Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: As we all try to recover from whatever that was
Speaker 2: last night, and Marie calls it a candidate forum, I'm
Speaker 2: pretty sure it was a debate. Of course, didn't include
Speaker 2: the front runner, and it seemed to be a pretty
Speaker 2: good night for Nicki Haley. Now, as usual, we're watching
Speaker 2: so you don't have to. And as I see the
Speaker 2: headline on the terminal, kind of the conventional wisdom here
Speaker 2: across Town Wall Street, Darling Haley draws rivals fire as
Speaker 2: bid gains steam. You know you're doing well when everyone's triangulating.
Speaker 2: And we'll get Rick and Jennie's take on this ahead.
Speaker 2: We're also going to talk to Alan Abramowitz up front
Speaker 2: from Emory in just a moment, but just to give
Speaker 2: you a sense of what it was like when the
Speaker 2: knives came out, many of them aimed at Nicki Haley.
Speaker 2: Enter vivek Ramaswami, complete with prop.
Speaker 3: We're talking about that transition and Nikki Heally's campaign launch
Speaker 3: video sounded like a woke Dylan Mulvany bud lightad talking
Speaker 3: about how she would kick in heels. At the first debate,
Speaker 3: she said that only a woman can get this job done.
Speaker 2: That's what she said.
Speaker 3: After the third debate, when I criticized Ron McDaniel after
Speaker 3: five failed years of leadership of this party and criticized
Speaker 3: Nicki for her corrupt foreign dealings as a military contractor,
Speaker 3: she said that I have a woman problem, Nikki.
Speaker 2: I don't have a woman problem. You have a corruption problem.
Speaker 2: And I think that that's where people need to know.
Speaker 2: Nicki is corrupt.
Speaker 3: This is a woman who will send your kids to
Speaker 3: die so she can buy.
Speaker 2: A bigger house, who would send your kids to die
Speaker 2: so she can buy a bigger house. If you couldn't
Speaker 2: hear him over the applause, it was at that moment
Speaker 2: that the vague Ramaswami held up a piece of paper
Speaker 2: that he scribbled with a sharpie. Nicki equals corrupt. That's
Speaker 2: where we start our conversation with Alan Abramowitz, Professor Emeritis
Speaker 2: at Emory University, in a voice we turn to at
Speaker 2: times like this, professor, it's great to see you I
Speaker 2: suspect you endured this exercise for the better part of
Speaker 2: two hours as well. I just have to start there.
Speaker 2: What do you think of props in a debate?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think it's going to be very effective,
Speaker 4: let's put it that way. You know, I think vi
Speaker 4: Ramaswami is just sort of reinforcing the impression that most
Speaker 4: viewers would have already had of him, that he's extremely annoying,
Speaker 4: uh and you know, and and that he tends to
Speaker 4: uh put forth at a lot of conspiracy theories and so.
Speaker 4: But it's understandable that he's attacking Nicki Haley, and it's
Speaker 4: understandable that the other candidates would be attacking her because
Speaker 4: she's the one who's been rising in the polls.
Speaker 2: M hm, yeah, So that is probably a pretty good feeling, right,
Speaker 2: She said, you guys are jealous when they asked her
Speaker 2: about big money donors turning in her direction. Chris Christie
Speaker 2: called Vivike Ramaswami and a notious blowhard. Among other things
Speaker 2: last night, was that the last stand for Viveke. Where
Speaker 2: does he make it through the early States?
Speaker 4: You know, I don't know. It's hard for me to
Speaker 4: imagine that he's going to be able to continue raising
Speaker 4: money given that he's you know, he's stuck in the
Speaker 4: low single digits in the polls both nationally and in
Speaker 4: the early States. So you know, wouldn't surprise me too
Speaker 4: much to see him dropping out of the race fairly soon.
Speaker 2: Chris Christi, it's been suggested, might be considering the same.
Speaker 2: He certainly came loaded for bear last night. He was
Speaker 2: the only candidate I think who mentioned Donald Trump at
Speaker 2: least more than once, and it took about twenty minutes
Speaker 2: to get into the debate, which I'll ask you about.
Speaker 2: He was going after vivike Ramaswami, though it was suggested earlier,
Speaker 2: and I believe it was Lauren Tomlinson who said on
Speaker 2: this program, amongst some others, that he may have actually
Speaker 2: had a bit of an agreement or a deal with
Speaker 2: nickcki Haley to try to have her back during this debate.
Speaker 2: That seemed to emerge a couple of times.
Speaker 5: Here.
Speaker 2: He is, though, going after a vivid.
Speaker 3: Okay, you say you.
Speaker 2: Can get every debate.
Speaker 5: You go out on the stuff and you say something,
Speaker 5: all of us see it on video, we confront you
Speaker 5: on the debate stage, you say you didn't say it,
Speaker 5: and then you back away, and I want to send
Speaker 5: you I'm.
Speaker 2: Not done yet. Well this look.
Speaker 5: Say something, This is just the fourth debate, the fourth
Speaker 5: debate that you would be voted in the first twenty
Speaker 5: minutes as the most ub notxious blow hard in America.
Speaker 1: Shut up for her life.
Speaker 2: There it is, Professor of Bramowitz. Was he running defense
Speaker 2: for Nicky Haley last night?
Speaker 4: Well, it certainly isn't her interest, I think because Ramaswami
Speaker 4: is going after Nicki Haley. So you're seeing Chris Christy
Speaker 4: taking on Ramaswami. Chris Christy isn't going anywhere, uh, you know,
Speaker 4: in this in this nomination race. So it's a question of,
Speaker 4: you know, whether Nikki Haley can consolidate the non Trump
Speaker 4: anti Trump, non Trump whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 4: vote quickly enough to make a respectable showing in the
Speaker 4: early states that would allow her then you know, to continue.
Speaker 4: I mean, so she's made some gains, but the reality
Speaker 4: is that, you know, she's still far far behind Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: Everyone is far far behind Donald Trump. And I don't
Speaker 4: think anything that happened in that debate is going to
Speaker 4: you know, change that fundamentally.
Speaker 2: I haven't even mentioned a guy named Ronda Santis at
Speaker 2: one time the presumptive front runner, and Professor, we know
Speaker 2: that he's been struggling. Although a lot of folks said
Speaker 2: it was his best performance last night. I found this
Speaker 2: curious as they got to matters of the economy and
Speaker 2: personal finance, the issue of inflation, which she hung around
Speaker 2: the neck of Republicans. Here's the governor from Florida.
Speaker 3: These Republicans in Washington have spent. It's driven your prices higher,
Speaker 3: and it's driven your interest rates to the point where
Speaker 3: you can't afford.
Speaker 2: Does that argue with the greater message from the GOP.
Speaker 4: Well, I think he's trying to make is that he's
Speaker 4: not part of the Republican establishment, that he's challenging the
Speaker 4: Washington establishment, you know, and so by trying to blame
Speaker 4: Republicans as well as Democrats for excessive spending and foreignflation.
Speaker 4: I think that's that's the argument that he's trying to make.
Speaker 4: But whether that goes over, well, I don't know, all.
Speaker 2: Right, Professor, how many of these for if not all
Speaker 2: of them, will be in the race when we go
Speaker 2: to Iowa next month.
Speaker 4: So the question to me is whether Chris Christie is
Speaker 4: going to drop out fairly soon and endorse Nicky Haley.
Speaker 4: What we've already seen, there's been a movement of the
Speaker 4: sort of non Trump kind of establishment wing of the
Speaker 4: Republican Party to try to get behind Nicky Haley. With
Speaker 4: with the inability of Ron DeSantis to really connect with
Speaker 4: Republican primary voters, I think Nicki Haley is now seen
Speaker 4: as the most viable alternative to Donald Trump. And we've
Speaker 4: seen that with the with the Coke money now coming
Speaker 4: in with their organization backing Nicki Haley, and so Chris
Speaker 4: Christy does have some support, especially in New Hampshire. So
Speaker 4: I think if he would drop out and endorse Nicki
Speaker 4: Haley in campaign for her, that could help her somewhat
Speaker 4: get at least closer to Donald Trump. And she desperately
Speaker 4: needs at least a strong second place finish in Iowa
Speaker 4: and or New Hampshire. I think New Hampshire is a
Speaker 4: probably a little bit better bet, but one of those
Speaker 4: two states in order to continue her campaign, you know,
Speaker 4: beyond those early states.
Speaker 2: It's good to see you, professor. Let's stay close as
Speaker 2: we make our way through the cycle. Sure it joins
Speaker 2: us from Emory University Professor Emeritus, Alan Abramowitz with a
Speaker 2: son Bloomberg sound on. I'm Joe Matthew at Washington as
Speaker 2: we assemble our panel. Die, I don't know what Rick
Speaker 2: and Genie think. We'll let this breathe a little bit here,
Speaker 2: because we've got a few more moments from the debate,
Speaker 2: and we've also learned that there are going to be
Speaker 2: a couple of more debates, which is something that I
Speaker 2: believe Rick predicted here. We're gonna have one just before Iowa,
Speaker 2: We're gonna have one the night before New Hampshire. Let's
Speaker 2: bring him in now. Bloomberg Politics contributors Genie Shanzano, Rick Davis,
Speaker 2: we were watching, so you didn't have to. Guys. I'll
Speaker 2: start with sort of the obligatory question here, Rick, the
Speaker 2: guy who was not in the room and was barely
Speaker 2: mentioned last night other than Chris Christy, Was it another
Speaker 2: win for Donald Trump?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I have to say, I mean, I don't think
Speaker 6: it's a win for Donald Trump anymore one because I
Speaker 6: don't think anything arrested Nikki Haley's climb, and that climb
Speaker 6: could threaten Donald Trump, especially in a place like New Hampshire.
Speaker 6: So you know, when these debates started, he had no
Speaker 6: threats legitimately, now he's actually got a potential threat. And
Speaker 6: when you look back, if anything happens in New Hampshire,
Speaker 6: like Nikki Haley's surprise victory, we know something about those
Speaker 6: kind of things. People will analyze that his lack of
Speaker 6: attendance at these debates opened the gate for her to
Speaker 6: move up. So yeah, I mean, sure he didn't get
Speaker 6: any of the mess on him last night. He was
Speaker 6: out raising money having a good time, But I'm not
Speaker 6: exactly sure the history is going to prove that to
Speaker 6: be a good thing.
Speaker 2: Before I bring in Genie Rick, we've just learned CNN's
Speaker 2: going to host two presidential primary debates, one at Drake
Speaker 2: and des Moines January tenth, the other will be at
Speaker 2: Saint Anselm in New Hampshire January twenty one. You've suggested
Speaker 2: he may actually show up to one of the do you.
Speaker 6: Think, yeah, I mean, obviously he's going to have the
Speaker 6: benefit of a last minute drop in. Everybody wants him
Speaker 6: to participate. He's going to take a look at how
Speaker 6: his caucus is going an eye and make that decision
Speaker 6: right beforehand. And clearly, if there's anything that threatens him
Speaker 6: in New Hampshire, they'd be crazy not to have him debate,
Speaker 6: especially Nicki Haley. If that's what the stage looks like
Speaker 6: then so yeah, this could be a really crazy January,
Speaker 6: which is exactly what this election needed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's what we're in this for. I suppose Geenie,
Speaker 2: I guess I'll ask it a little bit differently than
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump or Nicky Haley went it last night.
Speaker 2: What's your thought?
Speaker 7: You know?
Speaker 8: For those on the stage, I think it was really
Speaker 8: hard if this was a one off. I think DeSantis
Speaker 8: did pretty well, but it's not a one off. You know.
Speaker 8: Nicky Haley won on the stage because she did no
Speaker 8: harm to herself, you know. But the reality is is
Speaker 8: that nobody is still able to compete with Donald Trump,
Speaker 8: and that is the reality. Nor has he suffered yet,
Speaker 8: and that's a question. Does he suffer in the future,
Speaker 8: But he hasn't suffered yet by his decision not to
Speaker 8: be there. So, you know, I think the reality is
Speaker 8: this debate changed very very little as we think about
Speaker 8: where primary voters are. And so sure, if Nicky Hayley
Speaker 8: does better than expected in New Hampshire and Donald Trump
Speaker 8: shows up at one of these future debates, that's going
Speaker 8: to be important if he implodes going forward, people may
Speaker 8: look at the fact he didn't participate, But up to
Speaker 8: this moment, his lack of participation has done nothing to
Speaker 8: dampen him and the polls. And that's quite frankly, where
Speaker 8: we stand at this point.
Speaker 2: It remarkable he's back in court today. He's talking about
Speaker 2: being a dictator, joking about this two nights ago, and
Speaker 2: his numbers are pretty much the best that we've seen yet.
Speaker 5: Rick.
Speaker 2: I want to compare and contrast a couple of moments.
Speaker 2: Last night. Chris Christy was booed and he's getting used
Speaker 2: to that as he went after Donald Trump. Vivek Ramaswami
Speaker 2: was cheered when he went down the nine to eleven
Speaker 2: conspiracy road. Look out of these play against each other.
Speaker 2: Here's Chris Christy last night.
Speaker 5: I want you all to kind of picture in your
Speaker 5: mind's election day. You'll all be heading to the polls
Speaker 5: to vote. And that's something that Donald Trump will not
Speaker 5: be able to do because he will be convicted of
Speaker 5: felonies before then and his right to vote will be
Speaker 5: taken away. You know, Look, there you go, here's the
Speaker 5: bottom line. You could go about it all you like.
Speaker 5: And continue to deny reality. But if we deny reality
Speaker 5: as a party, we're gonna have four more years at
Speaker 5: Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: It wasn't much later when Vivek Ramaswami went for it
Speaker 2: with a multitude of conspiracies. Here, We're not just talking
Speaker 2: January sixth, We're talking nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: Why am I the only person on the stage at
Speaker 3: least who can say that January sixth now does look
Speaker 3: like it was an inside up that the government lied
Speaker 3: to us for twenty years about Saudi Araga's involvement in
Speaker 3: nine to eleven, That the Great Replacement theory is not
Speaker 3: some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement
Speaker 3: of the Democratic Party's platform, that the twenty twenty election
Speaker 3: was indeed stolen by big tech, that the twenty sixteen election,
Speaker 3: the one that Trump won for sure, was also there's
Speaker 3: more went from him by the national security establishment that
Speaker 3: actually can't the Trump Russia.
Speaker 2: Collusion hopes that they knew was false. So clearly he
Speaker 2: could have kept going there. Rick Chris Christie Boode for
Speaker 2: what he said. Vik Ramaswami cheered for what he said.
Speaker 2: We'll have more time for this. I know we're down
Speaker 2: to our last minute here, What does that say about
Speaker 2: the people who were in the room last night?
Speaker 6: Magabama? That's what you got in that Tuscaloosa auditorium. It's
Speaker 6: well represented in Alabama, MAGA, and that's what they like.
Speaker 6: That is like red meat to the Magabam.
Speaker 2: It's not even QAnon. But really fascinating is you know?
Speaker 2: As I mentioned, this isn't just jan six we're talking about,
Speaker 2: or all the elections that we can remember. It's nine
Speaker 2: to eleven and a lot more. Where that came from
Speaker 2: Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano just getting warmed up on
Speaker 2: the fastest show in politics.
Speaker 1: You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: I learned early in my career from one of my mentors,
Speaker 2: Frank Barnaco, to beware the dear colleague letter and beware
Speaker 2: writing them, because that means something and it's usually not
Speaker 2: good When you get the email or the memo, dear colleague,
Speaker 2: as opposed to dear Joe. And that's exactly what the
Speaker 2: President got today from the Speaker of the House. Dear colleague,
Speaker 2: not dear Joe. Quote. I do not intend to have
Speaker 2: the House consider any further short term extensions, Mike Johnson writes.
Speaker 2: The Fiscal Responsibility Act, he says, is the law of
Speaker 2: the land, supported by over two thirds of our conference,
Speaker 2: and it provides the framework from which we are negotiating
Speaker 2: final outcomes. Down a little bit further here, while we
Speaker 2: understand the very real security threats in theaters around the world,
Speaker 2: i e. Ukraine and Israel, yesterday's failed Senate vote is
Speaker 2: demonstrated there is no path forward on Ukraine funding without
Speaker 2: meaningful transformative change in policy at our southern border. Recalling
Speaker 2: around this time yesterday, President Biden sent the shot across
Speaker 2: the bout from the White House urging the Senate to
Speaker 2: pass his supplemental funding requests, and it went down as expected.
Speaker 2: Failing Democratic Senator Dick Durbin called it disgraceful.
Speaker 9: People are dying, fighting and dying in Ukraine for their freedom.
Speaker 9: We've stood behind them every step of the way, and
Speaker 9: to allow Congress to step away from this obligation, I
Speaker 9: think is disgraceful.
Speaker 2: So picking up the pieces from here is going to
Speaker 2: be interesting. Senator Tom tillis Republican, of course, making clear
Speaker 2: that this is not a Republican problem when it comes
Speaker 2: to Ukraine.
Speaker 10: Anybody who thinks that this is some game to prevent
Speaker 10: Ukraine funding needs to speak with more Republican members. We
Speaker 10: support a super majority of our conference supports Ukraine.
Speaker 2: As re assemble the panel, Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano
Speaker 2: with us for the hour. Okay, it's Joe Biden's move.
Speaker 2: I guess here, Genie, As they're trading dear colleague letters
Speaker 2: and messages from across town, what should be the response
Speaker 2: from the White House. No more crs are coming?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 8: I mean, first of all, I have to agree with
Speaker 8: Dick Durbin. It is not particularly stunning, but really really shameful.
Speaker 8: And you know, there we thought maybe the toughest thing
Speaker 8: would be reconciling between the House and the Senate or
Speaker 8: getting things past the House, and now it is the
Speaker 8: Senate that is standing in its own way. So I
Speaker 8: agree with him completely. It is shameful. I do hope
Speaker 8: there is a path forward, but as usual, time is
Speaker 8: running very short. Sometimes in Congress that helps, so maybe
Speaker 8: that will help move things forward. But you know, the
Speaker 8: idea that they are stuck on this is incredibly problematic,
Speaker 8: and so I think the President and his team have
Speaker 8: to do. What they've been doing is to make the
Speaker 8: case that is in the United States best interest strategically,
Speaker 8: security wise, and economically and so forth, to move forward
Speaker 8: on this and to pass the supplemental bill that was submitted,
Speaker 8: and you know, any changes they want to make too,
Speaker 8: that go ahead. But they have got to get this
Speaker 8: passed before the end end of the year because we
Speaker 8: all know what's going to happen when they come back.
Speaker 2: So where's you gut here?
Speaker 9: Rick.
Speaker 2: The two senators at the center of these border negotiations,
Speaker 2: the Democrat Chris Murphy says talks installed because Republicans are
Speaker 2: making unreasonable demands that cannot pass the Senate in the end.
Speaker 2: Senator James Langford, speaking for Republicans, says counter proposals coming
Speaker 2: from Democrats wouldn't make any difference. It wouldn't lower the
Speaker 2: number of illegal border crossings. Are you feeling like we're
Speaker 2: getting closer or moving further away?
Speaker 6: You never can tell in the Senate until something pops out.
Speaker 6: I would say, the best thing they got going for
Speaker 6: us is the Christmas holidays is coming up, and that's
Speaker 6: usually the backstop to getting things done. Look, I got
Speaker 6: to remind everybody that Biden put into this supplemental a
Speaker 6: border security component. So it just goes with saying that
Speaker 6: you were going to discuss border security as a component
Speaker 6: of funding the Ukraine, the Israel, and the Taiwan components
Speaker 6: of that. It's a four component bill and one of
Speaker 6: them is border security. So the fact that there is
Speaker 6: a debate on border security shouldn't shock anybody. But like,
Speaker 6: let's get over that debate. Let's get something that we
Speaker 6: can agree to. Our border is porous and it's only
Speaker 6: getting worse. And I would think Democrats, I know that
Speaker 6: there's a limit to what they want to do, but
Speaker 6: this is cutting against them in this election cycle, and
Speaker 6: so they got to do something that shows more leg
Speaker 6: on border security.
Speaker 2: Is Chris Murphy the one who's the Democrat who should
Speaker 2: be leading this genie. I know that he's typically involved
Speaker 2: in negotiations. He's a prominent member of the Democratic Conference
Speaker 2: in the Senate, but he's from Connecticut. I mean, should
Speaker 2: the party be putting forth someone else to generate a breakthrough?
Speaker 8: You know, I think Chris Murphy has proven it self
Speaker 8: time and again to be a very sober thinking, reasonable guy.
Speaker 8: We saw that on gun control, for instance, So I
Speaker 8: do think to your point, he's respected. He is not
Speaker 8: from a border state, so you know, somebody could raise
Speaker 8: the question of whether, in fact he is the right
Speaker 8: person to lead this, but as we all know, it's
Speaker 8: not just border states who are suffering from this issue.
Speaker 8: So I have no problem with Chris Murphy leading this.
Speaker 8: I do think he has proven again to be a
Speaker 8: good negotiator with Republicans. But I you know, and I
Speaker 8: agree that Democrats and they have said that they will
Speaker 8: move on that you know fourth point, which is a
Speaker 8: border security, but the idea that they're going to move
Speaker 8: as far as Republicans are insisting, I mean just moving
Speaker 8: to the House for them a minute hr two is
Speaker 8: simply a non starter for most Democrats. So they've got
Speaker 8: to come to a middle ground. It is to all
Speaker 8: of our benefit that they do. But you know, let's
Speaker 8: just step back for minute to hold up Ukraine Israel
Speaker 8: for a debate and movement on something that we need
Speaker 8: but that has not been done for decades. Really is
Speaker 8: really really difficult when you're looking at a few days
Speaker 8: to go. So yeah, the President put it in there,
Speaker 8: move forward as they can, but we've got to get
Speaker 8: Ukraine done and Israel done this year. Border security we
Speaker 8: desperately need. But again, we've been talking about this for years.
Speaker 8: So to jump this in and to think it's going
Speaker 8: to move forward this quickly, I think it's a high hurdle.
Speaker 8: And you know, sure they can negotiate it out, but
Speaker 8: in this short period of time, it's really tough, and
Speaker 8: we are moments away from a presidential election year.
Speaker 2: Rick, did this dear colleague letter from the Speaker of
Speaker 2: the House just make a government shut down a lot
Speaker 2: more likely next year?
Speaker 6: You know, it's hard to tell. I mean you can
Speaker 6: tell from the tone of the letter he's getting some
Speaker 6: pushback from his own caucus whether or not they're going
Speaker 6: to have another cr and so I think this was
Speaker 6: a shot across his own bow to say, look, you know,
Speaker 6: we're all going to deliver or die by these appropriations bills,
Speaker 6: and we need to get to work and pass some
Speaker 6: of these appropriations bills because I'm just not going to
Speaker 6: give a green light to another cr I mean, that's
Speaker 6: not a message for the Democrats, that's a message for Republicans,
Speaker 6: and it's concerning that he had to send that publicly
Speaker 6: to them.
Speaker 2: That's fascinating. New polling numbers out as we consider this
Speaker 2: idea of funding Israel, which is held up in all
Speaker 2: of this Genie from the Associated Press NARC. It shows
Speaker 2: Joe Biden's approval on specifically the handling of the Israel
Speaker 2: Hamas crisis, conflict, war, whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 2: is back to where it was before this all started.
Speaker 2: On October seventh, fifty nine percent of Democrats approve of
Speaker 2: his approach to the conflict. It fell to fifty in
Speaker 2: November when he was being criticized heavily for civilian casualties,
Speaker 2: and it's back to where we were in August in
Speaker 2: this poll, in fact, it's a couple points higher. Does
Speaker 2: the revised messaging on this have to do with the
Speaker 2: numbers in our final moment here, Genie, or do people
Speaker 2: just forget?
Speaker 8: I think it's not only the messaging. I think it's
Speaker 8: what we've seen on the ground. I mean, the pause
Speaker 8: was a very important aspect of this, as was the
Speaker 8: fact that they were able to get some, not all,
Speaker 8: of the prisoners released. So it is the action I
Speaker 8: think that people are responding to, not just the messaging,
Speaker 8: but certainly the messaging helps, and so this is what
Speaker 8: the President and his team were feeling good about. They
Speaker 8: wanted that extended. Of course that didn't happen, but I
Speaker 8: do think in this case people are looking at what
Speaker 8: they were able to accomplish, and that is meaningful to people.
Speaker 8: And if they are able to get another pause, I
Speaker 8: think it will also be meaningful, but obviously much more
Speaker 8: important for what the fate of these hostages than anything
Speaker 8: pull wise for the President.
Speaker 1: You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: As we join hands with Kaylee Lines each day at
Speaker 2: this time. Great to see you, Kayley. I know you've
Speaker 2: been busy all day here, but you're the one actually
Speaker 2: who brought to us the Dear Colleague letter. I was
Speaker 2: lamenting last hour. I don't know what the Congressman thinks
Speaker 2: about this, but I learned early to beware the dear
Speaker 2: colleague letter. It's typically not followed by anything good, as
Speaker 2: opposed to the dear Kayley letter that you might enjoy
Speaker 2: reading when you see dear colleague. I don't know, and
Speaker 2: in this case, you know it wasn't dear Joe. It
Speaker 2: did show up at the White House earlier today, and
Speaker 2: the message is clear, right, no more crs.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I mean the message is number of things. First,
Speaker 11: he talks about the deal they reached with the NDAA
Speaker 11: and the extension of Faiza until April. It looks like
Speaker 11: that's going to head to the floor next week. Then
Speaker 11: he goes on to talk about, you know, we have
Speaker 11: a lot of other negotiations on appropriations that we need
Speaker 11: to get through, and the quote Joe is I do
Speaker 11: not intend to have the House consider any further short
Speaker 11: term extension.
Speaker 2: So no more crs, no more crs. And he's said
Speaker 2: that before, yes, you and I flipped through the archive
Speaker 2: for a minute. This is the fourteenth of November. Speaker
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson's innovation that.
Speaker 12: We've created this new vehicle that the Democrats initially said
Speaker 12: was so frightening, actually turns out to be something that
Speaker 12: will change the way we do this, and so this
Speaker 12: is a very different situation. We're taking this into the
Speaker 12: new year to finish the process and get back to
Speaker 12: the original way that this is supposed to work. And
Speaker 12: by the way, the House Republican Conference has committed to
Speaker 12: never being in this situation again. I've done with short
Speaker 12: term crs. We are We're resolved. So what that means
Speaker 12: is you're going to see in the beginning of this
Speaker 12: next year we'll be walking into and gum. At the
Speaker 12: same time, we're going to get the appropriations process running
Speaker 12: on times it's supposed to be under law.
Speaker 2: Okay, pretty consistent, I think, right. No more crs. Yeah,
Speaker 2: And the idea was that there might be enough time
Speaker 2: to get spending bills together and move maybe some minibus
Speaker 2: legislation to get things funded in time for this staggered
Speaker 2: Sierra to run it.
Speaker 11: Yeah, in time being either January nineteenth or February second.
Speaker 11: I thought what was interesting that Joe is that after
Speaker 11: in this letter he writes that there will be no
Speaker 11: more short term extensions, he goes on to say the
Speaker 11: fiscal Responsibility Act is the law of the land, supported
Speaker 11: by over two thirds of the Conference conference, and the
Speaker 11: framework from which we are negotiating that would be the
Speaker 11: debt sealing deal from months ago. Yes, that it seemed
Speaker 11: everyone didn't want to stick to. But now maybe we're
Speaker 11: back to sticking to it.
Speaker 2: I get so confused. This is part of the conversation.
Speaker 2: I shouldn't even be here, but Congressman french Hill is
Speaker 2: joining live from Capitol Hill in the House of Representatives,
Speaker 2: the gentleman from Arkansas. It's good to see you. Congressman boy.
Speaker 2: We could have avoided a lot of trouble if we
Speaker 2: had just done what was hammered out in the debt
Speaker 2: sealing deal. Do you still think that on a daily basis.
Speaker 7: More than a daily basis, maybe an hour week all day,
Speaker 7: we burned through six months arguing that the Fiscal Responsibility
Speaker 7: Act levels negotiated by Kevin McCarthy then Speaker and Joe
Speaker 7: Biden President somehow weren't good enough. They cut a trillion
Speaker 7: dollars of spending, lower the baseline year over year, and
Speaker 7: have all these other reforms that we've talked about many
Speaker 7: times this year. So it's frustrating to suddenly see that
Speaker 7: that's quote unquote the law of the land. But I'm
Speaker 7: glad to see the Speaker say that in his letter
Speaker 7: because that means that is the top line number for
Speaker 7: completing the f y twenty four appropriations bills before January
Speaker 7: nineteenth and February second.
Speaker 11: Okay, So does reading that it is the law of
Speaker 11: the land reduce the odds in your mind that part
Speaker 11: of the government will shut down after that date? Congressman,
Speaker 11: I think it.
Speaker 7: Reduces the odds if the Senate steps up and starts
Speaker 7: some informal negotiations on two, three or four minibuses as
Speaker 7: you described, because that's where the House is. We don't
Speaker 7: want one big omni. We've made that clear. We have
Speaker 7: two different dates. We broke the two sets of appropriations
Speaker 7: bills into two different dates to help the Senate out,
Speaker 7: to give them a little direction. But they could break
Speaker 7: it down further if they wanted to. And I hope
Speaker 7: that speeds the process to a conclusion because the biggest issue,
Speaker 7: of course, is spending. But now the House is in
Speaker 7: a position to argue with our Senate colleagues. We want
Speaker 7: these policies versus those policies, and that work takes time,
Speaker 7: so they need to get after it.
Speaker 1: Woin.
Speaker 2: It's been suggested on the program today Congressman that the
Speaker 2: Speaker had to send that letter as a message to
Speaker 2: his own conference because he's got a lot of worried
Speaker 2: members on his hands. Think he might work with Democrats
Speaker 2: do another cr got everybody all worked up and angry
Speaker 2: again at the beginning of the new year, that it
Speaker 2: was more for his own confrince, your conference than it
Speaker 2: was for the White House. What do you think will
Speaker 2: this calm some minds?
Speaker 7: Well, certainly give some clarity. You know, just a little
Speaker 7: over a week ago, the House Freedom Caucus, led by
Speaker 7: Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, voted or announced that they as
Speaker 7: a group supported those Physical Responsibility Act levels. This is
Speaker 7: what we've had trouble with all year. It's what calls
Speaker 7: Kevin McCarthy his loss of his Speaker's chair. So the
Speaker 7: bottom line is we've known this for several days now,
Speaker 7: but this is the first time that the Speaker has
Speaker 7: said that those FRA levels are in fact the level
Speaker 7: for the Appropriations bill. So, you know, let's get going.
Speaker 7: It's what I would say, we've debated this for six
Speaker 7: months now. Fully, we know every intimate detail in these
Speaker 7: appropriations bills, let's bring them to a conclusion.
Speaker 11: Well, Congressman, speaking of conclusions, it's not just the appropriations
Speaker 11: bills that were addressed in Speaker Johnson's letter. There is
Speaker 11: also the matter of supplemental Secure Already funding. We of
Speaker 11: course saw that quote unquote test vote failing in the
Speaker 11: Senate today. The Speaker pointed to that, saying it demonstrated
Speaker 11: there is no path forward on Ukraine funding without meaningful
Speaker 11: transformative change in policy at our southern border. Congressman, how
Speaker 11: do you think this gets solved, that these two issues
Speaker 11: ultimately are reconciled, and is there any chance that it
Speaker 11: happens next week?
Speaker 7: Well, in my personal view, I think it's possible, but
Speaker 7: a low probability event that it gets done next week.
Speaker 7: But I want to emphasize that it is possible. That
Speaker 7: test vote in the Senate was important. House Republicans, under
Speaker 7: both Speaker McCarthy and Speaker Johnson, have made clear since
Speaker 7: September that we think serious policy reform on the border
Speaker 7: is critical. The President's supplemental appropriation only supported more money
Speaker 7: for things related to the border. House Republicans, and now
Speaker 7: you see Senate Republicans want actually policy reforms in addition
Speaker 7: to kind of any kind of spending now, and I
Speaker 7: think it will be linked to the Ukraine supplemental. In
Speaker 7: the meantime, the Committee's Intelligence Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, House
Speaker 7: Armed Services Committees and others have been parsing and meeting
Speaker 7: with the Office of Management and Budget and their colleagues
Speaker 7: on the President's request, so that work has continued to pace,
Speaker 7: and both have spen it in the House. But as
Speaker 7: in my view, I think it's not a high probability
Speaker 7: event next week, but could be possible if leadership on
Speaker 7: both sides of the capital gets serious.
Speaker 2: That'd be a big deal. Kaylee emerged, Congressman. We've had
Speaker 2: a bit of a conversation going with you in the
Speaker 2: past few weeks about Faiza seven two and the renewal
Speaker 2: of this warrantless spying program that is focused on bad
Speaker 2: actors abroad but frequently scoops up communications with Americans, which
Speaker 2: is what makes it controversial. You've been pushing for its renewal.
Speaker 2: It appears there isn't agree now and you can tell
Speaker 2: us about it. I'm sure, because I think you were
Speaker 2: part of it for a short term extension to bring
Speaker 2: it to April. It would be part of You've got
Speaker 2: a vehicle. Now the NDAA will it move forward in
Speaker 2: its current form or will there be privacy protections added
Speaker 2: to it? Congressman, what does it look like?
Speaker 7: Well, in the NDAA, the only provision is to not
Speaker 7: let section seven oh two, which is the surveillance of
Speaker 7: foreign nationals using data from big data companies like our
Speaker 7: telecommunications companies. That's what I did not want to see
Speaker 7: expire at twelve thirty one. With that said, the important
Speaker 7: work that's being done in the House Judiciary Committee and
Speaker 7: House Intelligence Committee is a complete reform of the Foreign
Speaker 7: Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and the
Speaker 7: process used by the FBI. All this as being I
Speaker 7: would use the word radically improved and formed in light
Speaker 7: of the catastrophic behavior by the FBI in and around
Speaker 7: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaign, the Carter Page matter,
Speaker 7: and everything that people really are very well aware of,
Speaker 7: including FBI agents querying members of Congress and using seven
Speaker 7: oh two surveillance authority on Americans without following the existing rules. So, Joe,
Speaker 7: this is a major change. I want to see these
Speaker 7: reforms passed as well. If we can do that next week,
Speaker 7: which we're going to try to in the House. That
Speaker 7: would be good to get both the reforms and the
Speaker 7: extension of seven oh two. I think that would please
Speaker 7: members of Congress mightily and would be better than a
Speaker 7: simple extension of seven oh two until April. That's contained
Speaker 7: in the National Defense Authorization Bill.
Speaker 11: Yeah, until April nineteenth. So if the reforms don't happen
Speaker 11: by that date, Congressman, would we then be looking at
Speaker 11: a FISA expiration that actually happens, if not December thirty first,
Speaker 11: but then in April.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Look, Kaylee, this is so important. I don't think you
Speaker 7: want to be debating something this technical and this important
Speaker 7: during a presidential election year. I mean, this is why
Speaker 7: I've been urging the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to
Speaker 7: get with the Speaker and get a plan to get
Speaker 7: these reforms approved by Congress. We have by cameraal that
Speaker 7: means the House and Senate bipartisan Democrats and Republicans support
Speaker 7: the House Intelligence version of these reforms, which contains the
Speaker 7: Judiciary Committee input. But we actually have a by cameral
Speaker 7: bill and a bipartisan bill that if it gets put
Speaker 7: on the floor, I think it will pass, and it
Speaker 7: has all the protections that we've talked about, plus the
Speaker 7: continued use of seven oh two against foreigners who are
Speaker 7: trying to traffic people or drugs across the Southwest border,
Speaker 7: or hide hostages in Gaza, or attack military operation or
Speaker 7: American interest around the world. So it's an important surveillance tool.
Speaker 7: I think it's possible we'd get this done next week
Speaker 7: and then we wouldn't have to worry about the April
Speaker 7: nineteenth date in the NDAA.
Speaker 2: Spending time with Congressman french Hill, the Republican from Arkansas,
Speaker 2: with us on Bloomberg sound on headline just crossed from
Speaker 2: Politico Congressman House Panel. This would be education to launch
Speaker 2: a probe into Harvard mit Penn after those three school
Speaker 2: presidents were I guess well, it was testimony, but one
Speaker 2: that outraged people around the country. We were talking about it
Speaker 2: a bit earlier. When it comes to anti Semitism on campus,
Speaker 2: is that a probe that you support?
Speaker 7: Look, I support tolerance on college campuses. When I was
Speaker 7: in college, we had on our campus people from Omar Bradley,
Speaker 7: the famous World War two general, to Stokely Carmichael, and
Speaker 7: we didn't have problems people treated different voices on campus
Speaker 7: with a reception. There might be protesters, but they were heard,
Speaker 7: they were heard, and there was balance in that. And
Speaker 7: that's what we need on campus. That we don't need
Speaker 7: people supporting radical philosophies on campus and have the cover
Speaker 7: of the campus administration. That makes no sense. I love
Speaker 7: the approach that the University of Chicago has and my
Speaker 7: alma mater, Vanderbilt have. There is no safe space. We
Speaker 7: support the First Amendment on our campuses, and we tolerate
Speaker 7: different viewpoints on our campuses. This has just become a
Speaker 7: mob scene on some campuses and it's alarming to people,
Speaker 7: in addition to the hate speech that it contains.
Speaker 11: Yeah. Well, while that hearing with those presidents, as Joe
Speaker 11: was referring to, got a lot of attention earlier this week,
Speaker 11: so too did a hearing yesterday Congressman of all the
Speaker 11: big bank CEOs, and I will want to call attention
Speaker 11: in particular to one interaction that happened between Democratic Senator
Speaker 11: Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and JP Morgan's CEO, Jamie Dimond.
Speaker 11: It was on the subject of crypto, which I know
Speaker 11: I was the chair of the Digital Asset Subcommittee you
Speaker 11: care very much about. Here's that exchange.
Speaker 13: I've always been deeply opposed to crypto, bitcoin, et cetera.
Speaker 13: You pointed out the going true use case for it
Speaker 13: is criminals, drug traffickers, anti money learning, tax avoidance, and
Speaker 13: that is a use case because it is somewhat anonymous,
Speaker 13: not fully, and because you can move money instantaneously because
Speaker 13: it doesn't go through As you mentioned, all these systems
Speaker 13: are built up over many years. You know your customer sanctions.
Speaker 13: O fact, it didn't get bypassed all of that. If
Speaker 13: I was the government's I close it down.
Speaker 11: Congressman, we only have thirty seconds left, but I have
Speaker 11: to get your response to mister Diamond's words.
Speaker 7: Well, I welcome Jamie visiting with me so that I
Speaker 7: can inform him about how Congress has created a regulatory
Speaker 7: framework that resolves every issue he raised, both in the
Speaker 7: stable coin legislation offered by Patrick McHenry and the bill
Speaker 7: that Gt. Thompson of Pennsylvania and I have written that
Speaker 7: directs the SEC, the Bank Regular and the CFTC, the
Speaker 7: Commodities Future Trading Commission exactly how to regulate and protect consumers, investors,
Speaker 7: and innovators in and around digital assets, including bitcoin and crypto.
Speaker 6: Good to be with you than to help.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Thanks nicely done, Congressman. If we could attend that meeting,
Speaker 2: we'd love to. We'll follow up with your office after that.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast. Make sure
Speaker 2: to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and
Speaker 2: anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 2: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm
Speaker 2: Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com