Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel podcast. I'm Paul swing you,
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahma wits. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com. Paul, I'm trying to understand the
Speaker 1: significance of this story that came out earlier today. The
Speaker 1: United Nations experts now weighing in saying that Saudi Crown
Speaker 1: Prince Mohammed bin Salman was possibly involved in hacking the
Speaker 1: cell phone of Amazon dot Com CEO Jeff Bezos. And
Speaker 1: this was revealed after an Amazon investigation. This has to
Speaker 1: do with a What's App account that was infiltrated according
Speaker 1: to investigators back in ten Greg Farrell here to give
Speaker 1: us a little bit more clarity. He's an investigative reporter
Speaker 1: for the Legal enforcement team here at Bloomberg News. Greg,
Speaker 1: can you just sort of set the stage of what
Speaker 1: actually is alleged to have happened here well from what
Speaker 1: we know, um, after Jeff Bezos you know, photos from
Speaker 1: his personal life that contributed to or you know allow
Speaker 1: you know a year ago came out. Um, they his
Speaker 1: team started going through like with a fine tooth comb,
Speaker 1: everything is like, clearly he had been hacked. Clearly stuff
Speaker 1: had been stolen from him, digital images, etcetera, from his
Speaker 1: personal devices. So that started the process. In addition to that,
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors in New York started looking to see if
Speaker 1: there was any involvement by the National Enquirer UM with
Speaker 1: you know, uh, basically some you know, unlawful activity regarding
Speaker 1: this part of the investigation. UM went through you know,
Speaker 1: chapter in verse every interaction with what Pisos had and
Speaker 1: then um, you know, so there's there's a criminal investigation
Speaker 1: in Manhattan. Here. Separately, at the United Nations, there are
Speaker 1: a group of people dedicated to you know, justice for
Speaker 1: extra judicial killings who been very focused on the murder
Speaker 1: of Jamal Kashagi in October. They got involved with this
Speaker 1: as well, and they're the ones who put out a
Speaker 1: report today. And this is what the news reporting starting
Speaker 1: late last night indicated is that their findings based on
Speaker 1: the digital the forensic digital analysis of Bezos's phone indicated
Speaker 1: lots of evidence that at the time in May of
Speaker 1: after a benign what's app you know, transaction or what's
Speaker 1: app message from the Prince to Bezos, then suddenly afterwards
Speaker 1: there was this malignant, you know, coded file that got
Speaker 1: in something called Pegasus, which I don't understand god was,
Speaker 1: was placed in Bezos's phone and started exfiltrating massive amounts
Speaker 1: of data, far far larger than the normal amounts of
Speaker 1: data that would normally come in and out of a phone.
Speaker 1: So Greg is there do we have any sense of
Speaker 1: what Jeff Bezos would like to see happen. I mean,
Speaker 1: it looks like obviously his security was breached, and it
Speaker 1: was obviously had implication for him his personal life. But
Speaker 1: as he stated, what he wants to happen if in
Speaker 1: fact the Crown Prince is guilty of this or did
Speaker 1: do this, No, I think right now he's playing this
Speaker 1: carefully because there is a criminal investigation in New York
Speaker 1: into some of the conducts surrounding that. It's proceeded very slowly.
Speaker 1: But I think he's smart enough and he's getting the
Speaker 1: right advice not to get in front of it and
Speaker 1: decide what he wants to do, but to let the
Speaker 1: you know, the most important thing the criminal investigation proceed
Speaker 1: is the u N investigation somehow implying a connection between
Speaker 1: the killing of Tamaka Shogi and the Jeff Bezos hack
Speaker 1: or the leak of his personal information. Is that part
Speaker 1: of it or it just was that. Yeah, they're making
Speaker 1: their drawing that line. They're not there's no proof that
Speaker 1: this led to that. But you know that's what these
Speaker 1: people that the u WHEN are investigating. They're they're trying
Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of how and why in
Speaker 1: more details and hold those responsible for it the killing
Speaker 1: of kog So you know, it's this is another element
Speaker 1: to that whole storyline that the Saudi government has started
Speaker 1: denying completely and then denied in part and then found
Speaker 1: some people to find guilty um in a trial of
Speaker 1: sorts a closed trial in Saudi Arabia earlier this year.
Speaker 1: And the u N people are staying on this and
Speaker 1: what's Jeff Bezos connection to the Tamaka Shogi case. Just
Speaker 1: that Kau Shogi worked for the Washington Post, and so
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, most of the major newspapers and news
Speaker 1: media uh in this country have been very supportive of
Speaker 1: efforts to get to the bottom of this, but no
Speaker 1: one more than the Washington Post because he was one
Speaker 1: of them, greg Asor do we know whether the investigators
Speaker 1: are looking more broadly or are they just looking at
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos or their other prominent people that could be
Speaker 1: the targets of mbs IS or the Saudi government's hacking
Speaker 1: of phones. So two things they're one, we don't know
Speaker 1: what the prosecutors in Manhattan are doing. That seems pretty
Speaker 1: clear it's focused on the hack and the National Choir
Speaker 1: and whether or not the inquirer was culpable at all,
Speaker 1: and there's no evidence to suggest that there was. Separately, though,
Speaker 1: that's a much bigger question. And you've hit a very
Speaker 1: important point now that we know with a high degree
Speaker 1: of confidence, but not absolute certainty, that something some part,
Speaker 1: even if it wasn't the Crown Prince himself, but somebody
Speaker 1: in Saudi Arabia was interested in hacking into a prominent,
Speaker 1: wealthy Americans phone. This opens up the question, well, what
Speaker 1: other prominent American officials or figures with close ties to
Speaker 1: the government, um either the Trump administration or Congress, or
Speaker 1: in the business community who did a lot of dealings
Speaker 1: and had a you know, what they thought was a
Speaker 1: personal relationship or what's app relationship with the Crown Prince
Speaker 1: or other representatives of the Saudi ruler family. Has anybody
Speaker 1: else been hacked and we just don't know yet. So
Speaker 1: that's that's the bigger issue here, is that, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: as the Saudi government been doing this to a wide
Speaker 1: variety of people and if so, whom right, very interesting,
Speaker 1: fascinating story that I think is just a development. Here Grege,
Speaker 1: investigative reporter for the Legal enforcement team at Bloomberg News,
Speaker 1: joining us here in our Bloomberg in active broker studio
Speaker 1: with that fascinating story of Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, what's app hacking? Uh,
Speaker 1: so interesting story. So I think this is probably LEASA
Speaker 1: something that's gonna be developing over time. Oh, I don't
Speaker 1: think this is the last that were part of this.
Speaker 1: If the UN panel is coming back with the same
Speaker 1: conclusion as Jeff Bezos is uh. Private investigators markets are
Speaker 1: rallying slightly today on news that China is ramping up
Speaker 1: its efforts to contain the Corona virus that's killed at
Speaker 1: least seventeen people and affect that hundreds. As the outbreak
Speaker 1: has spread beyond age of the question is what does
Speaker 1: it mean for global economics. We welcome Tom or Like
Speaker 1: he's a chief economist for Bloomberg Economics, joining us from
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg nine studio in Washington, d C. Tom, you
Speaker 1: lived a long time in China. I wonder if you
Speaker 1: could give us a sense for kind of how this
Speaker 1: coronavirus compares to the stars UH virus from about seventeen
Speaker 1: years ago, because that's certainly had some rippling effects before
Speaker 1: the economy. So that's right, Paul. So if we go
Speaker 1: back to two thousand and three, in that Stars outbreak, UM,
Speaker 1: I think one of the critical factors was the slow
Speaker 1: pace of the government response. UM. There was a failure
Speaker 1: to acknowledge the extent of the outbreak. UM, there was
Speaker 1: an inability to UM move policies quickly to contain it.
Speaker 1: And what that meant was that actually the economic impact,
Speaker 1: whilst brief, was pretty severe. We saw GDP growth for
Speaker 1: two percentage points from the first quarter of two thousand
Speaker 1: and thirty two thousand and three to the second quarter
Speaker 1: of two thousand and three. The hope as we are here,
Speaker 1: we are in twenty twenty is that the kind of
Speaker 1: the bitter lesson which China learned back in two thousand
Speaker 1: and three is going to enable them to be more
Speaker 1: transpar aren't quicker, more effective as they respond to this
Speaker 1: emerging threat from the coronavirus. How do you game out
Speaker 1: of the potential economic impact of our pandemic? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's basically not possible to do lisa UM. So here
Speaker 1: we are in the very early stages of this disease,
Speaker 1: and it's not clear how it's going to develop um
Speaker 1: and so the best we can do is think about
Speaker 1: the moving parts and try and think about some scenarios.
Speaker 1: An important factor in our view is the way the
Speaker 1: Chinese economy has evolved over the last sixteen seventeen years.
Speaker 1: Back in two thousand and three, the Stars outbreak had
Speaker 1: the biggest impact on the services sector. It hit tourism,
Speaker 1: it hits shopping, it hit people going to the restaurant,
Speaker 1: going to the cinema and such like. But back in
Speaker 1: two thousand and three, the services share of China's economy
Speaker 1: was really quite small. Here we are in and one
Speaker 1: of the big success stories for China in the last
Speaker 1: two decades has been this economic transition they've managed to
Speaker 1: move away from industry. The services sector is named much
Speaker 1: more important. More people eating at restaurants, more people going
Speaker 1: to visit their friends and relatives, more people going to
Speaker 1: the cinema. But guess what that means that if this
Speaker 1: coronavirus does expand does spread um, then potentially the economic
Speaker 1: impact is going to be significantly larger. And interestingly, who
Speaker 1: who Dision, the editor of the Global Times, who's often
Speaker 1: thought of as sort of a mouthpiece for the for Beijing,
Speaker 1: came out and acknowledged that there would be an economic
Speaker 1: hit that people would be traveling lest buying a fewer
Speaker 1: items amid this holiday. Are you expecting perhaps a bigger
Speaker 1: economic impact than might otherwise be seen, just because it
Speaker 1: just is going to have that kind of dampening effect,
Speaker 1: even though necessary it is contained. Yeah. I think you
Speaker 1: raise an important point, Lisa, and that is that the
Speaker 1: timing of this for China couldn't really be worse. We're
Speaker 1: about to hit Chinese New Year, and at Chinese New Year,
Speaker 1: what happens is literally hundreds of millions of people UM
Speaker 1: go home. Many Chinese people are migrants. They work in
Speaker 1: cities which are different from the cities they were born
Speaker 1: in and Chinese New Year is the one point of
Speaker 1: the year where everyone puts down what they're doing, leaves
Speaker 1: the factory, leaves the office, gets on the train, gets
Speaker 1: on a bus, gets on an airplane, and goes to
Speaker 1: enjoy the Chinese New Year celebration with their family in
Speaker 1: the same way that people do it Thanksgiving or Christmas
Speaker 1: here in here, in the US and in the UK.
Speaker 1: Um So the concern could be that even if this
Speaker 1: virus is contained, even if it doesn't spread, just the
Speaker 1: mere timing of it is going to have a larger
Speaker 1: impact on economic activity because people cancel those plans. Tom
Speaker 1: Moore like, thank you so much for being with us,
Speaker 1: Tom More like chief economists for Bloomberg Economics, joining us
Speaker 1: from our Washington d C studios. Really interestingly, coronavirus has
Speaker 1: been at least it appears to be somewhat more contained.
Speaker 1: There seems to be more confidence that it won't necessarily
Speaker 1: spread rampantly, and that the Chinese government is being more
Speaker 1: transparent this time around than the last time seventeen years ago,
Speaker 1: in the stars epidemic was spreading much more than they
Speaker 1: had previous expected. But really interesting what Tom said, which
Speaker 1: is it hits services when there is a concern about
Speaker 1: an illness, and services account for a much bigger proportion
Speaker 1: of China's economy now, so it could potentially have a
Speaker 1: significant economic hit even if it is contained. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: in interesting Tom mentioned the timing of it coming around
Speaker 1: the Chinese New Year, and how there's such a movement
Speaker 1: of people within the country and how that could actually
Speaker 1: unfortunately facilitate the spread of the disease. So that's something
Speaker 1: I'm sure the Chinese officials are watching closely. And again,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, there's actually been some calls from government
Speaker 1: by saying don't go home, don't travel, um, you know,
Speaker 1: And I think they're all just that's all predicated upon
Speaker 1: trying to limit the outbreak here. It's some housing data
Speaker 1: come out today. US existing home sales rise to their
Speaker 1: best pace since early two thousand eighteen, indicating once again
Speaker 1: that the consumer continues to power the U s economy along.
Speaker 1: We are very happy to have our next guest, Doug Duncan,
Speaker 1: good friend of the show, Senior vice president chief economists
Speaker 1: for Fannie May usually based in Washington, d C. But
Speaker 1: we dragged him up here to New York City to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Interactor Broker Studio. So, Doug, and it seems
Speaker 1: like every time we chat with you, we have more
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say great, but certainly solid housing data. What
Speaker 1: do you make of the existing homesale data that came
Speaker 1: out today that's consistent with the forecast we think is
Speaker 1: going to be a good year. The consumers well positioned.
Speaker 1: You've seen lower income groups see rising income growth relative
Speaker 1: to middle and upper income groups, and that's where the
Speaker 1: first time home buyers are in the millennial group, which
Speaker 1: are driving the demand for homes. They won't peak in
Speaker 1: terms of their household formation for another six years, So
Speaker 1: depending on what the economy does under that, we still
Speaker 1: have a good run to go in housing. And we're
Speaker 1: still building two d and fifty thousand units less than
Speaker 1: demographics would suggest annually. Well, there's been a tension in
Speaker 1: the housing market that there are growing number of people
Speaker 1: who want starter homes and those starter homes are getting
Speaker 1: more and more expensive. How is that conundrum getting resolved
Speaker 1: in order to keep these numbers going forward. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: kind of a fight between the boomers and the millennials,
Speaker 1: if you will not that I'm trying to foment social
Speaker 1: discards please go ahead. But the boomers are doing what
Speaker 1: they said they're going to do. They're aging in place,
Speaker 1: and that's usually where the turnovercomes. That makes existing homes
Speaker 1: available to the first time buyer, and it's the move
Speaker 1: up buyer who buys what the builders building. So this
Speaker 1: is a challenge for builders to make money building starter homes.
Speaker 1: That's not their traditional role. They're making progress our expectation
Speaker 1: as you see probably about a five percent growth this
Speaker 1: year in new home sales, which the square footage they're
Speaker 1: building has been falling for about three years, so they're
Speaker 1: trying to move toward that entry level buyer. But still
Speaker 1: there's got to be turnover among the boomers in order
Speaker 1: to really come back to normal relationships in the housing turnover?
Speaker 1: What is that? What does that mean? I mean, really
Speaker 1: digget there exactly. Well, it means when the kids have
Speaker 1: moved out. While you may want to keep a bedroom
Speaker 1: or two in case they come home and bring the
Speaker 1: grand kids, you probably don't need five bedrooms. Interesting, so
Speaker 1: are the regions of the country that are is it
Speaker 1: fairly consistent across the country we're seeing decent household formation
Speaker 1: in home sales, or the regions that are maybe worrying
Speaker 1: you to some degree. Well, we've been studying the issue
Speaker 1: of mobility, asking the question if housing is too expensive
Speaker 1: for entry level workers to be able to afford a
Speaker 1: house near where they work, will businesses start moving their
Speaker 1: location to our housing is more affordable. And there is
Speaker 1: significant anecdotal evidence of that, and also starting to be
Speaker 1: some valid evidence of that in the data that businesses
Speaker 1: are relocating. Although in fairness, I have spoken anecdotally to
Speaker 1: some executives at companies that have tried to move away
Speaker 1: from New York to other places, in particular some southern cities,
Speaker 1: and have struggled to find the talent. Uh, And I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: you know, does this sort of foretell further stability and
Speaker 1: say a New York City market or a San Francisco market,
Speaker 1: despite all of the threats that everyone's going to move
Speaker 1: away because it's just too expensive. Yeah, I think there's
Speaker 1: in some sense, instead of incremental additions to those already
Speaker 1: expensive and heavily populated metros, it's the incremental are going elsewhere.
Speaker 1: One story, for example, is if you look at where
Speaker 1: Boise was ten years ago compared to where Boise is today,
Speaker 1: that's absolutely all outflow from higher cost areas, and Boise's
Speaker 1: hu's eight or and fifty thousand people in that metro. Now, uh,
Speaker 1: that's a poster child for that kind of migration. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna happen everywhere. Core businesses will still remain in
Speaker 1: New York City, but the additional if you can open
Speaker 1: another office somewhere else in that business, that's what you're
Speaker 1: seeing some of the West Coast tech companies. They're moving
Speaker 1: a part of their business to Utah, Salt Lake or Torno,
Speaker 1: or to Phoenix or someplace where housing is more affordable. Doug,
Speaker 1: what's your overall economic outlook for in that camp. It's
Speaker 1: kind of kind of growth. We think the sustainable non
Speaker 1: inflationary growth rate for the economy is between two and
Speaker 1: two and a quarter, and we'll be in that range
Speaker 1: this year, a little bit slowden last year. Boeing will
Speaker 1: have something to do with that. The the uh uh
Speaker 1: that that will be actually a number that will slow
Speaker 1: the headline numbers a little bit. How's the housing market
Speaker 1: in Fargomorehead, North Dakota. It's very well. It's a very
Speaker 1: affordable place, and if you have a child sent to
Speaker 1: a university, there's an excellent, Ya, North Dakota State University.
Speaker 1: It's affordable and good quality and you're totally objective, right,
Speaker 1: I am totally absolutely as um and I say this
Speaker 1: actually I am going to be heading to North Dakota
Speaker 1: State University in April. April, not January. Yeah, although it's
Speaker 1: still joy pretty. Although it's still going to bed. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're about two weeks in between winter and uh in summer,
Speaker 1: in which case it's nice. No, it's it's gonna be fun.
Speaker 1: I actually started my career at Fargo Noice Dakota, so
Speaker 1: I'm going to as a reporter anyway. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us. Don Duncan, always wonderful having
Speaker 1: you here. Don Duncan, chief economist at Fanny May joining
Speaker 1: us with this better than expected data it again on
Speaker 1: the US housing market. The impeachment trial continues in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. In the Senate, and there is a big
Speaker 1: question about four U. S. Senators Republicans who hold the
Speaker 1: key to whether or not the trial will involve witnesses
Speaker 1: or not. Twitting us now to talk about the political
Speaker 1: consequences of the impeachment proceedings is when do you shill
Speaker 1: our professor of political science and public Policy at Brown
Speaker 1: University joining us from Providence, Rhode Island. Professor Schiller, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with us. I want to
Speaker 1: start with the significance of this decision on behalf of
Speaker 1: that handful of senators who really are the key to
Speaker 1: whether or not there will be witnesses in this in
Speaker 1: this trial. Yeah, I mean, I think it's really crucial
Speaker 1: to understand the politics of it. So Miss McConnell wants
Speaker 1: to keep control of the United States Senate after election.
Speaker 1: He's got vulnerable senators, he's got vulnerable centers in Maine, Um,
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Arizona, and Colorado, among others. And he's just
Speaker 1: doing the math. And Susan Collins in particular is viewed
Speaker 1: to be quite vulnerable on this issue. And the question
Speaker 1: is if this is going to take it seriously? This
Speaker 1: is impeachment. Did the president of uses power? We sort
Speaker 1: of know they're not going to vote to convict. We've
Speaker 1: got to get that idea. That's parts and loyalty, But
Speaker 1: should we all have a fair trial and a fair
Speaker 1: hearing of all the evidence. In fact, it could be
Speaker 1: that the evidence supports the idea that he shouldn't be
Speaker 1: convicted and Austin and removed from office, and that would
Speaker 1: help those four vulnerable senators. It's not clear to me
Speaker 1: that if you present the evidence or some witnesses, you're
Speaker 1: definitely strengthening the House Democrats case on impeachment. So that's
Speaker 1: the puzzle, and the question is are you going to
Speaker 1: appear to be fair and open in states where you're
Speaker 1: really gonna be vying for those independents and suburban voters
Speaker 1: in so, Professor, assuming that I guess witnesses are not
Speaker 1: called and there is no conviction, what would be a
Speaker 1: win for the Democrats here. Well, I think you're already
Speaker 1: seeing part of the win, Paul, which is that the
Speaker 1: speech is particularly last night. If you watch some of them,
Speaker 1: they got a little heated, they got a little fiery, uh.
Speaker 1: And the House Democrats are trying to use this opportunity,
Speaker 1: I think, to rile or you know, secure the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party base. As we know, there's a lot of conflict
Speaker 1: in the Democratic presidential nomination process. There's no clear front runner,
Speaker 1: nobody's madly in love with any of the choices, and
Speaker 1: that has to concern the Democrats in terms of turnout.
Speaker 1: But if you can drive this from the House effort.
Speaker 1: In other words, the House, as in eighteen, did very
Speaker 1: well to take it back the Democrats. If you could
Speaker 1: drive that and really rile up the base based on impeachment,
Speaker 1: particularly constituencies within the base on impeachment, that becomes a
Speaker 1: political victory down the road for the Democrats, even if
Speaker 1: they don't get the conviction that they're seeking. Really, what
Speaker 1: about pushback? People say, look, the economy is doing really well.
Speaker 1: What's your plan for that at a time when President
Speaker 1: Trump's policies have at least allowed it to keep going? Right, Lisa,
Speaker 1: this is exactly right. So it's a different audience. Right,
Speaker 1: You've got the independence who are probably going to vote
Speaker 1: for Trump at the economy stays good, even though they
Speaker 1: may not like him. The question is will to be
Speaker 1: Trump fatigue? Will Trump do something else that looks like
Speaker 1: this that just takes people over the edge and they
Speaker 1: can't stand them anymore. That's a possibility, but that's a
Speaker 1: different base. The Democrats have to worry about turnout in
Speaker 1: their own base. What cost Hillary Clinton is a lot
Speaker 1: of factors, but partially lower turnout among African Americans and
Speaker 1: defections among women in particular. We saw women go back
Speaker 1: to the Democrat Party in will they stick with the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party in so having people out there who are showcasing,
Speaker 1: particularly from these constituencies, that may be enough to get
Speaker 1: that energy level back up, sustaining the gains and not
Speaker 1: fall into the travel which was conflict and some dislike
Speaker 1: and apathy. Professor Shuler, is there any evidence that the
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings have in fact been successful at energizing the
Speaker 1: Democratic base? Not yet, But we haven't seen the turnout
Speaker 1: in the primaries yet because we haven't gotten there right.
Speaker 1: We've got the Iowa caucuses them, we have New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: we have Nevada, we have South Carolina. We have to
Speaker 1: see what that that primary turnout looks like. Yes, it's competitive,
Speaker 1: but turnout is also an indication of interest. People are
Speaker 1: still registering the same places and mostly voting in the
Speaker 1: same places they vote in eighteen. That's an advantage for
Speaker 1: the Democrats to get out the door. If we see
Speaker 1: high primary turnout, that's gonna be evidence of engage Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: And that means that, you know, the Democrats can try
Speaker 1: to be hopeful about getting their base out. We know
Speaker 1: the Trump base will get out and so the question
Speaker 1: is do all Republicans get out the door, they tend
Speaker 1: to be more loyal, more unified, and they vote bigger
Speaker 1: numbers in presidential elections for their candidate that independent base.
Speaker 1: But I think, you know, as people actually watch this,
Speaker 1: if they watch, which they can watch, you know, tape
Speaker 1: it or watch it live, but as they actually see
Speaker 1: the Senate go through this and realize how historic this is.
Speaker 1: You know, this could have reverb down the line six
Speaker 1: eight months. It all depends on Trump's behavior. If he
Speaker 1: triggers something else, people will say to the Republicans, why
Speaker 1: didn't you go after him harder? Why didn't you call
Speaker 1: it witnesses, Why didn't you dig deeper? That's a gamble
Speaker 1: I think that McConnell and the Republican Party is taking
Speaker 1: by not doing that. Professor, what's the role of Chief
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts in this proceeding? Well? To keep the trains
Speaker 1: running on time? I mean, he already admonished both sides,
Speaker 1: you know, in a very quiet way last night, but
Speaker 1: he he admolished them basically to say, listen, keep it civil,
Speaker 1: you know, and he quoted something from the early part
Speaker 1: of the twentieth century saying, look, you know, just keep
Speaker 1: it civil, keep it to the facts, and I think
Speaker 1: he's gonna have to make sure that rhetoric doesn't get
Speaker 1: too heated and that things stick to the facts of
Speaker 1: the case. How much he intervenes, we all have to see.
Speaker 1: But that's his role. It's so interesting. The vice President
Speaker 1: doesn't have a role. Normally, the Vice President presides of
Speaker 1: the United States Senate, so even breaking a tie or
Speaker 1: ruling on emotion, this is all the Chief Justice. So
Speaker 1: it's a different Senate that we usually are typically um
Speaker 1: habituated to seeing. And he's gonna have to really run
Speaker 1: run the ship in a steady way. It has everything
Speaker 1: to do with the Senate, but also for the reputation
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court itself. You know, I just uh
Speaker 1: want to eliminate your background. I mean, you've been on
Speaker 1: the staff of Senator Patrick moynihan and Governor Mario Cuomo.
Speaker 1: You've been extensively involved in the democratic political engine um
Speaker 1: throughout the years, and I think that it's really important
Speaker 1: to find out what is the potential ramification for the
Speaker 1: Democrats that the Republicans energized their base based on the
Speaker 1: impeachment with with President Trump succeeding and convincing them that
Speaker 1: it is a witch hunt. In his words, Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think you're You're absolutely right, And you know it's
Speaker 1: in my early pre academic life, I was very involved
Speaker 1: in Democrat politics and now it's been a long time,
Speaker 1: so I've been out of the loop, but observing from
Speaker 1: Afar and essentially what you can look at for the
Speaker 1: Republicans solidification of the loyalty of the Republican voter to
Speaker 1: the Republican party across the board. That's what they're hoping
Speaker 1: to get out of this impeachment trial process, and I
Speaker 1: think they will get that, which is to say, don't
Speaker 1: go anywhere. We've got this guy under control. We're watching things,
Speaker 1: we're gonna protect him, we're gonna protect our party gains,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna do what you want us to do.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a clear, unified message that they
Speaker 1: are sending now that they continue to send. The question
Speaker 1: is what the president does after this, and that's something
Speaker 1: they can't control, which is why I still think it's
Speaker 1: a bit of a gamble on their part, particularly in
Speaker 1: those vulnerable states that are going to be really contested.
Speaker 1: In very good Wendy Chiller, thanks so much. For joining us.
Speaker 1: Wendy is the professor of political science and public policy
Speaker 1: at Brown University, giving us her thoughts on the impeachment process.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa A. Bram Woods. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Lisa Bramwood's one before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio.