Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg's sound on we need world wide effort to invest in transformative clean energy projects. President is important, but sometimes President Bloomberg's sound on politics, policy, and perspective from DC's top names. They literally rolled back a right that women have enjoyed for half a century. Why change the topic right? Why Why get off into a social war around issues like abortion? The number one issue in most households is is in place?
To Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. State laws are changing in the wake of the row. Ruling Democrats in Washington say they are pursuing legislation of
their own. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics as we follow the evolving legal and political sides of the story in a conversation ahead with Kathy Jennings, the Attorney general for the state of Delaware, which has already moved legislation in the wake of Friday's decision, and we'll have analysis from our panel of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic analyst Ginnie Schanzano along today with Republican strategist Doug High,
the former communications director for the Republican National Committee, Vladimir Putin targets Keyev with missile strikes, just as President Biden arrives in Europe for the G seven. We'll talk about the mission for these meetings, how much patience the world
has for a protracted war in Ukraine. With Daniel Freed, former ambassador to Poland, now with the Atlantic Council, Nancy Pelosi puts pen to paper another letter to the Caucus, this time, of course, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on Friday, saying the Chamber, the Democrats, at least in the Chamber, are going to pursue legislation to protect personal data stored on health apps and to ensure the right to free travel between states, as well to
codify the rights to an abortion. That might be a heavier lift. We'll see if any of them can see the light of day. While states, of course, conduct some of their own business here, and one of them is Delaware. As we told you, we're going to be speaking with the Attorney General. On Friday, the day of the ruling, the Delaware House passed a bill strengthening abortion rights and women's health in the state. It's going to the Senate. Now.
One of many states actually moving legislation in the wake of the ruling on Friday, and we're joined now by Kathy Jennings, the Attorney General of the state of Delaware. Attorney General, thanks for being here. We appreciate your time today. We just want to get a sense of to start off with the conversation that's happening behind the scenes. Why do you need new legislation if it's already legal to
get an abortion in Delaware. Well, thank you Joe for having me, and we needed new legislation which will sail through its final stage in the Senate for the following reason. Delaware has had Roe v. Wade Um as our law of the state for going on three years now, and we have protected people's access to abortion in this state as well as decriminalizing the crime of abortion in our state, which means it no longer exists as a crime in Delaware.
We've also expanded access to abortion services by expanding the categories of medical providers who can provide those services. This newest legislation goes even further to protect women who come to our state to seek an abortion, as well as providers who provide that service to women from other states. What do we say, when we mean that, what kind
of protections? Sure, So the protections are as follows. Women who come to our state to seek an abortion may in fact criminal prosecution in their own state, or providers who provide those services in our state could potentially face criminal prosecution depending on the laws of the states that have done away with Roe v. Wade as a protection and have criminalized We know that as we speak, as many as eleven states have either made it illegal automatically
or have heavily regulated it. And so we need to make sure that Delaware is not only a safe place to receive an abortion, but the providers are protected here. And how do you then affect the laws of another state if they want to, for instance, charge someone upon their return, how does Delaware get involved in that? So, if the provider in Delaware provides the abortion services, that
provider cannot be extradited to a state that wants to prosecute. Okay, how about the patient and the patient we believe has an absolute right to travel to our state under our constitution, and we will protect that right. That is where I believe that that Democratic attorneys general across the country can band together and bring a lawsuit against any state that seeks to restrict the right of that patient to travel
to a state when services understood. How about when it comes to medication, This is going to be a big part of the debate across the country. I realize it's not an issue in Delaware, but but it may be uh in other states. Is it something that you would preemptively act on in your state to protect access to medication by mail? Yes? Absolutely. We want to protect all forms of medication assisted abortion in our state and we
will continue to do that. And we want to make sure that in Delaware, in our small state of Delaware, that we have expanded access um so that people who do come here can receive an abortion and do it not only in a safe manner, but expeditiously as well. And so I've convened a group of providers and advocates throughout our state to talk about these very issues. How do we protect and make sure that abortion in Delaware is guaranteed safe and expeditious. Do you I don't know
if you use the term sanctuary state. I'm assuming that you do not as as an office holder in Delaware, but that's what people are calling this. Stephen, do you want Delaware to have that reputation that if if you need this type of service, our doors are open. We want you to come here. Absolutely, we are an access state, and when you come here, we want to ensure that it's safe for you to be here, that you are protected, and that you have full access to the array of
abortion services that Delaware offers. We are not going to see this, this stunning reversal of a constitutional right that's been in existence for fifty years go away anytime soon. Yeah. Well, how about the right of interstate travel, because we started our conversation talking about people coming in from out of state. Is the constitutional right of interstate travel under threat? You
think that it may be. For instance, when you hear President Biden talk about using the full authority of the White House to to try to keep that from changing. I was so proud when I heard that said by our president because it's critically important, as he said, that the federal government play a role in protecting that constitutional right to travel, because that's what's going to happen to
women who are in states that now outlaw abortion. They will have to travel to seek access to that service, and so the federal government will will do everything in its power to ensure that people can safely travel to an access abortion protected state, and the state governments that stand up for abortion rights will also protect that right. You heard me mentioned Nancy Pelosi coming into this conversation.
We've heard from the leadership in Washington, and it is somewhat predictable, but Nancy Pelosi says Democrats will pursue legislation which a lot of people have written off because I'm assuming it would have trouble, if if any chance, right now, passing the Senate. But is there something that Washington can do to back up what you're doing the support of
the capital here for Delaware. I think it's critically important for Congress to act, and I applaud how Speaker Nancy Pelosi as I always do, because she's brave and she's undaunted in her courage to go forward with how on codifying the right to an abortion or for instance, protecting personal data on health apps, which is something that apparently
we're going to be debated as well. Protecting that personal data will be critical because you can bet that in states where abortion is illegal, there will be attempts to get at patients private medical records and like Delaware. That should be protected throughout our country. The right to travel should be protected. And I know that that Speaker Pelosi
intends to introduce a bill that protects that right. And I should mention that Justice Cavanaugh, who agreed with the majority, who joined the majority opinion, even he said in his concurring opinion that he believed that women should have the right to travel under our constitution. We're talking with the Attorney General of the state of Delaware, Kathy Jennings here
on Bloomberg Radio. As you step back from this as as the top law enforcement official in the state of Delaware, and you look at what's going to be a very complicated path to work. We're talking about the laws in your state. They're going to be very different laws in other states. There's going to be a lot of confusion, There's going to be a lot of lawsuits, a lot of people could get in trouble here. How are you
thinking about this from a rational law enforcement standpoint? I am the top law officer in my state, as many attorneys general throughout the country are. We have succeeded when we ban together to fight for the rights of people who live in our states, we will get through this, and we will protect women in our country. It's going to take all of us acting together, acting in concert, to protect what we have always taken for granted as a constitutional right. You have to work with other states,
though you can't obviously be making enemies of other state governments. Here, How does how does this uh, this this cooperation take place with with you welcoming people from other states but also continuing to be part of this union. We are a country that is divided, and this issue divides us in a very deep way. I can't remember a time when the Supreme Court of the United States took away a right that for almost fifty years have been guaranteed
in our constitution. And we're gonna do everything in our arsenal to protect those rights within our states and protect people who come to the States. Kathy Jennings Delawares, Attorney General, we thank you for your thoughts today on Bloomberg Radio, This is Sound on the fastest hour in Politics. I'm Joe Matthew, not in Washington today, but coming to you from Bloomberg World headquarters in New York. We turned to the panel next to seek some balance here with Jeanie Chanzano.
Today along with Republican strategists and former Deputy Chief staff to Rik Canter, former r n C communications director Doug high Back with us. Coming up next, we'll check traffic and markets for you to This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg, So No with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio and a big what Now in Washington as lawmakers try to figure their role following the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade Friday, Listen to Senator Elizabeth Warren before we assemble
the panel. She was among the lawmakers making the rounds over the weekend the Sunday News shows. In this case ABC this week, the senator from Massachusetts says she's considered going to President Biden to find out exactly what the federal government can do to help in this case. Is not not the state view, but the federal view. Here's
Senator Warrnt. It also means asking the President of the United States to make abortion as available as possible with the tools he has, including medication abortion, including using federal lands as a place where abortions can occur. This is where we begin with our paneled Bloomberg Politics contributor, Democratic analyst Jennie Chanzano along with Doug Hies back with us today, Republican strategist, former deputy chief of staff to Erik Cantor,
and former calms director at the Republican National Committee. Great to have both of you with us here. Genie, we've been talking about this, of course since Friday, and now that you're hearing Senator Warren throw a few ideas around there, for instance, as you just heard, using federal lands as an option, but also the idea of medication abortion, codifying that somehow in law, Washington's role may not be over here, right,
at least before something greater can happen. Yeah, you know, we're hearing from both the Democrats and the Republicans, and so Elizabeth Warren one of many Democrats who's calling on the Biden administration to explore those things you you mentioned, also to potentially providing travel vouchers for women seeking abortions to travel the states where they are legal. And you know, you hear Ron Wide and Jeff Merkley a whole group of them, because they really want an all hands on
approach by the federal government. Of course, on the flip side, you're hearing from Republicans as well. We heard from former Vice President Mike Penn's talking about potentially a law of the land if Republicans take Washington that would ban abortion outright. And we've heard that from House members as well. So you know, we are hearing Washington talk about these ideas and options. The question, as always, can the federal government
deliver on you know, Congress and or the administration. And you know, we have to go back to what President Biden said about this and guns, is that he doesn't have a lot of options at his disposal because his power is limited to a certain extent. Doug, it's good
to have you back. We have a story on the terminal today, the headlined anti abortion movement divided, a movement described in this piece by the president of the Human Coalition as thousands of organizations that have very different missions. What ex acthlete does the Republican Party do with this ruling? Now, well, it's it's unclear. There are a lot of directions that you know, the party can do nationally. Obviously, state parties
are going to do different things in different states. So while you know, a lot of repup yes, yes, um, well, in Washington right now, you know, the RNC is still right now in a wait and c mode, and they are in a wait and see mode to see what what Biden the Democrats do, what Republican governors are going to offer as things that they could try and move
on a national model. But you also have a you know, a divide, if not a divide, a disagreement in opinion between you know, Mike Pents as you mentioned, who wants to push a national abortion law, and Mitch McConnell, who says that he doesn't want to do so. And I'll tell you two things. One, I've just read that Kamala Harris has taken the the idea of using federal lands off the table um. But I'm also surprised that Democrats
have never codified roe versus weight in the law. With a you know, with a majority the Holsing Senate right now and a Democratic president, you would think that would be one of the things they'd be trying to do. Yeah, that's for sure, Genie. There's so many different ways to to look at this, uh and and so few options, it seems in Washington. I mean, are we really talking about legislation that would get through the Senate on providing
public lands, for instance, for abortions. Yeah, I think it'd be very tough to get anything along those lines through the Senate right now. And you know, it's it's interesting, you know what Doug was just talking about. There was also Asa Hutchinson over the weekend, you know, putting himself in opposition to somebody like Mike Pence saying, you know, look, guys, we fought for a federal approach to this for so long. Let's not move at nationals. So you're getting a break
within the parties as well. And I think the reality of all of this is that we have this patchwork approach to this now and the people who are on the losing end are the women in need of services who you know, it depends on where they're living and how much money they have and what kind of access they have, what kind of rights they have, and that's gonna, you know, at the very least, lead to a host of litigation depending on what the states and if the
federal government can act what it does as well. Senator MS McConnell talked about this he's done in Washington is actually down in Kentucky at the Old Rotary Club lunch in Florence, is where this conversation took place. Speaking to the idea of legislation at the federal level to codify
abortion law, Here's what he said. Neither side of this issue has come anywhere close to having so I think this is likely all be litigated out dealt with in the various states around the country through the democratic process, and Doug, if that's what the minority leader says, that's what happens, right, Yeah, absolutely, But there's also there's the policy fight, and there's the political fight, and you know, before the Supreme Court announcement on Thursday, every addiction was
essentially it's going to be a big election year for Republicans. Now we're starting to ask questions of whether or not that that's going to be true or not. And I think the honest answer right now is probably so, but we're not sure. Um, but Democrats will need to have things to talk about in the upcoming elections that aren't about inflation, rising crime and the border. This is an opportunity for them, and you know, a lot of the you know, a lot of what we're hearing is crying
out for Biden in the administration to do more. You're not hearing a lot of what Democratic members of Congress and senators are going to want to do, and they're the ones who are on the ballots. Doug Hi, Genie Schanzano our panel on a Monday. I'm Joel Matthew. This is Bloomberg, the headline on our G seven latest on the terminal. Zelenski tells leaders aid will be needed long term, and it looks like he's going to be getting it.
Not only the declaration that I mentioned pledging support for his government in this war effort for quote as long as it takes unquote, but we already know of a specific weapons package that is on the way. Ukraine right now cannot defend itself against all the missiles that are
coming in from Russia, and so Zelenski. President Zelenski actually spoke to the leaders of the G seven nations today by video link from Kiev, which was struck over the weekend by a Russian missile attack the capital of Kiev.
And so we're gonna be sending apparently some much more effective missile defense systems over something that Jake Sullivan talked about, the National Security Director here he is at the top of his mind, was the set of missile strikes that took place in Kiev and other cities across Ukraine, and his desire to get additional air defense capabilities that could shoot down Russian missiles out of the sky, and he will. According to Sullivan, Senior National Security Advisor, we're sending medium
to long range weapons systems. Specifically, these are missile defense systems that will apparently help Ukraine in the fight. Here as Zelenski tells the G seven that he wants the war to be over by the end of the year. We're joined now by Daniel Freed, former Ambassador to Poland, has been a very reliable voice and generous to share insights with us since the beginning of this war. Former Assistant Secretary of State for Europe. Now Wiser Family, distinguished
fellow at the Atlantic Council. UH, Ambassador, it's great to have you back. Well, this new weapons package make a difference. We're starting to give them so many now it's hard to keep track of them all. It's an advanced surface to air missile system. It will help the Ukrainians defend themselves. Today you had missiles, Russian missile strikes on civilian targets. They hit a shopping center, trapping, killing a lot of civilians. This is ugly business. The Russians are using basic terror
to try to force Ukraine to surrender. The Ukrainians won't, and the G seven have backed them. I'm glad that we're sending them the sophisticated systems. This weapon system by itself won't turn the tide. But if you add up everything we're sending them, the Ukrainians have a chance on the battlefield. They're resisting and they can prevail. What is for as long as it takes means is that the same as a blank check, Ambassador, and it's not a blank check. But what that means is we're not about
to let Putin simply outweighed us. There's this sense sometimes in the West, certainly in Russia, the Russians have infinite patients and we have a short attention span. Therefore, they can win by just sitting tight. The G seven was saying to Putin not so fast. We also can stick to a policy. Look, this is not going to be over in weeks. We need to mean what we say when we say that the Ukrainians are fighting our our fight, in the fighting against an aggressive dictator. We need to
mean that we need to help them. It's not a blank check in the sense that President Biden has drawn a hard line saying no US troops in Ukraine fighting over Ukraine, but a blank check presumably for defensive weapons and assistants. I I just wonder your thoughts on a war fatigue. It's something that I've been asking everyone today coming off of last week, that the nation's attention was was drawn, of course, to a series of Supreme Court rulings.
We're dealing with historic high inflation, We're going into a mid term election cycle at the same time. How long do you expect Americans to support sending billions and billions to Ukraine to support this war effort when we have such historically short memories, Ambassador, I wouldn't short change the American people or assume that we're as a people irresponsible and sort of flighty. I think that Americans know what's at stake. I think we will support Ukraine, and I
think they will. I think Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, are ready are ready to do so. But I did notice one very interesting sentence in the G seven communicate UH buried near the end, there was a sentence G seven is going to think about using some of the three hundred billion dollars of frozen Russian reserves that we've locked down. And you saw that money for Ukrainian reconstruction
now that I was waiting for. That didn't mean they've decided to use it, but it does mean since you raised American needs, I think G seven countries are going to be tempted to find a legal and sustainable way to do that. Why have taxpayer US taxpayer money go to repair the damage Russians have have made when we've got we're sitting on three billion dollars of Russian absolutely and you know the American people would support it in terms of the timeline, Ambassador President, but we could do it.
The President Zelenski says he wants this over by the end of the year. Is that realistic on any level? The question is not just whether the Ukrainians can keep fighting or whether Western attention span will hold, but whether the Russians can keep fighting. They've got a lot of problems too. Their military is not in good shape. They've got production problems in their military production caused partly by US and European sanctions. Their morale isn't good. The Ukrainians
are fighting for their country. The Russians are fighting for conquests, not the same thing. So it's not clear to me that Putin can keep this up forever either. He may be pushing bluffing, basically saying nothing can stop us, but in fact he's got some problems as well. If the Ukrainians resist and we help them resist, the Russian offensive may run out of steam, in which there can be a settlement on much better terms than Putin would prefer.
The G seven is not NATO, of course, We're headed to the NATO meetings later this week, Ambassador, I only have thirty seconds left. But is the message the same from Joe Biden at the NATO summit as it is now at the G seven. I think you'll see the President take a strong position on Ukraine. I think you will see NATO take a strong position to resist Russian aggression against all NATO members, and that is something we
would fight for. So it's been not a decisive week, but a strong week for the for freedom, the free world in US leadership. Have the review from Daniel Freed, Ambassador, Thank you as ever, Daniel Freed here on Bloomberg sound on Will reassemble the panel next to get Doug in Genie's thoughts on this, as we also have a hearing set for tomorrow we didn't know about yesterday. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg, So long with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio.
Looks like the NATO summit later on this week will be a newsy one, as we were just discussing with Ambassador Daniel Freed. The President has a lot to solve here, a lot to figure out as he spends time with his, of course, fellow leaders in this alliance. And a breaker from NBC News here Biden to announced extension of US troop presence in Poland. Interesting remembering that it won't be everybody here, but some of the increased US troop presence
in Poland reportedly will be extended here. It's also going to mean changes to US deployments in several Baltic nations that he authorized ahead of the invasion of Ukraine, I think Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. The White House declined to comment on the story. Of course, that doesn't start for a couple of days here, so we'll be looking for President
Biden to make an announcement along those lines. Later on this week in Madrid, still in Germany, the G seven, as we reassembled our panel, Genie Chanzy No Democratic analyst, Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican strategist Doug High is back today, former communications director at the r n C. You know, Doug, They always, well at least used to say or in a in a in a non war time, that events like these were great for the commander in chief because
they allowed him to look presidential. President. Biden's had a lot of opportunities to do that. Of course over the last couple of months. How is this one going optically for him? Well, the optics so far, I think I've benefited him. Obviously. Democrats are unified um behind Biden. Republicans are mixed, but they've been generally um supportive of Biden. And he has the benefit of almost universal American support for Zelenski, which which certainly helps him as he tries
to make a cause. But Biden, excuse me, Plutin knows his best asset is time, and as you were talking about, he is playing as much of a waiting game as anything out as anything else, and hoping that he can outwagh wait us. The good news is, you know it, it appears that the G seven not only remains unified,
but it is more unified. Just over the actions that we've seen over the past couple of days, especially with that bombing of the mall Um to be in this fight for the long for the long haul and the bombing of Kiev, we hadn't seen the capital city targeted like that. Uh an apartment block was destroyed, Doug, how many more rounds of weapons packages? If that's what we're gonna call them? Uh? Do we get here before people
start questioning spending? I know that's not a popular question to ask right now, but as the president gets closer to November, if that coincides with people losing patients for this effort, that could be a major political story. It is, and the short answer is, we don't know, but we're starting to see some cracks. Um. We're seeing more Republicans opposed additional spending for Ukraine, and we don't know where
that's going to go. And obviously with a new Congress, whatever of that Congress, maybe those questions will only increase. What's your thought on this, Genie. I know that's not a conversation that a lot of people are having But that's why we have it here on Bloomberg. The president has to know that this is not endless, even though the agreement today the declaration basically says indefinite support here right, for as long as it takes. Yeah, it's a critically
important question. You know, we had Zelinsky talking about, you know, wanting the war to be over by the end of this year. Um to Doug's point, if the Russians can drag this on and this becomes a war of attrition and they're trading small winds but there's no knockout punch and this thing drags on, there does become a chance that there are cracks both in the United States domestically, but also in our relationships with NATO and with the EU.
So that it's critically important, and it does concern me a bit that there was an end of the year sort of discussion um as if this thing could be wrapped up. And you know, one of the questions I've asked a repeatedly, as you know, is is there a
political solution here? What is the end of this? This is a president who promised not to get us into endless war pulled us out of Afghanistan in a in a particularly problematic way, and yet now he's involved in this proxy war which seems to have no end and big costs not just monetarily but for civilians over there, and so I think there are real serious questions to be asked. In the ambassador's point about the infrastructure end
of this is critically important. They are going to try to use that money to rebuild over there, and right they should. But you know there's also the President talking about this build back Better World, and that's going to become another critical component of this infrastructure investment, and that's all about addressing China and competing with China. So you know,
the infrastructure aspect of this is critically important. I don't know if I get my head around global infrastructure dog, how do you have that conversation right now when we can't figure out our own on most days here in the US now if it seems an impossible task. Obviously they're trying to tackle some tough questions. But to Genie's point, you know, you don't have universal agreement within the G seven,
within NATO. Obviously, France and especially Germany, you know, have very different realities when it comes to what you know, their energy is, um, what they what products they buy, not just not just oil, fertilizer as well. Is a major exporter from Russia, you know, into Europe, and so they're they're making and will be making different decisions than the US are. And that's part of I think where's a Lensky wanting maybe hopefully hope, wishful thinking to have
this conclude by the end of the year. Is based on he knows that time is not limitless for him. Do either of you think that will happen, Doug, I don't think so. But also you know, we we just don't know. We hear so much bad news about what's happening to Russia. You know. The the question for Prutin is, you know, how long can he can he last dangerous to get that in people's heads, Genie, to create false expectations or false hopes that is done by the end
of the year. I think those red lines are always important, just ask President Obama. You set them and the minute they extend there is cause for criticism. And I think to your question, you know, it's going to depend whether this ends on how much we the United States and our allies invest in heavy weapons and all the things the ambassador was rightly talking about. And you know, the other wrinkle here is imagine we invest and then one of these things finds its way across into a NATO country.
Are we going to respond to that? You know, it's a very dangerous game we are playing with this proxy situation. Made some tough talk along those lines too. As we spend a little bit of time left here with Doug Ingenie, I want to ask you about something we learned about today that fell in our laps, and that's the January
six hearing we now suddenly have scheduled for tomorrow. Uh, this was not supposed to be the case until we learned earlier today the committee apparently obtained evidence and witness testimony that are compelling members now compelling the leadership of
the panel to hold a hearing tomorrow. It's going to happen at one o'clock in the afternoon from what I understand, and interestingly, Doug, they did not announce the witness or witnesses in advance, as they have for each hearing until now, so there's a bit more I guess, suspense, but certainly more questions going into this than we have seen in the process so far. Are we're going to get a bombshell tomorrow? They're certainly setting the stage for that, and
very clearly they're reacting to something that that's new. And one of the things that we've learned from this process all along, every every hearing that they've had, is the committee knows more than we do. And the Committee may know more than Donald Trump does, Mark Meadows does, or anyone else who's come up in these conversations. So clearly they know more than we do, and they've learned something new, which makes tomorrow really compelling. Doing you have a sense
of this genie what you're looking for? I thought we were going to take bets on what's going to happen and we'll try to see who's right now, you know, I think the Committee has done a really smart job so far, and this surprise hearing stunned me today. And I'm sure so many people who wouldn't they want to announce the genie. Does that mean a lawmaker? Does that mean a former Trump official or family member? It could
you know. I said my bet would be on this documentary filmmaker Alex Holder as one of those people who may appear I don't know why they wouldn't announce him in advance though, to your point, Um, But you know, Benny Thompson at the end of all of these hearings has been announcing, you know, keep sending us material and
from what we understand, they have been receiving it. Very bad news for Donald Trump, because you know, we keep hearing over and over that Republicans who want to sort of cleanse themselves are talking to this committee and trying to show that there is distance between Donald Trump's attempts to you know, uh, to turn over the election and and themselves. And so they've they've sort of been going
to them and confessing to a certain extent. And and you know, we don't know we'll get more of that tomorrow. It's a good way to be thrown out of the family, Doug. We heard five or six members of Congress supposedly sought pardons from the Trump White House. Is that maybe where we're going tomorrow, Maybe we hear from one of them. Yeah,
I have no idea, it's certainly a possibility. And we know that those members have been mentioned now by name, Um, and clearly they have been engaged with counsel probably more than they were previously. Um. But we know that this could go in any direction. And that's why it was such a shocker today because we were specifically told that there would be nothing until after July. That's really it's amazing. Doug is a Republican and a Republican strategist, no less
in the middle of a midterm election cycle. Do you feel like this is a liability for the party as a whole or is this is this a Donald Trump story. It's it's more of a Donald Trump story. Um. You know, you may have some individual races that are affected by this, but it's been really hard to identify. If you're a Republican, you want to be talking about inflation, the border, rising, crime and nothing else. So it's a distraction, UM. And
distractions happen in campaigns and political seasons. Um. But very clearly, and that's why, you know, following what's just happened at the Supreme Court over the past week is going to be interesting to see, you know how and if voters kind of reset their thinking on this. Republicans know what they want to talk about it. If it's not one of those top three issues, they'd rather have it have it be left left alone. We have so much to learn that if if someone's telling you they know what's
going to happen, don't believe them. As we spend time with Doug High and Jeannie Chanzano, thanks to both of you for a great panel, great insights, and everyone else here on the fastest hour in politics will check traffic and markets. Next, this is Bloomberg