Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: We call on Russia to immediately restore Ukraine's full control
Speaker 1: of the plants. You can see the narrative building around
Speaker 1: this administration, which is like, hey, we're in it for
Speaker 1: the long haul. The concern is that people across the world,
Speaker 1: not just in the United States, forget about the plight
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. Bloomberg Sound On, Politics, Policy and Perspective. From
Speaker 1: DC's top name. This is Artemus Launch Control Launch Rector
Speaker 1: Charlie Pakfault tops and has called a scruff when you're
Speaker 1: dealing in a high risk business and space flight is risky,
Speaker 1: and that's what you do. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The counter offensive begins in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the fastest hour in politics, as the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: military launches a long anticipated assault on Russian forces to
Speaker 1: retake land. Will it move US closer or further away
Speaker 1: from a diplomatics alution. We'll talk with John Herbst, former
Speaker 1: US Ambassador to Ukraine, now with the Atlantic Council. Later,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department says it's filter team has finished reviewing
Speaker 1: the documents seized at Mara Lago. Well out the latest
Speaker 1: from Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, who's knee deep in
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's legal challenges. Analysis from the panel today. The
Speaker 1: signature panel is in place. Bloomberg Politics contributors Genie Chanzano
Speaker 1: and Rick Davis were with us for the hour. Ukraine
Speaker 1: starts pushing back near the city of Curson now in
Speaker 1: the long awaited counter offensive aimed at recapturing ground that
Speaker 1: Russia occupied in the early stages of the war. Remember
Speaker 1: we're six months in. As we receive word as well
Speaker 1: that inspectors from the u n's nuclear watchdog will be
Speaker 1: headed to the plant that we have been hearing about. Zapparisha.
Speaker 1: John Kirby, National Security Council spokesperson at the White House, Hello,
Speaker 1: briefing today with some reporters on zoom and called on
Speaker 1: Russia to honor the agreement to let the inspectors in
Speaker 1: US insured insure safe, unfettered access for these independent inspectors.
Speaker 1: We also believe the Russia should agree to a demoturn
Speaker 1: sent around the plant. As we said many times, require
Speaker 1: plan is not locations of combat operations. In a tweet,
Speaker 1: the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says. Inspectors
Speaker 1: will be at the nuclear power plant later on this week.
Speaker 1: A special conversation about all of this now with the
Speaker 1: former US Ambassador to Ukraine, John herbs Is back with us,
Speaker 1: of course now Senior director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Speaker 1: John's joining us from Lithuania with Congressional staff fellows. They're
Speaker 1: meeting with officials and activists to talk about Russian aggression
Speaker 1: in Ukraine and throughout Europe for that matter. Ambassador, welcome
Speaker 1: back to Bloomberg. Radio is the most important issue right now.
Speaker 1: What's happening at this nuclear plant? How can the US
Speaker 1: help from a diplomatic standpoint to get these in spectors
Speaker 1: in Well, what's happening at the nuclear power plants, which
Speaker 1: Russia has taken control of and placed weapons in and
Speaker 1: around and fired missiles in Ukraine from from that area
Speaker 1: is very dangerous. But I think we're on the step
Speaker 1: to reducing the danger. Uh. The United States has been
Speaker 1: very active diplomatically putting pressure on Moscow for this additional
Speaker 1: danger that its war of aggression in Ukraine is creating,
Speaker 1: And as a consequence, it looks like we can't say
Speaker 1: for sure, but it looks like Moscow has agreed that
Speaker 1: the I a e A, the international agency which pursues
Speaker 1: of nuclear issues, will have access, will be able to
Speaker 1: inspect the plant. Well, I guess we'll learn a lot
Speaker 1: at that point. I don't know you know exactly what
Speaker 1: happens next. But as you just heard John Kirby suggested,
Speaker 1: demilitarized zone in that area? Is that is there even
Speaker 1: a chance for that who negotiates that at this stage
Speaker 1: of the war. Um. I don't rule it out, but
Speaker 1: I would not count it in either. Um if if
Speaker 1: such the thing is negotiated, I suspect the U in
Speaker 1: the I a e A will be the negotiators UM
Speaker 1: with the Russians and with the Ukrainians. But it's one
Speaker 1: thing from oscart to lower tensions. Would be another thing
Speaker 1: from actually withdraw their forces from around and inside the
Speaker 1: nuclear reactor. But that would obviously be a big step forward. Well,
Speaker 1: based on the behavior that we've seen from the Russians
Speaker 1: in for instance, closing ports on the Black Sea, you know,
Speaker 1: hopes shouldn't be too high. I guess is your point right? Well,
Speaker 1: I would make I would say yes. But it's also
Speaker 1: true that Moscow would shut down all grain exports from
Speaker 1: Ukraine literally months, but international pressure got them to open
Speaker 1: up the ports at least somewhat so at sometimes at
Speaker 1: some points, international pressure can affect the Kremlin's nasty calculations.
Speaker 1: Ambassador Herbs, tell us your thoughts on this counter offensive
Speaker 1: right now. And I ask you that with the knowledge
Speaker 1: that you were one of the signatures on an open
Speaker 1: letter that has been published in a few places in
Speaker 1: Washington here insisting on greater military and strategic support for Ukraine.
Speaker 1: You've you've said that we need to do more. As
Speaker 1: this counter offensive begins, and we sign another three billion
Speaker 1: dollars worth of weapons over to Ukraine, what else should
Speaker 1: we be doing? Well? The administration has provided substantial assistance
Speaker 1: to Ukraine, and that's very good, but it has also
Speaker 1: been slow and timid at providing Ukraine the weapons that
Speaker 1: needs to actually stop the Russians cold and push them back. Um.
Speaker 1: That needs to stop, and that's why we issued that
Speaker 1: statement last week, signed by nineteen former senior military and
Speaker 1: civilian officials. We need to send longer range artillery, not
Speaker 1: just our truly, which has a range of kilometers, but
Speaker 1: up to one fifty or even three kilometers. We need
Speaker 1: to send on fighter planes we refuse to send to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We need to send tanks. If we do all these things,
Speaker 1: Moscow will lose the land it's currently conquered, at least
Speaker 1: in the south and perhaps in the east at one point,
Speaker 1: though you send all that stuff over there, I mean,
Speaker 1: should shouldn't Russia just consider itself to be at war
Speaker 1: with the US in Ukraine. Look, Moscow is unable to
Speaker 1: defeat the Ukrainians. When Ukraine receives military and economic support
Speaker 1: for the United States, they are no way able to
Speaker 1: be at war with the United States. Our conventional military
Speaker 1: and NATO's conventional military is far greater all and we
Speaker 1: should not allow ourselves to be intimidated when Putin throws
Speaker 1: out nuclear threats, which is highly unlikely to actually put
Speaker 1: into place put into practice. Well, how do you think
Speaker 1: Russia will be able to hold up at this point
Speaker 1: if it is a concerted counter offensive? Knowing that we
Speaker 1: have been keeping Ukraine armed here with with such depletion
Speaker 1: on the Russian side eighty thousand casualties according to the Pentagon,
Speaker 1: and no access to new hardware. They can't get the
Speaker 1: chips to make new stuff to replace the tanks and
Speaker 1: missiles in the fields. So is the timing right, Uh,
Speaker 1: the timing is right for a new offensive, but I
Speaker 1: don't believe Ukraine has enough hardware again, longer range missiles, tanks,
Speaker 1: armored personnel carriers, planes, to conduct a substantial, effective counter offensive.
Speaker 1: If we gave Ukraine everything or nearly everything that's asking for,
Speaker 1: I don't have any doubt they could take back most
Speaker 1: of the South and a good portion of the East.
Speaker 1: And I hope we'll see that, because it's crazy to
Speaker 1: talk about negotiations right now when Putin's aim is still
Speaker 1: to subdue Ukraine. And keep in mind, Putin is conducting
Speaker 1: a war of war crimes, and if we agreed to
Speaker 1: Russia controlling new territory and Ukraine, we're consigning Ukrainian civilians,
Speaker 1: women and children to Moscow's war crimes. And Russia has
Speaker 1: already taken, according to some estimates, as many as two
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty thousand Ukrainian children and put them into
Speaker 1: Russia to put them up for adoption with Russian parents.
Speaker 1: You know, we ended last week, Ambassador with the conversation
Speaker 1: about knowing that that we had signed off on this
Speaker 1: additional weapons package and the types of things that had
Speaker 1: been ordered, many of the items had not been procured
Speaker 1: or even contracted yet, signaling as we crossed the six
Speaker 1: month mark that this would be a much longer, more
Speaker 1: protracted battle to take place before we could reach a
Speaker 1: diplomatic solution. Are you in the month or years camp? No,
Speaker 1: I think we're in the year's camp. But I do
Speaker 1: believe strongly that if we provide more and advanced weapons now,
Speaker 1: we will bring this to an end sooner, because only
Speaker 1: then we'll Putin realize he cannot win this war, and
Speaker 1: he'd be willing to negotiate a serious piece, a piece
Speaker 1: which make sure that additional Ukrainian civilians are not subject
Speaker 1: to kate to Russian war crimes which have been major
Speaker 1: to the point of genocide according to some experts. Is
Speaker 1: he counting on American fatigue? He's absolutely counting on fatigue
Speaker 1: from the West and timidity by Western leaders. We need
Speaker 1: to make sure that we continue to provide robust support
Speaker 1: so Putin realized he has to negotiated honest piece, not
Speaker 1: a piece of the victor where he could continue to
Speaker 1: again oppress the Ukrainian people. You remember, Ambassador, the pushback
Speaker 1: that that the Pentagon received when it came to the
Speaker 1: idea of sending Big twenty nine's over there from Poland.
Speaker 1: They didn't want to touch that, as it would be
Speaker 1: seen as escalatory, would possibly even open a country like
Speaker 1: Poland being attacked by Russia trigger an Article five response
Speaker 1: and you've got a world war underway? Do you not
Speaker 1: agree with that? Did you at the time? And you
Speaker 1: obviously don't now if you think we should be sending
Speaker 1: tanks and planes? But was that was that a a
Speaker 1: just a wrong assessment by our Pentagon and State Department?
Speaker 1: It was really not the Pentagon and probably not the
Speaker 1: state departments elsewhere in the administration. Look who was that that?
Speaker 1: I will not go into that here. That that was
Speaker 1: a sign of weakness, a sign that we could be intimidated.
Speaker 1: But Putin's nuclear threat it also demonstrated complete illiteracy in
Speaker 1: the practice and the doctrine of nuclear deterrems. We are
Speaker 1: in nuclear power every bit as much as Russia, who
Speaker 1: didn't g everything by threatened nuclear war, he gains nothing
Speaker 1: by actually doing it, And we have allowed him to
Speaker 1: intimidate us away from defending major, actually vital interest because
Speaker 1: if Putin wins in Ukraine, he's gonna come for our
Speaker 1: Baltic NATO allies, and we will have to defend our
Speaker 1: Baltic NATO allies with American troops. Here we can defeat
Speaker 1: Putin with economic assistance and weapons. So are you suggesting
Speaker 1: that this administration is taking cues from other nations? Why? No,
Speaker 1: mags Um, no, Mexic because they said it was quote
Speaker 1: unquote escalatory. They let they let Putin intimidate them. And
Speaker 1: it's very dangerous when an aggressive power with nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: like Russia believes that it can intimidate the United States.
Speaker 1: That is not statesmanship, that's weakness. But you don't think
Speaker 1: the Pentagon saw it that way. Um, that's my understanding.
Speaker 1: Oh man, this sounds political, that ambassador, that's part of
Speaker 1: part of yours, no doubt about it. This this is
Speaker 1: very much political. Well okay, so has the climate changed
Speaker 1: enough to get the that's there now? Uh. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's changed yet, but over time it may well change. Look,
Speaker 1: we've seen the administration provide substantial assistance, and they deserve
Speaker 1: credit for that substantial assistance military and economic. And we've
Speaker 1: seen them provide increasingly more sophisticated weapons, but only after
Speaker 1: they say no. But then they change their mind. So
Speaker 1: the dynamic is one of first no than yes, and
Speaker 1: so eventually opposition becomes stronger. Again, that's good, but it
Speaker 1: takes too long, which means more Ukrainians die and means
Speaker 1: Russia has more time to create tensions in Europe and
Speaker 1: within between the United States and Europe. And Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has been timid, in your opinion, so as to not
Speaker 1: lose European allies in this effort getting warm. I think
Speaker 1: that may be part of it, but that's not all
Speaker 1: of it. And you know, I remember when Vice President
Speaker 1: Biden um disagreed with President Obama job in Ukraine. So
Speaker 1: I don't understand why we're not wow. We kind of
Speaker 1: should be. Need to get an adult beverage with John Herp's,
Speaker 1: former US Ambassador to Ukraine, senior director of the Atlantic
Speaker 1: Council's Eurasia Center. Fascinating conversation Ambassador. The panel's next, This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg Sound On with Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Timidits he seemed to be the
Speaker 1: key word there from John Herp's, the former Ambassador to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Just as Ukrainians launch the counter offensive, the former ambassador.
Speaker 1: This is a diplomat now he's with the Atlantic Council.
Speaker 1: Says it's time to get the jets of the tanks
Speaker 1: over there. This is not an opportunity to be wasted.
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you it's not gonna happen. Missiles, yes,
Speaker 1: lots of AMMO mortar rounds, No fighter jets on this
Speaker 1: shopping list that we saw last week with another three
Speaker 1: billion dollars in gear headed over to Ukraine. Let's assemble
Speaker 1: the panel after our weekend. We come back together with
Speaker 1: Rick Engenie Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie Chanzano and Rick Davis.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure Genie, exactly where the Ambassador was going here,
Speaker 1: if only to understand that he thinks this president has
Speaker 1: been too timid. Even with this relatively large collection of
Speaker 1: allies here, it's been a bit of a a balancing act, right,
Speaker 1: But I, as I understand from the ambassador, the president
Speaker 1: needs to stand up and start taking on matters in
Speaker 1: his own hands. Yeah, you know, he's been thirteen what
Speaker 1: a billion dollars timid and um, there are a large
Speaker 1: number of allies that we are working with, but you
Speaker 1: know I'm hearing these words. You know, fatigue and timidity,
Speaker 1: but I think we have to realize there's another word here,
Speaker 1: and that's pain. So I mean, just to look at
Speaker 1: what is going on in Europe from the energy sector,
Speaker 1: you had the British regulators say prices will up jump
Speaker 1: eight percent in one day in October. That is real
Speaker 1: pain for people in Europe. And that's not just in England.
Speaker 1: It's going to happen in Germany. It's happening in France.
Speaker 1: And that is where he is right. Herbst is right
Speaker 1: because time is not on the side of Ukraine. This
Speaker 1: is going to be a real issue because it is
Speaker 1: not far fetched to imagine that people in Europe get very,
Speaker 1: very frustrated when they can't keep their homes d It
Speaker 1: is very cold Campbell. Those expecting this to go on
Speaker 1: for years, though, Genie, So you know which is it? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, listen, you had increase in energy in April
Speaker 1: in England and in October. That's real pain. This is
Speaker 1: going to go on for years. Of course, Putin is
Speaker 1: expecting and hoping that he's able to strike some kind
Speaker 1: of deal, and that's why time is not on the
Speaker 1: side of Zelenski. This counterinsurgency that they're this counter offensive
Speaker 1: is critical because again time is an issue. Winter is
Speaker 1: approaching and that's a problem for the Ukrainians. How about
Speaker 1: how about this not go on for years? Rick, how
Speaker 1: about we do exactly what the ambassador just said, starts
Speaker 1: sending fighter jets, tanks and long range missiles over there.
Speaker 1: Would that bring to an end? Well? I think it
Speaker 1: certainly speeds up the process. We we get reports all
Speaker 1: the time about the lack of resources that the Russians have.
Speaker 1: You know, we're right now we're seeing them having to
Speaker 1: pull troops out of the East and the Don Boss
Speaker 1: in order to shore up their position in the south
Speaker 1: where the where the surge is happening. So um, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it actually isn't a zero sum game. It's not
Speaker 1: just what we give to um, the Ukrainians that will
Speaker 1: help win this war right away. It's also the pressure
Speaker 1: we can continue to put on Russia directly. And I
Speaker 1: would say that's an area actually surprised that the former
Speaker 1: ambassador didn't mention it. We're not inflicting any pain economically
Speaker 1: on this. This regime in in Moscow not compared to
Speaker 1: what ultimately we need to do. It's got to be
Speaker 1: able to be a painful political situation in Russia to
Speaker 1: get put in them to move. He will claim victory
Speaker 1: all day long when he's losing on the battlefield, but
Speaker 1: the minity loses the confidence of his people, he's out
Speaker 1: of there. At what point, though, do we go back
Speaker 1: to that concern Rick, that we had a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago at least was expressed here that you send
Speaker 1: that type of hardware, that's an offensive move. Russia drops
Speaker 1: a bomb or sends a missile into a NATO country
Speaker 1: like Poland or Romanian, this is a very different picture
Speaker 1: at that point. Well, the only thing worse than us
Speaker 1: manning um the Ukrainians with our our weaponry is a
Speaker 1: war with US. And I think the ambassador a good
Speaker 1: job of creating a distinction. The Russian military wouldn't last
Speaker 1: a week against NATO. Okay, So like our level of
Speaker 1: sophistication is significantly higher than what we're seeing on a
Speaker 1: battle field by the Russians, our numbers will dwarf them overnight.
Speaker 1: Are sophisticated troops who have you know, command control and
Speaker 1: communications capability will not allow them to be able to
Speaker 1: get off the kinds of warfare they are fighting. A
Speaker 1: you know, uh, you know, sixteenth century war on the
Speaker 1: ground in Ukraine, and we have twenty one century capability.
Speaker 1: So the last thing Vladimir Putin wants to do is
Speaker 1: give any NATO country a pretel X to say article
Speaker 1: for I'm you know, I'm under attack, come help me. Well,
Speaker 1: what do you think then, Jennie, We'll send them, send
Speaker 1: them the full list, get the jets over there. Why
Speaker 1: don't we wait so long? You know, the problem is
Speaker 1: domestic politics. I mean, you know, we are engaged in
Speaker 1: a conflict with Russia, but we are doing it in
Speaker 1: this sort of proxy environment that we are comfortable with.
Speaker 1: And when I say we, it's not just the United States,
Speaker 1: it's all of our NATO autumy are real proxy then
Speaker 1: though it would be a real proxy then And this
Speaker 1: is the domestic problem, and so we are wanting to
Speaker 1: have it both ways. And the problem is is that
Speaker 1: Russia has shown itself and I agree with Rick, their
Speaker 1: economy has held up under this. We haven't been tough
Speaker 1: enough there, but in part it's held up because of India,
Speaker 1: China and countries like that. But you know, they have
Speaker 1: held up. We could really have a real impact on
Speaker 1: them economically in a more concerted way. We haven't had
Speaker 1: the domestic will to do that, and so that is
Speaker 1: a problem for US be because Russia has been showing
Speaker 1: itself to be willing to wait these things out, and
Speaker 1: the longer they wait, the harder it is for Ukraine. Well,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you if if there's an opportunity to speed
Speaker 1: this up, Brick, I can't imagine that there's going to
Speaker 1: be a better opportunity for the administration than right now
Speaker 1: while it still has the support of the American people.
Speaker 1: To your point, though, when it comes to sanctions, is
Speaker 1: that the conversation that lawmakers need to have when they
Speaker 1: come back to town another another layer. I think not
Speaker 1: only UM lawmakers, because I think there's more we can
Speaker 1: do domestically ourselves, but we ought to see this sanction
Speaker 1: regime for secondary sanctions on the agenda for the g
Speaker 1: Secondary Sanctions. Rick Davis and Jennie Chanzon no our panel
Speaker 1: Signature panel back with us on a Monday, and they'll
Speaker 1: be back a bit later this hour. As we turned
Speaker 1: to Eric Larson, Bloomberg Legal Reporter for help with what's
Speaker 1: happening with the documents from Mara Lago. That's next on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Now that the affid David has had a chance to
Speaker 1: breathe for a little bit. Remember the redacted version out Friday.
Speaker 1: Chattering Class spent time with it over the weekend, although
Speaker 1: it was pretty difficult to find a Republican defending Donald
Speaker 1: Trump on Sunday morning television. As we learn now this
Speaker 1: is remember a hundred and eighty four documents that came
Speaker 1: from the first batch, a whole bunch more in the
Speaker 1: more recently acquired batch of documents, hundreds hundreds of documents,
Speaker 1: and it's being reviewed or has just been reviewed by
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. Is so called filter team. They
Speaker 1: look for violations of attorney client privilege. They weed these
Speaker 1: things out and uh, I guess keep them from the prosecutors.
Speaker 1: As the idea here, But it do'n't always come together
Speaker 1: quite that neat of a way. As I read from
Speaker 1: Eric Larson on the terminal, he's with us right now.
Speaker 1: The headline d OJ response raises doubts on Trump's special
Speaker 1: master request Eric, who's on this filter team as they
Speaker 1: call it. Well, we don't have any names of which
Speaker 1: individuals are part of the team, but they would separate
Speaker 1: from the investigators and basically, you know, any time there's
Speaker 1: a search like this and lots of records are sees, UM,
Speaker 1: you're going to have a team like this or do
Speaker 1: an initial look through to make sure that any documents
Speaker 1: or records covered by attorney client privilege are not UM
Speaker 1: handed over to investigators because those types of documents are
Speaker 1: supposed to remain secret and just between the attorney and
Speaker 1: the clients. So essentially it is Trump's right to have
Speaker 1: those documents if there are any return to him UM,
Speaker 1: and the DJ filing today was sort of ali preliminary
Speaker 1: response to Trump's lawsuits, seeking his own neutral third party
Speaker 1: to do essentially the same thing, but someone that UM
Speaker 1: would not be a government employee and would be uh,
Speaker 1: sort of doing it a review that I guess Trump's
Speaker 1: people would trust more, I guess, for lack of a
Speaker 1: better way to put it, UM. So there, it's far
Speaker 1: from certain whether or not that special master will be granted.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a hearing on that on Thursday.
Speaker 1: But for now, as you mentioned, we know that the
Speaker 1: d o J review team has at least finished this
Speaker 1: initial review UM, and they said that they did find
Speaker 1: a limited set of documents potentially covered by attorney privilege,
Speaker 1: and they're following the process for handling those and so
Speaker 1: those would would would be returned. I guess by design
Speaker 1: here you point out though in your column. In his
Speaker 1: August twenty second suit, Donald Trump complained that the judge
Speaker 1: approved the Justice Departments filter protocol without input from the defense,
Speaker 1: and went on to say that the filter team's leader
Speaker 1: is a deputy to the lead prosecutor in this matter,
Speaker 1: So it does not ensure that prosecution team NET members
Speaker 1: will not access or become aware of what they see
Speaker 1: as privilege materials. Have they already seen all this stuff?
Speaker 1: It's it's impossible to know just at this point yet.
Speaker 1: I mean, we did get some new details from that
Speaker 1: complaint that that was filed by Trump, but those haven't
Speaker 1: necessarily been confirmed by the Justice Department, so we don't
Speaker 1: know if that's true. At the filter team's leader is
Speaker 1: a deputy to the lead prosecutor, I don't at least
Speaker 1: no offense true. But and I can say I'm not
Speaker 1: necessarily saying that it's not. But you can imagine that
Speaker 1: the DOJ and doing such a high profile review and
Speaker 1: with such an important privileged review team here, that they
Speaker 1: would wouldn't be doing anything necessarily unusual that could potentially
Speaker 1: be called out. I mean it could be that, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump is pointing at something as if it's
Speaker 1: you know, nefarious, even though it might be a completely standard.
Speaker 1: So we'll find out a lot more when the Justice
Speaker 1: Department files it's first substantive public response to the lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow is the deadline that is going to spell out
Speaker 1: in much more detail what the status of the review is,
Speaker 1: what they've done with these documents, if in fact, any
Speaker 1: documents have now been handed over to the actual investigators
Speaker 1: to start looking for violations of the law on Trump's part. Uh.
Speaker 1: So we will find out a lot more tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: then Trump will get a chance to respond to that
Speaker 1: filing on Wednesday, and then we'll have a hearing on
Speaker 1: Thursday in West palmp Beach. Fascinating, special Master, is this
Speaker 1: a delay tactic as some suggest? I mean, what's the
Speaker 1: point of having a special master or whatever you're going
Speaker 1: to call your third party? If these filtered teams or
Speaker 1: I understand taint teams they're also called, already exist. You
Speaker 1: know it certainly could be Um Trump in his lawyers.
Speaker 1: You know, it's safe to say they've been known for
Speaker 1: being accused of delayed tactics in various lawsuits before and
Speaker 1: and frankly, uh, this request for a special master could
Speaker 1: have been made a while ago. I mean, this two
Speaker 1: was filed twenty two. The search was August eight. I
Speaker 1: have spoken to plenty of legal experts since then who said,
Speaker 1: you know, if the problem was, if they were really
Speaker 1: a major concern about the d o j's paint team,
Speaker 1: then why would you wait so long to file too
Speaker 1: for a special master to be appointed? So that could
Speaker 1: be something that could play against Trump at this hearing.
Speaker 1: Although it should be noted that the judge handling this
Speaker 1: case is actually a Trump appointed judge, and over the
Speaker 1: weekend she issues sort of an unusual uh preliminary order
Speaker 1: saying that she was preliminarily inclined to grant Trump's request,
Speaker 1: even though she hadn't heard anything from the DJ yet.
Speaker 1: Uh So we'll we'll see if if that ends up
Speaker 1: being um a final order or not. You know, she
Speaker 1: may be swayed by the d j's arguments. We'll have
Speaker 1: to wait and see. But it was kind of an
Speaker 1: interesting order there, prebuttle from the judge. Okay, you point out, Eric,
Speaker 1: that this is out of the Giuliani playbook. We've seen
Speaker 1: this movie before, right, And actually, you know, like I said,
Speaker 1: it's not super unusual for special match like this to
Speaker 1: be requested, especially when you have, for example, a lawyer's
Speaker 1: offices being um searched, having computers, files, records, phones, sees
Speaker 1: that there's going to be potential for lots of proto
Speaker 1: stuff based on there. But you write that Rudy Giuliani
Speaker 1: material sees from Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen was subject
Speaker 1: to attorney client privilege or retired federal judge was appointed
Speaker 1: in both instances to review there exactly. And that's again
Speaker 1: because both of those gentlemen being lawyers, you know, really
Speaker 1: does increase the um the risk of that attorney clients
Speaker 1: privilege being uh complicated in such a search. Of course
Speaker 1: Trump is not a lawyer, um, But that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that there aren't privileged materials that could have been taken
Speaker 1: from the former president. Yeah, and his office was searched
Speaker 1: during the borrow law though search, and he is in
Speaker 1: the middle of a lot of litigation and including also
Speaker 1: back and forth with concerning these documents with the government,
Speaker 1: so presumably files the record the documents related to any
Speaker 1: of those ongoing legal matters that have just been sitting
Speaker 1: on his death. Great reporting, Eric Larson, Thank you for
Speaker 1: joining us again. Eric. We're gonna learn a lot over
Speaker 1: the next three days. Clearly, as we heard from Bloomberg's
Speaker 1: legal reporter, will reassemble our panel next. Rick and Jeanie
Speaker 1: are on the way back in. I'm Joe Matthews. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg sound on on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Who's pretty hard to find a high ranking Republican official
Speaker 1: defending Donald Trump on Sunday Morning television. I guess Roy
Speaker 1: Blunt tried but didn't really own it. Well, there was
Speaker 1: Senator Lindsey Graham that may be Donald Trump's true friend
Speaker 1: at the moment on Fox News. Most Republicans, including me,
Speaker 1: believes when it comes to Trump, uh, there is no law.
Speaker 1: It's all about getting him. There's a double standard when
Speaker 1: it comes to Trump. What happened with Hunter Biden is
Speaker 1: that the FBI wait end to make sure story didn't
Speaker 1: break for the election. We now have whistleblowers at the
Speaker 1: FBI telling Senator grass Lee that they were told to
Speaker 1: slow down and back off Hunter Biden. And I'll say this.
Speaker 1: If there's a prosecution of Donald Trump for misshandling classified
Speaker 1: information after the Clinton debacle, which you presided over and
Speaker 1: did a hell of a good job, there would be
Speaker 1: riots in the street, riots in the streets. The line
Speaker 1: that andates from Sunday Morning's talking to trade out e there,
Speaker 1: he's got his own show. Let's reassemble the panel. Rick
Speaker 1: Davis and Jennie Chanzano Bloomberg Politics contributors make up our
Speaker 1: signature panel. And Rick, I don't know, is Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: looking kind of lonely here or will he end up
Speaker 1: looking like the smartest guy in the room. Well, let's
Speaker 1: hope he's not the smartest guy in the room because
Speaker 1: what he's predicting isn't good for the country. Well, obviously riots,
Speaker 1: But you know, look, there's been a lot of cases
Speaker 1: against Donald Trump that his supporters have never seen come
Speaker 1: to fruition. Yeah, but this is the thing that I've
Speaker 1: left scratching my head. I mean, you know, Lindsey Graham's lawyer.
Speaker 1: He's he's practiced law in the pass on the side
Speaker 1: of you know, the little guy. Um. He was been
Speaker 1: chairman of the Judiciary Committee most recently. I mean he's
Speaker 1: steeped in this, and and to to predicate a prosecution
Speaker 1: on the outcome of riots in the street. In other words,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't prosecute Donald Trump because of the reaction from
Speaker 1: his supporters. It's just extra legal, right. It just doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense from from someone who's has learned as he is.
Speaker 1: So I would have preferred, you know, him say there
Speaker 1: might be right in the streets, where there would be
Speaker 1: rights in the streets, and that would be wrong, right,
Speaker 1: because that would be okay to say it's wrong to
Speaker 1: do that. But um, but he stopped there. And so look,
Speaker 1: I mean, tempers are hot. Joe Biden called mega Republicans
Speaker 1: near fascists the other day. I mean everybody and and
Speaker 1: even quote Donald Trump, everyone needs to back off a
Speaker 1: little bit. I mean, like what Donald Trump says everyone
Speaker 1: ought to back off. That's really saying something. Yeah, he
Speaker 1: said everybody needs to relax a little bit here, Genie,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you agree. But Democrats weren't out
Speaker 1: in force killing Donald Trump on this either. Is it
Speaker 1: good for both parties to be kind of quiet while
Speaker 1: this unfolds. Well, you know, the political reality is, the
Speaker 1: more Donald Trump is in the news, the better for Democrats.
Speaker 1: And that's been that's been the reality. So you know,
Speaker 1: the more Trump, the better for them. Republicans know that
Speaker 1: they would like to turn their focus on Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: They'd like to talk about inflation, they'd like to talk
Speaker 1: about his age, they'd like to talk about a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of things. They haven't gotten the oxygen in the
Speaker 1: room because Donald Trump takes it all up in the
Speaker 1: media realm. And that's a problem. And you know, Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham is repeating what's been sort of a common thesis
Speaker 1: or mantra for many years that Donald Trump has been,
Speaker 1: you know, a leading public figure, political figure at least
Speaker 1: in our country, which is this idea that if we
Speaker 1: actually prosecute him, we run the risk of turning him
Speaker 1: into some kind of martyr and or his supporters will riot.
Speaker 1: And the reality is that's not how a legal system operates.
Speaker 1: And I am not advocating prosecution at all, but what
Speaker 1: I'm saying is that should not be the consideration. And
Speaker 1: it's a problem when people like Senator Lindsey Graham start
Speaker 1: to say or hint that the reason not to prosecute
Speaker 1: is because of a potential violent reaction we should be
Speaker 1: able to handle both a violent reaction and prosecution when
Speaker 1: it's deserved, and it may or may not be in
Speaker 1: this case. Well fair enough, I mean the and I
Speaker 1: should be clear by the way, I was hearing plenty
Speaker 1: of of democratic or liberal pundits talk about this, but
Speaker 1: elected leaders are playing it carefully. Rick, is that the
Speaker 1: right move for Democrats as well? Uh? Look, I think Democrats, Uh,
Speaker 1: they have their talking points going in the mid terms.
Speaker 1: It's all about the accomplishments in the last couple of months. Really,
Speaker 1: I mean, as if we could forget the first year
Speaker 1: and a half of the right administration. But but but look,
Speaker 1: they fall prey to this too, right. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: if I were advising Republicans right now, I would do
Speaker 1: exactly what Geni was suggesting. Just talk about inflation, just
Speaker 1: talk about the economy. These are the things that will
Speaker 1: turn voters in our direction. Talking about Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: not going to help that that construct. And so the
Speaker 1: fact that Democrats kind of have a cheap win here
Speaker 1: because Republicans are already off message, and if they just
Speaker 1: tweak it every now and then, it'll just wind up
Speaker 1: the Republicans a little bit. I wouldn't be surprised if
Speaker 1: that wasn't Joe Biden's strategy when he talked about, you know,
Speaker 1: Maga's Republicans being you know, near fascist, because at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, you know that's going to create
Speaker 1: an opposite and equal reaction. Jennie, what was your take
Speaker 1: on that we didn't have a chance because you weren't
Speaker 1: with us On Friday, as the President went to Bethesda
Speaker 1: for a fundraiser. There were two different events that night.
Speaker 1: I want everyone to understand. One of them was didn't
Speaker 1: have cameras or a stage, or was in a tent
Speaker 1: in somebody's backyard. That's where the real money is raised.
Speaker 1: Then he went up to Rockville and was on stage
Speaker 1: to the big rally, you know, the big speech at
Speaker 1: the podium with the lights of the cameras. When he
Speaker 1: was in that tent, he did he said, you know
Speaker 1: that this isn't your grandfather's party, Ultra Maga. He said,
Speaker 1: it's kind of like semi fascism. Recalling of course, everyone said, well,
Speaker 1: is this the new deplorables of the election cycle? Was
Speaker 1: that a dangerous thing for him to say? You know,
Speaker 1: this has been part of the democratic talking point for
Speaker 1: a long time. The idea is the more extremist you
Speaker 1: can paint the Republicans, the better off Democrats will be,
Speaker 1: the more enthusiastic their base will be, and the more money,
Speaker 1: quite frankly, you will raise to fund these campaigns. It's
Speaker 1: not a lot different than Republicans who are for years
Speaker 1: gone out and described Democrats as socialist. Right, that's you know,
Speaker 1: not that so not that socialist is equated to fascist,
Speaker 1: but you know, there's there's a you know, this kind
Speaker 1: of over overcharged language that's become common. I don't particularly
Speaker 1: like it, and I don't like it from a president,
Speaker 1: but this is where we are in this environment. So
Speaker 1: it's not a surprise, and it is part and person
Speaker 1: of what their research shows. The more you can describe
Speaker 1: Republicans as extreme, the more likely Democrats get out, and
Speaker 1: the less likely Republicans do as well as they should
Speaker 1: in a mid term with inflation this high. Some suggests
Speaker 1: it's the only way to beat Donald Trump UH is
Speaker 1: to kind of match him rick, to get in the
Speaker 1: ring with him, and this would be his style, but
Speaker 1: he's not on the ballot. I don't know a dozen
Speaker 1: Republican primary um UH contenders try to do that, and
Speaker 1: look how well they fared. My money's on Donald trumpet
Speaker 1: that's the tactic. Look, I mean, you know, John McCain
Speaker 1: when he was running for president, gave an order said
Speaker 1: we're not going to talk about Reverend right, that would
Speaker 1: be a divisive racial signature of a campaign message, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna take that off the table. Where those days,
Speaker 1: Where are the days where we actually try to lower
Speaker 1: lower the temperature and focus on issues that actually American
Speaker 1: voters care about. American voters do not care about the
Speaker 1: kind of comments that are either made by Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: in relation to these riots, or or or from Joe
Speaker 1: Biden in relation to how he defines the ultra magus.
Speaker 1: I mean, all of this stuff is just creating a
Speaker 1: further divide. The same politicians complain all the time about polarization. Well,
Speaker 1: who the heck do you think is creating the polarization? Well,
Speaker 1: isn't that the truth? Uh, this is something that's going
Speaker 1: to come to a head this week Pennsylvania. We just learned,
Speaker 1: by the way, while we've been on the air of
Speaker 1: the White House and added another event. There's President's going
Speaker 1: to Pennsylvania twice this week, not just the event you
Speaker 1: knew about. Tomorrow's go going to Philadelphia to deliver a
Speaker 1: speech on the battle for the soul of the nation.
Speaker 1: They capitalize soul of the nation, uh in the news
Speaker 1: release here, Jennie. And then of course on Saturday night
Speaker 1: it's the big Trump bonanza. He's holding a rally in
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania with all of the candidates he has endorsed, beginning
Speaker 1: with Dr oz H. Pennsylvania has become the center of
Speaker 1: the political universe here, at least for the moment. Gennie,
Speaker 1: What what does Joe Biden need to say there though
Speaker 1: that will actually help John Fetterman and other Democrats who
Speaker 1: are running well. We hear the argument is right out
Speaker 1: of the polls quite frankly, you know the leading issues
Speaker 1: as you get below the economy and inflation for Democrats
Speaker 1: in particular, and this is going to be in a
Speaker 1: base election, turn out the vote. They are very, very
Speaker 1: frightened about the state of democracy in the United States,
Speaker 1: and you hear it right there. They feel it is
Speaker 1: under threat. We're going to see more January six hearings
Speaker 1: as we move into the fall. This is all in
Speaker 1: keeping with the Democrats concern and that's what the President
Speaker 1: is going to talk about and he's also going to
Speaker 1: obviously support candidates like Fetterman who are doing very very well.
Speaker 1: So Pennsylvania is going to be a place where he's
Speaker 1: going to test an argument. But this is an argument
Speaker 1: that a lot of people, and I'm talking about Democrats,
Speaker 1: but you have moderates and independence. They don't want to
Speaker 1: go back to the time of the you know, January
Speaker 1: six and and Trump in the fall um and sort
Speaker 1: of the craziness. They want some normalcy. And that's what
Speaker 1: he's going to try to promise them if they keep
Speaker 1: Democrats in Congress. Donald Trump will be on stage Saturday
Speaker 1: with Doug Mastriano of course, uh vocal election denier and
Speaker 1: now Meyer in this controversy overwearing a Confederate uniform in
Speaker 1: a photograph. Whether or not that goes anywhere, Rick, I
Speaker 1: don't know, but Dr Oz will be there as well.
Speaker 1: Does Oz need to pull away from that group to
Speaker 1: to to really kind of reinvent the narrative around his campaign. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he needs to reinvent himself. The reality is that it
Speaker 1: was great to have Donald Trump endorsement to win that primary,
Speaker 1: and he did um and and subsequent to that, he's
Speaker 1: been pretty quiet when it came to Donald Trump. Probably
Speaker 1: cannot avoid being on the stage with Donald and Doug Mastriano,
Speaker 1: and Nat will do him no favors other than the
Speaker 1: base counties that he's running in and he's running from behind.
Speaker 1: I would say the Mastriano race is probably what's driving
Speaker 1: Trump's interest in the state. I mean, Trump really doesn't
Speaker 1: care if Mitch McConnell's majority leader again and Pennsylvania is
Speaker 1: the state they could probably deny him that if we
Speaker 1: lose an existing Republican seat there. So what he really
Speaker 1: wants is one of his adherents, Doug Mastriano, who is
Speaker 1: over the top mega right. He fits into that description.
Speaker 1: Um if he became Pennsylvania governor, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a green light for Donald Trump to basically say
Speaker 1: all the things he said about Pennsylvania elections were true.
Speaker 1: Fascinating conversation with Rick Davis and Jeanie Schanzano. Thanks to
Speaker 1: both of you. They'll be back throughout the week here
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Sound on the Fastest Hour in politics, and
Speaker 1: that's the baseline. That's where we start. Too bad, we
Speaker 1: didn't get the rocket up today. It looks like We
Speaker 1: could have another launch date on Friday. I'll keep you
Speaker 1: posted on that. To stay with us, I'm Joe, Matthew
Speaker 1: and Washington. This is Bloomberg