Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg sound On,
Speaker 1: and I hope a lot of people are gonna pay
Speaker 1: a big price because they're dishonest, crooked people. There's scum through.
Speaker 1: Its high time that we've seen the government finally take
Speaker 1: some action against this man. They shouldn't be doing this
Speaker 1: to have demands and expectations on the FBI have never
Speaker 1: been high. Bloomberg sound on Politics, policy and perspective from
Speaker 1: DC's top name still funds the entire semi conductor. I
Speaker 1: was a know last week, I was a know last night,
Speaker 1: and I'll be the first no later to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. FBI rose
Speaker 1: down at Mara a Lago and we still at this
Speaker 1: hour do not know what they were looking for. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the fastest hour in politics. The day after the
Speaker 1: warrant was served to the political fallout has been swift.
Speaker 1: Will bring a reaction from the White House and discussed
Speaker 1: the investigation with Donald Trump's former acting chief of staff
Speaker 1: and former Congressman Mike Nick mulveney. We'll tap the expertise
Speaker 1: of Kim Whaley, former assistant U S Attorney Law professor
Speaker 1: at the University of Baltimore and our panel today Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributor Republican strategist Rick Davis, along with Democratic strategist
Speaker 1: Kevin walling Off. H G Creative Media will get to
Speaker 1: Nick in a second. It's been about twenty four hours
Speaker 1: now since the FBI left the grounds of mar A Lago.
Speaker 1: No official word from the agency, the FBI, or the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice for that matter, or from Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: who should of course have a copy of that search
Speaker 1: warrant by now right, doesn't he know what they were
Speaker 1: looking for? The official reaction from the White House today
Speaker 1: did not arrive until about welle an hour and a
Speaker 1: half ago. You can probably imagine how this goes. Press
Speaker 1: Secretary Kareine John Pierre today with reporters in the briefing room.
Speaker 1: Let's listen again. I'm just not going to comment on
Speaker 1: any reaction to uh to what happened yesterday. We are
Speaker 1: going to refer any incoming to Department of Justice. There
Speaker 1: it is. That's not really about it's more about becoming
Speaker 1: your way. Election does not go your wife. That's a
Speaker 1: hypothetical and I'm just not going to entertain it at
Speaker 1: this time. Gonna do it. Both Republican senators from Florida, well,
Speaker 1: if not every Republican Senator in the Chamber denounced the move.
Speaker 1: As we turn to our top guest, and I've been
Speaker 1: looking forward to this conversation. Former White House Acting Chief
Speaker 1: of Staff Mick mulvaney, Former Congressman bec It's great to
Speaker 1: have you here. I appreciate your time today. What a
Speaker 1: twenty four hours this has been. We're all hungry for
Speaker 1: information and there's so much we don't know. You say
Speaker 1: on Twitter that if this is only about document retention,
Speaker 1: it should cost Merrick Garland his job. Do you believe
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice would have been able to get
Speaker 1: a search warrant for a former United States president if
Speaker 1: that's all this is, Joe, Hey, thanks for having me
Speaker 1: I ordinarily, in in the ordinary, in a real world.
Speaker 1: The answer you no, there's there's no way you could
Speaker 1: get that. But keep in mind, and this is part
Speaker 1: of the background and part of the back lash. This
Speaker 1: is the same Department of Justice that lied to a
Speaker 1: FISA court out getting about having investigations done on Trump
Speaker 1: during the Russia investigation. It's the same Department of Justice
Speaker 1: that lied about Hunter Biden's laptop to the public and
Speaker 1: to the media during the election. So you think they
Speaker 1: would have rigged the warrant basically, Well, I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: and that and who knows at this point that That's
Speaker 1: why I think it's so important the Department Justice say
Speaker 1: something and talk about this. I recognize the fact we
Speaker 1: all do that that's not ordinary course of business. That
Speaker 1: they don't talk about ongoing investigations, and that's great. I understand,
Speaker 1: it makes complete sense. This is no longer ordinary course
Speaker 1: of business because of the target or the proximity to
Speaker 1: the elections. Are both all of the above, mostly the target.
Speaker 1: We have never ransacked the home of a of a
Speaker 1: former president before under a criminal of search warrant. That
Speaker 1: just doesn't happen. So I think all the rules sort
Speaker 1: of have to go out the window of the Department
Speaker 1: Justice and have to say, look, we weren't looking for
Speaker 1: ordinary random documents that might technically violate the statute. You
Speaker 1: were looking for stuff that ties Trump to criminal activity
Speaker 1: on January six. Something like that might calm things down
Speaker 1: a little bit. You've offered two possibilities here, Mick and
Speaker 1: and well, I guess they kind of balance each other out.
Speaker 1: One you write the most egregious political hit job our
Speaker 1: government has ever undertaken against the politician in US history,
Speaker 1: or and I feel like that's where you're leaning at
Speaker 1: the moment, or two evidence of the most significant criminal
Speaker 1: investigation of a politician in US history. You see, the
Speaker 1: d o J needs to show us which it is.
Speaker 1: There's huge pressure on Merrick Garland now to hold a
Speaker 1: news conference. Can he do that though, I mean, to
Speaker 1: your point, speak publicly about a criminal investigation. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think your instinct is right. By the way they say that,
Speaker 1: I'm leaning towards the first of those that political job
Speaker 1: just because of the history. Right. If you don't have
Speaker 1: the history, then that that the tie goes to the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. They get the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1: But they have a track record, proven track for lying
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump. Um so I think the burden is
Speaker 1: on them to show that this is legitimate. Would help
Speaker 1: if Marrek Garland would come out and say, look, we
Speaker 1: were not interested in looking for small stuff. We were
Speaker 1: looking for thus and such. Here's what we found. That
Speaker 1: doesn't jeopardize what they're doing. I mean, that would be
Speaker 1: the line of course from the d o J. You know,
Speaker 1: you know that's gonna be the argument at the risk
Speaker 1: of what ripping the country apart. I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: really where you are right now. You've got people, you know,
Speaker 1: parading in front of Mara Lago of the waving flags
Speaker 1: saying that the government's coming to get them, and they
Speaker 1: might be right. So do you believe the White House
Speaker 1: that President Biden and the administration did not know about this?
Speaker 1: That they've heard about it on the news like everybody else.
Speaker 1: When you say the administration, I don't believe that. I
Speaker 1: mean Mark Garland had a sign off on this, and
Speaker 1: he's an administrator outside of the DOJ though Pennsylvania Avenue.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any way in the world they
Speaker 1: would have known, because I think even the political people
Speaker 1: would have said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Why don't
Speaker 1: we wait to do this after the mid terms, guys,
Speaker 1: because if we get this wrong, it's gonna cost us
Speaker 1: fifteen seats in the House. Um. So I think politically
Speaker 1: the Biden administration that the Biden White House is probably
Speaker 1: beating their head up against the wall, going we just
Speaker 1: had great news on a bill we've had that's for
Speaker 1: the first time raising money on the FBI again exactly,
Speaker 1: and the Republicans have a chance. Now, um, we just
Speaker 1: tied the federal gu What what if I'm a Republican candidate?
Speaker 1: What am I saying? They just spent a bunch of money,
Speaker 1: barred a bunch of money to make inflation worse, to
Speaker 1: hire eighty thousand I R. S Agents to come after you,
Speaker 1: and they stuck. You know that they sent a political
Speaker 1: hit squad to go get Donald Trump. That's pretty compelling
Speaker 1: last minute campaigns, texts, images of guys and riot gear
Speaker 1: at the gates. The thing is, if if you believe
Speaker 1: President Biden didn't know, this is all arrows pointing towards it,
Speaker 1: to your to the point of your tweet towards Merrick Garland,
Speaker 1: you think he's operating on his own here, I hope so.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's the way you want the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice worker. You don't want politics in law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is right. No one should be above the law,
Speaker 1: but nobody should be beneath it either, And we shouldn't
Speaker 1: be targeting people because of their political associations, and right now,
Speaker 1: because of the track heard because in the way this
Speaker 1: was carried out Um, it gives a very strong inference
Speaker 1: that there's politics behind this that puts the burden on
Speaker 1: the d o J. Keep in mind, what do I
Speaker 1: say that the way this was carried out, I don't
Speaker 1: understand how anybody made the case that they had to
Speaker 1: go get a search warrant, right, so they had to
Speaker 1: say this probable cause that the crime was committed to
Speaker 1: probably cause and private cause that it was gonna go
Speaker 1: away real quickly. Trump isn't even there, He's in New
Speaker 1: York and New Jersey. So what did they find out
Speaker 1: in the last twenty four hours that makes this so
Speaker 1: incredibly pressing where they couldn't just send a subpoena for
Speaker 1: these documents? This is what we don't have the answer to.
Speaker 1: You know, look, we've been all hearing and reading a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. Mcmilveny. As the president's chief of staff,
Speaker 1: were you ever worried about document retention? Was this a
Speaker 1: conversation you had or somehow violating the Presidential Records Act? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: keep on the president. This is not the president Presidential
Speaker 1: Records Act is not what the DJ is going on.
Speaker 1: The Presidential Records Act is not a criminal statute. There's
Speaker 1: a broader criminal statute on destroying documents of the United States,
Speaker 1: and that's what they're going after him on. The Presidential
Speaker 1: Records Act is in the US Code, Section forty, Title forty,
Speaker 1: entitled eighteen. It is not a criminal proceeding. But they
Speaker 1: answer your question is, yeah, we always worried about about documents.
Speaker 1: How many times did you see the president destroyer or
Speaker 1: dispose of documents? Never saw thrush anything to What I
Speaker 1: saw was the ordinary course of business that I used
Speaker 1: to do when I was a lawyer. If we had
Speaker 1: a document and we made a change to it, he
Speaker 1: might rip it in half and throw the one we
Speaker 1: weren't using on the floor, and we would have somebody
Speaker 1: come in and take it back together and make a
Speaker 1: copy of it. That's that's that's every White House does that. Um.
Speaker 1: But what what you read about in the in the
Speaker 1: in the Washington Post, use me the New York Times
Speaker 1: was the intentional, alleged intentional destruction of key documents. And
Speaker 1: I never saw that. Earlier today, former President Trump posted
Speaker 1: a very carefully produced video. You've probably seen it by
Speaker 1: as more of a movie trailer. It's a good three
Speaker 1: four minutes long. It's called a Nation in decline, and
Speaker 1: it's got a lot of people thinking he's sort of
Speaker 1: somehow quietly announcing a run for re election. And we
Speaker 1: go through this every three days. But let's listen to
Speaker 1: part of it. Listen to the language. We're a nation
Speaker 1: that has weaponized as law enforcement against the opposing political
Speaker 1: party like never before. We've never seen anything like this.
Speaker 1: We're a nation that no longer has a free and
Speaker 1: fair press. Fake news is about all you get. We're
Speaker 1: a nation where free speech is no longer allowed, where
Speaker 1: crime is rampant like never before, where the economy has
Speaker 1: been collapsing, where more people died of COVID in exactly
Speaker 1: where this was recorded Sarah Palin seen in the front row. Um,
Speaker 1: the thunder was added for what it's worth, and the music,
Speaker 1: but make the president used the words we often hear
Speaker 1: from Republicans and have certainly in the last twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: law enforcement has been weaponized. Marjorie Taylor Green and other
Speaker 1: Trump supporters are tweeting defund the FBI. Is it because
Speaker 1: of the cases you mentioned, or or do many conservatives
Speaker 1: distrust of the FBI go back to Watergate. Um, let's
Speaker 1: make one thing perfectly clear. I refuse to accept the
Speaker 1: fact that Marjorie Taylor Green speaks for anybody other than
Speaker 1: the extreme white ring nut job of the party. So
Speaker 1: understood the hashtags getting some love them. Yeah, well, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of crazies out there, and that's that's
Speaker 1: her bait. She's not a serious person. But anyway, UM,
Speaker 1: I don't think it goes back necessarily to to Watergate.
Speaker 1: I mean, let's be honest. I'm I'm probably one of
Speaker 1: the oldest people you'll talk to you today, and I
Speaker 1: was barely alive during Watergate. So if this is about
Speaker 1: your experience in the Trump administration exactly, if it's a
Speaker 1: hatred for Watergate, it's it's it's historical and not not
Speaker 1: not personal. Now I think it. I think it it
Speaker 1: goes back to a natural distrust perhaps of government, a
Speaker 1: belief and it's a it's an it is not unfounded
Speaker 1: that government service attracts Democrats. I can tell you we'll
Speaker 1: do another hour long and another day about how the
Speaker 1: Democrats have taken over all the agencies I worked for
Speaker 1: the CFPB. Um, you know, you work for the State Department,
Speaker 1: So that stuff is real. So I don't think it
Speaker 1: was back to Watergate. Certainly that the soil is fertile
Speaker 1: for Republicans to think the government is out to get
Speaker 1: them because Democrats run it even under Republican administrations. And
Speaker 1: what happened last night and mar Lago just feeds that,
Speaker 1: which brings this full circle back to the original comment
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. It's incumbent upon them, I think,
Speaker 1: in the name of integrity of their institution to come
Speaker 1: out and tell us more than they have. You testified
Speaker 1: before the January six committee, I understand. Uh, does this
Speaker 1: search of Mara Lago kind of balance with what you
Speaker 1: were hearing in the January six hearings? Is there any
Speaker 1: crossover potentially in your mind that, Hey, the d O
Speaker 1: j UH found something on these dual track investigations that
Speaker 1: are feeding each other. Yeah. I mean the crossover would
Speaker 1: be if they were both looking at the same information.
Speaker 1: Certainly not my information. My information was more about the
Speaker 1: election and so forth, had nothing to do with document
Speaker 1: retention or anything like that. Um. But it's important of
Speaker 1: that January six is a political process that has political outcomes. Um,
Speaker 1: Liz Cheney cannot throw Donald Trump and jail, regardless of
Speaker 1: how badly in test relation he wants to the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice. Is real, It's supposed to be real, at
Speaker 1: least I hope that it is real. UM, And it's
Speaker 1: very very different. Could they be sharing information or I
Speaker 1: have cross fertilization of information? Absolutely sounds like you were
Speaker 1: asked what you thought of as reasonable questions or is
Speaker 1: there gonna be a McK mulvaney bombshell a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks down the road the next time there's a hearing. No. No,
Speaker 1: they were all that they might put a video in
Speaker 1: there about a text I sent the week after the
Speaker 1: election when UM, I was complaining that I was hearing
Speaker 1: from the r N c ron McDaniel, Jared Kushner, Bill
Speaker 1: Stepian Justin Clark that we had lost the election in
Speaker 1: the days after the election, yet they wanted us to
Speaker 1: go out on television and tell people we had still
Speaker 1: want I didn't take that very well. In fact, I
Speaker 1: stopped going on television after that meeting, so that that
Speaker 1: may see some light UM during the during the hearings,
Speaker 1: but mostly they were background questions about some texts I
Speaker 1: sent on January six, and then also the you know how,
Speaker 1: how how do you how people get meetings with the
Speaker 1: president that kind of appreciate your answering that. Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: says there's gonna be a selectivity once he holds the gavel,
Speaker 1: assuming that happens after November, to create a selectimmtee to
Speaker 1: investigate Mary Garland. He tweets, you know, are your schedule?
Speaker 1: Is that the right move? Um? Yeah, I mean oversight
Speaker 1: is the proper function of Congress. It's actually one of
Speaker 1: their constitutional duties. They do it for the purpose of
Speaker 1: being a part of their duty to be a check
Speaker 1: on the executive branch. Then also part of their duty
Speaker 1: to make law. Keep in mind, ostensibly the purpose the
Speaker 1: justification for the January six committee is to see if
Speaker 1: we need to change the electoral process laws. But no,
Speaker 1: I think listen, if they, part of me hopes they
Speaker 1: find a dead body, okay. And here's why I say that,
Speaker 1: because in that mind, at least that means that they
Speaker 1: were serious and about about the FBI now, and then
Speaker 1: I can have some faith in the institution. If they
Speaker 1: find a document that Donald Trump scribbled something on that
Speaker 1: should have been left in Washington and wasn't, and they
Speaker 1: try and ban him from office and charge him with
Speaker 1: a colony because of that, all of my faith in
Speaker 1: the system will be gone, and then we have real
Speaker 1: problems as a nation. Former White House Acting Chief of
Speaker 1: Staff Mick mulvaney h read his thoughts on Twitter as well.
Speaker 1: If you didn't hear this entire conversation or subscribe to
Speaker 1: the podcast, I've been looking forward to this making thank
Speaker 1: you for your insights today, remembering that he resigned from
Speaker 1: the administration on the the night of January six. He
Speaker 1: was not the acting Chief of Staff at that point,
Speaker 1: but in fact a special envoy to Northern Ireland. I'm Joe,
Speaker 1: Matthew and Washington. Welcome to Sound On Boy. When we
Speaker 1: woke up this morning, when I heard Tom Keane's tone
Speaker 1: of voice on Bloomberg Surveillance, I knew we were in
Speaker 1: for a day and it has been one deeply curious
Speaker 1: to hear what Rick Davis has to think about this
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributor, of course, Republican strategist. Rick, what do
Speaker 1: you think about what you heard from Nick mulvaney. Are
Speaker 1: you of the same mind that Merrick Garland needs to
Speaker 1: step forward? Yeah? I heard very little. I would question
Speaker 1: about mix comments. I think he's spot on. I think
Speaker 1: there is uh definitely a uniqueness to this. This is
Speaker 1: an unusual event in American history. Um And I feel
Speaker 1: like every week we're saying that about Donald Trump. He
Speaker 1: does create unusual events, and and and and I think
Speaker 1: one thing to be reminded, this is happening because of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, not because the FBI. This has been an
Speaker 1: ongoing challenge for uh, not just the Archives, but the
Speaker 1: FBI and the Justice Department for over a year. They've
Speaker 1: been trying to get their hands on these records. And
Speaker 1: if not for Donald Trump's for calcultrents to do that,
Speaker 1: this would never have happened. So Number one, I think
Speaker 1: it needs to be reminded everybody that every that the
Speaker 1: federal government has been working with the people around Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Donald Trump himself personally to get access to
Speaker 1: these records. And it's only because they refuse to give
Speaker 1: them that the FBI had to act in this way
Speaker 1: and the Justice Department had to get a subpoena. So
Speaker 1: that being said, you know, this is a former president
Speaker 1: ied states we we don't weaponize politically our justice system.
Speaker 1: And I think part of what we learned in the
Speaker 1: January six hearings has been the admirable efforts by Attorney
Speaker 1: General bar and his team to not weaponize d o
Speaker 1: G when Donald Trump was trying to politically weaponize it. So,
Speaker 1: you know, for for him to now call foul uh
Speaker 1: it rings hollow. But at the same time, you you
Speaker 1: have to wonder what is the strategy the Department Justice
Speaker 1: has because this certainly looks like a political hit job
Speaker 1: right in the surface, and so unless they define it
Speaker 1: as something different, this is what we're left to think.
Speaker 1: I want to add Kevin Walling to the conversation as
Speaker 1: we formally assemble our panel Democratic Strategist h G Creative Media.
Speaker 1: It's been a while, Kevin, and I'm glad you're with
Speaker 1: us today, and I'm sure you have some pretty deliberate
Speaker 1: thoughts about this. Would you weigh in as well? You
Speaker 1: heard mc mulvaney uh talk about Merrick Garland, not President Biden,
Speaker 1: but in fact Merrick Garland pursuing political ends. Does he
Speaker 1: need to hold a news conference and tell us what
Speaker 1: the heck is going on in Florida? Joe, It's gonna
Speaker 1: be with you, and it's good also to be with Rick.
Speaker 1: You know, I agree completely with what Riches said in
Speaker 1: terms of his views on on on what Mix said,
Speaker 1: I don't know necessarily if it has to be Marrick Garland,
Speaker 1: but it certainly has to be Christopher Ray, And I
Speaker 1: think Director Ray actually adds some credence to this as
Speaker 1: one of the few Trump appointees still serving in the
Speaker 1: federal government. Obviously, an FBI director's term outlasts a presidential term,
Speaker 1: so certainly this was a search carried out by the FBI,
Speaker 1: I think to Rick's point, because we don't have any
Speaker 1: kind of knowledge of previously or now today in the
Speaker 1: wake of this, this vacuum is now consuming all of us,
Speaker 1: especially on the right wing conservative media outlets, crying foul
Speaker 1: jen jenning up all these Trump supporters and things like that,
Speaker 1: and we certainly need to have some insights and guidance
Speaker 1: provided by the FBI Director Ray and potentially also the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, starting to wonder if this might actually happen.
Speaker 1: Rick and Kevin are with us for the hour. We're
Speaker 1: gonna spend a lot more time with them in our
Speaker 1: second half. But we want to add a legal voice
Speaker 1: to this as well. Kimberly Whaley, former assistant Wes attorney
Speaker 1: and professor of law at the University of Baltimore, Kimberly.
Speaker 1: I know it's been a very busy day for you.
Speaker 1: I want to welcome you. Are we asking the right
Speaker 1: questions here? This comes down to what they were looking
Speaker 1: for before we can answer anything else. Well, we don't
Speaker 1: know exactly what they're going they're looking for, in part
Speaker 1: probably because it involves classified information. So I doubt unless
Speaker 1: there is a criminal trial and something more actually admitted
Speaker 1: into evidence that if the Justice Department does its job
Speaker 1: as it should to keep this information uh secret as
Speaker 1: is required under federal law, I don't think it will
Speaker 1: become public. Uh. And I understand people are wondering about this,
Speaker 1: but it's important to keep in mind that the Fourth
Speaker 1: Amendment and the federal judiciary are protecting the rights of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and others that were um were affected yesterday
Speaker 1: by this very important execution of a search warrant. So
Speaker 1: assuming this goes to trial, then uh, you know, we
Speaker 1: may not know for months or or a year or more,
Speaker 1: even as Donald Trump is deciding whether to run for
Speaker 1: president them the do o J is not exactly running
Speaker 1: an overdrive here. This is a quiet and slow process.
Speaker 1: What's your thought on a timeline or do we never know?
Speaker 1: We we are not. We won't necessarily ever know, and
Speaker 1: it's very difficult given that as a former president right
Speaker 1: to separate the politics from the law, I mean, as
Speaker 1: a legal voice in this. You know, we do know
Speaker 1: that information fifteen boxes at least were brought outside the
Speaker 1: White House and in a manner that violated the Presidential
Speaker 1: Records Act and the various mechanisms that are in place
Speaker 1: to ensure post Watergate that those documents are stay with
Speaker 1: the people, they belong to the people, and to extent
Speaker 1: which there's classified or national security information, etcetera. That left
Speaker 1: the White House, that is a danger to the country.
Speaker 1: So you know that that's I really do think Merrick
Speaker 1: Garland is primarily in this moment, uh, doing his job
Speaker 1: and not so much worrying about the politics. But of course,
Speaker 1: of course, uh, it's impossible to to escape that that
Speaker 1: big issue. I mean, of course, yesterday was an anniversary
Speaker 1: of Nick Nixon resigning. Were in another real constitutional crisis
Speaker 1: right now. I can't take all the irony. Um. The
Speaker 1: thing is, though, does that does that justify a do
Speaker 1: you does that slam dunk a search warrant like this
Speaker 1: for the home of a former president of the United States?
Speaker 1: The Presidential Records Act or whatever it is that we're
Speaker 1: talking destruction of documents? Is that in fact enough to
Speaker 1: have a hundred FBI agents show up. I mean they're
Speaker 1: they're holding assault weapons in front of the gates. This
Speaker 1: is pretty heavy stuff. Well, I mean, I don't think
Speaker 1: anyone can say anything about a slam dunk without having
Speaker 1: full information. Uh. And I assume, I'm sex I'm quite
Speaker 1: sure that the judge that signed off on this did
Speaker 1: it kicking and screaming, given the implications that is that
Speaker 1: there was you know, substantial probable cause to justify this,
Speaker 1: given the um, given the stakes that we're just talking about,
Speaker 1: as far as how the FBI does its job, you
Speaker 1: know what they were concerned about, again all speculation. I
Speaker 1: you know, so far, Americ Garland has proceeded UM very privately, cautiously.
Speaker 1: He hasn't turned it into a political uh process from
Speaker 1: the day he took office. So I trust the system.
Speaker 1: And you know, frankly, Donald Trump is the person to
Speaker 1: blame for this because he in a lot of ways
Speaker 1: didn't follow the rules. And we all follow the rules, right,
Speaker 1: we pay our taxes, we stopped at red lights, um,
Speaker 1: we follow the law, and you know presidents should do
Speaker 1: the same thing. And you know, I'm not getting out
Speaker 1: the violence for him in this moment, as much as
Speaker 1: I understand uh that people who support him politically are
Speaker 1: upset by it. Based on what we heard from mc mulvaney,
Speaker 1: document retention was uh kind of a constant concerned in
Speaker 1: this administration. Kimberly, thank you for being here. Kimberly Whaley's
Speaker 1: former assistant U S attorney, professor of law at the
Speaker 1: University of Baltimore. I'd like to take one more swing
Speaker 1: with the panel here as we spend time with Rick
Speaker 1: Davis and Kevin Walling. Rick, I played a snippet of this, uh,
Speaker 1: this incredible video that Donald Trump posted, of course not
Speaker 1: on Twitter, uh, just hours after you know, people were
Speaker 1: waking up and getting their heads around this somethink. It's
Speaker 1: uh tan am out to a campaign announcement. It almost
Speaker 1: looks like a movie trailer. Rick, how did it hit you?
Speaker 1: What's he trying to say? Well, first of all, what
Speaker 1: really hit me was that this was ready to go
Speaker 1: production quality the morning after this attack or this attack,
Speaker 1: the raid on mar Lago, and and I even I
Speaker 1: questioned even calling it a raid, but like as you
Speaker 1: described with the stormtroopers standing in front of our lago,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of like that was the message they
Speaker 1: were sending, is we are rating our lago. We need
Speaker 1: all this heavy equipment, guns and and things like that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just like normally you need flip flops
Speaker 1: to get into mar Lago. You don't really need a weapon.
Speaker 1: It's a desperate view of the country though, and we've
Speaker 1: talked about some of his recent speeches. This was despair.
Speaker 1: You see a guy getting stabbed, you see destruction in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Uh my goodness, they're they're they're showing the oil spigots
Speaker 1: and the clouds coming in. You can hear the thunder. Kevin,
Speaker 1: was that a campaign announcement or what? Well, it certainly
Speaker 1: looks like one. Listen. I can't obviously say. I'm on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. What the President George Soby Bush said in
Speaker 1: the wake of President Trump's inaugural addressments, It's struck a
Speaker 1: similar kind of chord in terms of the death and
Speaker 1: destruction previewed in this spot, and of course a form
Speaker 1: President Trump has been hinting at this race to provide
Speaker 1: some kind of basis of pushing back against what the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice is doing, this might be the county
Speaker 1: attorney is doing, and exactly right. And to Rick's point,
Speaker 1: this was certainly not something that was produced within twelve hours.
Speaker 1: This was ready to go. Should this happen, then on
Speaker 1: the shelf for a minute, Rick Davis, Kevin Waling, great conversation.
Speaker 1: They'll be back in just a couple of minutes. As
Speaker 1: we turned to an important DC court ruling involving Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns. This is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg to New York, Bloomberg eleven Frio to Boston, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: one O six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty
Speaker 1: to the country, Serious x M General one nine team,
Speaker 1: and around the globe of Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: What incredible case of timing is A federal judge rules
Speaker 1: as well today that Donald Trump's tax returns must be
Speaker 1: turned over to the House Ways and Means Committee. So
Speaker 1: where's this going? You don't actually think he's going to
Speaker 1: hand over six years of tax returns. We talked to
Speaker 1: an expert next Bloomberg Congress and tax reporter Laura Davison
Speaker 1: in another excuse to talk about Donald Trump's tax returns,
Speaker 1: though doesn't the story always end the same way? Trump
Speaker 1: tax returns must be given to House Panel. Court rules
Speaker 1: the headline, and Laura Davison shares the byline, the president's
Speaker 1: tax returns, Laura, welcome, must be turned over to the
Speaker 1: Ways and Means Committee? Is this going to the Supreme Court?
Speaker 1: We don't actually think this is gonna happen, do we?
Speaker 1: I don't know yet. So the court ruled that is
Speaker 1: upholding a lower court ruling that that the Ways and
Speaker 1: Means Committee could get Trump's tax returns. Trump does have
Speaker 1: the option to appeal this, and then the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has the option if they want to hear the case. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, very likely that Trump will appeal this case.
Speaker 1: And it's, however, unclear if the Supreme Court will choose
Speaker 1: to hear this. Um, what other do you have a
Speaker 1: legal option from here? Not really other than to appeal
Speaker 1: that kind of his his option if here that there
Speaker 1: will be some outcome there. If not, it would this
Speaker 1: ruling would stand. So it could mean that the Ways
Speaker 1: and Means eventually gets these tax returns. They said today
Speaker 1: they expected to get them immediately, but that's highly unlikely.
Speaker 1: The real question and the real deadline is January here,
Speaker 1: because the House flips of the House slips control and
Speaker 1: Republicans come in, it's highly unlikely they're going to continue
Speaker 1: to pursue this litigation. And as we know, courts movementoriously slowly.
Speaker 1: So that's really uh, you know, it's a Trump against
Speaker 1: the clock of the congressional calendar. Interesting. Richard Neil, the
Speaker 1: chair of Ways and Means, we should know, has been
Speaker 1: asking for this for a long time, as you point out,
Speaker 1: since six years worth of Trump's returns. On what grounds
Speaker 1: does the committee this is not January six, This is
Speaker 1: not an election related committee. Why why does Ways and
Speaker 1: Means get them? Well, reason Means deals with all tax issues,
Speaker 1: and there's actually a specific section of the tax code
Speaker 1: that says that all of the tax committees in Congress,
Speaker 1: there's three of them, the chairman of any of those
Speaker 1: can request the tax returns of anyone, I mean, for
Speaker 1: any reason, for any well, the reason they need to
Speaker 1: have some sort of legislative purpose. If they're looking at
Speaker 1: conducting oversight compliance, if they're looking to pull some data
Speaker 1: from a whole swath of tax returns to it. Maybe
Speaker 1: if they want to create some sort of new tax law,
Speaker 1: they can do that. Um. So they have said that
Speaker 1: they need legislative purpose to make sure that the president
Speaker 1: is being audited properly. That's their justification. And uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll see what's the court's saying. Bloomberg Congress and Tax
Speaker 1: reporter Laura Davison with the insights. You're the first voice
Speaker 1: I heard on the radio this morning, on an on
Speaker 1: an early and dark morning listening to Bloomberg Radio. Laura,
Speaker 1: great job, and thank you for being with us. Let's
Speaker 1: reassemble the panel here and get to ache of Republican
Speaker 1: strategist Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributor to joined today by
Speaker 1: Kevin Walling, Democratic strategist at h G Creative Media. Rick,
Speaker 1: you're rolling your eyes on this one. We've been talking
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump's tax returns for longer than the returns
Speaker 1: they are seeking. I would like to simulate a yawn
Speaker 1: at this point. Um. Look, I mean this has been
Speaker 1: the battleist going. I am forever and and and I
Speaker 1: just believe what Donald Trump says, which is you know
Speaker 1: that your chump if you pay your taxes. And I'm
Speaker 1: assuming that what we'll find out, if we ever find out,
Speaker 1: is that he didn't pay his taxes, and and and
Speaker 1: yet you know, it's just another piece of wood on
Speaker 1: the wood pile that you're throwing on the fire right now.
Speaker 1: And and honestly, I mean, I don't think it will
Speaker 1: affect anything. I think people have already marked him to market,
Speaker 1: and that is that, you know, he's not a taxpayer.
Speaker 1: He finds ways in a code to do it, you know,
Speaker 1: probably with a wink and a nod. And and that's
Speaker 1: what we'll find out. And I don't think anybody would
Speaker 1: be surprised, but I but I do think you know,
Speaker 1: the deadline is close. Uh, Republicans get into leadership in
Speaker 1: the House, and there will no longer be an effort
Speaker 1: to get his tax returns by buy tax returns? Are
Speaker 1: you buying this? Kevin Walling? You don't think you're ever
Speaker 1: going to see those documents, do you? I mean, we'll
Speaker 1: certainly see. I mean, the most surprising thing for me
Speaker 1: coming out of this and reading more about this, is
Speaker 1: that we still have a Reagan judge on the Appellate
Speaker 1: Court ruling who wrote wrote the decision along with the
Speaker 1: Bush forty one judge and Obama judge, so obviously it
Speaker 1: was a universal decision you mentioned, Joe. You know, Chairman
Speaker 1: Richie Neal has been after these for quite a while.
Speaker 1: I was just with him the other week. We're solving
Speaker 1: a great Irish Americans in Congress. So I think this
Speaker 1: is a democratic action more not just for Trump but
Speaker 1: for the ages. In terms of the power of of
Speaker 1: the the of the Congress. Uh, this speaks to, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of a setting in stone the rights
Speaker 1: of the legislative branch the first article against the second article,
Speaker 1: or against any kind of individual who wants to withhold
Speaker 1: their their tax re terms. So did you think that
Speaker 1: the gentleman from Springfield will ever get a look at these? Kevin?
Speaker 1: You know that Donald Trump supporters have made really clear
Speaker 1: over years they don't care and and and Rick makes
Speaker 1: a great point. I mean, that's one of the key
Speaker 1: things we know about Donald Trump is that he pays
Speaker 1: as little in tax as possible. We saw some of
Speaker 1: that from previous returns that were released back from the nineties.
Speaker 1: So I don't think it moves the ball down the
Speaker 1: field whatsoever. We know that he's if not a tax
Speaker 1: sheet at tax avoider. So I don't think it has
Speaker 1: any real effect heading into this midterm year, and certainly
Speaker 1: if he runs. I know you're not a lawyer, Rick,
Speaker 1: but what's your gun on the Supreme Court they take,
Speaker 1: I would be surprised if they weigh in on this.
Speaker 1: I think they know the clock as well as anybody,
Speaker 1: and I think they see this for what it is,
Speaker 1: and and I think the point you're making is is
Speaker 1: an important one, and that is that this is a
Speaker 1: separation of power. This is a regulatory h power that
Speaker 1: Congress has, but like, don't you want to use it
Speaker 1: for something that actually seems more legitimate than what I
Speaker 1: he is a political attack against Donald Trump? Sure, I
Speaker 1: think you should have presented his tax returns when he
Speaker 1: was a candidate so that the public could decide. But
Speaker 1: at this point, is there really I mean, like, we're audited,
Speaker 1: you know, we want to know if the president is
Speaker 1: being audited properly. Come on, I mean, that's just you know,
Speaker 1: just narrative that we talked about with law enforcement, with
Speaker 1: federal law enforcement, Rick, be the only thing people with
Speaker 1: that that many conservatives hate more than the FBI is
Speaker 1: the I R S. Right, I think, you know, it's
Speaker 1: the it's the image of the I R S, you know,
Speaker 1: which is, you know that they just assume you're you're
Speaker 1: violating the law until you prove otherwise. And that's not
Speaker 1: what we learned when we were in school about you know,
Speaker 1: innocent until proven guilty. And and so I do think
Speaker 1: this is a fundamental problem, which is, you know, we
Speaker 1: we have these separation of powers for a reason, and
Speaker 1: and and yet the key is that they're used responsibly.
Speaker 1: And I just really question whether or not either the
Speaker 1: executive branch or judiciary or in the case of the
Speaker 1: the raid on mar Lago that the the the deecutive
Speaker 1: branch working with the juiciary, are they really functioning in
Speaker 1: the way they're supposed to or are they being weaponized?
Speaker 1: So serious questions being posed this hour. Bloomberg Politics contributor
Speaker 1: Rick Davis will be back with Kevin Walling of h
Speaker 1: G Creative Media. As we point towards the mid terms,
Speaker 1: already raising money in the near term. Until we hear
Speaker 1: from Merrick Garland. If we hear from Merrick Garland, is
Speaker 1: this a win for Trump? Nobody's talking about the chip
Speaker 1: back today. A lot have more ahead. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg. Sound on on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: I think right place, wrong time. The case for President
Speaker 1: Biden today, imagine the chip back finally passes after all
Speaker 1: the wrangling. It hit his desk last week, and the
Speaker 1: White House waited for just the right time to throw
Speaker 1: a celebration in the sun on the south lawn. Then
Speaker 1: the FBI happened in mar Alago. Listen to President Biden
Speaker 1: today with the victory lap intel. The CEO is here today,
Speaker 1: Pat girl singer, it's here today. Is going to break
Speaker 1: ground in the next generation Semiconjunctor factories in Central Ohio
Speaker 1: early this fall. American company Micron is announcing today because
Speaker 1: of this law, it's going to invest forty billion dollars
Speaker 1: over ten years to build factories and special chips called
Speaker 1: memory chips that store information on your smartphone. Comic Secretary
Speaker 1: Loop a lot of coughing, and then addressed today to
Speaker 1: thank you COVID. I'm assuming COVID general amount of the
Speaker 1: Commerce Secretary has told us repeatedly how important this is
Speaker 1: not just your washing machine and you're whatever you'll see
Speaker 1: need your radio? How about that, but national security missiles, airplanes,
Speaker 1: we can't build them for ourselves, Ukraine or anyone without
Speaker 1: a steady supply of semiconductors. So this was seen as
Speaker 1: a pretty big win and a bipartisan win. This is
Speaker 1: just the kind of day that Joe Biden looks forward to.
Speaker 1: Even though it was a hundred and fifty degrees with
Speaker 1: no cover on the south lawn, did anyone get carried
Speaker 1: out of there? I would have been There's no way
Speaker 1: I would have survived that. Uh aviators. This was supposed
Speaker 1: to be it, but it's not a major headline today
Speaker 1: because of everything we're talking about with Donald Trump. Bloomberg Politics.
Speaker 1: Contribute to Rick Davis back with US Republican Strategists, joined
Speaker 1: today by Kevin Walling, Democratic strategist h G Creative Media.
Speaker 1: As we reassemble our panel here, Rick, Joe Biden can't win.
Speaker 1: This is supposed to be a layoup, right, Yeah, talk
Speaker 1: about a victory lap without anybody attention to it. You know,
Speaker 1: it's the classic does a tree fall in the force
Speaker 1: if nobody hears it? You know, folders were there, they know.
Speaker 1: That's about it though. Yeah, and it's like the ghost
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump just continues to haunt this guy. But look,
Speaker 1: it doesn't take the shine off his victory lap. I mean,
Speaker 1: the reality is this is something that they'll dine out
Speaker 1: on politically for quite some time between November. They've had
Speaker 1: a great week. They they're building on a great month.
Speaker 1: Who would have ever thought you could rebuild a presidency
Speaker 1: in August. That is a first. So I think it's
Speaker 1: a daunting task. If you'd asked me, you know, in July,
Speaker 1: whether he could pull this off, I'd have said absolutely not,
Speaker 1: And I was wrong. I mean, he's he's done an
Speaker 1: amazing job in in in this month of trying to
Speaker 1: rebuild his presidency, but no one's gonna hear about it,
Speaker 1: Kevin or reward Democrats for it, as long as we're
Speaker 1: distracted by everything else. January six, now it's mar A Lago,
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine. I could keep going. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're absolutely right, Joe. I mean, in to Rick's point,
Speaker 1: not only did this happen in August, but with the
Speaker 1: president having pretty much two bouts of COVID back to
Speaker 1: back to back um and kind of being sideline obviously
Speaker 1: working from from the residents. But it's been a great
Speaker 1: two weeks for this administration, and if there was any
Speaker 1: indication that the the White House was not given for
Speaker 1: warn knowledge of this action at mar Lago, this is it.
Speaker 1: I mean, this totally captured, uh the press cycle that
Speaker 1: they wanted with the raw and of CHIPS bill with
Speaker 1: you know, not just that today, but Sweden in Finland, UH,
Speaker 1: the accession for those two countries in too NATO that
Speaker 1: happened right after the Chips ceremony, which is a big
Speaker 1: win on the international stage for this president total in
Speaker 1: Palm Beach. So yeah, what do you what do you
Speaker 1: tell the Communications office? I played Koreean John Pierre earlier.
Speaker 1: They're not talking about this, do they do? They need
Speaker 1: to cool it for a while here, maybe maybe schedule
Speaker 1: assuming it passes the reconciliation signing in like you know,
Speaker 1: after Labor Day. I think so, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: we've got it. We gotta do it when folks are
Speaker 1: paying attention. The President also had an incredibly powerful visit
Speaker 1: to UH to Kentucky as well this past year, that
Speaker 1: past week that's been totally overshadowed by that, totally sniffed
Speaker 1: out by that. So the press cycles everything what folks
Speaker 1: are tuned to and again just the twenty four hour
Speaker 1: news cycle. What we're talking about right now and sound on.
Speaker 1: It's just totally engulfed by Donald Trump. What a time
Speaker 1: to be alive. I mean, this is what people are
Speaker 1: talking about. Well, that's true, as Donald Trump said another
Speaker 1: day in Paradise, Rick, I want to be careful with this,
Speaker 1: but I feel like a responsibility to ask you both.
Speaker 1: There was an enormous amount of coughing in the speech today,
Speaker 1: more than we've heard from Joe Biden, and the White
Speaker 1: House has been asked about that. Do we chalk that
Speaker 1: up to COVID or do we need to ask the
Speaker 1: Press office again what's going on? Rick? You know, look,
Speaker 1: I mean you know there we monitor president's health by
Speaker 1: a minute. It's almost like we're all the vice president, right,
Speaker 1: what's our job? Hey, how are you feeling today? Uh?
Speaker 1: And so um, you know, the reality is, it's it's
Speaker 1: a question that has to be answered. It was really
Speaker 1: apparent it was unfortunate that he had such an important event,
Speaker 1: uh happy event for him that he couldn't enjoy. He
Speaker 1: was obviously under a lot of strength and discomfort because
Speaker 1: of coughing. But it is a result of potentially COVID
Speaker 1: and we know that that that he's been battling that
Speaker 1: for the last week. I would say it does seem
Speaker 1: kind of interesting that some of the greatest victories of
Speaker 1: this presidency, you know, including winning the election itself, has
Speaker 1: all been done by being a shut in, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: he in the presidency from his basement, and he got
Speaker 1: the best his entire presidency while on COVID. So maybe
Speaker 1: they ought to just keep him in the base Democrats
Speaker 1: lock him in the residents. Kevin, what's your take on this?
Speaker 1: Are we being fair to ask this question? Certainly you're
Speaker 1: being fair and obviously right at the outset. Karen Jean
Speaker 1: Pierre in her press conference I watched all of it
Speaker 1: today from the White House podium, fielded the initial questions
Speaker 1: about that coughing and talked about not just the president's
Speaker 1: negative COVID diagnosis but the long term effects of that.
Speaker 1: But now a use of inhaler two, which I think
Speaker 1: uh was news to me. Uh and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if that was because of uh COVID
Speaker 1: or exacerbated by covid um, but certainly that's something that
Speaker 1: the the administration needs to be forthright about. And they
Speaker 1: did say that he has tested negative, now what two
Speaker 1: days in a row, so they wouldn't have put him
Speaker 1: in day Yeah, So you know, we of course wished
Speaker 1: the best for him, but this is a concern. The
Speaker 1: health of the commander in chief is a really big deal,
Speaker 1: and when it is such a thing as long COVID
Speaker 1: and the risks that come with his age, Uh, this
Speaker 1: is obviously very sensitive business. Rick and Kevin, I want
Speaker 1: to ask you about the mid terms. That's the first
Speaker 1: question everybody asked me on TV today. You know, what
Speaker 1: does this mean for November? And the fact is we
Speaker 1: of course don't know. But Rick, if Merrick Carland doesn't emerge,
Speaker 1: and this kind of stays the same way right now,
Speaker 1: this is a huge boost for Donald Trump and his
Speaker 1: endorsed candidates, right well, um M that I think you're
Speaker 1: overplaying it. I mean, you know, we've seen Donald Trump
Speaker 1: come back from really horrific um moments, you know, the
Speaker 1: access Hollywood right before the elections in sixteen and things
Speaker 1: like that. Um, so he has staying power. But um
Speaker 1: you really wonder what motivates his base. I don't think
Speaker 1: that this will motivate his base anymore than he's already motivated.
Speaker 1: I don't really see this as anything that's going to
Speaker 1: have an electoral impact. I mean, the fact that it
Speaker 1: overshadows all the news is a negative for the Biden
Speaker 1: campaign and what they're trying to accomplish with Congress, because
Speaker 1: it just sucks all the oxygen out of the Aras
Speaker 1: Kevin was saying, I mean, like you're really looking for
Speaker 1: an opening, I would say, if I were a Democratic strategist,
Speaker 1: I would say, We're never going to have an opening
Speaker 1: with this guy. We have just got a trudge through
Speaker 1: this stuff. You know, I'd launch a infrastructure tour tomorrow
Speaker 1: if I thought I had the time of the president,
Speaker 1: you know, just because you're just running the clockdown and
Speaker 1: and and Donald Trump will do that to you. He'll
Speaker 1: incapacitate you with all these crazy things that he can
Speaker 1: do on a moment's notice. It's fascinating to watch this
Speaker 1: in real time. Kevin, How worried are you about the
Speaker 1: fundraising that's taking place right now and and how damaging
Speaker 1: could it be from your side of the aisle for
Speaker 1: Republicans to to take on the refrain defund the FBI. Well,
Speaker 1: it's an interesting point. Listen. You know, I think you
Speaker 1: know coming out a quarter too. What we saw just
Speaker 1: uh blockbuster halls for the Democrats. Uh you know that
Speaker 1: are that are headed into defall. Now, you're not worried
Speaker 1: about a fundraising advantage because of this, I'm not. What
Speaker 1: I'm interested it in is the amount of money that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump himself is raising off of this, pulling resources
Speaker 1: from down ballot candidates and key Senate and House races.
Speaker 1: I think that has actually more of an effect than
Speaker 1: kind of galvanizing you know, donors to uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a downballot congressional race in a heated district. And this
Speaker 1: is why you don't opposite fact of yeah, of galvanizing
Speaker 1: money just to Donald Trump, which is what he wants.
Speaker 1: This is why you don't announce though, right Rick, Uh,
Speaker 1: you cut yourself off at the knees that that money
Speaker 1: he can only access five grand limits the fundraising five
Speaker 1: grand from the pack. Uh. He's going to drag this
Speaker 1: out right. Yeah, there's no question that you do try
Speaker 1: to manage the magic words I'm running for president so
Speaker 1: that you don't get limited. But look the reality is
Speaker 1: that his folks are going to manage that fund if
Speaker 1: he is not, if he's an announced candidate and it's
Speaker 1: not like it's going anywhere, and it's all gonna be
Speaker 1: used to his benefits. So the RNs he's gonna stop
Speaker 1: paying his legal bills though, um well, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: you don't know that, right. I mean, like he's got
Speaker 1: such a grip on this party. I mean, there's there's
Speaker 1: no doubt that they'll probably uh Trump will probably expect
Speaker 1: it to be happening that way. So the reality is,
Speaker 1: it is a it is an important event when it happens,
Speaker 1: and I think it has bigger impact on the field
Speaker 1: and the politics, and it does on the money. He's
Speaker 1: going to be able to raise money for himself, but
Speaker 1: as Kevin says, that's just draining it from the rest
Speaker 1: of the party. The r n C is not raising
Speaker 1: that money for other candidates. He doesn't spend it on
Speaker 1: other candidates. And so you know, the reality is, I
Speaker 1: think one of the stories we're gonna be talking about,
Speaker 1: regardless of the outcome of the elections is how many
Speaker 1: Senate races the Democrats outspent Republicans on, how many governors
Speaker 1: races Democrats have spent governors on. I mean, like you're
Speaker 1: seeing that lining up now, and you don't see the
Speaker 1: big fund fundraising initiative that Donald Trump could do for
Speaker 1: those candidates only have thirty seconds. Kevin, as a Democrat,
Speaker 1: are you begging for him to run? Absolutely, I've been
Speaker 1: begging for him to run for the last three months.
Speaker 1: I think that's actually one of the few things that
Speaker 1: can help us, along with what we saw out of
Speaker 1: Kansas with the the the Row vote, begging Joe Biden
Speaker 1: to run, begging Donald Trump to announced that he runs.
Speaker 1: Yes see, I almost got you in trouble. I don't
Speaker 1: want anyone on this panel who have to apologize to
Speaker 1: the White House tomorrow. Kevin Walling. Great to have you back.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Democratic Strategistic of course, uh principle and HD
Speaker 1: Creative Media. Rick Davis are pal Bloomberg Politics contributor, Republican
Speaker 1: strategists with the reality check for us every day voices
Speaker 1: of experience. Here on the fastest hour in politics. Yeah,
Speaker 1: matt take all the petty cash. This represents the last
Speaker 1: of the petty kind. I'll meet you back here tomorrow
Speaker 1: on the fastest hour in politics, Sancho, Matthew, this is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg