Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on Anny.
Speaker 1: Damage to Europe's largest nuclear power plantins Apurizia could spell catastrophies.
Speaker 1: You're playing with fire and something very very catastrophic could
Speaker 1: take Bloomberg Sound on Politics, Policy and Perspective from DC's
Speaker 1: Top Names. For the President to take this important information
Speaker 1: down to his home in Florida is an outrage. It's
Speaker 1: just not appair that everything was done quite appropriately. When
Speaker 1: people ask me what I miss most about the White
Speaker 1: House years, it is not Air Force one that I
Speaker 1: talked about a thought. This Air Force One. Bloomberg Sound
Speaker 1: On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Nuclear Inspector's issue
Speaker 1: a new warning in Ukraine. Welcome to the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics, as you and monitors demand a security zone
Speaker 1: now around what is Europe's biggest nuclear plant in the
Speaker 1: middle of a war zone. Adamir Putin continues to target
Speaker 1: with Shelling. Will talk about the risk level and the
Speaker 1: prospect of nuclear diplomacy with an expert. Marianna Boujeran will
Speaker 1: join us from the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfast Center. Later,
Speaker 1: a document describing of foreign government's nuclear capabilities was among
Speaker 1: the trove at Mara Lago. According to The Washington Post,
Speaker 1: will have the latest from Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson
Speaker 1: and will run it all past the panel. Bloomberg Politics
Speaker 1: contributor Janie Chanzano, along with Lester months In of b
Speaker 1: g R Group will join us. But first stark warning
Speaker 1: coming from u N Secretary General Antonio Gutters about fighting
Speaker 1: and specifically Russia's shelling near Europe's biggest nuclear plant in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: of course, currently occupied by Russia. I remain gravely concerned
Speaker 1: about the situation in and around the Zaporisia Plan, including
Speaker 1: reports of recent showing. Let's tell it like it is.
Speaker 1: Any damage, whether intentional or not, to Europe's largest nuclear
Speaker 1: power plant in Zaporizia, or to any other nuclear facility
Speaker 1: in Ukraine could spell catastrophe, not only for the immediate vicinity,
Speaker 1: but for the region and beyond. Catastrophe the same word
Speaker 1: used by Raphael Grossy, director General of the International Atomic
Speaker 1: Energy Agency. You're playing with fire and something very, very
Speaker 1: catastrophic could take place. Despite the fact that inspectors gained
Speaker 1: access to the plant last week, un inspectors, as Bloomberg reports,
Speaker 1: now they are demanding a halt to shelling and the
Speaker 1: immediate establishment of a security zone around the plant. That's
Speaker 1: all part of a fifty two page report detailing damage
Speaker 1: to the facility. Again, Secretary General Terrorists, it's the first step.
Speaker 1: Russian and Ukrainian forces must commit not to engage in
Speaker 1: any military activity towards the plant site or from the
Speaker 1: plant site, Zaporian Facility and the surround. This must not
Speaker 1: be at or a platform for military operations. The potential
Speaker 1: exists for a nuclear accident here. This is why we're
Speaker 1: focusing on it today. And we're joined by an expert.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned, Marianna, would Jaron Senior Research associate with
Speaker 1: the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard Kennedy School's
Speaker 1: Belfort Center. Marianna, you're an expert on nuclear diplomacy. Will
Speaker 1: the inspectors get the security they're asking for here? Well,
Speaker 1: the inspectors are there to assess the safety and security
Speaker 1: systems and protocols and the risks and dangers to the
Speaker 1: safe operation of the plant. This is what they can do,
Speaker 1: their nuclear experts, engineers, This is what they have accomplished
Speaker 1: in this in this mission, as much as it was
Speaker 1: possible under the circumstances, and they put that into the
Speaker 1: into the report that was presented to the UN Security
Speaker 1: Council yesterday and released to the public. This is pretty
Speaker 1: much the mandate of this organization, sation of the i A.
Speaker 1: This is um you know, an organization that's called to
Speaker 1: promote uh safe and secure kind of peaceful uses of
Speaker 1: nuclear energy. It's not a kind of organization that can
Speaker 1: secure the perimeter of the plant. It doesn't have its
Speaker 1: own military forces right um. And it can implement a
Speaker 1: lot of the recommendations that it puts forth. It is
Speaker 1: for the larger international community, maybe the UN and other
Speaker 1: states to take uh, you know, direction from sure while
Speaker 1: they ask for this though or demanded in the case
Speaker 1: of these inspectors, can can the UN get parties to
Speaker 1: the table to make that happen or is that a
Speaker 1: lost cause right now as long as Russia occupies the plant. Well.
Speaker 1: One of the most important recommendations in the report was
Speaker 1: for the so called Nuclear Safety and Security Protection Zone.
Speaker 1: This is, in other words, the demilitary rise zone that
Speaker 1: Ukrainians and the UN Secretary General gutarish Uh and other parties,
Speaker 1: the states and leaders have been calling for. Because of
Speaker 1: course having military forces in any civilian nuclear facility, let
Speaker 1: alone Europe's largest nuclear power plant, is absolutely insane. Um.
Speaker 1: It's having that facility in the middle of a war
Speaker 1: zone and being played somehow for whatever it is. The
Speaker 1: nefarious game of the occupiers might be. UM. So, the
Speaker 1: only real firm solution to the problem of the security
Speaker 1: UH and safety of the part Asian nuclear puplant is
Speaker 1: to get the Russian military out of their Now, how
Speaker 1: do you do that? Though? Before you go on, do
Speaker 1: you mean militarily they must be forced out? Or this
Speaker 1: would be this would involve a negotiation to create that
Speaker 1: security zone. I guess I'm asking how do you achieve that?
Speaker 1: Because we've been asking the White House quite quite often
Speaker 1: over the last week and a half. And the US
Speaker 1: will not be part of creating a demilitarizone there. That's
Speaker 1: going to have to happen with the people already on
Speaker 1: the ground. Well, indeed, Joe, that is the big question
Speaker 1: on the table. One of the ways to do this,
Speaker 1: of course, would be to deploy a UN peacekeeping force. UH.
Speaker 1: To deploy UN peacekeeping force, there needs to be a
Speaker 1: decision of you and Security Council and the Russian Federation
Speaker 1: that one of the belligerents and a perpetrator of of
Speaker 1: these security threats to put Asia has a veto power
Speaker 1: on the Security Council. So we can be pretty sure
Speaker 1: that that route is a dead end. Now. The NATO
Speaker 1: allies and the United States, as you mentioned, have said
Speaker 1: they will not deploy their own troops because that would
Speaker 1: make them essentially uh parties to the conflict, that would
Speaker 1: make them belligerents in this conflict. And we've heard time
Speaker 1: and again even before this war had started that you
Speaker 1: s will not put the boots on the ground. Neither
Speaker 1: will would either other NATO allies. And there's a good
Speaker 1: reason for it. Of NATO is a nuclear armed alliance.
Speaker 1: United States as a nuclear superpower, and so is Russia,
Speaker 1: and even you know, in the days of the Cold War,
Speaker 1: those two nuclear superpowers have made efforts to avoid direct
Speaker 1: military confrontation exactly for the fear of nuclear escalation. We
Speaker 1: should note that two inspectors remain at the plant to
Speaker 1: monitor developments there. Uh, Marianna, tell me what's going on that.
Speaker 1: I can't figure out the motivations here. What's Russia actually doing?
Speaker 1: Is this about gaining ground or is this about using
Speaker 1: the plant for leverage, knowing that if there was a
Speaker 1: huge meltdown, and I'm gonna asculator about what really could
Speaker 1: go on here, how how badly this could get. This
Speaker 1: would impact Russia just as much as Ukraine. So what's
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin doing at that plan? What Vladimir Putin UH
Speaker 1: is doing with the plant UH is a question that
Speaker 1: only Vladimir Putin can answer definitively. What we can deduce
Speaker 1: from the situation is that perhaps there really is a
Speaker 1: plan that the Russians have for disconnecting Zaporisia UH nuclear
Speaker 1: power plant from the Ukrainian grid where seems to be
Speaker 1: at this point, they've succeeded, and they're trying to do
Speaker 1: it in such a way as to blame it on
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians. And they can maintain UH denying right and
Speaker 1: maintain some kind of deniability because there isn't anyone who
Speaker 1: can ascertain who's shelling who this, even with the i
Speaker 1: A mission there, that's not their mandate, that's not their competents,
Speaker 1: their nuclear engineers, their nuclear safety specialists, UH, they cannot
Speaker 1: establish and be a credible voice in saying where does
Speaker 1: the shelling come from? They're not ballistic specialists for instance.
Speaker 1: So um, even with this mission on the ground, during
Speaker 1: the travel of the mission, during the state of the mission,
Speaker 1: even right now, two people remain on the ground, there's
Speaker 1: still military activity around the plan. So Russia is not
Speaker 1: stopping that because because it can continue, right and there's
Speaker 1: no uh, there's nothing that anybody can do. Unfortunately, what
Speaker 1: happens if the shelling continues? What what's the first thing
Speaker 1: that goes wrong here? So it seems there's two scenarios.
Speaker 1: One is that Russia really wants to use this as
Speaker 1: a as a sort of weapon, right to to instigate
Speaker 1: some kind of a major accident for whatever reason, you know,
Speaker 1: intentionally target the reactor core or the spent fuel pools,
Speaker 1: which are you know, the they site, the places that
Speaker 1: contain a large amount of nuclear material. UM. That would
Speaker 1: be really the worst gay scenario. But I also think
Speaker 1: that's the least likely scenario because as you mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: should there be a major accident, um, you know, and
Speaker 1: and there's a release of radio activity into the atmosphere,
Speaker 1: into the environment, it's really up to the weather from
Speaker 1: that point on, and the weather could blow all of
Speaker 1: this radio activity towards Russia as well, now you know,
Speaker 1: of course, we can also say, does Putin really care?
Speaker 1: The way he treats his own people and his own
Speaker 1: soldiers has not exactly been indicative that, you know, he
Speaker 1: cares about the well being of his people. But I
Speaker 1: think that really would be, you know, a very dire scenario,
Speaker 1: and probably the least likely. The more likely one is
Speaker 1: that as as Director General Gross he said, they're playing
Speaker 1: with fire, there's a game in which this plant is
Speaker 1: is a pawn as it wears a two. Whether that
Speaker 1: game is to disconnect the plan from the Ukrainian grid
Speaker 1: and reconnected or connected to a Russian control grid to
Speaker 1: power the occupied territories, or simply to deprive Ukraine of
Speaker 1: this asset, right, I think that that alone would already
Speaker 1: be enough, uh, you know, just to cause that damage,
Speaker 1: to cause that hurt. But in doing so they want
Speaker 1: to blame it on the Ukrainians. And therefore you have
Speaker 1: the shell and you have this military activity. So far,
Speaker 1: it has not hit any of the really critical systems,
Speaker 1: like the cooling systems that remain intact, and the emergency
Speaker 1: diesel generators normally kick in when the offside power is lost,
Speaker 1: so there really hasn't been a major nuclear event, and
Speaker 1: there are still some safety systems and precautions and backup
Speaker 1: systems that that that are there to to safeguard um
Speaker 1: from from something major happening. But I just would like
Speaker 1: to impress on you and the listeners that the reason
Speaker 1: why this is truly playing with fire is that there's
Speaker 1: a lot of unintentional and accidental stuff that accident. That's
Speaker 1: exactly right, Marianna. I want to thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1: I wish we had more time as we dance on
Speaker 1: the edge of this nuclear power plant. Maria Bougern. I'm
Speaker 1: Joe Matthew the panels. Next, you're listening to Bloomberg. You
Speaker 1: sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. This is
Speaker 1: the first time in the sixty five year history of
Speaker 1: the i a e A, the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Speaker 1: that monitors had to cross an active battle front in
Speaker 1: order to carry out their inspections, which may help to
Speaker 1: put this all in perspective. We have never seen anything
Speaker 1: quite like what is happening right now in southern Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Membering of course that Ukraine is also home to Chernobyl.
Speaker 1: Great reporting by Bloomberg's Jonathan Tyrone. If you want to
Speaker 1: read more about this as we discuss things with the panel.
Speaker 1: Jennie Schanzano is here Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic Analysts along
Speaker 1: today with Lester Months in principle at Government Relations from
Speaker 1: b g R Group, former staff director of the Senate
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations Committee. Lester, thanks for coming back, Jeannie. This
Speaker 1: is a scary conversation and we're talking about it because
Speaker 1: it's actually happening in real time, and it's very difficult
Speaker 1: as Russia and Ukraine blame each other to understand exactly
Speaker 1: what's going on the ground at any given moment and
Speaker 1: what the actual risk level is here. But the danger
Speaker 1: is great and when when people talk about game changers,
Speaker 1: this would this would be one. It is, and you know,
Speaker 1: it was fascinating listen to Mariana because I thought she
Speaker 1: described beautifully at least what Ukrainian and United States officials
Speaker 1: are saying is going on, and that is that Russia
Speaker 1: is targeting this electricity going into the plant and coming
Speaker 1: out of it. They want to redirect the hour and
Speaker 1: this if we take a step back and look at
Speaker 1: what happened with Nord's Dream one over the weekend and
Speaker 1: now this we are in the midst of a fight
Speaker 1: over energy and energy war. Putin is engaged in energy blackmail,
Speaker 1: and he is willing to risk something that could be
Speaker 1: equivalent of what led to the Fukushima meltdown, which is
Speaker 1: if a plant loses power. So when you said catastrophe,
Speaker 1: that is exactly what the potential here is. But he
Speaker 1: has laid out that he is going to break this
Speaker 1: Western coalition and he's going to control energy in Europe
Speaker 1: if if you know, at all, for all stakes, and
Speaker 1: that's what we see him doing at this point. So
Speaker 1: it's like the premise of a James Bond movie or something. Lester,
Speaker 1: this is something that Specter might be up to here
Speaker 1: for an actual world leader. In this case, Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: to calculate that level of risk potentially against his own people,
Speaker 1: as being acceptable, I guess tells us a lot about
Speaker 1: who we're dealing with. Lester. How do you gauge the
Speaker 1: level of risk at this moment? I think it's it's
Speaker 1: obviously very significant, and that's and that's exactly what Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin wants. I think this may even go beyond just
Speaker 1: energy politics and energy leverage. It's possible that Putin is
Speaker 1: using the nuclear power plant. Power plant, it's kind of
Speaker 1: the ultimate hostage in this war. His troops are not
Speaker 1: doing well on the ground. He's not achieving his goals.
Speaker 1: He hasn't overthrowned Zelensky, he hasn't taken key if he
Speaker 1: hasn't even taken Odessa. He's getting bogged down in the
Speaker 1: south of Ukraine and may even now being pushed back
Speaker 1: by Ukrainian forces. This is his as this may be
Speaker 1: his ace in the whole, and that may be how
Speaker 1: he looks at it to force at the end of
Speaker 1: this uh an outcome that is at least somewhat acceptable
Speaker 1: to him. Wow, so they've got the plant offline right now, Jennie,
Speaker 1: The question is will the fighting continuing? Can the inspectors
Speaker 1: get that security zone around the plant? Can they get
Speaker 1: a motive safety here around the plant? Because the United
Speaker 1: States cannot help. You've heard us ask any number of
Speaker 1: White House officials on this program, and they're not going
Speaker 1: there because it would require boots on the ground, if
Speaker 1: not a no fly zone or whatever here. So you know,
Speaker 1: how can Ukraine trust what Russia is seeing at any
Speaker 1: given moment when it involves this property. They simply cannot
Speaker 1: in the United States will not go in, uh NATO
Speaker 1: allies will not go in, So they're not going to
Speaker 1: get a security zone. They're probably not going to get
Speaker 1: a security going at security zone. It's hard to imagine
Speaker 1: how Ukraine could do that unilaterally and what that means
Speaker 1: is whether it is by accident or on purpose, how
Speaker 1: would we ever know. But what is potentially at stake
Speaker 1: here is very, very real and it's imminent. This has
Speaker 1: been six months they have controlled this plant, and their
Speaker 1: plan is deepening. They have not moved away from what
Speaker 1: is a an attempt and in a real effort to
Speaker 1: control this power plan and to control all of energy
Speaker 1: in Europe. And let's not forget we heard today Putin
Speaker 1: is meeting with g face to face next week. At
Speaker 1: the same time, Bloomberg is reporting and we're hearing this
Speaker 1: from the U N Secretary, the Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan,
Speaker 1: that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan remains a distinct threat.
Speaker 1: I mean, so you couple all these things and it
Speaker 1: is a very precurious situation. Well, I'll tell you as
Speaker 1: I as I look at the map here, Lester, you know,
Speaker 1: you think about I think the way Mariana put it
Speaker 1: was depends on the weather a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: if there were in fact a catastrophe in this planet,
Speaker 1: if there were a meltdown, it's right next to the
Speaker 1: don Boss region, which of course borders Russia. What if
Speaker 1: this went in the other direction, what if this was
Speaker 1: a story for Romania. I don't know what's possible. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm certainly I wouldn't want to begin to guess how
Speaker 1: far the fallout could go. But when you consider other
Speaker 1: NATO allies along the border of Ukrane, like Poland, Uh,
Speaker 1: that triggers an Article five potentially, does it not? That
Speaker 1: involves a nations that we don't want to have involved
Speaker 1: in this war. Yeah, and I'm certainly no nuclear experts
Speaker 1: or even a meteorologist, but uh, it's it's plausible that
Speaker 1: there's there's a scenario where this is threatening for for
Speaker 1: really for all of Europe, including Western Europe. Recall that
Speaker 1: during Chernobyl, we saw radioactivity go as far away as Sweden,
Speaker 1: I believe, So, yeah, this is this is real nuclear
Speaker 1: blackmail that's happening right before our eyes. Nuclear blackmail and
Speaker 1: the concept of nuclear diplomacy, as we discussed with Mariana,
Speaker 1: to think that that's your career specialty. Genie is obviously
Speaker 1: an important one right now because there are there any
Speaker 1: back channels the US can use on a diplomatic level
Speaker 1: to try to avoid trouble here, you know, I hope,
Speaker 1: and I'm assuming we are trying as best we can
Speaker 1: with our NATO allies to engage in that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: But I think it's very difficult, and I would just
Speaker 1: go back in the spring. Putin laid out his strategy
Speaker 1: on this at that economic conference in St. Petersburg, and
Speaker 1: it is he is stuck to that all this time.
Speaker 1: Scary times. Discussing with Janie Schanzano and today Lester Munson
Speaker 1: making up our panel on the Fastest Hour in Politics.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew in Washington will have the latest on
Speaker 1: the documents. Next, this is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our
Speaker 1: nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York, Bloomberg eleven Frio to Boston,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg one, O six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine
Speaker 1: six to the country, Serious XM Channel one, and around
Speaker 1: the globe the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew. The reports
Speaker 1: of what was found at Mara A Lago are getting
Speaker 1: slowly more specific today the Washington Posts as a document
Speaker 1: describing a foreign government's military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities,
Speaker 1: was among the trove taken from the House. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about the significance with Boomberg's Billy House up next. It's
Speaker 1: the headline people in the nation's capital woke up to
Speaker 1: on the front page of the Washington Post. Files seized
Speaker 1: at Mara l Ago include material on foreign nations nuclear capabilities.
Speaker 1: Certainly jumps off the page after well. Donald Trump himself
Speaker 1: of course tipped this off to the search and then
Speaker 1: started posting not soon after, or I should say soon
Speaker 1: after about the fact that there were no nuclear documents
Speaker 1: in there, because there had been some reporting about this.
Speaker 1: Now this gets specific. Only the President, some members of
Speaker 1: his cabinet or a near cabinet level official could authorize
Speaker 1: other government officials to know details of these special access programs.
Speaker 1: This is how high level this is. People familiar with
Speaker 1: the search speaking not a shocker on condition of anonymity,
Speaker 1: Billy Houses with us Bloomberg Legal reporter to talk a
Speaker 1: little bit more about this. Billy, thanks for coming in
Speaker 1: here that the level of significance is great. We have
Speaker 1: no idea what was in most of these boxes and
Speaker 1: on most of these documents, So any filling in of
Speaker 1: the blanks is interesting. And boy, this is the big stuff.
Speaker 1: Can you put that in perspective for us? Well, it
Speaker 1: is big stuff. In fact, that Trump himself had denounced
Speaker 1: such earlier reporting that there was nuclear related documents, uh,
Speaker 1: calling it a sleazy hoax and that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: But now according to the Post reporting, we find that
Speaker 1: it is true that there were some top secret nuclear
Speaker 1: documents regarding a foreign country and its capabilities and defense capabilities, uh,
Speaker 1: that Trump had stashed among those boxes that is a
Speaker 1: state in Florida. The conversation about having a special Master
Speaker 1: takes on new significance as well when you start realizing
Speaker 1: the level of security here around these documents. There are
Speaker 1: not a lot of people who have a clearance to
Speaker 1: start sifting through these boxes. Billy, how do they do that?
Speaker 1: That's correct? There there are people, obviously, we are a
Speaker 1: lot of there with the top secret security clearance. But
Speaker 1: this is above top secret security clearance, and so what
Speaker 1: you need is somebody that is willing to take on
Speaker 1: the role of deciding for helping the court decide what
Speaker 1: is privileged to either the lawyer client privilege or executive
Speaker 1: privilege material uh in this top secret uh you know,
Speaker 1: uh genre and then try to help sort for the judge.
Speaker 1: What you know that that the period of legal arguments
Speaker 1: that both the d o J and the and the
Speaker 1: Trump's team are we're gonna make about how they sort
Speaker 1: out those legally. Uh. There are very few people that
Speaker 1: would have the qualifications for that, and probably even fewer
Speaker 1: that would want to do it. I don't know how
Speaker 1: exactly you just phrase that this is a higher level
Speaker 1: of classification than top secret. Can you explain what that
Speaker 1: means to our listeners? There is obviously various levels. Uh,
Speaker 1: But the o J said some of the materials are
Speaker 1: labeled with the highest classification something called T S s
Speaker 1: C I topic sense of time, car car. But that
Speaker 1: is that is not what about one point? There are
Speaker 1: about one million people that have some sort of TOPSIC clearances,
Speaker 1: but a lot fewer have that higher level. Those are
Speaker 1: the type of people that deal with those issues and
Speaker 1: maybe a few you know pis a court for intelligence
Speaker 1: court judges might have that. So this isn't a this
Speaker 1: isn't about storage, Billy, This isn't about whether there was
Speaker 1: a second lock on the door which room at mar Lago.
Speaker 1: These should never have left Washington, d C. These these
Speaker 1: are property of the government. No matter what Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is suggesting about the method in which his home was searched,
Speaker 1: this stuff has to come back to d C. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I mean it should have never left d C. I
Speaker 1: don't know who if he We don't think the president
Speaker 1: former president actually picked up these boxes and carried him
Speaker 1: themselves to his a stage. So that means they were
Speaker 1: actually in the hands of probably a lot of people
Speaker 1: or some people that didn't have any kind of authority
Speaker 1: to have it. Beyond that, Uh, some of the stuff
Speaker 1: appears could be missing from those boxes. We don't know.
Speaker 1: That's sort of the thing that is going to be
Speaker 1: sorted out over the next months and even perhaps longer.
Speaker 1: But we don't. You know, this is all very troubling obviously, Billy.
Speaker 1: A great story. Uh on the terminal right now that
Speaker 1: you wrote up. You spoke with Ken Feinberg, who was
Speaker 1: a special Master and uh, some folks might know him.
Speaker 1: Actually he was involved in the nine eleven terror attacks.
Speaker 1: The compensation the mortgage crisis, as you point out the
Speaker 1: seven thirty seven Max disasters. He certainly spent some time
Speaker 1: in front of the news media. What did he tell
Speaker 1: you about finding the right person? Well, he said, you
Speaker 1: not only have to find some might qualified that meaning
Speaker 1: with all the security clearance is required, but also somebody
Speaker 1: that's maybe not going to want the Justice Department bark
Speaker 1: against them, for the Justice Department doesn't think this Special
Speaker 1: Master review is even needed. And ultimately, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: will go after as he always does, whoever makes any
Speaker 1: decision in this contrary to what he wants. And and
Speaker 1: so this person, no matter what it's or her reputation,
Speaker 1: is going to be attacked by Trump more than likely.
Speaker 1: How long will it take for them to be chosen
Speaker 1: and appointed? Well, the judge Island her Cannon in Florida
Speaker 1: is asked for both sides Trump and the Just Trump
Speaker 1: submit their candidates by Friday. Uh, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: expect an early resolution on an agreement of by the
Speaker 1: two sides by Ken Feinberg is an interesting one to
Speaker 1: speak with here. I presume he's not going to be
Speaker 1: among those who are interviewed for the job because of me,
Speaker 1: he doesn't have those security clearances necessary, but he certainly
Speaker 1: would be a fascinating candidate if he did well, that's
Speaker 1: for sure. Billy, thanks for joining us as always, Billy House,
Speaker 1: who I appointed to a legal department, actually Congress reporter
Speaker 1: is what I meant to say here on Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's the fastest hour in politics. Sometimes this happens,
Speaker 1: joining you from the nation's capital with storm clouds on
Speaker 1: the horizon, and I mean that literally. Actually in this case,
Speaker 1: as the kids get back to school, the traffic is
Speaker 1: getting a little bit heavier because the members are also
Speaker 1: coming back. So our first couple of uh Senate news
Speaker 1: conferences today. The House will be back next week. Fascinating
Speaker 1: conversation with Bill Barr again about this whole story as well.
Speaker 1: Today the former Attorney General making it clear that he
Speaker 1: thinks the d o J is close to having what
Speaker 1: it needs to make an indictment. Here's Bill Barr on Fox.
Speaker 1: There are two questions. Will the government be able to
Speaker 1: make out a technical case? Will they have evidence by
Speaker 1: which that they could indict somebody on including Ham and
Speaker 1: I that's the first question, and I think they're getting
Speaker 1: very close to that point, frankly, but I think at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, there's another question is do
Speaker 1: you and dit a former president? What will that do
Speaker 1: to the country, What kind of precedent will that set? Well,
Speaker 1: the people really understand that this is not, you know,
Speaker 1: failing to return a library book, that this was serious,
Speaker 1: and that's what we're going to discuss next as we
Speaker 1: reassemble the panel. Jeannie Chanzino, of course coming back Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributor, joined today by Lester months In of b
Speaker 1: g R Group. We'll check traffic and markets for you
Speaker 1: on the way as well. Joe Matthew in Washington. This
Speaker 1: he's Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg Sound On with Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. As lawmakers returned to the nation's capital. Hey,
Speaker 1: it's been a while. We have been waiting for you.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna miss the parking though, and to tell you,
Speaker 1: the traffic was just awful this morning getting into town.
Speaker 1: I won't dwell on that, but what you can tell
Speaker 1: when they're back. And this is just the Senate so far. Democrats,
Speaker 1: of course, quick to gather in front of microphones to
Speaker 1: condemn former President Trump and the discovery of documents Republicans
Speaker 1: not so much. Senator Josh Holly let him have it,
Speaker 1: even referring to Donald Trump, by the way, is the
Speaker 1: likely nominee, which I found interesting, as many suspect Holly
Speaker 1: will run the second he hears that there's an opening,
Speaker 1: should there be one. He wasn't having any of this,
Speaker 1: and condemned the Justice Department. The fact that having done
Speaker 1: all of that, d J would go into court and
Speaker 1: with a straight face and say, oh, we don't need
Speaker 1: anybody to review it. We've reviewed it. Take take our
Speaker 1: work for it. We've reviewed it and we think it's okay.
Speaker 1: Is unbelievable. So I think the judge appointing a special
Speaker 1: master is the This is that is standard in these
Speaker 1: kind of cases, to have somebody look and separate out
Speaker 1: what's privileged and not privileged. And I certainly don't trust
Speaker 1: DJ to do it, don't trust the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: to do it. Senator Pat Toomey, who is no Josh Holly,
Speaker 1: typically of more moderate tone here smells something fishy as well.
Speaker 1: It does not appear that everything was done quite appropriately,
Speaker 1: But I have not really uh delved into the details
Speaker 1: of us. John Kennedy, Republican from Louisiana. Always good for
Speaker 1: a line, and he wasn't really joking around a day
Speaker 1: talking about trusts in our institutions. I'm worried that all
Speaker 1: of this will undermine people's confidence in the FBI and
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, both in terms of the people
Speaker 1: there and and the two organizations as institutions. And I
Speaker 1: think that's unfortunate, which I don't know is also you know,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a couple of weeks late. We've been
Speaker 1: hearing defund the FBI since the day they showed up
Speaker 1: at mar A Lago. Let's reassemble the panel. Bloomberg Politics
Speaker 1: contributor Jeannie Sanzano is here today along with Lester monthson
Speaker 1: of b g R Group. Lester, this is an interesting
Speaker 1: conversation here because people are assuminging a lot on both sides.
Speaker 1: Other than this report today from the Washington Post. The
Speaker 1: government certainly hasn't told us what documents. We saw the
Speaker 1: cover pages on them, but we don't know exactly what
Speaker 1: they have. Republicans don't either. This is a dangerous time
Speaker 1: to start taking hard positions on this, isn't it? It
Speaker 1: really is? And this this there's clearly a dilemma for
Speaker 1: law enforcements. They've got a set of facts that they're
Speaker 1: dealing with, and we don't know all of them that
Speaker 1: look very bad for the former president. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: he's the former president and he is uh, for better
Speaker 1: or worse, the leader kind of in in waiting of
Speaker 1: of a party out of power. Uh. And so they've
Speaker 1: got to weigh the facts as they see them with
Speaker 1: the likely political implications of inviting him. It's not it's
Speaker 1: not unlike what we saw in Team. Is not a
Speaker 1: perfect comparison at all, But this is is a real
Speaker 1: tough question for for d J M. Guy. There's no doubt.
Speaker 1: As you heard Jeannie from Bill Barr a couple of
Speaker 1: minutes ago, he says, there are two questions here. One
Speaker 1: is do they have what they need to make the
Speaker 1: case to indict He says, yeah, and they're going to
Speaker 1: probably be there pretty soon. Uh. He thinks they're just
Speaker 1: about done. But then the second question is do you
Speaker 1: do this to a to a former president. If I
Speaker 1: had kept playing that interview for you, you would have
Speaker 1: heard him say no. He does not think, despite his
Speaker 1: strident remarks recently about this case, that we should be
Speaker 1: indicting a former president that's what this is going to
Speaker 1: come down to. These are the two questions. Yeah, what
Speaker 1: the Washington Post reported last night has made it increasingly clear.
Speaker 1: Most legal experts say that the Department of Justice is
Speaker 1: going to have a difficult time not bringing criminal charges.
Speaker 1: And that is going to raise the specter that you
Speaker 1: and Lester were just talking about, do you indicte a
Speaker 1: former president? Because the reality is is if this wasn't
Speaker 1: a former president, he would be convicted. This is an
Speaker 1: incredibly obvious case. And that's the consensus. Don't you know,
Speaker 1: worry about liberal or democratic or even moderate legal experts.
Speaker 1: You're talking about, you know, pretty conservative legal experts like
Speaker 1: Bill Barr. You simply cannot have this material. And the fact,
Speaker 1: even if he had them declassified, and that's a big if,
Speaker 1: he still couldn't have them in his possession in moral lago.
Speaker 1: So it's starting to be an open and shut case.
Speaker 1: And that raises this question, putting all that aside, do
Speaker 1: you decide not to indict because he's a former president?
Speaker 1: And I think that's a very difficult question, not unlike
Speaker 1: the one President Ford encountered, and there's not going to
Speaker 1: be any easy answer to that. Lester, you spend time
Speaker 1: as staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You
Speaker 1: understand intimately the importance of these documents. Are you surprised
Speaker 1: that more Republicans, specifically in the Senate are not standing
Speaker 1: up to condemn this or at least say, hey, hold
Speaker 1: on here, let's or of judgment. This doesn't look right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I you know, frankly, I'd like to see a lot
Speaker 1: more nuance from these members where they can. It's fine
Speaker 1: if they want to advance the political judgment that you
Speaker 1: don't invite invite a former president, even one of their party,
Speaker 1: but they should be clear that on the facts, on
Speaker 1: the details of this case, this is not acceptable behavior.
Speaker 1: You don't just take classified material and leave it lyne
Speaker 1: around a social club. That's not something that should be
Speaker 1: done under any circumstances. Well, I'll tell you what, Genie,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a slow drip like this is,
Speaker 1: you know, one brick after another here, and it could
Speaker 1: be some time before we know what this story is
Speaker 1: all about. Certainly, as I think we've established on this program,
Speaker 1: is going to have to be after the mid terms
Speaker 1: if this unspoken sixty day rule UH is in place.
Speaker 1: But if Bill Barr thinks they're close to a case.
Speaker 1: I mean, that would indicate we could actually have at
Speaker 1: least an idea whether there's going to be an indictment
Speaker 1: or not by the beginning of next year. That leaves
Speaker 1: that leaves two years of campaigning for president. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: unlike the mid term where Donald Trump is not on
Speaker 1: the ballot, although to Lester's point, he's clearly the head
Speaker 1: of this party and he's incredibly important, you know, political figure.
Speaker 1: He may very well be on the ballot for the
Speaker 1: presidential election, which raises a whole another host of questions,
Speaker 1: And of course the d J has so many questions
Speaker 1: to contend with do they prosecute based on this information
Speaker 1: because that might mean he and his attorneys would get
Speaker 1: access to this information, and it's highly classified, so so
Speaker 1: many issues for them to contend with. And as you
Speaker 1: were talking about with Billy previously, of course, how do
Speaker 1: you even get a special master with the clearance and
Speaker 1: the ability and the interest in reviewing this? So you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's going to be a while before we
Speaker 1: know what they do. But you know, again, if you
Speaker 1: or I had these things, we would be in jail.
Speaker 1: There would be no question. The issue here is it's
Speaker 1: a former president. Lester, what's your take on the special Master?
Speaker 1: Do we ever get that far as the d O
Speaker 1: J going to appeal? I don't know. Um, it's this,
Speaker 1: This is a low key like intervention by the former president,
Speaker 1: kind of showing his character. He just seems to produce
Speaker 1: chaos wherever he goes, to the delight of his fans
Speaker 1: and some of his voters. I suppose he's playing around,
Speaker 1: is what you're saying. Yeah, and he's and he's Um,
Speaker 1: you know, he's going to work every angle and try
Speaker 1: to use all of this to his advantage. And let's
Speaker 1: be clear about this show. This helps Trump. His his
Speaker 1: standing in the party has improved. The people who are
Speaker 1: Trump skeptics or never trumpers even are saying, well, gosh,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be you shouldn't be doing this to a
Speaker 1: former president kind of rallying to him. Uh, it is
Speaker 1: making him more likely to be the nominee than otherwise.
Speaker 1: So how long can that go on for? Though? I mean,
Speaker 1: if there's an indictment, how much will we would we
Speaker 1: learn at that point, Lester about what was taken? Uh,
Speaker 1: it's a great it's a great question. We don't know
Speaker 1: how he could be indicted but not tried before an
Speaker 1: election in two years. These things drag out for a
Speaker 1: very long time unless he's in some rocket dockets somewhere, uh,
Speaker 1: and they go to trial very quickly. He's likely to
Speaker 1: be indicted but not have not put on trial yet
Speaker 1: while he's a candidate for president. That's not an improbable scenario.
Speaker 1: And that's perfectly legal. Genie, Right, you can run for
Speaker 1: president if you're under indictment. You haven't man convicted of anything.
Speaker 1: You absolutely can and can you imagine what that be like? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I just want to follow up, But Lester's right,
Speaker 1: this helps Donald Trump. This also helps the Democrats in
Speaker 1: the mid term because again, the more Trump, the better
Speaker 1: for the Democrats in the minterm. It does not help
Speaker 1: Republicans like Mitch McConnell and others who want desperately to
Speaker 1: take the Senate and you know, obviously the House I
Speaker 1: think still goes Republican. But this is a problem for
Speaker 1: many Republicans across the country. But he's right. In these primaries,
Speaker 1: as we saw in Massachusetts last night, Trump has been incredibly,
Speaker 1: incredibly popular. Great insights today from Genie and of course
Speaker 1: Lester Monthson. Thank you. Both Jennie Schanzano, Bloomberg Politics contributor
Speaker 1: with us here on sound On. My God. We've got
Speaker 1: a lot to learn still, that's why you have to
Speaker 1: be with us every night and subscribe to the podcast
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Sound On wherever you get your podcasts. Did you hear?
Speaker 1: By the way, big reunion today with some comedy at
Speaker 1: the White House? President and Dr Biden, Vice President Harris
Speaker 1: and Second Gentleman m Hoff. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: your hospitality there it is. Thanks for letting us invite
Speaker 1: a few friends to the White House. We will try
Speaker 1: not to tear up the place. The Obama is back
Speaker 1: in the house. Indeed, Barack Obama and former First Lady
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama they had the big portraits unveiling today at
Speaker 1: the White House. Very nice because it's never happened during
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. A photo balistic painting by Robert McCourty.
Speaker 1: It goes to Barack Obama. What I love about Robert's
Speaker 1: work is that he paints people exactly the way they are,
Speaker 1: for better or worse. He captures every wrinkle on your face,
Speaker 1: that recrease in your shirt. You'll note that he refused
Speaker 1: to hide any of my gray hairs, refuse my request
Speaker 1: to make my ears smaller. He didn't even put him
Speaker 1: in a tan suit either. Of course, Michelle got her
Speaker 1: portrait as well, the former President of the United States
Speaker 1: saying in the East Room that she is fine. All right,
Speaker 1: we'll meet you back here tomorrow with the latest from Washington.
Speaker 1: You can count on us. I'm Joe Matthew This he's Bloomberg.