Sound On: CPI Soars, Biden Heads Overseas

entire world. If the US pulls out of the Middle East, China and Russia move in, and that's a big spot to fill. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The CPI hits hard in Washington. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics, as today's inflation report feeds both sides of the argument over spending and whether the Biden economic agenda has a future. We'll talk about it with Miya McGuinness,

president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. President Hiden touches down in Israel, a trip aimed at shoring up relationships and oil. Will discuss it with CIA officer turned Congresswoman Abigail Spanburger, Democrat from Virginia who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Analysis from our signature panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie Chanzano and Rick Davis are with us. The CPI certainly landed hard this morning in Washington. Reactions

swift from both ends of Pennsylvania avenue. A statement this morning from the President called it unacceptably high and reminded, as we heard from the Press Secretary yesterday, it does not reflect the full impact of the last month of lower gas prices. Same argument on Capitol Hill, as Democrats use this as an argument for the reconciliation bill that we have been talking about here, the drug price components, lower deficit spending, Republicans using the same argument for why

that shouldn't happen. And that's where we begin with Mia McGuinness, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budge it with us now on Bloomberg's sound on Maya. Welcome back, Thank you, it's great to be back with you. Well, now that you've seen today's CPI and you've had a minute to digest this, what does it mean for the Democratic agenda in Washington. We've been talking about another reconciliation

bill lately. Does this mean the store is closed for the rest of summer, Well, I mean it's it is. It is bad news all around, but it is bad news that actually might be good news for the Reconciliation Bill if we follow the policies that make sense. And that's a big ift, because things are not always sensible

in d C these days. But um, the Reconciliation Bill, as people know, has changed massively from what it used to be, which was a huge kind of budget busting many many trillions, even more than it was advertised, with some gimmicks in it, and it was something that kind of imploded on its own weight. But the new version of it, everything that we're hearing is really a very different structure, which is more modest in its size. About a trillion dollars we're reading, and half of that would

go to deficit reduction. And I guess what I would point out is from what we're hearing, is that the deficit reduction portions of that bill, the parts that would focus on healthcare savings, um and uh, the fact that it would have higher revenues, those things are some of the most important things for the fiscal policies run by the federal government that would actually push against inflation. So the point would be inflation is really bad. It's not

going away anytime soon. Uh. The more that that we can do at the federal level to help the FED where the heavy lifting is better, it's going to be. So I think that gives a lot of economic justifications for the structure. It sounds like reconciliation maybe. Well, that's fascinating. I've been calling it, build back better light. The White House says exactly what you just said, that this is actually what we need now to bring prices lower, to

bring the deficit lower. Republicans say you're spending money like drunken sailors. I mean, we even saw Mitch McConnell throw down is the gauntlet on the China Competitiveness Bill over this. But my I was taken by Senator Joe mansion statement

on the CPI report today. He talked about the pain facing families in West Virginia, but he ended with this line, no matter what spending aspirations some in Congress may have, it is clear to anyone who visits a grocery store or a gas station that we cannot add any more fuel to this inflation fire. Does that sound like someone about to vote yes for a trillion dollar bill? So I think actually it could from what the bill and listen, we don't know what the bill is going to be.

But what Joe Mansion has basically single handedly done is changed this bill from a huge deficit increasing bill to something that would have deficit savings bring the deficit down by about half a trillion dollars. So absolutely that would be the opposite of throwing fuel on the fire. Now, they're still going to be spending a lot of money, and one could say, well, they should spend less and

save more through more deficit reduction. But from the new structure, the build back better light as you're saying, um, now that it has deficit reduction in in it instead of a lot of borrowing. It's consistent with fighting the price rises that he's seeing in West Virginia and we're seeing all over the country. So again, I think it does make sense that if everybody kind of follows the reasoning rather than looking at it from a political angle, which

is probably how most people are looking at it. But if they think about the economic effects, this would be pro fighting inflation, and you want to do every single thing you can grow in that direction right now? All right, So this is a very positive take from miamc ginness. Now let's let's just usually very pessimist. Well, I don't know, but it looks this is why we wanted to talk to you. And let's so let's just extrapolate this little bit.

Let's assume this reconciliation bill moves forward. I already mentioned Mitch McConnell on this, So I guess my question is can you have both? Can Democrats get this done? And could there still be a bipartisan China Competes bill you seek of the Chip Act and the rest. Yeah, and that that is a tough political question because as we get closer to the election, it becomes more difficult for all policymakers who really want in a bipartisan way to get that work done, to come together. But boy, am

I feeling optimistic compared to normal. I think you could see both of those happen. I think you could see the Reconciliation bill and I think you could see something bipartisan, or you could take some of those policies and see which of them could fit into the reconciliation bill and get something done that way. Um. All of that said, listen, the calendar short between now and the election. Um. People are much folk more focused on their elections right now

than doing policy. And I know there's a very high level frustration on the Hill about policymakers who care about all of these ideas feeling like they are there's just no avenue to move forward. So I wouldn't bet on both,

but I think it's possible. Well, I'm gonna throw another iron on the fire here, and that's a defense spending The House taking up the National Defense Authorization Act this week, and we're in a very different world than we were when the request was made my due to inflation and the billions of dollars and weapons we've been sending to Ukraine. The House version is just over eight hundred billion dollars at least at the stage. Is that number going to end up being a lot higher? Will there be an

appetite for more? Uh? It probably is. And here's where my my optimism ends. So when it comes to the appropriations, I think we're going to see and this is normal for the appropriations process, but more so now is that there's going to be a pushing up of the price tag on the defense side. There are a lot of arguments for that, but it's not clear how many more dollars we actually need. A lot of time, this is mercy signaling, showing how you want to spend more on

the things that you think are important priorities. There will be a struggle over that, and it may well be met by that. They then agree to actually bump up to spending on the non defense domestic discretionary area of the budget. Also, this is the deal we often see, which is will spend more in our area, you spend more in your area. The problem with all of this is none of this will be paid for, none of it will be offset, and therefore that means it's war borrowing.

That goes back to the inflation story in the wrong direction. Every dollar we borrow is going to put more money into the economy rather than paying for it, and that's going to be inflationary, So more deficit spending. We've got a lot of stuff to buy. It was not just Ukraine in the cost of this proxy war, but we

have to we have to refill our own inventories. There's plenty of things we have to spend money on, and it's not that you can't spend money that you have to pay for the things that you want to spend money on. And occasionally picking and choosing would also be an excellent part of budgeting. We don't do that very often. Everybody should keep in mind we don't even have a

budget in place this year. We are just about to hit the point where we are three months late in Congress coming up with a budget, and they're not even lifting a finger to try to pass one. So that's that's a big part of this problem as well. Mia Beginness. I haven't asked you about the Federal Reserve yet. People came out of the CPI report today and said a hundred basis points and I can't really imagine it even if I saw it. I'm not sure how that would feel.

But I wonder how concerned you are about the trajectory here. The Federal Reserve is the first to say that it cannot impact oil prices, energy at large, or food prices. That's why they look at the core. But those are the two very things that are driving inflation to these historic levels. So while the Fed is hiking interest rates, it is not solving those two problems, but appears to be sending us into a recession. Is that how you

see it? Well, I think a jury is still out and whether that whether we will be in a recession, but I think it's certainly likely given the conditions without questions, is I think the FED, I mean, I I don't think we're gonna see a hundred based points without some guidance that's going to happen ahead of time. So I still at seventy. I mean we're going to see aggressive rate hikes and that certainly means that it's more likely

that we go into a recession. And it is very difficult to control somebody specific parts of the economy where the big problems are. And that has to do with the fact that all of this is brought on by both the demand side supply side right by flooding the economy with too much in the last um COVID spending bill, which which led to inflation, and then all the supply chain problems that we've had since. So the best tools

we have are from the FED. The tools that can help them are borrowing less and bringing our deficits down. But the problem is we are in a situation that we don't have complete control. We are too interdependent as a global economy as things have gotten out of control, and this is going to be tough to weather. It

is going to be a bumpy road. Well, that's why you wonder if the Fed wants to drive us maybe not necessarily a new more recession, but but certainly to such low growth that demands for things like oil and food start to come down. That's a pretty tough scenario to be in, isn't it. That's a pretty tough scenario. I mean, one of the worst things about having to fight the situation we're in is that there's people who

are undergoing real hardship from the economic conditions. And the true answer about what we do to fight it is we ask people to spend by less of those things. That's right, spend less money. We actually need people to be saving more money. But when gas and food and rent are eating up more of your pocketbook, that's a really tough ask. And so um, this, this is this is why you want to not get in a situation

in the first place. You're here, miam A Guinness. Great to talk with your President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Thanks for your time and insights today on Bloomberg. Thanks so much. We assemble the panel next for their take. Rick Davis Jennie Chanzano on the fastest hour in politics. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Sound on on Bloomberg Radio. It's always a fun time in Washington when political opponents use the same

argument for different ends. Democrats say we need a spending bill right now because of inflation. Republicans say we can't afford a spending bill because of inflation. Listen to New York Congressman HAACKEM Jeffreys. This is democratic leadership. He he leads the House Democratic Caucus. Our focus really is is to make America as affordable as it can be for American families and everyday Americans. And we've taken legislative step

after legislative step to do that. So I hope that whatever comes out of the Senate is focused on lowering costs for everyday Americans consistent with what we've done in now. But that wouldn't work according to Republicans like Congressman Bill Kazinga of Michigan, talking today on Capitol Hill. Heap serves on the House Financial Services Committee. We are we are

on this committee on Financial Services. Have been talking about this for well over a year, trying to reign in the federal reserve, trying to reign in Congress's appetite for spending, knowing that that is fueling this and if we don't do so soon, we are going to be even worse trouble. Let's assemble the panel for their take. Bloomberg po takes contributors Jeannie Shenzano and Rick Davis. I'm not going to try to turn you guys into economists here. We're curious,

of course, about policy and political outcomes. Does this a genie mean? As I asked Miami Guinness, and by the way I was, I was taken by her optimism on the future of a reconciliation bill. Does this make it less likely or does it shut it down? Well, I too was taken by it, and I am here to balance that out with a bit of pessimism. So I will balance may out in that because I agree with Maya.

If they followed what makes sense from a policy perspective and an economic perspective, they would go through with this skinny bill as you've been talking about. But the reality is about politics, and you rightly said the thing that we're all thinking, what does Joe have to say about it? And that is Joe Mansion. And he was very very clear. How did you interpret the statement? I interpreted the statement

as putting the brakes on this discussion. And let's not forget Joe mansion is to start with, what about Kristen cinema? You're just playing people from the house. What about people in the house. They have so little room to maneuver in this And oh, by the way, Senator Schumer is laid up in New York City with COVID while we're trying to do all this. I mean, it is such a difficult position to be in. So yes, from a

policy perspective, I agree with Maya. But from a politics perspective, the amount of spending their talking about, when you're talking about inflation at a forty year high, very difficult for me. Imagine you're not going to lose a couple of Democrats here there, and that's enough to kill this thing. Ricky ends the statement again, Joe Mansion. No matter what spending aspirations some in Congress may have, it's clear to anyone who visits a grocery store or gas station that we

cannot add any more fuel to this inflation fire. What does that say to you? Well, I think he's aligning, Um, what what ma was saying that people need to do, which is actually spend less money, with what he wants to do in government, which is actually spend less money. And so how can you ask the American public to do something that you're not willing to do yourself. Does that make a call for the legislation that he's been talking about with Chuck Schumer though, to have deficit reduction,

to have lower drug prices. Was that an argument for it or against it? I guess is my question? Well, as long as he raises revenue, and of course he you know, he has a plan to raise taxes potentially to to pay for that. And that's my McGinniss point. Look, you don't want to just you know, write blank checks from the federal reserve to pay for government. You want to actually take it out of existing funds and and

so or raise new revenue. I can't imagine it's a good idea to start taxing people right before a ripe for an election, and and and it's not like they haven't spent a lot of money already. I mean, I'm sensitive to the need to fix some of these problems that government has, but this has been a big check writing Congress, and I'm sure they're starting to feel a pinch if you're a Democrat right now, Jennie, And and

that's the side of the aisle you're coming from. How important is this versus getting this a bipart is an effort done on the China Competes bill, getting the chip back passed, which we've been told for well a year now that that was a way to lower inflation to

start making semiconductors here in the US. It's critically important, and I have to say, on a pause of no, I think Secretary of Commerce Gina Romando has been so on top of this and pushing for the bill, and I think they are right, as is Chuck Schumer, to talk about it from the perspective of national security. I think that's the way to keep some of those Republicans who may be tempted to drop off this thing. But it is still going to be difficult at fifty two

to get that done. But I do think on that point, Gina Romando is sort of leaving the charge for the Cabinet and the administration. And you know, my bet would be if they can get something, it would be on the Chips bill because you're more likely to be able to make the choice. Though that's what Democrats might be facing. You might have to choose between the two. And I have to admit the conversation with Gina Romando hasn't changed a lot in the last six months. No, it hasn't.

And you know, if they're if they have to choose, I think this is where the difficulty is because I think many Democrats want to go with that reconciliation. They want both, but if they have to choose, they're probably going to go reconciliation, and that's going to leave the American public probably with neither. Joe Biden wants that prescription drug plan. He wants to say he lowered the deficit. Rick, That's is that better for him than saying we're going

to start investing in computer chips here in places like Ohio. Yeah. I don't think it's a binary decision. I mean, like, the House could take up the Senate bill on the Chips Act fifty two billion dollars and pass it tomorrow and he could be signing it on the day he gets back, that's how easy that is, and then reconciliation exactly. Well,

so how come he doesn't. Someone's got to say that though, you know, beyond Rick Davis on this program, I mean, you've got a couple of House members who are arguing, oh, I've got some things I want to change. Well, that blows the whole deal. So just suck it up. It was a bipartisan bill. Republicans and Democrats pass that in the Senate and that in the House. Would be nuts not to take that up tomorrow and pass it. One thing, it sounds like you agree, both of you with miamc Ginnison, though,

is the store is not closed. More things could in fact come from this Congress before the end of summer. Our signature panel, Rick Davis, Jeannie Chanzan will be back there with us for the hour. As we turned next to the trip abroad, President Biden has landed. We'll be joined ahead by Congresswoman Abigail Spanberg where the Foreign Affairs Committee, This is Bloomberdon. President Biden's trip to the Middle East gets underway with all the pomp and circumstance you would expect.

Here we go. They gave him the treatment the red carpet, the color guard, the band, of course, the leadership with him there on the tar match Air Force One park behind them. They did a nice ceremony in what looked like very hot sun, and the President spoke into the sun standing outdoors there about the relationship here between our two nations series now Israel and the United States continue to grow and prosper together for the benefit of the

entire world. Went on to say that he supports a two state solution, knowing that that's not in the offing on this trip, and of course he's not spending the whole time in Israel. He will go to the West Bank, and then he's onto Saudi Arabia. That's going to be the big one on Friday. As we've discussed, the meeting with MBS, the ask for oil and so forth. But security has become a big part of this conversation, at least around this trip, whether you believe that's why he's

going or not. Diplomacy, and you could see security through the guys of energy here, right. We talk about energy security all the time, So is that more of what we're talking about in these statements. The op ed from the President's statements from the White House. Jake Sullivan were there for security. This is where we begin the conversation. I'm curious to hear what the congresswoman has to say.

Abigail Spanburger, of course, democrat from Virginia, service on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is with us now for more on this. Congresswoman, welcome back. Thank you so much for having me join you. Much has been said about the president's trip to the Middle East here, and as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a former CIA officer, I know you have a unique view on that part of the world. The President says this

trip is about security. His critics say it's about getting more oil. But are they the same thing. I think that's a complicated question. I think that one could make an argument either way. Notably, what's important is when the President is traveling throughout the Middle East, or in Saudi Arabia specifically, he has to He must advocate for American values.

He must raise the issue of Jamal Kashok's murder. He must continue to ensure that we have strong expectations of what our Saudi partners are or are not bringing to the table, whether they are or are not. Um meeting the expectations that we have in terms of the values that they UM are abiding. Notably, as a former CIA officer, I know that they have been important partner partners in

our counter terrorism work throughout the Middle East and beyond. UH. And so, certainly, when we're saying it's about national security, yes, it's about ensuring that LEE continue to have a strong voice, a strong relationship with the Saudis, but one where we do demand UH certain expectations of behavior and UH engagement on the world stage. Well, what deliverables are you looking for in terms of energy and diplomacy of bringing the Saudis,

for instance, into the Abraham Accords. Is that the kind of announcement that Americans should look forward to at the end of the week. UH. So, I think that that would be an extraordinary announcement if that's one that is able to be made. UH. Certainly, the Abraham Accord has done so much for the normalization of some relationships within the Middle East. It's they have been an important step forward for the safety and security of our friends and allies,

the Israelis within the region. And it's also been important from an economic standpoint, bringing economic engagement and with it UH certain expectations for um UH democratic values to some area some countries within the region. So if if we do see movement towards that sort of agreement, I think that would be an extraordinary. President Biden today made clear he supports a two state solution. Some of the first words out of his mouth as he arrived on the tarmac,

do you congresswoman as well? I absolutely support a two state solution. He also indicated that that's a long way off. Is there any point in talking about it as he prepares to sit down with the Saudis. No, I think it's important to continue to demonstrate and be very clear

in what one's goals are. We may view that we are many paces away from a two state solution, but it doesn't remove the necessity that we continue to advocate for a two state solution, that we continue to demonstrate through our discussions, through our policy, through the priority objectives, and through our discussions with anyone in the region, being Israelis or otherwise, that a two state solution is one

that we continue to advocate for as a country. President made some news this more ring in an interview conducted by Israeli media, saying that he's committed to keeping the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the list of foreign terror organizations, even if it means no Iranian nuclear deal. Do you support that? As he right on that absolutely, we should not be removing the i r g C from the Terror Watch or the Terror listent in agreement with him

on that. It's interesting some of the lines that are being drawn right now as he prepares to talk with MBS. We understand that Vladimir Putin, for instance, is headed to Iran. Iran is going to be providing Russia with drones for use in Ukraine. Are we entering a world order where we've got this sort of axis and maybe you see it already in place between Iran and Russia, and then you'll have Israel, the United States, Saudi Arabia on the

other side. I think we are seeing uh an alignment of countries, and I think that this is incredibly important, whether or not we, you know, want to call it with some level of finality, this is a new world order. I think it's most appropriator, or perhaps a kind of most beneficial for the way that we interpret the threats that exist or the partnerships that exists. For us to recognize that we are seeing an orienting of certain countries towards others. Um and. This is exactly why US global

leadership is important. This is why our strengthened relationships with NATO are important. This is why UM US recognizing the importance of moving away from dependence on UH, the oil produced in in in certain UH you know, petrol driven regimes is important. Um And, so I think that we should always be very clear on who's aligning themselves with

whom on the world stage. Um And. This is also a reason why the United States that needs to continue galvanizing support for organizations such as NATO, while the United States needs to look within our own in hemisphere for greater partnerships economic and political, so that we can continue to ensure that that we are aligned very very clearly with democratic nations the worldwide UH and then in fact that's the club that other countries want to be a

part of. More broadly, Congresswoman, when we look at this trip and the conversation that preceded it, including the president's op ed, the idea of him asking for more oil, the concerns that some have with what he might be able to do here to help lower gas prices or expectations simply too high to be able to make this a success. I think that it's important to have clear goals and and even if they are kind of a

starting point for expectations or negotiations, I think that's that's fair. Certainly. I have long held, as have many members of Congress, great concern about Saudi engagement within Yemen UM and the

ongoing atrocities that we see occurring there. So I do hope and expect that the President will again make clear UH to his Saudi counterparts, to anyone that he may meet with the expectations that the United States holds UH for Saudi Ribby to be a responsible UM UH you know, actor on the world stage in terms of how it is that they choose to engage economically, so not locking down UM oil production that is important to global markets, and also importantly not UH continuing UH to support UH

international UM atrocities as as the like those that we've seen in Yemen. Do you expect to see gas prices drop as a result of this trip UM? I think that's a couple of steps ahead of what I'm willing to declare as an eventuality. I do think that in the House. You know, we've passed good legislation, the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act. Uh. Certainly we are taking it all of above approach at trying to bring down the cost of gas UM and certainly directionally we've seen

some progress. Uh though given uh the inflation numbers that Americans continue to experience, that's that's not yet anywhere close to being a point of celebration. But UM, I appreciate that the administration continues to be focused on this issue. And certainly, I think as evidenced by our recent votes UM supporting biofuel, supporting us in all um and UH the bills that we've put forth in the House and pass in the House with bipartisan support. We're also working

in tandem to to take strong steps forward. And with all of that said, gosh knows we're hearing about inflation every day, Congressman, when you're preparing for mid term elections. Is the president an asset or a liability? Considering the environment that we're in for a Democrat running for re election? So you know, in my rates, I have a record.

I've been in office now for almost two terms. I have worked uh aggressively on issues that matter to the people I represent, be it related to agriculture issues and UH monopolistic behavior within the meat processing industry, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, focus on veterans issues, toxic exposures, UH infrastructure of course, which is a major and important issue within my district. UM. And so I am out on the campaign trail making sure that my constituents, current

and future recognize what it is that I've done. I'm meeting people, making sure that they know who I am, what my background is, what it is that I bring to my work on Capitol Hill end in the district, and why I'm asking to be re elected to continue that service. Would you bring Joe Biden with you though along the campaign trail, as you know, at this point,

I'm I'm out there meeting people individually. UM. You know, I was very happy to invite the President to come to my district to meet my instituents, to talk about prescription drug prices, UM, to give my constitution, my constituency opportunity to speak directly to the leader of the free world and say, this is what the cost of insulin means to me, this is what the cost of my prescription drug means to my family. UM. And that's the

type of advocacy that I will always do. And that's you know, outside of politics, that's just policy making sure that if I have the chance, uh to give any constituent the ability to speak with the leader of the free world, that I'm going to do that. Um. And on the campaign trail, I'm I'm run around making sure people know who I am, how to vote, when to vote, and why they should vote for me. That was an

incredibly effective answer. I don't know how you did that, but I'm still going to be thinking about it later. Congresswoman Abigail Spanburger, thank you for being with us once again on Bloomberg. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. We'll reassemble the panel next n Chanzano and Rick Davis their take on the trip here, the way it's starting, and what we should expect later on this week.

Thanks for being with us here on Bloomberg. Sound on as we reassemble the panel here and picking up where we left off with Congresswoman Spanburger here, the President on the tarmac, on the red carpet reaches for the two state solution, and you'll have to listen to the language that he used because he's not expecting this obviously to take place tomorrow, but it is part of the conversation on this trip. Here's the President Biden. Greater face, greatest stability,

greater connection. It's critical. It's critical, if I might add, for all the people of the region, which is why we'll be we'll discuss my continued support, even though I know it's not in air term and two state solution that remains. It might be the best way to ensure the future of equal measure of freedom, prosperity and democracy

for Israelis and Palestinians. A life sounds a day from the arrival ceremony and hell aviv Rick Davis and Jeanne Chanzano or with this Bloomberg Politics contributors, Rick, is it important for him to restate this as he begins talks. He had just arrived, of course at this point, and you've talked a little bit about the idea of bringing Saudi Arabia, for instance, into the Abraham Accords. Is that the way to get there? Look, I think that um,

the Palestinians had hard slog during the Trump administration. You know, the two state solution was dead within his administration, and so I think that that Biden was under a lot of pressure to sort of get that back on the table officially as president, and uh, it's been a constant within the Democratic parties, um, you know, uh policy reviews for the region. So he did what he had to do, but he was not going to get into the slippery slope of being the guy who's going to try and

deliver it. He had eight years that he watched it happen in the Obama administration and he made no progress on it. And I'm sure he does not want to attach his wagon to that policy that sting. He went out of his way to say, uh that, you know, even though it's not in the near turn Genie. I don't know if that was in the speech or now, but he certainly said it. He did and and and typical Joe Biden. And he's absolutely right. While he has long supported it, and I give him credit for raising

it as soon as he gets there. Well, typical that he says, you know, he talks about the elephant in the room. There's no support for that on the ground. That's the reality there. But I give him credit for raising that, um, you know, as soon as he landed, and I thought he did a very warm greeting with the Israeli officials. He talked about this bone deep relationship with Israel, and he made certain, unlike some of his predecessors, that Israel was his first stop. It's his tenth visit

to the Middle East, but his first as president. Then it's onto the West Bank, Rick, is it going to be Will there be similar energy when he gets there? Yeah? Look, I mean it'll be more negative energy, right, because the Palestinians are gonna be looking for, you know, all kinds of promises to make about you know, limiting the settlements and and and that kind of thing, and trying to get engaged in this administration open up, uh, you know, various kinds of access points for them that have been

close since Trump. So yeah, it's gonna be a different kind of conversation, but one worth having. Uh. And I think for the purpose of his balance of his trip, it is helpful to have that conversation with the Palestinian leaders before he gets to Saudi Arabia. We'll tell you we're talking about handshakes and body language already. This trip is hours old, uh, Genie and Rick, I don't know if you saw this whole handshake controversy here, we'll call

it handshake gate or fist bump gate or something. But the President was not supposed to shake hands with the other foreign leaders on this trip. It was said to be a COVID precaution. He was going to be fist bumping, and the idea was, you know, that way, he's not holding hands or seen shaking hands with nbs. At the end of the week, he he did fist bump Prime Minister Lepide as he landed. But then he gives that Benjamin Netan Yahoo a big old handshake because they've known

each other for a long time. Jeannie, I know this isn't the most important stuff in the world, but now he's got to shake hands when he gets to Jettah. Right, this is the thing I've been watching, so I hope it's important. You know. It was. I thought just a classic when the White House announced that he would not be handshaking because of COVID and the variants. And the minute he got off, You're right, he fist bumps and

then he handshakes. I don't know if he forgot or he got so excited by seeing some of these officials that you know he shook hands. We know he likes to rub shoulders and all kinds of things, so he's, you know, a touchy guy. So maybe it was hard, but there it goes. And now he has no reason not to shake MBS his hand, and so it's going to be fascinating to see on Friday. He's just invited

the press to watch this. Is he or is he not going to be holding hands with MBS when he gets there, and it's a it's or not, Rick, What do you think? Yeah, I think it's much at two about nothing. I mean, the initial greeting with MBS probably won't even be on camera. My bet would be they do it inside a palace somewhere and uh, and there'll be a public display of the two of them. But uh, I think it's much to do about nothing. He is

gonna go break bread with MBS. He's gonna get all the positives and all the negatives related to that, regardless of the bear hug or fist pump or shake hands. I asked you guys both about deliverables yesterday. I don't know if you feel the same way about it right now, But does he need to have Jake Sullivan suggested he will have a relatively specific statement to make on what he has secured on this trip. When it comes to oil, Genie, are we talking about you know, three million barrels a day?

What what kind of a message, what kind of a statement has to come from this trip? Well, I mean, I mean what they're hoping to see is that they get something that allows them to see a decrease in those prices, and a lot of experts saying that's not going to happen, which is why it's your can't over promise.

You should not be over promising. And there are positive deliverables from this trip, things about travel, things about regional air defense, you know, the funding of Palestinian hospitals, the visit. There are positives to talk about. You know, if they can guarantee the oil prices, that's a great thing. Many experts say that's going to be hard to get that win there. In that case, it's a disappointment. Right. Does he need to be specific, as Jake Sullivan has suggested,

he will be. Yeah. I think he wants to be right. He wants to put something on the table that will say that this trip was worth the cost, that he had to take to sort of backtrack on the relationship that he has said. You know, uh, saudis a pariah state, So what is the trade. The trade is gonna be lower gas prices, and and I think that's got to be out there. No doubt NBS is gonna be willing

to participate in this. He's he's part of the beneficiary of this visit, and I'm sure he'll go out and say we're gonna work with O pick or lower gas prices, that we know this is good for the global economy, and we're gonna work with these guys. So that to me is a message to the market. It looks like we're gonna get our final January six committee hearing next week. The reports now UH that the prime time event set

for Thursday of this week will happen next Thursday. We still don't know exactly who's going to testify or how they're going to wrap up this whole thing. But I want to ask both of you. Got a comment that was dropped yesterday on cable news, because it's just I have to know what we're talking about here, and you know, I could use your help. John Bolton on CNN talking after yesterday's hearing about the idea of a carefully planned coup data. He's talking to Jake Tapper. Apparently he would

know a lot about this. Listen, with all due respect, one doesn't have to be brilliant to attempt a coup. I disagree with that as somebody who has helped planned coup data a lot, not here, but you know other places. It takes a lot of work. And that's not what he did. It was just stumbling around from one idea to another. Ultimately he did unleash the rioters at the Capitol. As to that, there's no doubt. Okay, I'm sorry, back the tape up. Rick Davis, do you know anything about this?

Where was he helping to plan a coup data? This is the former National Security Advisor. Yeah, I mean the only one that I'm really familiar with is venez Awaye. How well, look how well that worked out. Does that mean the United States was getting involved in that in a way we didn't know about or is he a row of agent? I think we telegraph that Murduro had to go, and we immediately endorse the presidency of somebody else, and and and by almost definition, you know, we we

were participants in fomenting a coup. But if if John Bolton is holding that up as a great success or a difference, and then then January six, I would say that he may want to find a different coup. Okay, ever helped the plan a coup genie? I have not.

But I loved this because John Bolton was like indignant at the fact that he was, you know, defending you know, coup people all over the world that they are brilliant and if you know, he won't have it, that they will be insulted as if they could be engaging in coups and not be brilliant. I mean it was you know, I couldn't quite grab my head around it. And and and one a thing for John Bolton to come out and defend. I mean, I'm assuming you took him at

his word. Uh rick people, You know, this is why people wonder about Washington, is you know, is he out there working as a contractor. He was speaking in in plural at first. You know, he's he's he's done this type of thing before. Yeah, this is why people scratch their head about Washington, like, who are these folks unelected? You know, um, what are they doing with our taxpayers dollars and uh, and it's a fair question to ask. I think you know, John Bolton's got some splaining to

do here. Yeah. Well, I'd say it's all in the book, but I don't think that was in the book. How about next week? If this happens Thursday, Jennie, how do they close this without it seeming like a fade to black? Some of the most dramatic testimony was in the beginning of this process. Many argued they did not connect a lot of the dots yesterday that they were hoping to with the Proud Boys and the oath keepers. What are we in for? What's the final message next week? Well?

I think it is a danger. And I've heard from several people since the hearing yesterday that they thought there was a little bit too much of grandstanding um on the part of some of the congress men and women, and we need a little bit of less of that and a little bit more of testimony. So I think the big key is going to be do they put out that testimony by sipolony? I think they will, But do they have any other testimony to drop? And better yet,

live witnesses? And to your point, can they connect the Trump administration to this, you know, effort to to overturn the election. And you know, some people don't feel they did a terrific job doing that yesterday. I think they did a fairly good job. But they need to certainly have new testimony on Thursday. They're going after that hundred and eighty seven minutes rick that it took for for President Trump to tell people to leave, to tell the

rioters to leave the capital. Uh, do we need new footage or is this more about repackaging everything that we've seen so far into some full smash video that the former president of ABC News is helping them produce right now. Yeah, I just I'm assuming that what they're looking for is a smoking gun in that one eight seven minutes that has him telling somebody, uh that they need to get

up there and bust into the place. And so they need to have something new, Yeah, because that's that is when the riot is happening, and and and the reason why isn't he asking them to leave? Well, maybe maybe the expectation is that they've got him on the record or somebody willing to testify the fact that they were talking to him during that period of time and he was given the ghost sign and if they have that that is a smoking gun, well this is gonna be

We're understanding, at least according to reports. Next Thursday will let you know when it's actually formally scheduled, and who knows if we'll no one advance witnesses, other information and so forth. We will get more views, though apparently at the Capitol Riot and the part of this documentary and in the video tape that he's provided, Rick Davis thinks it's always Jennie Chanzino, our signature panel on Bloomberg's sound on. Always a pleasure to spend time talking about some of

the most important issues in our lives. That's what we do every day here on the fastest hour in politics. Subscribe to the podcast. If you got here late, be ready for you every evening. I'm Joe Matthew will see you back here tomorrow. This is Bloomberg