You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Kevin McCarthy lost the gavel, Now he's leaving Congress. Welcome to the fastest show in politics, as the former speaker announces plans to call it quits at the end of this year, as the new Speaker, Mike Johnson faces, of course, enormous challenges, and President Biden adding new pressure today with
his call to vote on Israel and Ukraine funding. We'll put all of this together the latest from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue on another breaking news day in Washington, and we'll discuss with Mick mulvaney, the co founder of the House Freedom Caucus, former acting Chief of Staff in the Trump White House. Israel driving into the south of Gaza.
Now we're going to look at the job ahead and how effective Israel can be from the air with an expert on this, retired Air Force General David Deptula, will be with us.
In just moments.
We'll also have analysis from our panel, of course, as you would expect this hour today. We're joined by Republican strategist Lisa Camuso Miller and Democratic strategist Brad Howard. So let's get started on what we know. It has been one of those days. As soon as you wake up in Washington, d C. The headlines start flying. You heard me mention Kevin McCarthy. Joe Biden just spoke from the
White House. And that's where we want to start with what could be could be an important test vote today on Capitol Hill when it comes to funding for Ukraine and the rest of the supplemental that the President put forth Israel Taiwan border.
Here's the President moments ago.
This cannot wait. Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday. Resource as simple as that, Frank, I think it's stunning that we've gotten to this point in the first place. Well, Congress, Republics and congress as are willing to give putin the greatest gift he could hope for in our global leadership, not just Ukraine, but beyond that.
As I mentioned, the Senate expected to hold a test vote later today on the overall aid package. It is expected to fail the president of course knows that. But planting a flag again on this issue today one that has been rather newsy. As I mentioned, we heard earlier from Kevin McCarthy that he's leaving the building. There were a lot of questions about whether he was going to run for reelection, what his plans might be post speaker.
I don't know.
Some folks may have even thought he might run again. But he wrote an op ed earlier today, followed by a slick produced video on Twitter, and we'll give you a taste Kevin McCarthy waving goodbye.
Now it is time to pursue my passion in a new arena. Well, I'll be departing the house at the end of this year. I will never ever give up fighting for this country that I love so much.
To all those who have supported me through the years.
Especially our constituents, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
And that's it. Almost like a movie trailer. It's well produced. You see him on the floor, he's doing this and that. Then he's sitting alone in a chair wearing the suit. He's got a lave mic on his lapel, and after what you just heard, he takes the mic off and drops.
It now it is time to pursue my passion in a new arena.
Well, I'll be departing the house at the end of this year.
I think here it is this God Bless you and God Bless America.
Yep, that's a wrap and literally drops the mic. That's a wrap.
Not quite as dramatic when it's a lave. If I dropped this thing, that would make some noise. I'm not gonna know.
They're telling me in the studio, Joe, don't do it. They're expensive. Let's bring in Mick maulvaney.
I can only imagine what's going through his mind, although he might have been on the phone with Kevin McCarthy just last night. Insider's insider on the Republican side, certainly from the House to the White House.
Make it's great to see you.
Everyone's asking what it means to have Kevin McCarthy leave the house, and of course, well it's not speaker anymore, but it does speak pretty loudly. The day after Patrick McHenry announced his plans to not run for reelection, what do you make of this?
Hey, Joe, where do you start? It is that kind of day where Matt and your office calls me on my cellphone and said, have you seen Twitter? And you're sort of what merit that kind of call? So I had a couple of those phone calls in the White Houses, you can imagine. But anyway, a couple of things not surprising. I didn't talk to Kevin last night, but it doesn't
surprise those of us who who who know. The question was that was sort of whether he was gonna do this now or wait until the end of the term. Keeping in mind that my understanding California laws that Gavin Newsome when I'll have the right to set the re election date, and why would a Democrat governor rush to fill us That looks like it's a Republican seat. So this looks like it's going to eat again into the very narrow Republican majority. That's one angle here. The other
angle here is with Kevin's departure. One of the reason people were hoping he might stay around was that Kevin is the second most successful fundraiser in the history of the House, after only Nancy Gelosi and Mike Johnson. You know, it seems to be you know, doing a fairly decent job in a couple different areas, but He's no Kevin McCarthy when it comes to raising doe And we're going into a big presidential election year. So where are they
going to plug the hole on the money? My guess is that Kevin's you know, new job is not going to involve him raising money for the Republican Party. So there's a bunch of different angles here. We could do this for an hour, but we'll talk about everyone talking about including his videos.
Well, he's got a lot of money though, Mick, right, he could still actually play an interesting role in this campaign cycle.
How will he use the millions he raised?
Oh?
I would think that Nancy Mace is going to have a problem. Matt Gates is going to have a problem. Anybody the guy from Tennessee yet have a problem that that's that's where this money is going. Might a little of it go to help build a Republican majority? Yeah? Might still of it go towards subtling some scores? Absolutely? And who could blame him? Who could really blame him? He was listen like Kevin? Don't like Kevin. He happens to be a friend of mine. I like him, but
he was treated bad as a human being. And you know these folks. Even though they're they're Congress people. We put them up on a pedal stuff. They're still humans and that's got as smart and revenge is going to be particularly sweet, I think for Kevin if he's able to take any of those folks out.
Did you say you spoke with him yesterday and either way MC, last time you guys talked, where was his head? Is this a Washington that's broken or a Washington that that doesn't need me?
What was he thinking?
No, No, it was, it was It was still angered how I've been treated. It was. It was. It was a it's a personal thing now between him and Matt Gates. And you got a little bit of that when you saw him speak to the press and so forth. You know, we saw it a little bit less filtered, but still the same end result, which is that this had nothing to do with the fact that he cut a deal with the Senate. This has nothing to do with fact that he had a Byparsson deal to keep the government open.
This was Matt Gates looking for a way to settle a score. I don't understand how it started. And if Kevin knows, he wasn't sharing it with those of us who are close to him. So this was just a personal animosity and that's not going away anytime soon.
Well, it's been a tortured experience for him. I know over the past couple of months.
You go back to October and I just want to kind of go through the shades of McCarthy here. You heard that very upbeat message he sent today.
That's a rack. We did the right thing.
Sounds a lot like some of the things that he actually said over the course of time following the fateful cr that got him fired.
Let's work through this. This is the beginning of October the third.
I don't regret standing up for choosing governan over grievance.
It is my responsibility, it is my job.
I do not regret negotiating our government designed to find compromise.
I don't regret my efforts to build coalitions and find solutions.
And that, by the way, was that was the good day. That was the victory lap. After they got the CR passed, started to get a little dark.
This is the thirteenth of what I did was right.
Keeping government open.
Can you imagine for one moment the wars that are going around the world, and if government was shut down, that if our troops were not being paid right now, we want them in the aircraft carrier strike team to be out there questioning where they're going to be able to pay their rent.
You have fast forward to the twentieth of October, started to get a little short in the quarters of the capital strategy for him.
Here we are in a very bad place right now.
Yet a very bad place right now, Mick. Is the Republican Conference still in a bad place because Joe Biden just called for Ukraine funding to be passed, and there doesn't seem to be a path for anything right now, including funding the government.
Those are two different questions. Let's talk about the biding thing. Yep, fair enough finds politics right, I mean, Biden is just politics that the House has already passed a bill to fund Israel. The White House doesn't like it. But the way it's supposed to work is the Senate supposed to pass something, and then the House and the Senate supposed to conference. This is the old schoolhouse Rock. You know, I'm just a bill. I'm only a bill, cetera. So
that's just politics. The White House doesn't like what the House has done, but the House has certainly done something. Your first question is a lot more interesting, which is is the Republican conference broken?
Oh?
Yeah, there's no question about it. I've not talked to Patrick since his Patrick a good friend of mine, since his announcement yesterday. Patrick, technically Joe, as you know, was term limited as the Chairman of House Financial Services, but was in line for an exemption and probably could have stayed if the Republicans were going to keep the majority. His departure might tell you a couple of different things.
Number one, that he thinks that maybe they're going to go into minority anyway, and it would be a chairmanship that's opened to him. But secondly, and this is I've talked with a bunch of folks in folks. I'm hearing Tuscus,
Alabama for the debate tonight on New Nation. There's a bunch of Republican folks here and they're all talking about how poisonous the atmosphere is right now in Washington, d C. That if there's a Republican who can find the door and find a good exit strategy, they're looking for it right now. You mentioned Mike Johnson at the outset. You didn't mention Bill Johnson, a lesser known member of Congress
came in with me in twenty ten. He's already accepted the job as the president of Youngstown State in his home home state of Ohio. It's unclear as to what he would be leaving if he leaves in January. That's yet another Republican speak seat that is gone in that majority. So now, if you're a Republican who has a better offer right now on the table, you are seriously considering it looking for a way to leave.
Wow, you must be glad you did that already, Mick.
A pretty remarkable situation, by the way, Thanks for taking Matt's call and looking at Sweter this morning. I look forward to your thoughts on the debate tonight. Goodluck down there in Tuscaloosa where you've got four it now four Republican candidates on the stage, And turn our attention to the other major story we're following, and of course that's what's happening overseas in Israel and more specifically in Gaza, of course, where hostages are still being held by Hamas.
John Kirby, retired Admiral, speaking for the White House National Security Apparatus earlier today on Good Morning America on ABC News.
We think there's about eight hostages that are Americans. We know of at least one woman in that group. We're doing everything we can to try to get them released. We're constantly engaged with our partners in the region try to get this humanitarian pause back in place.
Now.
To give you a sense of where we are, Israel is putting numbers on this because we keep asking. IDF says it has killed half of Hamas's mid level commanders, this at the cost of sixteen thousand, two hundred civilian lives since the war began in Gaza. The Wall Street Journal putting some other numbers on this today as well, Remembering the IDF is vowing to destroy Hamas to ends as we know it, and after many weeks of bombing in over sixteen thousand civilian lives, the Wall Street Journal
reports that Hamas is still largely intact. At least five thousand militants overall have been killed, leaving the majority of the group's thirty thousand members on the field. Now, remembering that the Biden administration is urging restraint, calling for more precision, you're hearing it from lawmakers now, many of them Democrats,
on Capitol Hill. You wonder what's going to happen here in southern Gaza, and that's why we wanted to talk to David Deptula, the retired Lieutenant General, Air Force General now dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, former Air Force Deputy Chief for Intelligence, Surveillance and Resconnaissance. It's good to see you, General, Thanks for coming to talk to us. The calls for more precision have been in many cases been followed by scenes of absolute destruction, dropping
bombs on apartment buildings and so forth. And with your experience as an airman, I wonder if you can speak to what ability Israel has to be more precise.
Well, Joe, first, a couple of things I think in build up to a very good answer to your question is it's important to recognize that the military operations being conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces are being integrated across all war fighting domains. That's air, sea, land, space and cyber so it's a multi domain effort. Now, with respect to air operations, air operations can be and generally are
extraordinarily precise. The issue is knowing what the targets are to be affected and here's where while ground operations have become more prominent, air operations need that information. So one of the prime of the ground operations of the Israeli Defense forces into Gaza is to gather intelligence about Hamas's tunnels, rockets, command and control and so on and so forth that can then be destroyed from the air. So both air
and ground operations are completely integrated. All of that said, back to your lead in this is an urban environment, so of course buildings are going to be destroyed as part of the reason why the Israelis have gone to a great length to advise occupants, civilian occupants to move prior to their air strikes and then providing warnings additional warnings prior to releasing the weapons. So it is a
very challenging situation. But I think it's also extraordinarily important when one's discussing the subject of civilian cas to understand the laws of armed conflict. And frankly, it is startling to see the lack of understanding of those laws. And on the other hand, perhaps it's not so startling as a moss is engaged in what's called law fair or the misuse of international laws is substitute for traditional military means.
So let me pause there, and because I could go on for quite a while here, but we'll help.
It does help a lot, because look, you've got a lot of people who have never served their country, who have never flown a fighter jet like you have, and have have never carried a rifle, who are acting like experts here in Washington.
When you hear lawmakers say.
Hey, you need to cool it with the air attacks, stop with the one hundred and fifty five millimeters shells, send troops in to be more precise, what do you say to them?
Yeah, oh, once again, I go back to the fact that malign disinformation in manipulating perceptions is a fundamental element of Hamas's strategy. They're using the fact that disinformation is seventy percent more likely to be shared on social media the news that's true. I think we saw this to remind your audience. A good case in points to damage to the Gaza hospital that was caused by a Palestinian militant rocket that exploded over it. But it was they all blame that as a cast it is in Israeli
an attack when it wasn't the other one. And to be candid, I mean, right, up front, you cited the sixteen thousand plus civilian casualties. Those numbers were released by Hamas controlled organizations.
The health not do you not trust those numbers? What you do not trust those numbers from the Gaza Health.
Ministry absolutely not, absolutely not. Note that those number members do not separate deaths of Hamas or other terrorists in those figures. So the impression given is that they're all innocence, which and look, I don't I don't think anybody knows because there is no independent source on the ground accounting for those numbers. But you know they're treating Hamas deaths as if they were part of that. And now let me let me continue because this is extraordinarily important, but
it gets complex. People don't seem to understand that Hamas's use of civilians is human see it shields, and they're misuse of protected sites like mosques and hospitals or war crimes, and that the international Laws of armed conflict put the responsibility for the threat to civilian lives on those who are putting those civilians in harms way in this case, that's Hamas. Hamas intentionally aims to kill civilians.
To include policies understand that, and that's honestly general. That's something that we have aired out extensively on this program. But when you hear, I know you don't buy the numbers from the Health Ministry, but that sixteen thousand number includes five thousand children, presumably not Hamas militants. Maybe you've
got some folks in their teens. I don't know, but there's obviously what some folks see as a disproportionate response here, and I'm trying to get to the proportionate response in your eyes.
Well, once again, you and I get it, and I understand that. And by the way, I'm not taking you or your network on and when I'm speaking about media, I'm talking about media in general. There are some who are better than others, of which you are better than some of the others.
But well, there's that, I guess it.
The fact is war is a terrible thing, okay, And anyone who thinks there's such a thing as you know, immaculate warfare simply has never studied it. So yes, there will be unfortunately collateral damage, unintentional civilian casualties. But again, what you have to do is look at who's doing what Hamas is intentionally using civilians as cover. That is a war against humanity. At the same time, let me
speak to the other point. It's important to note that even if Hamas uses human shields, Israel still bound by this principle of proportionality, and they do have to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilian casualty or to civilians, and they have a history of doing that. But that does not mean that they cannot strike targets because of the presence of those human shields.
While they're clearly going forward with that, and I realized that you may not be able to separate them general, I really appreciate the difficulty here. As civilians move, Hamas follows them and embeds itself with them. And I realize that there are no easy answers on this. But that's why we wanted to bring you in. I have to
ask you about Ukraine while you're here, sir. The President's talking about it today, and we are told that Ukraine is out of time, not only out of money, but out of time as we head into the winter here without more support from the United States. How dire is this situation as we head for the cold Well.
This is another one that's extraordinarily important, not just for the Ukrainians protecting the sovereignty of their nation after having been illegally invaded by the Russians, but it's also extraordinarily important and is in the best interest of the citizenry of the United States of America. Now, I just fortuitously I met with the Ukrainian Defense Minister yesterday in a
small setting and had a discussion on this subject. And you know, I won't go into any details except to say that it is extraordinarily important at the United States support the Ukrainians in their defense not only of their own people, but in the peace loving and freedom embracing
nations of NATO, which includes the United States. They're spilling the blood of their sons and daughters to defend their country, but they're also defending the principles and the interests of the United States so that we don't have to get involved by sending our sons and daughters to fight against Putin.
So aid is extraordinarily important. Essentially, if you were given the opportunity or the the proposition that you could bring Russia to a halt of its aggression not just against Ukraine, but anywhere in NATO for about four percent of the military budget. Would you do it? That's a hell of a good deal without any US men and women being involved on the ground.
In pretty remarkable, and you have to think you go back twenty years, every Republican on Capitol Hill would have voted for that General. It's good to have you from the cockpit of an F fifteen to our table here on Bloomberg Sound On, General David Deptula.
Many thanks for the insights, sir.
It's good to have you back with us here on Bloomberg. I'm Joe Matthew and Washington the fastest show in politics. My gosh, we haven't taken a break yet.
Here.
We're going to assemble the panel because I'm sure they're going to have strong feelings about everything we just heard from Mick mulvaney to General Deptula.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcast.
Welcome to the Wednesday edition of Bloomberg Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew, in Washington with a heck of a lot to talk about here from the Capitol where we have news the White House, and of course overseas Israel and Ukraine all popping today with headlines on the terminal, and we want to assemble our panel to get into everything
that we've heard over the last twenty five minutes. Lisa Camuso Miller is with US Republican strategist, of course, former spokesperson for the r n C and host of the Friday Reporter podcast.
We're big fans of it around here.
Brad Howard's back to Democratic strategist, former spokesperson for the Blue Dog Democrats. Great to see both of you, and welcome Lisa. I'll start with you because the Republican Conference in the House is something we've focused on a lot with Mick mulvaney, one that Kevin McCarthy is running from, one that Patrick McHenry is running from.
Would you be running from it as well?
Hard to be successful there, Joe. It seems to me like the other thing we have to probably consider too, is that even though two months ago speak a former Speaker, McCarthy said that he was staying that there was work to be done, it's also really difficult to not be in leadership anymore, step away from that and be just a regular rank and file member and not have that power that he had for so long worked for and
then had stripped away from him. So my suspicion is that there probably is another really great job in the wings, and there'll be more for him to report. Who knows, But to me, I think more than anything, what we all know to be true is being shown out in the fact that these big, big retirements are happening, and they're happening almost every day.
There are Democrats, of course leaving as well, but it does seem to be a bit of a Republican story at this point. It's an interesting situation that we're in here, Brad, and I wonder your thoughts on just what it means for the Democratic Conference. There are only four seats away from taking control of the House. Does more of this end up in a change in power in the House of Representatives?
Well, let me say a couple of things. I think.
First, more broadly, you know, typically you can determine which party thinks they're going to win control of Congress in the next election judging by how many retire versus the other side.
It seems to me both sides are fed up.
This is the moment because you're seeing just about the same a number of retirements on the Democratic side as you are on the Republican side. And we've had Democrats, you know, David Cicillini left mid term, Brian Higgins is leading in February's right as well, so you know, but this is a big, big problem Speaker Johnson. What I find kind of funny about Speaker McCarthy's announcement is he doesn't have a job lined up.
Whe he hasn't announced one yet.
I suspect like, in a way this is his final like job at the folks at Alston me because now they've got to have a majority with two seats, and then you know, if Bill Johnson leaves and then gets down to one seat, you know, at any moment a procedure emotion, Democrats could win temporary control of the floor with the right number of Republican absences.
So this is a big problem for Speaker Johnson.
How he's going to navigate probably one of the toughest approbations battles we've seen in a while. In January and February with the new staggered cr and from there, and so you know, this is a big, big problem with their public majority. And I think you're just it's only gonna get worse, and you're going to continue to see more retirements or resignations as we're seeing.
Boy, that would be remarkable.
Lisa should the president today instead of calling on Congress to pass Ukraine funding, just sent a message to Mike Johnson saying.
You need me.
This majority is so thin now. Mike Johnson has to know he needs Democrats to do anything.
Right.
Yes, I'm sure he does, but also too, I mean, just based on his background and how he's performed so far, he's doing everything he can to try to maintain that power for the Republican majority. But Brad's point is so good, Joe. This razor thin margin is going to get eaten slimmer
in February. Right, We've got Santos's seat will be hopefully filed by or filled by mid February, but then that's just a two seat majority for the Speaker, and then with Higgins and Johnson, potentially by the end of February. This is going to be For those of us who are watching in the cheap seats. It's going to be a show to watch, a show to.
Watch, and it might be a scary one. Brad, let's run odds on this for a minute. With everything that we're talking about here, the lack of a deal on the border, I know some folks are more optimistic about this, including Senator Langford who's leading the negotiations, knowing how many legislative days are left and knowing that we're going into a campaign cycle. Here, my goodness, you guys are talking about what could be a one or two WHO seat majority.
We're not getting any of this done. Are we funding for Ukraine? And to put it a built to avoid a government shut down? None of that's going to happen.
To put this in full perspective, we were only four full legislative.
Days between now and the next government shut down deadline four, So you got flying and fly outs because we know not much gets done on those.
So you're right.
I mean, this is a big, big concern. Thankfully, I think everyone should enjoy what should be a relatively peaceful holiday season legislatively because next year is going to be probably one of the most tumultuous ever. Then you add in the presidential election. But what I will say again about Kevin McCarthy's departure is there's an image floating around. I don't know if everybody remembers the term young guns that entered three young Republican leaders that were going to
lead the Republican majority, which was Eric. They're all gone, b Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, and now they're all gone. But this was like the future of the Republican Party.
And I think this is a pivotal moment for the future of the Republican Party because you're starting to see this big divide between the grassroots of the party, the grassroots voters and the people that kind of come in and out every now and then, they're not in the everyday moment of politics, a big divide between that and the establishment that's funded by Sheldon Agelson the super PACs. So like how the Republicans negotiate, there very tough dynamic is going to be a big challenge for them.
We've got a great conversation going with our panel Brad Howard and Lisa Camuso Miller. If you're just joining us, I'm Joe Matthew and Washington. I want to ask you both about what we heard from General Deptula, because he was strident today and clearly does not think that lawmakers or progressive critics of what's happening in Israel have any idea of what they're talking about. He doesn't trust the
numbers from Gaza and Lisa. I wonder how you see this impacting in Washington here, because the presidents received a lot of criticism for supporting this war in Israel.
Progressives are upset with him.
We know that Arab American voters and Muslim American voters are both upset with him. But does the General have a point about this armchair quarterbacking from here in Washington.
Yes, I think he does. I mean, I think, more than anything that I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it, a stable Middle East and a stable Europe is to the benefit of a stable United States. And so I think, with my limited experience and understanding of how this all works, is that we need to follow the generals. We need to follow the leaders, the folks that know about what needs to happen there. Do I think that all kinds of stories and false information
is happening. Absolutely, I think we need to listen to the generals on the ground and do what we can to support them. And the more that we sit back and play games and politics with support for our allies, to me, doesn't make very good sense, not only for the war effort, but also for our stable United States.
We should take on this, Brad. The President needs to have a concerted message when it comes to this criticism. He's certainly sending one to Israel. What should be the message to his critics on Israel? After what you just heard from the General? Do you disagree with what he said?
No?
I mean, I honestly, I don't understand why anybody would believe anything Hamas says when they again lied and used you know, the Palastini people as you know, human shields from bombings and attacks, and we're forced like preventing them from leaving and fleeing you know, war zones. But that aside, I think the President of the White House had four big like issues they have to deal with with this war, which is going to consume probably the remainder of his first term.
The number one is you've got to win the war.
And you know, I don't think you'll ever fully be able to get rid of Hamas, but to really, you know, decimate them. I think that's that party number one. But beyond that, you've got Israel standing in the world. That's going to be a big problem for Blincoln and Secretary of State to fix and the president as you know this, this has really kind of divided the world about how to deal with the issue of Israel. And then back home,
the president has two big problems domestically. Number one is how do you combat the anti Semitism that has exploded in the open across the US. And Number two, and that is in both parties, but we're starting to see it from the very progressive left and in college campuses. I think number two, how do you fix the political problem the fact.
That young voters, particularly.
Young progressive voters, are skeptical of the President's commitment to Israel or questioning that commitment, And so he's got to win those They're not going to go to Trump necessarily, but they may just get out of the process altogether or get behind a third party.
So he's got a lot of problems to fix here and address. And I feel confident that he's doing.
The right things both militarily and diplomatically, but how do you address this very complex political problem is going to be a tough one.
With a lot of noise out there. I've got less than a minute, Lisa. Is this a Republican problem too, or one for Joe Biden only?
Well, it certainly seems to be that that's where the buck will stop with the White House, and so the White House I think probably has the burden here. You know, there's a lot of blame to go around Joe, There's a lot of game playing in the House in terms of funding. There's a lot of other voices that are
out there, and let's be fair. I mean, the former president started a big He opened a chasm in the unhappiness and the ability for people to criticize other groups in a way that has I think opened a door to the anti semitism that we've heard all across the globe.
You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and.
The Bloomberg Business App.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Welcome to our two of Bloomberg Sound on. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. Charlie's patented double point kicks us off for the hour. Find us on YouTube. You would have seen Brad Howard's yule log burning for that whole last hour. Search Bloomberg Global News. We'll meet you here in the studio. You never call, you never write, I was lamenting. Well, it's largely true. She texted a couple of times. You deserve credit for that. I hope you had a lovely trip. Welcome back to the nation's capital.
Thank you.
Of course, I'm referring to the great Kaylee Lions, who's back with us today. People are getting tired of hearing me talk. So great to see you. Welcome back. You came back just in time for a whole bunch of breakers. Yeah you come back. Kevin McCarthy leaves. I don't know if those are connected, but you were up there on the hill earlier today. It was kind of a weird feeling in the air, and.
Yeah, it was quiet, it was cold outside. It was kind of doing a weird rain snow thing.
And is reality setting in that actually nothing's going to get done this year or next.
It felt a little bit bleak. To be honest, A number of people just didn't really feel like talking to me, and perhaps it was because they didn't have much good or positive to say, as it feels like there is very much not a lot happening on Capitol Hill, even if we're going to see a vote in the Senate later today on something that is very likely going to fail, or they.
Had abandonment complex or that like I did with Kaylee gone either way, Joe Biden's losing patience Kaylee. He actually spoke from the White House earlier today telling everybody to get with it. This isn't the vote, but there's an important test vote, if we can call it that in the Senate on Ukraine. Let's hear from the President a bit earlier the message let's get moving.
This cannot wait. Congress needs to pass supplemental funding for Ukraine before they break for the holiday. Resources as simple as that. Frank, I think it's stunning that we've gotten to this point in the first place. Well, Congress, Republic and congress as are willing to give putin the greatest gift he could hope for and abandon our global leadership, not just Ukraine.
But beyond that.
The problem is that vote's going to fail and there doesn't seem to be a path for this in any form. Senate and houseton't agree. President, unlikely they get the combined money he's asking for. And look, not a lot has changed since you've left. In reality, we're still talking about this hinging on a border deal that has yet to emerge.
Yeah, exactly, And even the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who very much wants additional Ukraine funding, has made it tied to the border issue, and it feels like it's just a lot of pieces of a puzzle and no one's having much success success and putting it together. Thinking we might be against a clock here by your end. Unclear whether or not that happens. But come the end of the year and the start of the next one, Joe,
that was just going to look a little different. The Republicans are actually going to be working with a smaller majority because Kevin McCarthy will be gone.
If you do the math, mcmuvaney was talking to us as well. Watch Bill Johnson. We could be in a world where there's like a two or three c majority.
Yeah.
By February March. I don't know how this is.
I don't and we already thought things were difficult to pass.
I was feeling optimistic. Yesterday.
We had Rick Davis and Jim Casler. They kept saying, Joe, it's darkest before dawn. All this crazy talk you're hearing no one can agree means they're probably on the verge of a deal. Then I woke up this morning. I don't feel that way anymore, and I think they're lying to me. Maybe Terry can help me out here, Terry will talk me in off the ledge.
Terry Hayes. Of course, Pangaea policy is with us live from Washington. Now, Terry, what's your thought? Glass? Half full? Half empty?
Here?
Who do you believe?
Because with everything that I've been hearing since this morning, I'm feeling like nothing gets past this year. We're going to shut down Ukraine's not going to get any money. Nothing can happen in this Congress?
Can it?
On this? Sure? But two things have to happen. First, this vote this afternoon, and the Senate has to fail. Because that's necessary for a lot of people, including Democratic Leader Schumer, to be able to turn to their colleagues and say, now, see we can't get this done without doing something serious on border security, otherwise it doesn't happen.
And I can tell you from talking to a number of Republicans, including a couple of Senators, over the past few days, the way we're Publicans see this is very simple. You're either going to get You're either going to have something on border, in which case AID gets done. But if the Democrats aren't willing to deal on border in some substantial way to improve the border, then you know,
very likely nothing's going to happen for a while. And Republicans feel like they have the politics on their side, of course, and they also feel like they have the public with them because you know, you can, you know, you can pull any pull out of your pocket and say show that three quarters to eight tenths of the American public agree that the border is a terrible problem
and something needs to be done about it. So this is a matter of the sooner Democrats figure out they need to do something on the border, and a lot of them are talking about this. Even a progressive like Peter Welch, a very thoughtful guy, has been talking about the need to do something substantial on the border. So the sooner they get to that, the sooner you actually get a deal.
Terry, does that actually have to be driven though not by Democrats in the Senate or in the House, but the White House. As you say, the border is a sensitive political issue. We have voters that are going to be heading to the polls in less than a year to vote for who they would like to be president of the United States. Is it Biden that needs to be more deeply engaged in this.
Well, Biden certainly put this on the table first, Kayleie, and I'm glad you put it this way. Let's remember this is the president's construct. It's the president that said, and the White House continues to repeat, Admiral Kirby particularly repeat that you know what they want is they want Israel, a Ukraine, a they want the Indo Pacific Aid as they call it, and they want and they want something on the border as well. So this is the president's construct,
whether whether Democrats like it or not. Number one. Number two, what I'd say about the President very simply is that he's got little to no political capital to achieve anything. You know what the White House and the White House actually shows you this what they like to do is you know kind of issue the thunderbolts from on high, as Biden did most recently on the need to get
something done on Ukraine. Well, you know, if you know, I can hear the Republican response in my head, which is, you know, if you'd actually sent the weapons on time, if you'd actually you know, told us with some more alacrity that we needed aid, you know, as soon as possible, rather than just asking for it as part of a package, maybe we'd be in a little bit of a different place. But they're not, and he's not. But he's not really
able to move the needle on this. This is going to be much more up to Leader Schumer than anybody else.
Well, so, Terry, what's the lightning bolt that unlocks a deal on the border. And I know that's an impossible question really to answer. We've been trying to do this for twenty or thirty years. But you know, we keep hearing that Democrats are open to changes in asylum law, that there actually is more progress and there's more common ground than we think there is, because they'd all love
to campaign on this next year, is the fact. But when you have Mike Johnson saying take HR two or nothing, we can't see to get out of the blocks here.
What do you think, Well, we're in the uh, we're we're in the ask for too much uh phase of these negotiations. But then, you know, and in part there's I think a lack of communication going on here. Republicans continue to ask for too much in h R two is you know, from a political perspective, from a deal making perspective, certainly too much. But the you know, the Republicans keep asking for that in part because they feel like they're not getting enough enough signal from the Democratic side.
Democratic side says they're being open, but but then again aren't really putting specifics on the table.
Uh.
So you know, I point to this as as you did in the previous hour. I point to the test vote this afternoon, this evening in the Senate as the as a forcing event that allows Democratic leadership to say, look, we need to get serious on this if we're going to get something done, and also allows McConnell, because you know, this is gonna this is a Senate game much more than a house game. Allows mcconnald to also say to his people, look, and now the time's come to get serious.
Let's get serious and get the best we can get by all means. Let's get something, not just money, but also let's get let's get some substantive improvements.
You know.
But we've got two more weeks after this one and we're pretty much done. So let's figure this out. And you know, the parties, whatever else you can say about the parties, they've been sitting here for ten years doing nothing on border and immigration issues, and it's about time, you know. So they know, they know their limits, they know what they can do, and if there's willingness on the Democratic side, I think I think you'll see some
joining hands in the end. I called this at the beginning of the week is about a seventy percent likelihood to get done before Christmas. I'll stick with that today, all.
Right, Terry, fair enough, that's the probability of something happening before the Christmas New Year holiday. Speaking of the New Year, as Joe and I were chatting about earlier, come the new year, there will be one less member of the Republican Conference, and it happens to be a former speed first who has ever ousted Kevin McCarthy. Today he says I'm done. He actually released a video announcement from that, let's just take a listen.
Now it is time to pursue my passion in a new arena. Well, I'll be departing the house at the end of this year. I will never ever give up fighting for this country that I love so much.
To all those who have supported me through the years.
Especially our constituents, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
So thank you.
Good choice of music, you like that, it's quite a campaign.
Just stick and yeah, did you hear the mic drop? You see the mic drop at the end here, Kerry, I don't know how you feel about this. You know, I've got we have these big, beautiful mics that make a racket if we'd be very dramatic, can you do that with a lava leer?
And he takes it off the.
Here, thank you, God bless you and God bless America.
Here we go.
That's a rap.
Clunk.
He throws the mic on the floor and he almost couldn't hear it nor a lot of electraumaticacy.
Well, Terry, that's a wrap for Kevin McCarthy. I don't know if you find that surprising. But of course this follows Patrick McHenry saying he wasn't gonna run again. There's been a series of these kinds of announcements. What do all of them together say to you?
A couple of things. Well, you know, the let me say briefly about uh mister McCarthy that uh, you know, his what he'll be remembered for, in addition to the speakership, is he'll be remembered for, uh for being a major uh a major fundraiser for the party. Uh, you know, as uh mc mulvaney pointed out in the last hour. And secondly, he'll be uh, he'll he'll be remembered as
a as a serious recruiter. I mean, somebody who you know, really helped Republicans come back, get a majority and maintain a majority for a lot longer than a lot more people I thought they would. So, you know, he's had a successful political career regardless of what he does next. You know what I think about this is, you know, let's remember instead of thinking about, you know, what's happening today, let's remember what we were talking about a month ago.
What we were talking about a month ago was Congress's inability to deal with, among other things, a a looming fiscal crisis that you know, regardless of how the bond market has responded in the past couple of weeks, it's still it's still a fiscal crisis. Markets are still concerned about it. Debt's out of control, deficits out of control. That's very much the perception fiscal is uh, you know, a fiscal spend is rising and you know, perceived to
be endless. So what you have, what I see in all this is, you know, frankly, a bunch of people who are you know, the good people are tired of on both sides, who are tired of beating their heads against the wall. Uh. But I see ah in the increasing irrelevance of Congress in the House, and that's that's not a happy thing for me to say. But but but it's true. I think you get an awful lot of people who are concluding that they could do more and be better off in all senses being outside the
institution of rather than being inside of it. And I think that's a bad thing. It's also a bad thing when you get people like Patrick McHenry, who, among other things, you know, everybody understands this now, you kind of started as a firebrand, reinvented himself as a as a substantive legislator with respect for the other side and a desire to kind of do deals and move the ball forward. You know, you get somebody like like mister McHenry leaving.
What you have is, you know, you're abandoning the place to kind of more of the firebrands, more of the people who think it's all about Team Red, team Blue exclusively, and and you know, frankly, there's a It accentuates the divergence between the reletively increasing irrelevant of Washington and you know, compared to the kinds of things that the markets are concerned about politically and geopolitically, which are very, very fundamental.
The inability of Congress to deal with this stuff is reaching a breaking point, and I think that's a bad thing.
Well, Terry, we're out of time. But you can't blame them, right, Do you blame Kevin McCarthy or Patrick McHenry?
Wouldn't you do the same thing?
Heavens no, Heavens no. You know, both have served for nearly twenty years, and you know, I'm all in favor of fresh blood, but these were people, in a lot of ways that were still very much the top of their games, So I'm sad.
I'm sad from that perspective, Hayley.
Terry Haynes says of benditting the place of the firebrands, that maybe we can also say the inmates are running the asylum.
I don't know.
I think that might be the same, Terry. Great to see you.
You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on blue Berg Radio, the tune in alf Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
They're still talking about the hearing, not the bank CEOs today, but the college presidents yesterday. We spent some time on this, but twenty four hours later, Kaylee, I feel like this has become actually a bigger story. The presidents of Harvard mit UPenn grilled on anti Semitism and free speech on campus, and it really seems to have come down to one exchange in particular, at least Dephonic, though looming large in that hearing, A lot of folks learned about her yesterday.
A lot of folks learned that she went to Harvard. Yes, and I think she just kind of popped up on a lot of people's radars with some very difficult back and forth here with these presidents.
With each one essentially asking them the very same question, and it has ignited on social media. I think it's fair to say, Joe.
Yeah, for sure, this is a somewhat extended but I feel like we need to play the whole thing.
This is not edited at all.
Representatively Stephonic of course, a Republican member of the leadership talking with Liz McGill, the president of you Penn.
Here we go at Penn.
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Pen's rules or code of conduct?
Yes?
Or no?
If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
Yes, I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews? Does that constitute bullying harassment?
If it is directed and severer pervasive, it is harassment.
So the answer is yes.
It is a context dependent decision. Congresswoman.
It's a context dependent decision. That's your testimony today. Calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest question to ans answer yes, miss McGill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes.
If it is, or if the speech becomes conduct it can be harassment.
Yes, conduct meaning committing the act of genocide. The speech is not harassment. This is unacceptabless MacGill. I'm going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate pens Code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment? Yes? Or no.
It can be harassment.
The answer is yes.
Just a tortured exchange.
She had a very similar one, in fact, with the president of Harvard as well, Claudine Gay. Look at Bill Ackman's tweet. I just got a call from one of Harvard's most respected and generous alums. His first words were, Bill promised me it was a deep fake. It was not, Kayley, it was not.
And Bill Lackman is not the only well known Wall Street Titan who has come out Major Domo had very harsh words for the presidents of these universities.
Yeah, it's pretty amazing, and so we're kind of balancing this idea of free speech and hate speech and a conversation that we were looking forward to having with John Pushinsky, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh, an expert in First Amendment and campus lad just the person we need here. Professor, I appreciate your joining us. I'm sure you have strong feelings about what we heard yesterday here, But my goodness, couldn't these college presidents have been better prepared.
It sounded to me like they were prepared. But I was thinking listening to the exchange and the excerpts I heard yesterday, is that represented that Stefanic has very little understanding of what the First Amendment means and what it protects.
Okay, So John, help us make that distinction. When we're thinking about First Amendment rights, the right to free speech, where is the line?
First of all, it's important emphasized that the advocacy as an academic proposition or as an individual preference of any particular group, no matter how abhorrent that advocacy may be, is protected speech under the First Amendment. According to a long line of Supreme Court cases, the line drawn between protected speech and unprotected speech is when the speech becomes a true threat, and that means that there has to
be advocacy to in sight or produce imminent lawless action. So, in other words, in the nineteen forties, in the nineteen fifties, there may have been campus discussions about whether worldwide revolution was something that people should work towards, and the discussions of overthrowing governments, even by violent means, was deemed to be protected because it's only people exploring and discussing what they believe, as opposed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.
When I teach my First Amendment class, I invite the students to think about President Trump standing in front of the Capitol or away from the Capitol on the mall, telling people, you know, let's go stop the steal, go to the Capitol. Whether that is just advocacy or whether there was really an incitement to produce imminent lawless action,
which is the legal line to be drawn. The tough problem that a lot of the universities have is that there is also a federal statute in this Title six that prohibits discrimination on the number of bases, including religion, from programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. So they may have statutory duties feather separate and apart from First
Amendment responsibilities. Also, we should know that the three schools who spoke at Congress yesterday, pen, Harvard, and MIT are all private universities, in the First Amendment doesn't apply.
That's where I want to get to with you here, because I appreciate the point that you're making, Professor, and I apologize for interrupting. You could probably kick me out of your class for that. But look, these are presidents of private universities talking about their code of conduct right their code of ethics here in a congressional hearing. Why seek nuance in that case? Why not give them a yes or no? This is what people think is wrong with these universities.
Well, because the terms that were being bandied a belt don't have definitions that everybody understands the same way. I've had debates with people as to what genocide means, and there are a lot of people who attach definitions different than a un definition of genocide. We heard Representative Stephanic or others use the term hate speech, But what does that mean? If I say I don't like you and
you don't belong in my neighborhood, is that hate speech? Now, universities have the right to create codes of conduct, but they are also academic institutions that traditionally believe in debate exploration of ideas. And the fear that I have is that if you prohibit certain speech and certain ideas, you don't stop those ideas. You don't stop that speech, you drive it underground where you have much less control over
it than when it's out in the open. I mean, just as Holmes on the Supreme Court taught us that the way to fight bad speech is to counter with good speech.
So, Professor, if I'm understanding you correctly, when you're actually looking at the legal matters here, the difficulty in assigning specific definitions to a lot of this language, you actually think that these college presidents are approaching this in the right way, at least from a legal standpoint. You don't see much wrong here.
Well, I'm not sure how. I'm not very familiar with what's happening on each of the three campuses, so I believed that I can comment on whether they are approaching what's happening on their campuses correctly. If there are actual threats against individuals, or if people are being intimidated, then the universities may have an affirmative duty to take correct of action.
Well, Professor, I don't know what's going to come of that hearing yesterday, but it seems to me that lawmakers can do whatever they want. And it's really money that we're talking about here in donations. Those folks like Bill Ackman, who we mentioned a Mitt Romney, who are protesting now giving a dollar instead of thousands or a million dollars
to these schools might in fact affect change. You might not want to answer this, but do you think all three of these presidents will still have their jobs a year from now?
I don't. It's not questioned whether I want to answer. I don't know what the answer is. But I do believe that those who withhold donations because they're not happy with what's happening are exercising their First Amendment rights to express their displeasure with the way the university presidents have handled the situation, and that might maybe they bring us
just means of affecting change. One thing that I am concerned about when I hear calls for expelling students or from suspending students for exercising an unpopular opinion or view,
is that it doesn't really solve anything. What I believe the more appropriate way to respond would be for the universities to create teaching moments, and if someone has violated the code of conduct through speech or through participation in a demonstration where no one is really threatened, or where there is no incitement to imminent modeless action, it might be more productive to have a teaching moment with that student them to have the students study actual history, to
write a paper on the issue of what was to be done by the world with the Jews after the Holocaust, who had no place to go without the thread of being killed apart from their traditional historic.
Come professor, we appreciate your weighing in on this.
There are obviously no easy answers here, and that's why we appreciate your trying to answer them. John Prashinsky, Adjunct Professor of Laya University of Pittsburgh with.
Us here on Bloomberg sound On. We thank you for joining, sir, Thanks for listening to the sound On podcast.
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern
Time at Bloomberg dot com