Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg's Sound On.
Speaker 1: It's clear that inflation is a challenge. It is a
Speaker 1: global challenge. It is not a good picture here. Americans
Speaker 1: are squeezed by the cost of the money. It's been
Speaker 1: true for years. Bloomberg Sound On Politics, Policy and Perspective
Speaker 1: from DC's top name. We were getting ready to win
Speaker 1: this election. Frankly, we did win this election. He is
Speaker 1: the one person at the center of the story. Once again,
Speaker 1: I will assert my Fifth Amendment right to decline to
Speaker 1: answer your question. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio, the last CPI before the mid terms. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the fastest hour in politics, as inflation continues to
Speaker 1: defy gravity and the Feds. Will bring you the view
Speaker 1: directly from the White House in a conversation with Presidential
Speaker 1: advisor Gene Sperling, from economist Douglas Holtzken, and from Bloomberg's
Speaker 1: own Tom Keene, who was spending this week at the
Speaker 1: I m F. Later, the January six Committee holds its
Speaker 1: final hearing. It just ended votes to subpoena Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: While they're at it, we'll hear from Rebecca roy Fee
Speaker 1: of New York Law School, former Assistant District Attorney for
Speaker 1: New York County, and analysis from our panel Bloomberg Politics contributor,
Speaker 1: Democratic analyst Gene Chanzano, Republicans strategist Lisa Miller of Cogent Strategies,
Speaker 1: former Comms director at the r n C for the
Speaker 1: White House putting the full court press on today's inflation report,
Speaker 1: knowing that Wall Street does not represent the American household
Speaker 1: when it comes to this story. That remarkable reversal doesn't
Speaker 1: exactly reflect the conversation inside the Beltway or at the
Speaker 1: kitchen table. President Biden spoke about it at an event
Speaker 1: on his infrastructure plans today in l A. Americans are
Speaker 1: squeezed by the cost of theity. It's been true for years,
Speaker 1: and folks don't need to be a report to tell
Speaker 1: them there'll be a squeeze. Fighting this battle every day
Speaker 1: is a key reason why I ran for President nits Sace.
Speaker 1: But the report was there, whether they needed to see
Speaker 1: it or not. It reflects what's happening now. The snapshot
Speaker 1: in time with four weeks to go to the mid
Speaker 1: terms and the White House trying to put a good
Speaker 1: spin on this as we bring in. Jeane Spurling White
Speaker 1: House American Rescue Plan of Coordinator is the senior advisor
Speaker 1: to the President former director of the National Economic Council.
Speaker 1: Gene Welcome back to Bloomberg. Thanks for having enough. There
Speaker 1: was a sense of helplessness when the CPI hit this morning,
Speaker 1: and obviously Wall Street has gone in another direction here,
Speaker 1: and I know the White House has also seen some
Speaker 1: incremental improvement. Brian Deese was speaking to that earlier on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: But the Fed clearly has not yet had a major
Speaker 1: impact on inflation. What is it about this trend that
Speaker 1: that continues to defy predictions? Well, I would be a
Speaker 1: little more positive than than what you described, because I mean,
Speaker 1: let's just look, first of all, at the third quarter
Speaker 1: of the last three months. It has been two percent
Speaker 1: annualized the last in the third quarter. That's compared to
Speaker 1: eleven per sent uh in the second quarter. Now, a
Speaker 1: lot of that is obviously been energy car energy prices
Speaker 1: going down, but we've also seen used cars prices going
Speaker 1: down other things, and I think there is some reason
Speaker 1: to be optimistic about the path forward. I mean, one
Speaker 1: half of the increasing core inflation really was from shelter
Speaker 1: rent um but we've seen private sector UH indicators Apartment
Speaker 1: dot Com case Shiller have both suggested home prices and
Speaker 1: new leases uh you know, came down in August. Now,
Speaker 1: I understand there's a lag before that goes into the
Speaker 1: official CPI, but it does suggest there's some more positive
Speaker 1: signs there. The job opening data with one point one
Speaker 1: million less job openings is certainly showing some cooling. The
Speaker 1: supply chain index that the Fed publishes is back to
Speaker 1: twenty February levels, and I've just read so much recently,
Speaker 1: including from JP Morrigan about seven hundred and thirty two
Speaker 1: billion inventory for people of predicting aggressive discounting, aggressive online
Speaker 1: discounting during the Christmas season. So you know, yes, you
Speaker 1: would have liked to see uh some of that show
Speaker 1: up in the core inflation today, and it didn't. But
Speaker 1: I still think there is some you know, real solid
Speaker 1: evidence of that that things will move in the right direction.
Speaker 1: And obviously headlines down from nine one to eight to
Speaker 1: UH since June, but of course nobody thinks Nobody, including
Speaker 1: this White House, thinks that's fast enough, even if it
Speaker 1: is directionally. Yeah, we've had some big, great hikes here,
Speaker 1: and it looks like they're going to be more big
Speaker 1: hikes coming. So it's clearly going to take a long
Speaker 1: time to get this down to where you want it,
Speaker 1: and and voters are asking how long is it possible
Speaker 1: to answer that? I think that, Um, you know, I've
Speaker 1: never tried to play forecast or um you know, and
Speaker 1: you know, give a precise date or a precise number,
Speaker 1: I will, But I do feel comfortable saying that many
Speaker 1: of the top forecasters are predicting that things will look uh,
Speaker 1: you know, significantly better next year. And again, um uh
Speaker 1: you know, there have been times where I wouldn't have
Speaker 1: felt this comfortable saying that there were indicators like the
Speaker 1: job opening or the record inventory or the projections of discounting.
Speaker 1: So when you say significantly better next year, does that
Speaker 1: mean that you do you don't see it a recession
Speaker 1: in our future? Or do you mean that specific to prices? Gene,
Speaker 1: I see that I see the prices seemed headed in
Speaker 1: the right direction in terms of you know, will we
Speaker 1: will we actually have a downturn? Um, you know, we
Speaker 1: still see a lot of signs of resilience in the
Speaker 1: US economy. I think the fact that we've had a
Speaker 1: recovery that not only has had record job growth and
Speaker 1: and and so many people working, but so much less
Speaker 1: scarring that we went through after the Great Recession with
Speaker 1: laundrom unemployment and seventeen percent youth unemployment. So I think
Speaker 1: you're still seeing that people, are you know that that
Speaker 1: whether it's state, local governments, businesses and you know, households,
Speaker 1: you're seeing a degree of resilience that gives us more
Speaker 1: confidence that we are better positioned than almost any country
Speaker 1: to be able to take some of the discomfort from
Speaker 1: higher UH interest rates UH, but and still make that
Speaker 1: transitions to stable UH economic growth with lower prices, but
Speaker 1: without having to give up all of the historic gains
Speaker 1: that we have made in the labor market. Well maybe
Speaker 1: that answers my next question. But you know this job
Speaker 1: market is it's it's a curse and a blessing, right
Speaker 1: are you? Are you concerned more now that beating inflation
Speaker 1: will require damaging the job market, as Elizabeth Warren has
Speaker 1: warned about, Well, again, I think we you know, we
Speaker 1: are we are still hopeful, and we think there are
Speaker 1: are good reasons to suggest that, um, that we can
Speaker 1: make this transition UM without the type of you know,
Speaker 1: hard landing that that that you do see, you know,
Speaker 1: some people, uh you know warn about you know for us. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, even when you look at some of the
Speaker 1: FED numbers on the jobs markets, you still see the
Speaker 1: possibility of you know, whether you want to call the
Speaker 1: soft landing or just a transition to a period of
Speaker 1: more stable growth, uh and more stable and lower prices
Speaker 1: going forward. And you know, I understand the fact that
Speaker 1: some people's you know, what they can see as a
Speaker 1: blessing can seem uh you know different to so I'm
Speaker 1: worried about inflation. But I think when you're looking at
Speaker 1: can you again bring down inflation and with without avoiding
Speaker 1: the kind of hard downturn. You know, the fact that
Speaker 1: that so many people are working, the fact that's so
Speaker 1: many people, according to major banks still have checking accounts
Speaker 1: that look more flush than they did, uh you know
Speaker 1: when the pandemic started. Those all suggest that we may
Speaker 1: be well positioned without that type of downturn. I consider
Speaker 1: like the state local level, when I was National Economic Advisor,
Speaker 1: in contraction at the state local level was a major issue,
Speaker 1: subtracting from growth, detracting from jobs. Because of the American
Speaker 1: Rescue plans, those a lot of those states and cities
Speaker 1: and counties now are still addressing real issues from the pandemic.
Speaker 1: They're not doing layoff. Those are all to meet things
Speaker 1: that showed that the policies we've put forward have created
Speaker 1: a degree of resilience in our economy. And and um,
Speaker 1: uh that that I think does again give us optimism
Speaker 1: that we are better position than our our fellow advanced
Speaker 1: countries to make this transition without giving up uh, the
Speaker 1: major gains in the job market. Do you clearly have
Speaker 1: an optimistic view? I guess I'd ask you lastly, how
Speaker 1: worried you are about about winter? How worried our listeners
Speaker 1: should be about the winter heating season, gene spirling, whether
Speaker 1: they use heating oil in the northeast or natural gas
Speaker 1: somewhere else. Well, um, you know that that is a
Speaker 1: really good question. I mean, one of the things we
Speaker 1: were proud about what the American Rescue Plan was that
Speaker 1: we did have historic increase several billion dollars, unprecedented for
Speaker 1: lie heap or low income housing energy assistance. And I
Speaker 1: think that uh, you know, as um Congress comes back,
Speaker 1: you know that's one of that's an issue that is
Speaker 1: is worth worth looking at. But um, I heard a
Speaker 1: little bit right. I uh uh, you know, I try
Speaker 1: not to either make uh pretend to be a precise
Speaker 1: economic forecaster or or the weather man. At this point,
Speaker 1: well j. Powell uses the word pain though we list
Speaker 1: we have to keep our eye on and as you say,
Speaker 1: you know can there can be very different impacts in
Speaker 1: different parts of the country depending on the source of heating.
Speaker 1: Jeene Spirling, I'm glad you gave us some time today,
Speaker 1: White House American Rescue Plan Coordinator and Senior Advisor to
Speaker 1: the President with us on CPI. DA Jane Spirling, thanks
Speaker 1: as always for talking to Bloomberg. Oh, thank you for
Speaker 1: having me. And as always we add another voice for
Speaker 1: a different perspective, and we're glad to be joined by
Speaker 1: Douglas Holtz Eakan of the American Action Forum, the president
Speaker 1: and former council if he cannomic advisor's chief economist, he
Speaker 1: knows where gene spoiling is coming from, and he certainly
Speaker 1: knows where the CPI is coming from. Although Douglas, welcome back.
Speaker 1: I don't know if if you can justify where the
Speaker 1: number is coming from, can you believe how how stubborn
Speaker 1: this has been considering the magnitude of the rate hikes
Speaker 1: we've seen so far. Yes, I think this is not
Speaker 1: very surprising. First of all, remember that regardless of your
Speaker 1: preferred measure of inflation, it's still higher than is the
Speaker 1: funds rate. So we have negative real interest rates and
Speaker 1: we aren't even close to neutral. So while we know
Speaker 1: the sassan last month last year with his foot on
Speaker 1: the gas, it has certainly taken its foot on off
Speaker 1: the gas, but it hasn't tapped the break yet. So
Speaker 1: once we get you know, real rates up in the
Speaker 1: positive territory and and we're in a restrictive posture, we'll
Speaker 1: see how much that brings down inflation. The other reason
Speaker 1: I'm not surprised is mechanically that all roads lead to
Speaker 1: shelter inflation. Uh In the CPI, shelter is a third
Speaker 1: of of the c g I is a third of
Speaker 1: the typical family budget, and it has none of these
Speaker 1: things people like to point fingers out. There's no supply chains,
Speaker 1: there's no Saudias, there's no no big companies. The apartments
Speaker 1: are here, the houses are here. Shelter inflation has risen
Speaker 1: every month since January. It is yet to show any
Speaker 1: times that peaking year over your inflation one up from
Speaker 1: five seven to six two to six six and the
Speaker 1: most recent report. And until you get shelter inflation under
Speaker 1: you can't have success on the c p I. So
Speaker 1: this just six. Everything halts to be zero to get
Speaker 1: to two. I mean, that's not gonna happen. So this
Speaker 1: is a tough spot for this White House dog. You
Speaker 1: know that. Uh, when when we step back and look
Speaker 1: at what they're actually looking, I know it's their job
Speaker 1: to be optimistic. You have to talk up the economy,
Speaker 1: that's the deal when you're part of the administration. But
Speaker 1: pointing to the job market as a source of strength, uh,
Speaker 1: without also acknowledging the trouble that it's bringing. And I
Speaker 1: know that this is always a popular viewpoint, but that
Speaker 1: wage inflation is a persistent issue and that they may
Speaker 1: have to actually harm the job market to get this
Speaker 1: job done will create a very difficult narrative for the
Speaker 1: White House next year. They're also pointing to lower gas prices,
Speaker 1: and Douglas, we have every reason to believe that oil
Speaker 1: and gas are going up. You mentioned the Saudias. This
Speaker 1: is gonna be a tough winter. Absolutely, there's no question
Speaker 1: of it. So so is it smart for them to
Speaker 1: be speaking optimistically about this stuff? Where does the White
Speaker 1: House need a new narrative? I think they needed a narrative.
Speaker 1: I mean they have not had a decent narrative on
Speaker 1: inflation yet. Their narrative has been uh, corporate creed, as
Speaker 1: if the arab of corporate benevolence had somehow ended. Um.
Speaker 1: They said it's supply chains. Um. Well, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: as I said, shelter inflation, there's no supply chains there. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's the Saudias and gas prices. But we we
Speaker 1: were going to tap this strategic control reserve. They they've
Speaker 1: gone to a million stories. None of them addressed the
Speaker 1: basic problem, which is they made a big policy error
Speaker 1: with over stamulus in the economy, fiscal and monetary last year.
Speaker 1: And we're reaping the results. And here's the truth. And
Speaker 1: and and you said it really well, the hot labor
Speaker 1: market and the high inflation or flip sides of the
Speaker 1: same coin. You can't have one without the other. They
Speaker 1: come together. And if you want to deal with the inflation,
Speaker 1: you're gonna see some relatively bad news in the lay market.
Speaker 1: There's no way around that. And and so what I
Speaker 1: try to remind people is when you're thinking about the
Speaker 1: White House said, whoever you're pointing fingers out at the moment,
Speaker 1: remember that once you make the mistake of letting inflation
Speaker 1: get entrenched, you have no good choices. Either live with
Speaker 1: the inflation or you deal with what you have to
Speaker 1: do to get rid of it. Both are really bad
Speaker 1: in the stories. Are we there though? Is it I?
Speaker 1: Is it entrenched in your view? Yes, we saw that.
Speaker 1: We saw the things that UM caused this set to
Speaker 1: to actually do a big U turn and aggressively take
Speaker 1: on inflation. We saw inflation expectations go from well contained
Speaker 1: and not to go from three percent so well over
Speaker 1: uh seven in one year out and then the three
Speaker 1: and five were moving up and and that was the
Speaker 1: hallmark of the last air of great inflation. You know,
Speaker 1: the seventies and eighties, people expected double digit inflation, and
Speaker 1: so they've built into their wage request double digit inflation.
Speaker 1: And when they write writing supply contracts, they counted on it.
Speaker 1: And so you build that kind of cost increase into
Speaker 1: the business structures, it's self fulfilling. You get inflation, and
Speaker 1: that means the FED after done being whether they're done
Speaker 1: uh you know at the beginning of next year, halfway through,
Speaker 1: they're going to have to keep it there. That's that
Speaker 1: seems to be the part that the market is confused about,
Speaker 1: right looking for a pivot. Just because you're done hiking
Speaker 1: doesn't mean you have to start cutting. I really don't
Speaker 1: understand the confusion. I think Chairman Powell has been blunt
Speaker 1: and clearness these has said this will take a long time.
Speaker 1: It will take up to three years to get back
Speaker 1: to two percent. There will have to be a persistent
Speaker 1: period of restrictive monetary policy. That's that's that says, keep
Speaker 1: it up there. You're not cutting. There's no no question
Speaker 1: about that. He's been honest that there will be paying
Speaker 1: for American businesses and households. They've stopped using the phrase
Speaker 1: soft landing. I mean, I don't know what's left to
Speaker 1: figure out here. Boy, I'm glad you could be with
Speaker 1: us today. We're praying for a soft landing, but I
Speaker 1: guess it would be uh, it would take a little
Speaker 1: bit of magic to pull it off at this point.
Speaker 1: Douglas whole Teak in American Action Forum President, former Council
Speaker 1: of Economic Advisors chief economist with us on the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in politics, and the hits just keep on coming. Here.
Speaker 1: You know who's in town right now to cover the
Speaker 1: I m F with which just yesterday, as you heard
Speaker 1: on this program cut It's forecast for global growth is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's own Tom Keene. He's getting a very unique view
Speaker 1: of what's happening at the I m F and with
Speaker 1: us here now in the Washington d C Bureau. T K,
Speaker 1: Welcome back to d C. Wonderful to be here. I
Speaker 1: think this is great to see you. I'm staying up
Speaker 1: late watching Padres Dodgers. It's difficult, and you've got the
Speaker 1: surveillance call in the morning. The surveillance nap must mean
Speaker 1: more than ever, so it does, and it's an uncertain times.
Speaker 1: So frankly, you're watching the Bloomberg on your iPhones saying, okay,
Speaker 1: is the world gonna blow up? And the answers we
Speaker 1: made it through another day? Well, I saw your promo.
Speaker 1: There's a Bloomberg apparently in the White House. There's probably
Speaker 1: one over at the I m F. Actually, there's probably
Speaker 1: a bunch of met the I m F. The White
Speaker 1: House is perplexed this morning, but so is the market,
Speaker 1: and so are you. How has none of this action
Speaker 1: by J. Powell had any impact on anything it had.
Speaker 1: That's a really important question. And the mathiness of it
Speaker 1: is we knew it wouldn't have an impact that you've
Speaker 1: had on Gene Sperling, who's wonderful policy expert on fiscal policy,
Speaker 1: like Douglas Holtz Egan across the political divide shows that
Speaker 1: the common ground of Democrats and Republicans and economics is
Speaker 1: they really know the FED early in a cycle doesn't
Speaker 1: get much done. We've moved from ultra accommodative to accommodative
Speaker 1: and now maybe is where the heavy lifting starts. But
Speaker 1: then history repeats with a front loaded action that drives
Speaker 1: the economy into a recession. Right, It's like everybody, all
Speaker 1: the naysayers are being proven right, Yeah they are. It's
Speaker 1: been a it's been a victory for the gloom crew
Speaker 1: the last number of days. But I'd really take issue
Speaker 1: with economic slowdown is only because of the FED. There's
Speaker 1: a number of other things going on and some of
Speaker 1: them downplayed at these meetings of the World Bank. In
Speaker 1: the i m F, for example, I would suggest the
Speaker 1: COVID challenge of China has a far greater weight on
Speaker 1: global demand, on the price of oil than anybody can imagine.
Speaker 1: One of my key questions that hasn't been answered yet
Speaker 1: is where would oil be if China was open for business?
Speaker 1: And the answers would be a lot higher. How palpable
Speaker 1: is the fear when you walk through the tangible Joe,
Speaker 1: you and I were younger, the red socks used to win,
Speaker 1: and when the last time it was wasn't it wasn't
Speaker 1: that long ago, but actually it was oh eight oh nine. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's the same tension, but it's different. The
Speaker 1: major talking point for your audience, I would say is
Speaker 1: the experts here off the mic are not looking at
Speaker 1: eight o nine. They're back four decades, They're back five
Speaker 1: decades and trying to analyze this original pandemic war in
Speaker 1: Ukraine moment that we're in. The summary of it is
Speaker 1: is Crystallina Gordy gave it said today the managing director
Speaker 1: of the I m F. And she gets her hands
Speaker 1: out and there's these moving parts to the plumbing of
Speaker 1: the system. Their focus, which is unfamiliar to Americans, is
Speaker 1: to keep the liquidity in the system, particularly in the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom, and that's really the point focus right now
Speaker 1: at these meetings. You use the word original with someone
Speaker 1: who has such a keen sense of history, I guess
Speaker 1: pun intended. What makes this original? It makes it original
Speaker 1: because there was a medical crisis. I laughed at my grandmother.
Speaker 1: I'd be down on Cape cod overlook a Nauset beach
Speaker 1: with a beverage of her choice in her hand, and
Speaker 1: after the third beverage, Graham a keen would talk about eight,
Speaker 1: which is much worse than this, and we laugh at her.
Speaker 1: And now we're not laughing. We had a pandemic and
Speaker 1: the foundational issue of where we are right now as
Speaker 1: we're still coming out of this, this pandemic in many form.
Speaker 1: So I would call that the original moment still is
Speaker 1: the medicine of the moment. What was that turn around
Speaker 1: today on Wall Street? Don't tell John Pharaoh. I asked
Speaker 1: you what made the Taos swing a thousand points? I
Speaker 1: think just a lot of gloom and so are the
Speaker 1: algorithms running. But you know, here's what you do. Here's
Speaker 1: here's the secret, folks, and it's it's nothing original. Your
Speaker 1: glue to your Bloomberg terminal on the iPhone and you've
Speaker 1: got all these data points and you can find a
Speaker 1: few of them that then link into whatever the news
Speaker 1: of the moment is from our headline service. And the
Speaker 1: news of the moment was a sigh of relief over
Speaker 1: what was happening in the United Kingdom. As I was
Speaker 1: speaking to the managing director behind us through the glass
Speaker 1: of the I m F studio was a Chancellor of
Speaker 1: the Chequer speaking to the BBC. This is what it's
Speaker 1: come to. The British is what the the British. There's
Speaker 1: a sigh of relief that the Chancellor would blink on
Speaker 1: his original fiscal policy and that reverse. I would suggest
Speaker 1: that was the catalyst that reversed the market. I hope
Speaker 1: you'll be here more often in the new year. We'll
Speaker 1: have to you know, in Washington. The next time the
Speaker 1: Red Sox win, I'll be here. I'll meet you for
Speaker 1: a drink. If you see us at the St Regis later,
Speaker 1: send around over we might need it. Let's assemble the
Speaker 1: panel now, let's layer on two more voices, with Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributor and Democratic analyst Genie Chanzano joined today by
Speaker 1: Lisa Caboosa Miller back with us for the first time,
Speaker 1: and a bit from Coch strategies. Former calms director of
Speaker 1: the r n C, Lisa, it's great to have. You're
Speaker 1: gonna start with you here is this is this fulfilling
Speaker 1: what Republicans have been saying about Democrats for the last
Speaker 1: six months. Well, Joe, I think that the recent polling
Speaker 1: shows that inflation and the economy still are reigning supreme
Speaker 1: over every other issue for Republicans and for voters in general.
Speaker 1: And when asked, all voters polled have said that of
Speaker 1: them trust Republicans over Democrats on on the economy and
Speaker 1: certainly on inflation. So to me, that means that we
Speaker 1: are coming into a very very strong headwind for Democrats
Speaker 1: into the midterm elections. Genie, what do you do if
Speaker 1: you're Joe Biden? You deferred to the Fed. You thought
Speaker 1: they were going to fix it. It It went from transitory,
Speaker 1: then they told you it wasn't. Now the rate hikes
Speaker 1: followed by rate hikes and more on the way don't
Speaker 1: seem to be making a dent. Well, I think he
Speaker 1: should join you and Tom Keane for that sift drink
Speaker 1: at the St Regis and start from there. It's the
Speaker 1: only real answer. I think it's the only answer, you know,
Speaker 1: I go back to Gerald Ford with his wind button
Speaker 1: whip inflation now and people describe that, including Alan Greenspan,
Speaker 1: as incredibly stupid, and it may have been, but it
Speaker 1: shows you just how desperate presidents are, whether Republicans or Democrats,
Speaker 1: when they are looking at these headwinds. I mean, I
Speaker 1: keep this running list, and we talk about this all
Speaker 1: the time. I am f JP, Morgan, Bank of America,
Speaker 1: Larry Summers. I mean, you can go down the list,
Speaker 1: the PPI, the CPI, all the numbers are looking at
Speaker 1: It's October, it's Halloween sign you gotta get out you're
Speaker 1: really scary costume, because this is what it's looking like.
Speaker 1: And you know we're talking twenty six days to the
Speaker 1: mid term. But don't forget Larry Summer is talking about
Speaker 1: a recession. Most people talking about a recession next year.
Speaker 1: That marches you right into the presidential election cycle. This
Speaker 1: is bad news for the Democrats, bad news for the president.
Speaker 1: And to Lisa's point, the poll numbers underscore this, and
Speaker 1: the American public has got to be saying, why do
Speaker 1: we need experts? We told you we felt like it
Speaker 1: wasn't a recession. Technically we may not be yet, but
Speaker 1: that's how it feels, and that's the problem the president has.
Speaker 1: He's got to deal with how people feel, not what
Speaker 1: the experts say is the reality, Lisa. The Republicans have
Speaker 1: to worry about this slapping back on a on a
Speaker 1: GOP that takes the majority in the House. If we
Speaker 1: if we think that all these rate hikes are going
Speaker 1: to lead to a recession next year, well, I think
Speaker 1: that they still have a long list of of items
Speaker 1: that they want to take up right away as soon
Speaker 1: as they take back the House. And one of them,
Speaker 1: Joe to your listeners, is one that I think that
Speaker 1: is especially concerning, and that's the fact that they have
Speaker 1: said that they are separating from Corporate America. They have
Speaker 1: taken this into their sites. They're looking at E s
Speaker 1: G is an issue that is a concern to them,
Speaker 1: and they're going to get active, are gonna get busy,
Speaker 1: and they're going to start to point fingers and they're
Speaker 1: certainly not going to take the blame. They're going to
Speaker 1: point the pictures at the party. Lisa Kabousa Miller Jeanie
Speaker 1: Schanzano returned to January six next on the Fastest Hour
Speaker 1: in Politics, I'm Joe Matthew, this is Bloomberg Chairman. I
Speaker 1: request to recorded vote. Recorded vote is requested. The clerk
Speaker 1: will call the role Miss Cheney Hi, Miss Cheney I,
Speaker 1: Miss Lorn, Miss Laughran I. Mr Chef HI, Mr Chef I,
Speaker 1: Mr Aguilar Hi, Mr Aguilar I, Mrs Murphy, Mrs Murphy I,
Speaker 1: Mr Raskin HI, Mr Raskin I, Mrs Luria, Mrs Lauria,
Speaker 1: Mr Kensinger Kinsinger, Mr Kensinger, Mr Chairman Hi, Mr Chairman I.
Speaker 1: The clerk will report the vote, Mr Chairman. On this vote,
Speaker 1: there are nine eyes. Zero knows the resolution agreed to
Speaker 1: and that was it. The finish of the January six committee. Today.
Speaker 1: It's last scheduled hearing and that's the last one we
Speaker 1: expect voting, as you've heard, unanimously to compel testimony and
Speaker 1: documents from Yes, Donald J. Trump. Is that really gonna happen?
Speaker 1: There was some new evidence today, some new commentary we
Speaker 1: haven't heard yet, excerpts from testimony, none of it live.
Speaker 1: Each member of the panel took time to take part
Speaker 1: in this exercise today. Typically we've only heard from a
Speaker 1: few in each hearing. We heard from all nine today
Speaker 1: and we're joined now once again by Rebecca Royfe, who
Speaker 1: was with us earlier in this whole process and back
Speaker 1: today to talk to us on Bloomberg. Joseph Solomon, Distinguished
Speaker 1: Professor of Law at New York Law School, former Assistant
Speaker 1: District Attorney for New York County, is great to have
Speaker 1: you back here, Rebecca. Let's start with the matter at hand,
Speaker 1: and that's the vote to compel to subpoena Donald Trump
Speaker 1: to testify. We don't think that is going to happen
Speaker 1: after Republicans take the majority, do we. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's going to happen anyway. The subpoena will go out,
Speaker 1: and he will disregard that subpoena, even if it were
Speaker 1: um to go out before the change in administration or sorry,
Speaker 1: rather the change in makeup of the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: So you know, I think this was more a symbolic
Speaker 1: act than it was an act designed to actually obtain
Speaker 1: his testimony or documents from him. If Democrats somehow keep
Speaker 1: the House in this committee remains a going concern. Is
Speaker 1: that a different story? I really don't think it is.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he's going to resist that subpoena,
Speaker 1: and we've seen before that, you know, then Congress can
Speaker 1: perhaps refer this to the entire House, and then if
Speaker 1: the House remain and Democratic, they could perhaps make a
Speaker 1: referral to the Department of Justice. But I really don't
Speaker 1: think imagine the Department of Justice would pursue contempt of
Speaker 1: Congress case against the former president. We heard some pretty
Speaker 1: interesting and in many cases, very compelling moments from that day.
Speaker 1: There was new security footage, or it wasn't even security footage.
Speaker 1: There was new cell phone footage of the Democratic leadership,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer making frantic phone calls from
Speaker 1: their secure locations. We also heard from Adam Kinzinger, who
Speaker 1: brought us to a moment that I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: knew about until today, at least that when Donald Trump
Speaker 1: essentially knew he was leaving the White House, he made
Speaker 1: a very specific order. Listen to Adam Kinzinger, knowing he
Speaker 1: was leaving office, he acted immediately and signed this order
Speaker 1: on November eleven, which would have required the immediate withdrawal
Speaker 1: of troops from Somalia and Afghanistan, all to be complete
Speaker 1: before the Biden inauguration on January twenty. That is remarkable
Speaker 1: and could get buried in so much of the other
Speaker 1: material that we heard about today, but remarkable as well
Speaker 1: to hear the reaction from General Keith Kellogg, who made
Speaker 1: his feelings clear on the matter, proceeded to tell the
Speaker 1: po and proceeded to tell but Gregor that if I
Speaker 1: ever saw anything like that, UM, I would do shut
Speaker 1: the physical, would do something physical. Is this just kind
Speaker 1: of fulfilling the narrative you're or filling in the narrative
Speaker 1: about what happened that day, Rebecca, Or are there legal
Speaker 1: implications to this type of testimony? Well, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it's filling in the narrative in an important way
Speaker 1: that does have legal implications. I mean, in part, it's
Speaker 1: part of a longer piece of testimony that came from
Speaker 1: various different sources that the president himself UM privately and
Speaker 1: to his closet advisors, admit that he had lost the election.
Speaker 1: He was acting like a UM president who was about
Speaker 1: to leave office in a number of ways, including that
Speaker 1: shocking one, and that you know that is inconsistent with
Speaker 1: what he was saying to the American public and what
Speaker 1: he was insisting on in these various different ways. And
Speaker 1: so that is crucial evidence of what his state of
Speaker 1: mind was he certainly Um does not does not seem
Speaker 1: that he himself believed that the election was stolen if.
Speaker 1: During this time he had essentially acted as if and
Speaker 1: said as much as his as the d loss, but
Speaker 1: he was still fighting to hold onto power. Emails the
Speaker 1: Secret Service received this is the day before and day
Speaker 1: after Christmas said protesters were quote armed and ready unquote
Speaker 1: their plan quote is to literally kill people. There were
Speaker 1: tips as well the Proud Boys planned to march armed
Speaker 1: to the Capitol. Have they succeeded in connecting the dots?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I think that that's part of
Speaker 1: why it was so significant to subpoena the former president,
Speaker 1: because they have gotten those dots so close together, and
Speaker 1: yet there are some lines that remained to be drawn.
Speaker 1: And what the indication was at the end of that
Speaker 1: hearing was that the only person Um who could or
Speaker 1: people who could uh connect those dots have either pled
Speaker 1: the fifth or are Donald Trump. And so without the
Speaker 1: testimony of those people, we are left to infer what
Speaker 1: actually happened. And I think you know that it was
Speaker 1: no accident that right before they took that vote they
Speaker 1: had video footage of all of those who were so
Speaker 1: close to the presidents leading the Fifth in response to
Speaker 1: questions because what they were leaving their viewers with was
Speaker 1: with sense that, you know, why would they plead the
Speaker 1: fifth about these final last conversations with the president if
Speaker 1: there was nothing there? And his lap to say, you know,
Speaker 1: you're the only person who can controversy for this clear
Speaker 1: assumption that ought to be made from the evidence that
Speaker 1: we've heard. And I don't think he'll do it, but
Speaker 1: I think that was, you know, the gauntlet that was
Speaker 1: laid one man who made great use of the Fifth
Speaker 1: Roger Stone, Listen, violence on January six was justified on
Speaker 1: the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer your
Speaker 1: question on the basis of the Fifth Amendments videotape. Did
Speaker 1: you have any role in planning for the violence on
Speaker 1: January six? Once again, I will assert my Fifth Amendment
Speaker 1: right to decline to answer your question. Roger Stone got
Speaker 1: a presidential pardon, Rebecca, what's his future look like legally? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I again, I don't know. You know, the
Speaker 1: presidential pardon um certainly provides him with a kind of
Speaker 1: shield against many consequences that that might happen. I certainly
Speaker 1: he could still face um repercussions in the state if
Speaker 1: he if he is liable in any state for criminal activity.
Speaker 1: But um, you know, I it certainly remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: I have to ask you. It's it's somewhat unrelated. But
Speaker 1: I don't always have Rebecca roy Fee on the phone.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court today handing Donald Trump a loss has
Speaker 1: happened the same day as this hearing in his fight
Speaker 1: over records from maral Lago, the documents case, refusing to
Speaker 1: intervene and reinstate the Special master's authority to review some
Speaker 1: classified documents. Uh. Does that give the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: the upper hand to start moving forward with its case
Speaker 1: or has it been doing so behind the scenes this
Speaker 1: whole time? Yes, I mean I think it has been
Speaker 1: doing so. It has been proceeding. Nobody expected that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would take up that case. It was decided
Speaker 1: and well argued and well reasoned in the Eleventh Circuit,
Speaker 1: and it seemed, um, you know, quite a stretch that um,
Speaker 1: the former president would think that the Supreme Court would
Speaker 1: take up this case. But um, you know, I know
Speaker 1: he believed in some sense that the Supreme Court justice
Speaker 1: of whom he appointed owe him something that that's not
Speaker 1: the way the judiciary works, and I really doubt that
Speaker 1: they feel that way. As far as the d o
Speaker 1: J goes with the January sixth committee, I know it
Speaker 1: there's been confusion about whether they would make a criminal referral,
Speaker 1: but we now know the d o J is well
Speaker 1: underway with its own case. Did the committee help the
Speaker 1: d o J in its investigation or was this truly
Speaker 1: a political exercise or an exercise for the sake of history?
Speaker 1: So you know, I I imagine that Merrick Garland was
Speaker 1: certainly paying attention to these hearings but said that the
Speaker 1: investigation was well underway. It was underway, we now know,
Speaker 1: from before the January six hearings even commenced. So you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think that there's any reason to think or
Speaker 1: assume that Merrick Garland is taking his cue from the
Speaker 1: hearings or from Congress, and as well he shouldn't. I
Speaker 1: think it's a that is a separate investigation that's proceeding
Speaker 1: in its own um pace and and and not influenced
Speaker 1: in any way by the January six here, So you know, no,
Speaker 1: I I don't. I don't think so. Rebecca Roy for you.
Speaker 1: Great to have you from New York Law School, former
Speaker 1: assistant d A New York County. It's great to have
Speaker 1: you back on Bloomberg as we try to get our
Speaker 1: hands around everything that we saw and heard today in
Speaker 1: this hearing. Of course, well I'm always watching, so you
Speaker 1: don't have to. And the moment that I described, see
Speaker 1: this aid I guess took this film this video on
Speaker 1: a cell phone walking backwards looking at Chuck Schumer Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi plowed through the hall with their security into the
Speaker 1: undisclosed location and they started making frantic phone calls, in
Speaker 1: this case to the Secretary of Defense inside the building.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna call up the Secretary of Deal. We have
Speaker 1: some senators who were still in their hideaways. They need
Speaker 1: massive personnel. Now, can you get the Maryland National Guard
Speaker 1: to come to I have something to say, Mr Secretary
Speaker 1: of in the same Washington d C. Right now, and
Speaker 1: see what other outbreach he has. Other voice departments mentioned
Speaker 1: whether this leads to any sort of criminal prosecution. Chilling
Speaker 1: to know what actually happened that day. Thanks for joining
Speaker 1: us on the fastest hour in politics. I don't know
Speaker 1: how we fit it all in today, but we will.
Speaker 1: So what was new? What did we learn? Number one,
Speaker 1: and this is all played out for you in a
Speaker 1: very nice piece by Laura Davison and mart Niquette on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Takeaways today and one the committee still investigating.
Speaker 1: We know that we got the vote to subpoena Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: By the way, a final report has not come out yet.
Speaker 1: That's likely to happen after the mid terms. To Donald
Speaker 1: Trump knew he lost the election and fought the results anyway,
Speaker 1: that was made clear repeatedly during Zoe Lofgren's period here. Uh,
Speaker 1: having spoken with everyone who was around him that day,
Speaker 1: the congressional leaders made frantic phone calls. I just played
Speaker 1: that for you, a series of shaky videos showing Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer and by the way, Mitch McConnell there too,
Speaker 1: getting updates from their staffs about the damage occurring to
Speaker 1: the building and what was going on outside. Here's another
Speaker 1: taste of that. They're breaking windows and going in uh
Speaker 1: obviously rent sacking our offices and all the rest of that.
Speaker 1: That's nothing. The concerned we have about personal safety. Personal
Speaker 1: safety is to just transcend everything. But the fact is,
Speaker 1: on any given day, they're breaking the law in many
Speaker 1: different ways, and quite frankly, much of it at the
Speaker 1: instigation of the President of the United States. And now
Speaker 1: if he could could at least somebody, why don't you
Speaker 1: get the president to tell them to leave the capital?
Speaker 1: Mr Attorney General, in your law enforcement responsibility a public
Speaker 1: statement they should all leave. On the phone with the
Speaker 1: then acting Attorney General, Adam shift California of course on
Speaker 1: the committee says they received almost one million emails, now, recordings,
Speaker 1: and other electronic records from the Secret Service. They're still
Speaker 1: reviewing them, but as I mentioned, some of them are remarkable.
Speaker 1: The plan is literally to kill people, they said, referring
Speaker 1: to tips at the Proud Boys planned to march armed
Speaker 1: to the Capitol. Number five is that the President sought
Speaker 1: a last ditch effort for an Afghanistan withdrawal. That was
Speaker 1: pretty remarkable. As I played for you earlier from Adam Kinzinger,
Speaker 1: that was something we did not know about, including the
Speaker 1: reaction from the National Security Advisor to Mike Pence. General
Speaker 1: Keith Kell obviously is about to get physical. To keep
Speaker 1: it from happening. Mark Millie, the Chair of the Joint
Speaker 1: chiefs of Staff, essentially had to stand in the way
Speaker 1: of this order to withdraw immediately withdraw troops from Afghanistan
Speaker 1: and Somalia. There was so much we we didn't know,
Speaker 1: and likely we still don't know. Let's reassemble the panel.
Speaker 1: Genie Chanzano, Democratic analyst, and of course Bloomberg Paul Tis contributor,
Speaker 1: is here, joined today by Lisa Kamusa Miller back with us,
Speaker 1: former calms director from the Republican National Committee, a public
Speaker 1: affairs strategist. It's great to have you both with us here. Genie,
Speaker 1: another remarkable exercise today. It's very difficult to tell if
Speaker 1: this is going to lead to anything. Was there enough
Speaker 1: new information to justify the hearing? You know, I think
Speaker 1: there was. I was a little bit pessimistic going into this,
Speaker 1: wondering how they were going to do this. They had
Speaker 1: the delay because of the storm. We knew there would
Speaker 1: be no live witnesses. But I think they did give
Speaker 1: us and you just reiterated a laundry list of new information.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have to say, the the order for
Speaker 1: the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Somalia is absolutely chilling.
Speaker 1: I think this committee all along has done a brilliant
Speaker 1: job using video documentary evidence of that kind. And the
Speaker 1: video from Fort McNair showing the bipartisan group you know,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer, Nancy Plosa, but also publican governors, Mike Pence
Speaker 1: and others, shot by Alexandra Pelosi, the Speaker's daughter, who's
Speaker 1: also a documentarian, is absolutely stunning and and there's about
Speaker 1: forty minutes of it, we understand. And you put that
Speaker 1: in contrast with what was happening at the White House,
Speaker 1: which as far as we can trail, the President was
Speaker 1: sitting in an office flipping through his phone doing nothing.
Speaker 1: That also was very chilling. So I thought they had
Speaker 1: a lot of new information, whether it amounts to anything
Speaker 1: or not. They had the dramatic finish of the symbolic act.
Speaker 1: I agree with your guest of the subpoena of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It was a remarkable hearing, uh that may be seen
Speaker 1: a show business at the end there, Lisa, I realized.
Speaker 1: But this revelation, specifically that the President in fact signed
Speaker 1: orders that were not carried out to to have a
Speaker 1: an immediate withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan and Somalia, does
Speaker 1: that damage Republicans argument that Joe Biden botched the withdrawal. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know. It might be too little, too late.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that the damage has been done
Speaker 1: to the president um as it relates to how that
Speaker 1: that withdrawal was man managed. But Joe, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think the thing that we have to take away from
Speaker 1: all of this is that Donald Trump continues to be
Speaker 1: a gigantic distraction to action in Washington, d C. Action,
Speaker 1: How do you mean action in all forces? There are
Speaker 1: so many other things that need to be addressed, and
Speaker 1: here we are investigating the former president for his actions
Speaker 1: and his role in January six. He's not only that,
Speaker 1: but he's also overlaying all of that into the midterm
Speaker 1: elections while he's still playing the celebrity apprentice. Leaders like
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell and uh IN leader McCarthy are trying to
Speaker 1: win back the majority and that's in both houses. So
Speaker 1: what do you do you feel like this was a
Speaker 1: distraction for Republicans? Then? Was this then? Uh? Not worth
Speaker 1: the time? It's absolutely a distraction, and it's and it's
Speaker 1: unfair because this is the former president. This is the
Speaker 1: most any former president has ever uh interfered or not interfered,
Speaker 1: but have been involved in the mid term election because
Speaker 1: Trump is he's identifying candidates and he's speaking into candidatesas
Speaker 1: also being investigated by former by members on the Hill.
Speaker 1: So it's unfair of Trump, is what you're saying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: absolutely unfair of Trump, because the party itself is ready.
Speaker 1: They're ready to move forward. They're ready to move ahead,
Speaker 1: and they're ready to get some things done for the
Speaker 1: American people. How does you know Kevin McCarthy, who you
Speaker 1: referenced reconcile his evolution on this, I mean the tape
Speaker 1: on him, uh, you know, saying he was going to
Speaker 1: call Donald Trump. He did call Donald Trump. He went
Speaker 1: from one extreme to the other. And the famous picture
Speaker 1: now of him at maral Lago with with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has angered a lot of people. But he clearly thought
Speaker 1: that he could not get the majority without Donald Trump. Lisa,
Speaker 1: don't you agree? Yes? I do. And I think that
Speaker 1: this his role in in the leadership in the House
Speaker 1: is even more complicated than it was previously with Speaker
Speaker 1: Baynor and with Speaker Ryan. I mean, they had the
Speaker 1: Tea Party to contend with. McCarthy has a much much
Speaker 1: bigger obstacles to get past, and so he's had to
Speaker 1: start a figure out how to remedy and bring together
Speaker 1: this this this caucus that is just completely broken in half.
Speaker 1: So what's going to be the takeaway on this genie?
Speaker 1: Republicans have been clearly using Donald Trump in many cases
Speaker 1: to win primaries and set up a majority in the House.
Speaker 1: Here in some cases those have not been the establishment candidates,
Speaker 1: but Donald Trump has been pretty good for a lot
Speaker 1: of these uh candidates, whether they be for House or Senate.
Speaker 1: I guess it's gonna take some time for this to
Speaker 1: settle out as to what was what was the most
Speaker 1: effective move for Republicans to take power. And that's not
Speaker 1: to be confused with with what is the most principled move? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean another complication here is President Trump. Former President
Speaker 1: Trump is not only a former president, he is also
Speaker 1: likely the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the
Speaker 1: presidency in four He also has played a more active role,
Speaker 1: to your point, in getting candidates on the ballot for
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate, and let's not forget first
Speaker 1: state and local races than any former president has. So
Speaker 1: he's very much a leader, the leader of this party.
Speaker 1: And if the Republicans lose a state like Georgia, for instance,
Speaker 1: and potentially lose the Senate. That'll be once again at
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's hands, which is why Democrats want to talk
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump as much as they can. It's effective
Speaker 1: for them, but it's not effective obviously for Republicans in
Speaker 1: the general in some of these states where it's going
Speaker 1: to come down to winning these suburbs and particularly amongst
Speaker 1: these women. So it's a very complicated position to be in.
Speaker 1: And I think one thing that Liz Cheney said today
Speaker 1: that we should underscore is she said, this is about accountability.
Speaker 1: If he is not held accountable, it is likely to
Speaker 1: happen again. And as we look at the polls, this
Speaker 1: is exactly what many voters are telling us. For the
Speaker 1: first time, we're seeing democracy on the ballot in a
Speaker 1: midterm election in a way we haven't seen it in
Speaker 1: the modern era. Lisa. We know that there are big
Speaker 1: plans for Republicans if they do take the majority of
Speaker 1: assuming this happens in the House, with a series of
Speaker 1: investigations that are planned, they're going to immediately dissolve this
Speaker 1: j you are a six committee, and then start, you know,
Speaker 1: as they say, investigating the investigators. Will that be a
Speaker 1: distraction as well, or is that work that needs to
Speaker 1: happen in your view, Well, I think that I think
Speaker 1: it's a distraction, Joe. I mean, honestly, I know that
Speaker 1: they wanted to get back at all of the attacks
Speaker 1: that have come their way. But the truth of it
Speaker 1: is is that the issues are so big right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've talked about it all through the hour,
Speaker 1: Inflation in the economy, gas places, these are issues that
Speaker 1: voters are going to the polls about and if the
Speaker 1: Republicans are smart, they will take on that kind of work.
Speaker 1: But they will also charge forward with some very smart
Speaker 1: policy decisions, because otherwise they've only got two years to
Speaker 1: defend their own positioning when we get back to the
Speaker 1: polls in for the presidential and twenty four. I think
Speaker 1: what was Kevin McCarthy says on day one? The first
Speaker 1: thing he was going to do is fire the seven
Speaker 1: thousand h I R S agents, not of course that
Speaker 1: they all haven't been hired. But is that the type
Speaker 1: of messaging that we should expect or or is that
Speaker 1: productive work? But it sure feels like that's the kind
Speaker 1: of messaging that's coming through because I think that he
Speaker 1: knows that there is a whole wave of candidates that
Speaker 1: are coming in that are unlike any kind of candida
Speaker 1: that we've seen prior in the House. That are active,
Speaker 1: they are angry, they are not necessarily as connected to
Speaker 1: corporate America and the pocketbook issues as they have in
Speaker 1: the past. They're coming in with an agenda to break
Speaker 1: things up and change the world. And that's going to
Speaker 1: make it very difficult for Leada McCarthy to keep that
Speaker 1: whole conference together in a way that can be productive.
Speaker 1: So what do they do with the rest of their time? Then, Jennie,
Speaker 1: they release a final report I understand that will follow
Speaker 1: the mid terms. Does that does that even see the
Speaker 1: light of day? You know, we will see that final report.
Speaker 1: We have no you know, it's it's difficult to predict
Speaker 1: what impact that will have. I think on history. Will
Speaker 1: have a real big impact. That will take some time.
Speaker 1: But let's not forget. If the GOP does take over
Speaker 1: the House, all of the evidence that the committee collected
Speaker 1: goes into their hands. So a big question coming out
Speaker 1: of today was why subpoena Trump and not Pence? Because
Speaker 1: those are the number one and two people involved in this.
Speaker 1: Pence's life was under threat more than anybody else's. And
Speaker 1: yet they decide to subpoena Rump and not Pence. I
Speaker 1: myself have a question about that, as do many people.
Speaker 1: But some people are saying one of the reasons not
Speaker 1: to do it was had they done that and had
Speaker 1: Pennce spoken, all of that evidence would go to the
Speaker 1: GOP if and when they take over. So that is
Speaker 1: a big consideration in a committee hearing like this, and
Speaker 1: so that's something they're going to have to you know,
Speaker 1: depends on who takes over the House obviously, but this
Speaker 1: is where this information will go right to the GOP.
Speaker 1: And should the d o J take action on any
Speaker 1: of this, they will have, you know, at least that
Speaker 1: evidence collected in all of those interviews to know what
Speaker 1: to say and what not to say to the d
Speaker 1: o J. It's really interesting point lia Mike Pence said,
Speaker 1: you know, he would consider it, and he would testify.
Speaker 1: I think we all know that he likes to follow
Speaker 1: the rules. Uh. I just wonder, you know, in our
Speaker 1: remaining moments, how you see his station in life at
Speaker 1: this point, what what is his political career if there
Speaker 1: is one uh promising him following this January six committee,
Speaker 1: Following my goodness, the drama that unfolded on January six,
Speaker 1: and and just the vitriol that so many Trump supporters
Speaker 1: have for him. Well, he is a very principled legislator
Speaker 1: and very very principled human being. And so I do
Speaker 1: think that if you were to ask Mike Pence today,
Speaker 1: I think he sees this as a path forward for
Speaker 1: himself to potentially be a candidate in the future. Now,
Speaker 1: whether or not that is real and and realistic is
Speaker 1: beyond sort of my world. I know Genie probably has
Speaker 1: a perspective on that as it relates to history, But overall,
Speaker 1: I think that he would be very very hard for
Speaker 1: me to figure out how he would have a path
Speaker 1: forward to twenty four. But he's certainly making moves that
Speaker 1: make it look like he is interested. Well, we all
Speaker 1: know that he is. Jennie, he got She's you know,
Speaker 1: he's doing the Iowa State Fair and doing politics and
Speaker 1: eggs and the rest of it. But is that just
Speaker 1: a recovery tour or is that an actual move to
Speaker 1: run for office again? You know, I think he has
Speaker 1: a real interest in running again. Whether he does or
Speaker 1: not is going to depend. But I think historically Liz
Speaker 1: Cheney would tell him put the best interest of the
Speaker 1: country and democracy ahead of your own political interest, and
Speaker 1: I think he should do that. Genie Chanteyo, Lisa Kumuso Miller,
Speaker 1: what a great conversation. You will not hear balanced analysis
Speaker 1: like this anywhere else. That's why you're here. And if
Speaker 1: you showed up late, subscribe to the podcast. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg