Sound On: Trump, GOP Targets National Archives

d sixty billion dollars saving the planet. So it is the point that Republicans are stupid and Democrats are intellectual? Absolutely not. Bloomberg sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. A Federal Appeals Court Rejects Donald Trump's story that he declassified the documents. Welcome to the fastest hour in politics. Is the Justice Department is clear to use a hundred now classified papers that were found at Mara Lago and

its criminal investigation into the former president. will discuss the mounting number of legal cases against Donald Trump with Bloomberg's Mike dorning and with Rebecca Roy fee, former assistant district attorney in Manhattan. Republicans respond to the documents case by taking aim at the National Archives? We'll talk about that

with our panel. Bloomberg politics contributor and democratic analyst Jennie Chanzano, today joined by Republican Strategist Doug High and Kevin McCarthy, set to roll out his answer to the contract with America tomorrow. Bloomberg's Emily Wilkins spoke with new gang rich

about it and joins US later. These are busy days for Donald Trump's legal team and they just got busier for investigators at the Department of Justice now, after a federal appeals court late last night cleared D o j to use a hundred classified documents that were seized at Marra Lago for use in the criminal investigation this after they were barred from doing so. Remember when the special master was appointed to review what was in total about

eleven thousand documents that were retrieved by the P I? Why? Because they're classified and of course, well, that's not what Donald Trump has been saying. This is him last night on the Hannity Program on Fox News. If you're the president of the United States, you can declass if I just by saying it's stick classified. Even by thinking about it, because you're sending it tomorrow Lago or to wherever you're sending it, and there doesn't have to be a process.

There can be a process, but there doesn't have to be. You're the president. You make that decision. So when you send it, it's the classified we I de classified everything that the three judges on the appeals court, including two appointed by Donald Trump, rejected the idea that he had declassified the documents, either in his mind or having told someone. Joining us to help set the stage for this conversation, because there are a number of tentacles here and certainly

a number of cases. Bloomberg Politics Reporter, Mike Dorning. Great to have you back, Mike. The special master has set his timeline in this documents case and the trump legal team has only a couple of weeks to report back, and I wonder what that means for the the overall timeline in the case. With a great story that you helped to write, garland faces. Of course, our attorney general, Merrick Garland faces, only allows the options denying charges against trump.

Do you expect to hear something in November December from D O j? It's quite possible. We could hear something soon after the election, although it might also take a little bit longer. Um. People, current and former justice department officials, believe they already have enough evidence to charge him with obstruction of justice and quite likely could swiftly have enough

evidence to charge him with mishandling classified documents. Now, sometimes before they charge someone they want to complete, or have a good idea of, the damage assessment which informed can inform the decision about charging and also is useful to reflect in the charging documents. So some people have told me that might take a little bit longer, but having this court decision removes an impediment. Yeah, I mean this, this just got a little bit quicker after what happened

last night. Correct indeed. Yes, they can move faster with the damage assessment because they have the classified documents. I think we've talked about this. UNWRITTEN RULE AT D O J is sixty days before an election everything it's kind of a quiet period Um, and of course that was not the case with the Hillary Clinton emails a few years back. But there isn't one after the election, right.

Could this come at any time? It would come any time after the election, and Merrick Garland is a articulous, by the law book, by the Policy Manual, kind of guy. He's not likely to sort of go off on some you know, flamboyant tangent. You've also made clear, though, in your piece, that even if garland determines he has enough evidence to prove trump guilty beyond the reasonable out that does not mean that we're going to get an indictment.

Doesn't necessarily mean it the the attorney general does have prosecutorial disgression and he can factor in you know other, Um so other matters in his decision. Now, Um, there is also this whole threat of violence, which trump was alluding to in an earlier interview with Hugh Hughitt, where he said, you know, if you indict me, they were gonna have the worst possible problems in this country. And there we saw January six there was some some popular

people who would go along with that. That's something that he may have to factor in. Um, he may, he may not decide to sort of he may decide that that's not a decision that he should a factor that he should include, but it's up to him whether he includes that or not. Great reporting and thank you for being with us, Mike. Warning Bloomberg Politics Reporter, as we add to the phrase, Rebecca Royfe, I've been looking forward

to this conversation. Law Professor at New York Law School, former Manhattan assistant district attorney, with a great sense of what's really going on here. Rebecca, welcome. I think Lawrence tribe put it this way earlier today on Bloomberg. You've got behind one door the killer crocodiles, behind another one scary dragons, and then the third door is flesh eating bats. When you consider all of the cases against this president,

uh not. Uh, the least of which is coming from New York State, as we learned yesterday from Your Attorney General. which is the most potentially damaging? which needs the quickest attention from his legal team? Now? Uh, that's a really hard question. I don't know. I feel that the walls are kind of closing in on all fronts and it remains to be seen how serious some of the criminal investigations are. But at least it's more clear now, Um, what the attorney general is doing and how threatening that

it is to him and his business. So at least that one's more transparent. The threat, as you hear this ruling from last night. It's it's really interesting in terms of the documents case from Mara Lago, because of this appeals court ruling, is it now impossible for Donald Trump to say that he declassified these documents? Well, you know, I don't think it's impossible for him to say that.

You know, part of the part of what the Appeals Court said was, you know, he's been saying this out in public, but he hasn't made any representation, his lawyers haven't made any representation as part of the record, and that's, of course key, in part because any representation on the record would be subject to Um discipline for the lawyers if they were lying, and to, you know, potential perjury charges.

So of course it's Um you know, somewhat telling, I think that he has made this claim in public and there hasn't yet been any claim on the record. Um, but it doesn't preclude him from later on bringing bringing

up this argument. I think it's just, you know, basically what the court was saying was, look, if you're not going to tell us now which documents are declassified and how they were to classify, then we have no choice but to go with the Department of Justice as assertion that if it adnned face says it's classified, then it's class fied. I can't really imagine the conversations behind closed

doors among trump's legal team. The special master today has now ordered the former president's lawyers to state in a court filing whether they believe FBI agents lied about documents seized from Mara Lago. UH, they need to be on the record, apparently by the end of the month, September thirty, whether they believe any of the seased items were incorrectly described on the list, as the former president has suggested

in both cases. Uh, who's your boss in this case? When, when you're a lawyer for DONALD TRUMP, because they're not always telling the same story, that he is right? No, I mean in your client is always the person that you serve, but you are have to abide by Um Court rules and you have to represent that your client within the bounds of the law. And so these lawyers are struggling to do that without, you know, doing some

damage to their client. But they have a client that's not easy, who's not easy to control, and a client who's very interested in the narrative, the public narrative and the you know, his public opinion and is trying to Um manage that in a way that in some instances, like the one you mentioned, could very well hurt his legal case. And so you know, so far he's done a great job of, at least with his supporters, convincing them that you know that this is all a witch hunt.

But the question is whether that will survive within our court system and I think you know, what you're seeing now is that it's not faring as well as he might have thought. Well, it sounds to me like the special master might not have been the best idea as you look back at some of the legal maneuvering on his side. Was that? Was that a poor move? I think it was a poor move. I mean, you know,

it didn't really get them much. It wouldn't have gotten them much even if the special master we're continuing to review those a hundred classified documents and so Um, you know. And and yet it sort of boxed him into a corner whereas you said, there is a spotlight on the fact that he hasn't made certain assertions in court that he is making out in public and a lot of you know, reasonable conclusion that if he's not willing to make those statements in court. That's because they're not true.

Are you able to count the number of cases against aald front right now? I mean we're thinking what for legitimate legal fronts against the former president, because you've got Georgia, the case in Georgia, you've got the case in New York from yesterday. You've got two separate cases from the Department of Justice on overturning attempts to overturn the election the New York state criminal and that's right. So we're at a half dozen. In Manhattan District Attorney has said

is continuing. So even though a lot of people, looking from the outside, I thought that was petering out, it's not clear. Rick Davis on the program yesterday referred to death by a thousand cuts. I mean, is it plausible that a lot of these will be resolved at the same time and between now and the presidential election? Yeah, I mean, you know it's possible, but it does seem like many of these are fairly serious and that the amount of proof that the investigators have in each different case.

You know it varies, but it seems that at least some of these cases are fairly strong. And so how he can withstand these and whether he can, he can continue to have a political future despite them remains to be seen. Incredible, Rebecca, thanks for joining us. Rebecca Roy Fi, law professor New York Law School, former Assistant d a in Manhattan, who has a sense of what is going on in that office, with us here on sound on.

Keep in mind that the former president has said that the FBI planted items when they searched Mara Lago and of course, as you heard just as recently as last night, said he d classified all the documents that we're talking about. I'll just thinking about it as enough to declassify. We're gonna put this to the panel next. Genie Chanzano is with us. Bloomberg politics contributor, joined today by Doug High, Republican strategist. On the fastest hour in politics. I'm Joe Matthew.

This is Bloomberg h you're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. So now that they've cleared D O J to get back into the documents, they're probably sorting through them as we speak. Right now. A hundred remember classified papers taken from Mar a lago not going to be under the auspices of the special

master and, as Mike Dorning just told us. Well, that means we could actually hear about this, where there could be an indictment or not word from Attorney General Merrick Garland, basically immediately after the midterm elections. We could be at the front of November where we act really have a

real sense of this. Let's assemble the panel. Bloomberg Politics Contributor Jeanie Chanzano is with us, democratic analyst, joined today by Republican Strategist Doug High, former deputy chief staff to Eric Canter, former R NC communications director and a friend of the program it's great to have both of you

guys here. Genie, this is just kind of every day, it seems like another degree warmer for Donald Trump and as we were at least attempting to count on the air with Rebecca Roy fee, now basically a half dozen pretty important cases against Donald Trump as he prepares to make a decision about whether to run for president. This one could be coming soon. What, what kind of a change would that make in the landscape, the electoral landscape, coming out of a mid term cycle and going into

a presidential election? It's absolutely stunning. I was listening to you count up the number of cases facing him and and I had gotten for then she added this fifth one and I thought, oh my gosh, we forgot. I forgot all about that one. You know, it's it's absolutely stunning. The the decision by the Appellate Court yesterday was a

knockout blow. The Department of Justice got everything they asked for in that and they really shut down judge cannon and they you know, we have to remember that the trump team did this to themselves, and so it's gonna be a real problem for Republicans. Um, DONALD TRUMP will

likely keep fundraising off this. He likely runs Um but you know who, this is a good thing for Democrats and that is bad news for Republicans, because we know Democrats don't have a lot going for them these days, but Donald Trump is one thing that keeps delivering for them. So for Republicans this has got to be a very

frustrating moment. So I'm just kind of fascinated, doug, by this reaction from the right to go after the National Archives, to sort of demonize the national archives much in the way they they that some Republicans have with the FBI. The whole you know, defund the FBI, think following the Marlago case. Listen to Donald Trump talking about it last night in that Hannity interview. Here he is now. I did classified things and we were having a lot of

problems with NARA. You know, Nara, uh is a radical left group of people running that thing and when you send documents over there, I would say there's a very good chance and a lot of those documents will never be seen again. Nara being the National Archives and Records Administration, not the museum on the mall, although they are the same agency. UH, Doug Josh Holly Tore into the nominee to to run the National Archives and Records Administration, UH,

in a confirmation hearing yesterday. Is this? Is this a new thing to for for Republicans? Are you hearing about this, to demonize the National Archives, seemingly the most benign agency in Washington? No, it's not a new thing at all. This is everything we've seen with Donald trump once it was clear that he was going to be the nominee. If you want to play Donald Trump's game, then you have to back him up, and that means if he calls your wife ugly you're gonna be okay with it.

It means if the National Archives is the new target, so be it. You know, there's this an old expression in politics. We say politics ain't being back. If you're dealing with Donald Trump, politics is being back and you win. If other people think that it's checkers or three dimension chess, if they're playing a different game from you and all you're playing is bean bag, as long as you don't go to jail, you're gonna do okay. Now it's an open question. Is he going to go to jail or

someone else? No one really knows. But the rest of this is the same conversation we've been having for years. Nothing has changed. It does seem like an odd target, though, does it not? I mean, appreciate the spirit of your comments and I love your passion, but really, the National Archives, like you know, wasn't that the what was it? The national treasure movies? Uh, what is going on here? Anything that Donald Trump can create as an enemy will be

the enemy. And if you if you feel that you need to have trump's backing or the backing of the really trump part of the base. So if you're Josh Holly, you know parts of Missouri that are very trump centric more than they are Republican centric. Do you want to play trump's game, you gotta back them up. That's it again. It's been bad. Listen to the senator, Josh Holly, questioning. Uh, this is the nominee for US archivists. So you know

you're this is the job at the National Archives. Colleen Schagen, I believe is how you say her name, about this article that she wrote for American, the American Political Science Association. Uh, that that had a title that he was upset about and he thought it was demeaning to Republicans. UH, anti intellectualism in the modern presidency. Let's listen. You're someone who

has detigrated Republican presidents every two term, Republican event. I think, I think hope on not leaving video that has since the since the Second World War, and their voters in this lengthy article. I mean, I don't understand. If you wrote it, why won't you stand behind it? Thank you, son. I will stand by my long experience over fifteen years

of nonpartisan service. You know this is this is not just a theoretical set of questions because, as you know, we have seen what happens when you have political activists in the position that you are up for confirmation for, and we are living through that as a nation right now. We are living through the weaponization, the political weaponization, of the National Archives, the political weaponization of the National Archives. Genie, is she gonna need, if she gets confirmed, a bodyguard?

You know if they are taking yet taking on this political scientist. She is a wonderful record. It's a great article and Josh Folly should take a moment to read it. And he wants to talk about antily intellectualism. Don't get me started. Joe Matthew saying Jeanie and Doug will be back as our panel on sound on. I'm Joe Matthew.

This is Bloomberg, except for nine thirty tomorrow morning in a suburb of Pittsburgh, what House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy hopes will be his agenda as speaker, as he will talk to voters about why they should vote Republican in the upcoming midterm elections. Helping to animate this for US none other than Emily Wilkins, with new gang rich today, lost in the corridors of power on Capitol Hill. Emily, it's a good thing you were there. I heard the recording.

They were looking for the elevator and you were just in the right place at the right time. Welcome back. By the way, Bloomberg government's Emily Wilkins tell me about the commitment to America. This is sort of the agenda for for what he foresees as his future congress here. Yeah, so you know, new Gingrich had the contract with America. Kevin McCarthy now has the commitment to America and basically what it is is it's sort of a topline document.

It's a messaging document really right now that's kind of identifying the areas that Republicans are planning to legislate in if they win the majority in November, which, Joe, is likely to happen right now, just from any election forecasters really predicting that. So this is gonna be something that

they're going to roll out. I asked uh former Speaker ging riach today whether he thought that it was a good idea for Democrats, for sorry, for Republicans, rather, to be messaging on policy or rather kind of making themselves Um showing the opposite of the Biden Administran. Yeah, I mean he does. He does talk about about the detail and one of the things I heard from members was saying, look, we do have a lot more details, but we don't want to bog down our message with all these specific bills.

We have the bills. We will roll them out in due time. Right now we need to keep our message to what the American people want to keep the American people, you know, they're busy folks. They don't want to get too bogged down in the weeks quite yet. Well, paint the picture for us. You're in the you knew that

New Gingrich was there to talk to the Republican Caucus. Right, he was there to see or help endorse this plan in front of members, and you're down there sort of staking things out in the basement of the capital, and there he is, right, he's spent a little bit of time with him, walking down the hall. That's what we're gonna hear. I thought it was a remarkable rollout because it's much more sophisticated than what we did in ninety four the contract. It's a real blue print for governor

and I thought the level of members supported it was amazing. Okay, so that's quite an endorsement, Emily. He did find the elevator right. He did indeed find the elevator. Um, I mean more so. I mean I think it was really he talked to Republicans today. They all had a big meeting ahead of this rollout of this plan tomorrow, and he really didn't endorse it. And this isn't the first time that New Gingrich has been a part of this.

When Republicans held their retreat to discuss this plan a little bit more back at the start of the year, New Gingrich was also there talking with them about the plant, the importance of the plan, uh, and really kind of did of giving them the motivation to go through it, because this is something that members have really been involved in. We had seven different task forces working on this for more than a year to kind of put out the bare bones of what we're seeing tomorrow. If Republicans don't

win the majority, does this go back in the drawer? Um, it could, possibly could. I mean I will say that nothing in this document that I've seen yet is exactly groundbreaking. I think it does talk about Republican priorities, but it's stuff that I think most people are aware of, that Republican support and that they want to work on. So I'm sure that if Democrats do, and we'll see Republicans

mostly do what they've done this year. Go ahead and introduce their own bills, introduce their own plans, but you're not going to see traction and movement on those. I want to ask you about what's happening on the other

side of the eye here. Of course, emily covers leadership for us at Bloomberg and for Bloomberg government, and Nancy Pelosi held her briefing today, uh, emily, and started talking about this, this deal with Joe Manchin that has had everybody pretty upset and we've talked about it quite a bit this week. It's got democratic progressives, you know, getting together with Republicans to defeat this permitting reform bill that

he just dropped in the last twenty four hours. Nancy Pelosi, though, of course, he made this deal with Chuck Schumer to get the I the so called I ra a, the inflation reduction act, passed. It's got everybody upset, though, because they see a back room deal, they see him enriching himself. Uh, he has been on the defensive lately, and Nancy Pelosi today did make clear that she supports this deal, though it could go through some gyrations. Here's what she said.

This agreement, which I think was I'm willing to support yes, but we'll have to see how it comes back from the Senate and there may be room for negotiation. But I'm not all can away from three hundred sixty billion dollars and and support for saving the planet for our children, referring to the climate components in the inflation reduction act.

This is getting real wonky and weigh into the weeds here, emily, but this is this legislation, this permitting legislation from Joe Mansion, was to be attached to a build a fund the government passed Uh September thirty. When the lights go out? Is anyone talking about a government shutdown? Not yet, Joe, and I think you're you're really asking the right question here, because we are in crunch time right now. We don't

have the text of the legislation. But I think Polosi really coming out and saying that sheeper backed this proposal. That's pretty significant because she's telling liberal and progressive members in our own caucus. Hey, I know that you might not be a big fan for it, but we need to keep the government funded. There's a lot of good stuff that we've passed and that this is a fair compromise to get folks like mansion, as well as other centrist members of their party, on board. Well, she says,

I'm not walking away from this money. That money is that that's a law now, right. I mean, it's not like she's just trying to make good on on Chuck Schumer's end of the deal. Is that fair? Yeah, I think that's Barre mean Pelosi and humor. They do try and work together, they try and collaborate Um, and so in this particular guard it seems like she kind of has his back here in terms of what they're doing.

And also, I think there's there's a sense that even among progressives who aren't pleased with Mansion's energy permitting uh bill that would experite some of these permits and and Experte some of these environmental reviews, members still ultimately want to fund the government. There aren't Democrats who want to see a shutdown weeks before the mid term elections. I can't quite imagine it, but then again, we've seen a lot of different things these past months. Emily, great to

talk to you. Thanks for coming in. As always, she'll be with you tomorrow here on sound on Bloomberg Government Congress reporter, Emily Wilkins, I want to hear what the panel has to say about the US. Jeanie Schanzano and Doug high with us, our political panel on sound on today as Kevin McCarthy prepares to take the wraps off the commitment to America, which, Jeez, you just heard new Ingrid says that's even better than the contract with America and it's just three letters, so you know it's got

to win. Our panel up next will check traffic and markets for you too. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg. You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The contract with America was unveiled in twenty eight years ago. I only mentioned that to make you feel old, because I just looked it up and

now I feel old. To Enter Kevin McCarthy, almost thirty years later, with the seal of approval from none other than New Gang Ridge, delivering the new agenda tomorrow called the commitment to America. Let's reassemble the panel. Jeanie Schanzano was this, who definitely cannot remember back that far Bloomberg politics contributor and today joined by our friend Doug High, Republican Strategist and former R N C communications director. Uh, Doug,

you surely don't remember that either. But, but, but if you did, I wonder if you see parallels here and or if Kevin McCarthy is pushing this a little too far with the messaging. No, I don't think he's pushing it too far. You have a choice in these situations of either give something of what you're for or just run against the opposite party. The temptation is often to just let the other party implode on itself, which makes

some sense. But I think Republicans have opportunities here to define themselves on three issues even further inflation, crime and the border. And if, if we're if the conversations on those three issues, even if Republicans don't have a fully fleshed out plan on inflation, they don't and neither does the White House. Then if that's what we're talking about,

Republicans are going to do well. And at a time when, uh, if you look at the toss up seats that are out there, there are thirty one toss up seats, which means Republicans only need to win six out of the thirty one to win control of the House. This is a potentially a good way of doing it. Interesting point here, the difference being, though, that New Gingrich had essentially unanimous support from his Republican Caucus. Right. Can Can Kevin McCarthy

put that together? Sure, I think that's one of the challenges, is what goes into that document because, and this is one of the reasons that we never had a replacement bill when I worked in the house was everybody liked their idea best, and these were of the serious legislators, a Dave camp, a Fred Upton and Paul Ryan, you know, not some of the bomb throwers which the house is more populated with now. They like their ideas best, and

that's certainly common in politics. But if you have a document that everybody can be unified on, or a large majority of your party can be unified on, and Marjorie Taylor Green is going to be there in Pittsburgh tomorrow, also smart to take it out of D C uh. Then you can move forward and be unified in this and I think that can help interest. So, before I bring genie back in, though, you do expect him to be speaker or this conversation is pointless. Right. Well, I

think we need to see what the majority is. We need to see what Donald Trump does. You know, one thing about Donald Trump, and to our earlier segment, is you've always got to back him up. But that doesn't mean that Donald Trump is always going to back you up, and so there are variables here. But Kevin's doing everything that he can to run through the tape. Wow, that's well,

that's certainly not a yes, genie. Is this exercise, UH, worth the time to feed the message for midterm elections, or is this more about Kevin McCarthy beginning his sort

of would be speakership? You know, when I heard about this it was interesting because, you know, Kevin McCarthy seems to be, you know, thinking back to a time during which, you know, somebody like a new gingrich could come out and put a plan like this forward and at that unification that you were just talking about, you know, and that's what Kevin McCarthy obviously wants to emulate. That's the

kind of speaker he hopes to be. But what I'm thinking is the challenge is going to be just what you guys were just talking about how do you keep this caucus together? I am far too young to remember the contract with America. I wish I could say that, Joe, but I actually can remember it. Um, but let's not forget that was in the ninety nineties. That was well

before social media. Now you have members like Scott Perry, you have members like Lauren Bobert, you have members that will go out on their own, like Marjorie Taylor Green, and use social media. So they are going to have a voice of their own and some of them have not even expressed much commitment to this already, and that is going to be the challenge from for him keeping this clock is together, particularly those trump supporters for whom this is not going to resonate. So I'm curious to

see if it works. I think he's herkening back to a time that doesn't exist anymore at this point. How about that? So, what are you hearing about that race right now, Doug, because certainly names are lining up for a potential speakership. Is there anyone who can come close to Kevin McCarthy right now in terms of turning out votes? Um, well, it's not even a question of turning out votes. It's

it's really about raising money. You're not hearing a whole lot, even privately, on the race because it's not acknowledged that there is one and certainly Kevin's office doesn't want to talk about it. And if you're Steve Schalees, it doesn't benefit you to talk about it. So you know, there's been more focus on, say, what the House whip race is going to be, with three or four people looking at that at least, dephonic pulling out of that race,

looking at the ways and means chairmanship. That's where a lot of the conversation is and and again part of that is we have to see what the majority is and then what the challenges are from there. But Kevin's doing everything he can politically to demonstrate to his conference that he's done what's necessary. Well, we'll have a lot more on the speech, of course, tomorrow here, as you would expect, on Bloomberg sound, on a four part plan

being rolled out, and it's no uh, it's no accident. Uh. To Doug's point where this is happening in the Great State of Pennsylvania, I want to ask you both about a race in Michigan and specifically a candidate in Michigan, the the Republican nominee who actually beat the incumbent, Peter Meyer, uh, backed by Donald Trump. His name is John Gibbs, and he made some uh some, I will say comments, but they were writings many years ago that have become a

big story today thanks to CNN. Uh, it's it's really something. This is when he was, I guess, in College. He was at Stanford, two thousand and two thousand one. He founded a think tank called the society for the critique of Feminism and argued that women did not, quote, possess the characteristics necessary to govern and said men were smarter than women because they're more likely to think logically about

broad and abstract ideas. He wrote, uh, he questioned and in fact believe women uh should not be allowed to vote and believe that the suffrage movement damaged the country. This is John Gibbs in an ad. So I often say that this election is not even gonna be a Democrat versus Republican, it's crazy versus normal. Okay, so I think that's actually on the huckaby program forgive me. This came up today in the briefing with Nancy Pelosi. They're

talking about legislation, policies so forth. The last question is on this whether she heard about this and what she thought about the impact that it might have on the race, if she had any reaction to this idea that women should not be able to vote. Here's what she said. What do I think of that? I think I hear something like that every day around here when my people say that women shouldn't be able to make their choices about contraception or their own reproductive health. That's a sign

of disrespect for women. What he's saying is outrageous. I don't think many members of here would subscribe to that, but the insult to women's intelligence is one that exists in many forms around here. Pretty heavy. She would left the podium after that. Pretty heavy reply. Their genie to suggest that you hear stuff like this every day on

Capitol Hill. Uh, but this was the candidate Democrats wanted. Remember, they spent money on this to beat Peter Meyer, who would have been a tougher challenge to beat uh and and run the risk of this man becoming the representative. Yeah, and and you know his his spokes a person came out today or came out the other day and said that. You know, he was simply trying to draw attention to

the hypocrisy of the feminist movement. But you look at some of this language and you know, I think we can all understand being a young person in college or high school and saying things out of turn, but this is a aimed attack against women in the workforce, women in society, women in Public Office, women even simply exercising their right to vote. This is, you know, I think Nancy Pelosi describe it very well. It is over the top and it is disgusting talk, and so for them

to suggest it was just hypocrisy is stunning. I have not supported Democrats supporting these candidates and he was endorsed by Donald Trump. And this is what Republicans are left with in Michigan and it's a sad state of affairs. Well, I mean it also was written in this century, which is noteworthy here. Doug, what does the party do with something like this? You know, when when this news comes back to Washington, Uh to the campaign committees, what do

you do? Well, you know, it depends on the circumstance. So what you've seen as Republicans have withdrawn funding for another candidate Um who's lied on his resume about serving in Afghanistan, which he hadn't done. In a situation like this, they're going to look at the numbers and see if it's winnable or not. There they'll accept his explanation week though, that it is. But I think this highlights, you know, one of the real problems that Republicans have is um.

You know, we we often say that the trump endorsement, combined with the club for growth, is what gets you over the line, and that's true in a lot of these races. But when Donald Trump and Democrats agree on a Republican candidate, that candidate then is unstoppable in the primary and if any of these candidates get through, then

Democrats are gonna have a lot to answer for. You know, so often we hear Democrats say we need more Adam kinsingers, but the reality is Democrats in Illinois made sure that Adam kinsinger couldn't run for reelection. Well, you know, this is true and it it happens on both sides. Genie, this is a phenomenon. I feel like that that could get more examination after this election, but then again, it's been going on for years. It has never seen it

in a campaign? I've never seen. Nope. We've talked about it one time in a Senate race and didn't do it because it's not worth it, maybe, but now the rules have changed. Sorry, I interrupted. Yeah, no, that's fascinating. Yeah, no, no, it has happened on both sides. I mean, you know, we have seen it happen on both sides. I don't. I don't agree with Democrats doing this, particularly since the president has been out talking about how dangerous this rhetoric is.

That said, Republicans are left with this candidate and it is likely going to cost them this seat. Kamala Harris wouldn't even comment on it when given the opportunity the other day. Fascinating conversation that just keeps on going. Great to have you back, Doug. Thanks for being here. Doug High, Republican strategist, and Jeannie Chanzano, Bloomberg politics contributor. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. Thanks for being with us on the fastest hour in politics. This is Bloomberg