Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg's sound on
Speaker 1: we need world wide effort to invest in transformative clean
Speaker 1: energy projects. President is important, but sometimes President Bloomberg's sound
Speaker 1: on politics, policy, and perspective from DC's top names. They
Speaker 1: literally rolled back a right that women have enjoyed for
Speaker 1: half a century. Why change the topic right? Why Why
Speaker 1: get off into a social war around issues like abortion?
Speaker 1: The number one issue in most households is is in place?
Speaker 1: To Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: State laws are changing in the wake of the row.
Speaker 1: Ruling Democrats in Washington say they are pursuing legislation of
Speaker 1: their own. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics as
Speaker 1: we follow the evolving legal and political sides of the
Speaker 1: story in a conversation ahead with Kathy Jennings, the Attorney
Speaker 1: general for the state of Delaware, which has already moved
Speaker 1: legislation in the wake of Friday's decision, and we'll have
Speaker 1: analysis from our panel of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic
Speaker 1: analyst Ginnie Schanzano along today with Republican strategist Doug High,
Speaker 1: the former communications director for the Republican National Committee, Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin targets Keyev with missile strikes, just as President Biden
Speaker 1: arrives in Europe for the G seven. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: the mission for these meetings, how much patience the world
Speaker 1: has for a protracted war in Ukraine. With Daniel Freed,
Speaker 1: former ambassador to Poland, now with the Atlantic Council, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi puts pen to paper another letter to the Caucus,
Speaker 1: this time, of course, in the wake of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court ruling on Friday, saying the Chamber, the Democrats, at
Speaker 1: least in the Chamber, are going to pursue legislation to
Speaker 1: protect personal data stored on health apps and to ensure
Speaker 1: the right to free travel between states, as well to
Speaker 1: codify the rights to an abortion. That might be a
Speaker 1: heavier lift. We'll see if any of them can see
Speaker 1: the light of day. While states, of course, conduct some
Speaker 1: of their own business here, and one of them is Delaware.
Speaker 1: As we told you, we're going to be speaking with
Speaker 1: the Attorney General. On Friday, the day of the ruling,
Speaker 1: the Delaware House passed a bill strengthening abortion rights and
Speaker 1: women's health in the state. It's going to the Senate. Now.
Speaker 1: One of many states actually moving legislation in the wake
Speaker 1: of the ruling on Friday, and we're joined now by
Speaker 1: Kathy Jennings, the Attorney General of the state of Delaware.
Speaker 1: Attorney General, thanks for being here. We appreciate your time today.
Speaker 1: We just want to get a sense of to start
Speaker 1: off with the conversation that's happening behind the scenes. Why
Speaker 1: do you need new legislation if it's already legal to
Speaker 1: get an abortion in Delaware. Well, thank you Joe for
Speaker 1: having me, and we needed new legislation which will sail
Speaker 1: through its final stage in the Senate for the following reason.
Speaker 1: Delaware has had Roe v. Wade Um as our law
Speaker 1: of the state for going on three years now, and
Speaker 1: we have protected people's access to abortion in this state
Speaker 1: as well as decriminalizing the crime of abortion in our state,
Speaker 1: which means it no longer exists as a crime in Delaware.
Speaker 1: We've also expanded access to abortion services by expanding the
Speaker 1: categories of medical providers who can provide those services. This
Speaker 1: newest legislation goes even further to protect women who come
Speaker 1: to our state to seek an abortion, as well as
Speaker 1: providers who provide that service to women from other states.
Speaker 1: What do we say, when we mean that, what kind
Speaker 1: of protections? Sure, So the protections are as follows. Women
Speaker 1: who come to our state to seek an abortion may
Speaker 1: in fact criminal prosecution in their own state, or providers
Speaker 1: who provide those services in our state could potentially face
Speaker 1: criminal prosecution depending on the laws of the states that
Speaker 1: have done away with Roe v. Wade as a protection
Speaker 1: and have criminalized We know that as we speak, as
Speaker 1: many as eleven states have either made it illegal automatically
Speaker 1: or have heavily regulated it. And so we need to
Speaker 1: make sure that Delaware is not only a safe place
Speaker 1: to receive an abortion, but the providers are protected here.
Speaker 1: And how do you then affect the laws of another
Speaker 1: state if they want to, for instance, charge someone upon
Speaker 1: their return, how does Delaware get involved in that? So,
Speaker 1: if the provider in Delaware provides the abortion services, that
Speaker 1: provider cannot be extradited to a state that wants to prosecute. Okay,
Speaker 1: how about the patient and the patient we believe has
Speaker 1: an absolute right to travel to our state under our constitution,
Speaker 1: and we will protect that right. That is where I
Speaker 1: believe that that Democratic attorneys general across the country can
Speaker 1: band together and bring a lawsuit against any state that
Speaker 1: seeks to restrict the right of that patient to travel
Speaker 1: to a state when services understood. How about when it
Speaker 1: comes to medication, This is going to be a big
Speaker 1: part of the debate across the country. I realize it's
Speaker 1: not an issue in Delaware, but but it may be
Speaker 1: uh in other states. Is it something that you would
Speaker 1: preemptively act on in your state to protect access to
Speaker 1: medication by mail? Yes? Absolutely. We want to protect all
Speaker 1: forms of medication assisted abortion in our state and we
Speaker 1: will continue to do that. And we want to make
Speaker 1: sure that in Delaware, in our small state of Delaware,
Speaker 1: that we have expanded access um so that people who
Speaker 1: do come here can receive an abortion and do it
Speaker 1: not only in a safe manner, but expeditiously as well.
Speaker 1: And so I've convened a group of providers and advocates
Speaker 1: throughout our state to talk about these very issues. How
Speaker 1: do we protect and make sure that abortion in Delaware
Speaker 1: is guaranteed safe and expeditious. Do you I don't know
Speaker 1: if you use the term sanctuary state. I'm assuming that
Speaker 1: you do not as as an office holder in Delaware,
Speaker 1: but that's what people are calling this. Stephen, do you
Speaker 1: want Delaware to have that reputation that if if you
Speaker 1: need this type of service, our doors are open. We
Speaker 1: want you to come here. Absolutely, we are an access state,
Speaker 1: and when you come here, we want to ensure that
Speaker 1: it's safe for you to be here, that you are protected,
Speaker 1: and that you have full access to the array of
Speaker 1: abortion services that Delaware offers. We are not going to
Speaker 1: see this, this stunning reversal of a constitutional right that's
Speaker 1: been in existence for fifty years go away anytime soon. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: how about the right of interstate travel, because we started
Speaker 1: our conversation talking about people coming in from out of state.
Speaker 1: Is the constitutional right of interstate travel under threat? You
Speaker 1: think that it may be. For instance, when you hear
Speaker 1: President Biden talk about using the full authority of the
Speaker 1: White House to to try to keep that from changing.
Speaker 1: I was so proud when I heard that said by
Speaker 1: our president because it's critically important, as he said, that
Speaker 1: the federal government play a role in protecting that constitutional
Speaker 1: right to travel, because that's what's going to happen to
Speaker 1: women who are in states that now outlaw abortion. They
Speaker 1: will have to travel to seek access to that service,
Speaker 1: and so the federal government will will do everything in
Speaker 1: its power to ensure that people can safely travel to
Speaker 1: an access abortion protected state, and the state governments that
Speaker 1: stand up for abortion rights will also protect that right.
Speaker 1: You heard me mentioned Nancy Pelosi coming into this conversation.
Speaker 1: We've heard from the leadership in Washington, and it is
Speaker 1: somewhat predictable, but Nancy Pelosi says Democrats will pursue legislation
Speaker 1: which a lot of people have written off because I'm
Speaker 1: assuming it would have trouble, if if any chance, right now,
Speaker 1: passing the Senate. But is there something that Washington can
Speaker 1: do to back up what you're doing the support of
Speaker 1: the capital here for Delaware. I think it's critically important
Speaker 1: for Congress to act, and I applaud how Speaker Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi as I always do, because she's brave and she's
Speaker 1: undaunted in her courage to go forward with how on
Speaker 1: codifying the right to an abortion or for instance, protecting
Speaker 1: personal data on health apps, which is something that apparently
Speaker 1: we're going to be debated as well. Protecting that personal
Speaker 1: data will be critical because you can bet that in
Speaker 1: states where abortion is illegal, there will be attempts to
Speaker 1: get at patients private medical records and like Delaware. That
Speaker 1: should be protected throughout our country. The right to travel
Speaker 1: should be protected. And I know that that Speaker Pelosi
Speaker 1: intends to introduce a bill that protects that right. And
Speaker 1: I should mention that Justice Cavanaugh, who agreed with the majority,
Speaker 1: who joined the majority opinion, even he said in his
Speaker 1: concurring opinion that he believed that women should have the
Speaker 1: right to travel under our constitution. We're talking with the
Speaker 1: Attorney General of the state of Delaware, Kathy Jennings here
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. As you step back from this as
Speaker 1: as the top law enforcement official in the state of Delaware,
Speaker 1: and you look at what's going to be a very
Speaker 1: complicated path to work. We're talking about the laws in
Speaker 1: your state. They're going to be very different laws in
Speaker 1: other states. There's going to be a lot of confusion,
Speaker 1: There's going to be a lot of lawsuits, a lot
Speaker 1: of people could get in trouble here. How are you
Speaker 1: thinking about this from a rational law enforcement standpoint? I
Speaker 1: am the top law officer in my state, as many
Speaker 1: attorneys general throughout the country are. We have succeeded when
Speaker 1: we ban together to fight for the rights of people
Speaker 1: who live in our states, we will get through this,
Speaker 1: and we will protect women in our country. It's going
Speaker 1: to take all of us acting together, acting in concert,
Speaker 1: to protect what we have always taken for granted as
Speaker 1: a constitutional right. You have to work with other states,
Speaker 1: though you can't obviously be making enemies of other state governments. Here,
Speaker 1: How does how does this uh, this this cooperation take
Speaker 1: place with with you welcoming people from other states but
Speaker 1: also continuing to be part of this union. We are
Speaker 1: a country that is divided, and this issue divides us
Speaker 1: in a very deep way. I can't remember a time
Speaker 1: when the Supreme Court of the United States took away
Speaker 1: a right that for almost fifty years have been guaranteed
Speaker 1: in our constitution. And we're gonna do everything in our
Speaker 1: arsenal to protect those rights within our states and protect
Speaker 1: people who come to the States. Kathy Jennings Delawares, Attorney General,
Speaker 1: we thank you for your thoughts today on Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 1: This is Sound on the fastest hour in Politics. I'm
Speaker 1: Joe Matthew, not in Washington today, but coming to you
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg World headquarters in New York. We turned to
Speaker 1: the panel next to seek some balance here with Jeanie Chanzano.
Speaker 1: Today along with Republican strategists and former Deputy Chief staff
Speaker 1: to Rik Canter, former r n C communications director Doug
Speaker 1: high Back with us. Coming up next, we'll check traffic
Speaker 1: and markets for you to This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: So No with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio and a
Speaker 1: big what Now in Washington as lawmakers try to figure
Speaker 1: their role following the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade Friday, Listen to Senator Elizabeth Warren before we assemble
Speaker 1: the panel. She was among the lawmakers making the rounds
Speaker 1: over the weekend the Sunday News shows. In this case
Speaker 1: ABC this week, the senator from Massachusetts says she's considered
Speaker 1: going to President Biden to find out exactly what the
Speaker 1: federal government can do to help in this case. Is
Speaker 1: not not the state view, but the federal view. Here's
Speaker 1: Senator Warrnt. It also means asking the President of the
Speaker 1: United States to make abortion as available as possible with
Speaker 1: the tools he has, including medication abortion, including using federal
Speaker 1: lands as a place where abortions can occur. This is
Speaker 1: where we begin with our paneled Bloomberg Politics contributor, Democratic
Speaker 1: analyst Jennie Chanzano along with Doug Hies back with us today,
Speaker 1: Republican strategist, former deputy chief of staff to Erik Cantor,
Speaker 1: and former calms director at the Republican National Committee. Great
Speaker 1: to have both of you with us here. Genie, we've
Speaker 1: been talking about this, of course since Friday, and now
Speaker 1: that you're hearing Senator Warren throw a few ideas around there,
Speaker 1: for instance, as you just heard, using federal lands as
Speaker 1: an option, but also the idea of medication abortion, codifying
Speaker 1: that somehow in law, Washington's role may not be over here, right,
Speaker 1: at least before something greater can happen. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: we're hearing from both the Democrats and the Republicans, and
Speaker 1: so Elizabeth Warren one of many Democrats who's calling on
Speaker 1: the Biden administration to explore those things you you mentioned,
Speaker 1: also to potentially providing travel vouchers for women seeking abortions
Speaker 1: to travel the states where they are legal. And you know,
Speaker 1: you hear Ron Wide and Jeff Merkley a whole group
Speaker 1: of them, because they really want an all hands on
Speaker 1: approach by the federal government. Of course, on the flip side,
Speaker 1: you're hearing from Republicans as well. We heard from former
Speaker 1: Vice President Mike Penn's talking about potentially a law of
Speaker 1: the land if Republicans take Washington that would ban abortion outright.
Speaker 1: And we've heard that from House members as well. So
Speaker 1: you know, we are hearing Washington talk about these ideas
Speaker 1: and options. The question, as always, can the federal government
Speaker 1: deliver on you know, Congress and or the administration. And
Speaker 1: you know, we have to go back to what President
Speaker 1: Biden said about this and guns, is that he doesn't
Speaker 1: have a lot of options at his disposal because his
Speaker 1: power is limited to a certain extent. Doug, it's good
Speaker 1: to have you back. We have a story on the
Speaker 1: terminal today, the headlined anti abortion movement divided, a movement
Speaker 1: described in this piece by the president of the Human
Speaker 1: Coalition as thousands of organizations that have very different missions.
Speaker 1: What ex acthlete does the Republican Party do with this ruling? Now, well,
Speaker 1: it's it's unclear. There are a lot of directions that
Speaker 1: you know, the party can do nationally. Obviously, state parties
Speaker 1: are going to do different things in different states. So
Speaker 1: while you know, a lot of repup yes, yes, um, well,
Speaker 1: in Washington right now, you know, the RNC is still
Speaker 1: right now in a wait and c mode, and they
Speaker 1: are in a wait and see mode to see what
Speaker 1: what Biden the Democrats do, what Republican governors are going
Speaker 1: to offer as things that they could try and move
Speaker 1: on a national model. But you also have a you know,
Speaker 1: a divide, if not a divide, a disagreement in opinion
Speaker 1: between you know, Mike Pents as you mentioned, who wants
Speaker 1: to push a national abortion law, and Mitch McConnell, who
Speaker 1: says that he doesn't want to do so. And I'll
Speaker 1: tell you two things. One, I've just read that Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris has taken the the idea of using federal lands
Speaker 1: off the table um. But I'm also surprised that Democrats
Speaker 1: have never codified roe versus weight in the law. With
Speaker 1: a you know, with a majority the Holsing Senate right
Speaker 1: now and a Democratic president, you would think that would
Speaker 1: be one of the things they'd be trying to do. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's for sure, Genie. There's so many different ways to
Speaker 1: to look at this, uh and and so few options,
Speaker 1: it seems in Washington. I mean, are we really talking
Speaker 1: about legislation that would get through the Senate on providing
Speaker 1: public lands, for instance, for abortions. Yeah, I think it'd
Speaker 1: be very tough to get anything along those lines through
Speaker 1: the Senate right now. And you know, it's it's interesting,
Speaker 1: you know what Doug was just talking about. There was
Speaker 1: also Asa Hutchinson over the weekend, you know, putting himself
Speaker 1: in opposition to somebody like Mike Pence saying, you know, look, guys,
Speaker 1: we fought for a federal approach to this for so long.
Speaker 1: Let's not move at nationals. So you're getting a break
Speaker 1: within the parties as well. And I think the reality
Speaker 1: of all of this is that we have this patchwork
Speaker 1: approach to this now and the people who are on
Speaker 1: the losing end are the women in need of services
Speaker 1: who you know, it depends on where they're living and
Speaker 1: how much money they have and what kind of access
Speaker 1: they have, what kind of rights they have, and that's gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, at the very least, lead to a host
Speaker 1: of litigation depending on what the states and if the
Speaker 1: federal government can act what it does as well. Senator
Speaker 1: MS McConnell talked about this he's done in Washington is
Speaker 1: actually down in Kentucky at the Old Rotary Club lunch
Speaker 1: in Florence, is where this conversation took place. Speaking to
Speaker 1: the idea of legislation at the federal level to codify
Speaker 1: abortion law, Here's what he said. Neither side of this
Speaker 1: issue has come anywhere close to having so I think
Speaker 1: this is likely all be litigated out dealt with in
Speaker 1: the various states around the country through the democratic process,
Speaker 1: and Doug, if that's what the minority leader says, that's
Speaker 1: what happens, right, Yeah, absolutely, But there's also there's the
Speaker 1: policy fight, and there's the political fight, and you know,
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court announcement on Thursday, every addiction was
Speaker 1: essentially it's going to be a big election year for Republicans.
Speaker 1: Now we're starting to ask questions of whether or not
Speaker 1: that that's going to be true or not. And I
Speaker 1: think the honest answer right now is probably so, but
Speaker 1: we're not sure. Um, but Democrats will need to have
Speaker 1: things to talk about in the upcoming elections that aren't
Speaker 1: about inflation, rising crime and the border. This is an
Speaker 1: opportunity for them, and you know, a lot of the
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of what we're hearing is crying
Speaker 1: out for Biden in the administration to do more. You're
Speaker 1: not hearing a lot of what Democratic members of Congress
Speaker 1: and senators are going to want to do, and they're
Speaker 1: the ones who are on the ballots. Doug Hi, Genie
Speaker 1: Schanzano our panel on a Monday. I'm Joel Matthew. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg, the headline on our G seven latest on
Speaker 1: the terminal. Zelenski tells leaders aid will be needed long term,
Speaker 1: and it looks like he's going to be getting it.
Speaker 1: Not only the declaration that I mentioned pledging support for
Speaker 1: his government in this war effort for quote as long
Speaker 1: as it takes unquote, but we already know of a
Speaker 1: specific weapons package that is on the way. Ukraine right
Speaker 1: now cannot defend itself against all the missiles that are
Speaker 1: coming in from Russia, and so Zelenski. President Zelenski actually
Speaker 1: spoke to the leaders of the G seven nations today
Speaker 1: by video link from Kiev, which was struck over the
Speaker 1: weekend by a Russian missile attack the capital of Kiev.
Speaker 1: And so we're gonna be sending apparently some much more
Speaker 1: effective missile defense systems over something that Jake Sullivan talked about,
Speaker 1: the National Security Director here he is at the top
Speaker 1: of his mind, was the set of missile strikes that
Speaker 1: took place in Kiev and other cities across Ukraine, and
Speaker 1: his desire to get additional air defense capabilities that could
Speaker 1: shoot down Russian missiles out of the sky, and he will.
Speaker 1: According to Sullivan, Senior National Security Advisor, we're sending medium
Speaker 1: to long range weapons systems. Specifically, these are missile defense
Speaker 1: systems that will apparently help Ukraine in the fight. Here
Speaker 1: as Zelenski tells the G seven that he wants the
Speaker 1: war to be over by the end of the year.
Speaker 1: We're joined now by Daniel Freed, former Ambassador to Poland,
Speaker 1: has been a very reliable voice and generous to share
Speaker 1: insights with us since the beginning of this war. Former
Speaker 1: Assistant Secretary of State for Europe. Now Wiser Family, distinguished
Speaker 1: fellow at the Atlantic Council. UH, Ambassador, it's great to
Speaker 1: have you back. Well, this new weapons package make a difference.
Speaker 1: We're starting to give them so many now it's hard
Speaker 1: to keep track of them all. It's an advanced surface
Speaker 1: to air missile system. It will help the Ukrainians defend themselves.
Speaker 1: Today you had missiles, Russian missile strikes on civilian targets.
Speaker 1: They hit a shopping center, trapping, killing a lot of civilians.
Speaker 1: This is ugly business. The Russians are using basic terror
Speaker 1: to try to force Ukraine to surrender. The Ukrainians won't,
Speaker 1: and the G seven have backed them. I'm glad that
Speaker 1: we're sending them the sophisticated systems. This weapon system by
Speaker 1: itself won't turn the tide. But if you add up
Speaker 1: everything we're sending them, the Ukrainians have a chance on
Speaker 1: the battlefield. They're resisting and they can prevail. What is
Speaker 1: for as long as it takes means is that the
Speaker 1: same as a blank check, Ambassador, and it's not a
Speaker 1: blank check. But what that means is we're not about
Speaker 1: to let Putin simply outweighed us. There's this sense sometimes
Speaker 1: in the West, certainly in Russia, the Russians have infinite
Speaker 1: patients and we have a short attention span. Therefore, they
Speaker 1: can win by just sitting tight. The G seven was
Speaker 1: saying to Putin not so fast. We also can stick
Speaker 1: to a policy. Look, this is not going to be
Speaker 1: over in weeks. We need to mean what we say
Speaker 1: when we say that the Ukrainians are fighting our our fight,
Speaker 1: in the fighting against an aggressive dictator. We need to
Speaker 1: mean that we need to help them. It's not a
Speaker 1: blank check in the sense that President Biden has drawn
Speaker 1: a hard line saying no US troops in Ukraine fighting
Speaker 1: over Ukraine, but a blank check presumably for defensive weapons
Speaker 1: and assistants. I I just wonder your thoughts on a
Speaker 1: war fatigue. It's something that I've been asking everyone today
Speaker 1: coming off of last week, that the nation's attention was
Speaker 1: was drawn, of course, to a series of Supreme Court rulings.
Speaker 1: We're dealing with historic high inflation, We're going into a
Speaker 1: mid term election cycle at the same time. How long
Speaker 1: do you expect Americans to support sending billions and billions
Speaker 1: to Ukraine to support this war effort when we have
Speaker 1: such historically short memories, Ambassador, I wouldn't short change the
Speaker 1: American people or assume that we're as a people irresponsible
Speaker 1: and sort of flighty. I think that Americans know what's
Speaker 1: at stake. I think we will support Ukraine, and I
Speaker 1: think they will. I think Americans, both Republicans and Democrats,
Speaker 1: are ready are ready to do so. But I did
Speaker 1: notice one very interesting sentence in the G seven communicate
Speaker 1: UH buried near the end, there was a sentence G
Speaker 1: seven is going to think about using some of the
Speaker 1: three hundred billion dollars of frozen Russian reserves that we've
Speaker 1: locked down. And you saw that money for Ukrainian reconstruction
Speaker 1: now that I was waiting for. That didn't mean they've
Speaker 1: decided to use it, but it does mean since you
Speaker 1: raised American needs, I think G seven countries are going
Speaker 1: to be tempted to find a legal and sustainable way
Speaker 1: to do that. Why have taxpayer US taxpayer money go
Speaker 1: to repair the damage Russians have have made when we've
Speaker 1: got we're sitting on three billion dollars of Russian absolutely
Speaker 1: and you know the American people would support it in
Speaker 1: terms of the timeline, Ambassador President, but we could do it.
Speaker 1: The President Zelenski says he wants this over by the
Speaker 1: end of the year. Is that realistic on any level?
Speaker 1: The question is not just whether the Ukrainians can keep
Speaker 1: fighting or whether Western attention span will hold, but whether
Speaker 1: the Russians can keep fighting. They've got a lot of
Speaker 1: problems too. Their military is not in good shape. They've
Speaker 1: got production problems in their military production caused partly by
Speaker 1: US and European sanctions. Their morale isn't good. The Ukrainians
Speaker 1: are fighting for their country. The Russians are fighting for conquests,
Speaker 1: not the same thing. So it's not clear to me
Speaker 1: that Putin can keep this up forever either. He may
Speaker 1: be pushing bluffing, basically saying nothing can stop us, but
Speaker 1: in fact he's got some problems as well. If the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians resist and we help them resist, the Russian offensive
Speaker 1: may run out of steam, in which there can be
Speaker 1: a settlement on much better terms than Putin would prefer.
Speaker 1: The G seven is not NATO, of course, We're headed
Speaker 1: to the NATO meetings later this week, Ambassador, I only
Speaker 1: have thirty seconds left. But is the message the same
Speaker 1: from Joe Biden at the NATO summit as it is
Speaker 1: now at the G seven. I think you'll see the
Speaker 1: President take a strong position on Ukraine. I think you
Speaker 1: will see NATO take a strong position to resist Russian
Speaker 1: aggression against all NATO members, and that is something we
Speaker 1: would fight for. So it's been not a decisive week,
Speaker 1: but a strong week for the for freedom, the free
Speaker 1: world in US leadership. Have the review from Daniel Freed, Ambassador,
Speaker 1: Thank you as ever, Daniel Freed here on Bloomberg sound
Speaker 1: on Will reassemble the panel next to get Doug in
Speaker 1: Genie's thoughts on this, as we also have a hearing
Speaker 1: set for tomorrow we didn't know about yesterday. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg, So long with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Looks like the NATO summit later on this week will
Speaker 1: be a newsy one, as we were just discussing with
Speaker 1: Ambassador Daniel Freed. The President has a lot to solve here,
Speaker 1: a lot to figure out as he spends time with his,
Speaker 1: of course, fellow leaders in this alliance. And a breaker
Speaker 1: from NBC News here Biden to announced extension of US
Speaker 1: troop presence in Poland. Interesting remembering that it won't be
Speaker 1: everybody here, but some of the increased US troop presence
Speaker 1: in Poland reportedly will be extended here. It's also going
Speaker 1: to mean changes to US deployments in several Baltic nations
Speaker 1: that he authorized ahead of the invasion of Ukraine, I
Speaker 1: think Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. The White House declined to comment
Speaker 1: on the story. Of course, that doesn't start for a
Speaker 1: couple of days here, so we'll be looking for President
Speaker 1: Biden to make an announcement along those lines. Later on
Speaker 1: this week in Madrid, still in Germany, the G seven,
Speaker 1: as we reassembled our panel, Genie Chanzy No Democratic analyst,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican strategist Doug High is back today,
Speaker 1: former communications director at the r n C. You know, Doug,
Speaker 1: They always, well at least used to say or in
Speaker 1: a in a in a non war time, that events
Speaker 1: like these were great for the commander in chief because
Speaker 1: they allowed him to look presidential. President. Biden's had a
Speaker 1: lot of opportunities to do that. Of course over the
Speaker 1: last couple of months. How is this one going optically
Speaker 1: for him? Well, the optics so far, I think I've
Speaker 1: benefited him. Obviously. Democrats are unified um behind Biden. Republicans
Speaker 1: are mixed, but they've been generally um supportive of Biden.
Speaker 1: And he has the benefit of almost universal American support
Speaker 1: for Zelenski, which which certainly helps him as he tries
Speaker 1: to make a cause. But Biden, excuse me, Plutin knows
Speaker 1: his best asset is time, and as you were talking about,
Speaker 1: he is playing as much of a waiting game as
Speaker 1: anything out as anything else, and hoping that he can
Speaker 1: outwagh wait us. The good news is, you know it,
Speaker 1: it appears that the G seven not only remains unified,
Speaker 1: but it is more unified. Just over the actions that
Speaker 1: we've seen over the past couple of days, especially with
Speaker 1: that bombing of the mall Um to be in this
Speaker 1: fight for the long for the long haul and the
Speaker 1: bombing of Kiev, we hadn't seen the capital city targeted
Speaker 1: like that. Uh an apartment block was destroyed, Doug, how
Speaker 1: many more rounds of weapons packages? If that's what we're
Speaker 1: gonna call them? Uh? Do we get here before people
Speaker 1: start questioning spending? I know that's not a popular question
Speaker 1: to ask right now, but as the president gets closer
Speaker 1: to November, if that coincides with people losing patients for
Speaker 1: this effort, that could be a major political story. It is,
Speaker 1: and the short answer is, we don't know, but we're
Speaker 1: starting to see some cracks. Um. We're seeing more Republicans
Speaker 1: opposed additional spending for Ukraine, and we don't know where
Speaker 1: that's going to go. And obviously with a new Congress,
Speaker 1: whatever of that Congress, maybe those questions will only increase.
Speaker 1: What's your thought on this, Genie. I know that's not
Speaker 1: a conversation that a lot of people are having But
Speaker 1: that's why we have it here on Bloomberg. The president
Speaker 1: has to know that this is not endless, even though
Speaker 1: the agreement today the declaration basically says indefinite support here right,
Speaker 1: for as long as it takes. Yeah, it's a critically
Speaker 1: important question. You know, we had Zelinsky talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: wanting the war to be over by the end of
Speaker 1: this year. Um to Doug's point, if the Russians can
Speaker 1: drag this on and this becomes a war of attrition
Speaker 1: and they're trading small winds but there's no knockout punch
Speaker 1: and this thing drags on, there does become a chance
Speaker 1: that there are cracks both in the United States domestically,
Speaker 1: but also in our relationships with NATO and with the EU.
Speaker 1: So that it's critically important, and it does concern me
Speaker 1: a bit that there was an end of the year
Speaker 1: sort of discussion um as if this thing could be
Speaker 1: wrapped up. And you know, one of the questions I've
Speaker 1: asked a repeatedly, as you know, is is there a
Speaker 1: political solution here? What is the end of this? This
Speaker 1: is a president who promised not to get us into
Speaker 1: endless war pulled us out of Afghanistan in a in
Speaker 1: a particularly problematic way, and yet now he's involved in
Speaker 1: this proxy war which seems to have no end and
Speaker 1: big costs not just monetarily but for civilians over there,
Speaker 1: and so I think there are real serious questions to
Speaker 1: be asked. In the ambassador's point about the infrastructure end
Speaker 1: of this is critically important. They are going to try
Speaker 1: to use that money to rebuild over there, and right
Speaker 1: they should. But you know there's also the President talking
Speaker 1: about this build back Better World, and that's going to
Speaker 1: become another critical component of this infrastructure investment, and that's
Speaker 1: all about addressing China and competing with China. So you know,
Speaker 1: the infrastructure aspect of this is critically important. I don't
Speaker 1: know if I get my head around global infrastructure dog,
Speaker 1: how do you have that conversation right now when we
Speaker 1: can't figure out our own on most days here in
Speaker 1: the US now if it seems an impossible task. Obviously
Speaker 1: they're trying to tackle some tough questions. But to Genie's point,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't have universal agreement within the G seven,
Speaker 1: within NATO. Obviously, France and especially Germany, you know, have
Speaker 1: very different realities when it comes to what you know,
Speaker 1: their energy is, um, what they what products they buy,
Speaker 1: not just not just oil, fertilizer as well. Is a
Speaker 1: major exporter from Russia, you know, into Europe, and so
Speaker 1: they're they're making and will be making different decisions than
Speaker 1: the US are. And that's part of I think where's
Speaker 1: a Lensky wanting maybe hopefully hope, wishful thinking to have
Speaker 1: this conclude by the end of the year. Is based
Speaker 1: on he knows that time is not limitless for him.
Speaker 1: Do either of you think that will happen, Doug, I
Speaker 1: don't think so. But also you know, we we just
Speaker 1: don't know. We hear so much bad news about what's
Speaker 1: happening to Russia. You know. The the question for Prutin is,
Speaker 1: you know, how long can he can he last dangerous
Speaker 1: to get that in people's heads, Genie, to create false
Speaker 1: expectations or false hopes that is done by the end
Speaker 1: of the year. I think those red lines are always important,
Speaker 1: just ask President Obama. You set them and the minute
Speaker 1: they extend there is cause for criticism. And I think
Speaker 1: to your question, you know, it's going to depend whether
Speaker 1: this ends on how much we the United States and
Speaker 1: our allies invest in heavy weapons and all the things
Speaker 1: the ambassador was rightly talking about. And you know, the
Speaker 1: other wrinkle here is imagine we invest and then one
Speaker 1: of these things finds its way across into a NATO country.
Speaker 1: Are we going to respond to that? You know, it's
Speaker 1: a very dangerous game we are playing with this proxy situation.
Speaker 1: Made some tough talk along those lines too. As we
Speaker 1: spend a little bit of time left here with Doug Ingenie,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about something we learned about
Speaker 1: today that fell in our laps, and that's the January
Speaker 1: six hearing we now suddenly have scheduled for tomorrow. Uh,
Speaker 1: this was not supposed to be the case until we
Speaker 1: learned earlier today the committee apparently obtained evidence and witness
Speaker 1: testimony that are compelling members now compelling the leadership of
Speaker 1: the panel to hold a hearing tomorrow. It's going to
Speaker 1: happen at one o'clock in the afternoon from what I understand,
Speaker 1: and interestingly, Doug, they did not announce the witness or
Speaker 1: witnesses in advance, as they have for each hearing until now,
Speaker 1: so there's a bit more I guess, suspense, but certainly
Speaker 1: more questions going into this than we have seen in
Speaker 1: the process so far. Are we're going to get a
Speaker 1: bombshell tomorrow? They're certainly setting the stage for that, and
Speaker 1: very clearly they're reacting to something that that's new. And
Speaker 1: one of the things that we've learned from this process
Speaker 1: all along, every every hearing that they've had, is the
Speaker 1: committee knows more than we do. And the Committee may
Speaker 1: know more than Donald Trump does, Mark Meadows does, or
Speaker 1: anyone else who's come up in these conversations. So clearly
Speaker 1: they know more than we do, and they've learned something new,
Speaker 1: which makes tomorrow really compelling. Doing you have a sense
Speaker 1: of this genie what you're looking for? I thought we
Speaker 1: were going to take bets on what's going to happen
Speaker 1: and we'll try to see who's right now, you know,
Speaker 1: I think the Committee has done a really smart job
Speaker 1: so far, and this surprise hearing stunned me today. And
Speaker 1: I'm sure so many people who wouldn't they want to
Speaker 1: announce the genie. Does that mean a lawmaker? Does that
Speaker 1: mean a former Trump official or family member? It could
Speaker 1: you know. I said my bet would be on this
Speaker 1: documentary filmmaker Alex Holder as one of those people who
Speaker 1: may appear I don't know why they wouldn't announce him
Speaker 1: in advance though, to your point, Um, But you know,
Speaker 1: Benny Thompson at the end of all of these hearings
Speaker 1: has been announcing, you know, keep sending us material and
Speaker 1: from what we understand, they have been receiving it. Very
Speaker 1: bad news for Donald Trump, because you know, we keep
Speaker 1: hearing over and over that Republicans who want to sort
Speaker 1: of cleanse themselves are talking to this committee and trying
Speaker 1: to show that there is distance between Donald Trump's attempts
Speaker 1: to you know, uh, to turn over the election and
Speaker 1: and themselves. And so they've they've sort of been going
Speaker 1: to them and confessing to a certain extent. And and
Speaker 1: you know, we don't know we'll get more of that tomorrow.
Speaker 1: It's a good way to be thrown out of the family, Doug.
Speaker 1: We heard five or six members of Congress supposedly sought
Speaker 1: pardons from the Trump White House. Is that maybe where
Speaker 1: we're going tomorrow, Maybe we hear from one of them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I have no idea, it's certainly a possibility. And we
Speaker 1: know that those members have been mentioned now by name, Um,
Speaker 1: and clearly they have been engaged with counsel probably more
Speaker 1: than they were previously. Um. But we know that this
Speaker 1: could go in any direction. And that's why it was
Speaker 1: such a shocker today because we were specifically told that
Speaker 1: there would be nothing until after July. That's really it's amazing.
Speaker 1: Doug is a Republican and a Republican strategist, no less
Speaker 1: in the middle of a midterm election cycle. Do you
Speaker 1: feel like this is a liability for the party as
Speaker 1: a whole or is this is this a Donald Trump story.
Speaker 1: It's it's more of a Donald Trump story. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: you may have some individual races that are affected by this,
Speaker 1: but it's been really hard to identify. If you're a Republican,
Speaker 1: you want to be talking about inflation, the border, rising,
Speaker 1: crime and nothing else. So it's a distraction, UM. And
Speaker 1: distractions happen in campaigns and political seasons. Um. But very clearly,
Speaker 1: and that's why, you know, following what's just happened at
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court over the past week is going to
Speaker 1: be interesting to see, you know how and if voters
Speaker 1: kind of reset their thinking on this. Republicans know what
Speaker 1: they want to talk about it. If it's not one
Speaker 1: of those top three issues, they'd rather have it have
Speaker 1: it be left left alone. We have so much to
Speaker 1: learn that if if someone's telling you they know what's
Speaker 1: going to happen, don't believe them. As we spend time
Speaker 1: with Doug High and Jeannie Chanzano, thanks to both of
Speaker 1: you for a great panel, great insights, and everyone else
Speaker 1: here on the fastest hour in politics will check traffic
Speaker 1: and markets. Next, this is Bloomberg