Sound On: Loan Legal Test, RIP Tailpipe, Trump Affidavit (Radio)

start taking this issue seriously. I don't want your vote. If you have that hate in your heart, keep it. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The White House plays defense on student debt. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics. As divisions emerge over this plan among Democrats and Republicans, and the next step could be court, we'll talk about that with Flinna, Eric's social policy expert at Third. The Department of Justice was just told to

unseal the affidavit from the Marrow Lago search warrant. They must do by noon tomorrow. Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson will join us a bit later with more on what we may learn and how unusual this actually is. Analysis from our signature panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie Chantano and Rick Davis here for the hour. The White House wanted to come out of the box today with a positive message,

and they got some music. This is actually sound from a rally this morning in Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House build as a celebration amongst student activists before like Jackson scrutiny. A news release announcing this rally came out shortly after President Biden announced his plan to forgive debt. List of the group's move on then doubled a CP National Education Association, Center for Popular Democracy and Rise Free. No one else will tell you that today.

And yes they did promote the brass being end in the news release. They started playing at eight thirty in the morning. The zoning allowed that near the White House. The administration that has been besieged by questions about fairness, which Education Secretary Miguel Cordona addressed today on Bloomberg. You know, I've talked to folks who said, you know, yeah, I paid my college loan off, but if my neighbor goes into default, is gonna hurt my local economy, and what

we're anticipating. What we were anticipating is that the number of defaults would be a lot higher um if we didn't provide support. But questions also remain about the legality of this move, and for more on that, we're joined by Lennai Ericson, senior vice president for Social Policy, Education and Politics at the Group Third Way. Lenny, Welcome to Bloomberg. Thanks so much for having me. Much of the argument right now about this whole story is about fairness, That's

what I keep hearing. But you're pointing to authority and whether the president actually has the power to do this on his own. Are we're going to find out in court. I think we absolutely are going to find out in court. And you know, we've been kind of back and forth on this in terms of the legal authorities, but the

situation really changed over this summer. You know, the Trump administration and several other legal authorities have said that the president absolutely cannot just cancel student debts, that Congress did not give him, um the chance to do that with the stroke of a pen um. But then there have been others that have argued that, well, maybe this is within his executive authority. Um, But the Supreme Court came out with a decision in June that really changed the

whole landscape. UM. That's going to really put this decision in jeopardy because when they struck down the climate rules in their ep A decision, they said that any actions that the executive takes that have major political or economic significance has to have a higher level of congressional authority. They have to be clearly articulated by Congress. This is

the you're talking. So what happens start to see you know how broad odd scale canceling student loan debt isn't a decision of political and economic significant Yes, okay, so let's assume it's going to court. Is there an injunction? What happens to this whole program? If I can call it that? In the meantime? Does this pause everything? You know? I think what what we'll see is who susan when and where? Um? You know, this is something that UM, A lot of folks have talked about, is who is

going to have the right to do here? And certainly, UM, there are potentially student loan servicers who do not want to cancel the student debt and you would rather have it go back. UM. They may have the ability to

sue in court. UM. The folks that aren't actually eligible for this forgiveness, like someone who makes a hundred and twenty six thousand dollars a year, that person might be able to sue in court because the limit is a hundred and twenty five thousand, and that wasn't really um made up from anything except for what the administration decided, so they could say, you know, I was harmed by that, UM.

But we also know that at least by Jeane you worry. UM. The House of Representatives, if it's under Republican control, absolutely continued to stop this can sue if not right legislation, although we should also know this is executive order, which can always be reversed by the next executive. But let's pick through this a little bit for a moment, because there are different components here. You've got the loan forgiveness,

which is what everyone's talking about. You've also got this five percent cap one's discretionary income on loan repayments moving forward that could potentially impact far more people and of course go on indefinitely. Could we find ourselves with a split ruling where they take these one on one or just throw out the whole thing and start over. I think most likely what will be challenged as to learn forgiveness pieces because there are people that feel that they've

been harmed from that. Um. I think the income based free payment pieces are really taking We already have income based ree payment plans on the books. If this is just making them more on earst and making more people able to access them, so it costs money, um, but it's not. There's not necessarily someone who's actively harmed by that that might have standing in court to sue as

there are under the under the forgiveness rules. And just to to give you a sense of why, um, you know the House of Representatives might have standing, it's because they are saying, this is actually Congress's job. This isn't the executive jobs. This is Congress's job, and um, and we don't want to um, we don't want you to do this. And so you know, obviously the Democratic House won't act in that way, but we could see in January. UM, you know, if Republicans take over them them go in

that direction. You can just imagine the hearings right now. And I think the hearings will start soon. And you know, part of the announcement was that the application this is not automatic. People are going to have to apply for it, and the application process has not yet been decided and is going to take a while. And so they said they will have form out by the end of the

year for people to start applying. Um, but that means we've got a couple of months before maybe people can't even start filling out their paperwork, let alone having that paperwork process. The White House actually went out of its way to get ahead of conversations like the one we're having right now by laying out what it saw is the legal rationale here, and they pinned on the Department of Education, suggesting that it has the right to do this. You used to work as a lawyer, you have a

constitutional law background. What's your gut say on what you're hearing from the White House? Well, you know, I think

it's interesting. I think it actually, Um, it indicates that they're scared about court decision because, um, what they have been saying and what the advocates who have been pushing this and folks like Elizabeth Warren have been saying, is that the reason that the Executive could Act was based in the Higher Education Act, which is a law um Congress passed in the nineteen six season, has passed repeatedly

since then, updating act. And they said, well, there's a provision in there that says, UM, people can the executive can compromise and settle UM different kinds of loans and and that has to do with, you know, the contracts on different lontainment systems and things like that. Well, they had argued that that was enough um for the President

just to wipe away all student loan. But I think that the White House realized that that was not going to withstand scrutiny after this ep A decision, So they changed their legal analysis and instead said, oh, this is part of the pandemic. This is part of the Heroes Act public emergency UM powers that were given to the Department because of covid UM. And so that was a huge shift that no one expected and really surprised everyone yesterday did they didn't need reference the Higher Education Act

at all. In fact, the President invoked the impact of the pandemic in his remarks. You're write, that is the language that we're hearing. Along with the fairness issue. Every time this comes up in front of the White House, whether it's the President yester day or the Press secretary today, the White House continues to point back to the Trump tax cuts to to say, hey, at least we're helping people here, and they're saying that it's paid for, which has its own argument that we don't need to get

into now. But the talking points have evolved dramatically since this was first promised. They have, and I think that's because this is a super novel use of executive authority. No one a couple of years ago would have thought that the president would even try this. Um. And you know, every everyone from uh former General counsels of the Education Department to Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said the president does

not have the power to do this. So I think that you'll see folks who are opposed to this decision using those statements in court to say, look, this this is kind of a an extreme use of power that

that should not be tolerated by a single executive. Well, you're no stranger to politics, um, And I don't want to get you into political argument here, but you know, if you step back and consider what is likely to happen in the way that you're outlining it, that doesn't necessarily present a political problem for the White House, right The President and his surrogates can still say in November, hey, we tried, we did this, We had it all mapped out for you. And you know what, the Republicans suit

us to stop giving money back to people. And that's not a bad line to tell on the eve of an election. That I think that's their theory. But I gotta tell you, I think they're they're forgetting two things. One is when you look at say, you know, the Harvard Institute Politics just had a poll of young people eighteen to They said their number one issue and priority

was inflation. That was ten times more young people said inflation was their number one issue than the number of folks who said student debt was their number one issue. And this has been said to be and predicted to be inflationary, and so I think, you know, they they're thinking this is going to be a great boon for young voters. But I just don't know that that's going to come to fruition. And then what about all those

folks who never attended higher education. Democrats have really been hemorrhaging with non college voters, non college, white voters, Latino voters, black voters, and what are they going to think about this? I think there's already a perception that the Democratic Party is focused on elites and doing what's good for leaps and seeing you know a lot of the um talk about this on Twitter. This is this is really mostly going to impact people who have attended higher education and

got a degree. Some people attended and didn't get a debriece, but a lot of them have it and they're actually set up to be okay in this economy and a lot of other people want It's pretty insightful if non college, working class voters in the suburbs decide the balance of power in Washington this November, this may not play well

for Democrats. I think that's right. The Night ericson, Senior VP for Social Policy, Education and Politics A Third Way, really appreciate your insights to Night come back and talk to us. Thanks so much for having me, of course, Kreene. John Pierre, the White House Press Secretary, was just asked about this. What we have done is taken, uh, you know, taken a look of our legal authority and how we can make this happen. And we we uh went with the heroes act and we feel pretty confident about that

went with the Heroes acts. Will assemble the panel next for their take. Rick Davis and Jeanie Chanzano straight ahead on sound On. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The headlines about the President's student loan forgiveness plan on the terminal say at all. If you just do a search, you can see where the narrative is going here. Student loan plan divides Democrats, New York Times, Bloomberg. Biden's student

loan relief ads new wrinkle to inflation debate. It's hard to find a positive note here. As we just discussed with Lina, it's likely to go to court. Let's assemble the panel now. Jennie Chanzano and Rick Davis are with us Bloomberg Politics contributors. We took a first dip into this as we had just come off the announcement this time yesterday. Jennie, if this ends up in court, is

it over? It very well could be. You know, I think your discussion previously was so important because a huge question here is on the impact on the economy, the

deficit inflation. Another aspect is fairness. And then there's the legality issue in the question of separation of powers, as you laid out, and whether the president has the authority to do this in fact, and as you have the Supreme Court laying out this major questions challenge in the previous term, it's going to come back and the question is gonna be who has the standing to sue on this? But once it gets into court, it will be debated and this power may be stripped. And it was Joe

Biden himself who said that. And I was always listening to your discussion. I kept thinking, you know, when Joe Biden is Joe Biden, the moderate Joe Biden that he's always and he doesn't seem to get into this trouble, but when he goes too far down this progressive path, he does. And I'm concerned here that's what happened. What are you thinking about this? When Rick did? Did the White House know this was going to court? I mean, they had a preamble on the legal grounds because obviously

they saw the question coming. Sure, I'm sure that they saw the question coming, and I think that's why they chose to embed this in the wording of the Heroes Act and not the Higher Education Act because I think they just assumed everybody was expecting an h A appeal. But but I would say, the one thing you gotta understand those the Supreme Court does not like to accept UH cases like this unless there is a real good instanding person and that's what Genie is saying. I mean

the Virginia the case. Virginia Laview did an analysis of this exact thing back in April, and they said that the former borrowers, Congress, state governments, and loan services are outside the current standing doctrine of the Supreme Court. So if those people can't get standing to appeal this case, who is Well that's a that's a good one. I'll tell you what. It's gonna be an issue on the

campaign trail. It's already started. Rhndes Santa Is seized on this and has been talking about it ever since the governor of Florida. Here's the taste. It's very unfair to people who took other pathways in life that didn't require them to take out a lot alan So maybe people that went into business immediately, people that went into trades.

They made those decisions, uh, to not have that debt, and now the debts being put on them, and some have estimated it could represent about two thous dollars per taxpayer when all is said and done with this. And so it's very unfair, you know, to have a truck driver have to pay back a loan from somebody that got like a PhD in gender studies. That's not fair, it's not right. Take ground of aplause on that one. Genie.

We even got the gender whistle in that answer, and he's used that line before back in a will, almost exactly word for word on this, just knowing that this was going to be a juicy campaign issue. What's the Democratic answer? With the Democratic answer should be to ask Governor to Santis exactly what he has done to address the huge issue of college affordability in his state and across the country, and he can, you know, do use

these dog whistles on gender studies and everything else. But the reality is people who go to college are able to get more income throughout their lifetimes. And if that's the case, he should want that for everybody in the state of Florida across the nation. If people can't afford it. That's what he should be telling us what he's going to do about that, not these dog whistles about people

who actually went I agree with him. The fairness issue is enormously important, but he is not answering the big question, which is what would you do about the price of college today? He has no answer to that. Charlie Chris took a swing at it. Of course, he is the Democratic nominee. Now he's running against Rhand de Santis, a little bit different than the approach that Jennie just took. I agree with us move a hundred percent. President Biden is leading so well. You know, the price of gas

has gone down now seventy days in a row. He's just announced reducing the price of a college education. Everybody should be able to afford a college college education. Can can you win the governorship in Florida talking like that? Rick Well, I can't see. I can't wait to see all the commercials that pose Charlie crist as a Republican and what he said then with what he's saying today. Look, I mean he's all in right, I mean like he's going to take the Democratic line all the way to

the election. Day. And and this is a classic political case of picking winners and losers, right, the administrations decided, Hey, we're gonna count ow to people with these these debts, and we're gonna do exactly what we want to do. We're gonna we're gonna relieve them of the debt, and and we're going to give the Republicans a great political issue. But we think we're gonna get more out of it, so it's worth the trade. That's well, yeah, talk about this.

It's it almost rights itself run to see again, he wants to have the average American foot the bill for student loans. For somebody who's making six figures and has a law degree or a medical degree, that's what will happen on this. There's many other people who took out loans and paid them off. So don't you feel like a sucker? Now that by that the line, right, we

can demonize people who went to college, I guess. And you know we're gonna make fun of people with pH d s, which is ridiculous, genie, But it comes down to, hey, I paid my loan, what's the problem with you? That's right, but we should also mention what you mentioned previously, which is that CAP is incredibly important because it does help mitigate you know, it doesn't, in my mind, do it do enough to address apporda getting no coverage. I haven't

heard anyone talk about it outside of this program. And that's the problem with the administration. They've got to be talking about that, not just the you know, not forcing people to pay the ten thousand. Yeah, Genie Chanzano and Rick Davis, our signature panel, first swing of the fastest hour in politics, and we're gonna turn to hey, how about more court. They're unsealing the warrant tomorrow mar Lago. Eric Larson, Bloomberg Legal reporter, will be with us. Give

us a sense of what we're gonna learn. This is Bloomberg. President Biden was asked about the search on Mara Lago just yesterday at a completely unrelated event. He was talking about the student loan forgiveness in fact, and based on his answer, I'm guessing he doesn't know what's in this affidavit. I notice you have of the FBI's plan to search mar Lago. I didn't have any advanced notice, none, zero, no, one single bit. Thank you. I wonder what he's learned

since then. Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson among those going to be clicking refresh around noon tomorrow. I just wonder maybe they'll drop this thing early Friday, right, just drop it early in the morning, Eric, What do you think we were just talking about that? Actually we noon tomorrow is the deadline, but the Justice Department really could file this at any time. So, uh, yeah, we're gonna be doing a lot of clicking. You do a lot of clicking, and but I don't know if you're gonna be doing

a lot of reading. Eric. We understand that that a lot of this will be redacted, but then again, the judge has made clear that that it's still a worthy move better than at least keeping this sealed. Do you expect much to write about? You know, we're we really don't, to be honest, but I'm happy to be surprised. You know. The judge did say that because of the historical significance of this search, he thought that if there was any details that all that could be made public without you know,

injuring the investigation, then they should be made public. So today the Justice Department file it's proposed redactions earlier today. It was a pretty quick turnaround. By the judge. He said, okay, um, if he made any of his own redactions, we we don't know that. But he ordered them to go ahead and make the redacted version public tomorrow. Uh, no idea.

How much is going to be redacted? Probably a significant amount, because the judge said that they could protect the identities of witnesses, law enforcement agents, people who haven't been charged, in the scope and sources and methods of the investigation. So that's a lot. That's everything. I mean, what is outside of that of that list? And honestly, Eric, you know,

that's a good question. I've thought about it. You know, this is just me thinking potentially, based on their adaptions, we might at least still get a hint of perhaps how many witnesses there are, um, you know, some idea of whether or not they're in Florida or DC. Um, you know, whether or not there are some informants. You know, we obviously we won't get the identity and they'll hide information that could lead to that person being identified. But if there is an informant, maybe we'll get a hint

of that. And even like when they decided that the search was warranted, we know that in June one of Trump's lawyers assured the Justice Department in the science statement that there were no more classified records at Mara Lago. Clearly something happened after that that made the government believe otherwise. So maybe we'll get a hit about what that was. Should we believe that Donald Trump has all of this in his hands, and we understand that he had the

search warrant? Would that include the affidavit? Could he have released this at any time? I don't believe so. I don't think that he had, as David Um, and you know, we have heard some folks say that the affidavit might not be really great for Trump, you know, if it really does sell out of a solid justification, it has asked for it to be released though, right to be clear, Yeah,

he has to be clear. He has Um And you know, just some legal experts that I've spoken to over the last few weeks question whether or not that that really was a great idea. I mean, maybe he didn't think that it would actually happen. But the judge clearly is interested in some level of transparency here. We'll see how far that goes tomorrow. Eric Larson, Bloomberg Legal reporter. We appreciate it as always, Eric, thank you for the insights I want to hear from the panel on this, just

just for a moment. Rick Davis, Jeanie Schanzana have been following this since, of course the search of Mara Lago. What do you make of this, Rick, If we don't learn much tomorrow, that's all we're gonna get between now and November. Yeah. I think this is uh a real sort of no brainer. I mean, now that they've got the redactions accepted, d o J has gotten Trump to take de bait. I mean, Donald Trump, I think, walked into a trap on this one. I wouldn't do tomorrow.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Donald Trump trying to do a temporary restraining order on getting this out. Wouldn't surprise me for him to backtrack on this as opposed to a bunch of pages that are just blacked out in redaction, Well, they're gonna be blacked out, but they I guarantee you the parts that they didn't black out are probably critical of Donald Trump and his lack of willingness to abide by the law. And and I think that rationale probably will be spelled out loud and clear.

He did ask for it to be released, Genie, Let's be careful what you ask for. That's right. And you know, I think the Justice Department here, by filing not for to have this be released and working hard on these redactions, has really called his bluff. Because to Rick's point, if there are signs that that there are, you know, bad news for Donald Trump here, that is a real loser for him. And of course his attorneys have had a hard time responding and almost haven't responded to all at all.

Too much of this already. The language from Judge Bruce Reinhardt, Uh, the government met its burden of showing that it's proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate interest in the integrity of the ongoing investigation, but says they were the least onerous alternative to keeping the entire documents sealed. Does that give us any sense, Rick, of how valuable

this might be? Oh? Yeah, I think uh, I think that that that is the indication that there's going to be some news around this, right that that it will occupy time tomorrow by people saying, holy smokes, you know, this is a bad thing for Donald Trump. There's nothing bad In this release tomorrow of the Justice Department, nobody will be able to criticize the Justice Department of saying, oh, they did this, you know, with no reasonable search. All that's is blacked out. And I think that the onus

is going to fall back on Donald Trump. And it will really interesting to see the GOP reaction all these guys that went out and stuck their neck out for Donald Trump, you know, calling it a raid and all these awful things. Are they going to shut up or are they going to go on the offense? And that will be I think what really is telling tomorrow boit. You know, there could be evidence in there, I suppose, Jeannie, but the Department of Justice didn't want this unsealed at all.

And this is a pretty unusual move for an ongoing investigation. It is, and it sets quite a precedent because while there won't be to Rick's point, you know, revealing negative information about the Justice Department in the document, certainly, the fact that they are now forced to disclose even a partial version of this is not only highly unusual, it reveals to the other side where they are headed in this investigation, something the Justice Department is loath to do.

And of course questions. Now, this is an unusual case involving a former president, but is there going to be pushed to release partial affidavits or full affidavids in other types of cases? This is not something the Justice Department wants to set as a precedence. The case isn't need clear though, Rick. If the justification isn't laid out, d o J is gonna get crushed with Republican criticism. Yeah,

but I think the leaks to date have already done that. Right, How much have we learned as we've gone along here without this? Um? You know, we thought this was six, five or eleven files that they picked up of top secret information, and now it's now it's three with seven pages. I mean, you know, so, so I think we're gonna learn some I think that they already have them dead to rights on violating the rules handling this kind of documentation.

So that will just be laid out in black and white, reminding us there is no such thing as a slow news week, not in this town, not anymore. August, cancel your vacations. But then again, that's why we have this program. Sound on, This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg. Sound on on Bloomberg Radio. So it's the end of the road for the tail pipe in California. Well, at least we

know when the road will end. Regulators in the state just today of proving a plan to ban the sale of new gasoline powered cars by the year band they'll be required to run on either hydrogen or electricity. Governor Gavin Newsom talked about it with ABC News. This idea of a tailpipe, we don't need it anymore. That's freedom. This is about freedom. This is about real choice. This is about lowering costs, no more dependency, freedom from the tailpipe.

Let's reassemble the panel for their take on this. Genie Chanzano and Rick Davis, Bloomberg Politics contributors. Uh. This this is someone Rick, who is frequently referred to as a presidential hopeful, might be the future of the Democratic Party as he leading the way for the party agenda. Yeah, he's cutting edge. I mean this is uh, this is pretty far out there. When I was sixteen years old, I thought a car where the tail paper was my tailpipe,

was my freedom. And now I'm told it's not so. Look, I mean he's got an agenda California is I'm Slay a lot more progressive on climate issues and environment than virtually any other state in the country. But honestly, they have led the country towards a greener future. So, um, I think he's trying to put that mantle on his shoulders. And this is a good way to start. California. The incubator in this case, Genie progressives have said for years the only way to really get to this is to

eliminate the internal combustion engine. He's he's actually doing it. He is, and it is a historic move. Um. You know, I'm so glad we're talking about this. It's, as we understand, the first band of its kind in the world, not to mention the country. And many people suggest to your incubator point that multiple states will follow in this direction. And so this is what the heck you're gonna do. If you have a gas powered car, you have to

stop at the border in certain states. In in calin Uber, they're going to allow for They're going to allow for cars that are used. Um, and you know, I like I like the free from the tail pipe. That was great, Joe, and uh that that will be the new bumpers ticker. But I do think you know, the the the impact on the car industry in this country is going to be enormous, and of course, California's economy so large that

it can have that kind of impact. And it's going to be curious to see what this does for Newsom as he tries potentially to buy for the presidency or at least the nomination on the Democratic side, should Biden drop out. If Gavin Newsom keeps going Rick, maybe he gets Elon Musk to move back to California. Uh, He's got a lot more work to do to get you up back to California. But look, I mean, this is about buying new cars in This isn't about the gas

guzzlers that we haven't our garages in California. They still hit the road, They'll still be carn there exactly. But that being said, this is a movement. As Genie says, there are a lot of car companies that are converting the too electric. They're redoing their balance sheets to afford the conversion. And and you know, this is a classic case of going where the puck is going, not where the puck is. Well, that's that's a great point, Genie. I mean, GM and Ford, Uh, you know, put Tesla

aside for a second. If you if you listen to the White House, the Big three are fully invested in this and by that's that's all they're going to be selling. Well, that's right, and and that's why you know, this move is you know, leading to a certain extent, but it's also following where the industry is going. It depends on how fast they get there. But let's also not forget how important this is in our fight against climate change.

I mean, this is a you know, the threat to all of us around the world, and it is good to see public officials and public institutions leading the way. Whether you think this is the right move to make or not, something has got to be done. And so this is where he's trying to go. And he's got a lot of support on that, not just in the car manufacturing community, but with voters, particularly young people who

are really concerned about this issue. Whether Gavin Newsom is the nominee for Democrats in twenty four or four years after that, Rick, is this the future of the Democratic platform? Does that need to be essentially on the ballot in twenty four It will be on the ballot in twenty four.

I think that part of what the Biden administration's most recent UM congressional proposal putting an enormous amount of money into climate has done is has grabbed that headline into their administration, into the Democratic platform, and and the Republican opposition to it put them on the defense. And so absolutely this is going to be something Democrats are gonna have on the top of their agenda alongside of economic issues, just like they've done right before going into the midterms.

He're gonna need a lot of charging stations. That is a big state. As we spend time with our panel, I have to ask you about this back and forth today, and that's not even a back and forth, it's just a fourth Rhonda Santis, who we talked about earlier in the broadcast, the governor of Florida, just unleashing on Dr Anthony Fauci, who reacted to this today on Bloomberg. I want to let you listen to what he said, both

of you. It recalls recent conversations that we have had about politicians inciting violence without quite going that far, but it's it's pretty tough stuff. I mean, he kind of did go this far. This is Rhodes Santis on the stump today talking about the outgoing White House Chief Medical Advisory. Yeah, people like Fauci saying that his lockdowns didn't cause any permanent damage to any young kids. I got news for you.

It did. And we are gonna reap those rewards across the whole country for years and years and years because they treated kids so poorly. And I'm just sick of seeing him. I know he says he's gonna retire. Someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Pacomba. Listen to the applause. Let it rod just love this stuff. A little elf, who, of course is Look. I agree whatever think about he's He's given his life to public service. I think we can all agree on

at But to suggest he be thrown across the Potomac. Uh. Look, I don't want to be, you know, too sensitive about this here, but but it really adds to this narrative that it might be okay a genie to take this

out physically. That's right. I was remembering remember Michael Graham from the Gray Island of Staten Island in New York when he threatened to throw New York One reporter off the balcony and you know, he was basically run out of Congress, not just as a result of that, but the criticism was loud and enormous for that kind of threat.

And now you see the change, and it's kind of this suggery that's going on and these sort of violent threats that you know, it's not even been ten years since the Michael Grim issue, and you've got the governor of a major state of potential nominee for presidents making these kind of comments about a public official. It's it's

pretty depressing. And of course all the reports were you know, he is five seven, but run to Santas is just five nine, So there's not that much difference between their heights a little elf Rick, I don't know what was more disturbing their the the line or the reaction from the crowd. Yeah, at least it wasn't locked him up. I mean that was certainly something that Donald Trump like mantra Um. Look, I I do think part of what

the santist has got to figure out. I mean, this is kind of an easy layup for him to be this kind of uh, you know, demonizing of of of public servant like Faucci. But you know, part of what kept Donald Trump from winning re election, um, and which is very unusual for a sitting present to not win, was the people's fatigue with this kind of rhetoric. Uh. And so if he thinks he's going to sort of be different than Donald Trump, then he's got to curtail

this kind of conversation with the American people. At sure gets crowd fired up, They're gonna really be entertained. But you know, he's gonna need a lot more than that crowd he had today to get elected to anything in the future. And he's on a ballot this year in Florida. And so whether or not this kind of act plays is going to be seen soon. Interesting you say that.

Alie Christ who we also heard from briefly earlier this hour, reacting to the idea of well just having received the nomination, and asked about you, how do you convert these to Santas vote? How do you bring the Santas voters into the Democratic fold? His answer was remarkable, Those who support the governor should stay with him and vote for him. And I don't want your vote. Wow, if you have that hate in your heart, keep it there. I want the vote of the people of Florida who care about

our state. Good Democrats, good independence, good Republicans. Is that a good strategy, Genie, I do not I'm running for governor. I do not want your vote. It's not one I would recommend. And and I'm curious to see if Rick Davis would have recommended his candidates. You know. But but I will say a big challenge for De Santis is not only that, in my mind, he's got to win, you know, beat Christ He's got to beat him pretty handily if he wants to show that he can win nationally.

And I think it's going to be an uphill battle because he did not win handily last time around. Rick, should Charlie Chris not welcome the Santis supporters big tents something like that, you know, It's it's not a shock to me that that he would sort of lay down the gauntlet. Um, you know, most of them. I would say, virtually every De Santist voter is highly unlikely, if not absolutely, will not support Charlie Chris. Right, So if you already think the Santis is a good governor, you're not going

to vote for Charlie Cris. But and the Santis has about a fifty approval rating, but I would say that's come down from almost sixty just a few months ago. So, um, this is a way to divide the house. This is a way to create a clear distinction between who you're four uh and he's playing. There is a method here, there is a strategy. Absolutely. I think this is clear. You know, divide the house and start putting pressure on people who are soft onto Santists to come over to

the Chris side. You guys see the top gun ad. Should I say the topic of add this is Rhonda Santis again? Well, I mean guess he's running for office. But peculiar that they put this ad together where he's like that, he's Tom Cruise, he's dressed up as a fighter pilot, he's Maverick, he's walking out of the hangar. Let's see what the F fourteen's going over. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is your governor speaking today's training evolution,

dog fighting thinking on the corporate media. Rules of engagement are as follows. Number one, don't fire and less fire to get when they fire, you fire. Couple example, does it say that in the bill, I'm asking you to tell me what's in the bill? You see him facing off with reporters that he's knocking them down and telling them where it's at and pointing. But he's wearing the helmet, Genie, And I'm seeing everywhere on Twitter comparisons Rhoda Santis now

and Michael Dukakis in the tank. Is that a win or a loss? It's a loss if that's the comparison, I think, Rick, would you ever put a candidate in a helmet? After what we saw with Michael Cannida. I had war a helmet in Vietnam and that was the best thing that ever happened to him, and an actual fight. Utter better be careful appropriating those kinds of symbols. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg