Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Rouno with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We have got a lot to talk about at the threshold of the weekend. Here we are. Votes will happen Saturday, we're told. And the reason why we can tell you that now is because an important vote just occurred, the magic number three sixteen to ninety four. They got the rule passed. And around here that's news lately. Ask Speaker Mike Johnson, who has seen seven rules fail on the floor, what happened last night in the Rules committee. This is procedural, I get it. We're walking out. This is the kind
of stuff. This is how the sausage is made. And you may not want to look because it's not pretty. But last night in the Rules Committee, it took Democrats to pass the framework for the bills to be voted upon. The Rules Committee, known affectionately as the Speaker's Committee, this is supposed to be a rubber stamp for the Speaker and three Republicans said hell no. So it took Democrats to come in here and get this done. And once again today look at the number three sixteen ninety four Democrats.
This might not play well for Mike Johnson when it comes to this whole motion to vacate matter. But let's get to the hill right now. Billy House has been watching all this unfold before his eyes, remembering that the Supplemental Emergency funding Bill passed the Senate back in February. Ukraine has been waiting for that long, and so is Israel for that matter. Billy House with us right now. Billy, we're looking at a working weekend, and I guess the glide path is set.
Here.
Are these all going to pass based on the numbers we saw today?
Well, it looks that way. This test vote today was very strong, but you're correct. Actually more Democrats one hundred and sixty five voted in favor of Johnson's Package Foreign eight package than his own Republicans only one hundred and fifty one of them did, so that'll probably fall suit tomorrow late afternoon. In the final vote in the House.
Remarkable comments from members on both sides with regard to Speaker Mike Johnson and what he has just accomplished or not, depending on.
Who you ask.
Tom Massey, who's signed on to this Republican from Kentucky the motion to vacate with Marjorie Taylor Green, He writes, the US House is now officially in an alternate universe where the speaker shares procedural power with Democrats. Is he wrong about that, Billy?
He's not wrong about that. But what he's not really saying is that the narrow majority the Republicans have demand that no matter whose speaker, they've already run through one Kevin McCarthy, and now the same things are or challenges are being hit by a hit on Johnson, Mike Johnson his successor. So yeah, it's a new universe, but it's not a universe either. These speakers really have control over They just happened to preside over it.
Mm hmm.
We heard from Speaker Mike Johnson a little bit earlier today. Listen to the language that he used in trying to frame the differences between this legislation and that which passed the Senate. The House could have taken that up, brought it to the floor. We were told that it would pass but he chose not to because of opposition from conservative Republicans, namely members of the Freedom CAUs who aren't probably going to vote for this thing anyway. Here's Speaker Mike Johnson from earlier today.
It's not the legislation that we would write if Republicans were in charge of both the houses in it in the White House. This is the best possible product that we can get under these circumstances to take care of these really important obligations.
He's making the case here if you couldn't understand what he was saying, I know it's noisy and he's surrounded by marble. Not the legislation that we would have written if Republicans were in charge of both the House, the Senate, the White House. Billy, he's right about that. Mike Johnson seems to be the one person who knows he cannot pass this with his own conference.
Well, it's correct, But what he's saying there is that they were able to put in such things as a loane concept in the funding for Ukraine or sanctions on Russia and Iran. In this process. He's put together that some different things than what would have been in the Senate bill still nobody. Ukraine has waited and waited, and there's been a lot of the world has waited for the US to either act or not act on this as the Houses kind of rolled around trying to figure out what it was going to do.
What should we know about the motion to vacate then, Billy, I'm sure that's the talk on the hill. If these all passed tomorrow, they get stitched together, it goes to the Senate. What does Marjorie Taylor Green do? She said, you vote on Ukraine, you bring it to the floor, and you're fired. But we haven't seen that happen.
Yet, right, and we're all aways. We're on her this afternoon, I mean this morning when this vote was taking place. But she left that House floor and kind of a huff, saying she wasn't going to talk to anybody. Now. She could trigger that motion and force a vote on the House floor on Mike Johnson's future, but he could also
first call for a vote to table it. And so what we saw today with the Democratic help on this package of bills, some people are saying, and some Democrats are saying, they're going to help rescue Mike Johnson on that that'll help him obviously, but in the long run, what's a speaker or Republican speaker's future if it has to if he has to rely on Democrats to keep him speaker.
A working weekend, Billy, I wish you luck. We're going to be watching for your reporting, of course on the terminal and online. Billy House congress reporter here at Bloomberg. He is part of the woodwork up there, and he knows what he's talking about. We'll stick with Billy and the rest of our congressional team as we advance to these votes tomorrow. The Senate would then, of course take that house build A president's already said I'll sign it if he gets it. We could be in a different
world come Monday. And after what happened last night, you do have this urgency. A lot of people pointed to the attack from Iran against Israel for relighting the fires on Capitol Hill to get this thing moving a lot more quickly, and Israel has now responded. You probably got the alerts from Bloomberg last night against Iran following the drone and missile attack last weekend. State TV in Iran says military and nuclear facilities safe. They're showing pictures of
the city. People are driving through intersections like it's any whole day. But that might have been the point here. There was a lot of worry, of course, about Israel overreaching, and we had a lot of questions as we asked General Mackenzie here yesterday about what would be a proportionate response. That's where Mick mulroy comes in. He's co founder of the Lobo Institute, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for the Middle East with US now live on Bloomberg. Mick, it's great to have you.
Thank you.
Israel had a couple of different audiences with this response. What did it accomplish last night?
So Joe, I think they wanted to accomplish a couple different things. So the first was they couldn't let this unprecedented attack on them by Iran just go unanswered, or they would have set a different paradigm in the Middle
East and one that they didn't find acceptable. The second, I think they really wanted to show that if they wanted to, they could strike deep into the heart of Iran in the location where they both have an air base and a part of their nuclear facilities complexes, if you will, that they use to develop the uranium necessary
to eventually make a bomb. If that was where they're going, and that's where many people think they are, but they did so in such a limited manner that it was more symbolic but important symbol rather than really made to cause destruction.
Appears interesting. Ian Bremmer tweeted earlier that this was in fact a de escalatory move, and I wonder if you agree with that. Having been so precise and so careful not to overreach, did Israel just end this for now?
Yes, I agree with that. I think this was certainly intended to be a de escalatory move, where again it was limited large at knabolic, but it did show essentially that Iran couldn't even stop this. I mean, they're probably special type of munitions that are very difficult to detect, but obviously weren't detected until they were well into her
On and it struck near the target. We haven't seen a battle damage assessment, but essentially I do think it was very minimal damage, and I do think the intent along with not talking about it, except for one notable exception, the Israeli cabinet has said nothing about it, so they don't want to poke anybody in the eye with the idea that this could contain this confrontation and essentially start moving in the other direction, which is de escalatory and
likely back into the shadow shadows of where this war has been fought for the last several decades.
Fascinating.
Well, it sounds to me like you think they struck the right balance here if de escalating was in fact the goal. Reports Mike say that the US did get a heads up here on this move, but did not green light it. It's an important distinction. What do you make of that?
So, Jerrold, this is something that the US was concerned about because of the strike in Damascus. They didn't believe they got a heads up, which is unusual, I have to say, having been in roles and been involved in notifications when it comes to this, usually Israel does give us a heads up. This time they obviously did too, probably because they had issues because they did not in the strike and Damascus that killed those senior I r
GC CUDS Force generals, But this time they did. I don't think they were asking for permission, but I do think there was an ongoing discussion with Israel star starting higher up the escalation ladder. If you will, when it came to their original course of action and then progressively going down in the last week and to the point where they got to this. The United States isn't going
to green light it. But I do think they felt that this was something that the United States would accept more and more importantly, would accept it because did it looks like de escalate the situation where Iran doesn't look like they're going to retaliate.
We're spending time with mc mulroy of the Lobo Institute. The area that was targeted here, Mick, Isfahan was significant and what you said is important here. While we may not be talking about massive destruction, they wanted to prove that they could reach deep into Iran without being intercepted, certainly not the way Iranians. Iran's attack was. This is home to Iran's nuclear program. What kind of a wake up call is that? For Tehran.
Joe, That is the wake up call. So Isfahan is the third largest city in Iran, It's deep in the middle of it. It has two facilities, one in Isfahan and then another in the Tons, which is only I think seventy kilometers from there. That's a very difficult target, but it does show that they could get these munitions into this location without being intercepted, either in the air
near it or actually striking the ground. And we don't know and might not find out, but it does certainly show that Israel has the capacity to strike in Iran when it needs to, even when it's expected, because a lot of I mean, this has been built up and people expected, and I'm sure that the Iranian era and missile defense were on high alarth right, So even when it's telegraphed, they still were able to do it. But they did it in a way that we think didn't
cause much damage. And so I think they did strike the right balance here, and I think the US, if they would comment, would agree that this is about the best scenario to de escalate the situation.
McK what did you make of the attack by Iran a week ago? A lot of people said this thing was made to be intercepted, that they telegraphed for a week they were coming, they gave Israel hours notice, and of course we know that ninety nine percent of the drones and missiles were in fact knocked down. Was that the aim by Iran are both of these countries tiptoeing around each other.
I think you could make that argument, yes, because of the delay, and the delay actually allowed the US military to move assets in the region to intercept the missiles. I mean, if you really wanted to cause a lot of destructions, you would have likely gone immediately. That said, it was so much, so many, so you know, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones three hundred and twenty total that were sequenced in my opinion to basically end up in
Israel at the same time. So yes, they launched a slow moving she needs first, but then they started getting caught up with by the ballistic cruise missiles and their ballistic missiles right, so they had really had to rely on the capability of Israel to intercept that many along with the United States and UK and our ARA partners. That was a big risk. I mean, there could have been things that had gone wrong and it could have
caused catastrophic damage. But I do think it's fair to say that that Iron wanted time for this to happen, but they did make They didn't send a pretty big risk or put out a pretty big risk that all these will be intercepted. But it's also important they launched
a lot, and they were not successful. So I know they tried to couch it as some kind of victory, but from the military perspective, it looks like even with all their capabilities they launched, they had zero effect on target, essentially zero.
Gosh, that's for sure. That's also I just wonder, it's super important, Mick. I wonder how much we learned about our own capability. Even if Uran slowed this down so we could knock some of these down, surely they didn't bet we could get ninety nine percent of them. And while we've had a lot of wargames to show our abilities, to actually do this in the field, in the wild and pull it off in reality is a different matter. Mick mulroy, great to see you. Thank you for coming
to talk to us again on Bloomberg. He's co founder of the Lobo Institute, and he knows what he's talking about, having served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. Great insights today as well from Billy House. The bills are moving on Capitol Hill, and it sounds like things might be calming down at least for a moment in Israel and in Iran, as they try to map out their next moves. We have much more ahead on Balance of Power. Stay with us on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Round Oro with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa a Bloomberg eleven.
First, the G seven condemned the unprecedented Iranian attack on Israel. Unprecedented in scope and scale, scope because it was a direct attack on Israel from Iran, scale because it involved more than three hundred communitions, including ballistic missiles. We're committed to Israel security. We're also committed to de escalating, to trying to bring this at tension to a close.
That was Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln speaking at the G seven alongside many other US allied countries, including some from Europe, and so we want to get more perspective now from the European Commission. Valdis Danbrofsky's is joining us now here in our Washington, d C studio on Bloomberg Television and Radio. He is the European Commission Executive Vice President for an Economy that works for people, Sir, thank
you so much for being here with us today. If we could first begin give the developments overnight in the Middle East, knowing that you primarily look at the economy, how concerned are you about possible escalation from here and the impact that that could have on energy prices, which we know has been highly problematic for the European economy in years past.
Well, first of all, we see that the world economy is proving to be resilient despite a difficult situation and different geopolitical tensions and conflicts we are currently experiencing. And also the impact on energy prices so far has been quite limited. Obviously, we need to monitor closely all of those developments, but the assessment is that the risks to the economic outlook are now broadly balanced.
You've been in Washington here meeting with lawmakers about the big story that we've been talking about here for months, mister Executive Vice President, and just today we saw an important procedural vote pass for funding for Ukraine, Israel in the Indo pak region. You're obviously very concerned about funding for Ukraine. What did you tell lawmakers when you met with Well.
Indeed, that was my main message in the meetings on the Hill, and basically I was emphasizing that from the EU side, we are doing a lot to provide financial but also military and other kind of support to Ukraine. So far we have provided support of around one hundred billion euros. We know how fifty billion euros Ukraine facility for the forty years twenty twenty four to twenty twenty seven.
We're already disbursing from this facility. So it's important that also other international donors and first and foremost US come also with their contribution. And therefore I very much look forward for tomorrow's votes and hope this Ukraine support is being approved because what we see that in the last months, actually the situation in Ukraine is deteriorating for the lack especially of military support. We see it both at the front line and we see it with the daily shellings
of Ukrainian cities, residential areas, critical infrastructure. So this support
is very much needed. I would say the collective West has all the necessary resources to stop Russian not to allow this shelling to take a place, and so hopefully this is a period of undecision and bittering is coming to the end, and we will be able to come with a strong and firm response to to Russia and also to other autocrats around the world, because it's also not only about Ukraine, it's about our collective security.
Well, you outline there the amount that Europe already has contributed to the Ukrainian cause. It's worth pointing out that there is at least a faction of thought here in the United States that thinks Europe is not caring as much weight as it should be. One of them is the presumptive Republican nominee. Former President Donald Trump posted on social media yesterday effectively to summarize his words, saying that Ukrainian survival is more important to Europe than it is
to the US. So why is Europe not giving more money to help Ukraine? Why can't it equalize or match the money? This is a quote put in by the United States of America. Is there more that Europe could be doing, sir? I wonder what your response would be to Donald Trump.
Well, first of all, facts has never been the strong side of Donald Trump, and it's also unfortunately this time is the case. So that's why I'm emphasizing so much as a financial aid EU has already provided, which is one hundred billion euros in all kinds of support Ukraine facility,
which is already in place of fifty billion euros. So the fact is that EU is the largest donor to Ukraine, and we are willing to continue this way because after all, indeed it's a war on Ukrainian on European continent, But of course it also requires solidarity from a broader democratic world, and with EU and US being strategic allies, US support is not only financially very important, but also as a signal of a West being united against this Russian aggression.
Chryst Donald Trump's view reflects the view of some Republican members in the House who are voting against this package. I wonder when you met with lawmakers this week, what was your reception. Did you hear pushback, did you hear criticism or were you well received with the lawmakers you met?
Well? I would say youse were definitely worrying on this topic. But my point was really to make the case why it's important not only for Ukraine but for entire global security architecture, because what we are seeing that also other autocrats are seeing if the West is not even able to contain Russia, so then also having ideas and the recent Iran attack against Israel is just another manifestation of this nine twenty few. It's important to stay firm and determined.
Another one, indeed, to make this point on the EU's contribution so far, to really show that EU is doing a lot of EU is actually doing more than the United States. We're happy to continue to do so, but everyone has to contribute well.
Of course, your conversations here in Washington have not just been limited to lawmakers. You are also here while the IMF World Bank meetings are underway, and I wonder from an economic lens, what you're hearing in the messaging and what message you are providing about the state of the European economy right now. Knowing that for now policy is still tight, there's questions around when will ease and where the economy will be depending on when that easing actually happens.
How are you thinking about the outlook for Europe? As the IMF essentially said, there could be a soft landing, but there are risks here well.
Indeed, as I was saying before, actually the global economy is proving resilient to both's current geopolitical attentions and also to the process of this inflation, which we know how to go through. So the expectations for a global gross is of three point two percent of BOSS this year and next. That's a IMFs world economic outlook. And as regards the EU, we are expecting zero point nine percent growth this year one point seven percent growth next year.
It's somewhat subdued growth right now, one could say. But at the same time, despite a war on Zeropean continent, despite as a need to tame high inflation, different this, since we are facing EU's economy is nevertheless growing.
I want to ask you about another foreign policy matter that you've been concerned with, and that's China supplying components to Russia and potentially evading sanctions. There's an economic element to this, there's obviously a geopolitical element to it.
How big of a problem is this becoming, Well, that's certainly a cause of concern. And the two elements one is circumvention of sanctions, but also another is innocence backfilling of the sanctions, and we are engaged with China on both of those elements. So in a sense what we are doing. We have what we call a high priority Battlefield items list, meaning items which we are finding in Ukrainian battlefields in Russian military equipment. We are tracing the
origin of these different kind of components. Is this lethal weaponry, Well, yes, it's Russian military weaponry which is being found on Ukrainian battlefields. And because it's not only about weapons deliveries, there are also many dual use components, if we talk about semiconductors, all kinds of other components. So we're tracing it back where it actually origins. Because we must face there's also still quite a few of those components of Western origin
which are reaching Russia. So we also need to work with our own companies, both in the U and US, making sure that they are not engaged in those sanction circumventions. And in the U we also have a possibility actually to go after the companies which are knowingly engaging in these kind of activities. We are putting also requirements on no result to Russia on exports of dual use items, and we're actually coordinating this work quite a lot with US.
We recently also put certain measures against Chinese and Hong Kong Ngong paniques which are involved in sanctions circu convention by prohibiting EU companies to do any business with them. So there are things which we can do. And it's clear as we are now putting strict sanctions against Russia, EU, US other players, Russia is looking at a ways to say convince them. So we need to stay alert, follow the patterns and to the extend possible closes circ convention and possible Loopholese.
Faldest Don brobscast with a view from the European Commission. We appreciate you making us part of your week here in Washington, and I hope the spring meetings of the IMF continue well for you. Thanks for talking with this. I'm Bloomberg Kelly. A lot to cover there as we consider a vote on the REPO Act yeah tomorrow that plays into this Ukraine story in a big way.
Yeah, the so called sidecar fourth piece of legislation that has not just REPO but also that TikTok divestiture bill. All of that going to be bundled together and sent to the Senate. Chuck Schumer says, could be a working weekend for senators too, not just the House and We'll have more on that with our political panel next. On Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, car Play, and then rout Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
I am Kaylee Lines alongside Joe, Matthew and Washington, where it's also busy here. The House has passed one rule for four different measures that they will vote on on Saturday. We know, Joe that this rule had bipartisan support, helping to move forward this ninety five billion dollars foreign aid package. I wonder, though, when it becomes a chance to vote for each of these packages individual Ukraine, Israel into Pacific, the sidecar with everything else in it, what the vote
breakdown is going to look like. And if as many Democrats will show up for the Israel funding, that's a question. As for others, and perhaps maybe they're more likely to after what we saw overnight with potential further escalation, though not as escalatory as it could have been, as this reel strikes a.
Well and I guess that was the plan here from Mike Johnson, right, he knew that Dems might have a problem with Israel. He certainly knew that his Republican conference had a problem with Ukraine. I don't know what everyone thinks about TikTok at this point, of course, the House already moved at TikTok divest or ban bill, and so yeah, the margins might look a little different for each of these either way, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is pretty happy with what he sees here in a
rule that passed. It took more Democrats than Republicans to do it, and he talked to reporters earlier today, here's the Speaker.
It's not the legislation that we would write if Republicans were in charge about the House and send it in the White House. This is the best possible product that we can get under these circumstances to take care of these really important obligations.
We did the best we could. The message from the Speaker as we assembled our panel. Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano, Bloomberg Politics contributor, It's great to have you both with us here as we actually prepare for voting. Jeanie, let's get to what Kayleie was talking about. Here are we going to see a sizeable number of Democrats vote, know on funding for Israel this day after the retaliation against ir own.
Yeah, I think that's going to be one of the curious things to watch. You know, you all were talking about the attack last night. You know, in New York here a lot of local attention on the protests at Columbia University where students are asking the university to divest from their investments in Israel. So this is a lot of tension on the ground. We saw San Francisco not that many days ago, so I do think there's a possibility we do see at least a call to place
more conditions on that aid. But I think all in all, in the end this is going to pass. But with all of these sort of four buckets, if you will, in this larger bill, I think we're going to see some strange bedfellows and that's going to be one of the dramatic things tomorrow is by how much do these votes do these bills or if the separate bills pass, assuming all for or at least three of the four seem on their way to passage.
Well, Rick, we know what a lot of the progressive Democrats who take issue with Israel's policy in Gaza have been pushing for is Israel to have more constraint or restraint rather in the consideration of the civilian death tool here, they would like them to be more restrained in their operations, focusing more on humanitarian aid. But there also has been a lot of push for Israeli restraint in response to what we saw AROANDU last weekend. Has Israel actually heeded
that message? Is that what we learned overnight that Okay, when the US and allies do call for restraint in what could have potentially been a very escalatory incidence, Israel seems largely to have done that.
Yeah, I think that would be our guess. The fact that Secretary Blankin did not criticize Israel today for any of their actions and actually was pretty quiet about the entire incursion. I mean, like Israel launches a drone strike in Iran any other day that would be above the full headline creating a global crisis. Now it almost seems like, oh,
thank god they did that. And I would say the only criticism that I've seen of any real value is within nit Yahoo's own wark cabinet, and you know, he had some of his top allies in his coalition say this was a weak attempt at a response, and so you know, he was balancing the conservatives in his coalition with the needs of his people and the global attitude toward a broader conflict. And you know, my guess is
they probably figured this one out. I mean, the question now is is this the end of this sort of messaging phase where you know, Ran sends a message to Israel, Israel sends a message to Iran. I mean, these aren't really calculated as diminishing capacity on either front. It is really to send messages. And so are we done with the messaging phase? And can we move on now to a more constructive dialogue around the humanitarian crisis and what's
going on in Gaza? And there's a big chunk of change in this supplemental package to address some of those
humanitarian needs almost ten billion dollars. And so this could actually be an incredibly good weekend for the president because he can look at this and say I got the supplemental that I basically wanted, and I have a calmer Middle East to where we can actually step off and start finding solutions to the death toll in Gaza, and you know that's a if he can get that done, that's a pretty good week of work.
Fair enough, Jeanie, I went to your point, your view on Rick's point. Officials were clear here in the US last night that they did get a heads up by Israel, but they wanted to make the point that the US did not greenlight the response. Does that make a difference to progressives who are already angry at Joe Biden about Israel?
You know, I'm not sure it's going to make that much of a difference politically. I think Israel showed an awful lot of restraint, Asrick was just talking about in the aftermath, as well as did the administration. I think all sides, or most sides are hoping that this is the end of it, that Iron doesn't decide to retaliate,
and the de escalation was achieved. But I will tell you some of the reporting we're hearing is the kind of thing that makes people on the left concerned and feel that there is double speak, as some people call it, come on out of the administration, And this is the reporting just now that the Biden administration is considering sending tanks, mortars,
vehicles to got to Israel. This is the kind of thing where people on the left say they don't really care what the you know, sort of muted response was to last night. The fact that their government is still supplying and the civilian situation and the number of casualties and the humanitarian crisis continues is what is the source of a lot of this frustration and angst. And so you know, that's where I think the political end of
this is going to show up. And I think Joe Biden as usual is having to walk a really tough, you know, tightrope on this. We heard Blinken supporting Israel and our closest allies and condemning Around's attack last weekend, but of course that has done little to assuage the critics on the left. So it's a very tough moment for the administration on all of this.
Yeah, of course, because you're not just an incumbent president and administration but also trying to actively campaign for president and want to get reelected in November, which just makes this all the more compli And of course the man Biden is running against the presumptive Republican nominee Rick is spending his time not so much maybe focused on geopolitics, so there's certainly he has been weighing in on true social but spending a lot of time, including today at
a courtroom in New York. We do now have the jury seated. Twelve jurors have been selected one alternate. We're looking for five more. But it does seem like the jury selection process could wrap up in the not so distant future and we could potentially be getting into opening statements next week. Rick, How consequential is it going to be when voters start to hear details about an alleged affair between Donald Trump and a porn star and everything that has happened in the aftermath.
Yeah, I think there's been so much written and talked about that Donald Trump has taken advantage of these court cases and then he's raised money off of them, and he's turned him into political events. I think he starts to feel the pain when all the details start coming out about you know, his illicit relationships, you know with not just the porn star, but all so a playboy model. You know, he's got his own people who are going
to testify. Hope Hicks likely will be on the stand Michael Cohen, who's gotten a lot of press about this.
This is going to be horrible.
I mean like there's no campaign manager on the face of the earth that's going to look at next week and say, oh, this will be great for us. I think we can really win a lot of votes this way. It'll be damage control. And we see them trying to do that by putting people like President Dudah in meetings with the President to try and change the topic. But there's only so much you can do while you've got a court case going on all day.
David Pecker is another name as we hear about this operation. I forget the name of the thing, Kayley, what do they call the hide and seek whatever it is that they had going there to basically snuff out stories that were detrimental to Donald Trump by buying off some individuals here, catch and kill. Elizabeth, thank you for helping me out that testimony could resonate more than some of the others. Genie, how will it play?
Oh, you know, I think I agree with Rick on this. I think it's going to be very tough. You know, I was just talking to a group of young people not that long ago who don't watch all that closely, and they just scratch their head out the idea that he is in the first of four criminal trials, even those who support him and say, how can this person
run for office and potentially be the next president? So I think next week is critical because all of this we've been talking about about these trials comes home to roost and people actually see the reality, which is that so close to the White House may indeed be found guilty of thirty four counts in a criminal trial.
All right, Jeanie Shanzeno and Rick Davis are Bloomberg Politics contributors. Thank you both so much, and just to bring you the latest on Trump's hush money trial up in New York. All six alternates have now been selected. Wow, so we have a full panel of alternates and jurors for this case.
Joe opening statements on Monday? Isn't that what that means?
Potentially they do have a half day Monday and Tuesday for passover, But next week it looks like it could happen.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroud Oro with a Bloomberg business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
With actual news on Capitol Hill. They passed a rule that should not be news. But after rules failed seven times already, for this speaker, it was a big deal to see Democrats line up behind him a few more than Republicans today to pass the rule that will allow all these separate funding bills to be stitched together into
a single body and sent to the Senate. The line from Thomas Massey, one of the Republicans now two who have joined Marjorie Taylor Green with her motion to vacate, says all he takes to Twitter, the US House is now officially in an alternate universe where the speaker shares procedural power with Democrats. Kaylee lines, is that not true at this point of the game, Well, I.
Guess, effectively, if you need Democrats to get everything over the finish line because you can't get enough Republican votes, yeah, and you might need Democrats to save your gavel if this motion to vacate actually is acted upon by Marjorie Taylor Green and her two buddies in this effort, then, yeah, you rely on Democrats at the very least. Do we go all the way and say this is a coalition government?
Yeah, but maybe that formal power sharing agreement, right.
Maybe that's one step too far, but maybe we're.
Not far from it.
Mixican a pull us in from the ledge on this.
You see Mick Mulvaney, the former Republican congressman from South Carolina. Of course, former acting chief of Staff under the Trump administration. He has a litany of other titles as well. Make always great to have you here on balance of power? What's your take on what's happening in the House and the extent to which might Johnson is not relying on his own party but the other to get his job done.
Hey, Kaylee, Joe's going to see you guys as actually sitting here, just jotting down some notes as you were doing your little infro. And the word I kept I wrote about three times was exactly what Kaylee just said. This is a coalition government. That's exactly what this is. Right now, And let's let's geek out a little bit, shall we on House procedure If that's okay?
Right?
Rules are supposed to pass on party lines, and when the Speaker's Committee and the Rules Committee is the Speaker's committee, that the Speaker puts all the Republicans on that particular committee. When that committee cannot pass a piece a rule out and you have to rely on the Democrats, then you are now in a coalition government. You're now passing stuff that is acceptable to a majority of both Republicans and Democrats, a coalition style government. Give him on what a rule is.
Because of the arcane way that the House Representative works, there aren't really any rules until you say a rule for every single piece of legislation. That rule includes when it will be debated, how long it will be debated, who gets to speak, and for how long which amendments will be in order or allowed to be debated and
voted on, et cetera. Without that, you have to do what you guys mentioned in the intro, which is do a suspension of the rules, which is essentially just bring something down and see if two thirds to people support it. If so, it passes. This is again a bizarre way to do business, but with the House's word for generations. When the Republicans need the Democrats or vice versa to pass a rule, which is what you have to have to bring a bill to the floor where it can
pass with a civil majority. You have a coalition government, and that's what's functioning right now in the House.
Well that's remarkable. I thought you were going to say, come on, guys, give them a break. This isn't a formal power sharing agreement. But we read you, Mick, and I guess I'm just wondering what happens next. Then if this is in fact a coalition style government, whatever we're going to call it, that would also protect him from being fired.
Right, Well, that's the test, right, I mean, I know if you all saw it. Kevin McCarthy, he said, I can't remember what the outlaw was. Last week, he said he thought that he had an understanding from the Democrats that they would come to his aid, which is why he said reach out because he didn't want to spoiler his relationship with his own party. And it might be that Mike has something formal, something informal. It might be Mike thinks they're coming to his aid, but we won't
really know until the vote happens. And that's why let's get to the interesting stut right. The vote to vacate the chair is a privileged motion, So anybody, now that it's been filed and it's ripened, it's sat in the hopper for X number of days, it can be brought up at any time by anyone, and once it is,
it stops all other activity. So if Marjorie Taylor Green and Thomas Manaseer are sincere about trying to stop what's happening on the floor, they could, in theory, not in theory, they could actually bring the motion now and bring the House to a halt, at least temporarily. Why they vote, or semi permanently if it passes, until they reach a new until they hire a new speaker, well make I.
Think it's interesting that some of those who cast a vote to oust Kevin McCarthy last fall are suggesting that they would not do so again this time because they have serious concerns either it's going to hurt the Republicans electorally come November, or because there's a real chance that Hockey Jefferies could end up the House speaker. What's different now that wasn't true when we were dealing with Kevin McCarthy inside the Republican Party, including the House Freedom caucus.
Bob Good does not seem to want to go along with us. Can you just try to take us inside that room and work through what you think they might be thinking.
I think some of the folks are starting to realize what poor decision making they may have made when they remove Kevin McCarthy. They sort of brought this stain on the reputation of Republican Party and didn't get better policies out of it anyway. So I think they're scratching their heads going maybe all those people like Mulvaney who are saying this is a stupid move might have been right. By the way, one of my favorite sayings is that the biggest line Washington, d C. Is I hate to
say I told you so. Everybody loves saying I told you so in Washington, DC, but I said a lot of folks were starting to realize that I wouldn't disminish the role of Donald Trump here. I don't think Donald Trump and that's the reason you saw him with Mike Johnson this week was our last week. I guess it lose track of time was because he doesn't want this distraction.
He wants the negative focus that's on Biden now about the economy and Biden's inability to that and to navigate what's happening in the Middle East, and he wants the attention on his trials, which he is using now to his political game. If the Republicans replace a speaker or move replace a speaker, that goes to the top of the media list and it kicks him down one, maybe two notches, that he doesn't like that. So I think
he's a combination of things. But keep in mind, and we had this conversation, Kaylee, with John Bayner the day before he retired. He called a bunch of us into a room, etaid, I think six or eight of us, and said, are you all going to bring the motion to vacate? And because it had been sitting there sort of like it is now for Mike Johnson, and we said, you know, mister speaker, no we won't. We'll give you our word on that, but if anybody else does, we
are going to vote to vacate the chair. And that's the question right now is are those folks out there who are saying, you know, I don't want to change a speaker. Let's not change the speaker now, it's bad for the party.
Et cetera.
If the vote actually comes down, will they vote to keep Mike Johnson in there or will they vote to vote amount.
Well, it's really something. As your former House Freedom Caucus weighs in on this. To Kaylee's point, they met last evening and decided that this motion to vacate was a bad idea. Mick, is it about the devil?
You know?
The Freedom Caucus doesn't want a Steve Scalize or a Tom Emmer to replace Mike Johnson, or God forbid, in their view, a Hakim Jeffries, right.
I think I don't think Hakim Jeffries's possibility is for real, but there might be a compromised person. But I think the bottom line is this is that I think they've now realized that the things they didn't like about what was happening under Kevin McCarthy's speakership was not because of Kevin McCarthy. It was because they have a three or four or five vote margin period.
That's it.
And replace seeing Mike Johnson and any other Republican is not going to change. And the outcomes at this point nobody who they can imagine in their wildest dreams. Keep in mind, Mike Johnson was praised by the right wing when he took over as speaker. He was their win. I remember that the right wing groups claiming that this is what it was all about, it was worth it
to get rid of McCarthy. Is look at the great Conservative and things are going to be different now and the A team, and we were right, And now they're sort of looking their hands over and going maybe it wasn't a personality driven thing or an individual driven thing. Maybe it was systemic. And I think that's correct. This is what you get when your majority is only four or five people, and I think now some of them are starting to realize that.
Nick Maulvaney, great to see you, Mick. Thanks for coming back to talk to us. We'd love to connect next week once this is all done. Co founder of the House Freedom Caucus, of course, former congressman and former acting Chief of Staff and the Trump administration. Thanks for listening
to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.