Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Floomberg sound On.
Speaker 1: I have said since January six that I will do
Speaker 1: whatever it takes to ensure Donald Trump is never again
Speaker 1: anywhere near the Oval Office. And I mean it's Floomberg
Speaker 1: sound on politics, policy and perspective from DC's top names.
Speaker 1: If there was an invitation to participate, I would consider it.
Speaker 1: You will be accountable to us, you will answer to us,
Speaker 1: and you will do what is in our best interests.
Speaker 1: And if you don't, we will fire you. Bloomberg Sound
Speaker 1: On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Well, the FED
Speaker 1: says eventually they're going to have to slow down on
Speaker 1: interest rate increases. We'll have to talk about when that is.
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Liz Cheney won't rule out a presidential run after
Speaker 1: her anti Trump primary loss. The CDC also acknowledged big
Speaker 1: mistakes in their coronavirus response. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick standing in
Speaker 1: today for Joe Matthew. We're gonna talk to Congressman French Hill,
Speaker 1: a Republican on the Financial Services Committee in the House,
Speaker 1: about the state of the economy. Will ask Michael Steele,
Speaker 1: the former RNC chairman, about the state of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party and Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jennie shen
Speaker 1: Zano will help me analyze the top news of the day. Well,
Speaker 1: the minutes from the FEDS late July meeting July say
Speaker 1: they're going to keep increasing the policy rate and then
Speaker 1: slow down at some point and reassess. We're joined now
Speaker 1: by Congressman French Hill, Republican from Arkansas. Congressman is on
Speaker 1: the Financial Services Committee, a great go to for banking issues. Congressman,
Speaker 1: very happy to have you on here. The first basic
Speaker 1: question about the Fed minutes that came out today, do
Speaker 1: you read these as airing on either the hawkish or
Speaker 1: devish side. Well, Jack, it's good to be with you.
Speaker 1: I think they just reinforced that they're serious to get
Speaker 1: back to focusing on price stability and if eating inflation.
Speaker 1: I think that's the important mission that they have, and
Speaker 1: I took the minutes to mean they're going to keep
Speaker 1: at it. Uh. And look when we saw inflation still
Speaker 1: high at eight point five per cent. We've seen reports
Speaker 1: of higher economic output in some sectors of the economy,
Speaker 1: slower in others, but nonetheless high inflation for inputt points
Speaker 1: and also on salaries and compensation still going up, So
Speaker 1: I took it as they're staying on mission for their
Speaker 1: tightening plan. The minutes acknowledged a risk this is a quote,
Speaker 1: a risk that the Committee could tighten the stand of
Speaker 1: policy by more than necessary to restore price stability. Uh,
Speaker 1: what are the risks at this point of a recession.
Speaker 1: I think the data is very mixed. I don't see
Speaker 1: that risk fully apparent yet. I think we're getting mixed
Speaker 1: reports on hiring still very a strong in most sectors
Speaker 1: of the economy, and yet we had the the week
Speaker 1: first and second quarter, but early data here in the
Speaker 1: third quarter continues to show some signs of growth. And
Speaker 1: that's why you have growth, you have decent employment numbers,
Speaker 1: you have high inflation. And that's why my instinct is
Speaker 1: that they'll continue to press on both with shrinking the
Speaker 1: balance sheet and a rate increase in the next month.
Speaker 1: And what is your view on the timing of this?
Speaker 1: These minutes were a bit vague. The phrase they used
Speaker 1: was it would become appropriate at some point to slow
Speaker 1: the pace of policy rate increases. What what is at
Speaker 1: some point to you? At some point to me, when
Speaker 1: we start seeing sharply lower inflation expectations. Even in the
Speaker 1: survey data last week when you looked at inflationary expectations
Speaker 1: that was still at six point two percent for one
Speaker 1: year out. That's three times uh the FED target of
Speaker 1: two percent. Actual inflation still in at four times the
Speaker 1: fed's target rate. So that's what makes me think that
Speaker 1: they'll stay in a tightening mode here over the next
Speaker 1: between now and the end of the year. Do you
Speaker 1: have a history lesson for us? Should are there historical
Speaker 1: parallels that you think they're looking at our ore? Is
Speaker 1: it fair to see these are unprecedented times? Well, it's different.
Speaker 1: We have stagflation, we have commodity price shots due to
Speaker 1: the Biden administration's policies on fossil fuels and Russia's invasion
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, which is impacted the food, fiber, and fuel
Speaker 1: markets in a negative way. But we have this strong
Speaker 1: employment market and we still have help wanted signs all
Speaker 1: across the country. So it's a mixed message on that,
Speaker 1: but it causes me to be biased toward higher rates,
Speaker 1: and they don't. They're behind the curve jack. That's the
Speaker 1: main point. The main history lesson here is that the
Speaker 1: FED did not take the punch bowl away in time
Speaker 1: to prevent embedded, stubborn inflationary expectations, and fiscal policy was
Speaker 1: far too stimulative coming out of the pandemic. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: so you mentioned the stimulative fiscal policy, fossil fuels, the
Speaker 1: Russian invasion of Ukraine. Um, how much is a major
Speaker 1: X factor? How much is there just confusion on what
Speaker 1: supply constraints will exist due to the pandemic and international
Speaker 1: responses to the pandemic. Well, we've seen container prices begin
Speaker 1: to shrink. We've seen like you just had a news
Speaker 1: report on some chip improvements via the deliveries of technology
Speaker 1: projects projects. So I think that some of the supply
Speaker 1: constraints that was related to the pandemic are healing themselves,
Speaker 1: and so that will help be a counter to some
Speaker 1: of these continued inflationary pressures on the compensation side and
Speaker 1: sharp increases in in UM some issues like as I said,
Speaker 1: food and fuel and fuel don't forget what fossil fuels
Speaker 1: being such a critical input factor. I don't see that
Speaker 1: uh falling and therefore you're going to continue to have
Speaker 1: input costs much higher than they were a year ago. Okay, Now,
Speaker 1: the minutes also mention some concern over digital assets like
Speaker 1: stable coins that they say are subject to runs and
Speaker 1: fire sales and excessive leverage. Do you take that as
Speaker 1: a nudge from the Fed toward Congress with an eye
Speaker 1: toward clearer regulations at all? I think clearer regulations related
Speaker 1: to digital assets would be helpful, and I think a
Speaker 1: good start that would be very carefully crafted bipartisan stable
Speaker 1: coin piece of legislation that would define stable coins being
Speaker 1: used for payment purposes, define what a good one is,
Speaker 1: which would bring certainty to the regulatory system, provide clarity
Speaker 1: for consumers and users. So I've be supportive of that process,
Speaker 1: and we have work being done with the administration and
Speaker 1: with Congress on that important point. I think it was
Speaker 1: brought home by the sell off and digital assets over
Speaker 1: the last few weeks. I also want to ask, I
Speaker 1: know you've been participating, Uh there's the events sent fintech
Speaker 1: summit in Little Rock, Arkansas. Can you tell us at
Speaker 1: all about what's what's happening in your home state to
Speaker 1: either attract business or develop help startups develop. What's going
Speaker 1: on in the world of fintech businesses in your home state. Well,
Speaker 1: here in Arkansas, we just had the fin sent Summit
Speaker 1: where we had five hundred people from around the world
Speaker 1: here showcasing their fintech innovations. Uh. This has been anchored
Speaker 1: by Fidelity Information Systems f i S and the Independent
Speaker 1: Community Bankers of America i c b A, both of
Speaker 1: which have selected Little Rock as their cornerstone center for
Speaker 1: fintech innovation. And it was an exciting conference and it's
Speaker 1: a big part of our effort in Arkansas to create
Speaker 1: a more dynamic economy with a faster growth rate. We
Speaker 1: think fintech is absolutely at the center of that. And
Speaker 1: Arkansas has a long standing fifty year relationship with financial
Speaker 1: technology innovation. So this is sort of our mission, Jack
Speaker 1: to meet Steve Case's effort to have the rise of
Speaker 1: the Rest, where the flyover states step up and do
Speaker 1: their part to create a more dynamic economy that's not
Speaker 1: on the East or West coast. And when you say
Speaker 1: create a more dynamic economy, is this I guess to
Speaker 1: what extenter your goals attracting businesses that currently exist in
Speaker 1: other states? Or is this more of a startup incubator
Speaker 1: kind of thing. Uh? How do you balance those two
Speaker 1: approaches to startups? Beginning in Arkansas. Are you trying to
Speaker 1: get people to relocate to Arkansas. It's a key point,
Speaker 1: you know. I've always felt that startups were a way
Speaker 1: to grow your own success stories. And so of the
Speaker 1: hundred companies that have gone through Fidelity Information Systems Incubator
Speaker 1: Accelerator program over the last seven years, can have located
Speaker 1: here and in Little Rock and are growing here in
Speaker 1: Little Rock with one recent announcement yesterday. So I think
Speaker 1: it's important to do both. We have a dynamic environment
Speaker 1: that attracts outside companies and outside employment, but I think
Speaker 1: it's critical for us to increase our economic growth rate
Speaker 1: by doing that by growing our own right here in
Speaker 1: central Arkansas. I've got to ask, because this has obviously
Speaker 1: been a major thing in the news recently, whether it's
Speaker 1: maybe it's more relevant to attracting outside companies. But a
Speaker 1: state like Arkansas with an abortion ban that went into effect,
Speaker 1: uh doesn't have exceptions for rape or incest just about
Speaker 1: across the board band in Arkansas. Does that create um
Speaker 1: difficulties for the state to attract employers that might want
Speaker 1: to come there and tract employees Jack. It's a good question.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen any evidence that it has that's something
Speaker 1: that the legislature, of course, will deal with in its
Speaker 1: first regular session following the road decision, which will convene
Speaker 1: in January. But no, I've not seen it raised. And
Speaker 1: we had five hundred people from around the world visiting
Speaker 1: Little Rock as a business location in an accelerated location
Speaker 1: this week. That seems syndicate we've been we're doing something
Speaker 1: right here on the business front. One other big picture
Speaker 1: question I've got to ask you about Liz Cheney losing
Speaker 1: her primary, not ruling out the idea of running for president.
Speaker 1: What what is Liz Cheney's place in the Republican Party
Speaker 1: and in American politics right now? Well, Liz Cheney has
Speaker 1: served the people of Wyaomi, and they made another decision
Speaker 1: yesterday to send her back to the private sector and
Speaker 1: have her leave her service in Congress. She has a
Speaker 1: track record as a can servative policy expert on national security,
Speaker 1: and UH is devoted to this country. But look, running
Speaker 1: for president requires the nomination of a political party, and
Speaker 1: the Republican Party has to find consensus around that candidate.
Speaker 1: And right now, with that defeat in Wyoming, I think
Speaker 1: that challenges live Cheney's ability to find that consensus in
Speaker 1: the Republican Party in the their term to be nominated
Speaker 1: for a president. Congressman, thank you so much, really helpful
Speaker 1: to to talk state of the economy. Seat of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. That's Congressman french Hill, Republican from Arkansas. We'll
Speaker 1: see you when you come back to d C in September.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk a little later to Michael Steele, the
Speaker 1: former r n C chairman. Coming up, though, we've got
Speaker 1: to have our panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and
Speaker 1: Jeannie she and Zano. I've got to see what they
Speaker 1: think about this. CDC maya culpa on mystiques made responding
Speaker 1: to the coronavirus pandemic. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: CDC director Rochelle Wilensky with a bit of an indictment
Speaker 1: of her own agency's response in the early days of
Speaker 1: the coronavirus pandemic U. These are her words, and this
Speaker 1: story has a lot of detail on the Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 1: She said, to be Frank, we are responsible for some
Speaker 1: pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes from testing to data to communications.
Speaker 1: We've got to discuss this more with our panel. I'm
Speaker 1: Jack Fitzpatrick from Bloomberg Government, sitting in for Joe Matthew. Today.
Speaker 1: We've got Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis and Jennie she
Speaker 1: and Zano with us to discuss this. Uh. The c
Speaker 1: d C said today two employees they're going to impose
Speaker 1: changes aimed at replacing its insular academic culture with one
Speaker 1: that's supposed to be quicker to respond to emergency ease.
Speaker 1: UH what does that mean? That means more quickly turning
Speaker 1: research into health recommendations, working with other parts of the government. Uh,
Speaker 1: in improving the way CDC communicates with the public. Guys,
Speaker 1: I want to at least start with the basics here.
Speaker 1: Maybe communication with the public is the easiest to identify.
Speaker 1: What did did the CDC do wrong? What do we
Speaker 1: know about what they need to improve? Rick, let's start
Speaker 1: with you. Well, I think you know the director Rochel
Speaker 1: Olinsky is a well known person in the media these days, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, she played an important role in communicating to
Speaker 1: the public about UH UH COVID and and I think
Speaker 1: sort of gets the fact that, UH, the c d
Speaker 1: C probably has been confusing, uh, if not lack of
Speaker 1: transparency throughout the course of this and and and has
Speaker 1: focused on communications is one of the big reforms. In fact,
Speaker 1: it was one of the few things that are actually
Speaker 1: gonna have a revamp at the staffing level versus you know,
Speaker 1: some of these policy changes you mentioned, Jack So Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I just I see this as sort of
Speaker 1: a a decision in a vacuum. I mean, at the
Speaker 1: same time she's talking about doing this, there's been a
Speaker 1: new Assistant Secretary for Preparedness created and HHS house at work. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, no comments really, I've seen in the reporting
Speaker 1: about uh, some of the confusing interface between f d
Speaker 1: A and CDC that has created some of these communication problems.
Speaker 1: So I think we're gonna watch this very closely, but
Speaker 1: they've got a long way to go before I think
Speaker 1: the American publics and renew their confidence in the CDC. Now.
Speaker 1: One thing I think is an obvious example in the
Speaker 1: communication that has cited pretty frequently is the back and
Speaker 1: forth on their guidance as to whether people should wear
Speaker 1: masks at the very beginning of COVID. It may have
Speaker 1: been March. I don't know, if that's the only issue
Speaker 1: they had. Obviously there was a whole vaccination campaign with
Speaker 1: mixed results across the country. Genie, what stands out that
Speaker 1: they need to the CDC needs to fix when they're
Speaker 1: looking back at their response to COVID. You know, it's
Speaker 1: critically important that Dr Wilenski did this, and and obviously
Speaker 1: the experience during COVID exacerbated what has been a tremendous
Speaker 1: and long term problem at the c d C. A
Speaker 1: lot of people today are citing as an example going
Speaker 1: back to the Ebola epidemic and some of the problems
Speaker 1: there in in in around, but you can go back
Speaker 1: even further than that, and you just mentioned some of
Speaker 1: the issues, you know, the the masking and the mitigation measures,
Speaker 1: the public messaging on that was very confusing, um in
Speaker 1: terms of data being released too late to inform decision making.
Speaker 1: Critically important that they fixed that they were releasing flawed
Speaker 1: testing to public health labs. I mean the extent of
Speaker 1: the problems you could go on and list. I have
Speaker 1: to tell you, Jack, and for you, as somebody who
Speaker 1: follows Congress so closely, I think two of the most
Speaker 1: important changes that they're talking about making that I think
Speaker 1: are terribly important. Deal with Congress Number one, Congress getting
Speaker 1: allowing the CDC to have some powers to mandate jurisdiction
Speaker 1: share their data. This isn't the mandate they've relied on,
Speaker 1: you know, the goodwill of localities, counties, and states to
Speaker 1: release data voluntarily. That is not good in a federal system.
Speaker 1: If Congress can fix that, that would be critically important.
Speaker 1: And also flexibility on funding. The CDC is dealing with
Speaker 1: about a hundred and fifty individual budget lines. The earmarks
Speaker 1: that are going out there for the c d C
Speaker 1: make it hard for them to respond quickly to a
Speaker 1: public health emergency. And again, when you look at Ebola,
Speaker 1: people were saying they couldn't even get some of their
Speaker 1: experts on the ground because they didn't have the budget
Speaker 1: lines to pay for flights to get them there. Those
Speaker 1: kinds of fixes with Congress would go a long way.
Speaker 1: And I agree with you and Rick on certainly the
Speaker 1: messaging as well. Well, all right, that's a lot that
Speaker 1: they can fix. To look at the other side of
Speaker 1: the coin, is there any significant extent to which this
Speaker 1: uh mayo culpa is the CDC taking the blame from
Speaker 1: former President Trump? Rick how much how much is this
Speaker 1: the CDC taking the blame when at the time, in
Speaker 1: the early days, the president was saying that the virus
Speaker 1: would go away magically. Yeah. I obviously post Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: there have been a lot of examinations of what the
Speaker 1: White House UH influence on the c d C did
Speaker 1: to actually exacerbate the covid UH public health emergency. And
Speaker 1: and and I think part of what the way I
Speaker 1: read the announcements that Director will Well Sky put out
Speaker 1: today is that it's they're kind of looking past that, right.
Speaker 1: There's some mention of the difference between um UH permanent
Speaker 1: staff who have been there for decades and and and
Speaker 1: political staff who were only there for know, sometimes months
Speaker 1: at a time, and the but that's in every agency
Speaker 1: of government, that is not exclusive to c DC. But
Speaker 1: they did seem to sort of blow past, you know,
Speaker 1: some of the turmoil that the Trump White House was created,
Speaker 1: both of you know, h hh S and CDC. On
Speaker 1: that note, i'd also note political reports a group of
Speaker 1: House Democrats are calling on President Biden to use the
Speaker 1: Defense Production Act on the Monkey Pops vaccine. Coming up,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk to Michael Steele, the former r N
Speaker 1: C chairman on the state of the Republican Party. I'm
Speaker 1: Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg. As I said, Liz Cheney
Speaker 1: lost her her House primary re election bid to a
Speaker 1: member backed by former President Donald Trump in a very
Speaker 1: high profile UH Trump versus Anti Trump race, and Cheney
Speaker 1: did not rule out a presidential run. There's quite a
Speaker 1: bit of uh. I. I'm very curious as to what
Speaker 1: else she does. Is it a superpack and nonprofit? What
Speaker 1: exactly will Liz Cheney's role be in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: We're joined out by Michael Steele, former RNC chairman use
Speaker 1: RNC chairman from two thousand nine to eleven. UH would
Speaker 1: go on to be quite critical of former President Trump
Speaker 1: and his role in the Republican Party. Was active with
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Project. Uh. Michael, very glad to have you
Speaker 1: with us at following Congresswoman Cheney's primary loss. I'm curious
Speaker 1: what you see as her most effective role should she
Speaker 1: run for president, should she start an outside group? Where
Speaker 1: would she be effective in your opinion? Well, first off,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on. Really appreciate it being back
Speaker 1: with you guys. Bloomberg. As they say, she got options,
Speaker 1: she is a woman political actor who will set whatever
Speaker 1: course she wants UM. And it's still rather buffuddling to
Speaker 1: me the chanale inside the GOP that thought that if
Speaker 1: the wiser move would be a too uh strip her
Speaker 1: of her leadership and be kick her out of part
Speaker 1: out of the party and then see unseat her from
Speaker 1: her congressional seat. Um. She is someone who has been consistent,
Speaker 1: has amassed UM an amazing cross section of voters around
Speaker 1: the country. Now, whether that translates favorably in a presidential
Speaker 1: bid A lot remains to be seen on that. But
Speaker 1: in the short term she can be an excruciatingly painful
Speaker 1: UM pain in the side. Do you, or Republicans, especially Trump,
Speaker 1: do you really think that the House Republican Conference could
Speaker 1: have kept her in the fold given her activity with
Speaker 1: the January six committee? Was there really an option to
Speaker 1: I guess men defenses with her, and there's always an
Speaker 1: option leadership. Look, I I can tell you the county,
Speaker 1: state and national chairman. You always have options with with
Speaker 1: candidates and and and elected officials who don't necessarily uh
Speaker 1: you know, ride the in the car the way you
Speaker 1: liked them to. Uh. They keep sticking their head out
Speaker 1: the of the window and screaming, you know, roll up
Speaker 1: the window. I mean their options blocked the window. Um,
Speaker 1: that's my point. And and and the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is the leadership didn't do that because they were
Speaker 1: more driven by what trust desires were, not what was
Speaker 1: in the best entrance of the party. Um. And and
Speaker 1: so from my perspective, um, you know, Liz did what
Speaker 1: she had to do because she wasn't getting the kind
Speaker 1: of leadership and cooperation to push back against the the
Speaker 1: big lie. The leadership stood there and basically after January
Speaker 1: seven said Okay, well we'll just look at it, says
Speaker 1: you know, another day. And it was then that well,
Speaker 1: I'm curious, then, what's trying to do what she did?
Speaker 1: So I'm curious what you make of the other news
Speaker 1: today at this politics and Eggs event in New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: when former Vice President Mike Pence said he'd consider appearing
Speaker 1: before the January six committee if he is asked by
Speaker 1: the committee to do so. Would that what kind of
Speaker 1: escalation would that be? Would that take the former vice
Speaker 1: president from someone who obviously doesn't have a good relationship
Speaker 1: with Trump and put him firmly in the anti Trump camp,
Speaker 1: or what would that mean, you know, first off, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit bored with the anti Trump. Trump
Speaker 1: is the outlier here. I don't know why we keep
Speaker 1: treating him like he's somehow a normal fixture in American politics.
Speaker 1: He isn't. He's the outlier. So from that standpoint, his
Speaker 1: vice president um seemingly at least interested after you know,
Speaker 1: nearly getting killed on January six wanting to testify about that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a big deal. Um, it does matter, particularly given
Speaker 1: how loyal the vice president has been to Trump, how
Speaker 1: much he's safeguarded that relationship, even though Trump clearly didn't
Speaker 1: care about it, as evidence from what we've seen from
Speaker 1: the January sixth Committee and members of the of the
Speaker 1: administration who testified about how the President viewed the vice
Speaker 1: president's role that day. So, yeah, it's a big deal
Speaker 1: if he decides to do it, Um, and that, but
Speaker 1: that remains to be seeing if he does actually pull
Speaker 1: the trigger. Well then on the other side, I'm curious,
Speaker 1: because you ended up endorsing Joe Biden in do you
Speaker 1: think he should run again as he's the strongest Democrat
Speaker 1: in the field. I have no say on who the
Speaker 1: Democrats to put out there. Um, I'm not supporting Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that the Republicans will will get their collective
Speaker 1: senses together and nominate a strong conservative candidate to run
Speaker 1: for the presidency. If you know, I was very clear
Speaker 1: if our nominee had been Vice President Pence, there would
Speaker 1: not have been any endorsement of Joe Biden. Um. So
Speaker 1: if the Vice president can make his way through the primaries,
Speaker 1: that's that's that's a good thing for the party. If
Speaker 1: if Liz Cheney or or Larry Hogan, or Charlie Baker
Speaker 1: or any number of highly qualified, uh non sycophanic Republicans,
Speaker 1: um can can uh you know, break this Trumpian fever
Speaker 1: um and get through the primary, they would be um
Speaker 1: formidable uh likely uh successful candidates for the presidency. But
Speaker 1: until the party shows it's ready to do that, you know,
Speaker 1: let me ask you real quick, where does Disantis fall
Speaker 1: in that conversation? Uh gotta wait and see what he
Speaker 1: what he can deliver. I'm not impressed with what I've
Speaker 1: seen and how he handled something. Again, I don't need
Speaker 1: I don't need. I don't need to prove the prop
Speaker 1: that I'm a Republican, right, what you need to prove
Speaker 1: it to the American people, which Michael Steele, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us, former RNC chairman. We'll go
Speaker 1: back to the panel. Coming up. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg Sound On on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: What happened to acceptance and concession speeches in American politics?
Speaker 1: You heard Liz Cheney's concession speech last night, in which
Speaker 1: she really didn't concede the main point at least to her,
Speaker 1: which is her fight against former President Donald Trump's role
Speaker 1: in American politics. Let's listen to her opponent who won
Speaker 1: the House primary, Harriet Hagman, to see how her victory
Speaker 1: speech compared last night. Wyoming has spoken on behalf of
Speaker 1: everyone who is concerned that the game is becoming more
Speaker 1: and more ranked against them. And what Wyoming has shown
Speaker 1: today is that while it may not be easy, we
Speaker 1: can dislodge entrenched politicians who believe they've risen above the
Speaker 1: people they are supposed to represent. It, sir, so the
Speaker 1: fight continues on both sides in a sense. I'm Jack
Speaker 1: Fitzpatrick from Bloomberg Government, stepping in today for Joe Matthew.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the panel. Bloomberg Politics contributors Rick Davis
Speaker 1: and Genie she and Zano uh Rick, I'm curious about
Speaker 1: the word rigged. That was an emphasis of the the
Speaker 1: Republican primary victor's speech last night in Wyoming. What is
Speaker 1: she getting at by by talking about her appeal to
Speaker 1: people who feel that the system is rigged against them? Well,
Speaker 1: I think these are just talking points coming out of
Speaker 1: Marrow Ago is to how she got the Trump uh
Speaker 1: nod for the for her campaign and and frankly the
Speaker 1: fundamental issue that she ran on. I mean, she's just
Speaker 1: aping Donald Trump talking points and and that's why she
Speaker 1: was able to get the support and the money uh
Speaker 1: to uh wage this campaign against against Liz Cheney. So
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just more the same. You expect to
Speaker 1: hear the exact same thing when she she wins her seat,
Speaker 1: she comes to Washington. It's whatever the doc talking points
Speaker 1: are gonna be gonna gonna be saying them. And it
Speaker 1: seems to me that's a reference to Genie. I mean,
Speaker 1: am I reading into this too much? It rigged? It
Speaker 1: seems that uh denying the outcome of the presidential election
Speaker 1: is a key point in congressional Republican primaries at this point, Genie,
Speaker 1: might or am I reaching there? No? I mean, we
Speaker 1: look at the Republican ballot and it is full of
Speaker 1: these election deniers, from you know, attorney generals to secretaries
Speaker 1: of states to googernatorial candidates, House and senatorial candidates. So
Speaker 1: this is a reality of Republican politics today. They're on
Speaker 1: the ballot for two and of course she has now
Speaker 1: committed with this great task pack to ensuring or trying
Speaker 1: to use her money in her sway to make sure
Speaker 1: voters don't support them. I think in the short term
Speaker 1: it is an uphill battle for Liz Cheney, but clearly,
Speaker 1: as usual, Liz Cheney has decided she's willing to lose
Speaker 1: a battle to win a longer term war that she
Speaker 1: thinks is critically important, and she's putting her name, her job,
Speaker 1: her money, and everything else her reputation behind this. What Genie,
Speaker 1: do you think is the idea behind a possible Liz
Speaker 1: Cheney presidential run. Would she be running to win? Would
Speaker 1: she be running to try to focus on certain states
Speaker 1: to take those away from Trump if he runs again?
Speaker 1: What what's the strategy in that idea? You know, somebody
Speaker 1: described it as you know, one of the very rare
Speaker 1: serious presidential campaigns. If it happens, that's a kama Kaze
Speaker 1: mission because at this point she'd have very little chance
Speaker 1: of actually winning. What she would be doing, to your point,
Speaker 1: is stopping Trump. But there's so many hurdles she would
Speaker 1: face along that path. You know, if she's going to
Speaker 1: run as a Republican, which we assume if she decides
Speaker 1: to she would, that would of course raise all kinds
Speaker 1: of questions. She's faced serious security threats already. Imagine if
Speaker 1: she announced it for the presidency, could the GOP somehow
Speaker 1: keep her off the ballot, deny her a place on
Speaker 1: the stage because in debates she refuses to endorse their nominee.
Speaker 1: If Trump's nominated. I mean, these are big challenges she
Speaker 1: would face. So to your point, I think she could
Speaker 1: run to stop him, it would be an uphill battle,
Speaker 1: very little chance she'd get the nomination unless things change
Speaker 1: in the next couple of years dramatically. In the Republican Base, Rick,
Speaker 1: we covered some interesting ground with Michael steal in the
Speaker 1: last segment of the former RNC chairman. He he didn't
Speaker 1: quite like my amount of focus on the phrase anti
Speaker 1: Trump in the context of the Republican primaries, and he
Speaker 1: used the word outlier. It may be the case that
Speaker 1: former President Trump was a pretty unpopular president in national
Speaker 1: polls fairly consistently, But is there any reality to the
Speaker 1: idea that Trump is anything but the dominant figure in
Speaker 1: Republican politics right now? Yeah, Jack, I was interested by
Speaker 1: your conversation with him, because you can't call Donald Trump
Speaker 1: an outlier. He is the core of this party. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can be unhappy with the status of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party these days, and you can be hopeful that there
Speaker 1: are leaders coming up through the ranks who can take
Speaker 1: it to a different place. But Donald Trump owns the
Speaker 1: Republican Party almost lock stock and barrel. We've seen it
Speaker 1: with his influence with primary wins when he backs people
Speaker 1: like Harriet Hageman against Liz Cheney. Uh. Liz Channey one
Speaker 1: seventy pc of the vote two years ago. Uh, and
Speaker 1: she lost almost that much this time. So it's Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's GOP, whether we like it or not. And I
Speaker 1: think the focus needs to be on, Okay, how do
Speaker 1: we change that? What? What then, do you see as
Speaker 1: the role of Rhonda Santis in the Republican Party? You know,
Speaker 1: I had to ask Michael about that. Decantis seems to
Speaker 1: not be a palatable option for the people who have
Speaker 1: turned against Trump in the Republican Party. Uh if if
Speaker 1: De Santis runs, is there the same amount of division
Speaker 1: in the Republican Party? Rick? You know, maybe he's a
Speaker 1: transitional figure, right, I mean, nothing changes overnight in politics,
Speaker 1: and so um, you know, maybe uh de Santist becomes
Speaker 1: a person who's maybe just a little less crazy than
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, but more mains you know, stream Republicans get
Speaker 1: on board. Who knows? I mean again, part of that's
Speaker 1: going to depend upon what cost to do Santis having
Speaker 1: Trump not run or getting his blessing. Um. We've seen
Speaker 1: Republicans turned themselves into pretzels um trying to get Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to not say bad things about them, which is
Speaker 1: basically an endorsement. And so does the Santis believe that
Speaker 1: he needs to have that done at some point in
Speaker 1: time in order to ensure a nomination or does he
Speaker 1: think he's powerful enough to get that vote that's Trump supporters,
Speaker 1: um without having a cow tow to Donald Trump. This
Speaker 1: is going to be an interesting thing to see because
Speaker 1: that relationship seems already strained between Governor de Santis and
Speaker 1: former President Trump. And let's talk about Mike Pence again, Jennie,
Speaker 1: What do you think would be the significance if Pence
Speaker 1: does in fact end up appearing or or complying in
Speaker 1: some way with the Congressional January six committee. You know,
Speaker 1: that would just be you know, certainly earth shattering in
Speaker 1: my view if we heard that Mike Pence was going
Speaker 1: to change his mind and agree to participate. And so
Speaker 1: I was stunned when I heard him say what he
Speaker 1: had to say today. But as you listen very closely
Speaker 1: to his words, um, you know, I'm not so sure
Speaker 1: he has actually changed his mind. He said he would
Speaker 1: consider it, but and then there was an incredibly long explanation,
Speaker 1: very worthy, which seemed to suggest that everything before that
Speaker 1: but was a lie. So I'm not so sure he's
Speaker 1: changed his mind. He got some news coverage off of it,
Speaker 1: but I I don't see him agreeing to participate at
Speaker 1: this point. Yeah, he talked a bit about how it
Speaker 1: would be unusual for a former vice president to be
Speaker 1: called before Congress. I I think it's fair to point
Speaker 1: out January was pretty unusual. There's not that much historic
Speaker 1: precedent for people overrunning the capital. Uh rick is it? It?
Speaker 1: Would it be that unusual? Am I overlooking some um,
Speaker 1: some code in which the former president is not supposed
Speaker 1: to be called before this kind of committee. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: sadly old enough to remember there are vice presidents have
Speaker 1: got themselves in a lot of trouble like SPARROWAG. So
Speaker 1: there there is not a president on this. You're right,
Speaker 1: I mean, but he's not vice president anymore, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, one of the things we've seen
Speaker 1: is that when you're out office, you're out of office.
Speaker 1: And it's admirable that he still, as he said in
Speaker 1: his statement, you know, will uphold his oath of office.
Speaker 1: But he doesn't have that office anymore. He's a private
Speaker 1: citizen and and he is responsible for the powers of
Speaker 1: our our of our Congress. I mean, we've seen all
Speaker 1: these very strange things happening, as you say, around an
Speaker 1: incredibly strange and divisive event. I mean, when was the
Speaker 1: last time we saw the FBI search a president former
Speaker 1: president's home. So I think he needs to get with
Speaker 1: the new reality, which is this isn't going away, and
Speaker 1: he needs to be cooperative. One other pretty significant piece
Speaker 1: of news in terms of what the Republican Party looks like. Uh,
Speaker 1: came from Alaska last night, or at least we're waiting
Speaker 1: for some more news. I'm very interested in the Senate race.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a Republican on Republican general election.
Speaker 1: Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent senator, and her opponent, Kelly Chibaka,
Speaker 1: who's the Trump supported figure, both going into the general election. Rick,
Speaker 1: how does this work if you've got two Republicans Murkowski
Speaker 1: considered more of the moderate How how does that play
Speaker 1: out in Alaska when we go to the general election.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's it's part of a facet of
Speaker 1: this system that Alaska has adopted to go through their
Speaker 1: elections rank order voting. And look, I mean, I would
Speaker 1: think she will do well. She's still popular amongst a
Speaker 1: certain segment of Republican voters and overwhelmingly popular amongst independents
Speaker 1: and Democrats, and so um, will there be criticism that
Speaker 1: she gets elected, not in small part because Democrats voted
Speaker 1: for her, Sure, but she's coalescing with Republicans. I mean,
Speaker 1: why would anybody argue about having another Republican in the
Speaker 1: United States Senate? Uh, it's the only kind of thing
Speaker 1: Republican on Republican crime. So we'll wait to see how
Speaker 1: this all works out. It's going to be very fascinating.
Speaker 1: But I would think this process actually nerves to the
Speaker 1: benefit of Lisa Murkowski. I I think that is probably
Speaker 1: safe to say. And remember the Senator Murkowski has one
Speaker 1: even in stranger ways, She's the one who ran the
Speaker 1: write in campaign successfully for the Senate after losing her
Speaker 1: primary in one of her earlier earlier elections. That's it
Speaker 1: for us today. Thank you again to our guests. Congressman
Speaker 1: French Hill, Republican from Arkansas, Michael Steele, former r n
Speaker 1: C chairman turned uh. Maybe he doesn't want me to
Speaker 1: say anti Trump, but critical of Trump certainly. Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: Genie she in Zano, he points today, good discussion. I'm
Speaker 1: Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg