Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg sound on.
Speaker 1: If you're the president of the United States, you can
Speaker 1: declass if I just push a stick less like even
Speaker 1: by thinking about it. which store do you want to
Speaker 1: go through? The one that has the Dragon, or the
Speaker 1: one that has the crocodile or the one that has
Speaker 1: the flesh ripping bats? I think they're all pretty unpleasant
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump. Bloomberg sound on politics, policy and perspective
Speaker 1: from DC's top names. I'm not walking away from Three
Speaker 1: d sixty billion dollars saving the planet. So it is
Speaker 1: the point that Republicans are stupid and Democrats are intellectual?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. Bloomberg sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: A Federal Appeals Court Rejects Donald Trump's story that he
Speaker 1: declassified the documents. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: Is the Justice Department is clear to use a hundred
Speaker 1: now classified papers that were found at Mara Lago and
Speaker 1: its criminal investigation into the former president. will discuss the
Speaker 1: mounting number of legal cases against Donald Trump with Bloomberg's
Speaker 1: Mike dorning and with Rebecca Roy fee, former assistant district
Speaker 1: attorney in Manhattan. Republicans respond to the documents case by
Speaker 1: taking aim at the National Archives? We'll talk about that
Speaker 1: with our panel. Bloomberg politics contributor and democratic analyst Jennie Chanzano,
Speaker 1: today joined by Republican Strategist Doug High and Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 1: set to roll out his answer to the contract with
Speaker 1: America tomorrow. Bloomberg's Emily Wilkins spoke with new gang rich
Speaker 1: about it and joins US later. These are busy days
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump's legal team and they just got busier
Speaker 1: for investigators at the Department of Justice now, after a
Speaker 1: federal appeals court late last night cleared D o j
Speaker 1: to use a hundred classified documents that were seized at
Speaker 1: Marra Lago for use in the criminal investigation this after
Speaker 1: they were barred from doing so. Remember when the special
Speaker 1: master was appointed to review what was in total about
Speaker 1: eleven thousand documents that were retrieved by the P I? Why?
Speaker 1: Because they're classified and of course, well, that's not what
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has been saying. This is him last night
Speaker 1: on the Hannity Program on Fox News. If you're the
Speaker 1: president of the United States, you can declass if I
Speaker 1: just by saying it's stick classified. Even by thinking about it,
Speaker 1: because you're sending it tomorrow Lago or to wherever you're
Speaker 1: sending it, and there doesn't have to be a process.
Speaker 1: There can be a process, but there doesn't have to be.
Speaker 1: You're the president. You make that decision. So when you
Speaker 1: send it, it's the classified we I de classified everything
Speaker 1: that the three judges on the appeals court, including two
Speaker 1: appointed by Donald Trump, rejected the idea that he had
Speaker 1: declassified the documents, either in his mind or having told someone.
Speaker 1: Joining us to help set the stage for this conversation,
Speaker 1: because there are a number of tentacles here and certainly
Speaker 1: a number of cases. Bloomberg Politics Reporter, Mike Dorning. Great
Speaker 1: to have you back, Mike. The special master has set
Speaker 1: his timeline in this documents case and the trump legal
Speaker 1: team has only a couple of weeks to report back,
Speaker 1: and I wonder what that means for the the overall
Speaker 1: timeline in the case. With a great story that you
Speaker 1: helped to write, garland faces. Of course, our attorney general,
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland faces, only allows the options denying charges against trump.
Speaker 1: Do you expect to hear something in November December from
Speaker 1: D O j? It's quite possible. We could hear something
Speaker 1: soon after the election, although it might also take a
Speaker 1: little bit longer. Um. People, current and former justice department officials,
Speaker 1: believe they already have enough evidence to charge him with
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice and quite likely could swiftly have enough
Speaker 1: evidence to charge him with mishandling classified documents. Now, sometimes
Speaker 1: before they charge someone they want to complete, or have
Speaker 1: a good idea of, the damage assessment which informed can
Speaker 1: inform the decision about charging and also is useful to
Speaker 1: reflect in the charging documents. So some people have told
Speaker 1: me that might take a little bit longer, but having
Speaker 1: this court decision removes an impediment. Yeah, I mean this,
Speaker 1: this just got a little bit quicker after what happened
Speaker 1: last night. Correct indeed. Yes, they can move faster with
Speaker 1: the damage assessment because they have the classified documents. I
Speaker 1: think we've talked about this. UNWRITTEN RULE AT D O
Speaker 1: J is sixty days before an election everything it's kind
Speaker 1: of a quiet period Um, and of course that was
Speaker 1: not the case with the Hillary Clinton emails a few
Speaker 1: years back. But there isn't one after the election, right.
Speaker 1: Could this come at any time? It would come any
Speaker 1: time after the election, and Merrick Garland is a articulous,
Speaker 1: by the law book, by the Policy Manual, kind of guy.
Speaker 1: He's not likely to sort of go off on some
Speaker 1: you know, flamboyant tangent. You've also made clear, though, in
Speaker 1: your piece, that even if garland determines he has enough
Speaker 1: evidence to prove trump guilty beyond the reasonable out that
Speaker 1: does not mean that we're going to get an indictment.
Speaker 1: Doesn't necessarily mean it the the attorney general does have
Speaker 1: prosecutorial disgression and he can factor in you know other,
Speaker 1: Um so other matters in his decision. Now, Um, there
Speaker 1: is also this whole threat of violence, which trump was
Speaker 1: alluding to in an earlier interview with Hugh Hughitt, where
Speaker 1: he said, you know, if you indict me, they were
Speaker 1: gonna have the worst possible problems in this country. And
Speaker 1: there we saw January six there was some some popular
Speaker 1: people who would go along with that. That's something that
Speaker 1: he may have to factor in. Um, he may, he
Speaker 1: may not decide to sort of he may decide that
Speaker 1: that's not a decision that he should a factor that
Speaker 1: he should include, but it's up to him whether he
Speaker 1: includes that or not. Great reporting and thank you for
Speaker 1: being with us, Mike. Warning Bloomberg Politics Reporter, as we
Speaker 1: add to the phrase, Rebecca Royfe, I've been looking forward
Speaker 1: to this conversation. Law Professor at New York Law School,
Speaker 1: former Manhattan assistant district attorney, with a great sense of
Speaker 1: what's really going on here. Rebecca, welcome. I think Lawrence
Speaker 1: tribe put it this way earlier today on Bloomberg. You've
Speaker 1: got behind one door the killer crocodiles, behind another one
Speaker 1: scary dragons, and then the third door is flesh eating bats.
Speaker 1: When you consider all of the cases against this president,
Speaker 1: uh not. Uh, the least of which is coming from
Speaker 1: New York State, as we learned yesterday from Your Attorney General.
Speaker 1: which is the most potentially damaging? which needs the quickest
Speaker 1: attention from his legal team? Now? Uh, that's a really
Speaker 1: hard question. I don't know. I feel that the walls
Speaker 1: are kind of closing in on all fronts and it
Speaker 1: remains to be seen how serious some of the criminal
Speaker 1: investigations are. But at least it's more clear now, Um,
Speaker 1: what the attorney general is doing and how threatening that
Speaker 1: it is to him and his business. So at least
Speaker 1: that one's more transparent. The threat, as you hear this
Speaker 1: ruling from last night. It's it's really interesting in terms
Speaker 1: of the documents case from Mara Lago, because of this
Speaker 1: appeals court ruling, is it now impossible for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: to say that he declassified these documents? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's impossible for him to say that.
Speaker 1: You know, part of the part of what the Appeals
Speaker 1: Court said was, you know, he's been saying this out
Speaker 1: in public, but he hasn't made any representation, his lawyers
Speaker 1: haven't made any representation as part of the record, and that's,
Speaker 1: of course key, in part because any representation on the
Speaker 1: record would be subject to Um discipline for the lawyers
Speaker 1: if they were lying, and to, you know, potential perjury charges.
Speaker 1: So of course it's Um you know, somewhat telling, I
Speaker 1: think that he has made this claim in public and
Speaker 1: there hasn't yet been any claim on the record. Um,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't preclude him from later on bringing bringing
Speaker 1: up this argument. I think it's just, you know, basically
Speaker 1: what the court was saying was, look, if you're not
Speaker 1: going to tell us now which documents are declassified and
Speaker 1: how they were to classify, then we have no choice
Speaker 1: but to go with the Department of Justice as assertion
Speaker 1: that if it adnned face says it's classified, then it's
Speaker 1: class fied. I can't really imagine the conversations behind closed
Speaker 1: doors among trump's legal team. The special master today has
Speaker 1: now ordered the former president's lawyers to state in a
Speaker 1: court filing whether they believe FBI agents lied about documents
Speaker 1: seized from Mara Lago. UH, they need to be on
Speaker 1: the record, apparently by the end of the month, September thirty,
Speaker 1: whether they believe any of the seased items were incorrectly
Speaker 1: described on the list, as the former president has suggested
Speaker 1: in both cases. Uh, who's your boss in this case? When,
Speaker 1: when you're a lawyer for DONALD TRUMP, because they're not
Speaker 1: always telling the same story, that he is right? No,
Speaker 1: I mean in your client is always the person that
Speaker 1: you serve, but you are have to abide by Um
Speaker 1: Court rules and you have to represent that your client
Speaker 1: within the bounds of the law. And so these lawyers
Speaker 1: are struggling to do that without, you know, doing some
Speaker 1: damage to their client. But they have a client that's
Speaker 1: not easy, who's not easy to control, and a client
Speaker 1: who's very interested in the narrative, the public narrative and
Speaker 1: the you know, his public opinion and is trying to
Speaker 1: Um manage that in a way that in some instances,
Speaker 1: like the one you mentioned, could very well hurt his
Speaker 1: legal case. And so you know, so far he's done
Speaker 1: a great job of, at least with his supporters, convincing
Speaker 1: them that you know that this is all a witch hunt.
Speaker 1: But the question is whether that will survive within our
Speaker 1: court system and I think you know, what you're seeing
Speaker 1: now is that it's not faring as well as he
Speaker 1: might have thought. Well, it sounds to me like the
Speaker 1: special master might not have been the best idea as
Speaker 1: you look back at some of the legal maneuvering on
Speaker 1: his side. Was that? Was that a poor move? I
Speaker 1: think it was a poor move. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it didn't really get them much. It wouldn't have gotten
Speaker 1: them much even if the special master we're continuing to
Speaker 1: review those a hundred classified documents and so Um, you know.
Speaker 1: And and yet it sort of boxed him into a
Speaker 1: corner whereas you said, there is a spotlight on the
Speaker 1: fact that he hasn't made certain assertions in court that
Speaker 1: he is making out in public and a lot of
Speaker 1: you know, reasonable conclusion that if he's not willing to
Speaker 1: make those statements in court. That's because they're not true.
Speaker 1: Are you able to count the number of cases against
Speaker 1: aald front right now? I mean we're thinking what for
Speaker 1: legitimate legal fronts against the former president, because you've got Georgia,
Speaker 1: the case in Georgia, you've got the case in New
Speaker 1: York from yesterday. You've got two separate cases from the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice on overturning attempts to overturn the election
Speaker 1: the New York state criminal and that's right. So we're
Speaker 1: at a half dozen. In Manhattan District Attorney has said
Speaker 1: is continuing. So even though a lot of people, looking
Speaker 1: from the outside, I thought that was petering out, it's
Speaker 1: not clear. Rick Davis on the program yesterday referred to
Speaker 1: death by a thousand cuts. I mean, is it plausible
Speaker 1: that a lot of these will be resolved at the
Speaker 1: same time and between now and the presidential election? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know it's possible, but it does seem
Speaker 1: like many of these are fairly serious and that the
Speaker 1: amount of proof that the investigators have in each different case.
Speaker 1: You know it varies, but it seems that at least
Speaker 1: some of these cases are fairly strong. And so how
Speaker 1: he can withstand these and whether he can, he can
Speaker 1: continue to have a political future despite them remains to
Speaker 1: be seen. Incredible, Rebecca, thanks for joining us. Rebecca Roy Fi,
Speaker 1: law professor New York Law School, former Assistant d a
Speaker 1: in Manhattan, who has a sense of what is going
Speaker 1: on in that office, with us here on sound on.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind that the former president has said that
Speaker 1: the FBI planted items when they searched Mara Lago and
Speaker 1: of course, as you heard just as recently as last night,
Speaker 1: said he d classified all the documents that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: I'll just thinking about it as enough to declassify. We're
Speaker 1: gonna put this to the panel next. Genie Chanzano is
Speaker 1: with us. Bloomberg politics contributor, joined today by Doug High,
Speaker 1: Republican strategist. On the fastest hour in politics. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg h you're listening to Bloomberg. You sound
Speaker 1: on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. So now that
Speaker 1: they've cleared D O J to get back into the documents,
Speaker 1: they're probably sorting through them as we speak. Right now.
Speaker 1: A hundred remember classified papers taken from Mar a lago
Speaker 1: not going to be under the auspices of the special
Speaker 1: master and, as Mike Dorning just told us. Well, that
Speaker 1: means we could actually hear about this, where there could
Speaker 1: be an indictment or not word from Attorney General Merrick Garland,
Speaker 1: basically immediately after the midterm elections. We could be at
Speaker 1: the front of November where we act really have a
Speaker 1: real sense of this. Let's assemble the panel. Bloomberg Politics
Speaker 1: Contributor Jeanie Chanzano is with us, democratic analyst, joined today
Speaker 1: by Republican Strategist Doug High, former deputy chief staff to
Speaker 1: Eric Canter, former R NC communications director and a friend
Speaker 1: of the program it's great to have both of you
Speaker 1: guys here. Genie, this is just kind of every day,
Speaker 1: it seems like another degree warmer for Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: as we were at least attempting to count on the
Speaker 1: air with Rebecca Roy fee, now basically a half dozen
Speaker 1: pretty important cases against Donald Trump as he prepares to
Speaker 1: make a decision about whether to run for president. This
Speaker 1: one could be coming soon. What, what kind of a
Speaker 1: change would that make in the landscape, the electoral landscape,
Speaker 1: coming out of a mid term cycle and going into
Speaker 1: a presidential election? It's absolutely stunning. I was listening to
Speaker 1: you count up the number of cases facing him and
Speaker 1: and I had gotten for then she added this fifth
Speaker 1: one and I thought, oh my gosh, we forgot. I
Speaker 1: forgot all about that one. You know, it's it's absolutely stunning.
Speaker 1: The the decision by the Appellate Court yesterday was a
Speaker 1: knockout blow. The Department of Justice got everything they asked
Speaker 1: for in that and they really shut down judge cannon
Speaker 1: and they you know, we have to remember that the
Speaker 1: trump team did this to themselves, and so it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a real problem for Republicans. Um, DONALD TRUMP will
Speaker 1: likely keep fundraising off this. He likely runs Um but
Speaker 1: you know who, this is a good thing for Democrats
Speaker 1: and that is bad news for Republicans, because we know
Speaker 1: Democrats don't have a lot going for them these days,
Speaker 1: but Donald Trump is one thing that keeps delivering for them.
Speaker 1: So for Republicans this has got to be a very
Speaker 1: frustrating moment. So I'm just kind of fascinated, doug, by
Speaker 1: this reaction from the right to go after the National Archives,
Speaker 1: to sort of demonize the national archives much in the
Speaker 1: way they they that some Republicans have with the FBI.
Speaker 1: The whole you know, defund the FBI, think following the
Speaker 1: Marlago case. Listen to Donald Trump talking about it last
Speaker 1: night in that Hannity interview. Here he is now. I
Speaker 1: did classified things and we were having a lot of
Speaker 1: problems with NARA. You know, Nara, uh is a radical
Speaker 1: left group of people running that thing and when you
Speaker 1: send documents over there, I would say there's a very
Speaker 1: good chance and a lot of those documents will never
Speaker 1: be seen again. Nara being the National Archives and Records Administration,
Speaker 1: not the museum on the mall, although they are the
Speaker 1: same agency. UH, Doug Josh Holly Tore into the nominee
Speaker 1: to to run the National Archives and Records Administration, UH,
Speaker 1: in a confirmation hearing yesterday. Is this? Is this a
Speaker 1: new thing to for for Republicans? Are you hearing about this,
Speaker 1: to demonize the National Archives, seemingly the most benign agency
Speaker 1: in Washington? No, it's not a new thing at all.
Speaker 1: This is everything we've seen with Donald trump once it
Speaker 1: was clear that he was going to be the nominee.
Speaker 1: If you want to play Donald Trump's game, then you
Speaker 1: have to back him up, and that means if he
Speaker 1: calls your wife ugly you're gonna be okay with it.
Speaker 1: It means if the National Archives is the new target,
Speaker 1: so be it. You know, there's this an old expression
Speaker 1: in politics. We say politics ain't being back. If you're
Speaker 1: dealing with Donald Trump, politics is being back and you win.
Speaker 1: If other people think that it's checkers or three dimension chess,
Speaker 1: if they're playing a different game from you and all
Speaker 1: you're playing is bean bag, as long as you don't
Speaker 1: go to jail, you're gonna do okay. Now it's an
Speaker 1: open question. Is he going to go to jail or
Speaker 1: someone else? No one really knows. But the rest of
Speaker 1: this is the same conversation we've been having for years.
Speaker 1: Nothing has changed. It does seem like an odd target, though,
Speaker 1: does it not? I mean, appreciate the spirit of your
Speaker 1: comments and I love your passion, but really, the National Archives,
Speaker 1: like you know, wasn't that the what was it? The
Speaker 1: national treasure movies? Uh, what is going on here? Anything
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump can create as an enemy will be
Speaker 1: the enemy. And if you if you feel that you
Speaker 1: need to have trump's backing or the backing of the
Speaker 1: really trump part of the base. So if you're Josh Holly,
Speaker 1: you know parts of Missouri that are very trump centric
Speaker 1: more than they are Republican centric. Do you want to
Speaker 1: play trump's game, you gotta back them up. That's it again.
Speaker 1: It's been bad. Listen to the senator, Josh Holly, questioning. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is the nominee for US archivists. So you know
Speaker 1: you're this is the job at the National Archives. Colleen Schagen,
Speaker 1: I believe is how you say her name, about this
Speaker 1: article that she wrote for American, the American Political Science Association. Uh,
Speaker 1: that that had a title that he was upset about
Speaker 1: and he thought it was demeaning to Republicans. UH, anti
Speaker 1: intellectualism in the modern presidency. Let's listen. You're someone who
Speaker 1: has detigrated Republican presidents every two term, Republican event. I think,
Speaker 1: I think hope on not leaving video that has since
Speaker 1: the since the Second World War, and their voters in
Speaker 1: this lengthy article. I mean, I don't understand. If you
Speaker 1: wrote it, why won't you stand behind it? Thank you, son.
Speaker 1: I will stand by my long experience over fifteen years
Speaker 1: of nonpartisan service. You know this is this is not
Speaker 1: just a theoretical set of questions because, as you know,
Speaker 1: we have seen what happens when you have political activists
Speaker 1: in the position that you are up for confirmation for,
Speaker 1: and we are living through that as a nation right now.
Speaker 1: We are living through the weaponization, the political weaponization, of
Speaker 1: the National Archives, the political weaponization of the National Archives. Genie,
Speaker 1: is she gonna need, if she gets confirmed, a bodyguard?
Speaker 1: You know if they are taking yet taking on this
Speaker 1: political scientist. She is a wonderful record. It's a great
Speaker 1: article and Josh Folly should take a moment to read it.
Speaker 1: And he wants to talk about antily intellectualism. Don't get
Speaker 1: me started. Joe Matthew saying Jeanie and Doug will be
Speaker 1: back as our panel on sound on. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg, except for nine thirty tomorrow morning in
Speaker 1: a suburb of Pittsburgh, what House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: hopes will be his agenda as speaker, as he will
Speaker 1: talk to voters about why they should vote Republican in
Speaker 1: the upcoming midterm elections. Helping to animate this for US
Speaker 1: none other than Emily Wilkins, with new gang rich today,
Speaker 1: lost in the corridors of power on Capitol Hill. Emily,
Speaker 1: it's a good thing you were there. I heard the recording.
Speaker 1: They were looking for the elevator and you were just
Speaker 1: in the right place at the right time. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: By the way, Bloomberg government's Emily Wilkins tell me about
Speaker 1: the commitment to America. This is sort of the agenda
Speaker 1: for for what he foresees as his future congress here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so you know, new Gingrich had the contract with America.
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy now has the commitment to America and basically
Speaker 1: what it is is it's sort of a topline document.
Speaker 1: It's a messaging document really right now that's kind of
Speaker 1: identifying the areas that Republicans are planning to legislate in
Speaker 1: if they win the majority in November, which, Joe, is
Speaker 1: likely to happen right now, just from any election forecasters
Speaker 1: really predicting that. So this is gonna be something that
Speaker 1: they're going to roll out. I asked uh former Speaker
Speaker 1: ging riach today whether he thought that it was a
Speaker 1: good idea for Democrats, for sorry, for Republicans, rather, to
Speaker 1: be messaging on policy or rather kind of making themselves
Speaker 1: Um showing the opposite of the Biden Administran. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean he does. He does talk about about the detail
Speaker 1: and one of the things I heard from members was saying, look,
Speaker 1: we do have a lot more details, but we don't
Speaker 1: want to bog down our message with all these specific bills.
Speaker 1: We have the bills. We will roll them out in
Speaker 1: due time. Right now we need to keep our message
Speaker 1: to what the American people want to keep the American people,
Speaker 1: you know, they're busy folks. They don't want to get
Speaker 1: too bogged down in the weeks quite yet. Well, paint
Speaker 1: the picture for us. You're in the you knew that
Speaker 1: New Gingrich was there to talk to the Republican Caucus. Right,
Speaker 1: he was there to see or help endorse this plan
Speaker 1: in front of members, and you're down there sort of
Speaker 1: staking things out in the basement of the capital, and
Speaker 1: there he is, right, he's spent a little bit of
Speaker 1: time with him, walking down the hall. That's what we're
Speaker 1: gonna hear. I thought it was a remarkable rollout because
Speaker 1: it's much more sophisticated than what we did in ninety
Speaker 1: four the contract. It's a real blue print for governor
Speaker 1: and I thought the level of members supported it was amazing. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that's quite an endorsement, Emily. He did find the
Speaker 1: elevator right. He did indeed find the elevator. Um, I
Speaker 1: mean more so. I mean I think it was really
Speaker 1: he talked to Republicans today. They all had a big
Speaker 1: meeting ahead of this rollout of this plan tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: he really didn't endorse it. And this isn't the first
Speaker 1: time that New Gingrich has been a part of this.
Speaker 1: When Republicans held their retreat to discuss this plan a
Speaker 1: little bit more back at the start of the year,
Speaker 1: New Gingrich was also there talking with them about the plant,
Speaker 1: the importance of the plan, uh, and really kind of
Speaker 1: did of giving them the motivation to go through it,
Speaker 1: because this is something that members have really been involved in.
Speaker 1: We had seven different task forces working on this for
Speaker 1: more than a year to kind of put out the
Speaker 1: bare bones of what we're seeing tomorrow. If Republicans don't
Speaker 1: win the majority, does this go back in the drawer? Um,
Speaker 1: it could, possibly could. I mean I will say that
Speaker 1: nothing in this document that I've seen yet is exactly groundbreaking.
Speaker 1: I think it does talk about Republican priorities, but it's
Speaker 1: stuff that I think most people are aware of, that
Speaker 1: Republican support and that they want to work on. So
Speaker 1: I'm sure that if Democrats do, and we'll see Republicans
Speaker 1: mostly do what they've done this year. Go ahead and
Speaker 1: introduce their own bills, introduce their own plans, but you're
Speaker 1: not going to see traction and movement on those. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you about what's happening on the other
Speaker 1: side of the eye here. Of course, emily covers leadership
Speaker 1: for us at Bloomberg and for Bloomberg government, and Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi held her briefing today, uh, emily, and started talking
Speaker 1: about this, this deal with Joe Manchin that has had
Speaker 1: everybody pretty upset and we've talked about it quite a
Speaker 1: bit this week. It's got democratic progressives, you know, getting
Speaker 1: together with Republicans to defeat this permitting reform bill that
Speaker 1: he just dropped in the last twenty four hours. Nancy Pelosi, though,
Speaker 1: of course, he made this deal with Chuck Schumer to
Speaker 1: get the I the so called I ra a, the
Speaker 1: inflation reduction act, passed. It's got everybody upset, though, because
Speaker 1: they see a back room deal, they see him enriching himself. Uh,
Speaker 1: he has been on the defensive lately, and Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: today did make clear that she supports this deal, though
Speaker 1: it could go through some gyrations. Here's what she said.
Speaker 1: This agreement, which I think was I'm willing to support yes,
Speaker 1: but we'll have to see how it comes back from
Speaker 1: the Senate and there may be room for negotiation. But
Speaker 1: I'm not all can away from three hundred sixty billion
Speaker 1: dollars and and support for saving the planet for our children,
Speaker 1: referring to the climate components in the inflation reduction act.
Speaker 1: This is getting real wonky and weigh into the weeds here, emily,
Speaker 1: but this is this legislation, this permitting legislation from Joe Mansion,
Speaker 1: was to be attached to a build a fund the
Speaker 1: government passed Uh September thirty. When the lights go out?
Speaker 1: Is anyone talking about a government shutdown? Not yet, Joe,
Speaker 1: and I think you're you're really asking the right question here,
Speaker 1: because we are in crunch time right now. We don't
Speaker 1: have the text of the legislation. But I think Polosi
Speaker 1: really coming out and saying that sheeper backed this proposal.
Speaker 1: That's pretty significant because she's telling liberal and progressive members
Speaker 1: in our own caucus. Hey, I know that you might
Speaker 1: not be a big fan for it, but we need
Speaker 1: to keep the government funded. There's a lot of good
Speaker 1: stuff that we've passed and that this is a fair
Speaker 1: compromise to get folks like mansion, as well as other
Speaker 1: centrist members of their party, on board. Well, she says,
Speaker 1: I'm not walking away from this money. That money is
Speaker 1: that that's a law now, right. I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: like she's just trying to make good on on Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer's end of the deal. Is that fair? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's Barre mean Pelosi and humor. They do try
Speaker 1: and work together, they try and collaborate Um, and so
Speaker 1: in this particular guard it seems like she kind of
Speaker 1: has his back here in terms of what they're doing.
Speaker 1: And also, I think there's there's a sense that even
Speaker 1: among progressives who aren't pleased with Mansion's energy permitting uh
Speaker 1: bill that would experite some of these permits and and
Speaker 1: Experte some of these environmental reviews, members still ultimately want
Speaker 1: to fund the government. There aren't Democrats who want to
Speaker 1: see a shutdown weeks before the mid term elections. I
Speaker 1: can't quite imagine it, but then again, we've seen a
Speaker 1: lot of different things these past months. Emily, great to
Speaker 1: talk to you. Thanks for coming in. As always, she'll
Speaker 1: be with you tomorrow here on sound on Bloomberg Government
Speaker 1: Congress reporter, Emily Wilkins, I want to hear what the
Speaker 1: panel has to say about the US. Jeanie Schanzano and
Speaker 1: Doug high with us, our political panel on sound on
Speaker 1: today as Kevin McCarthy prepares to take the wraps off
Speaker 1: the commitment to America, which, Jeez, you just heard new
Speaker 1: Ingrid says that's even better than the contract with America
Speaker 1: and it's just three letters, so you know it's got
Speaker 1: to win. Our panel up next will check traffic and
Speaker 1: markets for you too. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on with Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. The contract with America was unveiled in
Speaker 1: twenty eight years ago. I only mentioned that to make
Speaker 1: you feel old, because I just looked it up and
Speaker 1: now I feel old. To Enter Kevin McCarthy, almost thirty
Speaker 1: years later, with the seal of approval from none other
Speaker 1: than New Gang Ridge, delivering the new agenda tomorrow called
Speaker 1: the commitment to America. Let's reassemble the panel. Jeanie Schanzano
Speaker 1: was this, who definitely cannot remember back that far Bloomberg
Speaker 1: politics contributor and today joined by our friend Doug High,
Speaker 1: Republican Strategist and former R N C communications director. Uh, Doug,
Speaker 1: you surely don't remember that either. But, but, but if
Speaker 1: you did, I wonder if you see parallels here and
Speaker 1: or if Kevin McCarthy is pushing this a little too
Speaker 1: far with the messaging. No, I don't think he's pushing
Speaker 1: it too far. You have a choice in these situations
Speaker 1: of either give something of what you're for or just
Speaker 1: run against the opposite party. The temptation is often to
Speaker 1: just let the other party implode on itself, which makes
Speaker 1: some sense. But I think Republicans have opportunities here to
Speaker 1: define themselves on three issues even further inflation, crime and
Speaker 1: the border. And if, if we're if the conversations on
Speaker 1: those three issues, even if Republicans don't have a fully
Speaker 1: fleshed out plan on inflation, they don't and neither does
Speaker 1: the White House. Then if that's what we're talking about,
Speaker 1: Republicans are going to do well. And at a time when, uh,
Speaker 1: if you look at the toss up seats that are
Speaker 1: out there, there are thirty one toss up seats, which
Speaker 1: means Republicans only need to win six out of the
Speaker 1: thirty one to win control of the House. This is
Speaker 1: a potentially a good way of doing it. Interesting point here,
Speaker 1: the difference being, though, that New Gingrich had essentially unanimous
Speaker 1: support from his Republican Caucus. Right. Can Can Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 1: put that together? Sure, I think that's one of the challenges,
Speaker 1: is what goes into that document because, and this is
Speaker 1: one of the reasons that we never had a replacement
Speaker 1: bill when I worked in the house was everybody liked
Speaker 1: their idea best, and these were of the serious legislators,
Speaker 1: a Dave camp, a Fred Upton and Paul Ryan, you know,
Speaker 1: not some of the bomb throwers which the house is
Speaker 1: more populated with now. They like their ideas best, and
Speaker 1: that's certainly common in politics. But if you have a
Speaker 1: document that everybody can be unified on, or a large
Speaker 1: majority of your party can be unified on, and Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green is going to be there in Pittsburgh tomorrow,
Speaker 1: also smart to take it out of D C uh.
Speaker 1: Then you can move forward and be unified in this
Speaker 1: and I think that can help interest. So, before I
Speaker 1: bring genie back in, though, you do expect him to
Speaker 1: be speaker or this conversation is pointless. Right. Well, I
Speaker 1: think we need to see what the majority is. We
Speaker 1: need to see what Donald Trump does. You know, one
Speaker 1: thing about Donald Trump, and to our earlier segment, is
Speaker 1: you've always got to back him up. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that Donald Trump is always going to back you up,
Speaker 1: and so there are variables here. But Kevin's doing everything
Speaker 1: that he can to run through the tape. Wow, that's well,
Speaker 1: that's certainly not a yes, genie. Is this exercise, UH,
Speaker 1: worth the time to feed the message for midterm elections,
Speaker 1: or is this more about Kevin McCarthy beginning his sort
Speaker 1: of would be speakership? You know, when I heard about
Speaker 1: this it was interesting because, you know, Kevin McCarthy seems
Speaker 1: to be, you know, thinking back to a time during which,
Speaker 1: you know, somebody like a new gingrich could come out
Speaker 1: and put a plan like this forward and at that
Speaker 1: unification that you were just talking about, you know, and
Speaker 1: that's what Kevin McCarthy obviously wants to emulate. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of speaker he hopes to be. But what I'm
Speaker 1: thinking is the challenge is going to be just what
Speaker 1: you guys were just talking about how do you keep
Speaker 1: this caucus together? I am far too young to remember
Speaker 1: the contract with America. I wish I could say that, Joe,
Speaker 1: but I actually can remember it. Um, but let's not
Speaker 1: forget that was in the ninety nineties. That was well
Speaker 1: before social media. Now you have members like Scott Perry,
Speaker 1: you have members like Lauren Bobert, you have members that
Speaker 1: will go out on their own, like Marjorie Taylor Green,
Speaker 1: and use social media. So they are going to have
Speaker 1: a voice of their own and some of them have
Speaker 1: not even expressed much commitment to this already, and that
Speaker 1: is going to be the challenge from for him keeping
Speaker 1: this clock is together, particularly those trump supporters for whom
Speaker 1: this is not going to resonate. So I'm curious to
Speaker 1: see if it works. I think he's herkening back to
Speaker 1: a time that doesn't exist anymore at this point. How
Speaker 1: about that? So, what are you hearing about that race
Speaker 1: right now, Doug, because certainly names are lining up for
Speaker 1: a potential speakership. Is there anyone who can come close
Speaker 1: to Kevin McCarthy right now in terms of turning out votes? Um, well,
Speaker 1: it's not even a question of turning out votes. It's
Speaker 1: it's really about raising money. You're not hearing a whole lot,
Speaker 1: even privately, on the race because it's not acknowledged that
Speaker 1: there is one and certainly Kevin's office doesn't want to
Speaker 1: talk about it. And if you're Steve Schalees, it doesn't
Speaker 1: benefit you to talk about it. So you know, there's
Speaker 1: been more focus on, say, what the House whip race
Speaker 1: is going to be, with three or four people looking
Speaker 1: at that at least, dephonic pulling out of that race,
Speaker 1: looking at the ways and means chairmanship. That's where a
Speaker 1: lot of the conversation is and and again part of
Speaker 1: that is we have to see what the majority is
Speaker 1: and then what the challenges are from there. But Kevin's
Speaker 1: doing everything he can politically to demonstrate to his conference
Speaker 1: that he's done what's necessary. Well, we'll have a lot
Speaker 1: more on the speech, of course, tomorrow here, as you
Speaker 1: would expect, on Bloomberg sound, on a four part plan
Speaker 1: being rolled out, and it's no uh, it's no accident. Uh.
Speaker 1: To Doug's point where this is happening in the Great
Speaker 1: State of Pennsylvania, I want to ask you both about
Speaker 1: a race in Michigan and specifically a candidate in Michigan,
Speaker 1: the the Republican nominee who actually beat the incumbent, Peter Meyer, uh,
Speaker 1: backed by Donald Trump. His name is John Gibbs, and
Speaker 1: he made some uh some, I will say comments, but
Speaker 1: they were writings many years ago that have become a
Speaker 1: big story today thanks to CNN. Uh, it's it's really something.
Speaker 1: This is when he was, I guess, in College. He
Speaker 1: was at Stanford, two thousand and two thousand one. He
Speaker 1: founded a think tank called the society for the critique
Speaker 1: of Feminism and argued that women did not, quote, possess
Speaker 1: the characteristics necessary to govern and said men were smarter
Speaker 1: than women because they're more likely to think logically about
Speaker 1: broad and abstract ideas. He wrote, uh, he questioned and
Speaker 1: in fact believe women uh should not be allowed to
Speaker 1: vote and believe that the suffrage movement damaged the country.
Speaker 1: This is John Gibbs in an ad. So I often
Speaker 1: say that this election is not even gonna be a
Speaker 1: Democrat versus Republican, it's crazy versus normal. Okay, so I
Speaker 1: think that's actually on the huckaby program forgive me. This
Speaker 1: came up today in the briefing with Nancy Pelosi. They're
Speaker 1: talking about legislation, policies so forth. The last question is
Speaker 1: on this whether she heard about this and what she
Speaker 1: thought about the impact that it might have on the race,
Speaker 1: if she had any reaction to this idea that women
Speaker 1: should not be able to vote. Here's what she said.
Speaker 1: What do I think of that? I think I hear
Speaker 1: something like that every day around here when my people
Speaker 1: say that women shouldn't be able to make their choices
Speaker 1: about contraception or their own reproductive health. That's a sign
Speaker 1: of disrespect for women. What he's saying is outrageous. I
Speaker 1: don't think many members of here would subscribe to that,
Speaker 1: but the insult to women's intelligence is one that exists
Speaker 1: in many forms around here. Pretty heavy. She would left
Speaker 1: the podium after that. Pretty heavy reply. Their genie to
Speaker 1: suggest that you hear stuff like this every day on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill. Uh, but this was the candidate Democrats wanted. Remember,
Speaker 1: they spent money on this to beat Peter Meyer, who
Speaker 1: would have been a tougher challenge to beat uh and
Speaker 1: and run the risk of this man becoming the representative. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and you know his his spokes a person came
Speaker 1: out today or came out the other day and said that.
Speaker 1: You know, he was simply trying to draw attention to
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy of the feminist movement. But you look at
Speaker 1: some of this language and you know, I think we
Speaker 1: can all understand being a young person in college or
Speaker 1: high school and saying things out of turn, but this
Speaker 1: is a aimed attack against women in the workforce, women
Speaker 1: in society, women in Public Office, women even simply exercising
Speaker 1: their right to vote. This is, you know, I think
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi describe it very well. It is over the
Speaker 1: top and it is disgusting talk, and so for them
Speaker 1: to suggest it was just hypocrisy is stunning. I have
Speaker 1: not supported Democrats supporting these candidates and he was endorsed
Speaker 1: by Donald Trump. And this is what Republicans are left
Speaker 1: with in Michigan and it's a sad state of affairs. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean it also was written in this century, which
Speaker 1: is noteworthy here. Doug, what does the party do with
Speaker 1: something like this? You know, when when this news comes
Speaker 1: back to Washington, Uh to the campaign committees, what do
Speaker 1: you do? Well, you know, it depends on the circumstance.
Speaker 1: So what you've seen as Republicans have withdrawn funding for
Speaker 1: another candidate Um who's lied on his resume about serving
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan, which he hadn't done. In a situation like this,
Speaker 1: they're going to look at the numbers and see if
Speaker 1: it's winnable or not. There they'll accept his explanation week though,
Speaker 1: that it is. But I think this highlights, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the real problems that Republicans have is um.
Speaker 1: You know, we we often say that the trump endorsement,
Speaker 1: combined with the club for growth, is what gets you
Speaker 1: over the line, and that's true in a lot of
Speaker 1: these races. But when Donald Trump and Democrats agree on
Speaker 1: a Republican candidate, that candidate then is unstoppable in the
Speaker 1: primary and if any of these candidates get through, then
Speaker 1: Democrats are gonna have a lot to answer for. You know,
Speaker 1: so often we hear Democrats say we need more Adam kinsingers,
Speaker 1: but the reality is Democrats in Illinois made sure that
Speaker 1: Adam kinsinger couldn't run for reelection. Well, you know, this
Speaker 1: is true and it it happens on both sides. Genie,
Speaker 1: this is a phenomenon. I feel like that that could
Speaker 1: get more examination after this election, but then again, it's
Speaker 1: been going on for years. It has never seen it
Speaker 1: in a campaign? I've never seen. Nope. We've talked about
Speaker 1: it one time in a Senate race and didn't do
Speaker 1: it because it's not worth it, maybe, but now the
Speaker 1: rules have changed. Sorry, I interrupted. Yeah, no, that's fascinating. Yeah, no, no,
Speaker 1: it has happened on both sides. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: we have seen it happen on both sides. I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with Democrats doing this, particularly since the
Speaker 1: president has been out talking about how dangerous this rhetoric is.
Speaker 1: That said, Republicans are left with this candidate and it
Speaker 1: is likely going to cost them this seat. Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: wouldn't even comment on it when given the opportunity the
Speaker 1: other day. Fascinating conversation that just keeps on going. Great
Speaker 1: to have you back, Doug. Thanks for being here. Doug High,
Speaker 1: Republican strategist, and Jeannie Chanzano, Bloomberg politics contributor. I'm Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew in Washington. Thanks for being with us on the
Speaker 1: fastest hour in politics. This is Bloomberg