Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel Podcast. I'm Paul swing you
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahmas. Each day we
Speaker 1: bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for you
Speaker 1: and your money, whether at the grocery store or the
Speaker 1: trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple podcast
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com. Well, I'm just gonna keep asking this
Speaker 1: question throughout the morning. Is it over? Are we done
Speaker 1: with the attention between the US and you were on
Speaker 1: joining US? Now? Is I have a COMMEL practice head
Speaker 1: focused on the Middle East, North Africa as other well
Speaker 1: as others at Eurasia Group joining US now on the phone?
Speaker 1: Can I get it? Just get a sense? Is it over?
Speaker 1: I am? Well, let's I think we're off the peak
Speaker 1: of the crisis. The Araanians conducted what is I think
Speaker 1: a largely symbolic attack on basis that hosts U S
Speaker 1: troops in Iraq. Those attacks were very calibrated. They were
Speaker 1: designed not to cause casualties or not to create conditions
Speaker 1: for Trump to overreact. The President speaking in in a
Speaker 1: few minutes, so we'll hear more from him, but I
Speaker 1: expect movement towards less less tensions. So I am. Are
Speaker 1: you surprised that the Iranian response was I guess as
Speaker 1: restrained as it was because I guess that what we
Speaker 1: had heard up until today was the general that was
Speaker 1: taken out was such a large figure and an important
Speaker 1: figure in Tehran. Are you surprised that the response wasn't
Speaker 1: maybe even more pronounced. Well, I think that everything that
Speaker 1: we've been hearing from the Iranians hinted as at a
Speaker 1: much more robust military response. So to a certain extent,
Speaker 1: they did exercise the level of restraint over here. So um,
Speaker 1: I think I'm pretty sure that there are regional powers
Speaker 1: that have tried to to be into ease tensions, international
Speaker 1: powers as well to really calm their Iranians down. Now,
Speaker 1: another factor I think that helped calm the situation is
Speaker 1: that the Iranians are thinking the long term. They want
Speaker 1: the US out of Iran, and they're fine with that
Speaker 1: as a long term victory, something that cements their power
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. So let's talk about that, because
Speaker 1: that was one of my main questions when I was
Speaker 1: reading all of this Iran. Iran wants the US out
Speaker 1: of Iraq, right, I mean it wants them to bodraw
Speaker 1: their troops. Does sort of pushing down the tensions accelerate
Speaker 1: that process, and it appears that the Iraqis are more
Speaker 1: eager to get the U S troops out. Well, I
Speaker 1: think that the less miniatary confrontation that you have in
Speaker 1: Iraq between the US and Iran, the easier it will
Speaker 1: be for President Trump to withdraw forces. He can't easily
Speaker 1: do it under fire as and when he's been attacked
Speaker 1: in Iraq left and right. When there are tensions between Iran,
Speaker 1: moving towards a widespread confrontation absent that any form of
Speaker 1: really going down away, moving away from tension creates easier
Speaker 1: conditions for that. But again, I think that there are
Speaker 1: local dynamics here. The ir Arcus themselves feel that US
Speaker 1: presence in the country has become challenging a little bit problematic.
Speaker 1: So I think it will see more domestic pressure on
Speaker 1: the US, perhaps, if not to withdraw, to severely restrict
Speaker 1: US operations in the country. Well, at the top of
Speaker 1: the hour, we will be hearing from President Trump. Will
Speaker 1: you'll be making comments on the Iran situation? What do
Speaker 1: you what will you be listening for in his comments,
Speaker 1: what do you think Iranians Iranians will be listening for.
Speaker 1: I think the Iranians are expecting big boards the President
Speaker 1: to declare victory, victory, victorian, that he's done what no
Speaker 1: other could could do. I think that's that's that will
Speaker 1: happen in some way, shape or form. I think the
Speaker 1: key issue for the Iranians is to see whether Mr
Speaker 1: Trump will authorize some form of follow up in terms
Speaker 1: of reaction. That's what they really care about. If there
Speaker 1: is no US response in in reaction to the missile
Speaker 1: attacks from Iran, I think the Iranians would feel much
Speaker 1: more comfortable as and we're moving away from a sharper escalation.
Speaker 1: So that's what I think what the press press conferences about.
Speaker 1: The press conference for the President himself is not just
Speaker 1: about Iran. This is about positioning himself as a strong leader,
Speaker 1: someone that has been able to do things that other
Speaker 1: leaders or other US presidents were not able to do.
Speaker 1: So it's it's also made for domestic consumptional for domestic
Speaker 1: audience in the US. So let's talk about the price
Speaker 1: of oil. It is down today and having the biggest
Speaker 1: two day down draft since December two, and I'm wondering
Speaker 1: whether this is the beginning of more to come in
Speaker 1: the senses as people realize, or isn't gonna necessarily be
Speaker 1: a disruption and supply all of a sudden things start
Speaker 1: to look a little bit more oversupplied with a demand
Speaker 1: that seems to be basically balanced at this point. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that is that's a very interesting idea. Perhaps
Speaker 1: some of that risk that will will will be taken off,
Speaker 1: I think will be reflected in all the prices, so
Speaker 1: we'll the some form of a depth, maybe a few dollars.
Speaker 1: But again, it's not that Iran or U s Irn
Speaker 1: tensions have become zero that we're returning to a stable equilibrium.
Speaker 1: There are many problems still in the Middle East that
Speaker 1: could cause those disruptions. It's not like we've we've returned stability.
Speaker 1: The demand and supply picture, I think is a little
Speaker 1: bit complicated. But we do have the US China trade
Speaker 1: agreement that could also help maybe provide some boost to
Speaker 1: oil prices, maybe not to maybe not lift them up
Speaker 1: to seventy. But I think we're in a world where
Speaker 1: sixty five dollars it seems to be the bottom or
Speaker 1: or could be the bottom in this environment. Uh, absent
Speaker 1: any real confrontation or real outages in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: you're not really talking about oil moving north of seventy
Speaker 1: on a or in a strong direction. Really, we need
Speaker 1: to see data from US shell hard evidence that US
Speaker 1: shows the seb it in that investments in US share
Speaker 1: that is actually much lower, much more prudent, and therefore
Speaker 1: supply it will be limited. So I am get a
Speaker 1: sense of kind of the next steps for Iran. I
Speaker 1: guess from your perspective, what is it in Iran's best
Speaker 1: interest rate here to say, okay, this is over Essentially, Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think the irene is are going to be
Speaker 1: a fully thing that it's over. They'll say that they
Speaker 1: are fighting really an effort or struggle to get the
Speaker 1: US out to make the region region governed government by
Speaker 1: states that are inherently part of it. And I think
Speaker 1: the key word here is get the getting the US
Speaker 1: to withdraw from different places. I don't think that the U.
Speaker 1: S C. Run relationship is going to be okay anytime soon.
Speaker 1: Mr Trump has withdrawn from the j C p o A,
Speaker 1: he has killed a senior Iranian commander he had, he
Speaker 1: has sanctioned the country. So we still have a long
Speaker 1: term issue around the US Iran relationship and whether you
Speaker 1: can get a pathway that is sustainable that gets us
Speaker 1: away from confrontation and towards the excavation. But certainly we
Speaker 1: were away from the peak of a crisis. Just real
Speaker 1: quick here about thirty seconds. I'm wondering President Trump is
Speaker 1: going to speak in response to the Iranian retaliation. What
Speaker 1: do you expect him to say? Or what do you want?
Speaker 1: What do you what are you looking for? I think
Speaker 1: it's going to say that that the Iranian response was
Speaker 1: weak and therefore there there it's not necessary for the
Speaker 1: US to move and do much more, and that US
Speaker 1: power remains robust, and he is ready when their Indians
Speaker 1: do something that crosses the line to respond. Am Kamal,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us a M as
Speaker 1: a practice head Middle East and North Africa for the
Speaker 1: Eurasia Group. Some of the smartest folks out there, and
Speaker 1: we're talking about geopolitics. He's based uh in London and
Speaker 1: Tom King was recently this earlier this week at their
Speaker 1: offices at Eurasia Group, getting a great over view of
Speaker 1: all things geopolitical, whether it's the Middle East or China
Speaker 1: and Hong Kong. They do some great work and we
Speaker 1: appreciate them. Coming on Bloomberg Radio, the question of the
Speaker 1: day is it over? Are we done with the brief,
Speaker 1: very brief, if perhaps non existent, and recognizable turmoil that
Speaker 1: we saw in markets due to Iran US relations tends
Speaker 1: tensing up joining us now Scott Reren, Senior Global market strategist,
Speaker 1: it was Fargo Investment Institute overseers overseeing nearly two trillion
Speaker 1: dollars joining us from St. Louis, Missouri? Is it over? Scott? Well, Lisa,
Speaker 1: Happy New Year? And probably while the market appears to
Speaker 1: think we're not going to see uh too much of
Speaker 1: an escalation, you know, we think at least in the
Speaker 1: in the near term, we're likely to see uh some
Speaker 1: more tip for tad, a little bit more escalation. But
Speaker 1: you know that's not really changing and has not changed
Speaker 1: really what our outlook is as we look out over, Scott,
Speaker 1: give us your outlook for given the incredible kind of
Speaker 1: market uh. You know a response we saw in what
Speaker 1: do you do for an encore here? Well, I tell
Speaker 1: you it's it's it's tough, Paul, and what we've been
Speaker 1: doing UM. For during the second half of we raised
Speaker 1: a little cash, we backed off of industrials, We've got
Speaker 1: a little less cyclical, And that's pretty much our stance
Speaker 1: right now because for us, UH stocks are very close
Speaker 1: to fair value. We still like tech, we still like
Speaker 1: consumer discretionary, we still like financials. But you know, if
Speaker 1: we see a total return somewhere in the mid single
Speaker 1: digit area, I think that's about right UM for us.
Speaker 1: Probably the the the upside surprise. You have to ask yourself,
Speaker 1: you know, how much chasing are we going to see here,
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of underinvested, whether they're professionals or
Speaker 1: retail investors, a lot of people with cash on the sidelines.
Speaker 1: We've seen a little chasing here. And then I think
Speaker 1: also a factor that that could make our outlook too conservatives,
Speaker 1: too conservative, is if we see UH the international economy
Speaker 1: stabilized and do a little bit better than what we thought.
Speaker 1: So I think those are a couple of the factors
Speaker 1: that we're trying to keep a close eye on, trying
Speaker 1: to project, But for right now, we think stocks are
Speaker 1: pretty close to fair value. There was a conversation on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Television this morning about this idea that seems to
Speaker 1: be pervasive in markets, which is, honestly, unless we get
Speaker 1: a massive shock, stocks are going to keep rallying. Risk
Speaker 1: assets look good and you don't want to miss out.
Speaker 1: The problem is, if we see a shock is the
Speaker 1: big caveat and it seems like if we see a shock,
Speaker 1: everyone's going to try to escape out of the same
Speaker 1: narrow exit. How concerned are you about the lack of
Speaker 1: hedging and sort of the crowdedness of some of these
Speaker 1: risk trades. Well, you know, a lot of times, you know,
Speaker 1: as she is, you approach a market high, and if
Speaker 1: you look at the performance, for instance, between the SNP
Speaker 1: equalated index and just the S and P, you know,
Speaker 1: the performance is starting to widen there a little bit.
Speaker 1: It's nowhere near what you usually see at the market top.
Speaker 1: So really, you know, I think there's a decent amount
Speaker 1: of liquidity in the market, but if you really see
Speaker 1: a meaningful shock um as is usually the case, you
Speaker 1: know there's there's a lack of liquidity on the way down.
Speaker 1: I mean, the bids just go away, um and and
Speaker 1: and there's not a lot of people stepping in to buy,
Speaker 1: and that's where you see these big gaps down, So
Speaker 1: I think I'm not sure that's going to be any
Speaker 1: worse than it has been on meaningful, big shocks in
Speaker 1: the past. And it's certainly something that you want to
Speaker 1: think about. And you know that's why, you know, we've
Speaker 1: talked to our our clients. You know, we had leaned
Speaker 1: hard towards stocks, you know, for really the last eight years,
Speaker 1: and for instance, you know, if you're in a sixty
Speaker 1: forty stock bomb type of portfolio, we want our clients
Speaker 1: to be pretty close to that right now, because, as
Speaker 1: I said, you know, there's a lot of disks out there.
Speaker 1: Stocks are not cheap um, and we just want to
Speaker 1: be a little more careful here than we had been
Speaker 1: in previous years. Scott, I want to get your thoughts
Speaker 1: on valuations in the equity market. We've seen obviously move
Speaker 1: up in the sp with very little to know earnings growth.
Speaker 1: Give us a sense of kind of where we are
Speaker 1: valuation wise historically. Well, you know, we've got a one
Speaker 1: seventy five number out there, so right now you're looking
Speaker 1: at about eighteen points six times uh this year's earnings,
Speaker 1: and if you look at you know, over the last
Speaker 1: twenty years or so, you know, the average forward price
Speaker 1: to earnings ratio would be let's say sixteen points three
Speaker 1: something like that, so you know you're certainly trading at
Speaker 1: a premium to that. Now you could make the argument,
Speaker 1: uh that you know, we're in a lower interest rate environment,
Speaker 1: that feds eazy, people are under invested, and so it's
Speaker 1: common that you get this push up in valuations in
Speaker 1: the in the later stages of a cycle. So you know,
Speaker 1: valuations are are above average. Um, we would argue that
Speaker 1: they're not meaningfully stretched. I mean, if you look back
Speaker 1: at the FED model, and I haven't run these numbers lately,
Speaker 1: but if you looked at that correlation over a long
Speaker 1: period time, it probably suggests the p on the SMP
Speaker 1: should be you know, twenty eight or some crazy number
Speaker 1: like that. So you know, these correlations haven't held. It
Speaker 1: makes some sense that we're a little bit of a premium,
Speaker 1: but we don't think there's too much upside in terms
Speaker 1: of evaluations from here. We need to see some underlying
Speaker 1: earnings growth. Scott, thanks so much for joining us. We
Speaker 1: appreciate you coming on. Scott Wren, senior global market strategist
Speaker 1: for Wells Fargo Investment Institute, joining us on the phone
Speaker 1: from St. Louis time to check in with Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1: We're joined by Opinion Coomas Justin Fox. He joins us
Speaker 1: here and I'm Bloomberg Interactive Brokers to deal with a
Speaker 1: fascinating come about a story that I'm very interested in,
Speaker 1: which is has the US past peak auto? Are people
Speaker 1: still going to drive cars going forward? Justin takes a
Speaker 1: look at it in terms of our team still driving cars.
Speaker 1: So Justin, thanks so much for joining us. What's going
Speaker 1: I know when I turned seventeen that day I was
Speaker 1: at the DMV getting my license. I never looked back.
Speaker 1: Is that still happening? Um less and less, although a
Speaker 1: lot of it among sixteen and seventeen year olds is
Speaker 1: basically because in lots of states you can barely drive
Speaker 1: even after you get your license. There are all of
Speaker 1: these restrictions, and so there's really been a collapse in
Speaker 1: the percentage of sixteen year olds getting license. It's a
Speaker 1: little more than half what it was in the eighties,
Speaker 1: back when we got our lessons. Um and you get
Speaker 1: two older ages and it and it's not as big
Speaker 1: a decline, but basically every age court in the cohort
Speaker 1: in the US below forty five is less. People are
Speaker 1: less likely to have licenses than they were in the
Speaker 1: early eighties. How much is this due to people moving
Speaker 1: to cities and moving away from more suburban and rural areas.
Speaker 1: I mean, since the eighties, I think most development and
Speaker 1: most population growth has been in suburbian not in cities,
Speaker 1: even though there's been a modest return over the past
Speaker 1: um twenty years or so. And I mean this trend
Speaker 1: first got a lot of attention um probably seven or
Speaker 1: eight years ago. A researcher named Michael Sivak, who was
Speaker 1: then at the University of Michigan, sort of pointed it out.
Speaker 1: The media picked up on it, and a lot of
Speaker 1: it was a pretty precipitous decline in like two thousand seven,
Speaker 1: two thousand eight, two thousand nine, and a lot of
Speaker 1: that was gas was really expensive and the economy was
Speaker 1: awful and there was so there was a little bit
Speaker 1: of a bounce back in two thousand fifteen and two
Speaker 1: thousand sixteen. But what's really interesting is that has now stopped.
Speaker 1: When you look at the percentage of teams getting licenses
Speaker 1: and everybody getting licenses, it's just stopped rising. Let's see
Speaker 1: uber impact, you know, when I was down at Duke
Speaker 1: University recently, somebody was telling me, like when I was there,
Speaker 1: parking impossible to get now, like lots of parking spaces
Speaker 1: around the kids aren't bringing their cars because they just
Speaker 1: uber everywhere. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that is an
Speaker 1: element in a lot of places. It's like sixteen year
Speaker 1: olds aren't supposed to be able to take uber um,
Speaker 1: but happens all uh man. They can tell you with
Speaker 1: their parents and all, but supposedly. But I'm sure that
Speaker 1: is part of it. There are alternatives like that. I'm
Speaker 1: sure smaller families are part of it, so there aren't
Speaker 1: five different kids to get around. If it's one or two,
Speaker 1: then a parent might be able to do it and
Speaker 1: they spend more time with them. And I mean, there
Speaker 1: was a big like public transportation um sort of hit
Speaker 1: it's all modern low in the US in the in
Speaker 1: the eighties, and then had another drop in the mid
Speaker 1: nineties when gas prices were super cheap and and the
Speaker 1: economy was booming. But it rose a lot um through
Speaker 1: about two thousand fourteen. But it's not rising lightly either,
Speaker 1: so it is kind of I mean, one thing, if
Speaker 1: you look at older Americans or just people with jobs,
Speaker 1: telecommuting people. More people are able to do jobs without
Speaker 1: driving there. But I think it's really confusing. I gotta say,
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not totally getting any of these explanations
Speaker 1: because I know I grew up in New York City,
Speaker 1: and yes, I failed my driver's task more than once.
Speaker 1: It wasn't my fault, let's not talk about it. But
Speaker 1: it was a sick shift and the guy hated me.
Speaker 1: But it's okay, I've forgiven you if you're listening. But
Speaker 1: I will say sort of, um, I will say that
Speaker 1: it was a source of deep anxiety growing up, Like
Speaker 1: what happens if you're you can't leave a big city.
Speaker 1: I mean, how do you not have a license? How
Speaker 1: do you travel somewhere and rent a car? I'm sorry
Speaker 1: that I just don't believe that simply uh, having an
Speaker 1: uber once in a while changes that. I think, I mean,
Speaker 1: for most people, it doesn't. It's still clear that most
Speaker 1: Americans get driver's licenses, most Americans have cars, but I
Speaker 1: think there's a larger minority that will not. And I
Speaker 1: just and I don't you know, I don't see car
Speaker 1: use collapsing. But it's pretty clear when you look at
Speaker 1: like per capita miles traveled, it's stopped rising. Well. But
Speaker 1: this the interesting point here is how autonomous driving will
Speaker 1: actually play into this. And I know that my ten
Speaker 1: year old sometimes asks me, you know, am I ever
Speaker 1: gonna have to go to the driver's license? Do I
Speaker 1: have to get on that. I'm like, no, no, no, please,
Speaker 1: You're fine. And I think about it, and you know,
Speaker 1: is there going to be just this model of managing
Speaker 1: these cars that are kind of driving themselves around and
Speaker 1: maximizing their use instead of having people with a bunch
Speaker 1: of cars parked in there driving. I mean, yes, someday,
Speaker 1: but I I will say, people have spent a huge
Speaker 1: amount of time and energy talking and thinking about that
Speaker 1: over the past few years, and it doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: it's going to be happening for another decade or two
Speaker 1: at the earliest. So your son is still gonna have
Speaker 1: to drive if if you want them to drive. So
Speaker 1: I'll tell him. I'll tell him lots of scary stories.
Speaker 1: When the guy comes in and says, are you scared? Little?
Speaker 1: I hate nervous drivers. Anyway, I'm not I'm not going
Speaker 1: to relive it over on the air, except that I
Speaker 1: just did, how many cars do you have, faull Um
Speaker 1: boy in our family? I'm gonna say three, yes, why
Speaker 1: have four kids? Are you know that that that's such
Speaker 1: an one of them as a pickup truck, which my
Speaker 1: friends are just shocked that we have in this And
Speaker 1: how old were they when I started driving all of them?
Speaker 1: So he had more than more than two kids, so
Speaker 1: that they had to shuttle themselves around. Justin Fox, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with us. Justin Fox is
Speaker 1: a Bloomberg opinion columnist. Great column about lots of American
Speaker 1: teens still shutting cars right now. My big question is
Speaker 1: given the fact that Iran can't necessarily be seen internally
Speaker 1: as standing down, I do wonder what the response is
Speaker 1: going to be. Chris lew joining us for now, Senior
Speaker 1: fellow at the University of Virginia Miller Center, also former
Speaker 1: Deputy Secretary of Labor under President Obama. He has served
Speaker 1: in a variety of administrations over decades. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us. On the phone from Charlottesville, Virginia.
Speaker 1: I just want to first get reaction. If you were
Speaker 1: listening to President Trump's comments on Iran, what was your takeaway? Well,
Speaker 1: I thought it was encouraging in the sense that, you know,
Speaker 1: he was offered an off ramp to de escalate, and
Speaker 1: it appears that he is taking that for now. Um,
Speaker 1: it will be interesting to see what the Iranians think
Speaker 1: of this. I mean, he he was, in my mind
Speaker 1: taking sort of a premature victory lap. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that will play that well, and I think there are
Speaker 1: still remain questions what the long term strategy is. I mean,
Speaker 1: he talked about imposing additional economic sanctions, trying to get
Speaker 1: NATO involved in this, trying to negotiate a new deal.
Speaker 1: But you know, if we simply take a look at
Speaker 1: where we are now and where we were when he
Speaker 1: took office, it's hard to say that we are in
Speaker 1: a better situation now than where we were with the
Speaker 1: Iran nuclear deal. It's interesting, Chris, maybe take a step
Speaker 1: back here, given what we heard from the president here,
Speaker 1: what do you think the administration's strategy is here just
Speaker 1: over the less several days as it relates to our rent.
Speaker 1: You know, I think it's been a little confusing, and
Speaker 1: I think that's you know, the legitimate questions that members
Speaker 1: of Congress are asking about, you know, whether there was
Speaker 1: uh an imminent attack that they were trying to prevent
Speaker 1: and killing celemony. Uh, you know what the long term
Speaker 1: strategy is with regard to run and so I think, Um, look,
Speaker 1: I think it was helpful to have the President out
Speaker 1: there speaking, but I'm not sure he necessarily answered any
Speaker 1: of those questions. I'm wondering also what the broader message
Speaker 1: from this incident would be if URON does not retaliate
Speaker 1: any further. I know that there have been a number
Speaker 1: of reports that Kim John un over in North Korea
Speaker 1: is suspected to be incentivized to double down on his
Speaker 1: nuclear production simply because he doesn't want to be taken
Speaker 1: out by a drone either. So, uh, was what was
Speaker 1: your sense of that? Well, I think that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think, um, the minute the president ripped
Speaker 1: up a RAN nuclear deal, it makes it certainly harder
Speaker 1: to try to um execute any kind of deal with
Speaker 1: North Korea, because you know, the president the United States
Speaker 1: can't be trusted to live up to their arrangements. UM.
Speaker 1: I also think you know, this was as much of
Speaker 1: anything unimportant, Um, the last night's attack was a way
Speaker 1: that the Iranian leadership could show that there are people
Speaker 1: that they were taking this seriously, but you know, I
Speaker 1: think we should make the mistake. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a very dangerous regime that will figure out other ways
Speaker 1: to strike back either Americans, allies, American businesses in ways
Speaker 1: that maybe are as dangerous but are less able, were
Speaker 1: less able to put our fingers that they did. Chris,
Speaker 1: there's some that are suggesting that there is some politics
Speaker 1: involved here and what's going on with Iran in terms
Speaker 1: of uh the United States, uh, you know, taking out
Speaker 1: General Solimany as it relates to impeachment. Do you think
Speaker 1: there's a tie in there to what extent you know, Look,
Speaker 1: I I I don't want to speculate on that. I'd
Speaker 1: like to think that this was, um, this was a
Speaker 1: thought out strategy. UM. That being said, Look, obviously we've
Speaker 1: been talking about this attack for what the last five
Speaker 1: or six days and not talking about impeachment. Impeachment is
Speaker 1: still obviously out there on the horizon and probably shorter
Speaker 1: term horizon. But I think it does ray sort of
Speaker 1: broader issues as to um, what the administration's broader policy is,
Speaker 1: and it's very muddled at the moment, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: the actions over the last five or six days haven't
Speaker 1: really clarified that in any way. What's your sense of
Speaker 1: the recent developments about impeachment, about the fact that Senate
Speaker 1: Democrats are trying to figure out how to pass it
Speaker 1: off to Senate without necessarily getting a sort of wash,
Speaker 1: a whitewashing of the whole affair. Yeah, you know, I look,
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting. I mean, um, you know, UM,
Speaker 1: I think the speaker, Speaker Pelosi will probably send over
Speaker 1: the article's impeachment, she says soon. Um. And what we've
Speaker 1: seen over the last couple of weeks since the House
Speaker 1: past impeachment was a number of developments. We've seen, um,
Speaker 1: some important reporting out of the New York Times about
Speaker 1: other meetings that happened in the White House, UM on
Speaker 1: the holding of Ukrainian aid that we didn't know about
Speaker 1: an advance. We've had the release of some documents that show, um, um,
Speaker 1: greater involvement by the White House in this decision. And
Speaker 1: we obviously have the big news from the other day
Speaker 1: that John Bolton, the former National Security Advisors, willing to testify.
Speaker 1: So what that shows you is that there are additional
Speaker 1: a lot of additional documents, additional witnesses and testimony, and
Speaker 1: So even if, UM, even if Democrats were not able
Speaker 1: to get an agreement up front that those documents and
Speaker 1: witnesses would be part of a Senate trial, they've certainly
Speaker 1: made a public case that we're only seeing basically the
Speaker 1: tip of the iceberg right now. UM. This I think
Speaker 1: will clearly be revisited. Even if the Senate trial starts
Speaker 1: without an agreement on additional witnesses, there will be motion
Speaker 1: by Senate Democrats to try to call those witnesses. And frankly,
Speaker 1: a lot of this is going to rely on whether
Speaker 1: it was handful of moderate Senate Republicans UM, and whether
Speaker 1: they're willing to break from their leadership and call some
Speaker 1: of these witnesses. So we're speaking with Chris Lucy and
Speaker 1: your fellow at the University of Virginia Miller Center, also
Speaker 1: former Deputy Secretary of Labor under President Obama, host of
Speaker 1: other governmental service jobs that he has served in roles
Speaker 1: that he has served throughout his career. I am wondering,
Speaker 1: you know, I want to go back to Paul's question
Speaker 1: where he was asking about the relation between UH the
Speaker 1: strikes over in Iran as well as UH, you know,
Speaker 1: the impeachment trials and does this give President Trump much
Speaker 1: more popularity among Republicans and support among Republicans just because
Speaker 1: it seems to have been incredibly successful. You know, look,
Speaker 1: I think I think the jury is still out on
Speaker 1: this right now, Um the um. Some of the recent
Speaker 1: polling it shouldn't surprise you. I mean everything in this
Speaker 1: country right now breaks on partisan lines, shows that about
Speaker 1: fifty of Americans UM opposed the president's handling of the
Speaker 1: situation in Iran right now. UM. You know again, I
Speaker 1: think we'll have to wait and see what the longer
Speaker 1: term developments on this are. I mean, you were only,
Speaker 1: as I said, you know, five or six days from
Speaker 1: the original um killing, and I think obviously less than
Speaker 1: twenty four hours away from last night's events. And so
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to let this play out a couple
Speaker 1: more news cycles to see what happens. So, Chris, just
Speaker 1: going back to impeachment real quickly. I'm just kind of
Speaker 1: wondering what next steps are because we're obviously an uncharted
Speaker 1: territory here. Who do you think has the leverage here? Uh,
Speaker 1: between the Democrats and Republicans here, because it's you know,
Speaker 1: Speaker Pelosi withholding the articles impeachment is unusual, I guess,
Speaker 1: just given by the little bit of precedent with that
Speaker 1: we do have. Well, look, I think the initial leverage
Speaker 1: right now is being held by the Senate Republican leader,
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell. I mean, obviously he controls um the he
Speaker 1: controls the process. He's got the fifty one votes to
Speaker 1: move forward. Word. But I think, you know, I think
Speaker 1: the challenge will be for him to keep some of
Speaker 1: those moderate Republicans in line when Senate Democrats start asking
Speaker 1: for additional votes and so, um, you know, I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, I think we've only sort of seen the
Speaker 1: first um, you know, um card being played at this point,
Speaker 1: and it will be interesting to see how things play out.
Speaker 1: And and again, you know, whether House Democrats try in
Speaker 1: some way to call John Bolton as some part of
Speaker 1: a formal hearing. I mean, he said he will testify
Speaker 1: but for the Senate. But um, there's no reason, frankly
Speaker 1: at this point why you would not testify before the
Speaker 1: House as well. Chris LEU, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being with us in all your commentary. Chris Lew Senior
Speaker 1: Fellow at the University of Virginia Miller Center, also former
Speaker 1: Deputy Secretary of Labor under President Obama, among other roles.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg pl podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: pt Sweeney and Lisa bram Woyds I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Lisa Bramwoyits one before the podcast. You can always catch
Speaker 1: us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio