Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: You are taking appropriate defense into turn steps with allies
Speaker 1: of partners. We called for UN Security Council meet we
Speaker 1: call them the DPRK to refrain from further provocations. The
Speaker 1: United States and the world seek a stable and peaceful
Speaker 1: Korean Peninsula. Bloomberg Sound On Politics, Policy and perspective from
Speaker 1: DC's top name. Now one should be going to jail
Speaker 1: for drug crime period, particularly marijuana. Supports decriminalizing marianna used
Speaker 1: it automatically expunging any prior criminal record. Bloomberg Sound On
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Kim Jong un will
Speaker 1: not be ignored. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: As the threat level rises around the Korean peninsula after
Speaker 1: the North fire, two suspected short range ballistic missiles in
Speaker 1: the direction of a US carrier strike group, one of
Speaker 1: them flying directly over Japan. We'll discuss with Kurt Tong
Speaker 1: at the Asia Group, former US Ambassador for Asia Pacific
Speaker 1: Economic Cooperation. Later, President Biden makes good on a promise
Speaker 1: of marijuana reform, sort of announcing plans to pardon those
Speaker 1: convictive possession while aiming to reschedule the plant for research.
Speaker 1: We'll have more on what this means with criminal defense
Speaker 1: attorney Jeffrey Lickman and with our panel. Bloomberg Politics contributor
Speaker 1: Jeanie Schanzano was with US Democratic analyst along with Republican
Speaker 1: strategist Bill McGinley of the Vocal Group. This is what
Speaker 1: it sounded like in Tokyo. Not in World War Two,
Speaker 1: but yesterday, that's what we believe to be too. Short
Speaker 1: range ballistic missiles were shot from North Korea, one of
Speaker 1: them directly over Japan. The first launch of a rocket
Speaker 1: over the country in five years. Is shortly after North
Speaker 1: Korea condemned the Biden administration for redeploying the Ronald Reagan
Speaker 1: Aircraft carrier group. It's in waters just east of the peninsula.
Speaker 1: They say that escalated tensions, and of course it follows
Speaker 1: the visit from Kamala Harris to the d m Z Karreean.
Speaker 1: Jean Pierre, the White House Press Secretary, speaking to the violation,
Speaker 1: the launch was a danger to the Japanese people, destabilizing
Speaker 1: to the region, and a clear, a clear violation of
Speaker 1: the United Nations Councils Security Council resolutions. We also heard
Speaker 1: from the Secretary of States Anthony Lincoln. You're taking appropriate
Speaker 1: defense and detern steps with allies and partners. We've called
Speaker 1: for UN Security Council meeting UH and we're consulting with
Speaker 1: our partners on next steps. UM. But I also want
Speaker 1: to make very clear that our commitment to the defense
Speaker 1: of our allies and partners free in Japan is is
Speaker 1: iron clad statement from the North Korean Foreign Ministry. The
Speaker 1: DPRK is watching the US posing a serious threat to
Speaker 1: the stability of the situation on the Korean Peninsula and
Speaker 1: in its vicinity by redeploying the Carrier Task Force in
Speaker 1: waters off the Korean Peninsula. And we talk about a
Speaker 1: carrier strike group. That's the aircraft carrier and all of
Speaker 1: the components that come with this. This is the most
Speaker 1: deadly mobile platform in the world. And so that's where
Speaker 1: we begin here. By the way, that language sounding a
Speaker 1: lot like Beijing, following the visit by Nancy Pelosi in
Speaker 1: the whole uproar over the straight Taiwan, this is where
Speaker 1: we begin with Kurt Tong, managing partner at the Asia Group,
Speaker 1: former U s Consul General in Hong Kong and Macau,
Speaker 1: former US Ambassador for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, just the
Speaker 1: man we need to speak with now, Ambassador, welcome to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: How much of these missile launches by North Korea are
Speaker 1: a reaction to the Reagan carrier group being deployed in
Speaker 1: the region versus Kim Jong un feeling ignored by the
Speaker 1: international community. Well, those are probably both factors in the
Speaker 1: in the exact timing of the missile launch. But I
Speaker 1: think that it's important to keep in mind another key
Speaker 1: objective for North Korea, which is to continue to develop
Speaker 1: and refine their their technology, both missile technology and nuclear technology.
Speaker 1: And so in order to do that, they need to
Speaker 1: test it, and that that that's no excuse for them
Speaker 1: breaking you and Security Council resolutions and threatening their neighbors.
Speaker 1: But but it is a fact that under underscores there
Speaker 1: there the drum beat of their of their launches. Well,
Speaker 1: does a meeting of the Security Council mean anything anymore?
Speaker 1: With Russia and China at the table, How does this
Speaker 1: all add up? Well, one of the difficulties of shaping
Speaker 1: North Korea's decisions has always been that it is the
Speaker 1: country is so isolated that additional sanctions have limited effect.
Speaker 1: And at this point North Korea, north Korea's external economic
Speaker 1: relationships almost exclusively with China, and China has never proven
Speaker 1: willing to push North Korea hard enough that it would
Speaker 1: actually really forced to make some tough decisions about it
Speaker 1: about its weapons programs. So the leverage, in addition to
Speaker 1: the fact that the Security Council is probably not the
Speaker 1: best venue for additional actions because for the reason you
Speaker 1: cite it um that the existing sanctions are also not
Speaker 1: really fighting because North Korea, by having a very weak
Speaker 1: and isolated economy, is immune to them. Vombing missile's ambassador
Speaker 1: over Japan is something we have not seen in years.
Speaker 1: How dangerous is that escalation, Well, it's certainly very worrisome
Speaker 1: to the Japanese people, um, and it demonstrates an ability
Speaker 1: to reach all of Japan with with missiles. No one's
Speaker 1: quite sure how kightly targeted these items are or whether
Speaker 1: they'd be willing to hit any specific targets, but the
Speaker 1: demonstration of that capability is certainly very concerning too, And
Speaker 1: it's also concerning the United States the latest missile launches.
Speaker 1: I understand it theoretically as capability to reach Guam, which
Speaker 1: is your territory, and that would be a whole other
Speaker 1: world of something like that happened. Though, who is the
Speaker 1: missile for Who is the missile over Japan for Tokyo
Speaker 1: or the U S Who was the audience? So I
Speaker 1: think both, but probably more of the US. I thought
Speaker 1: you might say that I think that North Korean used
Speaker 1: US as a potential um interlocutor. Again, the question is
Speaker 1: how much of their program is intended just to have
Speaker 1: the program and they need it and they want it,
Speaker 1: and how much of its an attended is the negotiating
Speaker 1: item um the uh. It's it's always hard to tell
Speaker 1: until you sit down and talk to the North Koreans,
Speaker 1: but certainly they view the United States as by far
Speaker 1: the most important interlocutor for negotiations, and no one's about
Speaker 1: to sit down with them from the United States. Is
Speaker 1: that it doesn't appear so no, because the US has
Speaker 1: has seen this movie several times now and uh, and
Speaker 1: it's become quite a franchise. Well that's right, and and
Speaker 1: and and also the United States has a significant deterrent
Speaker 1: against North Korea actually using the weapons that it's developing. UM,
Speaker 1: so it ends up becoming a stable but dangerous situation.
Speaker 1: Stable and dangerous at the same time. Dangerous because of
Speaker 1: the miscalculation by North Korea or accidental launch or a
Speaker 1: failed launch could could end up escalating into a crisis.
Speaker 1: The timing here is awful considering new tensions over Taiwan,
Speaker 1: tensions with China, the Taiwan straight a broken relationship if
Speaker 1: I can call it that, describe it that way, between
Speaker 1: the US and Beijing, a Russia at war Ambassador, What
Speaker 1: is all this leading to, Well, it's it's it's quite worrisome.
Speaker 1: I think North Korea, again to your time and question,
Speaker 1: is seeing that given the current state of US China relations,
Speaker 1: they're less concerned about the US convincing China to put
Speaker 1: a lot of pressure on North Korea. But more broadly,
Speaker 1: to your point, I think that the confluence of increased
Speaker 1: tensions around Taiwan and the war in Ukraine is really
Speaker 1: and certainly I feel this in the consulting business is
Speaker 1: making people very uncertain about the near term future UM
Speaker 1: and the security space and UM it's it's going to
Speaker 1: put real pressure on the Biden administration to do deaf diplomacy.
Speaker 1: What are your clients most worried about. I think they're
Speaker 1: concerned about that the situation around Taiwan could escalate out
Speaker 1: of control, and then you know, we really reassure them
Speaker 1: that there are lots of circuit breakers that can prevent
Speaker 1: things from escalating and becoming uh incredibly dangerous or disruptive. It.
Speaker 1: But you know, people thinking um tens of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars in various businesses are always, of course concerned about
Speaker 1: the risk. Well, we thought there might be some circuit
Speaker 1: breakers in Ukraine as well, didn't we. That's right, and
Speaker 1: those circuit breakers didn't seem to work, mainly because of
Speaker 1: the character of the Russian leadership. UM. And this is
Speaker 1: a fundamental question for the United States as they consider UM.
Speaker 1: The issue with respect to Taiwan is at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, UM she paying a rational actor. UH.
Speaker 1: The disincentives or the or the cost to China of
Speaker 1: drastic action on Taiwan military action from any objective standpoint
Speaker 1: would far outweighed the benefit UM. But but there is
Speaker 1: an emotional and um historical element to this issue that
Speaker 1: is quite powerful as well, and so handling that skillfully
Speaker 1: is really a and challenge for the United States and
Speaker 1: for China. Are you curious about Kim Jong UN's silence
Speaker 1: over the past couple of weeks. He's been out of
Speaker 1: the public eye more than three weeks now, his longest
Speaker 1: absence in a year. They made a big deal out
Speaker 1: of it last time he disappeared for a while, and
Speaker 1: it's uncharacteristic as as we're writing on the terminal. Typically
Speaker 1: this comes with a lot of chest thumping when you
Speaker 1: have missile tests like this, but there's almost no one talking. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I I never know what to make of that kind
Speaker 1: of absence questions. It could be as just taking a
Speaker 1: vacation somewhere, but the um who knows. It's really hard
Speaker 1: to guess. Lastly, Ambassador, if the United States got into
Speaker 1: something deeper here regretfully, uh, and of course nothing that
Speaker 1: the Pentagon is planning now. But if something did spiral
Speaker 1: out of control around Taiwan or North Korea, would we
Speaker 1: be able to balance from a weapon standpoint, wars on
Speaker 1: on two sides of the world, supporting Ukraine and becoming
Speaker 1: involved into conflict in Asia. I think it would strain
Speaker 1: our resources. I'm not a deep expert on this, but
Speaker 1: my understanding is that it would. It would be a strain.
Speaker 1: But the military planners, how for many years I thought
Speaker 1: about ways to have a robust presence in both Europe
Speaker 1: and the Pacific. And and so I wouldn't despair, but
Speaker 1: it is a it's you know, it's a it's an
Speaker 1: issue of concern, something we don't really want to think about.
Speaker 1: Kirt Tong, I want to thank you for being with us.
Speaker 1: He's managing partner at the Asia Group. Former U s
Speaker 1: Consul General in Hong Kong and Macau, former US Ambassador
Speaker 1: for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Ambassador. Thanks for being with
Speaker 1: us today on Bloomberg. Thank you. So the pressure is
Speaker 1: rising and coming up. We assemble the panel for their
Speaker 1: take on this. Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic analyst Jennie Schanzano
Speaker 1: along with Republican strategist Bill McGinley from the Vocal Group.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. You're loosening to Bloomberg. You sound on
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Following the missile launches
Speaker 1: from North Korea, the US got together with Japan and
Speaker 1: South Korea and conducted joint naval drills earlier today as
Speaker 1: the Aircraft Carrier Group US S. Ronald Reagan was redeployed.
Speaker 1: This is fascinating I've never heard of this. It pulled
Speaker 1: a rare you turn the aircraft carrier group redeployed in
Speaker 1: waters between South Korea and Japan, making that you turn
Speaker 1: after Kim fired the missile that went over Japan. Isn't
Speaker 1: there a saying about turning around an aircraft carrier, Well,
Speaker 1: they actually did it one ping only please, and it's
Speaker 1: making people worry about what might come as we conduct
Speaker 1: joint naval drills. This feels a lot like the whole
Speaker 1: story around Taiwan. But I can assure you Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: is not about to go to North Rha, although Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris was recently in South Korea and that may have
Speaker 1: prompted some of this as well. Let's assembled our panel.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors. Jeannie Chanzano are Democratic analyst. Along with
Speaker 1: Bill McGinley, Republican strategist principle at the Vogel Group, form
Speaker 1: a National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee General Council. It's great
Speaker 1: to have both of you here. Yeah, Matt, you're probably right.
Speaker 1: Are you turn? That cost a trillion dollars? Genie? How
Speaker 1: worried are you about this? Or is it just Kim
Speaker 1: Jong oun? Make a noise. I think it's very concerning,
Speaker 1: and I think the reaction of the United States um
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, the U turn itself is but one signal.
Speaker 1: Also Japan and South Korea, everyone seems to be on edge.
Speaker 1: We've seen them come back with a show of force.
Speaker 1: And of course, when the United States and several other
Speaker 1: members of the U N. Security Council asked for that
Speaker 1: emergency meeting on Wednesday, they couldn't get any agreement, and
Speaker 1: you had Russian China they're saying that it was the
Speaker 1: US led military exercises that had provoked North Korea. So
Speaker 1: you know, this is where we are and why it
Speaker 1: is so concerning at this moment when you know you've
Speaker 1: got Russian gold and what is it's involved in, and
Speaker 1: you've got this going on in the East. So forget
Speaker 1: the Security Council, Bill McGinley, apparently there's really just no
Speaker 1: reason to have it at this point with the with
Speaker 1: the war raging in Ukraine and Russia sitting at the table.
Speaker 1: Obviously China would always love an opportunity to embarrass us
Speaker 1: a little bit. So this means what the US and
Speaker 1: regional partners like Japan have to figure this out alone. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. I mean, the UN at
Speaker 1: this point is nothing but a debating society UH and
Speaker 1: a messaging forum to try and get our side of
Speaker 1: the story out. But in terms of real impact on
Speaker 1: these situations, I think UH it's standing is greatly diminished,
Speaker 1: if not UH anywhere that that where it should be
Speaker 1: to deal with these types of issues. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think what this shows with North Korea becoming increasingly aggressive,
Speaker 1: obviously we've been we've been watching China being increasingly aggressive
Speaker 1: against Taiwan, and as Cheni said, you know, with all
Speaker 1: of the statements from Vladimir in the Russians annexing part
Speaker 1: of Ukraine and then threatening nuclear war if they're attacked. UM,
Speaker 1: we're seeing tensions escalating across the globe, not decreasing right now.
Speaker 1: And one of the places we're not talking about that
Speaker 1: also is boiling is the Middle East with some of
Speaker 1: the issues that are there. So the world's becoming far
Speaker 1: more complicated and UH intentions are rising, and so this
Speaker 1: is going to be a real challenge for the Biden
Speaker 1: administration UH to corral our allies so that we can
Speaker 1: do an effective diplomatic response so we don't end up
Speaker 1: in a kinetic war anymore, God forbid. But these stories
Speaker 1: get a lot more complex when you start stacking them
Speaker 1: on top of one another. But Kim jong un has
Speaker 1: fired off a record number of ballistic missiles this year.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure a lot of people are aware of
Speaker 1: that genie. We used to they used to make a
Speaker 1: lot more news, frankly, and it got to be the
Speaker 1: boy who cried wolf. But you know, this most recent
Speaker 1: barrage has so far total ten missiles. That's since September,
Speaker 1: and of course also coincided with the visit to the region.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned by Vice President Kamala Harris Uh, At
Speaker 1: what point does the US stop ignoring? I mean, military
Speaker 1: drills are one thing, but Kim jong un clearly feels
Speaker 1: like he can get away with anything he does. And
Speaker 1: the sound you played at the top of the you
Speaker 1: know you hear is such an eerie sound. And that
Speaker 1: was one of the intermediate range missile missiles that they
Speaker 1: flew over Japan, which is a stunning development. And what
Speaker 1: we're hearing is forty ballistic and cruise missile launches this
Speaker 1: year alone, which is a stunning number. And so the
Speaker 1: United States is trying to respond by working closely with
Speaker 1: its allies. We heard Anthony B. Lincoln and Chile come out. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I think your previous guest made a very
Speaker 1: important point about the fact that North Korea, because it
Speaker 1: wants to develop this technology, has to test it. Um.
Speaker 1: But it is doing so, and it is flaunting what
Speaker 1: is you know, agreed upon international etiquettelet alone law, and
Speaker 1: so you know, the United States is going to have
Speaker 1: to react, but it's going to have to do so
Speaker 1: in a rapidly changing world in which tensions are escalating
Speaker 1: all around. I mean, just look at where Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was today and pot Keepsie, New York, trying to pull
Speaker 1: semiconductor manufacturing back to the US because it's over in
Speaker 1: Taiwan to a large extent, and if we go to
Speaker 1: war over there or something happens, our lives will be
Speaker 1: in you know, changed forever. With twelve pc production of
Speaker 1: semiconductors here, it's quite a thought. Uh, you know, you
Speaker 1: start thinking about North Korea here, Bill McGinley, and Iran
Speaker 1: is watching very closely what's going on here. How important
Speaker 1: is our response when you consider the standoff over nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons with Tehran? I think it's incredibly important. We want
Speaker 1: to we want less nuclear weapons in the hands of
Speaker 1: these types of dictators um and despots instead of increasing them,
Speaker 1: because it has such a destabilizing impact on the geo
Speaker 1: political world. If though this emboldens Iran, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's no way absolutely, And you know, I don't think
Speaker 1: we can view any of these in isolation. They're not
Speaker 1: mutually exclusive. You know, there have been meetings where you
Speaker 1: had the Russians, the Chinese, uh and and the Iranians
Speaker 1: and others getting together, and I think you know, what
Speaker 1: we're really beginning to see is them kind of testing
Speaker 1: the resolve the West and NATO, UH and some of
Speaker 1: our traditional alliances to see whether we still have the
Speaker 1: resolve to try and stand up to this type of aggression.
Speaker 1: And I think it's going to be incredibly important. What
Speaker 1: a lot of people need to remember, you know, military
Speaker 1: maneuvers like this is really in support of diplomatic efforts.
Speaker 1: That's what you like to think. Bill. Thank you, Bill
Speaker 1: McGinley and Jennie Schanzano. We'll be back. As we turned
Speaker 1: to cannabis next, this is bloomber I Governor, Oh help me.
Speaker 1: There is a rare appearance by Willie Nelson on the broadcast. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was playing this is from last weekend in South Austin, Texas.
Speaker 1: Roll me up and smoked me when I die on
Speaker 1: behalf of betto or Rooric, who he was actually rallying for.
Speaker 1: And man, I'll tell you what with the crowd's favorite
Speaker 1: part of the whole rally. And that brings us to
Speaker 1: the matter at hand, something that progressive Democrats have been
Speaker 1: asking for and in fact demanding since electing Joe Biden
Speaker 1: because he promised cannabis reform and today I didn't go
Speaker 1: all the way with decriminalization or some of the other
Speaker 1: things that have been discussed, but he did announce this.
Speaker 1: As I said when I ran for president, no one
Speaker 1: should be in jail just for using a possession marijuana.
Speaker 1: It's already legal in many stays, and criminal records from
Speaker 1: marijuana possession have led the needless barriers to employment, housing,
Speaker 1: educational opportunities. And that's before you address the racial disparities
Speaker 1: around who suffers the consequences, and white and black and
Speaker 1: brown people use marijuana in similar rates, black and brown
Speaker 1: people are arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at disproportionately higher rates,
Speaker 1: highlighting the equity component of this story and pardoning thousands.
Speaker 1: This is the announcement. It's a two pronged announcement, a
Speaker 1: blanket pardon for all prior federal offenses for simple possession
Speaker 1: as they call it, of marijuana, also urging governors to
Speaker 1: do the same for state offenses involving marijuana and likely
Speaker 1: affecting potentially many more people that way, but also calling
Speaker 1: to reschedule the drug so that it can be researched
Speaker 1: and potentially help for medicinal purposes or any number of issues.
Speaker 1: But there are a lot of complexities that come with this.
Speaker 1: Criminal defense attorney Jeffrey Lickman joins us to talk about it.
Speaker 1: He runs a marijuana crimes practice at his firm, having
Speaker 1: gotten John Gotti acquitted and even wrapping Al Chapo in
Speaker 1: federal court. Jeffrey, thank you for being with us. We're
Speaker 1: talking about incremental steps here, right. This is just about
Speaker 1: the least that the president could have done, starting on
Speaker 1: the federal level. How much larger would it be for
Speaker 1: governors at the state level to follow? Well, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: it can be decriminalized, obviously. It can also be done
Speaker 1: federally where it's removed from a schedule. One doesn't that
Speaker 1: be a Schedule one drug. It's hardly the same seriousness
Speaker 1: as LSD as it has been since it was made
Speaker 1: a Schedule one drug and linkeden I think seventies two. Um,
Speaker 1: so there's many things that can be done. I think
Speaker 1: people are really getting ahead of themselves here. Um they're
Speaker 1: not appreciating is that Biden is not pardoning people anybody
Speaker 1: who's got a federal marijuana conviction. He's only pardoning people
Speaker 1: that have a simple possession. So explain the difference for us, Jeffrey, Well,
Speaker 1: the difference is that in thirty one years of practice,
Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever had case with somebody who's
Speaker 1: just charged with simple possession. Simple possession, it's just somebody
Speaker 1: who possesses drugs. They're very rarely m prosecuted federally. It's
Speaker 1: such a minor charge that's usually done in the state.
Speaker 1: So wouldn't that would that normally involve crossing state lines
Speaker 1: or something, Jeffrey, how do you actually get arrested on
Speaker 1: the federal level for marijuana. It could look it could
Speaker 1: be crossing state lines, it could be that it was
Speaker 1: done in a federal facility. But the percentage of people
Speaker 1: that are convicted of just simple possession compared to related
Speaker 1: drug offenses, which include the possession with intend to distribute
Speaker 1: rico um A million different things. Maybe I don't know
Speaker 1: one percent. So instead of all these years that marijuana
Speaker 1: in the legal federally, you think that we'd have how
Speaker 1: many people would have been convicted a million? We're talking
Speaker 1: a few thousand people. So that's the number I was
Speaker 1: looking for here, this that, and you're getting I think
Speaker 1: to the point that that that I was reaching for here,
Speaker 1: this is gonna get a very complicated rollout, and it
Speaker 1: could be a very disappointing one for uh, for a
Speaker 1: lot of folks when when they realize number one, how
Speaker 1: few people this impacts, and the the even greater patchwork
Speaker 1: will be left with when some governors follow the president
Speaker 1: and some do not. Jeffrey, Well, look, you know, that's
Speaker 1: that's the way this country is. Sometimes states have rights
Speaker 1: and they make decisions, and you decide to live in
Speaker 1: whichever state you want based on the laws of that state.
Speaker 1: But I think that people anticipate that the jails are
Speaker 1: going to be opened and people are going to be
Speaker 1: let out, They're just not going to be you know,
Speaker 1: there was one comment that you made. I was listening
Speaker 1: before I came on where you said, I think that
Speaker 1: a congressman was concerned that perhaps did a lot of
Speaker 1: these people that have convictions for simple possession, that they
Speaker 1: were charged with something more serious perhaps and they just
Speaker 1: plea b orgain it down. It's not true because if
Speaker 1: you're charged in a in a federal narcotics or drug
Speaker 1: conspiracy or or drug case, and there's a charge included
Speaker 1: a gun charge, there's no way they're letting you plead
Speaker 1: it down to something where you're facing no jail time.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't happen. You either go to trial or
Speaker 1: they have to dismiss the case because the case fell apart.
Speaker 1: Where they give you a plan, you spend years in prison.
Speaker 1: So the great majority of people that have marijuana convictions
Speaker 1: have much more serious convictions related to it. There's guns,
Speaker 1: there's this. None of those people are affected. Hence the
Speaker 1: complexity we're talking about here. Jeffrey mentioned the scheduling of
Speaker 1: the drug This is the other component of this. As
Speaker 1: I mentioned, it's not only the pardoning, but the President
Speaker 1: is calling on the Secretary of Health and the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: and I can only assume they will follow to review
Speaker 1: marijuana's classification as what they call a Schedule one drug.
Speaker 1: That means the federal government sees it as having no
Speaker 1: currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
Speaker 1: As Jeffrey mentioned, that puts it in the same category
Speaker 1: as heroin and LSD, which to most, I mean, say
Speaker 1: what you will about cannabis, that does seem a bit
Speaker 1: extreme at this point, Jeffrey, how significant is that component
Speaker 1: compared to the pardoning. Well, that will change the penalties.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, I mean, look
Speaker 1: in nineteen I'm looking at my notes because I argued
Speaker 1: a federal appeal on this very issue this year in
Speaker 1: seventy three. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals said they
Speaker 1: basically laughed at the fact that marijuana was considered a
Speaker 1: Schedule one. That was in seventy three, when when people
Speaker 1: didn't know that marijuana had the medicinal uses that it
Speaker 1: has today, that it wasn't quite people aren't quite as knowledgeable.
Speaker 1: So this has been going on forever. What has to
Speaker 1: happen is it has to be the criminalized period and
Speaker 1: then there won't be the related, uh criminal offenses that
Speaker 1: occur in connection with marijuana. You know, the gun charges
Speaker 1: where their gangs trying to protect their drugs. All that
Speaker 1: will end if marijuana is legal. And frankly, we've got
Speaker 1: enough bad drugs in this country that's coming in. Marijuana
Speaker 1: should not be your focus. It's taking away resources and
Speaker 1: it's punishing people that really don't need to be punished.
Speaker 1: It's really incredible. Uh, there's so much to discuss here
Speaker 1: and anticipate from the President. And again, I don't know
Speaker 1: what kind of moment item that this might take on
Speaker 1: the state level here, But when you talk about decriminalization, Jeffrey,
Speaker 1: that's got to be done legislatively, right, that's Congress not
Speaker 1: doing its job to keep up with the with the states. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, it's gonna have to be done progressionally.
Speaker 1: I really do believe that the time is right for it. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's some discussion. I know that Biden
Speaker 1: said that, you know, this is the type of offense
Speaker 1: that is racially unfair. No. Look, you know Biden was
Speaker 1: in the Senate when when crack became a sing and
Speaker 1: when there was massive penalties for crack compared to powder cocaine.
Speaker 1: You didn't see him talking about the racial disparity. Then
Speaker 1: the people that were going to jail for the rest
Speaker 1: of their lives were mostly black people. Nobody seemed to
Speaker 1: care back then. Now we just have to be criminalize
Speaker 1: it and focus on the drugs that are killing Americans.
Speaker 1: I don't know that there's been a massive amount of
Speaker 1: people killed by smoking marijuana, but we know that there
Speaker 1: are fentinal we know that there is cocaine, you know
Speaker 1: that there is heroin. Marijuana is the least of our
Speaker 1: problems when need to direct our resource, sultzwhere well, I'm
Speaker 1: awfully glad we got you on the line, Jeffrey. Can
Speaker 1: you give us a sense before you leave how much
Speaker 1: of your caseload involves uh, marijuana crimes. How much of
Speaker 1: your time is spent on this? I would say probably.
Speaker 1: I mean I do mostly federal work. I do a
Speaker 1: lot of white collar stuff, and in terms of the drugs,
Speaker 1: the heavy cases are the cocaine cases. And judges, when
Speaker 1: you appear in front of a federal judge on the
Speaker 1: marijuana case, unless there's violence involved, they're squeamish to give
Speaker 1: any kind of serious time because everybody recognizes that this
Speaker 1: should have been rectified, this a long time ago, and
Speaker 1: for some reason, you know, we just keep on ignoring it.
Speaker 1: You represented John Gotti. You have a sense of how
Speaker 1: organized crime works. How much of a business is marijuana
Speaker 1: trafficking for organized crime, whether it's John Gotti or another
Speaker 1: former client of yours, El Chapo. Well, I would say
Speaker 1: that marijuana is not as um. You're not making the
Speaker 1: same amount of money in terms of marijuana as you
Speaker 1: would cocaine or heroin, So it's not really that big
Speaker 1: of a deal in terms of gangs. I represented Jamaican
Speaker 1: gangs as well, where marijuana was a big deal. Remember,
Speaker 1: you've got to have a lot of packages of marijuana
Speaker 1: to make the same amount of money that you would
Speaker 1: for maybe a softball size amount of cocaine or crack.
Speaker 1: So people aren't really doing it the same way. The
Speaker 1: time is so passed for this, I can't believe that
Speaker 1: we're still talking about this in two thousand and twenty
Speaker 1: three year. You know, eventually it'll end. Maybe this will
Speaker 1: become a campaign issue in twenty four. We'll see what
Speaker 1: happens with that. But my gosh, he's a man who
Speaker 1: has forgotten more than most of us have ever seen
Speaker 1: when it comes to this stuff. Jeffrey Liickman, many thanks
Speaker 1: to you, for bringing your expertise to the conversation. We'll
Speaker 1: get back to the panel next as you would expect
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Sound On. Thanks for being with us on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sound On, the fastest hour in politics, with the
Speaker 1: best panel in the business. And today we have Genie Chanzano,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributor, Democratic Analysts, joined by Bill McGinley, Republican
Speaker 1: strategist principle at the Vogel Group. What do you think
Speaker 1: about what you just heard, Gennie. We wanted to drill
Speaker 1: down with an actual expert here, a lawyer in the business,
Speaker 1: and boy Jeffrey certainly knew what he was talking about.
Speaker 1: This is one percent maybe of the marijuana convictions that
Speaker 1: are being pardoned here by President Biden, and it could
Speaker 1: be even less than that when you start factoring in
Speaker 1: other crimes, when people start understanding what's really going on here.
Speaker 1: Will he be blamed for not doing enough? He could be.
Speaker 1: And I think he made a really important point about
Speaker 1: how limited this step is. But I think by and
Speaker 1: and he's absolutely right, of course. And and you know,
Speaker 1: the number we heard again was like maybe a couple
Speaker 1: of thousand more. That's not that many. And as he
Speaker 1: mentioned these are simple possession people convicted with simple possessions,
Speaker 1: certainly not other higher crimes. But that said, I also
Speaker 1: think it's important to underscore that this is quite a
Speaker 1: turnaround for Joe Biden. Yes, he did on the campaign
Speaker 1: trail promised to take this step, but he was the
Speaker 1: only candidate in who did not publicly support federal de scheduling.
Speaker 1: And as your guests just mentioned, he also was responsible
Speaker 1: as a senator for some of the to this prime
Speaker 1: laws drug laws in the country, and so there is
Speaker 1: some kind of people of ring with hypocrisy as he
Speaker 1: talks today about the impact on black and brown people
Speaker 1: in terms of disproportional rates of incarceration and conviction and arrest,
Speaker 1: because of course he led the charge in the other
Speaker 1: direction as a senator. So you know, I do think
Speaker 1: it's remarkable from the perspective of who Joe Biden has
Speaker 1: been and who he is today that he took this step,
Speaker 1: and it reintroduces this issue at a time when it's
Speaker 1: desperately needed to catch up with where the states are headed.
Speaker 1: If it were not for the mid terms being less
Speaker 1: than five weeks away, Bill McGinley, would this be announced
Speaker 1: right now. I think so I think they would have
Speaker 1: waited until after the election and probably tried to work
Speaker 1: with the congressional committees, uh, the judiciary committees on both
Speaker 1: the House and Senate, to try and do something. Develop
Speaker 1: a little bit more data before you do something like this.
Speaker 1: I think, uh, your prior guests made a good point
Speaker 1: about how limited in scope, but the President actually did
Speaker 1: but I think also reinforcing the point this is something
Speaker 1: for aggress to tackle. We need to do some legislation
Speaker 1: on this. UM. Presidential executive orders and even clemency is
Speaker 1: not going to get this done and not resolve the issue.
Speaker 1: It's time for cogress back. We'll tell you the reaction
Speaker 1: on Wall Street was significant today. The marijuana eat t
Speaker 1: F m J up twenty three per cent. That's the
Speaker 1: alternative harvest ETF cure leef I just mentioned. Because it
Speaker 1: is the largest retailer, largest operator of dispensaries around the
Speaker 1: country up thirty five, Wall Street sometimes knows more than
Speaker 1: Washington does, JUNI they do, and you know, this is
Speaker 1: one side of this story that I think people involved
Speaker 1: in this have not have felt that hasn't been told
Speaker 1: enough UM, which is the economic benefits of you know,
Speaker 1: we're not talking about legalization, certainly at this point at
Speaker 1: the federal level, but of taking steps towards legalizations the states.
Speaker 1: Some of these localities they have recognized that. And people
Speaker 1: in favor of you know, decriminalization, legalization, they've long been
Speaker 1: sing that there are benefits here that have gone unrecognized,
Speaker 1: and certainly Wall Street is not surprisingly recognizing that before Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. And to Bill's point, which is so important,
Speaker 1: as with so many other things in the United States,
Speaker 1: it's not enough to be making policy by executive order EO.
Speaker 1: You've got to get Congress to act. And unfortunately, I
Speaker 1: think after the election it's likely we're going to see
Speaker 1: the breaks put on something like this for a lot
Speaker 1: of period time. That's the that's the flip of the
Speaker 1: coin here, Bill. You know, it's not just Joe Biden
Speaker 1: looking to help Democrats, but they know that this window
Speaker 1: is closing, right, I mean, any effort to decriminalize in
Speaker 1: a Republican lead House going to die a quick death, right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But look, I mean we're spending a lot of time
Speaker 1: talking about the criminalization versus decriminalization. Which schedules should marijuana
Speaker 1: be on? You know, equally important to all of the
Speaker 1: states where marijuana is legal. Is also the banking issue
Speaker 1: and how they're able to transact business. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: this is such a big business in some of these states.
Speaker 1: We really need to have a comprehensive look at how
Speaker 1: the marijuana, cannabis industry, it's uh is performing, how it's sold,
Speaker 1: you know, what some of the restrictions are to keep
Speaker 1: it away from school children, but also the economics of it,
Speaker 1: including how these businesses are able to conduct their business
Speaker 1: through banks as opposed to cash transactions, et cetera. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a pretty significant issue that deserves
Speaker 1: a lot of attention from Congress, and hopefully we'll we'll
Speaker 1: get a resolution to this. Siner. Yeah, hopefully, Although we're
Speaker 1: not holding our breath. Bill McGinley and Jeanie Schanzano with
Speaker 1: us in our remaining moments as we steer the panel.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry to do this to you, but I
Speaker 1: have no choice to herschel Walker, it's the story, uh
Speaker 1: that won't go away. As the woman who earlier this
Speaker 1: week's at herschel Walker, this, of course, the Republican Senate
Speaker 1: candidate in Georgia paid for her abortion in two thousand
Speaker 1: nine now says that he knows who she is because
Speaker 1: she is the mother of one of his children. This
Speaker 1: is a new report out after The Daily Beast first
Speaker 1: made this report this week. He hasn't been able to
Speaker 1: stop talking about it and has spent the better part
Speaker 1: of his week on Fox News answering questions. Much like
Speaker 1: in this case, not on Fox News, he actually had
Speaker 1: to hold a news conference today. He set up an
Speaker 1: outdoor briefing so reporters could throw questions in him because
Speaker 1: this is obviously a big deal, and it's one that
Speaker 1: we've seen in his race, spen somewhat into the to
Speaker 1: the favor of of his Democratic rival, the incumbent Raphael Warnock,
Speaker 1: listened to this exchange with reporters today as they try
Speaker 1: to find out if herschel Walker actually knows this woman.
Speaker 1: Have you reached out to any of the mothers of
Speaker 1: your children to ask why not? Well, because according to
Speaker 1: the article, one of the woman who says that you
Speaker 1: paid for her and also the mother of one of
Speaker 1: your children, it seems like that's not to be anything.
Speaker 1: The article I had more kids as why I reached
Speaker 1: out to anyone? Because I said no, And that's what
Speaker 1: I mean, and I said, no, I said, it's not correct.
Speaker 1: That's a lie, and that's what I mean, that's a lot.
Speaker 1: I have literally no idea what that answer means. Genie.
Speaker 1: Did Democrats just let him take the rope here that
Speaker 1: he's clearly running with or do they actually have to
Speaker 1: start leaning into attacking him. No, I think they I
Speaker 1: think they should let him go forward. I think Raphael
Speaker 1: Warnox response and the Democrats response has been right on
Speaker 1: to focus on the policy issue and the fact that
Speaker 1: this is somebody advocating a very extreme position when it
Speaker 1: comes to an issue that you know, sixty percent of
Speaker 1: Americans feel that there should be an exception in the
Speaker 1: case of rap or ancestor the life of the mother.
Speaker 1: That's not a position he's adopted, except apparently perhaps when
Speaker 1: it comes to himself and let the voters decide that.
Speaker 1: You know, as you listen and I did listen to
Speaker 1: what he had to say, he leaves himself an opening.
Speaker 1: If you notice, he says he's given money. He doesn't
Speaker 1: know what people have done with that money. And I
Speaker 1: think that will be the out if it becomes tied
Speaker 1: that it is the mother of one of his children,
Speaker 1: and he does know who the woman is. He will
Speaker 1: say he had no knowledge of where that money went.
Speaker 1: Every day this week. If you really listen to the
Speaker 1: words that he's saying, he hasn't denied a lot. He
Speaker 1: has called this alive. But then he goes to to
Speaker 1: to use very careful language, Bill, I send money to
Speaker 1: lots of people. I never urged anyone to get an abortion.
Speaker 1: What the heck is going to happen here? And well,
Speaker 1: Republicans continue to defend him through November. I think it's
Speaker 1: a stands right now. Yes, I mean Senator Rick Scott,
Speaker 1: the chairman of the NSC, has has come out to
Speaker 1: say that they're they're going to stand by him right now.
Speaker 1: I think other National Republicans have done the same. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, from the Republicans point of view, Um, you
Speaker 1: know these are you know, it's a serious issue. But
Speaker 1: he's come out and denied it. But also it also
Speaker 1: speaks to the fact that is his candidacy was beginning
Speaker 1: to get traction. I mean consistently in the polls herschel
Speaker 1: Walker was up by two points so for the Senator Warnock. Um.
Speaker 1: And it just tells you that the Democrats felt that
Speaker 1: they needed to dump this opposition research now in October.
Speaker 1: So it speaks to the competitiveness of that race, where
Speaker 1: the Democrats, I think, thought that they had the race
Speaker 1: shown up. How worried over the summer. How worry should
Speaker 1: Warnock be about an APO dump in the next couple
Speaker 1: of weeks, Jennie, you know, I think he's, oh, you
Speaker 1: always have to be worried about that. We do know
Speaker 1: there are grumblings of of of charges that could be
Speaker 1: made against him, And I think the real concern here
Speaker 1: for Democrats and for Raphael Warnock is the fact that
Speaker 1: despite this issue, voters simply may not be responding to it.
Speaker 1: And I don't think, at least I haven't seen enough
Speaker 1: public polling out of Georgia to know, because you know,
Speaker 1: issues of crime, issues of inflation, issues of gas, those
Speaker 1: are things on top of mind. This may not be
Speaker 1: and you know, we've seen candidates like Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: others who have weathered these kinds of storms. So that's
Speaker 1: got to be a concern. And that's why Warnock's got
Speaker 1: to keep focusing on the issues that are important to
Speaker 1: voters and stay out of this fray and let Walker
Speaker 1: deal with this issue on his own. Did Georgia voters
Speaker 1: care more about Republicans being in the majority, Bill or
Speaker 1: or this latest access Hollywood type of story. You know,
Speaker 1: I really think this is gonna come down, you know,
Speaker 1: Republicans for Republicans. This this election is all about change
Speaker 1: um for all of the reasons that Genie just said,
Speaker 1: you know, the gas and food inflation, the sputtering economy,
Speaker 1: all of the foreign affairs issue, but really the catching
Speaker 1: cable issues. Uh No, I think and I think they
Speaker 1: do care, But I think Democrats are going to continue
Speaker 1: these types of attacks because they don't want it to
Speaker 1: be a change narrative they're fighting over. It's a choice
Speaker 1: between two candidates and the domat Bill McGinley, Genie Chanzano,
Speaker 1: great panel. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg