Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern.
Speaker 2: On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: It is a newsy Friday. This is not really easing
Speaker 3: out of the workweek. We've also got to discuss the
Speaker 3: ramifications of the fast moving and very destructive wildfires in
Speaker 3: Hawaii that the latest count here on the Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 3: According to officials in Hawaii, they have confirmed at least
Speaker 3: fifty five deaths, and the police chief locally has said
Speaker 3: it's likely there are another one thousand people unaccounted for. Still,
Speaker 3: of course, big news yesterday the request for forty billion
Speaker 3: dollars in aid from the President to Congress, including twelve
Speaker 3: billion dollars for FEMA, that was needed even before the
Speaker 3: Hawaiian wildfires and all of that destruction. We are joined
Speaker 3: now by Brock Long. He is currently executive chairman of
Speaker 3: Haggarty Consulting, and of course he's the former administrator of
Speaker 3: FEMA under the Trump administration. Thank you so much for
Speaker 3: joining us. I have to sort of delineate what happens
Speaker 3: when and from what agency Brock, what is the initial
Speaker 3: response at this stage of a disaster, uh, so early
Speaker 3: on from FEMA in particular, what does FEMA do on
Speaker 3: the ground at a time like this.
Speaker 4: Well, as I've always said, disaster response and the type
Speaker 4: of situation as a partnership between not only the local
Speaker 4: and state level of government and in conjunction with FEMA.
Speaker 4: But you know, an event like this, a devastating wildfire
Speaker 4: on a tropical island thousands of miles from the mainland,
Speaker 4: is also going to take neighbor helping neighbor in this situation,
Speaker 4: you know, initially FEMA. You know, when I was in
Speaker 4: office back in twenty eighteen, I actually did a lot
Speaker 4: of work to increase logistical capabilities of the federal government's
Speaker 4: logistical capabilities to respond to the devastating disasters in Hawaii,
Speaker 4: particularly around how you do life sustaining missions, uh for
Speaker 4: big events. Unfortunately, with the Lahaina fires and the fires
Speaker 4: that are still going on, these are what we call
Speaker 4: load to no notice disasters, which you know, it takes
Speaker 4: time for the federal government to be able to mobilize.
Speaker 4: But hopefully you know, we've already seen FEMA with the
Speaker 4: great ability to be able to get incident management teams
Speaker 4: on you know, on Maui. Uh, they're continuing to send
Speaker 4: I know Dan Criswell, administrator. Dan Chriswell, who I spoke
Speaker 4: had contact with this morning, is headed to the island today.
Speaker 4: It's my understanding she will be on on site today.
Speaker 4: So again it's a lot of working parts, particularly because
Speaker 4: of the distance from the mainland. But then also when
Speaker 4: a wildfire pushes through a community like Lehina and burns
Speaker 4: everything up, a lot of the infrastructure is just totally gone.
Speaker 4: So you know, the wildfires are incredibly devastating and it
Speaker 4: doesn't leave you much to work with. So this is
Speaker 4: going to be a very long disaster recovery process, painful
Speaker 4: one for the citizens of Hawaii.
Speaker 3: And can you tell us a little more as you
Speaker 3: mentioned the challenges of responding to a disaster very far
Speaker 3: from the contiguous states. What resources are they short on?
Speaker 3: If any, how does that all work. It's one thing
Speaker 3: to respond to severe wildfires maybe in the southwestern States,
Speaker 3: but Hawaii, what are the particular challenges there?
Speaker 4: Well, the challenge nationwide, whether it's Hawaii or Puerto Rico
Speaker 4: or the United States mainland. You know, the goal should
Speaker 4: be of any community to build a baseline capability that's
Speaker 4: pretty strong, right, And when the local capability to respond
Speaker 4: to disasters is strong and the state ability to respond
Speaker 4: to disasters is strong, then the federal government should be
Speaker 4: able to support the gaps. But in this situation, everything
Speaker 4: in the municipality of Lahaina has wiped out. You know,
Speaker 4: obviously they need all the help that they can get
Speaker 4: from the state federal government. And Hawaii's done a good
Speaker 4: job again of being able to pack supplies and teams
Speaker 4: to be able to come over from other islands very quickly.
Speaker 4: And in this case, other municipalities within Maui's will be
Speaker 4: sending mutual aid, you know, most likely to Lahina to
Speaker 4: or accepting citizens that have been displaced into their communities
Speaker 4: to help with sheltering and temporary housing, those types of things.
Speaker 4: And you know what it looks like for FEMA in
Speaker 4: the community is it's very tough to set the expectations
Speaker 4: at this point. Because a wildfire wipes out all the infrastructure,
Speaker 4: there is nothing left. There is nothing really to go
Speaker 4: back to. And if you look at the infrastructure on
Speaker 4: Lahina that's been impacted, the ports are gone, the commons,
Speaker 4: the communications are down, the power is off, the water
Speaker 4: systems are not working, and you know you're still in
Speaker 4: search mode, search and rescue mode. You're trying to do
Speaker 4: life sustainment missions. But the long term recovery of this,
Speaker 4: you know, there's going to be a lot of debris
Speaker 4: that they have to remove, a lot of hazards, materials
Speaker 4: that they have to remove. They've got to figure out
Speaker 4: how to put back basic infrastructure before life can begin
Speaker 4: again in that area.
Speaker 3: And very brit in maybe thirty seconds. What there was
Speaker 3: a request for another twelve billion dollars for FEMA, and
Speaker 3: I know the Disaster Relief Fund is set to run
Speaker 3: out of money before September thirtieth. What does this do
Speaker 3: what we're seeing in Hawaii to the negotiation on further
Speaker 3: funding for FEMA.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think right now. You know, the emergency
Speaker 4: funding that FEMA has it should not impact the disaster
Speaker 4: response at all, and I think Congress will wake up
Speaker 4: and do the right thing to you know, always keep
Speaker 4: the Disaster Relief Fund fully funded. You know, we do
Speaker 4: have to have an honest discussion in the future about
Speaker 4: disastro mitigation and attacking things on the forefront.
Speaker 3: Rather than the back End brock Long, former FEMA administrator
Speaker 3: at Haggarty Consulting. Thanks so much for your insights, a
Speaker 3: lot of news to discuss.
Speaker 5: You're listening to.
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays
Speaker 1: at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and.
Speaker 5: The Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: We've got so much news to talk about today the
Speaker 3: former president's legal challenges. Former President Donald Trump his attorneys
Speaker 3: were in court and were joined now by Zoe Tillman
Speaker 3: at Bloomberg Legal to discuss this order from a federal
Speaker 3: judge in Washington who said she will place some limits
Speaker 3: on what the former president can discuss regarding his case
Speaker 3: and the accusations that he tried to obstruct the twenty
Speaker 3: twenty election. Zoe, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3: I understand the former president is not supposed to discuss
Speaker 3: sensitive detail on this case. Can you walk us through
Speaker 3: what counts as sensitive?
Speaker 5: That's right.
Speaker 6: You know, typically in a criminal case, the government will
Speaker 6: ask for what's known as a protective order, and this
Speaker 6: is a pretty standard part of cases. It just means,
Speaker 6: you know, the parties and the lawyers can't take a
Speaker 6: lot of the evidence ahead of trial and share it
Speaker 6: with the public, you know, make sure that witnesses aren't
Speaker 6: placed in jeopardy, and sort of the integrity of the
Speaker 6: trial is maintained. And the fight here had been over,
Speaker 6: you know, how much of the evidence in this case
Speaker 6: would be covered by those kinds of restrictions. And Trump
Speaker 6: and his lawyers had already agreed, for instance, that information
Speaker 6: about you know, secret grand jury proceedings, you know, things
Speaker 6: that were obviously sensitive quote unquote, that was not an issue,
Speaker 6: but they did want to have the government, you know,
Speaker 6: clearly state what it believed was sensitive in for instance,
Speaker 6: witness interviews, and then everything else could potentially be discussed
Speaker 6: on air, on the campaign trail wherever by the former
Speaker 6: president and his attorneys. So you know, it wasn't any
Speaker 6: specific category of evidence that's specified in court, but it's
Speaker 6: more sort of broad strokes whether or not, you know,
Speaker 6: all of it is considered off limits, or whether you know,
Speaker 6: he has some leeway to talk about what he's getting
Speaker 6: from the government.
Speaker 7: Well, and of course Zoe Trump on True Social for example,
Speaker 7: had said that a protective order would violate his right
Speaker 7: to free speech, which is the same indication we've gotten
Speaker 7: from his defense attorneys that they're going to argue in
Speaker 7: this actual case when it goes to trial, is that
Speaker 7: the president, the former president, had a right to say
Speaker 7: the things he was saying, et cetera. It's noteworthy to
Speaker 7: me that Judge Chudkin in this hearing said that while
Speaker 7: the former president does have a First Amendment right to
Speaker 7: free speech, that right is quote not absolute, and I
Speaker 7: just wonder if that also has implications ultimately for his
Speaker 7: wider defense.
Speaker 6: You know, it's not unexpected that a judge would say,
Speaker 6: in the context of a criminal case case, you know,
Speaker 6: whatever else is happening out in the world, my job
Speaker 6: is to protect the integrity of these proceedings. And that's
Speaker 6: really what we heard from her today is she said,
Speaker 6: whatever the implications are in the political realm for you,
Speaker 6: for anyone else, you know, she has to make sure
Speaker 6: that witnesses are secure, she has to make sure that
Speaker 6: a jury can be seated in the case. And so,
Speaker 6: you know, she said that she was mindful of the
Speaker 6: First Amendment implications and did have to take those into consideration.
Speaker 6: That was sort of pushing back on the government a bit,
Speaker 6: but ultimately, you know, her job is not to worry
Speaker 6: about you know, what it means for Trump's campaign is
Speaker 6: what she said.
Speaker 3: To them, Zoe, I'm curious, can they hold the former
Speaker 3: president to this or what happens if he decides he
Speaker 3: doesn't want to cooperate and he just starts posting everything
Speaker 3: on truth social.
Speaker 6: Sure, so separate from this protective order. As a condition
Speaker 6: of being allowed to remain free ahead of trial, he
Speaker 6: already had to agree that he wouldn't do anything that
Speaker 6: would jeopardize witness security or you know, the the integrity
Speaker 6: of the case. And that the judge noted that was
Speaker 6: even broader than any restrictions that she would place on
Speaker 6: what evidence he could or could not talk about. You know,
Speaker 6: what we've seen in other high profile cases is judges
Speaker 6: starting out with you know, warnings, sort of informal admonitions
Speaker 6: to parties to say, listen, you know, I'm not going
Speaker 6: to tell you can't say X, Y and Z right now,
Speaker 6: but if it's crossing a line, I may have to
Speaker 6: call you back. And that's what she's done here. So
Speaker 6: in the future if she feels that he is well
Speaker 6: for us to be violates the protective order, that is
Speaker 6: a clear problem in the government. Can you ask for
Speaker 6: additional restrictions. But if the judge, you know, sees things
Speaker 6: happening out in public, and if the government brings them
Speaker 6: to her attention, she can bring him back in and
Speaker 6: potentially say I'm considering a more restrictive limit on what
Speaker 6: we can talk about, and then they would argue over that.
Speaker 7: And of course, Zoe, this is just as it pertains
Speaker 7: to this particular case, this particular indictment of which there's
Speaker 7: already been three for the former president, and now next
Speaker 7: week we're expecting there could be a fourth in Fulton County, Georgia,
Speaker 7: in District Attorney Fannie Willis also potentially could bring charges
Speaker 7: in relation to overturning the twenty twenty election result in
Speaker 7: that state. What should we be looking for, what should
Speaker 7: we be expecting next week?
Speaker 6: You know, we are are you know, waiting to see
Speaker 6: how many people will be charged in Georgia, whether it
Speaker 6: will just be the former president, if it will be
Speaker 6: you know, local and state officials and actors who signed off,
Speaker 6: for instance, on the false certification saying that Trump had
Speaker 6: won the state, Whether it'll involve any of his allies
Speaker 6: in efforts to overturn the twenty twenty election, people like
Speaker 6: Rudy Giuliani, you know. And then we're looking to see how,
Speaker 6: if there is an indictment, how it's crafted. Is it
Speaker 6: going to be a sprawling racketeering case. Is it going
Speaker 6: to be a more limited set of charges under state law.
Speaker 6: There are really a lot of open questions right now
Speaker 6: about what that could look like.
Speaker 5: Zoe.
Speaker 3: While we've got you are our legal reporter here on
Speaker 3: the phone with us, I have to ask you your
Speaker 3: takeaway on the importance of the announcement that David Weiss
Speaker 3: will be a special counsel investigating Hunter Biden. What do
Speaker 3: you see as the practical difference and the impact of
Speaker 3: that designation as a special counsel?
Speaker 6: Sure? So, practically, what it means is that David Weiss
Speaker 6: is no longer subject to the normal chain of command
Speaker 6: that would have him answering to political appointees at the
Speaker 6: Justice Department. This is a step that's normally done in
Speaker 6: situations where the Attorney General has to be concerned about,
Speaker 6: you know, perceptions, perception or reality of political influence in
Speaker 6: an investigation that just has political implications. So we had
Speaker 6: a special counsel for Trump after Trump announced he was
Speaker 6: running against Biden for the White House in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 6: a special council to investigate President Biden, you know, Mark
Speaker 6: Garland's boss. The reason for that is, you know, it's
Speaker 6: I think clear. And now we've had Republicans really probing
Speaker 6: the Hunter Biden case and demanding there be more steps
Speaker 6: to insulate whatever happens to Hunter Biden from his father's administration.
Speaker 6: And you know, this appointment seems to be responding to that,
Speaker 6: or at least taking it into account and trying to
Speaker 6: head off accusations of bias or influence in whatever ends
Speaker 6: up happening with Hunter Biden in or out of court.
Speaker 3: Well, that'll be really important to follow. And thank you
Speaker 3: so much Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg Legal reporter, for joining us
Speaker 3: on the variety of legal cases we've got to follow
Speaker 3: regarding president and sons and former presidents.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern.
Speaker 2: On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Business app.
Speaker 1: Or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: Well, you've heard the response so far from congressional Republicans
Speaker 3: to this announcement by Attorney General Merrick Garland that he's
Speaker 3: naming David Weiss as special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden,
Speaker 3: and it's not a friendly response from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 3: I'll read you part of the statement from Speaker Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 3: who said that this quote cannot be used to obstruct
Speaker 3: congressional investigations or whitewash the Biden family corruption. He also
Speaker 3: notes that Weiss was the one who negotiated the plea
Speaker 3: deal that fell apart last month, asking how can he
Speaker 3: be trusted as a special counsel? So some negative feelings
Speaker 3: in response to today's announcement on a special council to
Speaker 3: investigate Hunter Biden. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick here from Bloomberg Government,
Speaker 3: filling in for Joe Matthew with our politics panel, our
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie she and Zano and Rick Davis. Jeanie,
Speaker 3: let's start with you. Should we be surprised at all
Speaker 3: that Republicans are all seemingly against this? There's another comment
Speaker 3: from James Comer. The Oversight Share is very negative about this,
Speaker 3: and what does that mean? It seems like they're much
Speaker 3: more interested in their own congressional investigations.
Speaker 8: They are, and the statement you just read from Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 8: you know, they are repeating these talking points. You know,
Speaker 8: whitewashing is a term they're using. A sweetheart deal is
Speaker 8: another one, and so I think that they are going
Speaker 8: to continue to make this case. They do feel that
Speaker 8: Merrick Garland, by taking this step, something that some people
Speaker 8: may think they would welcome, is actually an attempt to
Speaker 8: rob them of their power to investigate, which is not true.
Speaker 8: They can still investigate, but also is an attempt to
Speaker 8: say this is independent of the White House, We've got
Speaker 8: this under control and move on. And of course Republicans
Speaker 8: don't want to do that. So they are going to
Speaker 8: keep driving this home and they are not going to
Speaker 8: be happy with Weiss, who they see or they thought
Speaker 8: gave the Hunter Biden or was willing to give Hunter
Speaker 8: Biden this sweetheart deal after five years of investigation, Rick, what.
Speaker 3: Do you make of the emphasis from Speaker McCarthy from
Speaker 3: James Commer on the Oversight Committee of prioritizing their own
Speaker 3: congressional investigations. I'm wondering in particular, if this is sort
Speaker 3: of an impeachment or bust campaign by Republicans.
Speaker 9: Yeah, obviously Comer wants to sort of have this all
Speaker 9: result in an impeachment inquiry, the direct line going to
Speaker 9: Biden himself, the president, and this muddy's that water, right,
Speaker 9: This takes it out out of some of his hands.
Speaker 9: It will freeze up potentially in his mind. Some witnesses
Speaker 9: who you know, will have jeopardy if it if they
Speaker 9: don't get some kind of immunity, and of course they
Speaker 9: can't do that in Congress. So yeah, I mean, it
Speaker 9: definitely muddies the water for a clean cut investigation. But
Speaker 9: I really actually think it has more to do with
Speaker 9: just the pr nature this whole thing. I'm not sure that,
Speaker 9: you know, the investigators in the House have actually found anything,
Speaker 9: and they've been at it for some time, and there's
Speaker 9: a real dispute as to whether or not any of
Speaker 9: this has anything to do with Joe Biden. And so
Speaker 9: the question is does this take away from their sort
Speaker 9: of megaphone right, their ability to demagogue this politically is
Speaker 9: going to be harmed by this, And I think That's
Speaker 9: what we're really seeing a reaction to, is that it's
Speaker 9: just going to take some of the attention away from
Speaker 9: this and people will check the box and say, Okay,
Speaker 9: we'll wait and see what Justice Department comes up with.
Speaker 3: It's a good point, Rick, and it makes me wonder
Speaker 3: about the timing. If you were are entirely looking at
Speaker 3: this as a way to cut the legs out from
Speaker 3: under President Biden politically, I don't know if you would
Speaker 3: make announcements about this in August of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 3: maybe you'd want it to be a little later. Now
Speaker 3: we don't know when this report will come out. We
Speaker 3: know that there will eventually be a report from the
Speaker 3: Special Council. Genie, what are your expectations for the timing
Speaker 3: and especially what that timing means for how this does
Speaker 3: or doesn't get politicized.
Speaker 8: You know it's going to be politicized either way. I
Speaker 8: don't have a good estimate on what the timing of
Speaker 8: something like that will be, but we are in the
Speaker 8: heart of election season, particularly as we get to Labor Day.
Speaker 8: I don't suspect we'll see anything before that, and so
Speaker 8: it is going to muddy the waters for both the
Speaker 8: Biden administration. It's going to be in a what aboutism
Speaker 8: that the Trump campaign will be able to use. House
Speaker 8: Republicans are going to come back September twelfth. It's going
Speaker 8: to be all Hunter Biden all the time. And so
Speaker 8: it is going to be an ongoing issue. If the
Speaker 8: the report somehow clears the president and again there's been
Speaker 8: no evidence connecting him heretofore to date, it's still going
Speaker 8: to be an attempt by Republicans in the House in
Speaker 8: particular to try to connect him to what they see
Speaker 8: as a problematic activities by Hunter Biden. And I think
Speaker 8: they are problematic. And Elizabeth Warren was one of the
Speaker 8: most recent Senators to make that case, and she is right.
Speaker 8: What Hunter Biden has done, what we've seen family members
Speaker 8: like Jared Kushner do, it is incredibly problematic. And if
Speaker 8: it is legal, that's something that Congress can address to
Speaker 8: try to make sure we have better ethics and government.
Speaker 3: Well, I guess we are at the point where everything
Speaker 3: is at least a little politicized through the lens of
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four. It's not twenty twenty four yet, but
Speaker 3: it almost feels like it, and there are candidates in
Speaker 3: Iowa at the Iowa State Fair. We've got a clip
Speaker 3: from the former Vice president Mike Pence, who's on the
Speaker 3: trail talking about entitlements, about Social Security and Medicare. I'm
Speaker 3: curious how smart it is for any strategy for a
Speaker 3: Republican to bring this up. Let's play Mike Pence's comments
Speaker 3: on those programs.
Speaker 10: Look, social Security and medicare a promise we've made to
Speaker 10: the American people, Right, We're gonna keep that promise. You'll
Speaker 10: hear the demagogues again, you know, saying that Republicans are
Speaker 10: gonna cut benefits to Grahama.
Speaker 5: It's common.
Speaker 3: So I haven't heard anybody specifically propose cutting benefits to
Speaker 3: your grandmother, although there are some proposals to raise the
Speaker 3: age of eligibility. I am very curious after the age
Speaker 3: of Donald Trump, moving the party away from looking at
Speaker 3: the solvency of those programs. Rick, do you see any
Speaker 3: kind of special or smart approach from somebody like Mike
Speaker 3: Pence who's trying to I guess, acknowledge those even though
Speaker 3: it's a dicey topic.
Speaker 9: Yeah, it is a dicey topic. It's not something that
Speaker 9: other Republicans are anxious to weigh in on. You really
Speaker 9: wonder in the pulling data whether or not people are
Speaker 9: worried about this. I just recall in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 9: people were frantic about the fact that Social Security was
Speaker 9: going under and they were going to, you know, lose
Speaker 9: their benefits because of the financial problems associated with it.
Speaker 9: In campaigns, including the McCain campaign, we're talking about social
Speaker 9: security reform as a positive. This is clearly something that
Speaker 9: Vice President Pence thinks will differentiate him from the field,
Speaker 9: including Donald Trump, who has said, you know, very directly
Speaker 9: that you know he's not going to touch social Security.
Speaker 9: So I think it's more a political ploy right now.
Speaker 9: But the problem is you start then saying what you're
Speaker 9: going to do about it, and you start dividing the country.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: Certainly a different approach from Pence compared to Trump on
Speaker 3: social Security and Medicare. There'll be an interesting angle for
Speaker 3: the rest of this cycle.
Speaker 1: If you're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast, catch
Speaker 1: the program law I have week days at one Eastern
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com.
Speaker 5: And the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station Just Say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: Plenty of China news and analysis to discuss today. I'm
Speaker 3: Jack Fitzpatrick from Bloomberg Government, sitting in for Joe Matthew
Speaker 3: here co hosting with Kaylee Lines and Kaylee I am
Speaker 3: struck by the back and forth what appears to be
Speaker 3: a careful approach yesterday towards China with a seemingly sort
Speaker 3: of scaled back executive order on investment issues, but also
Speaker 3: some kind of glib comments about China's economy referring to
Speaker 3: it as a ticking time bomb by President Biden, sort
Speaker 3: of shooting from the hip recently. And we are joined
Speaker 3: now by David Weston, host of Wall Street Week, who
Speaker 3: I understand also spoke to Deborah Lair at the Paulson Institute. David,
Speaker 3: how do you make sense of the back and forth
Speaker 3: between hot and cold with regard to the president's stance
Speaker 3: on China.
Speaker 11: Well, it's great to be with you. You know, as
Speaker 11: one I heard once that fauxpa in Washington is when
Speaker 11: you speak the truth by accident, and you have to
Speaker 11: wonder about comments like this. You have to bear in mind,
Speaker 11: of course, he was appearing before fundraisers, right. He was
Speaker 11: trying to raise money out there in Utah, and I
Speaker 11: wonder whether it's positioning him for the election. We did
Speaker 11: talk to Debora Lair, who spent a lot of time
Speaker 11: in China with Hank Paulson. She's the vice chair of
Speaker 11: his foundation as well as working at Edelbin Global Advisory,
Speaker 11: and I asked her, among other things, about what she
Speaker 11: made of these comments and what it said, very specifically
Speaker 11: about where the respective parties may well be on China
Speaker 11: coming up to the next election. This is what she said.
Speaker 12: China has always been a focus in election campaigns, and
Speaker 12: it will be again this year in a very heated way.
Speaker 12: I'm sure both sides are looking to see how tough
Speaker 12: they can be when it comes to China. What we
Speaker 12: hope is, in the context of looking at being tough
Speaker 12: on China, we remain laser focused on what we need
Speaker 12: to be doing to ensure that the United States remains competitive,
Speaker 12: and that we're doing things that don't isolate our companies
Speaker 12: but instead ensure that they remain competitive, because after all,
Speaker 12: our economic security is what underpins our national security.
Speaker 11: Yeah, that's Deborah Lairs of the Edelman global advisory and
Speaker 11: the thing that actually when I heard about this first
Speaker 11: thing this morning, Jack and Kaylee, I thought about and
Speaker 11: you won't remember this, I barely do. When John Kennedy
Speaker 11: was running for Presidents Nixon, he came out early to
Speaker 11: make sure he was to the right of Nixon on Russia,
Speaker 11: on the Soviet Union. And I wonder whether this was
Speaker 11: actually President Biden making sure he was to the right
Speaker 11: if I can use that expression of whoever runs for
Speaker 11: the Republicans on China.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm very curious, especially David, because you mentioned earlier
Speaker 3: he did make these comments on the Chinese economy at
Speaker 3: a fundraiser where you often, I guess, get less scripted comments.
Speaker 3: But I'm curious if we can chalk this up to
Speaker 3: sort of a Joe Biden accidental gaff kind of thing,
Speaker 3: or is this a natural outgrowth of a political pressure
Speaker 3: that is multiple administrations deep? I mean, do we have
Speaker 3: a clear answer on the motivations there in your view?
Speaker 11: Well, certainly I can't get him inside the president's mind
Speaker 11: at all, and I don't know that he ever wanted
Speaker 11: this to come out in this way, But I think
Speaker 11: at the very least what it does indicate is his
Speaker 11: state of mind in where he wants to communicate to
Speaker 11: the people who are giving him money. Where he is
Speaker 11: on China, and that is, I'm going to be really
Speaker 11: tough on China. That's the wayt least I read it.
Speaker 11: He doesn't want the Republicans to come in and say
Speaker 11: you're soft on China.
Speaker 7: Well, it's so interesting to me, David that words are words.
Speaker 7: Obviously action is action, and maybe he's being a little
Speaker 7: less careful with some of the specific wording than the
Speaker 7: administration is being very intentional with the specific action, like
Speaker 7: this executive order, which was quite narrow in scope. High
Speaker 7: fence for small yards is what they're calling it. And
Speaker 7: maybe that's a good thing for me. I wonder how
Speaker 7: Wall Street should be looking at this very careful strategy
Speaker 7: when it comes to China.
Speaker 11: Well, I think that's a great point, Kaylee. I'm sure
Speaker 11: investors want to look at what he's doing much more
Speaker 11: than what he's saying. At the same time, this was
Speaker 11: again going back to John Kennedy. You remember he got
Speaker 11: really to the right of Nixon on Soviet Union, and
Speaker 11: then what did he do once he got in office.
Speaker 11: He did the Bay of Pigs, And the question is
Speaker 11: is it possible for a candidate to some extent to
Speaker 11: pay themselves in a corner on policy, so they have
Speaker 11: to be tough once they get re elected, and it
Speaker 11: really affects policy in that respect. I mean, some people
Speaker 11: might suggest that happened with Saudi Arabia with candidate Joe Biden.
Speaker 11: When he got an office, he had taken such a
Speaker 11: strong position in Saudi Arabia, he almost had no choice.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm curious the degree to which the politics drive
Speaker 3: the policy and maybe policy mistakes. I spoke earlier with
Speaker 3: Tom Orlick, Bloomberg chief economist, who made a case in
Speaker 3: a piece this morning that there seems to be, I guess,
Speaker 3: a false idea that there's this binary choice between China
Speaker 3: either collapsing or taking over the world, that a lot
Speaker 3: of the political rhetoric is almost cartoonishly binary. David, I mean,
Speaker 3: is this a case in which the politics have led
Speaker 3: policy makers to oversimplify the issues there?
Speaker 5: Well, we all do.
Speaker 11: I'm going to say, I think we in the media
Speaker 11: sometimes overslimplified too. So I'm not going to point too
Speaker 11: many fingers at people. I'm sure that you're right, Jack,
Speaker 11: but I also want to take a half step back.
Speaker 11: China has its own struggles right now, without regard to
Speaker 11: the United States, whatever our position is, whatever our policies is,
Speaker 11: they're facing President She is facing a lot of challenges
Speaker 11: that we went over with debrel air, and he's got
Speaker 11: a long way to go to really get his economy
Speaker 11: going again, and it's not clear exactly how quickly or
Speaker 11: effectively he can do that. I think that may be
Speaker 11: in some ways the larger issue for investors, because obviously
Speaker 11: a China that isn't growing is not good for the
Speaker 11: global economy.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and so China's economy obviously is a very sensitive
Speaker 7: issue for Beijing. Speaking of sensitive issues, some like the
Speaker 7: economy of China, President Biden speaks on other sensitive issues
Speaker 7: he is more reluctant to do so. One of those,
Speaker 7: David being his son. I know, I feel like every
Speaker 7: Friday you come on sound On and we ask you
Speaker 7: to put on your lawyer hat. I'd like to do
Speaker 7: so again. Just given the news of today a special
Speaker 7: counsel being appointed in the investigation into his son Hunter Biden.
Speaker 7: This is actually just the US attorney in Delaware who
Speaker 7: already was investigating him now being given this designation as
Speaker 7: an attorney. How consequential is this. Jack was asking one
Speaker 7: of our legal reporters about this earlier, but do you
Speaker 7: think it's going to be enough to be satisfactory for
Speaker 7: some of the critics of the Justice Department in this matter?
Speaker 11: Well, you should tell you with the legal reporters, say,
Speaker 11: because I want to get crosswise of our legal reporters.
Speaker 11: But I was watching Merrek Garland, with whom I clerk
Speaker 11: you know for a couple of years. I've known him
Speaker 11: quite well in the past as he made that announcement,
Speaker 11: and I thought two things right away. One is this
Speaker 11: is really proof positive what he and to be Frank
Speaker 11: President Biden been saying, which is he is independent of
Speaker 11: the White House. This can't be something that the White
Speaker 11: House was urging or wanted or wanted to tolerate. But
Speaker 11: he was proving he is independent of the White House.
Speaker 11: And now the special Counsel Jack Smith is gonna be
Speaker 11: even more independent because he's really out from under to
Speaker 11: a large degree Merrick Garland himself, and I am afraid
Speaker 11: for the President because it will not be fun for him.
Speaker 11: I think this means it's not going away anytime soon.
Speaker 11: The one thing we have experienced with special counsels is
Speaker 11: once you appoint him, they keep.
Speaker 3: Going right, even if it's not a massive expansion of
Speaker 3: the investigation. This is not a scaling back of the investigation.
Speaker 3: David Weston, thank you so much for joining us, host
Speaker 3: of Wall Street Week. Great insights on China policy, Merrit
Speaker 3: Garland being very careful. You know who hasn't been careful
Speaker 3: lately is Paul Krugman with his predictions of the Alien
Speaker 3: war and the inflation that apparently will come out. We're
Speaker 3: going to wrap up with some weird stuff on that,
Speaker 3: but for now, I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg here
Speaker 3: with Kaylee Lines.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com.
Speaker 5: And the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: So the Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman was on the
Speaker 3: latest episode of the odd Locks podcast. Of course, you
Speaker 3: can download that anywhere you get your podcasts, and he
Speaker 3: seemed very confident in his prediction of what economically would
Speaker 3: happen if there is an alien invasion. We bring you
Speaker 3: the freshest analysis here. Let's play Kruman's comments.
Speaker 13: And I'm contested alien invasion. I guess it kind of
Speaker 13: depends on how they run the occupation. But the actual
Speaker 13: wars are always inflationary. I can't think of one that wasn't.
Speaker 3: Kayley is quite confident that if they, if they arrive,
Speaker 3: we are going to war with the aliens.
Speaker 7: I have so much to say about this. This is
Speaker 7: a Nobel laureate, so we should take his words seriously.
Speaker 7: But I guess my question is what kind of aliens
Speaker 7: are we talking about? Why would we have to go
Speaker 7: to war with them? What if we could be friends?
Speaker 3: I have to disagree with him. I think we'd be friends.
Speaker 3: We'd establish trade. Whatever brought them all the way here.
Speaker 3: They must have a lot of minerals or electricity generations generation,
Speaker 3: and I think it would be disinflationary. I think we'd
Speaker 3: have a big supply boost. It could be copper or
Speaker 3: lightweight metal. Whatever happens, I want a full debate with
Speaker 3: Paul Krugman about the inflationary or disinflationary effects.
Speaker 7: I would buy a ticket.
Speaker 3: Yes, I'll go on for a full hour on that topic.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast.
Speaker 11: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 11: and
Speaker 9: Anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 9: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm
Speaker 9: Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.