Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Floomberg's sound on.
Speaker 1: The people I have are hard working people that are
Speaker 1: getting hurt at the grocery store. They getting hit hard
Speaker 1: at the gas stations. In Oberga Fell. The court said, no,
Speaker 1: we know better than you guys do, and now every
Speaker 1: state must sanction than and permit gay marriage. Floomberg Sound
Speaker 1: on Politics, Policy and Perspective from DC's Top Names. We
Speaker 1: are working to protect women's right to control their lives.
Speaker 1: It's clear to me that when it comes to this
Speaker 1: congressional district, people are looking for another option. Bloomberg Sound
Speaker 1: On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. It is hot, hot,
Speaker 1: hot outside, but is it hot enough for the President
Speaker 1: of the United States to declare a climate crisis. We're
Speaker 1: going to preview the announcement that President Biden is expected
Speaker 1: to make tomorrow, as well as the upcoming January six
Speaker 1: hearing and the latest on Steve Bannon's trial, which is
Speaker 1: ongoing today. Plus a look at what Congress is doing
Speaker 1: trying to move two major pieces of legislation, one of
Speaker 1: them that would give billions of dollars to the semiconductor
Speaker 1: industry and another that could help millions of Americans with healthcare,
Speaker 1: but doesn't nearly go as far as Democrats were initially
Speaker 1: hoping for. I'm Emily Wilkins. Hopefully Joe Matthew is off
Speaker 1: keeping cool somewhere. I'm super excited today because we've got
Speaker 1: a really great guest joining us. Um is someone who
Speaker 1: I constantly bug all day every day to try and
Speaker 1: keep me up to date with what exactly is going
Speaker 1: on with Congress. My Bloomberg Government, Bloomberg Government colleague, Zach
Speaker 1: Cohen's joining us today. Zach, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being here. UM. I know that for the last week
Speaker 1: that you and I particularly you have really been following
Speaker 1: a lot of this debate around the semiconductor bill, and
Speaker 1: we're expecting a procedural vote in the Senate on that
Speaker 1: one today, right right, I mean that vote could come
Speaker 1: literally any minute. I've got the Senate floor pulled up
Speaker 1: here on the computer. Uh, it's been chips, chips all
Speaker 1: the time over in the Senate. This week, Senate Majority
Speaker 1: Leader Chuck Schumer is trying to get a procedural vote
Speaker 1: through for a really major semiconductor manufacturing incentives bill. Key
Speaker 1: to this is the fifty two billion dollars in direct
Speaker 1: subsidies for those chips, as well as a tax investment
Speaker 1: UH tax credit that could be included as well. But
Speaker 1: there's some last minute wrangling over some of the provisions
Speaker 1: in there. Um, so we could see an initial vote
Speaker 1: on that um and potentially more votes in the days
Speaker 1: to come. Lots of drama here trying to figure out
Speaker 1: if they can actually wind up getting a vote today. Zach.
Speaker 1: I did want to check though, because I remember Republican
Speaker 1: Senator John Cornyn last week he kind of seemed a
Speaker 1: little bit sour on this. He's you know, he and
Speaker 1: McConnell were kind of saying, well, if Democrats are working
Speaker 1: on reconciliation, we're not really sure about moving ahead with
Speaker 1: this bill. What's changed, right, So, the Reconciliation Bill, or
Speaker 1: formerly known as Bill Back Better, has sort of been
Speaker 1: hanging out in the background. Both Senator Joe Mansion Senator
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer had been engaged in sort of private negotiations
Speaker 1: over some form of bill that can pass on a
Speaker 1: party line vote through the Senate and avoid a Republican
Speaker 1: filibuster um. That bill has basically come down to at
Speaker 1: this point, some legislation on drug pricing and on Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act or Obamacare subsidies, and that's basically all they've
Speaker 1: been able to agree to. And while Republicans have said, look,
Speaker 1: we're not going to negotiate on a bipartisan bill while
Speaker 1: you're having this partisan negotiation on the side, they've basically
Speaker 1: said that bill is probably small enough, we can go
Speaker 1: ahead and move forward on this chip's funding, which they
Speaker 1: see not only as important but really as a national
Speaker 1: security concern. Yeah, talk a little bit more about that,
Speaker 1: because I know Commerce Commerce Secretary Gina Romundo was in
Speaker 1: the Capitol last week. She talked to senator, she talked
Speaker 1: to House members, and her message really seemed to be
Speaker 1: that this is incredibly urgent not just for manufacturers, producers,
Speaker 1: car producers, but also for national security. Right basically right
Speaker 1: now that you've got companies like Intel and other semiconductor
Speaker 1: manufacturers that are weighing basically which countries to start building
Speaker 1: these semiconductor manufacturing plants in in the United States, would
Speaker 1: obviously like to have a piece of that action, not
Speaker 1: just for the economic benefits, which is something that lawmakers
Speaker 1: like to talk about, but also for the fact that
Speaker 1: without a sort of steady supply of these chips, not
Speaker 1: only can US manufacturers not count on them for sort
Speaker 1: of domestic goods, but also for key military equipment drones, planes,
Speaker 1: you name it that they really needed in order to build, uh,
Speaker 1: that particular machinery. And so Jina Mundo has been sort
Speaker 1: of pressing the case on a national security front in
Speaker 1: private classified briefings, first with the Senators, then with members
Speaker 1: of the House. UM. And that seems to have gotten
Speaker 1: the ball rolling on getting Democrats and Republicans alike to
Speaker 1: recognize that while there's been a broader effort to try
Speaker 1: to get a China competitiveness bill known as the Innovation
Speaker 1: and Competition Act, the American Competes Act, it goes by
Speaker 1: a couple of different names, they're really moving on the
Speaker 1: front Endless Frontiers was always the best name. The Bi
Speaker 1: Parson Innovation Act is also a new one they've thrown
Speaker 1: in there. Uh. And they basically said, look, let's move
Speaker 1: just the chips funding, just the semiconductor funding. We can
Speaker 1: back to all these other issues later. Um. Are they
Speaker 1: going to come back to any of these issues later?
Speaker 1: That's a good question and something we've been trying to
Speaker 1: figure out this week. But without this chips funding, which
Speaker 1: has kind of been the engine underneath this this bill
Speaker 1: this entire time, that's been bogged down and sort of
Speaker 1: bicameral House and Senate negotiations for months now. You remember
Speaker 1: that the first version of this bill, uh, the Innovation
Speaker 1: Competition Act, passed the Senate in June um and so
Speaker 1: they have they have really sort of dragged their feet
Speaker 1: on this bill and have not been able to reach
Speaker 1: some really key decisions, not just on um say, the
Speaker 1: Trade Title and sort of changing you know, trade policy
Speaker 1: in this country, but also on things like how to
Speaker 1: manage diplomacy with China and other major competitors. And so
Speaker 1: whether lawmakers can sort of have the the impetus and
Speaker 1: the priority to get to an agreement on some other
Speaker 1: provisions seems unlikely if they don't have sort of the
Speaker 1: ticking clock of trying to get the semiconductor funding done.
Speaker 1: I mean, speaking of large bills that have been slimmed down,
Speaker 1: I mean you mentioned reconciliation. We have to touch on
Speaker 1: the bill that is formerly known as Build Back Better,
Speaker 1: was called build Back Mansion. I think I mentioned walked
Speaker 1: away from a good chunk of it at this point.
Speaker 1: I mean, Zack when I talked to folks in the House.
Speaker 1: There's there's a frustration with what has gone on. Congressman
Speaker 1: Andy Levin was on yesterday. He described it as kind
Speaker 1: of like Lucy taken away the football at the last
Speaker 1: moment before Charlie Brown kicks it. And I'm wondering what
Speaker 1: you are hearing too in the Senate, because it seems
Speaker 1: like for the House, you know, you can usually rally
Speaker 1: enough folks together. The Senate is where things get really sticky.
Speaker 1: Are we going to have enough to pass a reconciliation
Speaker 1: package with just the two healthcare provisions? And when can
Speaker 1: you see that going? You could see a reconciliation bill
Speaker 1: as soon as next week if they sort of get
Speaker 1: the final details done, Like I said, on this drug
Speaker 1: pricing provision, they're going before the Senate's top rulemaker, the
Speaker 1: Senate Parliamentary Elizabeth McDonough on Thursday, just to make sure
Speaker 1: that it's sort of follows all the budget rules that
Speaker 1: they have to meet in order to avoid a Republican filibuster.
Speaker 1: And I won't bother getting in too much into the
Speaker 1: weeds on that. And then they've also got these A
Speaker 1: C A subsidies that they want to get included, that
Speaker 1: all could get done before Congress leaves for the recess.
Speaker 1: I think the House is talking about actually staying in
Speaker 1: an extra week, although I think I saw that you
Speaker 1: don't want that. The House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer apparently
Speaker 1: has vacation plans down in North Carolina the third week
Speaker 1: of August, so we you know, don't want to mess
Speaker 1: with that at all. But certainly they could get something
Speaker 1: done before that August recess, which is kind of sacrosanct
Speaker 1: here in Washington. Whether they can come back and do
Speaker 1: the rest on maybe taxes or climate after Joe Manchin
Speaker 1: gets those inflation numbers he's been looking for, that's an
Speaker 1: entirely different story. I mean, it is wild to think, though,
Speaker 1: because we know that for the Senate process, they do
Speaker 1: have to go through a lot, right, They've got to
Speaker 1: go through those all night vote ramas. This is not
Speaker 1: something that's going to be done quickly. If we don't
Speaker 1: see an actual reconciliation bill next week. Is there any
Speaker 1: way that this actually gets done before they leave for August?
Speaker 1: It could? It could. Yeah, that will be the sort
Speaker 1: of vote a rama that they'll have to do, um
Speaker 1: where normally for bills to come to the floor. There's
Speaker 1: an agreement reached between Democrats and Republicans to say we're
Speaker 1: going to go vote on X number of amendments just
Speaker 1: to sort of speed things along. But the Senate, you know,
Speaker 1: also known as the world's greatest deliberative body, UM, in
Speaker 1: this case, it does sort of allow any Senator to
Speaker 1: offer as many amendments for votes as they want with
Speaker 1: limited debate. UM. And I think you know, we've seen
Speaker 1: dozens of votes on reconciliation packages in the past and
Speaker 1: during this Congress where Democrats, you know, not just on
Speaker 1: this bill where they had one initially to sort of
Speaker 1: set up this process, but also recall for the one
Speaker 1: point nine trillion dollar COVID rescue plan, the American Rescue Plan. UM.
Speaker 1: And so senators are are no stranger to these late nights,
Speaker 1: but certainly they left to budget some time for them,
Speaker 1: for sure. And Zach, I also want to touch on
Speaker 1: a slightly different topic because you and I got to
Speaker 1: do a really interesting ed board panel UM with the
Speaker 1: Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, King Jeffrey's Um also
Speaker 1: sometimes referred to as the air apparent, to be the
Speaker 1: leader of the Democratic Caucus. If when Pelosi decides to go.
Speaker 1: It's a really interesting person um and we talked with
Speaker 1: him a little bit just about different priorities, how those
Speaker 1: needed to get done, and he had something really interesting
Speaker 1: to say about how Democrats get their agenda through. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we only have even two options, change Joe Mansion's mind
Speaker 1: or gain at least two Senate seats to add too affity,
Speaker 1: uh seat majority with individuals you know, who are willing
Speaker 1: to act decisively on the issues of the day in
Speaker 1: areas like defending reproductive freedom, enacting some form of comprehensive
Speaker 1: immigration reform, protecting the rights to vote, and certainly addressing
Speaker 1: decline the crisis. Democrats have two options, change Joe Mansion's
Speaker 1: mind or gain two Senate seats. Zach, I know you've
Speaker 1: been following a lot of the Senate races across the country.
Speaker 1: What is the likelihood now that Democrats are actually going
Speaker 1: to be able to pick up two seats in the
Speaker 1: Senate next year? They're certainly better than the chances of
Speaker 1: Democrats actually holding the majority in the House. Where became Jefferies,
Speaker 1: you know, lives in breeds. You know, you've got places
Speaker 1: like Arizona and Nevada and Georgia, where you've got Democrats
Speaker 1: facing really tough re election races. But then you've got
Speaker 1: other states like Pennsylvania or North Carolina where you've got
Speaker 1: open seats where Republicans are retiring, where Democrats feel decent
Speaker 1: about their chances, or maybe Wisconsin or Senator Ron Johnson
Speaker 1: is up for re election, maybe they can flip that seat.
Speaker 1: New Hampshire also on the board. UM, while Senator Maggie
Speaker 1: Hassan there one reelection by our one her first term,
Speaker 1: rather by a very narrow margin a couple hundred votes.
Speaker 1: Remember correctly, Um, the Republican field hasn't exactly stacked up
Speaker 1: against expectations. So UM, the Senate does typically um buck
Speaker 1: historical trends. It's not like the House where you can
Speaker 1: expect the majority party to lose seats UM in the
Speaker 1: Senate because each senator has you know, a sort of
Speaker 1: a bigger name recognition and is able to sort of
Speaker 1: build their own uh name I D and and their
Speaker 1: own fundraise for sure, and Democrats are particularly good on
Speaker 1: that front. You could see Democrats you know, even pick
Speaker 1: up seats if they're able to sort of hold off
Speaker 1: these Republican challenges. But in a national environment like this.
Speaker 1: I think you've got to give the early edge to Republicans. Zack.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you ten seconds for this one. What
Speaker 1: is the Senate race to watch this year? Oh, definitely Nevada. Um,
Speaker 1: and not just because of Nevada, but they've also got
Speaker 1: three house races that are really interesting out of the
Speaker 1: out of Las Vegas and the suburbs there. Um. It's
Speaker 1: got some of the highest inflation in the country. You
Speaker 1: got center Cathin Cortes Masto is running for a second term.
Speaker 1: It'll be a really good one. So what I'm hearing
Speaker 1: you say, Zach, is that Bloomberg government needs to send
Speaker 1: us to Vegas. That sounds like a jackpot idea. Zack Cohen, Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: Government's congressional reporter. Stick around. We're assembling the panel next
Speaker 1: to continue talking about Biden's potential climate crisis. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg You sound on with Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. Emily Wilkins, I'm filling in for Jine
Speaker 1: today on sound On. Well, we are still waiting to
Speaker 1: see if the Senate is going to be taking a
Speaker 1: procedural vote today on pieces of legislation that would give
Speaker 1: more than fifty billion dollars to semiconductors and chips. Uh
Speaker 1: and here to discuss really the scope and importance of
Speaker 1: this bill, we're going to assemble the all star panel.
Speaker 1: Limbrick Politics contributors Genie Chienzano and Rick Davis, thank you
Speaker 1: both so much for joining us today. Um, I wanted
Speaker 1: to just begin with the idea of what happens if
Speaker 1: this bill does not get done. It seems like it's
Speaker 1: pretty close right now, but we always know that things
Speaker 1: can go wrong at the last minute. And Rick, I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: if this doesn't wind up happening, are the American people
Speaker 1: going to see Congress as having failed in this arena? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think this is a difficult one to really communicate
Speaker 1: to the American people. I mean, that concept that we're
Speaker 1: attracting and trying to hold and spur um you know,
Speaker 1: microchip manufacturing the United States. I mean, it's just, you know,
Speaker 1: the public hasn't really been brought in on this debate, right,
Speaker 1: It's not some urgent thing that has been in the
Speaker 1: top of the news for a long time. And in fact,
Speaker 1: if you look at the newspapers, it is hard to
Speaker 1: even see coverage on this, so it may or may
Speaker 1: not resonate, certainly not with voters in the upcoming election.
Speaker 1: We haven't seen these kinds of things in any of
Speaker 1: the current polling. But look, I mean, I haven't seen
Speaker 1: much happening. Congress has got this much initiative behind it
Speaker 1: right now, and and and a bipartisan approach to it
Speaker 1: that um, you know, usually indicates are going to get
Speaker 1: somewhere across the finish line. I mean, Rick, though, isn't
Speaker 1: there something to be said about some of the supply
Speaker 1: cheam shortages that we've seen at this point and the
Speaker 1: need to make sure that you know, even if Americans
Speaker 1: aren't aware that this chip spill is being worked on,
Speaker 1: they do understand what it's like to wait six months
Speaker 1: to get a car, or that their assembly line shut
Speaker 1: down for a number of weeks. I mean, could those
Speaker 1: in wind up having some sort of impact? Sure, I
Speaker 1: think you see that already, right. That's been going on
Speaker 1: really since uh the uh full impact of the pandemic
Speaker 1: hit in. We've had these kinds of supply chain shortages.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, also in the meat industry and
Speaker 1: also in you know, other non chip related businesses. But
Speaker 1: I do think people are frustrated. I think it's come
Speaker 1: out of the government hide uh and unfortunately for this
Speaker 1: administration has come out of their hide uh to where
Speaker 1: their ability to actually create change and improve the current
Speaker 1: condition of those kinds of backlogs have been really limited.
Speaker 1: Um and and and I think that's the concern a
Speaker 1: lot of politicians I talked to. They don't want to
Speaker 1: make this sound like all of a sudden, you know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna unleash this torrent of chips into the market
Speaker 1: and you're you're gonna get your car in time, and
Speaker 1: that refrigerator you've been waiting for, you know, you didn't
Speaker 1: even know you had a chip in your refrigerator. But
Speaker 1: I think that's part of the caution, is that this
Speaker 1: is really a mid term strategy to try and sustain
Speaker 1: and attract those chip manufacturers into the country, a lot
Speaker 1: of which is already happening, but that, um, you know,
Speaker 1: you have to spur the industry to continue there. And
Speaker 1: that's where these subsidies come in for sure. And you know,
Speaker 1: even sort of mentioning that this is something that Democrats
Speaker 1: have used as messaging, I mean often when you talked
Speaker 1: to Democrats about what they're going to do about inflation.
Speaker 1: This is a bill that they often bring up. I mean,
Speaker 1: you asked the sort of if they think it's going
Speaker 1: to have any immediate impact. Most of them admit it's
Speaker 1: going to take a while, but this is certainly something
Speaker 1: that Democrats at least seem poised to use as part
Speaker 1: of their larger messaging. Um. The other interesting aspect of
Speaker 1: this though, I mean, for so long we've heard about
Speaker 1: this chip shortage, chip shortage, chip shortage. The Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal had this really interesting op ed today, uh saying
Speaker 1: that you know this bill, it started about it more
Speaker 1: than a year ago at this point, and things have changed,
Speaker 1: that supply has increased, and they actually say that this
Speaker 1: bill would be corporate welfare. Genie. I just wanted to
Speaker 1: get your your take on that. Do you think that
Speaker 1: that's something that that could wind a plane into this
Speaker 1: larger debate? It could, and it was a really fascinating editorial.
Speaker 1: I two read it, and it creates some strange bedfellows
Speaker 1: because of course, you have a combination of free market
Speaker 1: you know, opposition on the Republican side on the right,
Speaker 1: and this idea you hear from people like Bernie sandals
Speaker 1: Sanders about a bailout for big business, And while I
Speaker 1: don't personally abide by this idea, there is some truth
Speaker 1: to that. You look at the tax credits alone, it's
Speaker 1: double R and D for all other industries through, leading
Speaker 1: some people to say this is a enormous pork bill
Speaker 1: for one single industry, and imagine if other industries start
Speaker 1: to ask for it. And to the point that the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal editorial was making. While this may have
Speaker 1: made sense in the midst of COVID, now that interest
Speaker 1: rates are up and inflation is up and the demand
Speaker 1: is down, there's not as much of a need for
Speaker 1: it potentially, So I do think this is what leads
Speaker 1: us to the reality of this. And Rick is right,
Speaker 1: it needs bipartisan support if it gets through the Senate.
Speaker 1: Pelosi is not going to be able to push it
Speaker 1: through the House with just Democrats alone. They're gonna they're
Speaker 1: gonna have some fallout and see this of the bailout,
Speaker 1: and so she's going to have to get bipartisan support
Speaker 1: in the House to push this through as well. So
Speaker 1: it is a really interesting conundrum. And I would just
Speaker 1: give kudos to Romando you mentioned and also to Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer for hammering home the case that this is a
Speaker 1: security threat both economically and nationally. If it doesn't get done,
Speaker 1: Romando said, if it doesn't get done this week, China wins.
Speaker 1: So that's how seriously they're taking us. Genie, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: put you on the spot here with a with a
Speaker 1: quick twenty second answer, what are the odds that Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans can get the other portions of the bill
Speaker 1: they're leaving on the cutting room floor done before the
Speaker 1: end of the year. Oh, at the tough one really quickly.
Speaker 1: I'm never very optimistic, so I don't think so. I
Speaker 1: think if they get this, they're gonna just get this
Speaker 1: straight bill. I don't think they're going to get more. Genie,
Speaker 1: rick Um, I know that we will be chatting with
Speaker 1: you guys in just a little bit of but next
Speaker 1: up next we're gonna be previewing that January six prime
Speaker 1: time hearing on Thursday and the Steve Bannon trial going
Speaker 1: on today with Mark said, I'm Emily Wilkins. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Well now excited to welcome to the show. Brad Moss.
Speaker 1: He is a lawyer specializing in national security, federal employment
Speaker 1: and security clearance law as well as the deputy executive
Speaker 1: director of the James Madison Project. And I know that
Speaker 1: he's been following so many of the ins and outs
Speaker 1: of not just the January six panel, but also many
Speaker 1: of the things that are going on around the wider investigation. Brad,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today. Wondering if
Speaker 1: we can just sort of start at the thirty foot
Speaker 1: view here, Why is Steve Bannon on trial and what
Speaker 1: did we learn today from that trial? Sure? So, Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon is on trial for the simple fact that he
Speaker 1: received the congressional subpoena from the January six Committee to
Speaker 1: testify about what he observed and knew about the events
Speaker 1: leading up to and then on January six, as well
Speaker 1: to provide a whole mess of documents. He straight up
Speaker 1: refused to do any of it. He didn't testify, he
Speaker 1: didn't come in to testify, he did produce any documents,
Speaker 1: He didn't produce a privilege privilege log about documents he
Speaker 1: might have produced if they weren't covered by privileged nothing.
Speaker 1: He simply said, I'm covered by executive privilege by the
Speaker 1: former president. I'm not coming in. You can't make me,
Speaker 1: you know, for lack of a better phrase, and he
Speaker 1: was referred for criminal contempt by Congress to the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, and Department of Justice indicted him. So how
Speaker 1: is that argument going for him, that he has executive
Speaker 1: privilege because he did work as strategist for some time. Correct,
Speaker 1: It's gone nowhere for him. So mind you all the
Speaker 1: events that took place leading up to January six, Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon was a civilian, he was no longer working for
Speaker 1: the government. He's no longer a White House aid. He
Speaker 1: filed a bunch of motions at the beginning of this
Speaker 1: criminal proceeding, trying to argue that he was covered by privilege,
Speaker 1: that his actions were authorized by the former president, that
Speaker 1: he was relying on guidance from legal counsel. The arguments
Speaker 1: were all thrown out. The judge rejected them all. He
Speaker 1: tried to push off the trial a couple of times.
Speaker 1: The argument was rejected. The judge said, no, We're going
Speaker 1: to trial, and today we started at the jury was
Speaker 1: seated opening arguments, and the first witnesses began, this thing
Speaker 1: is going to be done by the end of the week.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, that quickly, I mean, is it looking good?
Speaker 1: For it doesn't sound like that it's looking good for
Speaker 1: him at this point in time. I mean, what what
Speaker 1: could this mean, the outcome of this trial mean for
Speaker 1: others who have gotten a subpoena from the January six
Speaker 1: Committee and also not bothered to then appear in front
Speaker 1: of the committee. Sure, so, for the most part, almost
Speaker 1: an overwhelming number of people who have been subpoenaed by
Speaker 1: the committee or have been asked to cooperate have come
Speaker 1: forward and provide a testament. You've certainly seen a lot
Speaker 1: of that in the January six hearings. The people who
Speaker 1: haven't are Trump's most by and large, Trump's inner certainly
Speaker 1: think of Peter Navarro, who was already indicted. You think
Speaker 1: of Mark Meadows and Dance Gavino, the White House aids
Speaker 1: who were referred for contempt but d o J declined
Speaker 1: to prosecute them. Uh, those individuals are the are the
Speaker 1: small select few who have declined. They will likely at
Speaker 1: this point just play it out the way they already had.
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows and Dance Gavino. No, they're not going to
Speaker 1: be indicted at this point, so they don't care. But
Speaker 1: it does go forward from purposes of this prosecution assuming
Speaker 1: there is a conviction. It goes forward to the point
Speaker 1: that Congress does have some power here. They can compel
Speaker 1: people to testify. If the people refuse, there are punishments,
Speaker 1: there is criminal liability. I also want to take a
Speaker 1: minute and just spin this forward to their sesday night,
Speaker 1: when we are going to be hearing the next public
Speaker 1: hearing from the January six panel. We're going to be
Speaker 1: hearing from former Trump Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Matthews,
Speaker 1: as well as former Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger.
Speaker 1: Both of them are expected to testify. We heard today
Speaker 1: from House Democratic Caucus vicee chair pe Aguilar, who told
Speaker 1: reporters the testimony will show how former how former President
Speaker 1: Trump did not stop, did not act to stop the
Speaker 1: attack on the Capitol. Will continue to detail, specifically this
Speaker 1: hearing that failed leadership, how Donald Trump failed to take that.
Speaker 1: Oh seriously, Brad, I'm wondering what you're going to be
Speaker 1: looking for from this hearing on Thursday night. Yeah. My
Speaker 1: plan with this hearing is I want to see how
Speaker 1: much more they flesh out. And this is that that
Speaker 1: personal knowledge that these two witnesses can provide of once
Speaker 1: Trump was back in the White House and the breach
Speaker 1: had occurred at the Capitol leading up for those several
Speaker 1: wor as well, we all watched on TV live as
Speaker 1: the mob, you know, infiltery of the Capital put members
Speaker 1: of Congress and the Vice president at risk. What was
Speaker 1: actually going on at the White House. We've heard some
Speaker 1: testimony both live from Cassidy Hutchinson as well some tape
Speaker 1: that positions of various White House staff about what they
Speaker 1: were called the President doing, but few have been close
Speaker 1: enough to have actually observed him directly, as opposed to
Speaker 1: having heard it from other people, like hearing it from
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows. So it'll be interesting with these two individuals
Speaker 1: who were very close to the president, part of his
Speaker 1: inner circle, what they can elaborate on, what they can
Speaker 1: flesh out in terms of how much the president knew
Speaker 1: about truly what was going on there, What was he
Speaker 1: actually doing, what actions was he taking to stop the riot?
Speaker 1: I can I ask why it's so important that we
Speaker 1: look at what Trump did and did not do to
Speaker 1: stop that riot. Is there some sort of criminal charge
Speaker 1: that's related to that? Could this lead to some sort
Speaker 1: of criminal charge down the road. So so it's too
Speaker 1: part one is obviously political and historical, and it's the
Speaker 1: idea of outlining exactly what after all these hearings we've seen,
Speaker 1: all the things that he did leading up to January six,
Speaker 1: the plans he put in place trying to prevent the
Speaker 1: certification of Joe Biden as president, all those steps he
Speaker 1: took to try to influence the campaign and the o
Speaker 1: J and all that that. The actual date of January six,
Speaker 1: he gives a speech and then the breach occurs. Whether
Speaker 1: or not he was deliberately, whether he was knowingly letting
Speaker 1: it continue without regard for the safety of the members
Speaker 1: of Congress, for the Vice president, and for the certification process,
Speaker 1: and if he was doing it because he wanted things
Speaker 1: to be halted, he wanted to be able to have
Speaker 1: another way to prevent the certification. That's both political and
Speaker 1: historical in terms of making sure the public understands what occurred.
Speaker 1: But it's also a potential criminal issue, whether it comes
Speaker 1: down to conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings and any number
Speaker 1: of potential criminal angles that we've seen with the boat
Speaker 1: Keepers and the Proud Boy. That's what we're gonna look
Speaker 1: to see if this flash out a lot to unpack.
Speaker 1: There certainly will be a interesting blockbuster hearing Brad, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. That was Brad Moss,
Speaker 1: partner at mark Zaide. Stick around. We're about to dive
Speaker 1: into President Biden's announcement tomorrow on an executive order on climate.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Sound on on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The UK has reached a record high heatwave today, and
Speaker 1: while we are not in the United Kingdom, it feels
Speaker 1: pretty awful outside in d C. I believe it also
Speaker 1: feels pretty awful outside in New York. Now. Not many
Speaker 1: people are are being spared with this very hot summer weather.
Speaker 1: And when it talks about the heat, I mean, we're
Speaker 1: we're kind of joking a little bit here, but being
Speaker 1: very serious. There is a lot of discussion right now
Speaker 1: about what needs to happen wind terms of climate, and
Speaker 1: it's gotten so intense that Jeff Merkley, Senator from Oregon,
Speaker 1: has asked President Biden to declare a climate emergency, stating
Speaker 1: that it's very unlikely at this point that the Senate
Speaker 1: is going to be able to do anything more. They
Speaker 1: had that climate package, but Senator Joe Mansion, he's walked
Speaker 1: away from it, at least for now, and even though
Speaker 1: he's under pressure from his colleagues, Mansion's kind of really
Speaker 1: staked out his position here. This is what he said
Speaker 1: the other day. I don't represent the states they represent,
Speaker 1: and the people I have are hard working people that
Speaker 1: are getting hurt hard at the grocery store, They getting
Speaker 1: hit hard at the gas station and everything they pay for.
Speaker 1: So now the ball is in President Joe Biden's court
Speaker 1: and we'll be watching tomorrow when he gives a speech
Speaker 1: at a shuttered coal fire power plant in Massachusetts where
Speaker 1: he's going to lay out the next steps here. Uh.
Speaker 1: Senator Merkley's called called for a climate emergency. We still
Speaker 1: are learning exactly how far this is going to go.
Speaker 1: To discuss this more, we're bringing back are all all
Speaker 1: star panel, Genie she In, Zano, Rick Davis, Jennie. What
Speaker 1: can Biden actually do here? And is this climate emergency
Speaker 1: any different from any other executive order the President might
Speaker 1: put out. Yeah, he's getting a lot of push. You
Speaker 1: mentioned Jeff Merkley leading that charge from the Senate that
Speaker 1: essentially this legislation is dead. We're going to be facing
Speaker 1: a divided Congress potentially in a matter of months, and
Speaker 1: so now is the time to act via executive order.
Speaker 1: And he's certainly pushing for this climate emergency, and there
Speaker 1: are powers available to the president to execute that. Some
Speaker 1: of them though, require Congress to authorize, which is not
Speaker 1: going to happen. And um, you know, we still don't know,
Speaker 1: at least the last I checked, whether in fact Biden
Speaker 1: is going to go ahead and do that. What I'm
Speaker 1: hearing is he's going to notuce that he's going to
Speaker 1: take steps on climate change, but stop short tomorrow in Somerset,
Speaker 1: Massachusetts of declaring a national emergency. So we have to
Speaker 1: sort of wait and see how they're going to respond.
Speaker 1: But certainly they're frustrated and they're getting a lot of
Speaker 1: push And of course it is a perfect situation of
Speaker 1: sort of a perfect storm, if you will, for the president,
Speaker 1: because on the one hand, he's got inflation, high oil prices,
Speaker 1: and the heat in the United States and you've been
Speaker 1: talking about around the world people are really focused on
Speaker 1: climate change right now, and looking at a US Congress
Speaker 1: that can act and a president who, by many estimations,
Speaker 1: seems unwilling to do what his powers allow him to do,
Speaker 1: and that's a real challenge for this White House. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And another thing for Biden to try and keep in
Speaker 1: mind here is that if he goes too far with
Speaker 1: what he is proposing, he does risk isolating Senator Joe Manchin.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's walked away from some of these climate proposals,
Speaker 1: but there is some hope that maybe he'd come back
Speaker 1: after September, and there's still that major healthcare bill that
Speaker 1: Democrats are interested in moving through. I mean, Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: what's kind of the balance that Biden has to walk
Speaker 1: here on this announcement tomorrow? Yeah, I family, I think
Speaker 1: you've really figured out that the dynamic is much more
Speaker 1: complicated than just having, you know, a right to be
Speaker 1: able to administratively do these these things on climate. Joe
Speaker 1: Mansion is the key to future activity in the Senate
Speaker 1: for the next two years. I mean, this is not
Speaker 1: something that potentially could change tomorrow. I mean we've been
Speaker 1: talking about the elections. They could be right back in
Speaker 1: a fifty fifties Senate and potentially a House that's Republican,
Speaker 1: and so they need Joe Mansion is stop the Senate
Speaker 1: from doing things that Republicans want them to do. And
Speaker 1: so you know this is this is a political dynamic
Speaker 1: that has great implications with policy. And and you've got
Speaker 1: to believe Mansion when he says, I'm willing to negotiate
Speaker 1: on climate. I'm just not willing to negotiate on on
Speaker 1: this reconciliation bill, which by the way, has been pretty
Speaker 1: consistent throughout the court of the last year and a half.
Speaker 1: Biden's got some options, you know, that he could do administratively,
Speaker 1: and he should do those things. Uh, he didn't need
Speaker 1: to have a emergency declaration. You know, there are many
Speaker 1: things he can do around pollution from cars, and and
Speaker 1: and and and to put a little uh pressure on
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion by you know, talking about doing some things
Speaker 1: around coal and gas fired power plant regulation. So I
Speaker 1: think he could bring him along to the negotiating table
Speaker 1: if he wants to put some heat on Mansion and Genie.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering as well for some of these Democratic voters
Speaker 1: who were expecting this big climate package, they're now not
Speaker 1: getting that they saw that Supreme Court ruling and limiting
Speaker 1: the powers of the e p A. How is it
Speaker 1: How important is it for Biden with his actions to
Speaker 1: show voters that he still is that the Democrats really
Speaker 1: are still the party that's pushing the climate agenda. As
Speaker 1: we see in all the polls, voters on both sides
Speaker 1: really frustrated by the lack of action on on these
Speaker 1: and many other issues in Washington, d C. And of
Speaker 1: course Biden bears the brunt of that. Being the president,
Speaker 1: the buck really does stop with him. But his challenge
Speaker 1: is great because while people voice concern about climate change,
Speaker 1: it doesn't nearly rise in the polls to the level
Speaker 1: of something they express like inflation, jobs, those kinds of
Speaker 1: issues the economy. Those are the issues they really vote on,
Speaker 1: they really get out on. So he's got to walk
Speaker 1: a really fine line here of showing that he is
Speaker 1: taking this seriously and he's moving forward as best he
Speaker 1: can with some kind of agenda. To Rick's point, working
Speaker 1: with Joe Manchin on the other hand, pole wise, politically,
Speaker 1: it's most important that he focuses on inflation in gas prices,
Speaker 1: because that's what people say still is the number one
Speaker 1: issue for them going to the polls. So we've obviously
Speaker 1: got that announcement tomorrow. We did just get noticed that
Speaker 1: the Senate will be taking that first procedural motion on
Speaker 1: the big Semiconductor spending bill. But there are also two
Speaker 1: smaller bills that are going through the House. They're really
Speaker 1: interesting because after the Supreme Court overturned ro versus Wade,
Speaker 1: Democrats are now rushing to codify other Supreme Court rulings recently. UH.
Speaker 1: These include the right to contraception as well as a
Speaker 1: marriage equality the right for same sex marriage. Now, the
Speaker 1: House is expected to vote Thursday on the Right to
Speaker 1: Contraception Act, which would codify access for birth control. North
Speaker 1: Carolina Democrat Kathy Manning sponsored the bill, and she told
Speaker 1: reporters today that Republicans are trying to limit the accessibility
Speaker 1: of contraception. We are working to protect women's right to
Speaker 1: control their lives. Our opponents are working to take women's
Speaker 1: rights away. So that's the bill that's going on Thursday.
Speaker 1: And then today lawmakers in the House voted on the
Speaker 1: bill for same sex marriage equality UH and Senator Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz became the latest Republican to voices opposition to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Courts ruling to legalize gay marriage. He said on
Speaker 1: an episode of his podcast The Cloak Room that the
Speaker 1: ruling was quote clearly wrong. You know burger Fell. The
Speaker 1: court said no, we know better than you eyes do,
Speaker 1: and now every state must, uh must sanction and permit
Speaker 1: gay marriage. Um. I think that decision was clearly wrong
Speaker 1: when it was decided, UM, it was the court overreaching.
Speaker 1: Whether the Court will reverse it, I will say so
Speaker 1: in Dobbs, what the Supreme Court said is Row is
Speaker 1: different because it's the only one of the cases that
Speaker 1: involves the taking of a human life, and that's qualitatively different.
Speaker 1: I agree with that proposition. So for these bills, Rick,
Speaker 1: are they really just messaging bills or is there a
Speaker 1: real actual concern that the Supreme Court is going to
Speaker 1: overturn some of its other uh big cases that granted
Speaker 1: these rights to same sex marriage and contraception. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: have no doubt that the Democratic sponsors of these bills
Speaker 1: have a fear that the Supreme Court is going to, um,
Speaker 1: you know, pursue this line into other privacy related matters
Speaker 1: like same sex marriage and contraception and and so I
Speaker 1: I don't doubt their genuineness of it, But the reality
Speaker 1: is that they're not likely to have success around it,
Speaker 1: and so are they just kind of bills to position
Speaker 1: the party uh and create challenges for Republicans who might
Speaker 1: have to walk down the plank and vote against these things,
Speaker 1: which they really don't want to do. So, um, you know,
Speaker 1: I think I think it goes both ways. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of genuineness in the efforts of these sponsors,
Speaker 1: but I also think at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: it's just a messaging exercise. Jimmy, do you think that
Speaker 1: these issues, I mean, we know that abortion is certainly
Speaker 1: going to be a big one, but I'm wondering when
Speaker 1: it comes to things like seeing sex marriage, like access
Speaker 1: to contraception, I mean, are those really going to be
Speaker 1: key issues in a mid term especially one where the
Speaker 1: economy is still dominating everything? The economy is dominating. But
Speaker 1: it was fascinating today looking at some polling results, and
Speaker 1: the one area where the majority of Americans said either
Speaker 1: party was extreme was Republicans on this issue of abortion.
Speaker 1: And so I think what we're seeing here to Rick's point,
Speaker 1: you know, the Democrats and some Republicans obviously want to
Speaker 1: codify these things, but we're also mid term season. They
Speaker 1: want to paint the GOP as this extreme party, and
Speaker 1: so they're gonna keep trying to get them on the
Speaker 1: record to say that they are going to oppose access
Speaker 1: to contraception. They're going to oppose same sex marriage because
Speaker 1: too many Americans that does. You know, wherever you stand
Speaker 1: on some of these issues, this party is starting to
Speaker 1: sound extreme. You know, this often discussed issue of a
Speaker 1: ten year old girl being forced to go over lines
Speaker 1: state lines to get an abortion when she becomes pregnant
Speaker 1: by rapist. Those are the things that many Americans see
Speaker 1: is extreme. The Democrats want to talk about that in
Speaker 1: a mid term year, they feel the party being extreme
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump potentially running for president are the best
Speaker 1: two ways to get Democrats in a really tough midterm
Speaker 1: yere for them out to the polls. And they're going
Speaker 1: to keep pushing on these things for that reason. And
Speaker 1: I mean speaking of that, Genie, uh, Congressman Hudkim Jeffreys
Speaker 1: agrees with you. His interview with the ed Board is
Speaker 1: now up on the terminal. Would encourage you to give
Speaker 1: it a read. Has some interesting things to say about
Speaker 1: what's going to go for it in the midterms. Genie Rick,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today. We've got
Speaker 1: more sound on through the rest of this week. Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew is coming back. This is Bloomberg