Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: There's no one more qualified to leave the Department of
Speaker 1: Defense than Mark Esther. Well, thank you, Mr President, for
Speaker 1: your kind words, for your confidence in me, and for
Speaker 1: this incredible opportunity. Bloomberg Sound On, Politics, Policy and Perspective
Speaker 1: from DC's top Name. President Trump endorsed me because he
Speaker 1: said I was smart, top, and I will never let
Speaker 1: you down. Memon has flip flopped on every major issue.
Speaker 1: He essentially said that he was worried about the pro
Speaker 1: life movement. This is a tougher pick for him. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Fastest Hour in Politics, a special edition today for
Speaker 1: sound On, as we speak with former Secretary of Defense
Speaker 1: Mark Esper, hired and fired by Donald Trump, and soon
Speaker 1: here we'll be talking with him about his new book.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about his experience running the Pentagon during the
Speaker 1: Ump era, his decision to protect the country from within
Speaker 1: rather than speak out, and his eventual firing via Twitter.
Speaker 1: An extended conversation coming up with a former secretary. Later,
Speaker 1: we're joined by Bloomberg's Eric Larson to bring you inside
Speaker 1: his conversation with Donald Trump about the lawyer who's bringing
Speaker 1: a more aggressive defense for the former president. And we'll
Speaker 1: have analysis today from Bloomberg Politics contributor Jeanie Schanzano will
Speaker 1: talk as well with Bloomberg National Security correspondent Dan Flatley.
Speaker 1: It was July inside the Oval Office. The US Senate
Speaker 1: had just confirmed the new Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper
Speaker 1: vote of eight. President Trump brought the fanfare, set up
Speaker 1: a podium right next to his desk in the Oval
Speaker 1: to speak. He even had Supreme Court Justice Alito on
Speaker 1: hand for the swearing in. The President spoke to the reporters,
Speaker 1: the family members of Mark Asper in the room. Here's
Speaker 1: what it sounded like. There's no one more qualified to
Speaker 1: lead the Department of Defense. Instant Mark Asper, a West
Speaker 1: Point graduate, great student. Actually. Secretary Asper served our military
Speaker 1: for twenty one years, including in the Gulf War. He
Speaker 1: also advanced US national security and government and in private sector,
Speaker 1: most recently as Secretary of the Army, where he played
Speaker 1: a critical role training and equipping our armed forces. That's
Speaker 1: where I got to know Mark. And there was nobody
Speaker 1: that did a better job than Mark. And there's nobody
Speaker 1: that loves it more than mark and thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Sounds pretty good. Secretary Asper would be fired the following year.
Speaker 1: The former Army secretary says he started writing his book
Speaker 1: almost immediately afterwards. It is called a Sacred Oath, Memoirs
Speaker 1: of a Secretary of Defense during Extraordinary Times, and it's
Speaker 1: already been quite controversial. The secretary describes harrowing moments from
Speaker 1: his time in the White House, his decision to protect
Speaker 1: the nation from the president from inside the administration rather
Speaker 1: than blow the whistle publicly, and Secretary Aspert joins us
Speaker 1: now on Bloomberg. Secretary, welcome back to the program. It's
Speaker 1: great to have you. Congratulations on your book. You've had
Speaker 1: to answer some critics who question your decision to remain
Speaker 1: part of the administration. What would have happened if you
Speaker 1: did speak up? Well, thanks Joe first of all for
Speaker 1: having me on and giving it having a chance to
Speaker 1: talk about my book and my experiences. And you know,
Speaker 1: let me take back to the opening scene there where
Speaker 1: you describe the President and his description to me as
Speaker 1: as secretary, and you noted that I was sworn in
Speaker 1: by Justice Alito and the reason being, and it gets
Speaker 1: to the kind of the heart of the matter here
Speaker 1: is when you swear in the Secretary of Defense, in particular,
Speaker 1: you want to be clearly American people that you're swearing
Speaker 1: an oath to the Constitution and not to the president.
Speaker 1: That's why the president does not swear in the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense. And that gets to the you know, the
Speaker 1: story of my book and the title, and that is
Speaker 1: a sacred oath because the oath is to the Constitution,
Speaker 1: not uh, to a president, not to a party, and
Speaker 1: not to a philosophy. And that was what governed my
Speaker 1: thinking throughout my tenure. And it gets to this on
Speaker 1: of key point where you're asking, uh, you know why
Speaker 1: I just decided to stay, particularly after June one, And
Speaker 1: it's actually quite simple, although I wrestled with it a
Speaker 1: great deal. I I talked about it with my wife,
Speaker 1: consulted previous sect deaths from both parties, even the late
Speaker 1: General Colin Pound to a person, they recommended I stay
Speaker 1: because at the end of the day, I thought, Uh,
Speaker 1: my higher duty was to the country and staying to
Speaker 1: do two things. Want to advanced some important things we
Speaker 1: were doing at the Pentagon in terms of modernizing the military,
Speaker 1: shoring up friends and allies, improving cyber capabilities and so on,
Speaker 1: but at the same time being able to be within
Speaker 1: the within the administration pushback on bad ideas being promoted
Speaker 1: by those around the president and others. And that became
Speaker 1: kind of my what I was trying to achieve in
Speaker 1: those final five or six months of offices to get
Speaker 1: d o D, get the country to election without any
Speaker 1: doo D politicization or involvement in our election. You decided
Speaker 1: to write a book, why not speak out when you left? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, of course I spoke out with my fellow secretaries.
Speaker 1: It depends on January three. We wrote it expressing our
Speaker 1: concern and of course, you know, look at that time
Speaker 1: the election was over. I was fired Joe on November nine.
Speaker 1: The American people decided they wanted a different president, and uh,
Speaker 1: it was settled, right, And so what I quickly did
Speaker 1: was put pen to paper because I wanted to tell
Speaker 1: the story sooner rather later. And of course I finished
Speaker 1: I think the first draft in April May and submitted
Speaker 1: to the d D. And it took nine ten months.
Speaker 1: Eventually had a SUDDO D to release it, all of it,
Speaker 1: And so that was a whole other process in and
Speaker 1: of itself. But here we are, I'm gonna ask you
Speaker 1: about that in a minute. You suggested the Book of
Speaker 1: the Secretary that that you never heard of your replacement,
Speaker 1: Christopher Miller. Was he the kind of person you were
Speaker 1: afraid might take the helm if you were removed? Well,
Speaker 1: I think I only met him wants in a situation room,
Speaker 1: shook his hand, But I really don't know him, and
Speaker 1: I don't know you know, you know, you can judge
Speaker 1: for yourself the performance of the team that was that
Speaker 1: he came in with and was put around him. And
Speaker 1: we saw within days of my firing, and the President
Speaker 1: was calling people in asking should we attack Iran and
Speaker 1: do this and that? And disappointingly, I think, as as
Speaker 1: others have reported, he supported an attack in Iran, and
Speaker 1: fortunately others pushed back on that. Uh. And then we
Speaker 1: have everything else that led up to January six, so
Speaker 1: that you know, part of my concern was that they
Speaker 1: would they the president would install Ubal loyalists who would
Speaker 1: take the country in a bad direction. And the institution
Speaker 1: of the Defense Department itself as well. Yeah, and he did.
Speaker 1: You mentioned you had to sue the Department of Defense
Speaker 1: over the redactions that the d O D made in
Speaker 1: the book. What parts of the book did they want
Speaker 1: to classify or had they classified? Mark? Well, the first
Speaker 1: go around, it was you know, words, sentences, paragraphs from
Speaker 1: over fifty pages, and notably it's the one story I
Speaker 1: tell about the president's interest in attacking or shooting missiles
Speaker 1: into Mexico. And look, none of this was classified. And
Speaker 1: I still either is some redactive stuff, Still it's classified
Speaker 1: that that I kept in the book only to make
Speaker 1: the point. But nonetheless, none of this was classified. It
Speaker 1: was all about things being politically embarrassing or uncomfortable for
Speaker 1: uh for others, and I thought, no, that's wrong. We
Speaker 1: should tell the American people the full history so they
Speaker 1: understand what was happening. The missiles in Mexico, or just
Speaker 1: just one story. You describe a president uh W who
Speaker 1: seemed dangerously ignorant when it came to military matters, the
Speaker 1: suggesting sending missiles to bomb cartels in Mexico, the wondering
Speaker 1: if China had a hurricane gun shooting at protesters. Secretary,
Speaker 1: how long were you on the job before you realized
Speaker 1: he was serious about some of these ideas? Well, Look,
Speaker 1: not not all presidents come into office understanding the military.
Speaker 1: I you gotta accept that to begin with. And the
Speaker 1: problem was he surrounded himself by people of who didn't
Speaker 1: understand either, who would put you know, crazy ideas in
Speaker 1: front of him. And so part of my job is
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense and other cabinet members, is to you know,
Speaker 1: work for the president kind of educating about the military
Speaker 1: and if as people come up with ideas, that is,
Speaker 1: to either support them, expand on them, push back, whatever
Speaker 1: the case may be. Look on this idea that he
Speaker 1: had about Mexico. The President was genuinely sincere about wanting
Speaker 1: to deal with drugs in the streets of America. I mean,
Speaker 1: we all get that, right, we all know people who
Speaker 1: are affected by it. But that's not the way to
Speaker 1: do it. There are other ways to do it. And
Speaker 1: I kind of proposed alternatives or told him might come
Speaker 1: back and work with others on some ideas. And that's
Speaker 1: that's my job. But you know, you constantly there it
Speaker 1: seemed there were people proposing ideas like this. I mentioned,
Speaker 1: you know, Stephen Miller wanted to send a quarter million
Speaker 1: troops to the border to deal with alleged caravans coming north.
Speaker 1: It was just ideas like that that I felt that
Speaker 1: if I wasn't there and an uber loyalist was in
Speaker 1: my position, if I had left early, if I if
Speaker 1: I resigned on a spot or spoken up and was
Speaker 1: fired as I probably probably should have been, that there
Speaker 1: wouldn't have been somebody there to push back on these
Speaker 1: bad ideas and kind of keep things on the rails.
Speaker 1: And that was my simple logic. Were you compelled to
Speaker 1: hand some of this over to the press while it
Speaker 1: was happening to neutralize the situation through the media, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, I didn't feel I was never comfortable with
Speaker 1: leaking stuff like that, So I never leaked classifying information
Speaker 1: or stuff like that. Uh. You know, people believe that's
Speaker 1: the way to do it, but I just kind of
Speaker 1: wasn't my style. We're talking with former Defense Secretary Mark
Speaker 1: Esper about his new book, Sacred Oath on Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: Two days after you were confirmed by the Senate, President
Speaker 1: Trump held his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenski, the
Speaker 1: call that, of course, was the center of an impeachment trial.
Speaker 1: It is now well known that he withheld military funding
Speaker 1: from Ukraine. And it's something you describe arguing about you
Speaker 1: convinced him secretary to provide that money. No, I don't
Speaker 1: think I did, as much as I tried, and John
Speaker 1: Bolton tried, and Mike Pompeio, the Secretary State, we tried
Speaker 1: individually together to kind of get him to release it.
Speaker 1: It wasn't until this the whole story about the phone
Speaker 1: call came out in the press. Uh that Uh. I
Speaker 1: think it was September so that I learned all about this,
Speaker 1: and I I think he just relented on his own given,
Speaker 1: given what was revealed, and so I like to claim
Speaker 1: credit for it, But I was just one of a
Speaker 1: few people pushing hard to get this release because we
Speaker 1: saw the importance to this young democracy. We saw how
Speaker 1: important was to signal to the Russians that we were
Speaker 1: serious about helping the Ukrainians out Look, the president does
Speaker 1: des our credit for releasing lethal aid to the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: the Javelin missiles. To his predecessor had not done that.
Speaker 1: So um uh, you know again, good and bad in
Speaker 1: all of this, did he make Ukraine less secure? Though
Speaker 1: in that period of time, I don't think so. I
Speaker 1: others have asked me this question. I don't think it
Speaker 1: had really had a material impact. A few months of
Speaker 1: delay were can pushed it out pretty quickly. And and
Speaker 1: of course now that's three years ago, so I don't
Speaker 1: think it had a material impact in terms of the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians having that that system at the time. Former President
Speaker 1: Trump has said many times the Vladimir Putin would never
Speaker 1: have invaded Ukraine if if Trump had stayed in office.
Speaker 1: He says they even talked about that matter, specifically that
Speaker 1: Putin brought that to him. Were you were ever aware
Speaker 1: of conversations like no, not at all, uh, not at all.
Speaker 1: And and I think his you know, his assertion that
Speaker 1: wouldn't have happened is just an unknown. Who knows what
Speaker 1: Putin would have done and why. Only Vladimir Putin knows why,
Speaker 1: why he started it and why it continues it and
Speaker 1: it's been just a strategic failure for him in so
Speaker 1: many ways. Bloomberg spoke just last week of Fiona Hill
Speaker 1: told Bloomberg that she thinks Putin would have invaded Ukraine
Speaker 1: if the election had been overturned. In other words, if
Speaker 1: Mike Pence had not certified the win for Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump somehow stayed in office, that he would have
Speaker 1: just moved across the border. Do you agree with that take?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, it's hard to it's who knows.
Speaker 1: Thank goodness, Um, you know, Vice President Pence did his
Speaker 1: duty and did the right thing. And we are where
Speaker 1: we are with regard to you know, seeing the peaceful
Speaker 1: transfer of power after legitimate election. So what are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on Ukraine right now? We've talked about this about
Speaker 1: a month or so ago. It was it was a
Speaker 1: pretty different scenario. Now, are you of the mind that
Speaker 1: Ukraine can win this war? Yes? And I think they
Speaker 1: are winning. And I think the Ukrainian people has showed
Speaker 1: showed a great courage and what it means to fight
Speaker 1: for your country, uh, to show leadership under fire, and
Speaker 1: they you know, for a country that's what a quarter
Speaker 1: of the size of Russia, It's military is the tenth
Speaker 1: the size of Russia. They have really beaten them back
Speaker 1: in numerous areas and and you know, so much talk
Speaker 1: about Russia in this space too would consolidated down Bass.
Speaker 1: Doesn't appear that they're able to do that either. So
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the Russians failed to live up
Speaker 1: to our expectations in terms of their military prowess, and
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians really surprised us in terms of their capability,
Speaker 1: and uh, look we we uh d d I made
Speaker 1: it a priority that we prepared to fight the Chinese
Speaker 1: first and the Russian second. It's it's was something we
Speaker 1: never wanted to do. But the Ukrainians and now are
Speaker 1: fighting that fight, and I think we should continue to
Speaker 1: support them. I'm sure you saw Turkey today's signaling that
Speaker 1: that they do not support expanding NATO to include Sweden
Speaker 1: and Finland. Uh you've got experience with the Turks, uh
Speaker 1: kicked out of the F thirty five program, if I
Speaker 1: can use that language. And an interesting role that that
Speaker 1: Urduwan is playing right now is is he angling for
Speaker 1: something or is this a deal breaker? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I didn't see that news. I'm curious now as to
Speaker 1: what they said and how they framed it. But look,
Speaker 1: I think we should keep NATO expansion open. If a
Speaker 1: country wants to join, and if they are net positive
Speaker 1: to NATO, then we should admit them. And I think
Speaker 1: in this case it wouldn't be a net positive. If
Speaker 1: Sweden and Finland joined, it would give us greater military capability.
Speaker 1: It would show up the northeast flank of the Alliance.
Speaker 1: They're too strong democracies, they're willing to spend money. We
Speaker 1: should let them in, and we should do it sooner
Speaker 1: rather than later, because we all see it the threat
Speaker 1: that Russia brings to its neighbors. What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: on Vladimir Putin? Right now? People are questioning his mental
Speaker 1: capacity and it's very clear that he doesn't have an
Speaker 1: exit strategy. Is he Is he more dangerous the more
Speaker 1: he's painted in a corner. I think generally people are
Speaker 1: more dangerous the more they're painted in the corner. He's
Speaker 1: painted himself from the corner though in this case, And look,
Speaker 1: everybody wants to try and say they're people are mentally
Speaker 1: unstable and they do things that we don't expect or desire.
Speaker 1: Who knows right, But clearly he has painted himself in
Speaker 1: the corner. It's been a strategic failure from day one.
Speaker 1: Not only did he manage way back in February to
Speaker 1: push Ukraine closer into our arms, but ended up bringing
Speaker 1: more NATO troops to his borders and and the unifying
Speaker 1: NATO also, And now he's facing the prospect of too
Speaker 1: traditionally neutral country Sweden and Finland possibly joining the alliance.
Speaker 1: So look at it continues to be a strategic failure.
Speaker 1: And if you look at what's happening on the ground
Speaker 1: now and don Bass, it is a tactical failure as well.
Speaker 1: The weaknesses of the Russian army, the military have really
Speaker 1: been exposed here. Incredible. Secretary. You mentioned June one, and
Speaker 1: you've expressed regrets for what happened that day. I think
Speaker 1: you felt like, if I'm reading the book correctly and
Speaker 1: hearing the stories that you've told, once you realize what
Speaker 1: was going on, it was too late, what would you
Speaker 1: do differently if you could relive that experience. Well, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have walked across the park on June one, and
Speaker 1: I would have told Milly to General Milly to stay
Speaker 1: away as well. But would you be we made what's that?
Speaker 1: Would you have been fired for that? Uh? Maybe? I
Speaker 1: don't know. You know, we didn't know what was going
Speaker 1: on because I right in the book, you know, I
Speaker 1: got a phone call around six twenty that day to
Speaker 1: turn around. The President wanted an update at the at
Speaker 1: the White House and uh on the events for the evening.
Speaker 1: We get there and we learned that there is no update.
Speaker 1: The President wants us to go walk across the park
Speaker 1: to see damage. And Uh. Again, if I hindsight being
Speaker 1: could I've refused and been fired maybe, you know, part
Speaker 1: of the tough job with the secretary offenses. On one hand,
Speaker 1: you have to remain a political for the institution, but
Speaker 1: on the other hand, you're a political appointee, and so
Speaker 1: these areas get gray. But I think clearly in this case,
Speaker 1: it was a mistake to be there, uh, particularly after
Speaker 1: law enforcement just pushed people peacefully protesting out of the park.
Speaker 1: And uh. And I certainly would have told General Milly
Speaker 1: to stay away. His instincts were, you know, would have
Speaker 1: been spot on as well. And I know he regrets
Speaker 1: the moment it too. And and look, we we came
Speaker 1: clean with it. I sent a memo out the next day,
Speaker 1: within twenty four hours, expressing to all D O D
Speaker 1: the importance of us remaining a political uh, the importance
Speaker 1: that we provide support the civilian authorities. But on the
Speaker 1: other hand, we have to respect Americans right to express
Speaker 1: themselves and to assemble peacefully, particularly in light of what
Speaker 1: happened with the tragic murder of George Floyd. So um,
Speaker 1: you know, we did our best to kind of reconcile
Speaker 1: and and and kind of own up and take responsibility
Speaker 1: for it. And then I became committed of course from
Speaker 1: there on with the four nos and making sure that
Speaker 1: I did even better in terms of keeping D O
Speaker 1: D out of politics. Secretary Espert, It's entirely likely that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump will run for president again. Entirely likely he
Speaker 1: will be the Republican nominee. Ino with this book that
Speaker 1: you have written, the picture you've painted, the stories that
Speaker 1: you're telling here, do you believe that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: unfit to run for office again? Will you campaign against him? Well, look,
Speaker 1: I don't. You framed it as it's entirely likely. Don't
Speaker 1: accept that it's likely that he will run. I hope
Speaker 1: that he doesn't run. And and why is that? Because
Speaker 1: I think you know, candidates for elected office, the highest
Speaker 1: office in the land, but any office that matter, have
Speaker 1: to meet some criteria. For me, you have to put
Speaker 1: country overseelf number one. Number two, you have to have
Speaker 1: integrity and some core principles that guide you. And number three,
Speaker 1: you've got to be willing to reach across the aisle,
Speaker 1: work with others from the other party and unite people.
Speaker 1: And look, Donald Trump just doesn't meet the mark for
Speaker 1: me in those those areas, and and that's why I
Speaker 1: can't support it. Would you actively then work against the
Speaker 1: candidacy if there was one, Well, I don't know what
Speaker 1: that means, actively work against the candidates. I'm not you know,
Speaker 1: political person by nature to understood, just in terms of
Speaker 1: writing columns, maybe even doing a campaign event. We'll see.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I'm hoping there's a new generation of
Speaker 1: I believe there's a new generation of Republicans out there
Speaker 1: who will who will campaign. I hope they'll run, uh
Speaker 1: in twenty four that will see that right after the
Speaker 1: mid terms. But I hope that they will carry on
Speaker 1: a Republican banner and push those same core policies frantically
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump did. Look to his credit, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: pushed traditional Republican policies. He made progress on many of them,
Speaker 1: whether it's lower taxes, the regulation, smaller governor government, building
Speaker 1: a wall, rebuilding the military, conservative judges on the bench,
Speaker 1: you name it. He made progress. Too often, though he
Speaker 1: went too far on some of these things, and and
Speaker 1: too often the language was course and divisive. We need
Speaker 1: Republican leaders in this next election who will not only
Speaker 1: advance the same policy objectives, but do so in a
Speaker 1: way that is more inclusive, that will grow the Republican
Speaker 1: base that can win elections. Look, you can't really advance
Speaker 1: your policies if you can't win to win elections, and
Speaker 1: last time around, we lost the White House, we lost
Speaker 1: the Senate, we lost the House, and we cannot afford
Speaker 1: do that again. He was their former Defense Secretary, Mark
Speaker 1: Esper the book Sacred Oath, Memoirs of a Secretary of
Speaker 1: Defense during Extraordinary Time. Secretary, thank you for your time
Speaker 1: and answering my questions. She has Bloomberg Sound on. I'm
Speaker 1: Joe Matthew, and Washington want to assemble the panel very
Speaker 1: quickly on this because we need feedback from Genie and
Speaker 1: from Dan Bloomberg. Politics contributor Jeanie Chanzano joined today along
Speaker 1: with Dan Flatley, Bloomberg National Security correspondent Genie. The big
Speaker 1: question here, and I tried to get to this right
Speaker 1: at the top, was was whether the you know, the
Speaker 1: sacred oath that he talks about kept him on the
Speaker 1: job and why he didn't speak out earlier. He has
Speaker 1: been criticized for this. Was his answer satisfactory? You know,
Speaker 1: I think that's the big question here. It was fascinating
Speaker 1: to listen to him talk about that and the fact
Speaker 1: that Aldo swore him in for that reason right where
Speaker 1: you started. And that's the difficulty in the United States.
Speaker 1: We have civilian control of the military. You try to
Speaker 1: keep the separation between politics and the military. But as
Speaker 1: his book and your interview just underscored, very very difficult
Speaker 1: line to walk. I think his answer is not going
Speaker 1: to fulfill, you know, satisfy everyone, but it is an
Speaker 1: answer he did the best could and he was fired
Speaker 1: by tweet at a very peculiar not peculiar, a very
Speaker 1: difficult time with a president who did not want to
Speaker 1: leave office. He sure was interesting to read Secretary Asper's
Speaker 1: story about being fired. He actually did get a heads up.
Speaker 1: He got a phone call from Mark Meadows telling him
Speaker 1: that he was not loyal enough that the president was
Speaker 1: going to fire him. The tweet, the infamous tweet went
Speaker 1: out about a minute after they hung up the phones.
Speaker 1: Should Mark Esper have spoken out that day? Dan, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that you know what you've heard from Espers,
Speaker 1: and you've heard from a number of Trump administration officials,
Speaker 1: particularly those who are in the Pentagon, like Jim Madison others.
Speaker 1: Is a lot of anguish over where the line too, uh,
Speaker 1: their duty to the country ended, and where their their
Speaker 1: line to the duty to to the president. At the
Speaker 1: time Donald Trump began, everyone told him to stay then yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I think that uh, And this is this
Speaker 1: is the dilemma that a lot of these folks found
Speaker 1: themselves in. Do you do greater damage by speaking out immediately? Um?
Speaker 1: And I think you know what what what reflects some
Speaker 1: of you know, poorly on him in some quarters or
Speaker 1: some some critics I've raised, which raised at the beginning
Speaker 1: of the interview, is you know, now you can say, well,
Speaker 1: you're only talking about this because you want to sell
Speaker 1: books or something like that. But I do think that,
Speaker 1: you know, when you're talking about sensitive areas where military
Speaker 1: strike strikes could be carried out or things of that nature. Um,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of care that you might take with
Speaker 1: something like that, that that that may not come into
Speaker 1: play with some other political considerations. So it's hard to
Speaker 1: know unless you're really in that position. But I think
Speaker 1: you know, Secretary as per former Secretary Esper was wrestling
Speaker 1: with a lot of those as some other defense officials
Speaker 1: in the Trump and Trump years did as well. You
Speaker 1: can hear it in his voice absolutely as he as
Speaker 1: he makes the case for this and and describes wrestling
Speaker 1: with the genie. The stories, though, are really something bombing
Speaker 1: cartels in Mexico, sending missiles over the border, uh, the
Speaker 1: hurricane gun with China. The secretary was trying to go
Speaker 1: a little bit easy, saying, look, you know, you get
Speaker 1: this job as president. You may not be a big
Speaker 1: military mind the first couple of days on the job,
Speaker 1: but this was his last year, and some of these
Speaker 1: are are unbelievable without corroboration, they're they're absolutely stunning, and
Speaker 1: I think he takes great pains to sort of give
Speaker 1: President Trump for President Trump, every benefit of the doubt
Speaker 1: and praise him for certain things. The one that really
Speaker 1: stuck with me was the one about Stephen Miller, the
Speaker 1: President's close aid. Yeah, and and also the head of
Speaker 1: Bagdaddy dipping it in pigs blood and parading it around
Speaker 1: with to warn other terrorists. You know, Miller has flatly
Speaker 1: denied that, but it is a stunning revelation, absolutely incredible.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your insights. Jeannie Shenzano and Dan Flatley with
Speaker 1: us for an instant reaction to our conversation with former
Speaker 1: Defense Secretary Mark Esper, a conversation you will not hear
Speaker 1: anywhere else today on the radio, I might add, we'll
Speaker 1: check markets traffic for you as we try to get
Speaker 1: home here on a Friday, coming up here on sound On,
Speaker 1: and then we'll talk more about Donald Trump with Eric Larson.
Speaker 1: He interviewed him about his new lawyer. It's next. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to
Speaker 1: New York, Bloomberg eleven, Frio to Boston, Bloomberg one oh
Speaker 1: six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to the country,
Speaker 1: Serious x M General one nine and around the globe,
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew Fastest Hour in
Speaker 1: Politics with the headline Trump's lawyer leads counter attack from
Speaker 1: her five attorney firm. Bloomberg's Eric Larson writing about Elena Habba,
Speaker 1: who has taken over some of Donald Trump's highest priority
Speaker 1: legal fights. Eric spoke with the former president about it,
Speaker 1: and he speaks with us next. Over the past year,
Speaker 1: she's taken over some of Donald Trump's highest priority legal fights,
Speaker 1: including challenges to the New York Attorney General's probe of
Speaker 1: his businesses and his defense in a fraud suit brought
Speaker 1: by his niece. Talking about someone you may have never
Speaker 1: heard of, Felina Habba, thirty eight years old, the subject
Speaker 1: of a great column written by Eric Larson here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You can find it on the terminal right now. As
Speaker 1: he writes in the subhead, Habba is spearheading the former
Speaker 1: president's aggressive legal tactics. Former President Trump talked about those
Speaker 1: aggressive tactics with Eric here. He is, I wanted to
Speaker 1: get more aggressive because, frankly, you know, I said back
Speaker 1: here and let people take shots, and I did nothing wrong,
Speaker 1: And no, I wanted to get more aggressive, and I
Speaker 1: will be getting more aggressive. Eric Larson joins us, Now,
Speaker 1: what does he mean by that, Eric, what's coming next? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, he wouldn't exactly say what was coming next,
Speaker 1: but I respect we might be finding out soon. But
Speaker 1: but clearly he has been going after his enemies in
Speaker 1: recent months. You know, not only has this new lawyer,
Speaker 1: Elena Hobbat, taken over his defense in cases that had
Speaker 1: already been filed and has been dragging on for a while.
Speaker 1: She's also filed three pretty big new lawsuits on his behalf,
Speaker 1: one against the New York Attorney General, Leticia James, trying
Speaker 1: to halt her investigation into his company, another suit filed
Speaker 1: against his niece Mary Trump, who, as you mentioned, had
Speaker 1: sued him earlier, filing a hundred million dollar lawsuits against
Speaker 1: her and The New York Times because she was a
Speaker 1: source for a big award winning piece about his finances.
Speaker 1: And then another suit against Hillary Clinton filed a few
Speaker 1: months ago down in Florida over a big alleged conspiracy
Speaker 1: to undermine his presidency with the Russia claims. So she's
Speaker 1: really gone on the offense. How important is it to
Speaker 1: have this new law lawyer on hand versus Trump telling
Speaker 1: his legalty what to do. Uh, you know, I feel
Speaker 1: like it. It doesn't feel like it was a decision
Speaker 1: that was made very lightly. You know. I interviewed them both,
Speaker 1: as you said, and it sounded like, um, his existing lawyers,
Speaker 1: he had plenty, but but they didn't seem to be
Speaker 1: carrying out or they maybe they weren't as excited about
Speaker 1: his legal strategy. Get so, um, you know, they in
Speaker 1: the cases that he had already been defending himself. Man,
Speaker 1: he also went on the attack in those ones. You know,
Speaker 1: he was tired of these cases dragging on. In his view,
Speaker 1: they should have been dealt with. Um. So he threatened counterclaims,
Speaker 1: for example, against two women who had accused him of
Speaker 1: sexual assault and then sued him for defamation. Um when
Speaker 1: he denied it. You know, they he's threatened claims against them. UM.
Speaker 1: So she says that she's just an aggressive an attorney,
Speaker 1: that they talked about it, and she was willing to
Speaker 1: start these new fights. You write about how she was hired.
Speaker 1: Abba came into Trump orbit after becoming a member of
Speaker 1: his golf club, Bedminster, New Jersey. The former president says,
Speaker 1: I met her at the club. I said, what do
Speaker 1: you do? She said, Well, other people at the club
Speaker 1: knew her, and they say she's an excellent attorney, which
Speaker 1: she is. I gave her a couple of cases to handle.
Speaker 1: She did a good job. This is how the former
Speaker 1: president of the United States hires his his new legal counsel. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, and frankly, it really wasn't too surprising once
Speaker 1: I found that out, because when you think about Trump,
Speaker 1: he is the guy who, you know, liked loyalty. He
Speaker 1: likes people who like him. He likes people who liked
Speaker 1: his brand. You know, where else are you going to
Speaker 1: find the true Trump believers than at his club, people
Speaker 1: who are already I guess you could say vetted and
Speaker 1: they're wealthy, and there are people who like him. Um,
Speaker 1: he likes that. So as he said, and that she
Speaker 1: said she had represented some other members at this club
Speaker 1: and they had recommended her to him, because of course,
Speaker 1: you know, he's always on the lookout for legal work.
Speaker 1: I think that some people must be aware of that.
Speaker 1: So went from there. Which are these cases are the
Speaker 1: most urgent as he prepares to decide whether to run
Speaker 1: for office? Here is that the New York Attorney General's investigation. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you took the words out out of announced, hands down.
Speaker 1: There's so much at stake, um in this investigation, and
Speaker 1: it is wrapping up. They were just in court today
Speaker 1: in federal court in Albany, that's where his lawsuit is filed.
Speaker 1: Haba was in court arguing there against the Attorney General's
Speaker 1: motion to dismiss that case. UM. But the underlying investigation
Speaker 1: is ongoing. UM. It could lead to a lawsuit being
Speaker 1: filed against the Trump organization or Trump himself or Don Jr.
Speaker 1: Eric Trump and Balka Trump and Vanka Trump. They're all
Speaker 1: involved in the business. And it's been uh, you know,
Speaker 1: subpoena in this in this investigation. UM, and it alleged
Speaker 1: you know, if they do allege something, it would have
Speaker 1: to do probably with asset valuations. The Attorney General has
Speaker 1: said that the probe is already uncovered a significant it
Speaker 1: in that the company has used misleading asset valuations for
Speaker 1: years to get better terms on insurance and loans and
Speaker 1: even taxes. Uh. So it potentially could be a big
Speaker 1: lawsuit that could drag on certainly um into potentially depending
Speaker 1: on that's the point. So this could hang over a
Speaker 1: potential presidential race. This would be brought up in every
Speaker 1: debate and you know, every interview exactly. And he's already
Speaker 1: laying the groundwork, and so is his lawyer, Lena Habba,
Speaker 1: you know, to basically excused, um accused Uh the Attorney
Speaker 1: General and any judge involved a bias against him. UM.
Speaker 1: Should anything not go his way, UM, they will just
Speaker 1: say that it's more of a witch hunt, UM as
Speaker 1: more of the same. That's that's what they already do
Speaker 1: so you know, in a sense, this lawsuit that she
Speaker 1: filed on his behalf is is creating potential um uh,
Speaker 1: not evidence, but giving them talking points for if this
Speaker 1: doesn't go his way. How come he didn't go to
Speaker 1: marrow lago? Eric, what happened? What's the what's the phone
Speaker 1: call about? Well, my my invitation was lost in the mail,
Speaker 1: Like me, I understand, it's very nice this time of year,
Speaker 1: Eric Larson, great work. Thanks for coming to talk to
Speaker 1: me about it, and thanks for bringing us the sound
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump. Indeed, Trump's lawyer leads counter attack from
Speaker 1: her five attorney firm. As the headline, you can read
Speaker 1: about it on the terminal Elena Hobbs, Eric writes, he
Speaker 1: I guess he well, he interviewed her at her better
Speaker 1: house keeps a frame news article on a wall of
Speaker 1: her well appointed five bedroom mansion in New Jersey with
Speaker 1: a distinctive signature scrolled across it with yes sharpie Elena.
Speaker 1: Great job, the former president wrote on this November one story.
Speaker 1: It was a news story about a lawsuit that was
Speaker 1: brought to him by one time apprentice contest and who
Speaker 1: accused him of sexual assault, then suit him for defamation
Speaker 1: when he called her a liar. It's an interesting world
Speaker 1: we live in, and we'll talk about it with the
Speaker 1: panel as we bring in Genie Chanzano solo panel here
Speaker 1: on sound On. Next we'll check markets and traffic for
Speaker 1: you as well. Aren't Joe Matthew? This is Bloomberg. You're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg You sound On with Joe Matthew on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. Could there be an upset in Pennsylvania? It's
Speaker 1: starting to look like it here as we prepare for
Speaker 1: next Tuesday's Republican Senate primary in the state in which
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is of course endorsed. Dr Oz that got
Speaker 1: all the talk right at Oz versus McCormick will make
Speaker 1: way for Kathy Barnett, giving the front runners a run
Speaker 1: for their money. Here, thanks for being with us on
Speaker 1: the Friday edition of Sound On't Joe Matthew in Washington
Speaker 1: and joined by Bloomberg Politics contributor Genie Shenzano. Genie, this
Speaker 1: is a remarkable story. Doctor Roz of course already famous.
Speaker 1: He's got a lot of name recognition. David McCormick got
Speaker 1: a lot of money, have spent millions twelve million dollars
Speaker 1: for Dr Oz almost as much for David McCormick. Barnett
Speaker 1: has spent a hundred and thirty seven thousand dollars on TV.
Speaker 1: And as I look at the Real Clear UH poll
Speaker 1: of polls here in this particular race, and they're in
Speaker 1: there within one point of each she's now in second
Speaker 1: place here, it's Dr Oz twenty three, Barnett twenty one,
Speaker 1: McCormick twenty what's going on in Pennsylvania? It is stunning.
Speaker 1: I was looking at the same Real Clear Politics polling average.
Speaker 1: You look at Barnett's numbers April third, she's polling around
Speaker 1: seven percent today, As you mentioned, she has surpassed McCormick
Speaker 1: with all his money. She is within a margin of
Speaker 1: era of Oz and she's at about twenty one two percent.
Speaker 1: It is a remarkable trajectory. I think part of what
Speaker 1: has happened here is that Oz and Cormick have been
Speaker 1: so busy shooting at each other, and Kathy Barnett has
Speaker 1: been out there now she has said many things that
Speaker 1: people find objectionable. Um, he is a MAGA candidate. Right,
Speaker 1: to be clear, she's not endorsed by Trump, but she's
Speaker 1: she's in the in the vein. She may be more
Speaker 1: Maga than Donald Trump. To be honest, she is, you know,
Speaker 1: she and she has, let's face it, set a lot
Speaker 1: of things that people may find objectionable, but that play
Speaker 1: to this primary audience in the Republican primary in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: And so what you know, the problem for the Republicans,
Speaker 1: of course, is they're concerned she may not be a
Speaker 1: great general party candidate general election candidate, but she is
Speaker 1: really really strong. And so while McCormick and Oz have
Speaker 1: been shooting at each other, she herself has shot up,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, and not spent a lot of money,
Speaker 1: which is absolutely stunning Donald Trump. Out of the statements yesterday,
Speaker 1: it says Kathy Barnett will never be able to win
Speaker 1: the general electorate against the radical left Democrats. She has
Speaker 1: many things in her past which have not been properly explained.
Speaker 1: Or what if she's able to do so, she will
Speaker 1: have a wonderful future in the Republican Party and I
Speaker 1: will be behind her all the way. He goes on
Speaker 1: to say Dr ros is the only one will be
Speaker 1: able to easily defeat the craze lunatic Democrat in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming he means the Lieutenant governor Fetterman. Uh, that's
Speaker 1: a quite a backhanded compliment, isn't it. It is? And
Speaker 1: you know what's so stunning about that is that's exactly
Speaker 1: what people said about Donald Trump before he won in
Speaker 1: two sixteen, the same thing. He can never win. He
Speaker 1: says outlandish things. He has no political experience. But you
Speaker 1: know one thing that Kathy Barnett has going for her,
Speaker 1: in addition to other things, is she has quite a
Speaker 1: remarkable story. And that story, that personal story, has been
Speaker 1: resonating with Republican primary goers on the ground. She has
Speaker 1: made flubs, as I said, she has said things that
Speaker 1: people find objectionable, and yet her star, the more they
Speaker 1: listen to her, continues to rise. She is more maga
Speaker 1: than Donald Trump in some ways, and it is resonating
Speaker 1: with people born of any eleven year old mother. She
Speaker 1: calls herself a product of rape in a campaign that
Speaker 1: has seen abortion creep up as a major issue here,
Speaker 1: of course, at following the league from the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: a lot of questions as well about whether mement Oz
Speaker 1: is actually pro life right. Jennie, We've heard a lot
Speaker 1: about this. They had a debate recently. It was next
Speaker 1: to our media. I want to hear from both oz
Speaker 1: Uh and McCormick. Here's Dr Oz first President Trump endorsed
Speaker 1: being quite clearly, and the first point he made about
Speaker 1: why I'm a conservative America, first Republican, he said that
Speaker 1: I am pro life and I am pro life. Okay,
Speaker 1: so he's explicit about that. McCormick says, not so much.
Speaker 1: Here he is responding, Memon has flip flopped on every
Speaker 1: major issue, and you can go to his own comments
Speaker 1: May one, two thousand and nineteen, and interviewed at the
Speaker 1: Breakfast Club, he essentially said that he was worried about
Speaker 1: the pro life movement um that was creating fights. He
Speaker 1: was worried about states putting in place pro pro life legislation.
Speaker 1: And is this a conversation that's just sucking up oxygen
Speaker 1: here in a Republican primary, genie, or or will it
Speaker 1: helped decide the outcome? You know, it feels like McCormick
Speaker 1: really believes that you listen to these ads, that that
Speaker 1: that inconsistency on Oz's part is going to hurt him
Speaker 1: in the election. But again, just look back at Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: He was pro choice, he was pro life, he had
Speaker 1: been you know, in various positions, not to mention he
Speaker 1: had been a Democrat, an independent Republican. It didn't matter.
Speaker 1: And so I'm not so certain that this idea of
Speaker 1: you know, flip flopping inconsistency is going to resonate with
Speaker 1: voters on the ground. And you know, as you look
Speaker 1: at the Democrats, it's so fascinating what Fetterman has done
Speaker 1: is he stopped really talking about issues. He's, you know,
Speaker 1: a left wing sort of guy, he's a you know,
Speaker 1: progressive in some ways, but he started talking about the
Speaker 1: fact what I'm a fighter. I will fight for you
Speaker 1: each and every day. It's that kind of talk that's
Speaker 1: resonating with voters on both sides, not issue consistency. And
Speaker 1: so I'm not sure this is gonna matter or that
Speaker 1: much we've had, uh, you know, this weekly storyline going
Speaker 1: Genie about whether the Trump brand is still intact, his
Speaker 1: endorsements matter. He had his first loss, of course, uh
Speaker 1: in this latest go around, but he's had a pretty
Speaker 1: good record so far. I think we have to admit
Speaker 1: he ran the table, uh two weeks ago Ohio, Indiana,
Speaker 1: who had some trouble in Nebraska. Are we gonna keep
Speaker 1: doing this every week or are we gonna look at
Speaker 1: kind of the primary season as a whole before we
Speaker 1: judge Donald Trump. I think we'll look at it as
Speaker 1: a weekly blow by blow, and then at the end
Speaker 1: we will look at it overall. But I don't think
Speaker 1: anybody can turn a blind eye to the fact. Just
Speaker 1: listen to this show that you've done today. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: remains a critically something. We've talked about him for the
Speaker 1: entire hour, even as we changed topics. Absolutely, and can
Speaker 1: you imagine another former president who lost the White House
Speaker 1: if he could command this much attention. Donald Trump isn't
Speaker 1: paying for this attention. He's getting free media attention. So
Speaker 1: he is a force to be reckoned with and certain
Speaker 1: when it comes to Republican primary races. You know he'll
Speaker 1: lose some, he'll win some, but nobody can say he's
Speaker 1: not important. And I go back, he has raised more
Speaker 1: money than the Republican Party itself except two days in
Speaker 1: the last six months of twenty one. That's a remarkable
Speaker 1: statement right there. It is. But that that brings me
Speaker 1: back to this Barnet Bank account, a hundred thirty seven
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. This is a state with two major media markets, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's an expensive proposition running for Senate or
Speaker 1: for any statewide, uh, you know, elected office here and
Speaker 1: it's it's proving again that this has a lot more
Speaker 1: to do with things than money, Genie, it does, you know,
Speaker 1: I I go back to, you know, the race between
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. You know, as a political scientist,
Speaker 1: we would always say money is the deciding factor. You
Speaker 1: have more money, you know, nine times out of ten,
Speaker 1: you will win. I'm not so sure that is the
Speaker 1: case anymore. Sure money matters, but there are so many
Speaker 1: avenues now for candidates if they can say out rageous
Speaker 1: things to get attention via social media, which costs them
Speaker 1: very very little. Any time with Jennie Chanzano, of course,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributor, as we wind it down here a
Speaker 1: bit here of course, on a Friday, as we all
Speaker 1: try to get home together in one piece, Genie. Was
Speaker 1: the last day on the job for Jens Saki, the
Speaker 1: White House Press Secretary. We knew it was coming, she
Speaker 1: announced this weeks ago. In fact, is Karine Sean Pierre
Speaker 1: takes uh takes the podium if you will, in the
Speaker 1: briefing room. So today was the last go around, and
Speaker 1: she had to you know, to to her credit, a
Speaker 1: lot of people to thank and a lot of people
Speaker 1: were there to thank her. This is just a taste
Speaker 1: of what it was like today in the White House
Speaker 1: briefing room. And she brought this to a close. You know,
Speaker 1: this is my last briefing and it is Brian um.
Speaker 1: And I wanted to start with a series of thank yous.
Speaker 1: Um uh. I promised myself, I wasn't gonna get emotional. Okay,
Speaker 1: um um thank you. I want to say thank you
Speaker 1: to the President and the First Lady, and then thanked
Speaker 1: everyone else she ever met. It was kind of an
Speaker 1: Oscars type of thing. Even had her husband in the room.
Speaker 1: A lot of warm feelings on the way out here.
Speaker 1: And she talked about her first meeting for this job,
Speaker 1: Genie with with the President and the First Lady, and
Speaker 1: they talked about restoring civility to the White House briefing room. Now,
Speaker 1: this came off obviously a very difficult end of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, when there were no briefings going on and
Speaker 1: the media, news media that had been demonized as the
Speaker 1: enemy of the American people. Did she succeed in doing that?
Speaker 1: You know, I think all in all, she did. I mean,
Speaker 1: she even got praise from her nemesis in in in
Speaker 1: the Room, Peter Doocey of FOXNE who described her as
Speaker 1: very effective. And you know, I sort of say that
Speaker 1: tongue in cheek because they had a you know, sort
Speaker 1: of a love hate relationship, if you will, in there.
Speaker 1: But I do think she did. You know, just if
Speaker 1: you look at the number of you know, she she
Speaker 1: was committed. When she came in, she said to holding
Speaker 1: these press briefings daily and gaggles when they couldn't be
Speaker 1: in the room, and she did that. Somebody by account
Speaker 1: said of the days over the last sixteen months, sixteen
Speaker 1: months rather she held briefings. I mean, that's quite a
Speaker 1: remarkable change from what we saw in the Trump White House.
Speaker 1: They said at that the total Trump White House. And
Speaker 1: if all four years, two hundred and five briefings, she
Speaker 1: held two twenty four already. So she she did it.
Speaker 1: She did it that way. And I think, you know,
Speaker 1: she also had a really strong background as she came in,
Speaker 1: and she was able to parlay that into you know,
Speaker 1: she she was no pushover. Obviously she was. She's a tough,
Speaker 1: tough woman, but she was also able to be effective
Speaker 1: in terms of knowing what reporters needed by way of information.
Speaker 1: That's true. I mean, look, her time spent at the
Speaker 1: State Department obviously informed her for a critical period in
Speaker 1: American history. Uh. I wonder your thoughts on her replacement,
Speaker 1: Karine Jean Pierre. This is one of the most difficult
Speaker 1: jobs in the world. It's one of you know, frequently
Speaker 1: known as the second hardest job in Washington, right after
Speaker 1: being president. Uh. You typically don't last too long here.
Speaker 1: What's the job? What's the goal for Kareine junk here? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we call her KJP now Joe, just just to be clear.
Speaker 1: She's got it. She's gonna got it, get the president
Speaker 1: through this mid term. I think, first of all, and
Speaker 1: I think she'll do a great job. She comes with
Speaker 1: an enormous experience. Of course, that's a lot to ask.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine being tasked with that job. I'd rather
Speaker 1: stay here, talk to Jeanie Tanzano, Bloomberg Politics contributor, and
Speaker 1: all the other smart folks I get to spend time
Speaker 1: with here every day. I'll meet you back here Monday.
Speaker 1: Thanks to Mark Esper for joining us on the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in Politics.