Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern.
Speaker 2: On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Business apps.
Speaker 1: Or listen on demand wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 3: We're joined now by Congressman French Hill, Republican from Arkansas,
Speaker 3: a really good person to talk to for a variety
Speaker 3: of reasons. Congressman, I want to get into this proposal
Speaker 3: it's coming from the White House, but first I have
Speaker 3: to get your takeaway from the CPI report that came
Speaker 3: out this morning, two months in a row that looked
Speaker 3: not too bad. What does that mean in your view
Speaker 3: for the Fed's September meeting and the broader monetary outlook.
Speaker 4: Well, Jack, it's good to be with you. Thanks for
Speaker 4: the invitation to be on the program. Yes, I think
Speaker 4: we saw the continuation of the trend that inflation is high.
Speaker 4: It's above the Fed's goal of two percent. It's stubborn,
Speaker 4: but it's not increasing, and therefore I think the FED
Speaker 4: will be cautious going forward. I don't see rates coming down, so,
Speaker 4: as I said after the June report, I think you'll
Speaker 4: see rate short term rates remain high. We want to
Speaker 4: finish the job. We want inflation beaten because it's a thief.
Speaker 4: It takes from every one of our families. So I
Speaker 4: don't expect rates to go down, but their rate, their
Speaker 4: rate of increases, I expect to slow. So we may
Speaker 4: see a pause in September based on other data that's said.
Speaker 3: Considers, I've got to ask Congressman about the political angle.
Speaker 3: We heard the following comment from President Biden on the
Speaker 3: politics of inflation. Let's take a listen to what he
Speaker 3: had to say, and I'll want your reaction. I believe
Speaker 3: the words word for word from the President was that
Speaker 3: inflation's coming down. But Republicans have to find something to
Speaker 3: blame him for, and they'll find something. Is is that
Speaker 3: the case? Are Republicans moving away from inflation? Is a
Speaker 3: political liability for Democrats? Or is this? I mean you
Speaker 3: just mentioned inflation is still high. What is the political
Speaker 3: angle there?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think inflation's high, and I think the reason
Speaker 4: for inflation is that we had two accommodati of a
Speaker 4: monetary policy coming out of the pandemic. We didn't take
Speaker 4: our foot off the gas by raising rates and stopping
Speaker 4: the one hundred billion dollars of bond buying soon enough,
Speaker 4: and you combine that with Joe Biden approving ten trillion
Speaker 4: dollars in extra spending for the next ten year budget windows.
Speaker 4: So we're running a one point six trillion dollar deficit
Speaker 4: through this month. That isn't even through the full fiscal year,
Speaker 4: where the original foretest was to have about a one
Speaker 4: point five trillion dollar deficits for the entire fiscal year.
Speaker 4: So federal spending combined with two laxed monetary policy has
Speaker 4: produced this forty year high in inflation. It's stubborn, it's tough.
Speaker 4: The Feds taking the right steps, but they're in the
Speaker 4: face of this accommodative fiscal spending by the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: Well, let's talk more about accommodative fiscal spending because there's
Speaker 3: a proposal. I think we're going to see something formal today,
Speaker 3: but our colleagues of Bloomberg have reported request coming for
Speaker 3: more funding. What's your response to that proposal?
Speaker 4: Bottom line is where are Republicans on this. Republicans support
Speaker 4: kicking Russia out of Ukraine and supporting Ukrainian's effort for
Speaker 4: sovereignty and freedom of their country. And we've seen that
Speaker 4: in a number of votes over just the past few weeks.
Speaker 4: We're overwhelmingly the Congress is supportive of the fight in
Speaker 4: Ukraine and to kick Russia off their sovereign territory. With
Speaker 4: that said, because of these huge, unprecedented spending deficits of
Speaker 4: Joe Biden now pushing well over one point seven one
Speaker 4: point eight trillion dollars per year unsustainable, you do find
Speaker 4: Republicans saying, look, find that money that twenty five billion
Speaker 4: dollars from reallocation inside the existing budget caps. Don't just
Speaker 4: take the easy way out and do a supplemental So,
Speaker 4: I think the issue is less about Ukraine wildfires, supporting
Speaker 4: Taiwan and more about doing it inside those budget caps
Speaker 4: that President Biden agreed to with Speaker McCarthy.
Speaker 3: So do you see this as an attempt not just
Speaker 3: to address those needs for Ukraine and Disastery, but an
Speaker 3: attempt to circumvent the debt limit deal? Is the debt
Speaker 3: limit deal being undermined already?
Speaker 4: I think you could argue that Jack and I agree
Speaker 4: with Jordan's reporting on the Senate seems less concerned here
Speaker 4: they've gotten all their appropriation bills out of committee. But
Speaker 4: I want to express my view that a majority in
Speaker 4: the House supports Ukraine funding for Taiwan funding for disasters,
Speaker 4: but with two trillion dollars annualized in extra spending, more
Speaker 4: than we were spending in twenty nineteen, a majority in
Speaker 4: the House in the Republican Conference believe we ought to
Speaker 4: try to get that twenty five billion dollars funding through
Speaker 4: those budget caps, not just take the as I say,
Speaker 4: the easy way out of a supplemental. But Jordan laid
Speaker 4: it out. You've got senators that disagree with that. So
Speaker 4: this will be an important debate when we go back
Speaker 4: to intercession in early September.
Speaker 3: And I should ask specifically with an eye on disaster aid,
Speaker 3: because I know FEMA's Disaster Relief fund is running low
Speaker 3: on funding. It's projected to run out of money before
Speaker 3: the end of the fiscal year. We saw the deadly
Speaker 3: wildfires in Hawaii. Do you believe that what we are
Speaker 3: seeing in Hawaii and the damage and destruction there, could
Speaker 3: that possibly lead to a greater request. I'm curious if
Speaker 3: there's a possibility that twelve billion won't be enough for FEMA?
Speaker 3: Is that the case?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 4: I'm not sure about that, Jack. I think we need
Speaker 4: to hear from the Governor of Way local officials on
Speaker 4: Mali as to what they think their local resources and
Speaker 4: the need for fem assistance to be and then hear
Speaker 4: that report back. So I would hesitate to take that hypothetical.
Speaker 4: But look, it's a new disaster. It'sjorinly wasn't in the
Speaker 4: plan and considerations of the people who made the current request.
Speaker 3: Now a little more broadly, Congressman, I have to ask,
Speaker 3: I've always got an eye. On September thirtieth, and earlier
Speaker 3: this summer, we heard comments from Representative Bob Good saying
Speaker 3: Republicans should not be afraid of a shutdown. Let's listen
Speaker 3: to what he had to say about this.
Speaker 5: We should not fear a government shut down. Most of
Speaker 5: what we do up here is bad anyway. Most of
Speaker 5: what we do up here hurts the American people. When
Speaker 5: we do stuff to the American people while promising to
Speaker 5: do things for the American people. Essential operations continue, most
Speaker 5: eighty five percent is mister Bigs has just given me
Speaker 5: that number continues. Mostly American people won't even miss if
Speaker 5: the government is shut down temporarily.
Speaker 3: So I know Congressman french Hill and Congressman Bob Good
Speaker 3: are not necessarily the same person. But Congressman Hill, do
Speaker 3: you see an appetite for a shutdown? And do you
Speaker 3: agree with that assessment of the effects of a shutdown?
Speaker 4: Well, I think the Congresses and the executive branch have
Speaker 4: had a number of shutdowns, many since the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 4: and I don't think that's You've seen the government not
Speaker 4: keep doing its essential services to a majority of the people,
Speaker 4: and they are typically resolved in in a short period
Speaker 4: of time. So I understand where Bob Good is coming from,
Speaker 4: but look, government shutdowns shouldn't happen. We ought to get
Speaker 4: our job done. We ought to get the appropriations bills
Speaker 4: passed on time. We ought to do a continuing resolution.
Speaker 4: If we need more time in order to debate of this.
Speaker 4: We know what the budget cap should be. We should
Speaker 4: hit those caps. And so I would hope that Congress
Speaker 4: on both sides of the capital, both the Senate and
Speaker 4: the House, can get our work done, get a plan
Speaker 4: in place, and avoid any kind of a government shutdown.
Speaker 3: Have House Republicans given the Senate perhaps a stronger hand
Speaker 3: in negotiations by not quite marking up their appropriations bills
Speaker 3: to the limits set in the debt limit deal, but
Speaker 3: rather under it.
Speaker 4: I think the answer that question is yes, But I'm
Speaker 4: disappointed that we broke for the August congressional recess period
Speaker 4: with only one bill having come across the House floor.
Speaker 4: We could have gotten more of those bills across the
Speaker 4: House floor. You're right, they were marked in committee at
Speaker 4: a slightly more conservative level in terms of total spending
Speaker 4: than the budget caps deal, whereas the Senate marked their
Speaker 4: bills under Democratic leadership pretty much at the cap. So
Speaker 4: I think that allows us to have a good, solid
Speaker 4: negotiation on a bi cameral basis on twenty twenty four spending,
Speaker 4: and we ought to work toward that. So if we
Speaker 4: want maximum negotiating clout, though, Jack, we need to pass
Speaker 4: all those bills across the House floor, and that will
Speaker 4: give us the maximum negotiating clout to the answer to
Speaker 4: your question.
Speaker 3: Now, Congressman, I should ask aside from the September to
Speaker 3: do list, I'm curious about the activity of the Oversight Committee,
Speaker 3: the allegations made about money going to President Biden's son,
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden, and his business associates, and the idea that
Speaker 3: seems to be taking hold, at least among House Republicans
Speaker 3: that this could be considered effectively a bribe to the president.
Speaker 3: Do you see anything worthwhile in what is coming out
Speaker 3: of the Oversight Committee, especially given the references from Republican
Speaker 3: leadership's Republican leadership to the idea of an impeachment inquiry?
Speaker 3: Does anything rise to that level?
Speaker 4: Look, I think what we need to do in our
Speaker 4: Judiciary Committee on how to reform the FBI and in
Speaker 4: the Oversight Committee under Jamie Comer investigating the corruption allegations
Speaker 4: towards Hunter Biden and the Biden connected family and associates.
Speaker 4: We need to do the homework. We need to have
Speaker 4: the hearings, we need to have the testimony, we need
Speaker 4: to collaborate the assertions in and around those allegations, and
Speaker 4: do our homework, because this is exactly what the American
Speaker 4: people did not see during two the Trump impeachment, particularly
Speaker 4: in and around the Russia investigation by Muller and the
Speaker 4: impeachment an investigation around the Ukrainian phone call. That's the
Speaker 4: irony of this is that we want to do our homework.
Speaker 4: So my view, as one member of Congresses, Let's let
Speaker 4: the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee do their work.
Speaker 4: Let's see where the trail leads and then follow it appropriately.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Congressman french Hill, Republican from Arkansas,
Speaker 3: with insights on the inflation CPI report, on the upcoming
Speaker 3: request for more funding for Ukraine, and everything else on
Speaker 3: Capitol Hill. Coming up, We're going to go to our
Speaker 3: panel Jeanie Sheen, Zano and Rick Davis for more. I'm
Speaker 3: Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: Well you heard it from the Congressman french Hill out
Speaker 3: of Arkansas. Insistent to make the point that House Republicans
Speaker 3: also not just Senate Republicans, but House Republicans also support Ukraine.
Speaker 3: That is relevant given the fact that the President is
Speaker 3: asking for twenty five billion dollars in additional funding. Thirteen
Speaker 3: billion of that relates to Ukraine. Twelve billion is disaster aid.
Speaker 3: I'm Jack Fitzpatrick sitting in for Joe Matthew today and
Speaker 3: I'm here with Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie she and Zano
Speaker 3: and Rick Davis love to get their analysis on I
Speaker 3: think an interesting interview with a House Republican in french Hill. First, guys,
Speaker 3: I want to touch on his take on the CPI report,
Speaker 3: acknowledging this could lead to a pause in the rate
Speaker 3: increases when the Fed gets back and meets in September,
Speaker 3: but not a drop, and still saying that this is
Speaker 3: still high. It's not a good thing for President Biden.
Speaker 3: Rick Davis, I'm curious what you make of the political
Speaker 3: risk response to the CPI reports we've seen for the
Speaker 3: last two months. Is this less of an albatross politically
Speaker 3: for President Biden.
Speaker 6: It's certainly starting to sound like Republicans and Democrats are
Speaker 6: starting to say the same thing about the future of
Speaker 6: the FED and their interaction with rates and what the
Speaker 6: political net effect is going to be. Because french Hill,
Speaker 6: I mean, he could have been Joe Biden talking about
Speaker 6: the fact that it's great that we're seeing stability in inflation,
Speaker 6: but more work to be done. I mean, it sounds
Speaker 6: like right out of the White House talking points. I
Speaker 6: would say there are other Republicans who are focused on,
Speaker 6: you know, shelter costs and those continuing to go up
Speaker 6: and be high and tend to politicize that a little
Speaker 6: bit more. But I do think some of the airs
Speaker 6: out of the tire when it comes to the inflation
Speaker 6: being such a political hot potato.
Speaker 3: I don't know if this necessarily makes the phrase bidenomics
Speaker 3: a winner, but a Genie, I've got to get your
Speaker 3: take is that is that a winning phrase? If inflation
Speaker 3: doesn't doesn't spike back up again, if unemployment doesn't start
Speaker 3: to spike, if this is as soft a landing as
Speaker 3: we could have seen, given everything we've seen lately, what
Speaker 3: does bidenomics mean and how effective is that phrase politically?
Speaker 7: Genie, Well, we've heard the President and his surrogates out
Speaker 7: on the stump just this last week and before he
Speaker 7: was on vacation trying to tell us what it means.
Speaker 7: We've got signs up now across the country telling us
Speaker 7: about the investments that they made under this, you know,
Speaker 7: idea of Bidenomics. And I do think the good news
Speaker 7: on inflation, or at least the positive news when you
Speaker 7: put it into context, is something that does help the
Speaker 7: President here, but you know, the White House knows, the
Speaker 7: campaign knows they have a long way to go. The
Speaker 7: poll numbers on Biden, as it pertains to the economy
Speaker 7: have never been good. The inflation news is of course
Speaker 7: very welcome, provided that it stays. And they've now do
Speaker 7: got to do the really hard job of telling people
Speaker 7: across the country what all those investment mins mean. In
Speaker 7: You're a great interview with Representative Hill, he just mentioned
Speaker 7: the fact that it is in part due to the
Speaker 7: amount that was invested into the economy in an effort
Speaker 7: to get us out of the pandemic, that accounts for
Speaker 7: the economic challenges we're facing. And that's something that Republicans
Speaker 7: will continue to say. And Biden has got to make
Speaker 7: the case why this was necessary, why when it didn't
Speaker 7: happen in eight we suffered, and why we are going
Speaker 7: to be able to have this soft landing that he's
Speaker 7: been promising, or at least the Fed's been promising.
Speaker 3: Well, that's an important point, Genie, because there is not
Speaker 3: even just in a political sense, there's a fight happening
Speaker 3: over fiscal policy. And the Congressman did say, okay, Republicans
Speaker 3: want to help Ukraine. We want to respond to natural disasters,
Speaker 3: but if we have to give an extra twenty five
Speaker 3: billion dollars, we should offset that. So you're finding twenty
Speaker 3: five billion dollars in cuts elsewhere. If people like friends
Speaker 3: shall get their way, that is not what the president wants. Rick,
Speaker 3: do you see that as a realistic outcome or is
Speaker 3: the easiest path for Congress just spending more and allowing
Speaker 3: emergency spending without getting into offsets.
Speaker 6: Well, I thought Jordan Fabian really laid it out well.
Speaker 6: And you know, there's a difference between the Senate's view
Speaker 6: of this and the House's view. The Senate has already
Speaker 6: finished their appropriations work and they've done it within hitting
Speaker 6: the budget caps, which is a really good sign that
Speaker 6: there's a mark out there. Right. Okay, we've got the
Speaker 6: budget caps in the House too, but they haven't done
Speaker 6: the work. As french Hill pointed out, they've only passed
Speaker 6: one appropriation build before the break in August, and so
Speaker 6: they've got a lot more work to do to catch
Speaker 6: up to where the Senate is. So they can't actually
Speaker 6: say they're going to come in under those budget caps
Speaker 6: until they actually do it, and then that goes to
Speaker 6: a conference. The fact that we have budget caps and
Speaker 6: has already been agreed to, is a huge step forward
Speaker 6: in this process. The Senate said, hey, we want to
Speaker 6: deal that if we are going to fund Ukraine, we're
Speaker 6: going to do it outside the budget caps. And so
Speaker 6: the Senate believes within the Senate they have a different
Speaker 6: point of view than I think our House conferees would have.
Speaker 6: So yeah, there'll be a negotiation. But I actually think
Speaker 6: there's a pretty reasonable number that the Biden administration put down,
Speaker 6: only thirteen billion for Ukraine at least that's what we anticipate,
Speaker 6: and more for disaster assistance. Disaster a systems tends to
Speaker 6: get attention, right, that tends to be outside of most
Speaker 6: of the budgeting process once you've got FEMA numbers set
Speaker 6: in the appropriations bills, And clearly the disasters in places
Speaker 6: like Hawaii right now are going to draw attention. And
Speaker 6: I would imagine support in both the House and the Senate.
Speaker 6: But the bouncing ball will be certainly in the Republican
Speaker 6: caucus in the House of Representatives Ukraine funding, and I
Speaker 6: was impressed by Frenchhill's almost shermanes statement that we will
Speaker 6: support Ukraine funding. I think that'll be an interesting conversation
Speaker 6: they have when they caucus.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I should ask Genie, do you buy that? Do
Speaker 3: you think that Frenchhill is entirely speaking for House Republicans
Speaker 3: or he's maybe trying to will something into existence with
Speaker 3: regard to a different wing of the House Republican conference
Speaker 3: on Ukraine.
Speaker 7: Yeah, the word turn that came to my mind was
Speaker 7: wishful thinking to a certain extent, because we just saw
Speaker 7: seventy Republicans in the House vote against it. And you know,
Speaker 7: I have no question in my mind that Representative Hill
Speaker 7: and many in fact, I think he's right that most
Speaker 7: Republicans in the House are supportive of Ukraine, are supportive
Speaker 7: of the funding, you know, and many hope to get offsets.
Speaker 7: But the reality is they are facing hardliners, and you
Speaker 7: played the clip by Good there's people like Chip Roy,
Speaker 7: many other members of the Freedom Caucus rather for whom
Speaker 7: you know, spending without dramatic cuts elsewhere is just a
Speaker 7: non starter. And for Democrats this is really Republican on
Speaker 7: Republican violence, you know, as Rick was just talking about,
Speaker 7: this is going to be Republicans in the Senate versus
Speaker 7: some of these Republicans in the House, and they're going
Speaker 7: to have to battle this out, and of course they're
Speaker 7: gonna have to if the House moderates hope to get
Speaker 7: this done depend on supports from Democrats, And you're already
Speaker 7: hearing set democrats. Some of them say yeah, we may help.
Speaker 7: We've done it before, we'll do it again. Others saying,
Speaker 7: on you know what basis, would we have any incentive
Speaker 7: to help here. So it's gonna be a sticky It's
Speaker 7: gonna be a sticky situation when they get back. And
Speaker 7: I think we're looking forward to a whole bunch of
Speaker 7: continuing resolutions to try to get some of this important
Speaker 7: work done.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm curious what you guys think is the real deadline.
Speaker 3: I mean, September thirtieth is the deadline that Congress often ignores.
Speaker 3: Rick If one, I'm curious, do you think there's likely
Speaker 3: to be a shut down? And two are you worried
Speaker 3: about September thirtieth or do you think this gets kicked
Speaker 3: into December and that's when it gets messy.
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 6: I thought Frenchhill handled that question particularly well. You know,
Speaker 6: he obviously says there's there's been a history of these
Speaker 6: shutdowns and government hasn't you know, fallen apart in the process,
Speaker 6: but that we have a lot of other options, right,
Speaker 6: and we actually need to pass our budgets in the
Speaker 6: House to catch up up to where the Senate is,
Speaker 6: and we always have a continuing resolution as an option.
Speaker 6: So he's laying out a lot of different frameworks that
Speaker 6: are acceptable in the budget showdown process. And aside from
Speaker 6: actually shutting down government, I actually think it's only a
Speaker 6: small portion of the Republican Caucus who actually think a
Speaker 6: shutdown is a politically viable option, and so I imagine that
Speaker 6: it's not a widespread sensibility. But they're tight on time.
Speaker 6: I mean, as you've pointed out, they've got a budget
Speaker 6: let's due at the end of the month of September,
Speaker 6: and they have not made much progress on these appropriations
Speaker 6: in the House. So it's really on them to get
Speaker 6: their work done.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a story today, and as we've just mentioned,
Speaker 3: for September, for all of September, you can be on
Speaker 3: pins and needles as to the threat of a shutdown.
Speaker 3: And of course today that request for twenty five billion
Speaker 3: dollars in additional funding coming out from the White House
Speaker 3: being sent to Congress. We're going to stick around with
Speaker 3: this panel Jeanie Sheen, Zano and Rick Davis. I call
Speaker 3: him our all stars to discuss this major ProPublica story,
Speaker 3: essentially saying that the issues with Clarence Thomas were not
Speaker 3: just limited to Harlan crow That's coming up.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern.
Speaker 2: On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: Thirty eight destination vacations, including private flights, some on airplanes,
Speaker 3: some on helicopters, some on seven thirty seven's That's essentially
Speaker 3: the major takeaway from the latest story by Pro Publica
Speaker 3: about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. There was some news
Speaker 3: already about his close relationship with Harlan Crowe and the
Speaker 3: expensive travel that he was treated to due to that,
Speaker 3: but the latest story adds three more people with backgrounds
Speaker 3: at Berkshire, Hathaway, Blockbuster, waste management, background in oil. Essentially,
Speaker 3: there are there are four very wealthy friends of Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 3: according to the latest Pro Publica story. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick
Speaker 3: looking forward to discussing this with our panel of Bloomberg
Speaker 3: Politics contributors Genie she and Zano and Rick Davis. This
Speaker 3: this adds more to a theme that had already been
Speaker 3: raised about what kind of travel and what kind of
Speaker 3: I don't know if you would call travel a gift,
Speaker 3: but expensive travel certainly paid for by wealthy friends. To
Speaker 3: what extent is that okay? And at what point do
Speaker 3: you get into an ethical conundrum? Guys, I'm curious. I
Speaker 3: guess I should start with the simplest question, because there
Speaker 3: are there's all sorts of talk about a code of ethics,
Speaker 3: et cetera. Rick Davis, did Clarence Thomas do something wrong
Speaker 3: according to what we've learned about his friendships and travel
Speaker 3: with wealthy businessmen?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 6: I mean you can debate all day long. You know,
Speaker 6: were these his friends? Were they you know, acquaintances? Did
Speaker 6: they have an interest in front of the Supreme Court?
Speaker 6: But I think the one thing most people that I've
Speaker 6: talked to on Capitol Hill, especially in the Senate, agree
Speaker 6: upon is the lack of transparency and all of that
Speaker 6: is what's disturbing. I mean, just setting aside the vacations
Speaker 6: and the time and the cost associated with those things.
Speaker 6: One flight would have cost, you know, over one hundred
Speaker 6: thousand dollars to charter the same plane. It's mind boggling.
Speaker 6: But the fact that none of this is actually being reported,
Speaker 6: you know, with people who work for the country on
Speaker 6: the government payroll, even if they're Supreme Court justices, I
Speaker 6: think are one of the issues that really starting to
Speaker 6: stress out even the most ardent defenders of Clarence Thomas
Speaker 6: and the Supreme Court and these kinds of events.
Speaker 3: Genie, what does this say about you know, a lot
Speaker 3: of courts have an official code of ethics. The Supreme
Speaker 3: Court does not have something like that. This is I've
Speaker 3: heard lawmakers raise this, but there seems to be some
Speaker 3: hesitance for Congress to dictate to the Supreme Court how
Speaker 3: they should govern their own ethics. Does this kind of thing,
Speaker 3: I guess, move the needle in terms of possibly someday
Speaker 3: having something more formal set for ethics for Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 7: And this piece is so stunning. It is a well
Speaker 7: sourced piece of journalism. Everybody should read it. It is
Speaker 7: a mind boggling to look at what he was doing.
Speaker 7: You sort of wonder how he had time to be
Speaker 7: ruling on the Supreme Court amidst all of these trips
Speaker 7: and the question of does it move the needle, I
Speaker 7: think it does move the needle, but of course the
Speaker 7: needle doesn't have to be moved too far. At this point,
Speaker 7: the Democrats and the Senate Judiciary Committee have been working
Speaker 7: towards some kind of ethics reform to make these disclosure requirements,
Speaker 7: to pass legislation in this area to strengthen those, because
Speaker 7: what the defenders of Clarence Thomas tell us is, of
Speaker 7: course the rules are murky, and they do have a
Speaker 7: point on that. The rules are a little murky. For instance,
Speaker 7: staying in people's homes may not require disclosure, as they
Speaker 7: say in the article, and yet flights, cruises, and other
Speaker 7: things do, so they do need to tighten those. But
Speaker 7: the problem is Republicans in the Senate and I am
Speaker 7: certain the House are opposed to that. So legislation unless
Speaker 7: Democrats take control of the House is not going to
Speaker 7: be in the offing. And we already know where the
Speaker 7: Chief Justice stands because he responded to the Senate Judiciary
Speaker 7: Committee in the spring saying that they believe that they
Speaker 7: have disclosure rules that are necessary, and Justice Alito followed
Speaker 7: that up with the Wall Street Journal saying that he
Speaker 7: doesn't believe that Congress even has a constitutional right to
Speaker 7: talk about what another branch coequal as it is does,
Speaker 7: and so for those reasons, I think even if they
Speaker 7: pass legislation, the Supreme Court would likely brown on that.
Speaker 7: So I don't see something moving forward any further than
Speaker 7: it is right now given the situation.
Speaker 3: So as important as it seems, maybe this is something
Speaker 3: to keep an eye on in the long run. Let's
Speaker 3: shift to politics for a little bit. I do have
Speaker 3: to ask you guys about Joe Manchin, who said on
Speaker 3: Happy Kerkovaal's radio show earlier today, his word was absolutely
Speaker 3: he would absolutely think about switching to becoming an independent
Speaker 3: rather than the most moderate or most conservative Democrat in
Speaker 3: the Senate. You know, Rick, given your history working for
Speaker 3: a maverick in John McCain, I have to ask, do
Speaker 3: you see the flirtation with an independent bid by Joe
Speaker 3: Manchin as a political necessity? I mean, could he possibly
Speaker 3: win reelection in West Virginia again as a democh?
Speaker 6: You know, I think it's very difficult. I mean, look
Speaker 6: at the jam that Christen Cinema, who did switch to
Speaker 6: become an independent, is having in Arizona. I mean, there's
Speaker 6: not a single poll out since she did that that
Speaker 6: indicates that under various scenarios she could actually win reelection.
Speaker 6: In fact, in most, if not all, the polls I've seen,
Speaker 6: she ends up third out of three, with the two
Speaker 6: major parties doing much better. So I don't think West
Speaker 6: Virginia's politics is significantly different in the sense that there
Speaker 6: is no organized independent party, there is no organized infrastructure
Speaker 6: around there, and people don't have a history of pulling
Speaker 6: that independent lever. And so there's an education and a
Speaker 6: process question that he'd have to address. And my own view,
Speaker 6: I'm a big proponent of the two party system, and
Speaker 6: you know, working to reform the Democratic Party is probably
Speaker 6: a lot more politically sustainable then venturing out on your own.
Speaker 6: But then the question is is he doing this to
Speaker 6: run for reelection or is he doing it to look
Speaker 6: for higher office? And that would change the dynam right.
Speaker 3: Rick real quick at because the Iowa state fairs coming
Speaker 3: up and former President Trump will appear with some Florida Republicans,
Speaker 3: I just have to ask, I don't know if Iowa
Speaker 3: is what it used to be with an eye on Trump,
Speaker 3: Does Iowa matter all that? Much.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I mean it's gonna matter, probably more than usually because
Speaker 6: there are so many people who actually have affixed their
Speaker 6: political future to it in the presidential campaign. And so
Speaker 6: regardless of whether Trump wins or loses the Iowa contest,
Speaker 6: the question is who comes in second and third is
Speaker 6: gonna still matter and that'll matter to people in New Hampshire.
Speaker 3: Coming up, I want to keep our panel around to
Speaker 3: ask about Alabama. Yes, interesting pulling out of Alabama of
Speaker 3: all places. It's not just a red state. It certainly
Speaker 3: is a red state. But we'll get to that. Thanks
Speaker 3: again to our panelist Genie Sheen, Zana and Rick Davis.
Speaker 3: Stick around for a few more minutes. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick.
Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live week days in one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 1: the tune in alf, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa
Speaker 1: from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa, Play
Speaker 1: Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: The Department of Justice says that a January second, twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four trial date would in their words, vindicate the
Speaker 3: public strong interest in a speedy trial regarding attempts to
Speaker 3: interfere with the twenty twenty election. I'm here with our
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie she and Zeno and Rick Davis.
Speaker 3: Curious what you guys make of that. I guess, for one,
Speaker 3: based on what we know about this case. Jeanie, do
Speaker 3: you think it's likely that they get that or is
Speaker 3: they Is this wishful thinking by DOJ to try to
Speaker 3: move through this case as quickly as possible?
Speaker 7: You know, I do think that they have a strong
Speaker 7: reason to try to move through it. I also think
Speaker 7: the judge is probably going to listen to what Trump's
Speaker 7: attorneys say and split the baby, so to speak. So
Speaker 7: I don't suspect they'll get a January second start. But
Speaker 7: what this does mean is we are looking at a
Speaker 7: really severe collision between the election calendar January fifteenth being
Speaker 7: the Iowa caucuses and they ramp up from there and
Speaker 7: these trials, because he is facing already five trials in
Speaker 7: seven months, and that doesn't include this one, and then
Speaker 7: of course what happens next week in Fulton County in Georgia.
Speaker 7: So it's going to be a collision course for sure.
Speaker 3: Very briefly, Rick Davis, as we try to juggle all
Speaker 3: of these legal challenges in the minds of voters, and
Speaker 3: what kind of political threat it is for the former president?
Speaker 3: Is it the twenty twenty issues, is it the January
Speaker 3: sixth issues? Is it the classified documents issues? I mean,
Speaker 3: what is or are any of those a true political
Speaker 3: drawback for him?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 6: I think they're all a distraction in general. As the
Speaker 6: public learns more about each one and they'll take a
Speaker 6: different approach to them. But right now I think a
Speaker 6: lot of Republican voters are saying, Wow, how much of
Speaker 6: a distraction is this? And is it going to allow
Speaker 6: Joe Biden to slip the news and get reelectric?
Speaker 3: Genny she and Zano and Rick Davis, thanks so much
Speaker 3: for your insights.
Speaker 6: Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast. Make sure
Speaker 6: to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and
Speaker 6: anywhere else you get your podcasts, And you can find
Speaker 6: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm
Speaker 6: Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.