Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: Live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 2: Or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: Learning through some of the moves we're seen in the
Speaker 3: oil market, a market which is paying very close attention
Speaker 3: to each and every development in the Middle East, and
Speaker 3: there has been a number of them this week. The
Speaker 3: US Secretary of State, Anthony Blincoln is actually heading on
Speaker 3: another trip to the region now, after a string of
Speaker 3: developments in recent days. First you had Iron moving of
Speaker 3: warship into the Red Sea. Then you had Israel striking
Speaker 3: Commas targets in Beirut on Lebanese soil for the first
Speaker 3: time since two thousand and six yesterday, to bomb blasts
Speaker 3: in Iran that killed nearly one hundred people that Islamic
Speaker 3: State today has claimed credit for. And also today drone
Speaker 3: attacks in Iraq that Iraq is blaming on US lead
Speaker 3: forces that killed at least two members of an Iranian
Speaker 3: backed militia. All of this together is adding up to
Speaker 3: concerns growing about regional conflict in the Middle East. So
Speaker 3: just how dangerous is this moment we are in right now,
Speaker 3: Let's get an experts opinion on what exactly is happening here.
Speaker 3: Joining me now is Michael Knights. He is a fellow
Speaker 3: at the Washington Institute specializing in military and security affairs
Speaker 3: of Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf States. He's also co
Speaker 3: founder of the Militious Spotlight platform, which offers in depth
Speaker 3: analysis of developments related to Iranian backed militias in Iraq
Speaker 3: and Syria. So, Michael, you are clearly the perfect person
Speaker 3: to speak with today. You could look at each of
Speaker 3: the events this week and understand why there may be
Speaker 3: growing fear out there that this is developing into something
Speaker 3: much greater than it is at the moment. What is
Speaker 3: your read on this situation?
Speaker 4: Well, often, you know, we're tempted to try and link
Speaker 4: everything together, but in this case, it's in many ways,
Speaker 4: a lot of things happening at about the same time. Yeah,
Speaker 4: they're broadly connected. But you know, so when we see
Speaker 4: the Islamic State blowing up a you know, a funeral
Speaker 4: commemoration in Iran, they're doing it opportunistically because a lot
Speaker 4: of attention is on Iran at that exact moment, because
Speaker 4: it's the fourth anniversary of the day when the US
Speaker 4: killed the two most senior Iran backed militia leaders in
Speaker 4: the Middle East back in twenty twenty. So that was opportunistic.
Speaker 4: But what we just did in Baghdad, where the US
Speaker 4: probably killed two militia leaders just a day after the
Speaker 4: celebration of those you know, those killings in twenty twenty,
Speaker 4: it also in Baghdad, you know, demonstrates the Biden administration's
Speaker 4: risk tolerance is going up quite a bit. You know,
Speaker 4: that was a pretty bold thing to do one day
Speaker 4: after these militias were commemorating the loss of their key
Speaker 4: leaders four years ago, to then do almost exactly the
Speaker 4: same thing in Baghdad the day afterwards.
Speaker 3: Okay, So if the US's risk tolerance is going up,
Speaker 3: does that mean that there is a rising risk of
Speaker 3: more direct confrontation with either Iran itself or these Iranian proxies.
Speaker 4: Well, it shows the US's patients is wearing thin, and
Speaker 4: the Biden administration had a ton of patients, you know,
Speaker 4: two years ago. But now after the Hoothi's in Yemen
Speaker 4: have done so many attacks on shipping and generally been
Speaker 4: a pain in so many ways, and now, the Iraqi
Speaker 4: militias have been launching increasing numbers of attacks, over one
Speaker 4: hundred and thirty against US forces since October seventeenth. You
Speaker 4: can see the Biden administration is signaling we don't want
Speaker 4: to have a broader conflict, but we're also not afraid
Speaker 4: to begin moving in that direction. Just recently that killed
Speaker 4: ten Hoothy boat crew who were trying to attack a
Speaker 4: vessel in the Red Sea. So the Biden administration is
Speaker 4: steadily moving up the ladder of escalation in an effort
Speaker 4: to escalate, to de escalate, to show these actors we're
Speaker 4: really serious. Now stop what you're doing in the Red
Speaker 4: Sea and in Iraq, and will stop.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 3: In the US, together with about a dozen other countries,
Speaker 3: yesterday issued a pretty cern warning to the Hoothies to
Speaker 3: stop their behavior in the Red Sea, talking about the
Speaker 3: consequences for any malign actors. And we actually heard from
Speaker 3: the commander of the US Naval Forces in the Middle
Speaker 3: East today that said, there is no sign that militants
Speaker 3: are backing off. So how close are we to the
Speaker 3: moment where the US decides outright offense here.
Speaker 4: Well, if the US does go in a more offensive way,
Speaker 4: which is looking increasingly likely in the Red Sea against
Speaker 4: the Hoothies in particular, it'll probably be a disarming strike,
Speaker 4: and that means something that takes away the things the
Speaker 4: Hoothies used to actually attack shipping in the Red Sea,
Speaker 4: So an attempt to do a sort of one and
Speaker 4: done destruction of anti shipping missiles and fast attack boats
Speaker 4: and helicopters that opposing the real risk to Red Sea shipping.
Speaker 4: Without those things, you know, the Houthees don't have so
Speaker 4: much ability to threaten the shipping.
Speaker 3: Well, as we talk about trying to take out their infrastructure.
Speaker 3: Isn't that what Saudi Arabia tried to do for years,
Speaker 3: arguably without much success. Could there be more success this
Speaker 3: time around.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a good point. The fact is the Hoo
Speaker 4: the Thees have, well, the US has a lot better
Speaker 4: capability to do this than the Saudias did, and the
Speaker 4: Saudis were not really focused on the Hoo They's anti
Speaker 4: shipping capabilities. They were focused on trying to kill the
Speaker 4: Hoothy leaders within the cities, which was disastrous in terms
Speaker 4: of collateral damage. If the US does a lot more
Speaker 4: focused operation against things that can quite easily find like boats,
Speaker 4: helicopters and anti shipping results, it can probably have a
Speaker 4: significantly higher level of success than the Saudias did.
Speaker 3: So as we talk about the US and administration stance here,
Speaker 3: as mentioned, Secretary of State Anthony Blinkn is now heading
Speaker 3: back to the Middle East. He has made a number
Speaker 3: of trips to this region, six since October seventh, the
Speaker 3: initial attack on Israel by Hamas. How much leverage does
Speaker 3: the US realistically have to shape this scenario, not just militarily,
Speaker 3: but diplomatically as well well.
Speaker 4: The US always has enormous leverage as long as it
Speaker 4: uses it. And you know now that the US is
Speaker 4: undertaking kinetic strike operations in both the Red Sea and
Speaker 4: Iraq Syria. It's opened up one part of its toolkit
Speaker 4: and that is having some effect on the bad guys,
Speaker 4: particularly in Iraq, where most of the militias have been
Speaker 4: quite careful around the US not to actually kill any Americans.
Speaker 4: This one militia that was particularly aggressive, Njaba, is the
Speaker 4: one that got hit today, So we'll see how they
Speaker 4: react to that. But then the broader toolkit, I mean,
Speaker 4: the US when it comes to sanctions, access to the
Speaker 4: International Financial Institution's use of the dollar still has a
Speaker 4: tremendous amount of leverage.
Speaker 3: What about leverage over Israel specifically, That's a question I've
Speaker 3: come back to often over the course of the last
Speaker 3: two months. Is increasingly the Biden administration is encouraging Israel
Speaker 3: to move into a new phase of this war, to
Speaker 3: be more mindful of the civilian casualties in Gaza as
Speaker 3: they go after Hamas. Are we starting to see signs
Speaker 3: that that messaging toward Israel is actually working when Israel
Speaker 3: makes announcements like they're pulling some troops out of Gaza.
Speaker 4: I think the Israelis themselves understand that their operation ground
Speaker 4: operation in Gaza is only going to last another two
Speaker 4: to five weeks perhaps, and the Bide administration has given
Speaker 4: them as much time as they need to get it done.
Speaker 4: And even though they've had to say some things about
Speaker 4: restraining the scale or the destructiveness of operations, the Biden
Speaker 4: administration has not really taken any steps to actively change
Speaker 4: the way the Israelis are OpEd. There's a bit of
Speaker 4: an understanding and the Biden administration that you cannot let
Speaker 4: Hamas come away from this jump out of the rubble
Speaker 4: and claim a win. You have to have decisive effect
Speaker 4: on her mass and as a result, the US has
Speaker 4: basically provided these roads with very strong support. I think
Speaker 4: if the Israelis are ramping down their operations in Gaza,
Speaker 4: that's because they are reaching the goals. The end line,
Speaker 4: finish line is in sight for them.
Speaker 3: Okay, So let's expand on that point. You just gave
Speaker 3: a timeline of two to five weeks when we've heard
Speaker 3: from Israeli officials the idea that this warker could go
Speaker 3: on for the entirety of this year. So if we
Speaker 3: do in the two to five week period from here
Speaker 3: see Israel pull out of Gaza, does that mean this
Speaker 3: conflict is over and it's in its most immediate stage
Speaker 3: or what happens next?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean for any investors out in the international community,
Speaker 4: what you want to see is this conflict end in
Speaker 4: some way everyone can recognize, because that's probably when the
Speaker 4: who they stop attacking ships, and that's when all the
Speaker 4: militias stop foreign rockets at the US and the general
Speaker 4: war risk declines. So you know, when I say two
Speaker 4: to five weeks, I mean the Israeli intensive clearance operations
Speaker 4: on the ground where they're taking new territory. It's probably
Speaker 4: going to end within that period. That's then when we
Speaker 4: move to what we call Phase three, which is where
Speaker 4: the Israelis are just doing targeted strikes or raids into
Speaker 4: essentially the refugee camps, the remaining areas they don't control.
Speaker 4: I don't think the Israelis are going to actually withdraw
Speaker 4: from areas of Gaza at all. Everything they've got they're
Speaker 4: going to hold onto for a while as they clear
Speaker 4: the underground tunnels and remove weapons and other things from
Speaker 4: the area.
Speaker 3: Well, this is kind of that next day question, right, Okay,
Speaker 3: we get to the end of this war, and then
Speaker 3: what does Israel and Palestine look like in the immediate
Speaker 3: aftermath of that? From your point of view, is there
Speaker 3: any real chance of a two state solution here at all?
Speaker 3: In this generation?
Speaker 4: There'll certainly be a lot of people pushing for that.
Speaker 4: They'll say, after this Gaza war, we need to prevent
Speaker 4: another one from happening in the future. This is the
Speaker 4: perfect time to think about an end state. What we'll
Speaker 4: probably find is that Israeli Prime Minister benj net Yahoo,
Speaker 4: in an effort to sort of create the next stage
Speaker 4: of his political career, may well emerge as an opponent
Speaker 4: to the two state solution, and there'll be a lot
Speaker 4: of Israelis that don't have the level of trust required
Speaker 4: to give the Palestinians a state of their own. So
Speaker 4: there's going to be a big debate within Israel, and
Speaker 4: it's going to be very heavily pressurized by the international community,
Speaker 4: particularly the US, in favor of a two state solution.
Speaker 4: There are plenty of Israelis who probably want to see
Speaker 4: the end of this conflict as long as they can
Speaker 4: be a short of minimum level of security.
Speaker 3: Well, and of course the US isn't really the only
Speaker 3: force or factor in this as well. Yes, the US
Speaker 3: has been very explicitly expressed its support for Israel continues
Speaker 3: to send weapons as well. But when we think about
Speaker 3: the US as more role more widely in everything that
Speaker 3: we're seeing in the Middle East, a lot of this
Speaker 3: is coalition efforts, be it the Maritime Task Force or
Speaker 3: other situations where Arab allies have to be considered in
Speaker 3: the way the US moves forward. So how should we
Speaker 3: be thinking about these other actors here?
Speaker 4: Well, Look, you know, generally speaking, the US is still
Speaker 4: the hull, and it's still the glue that holds these
Speaker 4: things together. And without the US, there is no coalition
Speaker 4: of any kind, typically both because of political convening power,
Speaker 4: because of pure military capability and breadth of relations. But
Speaker 4: you know, what we're interested in to see particularly is
Speaker 4: how the Golf States integrate themselves with any of these efforts.
Speaker 4: You know, the Gold States have got the money to
Speaker 4: rebuild Gaza, and perhaps to rebuild it in a way
Speaker 4: that Hamas doesn't come back into the picture. The Gold
Speaker 4: States have also got a strong incentives bill to work
Speaker 4: with Israel or normalization and to create these kind of
Speaker 4: infrastructure and energy corridors that could run between the Indian
Speaker 4: Ocean and the Mediterranean, and also a lot of defense
Speaker 4: integration between these places, the Gold States and Israel. Those
Speaker 4: things probably haven't been ruined by the gods of war.
Speaker 4: And so what we're really watching is how Saudi Arabia
Speaker 4: the UAE act in the middle of this year, when
Speaker 4: we move past the main combat operations of the Gods
Speaker 4: of war and we move into the sort of stabilization
Speaker 4: and rebuilding phase. A lot of people are going to
Speaker 4: be keeping their eyes on.
Speaker 3: That absolutely, And I think something else that already what
Speaker 3: people were keeping their eyes on is Iran, specifically in
Speaker 3: US policy toward Iran. Just a final note here, Michael,
Speaker 3: when you are seeing Iranian proxies acting against or putting
Speaker 3: US forces potentially in harm's way of ramping up not
Speaker 3: just necessarily of proxy activity, but something like Iran sending
Speaker 3: a warship into the Red Sea, how does this change
Speaker 3: policy toward Iran moving forward? Even if the conflict between
Speaker 3: Israel and Hamas eventually comes to an end.
Speaker 4: Well, one warship from the Iranians is not too much
Speaker 4: of a trouble a worry. That's just, you know, a
Speaker 4: reef that hasn't been sunk yet. Realistically, if they ever
Speaker 4: come toe to toe, you know it'll be very quick
Speaker 4: and simple probably. But you know, when we look a
Speaker 4: little bit further out, you know, ultimately the US and
Speaker 4: Iran are not on the right track. Three years ago,
Speaker 4: you would have said there's a chance we could move
Speaker 4: to a nuclear deal to longest, longer term SANCTU relief.
Speaker 4: No one could look at the situation now and say
Speaker 4: that's going to happen. Whether it's a republican government in
Speaker 4: the US in twenty twenty five or a Democrat, you
Speaker 4: don't have that same feeling that a deal is possible
Speaker 4: you instead of a feeling that Iran and its proxies
Speaker 4: have to be contained all across the region or they'll
Speaker 4: do more things like October seventh, or what the hoo
Speaker 4: things are doing in resity or indeed nuclear bright.
Speaker 3: Now all right, Michael, we have to leave it there,
Speaker 3: but great to get your insight on the matters in
Speaker 3: the Middle East. That is Michael Knights, a fellow at
Speaker 3: the Washington Institute. And we'll have more on domestic affairs
Speaker 3: coming up with our political panel. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the.
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station.
Speaker 2: Just say Alexa play Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: Eleven thirty, Iowa is in the news for a much
Speaker 3: more somber reason. A school shooting today at Perry High School,
Speaker 3: about twenty five miles outside Des Moines. There is a
Speaker 3: lot that we don't know at this point, but according
Speaker 3: to reports that site law enforcement officials, this is expected.
Speaker 3: Shooter did die from a self inflicted gunshot wound and
Speaker 3: multiple others were injured. It was the first day of
Speaker 3: the semester at Perry High School after their winter break,
Speaker 3: and of course it comes just days ahead of those
Speaker 3: all important Iowa caucuses. So on that note, we bring
Speaker 3: back Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzy know Bloomberg Politics contributors. Rick, again,
Speaker 3: we don't know all of the details about today's event,
Speaker 3: but we do know that events like this have the
Speaker 3: power to shake communities, and it is these very same
Speaker 3: communities that are getting ready to make a selection on
Speaker 3: who they would like to be president. How does this
Speaker 3: affect the mind of a caucus goer.
Speaker 6: Yeah, first, I'd like to say, you know, we pray
Speaker 6: for the families and the individuals affected by this tragedy.
Speaker 6: It's just one more example of the fact that our
Speaker 6: school system, you know, is still a threat to our
Speaker 6: children and our administrators and parents. So, you know, we
Speaker 6: hope the families the best look. I mean, this kind
Speaker 6: of wrinkle, this kind of impact, this kind of an
Speaker 6: event that happens as close to the caucuses, we'll certainly
Speaker 6: have an impact on the caucus goers. You know, these
Speaker 6: are people who are very attuned to the issues of
Speaker 6: their state. Many of them are very active in politics,
Speaker 6: hold public office in the You know, maybe two hundred
Speaker 6: thousand people who show up on caucus night are going
Speaker 6: to be impacted by this. How that's a big question one.
Speaker 6: How do the candidates respond to this. We've started seeing
Speaker 6: candidates responding to it already, and they'll take that into
Speaker 6: consideration as so whether they think it's appropriate or whether they
Speaker 6: have answers that makes sense to them as people who
Speaker 6: are going to be casting a ballot in just the
Speaker 6: next few weeks. But for sure, something like this will
Speaker 6: have an impact, and I think it's too early to
Speaker 6: tell how well.
Speaker 3: Ricky mentioned that we have seen some candidates respond the
Speaker 3: viag Ramaswami was actually in Perry, Iowa this morning. He
Speaker 3: posted on x that he had canceled his event. He
Speaker 3: converted it to a prayer and conversation. He described it
Speaker 3: as a psychological sickness at the core of the country
Speaker 3: right now. And meanwhile, Ron DeSantis sat down in an
Speaker 3: interview with NBC after this shooting, said it's more of
Speaker 3: a local and state issue. So, Genie, while you of
Speaker 3: course get the thoughts and prayers as you often do,
Speaker 3: it doesn't necessarily seem like it changes any minds on
Speaker 3: positions on gun policy.
Speaker 7: That's right, and you know you hope, I hope it
Speaker 7: changes the minds of some people who are going to
Speaker 7: support some of these candidates. I mean, we have at
Speaker 7: the top of the ticket in Iowa, as you mentioned
Speaker 7: Kaylee eleven days away, Donald Trump, who describes himself as
Speaker 7: the most pro gun, pro Second Amendment president that we've
Speaker 7: ever had. You have the vag Ramaswami in Perry. This
Speaker 7: is somebody who did not want to take guns away
Speaker 7: from convicted felons. You have run the Santis who signed
Speaker 7: legislation in April for a permitless carry in Florida. You
Speaker 7: assume if he's elected president, he would be interested in
Speaker 7: doing the same nationally. This is what these people are
Speaker 7: talking about. And you contrast that with President Biden, who
Speaker 7: Monday is going to be going down South and speaking
Speaker 7: at the place, the church where the shooting, horrific shooting
Speaker 7: occurred several years ago, and talking about what he has
Speaker 7: been talking about for a long time, which is the
Speaker 7: need for serious and meaningful gun control in this country.
Speaker 7: We got a little taste of that after the horrific
Speaker 7: shooting in Texas. But we have not seen a concerted
Speaker 7: effort by the National Legislature Congress to act. And we
Speaker 7: just finished a year six hundred and fifty mass shootings
Speaker 7: in the country. That's more than days in the year,
Speaker 7: according to the Gun Violence Archive, six hundred and fifty
Speaker 7: shootings in this country, and we start the year yet
Speaker 7: again at a school. It's devastating and it's hypocritical to
Speaker 7: hear some of these statements coming out from these candidates
Speaker 7: who are going around Iowa today.
Speaker 3: Well, two of the candidates, Rick Ron Dea Santis, who
Speaker 3: I just mentioned, and also Nicki Haley, will be appearing
Speaker 3: in back to back town halls on CNN this evening.
Speaker 3: If you were part of these campaigns, if you were
Speaker 3: advising them, how would you be telling them to approach
Speaker 3: this issue tonight?
Speaker 6: Well, I think for Nicki Haley, she has some unique
Speaker 6: experience in that she was governor when the horrific church
Speaker 6: shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, heard spent an enormous amount
Speaker 6: of time dealing with issues of grief and healing related
Speaker 6: to that. She can tap into that experience and could
Speaker 6: be a very effective and articulate voice in the aftermath
Speaker 6: of this shooting, if Ron de Santis continues to mimic
Speaker 6: the line that he did today, which in immediate after
Speaker 6: math of this year, that the federal government really doesn't
Speaker 6: have any business being in the situation keeping your children
Speaker 6: safe in schools, and that states are the ones who
Speaker 6: have to do it. I just don't see anybody getting
Speaker 6: excited about that solution, right. It seems to me that
Speaker 6: he's running for president, he wants to have his hand
Speaker 6: on the till till her to make sure that our
Speaker 6: country hits in the right direction. And as Janie very
Speaker 6: aptly pointed out, there's an epidemic of these shootings across America,
Speaker 6: and the federal response is important.
Speaker 3: And finally, Genie, as we reflect on really just the
Speaker 3: horrifying statistics looking ahead tonight, how important is this town
Speaker 3: hall to Nikki Haley, who is trying to cement herself
Speaker 3: really as the alternative to Donald Trump, knowing the misstaps
Speaker 3: she has had in recent weeks on the question of
Speaker 3: slavery in the Civil War.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think it's really important, you know, and I
Speaker 7: wish she had Rick or somebody like him on her side,
Speaker 7: because you know, she has gotten tripped. You mentioned the
Speaker 7: Civil War a few days ago. Issue. I wonder if
Speaker 7: she's going to get tripped up on this issue of
Speaker 7: gun control, because, to Chris Christie's point, this is somebody
Speaker 7: who seems to want to be all things to all people.
Speaker 7: She describes herself as really pro Second Amendment despite all
Speaker 7: the experiences she had as governor. So I think this
Speaker 7: question about what you do about violence in our schools,
Speaker 7: which is at epidemic proportions, is when she's going to
Speaker 7: have to answer, and how would you curb this and
Speaker 7: address this? She can answer it, I think she's going
Speaker 7: to be very scared about sending people on the far right.
Speaker 7: So we'll have to see if she becomes what Desanta's
Speaker 7: described as nicky.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 2: We're listening on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: I'm here in Washington. My Dorning, who helps lead our
Speaker 3: congressional coverage, is here in Washington, but most of Congress
Speaker 3: is not yet back in Washington. They come back next
Speaker 3: week Monday or Tuesday, depending on if if you're the
Speaker 3: Senate or the House. But that's not to say they
Speaker 3: haven't been on the move. In fact, there were over
Speaker 3: roughly sixty Republican lawmakers and equal past Texas yesterday on
Speaker 3: a trip to the border led by House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Speaker 3: Border security one of the issues that Congress is going
Speaker 3: to be trying to grapple with when they finally make
Speaker 3: their return for the new year. So joining us now
Speaker 3: with more on this is Mike Dorning. As I said,
Speaker 3: he's here in Washington with me in studio. In fact,
Speaker 3: so Mike, obviously they made a lot of noise at
Speaker 3: the border yesterday. Does that actually translate to higher odds
Speaker 3: of legislative policy happening when they get back.
Speaker 8: What it translates into is more and more of what's
Speaker 8: going on in Congress starting to get wrapped up into
Speaker 8: this immigration fight. Even before we went away for the holidays,
Speaker 8: the Ukraine aid and to Israel was wrapped up in
Speaker 8: the immigration fight. It looks like it's getting more likely
Speaker 8: that even the government shut down now maybe wrapped up
Speaker 8: in the immigration fight. Whether it winds up that way
Speaker 8: in the end or not not clear, but at least
Speaker 8: in the early stages. They're looking to add this to
Speaker 8: that shutdown fight.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, because there was
Speaker 3: a bunch of Freedom Colocus members, Bob good who of
Speaker 3: course leads it now, Eli Crane, Andy Biggs, Matt Gates too,
Speaker 3: all said yesterday while they were an eagle pass, shut
Speaker 3: down the border or we shut down the government. That's
Speaker 3: just a handful of members, though that's not necessarily the
Speaker 3: message we got from Speaker Johnson himself.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so I don't think that Speaker Johnson or the
Speaker 8: sort of center of gravity in the Republican Party is
Speaker 8: to totally shut down the border. But they want to
Speaker 8: further restrict and particularly stop some of this migration that's
Speaker 8: coming into the United States through the southern border, and
Speaker 8: they see that, you know, rightly, as a big campaign
Speaker 8: issue this year, when in our polling we're seeing that
Speaker 8: as the second most important issue to voters after of
Speaker 8: course the economy. But the economy looks like it's starting
Speaker 8: to get better. Consumer sentiment is improving, inflation is going down,
Speaker 8: so you can see looking ahead in the election year,
Speaker 8: the economy might be a little less of a worry
Speaker 8: to voters. But on immigration, that's a concern. That's a
Speaker 8: concern where a lot of voters are closer to the
Speaker 8: Republican party at the moment than the Democratic position on this,
Speaker 8: So they want to ramp that up as something that's
Speaker 8: front and center in the debate.
Speaker 3: But Democrats are willing, it seems largely to make a
Speaker 3: deal of some kind when it comes to the border,
Speaker 3: knowing that it is a political headache for them and
Speaker 3: that there is a crisis there, and everybody seems to
Speaker 3: be on the same page about that. Where in the
Speaker 3: Van diagram is the policy that Democrats can agree to
Speaker 3: that will be signed into law by a Democratic president
Speaker 3: and what the House will pass because they still keep
Speaker 3: saying it's Hr two HR two and we know that
Speaker 3: was dead on arrival as soon as they passed it
Speaker 3: in the first place.
Speaker 8: So in the Senate, the Democrats and Kristen Cinema, the Independent,
Speaker 8: and some Republican negotiators are centering are sort of circling
Speaker 8: around a potential deal that includes some limits on asylum
Speaker 8: and a few other restrictions. There have been a lot
Speaker 8: more migrants coming in that have been claiming asylum, and
Speaker 8: that is a big increase from prior years, So there's
Speaker 8: a potential deal, at least from the Senate standpoint, around
Speaker 8: asylum and a few other concrete issues that may or
Speaker 8: may not be acceptable to the House. Some people in
Speaker 8: the center of the Republican Party that are more obviously
Speaker 8: anti immigration than the Democratic Party want to also address
Speaker 8: something called parole authority that the president has, which is basically,
Speaker 8: the president has authority to let people stay in the
Speaker 8: United States, you know, regardless of the law. Almost and
Speaker 8: president have used this authority for refugees, for other specific measures,
Speaker 8: and that's something that a lot of Democrats are leery
Speaker 8: of giving up because it's a key presidential power. So
Speaker 8: that's something that where you could see it might go
Speaker 8: either way that there might be some restriction on that
Speaker 8: or not. The HR two sort of more sort of
Speaker 8: ardent Republicans they want to do like they want to
Speaker 8: build that border wall that Trump was promising, they want
Speaker 8: to make other more extreme changes there, and so you
Speaker 8: could see that's an unlikely to reach a deal, But
Speaker 8: you could see a deal that starts with something that
Speaker 8: the Senate Democrats and Republicans can agree on, and then
Speaker 8: maybe when it goes over to the House it gets
Speaker 8: a little bit more robust from the Republican standpoint.
Speaker 3: All right, Mike Dorning, who helps lead Bloomberg's congressional coverage,
Speaker 3: thank you so much. So let's go now to someone
Speaker 3: who used to sit in the very same house to
Speaker 3: which we are referring. Former Congressman Denver Rickleman of Virginia
Speaker 3: is joining me now. Congressman, thanks so much for coming
Speaker 3: on the program. What do you think the real prospects
Speaker 3: are here of this House of Representatives agreeing with the
Speaker 3: White House and a Democratic controlled Senate on border security.
Speaker 9: Well, with the amount of fingerpointing, I think it's going
Speaker 9: to be very difficult in the short term. You know,
Speaker 9: I've been there, as you know, I'm very familiar with
Speaker 9: the Freedom Caucus. And the issue that you have really
Speaker 9: is that you have people trying to use i think today,
Speaker 9: trying to solve problems today right with yesterday's technology and
Speaker 9: yesterday's thought process. And I think the real issue that
Speaker 9: we have right now is going to be very difficult
Speaker 9: for the Republicans who support HR two to actually come
Speaker 9: in and say, hey, we want to do this right now,
Speaker 9: right We're willing to make a deal, because all you
Speaker 9: do is look at their districts. If their PBI, their
Speaker 9: political voting indexes R plus eight or larger, it's going
Speaker 9: to be really hard to make a deal, especially in
Speaker 9: the election season that's coming up right now. So I
Speaker 9: think it's a I think it's all. It's a long haul.
Speaker 9: I just I think it's a real long haul. But
Speaker 9: the issue that you have right now, the pressure is this,
Speaker 9: there are issues at the border, let's be honest, and
Speaker 9: I do think the American public is starting to get
Speaker 9: fed up with it, so that might put a little
Speaker 9: bit of pressure on modern Democrats to try to come
Speaker 9: to the table.
Speaker 3: What about if that pressure comes in the form of
Speaker 3: threatening a government shutdown if there is no deal on
Speaker 3: the border. Should these two things be tied together?
Speaker 9: Well, the Freedom Caucus is going to go hyperpolic you know,
Speaker 9: that's their mo I don't think they should be tied
Speaker 9: together at all. And that's just, you know, that's sort
Speaker 9: of political hostage taking, you know, by the Freedom Caucus
Speaker 9: or what they want to do. Should not tie that
Speaker 9: to shutting down the government. I mean, that's a lot worse,
Speaker 9: right as funding for the border actually is affected by
Speaker 9: a government shutdown. I know, I'm stating the obvious, but
Speaker 9: you do need adults in a room, and right now,
Speaker 9: the Freedom Caucus are not the adults in a room.
Speaker 9: It's gonna be those in the middle. It's gonna be
Speaker 9: you know, I would say center right Republicans, what's left
Speaker 9: of them modern Democrats, they're the people that they are
Speaker 9: adults in the room. It's not the Freedom Caucus. And
Speaker 9: to link that is really irresponsible.
Speaker 3: Would you describe Sir Speaker Johnson as an adult in
Speaker 3: the room.
Speaker 9: Not from what I saw with his press conference. Now,
Speaker 9: you know, it's almost like there's no wiggle room for
Speaker 9: any type of negotiation based on how they have to be.
Speaker 9: And I know that, right that's the messaging that you're
Speaker 9: doing for your district. You know, Speaker Johnson just isn't
Speaker 9: messaging for his district. He's messaging is the speaker now,
Speaker 9: so he has to protect those people in those R
Speaker 9: plus eight you know, over districts. But right now, I
Speaker 9: just don't think he really is serious enough. I don't
Speaker 9: think he has a gravitas or he has the ability
Speaker 9: to control the far right. I mean, you already saw
Speaker 9: Bannon coming out, another far right sort of mouth breathers
Speaker 9: already coming out and saying, you know that he's not
Speaker 9: living up to the standard that they need on the
Speaker 9: far right or as conservatives, or whatever that definition is today.
Speaker 9: So I think he's going to have a real tough time.
Speaker 9: I just don't think he has the gravitas to really
Speaker 9: pull it off unless you got some more sane people
Speaker 9: that get to in here. Again, we need adults in
Speaker 9: the room here at this point.
Speaker 3: Okay, So you don't think Speaker Johnson necessarily will remain
Speaker 3: Speaker Johnson at the end of these fights, knowing how
Speaker 3: things went with Kevin McCarthy, who.
Speaker 9: Knows, you know, trying to predict Congress is very difficult.
Speaker 9: As somebody who was there, I remember when I was
Speaker 9: in intelligence training, I had a mentor tell me, like,
Speaker 9: the only way you can tell the future is after
Speaker 9: it happens. But I do think he's starting to get
Speaker 9: exceptional pressure from the far right. And I think that's
Speaker 9: why you saw what he was doing. You talked about
Speaker 9: the economy earlier. I thought it was really prescient. I
Speaker 9: think it was a great point by you. I think
Speaker 9: with the economy actually starting to improve, they need another
Speaker 9: issue to splinter in twenty twenty four, and that's why
Speaker 9: you saw that many people at the border. This was
Speaker 9: a political well, this was just politics. This really had
Speaker 9: nothing to do with actually getting anything done. This was
Speaker 9: just them fundraising and trying to get as many people
Speaker 9: on their size as account.
Speaker 4: Of the far right.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 3: Okay, So on the subject of politics, I wonder what
Speaker 3: role you think former President Trump plays in all of
Speaker 3: these conversations. Knowing that Speaker Johnson is a longtime supporter
Speaker 3: of the former president, he already has endorsed him. Now
Speaker 3: you have essentially endorsements clean sweeping all of the Republican
Speaker 3: leadership because Steve Scalize and Tom Emmer both through their
Speaker 3: support behind the former president this week. How does he
Speaker 3: factor in here into a calculus over something like potentially
Speaker 3: giving Biden a win on border security.
Speaker 9: Trump is the elephant in the room. I mean not
Speaker 9: to do a horrible pun there, but really they're actually
Speaker 9: found in the marching orders of Donald Trump. That's all
Speaker 9: they're doing. They were down there trying to impress their
Speaker 9: guy mar A Lago. You know, we have a real
Speaker 9: issue on the border, We have real security concerns. Somebody
Speaker 9: who did twenty years you know, Air Force contract NSA
Speaker 9: offico secretary of Defense, somebody who's a counter terrorism expert,
Speaker 9: which I am, only owned data of targeting. I think
Speaker 9: it's ridiculous right that we have a Congress that can't
Speaker 9: come together about border security in a sane and humane way.
Speaker 9: So Donald Trump is not sane or humane in any way.
Speaker 9: So he is the one pushing the message here and
Speaker 9: Mike Johnson is just going to be a mouthpiece. And
Speaker 9: again it comes down to, you know, if he's just
Speaker 9: sort of towing the Donald Trump line, he's not in
Speaker 9: a position to really make deals, have the gravitas, you know,
Speaker 9: or the capability to do that. I think that's what
Speaker 9: should scare the American public is that you still want
Speaker 9: to have funding. You do not want to tie border
Speaker 9: security to funding the government. I think that's an irresponsible move.
Speaker 9: It's not fair to all Americans, and it's not fair
Speaker 9: to cpp to.
Speaker 4: Be honest with you.
Speaker 3: Okay, so you mentioned the American public, which brings me
Speaker 3: to another question that also pertains to your intelligence experience
Speaker 3: and the way that was used in assisting the work
Speaker 3: of the January sixth Committee. Because Congressman, we are approaching
Speaker 3: the third anniversary of January sixth, it's this weekend obviously
Speaker 3: we all know what happened on that day. That day
Speaker 3: is the subject of many legal issues for the former president,
Speaker 3: but it hasn't necessarily seemed to resonate with his base
Speaker 3: at all. It hasn't really changed any minds about him.
Speaker 3: Do you think that January sixth has potency still in
Speaker 3: the American electorates view?
Speaker 9: Boy, that's a great question, because I think, you know,
Speaker 9: you always, you know, look at the three to five
Speaker 9: percent in the middle that you can sway one way
Speaker 9: or another. And I would like to think, I know,
Speaker 9: hope is not a viable course of action. So I
Speaker 9: hate to use the word hope, but I would like
Speaker 9: to hope there's three to five percent that still think
Speaker 9: about January sixth and saving democracy that are going to
Speaker 9: vote because democracy need to be saved. But when it
Speaker 9: comes to the base, I would say it's much more
Speaker 9: than thirty five percent. I know people like to throw
Speaker 9: that number out, but even here in the fifth district
Speaker 9: to Virginia, or even when you're looking what's going on
Speaker 9: right now, you're looking at this sort of the breathlessness
Speaker 9: and the hyperbole that's coming out about January sixth, I mean,
Speaker 9: you just have a new you know, specialist coming out
Speaker 9: from far right media on the truth of January sixth.
Speaker 9: I just don't think it reverberates.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 9: I think January six is actually a real rallying point
Speaker 9: for most of Trump Trump supporters. I think they bought
Speaker 9: into the stuff from the Tucker Carlsons and things like that.
Speaker 9: So I really think the myth and the conspiracy theories
Speaker 9: are something that's a real advantage for Donald Trump and
Speaker 9: the Republicans going into twenty twenty four. We just have
Speaker 9: to look at we have to message to that three
Speaker 9: to five percent in the middle, maybe a little bit more,
Speaker 9: that we do not want to repeat of January sixth,
Speaker 9: or a president who would allow that type of nonsense
Speaker 9: and criminal activity to happen. I mean, it's really that simple.
Speaker 9: You know, either you're on the side of democracy and
Speaker 9: you believe that, you know, what happened on January sixth
Speaker 9: was heinous, or if you think it was just a
Speaker 9: peaceful gathering gone bad. You know, really, you know, you
Speaker 9: are already unreachable after three years. There's nobody going to
Speaker 9: change their mind in the next day or two, and
Speaker 9: there's certainly not going to be anybody change their mind
Speaker 9: about January sixth. Before November of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: Finally, Congressman, just in our final minute with you on
Speaker 3: the idea of January sixth, Donald Trump asked the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court to take up the Fourteenth Amendment case overturn Colorado's ruling.
Speaker 3: He says in his filing that January sixth was not
Speaker 3: insurrection and he did not engage in it. And I
Speaker 3: know you're not a constitutional law expert, but you were
Speaker 3: enmeshed in the events of that day. What actually happened
Speaker 3: was it insurrection?
Speaker 9: It was absolutely you know, when you look at command
Speaker 9: and control, we don't have to be ensconced in politics
Speaker 9: or in legal you know, sort of maneuvering to see
Speaker 9: that there were people who coordinated that day all the
Speaker 9: way up to White House staff. And we know that
Speaker 9: White House staff was involved or at least texting, you know,
Speaker 9: with people like the oath Keepers. That is a fact.
Speaker 9: We know about phone records, we know the linkages, We
Speaker 9: know the amount of people that really thought that they
Speaker 9: were there in a coordinated fashion. We know about the
Speaker 9: youarth keepers, we know about you know, the convictions of
Speaker 9: seditious conspiracy and the Proud Boys. So as an insurrection.
Speaker 9: You just have a guy who wants to win. But again,
Speaker 9: if a majority of the public or the majority of
Speaker 9: the Republicans excuse me, believe it wasn't an insurrection, he's
Speaker 9: going to get those votes. And you know so, yeah,
Speaker 9: I mean, it doesn't have to do with legal maneuvering
Speaker 9: at all. It's about It's actually about data, and the
Speaker 9: data shows what happened that day period.
Speaker 3: All right, a very clear answer from Denver Riggleman, former
Speaker 3: Republican Member of Congress from Virginia. Thank you so much
Speaker 3: for joining us. Sir, this is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
Speaker 2: The Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: We know that Donald Trump yesterday has asked the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court of the United States to overturn a ruling from
Speaker 3: Colorado which bars him from the ballot on the grounds
Speaker 3: of the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump and the filing, saying that
Speaker 3: he did not engage in insurrection, that the events of
Speaker 3: January sixth were not insurrection in the first place. So
Speaker 3: let's get more on this now from an actual legal export.
Speaker 3: Joining me now, expert Nick Ackerman is with me now.
Speaker 3: He is a former Watergate prosecutor. Nick, thanks so much
Speaker 3: for coming up back on the program. It's always great
Speaker 3: to speak to you. First of all, is there any
Speaker 3: world in which the Supreme Court would decide not to
Speaker 3: take up this case.
Speaker 5: I can't imagine that the Supreme Court is not going
Speaker 5: to take this case. I mean, they just have the
Speaker 5: practical problem that if they don't take it, they're going
Speaker 5: to get decisions from all different states and it's just
Speaker 5: going to be a patchwork of inconsistencies in what is
Speaker 5: supposed to be a national election.
Speaker 3: Well, Nick, you mentioned all these different states. Obviously there's
Speaker 3: a number at play here. Maine also has a ruled
Speaker 3: to keep him off the ballot that has too been challenged.
Speaker 3: I know you think that the Supreme Court ultimately should
Speaker 3: uphold Colorado's ruling on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 3: But if they don't, how will it impact the cases
Speaker 3: in the other states, Because if they don't actually make
Speaker 3: a decision around insurrection if they want to avoid that
Speaker 3: and they find, you know, a procedural means or something
Speaker 3: like that, would that necessary be applicable to the main
Speaker 3: case or any other case.
Speaker 5: Oh. I think whatever they do, it's going to be
Speaker 5: applicable to all fifty states, and there's just no way
Speaker 5: they can get around that. If they don't do that,
Speaker 5: it's going to be really kind of bedlam in the
Speaker 5: sense of he's on the ballot in some states and
Speaker 5: not on the ballot in other states. That just wouldn't
Speaker 5: make any sense.
Speaker 3: Okay, So it'll be a blanket ruling regardless in your mind,
Speaker 3: When do you think we'll actually get it? How quickly
Speaker 3: would you expect the court to act on this?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean they just filed the Trump just filed
Speaker 5: his cert petition yesterday asking the Court to review it.
Speaker 5: If the Court first has to decide whether it will
Speaker 5: do so, which I think it will, and then there'll
Speaker 5: be a briefing schedule. So we're looking at probably at
Speaker 5: least a month before oral argument on this, unless they
Speaker 5: really try and expedite it. They could as possible.
Speaker 3: I wonder if the pressure of the primary in Colorado
Speaker 3: actually being an early March may dictate how they think
Speaker 3: about timing here. Something else that's supposed to happen in
Speaker 3: early March, or at least Jack Smith would like to
Speaker 3: see happen in early March, is the start of the
Speaker 3: trial in the case here in Washington, where federal charges
Speaker 3: have been brought against the former president for his actions
Speaker 3: around the twenty twenty election. Jack Smith, though in that case,
Speaker 3: didn't actually charge Trump with insurrection, and I wonder if
Speaker 3: if the court were to make a decision around the
Speaker 3: insurrection question in some form, does that undermine potentially any
Speaker 3: of the other charges that Smith actually brought. In terms
Speaker 3: of the strength of his case, it.
Speaker 5: Should have absolutely no impact on his case. His case
Speaker 5: is a criminal case. The issue about whether or not
Speaker 5: Donald Trump is qualified to be on the presidential ballot
Speaker 5: is purely a civil matter, and it's totally aside. Both
Speaker 5: issues are completely different. Now, it could be that the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court, and I've suggested this, is that in order
Speaker 5: to determine and to at least if there's any question
Speaker 5: in their mind whether or not the evidence that was
Speaker 5: presented before the January sixth House Committee was sufficient on insurrection,
Speaker 5: they certainly have the right to reach down into the
Speaker 5: grand jury that brought that indictment and review some of
Speaker 5: that testimony that has a bearing on this issue. For example,
Speaker 5: the testimony of Vice President Pence would be highly relevant
Speaker 5: to this question, And I think if the Supreme Court
Speaker 5: were to do that, it would certainly show that they're
Speaker 5: taking the extra mile to look at the issue and
Speaker 5: come up with a decision based on not just the
Speaker 5: January sixth Committee but also other testimony, including Donald Trump's
Speaker 5: own vice president.
Speaker 3: So do you think the time it takes them to
Speaker 3: do that work, even if the Jack Smith case technically
Speaker 3: is unrelated, could actually cause a timeline issue for the
Speaker 3: Jack Smith case. Again, this is a trial that he
Speaker 3: wants to begin in early March. If the court is
Speaker 3: still enmeshed in this fourteenth Amendment question, does that move
Speaker 3: that timeline farther out?
Speaker 5: Totally irrelevant to that has nothing to do with it, Okay.
Speaker 5: The only issue that right now is delaying the DC
Speaker 5: case is this issue about presidential immunity, which is going
Speaker 5: to be argued before the DC Circuit this Tuesday. I
Speaker 5: would suspect that they are going to deny Trump's claim
Speaker 5: for immunity. It's going to be very quick, and I
Speaker 5: also suspect the Supreme Court will not take up that issue.
Speaker 5: They have enough problems already now with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 5: So I think this case is going to go in
Speaker 5: March as scheduled.
Speaker 3: On the subject of scheduling and dates around this case
Speaker 3: in regard to it specific Trump today accused Jack Smith
Speaker 3: of violating a stay order and wants him held in
Speaker 3: contempt as a result. What's your thought on that matter?
Speaker 5: Total nonsense. All political has nothing to do with what
Speaker 5: Jack Smith is doing. He is entitled to file motions
Speaker 5: in the case in DC. The only thing that the
Speaker 5: stay does is it means that Trump's lawyers don't have
Speaker 5: to do anything until the DC Circuit rules. Again, it's
Speaker 5: just posturing by Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Well, so let's turn to not Donald Trump, but the
Speaker 3: role of other actors in this including the justices. This
Speaker 3: is something you and I have discussed before the issue
Speaker 3: of Clarence Thomas, knowing how closely his wife Jinny Thomas
Speaker 3: is tied to many of these issues that this court
Speaker 3: is dealing with or going to have to deal with.
Speaker 3: How should we be thinking about what happens if Clarence
Speaker 3: Thomas does not recuse himself and what it means for
Speaker 3: the court going forward.
Speaker 5: Well, certainly he should recuse himself. His wife was involved
Speaker 5: with Mark Meadows and discussions with people in the White
Speaker 5: House that all surrounded this insurrection and what occurred on
Speaker 5: January sixth, So by every right he should not be
Speaker 5: deciding this case. However, there's really nothing to enforce that.
Speaker 5: If Clarence Thomas decides that he wants to decide the
Speaker 5: case and be involved, he can do it. So we'll
Speaker 5: just have to see what happens if he does. It's
Speaker 5: certainly not going to help the reputation of the court,
Speaker 5: and I'm sure that others on the Court aren't going
Speaker 5: to be too happy about it, But there is nothing
Speaker 5: really with any teeth to enforce that kind of refusal.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess we will have to wait and see. Finally, Nick,
Speaker 3: I'd love to get your sense of something we've talked
Speaker 3: about a few times on this program and over the
Speaker 3: course of the last several weeks, which is the notion
Speaker 3: of the judicial branch of the court system deciding these
Speaker 3: things that are so crucial to American democracy, rather than
Speaker 3: all of it being in the hands of the American voter.
Speaker 3: What rules should the courts serve here? Do you see
Speaker 3: merit to that argument that this is up to the electorate,
Speaker 3: it shouldn't be up to people on a bench.
Speaker 5: Well, it's not really up to the electorate. There are
Speaker 5: a whole series of items in the Constitution that are
Speaker 5: prerequisites and pre qualifiers before somebody can even run for president.
Speaker 5: He has to be thirty five years old, at least
Speaker 5: has to have been born in the United States, has
Speaker 5: to have resided in the United States for at least
Speaker 5: fourteen years, cannot if he's been re elected twice as president,
Speaker 5: cannot be elected a third time, and the next The
Speaker 5: last requirement is this one that he cannot have been
Speaker 5: in a situation where he took an oath to defend
Speaker 5: the constitution, engaged in insurrection, and then hold office in
Speaker 5: the federal government president and other offices. So these are
Speaker 5: all prerequisites before you even get into the game, before
Speaker 5: you even get into the election, And the obvious branch
Speaker 5: of our government to enforce those rules is the Supreme Court.
Speaker 5: Now keep in mind, this has never happened before with any.
Speaker 4: Of these rules.
Speaker 5: No one who's been fourteen or twenty has tried to
Speaker 5: run for president and taking this up with anybody to
Speaker 5: try and determine whether the person was really thirty five
Speaker 5: or fourteen, or where they were a citizen born in
Speaker 5: the US. And certainly no president before this has ever
Speaker 5: been involved in an insurrection against his own government.
Speaker 3: Yeah, these are unprecedented times that we're in and we're
Speaker 3: very glad that you can join us to shed some
Speaker 3: light and insight into them. Nick Ackerman, former Watergate prosecutor,
Speaker 3: Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast.
Speaker 9: Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 9: and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can
Speaker 9: find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one
Speaker 9: pm
Speaker 1: Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.