Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Floomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: She's making up stories like one after another. Her superiors,
Speaker 1: men many years older, number of them are hiding behind
Speaker 1: executive privilege, anonymity, and intimidation. Floomberg Sound on Politics, Policy
Speaker 1: and perspective from DC's top names. He's releasing oil from
Speaker 1: the strategic Petroleum Reserve at the cliff the president has
Speaker 1: ever used. The revelations from this committee make his path
Speaker 1: to even the Republican nomination much more tenuous. Floomberg Sound
Speaker 1: On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Fallout from the
Speaker 1: January sixth Committee, the pushback from Democrats in Congress, on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, all the
Speaker 1: action on gas prices. It is not a slow Friday.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of news for you. I'm Jack
Speaker 1: Fitzpatrick filling in for Joe Matthew. Today. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: short with Congresswoman Lois Frankel, Democrat from Florida. She is
Speaker 1: one of the co chairs of the Democratic Women's Caucus
Speaker 1: and on the Key House Appropriations Committee that is responsible
Speaker 1: for funding the government. We're going to talk about what
Speaker 1: comes next after that, Supreme Court ruling. Mick Mulvaney is
Speaker 1: also going to call in the former White House Acting
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff who resigned on January one over what
Speaker 1: happened at the Capitol. Will get some of his takeaways
Speaker 1: on the January six committee. And of course, we've got
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie she and Zano and Rick Davis
Speaker 1: joining us to make sense of this action packed newsweek.
Speaker 1: Here on the fastest hour in politics and policy, go
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg's Pretty Gupta, who is live from New York
Speaker 1: City's LaGuardia Airport to tell us about the summer air
Speaker 1: travel disruptions. Pretty uh for people like me who are
Speaker 1: about to go on vacation immediately after this show is over.
Speaker 1: How's it looking at LaGuardia? You know, Jack, It's been
Speaker 1: quite the day. And I started out to day about
Speaker 1: eight am this morning, and so I seemed completely calm,
Speaker 1: no chaos at all. Lot of people we had spoken
Speaker 1: to and said, well, you know, all the travel, all
Speaker 1: the chaos. It was earlier in the week. People were
Speaker 1: anticipating these lags, these delays, these cancelations. Of course, the
Speaker 1: labor shortages and the fly attendant crew shortages. That of
Speaker 1: course are causing some of these. But I think the
Speaker 1: takeaway here is that by the end of the day,
Speaker 1: about eight hours later, you are now starting to see
Speaker 1: major delays, major cancelations, a lot of people actually not
Speaker 1: even able to get ahold of customer service for as
Speaker 1: much as two to four hours, being sent out of
Speaker 1: security for the next flight that really only comes a
Speaker 1: day later. So I would say, what's supposed to be
Speaker 1: a pretty busy holiday weekend, A lot of people have
Speaker 1: already gotten ahead of it, but it looks like there
Speaker 1: are still going to be some snags in this weekends
Speaker 1: travel story. All right, I will prepare myself for the worst.
Speaker 1: Thank you, pretty Gupta. Uh. We now have Congresswoman Lois
Speaker 1: Frankel joining US Congressman. Very very happy to have you on,
Speaker 1: as I mentioned, because you are a co chair of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Women's Caucus, but also I have been watching
Speaker 1: all of the appropriations markups this week. You have been
Speaker 1: one of the most vocal members on the Democratic side
Speaker 1: on what comes next after this Supreme Court ruling. I
Speaker 1: want to play a little sound first from Dick Durbin
Speaker 1: in the Senate to set the stage here on what
Speaker 1: he had to say about what the options are. Here's
Speaker 1: what Dick Durbin had to say. When we're all present voting. UH,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris can ride to our rescue if necessary. But
Speaker 1: the notion of changing the rules is it really at
Speaker 1: the mercy of one or two senators who can make
Speaker 1: that decision for us. So, Congresswoman, with the Senate in
Speaker 1: the in mind, what are the realistic options that you
Speaker 1: want to see Congress take in terms of abortion access
Speaker 1: following the Supreme Court ruling? Well, first, thanks to do
Speaker 1: with you. Well, let me remind everybody that the House
Speaker 1: did pass a Women's Health Protection Act, which UH actually
Speaker 1: banns or prohibits states from from banning abortions or putting
Speaker 1: unreasonable medical restrictions. That's over in the Senate, and as
Speaker 1: you mentioned, it's gonna take UH sixty votes unless they
Speaker 1: go back, they change the rule and go back to
Speaker 1: a majority vote. So UH, you know it's not likely
Speaker 1: they're going to do it, but I still think there
Speaker 1: should be pressure beared upon some of the approach. You know,
Speaker 1: the people who believe in reproductive freedom, those senators to
Speaker 1: to UH to change your rule. List And if there's
Speaker 1: been ever been a time in our history of this
Speaker 1: Congress that we should not monkey around, uh you know,
Speaker 1: and and say hey, we can't go the fifty a
Speaker 1: majority vote. This is it because this Supreme Court decision
Speaker 1: has unbelievable implications. It is uh, it's really almost mind boggling.
Speaker 1: So but in the meantime, uh, you're gonna we have
Speaker 1: to take actions that are going to mitigate the harm.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has now taken away people's power to
Speaker 1: make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their life,
Speaker 1: and their future, giving it to the state politicians. What
Speaker 1: does that mean? That means very uh quickly, they're gonna
Speaker 1: be twenty six states, twenty seven states they gonna ban abortion.
Speaker 1: There maybe many more that are going to put a
Speaker 1: severe restrictions that make it almost impossible. What does that mean,
Speaker 1: especially to low income women, the colored people who have
Speaker 1: a hard time getting health care in the first place,
Speaker 1: they are going to be either have a forced pregnancy
Speaker 1: or use their every last penny, maybe maybe their their
Speaker 1: week's pay to even find a place where they can
Speaker 1: get an abortion. So we've got to do that. We
Speaker 1: got to fight this ruling, uh, you know, with full force,
Speaker 1: and that's going to probably be at the ballot box.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, we've got to try to mitigate
Speaker 1: the harm, and that's making sure that there is funding
Speaker 1: for a contraception and family planning that we uh if
Speaker 1: it's possible. Again with this with the Senate, it's not
Speaker 1: too many things are possible, but vouchers for people to travel.
Speaker 1: We've got to make sure uh that any a medical
Speaker 1: a way that someone can have an abortion, that that
Speaker 1: is allowed, uh through what would be the an abortion pill?
Speaker 1: Uh so uh and I'm not sure whether this was mentioned,
Speaker 1: but the President has directed the Secretary of Health and
Speaker 1: Human Reservices to protect uh contraception and medication that that
Speaker 1: will you know, result in an abortion. So it's in
Speaker 1: the FDA approved Miss priss Stone. I'm not if I'm
Speaker 1: saying you're right, but it's Ms. Priss Stone too safely
Speaker 1: in the early privacy you're gonna start to see states
Speaker 1: trying to ban that. Because I have some appiliate you
Speaker 1: can get into them in the mail. So, Congresswoman, a
Speaker 1: couple of those issues that you just mentioned came up
Speaker 1: in the Appropriations Committee. The idea of funding, whether it's
Speaker 1: the High Amendment measures on funding for the Justice Department
Speaker 1: for abortions, if a woman is in federal custody, a
Speaker 1: variety of abortion access via government funding measures. And it
Speaker 1: does seem that you Democrats are quite determined to roll
Speaker 1: back the High Amendment and some of those longstanding restrictions.
Speaker 1: But it seems that the key question is how dug
Speaker 1: in are you on that those bills need sixty votes
Speaker 1: in the Senate. Are you going to shut the government
Speaker 1: down over abortion access via government funding bills? I would
Speaker 1: say not because I think we would do more harm
Speaker 1: than good by doing uh. And you know, really, the
Speaker 1: Republicans don't even care. I don't think they care that
Speaker 1: much about passing new budgets. Uh. So you know the
Speaker 1: reason you need a new budget every year is because
Speaker 1: because things change and you have to stay up with
Speaker 1: the times. We have been fighting on this, uh. And
Speaker 1: this just so people know what what what the Hide
Speaker 1: and the Helm's amendments do is basically Hide does does
Speaker 1: not allow public funding, which would be in this instance,
Speaker 1: Medicaid to fund abortion. Who does that hurt? It hurts
Speaker 1: the you know, the poorest, the working poor of this
Speaker 1: country who depends on Medicaid uh for their health care? Uh.
Speaker 1: You know what who is this going to affect the
Speaker 1: fourteen year old girl who's raked by her father and
Speaker 1: now and can't afford abortion, or or a struggling mother
Speaker 1: who may already have three or four children, or someone
Speaker 1: who's or or young person and with hopes and dreams,
Speaker 1: who who has a whole future ahead of themselves and
Speaker 1: really this is not the time to bring a child
Speaker 1: into the world. So there's a lot of uh implications
Speaker 1: that could really go on and on with the anecdotes.
Speaker 1: But I think what's important here is that, uh, when
Speaker 1: when this is this the unjustice that has been inflicted
Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court? Uh and having what's called this
Speaker 1: high Amendment which does not allow the use of Medicaid dollars,
Speaker 1: of funding dollars for poor women to get abortion. I mean,
Speaker 1: who does it? Who is it mostly aimed at? And
Speaker 1: who gets hurt the worst? Or people who who really
Speaker 1: can't have the hardest time sending for themselves. So Congresswoman,
Speaker 1: what about the administration if we're talking about realistic options
Speaker 1: to try to counter the effects of this the Democrats want.
Speaker 1: I noticed the governors of New York and New Mexico
Speaker 1: were pushing President and Biden on the idea of using
Speaker 1: federal lands to avoid state bands on abortion. Is the
Speaker 1: administration leaving any realistic options on the table at this point. Well,
Speaker 1: we've had I know, I've been in a number of
Speaker 1: conversations with the President's gender counsel and those of folks
Speaker 1: who have really been looking at this issue for you know,
Speaker 1: since the President took office, and you know, look, it's
Speaker 1: a nice idea. Yeah, I could have you know, have
Speaker 1: have a user federal law land from abortion clinic. But
Speaker 1: the fact of the matter is it's not going to
Speaker 1: make up for all the clinics closing or in the
Speaker 1: in the twenty seven states that that are going to
Speaker 1: ban abortion. So, uh, you know, it's a nice idea,
Speaker 1: it's not really a substitute. I think the best thing
Speaker 1: really that the President is doing right now is on
Speaker 1: the the uh the medical drug and making sure that
Speaker 1: it can be sent you know, mailed out, and also
Speaker 1: uh the Justice Apartment to protect the people who cross
Speaker 1: state lines, because you're gonna see that they're going to
Speaker 1: be instances where people will you travel to other states,
Speaker 1: and that's going to be an attempt I'm sure by
Speaker 1: some of the states had abandoning abortion to to try
Speaker 1: to prosecute those people. Right, Congresswoman, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. That's Congresswoman Lois Frankel, Democrat from Florida, UH,
Speaker 1: co chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus and a member
Speaker 1: of the House Appropriations Committee where they debated, uh those issues.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have Mick mulveney on the phone in a
Speaker 1: little bit, the former White House Acting Chief of Staff,
Speaker 1: to discuss January six takeaways. Will also get to our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie she and Zano and Rick Davis
Speaker 1: to discuss the takeaways from this week and what's ahead
Speaker 1: from that committee and others that's coming up in just
Speaker 1: a minute. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: sooned on with Joe Maphew on Bloomberg Radio. Jack Fitzpatrick
Speaker 1: here in for Joe, who's gonna be back next week.
Speaker 1: You just heard from Congresswoman Lois Frankel on the options
Speaker 1: or maybe lack of options for Democrats to fight back
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court ruling striking down the Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade precedent. Let's bring in the panel Bloomberg Politics contributors
Speaker 1: Jeannie she and Zano and Rick Davis. Guys, it almost
Speaker 1: sounded like the congresswoman, uh maybe speaking on behalf of
Speaker 1: some House Democrats there. It was a little defeated. It
Speaker 1: stood out to me, you know, they've gone through this
Speaker 1: whole series of fights over government funding availability for abortion access,
Speaker 1: whether for those on Medicaid or or elsewhere. But as
Speaker 1: she said, a shutdown over this really did get their
Speaker 1: heels in on these government funding bills. To fight this
Speaker 1: battle would do more harm than good. Genie, what do
Speaker 1: you make of that? You know, it sounds like the
Speaker 1: some of the most enthusiastic Democrats are still uh settled
Speaker 1: into the reality that they don't have that many options. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, and I felt listening to her that she
Speaker 1: really echoed some of the frustration you hear from some
Speaker 1: of the base and people on the ground. You know,
Speaker 1: if you know, for for people like the congresswoman and
Speaker 1: other members of the House who passed, for instance, the
Speaker 1: Health Protection Act, and who you know, these voters that
Speaker 1: you talk about, who say, listen, I voted Democratic. I
Speaker 1: did what you told me and asked me to do,
Speaker 1: and yet here we are. I think there is a
Speaker 1: real sense of frustration. But that said, you also look
Speaker 1: at the flip side of this, which is that you've
Speaker 1: got a lot of Democrats increasing numbers just in the
Speaker 1: last week since this came out, who are banking that
Speaker 1: it is going to help them get voters out to
Speaker 1: the polls, as the number of ads and the amount
Speaker 1: of spending on ads talking about this issue from Democrats
Speaker 1: has increased exponentially. So I think there is frustration from
Speaker 1: the legislative end in the House and the Senate and
Speaker 1: the federal level. But I also think there is a sense,
Speaker 1: at least among some people running that this has increased
Speaker 1: enthusiasm among the base and may help them in November. Well,
Speaker 1: I think clearly you're right about that, Genie. But on
Speaker 1: the other hand, they're not gonna what win a supermajority
Speaker 1: in the Senate. They're not going to have sixty votes.
Speaker 1: Uh And that's something the congresswoman touched on, saying that
Speaker 1: they should not apply the Senate's sixty vote threshold to
Speaker 1: this kind of issue. Uh Rick. How much of a
Speaker 1: difference does it make, especially when the President says there
Speaker 1: should be a filibuster carve out in the Senate. Is
Speaker 1: it is there any reason to believe something like that
Speaker 1: would actually happen. No, I mean, there have been ample
Speaker 1: opportunities with some of the hallmark legislation that the Biden
Speaker 1: administration has been promoting for the last two years to
Speaker 1: do this, and maybe it does it rise to the
Speaker 1: level of uh, you know, importance that the defeat of
Speaker 1: Rob v. Wade and the Supreme Court does. But it
Speaker 1: was pretty important to Biden and they couldn't budge to
Speaker 1: to accomplish that. So there's absolutely no reason to believe
Speaker 1: that this isn't anything other than just sort of political posturing.
Speaker 1: But I must say I was I was taken by
Speaker 1: Representative Frankel's kind of you know, depressed attitude toward this,
Speaker 1: I mean, and if she is reflective at all of
Speaker 1: the Democratic base, I would worry that it might be
Speaker 1: backfiring and not exciting them to do something. But the
Speaker 1: realization that they're just simply isn't that much they can
Speaker 1: do may hurt them in the November elections. Well, and
Speaker 1: you can tell the options are limited when you hear
Speaker 1: about these legally creative ideas. And I as I mentioned
Speaker 1: in the interview with the congresswoman Uh, the governors of
Speaker 1: New York and New Mexico brought up the idea directly
Speaker 1: today with the President of using federal lands abortion clinics
Speaker 1: on ural lands or properties could be military properties to
Speaker 1: try to get around state bands. Uh, Genie, what do
Speaker 1: you make of the administration stance on it? They haven't
Speaker 1: taken that up. Is that a realistic option in any way?
Speaker 1: I don't think it is. And I think we heard
Speaker 1: that from the congresswoman, And I too was surprised by
Speaker 1: the fact that she so quickly seemed to say, you know,
Speaker 1: that's not a realistic option in terms of having any
Speaker 1: real impact on the ground and in terms of addressing
Speaker 1: the issue. And I think one of the things that
Speaker 1: Democrats have said since this happened is, number one, it
Speaker 1: felt like the Democrats from the top had been caught
Speaker 1: off guard when they shouldn't have been, because we knew
Speaker 1: this was coming. And number two, there's been something of
Speaker 1: a disjointed response on the part of Democrats to this.
Speaker 1: I think the president meeting with the governors today was
Speaker 1: an attempt by the administration to try to corral the
Speaker 1: upper echelon of the party together and try to come
Speaker 1: to a, you know, some kind of consensus on how
Speaker 1: they can move forward. But I think it is problematic
Speaker 1: that they haven't gotten that, and that is you know
Speaker 1: what I think. You know, I agree with Rick that
Speaker 1: there is a sense that this can increase enthusiasm, but
Speaker 1: there's also the flip side of that, which is a
Speaker 1: real frustration which keeps people home saying a sense of inefficacy.
Speaker 1: You know, why should I go out and participate because
Speaker 1: it's not gonna yield much. So Democrats have to be
Speaker 1: very careful about that possibility. Well. One other little bit
Speaker 1: of news out of the White House as we change
Speaker 1: gears that I wanted to touch on was the list
Speaker 1: of Presidential Medal of Freedom winners. Uh, some posthumous John McCain,
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs, as well as some other big names Simone Biles,
Speaker 1: Gabby Gifford's, Denzel Washington, Megan Rapino. Uh, Rick, I I
Speaker 1: wonder about the timing of these sometimes when it comes
Speaker 1: out from the White House real quick, what what what
Speaker 1: does it mean for someone like you who worked with
Speaker 1: John McCain or maybe even to his family, uh, to
Speaker 1: see this honor for McCain. Look, I'm I'm first of
Speaker 1: all thank the Biden administration for doing something that a
Speaker 1: president of John's own party wasn't willing to do. I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump had many opportunities to do it and
Speaker 1: and and didn't, So thank you. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: this is great. The list is very distinguished. I'm thrilled
Speaker 1: by it, and I think it reminds American people of
Speaker 1: the service and sacrifice that so many people have given
Speaker 1: to this country. And it can come at a better
Speaker 1: time when there's a lot of self doubt about the
Speaker 1: future of our country's democracy. Right, Rick and Jeanie will
Speaker 1: be back with us a little bit. We're also going
Speaker 1: to hear from Mick Mulvaney, the former White House Acting
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff, on takeaways from the January sixth Congressional
Speaker 1: Committees investigation that's coming up. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg eleven Frio to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one
Speaker 1: to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine six to the Country, Serious
Speaker 1: x M General one ninety and around the globe of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sund On with Joe matthew By. Now you have
Speaker 1: probably heard the tale of the former President Donald Trump
Speaker 1: trying to commandeer the beast and drive up to the
Speaker 1: capital on January one, even uh, you may say, assaulting
Speaker 1: or accosting physically a Secret Service agent. We're going to
Speaker 1: speak with Mick Mulvaney, former White House Acting chief of Staff,
Speaker 1: who at the time was in the Trump administration as
Speaker 1: the envoy to Northern Ireland. He ended up resigning from
Speaker 1: the administration over what happened on January six We've got
Speaker 1: to get into the revelations that have been coming out
Speaker 1: from the January sixth Committee in Congress investigating the insurrection
Speaker 1: at the capital, their arguments that the president, former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump did not have any legal merit to his
Speaker 1: claims of voter fraud. But also this week the story
Speaker 1: relayed by then White House aid Cassidy Hutchinson that Trump
Speaker 1: physically tried to get himself driven to the capital while
Speaker 1: all of this was happening. We're gonna talk to Mick Mulvaney,
Speaker 1: the former White House Acting chief of Staff. First, here
Speaker 1: is what former President Trump had to say about that
Speaker 1: story relayed by Cassidy Hutchinson. Trump spoke in an interview
Speaker 1: with news Max yesterday. She's making up stories like one
Speaker 1: after another. But the craziest of all was that I
Speaker 1: tried to commandeer. I think they used that word. I
Speaker 1: tried to commandeer a car with Secret Service agents telling
Speaker 1: them to take to take us down to the Capitol.
Speaker 1: It was totally false. Mr mulvaney. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. It seems someone is lying. Uh And
Speaker 1: I want to know, especially from a former acting chief
Speaker 1: of staff in the White House. I believe you knew
Speaker 1: Cassidy Hutchinson. How credible is she? Can you tell us
Speaker 1: about the person who is the source of this information? Sure, Jack,
Speaker 1: and thanks for having me. She's she's very incredible. I
Speaker 1: think that a lot of attention was paid to that
Speaker 1: particular part of her testimony because it was so sensational.
Speaker 1: The visual image of the President leaning up from the
Speaker 1: back of the suv, grabbing that steering will and then
Speaker 1: you know, choking his secret Service agent. It's very dramatic,
Speaker 1: very sensational stuff. Um. She was very clear. I thought
Speaker 1: in her testimony that she didn't see that that she
Speaker 1: was told that story by Tony Ornado. Um, and that
Speaker 1: Tony will now as I think, is now saying he's
Speaker 1: going to testify otherwise. I think it's one of those
Speaker 1: situations where the folks have sort of missed what the
Speaker 1: important stuff is. It's really listen at the crime to
Speaker 1: assault a secret Service agent. It is right. But her
Speaker 1: other testimony was much more, much more interesting, much more substantial.
Speaker 1: That the president knew there were guns at the at
Speaker 1: the at the January six rally, and that he had
Speaker 1: said that let these folks in with guns and they
Speaker 1: can go to the castle from here. That is a
Speaker 1: that's a that's a major major development. Is also testimony
Speaker 1: that he has he gave Um that she knew that
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows was communicating with some of the right wing
Speaker 1: extremist groups in the advance of January six. Those things
Speaker 1: touch on potential serious crimes. Um. And while like you
Speaker 1: said that the grabbing the steering wheel is sort of
Speaker 1: a visual image that a lot of folks have locked
Speaker 1: in on, uh, to me, it's probably the fourth and
Speaker 1: fifth most important piece of that testimony. So I understand,
Speaker 1: and I may even agree that that was not the
Speaker 1: most important thing to come out of the Juniory six
Speaker 1: I've got to ask, though, if there does end up
Speaker 1: being testimony from anyone from the Secret Service saying that
Speaker 1: did not happen. I've got to ask you, do you
Speaker 1: know the Secret Service to be willing to lie on
Speaker 1: behalf of a former president or would you take that
Speaker 1: to be the absolute truth? Absolutely not. I don't think
Speaker 1: the Secret Service would lie for anybody. But I think
Speaker 1: it raises the issue Jack, And this is where I
Speaker 1: think the hearing is going, or at least the discussion
Speaker 1: is going to turn. It's a question I ask, and
Speaker 1: again I have been. I've defended the president for the
Speaker 1: last year over his actions on that day. I quit
Speaker 1: because I thought he failed as as my president, but
Speaker 1: I never thought he committed a crime, and I didn't
Speaker 1: think he committed any impeachable offenses. So I've actually been
Speaker 1: defending him in a roundabout way. But my question would
Speaker 1: be this, Okay, if she said four or five things, um,
Speaker 1: and the Secret Service agent is willing to come forward
Speaker 1: and say, well, that one particular matter about this the
Speaker 1: SUV that's false, and I will testify under oath that
Speaker 1: is false. Where are the other people who are willing
Speaker 1: to come forward and testify on her oath that the
Speaker 1: other things about the guns and the right wing extremist
Speaker 1: groups are not are also false. That's that's I think
Speaker 1: a reasonable next question. Um, and I've not heard anybody
Speaker 1: pushed back yet on those of the veracity of that
Speaker 1: particular part of her testimony. Right, and based on that
Speaker 1: part of the testimony and that focus that has the
Speaker 1: committee has had, do you still think that former President
Speaker 1: Trump did nothing impeachable or nothing illegal or have you
Speaker 1: changed your mind at all about that? I am. I
Speaker 1: am count me now amongst the undecided. I believe Cassidy
Speaker 1: Cassidy she worked for me. I didn't know her very well.
Speaker 1: I don't pretend to know where. She was a junior person.
Speaker 1: She was in the Office of Legislative Affairs. Part of
Speaker 1: her job it was to escort members of Congress when
Speaker 1: they came to visit. That's how she met Mark Meadows,
Speaker 1: and then she became one of his deputy chiefs of staff.
Speaker 1: Those are those those are very close relationships. I had
Speaker 1: three people who filled those positions, and they you know,
Speaker 1: I saw them all day, every single day. You probably
Speaker 1: closer to me during my time in the White House
Speaker 1: and my own family because you in the office sixteen
Speaker 1: hours a day. So for her to come forward and testify, um,
Speaker 1: and things that that that stand against the president and
Speaker 1: against Mark Meadows. UM. That is that's a particularly eye
Speaker 1: opening sort of development. I wasn't expecting this in the
Speaker 1: hearing Tuesday. I had seen some of her previous testimony
Speaker 1: about to hang my tent stuff, but was not expecting
Speaker 1: this to have such gravity as it did. And I
Speaker 1: guess is it opens up tens of additional hearings, or
Speaker 1: at least tens of additional witnesses. Um. I thought this
Speaker 1: thing might be ending soon. It looks like it's not
Speaker 1: going to well. Speaking of Cassidy Hutchinson's place in the
Speaker 1: White House and her decision to come forward, I do
Speaker 1: want to play a little bit of sound from uh
Speaker 1: the hearing the other day from Congresswoman Liz Cheney on
Speaker 1: I guess the state of play among White House personnel.
Speaker 1: Here's what Congresswoman Cheney had to say, her superiors, men
Speaker 1: many years older, A number of them are hiding behind
Speaker 1: executive privilege, anonymity, and intimidation. So Mr Mulviney, that that
Speaker 1: kind of line makes me want to ask you, what
Speaker 1: about Mark Meadows? Do you think he shares responsibility for
Speaker 1: what happened on January six? Um? You know if you
Speaker 1: take Cassidy's testimony at face value, the answer is yes, Um,
Speaker 1: I paid particular attention to something no one else cares
Speaker 1: about it because it's it's way down in the weeds.
Speaker 1: But one of the things that I was watching online
Speaker 1: doing something else. And when she said that, she wouldn't
Speaker 1: have talked to the chief of staff and said that.
Speaker 1: And it was he was sitting on the sofa. That's
Speaker 1: my old soap. I used to sit on that sofa
Speaker 1: right by that fireplace. I know exactly what she's talking about.
Speaker 1: She said. She walked into the office and said, Mark,
Speaker 1: there's you know that there's where ians are getting close
Speaker 1: to the to the to the Capitol. And he didn't
Speaker 1: even look up from his his his his his cell phone.
Speaker 1: And the chief and then the chief White House Counsel
Speaker 1: came down and said the same thing. And he didn't
Speaker 1: even address me, didn't even look at them. He stared
Speaker 1: at his phone and and you know, it was sort
Speaker 1: of detached. That to me, Um indicated that the West
Speaker 1: Wing was completely broken, that the processes had broken down,
Speaker 1: the protections that are afforded to a president in terms
Speaker 1: of the people who could get to him and get
Speaker 1: him information had broken down. Um, I describe it as
Speaker 1: every It was about twenty seven different things have to
Speaker 1: go wrong for an airplane to crash. Um, the same
Speaker 1: has to be true for there to be a to
Speaker 1: be there a riot uh in the capital in January
Speaker 1: six and it's now like everything was broken. And do
Speaker 1: I hold the chief of staff responsible for that? Yeah?
Speaker 1: In part I would. I would not be proud of
Speaker 1: the work that I had done if I was chief
Speaker 1: on that wash, that's for sure. Well, that's that's interesting
Speaker 1: to hear because obviously Mark Meadows was not the only person.
Speaker 1: As you said, if twenty seven things need to go wrong,
Speaker 1: but if he was the chief of staff, I'm a
Speaker 1: little surprised even to hear you say that, considering you
Speaker 1: to go back. You were sort of part of the
Speaker 1: Tea Party movement, the Freedom Caucus. Guys, is it accurate
Speaker 1: to say you have been friends? Are you friends? What?
Speaker 1: What did you see change that leads you to sound
Speaker 1: disappointed with someone I believe you had worked closely with
Speaker 1: and cooperatively with. What what happened to Mark Meadows? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened to Mark Meadows, but your
Speaker 1: questions is fair one which was are we were we friends? Yes,
Speaker 1: I don't know what we are now. But the reason
Speaker 1: I and I'm giving you this opinion is it that's chief.
Speaker 1: That's what chiefs of staff do, right, we're not We're
Speaker 1: supposed to call them like we see him. Our job job,
Speaker 1: president asked me one time, isn't like how do you
Speaker 1: summarize your job? It's as president, I'm a guy who's
Speaker 1: responsible telling you all the crap you don't want to
Speaker 1: hear because everybody else is afraid to do it. There's
Speaker 1: a reason that the life expectancy of a chief of
Speaker 1: staff is less than a year and a half. Barack
Speaker 1: Obama had four in his first term. Donald Trump had four.
Speaker 1: That's not that's a little bit higher than usual, but
Speaker 1: not much. When you get paid to tell the president
Speaker 1: stuff he doesn't want to hear and do all those
Speaker 1: things he doesn't want to do, um, the relationship doesn't
Speaker 1: last very long. And that's what I'm looking I'm sort
Speaker 1: of looking at this. I'm a disinterested an interested third
Speaker 1: party at this point. I worked for all these folks
Speaker 1: and all these folks, but you've got to call him
Speaker 1: like you see him. And when you see a White House,
Speaker 1: that's broken and a chief of staff that's detached. Um,
Speaker 1: then you have to sort of draw attention to and say, look,
Speaker 1: that's that that shouldn't be the case. That was a
Speaker 1: failure at some place. And while the president is always
Speaker 1: responsible h for his own actions and also the people
Speaker 1: that he had points and chooses to advise him, the
Speaker 1: chief of staff is the next guy in line in
Speaker 1: that building. So at this point, what do you think
Speaker 1: comes next in terms of either the likelihood of Mr
Speaker 1: Meadows complying with the subpoena from the committee or is
Speaker 1: it likely more likely than it has been that d
Speaker 1: o J goes after him for that they decided not
Speaker 1: to What what's the next step when it comes to
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows and his decision not to comply so far? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's been a long time. Said practice law, and I
Speaker 1: never practice a criminal law at all. But if I
Speaker 1: were a betting man, I would bet that Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: would be indicted now, um, and that he would have
Speaker 1: to show up for his He've indicted for failing to
Speaker 1: to come to testify to the committee, and that he
Speaker 1: will show up and he'll take the fifth plead the
Speaker 1: fifth Amendment. Um. I think it's a fair question ask
Speaker 1: who else might be might be coming forward. I understand
Speaker 1: that White as Chief Council Pet Sippaloni was subpoena yesterday.
Speaker 1: Be very interesting to see if he shows up. He's
Speaker 1: got attorney client privilege on some things, but not all things.
Speaker 1: Pat's an honest man. I don't believe him to be
Speaker 1: the type of person who would lie, so would be
Speaker 1: curious to see if he testifies. No, like I said,
Speaker 1: because of the testimony on Tuesday, UM, I don't think
Speaker 1: this process is stopping anytime soon. I think you're looking
Speaker 1: at that dozens of more witnesses and at least ten
Speaker 1: more hearings or something like that. This is this is.
Speaker 1: Tuesday's hearing was a watershed that I think we'll see
Speaker 1: repercussions of for many weeks. It's not many months, and
Speaker 1: maybe longer than that. So what do you think former
Speaker 1: President Trump's place in the party is now? I think
Speaker 1: he's damaged, There's no question. I think that's the That's
Speaker 1: the really interesting question. From a political standpoint. I think
Speaker 1: if there was any winners this week, it was Mike
Speaker 1: Pence and Ron De Santis and Tim Scott and Mike
Speaker 1: Pompeo and Nicki Haley, anybody who was thinking about running
Speaker 1: against him UM now sees him I think as damaged.
Speaker 1: He has damaged. At some point you have to wonder,
Speaker 1: if there's just not Trump fatigue, why wouldn't even the
Speaker 1: hardest core right wing you know, maga vote or go.
Speaker 1: You know what I can get any I can get
Speaker 1: all the policies of Donald Trump with Rod de Santis
Speaker 1: without all the baggage. That's the type of of of
Speaker 1: discussion that you're starting to hear now within Republican circles.
Speaker 1: Certain list folks who absolutely still defend the president a percent,
Speaker 1: But I think there's a lot of oxygen given to
Speaker 1: those UM that next for the first tier of challengers
Speaker 1: this week, and I think you're much more likely now
Speaker 1: to have a very vigorous Republican primary season going into four.
Speaker 1: And that might change, and all may change. It may
Speaker 1: turn out to Kasidy Hutchins is lying through a teeth.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think that's going to be the case,
Speaker 1: but it may be. UM. But but if it, if
Speaker 1: it doesn't change from what we saw on Tuesday, I
Speaker 1: think you've seen half a dozen people at least running
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump, I should sneak in one more substance
Speaker 1: question before we even continue on the politics, especially because
Speaker 1: you you've mentioned you know ten more hearings. UM one
Speaker 1: has has the Committee asked you for any information? You
Speaker 1: weren't chief of staff at the time, But have you
Speaker 1: have you talked to them now? I have? I not been.
Speaker 1: I'm in communication with Adam kinsing or on social mass
Speaker 1: Adam and I were friends when he was in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. So if anybody ask me if I've talked
Speaker 1: to the Commission, I talked to Adam, but we played
Speaker 1: baseball together on the congressional team, and I asked him
Speaker 1: if he was going to go to the game this week,
Speaker 1: excuse me this month. But I have not been subpoena on,
Speaker 1: not been. No one's caught contact of me. I don't
Speaker 1: have any information. I was not in the White House. UM,
Speaker 1: and wasn't even in Northern Ireland because of COVID. I
Speaker 1: was home in South Carolina. UM. Yeah. And one other
Speaker 1: thing on especially as we look forward to the mid terms. Uh.
Speaker 1: It came out a little while back from the Committee,
Speaker 1: the assertion that Senator Ron Johnson, the Republican from Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: wanted to give Vice President Pence a list of alternate
Speaker 1: alternate electors. I'm wondering what you make of that information.
Speaker 1: And also does does Johnson have to campaign against attacks
Speaker 1: on this how how does this play into any members
Speaker 1: of Congress, any senators who may have been involved on
Speaker 1: campaign trail. Yeah, generally, well, I think the Democrats want
Speaker 1: this hearing to sort of or down to all of
Speaker 1: you know, the damage to sort of down to the
Speaker 1: Republican Party generally. I don't think you're seeing that. It's
Speaker 1: very much a Trump centric thing, and for that reason,
Speaker 1: I don't see he don't think these hearings will have
Speaker 1: any direct impact on the on the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: I fully expent Republicans to take that. The Senate is
Speaker 1: a little bit different. Senate races are always different than
Speaker 1: House races, and certainly Ron Johnson's name coming up in
Speaker 1: that hearing on Tuesday is going to give him one
Speaker 1: more thing that he has to deal with back home.
Speaker 1: We have a saying in the business, if you're explaining,
Speaker 1: you're losing, and he might have to start to explain
Speaker 1: why he had that slate of other electors um And
Speaker 1: there's also when it comes to the Senate, sometimes voters
Speaker 1: just want calm. They want they want peace and quiet,
Speaker 1: not always, but they want calm. And you have to
Speaker 1: wonder if the Republicans are offering that day in Georgia
Speaker 1: and does herschel Walker, Um is he the sort of
Speaker 1: calm hand that the voters might want if they get
Speaker 1: to the if they get to novem or just decide
Speaker 1: that they're tired of all this thing? What people who
Speaker 1: are boring, incompetent and and uh and don't don't make
Speaker 1: a lot of news. So um, I don't think it's
Speaker 1: going to have a major impact on the Senate races,
Speaker 1: but there may be individual races um that where this
Speaker 1: does become relevant, and the Senate is so tight and
Speaker 1: it currently obviously um that it may have an impact
Speaker 1: on the Senate. Once again doubts seriously has any impact
Speaker 1: on the House races at all. Those are a couple
Speaker 1: key Senate races to keep an eye on. And now
Speaker 1: you mentioned Adam Kinzinger, uh he and Liz Cheney are
Speaker 1: on this panel. I think it probably is fair to
Speaker 1: say they are not considered part of the House Republican
Speaker 1: conference mainstream right now? What what do you think their
Speaker 1: role should be and will be in their conference. As
Speaker 1: this moves along, does it does the committees work I
Speaker 1: guess legitimize their efforts. No, And I have been an
Speaker 1: opponent of there's I disagree with the decision from from
Speaker 1: the get care, and I told Adam that because again
Speaker 1: he has and I are friends. It legitimated. Look, it's
Speaker 1: it's not people think this is an investigation. It's not.
Speaker 1: This is a political which there's no question about that.
Speaker 1: It's Democrats and two Republicans of hate hate Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And you're not seeing all the transcripts, that's true. You're
Speaker 1: not seeing any cross examination, that's true. This is not
Speaker 1: a fair hearing by any stretch of the imagination. And
Speaker 1: it's certainly not a criminal investigation. Much of what Cassidy
Speaker 1: Hutchington said the other day, for example, was hearsay would
Speaker 1: never be allowed in a in a criminal proceeding. That
Speaker 1: being said, when a Republican witness who works for Republican
Speaker 1: administration under oaths as the Republican did wrong, did something wrong,
Speaker 1: the Republicans should pay attention to that. So I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to you know, it's a shame that I feel
Speaker 1: like I have to give the commission credibility because I
Speaker 1: think it's been a it's been wrong from the beginning. UM.
Speaker 1: But when you have Republicans under oath saying that Republicans
Speaker 1: did something wrong, then Republicans should pay attention and respond
Speaker 1: to it. But no, Listen loses, Uh, Adams leaving, he's
Speaker 1: not running for for a re election, so he'll be
Speaker 1: gone after the mid terms. Of my guests, and Liz loses.
Speaker 1: So no, there they're role about public conferences zero after
Speaker 1: this is over. And what about Kevin McCarthy was it
Speaker 1: Do you still think it was a good idea for
Speaker 1: him to keep members obviously other than those two off
Speaker 1: of the panel. Yeah, I actually think it was. It
Speaker 1: was Pelosi he made this mistake, and think Kevin did
Speaker 1: the only thing he could under the circumstances. Pelosi, if
Speaker 1: she really wanted to harm Donald Trump, UM, would should
Speaker 1: have wanted to have Republicans watched the hearings. Uh. And
Speaker 1: if she had allowed Jim Jordan's and Andy Biggs on
Speaker 1: the committee on the committee, Fox would have covered it
Speaker 1: more and Republicans would have been watching it. And Republicans
Speaker 1: who still to this day think that Trump won the
Speaker 1: election would be hard pressed to maintain that position after
Speaker 1: seeing all the all the evidence that has been presented,
Speaker 1: Republicans who still think that January six was a peaceful
Speaker 1: demonstration would be really hard pressed to maintain that after
Speaker 1: seeing the evidence that has been laid out. Um, so,
Speaker 1: I think Nancy was the who actually made a mistake here.
Speaker 1: If she wanted to impact the general electorate, she should
Speaker 1: have had a whole nation want to watch it and
Speaker 1: tune these things. And as it turns out, um, you know,
Speaker 1: I think only half the country is probably paying attention
Speaker 1: to them. All right, Mr mulvaney, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. That's Mick mulvaney, former White House Acting
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff during the Trump administration. Let's bring in
Speaker 1: the panel. I feel like we have a lot to
Speaker 1: sort through there. And Happy July four, Mr mulvaney. Happy
Speaker 1: July fourth to Jeannie she and Zano and Rick Davis
Speaker 1: coming back to us our panel to discuss guys. I
Speaker 1: want to hear your takeaways from that. Also, I am
Speaker 1: wondering what you make of this comment from Senator Pat
Speaker 1: to me, the Republican from Pennsylvania who also spoke on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's balance of power. Uh in terms of his takeaways
Speaker 1: from the January six committee, and where it leaves former
Speaker 1: President Trump. I think he disqualified himself from serving in
Speaker 1: public office by virtue of his post election behavior, especially
Speaker 1: leading right up to January sixth. I think the revelations
Speaker 1: from this committee um make his path to even the
Speaker 1: Republican nomination much more tenuous. So, uh, Rick, I I
Speaker 1: want to hear your opinion not only on Toomey's assessment there,
Speaker 1: but what we heard, uh from Mr Mulvaney, who who
Speaker 1: seems to think that the former president is is weaker
Speaker 1: than he was before in terms of the Republican nomination
Speaker 1: if he were to run again in four Rick, where
Speaker 1: does the January six committee investigation leave Donald Trump in
Speaker 1: the Republican primary if he were to run. Well, I
Speaker 1: don't know even about the Republican primary, but I think
Speaker 1: Mick was right. I mean, this has definitely been a weakening,
Speaker 1: but there's been an a weakening going on really since
Speaker 1: he left the presidency, had just started with this commission hearings.
Speaker 1: But when you have the Wall Street Journal editorializing that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump shouldn't run, you know, a organ of uh
Speaker 1: uh conservatism, you know and and and you know Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: another conservative outlet, you know, highly critical umbraiding Trump UH
Speaker 1: this last week. These are these are echoing through uh,
Speaker 1: these communities within the conservative movement and Republican Party and
Speaker 1: and and they're going to have an impact. And and
Speaker 1: I think the point that Mick made about having Republicans
Speaker 1: testifying at the hearing about Republicans has been the most
Speaker 1: effective way of of basically giving it the credibility that
Speaker 1: it didn't have by having Republicans actually sitting in the
Speaker 1: committee other than you know, Cheney and and and Kinsinger.
Speaker 1: So I think these things are having an impact. Hard
Speaker 1: to tell how it's going to impact Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: his decision even whether to run or not. UM, but
Speaker 1: but clearly his popularity is on the Wayne. So, Jennie,
Speaker 1: I I'm curious what you make on on takeaways from
Speaker 1: the other days hearing, UH, thinking of what Mr Mulvaaney
Speaker 1: said that, yes, there's been a lot of attention on
Speaker 1: that line. That image that we kind of all have
Speaker 1: of former President Trump leaning for the steering wheel jostling
Speaker 1: with a Secret Service agent may have been the most
Speaker 1: dramatic part. But as Mr mulvaney said, he he is
Speaker 1: of the opinion that the most important part are and
Speaker 1: more important part was Trump knowing there were guns there,
Speaker 1: the idea of violence being a possibility, and the president
Speaker 1: at the time knowing that. What what is your main
Speaker 1: takeaway from the Hutchinson testimony and where does that uh
Speaker 1: that I guess fight with Secret Service rank in what
Speaker 1: we should be contemplating. Well, you know, I couldn't agree
Speaker 1: more with with what mc mulvaney said during your conversation,
Speaker 1: which was fascinating. And you know when he made the case,
Speaker 1: as you just mentioned that that wasn't the most important point.
Speaker 1: It may have been the most salacious, it wasn't the
Speaker 1: most important. I think legally that is absolutely true, because
Speaker 1: nobody is disputing the fact that the president wanted to
Speaker 1: go to the Capitol that day and he was angry
Speaker 1: when he couldn't. Whether he grabbed the wheel or somebody's
Speaker 1: clavical or not, nobody is disputing the fact that he
Speaker 1: didn't care if the mag Trump, how do you say that,
Speaker 1: Jack Mag's right, that's the That's the one thing I
Speaker 1: did in research is how to pronounce that work? How
Speaker 1: to pronounce that so you know, whether they he wanted
Speaker 1: the people to come in his crowd to be bigger.
Speaker 1: That sounds like exactly what we know about Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: whether they had weapons or not, and then to march
Speaker 1: up to the Capitol. Those are the important things, um
Speaker 1: legally in terms of culpability, in terms of consciousness of guilt.
Speaker 1: Um So I think that is what is most important.
Speaker 1: But I will tell you I spent last night doing
Speaker 1: something I've never done in my life, Jack, which was
Speaker 1: listening to a primary out of Wyoming, of all places,
Speaker 1: And what I heard back to your conversation is that
Speaker 1: whether or not Trump runs in has a chance of winning,
Speaker 1: this whole Maga movement is a lot bigger than any individual,
Speaker 1: whether Mark Meadows is legally culpable or Donald Trump runs
Speaker 1: are not. You hear a belief among people on the
Speaker 1: ground that the election was stolen, and in your conversation
Speaker 1: it struck me and I wrote it down. Nick Mulvaney says,
Speaker 1: this committee is a political witch hunt, and I think
Speaker 1: that tells you the amount of division and polarization. It's
Speaker 1: bigger than Donald Trump, and I think that's what's going
Speaker 1: to sustain regardless of what he decides to do. Right. Well,
Speaker 1: that's one good point. Also, you know, on the point
Speaker 1: of calling it a witch hunt. I would point out
Speaker 1: Congress is pretty partisan. Uh. Congressional investigations are probably naturally
Speaker 1: going to be a lot more politicized, a lot more
Speaker 1: partisan than uh something from the executive branch. Uh. So
Speaker 1: I take that for what it's worth. One other key
Speaker 1: point from Mr Mulvaney on Mark Meadows uh emphasizing that
Speaker 1: if miss Hutchinson Hutchinson's testimony is correct, then a significant
Speaker 1: amount of responsibility does fall to Mark Meadows, who was
Speaker 1: the chief of staff at the time. Uh. Rick, what
Speaker 1: have we learned about uh Meadows and Trump? Aside? Who
Speaker 1: else appears to have had a chance to stop this
Speaker 1: from happening on January six and didn't act the right way? Yeah.
Speaker 1: I thought the characterization that mc made of um Meadows
Speaker 1: sort of sitting on his couch disconnected the process failing.
Speaker 1: I think that might have been a bit of an understatement. Uh.
Speaker 1: Their their process is in place to keep bad things
Speaker 1: from happening, both in and out of the White House,
Speaker 1: and people are generally committed to do that. I think
Speaker 1: this is different. I think these these processes that were
Speaker 1: not ignored, they were subverted. I think most of the
Speaker 1: most of the White House staff that we're engaged on
Speaker 1: this process with with Donald Trump and and trying to
Speaker 1: subvert the elections. We're in on it. And I think
Speaker 1: there's no other characterization for for Meadows than to say
Speaker 1: the guy was part of the problem. He was he
Speaker 1: was actively trying to subvert an authentic election, and and
Speaker 1: and it all was coming to unravel on January six,
Speaker 1: And that's what you saw sitting on that couch. I
Speaker 1: don't think it was because they were ignoring or hadn't
Speaker 1: taken the right precautions. I think the guy was actively
Speaker 1: out trying to subvert the election, and that's certainly what
Speaker 1: the testimonies indicated. Right. Well, guys, that is a little
Speaker 1: bit of a heavy note to leave it on heading
Speaker 1: into fourth of July weekend, But thank you so much
Speaker 1: Rick Davis, Jeanie Sheenzano for helping us make sense of
Speaker 1: this news packed week. Everybody, please have a great weekend.
Speaker 1: I'm on vacation now. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg