Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg sound on.
Speaker 1: Let us speak plainly. Permanent Member of the United Nations
Speaker 1: Security Council. Invaded his name. We know that these referendum
Speaker 1: will be manipulated. Floomberg sound on politics, policy and perspective
Speaker 1: from DC's top names, I'm announcing that today we're filing
Speaker 1: a lawsuit against Donald Trumps. One of the thing I
Speaker 1: don't think, not on my time. You can know one
Speaker 1: is doing reclaiming. My time belongs to the gentleman from
Speaker 1: Kalos Frne. Bloomberg sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the fastest hour in politics. As the world
Speaker 1: watches Russia's first mobilization since the Nazi invasion of World
Speaker 1: War Two, we will talk with Stephen Mull former ambassador
Speaker 1: to Poland lead coordinator for implementing the Iran nuclear deal,
Speaker 1: New York state file suit against Donald Trump and as
Speaker 1: three kids accused of faking the value of real estate assets,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg legal reporter Eric Larsen will join us with details.
Speaker 1: Just as trump's special master gets busy and a whole
Speaker 1: separate investigation, our signature panel is here. Bloomberg Politics Contributor
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Jeanie Schanzano. President Biden condemns Russia before
Speaker 1: the United Nations General Assembly, just hours after Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: calls the country's first mobilization since World War Two. Three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand reservists ordered to prepare for combat in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Let us speak plainly. A permanent member of the United
Speaker 1: Nations Security Council invaded its neighbor attempted to erase the
Speaker 1: sovereign state from the map. Vladimir Putin, Russia has shamelessly
Speaker 1: violent owned people, renewing the threat of a nuclear attack.
Speaker 1: This is Vladimir Putin, speaking through a translator from Sky News. Yes,
Speaker 1: I shoot to defend Russia and our people. We will
Speaker 1: certainly make use of all weapons systems available to us.
Speaker 1: At then you believe this is not a bluff, the
Speaker 1: citizens of Russia can rest assured that the territorial integrity
Speaker 1: of our motherland, our independence and freedom will be defended,
Speaker 1: I repeat, by all the systems available to us. Those
Speaker 1: who are using nuclear blackmail against us should know that
Speaker 1: the wind can turn their way. Incredible language coming from Putin.
Speaker 1: This is not a bluff and it's an important day.
Speaker 1: To have Stephen Mull with us. The vice provos for
Speaker 1: Global Affairs at the University of Virginia, served as US
Speaker 1: Ambassador to Poland lead coordinator for implementing the Iran nuclear deal,
Speaker 1: and it's great to have you back, ambassador. Welcome all
Speaker 1: off Schultz calls this mobilization in Russia and active desperation.
Speaker 1: Is that how you see it? Well, it's an act
Speaker 1: of something that I think a desperation to try and
Speaker 1: get get the heat that's remounting on Putin over the
Speaker 1: past couple of weeks within Russia, as people are more
Speaker 1: and more outspoken against what they believe to be his
Speaker 1: incompetence in, uh, running the war. So this is a
Speaker 1: way to get them off his back. But it's not
Speaker 1: going to really have much of an impact. First of all,
Speaker 1: they don't have three thousand fully trained equip troops standing
Speaker 1: by to jump into the war. Uh. They're going to
Speaker 1: have to mount these people, get them together, train them,
Speaker 1: give them weapons, which they're running out of, get them
Speaker 1: other equipment. Uh. So this is not going to be
Speaker 1: a quick fixed by any means, but it does give
Speaker 1: him some attention UH and some clumps. Helps calmb hit
Speaker 1: down his critics. Well, reports say they're emptying prisons at
Speaker 1: this point. You know, the Russians call them reservists, apparently,
Speaker 1: but that's that's a far cry from from what we're
Speaker 1: actually seeing. Uh. Considering, though, that the level of desperation,
Speaker 1: the sense of loss that Vladimir Putin is feeling, the
Speaker 1: criticism he's getting from within his own country. Uh, the
Speaker 1: nuclear thing comes back, it seems every time, and of
Speaker 1: course he's accusing Ukraine in the west of nuclear bullying somehow. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, we're told frequently to to take Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: at his word. Do you? Uh? Well, I think, but no,
Speaker 1: I know. First of all, I mean he continues this
Speaker 1: big lie that somehow Russia is under attack, and his
Speaker 1: interview today he said that, you know, Russia had to
Speaker 1: mobilize these troops because, you created the West are plotting
Speaker 1: carving up Russia, which, of course, that's exactly what Russia
Speaker 1: is doing to Ukraine. So he's just a ball faced
Speaker 1: in terms of the force, though. Uh. Well, what he's
Speaker 1: trying to do is his game. One of his chief
Speaker 1: strategic objectives to succeed in this war is to split
Speaker 1: the West, which is so far held really tightly together
Speaker 1: in supporting Ukraine and in implementing sanctions against Russia. So
Speaker 1: winners coming on. You see the game playing, with turning
Speaker 1: off the gas pipeline UH to Russia to Europe, which
Speaker 1: will promote a lot of internal discomfort within Europe and
Speaker 1: EGO will get them to start wavering and their support
Speaker 1: for you create, and then throw the card on the
Speaker 1: table that, oh, this could end up in the nuclear
Speaker 1: attacks scenario. That will peel off. He hopes more Europeans
Speaker 1: from that, but I I think at this point I
Speaker 1: don't think the Europeans are gonna buy it. I think
Speaker 1: we're the U S and the Europe's European allies are
Speaker 1: hanging pretty strongly together on this and Ukraine's games on
Speaker 1: the battlefield. Over the past a couple of weeks, I
Speaker 1: think I've convinced the West that it's willing to make sacrifices,
Speaker 1: that we're on the right track to help you create succeed.
Speaker 1: I have to ask you, ambassador. President Biden today, in
Speaker 1: his speech, referred frequently to the United Nations Charter Uh
Speaker 1: and and, as you might have hered a second ago,
Speaker 1: actually called out Russia as a permanent member of the
Speaker 1: U N Security Council. If you look at the actual
Speaker 1: charter here in Article One, is pretty clear. Article One,
Speaker 1: section one, lays it out to maintain international peace and
Speaker 1: security and, to that end, to take effect of collective
Speaker 1: measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the
Speaker 1: peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or
Speaker 1: other breaches of the peace, and to bring about, by
Speaker 1: peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of Justice
Speaker 1: and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes. So
Speaker 1: at what point here, seven months into this war, does
Speaker 1: the U N bear some responsibility in not being further involved?
Speaker 1: People are questioning its purpose in a time like this. Ambassador, yeah, well, uh, well,
Speaker 1: you know the you're what you read from the Charter
Speaker 1: is absolutely right. That's what the United Nations says foreign
Speaker 1: to do. But the hell is hell and all of it.
Speaker 1: The major flaw that prevents it from carrying this out,
Speaker 1: not only in this conflict but in so many others,
Speaker 1: is that that power to control international security was vested
Speaker 1: in the Security Council, in which the five permanent members,
Speaker 1: including the United States, Russia, China written and France, have
Speaker 1: vetos to block any anything. So uh, it's a pretty
Speaker 1: substantial flaw. And sometimes when all the five permanent members
Speaker 1: agree that something needs to be done, it'll work and
Speaker 1: it has had a positive impacted a number of conflicts.
Speaker 1: But when any one of the permanent members is involved
Speaker 1: in the conflict, if they don't want to stop it,
Speaker 1: they're not going to do it and they're not gonna
Speaker 1: let the United dations stop them either, and China will
Speaker 1: stand by Russia if there's any attempt to really see. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll see. That's that's a great question. It's kind of
Speaker 1: interesting the past couple of weeks trying has been obviously
Speaker 1: getting a little a little fed up with this as well. Ambassador,
Speaker 1: I have to ask you, of course, as the lead
Speaker 1: implementer of the Iran nuclear deal, about the deal and
Speaker 1: whether there might ever be one again here. President racy
Speaker 1: of Iran spoke before President Biden today at the U
Speaker 1: N and he was tough. He condemned the US. He's
Speaker 1: a trump administration, Biden. He said it doesn't matter. It's
Speaker 1: the same government, vowing to seek justice for the killing
Speaker 1: as well of Uh coustoms all the money and just
Speaker 1: last weekend, as I'm sure you saw in sixty minutes
Speaker 1: through more doubt on a possible deal. Here's what he says.
Speaker 1: We need PAYEKENYA. You see, the Americans broke their promises.
Speaker 1: They did it unilaterally. They said that I am out
Speaker 1: of the deal. Now making promises. It is becoming meaningless.
Speaker 1: Are you saying that you cannot trust the Americans Mobile Ality?
Speaker 1: We cannot trust the Americans because of the behavior that
Speaker 1: we've already seen from them. That is why, if there
Speaker 1: is no guarantee, there is no trust. Speaking with Leslie
Speaker 1: Stall there, when you hear that, ambassador, do you see
Speaker 1: this happening at this point? Uh, not at this point,
Speaker 1: but I certainly wouldn't say it's completely out of the question.
Speaker 1: Of the Iranians are our bargaining as as we are. Uh.
Speaker 1: And on the heels of those comments, the Iranian foreign
Speaker 1: minister was running around New York today saying no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no, no no, we're still still ready to make a deal.
Speaker 1: What they want it's some kind of guarantee that once
Speaker 1: they give up the nuclear material they've now stockpiled over
Speaker 1: the past couple of years, that there's some guarantee that
Speaker 1: they're going to get the sanctions relief that the US
Speaker 1: won't walk away again. So, if you look at it objectively,
Speaker 1: that's a fair enough a fair enough expectation in their part.
Speaker 1: But the Europeans agree with us. This is a political agreement.
Speaker 1: We're not going to give a treaty guarantee to that.
Speaker 1: And Uh, it's it's pretty much taken to relieve it.
Speaker 1: So it's up to be Ranis to decide. They're going
Speaker 1: to keep playing around the edges to see what they
Speaker 1: can get. Well, they know just as well if there
Speaker 1: could be a trump administration in two years, it's impossible
Speaker 1: to predict. So how do they how do they get
Speaker 1: any sort of comfort? Well, I mean what they do
Speaker 1: is in the end, when they can get some kind
Speaker 1: of guarantee, and they may try to leverage this to
Speaker 1: get some other concession on some other thing that's important
Speaker 1: to them, uh, in which they'll say, okay, we accept
Speaker 1: that you can't guarantee it, give us x Ui or
Speaker 1: z instead, and then get what they can until the
Speaker 1: next years presidential elections. I think that's the most likely uh,
Speaker 1: the most likely outcome and all I still think it's
Speaker 1: the best thing for this country. Um, well, you know,
Speaker 1: having not necessarily in Iran, uh is better than not.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, absolutely great to talk with the ambassador,
Speaker 1: Stephen Maull, vice provost for a global affairs at the
Speaker 1: University of Virginia. We thank you for joining us as
Speaker 1: the UN General Assembly meets at such a critical time.
Speaker 1: And what a day. My goodness, President Biden, normally this
Speaker 1: would have been one of the big stories. Uh, there's
Speaker 1: just there are too many, not enough time. But he
Speaker 1: did actually have a bilateral meeting today with the new
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of Britain. Met With Liz Trust Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't about what they said. Everybody got along well,
Speaker 1: said the right things about the special relationship. But right
Speaker 1: at the end when people are yelling questions and so forth,
Speaker 1: they're trying to get more from Joe Biden, as you
Speaker 1: can hear here in this recording on the move from
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin today, listen to the one word answer that
Speaker 1: follows the end. You have a reaction to Putin's announcement
Speaker 1: about a partial mobilization of troops. I saw it. Anything
Speaker 1: else you want to share about his sudden decision? NOPE,
Speaker 1: it's all on the speech and we'll talk about it
Speaker 1: next with the panel. Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano come
Speaker 1: together for our signature panel on Bloomberg. Sound on. It's
Speaker 1: next as we join you live from Washington d C.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. As
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin renews the Nuclear Threat, President Biden didn't mince
Speaker 1: words before the UN General Assembly, as we heard from today,
Speaker 1: before the Green Marble, the nations can pursue their imperial
Speaker 1: ambitions without consequences. Then we put at risk everything is
Speaker 1: very institution stands for. Then that means it is at risk,
Speaker 1: and questions, as we just discussed with the ambassador, over
Speaker 1: the whole purpose of the United Nations, the impact that
Speaker 1: it can make, while this war rages for seven months
Speaker 1: in counting no signs of its stopping and uncounted civilians dead.
Speaker 1: We assemble our panel today. Rick Davis is back in
Speaker 1: the nation's capital from his trip to Aunga, just back
Speaker 1: from New York, and Genie Chanzano is with us as well.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg politics contributors. Rick had the president due today, and
Speaker 1: did he not raise that very sort of obvious question
Speaker 1: in the room. Yeah, look, I think he hit the
Speaker 1: nail on the head. I think it was aided by
Speaker 1: Putin's kind of unhinged speech. You know, that preceded it.
Speaker 1: So I think he was able to create the perfect juxtaposition. Right,
Speaker 1: you've got a decision to make as an institution, the
Speaker 1: U N and the world, as to whether you're going
Speaker 1: to decide to side with authoritarianism that creates all this
Speaker 1: dislocation and chaos or reinvest in the institutions that created
Speaker 1: the greatest level of prosperity in world history after World
Speaker 1: War Two. I thought that was pretty clear to everybody
Speaker 1: sitting in the seats, and I do think he used
Speaker 1: the UN the way the UN needs to be used
Speaker 1: as a focal point for these kinds of debates. You'll
Speaker 1: notice who wasn't there right, who was? who was hiding
Speaker 1: behind the Kremlin walls while the rest of the world
Speaker 1: was participating in some kind of a democratic forum. You know,
Speaker 1: Latin Air Putin can't be seen in the U N Today.
Speaker 1: That's a good thing for the U N. The Security
Speaker 1: Council also can't do anything, though. Right, you need doesn't
Speaker 1: that defeat the purpose? It does, but you know, I
Speaker 1: had a little different take than rick did on this speech.
Speaker 1: I thought the president do a good job. I agree
Speaker 1: with him in terms of, you know, laying out the
Speaker 1: problem if the UN doesn't address this. But what I
Speaker 1: thought he didn't do enough of was saying both what
Speaker 1: the U N should do, what he wants them to do,
Speaker 1: and speaking directly to Jij and Ping and, quite frankly,
Speaker 1: to a close ally of ours, or who should be
Speaker 1: to India, to say you're close to put and you
Speaker 1: need to respond to this. I wish he would have
Speaker 1: done a bit more of that and he also could
Speaker 1: have said quite frankly what the US plans to do
Speaker 1: about this. To Rick's point, I mean we have a
Speaker 1: Security Council member, hours before the UN meeting when the
Speaker 1: president's going to speak, talking about using nuclear weapons and
Speaker 1: calling up troops. There needs to be a very strong
Speaker 1: response to by the U N and by the US
Speaker 1: and we have to lead in that direction, so I thought.
Speaker 1: But we are doing everything about I mean, who else
Speaker 1: is doing more than the US? How about everybody else
Speaker 1: in the room? Well, they can do more, certainly, but
Speaker 1: I think we have a responsibility to say what they
Speaker 1: should do. We didn't hear a lot of what they
Speaker 1: should do. What does he expected to do besides hanging together?
Speaker 1: And what are we gonna do? He didn't even talk,
Speaker 1: quite frankly, about sending more to Ukraine, and he needs
Speaker 1: to be speaking directly to g and Modi, because they
Speaker 1: are the two people who actually have some ability to
Speaker 1: curtail potentially Putin. So is the U N just a
Speaker 1: platform for speech, in this case sending a message Rick,
Speaker 1: or is there something that this organization can do with
Speaker 1: with the leadership of the US? Yeah, look, the Security
Speaker 1: Council has been broken for a long time and as
Speaker 1: long as you have authoritarian regimes like China and Russia
Speaker 1: sitting there as permanent members with a veto, it's it's
Speaker 1: a way. So it's not even more at the airtime. Right,
Speaker 1: it's just not gonna happen. You cannot use the U
Speaker 1: N as a peacekeeping force around the world, right. It's
Speaker 1: just that part of it is broken and will never
Speaker 1: be fixed. We need a League of democratic nations. I mean,
Speaker 1: when you look at if we actually mobilize democracies around
Speaker 1: the world, what kind of an impact we could have
Speaker 1: different than the U N. But the U N is
Speaker 1: an important place because at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: it is our one opportunity at least once a year,
Speaker 1: not counting all the institutional things that they do. A
Speaker 1: lot of it's wasted money, but a lot of it
Speaker 1: has impact on the on the health and and and
Speaker 1: and and and uplifting uh communities all around the world.
Speaker 1: But we need a forum right. We need to be
Speaker 1: able to have everybody come in one place and, even
Speaker 1: though despotic regimes get their chance to talk on the
Speaker 1: floor of the U N Two uh it is a
Speaker 1: perfect opportunity for the president United States to set a standard,
Speaker 1: and that's what that speech was to do, is say,
Speaker 1: you know what, this is how we should act as
Speaker 1: a nation of people, as a world and I think if, if,
Speaker 1: if the President United States doesn't do that, if he
Speaker 1: devolves into becoming the world nanny and scolding everybody for
Speaker 1: what they're doing or not doing. Um, you know, I
Speaker 1: think that's a mistake. We have to set a values based,
Speaker 1: character driven leadership model for the world. Well, to your point,
Speaker 1: we heard from the president of Iran, what was it,
Speaker 1: maybe an hour before presis it? And Biden spoke maybe less.
Speaker 1: I mean these guys almost cross paths sometimes at the podium.
Speaker 1: It is the remarkable thing of watching the general assembly
Speaker 1: and had nothing good to say about America. For us,
Speaker 1: it makes no difference whether Isis dish was made by
Speaker 1: which administration rich American government. What matters is that a
Speaker 1: government on the other side of this planet decided to
Speaker 1: bring havoc and chaos to the geography of our region
Speaker 1: at the expense of the lives and the blood of
Speaker 1: women and children. And that sounds like somebody who wants
Speaker 1: to make a deal. Right about an Augenie? It does
Speaker 1: not sound like that at all. And you're right the
Speaker 1: juxtaposition just about an hour apart. It was stunning. I
Speaker 1: was watching that. But you know there are interests on
Speaker 1: the part of China to that that they can't be
Speaker 1: happy with what Vladimir Putin had to say, and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden needs to be using that to his advantage, as
Speaker 1: does NATO, because what he had to say just hours
Speaker 1: before it was stunningly frightening. I wasn't as surprised by
Speaker 1: what the Iranian president had to say. Jennie Chanzano and
Speaker 1: Rick Davis make our signature panel on Bloomberg sound on
Speaker 1: their back and just a bit as we turned our
Speaker 1: attention to domestic affairs. Today Donald Trump is being sued again,
Speaker 1: this time by New York. We'll be joined by Eric
Speaker 1: Larson straight ahead. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. New
Speaker 1: York Attorney General. Letitia James laid it out today from
Speaker 1: the podium. I'm announcing that today we're filing a lawsuit
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump for violating the law as part of
Speaker 1: his efforts to generate profits for himself, his family and
Speaker 1: his company. The suits against Donald Trump, the trump organization,
Speaker 1: DONALD TRUMP JR, Ivanka trump and eric trump, all senior
Speaker 1: executives at the company. James seeking penalties, including a permanent
Speaker 1: and on the four trump's running companies in New York.
Speaker 1: We'll talk to the CO author of this piece and
Speaker 1: just a moment. Eric Larson has been all over this story.
Speaker 1: In addition to banning the president, former president and as
Speaker 1: kids from serving as corporate officers, she's seeking two and
Speaker 1: fifty million dollars, by the way, as part of the
Speaker 1: penalties here. Mr Trump and the trump organization repeatedly and
Speaker 1: persistently manipulated the value of assets to induce banks to
Speaker 1: lend money to the trump organization a more favorable terms
Speaker 1: than would otherwise have been available to the company, to
Speaker 1: pay lower taxes, to satisfy continuing loan agreements and to
Speaker 1: induce insurance companies to provide insurance coverage for higher limits
Speaker 1: and at lower premiums. Okay, so they were faking the value,
Speaker 1: inflating the value of trump real estate assets for all
Speaker 1: of these benefits. Eric Arson is with us now, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: legal reporter shares the byline on the story on the terminal. Eric.
Speaker 1: How do you do that? Was it? Was it a
Speaker 1: matter of allegedly forging documents? How do you inflate the value?
Speaker 1: You know, there's nothing in there about forging documents, but
Speaker 1: there's over two hundred pages of detail here over a
Speaker 1: wide variety of assets showing how these valuations were allegedly
Speaker 1: manipulated in a lot of different ways over the years.
Speaker 1: You know. Just as an example, one way would be
Speaker 1: that this property called seven springs. It's two hundred and
Speaker 1: twelve acres outside Manhattan. Um It was valued at about
Speaker 1: twenty five million dollars at first. When, after trump bought it,
Speaker 1: um uh in by two thousand six it was valued
Speaker 1: at thirty million dollars. But then a few years later
Speaker 1: it catapulted in value to nearly three hundred million dollars,
Speaker 1: and the attorney general claims that this was done through
Speaker 1: basically exaggerating the potential for developing the site with mansions
Speaker 1: and things like this, Um, so that they were just
Speaker 1: able to put it down on trump's financial statement for
Speaker 1: that year, you know, two million dollars one year, two
Speaker 1: sixty one million dollars in the next. But letitia James
Speaker 1: says that it was worth nothing close to that. So
Speaker 1: this is the culmination, as you write, of a year's
Speaker 1: long investigation. Do you have the ability to to to
Speaker 1: judge today, Eric, the strength of this case? Uh, not
Speaker 1: myself personally, but I have spoken to, for example, a
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor who has been following this Um you know.
Speaker 1: She says that there's just so much detail in this
Speaker 1: complaint Um that really relies on millions of pages of
Speaker 1: documents from the trump organization itself and from dozens of
Speaker 1: interviews with people who are involved in these asset valuations,
Speaker 1: including employees at the company Um. So it's a they
Speaker 1: said that, because it is such a document heavy Um
Speaker 1: case that you know it's going to be. If it's
Speaker 1: you can put in front of a jury that's going
Speaker 1: to be easy to potentially easy to understand and really
Speaker 1: spell out this Um these alleged schemes. Her this is
Speaker 1: a civil case, correct. She believes, though, the investigation uncovered
Speaker 1: federal criminal liability. They referred the matter to federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: and the I R S. So this could actually go further,
Speaker 1: which is something I learned in your story today. But
Speaker 1: we also want our listeners to understand that this is
Speaker 1: not related to Department of Justice Investigations Underway Right now,
Speaker 1: for instance Mara Lago efforts to overturn the election results.
Speaker 1: And with regard to that Mara Lago case, I don't
Speaker 1: know how you track all of this stuff, to be
Speaker 1: honest with you, or you must be the busiest guy
Speaker 1: in the company right now. But the special master has
Speaker 1: started working five hundred documents that day. Were told to
Speaker 1: get through eleven thousand of them and it's already there
Speaker 1: are already questions about his role in all of this.
Speaker 1: What can you tell us about that process? How long
Speaker 1: might take? Yeah, you know, it's a little bit complicated.
Speaker 1: Trump is the one who wanted a special master here
Speaker 1: to have someone who's neutral review these eleven thousand documents
Speaker 1: that were seized from his home, including about a hundred
Speaker 1: highly classified documents. Uh. So he he asked for a
Speaker 1: special master, with the idea being that he believes a
Speaker 1: lot of these things should be returned to him and
Speaker 1: that he hadn't done anything wrong. But, you know, he
Speaker 1: actually agreed on this particular special master and he is
Speaker 1: going to start looking at these. But the question that
Speaker 1: the special master had at this hearing that just happened
Speaker 1: this week was, uh, you know, we've heard a lot
Speaker 1: about you saying in the news that you want to declassify,
Speaker 1: that you did declassify these documents and therefore there was
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with you having them. But he won't make
Speaker 1: that he doesn't want to make his lawyers don't want
Speaker 1: to make that assertion directly in court and the special
Speaker 1: masters pressing him to do that, uh, and his trump's
Speaker 1: lawyers are sort of balking at that. So there's already
Speaker 1: some friction between his lawyers and the special master they picked.
Speaker 1: Fascinating conversation, Eric. Thank you much for the insights. Eric Larson,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg legal reporter, with just the latest, my Gosh, the
Speaker 1: latest log on the fire here. I'd love to hear
Speaker 1: quickly from Rick and Jennie about this latest from New
Speaker 1: York State. Genie, that's uh, that's where you are. This
Speaker 1: is something that you've seen coming from Letitia James for
Speaker 1: some time. Does it change the picture for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: or is it just another one? You know it is
Speaker 1: another one, but I think it does. Letitia James Three
Speaker 1: years she has been investigating this. This is a three
Speaker 1: hundred page document. It is incredibly detailed. She's referring it
Speaker 1: for criminal she's making a criminal referral on it. But
Speaker 1: I think the reality for Donald Trump is this hits very,
Speaker 1: very hard and close to home. He has for his
Speaker 1: entire lifetime described himself as a businessman who has been
Speaker 1: incredibly successful and she runs right into that and charges
Speaker 1: him and his children with this enormous fraud, and this
Speaker 1: is something that is going to get him very, very angry.
Speaker 1: If nothing else, trump today on on the truth. Social
Speaker 1: Rick Calls it another witch hunt. Never had to complain
Speaker 1: about me. Instead of fighting murder and violent crime which
Speaker 1: is killing New York state, does he raise money on this?
Speaker 1: In the meantime? You know, he may raise money on this.
Speaker 1: I see he seems to raise money off of all
Speaker 1: the difficulties he's having in the courts, but it does
Speaker 1: seem like a classic case of a death by a
Speaker 1: thousand cuts, right. I mean we could spend hours and
Speaker 1: hours and hours going through all the legal jeopardy that
Speaker 1: he's been in, not just since being president but even
Speaker 1: while he was president, right to impeachments, and I do
Speaker 1: think the weight of all these things starts to bear
Speaker 1: on him. I mean, we do see his polling data
Speaker 1: starting to slip. There are now new polls at show
Speaker 1: that the Santis and beat him in Florida for the
Speaker 1: first time, and so you know it's not been a
Speaker 1: good year for Donald Trump. We're gonna hear from Rhn
Speaker 1: de santis coming up next to the man who some
Speaker 1: people think he could run against for president, Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 1: in an interview today with Bloomberg News. Rick Davis and
Speaker 1: Genie Chanzano are back. I'll be here too. I'm Joe
Speaker 1: Matt You and you are listening to the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics. It's sound on. This is Bloomberg. You're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg. You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The hearing today was called Holding Mega Banks Accountable oversight
Speaker 1: of America's largest consumer facing banks. So of course it
Speaker 1: couldn't be fun for the big bank CEOS sitting before
Speaker 1: the House Financial Services Committee. Right. Well, it wasn't. The
Speaker 1: executives warned about economic storm clouds. They spoke to the
Speaker 1: impact of inflation. None of it felt right. Democrats gave
Speaker 1: them a hard time about everything from overdraft policies to Russia,
Speaker 1: as we hear in this exchange between Congressman Brad Sherman
Speaker 1: California and speaking with Jamie diamond of JP Morgan Chase.
Speaker 1: In city groups, Jane Fraser, Mr Danny, say yes or
Speaker 1: no question. You have not cut your ties to the
Speaker 1: gas grass crominvitall. Do you continue you to own a
Speaker 1: major steak in the Russian Bank Spirit as Spear Bank? No,
Speaker 1: we do not own a steak or spear bank. I
Speaker 1: think that's somewhere and we've materially cut out some of
Speaker 1: the I hope you would get all your ties to
Speaker 1: gas from and that's all. And let me go on
Speaker 1: to city group. Have you cut your ties with Luke
Speaker 1: Oil and vital I usally had one other thing. I
Speaker 1: don't think not on my time. You can is doing reclaiming.
Speaker 1: My time belongs to the gentleman from California and we'll
Speaker 1: move on. You can do a press conference afterwards and
Speaker 1: comment as you like, not on my time. Have you
Speaker 1: cut your ties to Luc Oil and vital? I'm similar
Speaker 1: to MS diamond. We have been working down our exposures
Speaker 1: in Russia. So you have not cut your ties yet.
Speaker 1: Let's move on. Moving on from Jane Fraser, just you know,
Speaker 1: went down the line here as we reassemble our panel
Speaker 1: reminding its annual testimony. But this is not an annual topic,
Speaker 1: Genie Chanzano, when Rick Davis are here, Bloomberg politics contributors, Rick,
Speaker 1: that must bring back just great old memories for starters
Speaker 1: from Capitol Hill. But uh, is this level of scrutiny
Speaker 1: actually required right now as we consider sanctions? Our own
Speaker 1: banks here in the US are still invested. Yeah, any
Speaker 1: time a member says I've got a yes or no question,
Speaker 1: it means they actually don't want you to respond at all.
Speaker 1: Just gives a stage. So you know, that's how you
Speaker 1: know how to train people who go up for testimony,
Speaker 1: and you certainly don't do what Jamie diamond did, pick
Speaker 1: a fight with him. Yeah, what is that, I guess,
Speaker 1: when you're Jamie diamond. But look, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it's obviously in a time of economic upheaval. You know,
Speaker 1: these guys are targets and Um, and I think that
Speaker 1: they're going to go through quite a bit of oversight,
Speaker 1: especially as it relates to some of the the requirements
Speaker 1: that they have on the banking acts. So, Um, I
Speaker 1: think they're they're going to see a lot of action
Speaker 1: over the course the next two years. Is The economy
Speaker 1: sinks into recession, is it time for them to be
Speaker 1: dumping their assets? Though? They couldn't answer yes to any
Speaker 1: of those questions there in Russia specifically. Yeah, yeah, they
Speaker 1: they weren't allowed to expoint, nor did anybody want to
Speaker 1: hear what they had to say. Um, you know, I
Speaker 1: think they're going to have to think seriously about that,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure they have already. But I think part
Speaker 1: partly what's going on here is the state of the
Speaker 1: economy here and all the concern and you hear that
Speaker 1: reflected both back and forth, and also, quite frankly, the
Speaker 1: fact that there was a big American bailout of these banks,
Speaker 1: and that is something that Americans have not forgotten. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm stunned by the number of young people who don't
Speaker 1: remember a lot when you talk to them about things
Speaker 1: that happened when they were little kids. But the recession
Speaker 1: of Oh eight looms large to them and what happened
Speaker 1: in the aftermath, because they fear there the impact on
Speaker 1: them should something similar at a time when many Americans,
Speaker 1: no matter what economists say, feel like we are in
Speaker 1: a recession already. So, you know, I think that's partly
Speaker 1: what's going on here and they are on the hot
Speaker 1: seat and they're going to have to respond and try
Speaker 1: to keep their heads down and not pick a fight.
Speaker 1: To Rick's point, it's not a great look. I mean
Speaker 1: PR wise, but you know, even McDonald's was shamed out
Speaker 1: of Russia. Rick, I thought this was pretty much all done.
Speaker 1: How about the big banks that control our money? Yeah, look,
Speaker 1: I mean you know, Geo politics and banking has never
Speaker 1: been a good match. And and and, as diamond was
Speaker 1: trying to say, you know they invest in mutual funds
Speaker 1: that even a sliver of it might be an investment
Speaker 1: in gas problem, but it's still an investment in gas problem.
Speaker 1: So you actually got to go to the mutual funds
Speaker 1: say hey, what you ought to be doing is disinvesting.
Speaker 1: The real question is going to be when they start
Speaker 1: to focus on China, because right now there really isn't
Speaker 1: all that much investment in Russia, but we have massive
Speaker 1: trillion dollar investments in China, and the banks are going
Speaker 1: to be called upon the carpet at some point and say,
Speaker 1: do you realize you are financing the red armies build
Speaker 1: up in a potential conflict against the United States? She's well,
Speaker 1: they're going to be back for more. Tomorrow is the
Speaker 1: sequel next door in the Senate the heads of the
Speaker 1: seven biggest banks. As we turn our attention now to
Speaker 1: what Rick alluded to, and that is, well, what could
Speaker 1: be a future presidential race. At least that's what they say.
Speaker 1: Rhonde Santis is making a lot of news this week.
Speaker 1: He's now being sued over these migrant flights, the stunt,
Speaker 1: as President Biden would call it, along with a lot
Speaker 1: of people here, the migrant flights somehow from Texas to
Speaker 1: Martha's Vineyard. Yet he's the Florida governor and he's being
Speaker 1: sued now for for doing this, migrants claiming they were
Speaker 1: duped into making the trip with vouchers for free food,
Speaker 1: promises of employment, promises of housing, Uh and UH. The
Speaker 1: complaints been filed in Boston Federal Court. It's a proposed
Speaker 1: class action. Rhonda Santis does not sound concern. They said
Speaker 1: they're a sanctuary city. They say that nobody, no human being,
Speaker 1: is illegal. Everyone's welcome. These were folks who got the
Speaker 1: transport that Biden totally abandoned. They were homeless, they were hungry,
Speaker 1: so they hit the Jackpot to be able to be
Speaker 1: in the wealthiest sanctuary jurisdiction in the world. Okay, so
Speaker 1: they at the Jackpot by being trafficked to Martha's Vineyard,
Speaker 1: and now Rhonda Santis is using the term deported. Is
Speaker 1: that they were deported to Cape Cod from Martha's vineyard.
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, is on the other
Speaker 1: side of this, of course, and he and de Santis
Speaker 1: have been kind of going head to head on this
Speaker 1: for some time now. He spoke today with Bloombird News.
Speaker 1: I cannot stand Rhonda Santis, these folks that are using
Speaker 1: these human beings, children as political pots. Discuss me. The
Speaker 1: cruelty of that is self evidence. Any person that's truly
Speaker 1: cares and ask a passion that said, the issues really
Speaker 1: I'm a border state governor. Neal lecture me on this topic.
Speaker 1: The reality has lived every single day. We need comprehensive
Speaker 1: immigration form and the irony of this, the frustration I
Speaker 1: am is Joe Biden put out a great plan. He
Speaker 1: has a plan a year pathway to citizen, Fast Tracking
Speaker 1: Dreamers and TPS, dealing with border security and new technology. Yes,
Speaker 1: dealing with the underlying issues, but also dealing with a
Speaker 1: backlong silent seekers and court processing and looking at high skill,
Speaker 1: not just low skill jobs. But we're not talking about it,
Speaker 1: not promoting and Republicans consistently from two thousand seven thirteen
Speaker 1: have blocked any compress reformed. Shame on that. Gavin KNWSOM,
Speaker 1: speaking earlier today with David Weston in New York. I
Speaker 1: can't stand Rhonda Santis. He tells Bloomberg, Genie Uh as,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and Donald Trump do what they're doing and
Speaker 1: deal with low approval ratings. These two people, Rhonda Santis
Speaker 1: and Gavin Newsom, are rising to the surface here as
Speaker 1: almost representatives, alternative representatives, of their parties. Are we getting
Speaker 1: a sneak preview of what will be a national race
Speaker 1: at some point we are. I mean it was just
Speaker 1: a few days ago we heard Gavin knewso challenge around
Speaker 1: the Santists to a debate and you had to scratch
Speaker 1: your head and think, what is Joe Biden thinking about this?
Speaker 1: And Donald Trump and trump, yeah, yeah, and and Rick
Speaker 1: mentioned it earlier. There's a new USA Today, Suffolk University
Speaker 1: polls showing the Santis at eight point lead over trump
Speaker 1: in his home state of Florida. So this is bad
Speaker 1: news for, you know, the leaders of these parties. You've
Speaker 1: got these up and comers Um and I thought, you know,
Speaker 1: I heard a bit of what we had. David Weston
Speaker 1: was asking, and he asked the right question about border security,
Speaker 1: because that's what Democrats are gonna need to address because
Speaker 1: you look at these polls, Americans give Republicans the edge
Speaker 1: on keeping America secure from illegal immigration and that's going
Speaker 1: to be critical as they address this politically. Rick, is
Speaker 1: it possible for Gavin Newsom to get that kind of
Speaker 1: groundswell support of the Democratic Party that that the Santis
Speaker 1: is enjoying among Republicans right now? Well, he's, I mean
Speaker 1: he's certainly doing it the right way by picking an
Speaker 1: enemy to land bass low way. He has, you know,
Speaker 1: picked a fight with the Santis and and you know,
Speaker 1: having a good enemy is always a good way to
Speaker 1: rally people around you. So I just I just think
Speaker 1: it's excellent that both these guys just jump right in
Speaker 1: four of the in front of the freight train called
Speaker 1: the midterm election, you know, desperate to get attention to
Speaker 1: each other while their parties suffer their efforts to try
Speaker 1: and win power in Washington. Uh, you know, I I
Speaker 1: actually will be curious to see how many members who
Speaker 1: don't get elected, either Democrats or Republicans, blamed the Santis
Speaker 1: and Gavin newsom for taking the spotlight off of them
Speaker 1: and nationalizing the race. UH, no member of Congress wants
Speaker 1: to have that happen to them. So I think that
Speaker 1: I think that it will be interesting to see if
Speaker 1: these two leading candidates, trump and biden, don't run and
Speaker 1: that opens the floodgates for people like the santis and newsom.
Speaker 1: It certainly would be a powerful conversation, but let's start
Speaker 1: that after November. Fair enough, although I wonder if it
Speaker 1: even matters. Genie, you know, may not be in twenty four,
Speaker 1: but these guys are going to run. Each of them
Speaker 1: will run for president at some point, won't they? They will.
Speaker 1: And you know what's so curious about this is de
Speaker 1: Santis has a race right now and this is a
Speaker 1: bit narrow. Yeah, well, but if it's a bit narror
Speaker 1: or then we expect it's going to be, you know,
Speaker 1: that can bode badly for him. So I always think
Speaker 1: you've got to focus on the race you got right
Speaker 1: now and then think about running the next race after
Speaker 1: you win, and you win, you know, handily. So I
Speaker 1: think that's a big concern. And the other stunning part
Speaker 1: of this is imagine we're talking presidential election candidates. We
Speaker 1: haven't even had the mid term election yet. This is
Speaker 1: what drives voters crazy, that they are running all the time.
Speaker 1: I love it too, but you guys agree on that?
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Jennie Chanzanol Bloomberg politics contributors and our
Speaker 1: signature panel thanks, as ever for the great insights on
Speaker 1: so many topics today. We covered a heck of a
Speaker 1: lot of ground. I want to thank former ambassador Stephen
Speaker 1: Maull for being with us here, along with Eric Larson
Speaker 1: for shedding light on some awfully important stories. If you
Speaker 1: showed up late. Subscribe to the podcast wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts, and I'll meet you back here tomorrow in
Speaker 1: the fastest hour in politics, the best conversation on the radio.
Speaker 1: Thanks for making it part of your day. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg H