Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on
Speaker 1: Main Justice tried to get our office to remove any
Speaker 1: reference to individual one who was president from If it happened,
Speaker 1: I think you'd have problems in this country. The likeship
Speaker 1: which perhaps we've never seen before. It was unprecedented and scary.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Sound on Politics, Policy and Perspective from DC's top name.
Speaker 1: That was a bounce. The good news is you just won.
Speaker 1: The primary news is if you hold this position on elections,
Speaker 1: or you hold this positions on abortion, you're gonna lose
Speaker 1: by picking point Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. The US makes a significant offer for the
Speaker 1: return of Brittney Grinder and Paul Wheeling, but no one
Speaker 1: has answered the call. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: This day, President Biden meets with Grinder's wife and Whelan's
Speaker 1: sister to keep Hope alive. Talk about the aspects of
Speaker 1: a prisoner swap and why it's taking so long with
Speaker 1: William Butler, professor of law at Penn State. Same sex
Speaker 1: marriage legislation will have to wait until after the mid
Speaker 1: term elections. Will get the latest from Capitol Hill from
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Government's Emily Wilkins and analysis from our signature panel.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jeanie Chanzano are with
Speaker 1: us on this Friday. There's renewed interest, if not urgency,
Speaker 1: around the cases of Brittany Grinder and Paul Wheelan, of course,
Speaker 1: the two Americans being detained in Russia, because President Biden
Speaker 1: today meets with Grinder's wife, Cherrell, and Elizabeth wheel and
Speaker 1: the sister of the marine to assure them that their
Speaker 1: detained family members remained front of mine and try to
Speaker 1: get some attention on this. As John Kirby today said
Speaker 1: at the White House, part of the idea here was
Speaker 1: to get this back in the conversation. Kirby, of course,
Speaker 1: spokesperson for the National Security Council at the White House.
Speaker 1: He talked about it today in the briefing room here
Speaker 1: he is discussions are ongoing. UM. I think Karine said
Speaker 1: it really well yesterday. Sadly, we don't have a result
Speaker 1: here to tell you about, but the President felt it
Speaker 1: was important to continue the dialogue with the family members.
Speaker 1: That's happening today. We have stayed in touch with them throughout.
Speaker 1: We have kept them informed throughout um. But the negotiations
Speaker 1: are still ongoing. But the negotiations are now taking place,
Speaker 1: and the Russians have made some kind of significant response.
Speaker 1: They have not responded to our offer. They have not
Speaker 1: responded to our offer. I thought there were reports out
Speaker 1: there that this had been rebuffed, remembering that the Biden
Speaker 1: administration proposed swapping Grinder of course, a basketball star here,
Speaker 1: Olympic gold medalist, and Wheeland for for Victor bout If
Speaker 1: from saying it right that this is the arms dealer,
Speaker 1: Russian arms dealer they call the merchant of death, was
Speaker 1: sentenced twenty five years in and a second Russian also
Speaker 1: held in the US jail. This went from two for
Speaker 1: one to a two for two Victor boot Thank you
Speaker 1: Rick the Merchant of Death. And so there are a
Speaker 1: lot of questions right now about what's taking so long
Speaker 1: and if the U s has any leverage at this point,
Speaker 1: with the war in Ukraine going on, and obviously a
Speaker 1: lot of other world events that are challenging these negotiations.
Speaker 1: Were joined to talk about it by William Butler. John
Speaker 1: Edward Fowler, Distinguished Professor of Law at Penn State, author
Speaker 1: of Russian law and legal institutions and back with us
Speaker 1: here on sound On, Professor. It's great to have you here,
Speaker 1: number one. Were you surprised to hear today that we
Speaker 1: have not had to reply, we haven't heard back on
Speaker 1: this offer. I didn't expect this to be an easy negotiations,
Speaker 1: so I'm not surprised. I wouldn't suspect that both sides
Speaker 1: are excellent negotiators, and they each have objectives they want
Speaker 1: to reach. So if two for two isn't it's acceptable,
Speaker 1: or at least the two that are on offer aren't acceptable,
Speaker 1: and either they'll have to go to a larger offer
Speaker 1: or reconsider their positions. Well, this is a tough spot
Speaker 1: we're in here. Uh. The White House is obviously trying
Speaker 1: to put some light on it today, getting people like
Speaker 1: us to talk about it again and get more questions
Speaker 1: being asked out in the public space. But what leverage
Speaker 1: does the US have right now with this war going.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that we have much leverage in and
Speaker 1: of itself. We have her appeal pending, of course, and
Speaker 1: it's possible she may get some relief from the appeal,
Speaker 1: but it's also possible she may not. Other than that,
Speaker 1: I think it's just a question of two sides who
Speaker 1: are experienced negotiators coming to an acceptable solution. But you
Speaker 1: see a solution coming at some point. Well, since I'm
Speaker 1: not close to matters at all, it's easy for me
Speaker 1: to say that they might consider the possibility of a
Speaker 1: larger exchange, that if two for two is not considered
Speaker 1: to be equitable by one side or the other, they
Speaker 1: might go to three for three or three for for even.
Speaker 1: You specialize in international and comparative law, focusing principally on
Speaker 1: on Russia, and I wonder your thoughts on this case.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you laugh at the idea of an appeal? No?
Speaker 1: I do not. I don't know precisely the grounds for appeal.
Speaker 1: Leniency is certainly one of them, but there will maybe
Speaker 1: other points that the Council have raised. So there's obviously
Speaker 1: some opportunity there. But when you consider the straits that
Speaker 1: that that Wheeland is in as well, Uh, how long
Speaker 1: can this go on for? I mean, this is the
Speaker 1: they're they're being held in terrible conditions from what we understand. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're not always in contact with their families. What else
Speaker 1: can be done for them in the meantime? Well, confinement
Speaker 1: such as they're experiencing is not pleasant under any circumstances.
Speaker 1: You can go on, of course, until they complete the
Speaker 1: serving of their sentences, that would be no result to
Speaker 1: the ciations. Do we have anything to offer them that
Speaker 1: that doesn't impact the war, that doesn't actually involve the
Speaker 1: war in Ukraine? Do we have leverage elsewhere? As we
Speaker 1: approached this conversation, It's not obvious to me that we do.
Speaker 1: That's why I was thinking in terms of possibly expanding
Speaker 1: the offer to more people becoming involved than two on
Speaker 1: each side. Does Vladimir Putin have sway over Russian courts?
Speaker 1: Should we assume that? We should assume I think that
Speaker 1: he does not, for these purposes, and that he will
Speaker 1: be reluctant to appear to be exerting any influence unduly
Speaker 1: over the courts duc and William Butler Butler, Professor of
Speaker 1: law at Penn State, about this situation involving Britney Griner
Speaker 1: and Paul Wheeland. I'm assuming that an event today, an
Speaker 1: event like we saw today at the White House, which
Speaker 1: was not on the President's schedule, It was not one
Speaker 1: to be held with cameras and so forth, but it
Speaker 1: got the conversation going. Is that on the radar in Russia,
Speaker 1: I would expect it to be on the it are
Speaker 1: in Russia. Brittany is a popular basketball star there as
Speaker 1: well as here. She has fans in both camps, so
Speaker 1: to speak. I wonder what you think about the idea
Speaker 1: of Brittany Grinder, specifically as a hostage, if she actually
Speaker 1: had the cannabis oil with her and so forth, and
Speaker 1: I realized that could be a question in Russia she
Speaker 1: actually did break a law. Do you consider her a
Speaker 1: hostage or a political prisoner at this point? Because I'm
Speaker 1: assuming that you or I would be in jail if
Speaker 1: we did the same thing. I think you or I
Speaker 1: would be in jail if we did the same thing.
Speaker 1: I think it's not probably helpful to think of this
Speaker 1: in hostage terms, although once you begin the negotiations for
Speaker 1: a next change, what has tempted to do? So? What
Speaker 1: do you think Vladimir Putin is looking for in terms
Speaker 1: of his own leverage? I think he's looking for the
Speaker 1: release of somebody that he's of interest, that is of
Speaker 1: interest to him, that he would like to have back home.
Speaker 1: William Butler, I appreciate your being with us. John Edward Fowler,
Speaker 1: Distinguished professor of law at Penn State with us on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Sound On as we assemble our panel for their take.
Speaker 1: We've talked about this before when we went through the verdict,
Speaker 1: than we went through the sentencing process, and now that
Speaker 1: we're in appeal, the US really seems to be on
Speaker 1: ice here. Rick Davis, Genie Chanzano or with us Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributors. Happy Friday to both of you. Genie. The
Speaker 1: White House, Uh, it seems to be in a real
Speaker 1: jam here. If they're bringing family members in to assure
Speaker 1: them that there's hope, that doesn't sound like progress. It doesn't.
Speaker 1: And you know, so many things in your conversation just
Speaker 1: alluded to all of this that make this so much
Speaker 1: more complicated. We had the ambassador John Sullivan retire early.
Speaker 1: He was intimately involved for family reasons. He retired, he
Speaker 1: was intimately intimately involved in these negotiations. That's just about
Speaker 1: a week ago. Now. We don't know how that's going
Speaker 1: to affect it. We have former UN Ambassador Bill Richardson
Speaker 1: headed over there, although the government doesn't it's not an
Speaker 1: official visit. Don't know what that is about. And of
Speaker 1: course big questions loom the United States engaged in this
Speaker 1: kind of negotiation to swap prisoners. Does that encourage adversaries
Speaker 1: like Venezuela or Iran to detain Americans. That's a big
Speaker 1: question hanging over all of this, and we haven't heard
Speaker 1: a lot of response from the White House on all
Speaker 1: of those issues. Is Vladimir Putin just enjoying taking time here, Rick,
Speaker 1: or is he looking for three or four prisoners? To
Speaker 1: the Professor's point, you well, if anybody could read Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin's mind, we've got a lot more pressing questions to
Speaker 1: ask him than I guess that. The reality is that, um,
Speaker 1: you know, he's acting in his self interest. Uh, he's
Speaker 1: probably gonna want something, whether it's these multiple releases that
Speaker 1: that you've been talking about, or whether it's anybody in particular.
Speaker 1: It's just the price of doing business with Vladimir Putin?
Speaker 1: Or does it require an end of this war? I
Speaker 1: would say it probably doesn't require end of the war,
Speaker 1: because if that's the case, you're back the status quo
Speaker 1: anti right, you know, really just serving out your sentence
Speaker 1: until something breaks. I do think the Biden administration is
Speaker 1: doing the right thing by keeping in the public eye
Speaker 1: right that that this is an embarrassment for Putin in
Speaker 1: his regime. I mean, you know, it doesn't do him
Speaker 1: any good to have a superstar basketball player. You know
Speaker 1: that that they've arrested for for for this crime and UH.
Speaker 1: And I think that there are a number of big
Speaker 1: events coming up, the UN General Assembly next week in
Speaker 1: New York, the Geez twenty meeting UH in November, and
Speaker 1: and and these are all places that the media and
Speaker 1: other allies and competitors to Russia can use this as
Speaker 1: an example and and and create their own leverage with him.
Speaker 1: So is not a coincidence to you? I don't think
Speaker 1: the timing is a coincidence. And I think it's probably
Speaker 1: a good opportunity to try and create a lot of
Speaker 1: noise around this UH in order to keep the heat
Speaker 1: on Bill Richardson apparently over there according to reports Genie
Speaker 1: to to you know, and it's not you know, he's
Speaker 1: been disavowed as we've seen before, not connected to the
Speaker 1: State Department here, he's speaking for himself. Does that help
Speaker 1: though he's actually managed this before. Does it make us
Speaker 1: look weak? He's an experience negotiator, there's no question about that.
Speaker 1: But I do think it raises questions, And you know,
Speaker 1: I have to raise this issue about the publicity surrounding
Speaker 1: this in the last day or so. Is that a
Speaker 1: sign that US negotiations have ground to a halt, that
Speaker 1: we aren't where we should be in terms of getting
Speaker 1: these prisoners returned. I don't know if it's a good
Speaker 1: sign they're going public or a bad sign. Let's not
Speaker 1: forget they told the families a long time ago to
Speaker 1: stay quiet. They did, then they came public. So I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is a good sign or a
Speaker 1: bad sign. But we see the same thing with Richardson's
Speaker 1: curious visit in the last few days. Reported I guess
Speaker 1: Dennis Rodman didn't get the job done. Rick, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's just like mission impossible. Governor Richardson is in Russia,
Speaker 1: but we may disavow him. Right. We've actually seen this
Speaker 1: movie before, uh, and it works to think of a
Speaker 1: positive outcome. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. This is sound On,
Speaker 1: Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano our panel continuing next. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The special Master has been chosen. Judge Raymond Deary has
Speaker 1: his work cut out with I believe eleven thousand documents
Speaker 1: to sort through. That's a lot of colding. Do they
Speaker 1: still call it colding? Here's the thing that judge also
Speaker 1: denied a US request to use documents with classified markings.
Speaker 1: You've seen photos of some of them taken from marl Lago.
Speaker 1: So the investigation, you know, they wanted to at least
Speaker 1: just keep using a hundred documents that we're mark classified.
Speaker 1: But they will have to wait on this and it
Speaker 1: could take some time. Not that Donald Trump sounds worried.
Speaker 1: He showed up on the the Hugh Hewitt program. We
Speaker 1: didn't show up. He called into the show and he
Speaker 1: would ask him, you know, hey, if they indict you,
Speaker 1: because that's been in the air lately as a possibility,
Speaker 1: would you still run for president? Here's what he said.
Speaker 1: I don't think the people of the United States would
Speaker 1: stand for it. And as you know, of a thing
Speaker 1: like that happened, I would have no prohibition against running.
Speaker 1: You know that I do, And that's what I want
Speaker 1: people to understand. That would not take you out of
Speaker 1: the arena. It would not, But I think if it happened,
Speaker 1: I think you'd have problems in this country, the likes
Speaker 1: of which perhaps we've never seen before. I don't think
Speaker 1: the people of the United States would stand for it.
Speaker 1: What kind of problems, Mr President, I think they'd have
Speaker 1: big problems, big problems. He never detailed what those problems
Speaker 1: would be. But I think we're getting the idea here.
Speaker 1: As we reassemble the panel with Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick
Speaker 1: Davis and Genie Schanzano, UM already starting to saw from
Speaker 1: people up with this idea, Rick, as we're trying to
Speaker 1: get ahead of a possible indictment. Uh, he sure seems
Speaker 1: to be talking a lot about it. I think if
Speaker 1: I were under investigation, I wouldn't want to talk about
Speaker 1: it at all. But look, this echoes Senator Lindsey Graham's
Speaker 1: comments earlier that if Donald Trump were indicted, there'd be,
Speaker 1: you know, riots in the streets. So, uh, you can
Speaker 1: tell he was going this overlay that, UM, sure, you know,
Speaker 1: my people won't stand for it. And and and you
Speaker 1: couple that with some of the activity on his true
Speaker 1: social where you know he's wearing Q and on pins. Now,
Speaker 1: I mean he's gone full crazy and wearing a Q
Speaker 1: and on pen and and and with symbols that talk about,
Speaker 1: you know, the final determination or whatever it is, which
Speaker 1: is he gets reinstated as president and they take the
Speaker 1: opponents and tried them and and and and you know,
Speaker 1: capital punishment, and so it's it's crazy Ville right now.
Speaker 1: And so I don't think we can assume anything. This
Speaker 1: was a dog whistle to his own supporters. We've seen
Speaker 1: him do that before that you know, get ready, uh
Speaker 1: and uh. And it's disappointing, but it's pretty much what
Speaker 1: we've come to expect from him, was that stand back
Speaker 1: and stand by the new version Gene. Yeah, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be Bigley, Joe Bigley is what it's gonna be. And
Speaker 1: I'm so glad that Rick is monitoring, monitoring truth social now.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to give it around. I'm not alone.
Speaker 1: Rick has joined me there. Um, you know, in all seriousness. No,
Speaker 1: this is coming just on the heels this week of
Speaker 1: the FBI and DHS briefing members of the Senate Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee and Homeland Security about an increase in threats against
Speaker 1: federal law enforcement after these after the search at Mara Lago,
Speaker 1: and you know, you had a number of members of
Speaker 1: Congress come out and see that you know, I think
Speaker 1: Dick Durban called a stunning number of threats was one
Speaker 1: of the quotes, and so this is these are not
Speaker 1: empty threats. It's not unlike what Donald Trump quite frankly
Speaker 1: did in and around January six. And even Hugh Hewitt
Speaker 1: seemed to take that as a form of incitement, and
Speaker 1: he asked him about that, and Donald Trump said, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not inciting. This is just my opinion. But he
Speaker 1: has a way of saying things that we know insight
Speaker 1: whether they are meant that way or not, and they
Speaker 1: clearly seem to be meant that way. Well short of
Speaker 1: violence here, Rick, is the the the interview and his
Speaker 1: statements do bring us to the possibility. You know, it
Speaker 1: seems like a very real possibility that we have a
Speaker 1: former president running for well I for election again under indictment.
Speaker 1: That that will be that will be the new normal
Speaker 1: that people have to get around their head because hey,
Speaker 1: that's legal holding office, that's different. But anybody can run
Speaker 1: under indictment. Rick, Yeah, it's kind of like the United
Speaker 1: States of Nicaragua. I mean, you're you're only allowed to
Speaker 1: run for president if you've been indicted, um so distinction.
Speaker 1: It's a look I don't want to jump to conclusions.
Speaker 1: We've had this conversation many times before. This This mar
Speaker 1: Lago case is an investigation. Nobody's indicted, it's not a
Speaker 1: criminal investigation at this stage. Uh. Those things that uh,
Speaker 1: you know we're all talking about with this court case
Speaker 1: are all predicated on running an investigation and the terms
Speaker 1: that the judge are setting around that. So I think
Speaker 1: it's I think it's premature to to start speculating one
Speaker 1: that he's a candidate for president too, there will be
Speaker 1: a candidate for president who's indicted. Um, yeah, we don't know,
Speaker 1: and and we've we've said in the past, we're not
Speaker 1: sure what the Justice Department really has is a interest
Speaker 1: in Donald Trump. They certainly seem to have a very
Speaker 1: wide and very broad investigation, as we've learned over the
Speaker 1: last week with more than forty subpoenas going out and
Speaker 1: people's phones being uh subpoena. So uh, it's I think
Speaker 1: we I think we have to be very careful about
Speaker 1: creating our own uh spin around has appreciated, and you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right about that, Rick and Lytton. We should remind
Speaker 1: people that there are there are a tandem investor gations
Speaker 1: going here. There's one investigating the the attempt to overturn
Speaker 1: the results of the election. Is a separate one going
Speaker 1: on here about these uh classified documents. Then Janie, there's
Speaker 1: the January six Committee. They tell us there's gonna be
Speaker 1: another hearing this month September, and he's already seeing headlines
Speaker 1: about October. Surprise. Uh, they're gonna have to make this count, right,
Speaker 1: they will. And you know, one thing we expect that
Speaker 1: we may hear is going to be dealing with the
Speaker 1: Secret Service, as they ended up in the spring um
Speaker 1: the January six Committee and over the summer collecting a
Speaker 1: lot of information from the Secret Service. So I think
Speaker 1: that's going to be incredibly interesting. Those people who were
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump close vicinity, what they have to say.
Speaker 1: As we learned today as well from the committee. Their
Speaker 1: final report will not come out until after the mid
Speaker 1: term elections, but let the leaking begin. Rick and Janie
Speaker 1: are with us a bit later on this hour as
Speaker 1: our signature panel. Emily Wilkins from Bloomberg Government is up next.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer certainly seemed
Speaker 1: like he meant it when he vowed to hold a
Speaker 1: vote on a marriage equity bill in coming weeks. He
Speaker 1: said it didn't even matter if there was Republicans support
Speaker 1: to pass it, they would bring it to the floor because,
Speaker 1: as he said passionately after the Row ruling, that these
Speaker 1: new protections were needed. Listen the Magaret Republicans are taking
Speaker 1: over the Republican Party and they've made it unpundently clear
Speaker 1: they're not satisfied with repealing Row. So when some Republicans say, oh,
Speaker 1: votes unnecessary, it won't happen. They said the same thing
Speaker 1: about Row. And here's where we are. Well, here's the
Speaker 1: headline on the terminal send it to delay vote on
Speaker 1: marriage equity until after election. Stephen Dennis writing about a
Speaker 1: vote on the marriage equity bill will be held after
Speaker 1: the mid terms, according to Senator Tammy Baldwin, who spoke
Speaker 1: with reporters, and it's making us wonder if there could
Speaker 1: be a chance af he the elections, because it's not
Speaker 1: going to get easier. That was also potentially going to
Speaker 1: be part of this year end budget legislation that we
Speaker 1: talked about with Emily Wilkins. So we wanted to pick
Speaker 1: up where we left off with Emily Bloomberg. Government Congress
Speaker 1: reporter and dear friend of Bloomberg Sound on, Emily, what's
Speaker 1: going on here? You're surprised to see a delay like this,
Speaker 1: knowing that the odds only get more challenging after November,
Speaker 1: you know, show, I think it is a little surprising.
Speaker 1: I think a number of people were surprised to hear
Speaker 1: Senator Baldwin, who we should really know is the first LGBT,
Speaker 1: openly gay female woman elected to the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: and then to the Senate, so she really has a
Speaker 1: has a dog in the fight here. I mean, she's
Speaker 1: the one who came out. Shubert was kind of looking
Speaker 1: like he was going to put the bill on the
Speaker 1: floor this week, and then she said, you know what,
Speaker 1: we honestly think we're gonna be able to have a
Speaker 1: better shot at this after the elections. What's the logic?
Speaker 1: You know that that is a great question, Joe, because
Speaker 1: there's certainly those that are a party who disagree with our.
Speaker 1: Senator Elizabeth Warren very much wants the bill to be
Speaker 1: on the floor now. But I think it's a matter
Speaker 1: of policy versus politics. There might be some Republicans who
Speaker 1: feel a lot of pressure to not take one stance
Speaker 1: or the other before an election, but might feel more
Speaker 1: comfortable after the election doing so. Um. Remember too, there's
Speaker 1: also some tweaking that's going on, some finessing with other
Speaker 1: potential amendments that could be added this legislation, kind of
Speaker 1: just noting that they do want to keep the status quo.
Speaker 1: They don't want to put any additional burdens or be
Speaker 1: creatings or of additional laws on businesses or other religious groups.
Speaker 1: So that's a lot of sense. You know, they won't
Speaker 1: be they won't be held feet of the fire quite
Speaker 1: the same way after an election as they would in
Speaker 1: weeks before. And see Emily has answers to the questions
Speaker 1: what does that mean then for the legislation that's left,
Speaker 1: because we talked Emily about that potentially being attached to
Speaker 1: UH to stop gap budget to keep things running after
Speaker 1: September thirty, if that's the deadline that we're looking at
Speaker 1: here to get a government funding bill. Um. But that
Speaker 1: wasn't the only thing that was being considered as as
Speaker 1: a possible attachment either, was it. No, it wasn't. I
Speaker 1: mean Senator Joe Manchin has been pushing this permitting reform
Speaker 1: that would really helped expedite permits for energy products. Now
Speaker 1: this would include fossil fuels as well as green energy.
Speaker 1: So there's some potential hope out there that this might
Speaker 1: get some sort of support from Democrats. And honestly, Joe,
Speaker 1: when I was in the Capitol this week, I talked
Speaker 1: to AOC, I talked to Jared Huffman, I talked to
Speaker 1: some really big supporters of climate and I said, are
Speaker 1: you going to not vote for this continuing resolution to
Speaker 1: keep the government funded if this permitting reform is in there?
Speaker 1: No one would tell me that. No one would say
Speaker 1: flat out that they're not voting for this continuing resolution.
Speaker 1: All Democrats understand how important it is to keep the
Speaker 1: government funded, and a lot of them point out that, look,
Speaker 1: we don't even know what the devil in the details
Speaker 1: is yet. We don't have any bill text. We don't
Speaker 1: know exactly what this legislation is gonna look like. So
Speaker 1: at this point, everyone's uh, they're they're keeping their cards
Speaker 1: close to their check. What happened to this group of
Speaker 1: seventies something progressives who were threatening to shut down the
Speaker 1: government over the mansion bill. Has that fallen apart? Or
Speaker 1: does no one believe them? I think actually they've added
Speaker 1: a couple of folks to their ranks. But again, when
Speaker 1: you they then the letter, they're like, you know, we
Speaker 1: don't think that this should be in the continuing Resolution.
Speaker 1: But you ask those same members, so are you voting
Speaker 1: against it? And they give you kind of the wishy washy, Well,
Speaker 1: we need to see what's actually in the details. So
Speaker 1: I think they're making their position known. But no one
Speaker 1: wants to shut down the government. Well, right, and that's
Speaker 1: that's the point here, right that I actually neither party.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that Republicans are just the same as Democrats,
Speaker 1: even if not in the majority. You don't want to
Speaker 1: be hung up on a vote like that weeks before
Speaker 1: the midterm elections. Yeah, I mean Republicans they also want
Speaker 1: to get home, they want to campaign, they want to
Speaker 1: be in their districts. I mean, I'm sure that of
Speaker 1: the four thirty five Republicans in the House and five
Speaker 1: people want to throw in the Senate, you could find
Speaker 1: a couple who would be willing to go for a
Speaker 1: shutdown over this. But it really, Joe, I don't think
Speaker 1: anyone thinks that it's enough. Um, they're definitely the momentum
Speaker 1: on both sides is to really find and get something done.
Speaker 1: The question is when are we going to see anything,
Speaker 1: because we don't have bill text yet. Uh there's still
Speaker 1: a lot of questions about what this is gonna look like.
Speaker 1: In time is running out. The House has seven legislative
Speaker 1: days left before sept You cover the leadership, Emily, and
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about a conversation we had
Speaker 1: earlier this week. There were questions and I believe you
Speaker 1: were in the room for it, for Nancy Pelosi and
Speaker 1: whether she would run to be Speaker again if in
Speaker 1: fact Democrats managed to keep the House as she's predicting
Speaker 1: they'll they'll actually gain seats according to uh Madam Speaker,
Speaker 1: What do you make of that? And is that something
Speaker 1: that you would foresee if Democrats own the House again?
Speaker 1: She's not going to hand that gavel to someone else, right,
Speaker 1: So I gotta say, Sienna, and actually did pull a
Speaker 1: number of Democrats about this, and a lot of them
Speaker 1: says yes, if Democrats pulled off a win, which is
Speaker 1: certainly still not expected at this point, even though they
Speaker 1: might have more momentum, Republicans are still expected to win
Speaker 1: the House in November if they somehow pulled it off, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that would give Pelosi momentum to potentially take another turn
Speaker 1: at the gavel. But she even said two terms ago
Speaker 1: that she would have two more terms as Speaker and
Speaker 1: that that would be it. And the other thing you've
Speaker 1: got to consider here, Joe, is that it does not
Speaker 1: benefit Nancy Pelosi one iota to say that she's not
Speaker 1: going to be speaker next year, that she's going to
Speaker 1: give the gavel she Uh, and really anyone in power
Speaker 1: wants to give depression that they will be staying at
Speaker 1: the top as long as they possibly can. See she's
Speaker 1: got something in come with Joe Biden. Right now, you're
Speaker 1: going to get Are you going to Taco Night at
Speaker 1: the Press Club from here? Uh? You know, I have
Speaker 1: a couple of other plans for tonight, but I think
Speaker 1: I'll be at the Taco Night next week and I
Speaker 1: hopeful to see you there and any other members too.
Speaker 1: I love that. So you know, she's Emily Looms large
Speaker 1: at the National Press Club and maybe I will take
Speaker 1: you up on that next week. Emily, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us. As always, you'll be hearing
Speaker 1: Emily soon on the broadcast from Bloomberg. Government Congress reporter
Speaker 1: Emily Wilkins here on Bloomberg Sound On. So what do
Speaker 1: you think here about this idea of putting off the
Speaker 1: same sex marriage bill until after the election. Does that
Speaker 1: ease up on everybody? To get a couple of Republicans
Speaker 1: to make it possible? They'd need ten to make it
Speaker 1: work as a standalone at least in the Senate. If
Speaker 1: that happens, we'll check in with Rick Davis and Jeannie Chanzano.
Speaker 1: Put it to the panel and something really cool that's
Speaker 1: going on that'll bring us to outer space. It's all
Speaker 1: coming up. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You
Speaker 1: sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio, And so
Speaker 1: hurry up and wait is the message on marriage equity
Speaker 1: in Congress, namely the Senate? Whereas we just discussed with
Speaker 1: Emily Wilkins, Chuck Schumer vowed to have a vote in
Speaker 1: coming weeks, and well, here we are a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks later and we're hearing from Tammy Baldwin that it's
Speaker 1: not gonna happen until after the election. And the logic there,
Speaker 1: as Emily explained, is there might be a little bit
Speaker 1: less pressure. Maybe you get a couple of Republicans to
Speaker 1: vote for this without having to worry about a looming election.
Speaker 1: We reassemble the panel. Rick Davis and Jeannie Schanzano are
Speaker 1: with us, of course Bloomberg Politics contributors, and our signature panel. Rick,
Speaker 1: is that gonna work for any Republicans who would not
Speaker 1: vote for it today but might in December? I think
Speaker 1: that this is actually I tend to be counterintuitive, but
Speaker 1: this indicates to me that there may I mean, you
Speaker 1: need you know ten They've got four six more Republicans
Speaker 1: and my my, look, I mean, the Democrats easily could
Speaker 1: say we're gonna walk the plank, We're gonna force you
Speaker 1: Republicans to vote against this and make a political issue
Speaker 1: out of it, but the fact that they've backed off
Speaker 1: indicates that they might might, like they have six Republicans
Speaker 1: who are telling them, look, I don't want to do
Speaker 1: this before the election. I've got my own issues at home,
Speaker 1: but I'm happy to cast that vote right after the
Speaker 1: men terms. So if that's the case, then Genie, you've
Speaker 1: got this spending bill that could have a Joe Mansion
Speaker 1: piece of legislation attached to it. But my gosh, if
Speaker 1: more than what is it eighty Now Republicans or Democrats
Speaker 1: rather threatening to shut down the government. Is that going
Speaker 1: to see the light of day? You know, there are
Speaker 1: so many things that are questionable about this. I am
Speaker 1: so curious as to what kind of off ramp we
Speaker 1: get for this, because of course, the calendar totally works
Speaker 1: against this. You know, we are, what fourteen days from
Speaker 1: a shutdown. Next week they're back and then Russia Shanna,
Speaker 1: So you're looking at a very limited time frame, and
Speaker 1: Joe Mansion really really wants this included. You know, one
Speaker 1: question is does he cut a deal with the Republicans
Speaker 1: and capital and get something that they can agree to.
Speaker 1: But you've got to imagine many Republicans are not feeling
Speaker 1: that warm towards Joe Mansion. They were very frustrated by
Speaker 1: the last time they trusted him, and so what happens
Speaker 1: with it? Then? Do they just drop this permitting reform
Speaker 1: all together? I can't imagine he'd be happy with that.
Speaker 1: And just as curious to me is the fact that
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer, to Rick's point, you know, he could have
Speaker 1: pushed this and made it part of this whole culture war.
Speaker 1: He didn't force Republicans to vote. Maybe means we're going
Speaker 1: to get a bill on this. But you've got to
Speaker 1: feel some Democrats are frustrated in an election year, he
Speaker 1: didn't force Republicans to go on the record on this.
Speaker 1: What's Joe Mansion doing? Rick, He's trying to get oil
Speaker 1: executives involved to kind of push the legislation. He's looking
Speaker 1: for Republican votes. Is it going to see the light
Speaker 1: of day? You know, it might? I mean a deal
Speaker 1: is a deal that they got from Democrats, got the
Speaker 1: you know, inflation Reduction Act. Uh. It seems like a
Speaker 1: pretty good trade to me. Uh And and I've noticed
Speaker 1: that the House Democrats seem to be talking a little
Speaker 1: less vacuffers toward Joe Mansion. He's been a target uh
Speaker 1: some pretty bad ire over the last year. And uh
Speaker 1: so we'll see. I mean, look, everybody who's been betting
Speaker 1: against Joe Mansion has lost this year. So I mean
Speaker 1: they're going on the side lines are betting for him
Speaker 1: because he's he's right now, you know, just about batting
Speaker 1: a thousand. What do you think on that? Genie? He
Speaker 1: was at the White House on the South Lawn for
Speaker 1: the big you know, inflation celebration the other day that
Speaker 1: you know he was, I assuming hanging out with James
Speaker 1: Taylor at some point here. Uh like Rick said, a
Speaker 1: deal's a deal, doesn't Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer oh
Speaker 1: this to him? Yeah, he was strumming that guitar as
Speaker 1: we saw. Um. You know, the problem is they may
Speaker 1: have made a deal with Joe Manchin, but it takes
Speaker 1: you know, also the other Democrats to stay on board,
Speaker 1: and they did not make a deal apparently with Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders and many other Democrats. So that's going to be
Speaker 1: the problem. He will be very frustrated if this doesn't
Speaker 1: get through. But I think the stunning thing to me
Speaker 1: is that we can't have a conversation in this country
Speaker 1: about the need to both protect the environment and ensure
Speaker 1: we have an economy and an energy sector that is running.
Speaker 1: And we do need this kind of reform. You know
Speaker 1: that you can do both reform the permitting situation and
Speaker 1: help the environment, and those two things can go in concert.
Speaker 1: But we don't have that discussion in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: They seem to be totally at odds, which is frustrating
Speaker 1: to people observing it. After November, are we shut down
Speaker 1: as the store closed? Rick assuming that at least the
Speaker 1: House goes Republican. Well, certainly, if the House goes Republican, um,
Speaker 1: they're gonna do everything they can to keep the Democrats
Speaker 1: in Congress from doing anything between then and the end
Speaker 1: of the year. I mean, they'll have to take up
Speaker 1: the budget in December. Any kind of stop gap will
Speaker 1: only get us through the mid December, so there will
Speaker 1: be a big budget fight. And if the Democrats are
Speaker 1: lame duck, you know they're gonna stick everything they can
Speaker 1: two years worth of spending into one bill. And uh,
Speaker 1: and I've seen those in Washington before where it's basically, hey,
Speaker 1: look we're going to do that and we don't even
Speaker 1: care if the Republicans get what they want because a
Speaker 1: year from now they're gonna do it anyway. So uh,
Speaker 1: dog pile on the rabbit for the budget could be
Speaker 1: the potential in December. What do you what do you
Speaker 1: think about that? Genie? Is the store closed at anything
Speaker 1: outside of a budget for in terms of the Biden agenda,
Speaker 1: the laundry list that we've been hearing of things that
Speaker 1: they want to get done, that's where that's over. If
Speaker 1: they lose the House, right, I can't imagine how they
Speaker 1: push it through. And on top of that, you heard
Speaker 1: Donald Trump called Mitch McConnell an absolute loser and a
Speaker 1: lapdog for the Democrats for not playing hardball with the
Speaker 1: government shutdown with Democrats over the shutdown. So if that's
Speaker 1: in the indication, if Republicans and and you know they
Speaker 1: would be a fairly moderate too, right, can we say
Speaker 1: a portion of the Republican Party take the house, that's
Speaker 1: going to be you know, ringing in their ears. So
Speaker 1: you're hard pressed to imagine they would allow anything to
Speaker 1: go through at that point. Rick and Jennie with us.
Speaker 1: It's Friday, it's Bloomberg sound on. And lastly, today it's
Speaker 1: like something out of the movie Armageddon. You remember this scene?
Speaker 1: What kind of damage do we damage? Total? Sir, that's
Speaker 1: what we call a global killer, global killer, the end
Speaker 1: of mankind. It doesn't matter where it hits, nothing would survive,
Speaker 1: not even bacteria. Than god, what do we do? Well,
Speaker 1: you call NASA in this case instead of a global killer,
Speaker 1: though it's a regional killer. Well it could be. That's
Speaker 1: this is part of a test that NASA is conducting
Speaker 1: right now to save you from being hit by an asteroid.
Speaker 1: This is real work. Happening on behalf of you by
Speaker 1: your government. NASA calls it the DART program, in which
Speaker 1: we send a spacecraft to smash into an asteroid and
Speaker 1: keep it from crashing into our planet. This is real.
Speaker 1: In fact, let's go back to last November when they
Speaker 1: launched this thing in California. Listen five four three two one.
Speaker 1: There it goes slipped off the Falcon nine at DART
Speaker 1: on NASA's first planetary defense test to intentionally crash into
Speaker 1: an asteroid. It's pretty pretty amazing. DART stands for double
Speaker 1: Asteroid Redirect Test. No, it's DART will be used as
Speaker 1: a battering ram essentially to crash into this, uh, this
Speaker 1: asteroid that is actually I'm told it's a moonlit as
Speaker 1: as I read. Nancy Shabbitt is the team leader here,
Speaker 1: if you will, from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.
Speaker 1: The regional devastation could be the size of a city
Speaker 1: or a small state or a small country, and so
Speaker 1: it is very devastating, very rare, no known threat. But
Speaker 1: that's why the focus a lot of time is on
Speaker 1: objects of that size and why de MorphOS is such
Speaker 1: a perfect target for this first planetary defense test mission
Speaker 1: to Morphus. This is like right out of a sci
Speaker 1: fi movie. They're gonna have everything, but Bruce willis on board.
Speaker 1: And here's the cool part. It actually hits the asteroid
Speaker 1: on September. It's almost there. In fact, the little spacecraft
Speaker 1: came out of the rocket and it's going there. Now.
Speaker 1: There'll be an adjacent spacecraft to take pictures of it
Speaker 1: all and Rick and Genie. Apparently the images, according to
Speaker 1: NASA will be stunning. The question is can they save
Speaker 1: us from an asteroid? Rick? This is truly science fiction
Speaker 1: turn science fact. Yeah, this is right out of Armageddon,
Speaker 1: one of my favorite movies. And uh, and I hope
Speaker 1: they're successful because you know, I want something more than
Speaker 1: bacteria to survive for hit by an asteroid. I mean
Speaker 1: that we get hit by asteroids a lot, but we
Speaker 1: don't look like the Moon, which you know, it looks
Speaker 1: like just a a sand trap. After nine holes of
Speaker 1: golf with me. But the reality of it is is,
Speaker 1: you know, all these things are happening at a time
Speaker 1: when space seems to become the number one issue that
Speaker 1: people are talking about. I mean, I cannot go through
Speaker 1: a day without someone talking about the space competition. To
Speaker 1: get satellites up the you know, going to the moon
Speaker 1: and building a colony, going to Mars and building a colony.
Speaker 1: Uh and and so I think it's one of these
Speaker 1: periods of time where I think it's just grabbing the
Speaker 1: imagination of the world all over. It's pretty pretty cool
Speaker 1: stuff that our government is actually doing a genie. We've
Speaker 1: tried to make this point before. They may not have
Speaker 1: a lot of money and you know, funding for this
Speaker 1: particular program, but it's actually happening. It's it's the government
Speaker 1: working for the people, and these scientists are some of
Speaker 1: the smartest people in the world. They've actually figured out
Speaker 1: a way that might be able to save us from devastation,
Speaker 1: like from you know, being the dinosaurs. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: this is like every kid's dream job. You create a
Speaker 1: spacecraft to go into space and you know, to push
Speaker 1: an astraight off course. Yeah, it's amazing. But you know,
Speaker 1: I know this only because I have a friend deeply
Speaker 1: involved in this. This is a real threat a popist
Speaker 1: seven years from April of this year, and it's the
Speaker 1: size of what it is, the size of the Empire
Speaker 1: State Building in Manhattan, and it's gonna come within about
Speaker 1: twenty thous miles of Earth. That's really really close, So
Speaker 1: they may have to send these spaceships up for real
Speaker 1: to move these asteroids off course pretty soon. Yes, I'm
Speaker 1: seeing I'm getting emotional already just thinking about it. Turned
Speaker 1: that thing up justin with our signature panel, I dare
Speaker 1: you to not shut it to here Rick Davis and
Speaker 1: Jeanie Chantay No, I thank you both as we green
Speaker 1: into the weekend together on the fastest hour in politics.
Speaker 1: Nice job, Bob Bragg, who put who full of that?
Speaker 1: I need to find that out later. I'll see you
Speaker 1: back here on Monday. I'd make it in. I'm Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg