Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney. Along
Speaker 1: with my co host of Bonnie Quinn. Every business day
Speaker 1: we bring you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts,
Speaker 1: along with essential market moving news. Kind the Bloomberg Markets
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Time checking out with Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Opinion or joined by opinion columnists. But oh so much
Speaker 1: more than that. His name is Stephen Roach and you
Speaker 1: will know him from his time as former chairman of
Speaker 1: Morgan Stanley Asia. Also, of course he's senior fellow at
Speaker 1: Yale University. Stephen want to talk to you about your
Speaker 1: call on the Dollar, but for us to have to
Speaker 1: ask you about this explosive book from John Bolton, all
Speaker 1: of the allegations that he didn't make when he had
Speaker 1: the chance to give testimony, but is now making in
Speaker 1: a book. You know the Chinese administration, possibly as well
Speaker 1: as anybody in the administration, probably much much more so.
Speaker 1: Do you believe the allegation that President and Tom pleaded
Speaker 1: with Mr she to help him win reelection by buying
Speaker 1: American agricultural products which would help President Trump in farm States.
Speaker 1: You know, Bunny, I I do not know you know
Speaker 1: the veracity of he said, she said, allegations, Um, in
Speaker 1: any of this political intrigue from you know, the Ukraine
Speaker 1: to UM Beijing. You you hear an awful lot. And
Speaker 1: you know it's it's clear that Um, you know, we
Speaker 1: we have a president who has pushed the envelope in
Speaker 1: his use of political leverage to achieve um, not just
Speaker 1: electoral results, but but economic results. And whether or not
Speaker 1: he did as um former National Scarity advisor of Bolton indicated,
Speaker 1: utilize that those tactics in addressing the China conflict for
Speaker 1: political purposes in the US, it remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: I mean, Trump will deny it, and Bolton has got
Speaker 1: another point of view. And UM, you know, I have
Speaker 1: no idea as to whether or not Bolton is right
Speaker 1: or as Trump's as he's lying. Um, the president has
Speaker 1: a inclination to stretch the truth a little bit as
Speaker 1: well as we have gathered from his eighteen thousand plus
Speaker 1: lies that have been fact chuffed by the Washington Post
Speaker 1: since he's been president. But you know, I I just
Speaker 1: I don't know. So Stephen, let's switch gears to your
Speaker 1: column here. Every time we have an f X strategist on,
Speaker 1: my first question is always give me the bear case
Speaker 1: for the U. S. Dollar. And I rarely get a
Speaker 1: good answer, or any answer at all, But I think
Speaker 1: you've got one force. What's your call on the U. S. Dollar. Well, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I'm not an epic strategist, Paul, so I don't have
Speaker 1: to do this for a living, because you know, currency
Speaker 1: calls are some of the toughest calls to do. But look,
Speaker 1: I worry about an unsustainable dynamic that is now emerging
Speaker 1: between domestic saving, or the lack of they are of
Speaker 1: in the US and our chronic current account problem, which
Speaker 1: requires US to borrow surplus foreign savings from abroad. We
Speaker 1: entered COVID with a historically low domestic savings rate of
Speaker 1: only one point four percent of national income in early
Speaker 1: forty five year averages seven. So we're we we have
Speaker 1: very inadequate saving UH and reflecting these explosive budget deficit
Speaker 1: trajectory that we're on right now. Um, as you know
Speaker 1: the Congress and the Administration addresses precipitous decline in economic activity,
Speaker 1: our saving is going to go into negative territory. Did
Speaker 1: that once before? In the global financial crisis, the average
Speaker 1: was a negative one um uh, you know over the
Speaker 1: uh two thousand nine to two thousand eleven period. But
Speaker 1: it's gonna go sharply negative, I think into the minus
Speaker 1: five area. And that's going to blow our current account
Speaker 1: deficit to a new record in excess of six and
Speaker 1: a half percent of GDP. The dollar serves the purpose
Speaker 1: of setting the equilibrium between savings and and you know,
Speaker 1: the current account, and so I'm looking for at client
Speaker 1: in the dollar over the next five years to address that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a stunning call thirty five decline in the value
Speaker 1: of the dollar. That would change the US economy irreptably,
Speaker 1: I imagine. Now you do say it's couched in terms
Speaker 1: of the comparison between the US the currencies of road
Speaker 1: basket of America's trading partners. Would that include the yuan?
Speaker 1: Will China be a trading partner in the future, Stephen, Yeah, Vonnie,
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, I mean it's a big number,
Speaker 1: but you know, if you look at the dollar, you
Speaker 1: know it's moved over the you know, the last um
Speaker 1: forty five years, we we had to we had two
Speaker 1: drops of in the seventies and again in the mid eighties,
Speaker 1: we had a drop of UM in the early two thousands. UM.
Speaker 1: These are against you know, broad trade weighted baskets of
Speaker 1: all of our trading partners. So this is not outside
Speaker 1: the realm of the dollar declines we've seen in the past.
Speaker 1: And it would you know, the dollar would fall against
Speaker 1: UM I think the Chinese room and b. Yes, surprisingly
Speaker 1: against the euro, which is the most unloved major currency
Speaker 1: in the world, but also against you know, the the
Speaker 1: Canadian dollar in the Mexican pay so, and probably even
Speaker 1: against gold and cryptocurrencies like the bitcoin. So I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a broad based decline reflecting some serious macroeconomic
Speaker 1: and balances that we're have long been evident in the
Speaker 1: US that are going from bad to worse as we speak, Stephen,
Speaker 1: very briefly, we only have just a couple of seconds.
Speaker 1: But good China really give the US dollar a run
Speaker 1: for reserve currency, not on an air term basis. I
Speaker 1: think UM. China's got a long way to go to
Speaker 1: liberalize its financial system, to make its currency fully convertible,
Speaker 1: open up its capital account, and China's got issues of
Speaker 1: its own. But our reserve position has come down over
Speaker 1: the last twenty years, and it's likely to go further
Speaker 1: down with the dollar coming under the pressure that I envisioned. Stephen,
Speaker 1: it is always a pleasure to speak with you, never
Speaker 1: enough time, but we thank you for joining us. Steven
Speaker 1: Roach is Senior Fellow at Yale Universe City, former chairman
Speaker 1: of Morganstown, the Asia and Bloomberg opinion columnists. Did you
Speaker 1: check out his latest column, how the coming crash and
Speaker 1: the Dollar will Unfold for more details on our conversation.
Speaker 1: Just then, looking at the market here again, let's think
Speaker 1: to step back a little bit. You think back to
Speaker 1: mid March when this all began, the market sank about
Speaker 1: thirty four thirty five pc. It since retraced a lot
Speaker 1: of that move coming off the bottom, driven in large
Speaker 1: part by a federal reserve that has really been aggressive
Speaker 1: and in putting liquidity into the market. The question now
Speaker 1: for a lot of investors is what's the next step
Speaker 1: to help us answer that question. Lisa Schalett, chief investment
Speaker 1: Officer Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley. They have about almost
Speaker 1: two and a half a trillion dollars of client assets.
Speaker 1: She joins us on the phone. Lisa, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining us once again, What are you hearing from
Speaker 1: great to have you? What are you hearing from your
Speaker 1: clients right now? Are they do they feel like, oh
Speaker 1: g I missed out on this rally, or I don't
Speaker 1: believe it is rally. What are you hearing most office,
Speaker 1: most often from the Morgan Stanley clients. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: from our clients, and I think it's quite typical of
Speaker 1: many private wealth clients. Is a continued level of skepticism, uh,
Speaker 1: skepticism that that the country is quote unquote in the
Speaker 1: clear with regard to the virus, skepticism that uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the market is reflecting the economic reality that they see
Speaker 1: on the ground. Uh. And and really skeptical about the
Speaker 1: longer uh term. I mean, don't forget our typical client
Speaker 1: is uh you know someone uh that that's probably over
Speaker 1: fifty five over sixty uh And they have, you know,
Speaker 1: some historic perspective, and so they're asking us a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about what are the implications longer term of
Speaker 1: this rapid money growth by the FED, of the exploding
Speaker 1: deficits and debt. Uh. And so I think that there
Speaker 1: is a large amount of cash on the sidelines, which
Speaker 1: is certainly a constructive element for this market. But our clients,
Speaker 1: for the most part, are are holding back, and I
Speaker 1: think that they're waiting for a little bit more evidence
Speaker 1: that things are truly improving, uh, and that you know,
Speaker 1: profits are catching up to the to this market which
Speaker 1: has anticipated a lot of recovery already, Lisa, are they
Speaker 1: not then embracing the V shaped recovery narrative? And in
Speaker 1: that situation, did the FED chair and give them all
Speaker 1: the more ammunition to not embrace that? Yeah? So you know,
Speaker 1: we definitely, you know, we're writing about this. So look, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, my my team and the folks on the
Speaker 1: Global Investment Committee at Morgan Stanley have been trying to
Speaker 1: to lay out that narrative and explain to folks and
Speaker 1: our clients that, you know, the way markets work is, uh,
Speaker 1: it's not about the level. It's all about rates of change,
Speaker 1: and it's all about upside surprises. And if you get
Speaker 1: positive rates of change and upside surprises, market tend to
Speaker 1: go up and climb the wall of worry. Um. That
Speaker 1: having been said, you know, when you have a FED
Speaker 1: that comes out and says, hey, you know, we don't
Speaker 1: think that, uh, that the economy is going to be
Speaker 1: back to where it was in January until the end
Speaker 1: of two I mean, my goodness, that's two and a
Speaker 1: half years from now. Uh. That's a pretty sobering statement,
Speaker 1: uh from the Fed. And I think, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: for folks who are more conservative who've sat in the
Speaker 1: bond market, uh, you know, trying to take shelter, probably
Speaker 1: heard those messages and said, you know, holy gosh, you know,
Speaker 1: he the FED doesn't think we're going to get out
Speaker 1: of this anytime soon. So where what are you suggesting
Speaker 1: to your clients that they as as they think about
Speaker 1: perhaps even allocating some new capital. Is it a typical
Speaker 1: sixty forty allocation or you perhaps be a little bit
Speaker 1: more cautious now. So we're on the other side of that.
Speaker 1: So again, you know, we're trying to encourage folks and
Speaker 1: race through the what we have learned through uh, you know,
Speaker 1: our history of of investing in markets, and that is
Speaker 1: uh that you know, uh bull markets, bear markets sent
Speaker 1: to end when recessions begin. The recession began uh in February. Uh,
Speaker 1: and we believe we're in the process of, you know,
Speaker 1: forming a bottom in this recession, and the market is
Speaker 1: setting up uh for a new bowl market. Uh. And
Speaker 1: that ball market UH is probably going to behave the
Speaker 1: way others have coming out of a recession, which is
Speaker 1: a preference for early cyclicals things like financial industrials, materials,
Speaker 1: transport to energy UH. And those are the types of
Speaker 1: areas that are not excessively overvalued today, but where we
Speaker 1: do think that there's upside surprise that could come. And
Speaker 1: so you know, we are encouraging folks UH to take
Speaker 1: some risk here and balance those conservative portfolios, many of
Speaker 1: which on the stock side have been loaded up with
Speaker 1: the usual names and you all know what they are,
Speaker 1: the right tech stocks. Very basicly though, Lisa, if it's
Speaker 1: not your typical recession, then will the market perform in
Speaker 1: the typical pollst recession away after this? Uh? So, I
Speaker 1: guess my response to that is there's never a typical recession.
Speaker 1: And so while the economic composition of every every single
Speaker 1: recession is different, and where the excess is and where
Speaker 1: the stress points are and where the victims are UH
Speaker 1: is always different, the market playbook UH tends to be
Speaker 1: very very very similar. UH. And that's what we're trying
Speaker 1: to tell clients is, yes, you know, maybe in the
Speaker 1: last recession we were worried about financials and housing. In
Speaker 1: the one before that, we were worried about the tech wreck. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, perhaps this one we're worried about, you know,
Speaker 1: parts of consumer discretionary in retail that are structurally impaired.
Speaker 1: But never the last. We are going to have an
Speaker 1: economic recovery and the markets probably very similar way. Lisa,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us this morning. That's Lisa's Challotte see
Speaker 1: io of Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley. Of course, client assets,
Speaker 1: they're totally nearly two and a half trillion dollars, so
Speaker 1: a lot of money to put to work. Now. I
Speaker 1: want to bring in our next guest for a fascinating
Speaker 1: discussion on a certain book that has come to the
Speaker 1: attention of publishers all over the world. It's it's coming out.
Speaker 1: Apparently pre orders are through the roof, and there's also
Speaker 1: a movement asking people not to buy the book. Of course,
Speaker 1: talking about the book that John Bolton has written about
Speaker 1: his time in the administration seventeen months as a National
Speaker 1: security adviser. Let's bring in somebody who can talk to
Speaker 1: this for us. Bloomberg New Economy Editorial Director Andy Brown. Andy,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining. Good be with you. How much heft
Speaker 1: does John Bolton have as a critic of President Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's always been a man of a little
Speaker 1: bit of bluster from time to time, partial to some
Speaker 1: dramatic moments, you could say, will it have an impact
Speaker 1: on concrete things like pulling like voters? Um. I think
Speaker 1: this is why the book is so sensational, UM, and
Speaker 1: why people are taking these allegations so seriously that you know,
Speaker 1: Bolton um has enormous credibility as a hawk. Um. He
Speaker 1: is an uber hook on China, on North Korea, on Iran, UM.
Speaker 1: You know, when he has a record of administer of
Speaker 1: being in successive Republican administrations. I mean this, this is
Speaker 1: not some liberal tossing accusations that at Trump. This is
Speaker 1: somebody who was by his side as his National Security
Speaker 1: director for seventeen months, and he was privy to all
Speaker 1: of the conversations or many of the conversations that he
Speaker 1: had with heads of state all over the world, including
Speaker 1: China's Ji Jimping. Let's go there, Andy. You know, they're
Speaker 1: interesting excerpts I've read about President Trump, you know, effectively
Speaker 1: begging for China to buy farm products US farm products
Speaker 1: to improve Presidents Trump's chances with those farm states in
Speaker 1: the election. What are some of your takeaways on the
Speaker 1: aspects of the book that have been reported as it
Speaker 1: relates to China. It's it's it's absolutely devastating. I mean,
Speaker 1: if if what Bolton is saying is true, it is
Speaker 1: absolutely devastating for Donald Trump. I mean, a major plank
Speaker 1: in his re election campaign was supposed to be tough
Speaker 1: on China in contrast to Joe Biden, who is supposed
Speaker 1: to be feckless and weak. And in fact, the account
Speaker 1: of John Balton shows a US president who is a
Speaker 1: pushover in almost every on almost every issue, uh, in
Speaker 1: the U S. China relationship that matters, whether that national security,
Speaker 1: whether that's trade, whether that's human rights, whether that's Hong
Speaker 1: Kong Um. He comes across as as you say, is
Speaker 1: an absolute supplicant begging Jim paying to buy you as
Speaker 1: agricultural products so that he could win the next election.
Speaker 1: If John Bolden felt so strongly about this though, and
Speaker 1: felt that these revelations were so explosive as to really
Speaker 1: dent the president's credibility, why didn't he testify in the
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings? Yeah, exactly, I mean that's a good point,
Speaker 1: and and and clearly that that that's that's where he's weak,
Speaker 1: and that's why the Democrats are hopping mad so, I mean,
Speaker 1: his his his accusation against the Democrats is that they
Speaker 1: focused their impeachment to narrowly on Ukraine. And if only
Speaker 1: they had known about the that the breadth of this, um,
Speaker 1: you know, effort to basically sell American interest in in
Speaker 1: return for private political favor that you know, this might
Speaker 1: have got the president impeached. Um so, I mean if
Speaker 1: he had all this, why didn't he dish earlier during
Speaker 1: the impeachment process and instead of waiting for his lucrative
Speaker 1: book contract two million bucks with Simon and Schusters. So
Speaker 1: it does, it does to an extent undermine the the
Speaker 1: his central accusations. So Andy, as it relates to China, here,
Speaker 1: what do you think the Chinese are rooting for in
Speaker 1: the November presidential election? Did they want former years of
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump? I think they'd be very happy to
Speaker 1: have another four years of Donald Trump. I mean, you
Speaker 1: know this is this is they had pegged him right
Speaker 1: from the start as as as a leader who would
Speaker 1: be susceptible to inducements, uh, to flattery. Um he was
Speaker 1: a businessman. He was transactional, and according to Bolton's account,
Speaker 1: that is precisely the way things have have turned out.
Speaker 1: And look, it's not just my opinion. We have some
Speaker 1: very good reporting out of out of our Beijing bureau
Speaker 1: um uh, you know. Um Pete Martin wrote a story
Speaker 1: he had interviewed a whole bunch of senior, current and
Speaker 1: retired Chinese government officials. They said, we want Trump uh.
Speaker 1: And the reason they cited is that Trump under minds
Speaker 1: US alliances and that is the one thing that the
Speaker 1: Chinese fear that is their biggest to them, their biggest threat.
Speaker 1: It is the US alliance instruction. And of course, I
Speaker 1: mean it is true what Bolton says, this sort of
Speaker 1: transactional nature. Putting everything on the table, including Huawei, including Zte,
Speaker 1: including the wig, is just tossing it all into the
Speaker 1: into the into into the part subsuming everything to getting
Speaker 1: a trade deal, in trading relations with um you know,
Speaker 1: with with with China. This is deeply corrosive of the
Speaker 1: trust that underpins US alliances all around the world, including
Speaker 1: in Asia. Maybe I'll be a little cynical, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't make it more likely that we will actually get
Speaker 1: a trade deal with China now, because both sides will
Speaker 1: be sort of falling over themselves to prove that there
Speaker 1: was there was no back room dealings and therefore you
Speaker 1: know that the two countries can get on well in public. Again,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's really hard to read. I mean, just
Speaker 1: had this meeting in Hawaii between um, you know, Segre
Speaker 1: State Pompeo and Young Jetro, China's top diplomat. UM. You know,
Speaker 1: trade would have trade, trade would have been on the table.
Speaker 1: We don't really know what the outcome of those talks was,
Speaker 1: although it doesn't appear to have to have it achieved
Speaker 1: anything that looks like a breakthrough, at least nothing that
Speaker 1: that that either side have announced. UM. It's also notable
Speaker 1: by the way that Robert Lightheiser, the chief US trade negotiator,
Speaker 1: has denied UM some of the more explosive claims that
Speaker 1: John Bolton made in his book. Yeah, and those China
Speaker 1: claims were just the beginning of it. And our thanks
Speaker 1: to you Andy Brown, editorial director for Bloomberg New Economy,
Speaker 1: for joining us there. Bolton saying Trump not fit for
Speaker 1: office and and lacks the competence to service president in
Speaker 1: part because he's solely focused on his political fortunes. I
Speaker 1: don't know many presidents for him, that's not a priority
Speaker 1: either though. Also, we've been reporting this morning a historic
Speaker 1: day from the Supreme Court on the immigration issue. A
Speaker 1: divided US Supreme Court stopped President Donald Trump from ending
Speaker 1: the Obama era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from
Speaker 1: deportation and lets them seek jobs. To take down deep
Speaker 1: into this, we're very fortunate to have our good friend
Speaker 1: June Grasso joined us June as a legal analyst and
Speaker 1: host of Bloomberg Law. You can hear that weekdays at
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. June, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us here. Give us your quick thoughts on this
Speaker 1: five four decision out of the Supreme Court. Well, this
Speaker 1: is the second time this week that the Court has
Speaker 1: ruled against the Trump administration. And this is a case
Speaker 1: where Justice Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four
Speaker 1: liberals in the court. So it's a five to four decision,
Speaker 1: and he basically said that no one's arguing that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration could terminate the DOCTA program. Everyone agrees it can,
Speaker 1: but they went about it in the wrong way. They
Speaker 1: didn't provide a reasoned explanation for why they were doing this.
Speaker 1: The way they acted was arbitrary and capricious. This is
Speaker 1: a decision that we have been waiting for. It's the
Speaker 1: it's the decision that we've been waiting for the longest.
Speaker 1: It was argued early in the term, so you see,
Speaker 1: it took a long time because there are so many
Speaker 1: different opinions. There's not only the decent and the majority opinion.
Speaker 1: There are concurrences, concurrencies in part, the scents in part.
Speaker 1: It's really complicated. So the line that I took from
Speaker 1: a tune was the appropriate recourse is therefore to remand
Speaker 1: to DHS so that it may consider the problem and
Speaker 1: new Does this mean that the Department of Holman Security
Speaker 1: will actually consider it, make better arguments and the Supreme
Speaker 1: Warrant won't have any objection at that point. Well, they
Speaker 1: could do that. This is what the chief said. You
Speaker 1: can take it back again and you can redo it.
Speaker 1: But the thing is that would take a long time
Speaker 1: because they'd have to come up with some reasoned explanation.
Speaker 1: They have to follow the rules, so it's unlocked. They
Speaker 1: could do that within the end of the Trump term,
Speaker 1: if he's elected to a second term. They can try
Speaker 1: to do that and come up with better explanations that
Speaker 1: will satisfy the Court that they've really thought this through.
Speaker 1: But this sort of reminds you of the Census case
Speaker 1: where the Supreme Court's kicking it down the road, saying, okay,
Speaker 1: you guys, take it back. Now, we're done with this
Speaker 1: and we'll see what you do next. So cho and
Speaker 1: for legal analysts like yourself, a Supreme Court watchers, how surprising,
Speaker 1: if at all, is it that how Justice Robert's voted here? Well,
Speaker 1: I thought it was surprising. This was a case that
Speaker 1: we didn't really have an inkling of how it was
Speaker 1: going to go. In other words, the case earlier this
Speaker 1: week on LGBT rights, that was a case where during
Speaker 1: the oral arguments you could sort of tell that justice
Speaker 1: course which might be leaning in the direction of um
Speaker 1: gay rights. However, with this case, it was very hard
Speaker 1: to tell what was going on. So I was very surprised.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people we're very surprised. And
Speaker 1: also it's always surprising when you see the Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts is now the swing vote that Anthony Kennedy was,
Speaker 1: and in the two cases this week he sided with
Speaker 1: the three liberals. Yeah, I mean, there's a whole range
Speaker 1: of things to be surprised at, not least that this
Speaker 1: was a five four decision as well. June remind us
Speaker 1: exactly how many people and who were talking about these
Speaker 1: are the Dreamers, almost seven thousand kids that were born
Speaker 1: here that would have had to leave if this wasn't upheld. Right,
Speaker 1: and President Barack Obama started this program that allows them
Speaker 1: to continue to work and find a way towards citizenship.
Speaker 1: President Trump said that it was not within his legal authority,
Speaker 1: president Obama's legal authority to have this program, so he
Speaker 1: ended it. So right now, the Dreamers have been in
Speaker 1: this sort of no man's land for so many months,
Speaker 1: and right now they can go on with the program,
Speaker 1: they can re up for more of the program. They
Speaker 1: can feel comfortable that they're not going to be deported,
Speaker 1: and that's the big thing. There was this question of
Speaker 1: whether if the Supreme Court had said that this DOCTA
Speaker 1: decision was absolutely right and the Trump could go ahead,
Speaker 1: then the question was would these six hundred and seventies
Speaker 1: seven hundred thousand young immigrants be deported And some of them, remember,
Speaker 1: don't even speak another language. They've been here so long
Speaker 1: they are American citizens, most of them are well employed,
Speaker 1: so it's it would be really it would be a
Speaker 1: torturous debate and it would really be controversial thing that
Speaker 1: would again cause you know, disruptions in the country. And
Speaker 1: I guess if if if it had gone the other way,
Speaker 1: then the potential was there for literally seven hundred thousand,
Speaker 1: you know, all but American and name kids to be deported,
Speaker 1: Uh you know a S A P. Just as Karence Thomas,
Speaker 1: Samuel Alito, Neil Gorza, gen Bred Kavanaugh all dissented. Yes,
Speaker 1: now Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas said that this was an
Speaker 1: effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision.
Speaker 1: So he said, this would find future administrations to what
Speaker 1: prior presidents doing executive order. So think about all the
Speaker 1: executive orders that President Trump has written and issued. Should
Speaker 1: the next president be bound by those? But of course,
Speaker 1: you know that's that's the legal issue. But Chief Justice
Speaker 1: Roberts said that that's not really the case because it's
Speaker 1: just a question of how they did it. And this
Speaker 1: happens all the time to the Trump administration in the
Speaker 1: courts on environmental issues. They don't follow the rules when
Speaker 1: they do these things. June, we have to give you go,
Speaker 1: but thank you do so. Legal analyst and host of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Local. Thanks for listening to Boomberg Markets podcast. You
Speaker 1: can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or
Speaker 1: whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Bonnie Quinn. I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Bonny Quinn. And Paul Sweeney I'm on Twitter
Speaker 1: at pt Sweeney. Before the podcast. You can always catch
Speaker 1: us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio m