Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg's sound On.
Speaker 1: I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant.
Speaker 1: In this manage, they took my passport. They took things
Speaker 1: that they should have never taken. Bloomberg sound on Politics,
Speaker 1: Policy and perspective from DC's top name. While higher interest rates,
Speaker 1: slower growth, and software labor market conditions will bring down inflation,
Speaker 1: they will also bring some pain to households and businesses.
Speaker 1: And I think the talking talk is part of monetary poem.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna do a close approach to the moon
Speaker 1: will only be about sixty miles from the surface. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The Mara
Speaker 1: Lago affidavit shows highly classified documents were in the house
Speaker 1: and led to the search. Welcome to the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics. With more than thirty pages to comb through here,
Speaker 1: most of them with redactions, will the release cause even
Speaker 1: more confusion? We're joined by an expert to day, former
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Michael Zelden with his insights. J Powell drops
Speaker 1: the hammer in Jackson Hole. But does he mean what
Speaker 1: he says? We'll read between the lines coming up with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's Joe Wisenthal later on this hour, and we'll talk
Speaker 1: about it all with the panel Bloomberg Politics contributor and
Speaker 1: Republican strategist Rick Davis today joined by Democratic strategist Max Burns,
Speaker 1: founder of Third Degree Strategies. So we have the affid
Speaker 1: David total of thirty eight pages, most of them redacted.
Speaker 1: Uh And when I say redacted, you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of the full page just you know, black lines. Uh So, Yeah,
Speaker 1: leaves a lot to the imagination. But it's clear the
Speaker 1: former president had some of the most classified defense and
Speaker 1: intelligence material, some intercepted foreign communications intelligence gathered by American
Speaker 1: spies sitting in boxes at Mara A Lago. The special
Speaker 1: agent who wrote the report his name per name redacted,
Speaker 1: describes an investigation prompted by the discovery of hundreds of
Speaker 1: pages of classified documents in fifteen boxes recovered by the
Speaker 1: National Archives earlier in the year, twenty five of them
Speaker 1: labeled top secret. It shows the Archives and federal agents
Speaker 1: repeatedly asking for documents to be returned. This went on
Speaker 1: for months. The former president reacts on his social media
Speaker 1: site today, calling it a total public relations subterfuge and well,
Speaker 1: I guess he made similar comments before the release on
Speaker 1: Lou Dobbs podcasting. He's got a podcast, don't you. Here's
Speaker 1: Donald Trump talking to Lou Dobbs. They could have come
Speaker 1: in and they could have talked to us, and they
Speaker 1: could have taken whatever they needed, but instead they rated it.
Speaker 1: They took my passports, they took things that they should
Speaker 1: have never taken with uh that are privileged and it's
Speaker 1: a disgrace to our country. Let's talk more about what
Speaker 1: we've learned today with Michael zelda In, former federal prosecutor
Speaker 1: and former Special Counselor Robert Mueller while at the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: It's been a great asset to this program helping us
Speaker 1: understand all of this so far. Michael, welcome back. What
Speaker 1: did you see today in this albeit heavily redacted release
Speaker 1: that that might have changed your view of the case.
Speaker 1: The thing that struck me was the very first sentence
Speaker 1: of the affidavit where it says the government is conducting,
Speaker 1: meaning it's ongoing, a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal
Speaker 1: and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well
Speaker 1: as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records, those
Speaker 1: records containing highly classified documents. So there is an ongoing
Speaker 1: criminal investigation into the removal and concealment of these documents,
Speaker 1: and that the identities of the persons who may have
Speaker 1: removed or retained these documents is what's under under review.
Speaker 1: So what I learned principally is that this is not
Speaker 1: solely focused on Donald Trump, if at all, but rather
Speaker 1: all his minions, all the people who were responsible for
Speaker 1: the removal of and concealment of these documents. So this
Speaker 1: could be a much broader investigation, which means if Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is a subject, then there are many many more
Speaker 1: people who could have exposure who may in turn be
Speaker 1: willing to cooperate. This is partly then why if if
Speaker 1: if we can go down that road a little bit further,
Speaker 1: then I'm assuming you you would think that's why they
Speaker 1: got the surveillance tapes from our alago. They were subpoenaed
Speaker 1: the video surveillance back in June to see who was
Speaker 1: coming and going from these areas where these boxes restored,
Speaker 1: exactly because they have an investigation here that also contains
Speaker 1: a thread of obstruction, So they want to know who
Speaker 1: may have not only obtained, retained sealed, but then obstructed
Speaker 1: the investigation. And those video tapes of who moved things
Speaker 1: around would put potentially knowledge of their existence in there heads.
Speaker 1: And so when, for example, a lawyer for Trump writes
Speaker 1: a letter to the Justice Department in saying there are
Speaker 1: no more classified documents here and that turns out not
Speaker 1: to be true, if that person was seen on the
Speaker 1: video in and around those documents that had classification markings
Speaker 1: on them, well that's telling evidence of a false statement.
Speaker 1: This could be damaging just a Trump's legal team if
Speaker 1: if no one else right, I mean, if based on
Speaker 1: statements like that, and the letter that was attached to
Speaker 1: this affidavit from Donald Trump's lawyer telling the Justice am
Speaker 1: to be careful essentially not to play with politics, this
Speaker 1: could be damaging to their careers. Absolutely, And we see
Speaker 1: this over and over in the January sixth investigation. For example,
Speaker 1: who are the people that are under the microscope of
Speaker 1: the Justice Department but to Justice Department attorneys who have
Speaker 1: theoretically promising careers ahead of them. But Jeffrey Clark and
Speaker 1: the other fellow whose name I'm forgetting at the moment
Speaker 1: are both subjects of the inquiry. One of them is
Speaker 1: said to be cooperating, but they're not. Only is their
Speaker 1: life in freedom at stake, but their livelihood is that state.
Speaker 1: And so when that's the case, they become rich targets
Speaker 1: for cooperation. So sixty seven documents marked as confidential. This
Speaker 1: is in the fifteen boxes taken in January. Sixty seven
Speaker 1: documents confidential, marked as secret, twenty five labeled top secret.
Speaker 1: And there are a number of different designations here, including
Speaker 1: some that apparently had intelligence from foreign eavesdropping. We heard
Speaker 1: earlier reports that they were so called nuclear documents. Could
Speaker 1: these also include those? If there were nuclear documents. The
Speaker 1: one thing that's important that under the Atomic Energy Act
Speaker 1: I think fifty four and the president does not have
Speaker 1: unilateral authority to declassify. So any claim that he's making
Speaker 1: that these documents were declassified, there's no evidence that he
Speaker 1: did declassify them. But assuming that evidence has found, if
Speaker 1: it relates to any of these nuclear programs, then he
Speaker 1: lacks the legal authority to declassify them. And so if
Speaker 1: he possessed them, they exist in their classified state, and
Speaker 1: retaining classified documents and an unsecure location violates these statutes.
Speaker 1: So we saw individuals who have been prosecuted for this
Speaker 1: over and over um and getting on the low end
Speaker 1: betray us getting two years probation and a hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollar fine for improper retention, to Chinese scientists getting nine
Speaker 1: years in prison for the illegal and improper retention. The
Speaker 1: affidavit reads, there is probable cause to believe that documents
Speaker 1: containing Class of five National Defense Information d n I
Speaker 1: and presidential records remain at the premises. This, of course,
Speaker 1: again was making the case for the search. This is
Speaker 1: what they were looking for when we consider national defense
Speaker 1: information that in itself being in an insecure location at
Speaker 1: a resort UH that is hosting foreign dignitaries presents a
Speaker 1: very uh dangerous situation exactly. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: you see the espionage statute being used. That one section
Speaker 1: of the espionage Statute that was referenced in the affidavit
Speaker 1: and the search warrant is that which requires only gross
Speaker 1: negligence in the handling of these NBI documents. They don't
Speaker 1: have to be classified, they can be just national security
Speaker 1: related documents. And if you are grossly negligent in the
Speaker 1: way you handled them, you violate this statute. And it
Speaker 1: appears from what's in the public record already that there
Speaker 1: was some gross negligence in the handling of these records.
Speaker 1: And so again I say, whomever touched these documents has
Speaker 1: potential liability for violating the statutes that are in question here.
Speaker 1: And to your point, that may not be someone named
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. We understand and I'm really trying to see
Speaker 1: this from both sides here, uh that that a lot
Speaker 1: of these documents were just kind of randomly thrown in
Speaker 1: boxes with unrelated items. Is there a chance Donald Trump
Speaker 1: had no idea that any of this was at Marlago.
Speaker 1: That would be a defense that if I were his attorney,
Speaker 1: I would want to raise, which was which is to say,
Speaker 1: look for better or for worse. My client believed that
Speaker 1: he was going to remain president for a second term,
Speaker 1: and he held that belief until the last minute. When
Speaker 1: that belief was not realized, they quickly packed up the
Speaker 1: boxes and fled, you know, sort of like the movie
Speaker 1: Home Alone, where the alarms go off late and they
Speaker 1: pack up hurriedly and left the kid behind. And so
Speaker 1: maybe that's the sense that I raised that this was
Speaker 1: not intentional. It was perhaps negligent, but not intention Failure
Speaker 1: to respond over months in returning this becomes its own problem.
Speaker 1: This is why we have an active criminal investigation right exactly.
Speaker 1: And if you look at the timeline here, what you
Speaker 1: see in the FFI davit is they start talking with
Speaker 1: him soon after he moves the documents on January the
Speaker 1: twentieth fifteen. Boxes are retrieved on the eighteenth of January.
Speaker 1: They request records in May, and they go down and
Speaker 1: visit in June. This this basically lasted the year exactly.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a long time, and it's a very
Speaker 1: solicitous um. Justice Department and National Archives in their dealings
Speaker 1: with Trump sort of called this a arraid. Is is
Speaker 1: really not accurate. They had a discussion that ultimately in
Speaker 1: the end, d o J says, look, you have these documents,
Speaker 1: they're not in a secure location, they contain the highest
Speaker 1: level of classification, and we just got to come again.
Speaker 1: We're sorry enough talk for us to protect the national security,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna go get them. So Michael's Eldon, was
Speaker 1: it worth releasing this despite all the redactions? I think so.
Speaker 1: I think that it's worth it from the standpoint of
Speaker 1: understanding that this was not just sort of a spur
Speaker 1: of the moment. Let's go down there in search a
Speaker 1: former president's house and see how that turns out. But rather,
Speaker 1: this was the end the game of a year plus
Speaker 1: long negotiation for documents that were highly classified, in which
Speaker 1: threatened in theory national security. Appreciate the insights as always
Speaker 1: now that we've had a couple of hours to digest it.
Speaker 1: Great insights from Michael Zelden, former federal prosecutor, former special
Speaker 1: counsel to Robert Mueller while at the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: We turned this to the panel next and the political
Speaker 1: side of all of this. Was it worth that or
Speaker 1: did it just confuse the matter even more? Rick Davis
Speaker 1: is coming up with US joint today by Max Burns
Speaker 1: of third degree on Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. You're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The headline on the terminal Trump stash at Mara a
Speaker 1: Lago included highly classified documents. Indeed, the image inside this
Speaker 1: story says a lot with pages upon pages of black boxes. Yes,
Speaker 1: heavily were adapted. What did I have before? The thirty
Speaker 1: two pages with these items had at least some redactions?
Speaker 1: And and a lot of them were just the full page,
Speaker 1: just just big black page. Uh. I'm Joe, Matthew and
Speaker 1: Washington on what has been quite a day with the affidavits.
Speaker 1: The redacted affidavit unsealed in somewhat awkward fashion, didn't come
Speaker 1: out early. Right at noon, these sealed documents hit the
Speaker 1: Trump docket and a lot of reporters had to call
Speaker 1: to get him to actually unseal the thing. It was
Speaker 1: after long afternoon by the time we actually saw them.
Speaker 1: Let's assemble the panel. Rick Davis is here, of course,
Speaker 1: Republican strategist Bloomberg Politics contributor, joined today by Democratic strategist
Speaker 1: Max Burne's founder of Third Degree Strategies. Max is great
Speaker 1: to have you back, Rick. We've been talking about this
Speaker 1: for days, looking forward to it. What was the item
Speaker 1: in this paperwork that raised a rib brow? What made
Speaker 1: this a bigger story? You know, I I agree with
Speaker 1: what Michael's Eldon just told you earlier in the program,
Speaker 1: and that was, uh, the realization that this concealment and
Speaker 1: removal of these highly secret documents, you know, all kinds
Speaker 1: of different things that risk the nation security um may
Speaker 1: have been perpetrated by just more than Donald Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: We've all been laser focused on Donald Trump. But now
Speaker 1: we realize there are a lot of hands in those boxes,
Speaker 1: and and the idea that, um, you know, they had
Speaker 1: people coming and going, and that it wasn't the requests
Speaker 1: that they had, uh to put a lock on the
Speaker 1: door of the storage shelter, was to actually secure the documents,
Speaker 1: which is a big difference. And so, uh, it all
Speaker 1: leads to this sort of interesting obstruction issue, right, like
Speaker 1: why did it take over a year to have this resolved?
Speaker 1: And so to me, that was the fascinating twist of this.
Speaker 1: And so what I'm looking at is the next step
Speaker 1: is how many of the staff and lawyers are going
Speaker 1: to be hiring lawyers to represent themselves. That's for sure.
Speaker 1: We could be talking about a lot of people here, uh, Max.
Speaker 1: And and it may not even include Donald Trump. I
Speaker 1: mean it's hard to imagine. Obviously he was the president
Speaker 1: and this is his home, but but a lot of
Speaker 1: people could have been enriched by the information in those boxes.
Speaker 1: Give us a sense of that, Yeah, I think that's
Speaker 1: absolutely right. And what we've seen from this affidavit, what
Speaker 1: we have been able to see is a lot of boilerplate.
Speaker 1: But it does show you that there was probable cause
Speaker 1: to believe that Donald Trump was not just collecting these
Speaker 1: documents and failing to return them, but actively obstructing justice
Speaker 1: in the process. And I think regardless of how much
Speaker 1: of this is redacted, it was good to get it out.
Speaker 1: There should be that expectation of transparency. And I don't
Speaker 1: imagine Donald Trump thinking there was anything in here that
Speaker 1: was going to go well for him. If anything, it
Speaker 1: just raises the temperature of how far advanced this investigation
Speaker 1: is and how extreme we had to to act as
Speaker 1: a government to get these documents back. Well, look, this
Speaker 1: could be precedent setting rick. Was it worth it from
Speaker 1: from that standpoint here to to search a former president's home?
Speaker 1: Does this? Does this redacted document have the value to
Speaker 1: make all of this happen? Really make releasing this worthwhile? Well?
Speaker 1: I think as far as understanding what they were looking
Speaker 1: for and what they probably got, sure, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: we can't let these kinds of things lay around there.
Speaker 1: The regime, the laws that govern our handling of you know,
Speaker 1: secret matters like this, these kind of you and I
Speaker 1: don't necessarily sophisticated, Um, we don't need to know about it.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that a search of a former
Speaker 1: president's home is unprecedented, and in this case, especially considering
Speaker 1: that the Justice Department already had an active investigation into
Speaker 1: his conduct around January six. Now you know, we learned
Speaker 1: that there's an active investigation around these documents and his
Speaker 1: handling of them. I think it the more we talk
Speaker 1: about it, the more we have a public conversation about it,
Speaker 1: the better off we are. And the fact that there
Speaker 1: were so many lawmakers, including the former president himself, asking
Speaker 1: for more information from these affidavits, yeah, I hope they're happy,
Speaker 1: because from what I can tell, only thing that is
Speaker 1: done is given us a little bit more information about
Speaker 1: the sensitive nature of these documents. And I can't believe
Speaker 1: any right minded person is going to not be scratching
Speaker 1: your head going why in the world would he have
Speaker 1: these things? Well that yet, that fair enough, Max, though,
Speaker 1: the the redactions have already given Donald Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: an area to exploit here as we see him posting
Speaker 1: on social media, nothing mentioned not nuclear, so those reports
Speaker 1: were obviously not true. He called it a total public
Speaker 1: relations subterfuge by the FBI and the d o J,
Speaker 1: fulfilling uh, you know that whole narrative, he says, we
Speaker 1: gave them much. Can he use the redactions max to
Speaker 1: create more confusion around this, if not kind of exploit
Speaker 1: that to to raise more money and make himself look
Speaker 1: more like a victim. Yeah. Absolutely, But I think the
Speaker 1: challenge for Donald Trump right now is that, however he
Speaker 1: plays this as a public relations uh extra size, there
Speaker 1: is still this very real legal investigation happening, and he's
Speaker 1: not going to be able to spin his way out
Speaker 1: of that because the relevant law enforcement agencies know what's
Speaker 1: behind those rid actions and it was obviously enough to
Speaker 1: cause great alarm in Justice Department. I think to your point,
Speaker 1: there are many people who are going to be involved
Speaker 1: in this. The d o J is looking not just
Speaker 1: into Trump's role, but into individuals who they allege were
Speaker 1: potentially moving documents true to potentially evade them being seized.
Speaker 1: So this is definitely a play with many actors who
Speaker 1: are now at risk. You do wonder you know how
Speaker 1: many weddings have taken place within proximity of these documents? Rick? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, this is a beach club. I mean
Speaker 1: people go there to play golf, they have dinner, you know,
Speaker 1: they're wandering around. But like if anybody wants to penetrate
Speaker 1: that that community, it doesn't seem to be very difficult.
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Max Burns are panel today. They're back
Speaker 1: with more after we talked to Joe wisen Fal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the stalwart is coming in on this big Jackson Hole.
Speaker 1: J Powell day, did he mean what he said? We'll
Speaker 1: talk to Joe next. This is Bloomberg. J Powell hit
Speaker 1: Jackson Hole today with a point to prove and it
Speaker 1: only took about eight minutes. As you've been hearing the speech,
Speaker 1: of course live today on Bloomberg, Powell warning investors that
Speaker 1: higher interest rates are gonna be here for some time
Speaker 1: and it may not be fun here. He is While
Speaker 1: higher interest rates, slower growth, and software labor market conditions
Speaker 1: will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain
Speaker 1: to households and businesses feeling the pain. Now with Joe Wisenthal,
Speaker 1: the co host of Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast, is with us.
Speaker 1: Say Joe, welcome back. Thank you for having always a
Speaker 1: pleasure here as we try to get to the heart
Speaker 1: of the matter and what the chair was was really
Speaker 1: trying to say it. It reminds me of the old
Speaker 1: Tony soprano line that you know, you want to get
Speaker 1: people's attention, you want to be the boss. The first
Speaker 1: thing you do is you walk into a room, you
Speaker 1: pick the biggest guy, and you punch him in the face.
Speaker 1: Did j Pal do that today? You know? What I
Speaker 1: think was striking on that in that respect was how
Speaker 1: short his speech was. Right, he walked in and he
Speaker 1: walked out. He wanted a mic drop. He wanted a
Speaker 1: mic drop. And you know, when I read the speech
Speaker 1: for the first the first time, it's like, Okay, there
Speaker 1: isn't like that much new in here. You know, we
Speaker 1: know that they take inflation very seriously. We know why
Speaker 1: they take inflation seriously and why it's important for them.
Speaker 1: But it's interesting it was like not much else that
Speaker 1: he didn't talk about, you know, what they had accomplished
Speaker 1: over the last two and a half years, or uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the low unemployment rate very much. He's like,
Speaker 1: we're here to take care of inflation and we're gonna
Speaker 1: do it, and that's all I want to say today.
Speaker 1: And so I think that, you know, at first, when
Speaker 1: I read this speech, I was like, you know, like
Speaker 1: there's not like a ton new here, and I think
Speaker 1: if you just look at the words, there's not but
Speaker 1: it's almost you know, it's a cliche, but it's like
Speaker 1: what he didn't say. He just didn't feel like talking
Speaker 1: about anything else. He's there to do the job of
Speaker 1: quashica inflation via the rate, via the tools that they have,
Speaker 1: and that's higher rates. So it's his job quashing inflation
Speaker 1: but also quashing sentiment on Wall Street. I mean, this
Speaker 1: was sort of the signal to investors lately, you know,
Speaker 1: J Pali shows up and says, no, I'm serious. That's
Speaker 1: part of the issue, which is that you know, the FED,
Speaker 1: as it's said before, works through financial conditions. So it's
Speaker 1: not just like the rate goes higher and then you
Speaker 1: know everyone's borrowing costs go up, and then you know
Speaker 1: it's like, no, it's like hitting hitting the stock market,
Speaker 1: hitting the bond market is how the FED works. And
Speaker 1: if the stock market is too buoyant, if the bond
Speaker 1: market is too buoyant, then arguably financial conditions don't tighten
Speaker 1: and they don't really get the anti inflation punch that
Speaker 1: they're looking for. So to some extent, I think you're right.
Speaker 1: I think it's a message to the markets. It's like
Speaker 1: he wanted them. He kind of wants them to go down,
Speaker 1: and he's wanted that for a while. Imagine all the
Speaker 1: folks who traveled out there are many of them, of
Speaker 1: course with Bloomberg, you know, eight minutes into this thing,
Speaker 1: but that's what all the wind up was for. You know,
Speaker 1: there's other central bankers there, some people presenting speeches. Is
Speaker 1: in some research. There was a lot of anticipation for
Speaker 1: this speech. Though. My god, So you know, I follow
Speaker 1: you on Twitter and I'm always compelled when when you
Speaker 1: take the contrarian view on these things, and I'm just
Speaker 1: curious how you're feeling about the FED at this point.
Speaker 1: When the idea here is if we believe the FED,
Speaker 1: if we believe the administration that you know, it's the pandemic,
Speaker 1: it's supply chains, it's other global factors. And by the way,
Speaker 1: we can't control energy prices or food, so why are
Speaker 1: we exactly hiking interest rates to prove that we can
Speaker 1: go into a recession? Kind of And there was a
Speaker 1: really interesting line that Paul said, He's like, looked, there
Speaker 1: are multiple causes of this inflation. There's high demand and
Speaker 1: there's also curtailed supply. Right, there's it's both, it's a
Speaker 1: it's a mix of things. That also you could throw
Speaker 1: energy into the mix. But then you said, we still
Speaker 1: have a job to do and we have one tool,
Speaker 1: and that's the curtailed demand. So the point is that
Speaker 1: you could say that there's a multiple multiplicity of factors
Speaker 1: driving inflation, but as Paul made it clear, that doesn't
Speaker 1: absolve the FED of its job to push inflation. And
Speaker 1: even though demand is only part of the story, that's
Speaker 1: the level that they control and so that's what they're
Speaker 1: going to try to depress. So this is sledgehammer, not scalpel.
Speaker 1: The FED doesn't. Yeah, I mean, I think the FED
Speaker 1: would love to have a scalpel. The FED would love
Speaker 1: to have nonmonetary tools. And I think, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know, you know, the FED would love to not
Speaker 1: crash the job market, but the FED has the tool
Speaker 1: it has. You don't think j Pal is just talking tough,
Speaker 1: then you think that he's planning to use that sledgehammer.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, keep you I think talking tough is
Speaker 1: part of the tool, and it would be the goal
Speaker 1: is to not have to, uh you sort of hope
Speaker 1: to cool things. And maybe he looks at the stock
Speaker 1: market today, it's like, yeah, that that helps. But I
Speaker 1: think the talking tough is part of monetary policy, and
Speaker 1: it has been for a long time, ever since, you know,
Speaker 1: for over a decade, talk has been action. It's not
Speaker 1: that they're distinct, separate things. What they say gets priced
Speaker 1: in right away. If you look at short term rates,
Speaker 1: they're higher today even though no for policy action was taken.
Speaker 1: So talking tough is sort of acting tough. Maybe that's
Speaker 1: a scalpel, not that I think about it. Yeah, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: you know, the federal wants to have you know, the
Speaker 1: federally is one tool, and so it wants to be savvy.
Speaker 1: But arguably that the you know, it feels like it
Speaker 1: got burned last year with the transitory talk. It feels
Speaker 1: like it's been behind the curve and that you know
Speaker 1: each time, you know, the fetishike several times this year,
Speaker 1: but there's always maybe been a little bit of hope
Speaker 1: that it's like, Okay, it's getting close to pivot, whatever
Speaker 1: that means. And I think at this point, you know,
Speaker 1: they're they're out of scalpels. Talk about pivot. What do
Speaker 1: they say when all the journalists and everyone else leaves
Speaker 1: Jackson Hole is like, boy, okay, so I think they
Speaker 1: bought it, but you know we're ready to start pulling
Speaker 1: back the minute we start seeing this job market weekend. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that is the question. And you know we
Speaker 1: do have a job's report a week from today, and
Speaker 1: so it's easy to talk about pain. It's easy to say, look,
Speaker 1: our focus is inflation, but unemployment that's low level fifty years.
Speaker 1: It hasn't picked up at all. And in fact, this
Speaker 1: week we got initial jobless claim and they actually take
Speaker 1: back down they had been going up. And so the
Speaker 1: labor market remains by the by the standards it uses,
Speaker 1: by the by the measures the FED looks at extremely
Speaker 1: tight and robust. And so it would be it will
Speaker 1: be interesting, it would be interesting and worrisome if we
Speaker 1: really started to see clear evidence of recession, right, clear
Speaker 1: evidence of unemployment picking up and a sustand way, and
Speaker 1: then we actually have that puzzle. It's like, okay, what
Speaker 1: do we do now? Or how is the FED can
Speaker 1: navigate here? Especially if inflation remained solidly above trend. So
Speaker 1: was that whole summer rally thing the head fake? I
Speaker 1: don't know, I mean, if I if I knew, I
Speaker 1: wish I knew, but you know, the FED is not
Speaker 1: done with its job. And I did think it was interesting.
Speaker 1: I noted this two weeks ago. That's like, all it
Speaker 1: took was about a month worth of rallies and suddenly
Speaker 1: the memes docks started coming back. Amc was back in
Speaker 1: the news, bed Bath and Got Beyond was back of
Speaker 1: the news, and Adam Newman got three million dollars launch
Speaker 1: a new real estate startup. So it's like the old,
Speaker 1: the old animal spirit. Yes, come on, guys, like all right, Like,
Speaker 1: I guess we gotta have to do this the hard
Speaker 1: way because you guys didn't get the message the first time.
Speaker 1: So here we go, slamming on the brakes again. I
Speaker 1: always love to spending time with Joe Bill, the stalwarts
Speaker 1: and co host of the Odd Lots podcast. It's great
Speaker 1: to have you back. Joe coming and we'll reassemble the
Speaker 1: panel next. Rick Davis with his take on what we
Speaker 1: heard today. He was here with Max Burns, Democratic Strategists,
Speaker 1: as we look forward as well to the mid term
Speaker 1: elections coming up and the messaging we heard last night
Speaker 1: and today from President Joe Biden that MAGA is semi
Speaker 1: fascist and it's only August. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio. We've
Speaker 1: been hearing for months and months that inflation will be
Speaker 1: the number one issue on the campaign trail deciding the
Speaker 1: mid term elections in November, and hearing from j Powell
Speaker 1: today and by the way, looking at the White House
Speaker 1: statement on the inflation data out this morning, it just
Speaker 1: gives you a sense of the huge urgency behind beating
Speaker 1: this thing called inflation. The messaging though coming from the
Speaker 1: President is pushing back pretty hard on the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: not even with that particular issue. Let's reassemble the panel.
Speaker 1: Rick Davis is back with us, Max Burn's democratic strategist,
Speaker 1: founder of Third Degree Strategies Rick, of course, Bloomberg Politics
Speaker 1: contributor and Republican strategist. Max. Did you hear Joe Biden
Speaker 1: at the fundraiser last night? He went up the road
Speaker 1: to Rockville, actually did a fundraiser on the way in Bethesda,
Speaker 1: went up to Rockville to raise some money and gave
Speaker 1: us a real view of what we were in for here.
Speaker 1: Or uh, listened to Joe Biden at the rally in Rockville, Maga.
Speaker 1: Republics don't have a clue about the power of women.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you something. They are about to find out.
Speaker 1: M referring, of course, to the Roe v. Wade decision
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. This came only an hour or two though,
Speaker 1: after he walked into a tent at a fundraiser in Bethesda,
Speaker 1: Max and he referred to to ultra maga as he
Speaker 1: likes to call it, as something that is approaching semi fascism.
Speaker 1: It is only August here, What are we gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about in October? Well, I think this shows you
Speaker 1: that there has been a big boost to not just
Speaker 1: the White House morale, but to Democrat morale in general. Uh,
Speaker 1: since this summer of bipartisan victories, the polling coming out
Speaker 1: showing that post dobbs On post in this post row America,
Speaker 1: that voters are very energized by that and actually are
Speaker 1: going up to vote. So there is a swagger I
Speaker 1: think in Joe Biden's step that has not been there.
Speaker 1: The White House is also getting a little bit uh
Speaker 1: sassy or on Twitter and calling out Marjorie Taylor's green
Speaker 1: is very trumpy. Actually to see that calling out Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green for loans she had forgiven after criticizing the
Speaker 1: student loan But but, but, Max, maybe I should rephrase
Speaker 1: the question, why not take credit for all that stuff?
Speaker 1: Instead of calling, uh, your opponent a fascist? Well, I
Speaker 1: think that he is. And I think that we've seen
Speaker 1: in elections here in New York just recently with Pat Ryan,
Speaker 1: that they were very Democrats are now very strongly owning
Speaker 1: not just the abortion issue but their effectiveness in Congress,
Speaker 1: and that voters are starting to respond to that. I
Speaker 1: think because it's not done as as self consciously as Trump.
Speaker 1: We're not sending out checks with Joe Biden's signature on them. Uh,
Speaker 1: that people are arguing he's not promoting this, But the
Speaker 1: White House has planned a very robust sort of barnstorming
Speaker 1: him paying summer to sell not just that but the
Speaker 1: student debt relief and all these other victories to voters.
Speaker 1: And that's where Biden is best. So that's I think
Speaker 1: where he wants to be. Remember the deplorables, Rick, Uh,
Speaker 1: is that the fascists this time? You know? I think
Speaker 1: that uh, he he used against him. As my point, yeah,
Speaker 1: he does stand the risk of, you know, being too
Speaker 1: far out there. I honestly don't see the need for
Speaker 1: it right now when he's got his own agenda to
Speaker 1: talk about. I mean, obviously you want to contrast with
Speaker 1: your opponent out there, but the reality is he's he's
Speaker 1: got a pretty positive summer and he wants to talk
Speaker 1: about that. Um. But the reality too is he's got
Speaker 1: work to be done on the economy, and we're just
Speaker 1: talking about what the FEDS doing to try and help
Speaker 1: with inflation. But you know, while his overall job approval
Speaker 1: numbers have gone up, he's still in the basement on
Speaker 1: the economy and inflation. I mean, you know, fifteen points
Speaker 1: in his own party lower than his job approval and
Speaker 1: in his own party amongst Democrats. So, um, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure it's time to pivot engage um with with Trump.
Speaker 1: And and by the way, I'm not sure even engaging
Speaker 1: on the MAGA issue, right that's really talking about Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is just coach right of course. And and so
Speaker 1: if if he's already tied up with Justice Department investigations
Speaker 1: January six Commission, I mean, like there are a lot
Speaker 1: of things driving negative messages about Donald Trump. Why don't
Speaker 1: you focus on Republicans? Because the reality is Trump's not
Speaker 1: on anybody's ballot this time around, and these senators and
Speaker 1: these House members are and I just think he's, you know,
Speaker 1: shooting above everybody's head right now if this is the
Speaker 1: way he's going to approach contrast, Max, do you believe
Speaker 1: the approval numbers that you see upper thirties, low forties,
Speaker 1: depending on the week, and does this need to be
Speaker 1: a positive campaign for Democrats? I do believe the polls,
Speaker 1: but I think that this is just evidence that polls
Speaker 1: are very fickle and that news, you know, can very
Speaker 1: quickly change the conversation pretty consistent though, yeah it had,
Speaker 1: but these these most recent polls that are showing him
Speaker 1: forty five are reassuring, but not something to bank your
Speaker 1: mid term strategy on. So I will disagree with Rick
Speaker 1: on one point is I think it is impossible to
Speaker 1: talk about the GOP now without talking about Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: He is undeniably the party leader and in control of
Speaker 1: that machine, and so talking about what's going on and
Speaker 1: the damage Republicans are are at risk of causing if
Speaker 1: they win Congress back is not a conversation you have
Speaker 1: without talking about Donald Trump. Spending time with Max Burns
Speaker 1: and Rick Davis our panel today. If there's something positive
Speaker 1: happening in the government, and you listen to this program
Speaker 1: at least from time to time, you know, I frequently
Speaker 1: point to the space program. It's just one of the
Speaker 1: things that we tend to do pretty well. And now
Speaker 1: that we're actually getting it back together and getting a
Speaker 1: human space flight program back together without using the Russians,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of exciting stuff happening. It doesn't always
Speaker 1: include Elon Musk. Granted he's he's moved us very far
Speaker 1: ahead here in a very short period of time. But
Speaker 1: it's the government's opportunity to stand up on mon Day
Speaker 1: at last. This is what we're fifty decades or fifty years,
Speaker 1: I should say, five decades after uh landing on the Moon. Here,
Speaker 1: NASA is going to launch its most powerful rocket ever
Speaker 1: on Monday. If you've heard about this thing, it is huge,
Speaker 1: and it's gonna go up from Pad thirty nine B,
Speaker 1: the iconic launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center on
Speaker 1: Monday morning. This is not the trip to the Moon,
Speaker 1: but a test flight for what will be a a
Speaker 1: manned mission to the Moon in a couple of years.
Speaker 1: Here's Bill Nelson, former Senator now Director of NASA. We
Speaker 1: have one rocket and one spacecraft that is now in
Speaker 1: the barn, in the stable that's ready to launch astronauts. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that is the rocket s l S and the
Speaker 1: spacecraft Orion spacecraft Orion. Uh. The rockets in the barn,
Speaker 1: and says Director Nelson. The headline on the terminal NASA
Speaker 1: Boeing target February Tree for Crude star Liner mission. Rick.
Speaker 1: There was a time when we were arguing during the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, between Bush and Obama about whether it was
Speaker 1: even worth going back to the Moon. Is there is
Speaker 1: there a purpose beyond scientific exploration, knowing we've already gone
Speaker 1: back there and realizing it could be a way station
Speaker 1: for other missions, But in terms of national pride, in
Speaker 1: terms of projecting power, is it time to go back
Speaker 1: to the Moon. I'm a total buy in on the
Speaker 1: concept that we can be bigger than ourselves if we
Speaker 1: shoot for the stars. And I think, you know, President
Speaker 1: Kennedy really was able to galvanize the country around this
Speaker 1: space program. And it's been a long time since we
Speaker 1: heard inspiring words about reaching for the stars. And I
Speaker 1: think this is a new cycle for NASA and another opportunity.
Speaker 1: And by the way, there are lots of reasons to
Speaker 1: be up there. I mean, there is there's arms race
Speaker 1: in space. Uh, there's no question that China is trying
Speaker 1: to get ahead of us, you know, in its technology
Speaker 1: and space. We now rely on space for all our
Speaker 1: communications and our needs there. But they're also really important
Speaker 1: things to learn about, things like space, weather. What happens
Speaker 1: on the Sun affects everything we do on Earth, and
Speaker 1: so science evolves on this. Uh, our knowledge will expand.
Speaker 1: And the fact that we can create an outpost on
Speaker 1: the Moon to help learn from that, I think is spectacular.
Speaker 1: So is there a way for the administration to harness that?
Speaker 1: I mean, if this I can tell you right now,
Speaker 1: if Donald Trump were in the White House, you know,
Speaker 1: he'd have Trump painted on the side of the sucker.
Speaker 1: How how does Joe Biden harness the positivity from the mission?
Speaker 1: I think that Joe Biden needs to embrace it and
Speaker 1: and call it his own. Uh. I think the idea
Speaker 1: that we're talking about this armatist program and all the
Speaker 1: incredible footage we saw this giant, you know, rocket that's
Speaker 1: larger higher than the Statue of Liberty, and and how
Speaker 1: powerful it is without the present having his own emperor
Speaker 1: monter on. It's just a missed opportunity, and instead he's
Speaker 1: over in Maryland talking about maga is just like, I
Speaker 1: just feel bad. I I was so excited yesterday. I
Speaker 1: watched arm again last night just to get in a
Speaker 1: space mode. So how does he get to it? Max?
Speaker 1: I'm looking at a picture of this thing, and it
Speaker 1: really it's incredibly impressive. As they're hauling it out to
Speaker 1: the pad, it does look like a skyscraper. They're sending
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris down. Should Joe Biden go? I think when
Speaker 1: this gets closer, as it starts to develop, you will
Speaker 1: you will certainly see that. I mean, I love that
Speaker 1: it looks like a Saturn five rocket. I do think
Speaker 1: that this is an opportunity independent of politics to bring
Speaker 1: people together. I mean, nothing unifies the country like the
Speaker 1: thought that our best days are ahead of us and
Speaker 1: then we're still capable of doing incredible, difficult, big things
Speaker 1: like this. I'm sure that he will have have some
Speaker 1: comment I just as has been a constant critique of mine.
Speaker 1: I wish that he would just be more public and
Speaker 1: more in the community about these things and willing to
Speaker 1: explain to people why it matters so much, because this
Speaker 1: is every president loves to say, We're going to the moon,
Speaker 1: and now we have the chance to really do it. Well,
Speaker 1: it's I mean, my gosh, it's just part of the lexicon. Moonshot,
Speaker 1: it has its own meaning. Now they used it for
Speaker 1: the cancer program and the Obama administration. Rick should he
Speaker 1: be going down on Monday? You know? Look, I mean
Speaker 1: there's always the threat that something goes wrong, and it
Speaker 1: looks like the presidence presence there might have forced people
Speaker 1: to make decisions to do something that otherwise they wouldn't do.
Speaker 1: So it's not it's not a free shot. It's not easy.
Speaker 1: But I do think that that that as a president
Speaker 1: of the United States and frankly the leader of the
Speaker 1: free world, embracing this kind of uh technology and and
Speaker 1: our leadership in it is really important. And I would
Speaker 1: certainly be a voice inside the White House saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, we've got to be on top of this.
Speaker 1: I've long said it's going to feel real different to
Speaker 1: people who don't seem to care at all about the
Speaker 1: space program now when they see a Chinese flag on
Speaker 1: the moon. But that's a conversation for another day. Great
Speaker 1: talk with Rick Davis, and thanks to Max Burns for
Speaker 1: coming back in to be part of our panel on
Speaker 1: the Fastest Hour in Politics. My god, it's already over.
Speaker 1: If you showed up late, subscribe to the podcast. That launch,
Speaker 1: by the way, could be as early as eight thirty.
Speaker 1: That's when the window opens Monday. You know we're gonna
Speaker 1: bring it to you here on Bloomberg. See you back
Speaker 1: here Monday on sound On. I'm Joe Matthew. This he
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg.