Sound On: Biden Backs Abortion Filibuster, EPA Authority Ruling (Radio)

putting his climate goals in jeopardy. But the Court also delivered Biden a win, ending the practice of having immigrants week in Mexico for their cases to go through US immigration courts. Plus President Biden changes course on the filibuster in light of the abortion ruling from last week. I'm Emily Wilkins filling it in for Joe Matthew on Sound On. Hopefully Joe is having a drink on a beach somewhere.

Joining me this hour is going to be Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs, like California Democrat and Bloomberg own Gregg Store, our scotus quarterback, who has been working so hard today to cover everything from the court. President Joe Biden has long backed that sixty vote threshold in the Senate, that filibuster that legislation must clear before it can actually get a vote on

from the Senate. Biden, he's old school, who was Senator Biden long before he was president or viet But today he took as itself in a new direction, announcing that he was for abolishing the filibuster to put abortion rights into national law, to codify Roe v. Wade, which was overturned last week. Here is what he said today in Madrid. We have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure

the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in a way it's like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this. Joining me now to discuss this as Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs, Democrat from Santiago, who at thirty three years old, is not only one of the youngest lawmakers in Congress, but has never lived in the US without the abortion rights ro v. Wade in place. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining me today. I just wanted to start off by getting your reaction

to Biden's announcement today. You were one of a hundred fourteen Democrats who signed a letter last month urging UH Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer to get rid of the filipbuster. What's your take right now on where this debate stands. Look, I'm glad that President Biden has said that because I think it's long overdue. I think it is uh like incredibly uh harmful that we have colleagues who are putting an arcane rule that's not even in the Constitution above

our fundamental rights. And frankly, as a Californian, you know, I think it's important to say the Senate is already anti small d democratic, where a state of four million people who has the same representation as states with many many fewer. I think forty six senators represent the same amount of people as our two uh and so uh you know, adding a six you vote threshold above that already anti democratic structure is incredibly harmful for our country

and doesn't reflect the will of the people. Congressman, you're a freshman member of Congress um but very much in the mix. How have you seen your party's stand on the filibuster change in just the last two years, And do you think we can actually get to a place where the filibuster will be overturned because we we still do have some holdouts in the Senate, we still have Senator Joe Mansion, Senor Kursten Cinema. When do we get to a point where overturning the filibuster could actually be

a possibility. Look, I think we saw just a few months ago on the voting rights legislation that we had forty eight Democratic Senators vote to overturn the filibuster for the purpose of passing voting rights legislation that would have been unheard of even a few years before that. And I think it's clear that more and more people are seeing that our system and our structures aren't working to deliver for the challenges that we're facing right now, and

it's clear we need to do things differently. I also wanted to get a little bit to the rulings today, and I wanted to start with the one limiting what Biden can do through the e p A. Does this put more pressure on Congress now to find a way to get some of Biden's other climate related policies passed? Absolutely?

In fact, I think one of the real lessons of the spate of Supreme Court decisions that have come out is that basically what what we've done is because Congress has been so dysfunctional and hasn't been able to get things done, we've relied on the courts for our rights. We've relied on executive rulemaking executive orders to get things done on climate change, on so much else. And the Supreme Court is really saying, Congress, you're the ones who make laws. If you want laws to be in place,

you have to make them. And so I think it is incumbent upon us in Congress to do our jobs to codify these rights into law, to pass something on climate change so that we can address it with the urgency that it requires. It's time for Congress to step up and not let the dysfunction of Congress be papered over by the Supreme Court and the executive branch anymore. I know one of the ways that climate legislation could

potentially pass is through reconciliation. That process, I think a lot of people associate the build back better with it, But there is a different legislation that's taking shape that has some similar components right now in the Senate, and I know that's a major piece of legislation that that you've been supportive. I know that you're also supportive of a competition bill the us UH that would help the US be more competitive with China. You're on a group

that is working on that. I a Senator Mitch McConnell um, the Republican head of the Senate, just tweeted recently saying that either Democrats can if Democrats continue you with reconciliation, that he's no longer he's going to take the other major bill, the US China competition Bill, off the table, and I just wanted to get your reaction to that.

I mean, at this point, what needs to happen in terms of legislation past and is there a way for Democrats to get both a climate based reconciliation and a

US competitive manufacturing bill done. Look, I think it's really shameful that McConnell has linked to One of the few areas of bipartisan agreement in Congress is that we need to do more to improve our competitiveness against China, and that involves UH making investments in our domestic competitiveness, our domestic innovation, and that's exactly what the Competes Act would be able to do, and we are working on negotiating some of the disagreements within it um but overall I

think it is um incredibly harmful that Mitch McConnell is willing to put our national security at risk because he doesn't like that Democrats won the election and are going to be able to pass something that is so important for the future of our energy and our economy and frankly, to make sure there's a livapool world. And I do want to hone in for a minute on that US competitiveness legislation. I think a lot of our listeners one thing they often hear when we discuss this bill is

the semiconductors. The fifty two billion dollars for semiconductors, help with some of those supply chain backlogs, help with a number of businesses auto manufacturing, tech companies. But there's more to that in this legislation. And I know Congresswoman you are particularly focused on some of the foreign policy, foreign affairs aspects of it. Can you just give us a sense right now how negotiations are going on that is there a sense at this point for things that will

definitely be in this legislation or definitely not in this legislation. Yeah. So I'm I'm on the Foreign Affairs part of the of the negotiating committee, and I think one of the things we recognizes that US leadership in global forums is going to be really important. UM. And look, there's a lot we need to do to be able to win this era of competition UM. And includes making sure our diplomats and our development actors have the tools they need

when it comes to how we engage with other countries. UM. But the fact of the matter is, if we want a world where we're focused on, uh, the US being able to build international coalitions, which is really one of the things that gives us our strength in our national security, as we've seen in Ukraine, and then we need to make sure that we are fully committing to those values

and to the rules of the rules based order. And so one of the things I'm really pushing right now is to make sure that this bill UM gives us the tools we need to be leaders at at the u N and in other global forums. UM. You know, the US does not fully pay our peacekeeping dues. We have a cap on how much we can pay to to UN peacekeeping and that's been really harmful because China has actually used that to call us an unreliable partner.

And we've actually already started to see developing countries who UM typically would vote with US at the u N and another forum starting to align their votes more with China as a result of this. So there's still some things we're negotiating, including that piece of it, UM, But on the whole, I think we all agree it's important that we are investing in our leadership around the world. Absolutely.

And Congressman, I did want to jump topics for a minute because I know that you've got this really interesting piece of legislation out there that touches on abortion and abortion rights, particularly technology UM and women who will use apps to either track their cycles, track reproductive data UM. And I know that there's been a concern since role was overturned about what that data could could do. And can you talk to me a little bit about your

legislation and what you're expecting. Is this something that we're going to see get a vote on when Congress returns in mid July. Yeah, So what my legislation will do is that any reproductive or sexual health data from apps from website, searches, from anything. UM that companies can only collect and retain strictly what they need to provide the service. They cannot sell it, They can only share it with my express written consent. UM. The FTC would enforce it.

But if I feel like the FTC isn't doing a good enough job, or if for instance, it's a Republican administration who maybe is not faithfully implementing this law, UM, I would have a private right of action to do about my data being misused, and I could ask for my data to be deleted at any time. And this is incredibly important because as we're talking about all the

very many things we need to do around data privacy. UM, there's some specific needs we have around reproductive and sexual health data for this moment, especially to protect people in states where abortion is going to be criminalized. UH. And so UM, you know, making sure we're doing what we need you in Congress on this issue is a priority a Speaker Pelosi. She put it out as one of the three top priorities we're going to be working on when we get back. Uh. And I'm feeling hopeful that

that our bill will be coming for a vote soon. Congress, when we've got thirty seconds left by one to ask, should do we all need to delete our period tracking apps? Should we just get them off our phones right now until this bill is passed? Um, there are some companies that are, you know, talking about their privacy policy. So if it's a service that's very useful for you, I

would say, find the one that you'll be most protected. Uh, if you live in a in a state where abortion is going to be criminalized and you feel like you might need one soon, I would say deleting it is import good information. Congressman Sarah Jacobs, We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us on sound On. Up next we assemble the panel. Is there anyway for the filibuster to be overturned? I'm Emily Wilkins. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Sound On

with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg. Welcome back to sound On. Joe Matthew is sitting somewhere on a beach, drinking of fear or margarita, hopefully drinking one for me as well. I'm I'm only Welkin sitting in for him today and joining me. Now is our All Star Panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Jennie Chienzano and Rick Davis, thank you both so much for taking the time on such a newsy day.

I wanted to go first to President Biden's comments saying that he would support ending the filibuster only for a vote that would codify Roe versus Wade, ensure that there are a certain level of abortion rights nationwide. And Rick, you know you you you know Senators, you've you've you've

know how how it goes. What is the reality of something like this actually happening because you have so many folks who are in the Senate who are very much institutionalists who do don't want to see the filibuster go. But as Congress, when Jacobs pointed out, you have seen that a road um in recent years, and I think today with with Biden saying that he'd be open to eliminating it, that that that's a that's a huge step.

It's a big step, and you're right, I mean, it enters a whole new equation to the debate around um, around the filibuster. I would say that that, you know, the reminder that everybody in the Senate has is, you know, be careful what you asked for, because, Uh, the last time it got monkeyed around with UM, you know, parties changed and the leadership shifted to the Republics, and they they undid virtually everything that was done by the the

lack of a filibuster. So when you say, oh, we're not going to vote sixty votes anymore, Uh, that means it only takes fifty to undo a codification of ROW in the next administration and or the next Congress. And and I think that is part of what the filibusters designed to avoid. UM. Clearly, the President United States today

did something that his constituency was demanding. Right, he was out of the country for the last week doing you know, the good work of the president in NATO in Europe and and and he hasn't really been at the center of this debate around the Supreme Court's decision on ROW. And so this is his way to try and put some momentum back into that debate. But the reality is he doesn't have the support of this within his own party,

So it's really more opinion driving than it is functional. Yeah, Rick, you bring up a really good point, And Jennie, I want to bring you in here and kind of get your thoughts on it. I mean, at this point the filibuster is not going to be overturned because Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema are not on board with that. So Genia, well, what do you think is a calculation that Biden made

today when he made this announcement. I do think the Democrats and President Biden in particular, feeling pressure from Democrats who want the administration to do more on this really momentous decision from the court, and to speak with one voice, I hear a lot of frustration amongst Democrats, particularly young people, who are feeling like the Democratic Party was not prepared for this decision, despite the fact that they knew it

was coming, and they haven't given proper direction. Other people saying, you're telling me to vote again, Well, listen, I voted in, voted you in, and you've done nothing. So I think they're feeling that pressure. Um, you know, And I also think they're asking a fair question. And I think this is what we heard from from Congresswoman Jacobs in your really good interview, and we heard it from out Alexandrocasio

Cortez on Twitter as well. Today. They're saying if you can carve out to appoint justices to the Supreme Court and budget reconciliation. What does it say about our country that you can carve out all kinds of things but you can't carve out for women's health or the right to choose or voting. And so they're feeling, you know, asking I think a fair question on that. But of

course Rick is right. The danger is you carve this out Republicans get the Senate, and you're gonna wish if you're a Democrat you hadn't carved it out so quickly. I want to dig into that a little bit. I mean, do you feel like the Biden and innistration was not prepared for this rolling to come down? Could they have done a better job responding in some ways because we all knew this was coming. Yeah, you know, I think

there is some truth to that. You know, somebody like Tina Smith, now arguably you know she has you know, a backrood Minnesota, Minnesota exactly, she has a background in this area. But she, for instance, was sending out another is just an example, lists of resources to people seeking services.

We've had, you know, sort of a disparate response from other governors across the country, including Gavin Newsom, including Kathy Hokel, and I think, you know the I wish to an a certain extent that, knowing that the Biden administration's hands are tied, they had also spoken with one voice about what they think they can do. I think the problem with President Biden he frequently says there's not a lot I can do, and that's a very tough pill to swallow.

I understand there's some truth to it, but I do think there are some things he can do and to have you know, send it or is like Warren and representatives like Alexander Kasikortest talking about impeachment, talking about using of federal lands and those kinds of things. Some Democrats on the ground wish they heard that from the higher echelons of the party, like the administration. You know, Rick,

We've got a minute left. But it strikes me that in November there's a very real chance that Republicans could take the Senate. They could be in charge next year, and I'm sure, uh, you know, just seeing how partisan our politics are, they will also be under pressure to eliminate the filibuster for certain things. Are there mansions and cinemas in the Republican Party. And if so, who are they sure? I think that they're The reality is it's one vote, right, you win one Republican senator in a flip,

and you've got control of the Senate. That's how tenuous this whole debate is around the filibuster. And and of course you would have a couple of years in that leadership role. So the Murkowski's, the Collins is, the Mitt Romney's people like that who uh don't want to see big policy made around uh the Senate with with bypass of the filibuster. And I would say that the issues that Jennie was talking about, one of the things they have in common is they were they were generally um

fixes in the system. I mean they were you know, votes on Supreme Court nominees and things like that or judges. So, uh, this is a policy debate and it'll continue on. Yeah, that's a really good point. And I mean, certainly we've we've seen how the Supreme Court has been impacted by lowering that threshold for the filibuster there and speaking of the Supreme Court of next we're going to be joined by Bloomberg m VP Gregg's Store about the Supreme Court

moving forward with the decisions today mean. This is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York, Bloomberg eleven Frio to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to the Country Serious XM General one, and around the globe the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg Excel

on with Joe Matthew. It is the final week of June, which means the Supreme Court has been dominating the headlines, and our Supreme Court reporter Greg Star has been dominating the terminal. He's written an exhausting amount today, but instead of kicking back and enjoying happy hour, he's with us in the studio and we're super excited to have him break it all down. Well. President Biden expressed grave concerns

today about the Supreme Court. Listen to what he said this morning, not just about the ruling on Roe v. Wade and abortion, but about a number of rulings in the past several weeks. The one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. An over ruling not only Roe v. Wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy. We've been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights, and it is a mistake in my view

for the Supreme Court to do what it did. Greg star Bloomberg, Supreme Court Reporter, thank you so much for joining me. We're going to get into the meat and potatoes. I want your response on what Biden said. But before we do, it strikes me that we are halfway through the show and we have yet to mention Justice Coltanji Brown Jackson, the first black woman to sit on the Supreme Court sworn in today. Greg, I just want your your takeaway. What does what does this mean? What was

the vibe? What's what's the overall the overall vibe. Well, it was really an incredible juxtaposition at the Court today. So, as you said, historic moment, first black woman ever to serve in the Supreme Court getting sworned in, getting sworn in, and outside the court, which is surrounded by eight foot unscalable fencing. At the very same time, there are hundreds of people protesting the decision that overturned Row, many of

them getting arrested. Uh. You know, both an incredible moment for her personally, but undoubtedly not the way she wanted to join the High Court. Yeah. It's really one thing to have history being made inside the building, when outside the building you have a protest that was halted and at least a dozen people being arrested because they wound

up sitting blocking a major road. Um. But greg I wanted to go back just for a second now to what Biden said, Um, in terms of that the he feels the court is now destabilizing, that there's outrageous behavior. What's your takeaway from this? Why is Biden saying this? Well, it's really a remarkable term. And of course Roe is the headliner decision, and they overturned a half century old precedent.

But in decision after decision, the conservative wing moved very aggressively, pushing the legal doctrine on gun rights, on federal administrative power, on religion. Um. And this is a court that you know, it's probably gonna stay conservative for decades, and President Biden undoubtedly sees that and and undoubtedly is going to try to seize on that as a political issue going forward.

I really want to get into the two rulings we saw today major rulings because they really think a kind of touch on what we're seeing right now with the sixth three Court want to start with the one dealing with the e p A living it's regulatory authority. Greg Does this ruling only apply to that one agency or could this wind up having a much wider impact. It

certainly could have a much wider impact. Exactly what that will be what kind of remains to be seen both in terms of the e p A and other federal agencies. What the Court said was for the first time saying this explicitly that there's something called the major questions doctrine, and when what they said is when there's a really big policy issue, we're gonna demand that Congress be explicit if it is giving that power to a federal agency.

And they said that explicit authority wasn't there in the case of of what the e p A, what had tried to do way back when President Obama was in the White House, which that that issue, that Clean Power Plan was actually at the at the core of the decision today. Did they give any indication of what does qualify as major because obviously one of the things these agencies are supposed us to do is create regulation. How do we know how big and wide spreading this regulation

needs to be or not be. It's a really good question, they said some things, but that's going to have to

be fleshed out in future cases. One of the arguments that Biden administration made that didn't fly with the Court was, Hey, this Obama Clean Power Plan, it seemed really big at the time, but it turns out it didn't really have it would have had that big an effect and never went into never went into an effect because they said, basically, the industry moved that way anyway, Um, and that should be the measure of it, you know, looking at kind of you know, looking retrospectively at at what it would

have done. Supreme Court didn't buy that. Uh, so we're gonna have to to see, you know what exactly they're using to measure. Uh, you know what is a major question that they're not gonna let Congress kind of vaguely authorized. Very interesting, and they also did want to touch on that remain in Mexico, being that policy being struck down by the Court. That one you saw Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh side with Democrats when you read the ruling, what

was your takeaway? Why did these two side with the three liberals. Well, this was a complicated procedural case where it was actually a lower court ordering the Biden Biden administration to put back in place this Trump administration asylum policy. And the basis for that lower court ruling was the court said, federal law requires remain in Mexico, requires the administration to send people back to Mexico while they're waiting

for their asylum hearings. And uh, Roberts and Kavanaugh, along with the three three liberals, said that's not how we read federal immigration law. Got it, got it, so lots lots still impact there. I appreciate you keeping it very concise. And today was obviously the last day of the court's terms. So take us up to thirty thousand feet here. You wrote last year that the six conservative justices were sometimes

fragmented in a number of their decisions. Are we seeing them be anymore in lock step or is there still a bit of a wild card in many of these cases. Um, I would say they are more in locks up, at least on the really big cases. This was a term where those really big cases that people are watching, uh uniformly or maybe almost uniformly, went against the conservative when went in favor of the conservative position. We did see in the abortion case, for example, Chief Justice Roberts wouldn't

go quite as far as is conservative colleagues. He wouldn't have overturned Row in that case. But in general, this is a court that seems to be getting at sea legs and is determined to do uh some some very assertive things with with the reading of the Constitution. Greg, We've got less than a minute left, and I just wanted to ask very quickly. The Court has already begun to announce some of the cases that will take up

next year. What is at least one big case that you think is going to be making headlines this time next year. Let me give you three or four if I can so quickly. I'll cut you off. When I need college affirmative action, the Clean Water Act, the Voting Rights Act, and when that requires you to create a state to create a majority uh black district. Um. The Court just announced an the big new election case today that it's gonna take It's gonna be a huge term.

Greg store everyone, our Supreme Court reporter who has dominated the terminal today. Please make sure that you log in. He's got much more thorough analysis than we were able to cover in this ten minutes segment. Greg, thank you again so much. In just a minute, we're going to reconvene the panel. I'm Emily Wilkins. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg sound On on Bloomberg Radio. Welcome back to sound On. I'm Emily Wilkins, filling in for Joe Matthew

on the Fastest Hour in Politics. We are going to reassemble our panel, Rick Davis, Jeannie chian Zano. We've talked a lot today about the Supreme Court, the rulings, both the ones today on the e p A and the Romaine in Mexico policy. We've also spoken a little bit about the overturneing of Roe versus Wade. We've the Court has also just made some major legislation on religion. They've made major decisions on concealed carry. And so now I get to ask my all time favorite question, Genie, how

does this all impact the upcoming midterm elections? Boy, Emily, thanks for coming to me on that. What a big question. Um, you know, there's so many ways in which it can potentially I think, you know, an honest answer to this is we don't know yet, but there is We're starting to see the contours of what may take place. But as we always have to say, five months, four or five months is a long time we have so that's no fun. Look into your crystal, boss, I'm going to

do that now. After all my caveats. Um. You know, we have seen enthusiasm go up amongst Democrats. That was a key problem for them prior to these rulings, and so they may level out the enthusiasm. It may help them in he Senate states. Key states were Senate seats were up, like New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona, UM. So they may have some help there. My thinking at this point is it doesn't change the House that much. Republicans still take that maybe just by you know, sort of a

lesser margin than they otherwise might have. But I do think it may mean that the Senate is in play.

But I think the real action is at the state and local level, and a lot of governors races to watch Pennsylvania, Michigan and others, because of course, at this point it's the states that have the power when it comes to determining the right to choose or you know, limiting a woman's right to choose guns and everything else you laid out absolutely, And of course, going into the mix with all of that is the fact that inflation is still very much a factor that those going to

the grocery store and the gas pump are contending with higher prices. And we actually heard Biden today, Uh, he's not he's not making any promises of for people who are hoping to fill their cars tank up anytime soon. Take a listen to what he said on gas prices. As long as it takes so Russia cannot in fact defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine. This is a critical,

critical position for the world. And that's was a Biden saying that you know, as long as this is going on, the US is going to be supporting Ukraine, and that is going to impact the fact that you have gas prices be higher than than what we have seen. And Rick Davis going to come to you on this one.

I mean, obviously, with with inflation kind of being at the top of lots of voters minds, is that impacted at all by some of these other Supreme Court rulings that have that have come out or is inflation still going to dominate the day? Yeah, Emily, I think, you know, hit the nail on the head. I think that up until this point in time, this entire election is being defined by inflation in the various secondary effects on the

economy and people's pocketbooks. That has been the number one issue for some time, and this administration, like today's Biden comments, doesn't really have a plan for it. Right. They're not even making promises anymore that they're going to try and bring out gas prices or food or whatnot, and so um, it's almost like they've abdicated the issue to the Federal Reserve and there's you know, a limit to what they

can do, and they're not playing politics. So I think that that the table is set for a pretty big Republican year because voters have a lot of anxiety and that's not usually good for an incumbent UH and voters are angry over the current state of the economy, and that is usually a record for an elyxir for change, and that change means voting out Democrats in the House and the Senate. Although I would say, you know, so many Senate races are kind of interesting, And Jennie mentioned

the Pennsylvania race. You know, you've got a Democrat right now who's you know, double digits ahead of the Republican in that Senate race. And that's to hold the two Mey seat, which if we lose the two Mey seat all of a sudden, it's, you know, gonna be a lot harder to win that Senate. Actually, this almost accused us up perfectly, uh for Pat to me who was on bounce of power today. But just before we get to what he said, because it's very interesting, Rick, I

just wanted to loop back real quick with you. If I'm a Republican hitting the campaign trail running for office, of course I'm going to call out the Biden administration for having such high gas prices. But do Republicans also need to offer some sort of solution or is it just enough to kind of say, hey, Democrats are in charge, gas prices are high, you should vote me in November. Yeah, Now, Emily,

it's not fair. You know, when your party out of power, you get to just attack the party in power, and and and and and people are voting up or down on whether or not Democrats should be in the power position again, and and and and then the onus would be on Republicans to come up with some of these solutions. You know, it's kind of like the dog bites the car wheel and now what is he gonna do? Um, that will be a problem for four, But that's not

this year's problem, got it? And certainly of Genie mentioned earlier that you know, Democrats they are hoping to mobilize turnout talking about abortion, talking about gun rights, talking about some of these other issues that the Court has really

put into the spotlight. But another aspect that Democrats are hoping will come up on the campaign trail is January six, particularly with those January six hearings and the powerful testimony we heard this week from former White House aid Cassidy Hutchinson. Bloomberg's David Weston this is when we're tiring it back to Pat Tuney. He spoke with Republican Senator Pat Touney today and do we had some very interesting thoughts on how these hearings are going to impact Let's give a

listen to that. I think he disqualified himself from serving in public office by virtue of his post election behavior, especially leading right up to January six, I think the revelations from this committee um make his path to even the Republican nomination much more tenuous. And so, Rick Davis, I mean you were just mentioning and and here we have a senator to me, uh, saying that he thinks that could really hurt Trump's chances, even though Trump so

far has improved almost to be untouchable. Rick, do you think these January six serians are going to have any impact on how the Republican Republicans view Trump? First, I gotta say to me, needs to be on a radio show. That guy's got a great radio voice. Um, but he is welcome on sound on any time time. Right. I think he's terrific um. And and and look, I mean I think he's as a retiring centator has some license

to speak his mind. And in this case, I think he's actually echoing a lot of Republican views, including Republicans I know who served in the Trump administration, and that is that the conduct that's now been reported is a disqualification for any future office. And that's gonna be a hard one to shake for this present. You see him fighting back now. But I think you know the question I would ask is whether or not this is to

actually help Liz Cheney. She is in a fight of her life, you know, and she's behind in her home state for reelection. Uh, and she's making some direct hits on Donald Trump that are having a massive impact on Trump. But is it helping her? And and that's we're going to find out pretty soon on that. Yeah, I think believe that primary is mid August. You've got almost the

entire Republican establishment in Washington. Uh. I'm thinking in the House and thinking of Republican leader Kevin McCarthy really stacked up and supporting her opponent in this one, which is its very rare to see in that case. Um, Janie, I did want to go back to you though for a minute, for these January six hearings. I mean, is this something that is also going to be used to really help make sure that Democrats get their base out

and get to the ballot box. Are Democrats being successful in this in this initiative or are people still having a hard time kind of connecting the dots between what happened on January six and what's going on in their own life. You know, I think the January six Committee has done a really good job of telling the story so far. I think they have to be commended these you watch a committee hearing is much more than I do. Emily,

you know how boring they can be. They have made these you know, must watch TV and radio and everything else, so they have done a very very good job. I am not convinced this will be a way to get the vote out, but I don't even think that's the really important part. I think they have made the case and continue to make the case that our democracy was

at stake and is at stake. And you know, as as I listened to Pat Toomey and appreciate his comments, we need to hear more of that, not just by Republicans who are retiring, who are leaving Congress and public life, but those in there like Liz Cheney have got to have the courage to come out and say the election was not stolen and what happened in and around January six was something that, to Pat Toomey's point, does make Donald Trump unfit to serve office. You know, when that happens,

I think they will have succeeded um. But you know, in terms of getting Democrats out, I don't think this is going to be the big issue that gets them out Democrats who are listening to this and Democrats who are frustrated they already you know, are not going to be out to vote for Donald Trump. Anyways. I did also want to very quickly touch on it because we kind of alluded to it during the show. Biden was

in Madrid today. He's been at this NATO conference and they've talked about a number of things about China, about Russia, about Ukraine, and Rick, I just wanted to ask you very quickly, and Jeannie got the broad question at the start, so you'll get the broad question at the end. How did Biden do with at NATO. Yeah, I think Biden did really well at NATO. I think he got a lot accomplished. Uh. It was a bad NATO summit for Vladimir Putin, and that makes me happy because we got

the basic ascension of Finland and Sweden into NATO. That is huge. I mean, on its own, it is going to define the war in Ukraine against Russia as a monumental success. He was he continues to rivet the world's attention to this problem, and I think that's what the Ukrainians want. They need attention absolutely, and they certainly got it this week. Rick Davis, Jennie Chanzano, thank you so

much for joining us today and thinks as well. To Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs and Greg Store, Bloomberg's Supreme Court reporter. This is Emily Wilkins filling in for Joe Matthew. I will be gone tomorrow. Jack Fitzpatrick will be joining you. Make sure to tune in. This is Bloomberg