Obviously, aside from members of the media,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of interest in getting more detail on
Speaker 1: what they found and the reasoning for it. Uh, there's
Speaker 1: been a request from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Speaker 1: asking for the documents they found. Rick. Does this have
Speaker 1: any implications for congressional oversight or does this appear to
Speaker 1: be limited to not putting this kind of document out
Speaker 1: to the broader public. Yeah, I don't think the Hill
Speaker 1: can stay out of a good controversy like this. I mean,
Speaker 1: in fact, you know, I would say, just from a
Speaker 1: political perspective, I thought the Democrats stepped all over the
Speaker 1: d o J today. I'm mean, you know the fact
Speaker 1: that Adam Schiff and Carol Maloney, you know, co head
Speaker 1: of the Intelligence Committee in the House. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: they sent a letter to uh, the National Intelligence Director
Speaker 1: saying that you know, they wanna they want to investigate
Speaker 1: what kind of damage might have been done. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: if they just stayed quiet, the only story would have
Speaker 1: been out there, you know, is the one we're talking about.
Speaker 1: And you know, they they they, they seem to always
Speaker 1: want to get into the narrative. So yes, I think
Speaker 1: you're We're gonna just see all kinds of people getting
Speaker 1: involved in this, not just media outlets asking for more information,
Speaker 1: which is their job, but to Congress wondering what kind
Speaker 1: of oversight, uh they need to be putting on these
Speaker 1: agencies whose job it is is to protect these secrets,
Speaker 1: and they didn't do a very good job of protecting
Speaker 1: them if they've been sitting down to mar A Lago
Speaker 1: for over a year. Right. So we're gonna come back
Speaker 1: to some of these issues, especially because later on in
Speaker 1: the show, we're gonna have John Barrett, a law for
Speaker 1: law professor at St. John's University, help us walk through
Speaker 1: the occations of all of this. But I also want
Speaker 1: to touch on another major story today, uh the pushback
Speaker 1: from China. Further pushback from China, UH to another congressional
Speaker 1: delegation visiting Taiwan, China has conducted more military activity around Taiwan.
Speaker 1: UH following another visit. This is not Speaker Pelosi's visit,
Speaker 1: but another Congressional delegation visit to Taiwan led by Senator
Speaker 1: Ed Markey UH. And now we're bringing on Congressman Raja
Speaker 1: Krishna Morthy, Democrat from Illinois to walk us through the implications. Congressman,
Speaker 1: he joined Speaker Pelosi on her last trip. Congressman, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. Hey, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for having me. So big question on my mind as
Speaker 1: we see China's military conducting patrols around Taiwan UH in
Speaker 1: response to this latest congressional delegation visit to Taiwan UH
Speaker 1: is what is the correct response, if any, from the
Speaker 1: US in this situation. I think we should continue to
Speaker 1: approach the situation calmly. We should reiterate our support of
Speaker 1: the One China policy, comments stability across the Taiwan's straight
Speaker 1: and we want Taiwan and the People's Republic of China
Speaker 1: to resolve their differences peacefully. We also have an obligation
Speaker 1: under the Taiwan relations back to help support the defense
Speaker 1: of Taiwan against any aggression. And so I think this delegation,
Speaker 1: like other delegations, is just a normal part of our
Speaker 1: relationship and necessary for carrying out our legal responsibility. And
Speaker 1: when you mentioned our responsibilities the US's aid to Taiwan
Speaker 1: in the context of defense, should we be looking for
Speaker 1: further actions? Is the ratcheting up of tensions on China's
Speaker 1: part something that merits a response, whether in UH spending bills,
Speaker 1: the Defense Authorization Bill, How does that have an effect,
Speaker 1: especially in that what you mentioned about our defense support
Speaker 1: for Taiwan, Well, I think that we have to continue
Speaker 1: to evaluate what are friends needs are in Taiwan. UH.
Speaker 1: They need to defend themselves, and so to the extent
Speaker 1: that they are reorienting their focus on a on a
Speaker 1: constant basis with regard to the threats that they face,
Speaker 1: and they need our further assistance, then we need to
Speaker 1: furnish that. All that being said, we wish for peace
Speaker 1: and stability in the region. We want Taiwan and the
Speaker 1: People's Republic of China to resolve their differences peacefully. But
Speaker 1: if the cost of avoiding these types of provocations by
Speaker 1: the PRC is seeding control of Taiwan, are seeding control
Speaker 1: of our travel schedules in Congress, I don't think that's
Speaker 1: a price that we will pay now. I know President
Speaker 1: Biden has said the military didn't necessarily think Speaker Pelosi's
Speaker 1: visit was a good idea. Does the left hand not
Speaker 1: know what the right hand is doing here? In terms
Speaker 1: of the US government's ability to manage this? Have lawmakers
Speaker 1: in any way undermined the administration's position? Well, I think
Speaker 1: that UH, as you know, the executive branch and the
Speaker 1: legislative branch are separate but equal branches of government, and
Speaker 1: quite frankly, the legislative branch is called upon to authorize
Speaker 1: funding for, for instance, the defense of Taiwan, as well
Speaker 1: as other programs related to Taiwan, And so I think
Speaker 1: that having a first hand account of how the money
Speaker 1: that we've already appropriated has been spent, as well as
Speaker 1: what the needs are of our friends going forward, is
Speaker 1: really important. And I think that, you know, congressional visits
Speaker 1: are just a normal part of UH relationships between friends.
Speaker 1: How speaking of sort of taking the temperature of of
Speaker 1: US policies, visiting to determine what policies should change or not.
Speaker 1: How how does all of this play into the considerations
Speaker 1: of potentially lifting tariffs on China. Well, I think that's
Speaker 1: a separate issue in the sense that UM, we constantly
Speaker 1: want to resolve our differences with other countries with regard
Speaker 1: to trade, to the event that the PRC continues to
Speaker 1: use forced labor or to use um weagers whom they
Speaker 1: put into concentration camps to produce goods that are sold
Speaker 1: in the United States, or that they dump goods at
Speaker 1: below costs to destroy our industries here, um and and
Speaker 1: they haven't ceased doing it. That's that's going to continue
Speaker 1: to be an impediment for lowering tariffs, um and. So
Speaker 1: I think that's just separate issue from Taiwan altogether. Okay,
Speaker 1: a little more directly on Taiwan. I know Taiwanese officials
Speaker 1: spoke supportively of the Chips Semiconductor bill that that has
Speaker 1: made it through both chambers. How how does that legislation
Speaker 1: factor into the congressional relationship with Taiwan? For example? Does
Speaker 1: does that interest in Taiwan in that bill make it
Speaker 1: any more important to strengthen ties with Taiwan? Oh? Absolutely, um.
Speaker 1: That particular bill, which became a law has excited a
Speaker 1: lot of our friends and partners and allies in the region,
Speaker 1: whether it's Japan, Korea, Taiwan, uh Singapore, Malaysia, and so
Speaker 1: they're all looking to see how can they manufacture more
Speaker 1: semi conductor chips in the United States. How can they
Speaker 1: potentially move production of some of those chips which might
Speaker 1: might happen even in the PRC, to the US, which
Speaker 1: they of you as a more stable environment for doing
Speaker 1: business and so um part of our visit centered on
Speaker 1: basically putting on our sales caps and trying to get
Speaker 1: them get our partners to invest more in the US.
Speaker 1: I'm pleased to say that the Taiwanese are going to
Speaker 1: invest twenty billion dollars in setting up manufacturing facilities for
Speaker 1: chips in the US, and we're looking for more right now,
Speaker 1: I want to ask a little broadly, just to put
Speaker 1: all of this in context. There have been past congressional
Speaker 1: delegation visits. Their lawmakers went just last summer. I know,
Speaker 1: uh China previously did not react nearly as forcefully in
Speaker 1: the past as they did when Speaker Pelosi and you
Speaker 1: and other lawmakers went. What is your explanation for the
Speaker 1: ratcheting up of tensions why now? I think a large
Speaker 1: part of this has to do with the internal domestic
Speaker 1: pressures that Chairman she is facing because of a botched
Speaker 1: response to COVID Nineteam. There's been a tremendous economic slowdown
Speaker 1: in China, and as a consequence, I think that they're
Speaker 1: using our visit or they used our visit as a
Speaker 1: pretext for deflecting attention from their domestic pressures and so UM.
Speaker 1: I continue to submit that they were going to use
Speaker 1: whatever visit was happening around the time that they needed
Speaker 1: such a pretext for conducting those drills and conducting those
Speaker 1: live fire exercises. But I think, as I said before,
Speaker 1: those types of provocations are rather reckless because miscalculation can
Speaker 1: happen and um, and then things can kind of escalate
Speaker 1: beyond their control. Well, in with that in mind, are
Speaker 1: there off roads that the US can offer China to
Speaker 1: to I guess, release some of the pressure. If if
Speaker 1: the Chinese government is doing this almost as a distraction
Speaker 1: from domestic issues, does that give the US any options?
Speaker 1: I think that we should absolutely hold out the olive branch,
Speaker 1: even at the same time that we we say that
Speaker 1: these provocations UM are reckless and we aid Taiwan in
Speaker 1: its self defense. The olive branch has to be cooperation
Speaker 1: on any number of common global challenges, whether it's climate
Speaker 1: change or even the economic uplift of people. You know,
Speaker 1: throughout the world. We are in a fraud time. We
Speaker 1: need the best minds, the best UM technologies, UM, and
Speaker 1: we need to harness the talents of people worldwide to
Speaker 1: tackle these challenges. And in fact, in light of the
Speaker 1: Inflation Reduction Act, which we passed and it's going to
Speaker 1: be signed into loss shortly, we in the United States
Speaker 1: have taken a major that toward investing in fighting climate change,
Speaker 1: and I think that hopefully is an ice breaker for uh,
Speaker 1: you know, restarting conversations with the PRC and others. Congressman,
Speaker 1: real quick before you go, since you're on the Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: When we see in the news that some of the
Speaker 1: the documents retrieved from our lago by the FBI that
Speaker 1: were held by former President Trump were marked top secret,
Speaker 1: sensitive compartment to information, Uh, can you put that in
Speaker 1: context for us? What? What? How? How serious does that
Speaker 1: sound to you? It's very serious. The most precious, the
Speaker 1: most vital, the most exquisite intelligence in our possession is
Speaker 1: usually marked T S, S T I UM. And I
Speaker 1: think that just so you're listeners understand, you know, we
Speaker 1: as members of the Intelligence Committee view these types of
Speaker 1: documents every day. But we do so in a bunker
Speaker 1: underneath the capital, with people watching us over our shoulders,
Speaker 1: with armed guards standing outside the room, and they take
Speaker 1: an inventory of all the documents that they showed us,
Speaker 1: so literally they check off each document that they hand
Speaker 1: to us, and they check off each document return. These
Speaker 1: documents can be anything from blueprints of weapons systems to
Speaker 1: important intelligence we've gathered on foreign leaders, to information about
Speaker 1: threats that are gathering on the horizon for which we
Speaker 1: have to prepare. Um, so this is extremely important information, right,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Congressman. That's Congressman Raja Krishna, or the Democrat
Speaker 1: from Illinois on some of the big news of the
Speaker 1: day on on former President Trump's legal issues as well
Speaker 1: as on the attentions with China over Taiwan, which is
Speaker 1: an issue I want to ask the panel about. Let's
Speaker 1: bring back Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jennie she
Speaker 1: and Zano Guys. I thought there were some interesting points
Speaker 1: by the congressman there. Rick, do you agree or disagree
Speaker 1: with the assessment that a lot of this tension, the
Speaker 1: supposedly over visits by members of Congress to Taiwan, is
Speaker 1: actually a cover by the Chinese government to distract from
Speaker 1: domestic struggles in China. What do you make of that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think we have to be cautious with Representative Christo
Speaker 1: Morth these comments there, because it's not like if COVID
Speaker 1: goes away and the economy starts to recover that somehow
Speaker 1: we're going to return to some kind of old normal.
Speaker 1: With the PRC. They have been making very very strong
Speaker 1: threats to the United States and our allies long before
Speaker 1: COVID started. It's been a new normal for them to
Speaker 1: actually be more competitive UH in in the region and
Speaker 1: around the world against US interests. And they've formed these
Speaker 1: coalitions with Russia not to find a way to expand
Speaker 1: their economy and cure COVID, but to create UH security
Speaker 1: regimes in opposition to our interests around the world. So
Speaker 1: I think we should not underestimate the ambitions of the
Speaker 1: communist Chinese UH to keep us out of their backyard
Speaker 1: and thwart our abilities in our own hemisphere. So I
Speaker 1: do think that's a somewhat dangerous approach to take with him,
Speaker 1: because this is not a casual thing that she is
Speaker 1: under these stresses because of domestic problems. He has those,
Speaker 1: no doubt about it, But I don't think they weigh
Speaker 1: into his considerations of hegeonomy in the region. So then, Rick,
Speaker 1: what do you make of the Congressman's mention of olive branches,
Speaker 1: especially working with them on climate policy. Is that a
Speaker 1: legitimate option? Do we have many olive branches in the
Speaker 1: US to to reach out to China with I think
Speaker 1: this is the sophistication of state craft that the United
Speaker 1: States has been good at in the past and needs
Speaker 1: to be better at in the future, and that is
Speaker 1: to engage on things we can engage on and create
Speaker 1: UH conversations around issues. Hopefully climate would be one of
Speaker 1: them where we are not in conflict, but that not
Speaker 1: to diminish the impact that we have. Is the greatest
Speaker 1: country for good in the world to try and put
Speaker 1: pressure on them for things like human rights and economic
Speaker 1: abuses around the world. So I do believe that it's
Speaker 1: smart to keep those UH conversations open, but we cannot
Speaker 1: look the other way when China transgresses. So, Jennie, you
Speaker 1: heard the Congressman say that China isn't going to be
Speaker 1: put in front of the in charge of the congressional
Speaker 1: UH travel schedule. I want to ask you, though, is
Speaker 1: there any sense in which lawmakers are if not grandstanding,
Speaker 1: then in any way undermining the administration's position. Because there
Speaker 1: is a bit of a division even among Democrats on
Speaker 1: whether these uh these trips are a good idea, you know,
Speaker 1: there is and and it's such an important question because
Speaker 1: even with Nancy Loci's trip, the question was not whether
Speaker 1: she had the right to go. She had an invitation,
Speaker 1: she had an absolute right to go. From my mind,
Speaker 1: the question was strategic what was she going to get
Speaker 1: out of that visit? And I would ask the same
Speaker 1: question about these lawmakers, and not personally, of course, I
Speaker 1: mean vis A vis the United States policy visa VI
Speaker 1: China and Taiwan. This is a very precarious point and
Speaker 1: moment in US China relations. We all know that, not
Speaker 1: to mention what is going on in Ukraine, and so
Speaker 1: you know, I do think there is a real question
Speaker 1: to be asked about these visits. What is the benefit
Speaker 1: of them to the United States when it comes to
Speaker 1: our relationships with China? And this is a very precarious
Speaker 1: time in China, you know, looking at some of the
Speaker 1: data that Bloomberg was just releasing this morning, youth unemployment
Speaker 1: climbing to almost twenty percent. You were seeing protests around
Speaker 1: the country. She wanted to go into this meeting in
Speaker 1: this fall with you know, some kind of of calm.
Speaker 1: He's not going to get that. And let's not forget
Speaker 1: he wants to take Taiwan. He's promised to. So it
Speaker 1: puts us in a position of having to deal with
Speaker 1: that reality, right, Rick Davis, Genie Sheenzano, thank you for
Speaker 1: responding to the breaking news today. We'll talk a little later.
Speaker 1: Coming up, We're gonna talk to John Barrett, a law
Speaker 1: professor at St. John's University, over all the legal issues
Speaker 1: we've discussed today. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg broadcasting
Speaker 1: live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York, Bloomberg eleven,
Speaker 1: Frio to Boston, Bloomberg What All six one to San Francisco,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg nine sixty to the country Serious x M General
Speaker 1: one nine and around the globe the Bloomberg Business app
Speaker 1: and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg Sound On
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew. We've got a lot to sort through
Speaker 1: regarding the rejection or or the Justice departments seeking to
Speaker 1: reject requests to release the affidavit behind the search of
Speaker 1: Mara A. Lago. We have to learn quite a bit
Speaker 1: more about the UH, the legislation around that. The UH.
Speaker 1: The UH with Senator Paul aims to undo a number
Speaker 1: of questions now coming up for John Barrett, law professor
Speaker 1: at St. John's University. Espionage Act is the phrase I
Speaker 1: was looking for. I have a lot of questions on that,
Speaker 1: on affidavit's on search warrants, UH and more for John Barrett,
Speaker 1: law professor at St. John's University, who I think can
Speaker 1: explain some of these key issues now. The first one,
Speaker 1: the big news UH that just came out late this afternoon,
Speaker 1: is on the Justice Department asking a judge to keep
Speaker 1: sealed the affidavit that underpinned the FBI search of Mara Lago. Professor.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us. I'm curious, just right off
Speaker 1: the at how significant you think that position is. This
Speaker 1: is a major development or is this standard that the
Speaker 1: Justice Department does not want that affidavit to get out.
Speaker 1: I think it's very standard. It's the investigative detail underneath
Speaker 1: the request for the warrant, so it's basically the case
Speaker 1: of probable cause that the government made to the magistrate
Speaker 1: Judge who then issued warrant. It's the details of what
Speaker 1: surveillance information, what informant information, what prior course and dealings
Speaker 1: led the government to believe that there were classified documents
Speaker 1: in mar Laga. And that's all highly confidential and actively
Speaker 1: part of an investigation. It also, in this case is
Speaker 1: likely to be highly classified. It's details of what classified
Speaker 1: documents are believed to be. There would be my guests
Speaker 1: and you and you just can't put that out in
Speaker 1: the public domain. So the media asked the court to
Speaker 1: disclose it. The Justice Department, not surprisingly no, we opposed
Speaker 1: that request. So let's talk about the parts of this
Speaker 1: developing story that are less standard. Uh One, the search
Speaker 1: of maral Lago, and as we understand, this was part
Speaker 1: of an attempt to find possible violations of the Espionage Act.
Speaker 1: Another key detail that has come out is that some
Speaker 1: of the documents found were marked with the highest level
Speaker 1: of secrecy top secret Sensitive Compartmented Information SCI clearance. Based
Speaker 1: on those two data points, how serious is that they're
Speaker 1: what they're looking for? What what can we tell based
Speaker 1: on those two points of information that we have at
Speaker 1: this point? Well, the Espionage Act contains many different provisions,
Speaker 1: so This is actually not a case about espionage. I
Speaker 1: believe it's not a case accusing someone of being a spy. UM.
Speaker 1: It is a place a case of highly classified information
Speaker 1: that belongs to the government that was in private hands,
Speaker 1: the hands of the former president in it and especially
Speaker 1: up at the code word level top secret SCI information.
Speaker 1: These are secrets at the disclosure of which would cause
Speaker 1: exceptionally grave damage to the country. People who have had
Speaker 1: these kinds of clearances as I have, know that this
Speaker 1: information is extremely sensitive and so it does not belong
Speaker 1: outside of authorized hands. And that's why the government UM
Speaker 1: is investigating how it comes to be in moral lago
Speaker 1: and in the meantime recovered it. How easy would it
Speaker 1: be to violate the Espionage Act, not through malice, not
Speaker 1: through attempting to violate it and trying to sneak documents
Speaker 1: out of the White House, but through uh laziness in
Speaker 1: how you take care of documents or something along those lines.
Speaker 1: How easy would it be for a former president to
Speaker 1: accidentally violate that law. I can't speculate about a person
Speaker 1: who you know is a sleepwalker or does things with ice.
Speaker 1: Those but generally highly classified top secret SPI documents come
Speaker 1: with cover sheets, come with page markings, come with lots
Speaker 1: of red strips and discernible labels. Um, you don't accidentally
Speaker 1: put it in your pocket or put it in a
Speaker 1: packing box. Uh. And so it is at least gross carelessness,
Speaker 1: but may be intentional. However it comes to be out
Speaker 1: of government control. It's gravely serious. And that's why the
Speaker 1: government took this action to ask for its return and
Speaker 1: then to inspect that everything had been returned, and then
Speaker 1: got a representation, reportedly from a Trump lawyer that everything
Speaker 1: had been returned, and then I'm sure got some kind
Speaker 1: of confidential informant report. No, actually, there's more stuff. And
Speaker 1: that led to the affid davit, which was the request
Speaker 1: to the judge, which led the judge to issue the
Speaker 1: search warrant, which indeed found top secret sue by Information
Speaker 1: in mar Lago. What would the tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about the process of declassifying these materials, because there's
Speaker 1: been some attempt by Trump and people around him to
Speaker 1: say that he had a standing order to declassify materials
Speaker 1: that he he took out with him. Is it possible
Speaker 1: at all? Is is it in any way feasible that
Speaker 1: some of these could have been declassified or even started
Speaker 1: the process of declassification, but still have been marked top
Speaker 1: secret Or is there really no confusion there about that.
Speaker 1: I think that's not a credible explanation. The classification system
Speaker 1: is an exercise of presidential power by presidents from Reagan
Speaker 1: forward including Trump, and Trump did not rescind the executive
Speaker 1: order that sets up the classified information system for Executive
Speaker 1: Branch information. So without formally rescinding that executive order, he
Speaker 1: can't on a kind of verbal basis, create some standing order.
Speaker 1: Plus classified information belongs to the executive Branch, which is
Speaker 1: headed by O. Bien. So whatever Mr Trump, while president
Speaker 1: might have wished or thought or considered doing, he lost
Speaker 1: all power to do that when he became the former president,
Speaker 1: and the classification system top secret SCI is today's executive
Speaker 1: branch system. That is the Biden administration. Right now on Congress,
Speaker 1: I know Senator Rand Paul just raised this. He wants
Speaker 1: the Espionage Act repealed. There have been criticisms of the
Speaker 1: breadth of the wording of that law and how it
Speaker 1: pertains to documents relating to national defense. In your opinion,
Speaker 1: is that law written excessively broadly or what can you
Speaker 1: tell us about things that may be covered under that
Speaker 1: law that people might not necessarily nuclear codes. Right. Well,
Speaker 1: that category of information, national defense information, is classified by
Speaker 1: statute by the Espionage Act, and it includes the most
Speaker 1: secret military dimensions of our nuclear defense posture for instance. Um,
Speaker 1: So to sort of a O, this should all be
Speaker 1: in the clear. We shouldn't have classification. I think is
Speaker 1: naive and not a serious position. Um. Could the statute
Speaker 1: be perhaps updated, perhaps amended. That's a different question, but
Speaker 1: it protects very vital information. All right, John Barrett, Law,
Speaker 1: professor at St. John's University, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: walking us through that. We'll have to talk about other
Speaker 1: legal issues regarding Rudy Giuliani and Lindsay Graham. Coming up
Speaker 1: next with Rick Davis and Jennie she in Zano. I'm
Speaker 1: Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg Sound
Speaker 1: On on Bloomberg Radio. The big breaking news late this afternoon,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice opposes releasing the affidavit behind their
Speaker 1: search of Mara Lago, the Florida resident of former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. That is not the only news we've had
Speaker 1: today though, on legal issues surrounding the former President. Aside
Speaker 1: from that and the conversation we had with John Barrett
Speaker 1: earlier at St. John's University about the Espionage Act, there
Speaker 1: is the Georgia criminal case regarding potential election fraud UH
Speaker 1: in the attempts to overturn that state's results in the
Speaker 1: presidential race. Two points for you. One, Senator Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: was ordered today by a federal judge to comply with
Speaker 1: a subpoena and testify in that case before a grand
Speaker 1: jury in Georgia. This would be focused on Senator Graham's
Speaker 1: call to the Secretary of State in Georgia, Brad Raffensburger,
Speaker 1: after the election. Raffensburger has said he felt Graham was
Speaker 1: urging him to find a way to throw out legitimately
Speaker 1: cast mail in ballots. Second, Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyer, is a target, not just a witness, but
Speaker 1: a target in the Georgia criminal investigation UH. He was informed,
Speaker 1: his legal team was informed of that today. He is
Speaker 1: scheduled to testify Wednesday. His lawyer has said Giuliani is
Speaker 1: going to claim attorney client privilege on anything relating to
Speaker 1: his conversations with Trump, and of course after Giuliani had
Speaker 1: a heart procedure, there was some debate as to whether
Speaker 1: he would be able to go down to Georgia to
Speaker 1: testify in that case. Here is what the judge, Fulton
Speaker 1: County Judge Robert McBurney said about Giuliani's requests to not testify,
Speaker 1: which were rejected. The medical professional said that Mr Giuliani
Speaker 1: is not cleared for air travel. A rum gentleman drove
Speaker 1: all over the country and his big bus from stadium
Speaker 1: to stadium. So one thing we need to explore, um
Speaker 1: is whether Mr Juliani could get here without jeopardizing his
Speaker 1: recovery and his health on train, on a bus or
Speaker 1: uber or whatever it would be. Um. The focus seems
Speaker 1: to have been he's got to be on a plane
Speaker 1: in New York. Is not close to Atlanta, but it's
Speaker 1: not traveling from Fairbanks. So yes. John Madden, the former
Speaker 1: football coach and announcer, wrote, all over the country in
Speaker 1: a bus. I feel like we had a missed opportunity
Speaker 1: for a John McCain reference. So I've got to go
Speaker 1: to Rick Davis on our bloom Bird Politics panel. Rick
Speaker 1: uh speaking of people who have traveled extensively by bus,
Speaker 1: we know now Giuliani is going to be testifying in
Speaker 1: this criminal case. How how do things look for him,
Speaker 1: especially in light of the news today. How significant it
Speaker 1: is is it that he's informed he's not just a witness,
Speaker 1: This is not just an interview. He is a target
Speaker 1: in that case. Yeah. I mean, obviously, when you are
Speaker 1: told you're target, it means something in the investigation suggests
Speaker 1: you may have uh violated the law, committed a crime. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is this is a really significant development for for
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani. It means that he may have criminal exposure
Speaker 1: in the Fulton County case. And and when you are
Speaker 1: designated as a target, you really don't have much of
Speaker 1: an option. I mean, you know, you've got your doctor
Speaker 1: saying you can't fly. And I think it was well
Speaker 1: within the rights of the Fulton County District Attorney's office
Speaker 1: to say, then hop a train, grab a bus, get
Speaker 1: an uber. You're not the first guy who has to
Speaker 1: travel aways to to testify. They're taking this very seriously.
Speaker 1: They're not likely to delay times running out for all
Speaker 1: these cases. Uh, And so I'm not surprised that they
Speaker 1: took a hard line stance. So obviously we are interested
Speaker 1: in the legal repercussions in this criminal case. Uh, in
Speaker 1: the Espionage Act issues, which is a separate case. But
Speaker 1: also there's been all of this work in Congress in
Speaker 1: the January six UH Select Committee, Genie, when you see
Speaker 1: the at Rudy Giuliani is going to have to testify
Speaker 1: in this criminal case. Uh. And and Senator Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: is too about his call with Brad Rathfensburger, the Secretary
Speaker 1: of State. Does this clue lawmakers? And should should we
Speaker 1: assume that this will give the January six committee more
Speaker 1: to do as more information comes out in other cases? Yeah,
Speaker 1: as you're talking, Jack, I'm trying to figure out how
Speaker 1: much an uber from New York City to Georgia costs,
Speaker 1: because I guess the former mayor will be in one
Speaker 1: headata out there. Um. You know, look at Rudy Giuliani.
Speaker 1: He did what he said about sixty five thousand underage voters, felons,
Speaker 1: and eight hundred dead people voted in Georgia. All of
Speaker 1: those claims have been debunked. Today we find out through
Speaker 1: his attorney that he is now a target of this investigation.
Speaker 1: And the real issue I think here putting aside Rudy Giuliani,
Speaker 1: and he is facing some serious legal jeopardy potentially in
Speaker 1: this is what is this portend for the former president?
Speaker 1: And you have many lawyers saying there's very difficult to,
Speaker 1: you know, imagine that his attorney, Juliani is a target
Speaker 1: of the d A in this investigation and Trump is not.
Speaker 1: So I think once again we see that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: at the center of an investigation in which he is
Speaker 1: not only a player or a witness or something along
Speaker 1: those lines, but potentially a target. And the ramifications are
Speaker 1: very serious. And of course, as you talk about January six,
Speaker 1: you know they are coming back, They're still interviewing, there
Speaker 1: will be coming back in the fall. We imagine that
Speaker 1: they become maybe coming back with their with their co
Speaker 1: chair Liz Cheney, no longer going to be sitting in
Speaker 1: the House if the polls are right, come next year,
Speaker 1: and very much focused on doing what they can in
Speaker 1: the next few months if potentially Republicans take over Congress
Speaker 1: to get their report out. You couple that with what's
Speaker 1: going on in New York and of course the FBI,
Speaker 1: FBI rate and Mara Lago, and these are really serious
Speaker 1: legal problems for the former president. Well, Jennie, you mentioned
Speaker 1: Liz Cheney, and tomorrow is a Tuesday, so we have
Speaker 1: got to at least check in on the elections coming up.
Speaker 1: That is the Wyoming House primary, the Republican primary. Congresswoman
Speaker 1: Liz Cheney obviously a key role on the January six Committee,
Speaker 1: one of only two Republicans on it, faces Harriet Hageman,
Speaker 1: who is Trump's chosen Republican candidate in that race. Uh.
Speaker 1: And as Jennie said, if the polls are right, Uh,
Speaker 1: she Congresswoman Cheney is uh is well behind Hagman. Rick,
Speaker 1: especially as uh someone who has worked in Republican campaign politics.
Speaker 1: I mean, does Cheney have a chance or is she?
Speaker 1: Does she at this point know that she is about
Speaker 1: to lose her primary? Yeah? I think that there's been
Speaker 1: an expectation on uh, Liz Cheney's part that she wasn't
Speaker 1: going to run her primary to be re elect did,
Speaker 1: but she was gonna make a statement. And and when
Speaker 1: you look at the advertising that she's done, it doesn't
Speaker 1: even mention her opponent Hagaman. It mentions Donald Trump. Uh.
Speaker 1: And when you see her speeches and her public appearances, Uh,
Speaker 1: she talks about the need to cleanse our democracy and
Speaker 1: keep Donald Trump from ever becoming president again, and doesn't
Speaker 1: talk about what those issues are that are relevant to
Speaker 1: the people of Wyoming. And so she's made a choice
Speaker 1: a long time ago not to pursue the local agenda politically,
Speaker 1: but to pursue a national one and insomuch as letting
Speaker 1: the chips fall where they may. Uh. That's where she
Speaker 1: is going into tomorrow's election significantly and underdog. She'll probably
Speaker 1: overperform a little bit by Democrats voting in a Republican
Speaker 1: primary to support her, but outside of a negligible increase
Speaker 1: in her ballot, she's she's certainly, by all the polls
Speaker 1: I've seen, likely to lose a landslide. We also want
Speaker 1: to touch on the Pennsylvania Senate race. We know who
Speaker 1: the candidates are there, the republic and his moment Oz
Speaker 1: doctor Oz from tv UH, and the Democrat is John Fetterman,
Speaker 1: the Lieutenant governor. I want to play you the beginning
Speaker 1: of an ad that Oz put online. I saw it
Speaker 1: on his Twitter account. Uh. This seemed to be the
Speaker 1: kind of thing you might expect from a superpack that
Speaker 1: a candidate himself wouldn't necessarily want to affiliate himself with
Speaker 1: his is quite the attack on John Fetterman, who had
Speaker 1: a stroke earlier this year. Here's the beginning of that,
Speaker 1: uh that ad by moment Oz. Now that John Fetterman
Speaker 1: claims to be recovering, let's pull back his foodie and
Speaker 1: examine what's in his head. Looks like he has him screws, liss,
Speaker 1: what's this Feederman wants to release one third of all prisoners.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. So he goes through a number of policy
Speaker 1: disagreements following up on the implication that Fetterman has not
Speaker 1: actually recovered and in the words of that add has
Speaker 1: some screws loose or is crazy? Genie, I'm I'm I'm
Speaker 1: wondering if that is a winning ad. What do you
Speaker 1: make of that? You know, I'm not sure that it's winning. Um.
Speaker 1: You know Fetterman, as you mentioned just back on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail, UM, he was talking in Eerie over the
Speaker 1: weekend on his return about his health scare and that
Speaker 1: is certainly a concern. I mean, he's got to be
Speaker 1: healthy for the rest of this campaign, and he's got
Speaker 1: to show that what happened three months ago he has recovered. Um.
Speaker 1: But you look at the polls, real clear has him
Speaker 1: up nine points. And I would just note we're hearing
Speaker 1: today that the National Republican Senatorial Committee canceled ten million
Speaker 1: dollars worth of advertising this fall, including in Pennsylvania. So
Speaker 1: that bodes very very badly for somebody like Oz. It's
Speaker 1: still going to be a tight race, but these polls
Speaker 1: and the fundraising numbers and the n RSC canceling that
Speaker 1: that can be a really bad sign from mement Oz
Speaker 1: as he seeks to take a seat that, you know,
Speaker 1: retain a Republican seat that, um, you know, they really
Speaker 1: could have retained maybe if Trump hadn't gotten in on
Speaker 1: this endorsement. Right before we close lightning round, Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: do you think we're gonna be talking about Congresswoman Sarah Palin?
Speaker 1: Very well could wake up Wednesday morning after the special
Speaker 1: election in Alaska with Sarah Palin as a congressman and
Speaker 1: very well could have her finishing third. So um, we're
Speaker 1: gonna wait and see. Unfortunately, the way they ballot, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to wait a while to find out could
Speaker 1: take a well with the ranked choice voting in Alaska.
Speaker 1: A lot to look forward to. Thanks again to Congressman
Speaker 1: Raja Krishnamurthy and John Barrett at St. John's University, as
Speaker 1: well as Rick Davis and Jeannie she and Zano. I'm
Speaker 1: Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg.