Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: I don't believe we'll ever have a fair election again.
Speaker 1: If not for the Senate Leadership Fund Mitch McConnell's group,
Speaker 1: most of these campaigns in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, they
Speaker 1: wouldn't have any money at all. He should be called
Speaker 1: out on this. The rhetoric is unacceptable. Bloomberg Sound On, Politics,
Speaker 1: Policy and Perspective from DC's top name. I have no
Speaker 1: no idea, but it is a flight outlie and uh
Speaker 1: and now you know how important this seat is. Everything
Speaker 1: has been at Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. The FBI says Russia is at it again.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the fastest hour in politics, with word from
Speaker 1: the agency that foreign actors are using social media to
Speaker 1: stoke mistrusts in the electoral process, and Vladimir Putin is
Speaker 1: the most aggressive among them. Sound familiar, year We'll talk
Speaker 1: with social media expert Jeffrey Blevin from the University of
Speaker 1: Cincinnati and with Jamil Jaffer, director of the National Security Institute. Later,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration sending another weaponship into Ukraine, hundreds of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars worth. This time, we'll talk with retired
Speaker 1: Brigadier General Mark Kimmittt and the GOP stands by herschel Walker.
Speaker 1: After the Senate candidate is accused of paying for a
Speaker 1: girl friend's abortion, we'll discuss with our signature panel Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributors Rick Davis and Ginnie Chanzano. So was Donald
Speaker 1: Trump onto something when he spoke last weekend at the
Speaker 1: big rally in Warren, Michigan. But I'm afraid we have
Speaker 1: never had and I don't believe. I don't believe we'll
Speaker 1: ever have a fair election again. Ever, I don't believe
Speaker 1: that it's what he said creating more down in the system.
Speaker 1: And so the headline just kind of jumped off the
Speaker 1: terminal this morning. FBI sees Putin's hand in sewing division
Speaker 1: about US mid term voting. Bloomberg News reporting for an
Speaker 1: actors are using social media to aggravate divisions within the
Speaker 1: US and trust in the electoral process. Russia is the
Speaker 1: poster child, the most aggressive, as we see the hand
Speaker 1: of Ladimir Putin again. But the FBI says the Chinese
Speaker 1: government is watching and learning how to exploit riffs in
Speaker 1: the US and on this day that Elon Musk revives
Speaker 1: his bid for Twitter, there is a serious conversation happening
Speaker 1: about foreign interference on social media. We're going to explore
Speaker 1: it with some important voices today, beginning with Jeffrey Blevin's
Speaker 1: professor in the Department of Journalism and School of Public
Speaker 1: and International Affairs at the University of Cincinnati. He's with
Speaker 1: us now, Professor, welcome. You're a social media expert, and
Speaker 1: so I wonder what did we learn, if anything, in
Speaker 1: the election that might help us. Now, well, it's very
Speaker 1: hard to battle disinformation, and social media companies are really
Speaker 1: playing whackable. So, you know, disinformation is is put out there,
Speaker 1: and in two thousand and sixteen, it was primarily done
Speaker 1: through bots, you know, these automated fake accounts. The problem is,
Speaker 1: once you remove those accounts, the disinformation has already been sown,
Speaker 1: and so now you have real users who are believing
Speaker 1: and retweeting and reposting, uh, those claims, and that is
Speaker 1: a much harder problem to deal with. I find it
Speaker 1: fascinating that the the FBI doesn't see foreign actors like
Speaker 1: Russia as needing to create divisive content like we saw
Speaker 1: in the presidential election. Instead, they're leveraging existing content. There's
Speaker 1: already stuff out there, they just have to go and
Speaker 1: amplify it. Is that what's exchanging exactly? You know, maybe
Speaker 1: plant the seed. But as you pointed out, we also
Speaker 1: have some homegrown actors who do that, you know, Q
Speaker 1: and on uh you know, for instance, or you might
Speaker 1: have uh, you know politicians that do that. And it's
Speaker 1: you know, just simply by focusing on Russia where it starts.
Speaker 1: The most significant actors are really what we call bridge actors,
Speaker 1: ones that amplify and retweet those uh, those claims. And
Speaker 1: when you describe whack a mole, you know, to what
Speaker 1: extents are the Facebook's Twitters, Instagrams? I'm assuming it's the
Speaker 1: first to really maybe TikTok also, uh, and that's got
Speaker 1: a whole different connotation being owned by the Chinese. But
Speaker 1: for Twitter and Facebook, do they know this before we do? Uh,
Speaker 1: maybe just a little bit before. But I think that's
Speaker 1: really the problem because you know the great thing about
Speaker 1: social media is that it's immediate you you post something,
Speaker 1: it goes out right. Um, if we were going to
Speaker 1: make social media companies truly responsible for verifying the accuracy
Speaker 1: of every single claim, that's made. Well it's no longer
Speaker 1: an immediate mass medium. You know, they're going to have
Speaker 1: to filter you through that, you know, before making decisions
Speaker 1: about whether something or not goes goes live. So you
Speaker 1: really change, you know, the nature of what social media
Speaker 1: is when you do that. So instead, you know, you
Speaker 1: look for these kind of behaviors that are suspect. You know,
Speaker 1: like someone who claims to be a school teacher and
Speaker 1: they have like forty or fifty thousand followers. Ok, well
Speaker 1: that's in ordinate. That looks like a botic. How worried
Speaker 1: are you when you see the Chinese digging into this
Speaker 1: type of strategy taking a page from Russia? Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: we have it coming, you know, adds on on all sides.
Speaker 1: But you know, again, I think it's more about how
Speaker 1: we deal with it individually, um, you know, other than
Speaker 1: you know, trying to change the nature of social media.
Speaker 1: I think we have to be more educated consumers of
Speaker 1: social media. And this is where I think media literacy
Speaker 1: has a role to play. I mean, at what point,
Speaker 1: you know, is the audience responsible for the information that
Speaker 1: they consume and go, wait a minute, that sounds suspect.
Speaker 1: Maybe I should try to you know, to to verify
Speaker 1: that or simply look at who is making those those
Speaker 1: claims and in questioning the veracity based on the source, unless,
Speaker 1: of course, people are looking for that content with that
Speaker 1: political angle, and you know, well we've already lost in
Speaker 1: that case. But enter Elon Musk, Professor Blevins realizing this
Speaker 1: is speculative what you have learned about Elon Musk and
Speaker 1: and the power and influence of Twitter, the idea of
Speaker 1: adjusting the algorithm, of of getting rid of the bots.
Speaker 1: Does this make it a more of an accessible weapon
Speaker 1: for foreign actors or less of one. You know, there's
Speaker 1: certainly a lot that remains to be seen in some
Speaker 1: of the good and some of the bad. So coming
Speaker 1: back to you know, originally Win Must put in his
Speaker 1: bid to buy Twitter or to to a quire Twitter.
Speaker 1: You know, he you know, claimed that he wanted to
Speaker 1: you know, get rid of of of of these bots,
Speaker 1: right and that he was going to make you know,
Speaker 1: algorithms transparent. However, when he was trying to back out
Speaker 1: of the deal, it was more that well, bots might
Speaker 1: inflate you know, the value unfairly of of Twitter. But
Speaker 1: of course, you know, there's business reasons why you may
Speaker 1: not want to do that. Twitter was lowd to deal
Speaker 1: with this in two thousand and fifteen when they became
Speaker 1: aware of this, you know, Horde of of of body accounts.
Speaker 1: So you know, is that a genuine interest in his
Speaker 1: or not. At the same time, you have to wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, what kind of political influence that um, that
Speaker 1: Musk might you know, exert over Twitter as as well. Um,
Speaker 1: he couldn't have been too happy about the poll he
Speaker 1: posted on his own Twitter accounts suggesting that, oh, the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: just you know, let Russia and X cribea and you know, therefore,
Speaker 1: you know, we can be out of this this war. Well,
Speaker 1: you know clearly that was the stance that was favorable
Speaker 1: to um, you know, to to Russia. But you know,
Speaker 1: how would he deal with that personally? If there is
Speaker 1: content out there that doesn't align with with his beliefs
Speaker 1: another claim that he's made and I don't know that
Speaker 1: this gets us to the real problem. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: even if his concern is let's say, you know, for
Speaker 1: an actors, well, as we were just discussing, we have
Speaker 1: plenty of home growth, and well what do you do
Speaker 1: with politicians and celebrities? Were they're the ones that are
Speaker 1: spreading disinformation, especially when they become one, as in Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And that's the expectation, right. If Elon Musk gets this
Speaker 1: thing once and for all, this deal closes, Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: going back on Twitter, that would be would appear to
Speaker 1: be the case. He's been posting q and on content
Speaker 1: on truth socially, at least, I can only assume that
Speaker 1: coming next right, Well, he posted q and on based
Speaker 1: content when he had a Twitter accounts as well. Thank god.
Speaker 1: He's the author of the forthcoming book Social Media, Social Justice,
Speaker 1: and the Political Economy of Online Networks. I can't wait
Speaker 1: to read it. Professor Jeffrey Blavin's I thank you forgetting
Speaker 1: the ball rolling with us here in great analysis and
Speaker 1: background from the University of Cincinnati. We add another layer.
Speaker 1: This is a new media story, it's also an election
Speaker 1: security story, and we had the voice of Jamie Jaffer,
Speaker 1: now founder and executive director of the National Security Institute. Jamil,
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us. Does this feel like
Speaker 1: a dress rehearsal for well, certainly, I think you know,
Speaker 1: there's a real possibility that some of the work that's
Speaker 1: happening here um in these congressional elections could be utilized
Speaker 1: and the information that these foreign adversaries gather from how
Speaker 1: we respond to their efforts to con sucked misinformation desperation
Speaker 1: may very well be used in the twenty four presidential elections.
Speaker 1: So what should we be doing now? You know, when
Speaker 1: you see a story like this, like history repeating itself,
Speaker 1: I realized that you can only bring the CEOs of
Speaker 1: social media companies before Congress for so many hearings. Does
Speaker 1: the government have to step in? Well, you know so,
Speaker 1: I think one of the keys here is how to
Speaker 1: figure out how we reconcile as a nation. UM. Are
Speaker 1: interested in free speech, UM and the uh. You know
Speaker 1: that we want to make sure that people have the
Speaker 1: ability to express their political views, but also ensuring that
Speaker 1: it's not foreign adversaries that are interfering in our elections,
Speaker 1: either creating new narratives like we've seen the Russian government
Speaker 1: do UM, or amplifying American narratives UM and modifying them
Speaker 1: as we see the Chinese have done historically. And we
Speaker 1: see the Chinese now be adopting some of this Russian
Speaker 1: behavior of also creating new narratives. So how do we
Speaker 1: avoid foreign interference while allowing America to have their voices
Speaker 1: and take place in that in the public square of discussion.
Speaker 1: Do you have an answer? Because this is protected content,
Speaker 1: it's constitutionally protected, it's it's free speech, unless, of course
Speaker 1: you're from another country. That's exactly right. And so the
Speaker 1: question is, how do we assess whether, you know, the
Speaker 1: folks that are that are that are engaged in this
Speaker 1: activity are foreign adversaries um or are or are Americans
Speaker 1: engaged in free speech? And figuring that out is a
Speaker 1: hard thing. Uh. The government's not good at it. Uh.
Speaker 1: The private sector companies are trying to do it. They're
Speaker 1: not good at it either. They're getting better. The government's
Speaker 1: getting better. I think the government industry collaborating together understanding
Speaker 1: better where the foreign threat actors are coming from. You know,
Speaker 1: the government has a lot of information they collect overseas
Speaker 1: on what foreign adversaries are doing. They need to be
Speaker 1: able to share that with the private sectors, and the
Speaker 1: private sector needs to take action on their own platforms.
Speaker 1: And the reason why I make sense for them to
Speaker 1: do this on their own platforms and the government not
Speaker 1: to get involved is because at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: these are private fora In a lot of ways, they
Speaker 1: do look like the public school, are you know, the
Speaker 1: the open park. Of course, the government has no real jurisdiction,
Speaker 1: nor necessarily do we think they should have jurisdiction over
Speaker 1: private uh you know for ah where it's not owned
Speaker 1: or operated by the government. So how can they be
Speaker 1: compelled then to really, you know, to really police this
Speaker 1: type of content when we know they're selling ads against
Speaker 1: it in many cases in every quarter they have to
Speaker 1: impress shareholders with growth. Well, you know, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is one of the hard questions. I think. We've seen
Speaker 1: these platforms try to do the right thing. We've seen
Speaker 1: them take action to take down in authentic, coordinated behavior
Speaker 1: of the kind you earlier guests was speaking about. But
Speaker 1: of course that's gotten them into trouble too because at
Speaker 1: times they've gotten it wrong. They've suppressed what folks view
Speaker 1: as certain kinds of speech because they believe they have
Speaker 1: certain biases or they like And so you have this
Speaker 1: reaction where the companies are you know, trying like you know,
Speaker 1: like that Harry Potter house self, they're trying to do
Speaker 1: the right thing, but they keep getting getting it wrong
Speaker 1: a little bit, and then they keep getting punished for it.
Speaker 1: At the same time, right there are concerns legitmic concerns
Speaker 1: that they in fact are trying to suppress certain kinds
Speaker 1: of speech, And how do you balance those two things.
Speaker 1: I think at the end of the day, what we
Speaker 1: have to do is we have to believe that these
Speaker 1: we have to trust these probably comes are trying to
Speaker 1: do the right thing, and we've got a police and
Speaker 1: make sure they are. And when they're not doing the
Speaker 1: right thing, we're calling that out. But at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, it's more important that we prevent these
Speaker 1: foreign adversaries from interfering in our elections, in our political debate. Uh,
Speaker 1: then we sort of you known than we what we believe.
Speaker 1: Essentially that may or may not be censorship. Threats to
Speaker 1: our electoral system can take on a lot of different forms.
Speaker 1: They are not all on social media. And in terms
Speaker 1: of the domestic front here will jump off that Jamal,
Speaker 1: because the FBI is tracking threats to election workers as well.
Speaker 1: This is a different part of the story. This is
Speaker 1: not Russia working. This is all internal. They've investigated more
Speaker 1: than a thousand of these threats since June of twenty one,
Speaker 1: leading to four arrests so far, four out of a thousand,
Speaker 1: and according to the FBI, more than half of them.
Speaker 1: Six we're in states where conspiracy theories over the election
Speaker 1: results were highest Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan. Is that an
Speaker 1: easier or more difficult threat to combat? Well, I think
Speaker 1: it's a challenge, right, because of course, what you do
Speaker 1: not want is you do not want anybody threatening election workers.
Speaker 1: These are people, oftentimes senior citizens, who are who are
Speaker 1: taking their own personal time and giving it to the
Speaker 1: American policy to help our elections go better. But these
Speaker 1: are not people who are doing it out partisan loyalties. Typically,
Speaker 1: they're typically doing it because they want elections to function
Speaker 1: the way that we've always thought they should um and
Speaker 1: so threats against these workers is really in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways, it's it's almost un American, right. It's one
Speaker 1: of things you have a beef about about about candidates, right,
Speaker 1: or you have a concern the elections are not fair,
Speaker 1: but the election workers are very rarely you know, part
Speaker 1: of that process, you have these these partisan poll where
Speaker 1: kers who are there who are moderated for parts of purposes.
Speaker 1: But more often than not, these pole workers were there
Speaker 1: are right, it's different exactly, they're there to try and
Speaker 1: just get the election done and get it done right,
Speaker 1: and so threatening them to me is is it's completely inappropriate.
Speaker 1: I think the Just partner is doing the right thing
Speaker 1: by investigating these things I'm and prosecuting them were appropriate.
Speaker 1: And for me, you know, when it's a thousand investigations
Speaker 1: and only four rests, that tells me the Just Department
Speaker 1: is being very careful and be precise and not going
Speaker 1: after people who are not actually engaged in threats, but
Speaker 1: are really being precise and going after the right people. Um.
Speaker 1: And ultimately this will turn on the question whether they
Speaker 1: get convictions or not in those four cases. Four cases.
Speaker 1: I mean, my gosh, you like to think out of
Speaker 1: a thousand of these threats that there might be four
Speaker 1: cases to talk about between now and say four I
Speaker 1: just wonder how busy the FBI is going to be
Speaker 1: online and offline dealing with with old fashioned threats like
Speaker 1: this for the next two years. Jamale, well, Joe, you know, look,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the important thing that we all
Speaker 1: need to remembers Americans is that elections and democracy are
Speaker 1: at the core of how we protect that thing that's
Speaker 1: really important about America, which is our freedom. And if
Speaker 1: we don't have free and fair elections. Right, then we
Speaker 1: don't maintain our freedom. And the way to get there
Speaker 1: is not by attacking the system, not by attacking poll workers, right,
Speaker 1: But it's saying, look, we gotta have free and fair elections,
Speaker 1: and that's done. We have good candidates in the race,
Speaker 1: We get their views out there publicly, we debate the
Speaker 1: issues honestly, not from a purely partisan perspective or a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory perspective. And then we trust that our elections
Speaker 1: are getting done right. And we protect the law enforced institutions,
Speaker 1: the FBI, the just Forma that are trying to enforce
Speaker 1: those laws. And we not undermine our law enforcement, our
Speaker 1: Justice Department, or our election systems. We protect them and
Speaker 1: preserve them. It's fair to be critical, it's not fair
Speaker 1: to undermine them through conspiracy theory. Thank you, Jamille. This
Speaker 1: is why we wanted to have you. JAMIALE. Jeffer, Founder
Speaker 1: executive director of the National Security Institute. I thank you
Speaker 1: for your insights today. It's this is important stuff. And
Speaker 1: I'll point you back to the terminal FBI c S
Speaker 1: Putin's hand and sewing division about us mid term voting
Speaker 1: read a great piece of journalism by Chris Strong in
Speaker 1: our DC bureau. This is coming straight from the FBI.
Speaker 1: You are not going to hear two conversations like that
Speaker 1: without a commercial break anywhere else today, which is what
Speaker 1: we're proud to do here on Bloomberg Radio. I'm Joe,
Speaker 1: Matthew and Washington. We're gonna assemble the panel next. Elon
Speaker 1: Musk back in the game, and everybody's gaming out on
Speaker 1: Twitter what it's gonna mean for the digital public square Reminding,
Speaker 1: of course, as I believe Jamille did that, that is
Speaker 1: a well, you're listening to Bloomberg. You know this a
Speaker 1: private company, publicly traded, but not anything public or government
Speaker 1: about it, even though some have suggested it become a
Speaker 1: nonprofit in these different ideas. Let's get into it with
Speaker 1: the panel. Rick Davis and Jennie Chanzano are with us.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors are signature panel. As we see uh
Speaker 1: this disturbing headline here, we know that it's happening. And
Speaker 1: I wonder, Genie, if you're as concerned as many Democrats
Speaker 1: are about Elon Musk potentially making this situation worse. I
Speaker 1: think that the absolute possibility, I mean, if this deal
Speaker 1: goes forward you're hearing. In some cases, I think that's
Speaker 1: a little soon, but it could be as soon as Friday.
Speaker 1: And he has promised to get Donald Trump back on Twitter,
Speaker 1: and you know, he usually does what he says he's
Speaker 1: going to do, so I think if this deal goes through,
Speaker 1: Trump could be back on Twitter. Um, but it's it's
Speaker 1: not just Trump, and there's an awful lot of work
Speaker 1: to do on Twitter. We'll have to see where that goes.
Speaker 1: But you know, Pew Research says eighteen percent of Americans
Speaker 1: today rely solely and exclusively on social media for their news,
Speaker 1: and that number will increase. I deal with young people
Speaker 1: every day. They spent a lot of time on social media.
Speaker 1: So if one out of five Americans at this point
Speaker 1: is relying on social media, it's going to increase. Which
Speaker 1: means the opportunity for these groups, whether they're domestic or foreign,
Speaker 1: as you were just talking about, to spread false information
Speaker 1: is growing rapidly, and our elections and our other institutions
Speaker 1: are at risk. I think there's a place for the
Speaker 1: government to get in in terms of regulation, but a
Speaker 1: lot has to be done that hasn't been done since
Speaker 1: you know, social media, you know, erupted several years ago,
Speaker 1: we've fallen really, really behind, and especially with Europe, it's
Speaker 1: evolved so quickly. Rick Davis, it just to me it
Speaker 1: doesn't feel like anything really has changed since. What are
Speaker 1: we capable of preventing now that we weren't then? Uh,
Speaker 1: from what it sounds like, very little nothing. And and
Speaker 1: it's one of these things where no matter what you do,
Speaker 1: there's always gonna be enterprising, smart technologists who find a
Speaker 1: way around it and create something new. I mean, who
Speaker 1: would have thought, you know, when Trotter was first taken
Speaker 1: in public and and started attracting so much attention that
Speaker 1: it would be used for these kinds of purposes. And
Speaker 1: so look, I think this is one of the things
Speaker 1: that that regulators have a particularly difficult UM challenge to meet,
Speaker 1: and that is how do you set up the laws
Speaker 1: of the future, not looking backwards. We know that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has just taken up two new UM cases
Speaker 1: related to Section to thirty that protects these Internet companies
Speaker 1: like Twitter, um, you know, and and And the question is,
Speaker 1: you know, is that really the framework an old publisher
Speaker 1: carve out that the future of the Internet and and
Speaker 1: and the policing of it based on trying to find
Speaker 1: more fact and fiction and protecting our elections and all
Speaker 1: the things you were just talking about. You know, what's
Speaker 1: the law in the future. Donald Trump wanted to go
Speaker 1: after Twitter um and repeal their section to thirty. So
Speaker 1: it'll be interesting to see if he gives invited in
Speaker 1: exactly what happens. I think all of this puts it
Speaker 1: in play, the Twitter fight that's going on right now.
Speaker 1: Putting it into musk sands as a private individual is
Speaker 1: just going to exacerbate calls for reform, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: What does it say about us at this time, Genie,
Speaker 1: when the FBI says foreign actors no longer need to
Speaker 1: create divisive content, they simply use our words against us.
Speaker 1: It's a different game than it was. Now it is
Speaker 1: and it feels like, you know, your guests use the
Speaker 1: word whack a mole. It feels like the government and
Speaker 1: we as a society are are constantly playing ketch up.
Speaker 1: But there are really smart people out there with really
Speaker 1: good ideas about things that can be done to address this.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at how the UK has passed the
Speaker 1: Online Harms Bill, look at what the EU has done
Speaker 1: with the g d G D p R those are
Speaker 1: good ideas that we can build on. States have begun
Speaker 1: to do things like this. We can stop with the
Speaker 1: immunity to these Internet platforms. We can take steps at
Speaker 1: the federal, state, and local level to improve this entire
Speaker 1: information ecosystem. I always tell people there's a reason that
Speaker 1: that press is the only private institution mentioned in our constitution.
Speaker 1: It's that critical to democratic systems, so we have to
Speaker 1: protect it. And that includes not just traditional media, but
Speaker 1: social media more importantly today, and just old fashioned offline
Speaker 1: attempts to interfere. We talked briefly about these threats to
Speaker 1: election workers. Only four arrests out of a thousand complaints
Speaker 1: so far. Does the FBI need to do more? You know?
Speaker 1: I do think UH running a campaign about why this
Speaker 1: is wrong and why it hurts our democracy and how
Speaker 1: inappropriate it is in in our culture is something the FBI,
Speaker 1: who still has a lot of credibility amongst the public,
Speaker 1: UH could really do. That would help its UH law enforcement,
Speaker 1: but also UH give some more power back to the
Speaker 1: people who are actually in these jobs. It's a great thought.
Speaker 1: Rick Davis, Jeannie Chanzano our signature panel. Now you know
Speaker 1: why I'm Joe Matthew and Washington. As we turn to
Speaker 1: the fight in Ukraine and another package of weapons on
Speaker 1: the way. This is Bloomberg. The Biden Administration sends another
Speaker 1: six hundred thirty million dollars in weapons and military gear
Speaker 1: to Ukraine. Press Secretary at the White House karnem seun Fire.
Speaker 1: This security assistance package is the twenty second utilization of
Speaker 1: Presidential person Eidential draw down authorities for Ukraine by the
Speaker 1: Biden administration. Today's package includes four high Mars, thirty two
Speaker 1: Howitzer's two hundred mine resistant vehicles, and hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of rounds of artillery and mortar ammunition. This, of course,
Speaker 1: following recent advances by Ukraine against Russia. We want to
Speaker 1: start with that shopping list. As we're joined by retired
Speaker 1: Brigadier General Mark Kim at General welcome back to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Hey Joe, the administration says, another weapons package is heading
Speaker 1: to Ukraine and it includes four high Mars among a
Speaker 1: number of different items. Will they make a difference. We
Speaker 1: will make a difference. Is the ammunition the rockets that
Speaker 1: we use inside of the high mars. Hopefully we've got
Speaker 1: enough ammunition for them um and if we do, I
Speaker 1: think it will make a difference in the close fight,
Speaker 1: but I'm not sure really in the deep fight against
Speaker 1: their weapons and logistics, don't that will make much of
Speaker 1: a difference unless we get been a significant amount of ammunition.
Speaker 1: I know it's difficult to tell the status of the
Speaker 1: Russian army from here, but as Vladimir Putin is apparently
Speaker 1: on his heels at the moment in waiting to conscript
Speaker 1: people from prisons in other places, is it possible general
Speaker 1: that the Russian army could collapse sooner than experts thing? Oh,
Speaker 1: I wish that were the case. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: The Russian army has always been a collection of conscripts,
Speaker 1: and but this is also the army that won the
Speaker 1: Second World War. I think as long as he continues
Speaker 1: to pour troops in very large numbers, he will have
Speaker 1: enough troops. Even if he needs to be at a
Speaker 1: five to one advantage, he can provide that well. With
Speaker 1: that said, winter is coming, and I wonder if you
Speaker 1: can explain the significance of this season to our listeners,
Speaker 1: because time is running out. It's a couple of things. Uh,
Speaker 1: It's a significant amount of mud, rain and freezing that
Speaker 1: happens on the grounds inside of Ukraine. It's just like
Speaker 1: we see in our own country. It's hard to move
Speaker 1: those mechanized vehicles, it's hard to move the artillery pieces.
Speaker 1: It slows the fight down considerably, and that could be
Speaker 1: an advantage to Ukraines if they the Ukrainians that they
Speaker 1: decide to fight hard during that season. But it's really
Speaker 1: not what we consider the fighting season compared to when
Speaker 1: the ground is soft, uh, the air is warm, and
Speaker 1: the troops are a little more motivated to fight during
Speaker 1: that time to understood. So games that are made in
Speaker 1: the next two months then are going to be significant
Speaker 1: as as they're likely to be frozen literally and figuratively
Speaker 1: for a couple of months after that as we go
Speaker 1: into the new year. Yeah, I'm I'm less concerned about
Speaker 1: the weather and more concerned about the logistics that the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians themselves have. We've gone through an awful lot of food, fuel,
Speaker 1: repair parts. I don't think we have a good appreciation
Speaker 1: for the amount of vehicles that the ukra means have
Speaker 1: themselves lost, So we'll have to see. I think they
Speaker 1: have at this point run into what we call a
Speaker 1: culminating point, which means the largest sense that they have
Speaker 1: will be hard to continue. They may have to rest
Speaker 1: and refit before one final offensive when the weather gets bad.
Speaker 1: But I think we'll wait and see. But they cannot
Speaker 1: continue this pace they've made For the last six weeks.
Speaker 1: We've heard messages from Russia, and of course, going back
Speaker 1: to last week the annexation votes that took place. Now
Speaker 1: a Russian official is warning the US that it's escalating
Speaker 1: military assistance to Ukraine risks triggering a direct conflict between
Speaker 1: Russia and NATO. As we consider the possibility of Russia
Speaker 1: responding to an attack on its territory since it says
Speaker 1: that it's Russian territory. Are you more concerned now about
Speaker 1: this escalating for the United States than you were a
Speaker 1: couple of months ago? Oh? I I very much. Do
Speaker 1: I think that there is a chance of going into
Speaker 1: an escalatory cycle. Uh. The Ukrainians do not seem to
Speaker 1: have it, had not seemed to have taken an appetite
Speaker 1: president for what they're requiring. Uh. They keep asking for more,
Speaker 1: they keep asking for better, they keep asking for longer range. Uh.
Speaker 1: At some point the Russians are going to say, who
Speaker 1: were really fighting here? Are we fighting? The Ukrainians? Or
Speaker 1: are we fighting the West? And when Putin's back is
Speaker 1: against the wall, I'm sure his military commanders are saying
Speaker 1: we need to escalate as well, and I'm concerned that
Speaker 1: that could potentially trip into the tactical nuclear weapons field.
Speaker 1: General Mark Kimmitt, retired Brigadier general, former Assistant Secretary of
Speaker 1: State for Political Military Affairs. It's great to have you
Speaker 1: backstre and we appreciate your insights. Alright, thanks a lot.
Speaker 1: As we prepare to reassemble the panel, I should know
Speaker 1: that the President President Biden did speak about this latest
Speaker 1: weapons package with President Zelenski today, a phone call that
Speaker 1: included Vice President Kamala Harris, who also condemned russia Is
Speaker 1: move to annex parts of eastern and southern Ukraine, President
Speaker 1: Biden promising the U S would quote impose severe costs
Speaker 1: unquote on any person or entity that supports the move.
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano are back with us to
Speaker 1: take a quick swing at this story. As one of
Speaker 1: President Zelenski's closest aids, Rick says that the war will
Speaker 1: probably be over in months. There are so many different
Speaker 1: opinions on this. Do you tend to believe what the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians are saying since we were wrong at the beginning. Well, um,
Speaker 1: I certainly think they are the ones who want to
Speaker 1: at least believe most Um, they are on the ground,
Speaker 1: they're seeing the deterioration of the Russian forces, They're seeing
Speaker 1: the health and well being of their own forces. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, they understand the pinch points of getting um
Speaker 1: this war wage on the front. But look, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think we have to respect what General kimm It
Speaker 1: was just saying, which is, don't underestimate even a failing
Speaker 1: Russian army to throw more equipment, more personnel into the
Speaker 1: breach and and prolongness. Um. So look, you it would
Speaker 1: be great news if if this could be done, you know,
Speaker 1: this winter. But I think most of the people we
Speaker 1: heard from earlier this year, we're talking about this war
Speaker 1: waging on for some time to come. Yes, obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians are outperforming anybody's expectations, and we can only
Speaker 1: hope that they continue to be successful. When are we
Speaker 1: going to run into a wall on on these weapons shipments? Genie,
Speaker 1: this has come up a lot of times. We didn't
Speaker 1: send the bigs because we didn't want to escalate. Now
Speaker 1: Russia says, you keep this going and this is going
Speaker 1: to turn into a direct conflicts with Russia and NATO. Yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly what General Kim ended on. And I think it's
Speaker 1: a very important point. We haven't had a real robust
Speaker 1: conversation in this country and in the West about what
Speaker 1: do we do if this escalation occurs, and it very
Speaker 1: well could occur. To his point, stay with us some
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sound on, Rick and Genie come back as we
Speaker 1: turned to the mid terms, and look at this in
Speaker 1: October Surprise. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You
Speaker 1: sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Herschel Walker
Speaker 1: is now threatening to sue The Daily Beast after the
Speaker 1: site reported the Georgia Senate candidate once paid for a
Speaker 1: girlfriend's abortion. This goes back thirteen years, and ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 1: here we are on the fourth of October with a
Speaker 1: genuine in October surprise. Whether it makes a difference is
Speaker 1: a very different question. Now, remember that this race in Georgia,
Speaker 1: herschel Walker Reverend Warnock there within a point right now,
Speaker 1: within a percentage point according to the real clear poll
Speaker 1: of polls. So must win for control of the Senate.
Speaker 1: As we hear from the Daily Beast, not only was
Speaker 1: this an accusation, but there's a seven d dollar check
Speaker 1: that was sent a get well card and the woman
Speaker 1: who has not been identified by the Daily Beast as
Speaker 1: a receipt from the procedure. Uh quick to deny this
Speaker 1: in a written statement herschel Walker, but also went further.
Speaker 1: They put him on TV within hours of this. His
Speaker 1: statement reads simply, quote, I deny this in the strongest
Speaker 1: possible terms. Unquote. Herschel Walker appears on the Hannity program
Speaker 1: on Fox News to talk this out. If Hannity starts
Speaker 1: by asking him if he knows this woman, if he
Speaker 1: remembers this woman who has made the accusation. I have
Speaker 1: no no idea, but it is a flight out lie.
Speaker 1: And uh and now you know how important this seat is.
Speaker 1: The seat is very important that they do anything to
Speaker 1: win this seat lie because they want to make it
Speaker 1: by everything else except what the problems that we have
Speaker 1: in this country is okay, necessarily say a lot there,
Speaker 1: but I guess we understand it. He says it's a lie.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if he knows this woman or knew
Speaker 1: who this came from. This is again thirteen years ago
Speaker 1: when they're saying this happened. Okay, did you write the check,
Speaker 1: the seven hundred dollar check that was pictured in the story? Well,
Speaker 1: I send money to a lot of people, and that's
Speaker 1: what's so funny. And let's go back to my part.
Speaker 1: You know, I do scholarship for kids. I give money
Speaker 1: to people all the time because I'm always helping people
Speaker 1: because I believe in being generous. God has blessed me
Speaker 1: and I want to bless others. Now we have to
Speaker 1: listen to the words that are being spoken here. He
Speaker 1: did not deny writing the check there right. How about
Speaker 1: the card to get well card? Did you send the
Speaker 1: get well card? And handed? He asked him, Is that
Speaker 1: they've got it open? The picture of the cards open?
Speaker 1: Is that your signature in the card? I haven't seen it,
Speaker 1: but you know I can tell you. I send out
Speaker 1: so many get well, uh send out so much of anything.
Speaker 1: But I can tell you right now, I never asked
Speaker 1: you don't want to get an abortion. I never paid
Speaker 1: for an abortion. And it's a lie. And I'm going
Speaker 1: to continue to fight, you know. Yeah, that's what they won't.
Speaker 1: They want this seat. But right, now they avevanagized me
Speaker 1: even more interesting language. Again there, I never asked anyone
Speaker 1: to get an abortion, which he was technically not accused of,
Speaker 1: and I never paid for anyone to have an abortion.
Speaker 1: That's seven could have been sent after the facts, right,
Speaker 1: we're just trying to actually parse the words. The GOP
Speaker 1: is standing behind Herschel Walker all in as I read
Speaker 1: on the terminal. GOP stands by Walker as he denies
Speaker 1: paying for abortion. The National Republican Senatorial Committee out with
Speaker 1: a statement, Chair Rick Scott, this is just like the
Speaker 1: smears they attempted against Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, he writes,
Speaker 1: and it will not work. Herschel has denied these allegations,
Speaker 1: and the NRSC and Republicans stand with him, and Georgians
Speaker 1: will stand with him too. Donald Trump issued a statement
Speaker 1: as well, Herschel Walker being slandered, maligned by fake news media,
Speaker 1: obviously the Democrats. He goes, you could tell this was dictated. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's very important for our country. The Great stated George
Speaker 1: that Herschel Walker wins this election. Donald Trump writes with
Speaker 1: all that Herschel has accomplished. When you come from Georgia
Speaker 1: and you see the name herschel Walker when voting, it
Speaker 1: will be very hard to resist. Don't have to unwind
Speaker 1: that for a second. Enter herschel Walker's son. I mean
Speaker 1: this really, We've been around the world already. Today, Christian
Speaker 1: Walker takes to Twitter and he wrote his own tweet.
Speaker 1: It says, I stayed silent for nearly two years as
Speaker 1: my whole life has been lied about publicly. I did
Speaker 1: one campaign event, then said I didn't want involvement. That
Speaker 1: refers to his appearance at marral Lago with his dad,
Speaker 1: don't you dare test my authenticity? And he put a
Speaker 1: video together. I was lie afterly after life. The abortion
Speaker 1: card drops yesterday. It's literally his handwriting in the car.
Speaker 1: They say they have receipts. Whatever he gets on Twitter,
Speaker 1: he lies about it. Okay, I'm done. Okay, we're not though,
Speaker 1: because we have five weeks to go on and we
Speaker 1: reassemble the panel to talk about Rick Davis and Jeannie
Speaker 1: Chanzano Bloomberg Politics contributors. Aren't you glad you showed up
Speaker 1: for work today? Guys? What are you thinking about this? Rick?
Speaker 1: Damage control? Or does it even matter? People saw this
Speaker 1: and they thought Access Hollywood Tape didn't even make a
Speaker 1: dent really well, uh access Hollywood tape or not, this
Speaker 1: is not the kind of campaign day if your Herschel
Speaker 1: Walker you want to have. No, I'm sure he's gonna
Speaker 1: spend time talking about this instead of beating up his
Speaker 1: opponent on inflation, which is what he wants to do.
Speaker 1: And so the question is does he right his ship
Speaker 1: and stop talking about this before the end of the
Speaker 1: week or is it still in the next week. And
Speaker 1: you know what does his son Christian Walker continue to
Speaker 1: say on Twitter that could elevate this And uh so, look,
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's a really bad day for him.
Speaker 1: That being said, he's had a great summer and you know,
Speaker 1: from anybody's stretch, the imagination he's overperforming. Um, you know
Speaker 1: for a first time Canada in a in a in
Speaker 1: a tough election. So um, I think this is gonna
Speaker 1: be one of the most hotly watch races in the country. U.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell needs this race to become majority leader and
Speaker 1: he's certainly pouring significant amounts of money into the state
Speaker 1: to do it. And they're not likely to walk away
Speaker 1: from this because then he'd be walking away from his
Speaker 1: majority leader. That's the Senate, right, So, and you just
Speaker 1: that's really important, Rick. Not only is he endorsed by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, who's clearly defending him, but the leadership Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: as I just read Rick Scott, you've got everyone behind
Speaker 1: herschel Walker from this party, Genie, what do you make
Speaker 1: of that as a Democrat? And can you beat a
Speaker 1: reverend when you're being accused of something like this? And
Speaker 1: by the way, it's not what was done as much
Speaker 1: as owing that he was an anti abortion activist and
Speaker 1: was ready to sign on to Lindsay Grahamsville. Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's so many aspects of this. This is a horrific
Speaker 1: day for the Republicans because, let's not forget they are
Speaker 1: in the brink. It looks likely of losing Pennsylvania. That
Speaker 1: means they've got to win one of these blue states
Speaker 1: as Arizona, New Hampshire slip away. It's Georgia and Nevada,
Speaker 1: and it's looking like this is a repeat of all
Speaker 1: over again with Donald Trump's handprint on it. Georgia looks
Speaker 1: like it is moving in the wrong direction. Rick's right,
Speaker 1: he had a pretty good end of the summer, but
Speaker 1: it is all sort of blown up, and I think
Speaker 1: the son's taping of those statements, and we don't know
Speaker 1: how much more Christian Walker has to come out and
Speaker 1: say incredibly damaging. The GOP has no choice except to
Speaker 1: accept this. There's five weeks to go. They can't do
Speaker 1: anything if he stays in this race. They've got to
Speaker 1: stay with him. So this is where we are. And Democrats,
Speaker 1: I think are doing the right thing. They're not saying
Speaker 1: too much. I thought warnox reaction to this was spot on.
Speaker 1: He basically said, I'll let the pundits talk about this.
Speaker 1: I support a woman's right to choose keep the government
Speaker 1: out of their bedrooms and out of their health care.
Speaker 1: At the hypocrisy of this is that herschel Walker has
Speaker 1: a no exceptions view on abortion, no exception for the
Speaker 1: health of the woman, no exception in the case of
Speaker 1: rape or incest. That's where he stands, and his defense
Speaker 1: last night and so far has been incredibly weak. Rick,
Speaker 1: would you put him on TV a couple hours after
Speaker 1: this came out like what happened last night? Probably not. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not the kind of thing you want
Speaker 1: to try to elevate. I wouldn't have had any cuts
Speaker 1: to play. If he hadn't done that, yeah, I'm sorry
Speaker 1: about that. You should still would have had a really
Speaker 1: incredible that's true Twitter account for Christian Walker. But the
Speaker 1: bottom line is, if you know it's he's well known
Speaker 1: on his positions, he's not gonna do anything but sort
Speaker 1: of just add another day to the debate. If if
Speaker 1: if he if he doesn't go on, then the question
Speaker 1: is why doesn't he answer these charges? And he'll say, hey,
Speaker 1: I issued a statement. So the one thing you don't
Speaker 1: want to do is actually give it more oxygen uh
Speaker 1: than it's going to get on its own. And and
Speaker 1: voters are gonna have a lot of time to think
Speaker 1: about this five weeks as an eternity in a campaign,
Speaker 1: and this is not going to go away anytime soon.
Speaker 1: But the last thing to Walker campaign should be doing
Speaker 1: is adding to it. Genie points out they've got a
Speaker 1: debate coming up a couple of ways that the fourteenth Genie,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be wild. I believe it is, and it
Speaker 1: is scheduled. If it goes for it, it is going
Speaker 1: to be excite to see. I believe it is the
Speaker 1: only debate that they have scheduled so far, So it
Speaker 1: is going to be no holds barred down there as
Speaker 1: as these two, you know, face off against each other
Speaker 1: and voters get a chance to see them face to
Speaker 1: face and to hear how some of this is explained
Speaker 1: because the moderators are surely going to press him on
Speaker 1: this issue. And many others check this out. This is
Speaker 1: the part of the Trump statement I didn't read. Interestingly.
Speaker 1: He writes, I've heard many horrible things about his opponent,
Speaker 1: Raphael Warnock, things that one should be talking about. So
Speaker 1: we don't now. I don't know if he's implying that
Speaker 1: he takes the high road here, Rick, But are we
Speaker 1: about to get an APO dump on the Reverence? Well,
Speaker 1: I would be surprised that the state media hasn't already
Speaker 1: gotten an APO dump on on the Reverend. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure that have you heard about what he's referring to?
Speaker 1: You know, Look, there were there were these kinds of
Speaker 1: sort of whispers in the last campaign, right. And the
Speaker 1: thing that people you know are probably gonna start to
Speaker 1: figure out is Warnock has already had one vetting. Right,
Speaker 1: He's been through an entire campaign, and and and he
Speaker 1: made it out alive. And he's a United States senator
Speaker 1: herschel Walker hasn't had that vetting right, and so he's
Speaker 1: getting it right now. And the reality is, if I'm
Speaker 1: the campaign of herschel Walker, I just stick to my
Speaker 1: message and start talking about, you know, the financial problems
Speaker 1: that the American public is having because of high inflation
Speaker 1: rates and not talking about black boxes that they're gonna
Speaker 1: open in Pandora is gonna come spilling out all over
Speaker 1: warnut Right? Uh? Does does the Walnut campaign give Christian
Speaker 1: Walker a call maybe doing evenge Ginnie? Or am I
Speaker 1: pushing it too far? I would not. If I was,
Speaker 1: then i'd, you know, let like he said, the pundits
Speaker 1: handle it. He focuses on the issues that he cares about,
Speaker 1: and there are many. It's only October fourth, How many
Speaker 1: surprises can we take? This is Bloomberg