Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Floomberg sound On.
Speaker 1: The Justice Department has filed a motion in the Southern
Speaker 1: District of Florida to n SEO search warrant in light
Speaker 1: of the former president's public confirmation of the search, the
Speaker 1: surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter.
Speaker 1: Floomberg Sound On, Politics, Policy and Perspective from DC's top Names.
Speaker 1: We didn't go there to talk about China. We went
Speaker 1: there to praise Taiwan. When we take the House in two,
Speaker 1: we investigate all of this. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. What is in the search warrant?
Speaker 1: That is what all of Washington wants to know more,
Speaker 1: I would say all the nation wants to know, and
Speaker 1: we might know soon. The Justice Department has moved to
Speaker 1: unsealed parts of the search warrant for more lago and
Speaker 1: what was taken. Attorney General Merritt Garland didn't give a
Speaker 1: lot of details today about what could be in the warrant,
Speaker 1: what they were looking for, but he said that it
Speaker 1: was a decision that the Department did not take lightly.
Speaker 1: I'm Emily Wilkins and again today for Joe Matthew, we
Speaker 1: have a jammed packed news show for you today. Well,
Speaker 1: it's really not often that the Attorney General holds a
Speaker 1: press conference, and when Merrick Arland spoke today, all of
Speaker 1: Washington was listening. But in case you weren't, here's what
Speaker 1: Attorney General Merrick Garland said. I personally approved the decision
Speaker 1: to seek a search warrant in this matter. Second, the
Speaker 1: Department does not take such a decision lightly where possible
Speaker 1: in a standard practice to seek less intrusive means as
Speaker 1: an alternative to a search, and to narrowly scope any
Speaker 1: search that is undertaken. Garland further addressed the criticisms of
Speaker 1: the department has been under taking this unprecedented step of searching,
Speaker 1: of executing a search warrant on a former president. Let
Speaker 1: me address recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the
Speaker 1: FBI and Justice Department agents and process secutors. I will
Speaker 1: not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.
Speaker 1: The men and women of the FBI and the Justice
Speaker 1: Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants. This is a developing story.
Speaker 1: There's still many unanswered questions, but here to address at
Speaker 1: least some of those questions. We welcome Jessica Roth, professor
Speaker 1: of law at the Cardoso School of Law and a
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office for
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York. Jessica, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us today. I want to jump in
Speaker 1: just recapping what Attorney General Garland said. He did not
Speaker 1: speak for long, he did not take questions. What was
Speaker 1: your takeaway of what he was trying to do today
Speaker 1: with this pressor. Yeah. I thought it was really important
Speaker 1: actually that he speake today, and I thought his remarks
Speaker 1: were entirely appropriate under the circumstances, including their brevity and
Speaker 1: the fact that they were prepared and that he did
Speaker 1: not take questions. UM. Usually the Department of Justice doesn't
Speaker 1: comment on ongoing investigating age an application for a search
Speaker 1: warrant would not be unsealed, but in these unique circumstances,
Speaker 1: I think it's appropriate that the Department moved to unseal
Speaker 1: the application UM, and that he spoke to the public
Speaker 1: to state that he was doing so. UH. The former
Speaker 1: president has confirmed publicly that a search was executed on
Speaker 1: his property UM, thus essentially eliminating one of the primary
Speaker 1: reasons why search warrants remain under seal at this juncture,
Speaker 1: which is to protect the privacy of those UM who
Speaker 1: were searched UM. And then secondarily, there's just an enormous
Speaker 1: public interest in these events UM, in part because of
Speaker 1: the former president's statements UM announcing it and subsequent statement UM,
Speaker 1: and by the fact that he's the former president of
Speaker 1: the United States. And so I think given those circumstances,
Speaker 1: it's appropriate to speak the unsealing so that the facts
Speaker 1: about the investigation UM, at least that can be released
Speaker 1: without violating or or compromising law enforcement interest in an
Speaker 1: ongoing investigation, so that that can be out in the
Speaker 1: public domain to try to at least meet some of
Speaker 1: the misinformation and misunderstanding that may be out there at
Speaker 1: this point. Jessica, you're really making the case here that
Speaker 1: the reason that Attorney General Garland did what he did
Speaker 1: today was because this was in the interest of the
Speaker 1: public and in the interest of transparency. I'm wondering if
Speaker 1: you also feel like the political pressure he was underhead
Speaker 1: anything to do with Certainly you saw many lawmakers, many Republicans,
Speaker 1: really respond to the news of the search warrant by
Speaker 1: lobbying a lot of accusations against the FBI and the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. I wouldn't characterize his remarks as responding to
Speaker 1: political pressure so much as responding to the information that
Speaker 1: was out in the public domain that was casting um
Speaker 1: aspersions on the integrity um of members of the FBI
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice and and and Attorney General
Speaker 1: Garland spoke directly to that and defending at the professionalism
Speaker 1: and integrity of those individuals, UM. But I think he
Speaker 1: came to the conclusion that it was untenable not to
Speaker 1: say something um in the face of such a public uproar,
Speaker 1: and when it was permissible under the circumstances that I
Speaker 1: described a moment ago, given the fact that the search
Speaker 1: was already public um, and that this was involving a
Speaker 1: former politician UM, and that there was such significant public
Speaker 1: interest in the matter, that in those circumstances it was
Speaker 1: really incumbent upon him to have a press conference and
Speaker 1: make the brief statement that he did. What could we
Speaker 1: find out from the search warrant if it does get unsealed, Well,
Speaker 1: what we'll find out is first the nature of the investigation.
Speaker 1: I mean, we already know to some extent something about
Speaker 1: the nature that we know more today actually after the
Speaker 1: press conference and the UH the filing of the application
Speaker 1: to unseal the search warrant than we did before. There
Speaker 1: had previously been reporting that this was at least in part,
Speaker 1: an national security investigation, based on the reporting about meetings
Speaker 1: between members of the Department of Justice is National Security
Speaker 1: Division and President former President Trump staff speaking materials that
Speaker 1: were at Mara Largo UH, following up on conversation UH
Speaker 1: in communications between the National Archives and former President Trump's
Speaker 1: team about missing documents, and reporting that the National Archives
Speaker 1: had found class inline classify materials in documents that it
Speaker 1: had already recovered from Mara Lago. UM. So the fact
Speaker 1: that personnel high ranking personnel from the National Security Division
Speaker 1: were present um UH were signed off on the application
Speaker 1: to unseal suggests that this was in fact an investigation
Speaker 1: within their per view. So I would say we learned
Speaker 1: that UM, but we will learn more when we see
Speaker 1: the search warrant application, because that will contain an affid
Speaker 1: david UM that sets forth the probable cause to believe
Speaker 1: that specific crimes had been at it and that evidence
Speaker 1: of them would be found at Mara Lago. So it
Speaker 1: will also on the warrant itself give us likely the
Speaker 1: statutory provisions that are the subject of the investigation, and
Speaker 1: then essentially the text of the alpha David will tell
Speaker 1: us specific facts to the extent that they can be
Speaker 1: disclosed without having to be redacted to protect ongoing investigations
Speaker 1: and national security interests through what it is that this
Speaker 1: investigation is about. Interesting, So it does sound like we
Speaker 1: could find out a good deal about what the Justice
Speaker 1: Department UH for their larger investigation that led to the
Speaker 1: search warrant. Now, the court has given Trump and his
Speaker 1: lawyers until August to respond to the DJ's request to
Speaker 1: make the documents public. Is there any chance that Trump
Speaker 1: agrees to unseal the warrant? Well, if he were to
Speaker 1: be consistent with his public statements in the few days
Speaker 1: since the search was executed, then he ought to UH
Speaker 1: consent to their disclosure and and not oppose the motion
Speaker 1: to unsteal. However, um, it may be that he and
Speaker 1: his team determined it's actually in their interest to leave
Speaker 1: it unclear in the public domain exactly what the crimes
Speaker 1: are that were the subject of the investigation, um, and
Speaker 1: even more importantly, what the specific facts are and the
Speaker 1: information in the possession of the FBI that permitted it
Speaker 1: do get the search warrant right, which requires a showing
Speaker 1: of probable cause to adjudge satisfaction that crimes have been
Speaker 1: committed and that evidence of them will be found in
Speaker 1: the premises to be searched. So even though former President
Speaker 1: Trump has staying has been saying um that, um, it
Speaker 1: should all be released, um, he actually has had that
Speaker 1: search warrant and the return um the of the item
Speaker 1: um in his possession. He could have released it up
Speaker 1: until this point. But if he may actually strategically benefit
Speaker 1: from the lack of specificity in the public domain about
Speaker 1: what the crimes were that were under investigation and even
Speaker 1: more importantly, what information already is in the possession of
Speaker 1: the FBI to suggest that those crimes had been committed
Speaker 1: and evidence of them would be on his premises. That's
Speaker 1: a really good point there, that you know, Trump can
Speaker 1: release his paper at any time. We actually there is
Speaker 1: just a tweet from Congressman Jerry Noddler, chairman of the
Speaker 1: House Judiciary Committee, pointing that out that Trump could have
Speaker 1: released this information he's refused, and now that the Justice
Speaker 1: Department is now trying to to get this out into
Speaker 1: the daylight and into the public eye. Is there any
Speaker 1: way that UM, you know that that Santa seems now
Speaker 1: like if Trump doesn't go ahead and agree for it
Speaker 1: to be unsealed, what is that going to mean for
Speaker 1: the investigation? I don't think it's going to mean anything
Speaker 1: for the investigation, which will unfold as it otherwise would have.
Speaker 1: In any event, the agents and the prosecutors working with
Speaker 1: them are going to be going through the documents that
Speaker 1: were seized, assessing their evidentiary value, putting them together with
Speaker 1: the other evidence they already have UM, and deciding whether
Speaker 1: or not to pursue criminal charges or if if one
Speaker 1: of the primary interests is just simply making sure that
Speaker 1: they've collected UH information is important to national security, making
Speaker 1: sure that they have all of it, and then figuring
Speaker 1: out if there's any measures that need to be taken
Speaker 1: to address UH any dangers or compromising of methods and
Speaker 1: sources and assets, etcetera. So they're all going to be
Speaker 1: doing the work I think that they would have been
Speaker 1: doing anyway, but for today's UM events. UM. The court though,
Speaker 1: would have to decide whether or not to actually grant
Speaker 1: the motion to unseal in the face of opposition from
Speaker 1: former President Trump if in fact that's the position he takes,
Speaker 1: and that would be illegal analysis UM looking into factors
Speaker 1: including what are the remaining privacy interests of the former
Speaker 1: president or maybe any other people who might be the
Speaker 1: subjects of the surach or a possible investigation. What remaining
Speaker 1: interests do they have that should be considered UM in
Speaker 1: in counterbalancing the public interest in s being the contents
Speaker 1: of the search warrant application. You know, obviously former President
Speaker 1: Trump he had the search warrant. UH. He's now having
Speaker 1: his tax returns released to a House committee. He was
Speaker 1: in front of the New York Attorney General the other
Speaker 1: day where he took the fifth in an investigation about
Speaker 1: his real estate and his taxes. It just seems like
Speaker 1: Trump is having this pile up of action in legal
Speaker 1: cases against him. Is there any sort of way that
Speaker 1: he is able to to get out from this and
Speaker 1: to run for president again? That I can't speak to.
Speaker 1: I think that's really a political calculus more than a
Speaker 1: legal one. UM. Although there are some possible charges UM
Speaker 1: that people have discussed is potentially coming out of UH,
Speaker 1: the investigation related to the search warrant that might complicate
Speaker 1: the ability of an individual charged or convicted of those
Speaker 1: crimes to rent for up. That's a whole constitutional debate
Speaker 1: also about that I could actually be constitutionally applied to
Speaker 1: somebody running for president, but certainly has a trope of
Speaker 1: legal issues. He's going to trope of legal issues. Jessica,
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to leave it there. Jessica Roth, Professor
Speaker 1: of law at the Cordoso School of Law, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. Coming up, we assemble the panel.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg Sound On on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. This is Emily Wilkins in Today again for
Speaker 1: Joe Matthew. Big news of the day, Justice Department is
Speaker 1: taking steps to unsealed parts of the search warrant on
Speaker 1: former President Trump's home in mar Lago. The ball is
Speaker 1: now in Trump's court as to whether he gives permission
Speaker 1: for that warrant to be unsealed. He has until August
Speaker 1: to do that. And for the most in depth political
Speaker 1: analysis on this event, we go to the all star
Speaker 1: team of Genie Chienzano and Rick Davis. Guys, Huge, huge newsday.
Speaker 1: We just heard from Jessica Roth that if Trump wanted
Speaker 1: to have the search warrant out there, he could have
Speaker 1: already released it. I mean, this is the guy who
Speaker 1: told everyone uh in a press release that he that
Speaker 1: the search warrant had happened to begin with, Jennie, Why
Speaker 1: do you think Trump hasn't released the search warrant himself already? Well,
Speaker 1: he's been wanting to control this narrative, and he did
Speaker 1: right up until this surprise news conference. And of course,
Speaker 1: and now you know, I think everybody has been saying,
Speaker 1: and I agree with this assessment. You have Merrick Garland
Speaker 1: calling his bluff, saying, you've been controlling the narrative around
Speaker 1: this search, but now we're going to unseal the records that,
Speaker 1: as you just discussed, he could have released. And now
Speaker 1: he has put the lawyers for Trump in a really
Speaker 1: uncomfortable position. They either agree with the release he releases
Speaker 1: them himself, or they fight it. And you can you
Speaker 1: imagine what kind of argument they would make after all
Speaker 1: this rhetoric, to say, don't unseal these records for the public.
Speaker 1: So the Justice Department really really calling his bluff. And
Speaker 1: you know, as you read through the document they filed
Speaker 1: for the stealing, they make it clear we didn't discuss
Speaker 1: this publicly, the subject did, and now we want these
Speaker 1: released because it's in the public interest. Got some political
Speaker 1: jiu jitsu going on here. Uh. You know, Garland, he
Speaker 1: kept some things. He kept the the pressor short, but
Speaker 1: he also made sure in it to address the criticism
Speaker 1: that the FBI has received. You've seen lawmakers coming out
Speaker 1: in recent days calling for an investigation into the FBI,
Speaker 1: to the fund the FBI, questioning the partisanship of all
Speaker 1: of this. Let's listen to what Garland had to say
Speaker 1: in response to all that. Let me address recent unfounded
Speaker 1: attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department
Speaker 1: agents and prosecutors. I will not stand by silently when
Speaker 1: their integrity is unfairly attacked. The men and women of
Speaker 1: the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated, patriotic public servants. Rick.
Speaker 1: Is this presser and and this particular part of the
Speaker 1: pressor enough to kind of uh and some of the
Speaker 1: criticism about the FBI kind of set the record straight
Speaker 1: and move the needle at all with Republicans. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think I think it It did quite a bit of
Speaker 1: good in that regard because it was the first time
Speaker 1: that we've seen Garland actually get up and defending agency
Speaker 1: and and and I do agree with Jennie. He gave
Speaker 1: a great Texas two step, putting Trump on the defensive
Speaker 1: by saying, well, we've made a motion to put this
Speaker 1: thing out in the public domain, and all he's got
Speaker 1: to do is agree to it, and the judge has
Speaker 1: to agree to it also. But the other thing that
Speaker 1: was going around on Capitol Hill today was a lot
Speaker 1: of calls by consultants talking to their their members saying, hey, um,
Speaker 1: what if it is bad? What if this national security
Speaker 1: investigation is ugly? And you guys are out there defending
Speaker 1: Trump on this um sooner or later, the truth is
Speaker 1: going to come out on what it is this investigation
Speaker 1: was looking into one way or another, and you don't
Speaker 1: want to be on the wrong side of that. And
Speaker 1: so I think there is going to be a backlash
Speaker 1: where people are gonna say, you know, we gotta start
Speaker 1: thinking about some of the rhetoric we're putting out there,
Speaker 1: because dog piling on the FBI, dog piling on d
Speaker 1: o J at a time when it actually maybe something
Speaker 1: that that that is pretty significant, could backfire on all
Speaker 1: of us. So I think some of the more thoughtful
Speaker 1: members are gonna take a step back and start looking
Speaker 1: at this and saying it's going to be a long
Speaker 1: term discussion, and we we ought to wait and see
Speaker 1: what comes out. And you know, Rick, I absolutely hear
Speaker 1: you on sort of the thought that the rhetoric around
Speaker 1: the FBI's search of maral Lago might wind up being
Speaker 1: a bit toned down based on what we saw today.
Speaker 1: But I'm also just wondering if this is going to
Speaker 1: represent a breaking part with Trump and with many lawmakers
Speaker 1: in Congress. I mean, to defend someone who is constantly
Speaker 1: being investigated, having their home searched by the FBI. Are
Speaker 1: we at a point where enough is enough? Uh? You know,
Speaker 1: every time we think that, Emily, we're wrong. Uh. This
Speaker 1: is a really cow towing party to Donald Trump. He
Speaker 1: does sometimes the most outrageous things that you would think
Speaker 1: would make him, uh, you know, kryptonite to the party,
Speaker 1: and yet UM party leaders UM tend to gravitate back
Speaker 1: to him simply because he holds a lot of power
Speaker 1: within the party rank and file that they need in
Speaker 1: order to execute their jobs. So it's it's it's an
Speaker 1: ugly situation where I'm you know, I've always been a
Speaker 1: bit of a optimist for the Republican Party, but I
Speaker 1: must say this is a great example where Trump could
Speaker 1: take down the whole house if uh, if, if our
Speaker 1: leaders continue to glom on and just think about the
Speaker 1: the optics where we're attacking the FBI after having just
Speaker 1: attacked the left for defunding the police. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it was really outrageous to a conservative, uh commentators sounding
Speaker 1: like the squad today. So so, Rick, this is interesting.
Speaker 1: Then you you don't think that you know, Trump's chances
Speaker 1: of being president, nothing's going to be hampered by all
Speaker 1: of this. He still has the political power that he
Speaker 1: always does. You know, Look, I think you chip away.
Speaker 1: I mean, as you pointed out in an earlier conversation
Speaker 1: with Jessica, he's got a lot of legal problems. This
Speaker 1: is not this is one of them. And and so
Speaker 1: I do believe at some point you take on so
Speaker 1: much negativity, so much weight, that even if you could
Speaker 1: get your party's nomination, you can't remember he had his
Speaker 1: party's nomination in and didn't win. So he's got to
Speaker 1: actually do better than he did last time around. And
Speaker 1: right now, I don't see that as being a possibility. Yeah,
Speaker 1: very interesting and unprecedented time in politics. I'm sure we'll
Speaker 1: hear more of this story up next, we'll be speaking
Speaker 1: with Congresswoman Susan del Bennet. This is Bloomberg broadcasting line
Speaker 1: from our new Sins Capital Bloomberg to New York Bloomberg
Speaker 1: eleven Frio to Boston, Bloomberg one of six, one does
Speaker 1: San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to the Country Serious x
Speaker 1: M General one nine and around the globe the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Sound On with Joe Matthew. It began as a six
Speaker 1: trillion package of policies championed by Democrats, and it is
Speaker 1: ending as a four dred thirty seven billion dollar package
Speaker 1: with just healthcare, taxes and climate. House Democrats vote tomorrow
Speaker 1: on that reconciliation legislation, that inflation reduction acts, that successor
Speaker 1: to build back better. It's expected to pass, but will
Speaker 1: it change Democrats fate in November. Will be speaking with
Speaker 1: one important member who's going to be voting on it tomorrow.
Speaker 1: In just a minute. Will We are joined now by
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Susan del bene She's a Democrat from Washington, but
Speaker 1: she is also the chair of the New Democratic Coalition.
Speaker 1: If you're not a policy wonk, you might not have
Speaker 1: heard of this caucus, but it is a powerful block
Speaker 1: of almost a hundred lawmakers within the House Democratic Caucus.
Speaker 1: This means that Chairwoman Del Benny has really got her
Speaker 1: pulse on what members are thinking, what is happening in
Speaker 1: the House. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us
Speaker 1: on this heavy newsday. I know we got to get
Speaker 1: to the big vote that's coming tomorrow, but before we
Speaker 1: get there, I need to get your reaction to the
Speaker 1: news that the Attorney General is asking to unseal the
Speaker 1: search warrant from our lago. Does the public need to
Speaker 1: see this warrant? And is it going to be an
Speaker 1: issue if Trump doesn't consent to it being unsealed. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't have any more information. I think
Speaker 1: the the Attorney General made it clear that he thought
Speaker 1: this could be unsealed and made that request. So I
Speaker 1: think now we wait to see, UM what will happen
Speaker 1: there and if that information will be out clearly uh,
Speaker 1: President Trump also has uh that and could release that information.
Speaker 1: So UM, we'll see if that information comes out soon,
Speaker 1: just so people are aware of what's happening. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think it's important for people to know what
Speaker 1: the FBI's reason for having that search for it was? Well,
Speaker 1: I think UM the Attorney General Garland made it clear
Speaker 1: UM that this was something he signed off on, and
Speaker 1: UM and also talked about the important work that the
Speaker 1: FBI and Department of Justice are doing. So they are,
Speaker 1: they're continuing to move forward, and clearly if the if
Speaker 1: the information is unsealed, that will provide greater clarity in
Speaker 1: terms of the type of information they're looking for. So UM,
Speaker 1: I don't know more though than anyone else does at
Speaker 1: this point, but well, Cogress and I definitely want to
Speaker 1: take some time and talk about the vote tomorrow on
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act, that big package of spending bills.
Speaker 1: There's a lot that is in here. Talk to me
Speaker 1: a little bit about how you'll be speaking to your
Speaker 1: voters back home in Washington State about what's in this bill,
Speaker 1: how are you going to sell it? Well, this is
Speaker 1: really an incredibly important piece of legislation. UM. From the
Speaker 1: start of budget reconciliation negotiations last year, UM our coalition,
Speaker 1: the New Dems push for a final bill that would
Speaker 1: focus on doing a few things well, UM, making sure
Speaker 1: that we look at lowering energy and healthcare costs and
Speaker 1: tackling climate change, and the Inflation Reduction Act does that. UM.
Speaker 1: As a coalition, we've endorsed the legislation UM and have
Speaker 1: strong support and I think folks at home know how
Speaker 1: important it is that we continue the Affordable Care Act
Speaker 1: premium subsidies that have helped keep healthcare prices low, UM,
Speaker 1: enabling Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, this has
Speaker 1: been a top priority for seniors for years. And boosting
Speaker 1: clean energy production. UM. These are all things the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reducted and Actual will do that are really going to
Speaker 1: help our economy, help families save money, UM, ensure cleaner
Speaker 1: air and water for future generations. Huge priorities and UM
Speaker 1: and again another historic piece of legislation that we're passing
Speaker 1: this Congress carcusson. Obviously, there's a lot in here, but
Speaker 1: there are also are many things that aren't getting done.
Speaker 1: I know that you yourself pushed for the child tax
Speaker 1: credit to be included. That's not here. I mean, this
Speaker 1: was talked about so much for months and months and months.
Speaker 1: Is it going to hurt Democrats to have to go
Speaker 1: back to their constituents and said, hey, we said that
Speaker 1: we were going to try and get you this, but
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. Sorry. Well, Um, first, I think we've
Speaker 1: done an incredible amount um with infrastructure legislation, that Chips
Speaker 1: and Science Act that just passed, obviously lead this bill,
Speaker 1: the Inflation Reduction Act. Um. These have been historic pieces
Speaker 1: of legislation and incredible accomplishment, especially in a divided Congress
Speaker 1: and with small majorities. The President and Congress have accomplished
Speaker 1: a lot um. I'm going to continue to pass, to
Speaker 1: work hard to pass um legislation like the expanded child
Speaker 1: tax credit. This is still an important priority of mind,
Speaker 1: an important priority for new Dems, UM and members of
Speaker 1: Congress on both sides of the aisle. So we may
Speaker 1: not have everything in this particular bill, but we have
Speaker 1: huge winds and wins for our communities, and we'll keep
Speaker 1: working on the next piece of legislation. To be clear,
Speaker 1: no one really thought that, um. You know, most folks
Speaker 1: weren't assuming we'd get a reconciliation bill done, and and
Speaker 1: we're getting that done. So we'll keep working on other issues.
Speaker 1: Going forward. UM, this isn't the last bill we're gonna do.
Speaker 1: Speaking of other issues going forward, there was initially some
Speaker 1: discussion about whether a package of public safety bills was
Speaker 1: going to be voted on by the House. This include
Speaker 1: several bills that would help send funding to police departments
Speaker 1: in sort of smaller cities of rural areas. And I
Speaker 1: know that it was something that a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: wanted to move so they could go home and tell
Speaker 1: their constituents, Hey, I am supporting the police. Look at
Speaker 1: this thing I just did. Does this make it a
Speaker 1: little bit harder for Democrats to not have a vote
Speaker 1: on that package of bills tomorrow. UM, we're continuing to
Speaker 1: work on that legislation. On last month, leaders of the
Speaker 1: new Democrat Coalition, UM, we endorsed the slate of seven
Speaker 1: bills that would help prevent crime and protect our communities
Speaker 1: and invest key resources and reforms UM in support and
Speaker 1: and helping our communities and law enforcement. UM. So we're
Speaker 1: going to continue to work on These bills are really
Speaker 1: in line with President Biden's Safer America Plan which he
Speaker 1: released at the end of last month. So there's ongoing
Speaker 1: work there. UM. And you know, normally we wouldn't be
Speaker 1: in session right now, so this is an opportunity. You know,
Speaker 1: we'll have an opportunity to um move legislation in September. Well,
Speaker 1: how important are these bills to actually get done? I mean,
Speaker 1: how much of an issue do you think crime is
Speaker 1: going to be when it comes to the November election. Well, um,
Speaker 1: you know, we have continued to make investments in our communities,
Speaker 1: so this would be additional work on top of that.
Speaker 1: You know, House Democrats have already acted on in the
Speaker 1: American Rescue Plan. We had more than ten billion dollars
Speaker 1: to help local communities higher police and keep him on
Speaker 1: the job. Um. We had we we secured more than
Speaker 1: a hundred million and community project funding for public safety agencies. Um.
Speaker 1: We passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to take action
Speaker 1: to prevent gun violence. So we've done a lot and
Speaker 1: there's more that we can continue to do. And those
Speaker 1: talks are taken place so we can move forward on
Speaker 1: the other piece of legislations that have been proposed. Definitely
Speaker 1: be keeping an eye on those come September. Carson del
Speaker 1: Bennet also wanted to ask uh you a little bit
Speaker 1: about the trip that you took recently with how Speaker
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi. You were a part of a small group
Speaker 1: that accompanied her on her trip to Asia, including that
Speaker 1: really historical stop in Taiwan. Can you just sort of
Speaker 1: discuss a little bit what that was like to land
Speaker 1: there with the Speaker and to be speaking with the officials,
Speaker 1: as there were lots of concerns about how China would
Speaker 1: respond well. This trip really underscored UM America's commitment to
Speaker 1: building stronger economic security and democratic ties with the Indo
Speaker 1: Pacific region. UM. We had planned to do this trip earlier,
Speaker 1: and the Speaker had gotten covid um in April, so
Speaker 1: we UM postponed it and we're able to do the
Speaker 1: trip now. The Taiwan part of the trip really showed
Speaker 1: that the U s stands with the people of Taiwan.
Speaker 1: I was there as the vice chair of the Ways
Speaker 1: and Means Committee. We have jurisdiction over trade policy in
Speaker 1: the House and UM. All these countries are important economic
Speaker 1: partners to our communities and to the United States, and
Speaker 1: so UM it was an important trip. When we landed,
Speaker 1: there were thousands of people on the tree in the
Speaker 1: streets greeting us, even though it was about midnight. UM.
Speaker 1: People were very excited that we made the trip and
Speaker 1: UM that we came to meet. UM. It was an
Speaker 1: important sign of support for the people of Taiwan certainly,
Speaker 1: and I know that Speaker Pelosi has talked about why
Speaker 1: this was needed right now at the same point, I
Speaker 1: know you know, this was a trip that was coming
Speaker 1: at a very sensitive time in the relationship between the
Speaker 1: US and China. And today, Thalmerce Secretary Gina Romundo, she
Speaker 1: came on Bloomberg TV and told Dave with Weston that
Speaker 1: Pelosi's trip to Taiwan, your trip as well, has made
Speaker 1: geopolitics with China particularly complicated. A lot was a risk
Speaker 1: with this trip. What was gained well, first of all, UM,
Speaker 1: China can't tell members of Congress where we can travel. UM.
Speaker 1: They have you know, I think if their job, if
Speaker 1: their goal is to change the status quo in Taiwan,
Speaker 1: that goes directly against UM what the United States c
Speaker 1: and for. We stand with the people of Taiwan, and
Speaker 1: we stand for the status quo which allows us to
Speaker 1: UM continue to to meet and work with Taiwan and
Speaker 1: their vibrant democracy. UM, and they are economic partners for us.
Speaker 1: We just passed the Chips and Science legislation. And clearly
Speaker 1: Taiwan UM businesses have been leaders in manufacture of semiconductors. So, UM,
Speaker 1: we're going to continue to work with Taiwan. We are
Speaker 1: not going to allow China to decide who gets to
Speaker 1: to travel there, who doesn't get to travel there. Um.
Speaker 1: They may want to change the status quo, we want
Speaker 1: to keep it the way it is and continue to
Speaker 1: support the people of Taiwan. And UM and so I
Speaker 1: think it was an important trip and an important UM
Speaker 1: part of showing our support for the people of Taiwan.
Speaker 1: I also want to ask you a little bit about
Speaker 1: the mid terms now Washington State. Uh, they had their
Speaker 1: elections two weeks ago on August two. UM. And I
Speaker 1: know that obviously you're a Democrat. You're working to make
Speaker 1: sure that Democrats win in November. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: ask you a little bit about some of the Republicans
Speaker 1: who have lost or are in danger of losing, because
Speaker 1: I know that you you like to work across the
Speaker 1: island a bipartisan manner. Um. You like to try and
Speaker 1: find Republicans who are willing to work with Democrats. Your
Speaker 1: fellow Washington State lawmaker Jamie Harry Butler lost her primary
Speaker 1: to uh. Well, obviously Washington's got a special system, but
Speaker 1: she didn't make the top two spots someone who was
Speaker 1: endorsed by Trump. Did. You also saw Peter Meyer in Michigan.
Speaker 1: I'll lose his primary, and next week you have Liz
Speaker 1: Cheney and I think a pole came out today that
Speaker 1: showed her about thirty points behind. Are you concerned about
Speaker 1: the fact that some of these Republicans who have been
Speaker 1: willing to stand up to Trump, willing to vote for
Speaker 1: his impeachment, are now going to be leading Congress next year? Well,
Speaker 1: we have a strong Democrats running. I know, I'm Washington State.
Speaker 1: We have Marie Perez Um running in the third congressional district,
Speaker 1: which is the seat that Jamie Horr Butler has held. Um.
Speaker 1: I think we have a great opportunity there. So it's
Speaker 1: important these are This election is incredibly important. It's about
Speaker 1: the long term direction of our country, supporting our democracy,
Speaker 1: supporting voting rights, supporting women's reproductive rights, making sure we
Speaker 1: are showing how governance can work. UM, work that we've
Speaker 1: been doing right now with the legislation we've passed so UM,
Speaker 1: we're gonna keep making sure we make that case to
Speaker 1: the voters across the country. And these districts are not
Speaker 1: districts that have been represented by UM Trump Republicans UM,
Speaker 1: and I think they don't want to be represented by
Speaker 1: Republicans who are far to the right and aren't standing
Speaker 1: up for our democracy. So we will make that case.
Speaker 1: And we have strong candidates in these races, and I
Speaker 1: think we have a great opportunity there, So you're not
Speaker 1: worried at all that some of these strong Republicans, strong
Speaker 1: Trump Republican candidates are going to win in November. I
Speaker 1: think Americans want common sense leaders who are working on
Speaker 1: kitchen table issues. That's what New Dems are doing, That's
Speaker 1: what our candidates are fighting for, and that's the case
Speaker 1: we need to make to the American people UM so
Speaker 1: that they were getting out that vote and that will
Speaker 1: help us maintain the majority. Congressman Congressman Susan delban A,
Speaker 1: chair of the new New UM Coalition, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for taking the time and being on with us today.
Speaker 1: Really a pleasure chatting with you. Absolutely take care, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Well, with that, we are going to
Speaker 1: go ahead and reassemble the panel with Jennie Sheen and
Speaker 1: Zano and Rick Davis. Uh, guys, I kind of want
Speaker 1: to jump right back on to the big vote tomorrow
Speaker 1: coming on Biden's policy package. Is it going to be
Speaker 1: a problem, Genie that Democrats touted so many things like
Speaker 1: pre kindergarten, like the child tax credit and down they're
Speaker 1: not getting it done. I don't think so. And I
Speaker 1: think you know what the congresswoman just spoke about is
Speaker 1: really important. Democrats are showing that they can make Washington work,
Speaker 1: and this is something I think you know, you and
Speaker 1: I have talked about this, Emily. I have been a skeptic.
Speaker 1: So the idea that they are passing this bill, it's
Speaker 1: certainly not as big as the Democrats wanted initially, but
Speaker 1: you know what, when these elections are fought out in
Speaker 1: purple states, they're getting really popular policies passed, including critical
Speaker 1: issues of climate and health. And they are also getting
Speaker 1: a lot of other bills done, the Packed Act, the
Speaker 1: Chips Act that you were just talking about. So they
Speaker 1: have made Washington work, and I think in purple districts,
Speaker 1: the fact that they are doing it and it's not
Speaker 1: as big as they initially wanted is actually a selling point.
Speaker 1: And if they talk about those kitchen table issues from
Speaker 1: climate but importantly healthcare, that's going to be a boon
Speaker 1: for them in these mid terms. They're not going to
Speaker 1: take the House, but they're not going to do nearly
Speaker 1: as badly as some some of us may have predicted
Speaker 1: six months ago. You know, I was talking with actually
Speaker 1: someone today about this vote, and they told me that
Speaker 1: they think it's actually going to be a little bit boring,
Speaker 1: which is kind of wild given how much hype there
Speaker 1: was around the Senate vote, given how long we've been
Speaker 1: talking about Democrats trying to get something done with reconciliation, Rick,
Speaker 1: what are you going to be watching for with this
Speaker 1: vote tomorrow? What can it actually tell us about how
Speaker 1: Congress is currently working? You know, I don't think we're
Speaker 1: gonna see like Republicans getting in there and taking credit
Speaker 1: for having passed it, you know, so it'll be a
Speaker 1: party line vote likely, And and I think that the
Speaker 1: Democrats have a tendency to talk about the things is
Speaker 1: genius thing that aren't in the bill, and what they
Speaker 1: ought to really be doing is taking credit for doing
Speaker 1: something that's relatively important here. Uh, it's a huge package,
Speaker 1: and and even yesterday. I mean, you know, Schumer's comments were, well,
Speaker 1: I still want to go back and get that thirty
Speaker 1: five dollar cap on insulin. I mean, like, you just
Speaker 1: passed the eight hundred billion dollar bill and you're talking
Speaker 1: about the one thing you didn't get done. So like,
Speaker 1: I think they need to focus running out of time.
Speaker 1: Elections are only a couple of months away, and they
Speaker 1: have a lot to talk about. They've had an amazing
Speaker 1: legislative agenda and this is the capstone of it. And
Speaker 1: if they spend all their time talking about in Congress
Speaker 1: movement del Benny did a little of this, the other
Speaker 1: things they want to do. The plate is full, go
Speaker 1: out to dinner, enjoy yourself. This is something you can
Speaker 1: take home to your constituents and really get get excited about.
Speaker 1: But if they don't pay attention to their accomplishments, nobody
Speaker 1: else will either. It's so true, Rick, I mean, we
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of time left in terms of
Speaker 1: legislative days Congress. They're not going to be in the
Speaker 1: rest of August, they're not going to be in October.
Speaker 1: They really I mean the House in particular, the one
Speaker 1: that that's really in danger of flipping They've just got September,
Speaker 1: and they still have to pass a lot of other
Speaker 1: pieces of bills during that time, including legislation to fund
Speaker 1: the government. Jennie, you noted you're you're still skeptical that
Speaker 1: that Democrats have any hope of holding the House even
Speaker 1: if they pass this legislation. So is passing this bill
Speaker 1: going to do anything? How does it move the needle?
Speaker 1: You know, I am a skeptic that they will take
Speaker 1: the House, although I will tell you I I was
Speaker 1: just listening to somebody like James Carville, for instance, who
Speaker 1: is saying, you know, all these Democrats who are saying
Speaker 1: it's hopeless, there's still a shot. Now. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he's just saying that to spark people to the polls.
Speaker 1: But you know, I am still skeptic. But I do
Speaker 1: think this bill is critically important. If you just look
Speaker 1: at what they're talking about, the reduction of emissions close
Speaker 1: to what the President wanted by you know, the ability
Speaker 1: to cap out of pocket prescription drugs, medicare negotiating drug prices,
Speaker 1: the corporate minimum tax. Those are big, big deals, and
Speaker 1: so I do think it moves the needle. And again
Speaker 1: I agree with Rick they've got to focus on what
Speaker 1: people care about. The President has to focus on inflation.
Speaker 1: The gas numbers are good for him. He's got to
Speaker 1: keep focusing on it. And Democrats have to go home
Speaker 1: and sell what they've done, which is shocking too many
Speaker 1: of us. They've made Washington work and that should be
Speaker 1: their message. And they should also say, look at the
Speaker 1: extreme as the Republicans are putting that are winning these
Speaker 1: these primaries, Let's not go back to crazy town. Let's
Speaker 1: keep the normalcy that we have. That's their shot, and
Speaker 1: it's a long shot, but it's something they can run on.
Speaker 1: I mean, Genie, how key is it for them to
Speaker 1: sure that they've got their messaging down on this? I'm thinking,
Speaker 1: particularly because a lot of these provisions are not going
Speaker 1: to go into effect for a while. It's not like,
Speaker 1: you know, we're gonna wake up the day after this
Speaker 1: has passed and suddenly prescription drug prices are lower. How
Speaker 1: how do Democrats really make sure that everyone knows what
Speaker 1: they're doing in d C. Yeah, that that's always the difficulty,
Speaker 1: because these will wave in slowly, certainly not what eighty
Speaker 1: nine days to the mid terms. We're not going to
Speaker 1: see them wave in before then, but I think they've
Speaker 1: got to be clear on what they've done and the
Speaker 1: fact that they shocked all of us, including everybody in
Speaker 1: the press, that they were able to do this and
Speaker 1: it was things. These are things that are incredibly popular
Speaker 1: two people across the board, not just two Democrats. So
Speaker 1: if they can stick with that message of making Washington
Speaker 1: work and living up to their promises, it's a good
Speaker 1: day for the Democrats. And then otherwise what it seemed
Speaker 1: to be a fairly bleak mid term year for them.
Speaker 1: So we've talked a little bit about the House, We've
Speaker 1: talked a little bit about the mid terms, We've talked
Speaker 1: a little bit about Trump. Let's bring them all together here.
Speaker 1: Congresswomen Liz Cheney the most interesting House primary of this
Speaker 1: entire election cycle, maybe even like the most interesting primary.
Speaker 1: That said, it's not even going to be close. She's
Speaker 1: very far behind in the polls right now, but she
Speaker 1: is out with a new ad making her final pitch
Speaker 1: to voters, and we've got a clip of it here.
Speaker 1: America cannot remain free if we abandon the truth. The
Speaker 1: lie that the presidential election was stolen is insidious. It
Speaker 1: prays on those who love their country. It is a
Speaker 1: door Donald Trump opened to manipulate Americans to abandon their principles.
Speaker 1: Rick Dennie, I know that that all three of us
Speaker 1: have watched a ton of political ads. This does not
Speaker 1: sound like almost any other political ad that I've heard of.
Speaker 1: It's devoid of issues, it's avoid of what she's done.
Speaker 1: It is really kind of just focused on this one point, Rick,
Speaker 1: what is Liz trying to do here? Well, I think
Speaker 1: you've hit on the key thing, Emily, and that is
Speaker 1: that she has not been running for re election since
Speaker 1: Donald Trump endorsed Harriet Hageman. She's been running to take
Speaker 1: down Donald Trump. Her campaign is not about what she's
Speaker 1: going to accomplish for the state or the people of
Speaker 1: of Wyoming. It's about what she's trying to do to
Speaker 1: keep Donald Trump from ever becoming president of the United
Speaker 1: States again. And her closing argument hits that exactly where
Speaker 1: she needed to be. So, you know, as we look
Speaker 1: back in time, we're not gonna see anybody doing analysis
Speaker 1: of her campaign and say, well, she missed this opportunity
Speaker 1: to talk about this issue in her home state. She's
Speaker 1: making a calculation that the only thing I want to
Speaker 1: accomplish in my career is to ensure that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is not president, and I don't think her being a
Speaker 1: representative changes any of that. In other words, she'll sit
Speaker 1: out her term, She'll continue to be co chair of
Speaker 1: the January six Commission, and then her new mission uh
Speaker 1: post of Congress is going to be to ensure that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump never occupies the Oval office again. Rick, do
Speaker 1: you have any sense to how that would actually look,
Speaker 1: because there are certainly plenty of people who are trying
Speaker 1: to make it their mission to ensure that that Trump
Speaker 1: never holds office again. What what does Cheney have that
Speaker 1: would actually make that possible? Well, to some degree, Trump
Speaker 1: has created a bit of a martyrdom for Cheney. You know,
Speaker 1: he's made it his cost celebt to ensure that she
Speaker 1: doesn't get reelected, and and that has actually annured some
Speaker 1: benefit to her and that she has been elevated in
Speaker 1: that debate. So maybe she takes that debate all the
Speaker 1: way to the presidential campaign if Donald Trump runs for office,
Speaker 1: maybe she does too. She certainly has a national following
Speaker 1: that could help sustain the funding for a campaign like that,
Speaker 1: and I think they would probably be able to sell
Speaker 1: pay per view tickets if she could ever get on
Speaker 1: a debate stage with Donald Trump. Jennie, what do you
Speaker 1: think about Liz Cheney trying to make this a bigger thing?
Speaker 1: Is this something where she's going to wind up getting
Speaker 1: support not only from Republican but from Democrats. I think
Speaker 1: she will. I think the challenges there's not enough Democrats
Speaker 1: to pull her over to a winning side. But you know,
Speaker 1: she is playing the long game here. She is decided,
Speaker 1: and she did this a long time ago that, unlike
Speaker 1: so many Republicans in the House, her interest is not
Speaker 1: necessarily in winning, although I'm sure she would like to
Speaker 1: retain her seat. It is in doing what she describes
Speaker 1: as right, and that is facing off with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and saying what you tried to do vis a vis
Speaker 1: the build up to January six and after it is unconscionable,
Speaker 1: and as a Republican, she's not going to put up
Speaker 1: with it. And that's a very hard stand for her
Speaker 1: to make. We saw a loser leadership post will likely
Speaker 1: lose her house. See if you listen to the latest
Speaker 1: Pole polls, she's twenty two points behind Um. But she's decided,
Speaker 1: She's playing the long game, and you know, I reflect
Speaker 1: back on her speech not that long ago at the
Speaker 1: Reagan Library, and it sounded to me like she was
Speaker 1: very much a candidate for the presidency or thinking about it.
Speaker 1: Can she win as another question, but I think we're
Speaker 1: hearing some of those tones and what she has to say.
Speaker 1: And you know, this ad, along with the ad by
Speaker 1: her father not that long ago, they've been you know,
Speaker 1: critically important in terms of making that case. You know,
Speaker 1: we the Jenney primary is going to be very very interesting,
Speaker 1: but we do have another race that's a lot of
Speaker 1: people are going to be watching on and that is
Speaker 1: the one up in Alaska. Um, it's the field has
Speaker 1: now gone down to three candidates, one of which is uh,
Speaker 1: Sarah Palin uh Rick Davis. What's your takeaway from this?
Speaker 1: What does it mean that you know, Sarah Palin was
Speaker 1: able to advance, uh to sort of this final round
Speaker 1: And what kind of momentum is she caring right now? Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is such a screwy election in in Alaska. It's
Speaker 1: the final round for the special election and then she'll
Speaker 1: be a part of a package of another forty candidates
Speaker 1: running for the end of the election term. So uh,
Speaker 1: this is the first go around. This is actually definitive.
Speaker 1: If she wins this election next week, she would she
Speaker 1: would become a congresswoman. And uh for all of you know,
Speaker 1: two months. So uh, it's it's got some bite to it. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and look, I mean, she was first in the polling.
Speaker 1: But the question is, did everybody who ever wanted to
Speaker 1: vote for her for this race already cast their ballot?
Speaker 1: In other words, is there enough opposition to rally around
Speaker 1: the other candidates to uh, to get ahead of her?
Speaker 1: And my guess is they've consulted the field. She's in
Speaker 1: for a run. But I never count out Sarah Palin
Speaker 1: in Alaska. Do not count out Congresswoman Sarah Palin. Rick, Genie,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for taking your time today to chat. Uh.
Speaker 1: We'll have another episode here tomorrow. In the meantime, if
Speaker 1: you want to re listen, we've got the sound on podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Emilie Wilkins. This is Bloomberg