Sound On: Mick Mulvaney on Trump Future, Jan 6 Revelations (Radio)

to even the Republican nomination much more tenuous. Floomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Fallout from the January sixth Committee, the pushback from Democrats in Congress, on the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, all the action on gas prices. It is not a slow Friday. We've got a lot of news for you. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick filling in for Joe Matthew. Today. We're gonna talk

short with Congresswoman Lois Frankel, Democrat from Florida. She is one of the co chairs of the Democratic Women's Caucus and on the Key House Appropriations Committee that is responsible for funding the government. We're going to talk about what comes next after that, Supreme Court ruling. Mick Mulvaney is also going to call in the former White House Acting Chief of Staff who resigned on January one over what happened at the Capitol. Will get some of his takeaways

on the January six committee. And of course, we've got Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie she and Zano and Rick Davis joining us to make sense of this action packed newsweek. Here on the fastest hour in politics and policy, go to Bloomberg's Pretty Gupta, who is live from New York City's LaGuardia Airport to tell us about the summer air travel disruptions. Pretty uh for people like me who are about to go on vacation immediately after this show is over.

How's it looking at LaGuardia? You know, Jack, It's been quite the day. And I started out to day about eight am this morning, and so I seemed completely calm, no chaos at all. Lot of people we had spoken to and said, well, you know, all the travel, all the chaos. It was earlier in the week. People were anticipating these lags, these delays, these cancelations. Of course, the labor shortages and the fly attendant crew shortages. That of

course are causing some of these. But I think the takeaway here is that by the end of the day, about eight hours later, you are now starting to see major delays, major cancelations, a lot of people actually not even able to get ahold of customer service for as much as two to four hours, being sent out of security for the next flight that really only comes a

day later. So I would say, what's supposed to be a pretty busy holiday weekend, A lot of people have already gotten ahead of it, but it looks like there are still going to be some snags in this weekends travel story. All right, I will prepare myself for the worst. Thank you, pretty Gupta. Uh. We now have Congresswoman Lois Frankel joining US Congressman. Very very happy to have you on, as I mentioned, because you are a co chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus, but also I have been watching

all of the appropriations markups this week. You have been one of the most vocal members on the Democratic side on what comes next after this Supreme Court ruling. I want to play a little sound first from Dick Durbin in the Senate to set the stage here on what he had to say about what the options are. Here's what Dick Durbin had to say. When we're all present voting. UH,

Kamala Harris can ride to our rescue if necessary. But the notion of changing the rules is it really at the mercy of one or two senators who can make that decision for us. So, Congresswoman, with the Senate in the in mind, what are the realistic options that you want to see Congress take in terms of abortion access following the Supreme Court ruling? Well, first, thanks to do

with you. Well, let me remind everybody that the House did pass a Women's Health Protection Act, which UH actually banns or prohibits states from from banning abortions or putting unreasonable medical restrictions. That's over in the Senate, and as you mentioned, it's gonna take UH sixty votes unless they go back, they change the rule and go back to a majority vote. So UH, you know it's not likely they're going to do it, but I still think there

should be pressure beared upon some of the approach. You know, the people who believe in reproductive freedom, those senators to to UH to change your rule. List And if there's been ever been a time in our history of this Congress that we should not monkey around, uh you know, and and say hey, we can't go the fifty a majority vote. This is it because this Supreme Court decision has unbelievable implications. It is uh, it's really almost mind boggling.

So but in the meantime, uh, you're gonna we have to take actions that are going to mitigate the harm. The Supreme Court has now taken away people's power to make their own personal decisions about their reproductive health, their life, and their future, giving it to the state politicians. What does that mean? That means very uh quickly, they're gonna be twenty six states, twenty seven states they gonna ban abortion. There maybe many more that are going to put a

severe restrictions that make it almost impossible. What does that mean, especially to low income women, the colored people who have a hard time getting health care in the first place, they are going to be either have a forced pregnancy or use their every last penny, maybe maybe their their week's pay to even find a place where they can get an abortion. So we've got to do that. We got to fight this ruling, uh, you know, with full force, and that's going to probably be at the ballot box.

But in the meantime, we've got to try to mitigate the harm, and that's making sure that there is funding for a contraception and family planning that we uh if it's possible. Again with this with the Senate, it's not too many things are possible, but vouchers for people to travel. We've got to make sure uh that any a medical a way that someone can have an abortion, that that is allowed, uh through what would be the an abortion pill?

Uh so uh and I'm not sure whether this was mentioned, but the President has directed the Secretary of Health and Human Reservices to protect uh contraception and medication that that will you know, result in an abortion. So it's in the FDA approved Miss priss Stone. I'm not if I'm saying you're right, but it's Ms. Priss Stone too safely in the early privacy you're gonna start to see states trying to ban that. Because I have some appiliate you

can get into them in the mail. So, Congresswoman, a couple of those issues that you just mentioned came up in the Appropriations Committee. The idea of funding, whether it's the High Amendment measures on funding for the Justice Department for abortions, if a woman is in federal custody, a variety of abortion access via government funding measures. And it does seem that you Democrats are quite determined to roll back the High Amendment and some of those longstanding restrictions.

But it seems that the key question is how dug in are you on that those bills need sixty votes in the Senate. Are you going to shut the government down over abortion access via government funding bills? I would say not because I think we would do more harm than good by doing uh. And you know, really, the Republicans don't even care. I don't think they care that

much about passing new budgets. Uh. So you know the reason you need a new budget every year is because because things change and you have to stay up with the times. We have been fighting on this, uh. And this just so people know what what what the Hide and the Helm's amendments do is basically Hide does does not allow public funding, which would be in this instance, Medicaid to fund abortion. Who does that hurt? It hurts the you know, the poorest, the working poor of this

country who depends on Medicaid uh for their health care? Uh. You know what who is this going to affect the fourteen year old girl who's raked by her father and now and can't afford abortion, or or a struggling mother who may already have three or four children, or someone who's or or young person and with hopes and dreams, who who has a whole future ahead of themselves and really this is not the time to bring a child

into the world. So there's a lot of uh implications that could really go on and on with the anecdotes. But I think what's important here is that, uh, when when this is this the unjustice that has been inflicted by the Supreme Court? Uh and having what's called this high Amendment which does not allow the use of Medicaid dollars, of funding dollars for poor women to get abortion. I mean, who does it? Who is it mostly aimed at? And who gets hurt the worst? Or people who who really

can't have the hardest time sending for themselves. So Congresswoman, what about the administration if we're talking about realistic options to try to counter the effects of this the Democrats want. I noticed the governors of New York and New Mexico were pushing President and Biden on the idea of using federal lands to avoid state bands on abortion. Is the

administration leaving any realistic options on the table at this point. Well, we've had I know, I've been in a number of conversations with the President's gender counsel and those of folks who have really been looking at this issue for you know, since the President took office, and you know, look, it's a nice idea. Yeah, I could have you know, have

have a user federal law land from abortion clinic. But the fact of the matter is it's not going to make up for all the clinics closing or in the in the twenty seven states that that are going to ban abortion. So, uh, you know, it's a nice idea,

it's not really a substitute. I think the best thing really that the President is doing right now is on the the uh the medical drug and making sure that it can be sent you know, mailed out, and also uh the Justice Apartment to protect the people who cross state lines, because you're gonna see that they're going to be instances where people will you travel to other states, and that's going to be an attempt I'm sure by some of the states had abandoning abortion to to try

to prosecute those people. Right, Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining us. That's Congresswoman Lois Frankel, Democrat from Florida, UH, co chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus and a member of the House Appropriations Committee where they debated, uh those issues. We're gonna have Mick mulveney on the phone in a little bit, the former White House Acting Chief of Staff,

to discuss January six takeaways. Will also get to our Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie she and Zano and Rick Davis to discuss the takeaways from this week and what's ahead from that committee and others that's coming up in just a minute. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg, sooned on with Joe Maphew on Bloomberg Radio. Jack Fitzpatrick here in for Joe, who's gonna be back next week.

You just heard from Congresswoman Lois Frankel on the options or maybe lack of options for Democrats to fight back on the Supreme Court ruling striking down the Roe v. Wade precedent. Let's bring in the panel Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie she and Zano and Rick Davis. Guys, it almost sounded like the congresswoman, uh maybe speaking on behalf of

some House Democrats there. It was a little defeated. It stood out to me, you know, they've gone through this whole series of fights over government funding availability for abortion access, whether for those on Medicaid or or elsewhere. But as she said, a shutdown over this really did get their heels in on these government funding bills. To fight this battle would do more harm than good. Genie, what do

you make of that? You know, it sounds like the some of the most enthusiastic Democrats are still uh settled into the reality that they don't have that many options. Yeah, I mean, and I felt listening to her that she really echoed some of the frustration you hear from some of the base and people on the ground. You know, if you know, for for people like the congresswoman and other members of the House who passed, for instance, the Health Protection Act, and who you know, these voters that

you talk about, who say, listen, I voted Democratic. I did what you told me and asked me to do, and yet here we are. I think there is a real sense of frustration. But that said, you also look at the flip side of this, which is that you've got a lot of Democrats increasing numbers just in the last week since this came out, who are banking that it is going to help them get voters out to the polls, as the number of ads and the amount of spending on ads talking about this issue from Democrats

has increased exponentially. So I think there is frustration from the legislative end in the House and the Senate and the federal level. But I also think there is a sense, at least among some people running that this has increased enthusiasm among the base and may help them in November. Well, I think clearly you're right about that, Genie. But on the other hand, they're not gonna what win a supermajority in the Senate. They're not going to have sixty votes.

Uh And that's something the congresswoman touched on, saying that they should not apply the Senate's sixty vote threshold to this kind of issue. Uh Rick. How much of a difference does it make, especially when the President says there should be a filibuster carve out in the Senate. Is it is there any reason to believe something like that

would actually happen. No, I mean, there have been ample opportunities with some of the hallmark legislation that the Biden administration has been promoting for the last two years to do this, and maybe it does it rise to the level of uh, you know, importance that the defeat of Rob v. Wade and the Supreme Court does. But it was pretty important to Biden and they couldn't budge to

to accomplish that. So there's absolutely no reason to believe that this isn't anything other than just sort of political posturing. But I must say I was I was taken by Representative Frankel's kind of you know, depressed attitude toward this, I mean, and if she is reflective at all of the Democratic base, I would worry that it might be backfiring and not exciting them to do something. But the realization that they're just simply isn't that much they can

do may hurt them in the November elections. Well, and you can tell the options are limited when you hear about these legally creative ideas. And I as I mentioned in the interview with the congresswoman Uh, the governors of New York and New Mexico brought up the idea directly today with the President of using federal lands abortion clinics on ural lands or properties could be military properties to try to get around state bands. Uh, Genie, what do

you make of the administration stance on it? They haven't taken that up. Is that a realistic option in any way? I don't think it is. And I think we heard that from the congresswoman, And I too was surprised by the fact that she so quickly seemed to say, you know, that's not a realistic option in terms of having any real impact on the ground and in terms of addressing

the issue. And I think one of the things that Democrats have said since this happened is, number one, it felt like the Democrats from the top had been caught off guard when they shouldn't have been, because we knew this was coming. And number two, there's been something of a disjointed response on the part of Democrats to this.

I think the president meeting with the governors today was an attempt by the administration to try to corral the upper echelon of the party together and try to come to a, you know, some kind of consensus on how they can move forward. But I think it is problematic that they haven't gotten that, and that is you know

what I think. You know, I agree with Rick that there is a sense that this can increase enthusiasm, but there's also the flip side of that, which is a real frustration which keeps people home saying a sense of inefficacy. You know, why should I go out and participate because it's not gonna yield much. So Democrats have to be very careful about that possibility. Well. One other little bit of news out of the White House as we change gears that I wanted to touch on was the list

of Presidential Medal of Freedom winners. Uh, some posthumous John McCain, Steve Jobs, as well as some other big names Simone Biles, Gabby Gifford's, Denzel Washington, Megan Rapino. Uh, Rick, I I wonder about the timing of these sometimes when it comes out from the White House real quick, what what what does it mean for someone like you who worked with John McCain or maybe even to his family, uh, to

see this honor for McCain. Look, I'm I'm first of all thank the Biden administration for doing something that a president of John's own party wasn't willing to do. I mean, uh, you know, Trump had many opportunities to do it and and and didn't, So thank you. I mean, I think this is great. The list is very distinguished. I'm thrilled by it, and I think it reminds American people of the service and sacrifice that so many people have given

to this country. And it can come at a better time when there's a lot of self doubt about the future of our country's democracy. Right, Rick and Jeanie will be back with us a little bit. We're also going to hear from Mick Mulvaney, the former White House Acting Chief of Staff, on takeaways from the January sixth Congressional

Committees investigation that's coming up. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg to New York, Bloomberg eleven Frio to Boston, Bloomberg one oh six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine six to the Country, Serious x M General one ninety and around the globe of Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot Com. This is

Bloomberg sund On with Joe matthew By. Now you have probably heard the tale of the former President Donald Trump trying to commandeer the beast and drive up to the capital on January one, even uh, you may say, assaulting or accosting physically a Secret Service agent. We're going to speak with Mick Mulvaney, former White House Acting chief of Staff, who at the time was in the Trump administration as

the envoy to Northern Ireland. He ended up resigning from the administration over what happened on January six We've got to get into the revelations that have been coming out from the January sixth Committee in Congress investigating the insurrection at the capital, their arguments that the president, former President Donald Trump did not have any legal merit to his

claims of voter fraud. But also this week the story relayed by then White House aid Cassidy Hutchinson that Trump physically tried to get himself driven to the capital while all of this was happening. We're gonna talk to Mick Mulvaney, the former White House Acting chief of Staff. First, here is what former President Trump had to say about that story relayed by Cassidy Hutchinson. Trump spoke in an interview with news Max yesterday. She's making up stories like one

after another. But the craziest of all was that I tried to commandeer. I think they used that word. I tried to commandeer a car with Secret Service agents telling them to take to take us down to the Capitol. It was totally false. Mr mulvaney. Thank you so much for joining us. It seems someone is lying. Uh And I want to know, especially from a former acting chief of staff in the White House. I believe you knew Cassidy Hutchinson. How credible is she? Can you tell us

about the person who is the source of this information? Sure, Jack, and thanks for having me. She's she's very incredible. I think that a lot of attention was paid to that particular part of her testimony because it was so sensational. The visual image of the President leaning up from the back of the suv, grabbing that steering will and then you know, choking his secret Service agent. It's very dramatic,

very sensational stuff. Um. She was very clear. I thought in her testimony that she didn't see that that she was told that story by Tony Ornado. Um, and that Tony will now as I think, is now saying he's going to testify otherwise. I think it's one of those situations where the folks have sort of missed what the important stuff is. It's really listen at the crime to assault a secret Service agent. It is right. But her other testimony was much more, much more interesting, much more substantial.

That the president knew there were guns at the at the at the January six rally, and that he had said that let these folks in with guns and they can go to the castle from here. That is a that's a that's a major major development. Is also testimony that he has he gave Um that she knew that Mark Meadows was communicating with some of the right wing extremist groups in the advance of January six. Those things

touch on potential serious crimes. Um. And while like you said that the grabbing the steering wheel is sort of a visual image that a lot of folks have locked in on, uh, to me, it's probably the fourth and fifth most important piece of that testimony. So I understand, and I may even agree that that was not the most important thing to come out of the Juniory six I've got to ask, though, if there does end up being testimony from anyone from the Secret Service saying that

did not happen. I've got to ask you, do you know the Secret Service to be willing to lie on behalf of a former president or would you take that to be the absolute truth? Absolutely not. I don't think the Secret Service would lie for anybody. But I think it raises the issue Jack, And this is where I think the hearing is going, or at least the discussion is going to turn. It's a question I ask, and again I have been. I've defended the president for the

last year over his actions on that day. I quit because I thought he failed as as my president, but I never thought he committed a crime, and I didn't think he committed any impeachable offenses. So I've actually been defending him in a roundabout way. But my question would be this, Okay, if she said four or five things, um, and the Secret Service agent is willing to come forward and say, well, that one particular matter about this the SUV that's false, and I will testify under oath that

is false. Where are the other people who are willing to come forward and testify on her oath that the other things about the guns and the right wing extremist groups are not are also false. That's that's I think a reasonable next question. Um, and I've not heard anybody pushed back yet on those of the veracity of that

particular part of her testimony. Right, and based on that part of the testimony and that focus that has the committee has had, do you still think that former President Trump did nothing impeachable or nothing illegal or have you changed your mind at all about that? I am. I am count me now amongst the undecided. I believe Cassidy Cassidy she worked for me. I didn't know her very well. I don't pretend to know where. She was a junior person.

She was in the Office of Legislative Affairs. Part of her job it was to escort members of Congress when they came to visit. That's how she met Mark Meadows, and then she became one of his deputy chiefs of staff. Those are those those are very close relationships. I had three people who filled those positions, and they you know, I saw them all day, every single day. You probably closer to me during my time in the White House and my own family because you in the office sixteen

hours a day. So for her to come forward and testify, um, and things that that that stand against the president and against Mark Meadows. UM. That is that's a particularly eye opening sort of development. I wasn't expecting this in the hearing Tuesday. I had seen some of her previous testimony about to hang my tent stuff, but was not expecting this to have such gravity as it did. And I guess is it opens up tens of additional hearings, or at least tens of additional witnesses. Um. I thought this

thing might be ending soon. It looks like it's not going to well. Speaking of Cassidy Hutchinson's place in the White House and her decision to come forward, I do want to play a little bit of sound from uh the hearing the other day from Congresswoman Liz Cheney on I guess the state of play among White House personnel. Here's what Congresswoman Cheney had to say, her superiors, men many years older, A number of them are hiding behind

executive privilege, anonymity, and intimidation. So Mr Mulviney, that that kind of line makes me want to ask you, what about Mark Meadows? Do you think he shares responsibility for what happened on January six? Um? You know if you take Cassidy's testimony at face value, the answer is yes, Um, I paid particular attention to something no one else cares about it because it's it's way down in the weeds. But one of the things that I was watching online

doing something else. And when she said that, she wouldn't have talked to the chief of staff and said that. And it was he was sitting on the sofa. That's my old soap. I used to sit on that sofa right by that fireplace. I know exactly what she's talking about. She said. She walked into the office and said, Mark, there's you know that there's where ians are getting close to the to the to the Capitol. And he didn't even look up from his his his his his cell phone.

And the chief and then the chief White House Counsel came down and said the same thing. And he didn't even address me, didn't even look at them. He stared at his phone and and you know, it was sort of detached. That to me, Um indicated that the West Wing was completely broken, that the processes had broken down, the protections that are afforded to a president in terms of the people who could get to him and get

him information had broken down. Um, I describe it as every It was about twenty seven different things have to go wrong for an airplane to crash. Um, the same has to be true for there to be a to be there a riot uh in the capital in January six and it's now like everything was broken. And do I hold the chief of staff responsible for that? Yeah? In part I would. I would not be proud of the work that I had done if I was chief

on that wash, that's for sure. Well, that's that's interesting to hear because obviously Mark Meadows was not the only person. As you said, if twenty seven things need to go wrong, but if he was the chief of staff, I'm a little surprised even to hear you say that, considering you to go back. You were sort of part of the Tea Party movement, the Freedom Caucus. Guys, is it accurate to say you have been friends? Are you friends? What?

What did you see change that leads you to sound disappointed with someone I believe you had worked closely with and cooperatively with. What what happened to Mark Meadows? Yeah? I don't know what happened to Mark Meadows, but your questions is fair one which was are we were we friends? Yes, I don't know what we are now. But the reason I and I'm giving you this opinion is it that's chief. That's what chiefs of staff do, right, we're not We're

supposed to call them like we see him. Our job job, president asked me one time, isn't like how do you summarize your job? It's as president, I'm a guy who's responsible telling you all the crap you don't want to hear because everybody else is afraid to do it. There's a reason that the life expectancy of a chief of staff is less than a year and a half. Barack Obama had four in his first term. Donald Trump had four. That's not that's a little bit higher than usual, but

not much. When you get paid to tell the president stuff he doesn't want to hear and do all those things he doesn't want to do, um, the relationship doesn't last very long. And that's what I'm looking I'm sort of looking at this. I'm a disinterested an interested third party at this point. I worked for all these folks and all these folks, but you've got to call him like you see him. And when you see a White House,

that's broken and a chief of staff that's detached. Um, then you have to sort of draw attention to and say, look, that's that that shouldn't be the case. That was a failure at some place. And while the president is always responsible h for his own actions and also the people that he had points and chooses to advise him, the chief of staff is the next guy in line in

that building. So at this point, what do you think comes next in terms of either the likelihood of Mr Meadows complying with the subpoena from the committee or is it likely more likely than it has been that d o J goes after him for that they decided not to What what's the next step when it comes to Mark Meadows and his decision not to comply so far? Yeah, it's been a long time. Said practice law, and I

never practice a criminal law at all. But if I were a betting man, I would bet that Mark Meadows would be indicted now, um, and that he would have to show up for his He've indicted for failing to to come to testify to the committee, and that he will show up and he'll take the fifth plead the fifth Amendment. Um. I think it's a fair question ask who else might be might be coming forward. I understand that White as Chief Council Pet Sippaloni was subpoena yesterday.

Be very interesting to see if he shows up. He's got attorney client privilege on some things, but not all things. Pat's an honest man. I don't believe him to be the type of person who would lie, so would be curious to see if he testifies. No, like I said, because of the testimony on Tuesday, UM, I don't think this process is stopping anytime soon. I think you're looking at that dozens of more witnesses and at least ten more hearings or something like that. This is this is.

Tuesday's hearing was a watershed that I think we'll see repercussions of for many weeks. It's not many months, and maybe longer than that. So what do you think former President Trump's place in the party is now? I think he's damaged, There's no question. I think that's the That's

the really interesting question. From a political standpoint. I think if there was any winners this week, it was Mike Pence and Ron De Santis and Tim Scott and Mike Pompeo and Nicki Haley, anybody who was thinking about running against him UM now sees him I think as damaged. He has damaged. At some point you have to wonder, if there's just not Trump fatigue, why wouldn't even the hardest core right wing you know, maga vote or go.

You know what I can get any I can get all the policies of Donald Trump with Rod de Santis without all the baggage. That's the type of of of discussion that you're starting to hear now within Republican circles. Certain list folks who absolutely still defend the president a percent, But I think there's a lot of oxygen given to those UM that next for the first tier of challengers this week, and I think you're much more likely now to have a very vigorous Republican primary season going into four.

And that might change, and all may change. It may turn out to Kasidy Hutchins is lying through a teeth. I don't. I don't think that's going to be the case, but it may be. UM. But but if it, if it doesn't change from what we saw on Tuesday, I think you've seen half a dozen people at least running against Donald Trump, I should sneak in one more substance question before we even continue on the politics, especially because you you've mentioned you know ten more hearings. UM one

has has the Committee asked you for any information? You weren't chief of staff at the time, But have you have you talked to them now? I have? I not been. I'm in communication with Adam kinsing or on social mass Adam and I were friends when he was in Washington, d C. So if anybody ask me if I've talked to the Commission, I talked to Adam, but we played baseball together on the congressional team, and I asked him if he was going to go to the game this week,

excuse me this month. But I have not been subpoena on, not been. No one's caught contact of me. I don't have any information. I was not in the White House. UM, and wasn't even in Northern Ireland because of COVID. I was home in South Carolina. UM. Yeah. And one other

thing on especially as we look forward to the mid terms. Uh. It came out a little while back from the Committee, the assertion that Senator Ron Johnson, the Republican from Wisconsin, wanted to give Vice President Pence a list of alternate alternate electors. I'm wondering what you make of that information. And also does does Johnson have to campaign against attacks on this how how does this play into any members of Congress, any senators who may have been involved on

campaign trail. Yeah, generally, well, I think the Democrats want this hearing to sort of or down to all of you know, the damage to sort of down to the Republican Party generally. I don't think you're seeing that. It's very much a Trump centric thing, and for that reason, I don't see he don't think these hearings will have any direct impact on the on the House of Representatives. I fully expent Republicans to take that. The Senate is

a little bit different. Senate races are always different than House races, and certainly Ron Johnson's name coming up in that hearing on Tuesday is going to give him one more thing that he has to deal with back home. We have a saying in the business, if you're explaining, you're losing, and he might have to start to explain why he had that slate of other electors um And there's also when it comes to the Senate, sometimes voters just want calm. They want they want peace and quiet,

not always, but they want calm. And you have to wonder if the Republicans are offering that day in Georgia and does herschel Walker, Um is he the sort of calm hand that the voters might want if they get to the if they get to novem or just decide that they're tired of all this thing? What people who are boring, incompetent and and uh and don't don't make

a lot of news. So um, I don't think it's going to have a major impact on the Senate races, but there may be individual races um that where this does become relevant, and the Senate is so tight and it currently obviously um that it may have an impact on the Senate. Once again doubts seriously has any impact on the House races at all. Those are a couple key Senate races to keep an eye on. And now you mentioned Adam Kinzinger, uh he and Liz Cheney are

on this panel. I think it probably is fair to say they are not considered part of the House Republican conference mainstream right now? What what do you think their role should be and will be in their conference. As this moves along, does it does the committees work I guess legitimize their efforts. No, And I have been an opponent of there's I disagree with the decision from from the get care, and I told Adam that because again he has and I are friends. It legitimated. Look, it's

it's not people think this is an investigation. It's not. This is a political which there's no question about that. It's Democrats and two Republicans of hate hate Donald Trump. And you're not seeing all the transcripts, that's true. You're not seeing any cross examination, that's true. This is not a fair hearing by any stretch of the imagination. And it's certainly not a criminal investigation. Much of what Cassidy Hutchington said the other day, for example, was hearsay would

never be allowed in a in a criminal proceeding. That being said, when a Republican witness who works for Republican administration under oaths as the Republican did wrong, did something wrong, the Republicans should pay attention to that. So I'm not trying to you know, it's a shame that I feel like I have to give the commission credibility because I

think it's been a it's been wrong from the beginning. UM. But when you have Republicans under oath saying that Republicans did something wrong, then Republicans should pay attention and respond to it. But no, Listen loses, Uh, Adams leaving, he's not running for for a re election, so he'll be gone after the mid terms. Of my guests, and Liz loses. So no, there they're role about public conferences zero after

this is over. And what about Kevin McCarthy was it Do you still think it was a good idea for him to keep members obviously other than those two off of the panel. Yeah, I actually think it was. It was Pelosi he made this mistake, and think Kevin did the only thing he could under the circumstances. Pelosi, if she really wanted to harm Donald Trump, UM, would should

have wanted to have Republicans watched the hearings. Uh. And if she had allowed Jim Jordan's and Andy Biggs on the committee on the committee, Fox would have covered it

more and Republicans would have been watching it. And Republicans who still to this day think that Trump won the election would be hard pressed to maintain that position after seeing all the all the evidence that has been presented, Republicans who still think that January six was a peaceful demonstration would be really hard pressed to maintain that after seeing the evidence that has been laid out. Um, so, I think Nancy was the who actually made a mistake here.

If she wanted to impact the general electorate, she should have had a whole nation want to watch it and tune these things. And as it turns out, um, you know, I think only half the country is probably paying attention to them. All right, Mr mulvaney, thank you so much for joining us. That's Mick mulvaney, former White House Acting Chief of Staff during the Trump administration. Let's bring in the panel. I feel like we have a lot to

sort through there. And Happy July four, Mr mulvaney. Happy July fourth to Jeannie she and Zano and Rick Davis coming back to us our panel to discuss guys. I want to hear your takeaways from that. Also, I am wondering what you make of this comment from Senator Pat to me, the Republican from Pennsylvania who also spoke on Bloomberg's balance of power. Uh in terms of his takeaways from the January six committee, and where it leaves former

President Trump. I think he disqualified himself from serving in public office by virtue of his post election behavior, especially leading right up to January sixth. I think the revelations from this committee um make his path to even the

Republican nomination much more tenuous. So, uh, Rick, I I want to hear your opinion not only on Toomey's assessment there, but what we heard, uh from Mr Mulvaney, who who seems to think that the former president is is weaker than he was before in terms of the Republican nomination if he were to run again in four Rick, where does the January six committee investigation leave Donald Trump in

the Republican primary if he were to run. Well, I don't know even about the Republican primary, but I think Mick was right. I mean, this has definitely been a weakening, but there's been an a weakening going on really since he left the presidency, had just started with this commission hearings.

But when you have the Wall Street Journal editorializing that Donald Trump shouldn't run, you know, a organ of uh uh conservatism, you know and and and you know Washington Examiner, another conservative outlet, you know, highly critical umbraiding Trump UH this last week. These are these are echoing through uh, these communities within the conservative movement and Republican Party and

and and they're going to have an impact. And and I think the point that Mick made about having Republicans testifying at the hearing about Republicans has been the most effective way of of basically giving it the credibility that it didn't have by having Republicans actually sitting in the committee other than you know, Cheney and and and Kinsinger. So I think these things are having an impact. Hard to tell how it's going to impact Donald Trump and

his decision even whether to run or not. UM, but but clearly his popularity is on the Wayne. So, Jennie, I I'm curious what you make on on takeaways from the other days hearing, UH, thinking of what Mr Mulvaaney said that, yes, there's been a lot of attention on that line. That image that we kind of all have of former President Trump leaning for the steering wheel jostling with a Secret Service agent may have been the most

dramatic part. But as Mr mulvaney said, he he is of the opinion that the most important part are and more important part was Trump knowing there were guns there, the idea of violence being a possibility, and the president at the time knowing that. What what is your main takeaway from the Hutchinson testimony and where does that uh that I guess fight with Secret Service rank in what

we should be contemplating. Well, you know, I couldn't agree more with with what mc mulvaney said during your conversation, which was fascinating. And you know when he made the case, as you just mentioned that that wasn't the most important point. It may have been the most salacious, it wasn't the most important. I think legally that is absolutely true, because nobody is disputing the fact that the president wanted to go to the Capitol that day and he was angry

when he couldn't. Whether he grabbed the wheel or somebody's clavical or not, nobody is disputing the fact that he didn't care if the mag Trump, how do you say that, Jack Mag's right, that's the That's the one thing I did in research is how to pronounce that work? How to pronounce that so you know, whether they he wanted the people to come in his crowd to be bigger. That sounds like exactly what we know about Donald Trump, whether they had weapons or not, and then to march

up to the Capitol. Those are the important things, um legally in terms of culpability, in terms of consciousness of guilt. Um So I think that is what is most important.

But I will tell you I spent last night doing something I've never done in my life, Jack, which was listening to a primary out of Wyoming, of all places, And what I heard back to your conversation is that whether or not Trump runs in has a chance of winning, this whole Maga movement is a lot bigger than any individual, whether Mark Meadows is legally culpable or Donald Trump runs are not. You hear a belief among people on the ground that the election was stolen, and in your conversation

it struck me and I wrote it down. Nick Mulvaney says, this committee is a political witch hunt, and I think that tells you the amount of division and polarization. It's bigger than Donald Trump, and I think that's what's going to sustain regardless of what he decides to do. Right. Well, that's one good point. Also, you know, on the point of calling it a witch hunt. I would point out

Congress is pretty partisan. Uh. Congressional investigations are probably naturally going to be a lot more politicized, a lot more partisan than uh something from the executive branch. Uh. So I take that for what it's worth. One other key point from Mr Mulvaney on Mark Meadows uh emphasizing that if miss Hutchinson Hutchinson's testimony is correct, then a significant amount of responsibility does fall to Mark Meadows, who was the chief of staff at the time. Uh. Rick, what

have we learned about uh Meadows and Trump? Aside? Who else appears to have had a chance to stop this from happening on January six and didn't act the right way? Yeah. I thought the characterization that mc made of um Meadows sort of sitting on his couch disconnected the process failing. I think that might have been a bit of an understatement. Uh. Their their process is in place to keep bad things from happening, both in and out of the White House,

and people are generally committed to do that. I think this is different. I think these these processes that were not ignored, they were subverted. I think most of the most of the White House staff that we're engaged on this process with with Donald Trump and and trying to subvert the elections. We're in on it. And I think there's no other characterization for for Meadows than to say

the guy was part of the problem. He was he was actively trying to subvert an authentic election, and and and it all was coming to unravel on January six, And that's what you saw sitting on that couch. I don't think it was because they were ignoring or hadn't taken the right precautions. I think the guy was actively out trying to subvert the election, and that's certainly what

the testimonies indicated. Right. Well, guys, that is a little bit of a heavy note to leave it on heading into fourth of July weekend, But thank you so much Rick Davis, Jeanie Sheenzano for helping us make sense of this news packed week. Everybody, please have a great weekend. I'm on vacation now. I'm Jack Fitzpatrick. This is Bloomberg