Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at
Speaker 1: noon Eastern on Appo, car Play, and then Roun Auto
Speaker 1: with the Bloomberg Business app Listen on demand wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: I have to say here in Washington, we're still paying
Speaker 2: a lot of attention to what's happening up in New
Speaker 2: York because big news from Governor Kapi Hochel today, Joe
Speaker 2: indefinitely postponing the congestion pricing tax that was set to
Speaker 2: go into effect at the end of this month. That's
Speaker 2: obviously was going to raise a ton of money, funnel
Speaker 2: it towards transit. Climate activists were happy about it, and
Speaker 2: yet it also could have had some negative political implications
Speaker 2: potentially for say, vulnerable Democrats in the state of New York.
Speaker 2: And a world war factored into this decision.
Speaker 3: That's look, there's some reporting on this. Politico says that
Speaker 3: the call came from Washington. Potentially in a world war,
Speaker 3: pricing is number one issue in the you know, for Democrats,
Speaker 3: you have this deal with a lawsuit already in place
Speaker 3: from the state of New Jersey. Maybe not a great
Speaker 3: look when you're trying to win a Democratic majority in
Speaker 3: the House. Whether Hakeim Jeffries was directly involved not something
Speaker 3: that we can verify. But there's a lot of messaging
Speaker 3: coming out of the House right now in the Senate,
Speaker 3: as we discussed earlier.
Speaker 4: That's why it's good to have Megan Scully with us ED.
Speaker 3: It's our congressional coverage here in Washington, d C. As
Speaker 3: it gets to pick your issue or pick your day, chamber,
Speaker 3: pick your party, everyone has a message.
Speaker 5: To send the absolutely and we're seeing it in both
Speaker 5: chambers this week. It seems to be a lot of
Speaker 5: social issues, whether it's on spending bills in the House
Speaker 5: or on votes on contraception and IVF and whatnot that
Speaker 5: are planned in the Senate well.
Speaker 2: On the contraception the Right to Contraception Act is what
Speaker 2: the Senate is going to be voting on today. Is
Speaker 2: it likely that it will pass or Republicans are going
Speaker 2: to not vote for it and say that it was
Speaker 2: all just, you know, election year gimmicks on the part
Speaker 2: of Democrats, even if it could hurt them being on
Speaker 2: the record voting against access to contraception.
Speaker 5: I think we're going to see it probably not getting
Speaker 5: the sixty votes necessary. Even if it were to, it
Speaker 5: would not pass in the House. This bill isn't going anywhere.
Speaker 5: It's a pure messaging bill, and it's something we're going
Speaker 5: to see more and more of in both chambers. Chuck
Speaker 5: Schumer himself has said they planned several votes over the
Speaker 5: next several weeks specifically targeting these issues.
Speaker 3: Messaging comes in a lot of different forms. You could
Speaker 3: hold a hearing too, and we see a lot of those.
Speaker 3: That's kind of been a full time occupation for the
Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee and for the Oversight Committee, whether it's Hunter
Speaker 3: Biden we're talking about in the case of this week
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland, which was kind of the most recent example
Speaker 3: of a hearing moving far away from what its intended
Speaker 3: purpose originally was just so we could browbeat a member
Speaker 3: of the administration. So we're not making laws, we're making commercials.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, you're seeing campaigning essentially moved to Capitol Hill, even
Speaker 5: though technically they're not to be campaigning from the capital.
Speaker 5: This happens every cycle. This year, given the stakes with
Speaker 5: the presidential election year and both chambers in play, we're
Speaker 5: seeing it a little earlier than usual, I think.
Speaker 2: Well, given that it is an election year, it also
Speaker 2: raises the question around the funding battle to come. Considering
Speaker 2: September thirtieth is the end of the fiscal year, the
Speaker 2: deadline to fund the government for the next one that comes,
Speaker 2: what's five weeks out from election day, So everybody assumes
Speaker 2: that the can will be kicked down the road. And
Speaker 2: yet we are seeing the House, as you suggested earlier,
Speaker 2: trying to move today on at least one appropriation's bill.
Speaker 2: Should we take this as a sign that they're getting
Speaker 2: ahead on their work or they're just starting what could
Speaker 2: be a very bitter partisan fight early.
Speaker 5: I would say starting a bitter partisan fight early. The
Speaker 5: bill that passed the House today, the Military Construction and
Speaker 5: Veterans Affairs Bill, is the least contentious of all of
Speaker 5: the spending bills. It's usually the bill that they use
Speaker 5: as the engine to push other spending bills through, and
Speaker 5: it is locked in a bitter part isan debate. The
Speaker 5: White House is threatened to veto it because it cuts
Speaker 5: military construction spending. It also has language and a policy
Speaker 5: language strongly opposed by Democrats. To really restrict diversity and
Speaker 5: inclusion efforts. It would ban any gender affirming care or
Speaker 5: taxpayer dollars being used for gender affirming care at the VA,
Speaker 5: and a litany of other things that Democrats really oppose
Speaker 5: but that Republicans can use to sell to their base.
Speaker 4: The word from Katie Britt was the.
Speaker 3: Scary summer, let me get it, the summer of scare
Speaker 3: tactics and a campaign of fear mongering. She called this
Speaker 3: vote today on contraception. But that's essentially what we're hearing
Speaker 3: from both parties. They seem to agree on that.
Speaker 5: Yes, yes, I mean they're both equally messaging. Yes, they're
Speaker 5: both equally using their majorities in each chamber to send
Speaker 5: these messages to really mobilize their base and to use
Speaker 5: this for fundraising. You know, we saw last week with
Speaker 5: Trump's conviction and how Republicans were actually both sides were
Speaker 5: able to mobilize quickly on that to rally their bases
Speaker 5: to raise money, and we're going to see that on
Speaker 5: all of these.
Speaker 2: Very high profile bills that.
Speaker 5: Are not going to become law.
Speaker 2: So much to look forward too. Bloomberg's Megan Scully, who
Speaker 2: leads our congressional coverage, thank you so much. And of course, Joe,
Speaker 2: you brought this up with Megan just a moment ago.
Speaker 2: The pretty contentious hearing we saw in the House Judiciary
Speaker 2: Committee yesterday when the Attorney General Mayor Garland was testifying
Speaker 2: in exchanges that sometimes got pretty fiery, including this one
Speaker 2: with Republican Congressman from Florida Matt Gates.
Speaker 6: Our concern is that the facts in the law aren't
Speaker 6: being followed. A target is acquired here. Trump.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, I don't agree with anything you just said,
Speaker 4: but I'm not going to comment on it.
Speaker 6: Okay, so you won't comment on it, mister Attorney General,
Speaker 6: but you had no problem dispatching Matthew Colangelo.
Speaker 4: Who's Matthew Colt is false?
Speaker 6: I did not dispatch matth Colangul Matthew Colangelo. Matthew Clangelo.
Speaker 2: For more reaction to what we saw yesterday and what
Speaker 2: we continually see in terms of messaging from Capitol Hill,
Speaker 2: please to say former Congressman Denver Riggleman is with us.
Speaker 2: Of course, We're a Republican from Virginia. Welcome back to
Speaker 2: balance and power. So great to have you back on
Speaker 2: Bloomberg TV and Radio. Whether it is what went down
Speaker 2: in the Judiciary Committee yesterday with Merritt Garland in the
Speaker 2: hot seat, or just what we have heard over the
Speaker 2: course of the last almost week from congressional Republicans in
Speaker 2: the aftermath of Donald Trump's guilty verdict in New York
Speaker 2: last week. What do you make of it all?
Speaker 7: I think, by the way, thanks for having me on again.
Speaker 7: It's always great to be here with you all. I
Speaker 7: think when they saw the polling after Trump's conviction, I
Speaker 7: think you're seeing some panic, especially from the questions and
Speaker 7: what you see from people like Matt Gads from Marjorie
Speaker 7: Taylor Green is really not just panic. It's just throwing
Speaker 7: out as much. It's almost like throwing as much opaque
Speaker 7: disinformation or just asking questions, which is what they always
Speaker 7: say in order to get talking points for their own fundraising,
Speaker 7: to make sure that they keep President Trump happy at
Speaker 7: mar A Lago. And it really has nothing to do
Speaker 7: with facts. The issue is is a lot of the
Speaker 7: American public can't discern between facts and fiction when you
Speaker 7: actually have leaders oh the free world, congressional representatives putting
Speaker 7: that kind of stuff out. But I think what you're
Speaker 7: saying really is is panic questioning and panic screaming going
Speaker 7: on from the law of the far right especially those
Speaker 7: close to Trump and mar A Lago. And that's what
Speaker 7: I make of it, because that's what they do.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 7: You're messaging to your constituency, constituency, not necessarily to the
Speaker 7: American public at large.
Speaker 4: Well, i'll tell you, Denver, it's good to have you back.
Speaker 3: While we're talking specifically about this Merrick Garland hearing. Yesterday,
Speaker 3: Andy Biggs, Chip Roy, Tom Massey, three members of the
Speaker 3: Freedom Caucus sent Merrick Garland a letter about January sixth.
Speaker 4: I brought this up yesterday.
Speaker 3: I don't mean to belabor it, but you were deeply
Speaker 3: involved in the investigation into the January sixth riots, and
Speaker 3: they'd said in this letter that they wanted to explore
Speaker 3: the FBI's possible involvement in facilitating the events of January sixth,
Speaker 3: the involvement in facilitating the sacking of the US capital.
Speaker 3: We've heard this from certain members of Congress before that
Speaker 3: there were unmarked vans, that there were FBI agents in
Speaker 3: the crowd trying to stir all of this up. But
Speaker 3: this is now going to be on the record from
Speaker 3: this hearing. Denver, what do you do with that?
Speaker 7: I think you do exactly what you should do as
Speaker 7: a sane, rational human as you scoff it and you
Speaker 7: destroy them with facts and data. And the facts and
Speaker 7: data are this. Did they read the over one thousand
Speaker 7: charging documents? Have they actually read the sentencing guidelines? Have
Speaker 7: they seen the evidence? Do they knew the number of
Speaker 7: weapons that were there? Are they really going to go
Speaker 7: down this QAnon rabbit hole of a deep state globalist
Speaker 7: false flag, which is exactly what they're inferring, because again
Speaker 7: they're talking to a base that's breathless with this kind
Speaker 7: of belief systems.
Speaker 4: This is a religion.
Speaker 7: Now, I would say that, you know, when you're talking
Speaker 7: about J six, when you're talking about QAnon, I think
Speaker 7: what they're trying to do is they're trying to make
Speaker 7: J six people into veterans of some kind of political
Speaker 7: war where they are on the right side of history.
Speaker 7: And a lot of that has to do with making
Speaker 7: Donald Trump happy. This all goes back to mar A Lago.
Speaker 7: It all goes back to their fundraising, goes back to
Speaker 7: their polling, It goes back to cynicism and the very
Speaker 7: fact either they're deliberately oubts, either they're stupid right, or
Speaker 7: they're cynical right, and all that is not good for
Speaker 7: the American public. But the fact that they're going down
Speaker 7: the conspiracy theory rabbit hole in twenty twenty four when
Speaker 7: everything has been debunked and it's absolutely ludicrous. You know,
Speaker 7: maybe they're watching Skinwalk or Ranch too much. You know,
Speaker 7: I think maybe that's where we're at right now as
Speaker 7: far as these congressional representatives.
Speaker 2: But it's not just members of Congress Denver. You also
Speaker 2: have former President Trump repeatedly referring to those who've been
Speaker 2: incarcerated because of their involvement in January sixth as hostages. Especially,
Speaker 2: consider this happened three and a half years ago, and
Speaker 2: we are still reltigating the events surrounding it, what exactly happened,
Speaker 2: who was involved, who was at fault? And this is
Speaker 2: still an ongoing live conversation, and Donald Trump uses language
Speaker 2: like that still to this day repeatedly. Is it too late?
Speaker 2: At this point? We're too far gone for the truth
Speaker 2: to really permeate.
Speaker 4: It's a great question.
Speaker 7: You know, a lot of this is already baked in,
Speaker 7: and I you know, I've been telling people this and
Speaker 7: you know we've talked before. The best question, right is
Speaker 7: the fact is that that people believe that J six
Speaker 7: was a some peaceful terrorist thing that a couple people
Speaker 7: got out of hand. I don't know how we turn
Speaker 7: that regardless of evidence, right, And what Trump is saying
Speaker 7: to his supporters and what his congressional sick offense are
Speaker 7: saying is, you know, don't believe your lying eyes, believe us.
Speaker 7: You know, you got to remember too, is Donald Trump's
Speaker 7: the same guy who retweeted that you know, Obama and
Speaker 7: Biden killed Seal Team six. I mean, this isn't a
Speaker 7: guy he's either again completely cynical or no, he's lying,
Speaker 7: an incredible grifter of disinformation, or he's fairly ignorant. Right,
Speaker 7: he definitely has you know, he's one piece of wood,
Speaker 7: shy of accord, right. I mean, that's that's that's the
Speaker 7: only way that you can look at this. And I
Speaker 7: think again, we had to be brutally honest about what
Speaker 7: we're seeing as we're seeing disinformation and conspiracy theories being
Speaker 7: propagated from the former president of the United States all
Speaker 7: the way down to congressional members and to leaders of
Speaker 7: the Republican Party.
Speaker 3: Well, it's interesting, you know, Denver, you hear this line
Speaker 3: to take people at their word, you know, believe people
Speaker 3: when they show you who they are. Donald Trump is
Speaker 3: talking to Newsmax and float to the possibility of imprisoning
Speaker 3: his political opponents if he becomes president.
Speaker 4: Again.
Speaker 3: This is not new, he said, not that long ago.
Speaker 4: It was in June.
Speaker 3: I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after
Speaker 3: the most corrupt president in the history of America, Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: Do you take him at his word?
Speaker 7: Yes, I mean he's you know, he likes to do
Speaker 7: what he says. You know, a lot of it's ridiculous
Speaker 7: and it's half baked. I think what you're going to
Speaker 7: see the difference though, between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four.
Speaker 7: If you know Donald Trump is to win and it's
Speaker 7: at the cabinet he picks, He's going to value loyalty
Speaker 7: over any type of competency. And I think that's what
Speaker 7: should worry individuals, is that if anybody like the Cash hotels,
Speaker 7: or Rick Rennel's or Mike Flynn's or in the conversation,
Speaker 7: for being in the cabinet, that's a real issue. Or
Speaker 7: the Matt gateses right, which has been in the conversation.
Speaker 7: I mean, you have really some of the least talented
Speaker 7: individuals to ever serve in the American government that would
Speaker 7: actually be in there and also completely under the thumb
Speaker 7: of Donald Trump and his sycophants. Right, and you see
Speaker 7: the R and C's already bought by so you know,
Speaker 7: believe in what they say? How about this though? And
Speaker 7: I'm want to ask you all this too, and I
Speaker 7: know you're asking me questions. I'm sorry, but you know
Speaker 7: somebody who even says that and doesn't mean it? What's
Speaker 7: wrong with them?
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 7: Is that a joke? Right? And that's the thing too,
Speaker 7: is that you're saying, well, do you believe him? Yes?
Speaker 7: But if he's if he's just spouting bs, why would
Speaker 7: somebody who actually held the highest you know, office in
Speaker 7: the land be saying that anyway? It's it's irresponsible and
Speaker 7: it goes to a judgment and maybe he's a band
Speaker 7: stage and maybe he's losing something upstairs.
Speaker 3: That's the not Kaylee, that you hear or the respe
Speaker 3: last of the year's either locker room talk or he's
Speaker 3: joking around. You know, take the man seriously, not the message.
Speaker 4: Isn't that the line we used to hear?
Speaker 7: Yeahs to have more on that, No, exactly right now,
Speaker 7: I was just listening to you, and that's exactly right.
Speaker 7: I mean, you're on it, right, is that then they'll say, well,
Speaker 7: he's just joking, you know. Goodness gracious, you know, they
Speaker 7: say the worst, most awful, horrible things that goes after
Speaker 7: the very structures of our American institutions and government, and
Speaker 7: then somehow it's a joke. It's the same thing that
Speaker 7: the in sells pool. It's the same thing that QAnon conspiracy,
Speaker 7: theorist pool. It's just the same thing. And it's just
Speaker 7: the same people doing the same thing and pushing the
Speaker 7: same message every day.
Speaker 2: Well, in one of those messages is the unfairness of
Speaker 2: the US justice system, the idea that it's being weaponized
Speaker 2: against Donald Trump specifically. And yet a member of the
Speaker 2: Biden family is currently in trial in Delaware, Hunter Biden, Denver,
Speaker 2: we should disclose. I believe you know him quite well,
Speaker 2: but especially given what we have seen the panic you
Speaker 2: were describing in the aftermath of Trump's guilty verdict, what
Speaker 2: happens if a Hunter Biden is convicted of these federal
Speaker 2: gun crimes with which he's charged, or if he's not,
Speaker 2: if he's found innocent, does that just make all of
Speaker 2: this worse.
Speaker 7: You know, I mentioned this a little bit yesterday, and
Speaker 7: again it's pretty interesting. What if he's convicted and goes
Speaker 7: to jail. What if he's convicted and gets probation. What
Speaker 7: if he's convicted and gets community service. What if he's
Speaker 7: convicted and gets counseling, What if he's not convicted. All
Speaker 7: these things I think have different levels of response. What's
Speaker 7: going to be very difficult for any Trump apologist or
Speaker 7: messaging if Biden is convicted at all. Number one, Wow,
Speaker 7: that's you know, it's going to take away a huge
Speaker 7: talking point. And I think, by the way, if we
Speaker 7: can go full circle, I think that's why they're going
Speaker 7: after Merrick Garland. They need another target because the Biden
Speaker 7: impeachment stuff is over. It's been proven completely ridiculous. All
Speaker 7: the laptop stuff's gone, right, So now what you have
Speaker 7: right now is that they're trying to actually latch onto something.
Speaker 7: But if Biden, if Hunter is actually convicted of this
Speaker 7: gun charge, and you have to let law and order
Speaker 7: take its course, right and President Joe Biden said that too.
Speaker 7: He's convicted of this and gets probation, and it's pretty dire.
Speaker 7: I think it's going to be very difficult for any
Speaker 7: of the mega types to actually go after it. If
Speaker 7: he gets jail time, which would be very unfortunate based
Speaker 7: on his addiction and this gun charge, that would be something.
Speaker 7: But you know what I find amazing is that the
Speaker 7: Lindsay Grahams and people like that are starting to come
Speaker 7: out saying why are they actually going after him based
Speaker 7: on this gun charge where I think there's just so many,
Speaker 7: so little people have actually been actually prosecuted for this.
Speaker 7: So I think you're seeing a real issue here. Hunter
Speaker 7: could be found guilty if he gets probation or jail time,
Speaker 7: I think it's going to be very difficult for the
Speaker 7: Trump acolytes to actually play what's going on with Trump
Speaker 7: in a good way. But if he's innocent, I think
Speaker 7: then you're going to see conspiracy theory screaming happening at
Speaker 7: the top of everybody's lungs. I mean, hair on fire, ridiculousness.
Speaker 4: Come back and see us and when we get a verdict. Denver.
Speaker 4: It's good to see you, Denver.
Speaker 3: But I love to talk with Republican congressman from Virginia.
Speaker 3: It's always a pleasure to get you back on Bloomberg
Speaker 3: TV and radio. Never a dull moment, Kayley, even when
Speaker 3: we're not making laws in Washington.
Speaker 4: I think we've learned here today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, messaging bills.
Speaker 3: That's correct, with a lot more word game where those
Speaker 3: came from. Stay with us on the Fastest show in Politics.
Speaker 3: Will assemble the panel next Genie Shanze, No, Lisa Camusa
Speaker 3: Miller with us today only on Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can
Speaker 1: just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: ron Oto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also
Speaker 1: listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station,
Speaker 1: Just Say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2: Up until last Thursday, we were all captivated by the
Speaker 2: proceedings in New York of the first ever criminal trial
Speaker 2: of a former president. And of course it was on
Speaker 2: Thursday that Donald Trump was found guilty of thirty four
Speaker 2: felony counts of falsifying business records. We know very well
Speaker 2: how Donald Trump feels about this conviction. He plans to
Speaker 2: appeal it, He maintains his innocence of these crimes, and
Speaker 2: also continually suggests that this is a persecution political persecution,
Speaker 2: that the justice system is being weaponized against him, and
Speaker 2: it raises the question whether he would look to potentially
Speaker 2: weaponize it in return if he does. Indeed, when another
Speaker 2: go at the White House come November, he was asked
Speaker 2: a question about this in an interview on Newsmax yesterday,
Speaker 2: and this was his response.
Speaker 7: Nobody wanted to bring it until I decided to run
Speaker 7: and then was beating everybody by a lot, and then
Speaker 7: was beating Biden by a lot.
Speaker 1: In the polls.
Speaker 4: But you know, it's a very terrible thing.
Speaker 3: It's a terrible precedent for our country.
Speaker 9: Does that mean the next president does it to them?
Speaker 4: That's really the question, he said.
Speaker 3: More than that, that's really the question. It's very possible
Speaker 3: that it's going to have to happen to them.
Speaker 4: And this is not new.
Speaker 3: Kayley, the former president already said in the wake of
Speaker 3: the document's case being announced, quote, I will appoint a
Speaker 3: real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president
Speaker 3: in the history of America, Joe Biden, and go after
Speaker 3: the Biden crime family. Quote, tying in Hunter Biden as
Speaker 3: well into the conversation. As we assemble our panel for
Speaker 3: their take on this and Some of the other stories
Speaker 3: were following Jeanie Shanzho, Bloomberg Politics contributor and senior Democracy
Speaker 3: Fellow with the Center for the Study of the Presidency
Speaker 3: in Congress, joint Today by Lisa Kamuso Miller, Republican strategist,
Speaker 3: former communications director at the RNC, host of the Friday
Speaker 3: Reporter podcast. I guess we get back to a question
Speaker 3: I already asked Denver Rickleman earlier this hour, Lisa, do
Speaker 3: you actually take Donald Trump at his word?
Speaker 9: I absolutely do, I absolutely do. I thought Denver's comments
Speaker 9: about the former president were absolutely spot on. I thought
Speaker 9: that he was right. I think that it's a calculated
Speaker 9: mistake that members have made and Republicans have made over
Speaker 9: and over again to not accept him and not take
Speaker 9: him for his word. If you and I remember the
Speaker 9: three of us, four of us probably were on just
Speaker 9: months ago talking about the fact that the reason why
Speaker 9: people were speculating that Donald Trump got into the race
Speaker 9: as early as he did was because he was already
Speaker 9: anticipating that they were going to be charges brought against him,
Speaker 9: and he was seeing that as an opportunity to perhaps
Speaker 9: make sure that some of that didn't happen to him,
Speaker 9: and now, of course it has and he's changing history
Speaker 9: just like he always is. He changes the rules and
Speaker 9: he changes the sort of the facts to his own benefits.
Speaker 9: So yes, I think we should accept him for his
Speaker 9: word at his word, and I think that it's the
Speaker 9: challenge that I think Republicans are going to have to
Speaker 9: make over and over again about how much they defend
Speaker 9: what he has to say, because he keeps saying these
Speaker 9: things that are concerning and that are worried. So the
Speaker 9: American people don't want more investigations. What they want is
Speaker 9: for the American electeds to get back to work and
Speaker 9: to help them with the issues that they are elected
Speaker 9: to fix. Right, And so this just becomes another back
Speaker 9: and forth between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and it's
Speaker 9: going to continue to go on. As I mentioned earlier
Speaker 9: in the broadcast, is that this is the kind of
Speaker 9: election that we're going to see over and over again,
Speaker 9: the back and forth and Donald Trump creating sort of
Speaker 9: these stories that are going to be ones that we
Speaker 9: have to respond to.
Speaker 2: Well, Genie, when we considered the prospects of this actually
Speaker 2: happening should Donald Trump win in November, isn't this just
Speaker 2: as much about who he surrounds himself with, who would
Speaker 2: be leading Donald Trump's Department of Justice as attorney general.
Speaker 10: Absolutely, and he said that, he said, you get the
Speaker 10: right person in there. He equated it to getting the
Speaker 10: right builder, the right contractor in place, you can do
Speaker 10: great things, he said. And so this is another one
Speaker 10: of those norms that Donald Trump has said that he
Speaker 10: will break if he goes back to the White House
Speaker 10: and the you know, when you think about it, this
Speaker 10: is not just Donald Trump. And I want to stress
Speaker 10: that you are hearing it all throughout his base, from
Speaker 10: Steve Bannon, who is a big voice for Donald Trump's base,
Speaker 10: who are talking about prosecuting and jailing Alvin Bragg the
Speaker 10: Manhattan DA. You're also hearing calls for demo for Republican
Speaker 10: rather red state public officials das if you will to
Speaker 10: start charging democratic public officials. So this is a real possibility,
Speaker 10: and I would just stress it is much much bigger
Speaker 10: than Donald Trump, although he is certainly the leader at
Speaker 10: this point in terms of this movement.
Speaker 3: Yet Genie, referring to comments from Steve Bannon talking with Axios, Kaylee,
Speaker 3: pretty remarkable here about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the quote.
Speaker 4: Of course Bragg.
Speaker 3: Should be and will be jailed, he said in this interview,
Speaker 3: pointing to the fourteenth Amendment, equal protection, the fourth Amendment
Speaker 3: outlawing unreasonable searches and seizures, plus quote scores of other laws. Genie,
Speaker 3: should the Manhattan DA prepare to go to jail if
Speaker 3: Donald Trump selected?
Speaker 10: You know, I hope not. I have big questions and
Speaker 10: challenges with the prosecution, but you know that is not
Speaker 10: the response. But this is the reality we are living
Speaker 10: in and you're hearing this. And the fact is Steve
Speaker 10: Bannon has a big microphone, as do so many other
Speaker 10: people who are making these cases. I will just point
Speaker 10: to the head of the Federalists, for instance, who has
Speaker 10: made similarly really upsetting and frustrating comments. And so I
Speaker 10: think people have to think about this as they go
Speaker 10: to the ballot box and have a choice that many
Speaker 10: Americans aren't happy about between Biden and Trump.
Speaker 2: Well, and one of the reasons many Americans aren't happy
Speaker 2: about those choices is because the majority of them both
Speaker 2: think these candidates are simply too old. But that seems
Speaker 2: to be a problem much larger for Joe Biden, who
Speaker 2: is eighty one, and perhaps that problem exacerbated by reporting
Speaker 2: today in the Wall Street Journal, the headline reading behind
Speaker 2: closed Doors, Biden shows signs of slipping now. In the
Speaker 2: context of the article, while they detail a number of
Speaker 2: meetings that happen at the White House, characterizations largely from
Speaker 2: Republicans about how those went down, it does say most
Speaker 2: of those who said Biden performed poorly were Republicans, though
Speaker 2: some Democrats said he showed his age in several of
Speaker 2: the exchanges. So, Lisa, we have to consider that there
Speaker 2: are caveats in this reporting. Even Nancy Pelosi, the speaker Ofmerita,
Speaker 2: suggested a number of Democrats spent time with the Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journal and did not have their views adequately expressed.
Speaker 2: But isn't this damaging?
Speaker 9: Nonetheless, it's absolutely damaging. But this is the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 9: which to me is another sort of outreach in another
Speaker 9: sort of voice that people look to for Republican points
Speaker 9: of view. Regardless of how you feel about the journal
Speaker 9: or how you feel about the ownership of the journal,
Speaker 9: it is one of those things that people are starting
Speaker 9: to say, maybe that's a little bit irresponsible for them
Speaker 9: to have talked about that and not necessarily about how
Speaker 9: his administration is governing. But there's other questions about all
Speaker 9: of this, right, I mean, we have to consider the
Speaker 9: fact that people are starting to think about either one
Speaker 9: of these candidates. I think the reality is that either
Speaker 9: one of these candidates stands a chance of not making
Speaker 9: it through the next world. And that means we have
Speaker 9: to consider who is their vice president, and who is
Speaker 9: underneath them, and who is working with them in their
Speaker 9: in their cabinet, and those kinds of things are even
Speaker 9: unknown on the Republican side at this point.
Speaker 3: Well, it is interesting here, as the article notes itself, quote,
Speaker 3: most of those who said Biden performed poorly were Republicans unquote.
Speaker 3: The White House genie with a statement calling the claims
Speaker 3: quote false and politically motivated. But does it matter or
Speaker 3: is this welcome to the NFL.
Speaker 10: It's campaign season? You know, I think that the journal
Speaker 10: can be questioned for only quoting Republicans. Sure, the White
Speaker 10: House and others are trying to spin this as a
Speaker 10: political hit job, but I would just suggest that you
Speaker 10: look at those two reporters, those two journalists, There is
Speaker 10: nothing about their past work that suggests a political hit job.
Speaker 10: Annie Lynsky in particular about both of them, and I
Speaker 10: have a lot of respect for both of them. The
Speaker 10: fact is that Wall Street Journal is not alone today.
Speaker 10: There is also a transcript out from a Time magazine
Speaker 10: interview the president did, which is raising big, big questions
Speaker 10: amongst people. And you can criticize the Biden team and
Speaker 10: Joe Biden for not being accessible to the press to
Speaker 10: the extent that they should, which is helping fuel these problems. So,
Speaker 10: you know, I am not sure I think all of
Speaker 10: the Democratic pushback on this. I really raised questions about
Speaker 10: Just yesterday, the House was talking about release the her interview.
Speaker 10: Why not? I still don't understand. Why not release it?
Speaker 10: It suggests that it is that bad. So I think
Speaker 10: the White House is walking into this. I am not
Speaker 10: suggesting there's truth to the fact of what people are
Speaker 10: saying about Joe Biden, but please make yourself more accessible.
Speaker 10: It makes the debate much more important. Talk to the
Speaker 10: You are president of the United States. You've done very
Speaker 10: good things, and the American public deserve that because quite frankly,
Speaker 10: you're in your eighties running for president and asking for
Speaker 10: another four years. So but I just mostly want to
Speaker 10: say that those journalists have my respect, and this is
Speaker 10: the you know, something that I have a problem with
Speaker 10: the attacks on the journalists in particular.
Speaker 2: Very well, said Jeanie Shanzeno. Thank you so much for
Speaker 2: joining us alongside Lisa Camuso Miller today our wonderful political panel.
Speaker 2: Great to have both of you, and of course Jow.
Speaker 2: We should point out Genie's in New York, Lisa's from
Speaker 2: New Jersey. There's been a lot of news in that region.
Speaker 2: Today is local pauses the conjection congestion tax.
Speaker 3: That's right, they had the gantries already up there. Yes,
Speaker 3: we're supposed to start June thirtieth. Now it's an indefinite Wait.
Speaker 3: What are the chances this might be scheduled for after November?
Speaker 2: I wonder it's an excellent question as we consider the
Speaker 2: implications for all of the incumbent representatives in the state
Speaker 2: of New York.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and roud
Speaker 1: Otto with a Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Thank you for being with us here on Bloomberg TV
Speaker 3: and Radio. The fastest show in politics, Live from Washington
Speaker 3: with a vote that we are anticipating later today in
Speaker 3: the US Senate on the Right to Contraception Act. We've
Speaker 3: been talking about this a bit today because it's being
Speaker 3: looked at as a messaging bill. Democrats say it would
Speaker 3: make it federal law that an individual has the right
Speaker 3: to obtain contraceptives and engage in contraception. Kaylee, I'm not
Speaker 3: sure this would even be an issue if Donald Trump
Speaker 3: hadn't said in that interview that he might move to
Speaker 3: outlaw contraception, but then he walked that back. The fact
Speaker 3: of the matter is we're anticipating a really important ruling
Speaker 3: on Miffa Pristo on the abortion pill from the US
Speaker 3: Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's due by the end of the term. So
Speaker 2: we should have an answer on that from the High
Speaker 2: Court by the end of June. But all of this,
Speaker 2: Joe spells out how just confusing the law can be
Speaker 2: in many cases in a post Dobbs America since the
Speaker 2: overturning of Roe versus Wads. So we wanted to get
Speaker 2: some expert insight into this, and please to say joining
Speaker 2: us as Mary Sigler, she is Martin Luther King, Junior
Speaker 2: Professor of Law at the University of California at Davis
Speaker 2: and the author of a number of books, including Roe,
Speaker 2: The History of a National Obsession. Professor, welcome back to
Speaker 2: Bloomberg TV and Radio. It's great to have you. Can
Speaker 2: I first just ask you, considering that this has probably
Speaker 2: very little likelihood of becoming law, even if it got
Speaker 2: through the Senate, probably wouldn't pass the House. If it
Speaker 2: doesn't become law, is there not legal protection nationally for
Speaker 2: contraception in a post row America?
Speaker 11: There is right? So the Supreme Court hasn't overruled its
Speaker 11: decisions on the right to contraception from nineteen sixty five
Speaker 11: in nineteen seventy two. I think the reason there's been
Speaker 11: some anxiety about it is because the logic of the
Speaker 11: Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade essentially said, we
Speaker 11: only have rights that were recognized as rights at the
Speaker 11: time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. And if that's how
Speaker 11: the Supreme Court is actually going to approach rights going forward,
Speaker 11: no one would have thought there was a right to
Speaker 11: use contraception in eighteen sixty eight or eighteen sixty five. Right,
Speaker 11: it was at pretty much precisely that time that states
Speaker 11: were actually criminalizing access to contraception for the first time.
Speaker 11: So I think there's some fear that down the road,
Speaker 11: the Court may reconsider its rulings on contraception. There's also
Speaker 11: some concern that states are redefining contraception. In other words,
Speaker 11: there are concerns that conservatives believe that the morning after
Speaker 11: pillas in abortifation, or the birth control pillas in abortifation
Speaker 11: or iud's are abortifations. And so while they may not
Speaker 11: pass laws banning contraception, they may pass laws redefining contraception
Speaker 11: in ways that threaten access to common FDA approved drugs.
Speaker 3: Well, as we've seen so many states act in the
Speaker 3: wake of the Row ruling. What's your take on this
Speaker 3: actual piece of legislation. Is this something that's necessary on
Speaker 3: the federal level.
Speaker 11: Well, I'm kind of torn about it because, I mean,
Speaker 11: on the one hand, to your point, this is obviously
Speaker 11: a messaging bill. I think Democrats have introduced this bill
Speaker 11: in part because they know Republicans will vote against it.
Speaker 11: But at the same time, the fact that Republicans will
Speaker 11: vote against it is revealing in and of itself, right,
Speaker 11: I Mean, we've seen the equivalent strategy unfolding at the
Speaker 11: state level, as many state right to contraception bills have
Speaker 11: also been defeated in state legislatures by Republicans who claim
Speaker 11: to support the right to contraception. Now, some of the
Speaker 11: Republican responses to simply say there's no need for these
Speaker 11: bills because the right to contraception is already protected, and
Speaker 11: that's true as far as it goes. But the same
Speaker 11: also applied to same sex marriage, and Congress did pass
Speaker 11: protections for same sex marriage, even as Republicans claim that
Speaker 11: those protections were unnecessary. I think the reason you're seeing
Speaker 11: a different response from Republicans to some extent is because
Speaker 11: some of their constituents are either worried about what they
Speaker 11: view as conscience based objections raised by conservative Christians who
Speaker 11: don't support contraception, or they're concerned about the objections of
Speaker 11: constituents who see a lot of common contraceptives as abortifacients
Speaker 11: and therefore on the merits don't support right to contraception bills.
Speaker 11: So I think this is both a messaging bill and
Speaker 11: a messaging bill that's exposing that Republicans are more uncomfortable
Speaker 11: with this issue than they'd like to admit. And that
Speaker 11: might help make sense of what you saw former President
Speaker 11: Trump do, right and making a statement that he would
Speaker 11: think about how to regulate contraception and then walking it
Speaker 11: back because he's probably not up on exactly how complicated
Speaker 11: the feelings of the Republican base could be on some
Speaker 11: of parts of this issue.
Speaker 2: Well, we've also seen some complications around Republican messaging on
Speaker 2: IVF in particular after, of course, the ruling in Alabama
Speaker 2: earlier this year. Even though IVF protections have been put
Speaker 2: back into place in that state, there was efforts to
Speaker 2: protect that federally that haven't necessarily been able to find
Speaker 2: further progress on Capitol Hill, Mary, How should we think
Speaker 2: about that issue in particular, and where the conversation around
Speaker 2: in vitro fertilization goes from here in a post Dobbs world.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I think that again, the idea that there's no
Speaker 11: threat to in vitro fertilization, which is something you're also
Speaker 11: hearing Republicans seeing, is a little bit misguided. We've seen,
Speaker 11: for example, prominent figures in the Southern Baptist Convention, which
Speaker 11: is the largest conservative Christian denomination in the United States,
Speaker 11: announcing that they're going to be pushing for a resolution
Speaker 11: condemning in vitro fertilization and urging conservative Protestant churches to
Speaker 11: begin lobbying for state laws prohibiting or regulating in vitro fertilization.
Speaker 11: We've seen prominent campaigns announced by anti A worship groups
Speaker 11: to either litigate to establish that fetuses and embryos are
Speaker 11: persons and that in vitro fertilization is potentially unconstitutional, or
Speaker 11: urging legislatures to introduce new restrictions on it. And so
Speaker 11: I think as a result, the in vitro fertilization restriction
Speaker 11: issue is a long way from over. Even in Alabama,
Speaker 11: there's new litigation seeking to establish that Alabama's new law
Speaker 11: protecting IVF providers violates the state constitution by denying embryos
Speaker 11: constitutional rights. So the conversation in the States is a
Speaker 11: really complicated one, even if it's not one that's likely
Speaker 11: to change anything imminently. Because voters do support in vitro fertilization,
Speaker 11: I think again, Republicans are in a tricky place on
Speaker 11: this because there's so much popular support for IVF, but
Speaker 11: a lot of conservatives in base voters view IVF as
Speaker 11: contradicting the principle that a fetus or embryo is a
Speaker 11: constitutional person, which is what many of them believe in
Speaker 11: the context of abortion as well. So you're likely to
Speaker 11: see I think Republicans continuing to thread this needle of
Speaker 11: saying they support IVF while being unwilling to actually introduce
Speaker 11: legal protections for IVF that would be unpopular with some
Speaker 11: of their constituents.
Speaker 3: Well, lastly, Mary, as senators are asked to put their
Speaker 3: name on the record here on where they stand, Patty Murray,
Speaker 3: who chairs the Senate Health Committee, says, Americans vote, We'll
Speaker 3: be watching closely as this vote takes place.
Speaker 4: Is she correct?
Speaker 11: Well, I don't know. I mean, I think it's unclear
Speaker 11: if Americans take seriously threats to contraception. I think that
Speaker 11: the threats are not imminent, but they're real, and so
Speaker 11: I think it may be a question of whether Americans
Speaker 11: are watching now or whether they will look back on
Speaker 11: this vote later when there may be are some of
Speaker 11: the moves to address contraception come to fruition, this vote
Speaker 11: may look very different in historical context to voters than
Speaker 11: it does today.
Speaker 4: Mary, it's great to have you back.
Speaker 3: Mary Zigler with us as we anticipate the vote later today. Mary,
Speaker 3: appreciate the insights as always. Martin Luther King, Junior Professor
Speaker 3: of Law at the University of California at Davis.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast can
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: roun Oo with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also
Speaker 1: listen live on ammaz on Alexa from our flagship New
Speaker 1: York station, Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: We sat here together on Friday and brought you the
Speaker 3: President Live from the White House, in which he rolled
Speaker 3: out a ceasefire proposal that has felt on again off
Speaker 3: again depending on the moment or the day, and the
Speaker 3: interviews that benjaminettya Who is doing, and the speeches that
Speaker 3: Joe Biden is giving. There's clearly a disconnect, and it's
Speaker 3: hard to tell if we are closer to a breakthrough
Speaker 3: or further away from one than we were at the
Speaker 3: start of this week. Marra Rudman joins US professor at
Speaker 3: the Miller Center at the University of Virginia and director
Speaker 3: of the Ripples of Hope projects focused on democratic solutions Mara,
Speaker 3: It's great to have you back.
Speaker 4: Welcome to Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: Do you have a sense of how close we are
Speaker 3: to something or are you starting to think there never
Speaker 3: was a deal?
Speaker 8: No, I think we are closer than we have been previously.
Speaker 8: I believe it is a key inflection point. And I
Speaker 8: see what President Biden is doing as very skillfully pushing
Speaker 8: Israel and in the form of Prime Minister net To
Speaker 8: Yago particularly and Yaya Sinwar, by moving forward and putting
Speaker 8: out publicly what is this Israeli proposal that he spoke
Speaker 8: about Friday, and then continuing quite persistently on the same
Speaker 8: point on the contours of that proposal, on what it involves.
Speaker 8: And I think it's meaningful that Bill Burns, our CIA director,
Speaker 8: is meeting with Katars and Egyptians, I believe today in Doha.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's actually an important element of this story. When
Speaker 3: Bill Burns shows up, the gears tend to start turning.
Speaker 3: But Hamas says just in the last twenty four hours
Speaker 3: that Israel must commit to a permanent ceasefire and full
Speaker 3: withdrawal from Gaza, which Israel says it is not prepared
Speaker 3: to do. Until Hamas does not exist longer. How do
Speaker 3: you get past such an obvious standoff here.
Speaker 8: That's the art of negotiation, and also that is I
Speaker 8: believe some of the art of what is embedded in
Speaker 8: this proposal. Phase two of the proposal. President Biden, as
Speaker 8: I heard him Friday, was very careful in the words
Speaker 8: he chose. He described it in his own words as
Speaker 8: a ceasefire, and then very quickly quoted from the proposal
Speaker 8: which talked about a cessation of hostilities. And as you
Speaker 8: move from phase one to phase two of the proposal,
Speaker 8: there are negotiations to go on on essentially what the
Speaker 8: terms are that would govern phase two and phase three.
Speaker 8: And as with any very difficult and seemingly intractable issue,
Speaker 8: you need to find a way to get through what
Speaker 8: two parties both date as their bottom lines that can
Speaker 8: be seen as essentially concessions to both parties from whom
Speaker 8: you have to get agreement. And I think that's what
Speaker 8: the proposal seems to do as I hear it.
Speaker 3: Interesting this is something that Joe Biden rolled out on
Speaker 3: Friday as a piece of text that had been authorized
Speaker 3: by Benjamin Netanyaho's office, and Netanyah who said that as well,
Speaker 3: how much further, did Joe Biden push this three phased
Speaker 3: plan in his speech beyond his phone calls with Netanyahu.
Speaker 3: It seemed to catch net Yahoo off guard.
Speaker 8: I think it's unlikely that it caught Prime Minister Netanyahu
Speaker 8: off guard in terms of the substance of the proposal
Speaker 8: President Biden wouldn't.
Speaker 3: Do you think Joe Biden was going to say as
Speaker 3: much as he did publicly.
Speaker 8: Probably not exactly. That's where the way in which I
Speaker 8: think President Biden quite deliberately went to speak to the
Speaker 8: people of Israel, frankly two Palestinians as well, since both
Speaker 8: Israelis and Palestinians where they are similar is that they
Speaker 8: are not hearing for a variety of different reasons the
Speaker 8: real bottom lines from the people who are executing at
Speaker 8: this point, in one case, in defending Israel and in
Speaker 8: terms of Hamas and Yaya Sinwar in perpetrating this ongoing attack.
Speaker 8: And so what Present Biden did on Friday was both
Speaker 8: to quote quite specifically from the proposal, which was an
Speaker 8: Israeli proposal, and at the same time put it in
Speaker 8: a broader context that could speak to the people who
Speaker 8: are so directly affected by what is going on.
Speaker 3: You mentioned Bill Burns showing back up at the table.
Speaker 3: What else do you have your eyes on for signs
Speaker 3: of hope or otherwise to get a sense of what
Speaker 3: direction this is moving in.
Speaker 8: Well. I view Bill Burns, as you noted, is very important,
Speaker 8: mostly because I don't think he shows up unless there's
Speaker 8: something substantive to discuss and go through. I believe that
Speaker 8: the Egyptians in the countries are probably having some challendes
Speaker 8: from what I have read, Yaya sin has not yet
Speaker 8: signed off. There may be some promising signs from others
Speaker 8: than in Hamas, but we know that sinoir As, the
Speaker 8: perpetrator of the current conflict, is the key decision maker
Speaker 8: at this point on the Hamas side, and we've heard
Speaker 8: silence from him as well as the public statements that
Speaker 8: you described from Hamas and at the same time from Netanyahu.
Speaker 8: You know, verious jockeying inside Israel, which Jake Sullivan I
Speaker 8: believe described today or yesterday as as signs of the
Speaker 8: raucous democracy that is in fact, and it's a kind
Speaker 8: way to put it, but what goes on in Israel,
Speaker 8: so that's important. As our President Biden's meetings in Europe,
Speaker 8: there are a number of different sidebars that accompany his
Speaker 8: visit for this adieth anniversary of a key World War
Speaker 8: Two battle, and he also has ongoing meetings. He's got
Speaker 8: a NATO anniversary coming up, and he's got a G
Speaker 8: seventh summit, so a lot of key discussions with allies
Speaker 8: at the same time.
Speaker 4: Really great point.
Speaker 3: There are going to be some important sideline conversations happening
Speaker 3: as we move our way into the G seven as well.
Speaker 4: Mara, how flexible.
Speaker 3: Should we all be here when we consider the proposal
Speaker 3: versus a final product. We're used to talking about the
Speaker 3: legislative process on this program every day when it comes
Speaker 3: to diplomacy. How much of this is a starting point
Speaker 3: versus a final product?
Speaker 8: I think it's somewhere in between the two. Joe, as
Speaker 8: with getting to legislative legislation that can in my mind,
Speaker 8: and again this is harkening back to a prior life
Speaker 8: for me on the hill. You want to you need
Speaker 8: to get to sixty votes in the Senate generally if
Speaker 8: you can possibly do it, as opposed to fifty one.
Speaker 8: You want to get something that can pass under suspension
Speaker 8: in the House. That often involves finding language that can
Speaker 8: work for a number of different people from a number
Speaker 8: of different angle than it's going to have a certain
Speaker 8: amount of ambiguity in it, and you need to, in
Speaker 8: this case, with diplomacy, get this process started, get into
Speaker 8: phase one, get that critical humanitarian aid in, get the
Speaker 8: hostages out, the immediate group of hostages out, and then
Speaker 8: dive deeper to iron out the details on phase two.
Speaker 8: So what I would hope and my caution would be
Speaker 8: not to let from any perspective, the perfect be the
Speaker 8: enemy of the good, because we need the good to
Speaker 8: start moving forward.
Speaker 3: You know, we talk about the military operation in Rafa,
Speaker 3: we talk about the diplomacy around a potential ceasefire. Not
Speaker 3: often enough do we talk about the actual hostages who
Speaker 3: would be released under a deal like this. Does that
Speaker 3: remain the primary motivator for Israel?
Speaker 8: I believe it's the primary motivator for President Biden. I
Speaker 8: think in the racket it as is humanitarian aid. I
Speaker 8: think in Israel, when Jake Sullivan refers to the raucous
Speaker 8: democracy includes frankly, the far right extremist and president in
Speaker 8: Prime Minister Nyahu's coalition, who have made very clear, frankly
Speaker 8: that their priority is not the hostages. Whereas I think
Speaker 8: for many Israelis that is the top priority, and for
Speaker 8: Prime Mister Yaho, he's gone a little bit back and
Speaker 8: forth on that.
Speaker 3: Glad you come talk to us, Mars, stay close as
Speaker 3: we learn more. We could be talking about a breakthrough
Speaker 3: or a fallout.
Speaker 4: Next time. We're joined by Maura Rudman. Great conversation.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
Speaker 3: sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 3: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 3: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 3: at Bloomberg dot com.