Sound On: Griner Prison Sentence, Carried Interest Fate (Radio)

the small businesses of America. Your attorney's messed up in sitting an entire digital com of your entire self from Bloomberg sund On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. China reportedly fires missiles over Taiwan. Brittany Grinder gets nine and a half years of the Senator proved Sweden and Finland to join NATO with a single vote against. Welcome to

the fastest hour in politics. As we gauge the fallout from Nancy Pelosi's trip to Asia with At Bruin, former White House Director of Global Engagement, and the impact of the Grinder sentencing with Thomas Firestone, former assistant U S attorney worked as a lawyer in Moscow. Later, reconciliation gets more complicated for Democrats. We'll get a behind the scenes view from Jim Kessler, a Third Way former legislative policy director for Senator Chuck Schumer. China ups the anti after

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip this week to Taiwan. Retired Admiral John Kirby, speaking for the National Security Council today at the White House. Overnight, People's Republic of China launched in estimated eleven ballistic missiles towards Taiwan, which impacted to the northeast, the east, and southeast of the island. We condemned these actions, which are irresponsible and at odds with our long standing goal of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Street

and in the region. In Japan says five of those eleven ballistic missiles landed in its exclusive of Economic zone and four likely flew over Taiwan itself, a major escalation if confirmed. Kirby says, the US is not standing down in the region. We will not be deterred from operating in the seas and the skies of the Western Pacific consistent with international law, as we have for decades supporting

Taiwan and defending a free and open indoor Pacific. To that end, Secretary Austin today is directed that the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and the ships in her strike group will remain on station in the general area to monitor the situation, but he says the US is also postponing a planned minute Man three I CBM tests so as to not further in flame tensions. Is that the

price of the trip. Let's get into it now with ret ruined president of the Global Situation Room, former Director of Global Engagement in the Obama White House, Brett welcome back. Was at the right move now to postpone a planned US missile test. I think so you don't want to create a situation where we're in an escalatory pattern. Instead, the US needs to be a responsible party here trying to de escalate this situation, show that we are not giving ground, but at the same time we're not going

to give Beijing an excuse to up their aggression. And I think that's what you saw come out of the decision by the Defense Department today. Uh seeing the reports that I'm assuming that the the reports from Japan are correct, that several of these missiles went over Taiwan. Is a new level? Does it require a response? Again? I think we should um be much more careful in how we respond.

Beijing is looking to show strength after Secretary or rather Speaker Pelosi's visit, and and this was their attempt at that. Obviously it breaks with some past precedent UH and it it takes the efforts by I think the United States and our allies to show restraint in this moment and to show that this kind of force. And let's not forget Russia was also engaged in quote unquote training exercises that preceded their invasion of Ukraine, and so these kinds

of exercises can be a prelude to further action. One of the concerns that I've been speaking with experts about is if China should occupy islands off of Taiwan's coast that are are part of UH Taiwan, what is our reaction? Do we call that an invasion? Do we respond? Right? Is that the same as invading UH Taipei. Look, we've got some some tough decisions to make here, potential Lee and I don't know where this is going, Brett, but

China has essentially created a blockade around Taiwan. Over the coming days, as these exercises encircle the island UH, Taiwan is at the mercy of Beijing. How dangerous does this get? Are we're gonna be talking about this week's down the road? Or does China pack up its toys when this is over and go home? Well, I think most observers would see them packing up their toys for now and going home. This was a show of strength. It was an attempt

to send a message. Should they stay there, the United States are allies, would need to challenge that presence, and you know we have a model for doing so. China has made claims to other parts of the Pacific Ocean, the South China Sea, and we have freedom of navigation movement similarly, So I think you would see a situation in which the United States would attempt to break that

um UH blockade of the island of Taiwan. So what's going to happen the next time we send the Ronald Reagan up the Taiwan straight Well, I think what we've seen in the past is that China will engage, whether it's UH on the the ocean, in the Sky in a series of aggressive maneuvers. But let's not forget that Chusing Ping is in a very difficult position right now.

The economy back home in China has been suffering, showing anemic growth, and also, obviously his crackdown over the last several years has created a whole host of enemies animosity.

He's got to be careful how he plays his cards here, and I think at the same time, the US is in a stronger position after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with a united West with a playbook for how we handle these kinds of situations brewing Global Situation Room Presidents, the former director of Global Engagement at the White House in the Obama administration. We appreciate it as always, Brett, thank

you for the insights. As we we've turned to the Brittany Grinder sentencing today and boy nine and a half years. I guess no one's surprised, right They had asked for nine and a half, people thought you might get ten, And there it is. She spoke before the sentence came down. I've never met hurt anybody. I never meant to put in jeopardy the rest of population. I've never met any laws here I made an honestly state and I hope that and you're brewing that it doesn't end my life here.

Reaction from the White House was swift. We got a statement from President Biden, came up in the briefing with Press Secretary Karine Sean Pierre. So today's sentencing is a reminder of what the world already knew. Russia is wrongfully detaining Brittany. She never should have had to endure a trial in the first place. Here's and else. The world already knew this likely ends with a prisoner swap. So

did Russia just get more leverage? We bring in Thomas Firestone, partner at Struck and Struke and Lavan, former assistant U S attorney who actually worked in Moscow for some time as a lawyer. Thomas, thank you for being here. This seemed inevitable to most people watching it. Did you expect such a harsh sentence? I did expect a harsh sentence. You know, on the one hand, the typical sentences in Russian ordinary cases like this or about five years probation.

Her lawyers made that point in recent cases involving Americans caught at the airport. The sentence has been much higher. Mark Fogel was sixty one year old school teacher got fourteen years for seventeen grahams Nami Soccer got seven and a half years for nine grams. This is one gram, right, this is less than one gram is less than one So she got nine years for less than one graham? In what world? Is not a reasonable sentence. There's no such thing as an appeal for an American or I'm

assuming anyone in Russia. How does this work? No, there is an appeal. Her lawyers were file will file an appeal? Is it? Is it a sham appel? I wouldn't. I wouldn't bet on it succeeding. Put it that way, I think it's I think it's a long shot. She's got some other angles that she can pursue legally, but again I would not expect a positive result. So that said, well, we'll spend time I guess on that, or do we

move ahead with the idea of the prisoner swap? And I know you're not uh an expert on that, But the analysis Thomas today was that this sentence was was the message from Moscow saying no, no, you know, we expect someone back for her and it might be more than one person. At this point, did they gain leverage along the way? Is that where we're going? I think I think they definitely gained leverage. I mean you said that at the beginning that where this ends, it's no

surprise it will end with a prisoner exchange. I think that's the best case scenario. Let's not forget that. Already. The US already offered Victor Boot, our big trump card, all of this, doing twenty five years for Wheeling and Grinder, and the Russians apparently said no. So where does that leave us? Well, that's why I ask if it's gonna be both Wheelan and Grinder, we're gonna have to get

to Russians back to Moscow, right right? And they've asked for I mean, they've really up the anty on this, and there you know, the State form said it's not a serious offer. They really up the anny and they said we don't we want Boot plus Vadim Krassokov, a convicted murderer in German custody. So talk about difficulties, but enough to give some you know from US custom. But here's a murderer got life in in in Germany. Are we gonna work that. So call your friend Sheelz and

work it out. Thomas. I whenever I see images of Brittaney Grinder, she's wearing her own clothing. I've seen her wearing, you know, sports jerseys and so forth. At this point, now, is she in a jumpsuit in uh? In a prison? What what's happening with her? No, she's in a pre trial detention facility on the outskirts of Moscow, near the

airport where she was arrested. Um, she's got she'll file the appeal and then it's only in most cases it's only after the appeal is rejected that the conviction becomes final and she gets sent to a penal colony that'll be god knows where in Russia. But she colony. So this is like hard labor we're talking. I don't know that it's gonna be hard labor. It's not a labor camp, thats necessarily, but it's not a pleasant place to be. Where she is right now is not a good place

to be. The penal colonies are generally worse than the three trial facilities. Good lord, how long would the appeal take? Thomas? Do you have a sense of that or can you not predict with the Russian court. It's hard. It'll probably take several months. I mean there's a strategic choice here. Does she want to accelerate the appeal because if you assume the appeal is going to be unsuccessful, does she really wanted to decide it quickly and get sent to

the colony? More fascter, So it'll probably take several months. Thomas Firestone fascinating and appreciate the insights here. We had to talk with an expert about that, so we can all have a better sense of what's actually going on before we assemble our panel. And we'll do that next after Traffic and Markets. Jeanie Schanzano and Doug high Or with us on the Fastest Hour in Politics. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on

with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Missiles over Taiwan Brittney Griner nine and a half years Geo politics not getting any easier for the Biden administration as a war continues in Ukraine and of course China is its own thing. Here is we assemble the panel with Bloomberg Politics contributor Democratic analyst Jennie Schanzano and Doug High is back with US today. Republican strategist former communications director at the r

n C, Genie, let's start with the Taiwan here. As I asked Brett Bruin earlier, does this require a response of some sort? If it's confirmed that these four these ballistic missiles were shot over the island, an incredibly dangerous prospect as they were on their way to Japan, you know it is going to require a response of some kind. And I think that that's part of what Nancy Pelosi's trip did. Is it you know, invited if you will, This is the price of admission. This is the price,

and we are now going to have to respond. Now I'm not saying we're going to have to respond militarily, but as she comes back, the question is what's next? Um, are we going to beef up our military? Are we going to take steps to help Taiwan defend itself? Possibly? Um? What is it due to our military budget? So I think those are the kinds of responses. And I think we're already seeing Blinkin over in Cambodia today as he's been trying to make the case that China is the

aggressor here. We did nothing to change the status quo with this visit. They did that seems to be falling on deaf ears. However, Doug High, I wonder what you make of this decision to postpone the US missile tests in the region. Here's John Kirby today at the White House.

We do not believe it is in our interest, Taiwan's interest, the region's interests to allow tensions to escalate further, which is why a long planned minute Man three I CBM test scheduled for this week has been rescheduled for the near future. You wouldn't say when that might happen, Doug, just soon? Is it the right thing to do? Well? My concern is, and and it's part of the only real criticism I would have for Pelosi's visit is we

don't really know what the strategy behind it was. We know the why now you know she's potentially wrapping up a speakership in a career in politics, and this has been a priority for a while, but we don't know what the strategy behind and what necessarily was going to be accomplished by going, and so unfortunately what we see time and time again, and reactions to China is when we hear we don't want things to escalate, that means that we're going to change our behavior. China doesn't necessarily

have to depend changed their behavior. And we see that politically, we see it culturally, economically. You know, all down the line Brittney Grinder sentencing, what what timing here, Genie on on the same day that we're reading headlines of missiles over at Taiwan nine and a half years I think you said it would be ten Uh, basically no matter what after the guilty verdict came in here. But my goodness, Uh, a prisoner swap has already been rejected by Russia. Do

we offer more people? Where's this going? Yeah? This was a show trial. This is exactly what Vladimir Putin wanted. This is exactly what the Kremlin wanted. And even the language that you were using in your discussion with with with Thomas, this idea that she is eventually going to

be sent to a penal colony. You know, Putin realizes that when the American public looks at a superstar like Brittney Grinner and they hear her heartbreaking statements, it's outrageous that she's gotten you know, even a day, let alone nine plus years there. They are going to push the administration to make a deal and this is going to in your words, or is the word you used, I

think was leverage. It's absolutely right. Give Puttin the leverage he needs to get a two for two swap or whatever it is he's looking for, or she'll sit there and it's an absolute atrocity. This is high stakes dug certainly politically. How does the White House make this a win? Does it? Does it matter who they trade? I'm assuming that's where this is going, is getting her home under any circumstances of win. Well, I think you've got two

different scenarios potentially playing out on how we define a win. Obviously, if she comes home and not, there are other Americans who are you know, they're not prisoners, their hostages at this point, you know, the footage of that will be warm, will all feel good about it, um and and it will be you know, a good moment, good visuals for the White House, But at what costs because you know, the prisoners swaps that we would be doing, you know,

are not Russian basketball players who might have inadvertently made a mistake. Um. These are going to be hardened killers. Um. And so is the price worth it a B. But it's something this administration has to think carefully. Few you do wonder what kind of analysis it becomes subject to, just just in the you know, the general um consciousness here because so many people want her to come home.

But when you see the victory parade that takes place in in Russia, you know that's gonna happen in Moscow. He's gonna be out there. My god, they'll they'll all have their shirts off. Genie. It's going to be a big arm wrestling contest or something. Yes, that's correct, very cold, thank you in apologies. So I have to ask you about one more here as while we're in the foreign policy sphere, an important vote yesterday in the US Senate

to say yes to welcoming Sweden and Finland Tornato. On this vote, the the nays are one and one senator responded present two thirds of a senator's present, a quorum being present. Having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to. There it is that's Senator John ass Off Doug one man one voted against his name is Josh Holly have to do less in Europe in order to prioritize America's most pressing national security interest, which

is in Asia with regard to China. So don't let Sweden and Finland in the NATO because we need to invent that would that would draw more investment. I guess in Europe's saying, Doug, is that going to become a more popular idea in the Republican Party or does he stand alone? Right now? He stands alone. That's one vote, right, It's not that core group of eight or ten. You know, the trumpiest of the trump he he's on his own.

He clearly sees some kind of a political advantage on on this, but you know he's going to have to potentially on a debate stage defend his vote against the real other trumpy candidates say it Ted Cruz who voted for this, And that's you know, that's the political box that he's put himself in. But he sees as an opportunity. Doug High Genie Chanzano are sound on panel today. I'm

Joe Matthew. This is Bloombird broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York Bloomberg eleven trio to Boston, Bloomberg one of six, one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to the country, Serious x M General one nine and around the globe, the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew.

So a working weekend, it will be for the Senate's as the path to Democrats Climate and Tax bill gets a little bit longer as Senator Kirston Cinema pushes for changes. Now we'll talk about what's going on behind the scenes coming up with Jim Kessler of Third Way spent time as the legislative policy director for Senator Schumer. He's been there.

If you you have to wonder what Senator Chuck Schumer is thinking right now as he looks ahead of this weekend, waiting for the parliamentary and to rule and a relatively short window of time left to work on the Climate and Tax bill. Having already learned and we talked about it at this time yesterday that Senator Kirston Cinema does have some issues with the deal that Schumer struck with Joe Manchin. Wants to drop carried interest for instance, wants

to narrow the scope of the corporate minimum tax. But if you listen to Chuck Schumer on the floor of the Senate today, you wouldn't know about it. Democrats are going to deliver on all these things and more when we passed the Inflation Reduction Act in coming days, coming days, the same exact language that he used on the floor yesterday. So is he whistling past the graveyard? Does he know

something we don't know? We bring in Jim Kessler, co founder of Third Way, Democratic strategist, former legislative policy director for Senator Chuck Schumer. Jim, it's great to have you back. What's going on in the office at this point? Here is do you suspect Chuck Schumer directly involved with Senator kirston cinema on on changes that she wants to see? What's this conversation? Like he's always directly involve, Didn't I

expect he's directly involved in this? Look, this was a confident Chuck Schumer who went to the floor and said, this is going to happen, you know, in the next few days. My guess is this time next week a bill will be through the Senate. There are a couple of hurdles. Some are procedural. The parliamentarian is looking at this bill. There's always things that don't pass what's called the bird bath, some of the procedural rules with reconciliation,

which means language will need to be tweaked. And then there are whatever demands that Kyrsten Cinema has and whether they can be a commodating or the best way they can be accommodated. But this feels like we're getting close. It feels like we're getting to the finish line. What doesn't make it out of the bird bath? And if it were in the bill now, would it include this drought protection money that cinema is asking for. Well, you know,

the parliamentarian, you know, ultimately has the final call. But generally anything that is that is dealing with with revenue and epics of reductions and those sort of things, um can make it through the parliamentarian. Certain things that have to do with policy but don't have a real revenue components sometimes get struck down. But there's always ways that you can craft the language to the parliamentarian says, well

it works this way, it doesn't work that way. What we don't know is what's going to happen with carried interest, which news reports say that he's in Cinema would like to strip out. And there are some reports that some of the corporate tax piece she doesn't like, but there's other reports to say that she's fine and she carried interest out. It doesn't really put that big of a dent in the bill. Should Chuck Schumer be open to that? I mean, it is a very tiny amount. It's fourteen

billion dollars over ten years. It's about two percent of the size of the bill. Look, it's one of those things that Democrats have been trying to do for a long, long, long long time. It would be great if it could stay in there. It's not going to be the thing that since the bill or makes it swim. Okay, there you go. Why are you so confident this gets done next week? Is it because of how close they are? Because, boy, this kind of feels familiar. It does feel familiar, but

you know, look, Joe Mansion was a huge hurdle. It got through that the things that Kirsten Cinema are raising really seemed like mostly minor issues, particularly if it's just carried interest piece, and she really does care about the climate pieces and the deficit reduction pieces. You know, how Republicans are playing this as we're talking taxes is in terms of hikes. Joe Mansion keeps making the point there's no tax increases in the bill. We're simply closing tax loopholes.

But this is how it's playing on the other side of the aisle. Mitch McConnell on the floor today, not much later than Chuck Schumer was talking they want to ram through giant new Cox socks in the middle of the recession, new multi hundred dollar talk talks on American jobs that especially target the manufacturing sector, leaving Americans with

your jobs. And Laura wagers Jim that the whole deal is being framed as a win for Democrats, a win for Joe Biden, something to crow about on the campaign trail. But how do you get around that narrative before November? You know, I think if Republicans were being really honest in the Senate, if it was a secret ballot, I bet about fifteen or twenty Republicans would vote for this bill. That it really is closing a tax to the poll

in which very large corporations that report huge profits. But then for tax purposes say they have ritually no profits will actually be taxed on those profits. It is, It is very minor in terms of the revenue increases in there. I think this is a little bit of the partisanship

that you've just seen in Washington. So when you look back on this period of time, whether they get at this done or not, and this would be a huge piece of legislation, Chuck Schumer looks back to November and he says, we got the gun safety bill, We've got the Chips Act passed, that the Pact Act passed, and they got NATO done for Sweden and Finland yesterday. How does that compare in terms of productivity to a typical session. Well,

and don't forget the bipartisan infrastructure build the past. Sure if you want to go back last year, sure, Yeah. So if you look at this entire Congress, I think this is the most consequential Congress for legislation since Ronald Reagan in his first term. That's quite a statement. I mean, after build back better blew up. But in terms of actual pieces of legislation and and in in scope, can you compare that? Is that what you're looking back to,

then that's the that's the best comparison. I mean, there's this has been. The Infrastructure Bill was enormous. This um UH Infliction Reduction Act is a very significant piece of legislation. CHIPS is major, The Russia sanctions legislation was major, The NATO expansion, if you add domestic and foreign policy together, really one of the most significant two year periods of the presidency since Ronald Reagan. I mean, look, Barack Obama's

first two years, a lot happened. George W. Bush's first two years, a lot happened, saming Bill Clins, and it will soon be compared to to Joe Biden's first two years. Jim Kessler A third way, We thank you so much for the insights. You know, you wonder how much could be undone as well by a Republican majority. Quick on the heels of this Congress, we reassemble the panel next and we go to school. Uncarried interests right here on sound on This is Bloomberg. You're listening to blue Berg.

You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Well, it sounds like the carried interests tax blophole in the Democrats Reconciliation Bill may not make the cut, which would not be a deal breaker. As Jim Kessler just told us, we're talking about what fourteen billion dollars in more than seven hundred billion dollar bills. So what's all the fuss about Kirsten Cinema's subjection of the carried interests been hearing

about it for days now. So before we reassemble the panel for their take on this, we thought we would go to school for a moment and get smart with Bloomberg's Shini bus. So if the carried interest tax break went away, what would it mean for investment managers? What would it actually mean? Some of them would have to pay a lot more taxes. Of course, they are very wealthy. Remember these are the wealthiest of most of Wall Street.

These are private equity professionals. These are hedge fund professionals. So yes, this would eat into their own profits and their own earnings. However, there are a lot of firms that have already started to move away from this model and start to pay people based on the stocks of their own companies instead. There's also a question I look at what the Americans for a financial reform is calculated. For example, how much does this raise in terms of

tax income, right, how much? It's a pretty small chunk of what we're talking about here. Remember these are large political donors as well, so there is a sense that a lot of lawmakers do not want to frustrate them. Now we're getting closer to the Chewy center. Yeah, and so you know, if you go to lunch in New York with any of these private equity firms, they crap about it absolutely. Okay, Professor Bostick, thanks for the lesson. Oh any time. I feel so much smarter now, don't you.

It's because of the donations, right, Isn't that where we're going here? Follow the money. We reassemble the panel Genie chanzy O Boomberg, politics contributor, Democratic Analysts to Day, along with Doug High, Republican strategist former communications director for the r n C. What do you think about that? Doug is show only on is something? I mean, why even

bring it up? Is there are other items that that would be uh, the same fourteen billion dollar value in this legislation that people would never hear about whether they were in or out. Well, first off, Sonali is literally on my TV right now, So how you got her to these three places at once is just man magic of Bloomberg. Um, No, it's you know, it's interesting that it came up and was one of the first things

to be removed. And you know, one of the things that that always happens with legislation like this is as you get closer to it, it's not about what you can put into incentivize people to vote for it. It's about what you take out. And clearly there was an issue with Cinema. It's one of the things that she wanted to see out of this bill. And when you're at a fifty Senate you know, fifty Senate vote majority, um, with only fifty members of your party either way, every

vote really counts on this one. And that's why she and as we've so often seen what Joe Manchin have a lot of leverage. Does this not smack though, of lawmakers trying to make Wall Street happy, even though it might be just a little thing her But remember me in the full gie. Yeah, And that's essentially what Dick Durbin said when he said she should support this absolutely. Um. And I would just ask you to play that music again when I talked Joe, because it sounds so much better. Yeah, Dog,

don't you want to? Um, But you know the thing is is that they are you know, they were not even talking really about closing this essentially, but narrowing it to your point. They could take it out. It's a relatively small part of a seven forty billion dollar bill. But again, as Doug was just saying, they can't lose one of these people. And I mentioned yesterday Bernie Sanders who described this bill as doing virtually nothing. He's going

to vote for it. He's not happy, but you know, you lose one of these people, and that raises big questions. Are Democrats gonna once again be you know, promising they got this over the line and then get it pulled back? And I would just say briefly, I was listening to Megan McCain talk about what's happening in Arizona, and it made you know, whereas I think, you know, certain cinema will go along with this, when you listen to the politics out in Arizona, it can't be a huge shock

if she doesn't go along with this either. They really like their Mavericks, well, yes they do. Um. I I just I wonder why we're why we're spinning wheels on this dug I guess that was the exercise with Shinali to understand, uh, what the actual context is here, and it put it in some perspective with the rest of the bill. Chuck Schumer gets this done, right? Are we assuming carried interest is out? Kirston Cinema get what you want?

Or should kirston Cinema be careful here? A no vote on this bill, especially being a loan no vote on this bill could mean her political career. Well, you know, absolutely, and if you talk to Arizona Democrats, they're not happy with her, and they haven't been for a while. She's certain to face, you know, a primary regardless. This would just put that in a little bit more of an overdrive context. For it's why she's trying to get to yes.

And again, we see this so often and Washington. It's when things get removed from legislation that you actually see the wheels of government working or not working as the case maybe it's not as things get added to it. That's fascinating. Though you don't see her as an obstruction. You see her as trying to get to yes. Genie, did Democrats see it that way? I think they're frustrated. They see her as an obstruction and yes, what do I have to do to get you in this car?

That's right? And you know she's talking also about the minimum corporate tax, even though a while back she said that was common sense. So you know, they've got to be incredibly frustrated and we're hearing that now. And to Doug's point, she is going to face a primary. But again,

Arizona politics today, it's really really fraught out there. I would never ask you guys about Alex Jones in any other world, but there's a screamer headline on Bloomberg law Info wars Alex Jones must pay four million dollars in Sandy Hook case. This is a lawsuit brought by the parents of victims in the Sandy Hook shing. They sought a hundred and fifty million dollars in defamation charges damages. I should say, uh, and and it has been a

very dramatic trial here. It's one that we've all been kind of watching with one eye, but became much bigger today and not because of this fine. I'll walk you through this for a moment. This is Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist. Talk show hosts and I don't know what other qualifier you want me to give him, but he was on the stand and uh, a lawyer by the name of Mark Bangston, who represents the parents here who brought the suit just dropped a bombshell in the middle

of the courtroom yesterday. Imagine Alex Jones's face becoming very red while this happens. Let me start this series. I've been generously submitte. All right, I'll have to find this for you because this is not the one I was looking for. Fast forward to today. The January six Committee gets involved, and that's why I wanted to talk to you guys about this. It's it's awfully important stuff if you're concerned about the future of the committee. Here now,

I'll bring it back to again. This involves Alex jones cell phone with the lawyer from yesterday. Mr Jones, did you know that twelve days ago, twelve days ago, your attorney's messed up and sitting an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you've sent for the past two years, and when informed, did not take any steps to identify it as privilege or protected in any way, And as of two days ago, it

fell free and clear into my possession. And that is how I know you lied to me when you said you didn't have text message about saying did you know that? I see? I told you the truth. This is your Perrymason moment I gave my phone. And then Mr Jones, you need to answer the question, No, I don't know this that didn't know that happen. They sent Jeannie the entire cell phone. They've got the contents every text he ever sent or received. Presumably now the January six Committee

has asked for that information and they have it. That means they could see all the texts between potentially here Alex Jones, Roger Stone and Company on the day's leading up to and including January six. Did the trial just change to the January six committee just changed because of this trial? It could have. I mean, he testified before January six. He pleaded the fifth over I guess a

hundred times. And you know, I was just riveted by this this attorney yesterday as he made this case and he said Alex Jones' lawyers didn't even even a few days in say that this information was privileged. So it's all out there. And as they said in their closing speech is free, but lies you're going to pay for, and he is going to pay big for this. This is the first of three big trials and it very

well could change the January six Committee. At least much of the information that they have could be enhanced by what they get by these texts from that country song, Doug, what do you make of this? Uh, not the future of Alex Jones, but what these texts could mean for the committee and for the outcome of this investigation. Yeah, I mean, in full disclosure, I've watched none of this trial.

When I see kind of the Adams family esque characters, that's kind of orbit around Trump World changed the channel. That's why I was watching. So now just a few minutes probably why. But clearly what we see the committee doing is they're going wider to go narrower. They're casting their net wider to see how much further up the pyramid they can get. Does that include a White House Chief of staff, does that include a National Security advisor

and ultimately the president itself. They're going to continue to cast that net as wide as possible in directions we may not see coming, to get as high up as they can do You start wondering if the do O J is getting busy here, Jeanie, when do we hear from the Attorney General about all this? You know, it sounds what we're hearing is they have been very, very busy.

I think we will hear. I mean, the tough thing for them is the closer you get to say a potential Trump announcement he is going to run, and the more he is likely a candidate, that makes it a little bit tougher for them. So I think they're working diligently and we don't know if it will reach up to him, but they certainly seem like the news is closing around some of the upper echelons of the Trump administration. All right, you two less than a minute left. We've

got the jobs report tomorrow. Doug. Is this gonna be good news for Joe Biden? Well, if we you know, what we've seen in past months is most of the of the news we see economically is rocky. You know, the jobs numbers are good, everything else seems to be bad. So you'll see potentially, you know, depending on where it falls with expectations, you'll see the Biden administration talking about jobs that doesn't address where everybody really is in the country.

Does it has that this is not a recession Genie, It does as long as they stay solid, and they have been for a while now. Forty year highs meet you this time tomorrow to talk about it on the fastest hour in politics. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.