You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listening on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
We reassembled our panel. Genie Shanzano is here Bloomberg Politics contributor, along with John Sidaliiti's partner at Trilogy Advisors. Genie, what's your thought on this specific number, because it does inform
what you were just talking about that Joe Biden. Donald Trump rather doesn't think he should be on the debate stage with a bunch of other candidates because well, basically he's still the president and if fifty one percent of his supporters in Iowa feel that way, then he's probably doing the right thing here.
Politically, that's right, And that's why, you know, I think he and his team decided that he didn't make sense for him to go. We do know that they weighed, you know, the pros and cons, and simply the reality is this, he believes he won many of the supporters do. Is that poll shows and if he to show up, the danger to him would be greater than not showing up,
because with a pole margin this big. Even if somebody does have a really good showing on Wednesday night, it's unlikely they're going to close this kind of polling gap, whether it's the state poles like Iowa, New Hampshire or the national polls. And if they do, he's got plans to turn himself in Thursday and sort of take the oxygen out of any sort of you know, running room they get, so they don't feel like there's much of
a loss from him skipping this. We know he always intended to skip the second Republican debate because of the location, and we he's indicated he may not attend any of them. So this is you know, he's running as if he is president, and his supporters believe, many of his supporters believe he should be.
Well, let's think about everybody else on that stage for a moment, John, because if fifty one percent of the people watching them, people you're trying to win over in Iowa believe that Donald Trump is actually the president or one somehow the election in twenty twenty, that's going to that's going to dictate your posture, your messaging that night, because you can't disagree with them and win them over.
Can you, it's going to be a very great challenge for many of the Republican candidates. I expect Brett Baer and Martha McCallum to ask that type of a question. Yeah, and you may even have a Chris Christy who prides himself on being the anti Trump. It's really the only
reason he's in this campaign to begin with. He has no real shot at winning the primary, and he's stuck at three percent, but he'll probably take on some of the other Republicans and try to take them down a few notches and defy them to defend Trump in terms of his perspective on whether or not he won or lost. To the Iowa numbers, though, Joe, I wouldn't be surprised if you see similar, if not greater numbers in other
states among GOP voters. So let's not be surprised that the majority of Republicans believe that Donald Trump either had the election stolen from him or that it was a rigged election. So I think that's going to be a firmament in Republican primaries in the weeks ahead. Let me also offer this thought. A My guess is that Trump may decide he's not going to waste his time with an Asa Hutchinson or a Francis Suarez or other one
percent opponents taking shots at him. But maybe by the third or fourth debate, if there were three, four or five candidates standing, he may decide to knock them out at that time. And one more thing, if I might, just the way Donald Trump feels that his numbers are so strong, he doesn't need to take all of these hits them, all of these lesser candidates. Look at Joe Biden. I mean, Joe Biden is I think he's got the support of seventy percent of Democratic voters.
But Robert F.
Kennedy Junior is polling at around twelve to fourteen percent, sort of ron descent is territory. And Marian Williamson is polling at around six percent, well above Chris Christy, who's on new shows across America, and above most of the Republican candidates. And yet there's no calls for Biden to debate Kennedy and Williamson. So an interesting dynamic there between the two parties.
Boy, and I don't think that's going to be happening anytime soon. Should an incumbent have to do such a thing Genie.
You know, I am in favor of debates, and so I would love to see everybody who has a shot debate, and I'd also love to see people who are low in the polls debate because quite frankly, as voters, we can't decide who we want to support if we don't get to see them in action. So I am in favor of it, but it is not something we usually
see with incumbents. And I would also just remind everybody that, you know, the reality for Trump is this, the more people in this race is are better for Trump, and so he is going to want to keep all of these people in this race. He's even if you look at the Iowa Coccus poll, you know, the persuadables are just over fifty percent, which we may say, oh that's great, they're open to somebody besides Trump, But he has twenty
seven percent of those people. So if you can't consolidate the never trumpers, he's going to win even if he has a thirty thirty five percent base, and he's probably got a little higher. So for him, the more people out there, the better. This all works to his advantage. The way it is playing out at this point.
We're spending time with our panel, Genie Schanzano and John si Laitis. I want to ask you about some of the messaging the posturing that we're hearing now on this eve of the debate, and I love both of your reactions.
Here.
Ron de Santis is upping the ante. It seems like on a daily basis etging closer to real attacks on Donald Trump, but also just the tough guy routine. Everybody's apparently out toffing each other on this stage. Here HEAs in Iowa es to.
When they try, if they try to bring the fence and all across the southern border, when I am president, we are gonna shoot him stone cold dead.
All right.
I guess that's a winning line. Was that really though? I mean, that's gonna be What do you think, Johnthan, is that a winning policy that we're gonna I guess he was talking about Mexican drug cartels, but we'll just shoot people from across the river as they're coming in.
I don't know what exactly, or is that just tough guy talk ahead of the debate. Well, but a lot of Republicans would like to hear tough guy talk about border secure it's one of the most important issues for Republican voters. They feel that the economy is failing, that our cities are running rampant with criminal activity.
We have a lot of promises like this though, and no real pos right.
But it's also why Donald Trump, I think, just put out a Twitter message or part of the truth social Trump's first term we destroyed isis Trump's second term, we destroy the Mexican cartels. So it is going to resonate with a large number of voters. And again, you know, to the degree that candidates keep messaging simple and leave
the details till later. But I think it is going to be a positive outcome, hopefully from the debates tomorrow, that we're not only looking at sort of the thunderdome aspect of all of this, but there's actual policy debates and to help Republican voters, and for that matter, Democrats and independents talk about the issues that really matter to everyday Americans in ways that I think getting caught up in the polling and the horse race.
Yes, eludes us absolutely, and I know you're speaking truth there, Genie. I'll give you a chants with what we heard last night from the veg Ramaswami on CNN defending comments that he's made about some sort of conspiracy around nine to eleven, never mind January sixth. I mean, that's something if you're going to bite that off both of those in one sentence.
Here he is Saudi Arabia. Absolutely their intelligence was involved in nine to eleven, and that's a difficult thing. You're not supposed to say the facts back that up. Separately as it relates to January sixth, same story all over again. There were federal agents in the field. I think they've lied about how many there were. And we the people deserve the truth despite the layers of distortion that exist in the media.
To prevent us from getting the layers of distortion in the media, how about conspiracy on the debate stage.
Genie, it's something that sells with this primary, with this Republican primary voters, and so he is really reflecting something that is out there. And you know, you just listen to the difference between that and the and what you played the clip from Dysantis. DeSantis can talk about shooting people, and you know the reality is DeSantis cannot find the message. It doesn't sound authentic when he tries this tough guy act. And when Vivek Ramaswami does, people do listen. His poll
numbers have been really impressive. He is very good on the stump. And you know, it may sound crazy some of these conspiracy theories, but they do resonate with some of these voters.
I only have a minute left here, John, before a news update. Is is it smart politics to be talking about, you know, black helicopters and tinfoil hats like this? Maybe you agree with what he said, but if we're talking about federal agents in nine to eleven being an inside job, is that serious?
Well, that's not what I heard, Joe. Now, he did talk about what came out in the nine to eleven commission, but was on the surface and didn't go much deeper than that. But there is a sense that the Saudi Kingdom and the royal family did enjoy certain benefits, including private jets to get their people out of the United States while we shut down the entire more.
Because he talks about how the federal agents on that plane and this was the much.
Of this was, don't I don't have the exact sentence, and I want to be careful that we don't take things out of context, but I think that was where he was going with the nine to eleven commissioner in January sixth. There are a large number of Republican voters who would like questions coming out of the House Committee that it's investigating what took place on January sixth, to the degree that they may have been federal agents that have been obfuscated in a lot of the reports over
the last three years. So to Jeanie's point, yes, many Republicans believe we don't have all the facts, and the profound mistrust in national media by Republican voters is going to be an important issue for Republican candidates to address tonight and in future debates.
Do you better believe it, We're going to hear a lot about it. I have no doubt. Jeanie Schanzano is with us, of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor today John sidaliities joins as well partner at Trilogy Advisors. John even watching this relationship unfold or maybe fall apart for some time now,
since before Joe Biden got into the White House. What do these excursions do for us as we're trying to keep high technology out of the hands of the Chinese trying to limit investment in what's the point of the Commerce secretary here to make everybody feel good or to create a new path forward.
Let's talk about what's working first, and I think the Biden administration deserves credit for upping the Trump sanctions and export controls on advanced technologies such as the most advanced semiconductors, on artificial intelligence, on quantum computing. We're not going to help China try to take the dominant lead on these technologies that will be the most important of the twenty first century global economy without stiff competition from our own
American innovators and dynamic companies. I think it's going to be very important that Rimando Secretary Ramondo sends the message to Beijing that de risking will continue, that we are going to protect the import of military parts that are most essential for our national security. As I mentioned before, the frontier technologies that will dominate the economy and the
years ahead. We're looking at health products and pharmaceuticals that we learned during the COVID lockdowns we were dependent on China for, and also a number of the rare earth metals and elements that are so important for the products that sustain our way of life. But by the same token, can we continue to buy t shirts and furniture and electronics from China? Sure, we want to continue to sell
our agricultural products to help feed the Chinese people. So I think that level of interdependence can be sustained while we protect our national security and our economic well being.
I think the one thing that we have to be careful about, Joe, is that the President says diplomacy is a good thing, and by and large, it is a good thing for its own sake, But we have to be careful to not be seen as supplicants that we're always begging for meetings with Chinese leaders, and we don't seem to see any news coverage of Chinese leaders begging to meet their American counterparts. It seems to be a one way street so far. We'll see what happens if
President Biden and Chairman she meet in November. But maybe this is the preparation for what could be some type of a breakthrough. I don't see it right now.
That's the question, Geenie. Is this the meeting that could lead to the summit, or at least the conversation between the two presidents.
You know, I think we are all still hoping that there is a conversation, whether that occurs, you know, in the US in San Francisco, whether it occurs on the sidelines in New Delhi of the G twenty. The reality is these high level visits that we keep seeing, and you just listed the ones that have occurred since June, they haven't yielded as much as some people would have hoped. Although I am of the opinion that the more conversation the better, so I don't see a problem with that.
But I think as we look just at our own domestic politics, the Biden administration is getting a lot of pressure from Congress, particularly the Hawks and Congress who want to take a harder line, and they are sinnd of walking this tightrope, and it's going to continue, and during an election year, it is going to be very very hard for them to move against that pressure that they're hearing out of Washington and out of Congress and Republicans
in particular. So it's something to be mindful of as we move forward towards the election.
I'll tell you, in the last week or two, the most underreported story was this summit at Camp David. At least, I would argue Joe Biden's bike ride that he took on vacation last week got more attention than this summit with Japan and South Korea at Camp David, and I wonder, obviously this is with China in mind, John, the impact that this is having as Beijing now considers canceling a three way summit that it was planning with Japan and South Korea.
Well, China only needs to look inwardly for the blame for all of this. I think this would have been a very difficult trilateral partnership to put together in say twenty fourteen twenty fifteen. Japan and South Korea, however nervous they are about China's economic rise, did not feel as intimidated security wise and militarily as they have over the last five to seven years.
Does the administration deserve credit for bringing them to the other Is this meaningful?
I think it's a very positive step, absolutely, and I think it reinforces the defense relationships that we've already had with Japan and with South Korea. Keep in mind, we don't need a formal NATO type alliance in Asia, right, we already have twenty eight thousand troops in South Korea fifty thousand troops in Japan. So our American forces are trip wires. If they're attacked because of any external attack on South Korea or Japan, we're going to war, simple
as that. But what you have for the first time is Japan and South Korea coordinating their defense, intelligence sharing, and the like because of the historic enmity between these
two peoples over the past century. So I think the Biden administration deserves credit for bringing them together and the three countries together, signaling to China and also to countries in Southeast Asia that there are alternatives to China's very belligerent, if not outright hostile behavior towards almost every one of its Asian neighbors over the last ten years under Shareman Chep.
It's really something, Genie. You're getting back to where we start with Gina Romando. This is not going to be an easy meeting. She might actually have the hardest job of any cabinet officials gone over there, with the exception of Anthony Blincoln.
She absolutely will. I think this is going to be very tough. She has a lot on her plate, and she is feeling pressures all around. Let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that we heard Janet Yellen talk about the impact of the economic slowdown in China in the US. And to your point about the coverage of that meeting at Camp David, those arguments are really difficult to make because they don't resonate with Americans in particular,
especially during an election year. And so all of these visits, as important as they are, and these meetings, you know, the administration doesn't get the credit they deserve for them, and when they get the blame when the economy slows down, they will feel that.
Boy Tini Shanzano, Johnson Ledis are panel today on Bloomberg Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, wondering always why modern presidents don't use Camp David more often. It's one of the best assets they have. But I digressed. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
The F sixteen's are apparently coming though there's two of the Netherlands now that we learned about in just the past couple of days, but those won't be ready to fly for months. And so, boy, you start thinking about all of this and the conversations that we had months ago with Kelly Grico, and you wonder exactly how this is all going to pan out. The senior fellow Stimpson Center's re imaging US Grand Strategy Programs with us in studio, Kelly Greco, It's great to see you. Thanks for this
year in the bureau. Absolutely you didn't see the F sixteen is being needed, not necessarily the most effective weapon in this fight. Fast forward a couple of months, here we are. I'm assuming you still feel the same way because these lines haven't really budged in that period of time.
No, And I think if we look at the counter offensive and we're trying to diagnose the problem, it's easy to point to the lack of air power and the lack of F sixteen is that's sort of, you know, an easy thing to blame. But when you actually look at what we know about the battle history. It seems to be more about the inability of the Ukrainians to
have mastered combined arms warfare. And what I mean by that is, in order to overcome all these defensive fortifications the Russians have, what you need to be able to do is to combine artillery with armor with infantry almost near simultaneously rather than sequentially. And that takes a lot to do that, and you're doing that under fire and that kind of coordination, and what we've seen is that
they're not really able to do that under fire. That it's a really big ask for a military to learn to do that mid war.
Okay, so it's an operational issue, not a specific weapons issue, correct.
I think that's exactly right. I think you know, in the West, we love technology and we're always looking for sort of technological silver bullets, and we've seen, you know, throughout the war people turn to these, you know, whether it was High Mars or Western tanks or now you know this F sixteen debate. And at the end of the day, it's actually technology can only get you so far.
It's your ability to be able to use it and combine technologies in a way that is really allows you to overcome defensive power and be able to take territory. And at the end of the day, I'll also say, armies take territory, not your forces.
How about that Washington Post reporting the end of last week the US Intelligence community assessing Ukraine's counter offensive will fail to reach the key southeastern city of melotsopel of finding. Should it prove to be correct, the Post rights would mean Key will not fulfill its principal objective of severings Russia's land bridge to Crimea. With that said, has the counter offensive been lost? What's the decision that needs to be made here?
Well, you know, I will just say that I think that as an objective was always very ambitious, and I think one of the things that has happened is that last fall the Ukrainians conducted a counter offensive and they were able to take back large swaths of territory. And I almost think it created sort of a false optimism because at that time the Russian Army was at its absolute weakest point, and the Ukrainians, to their credit, really seized that moment of vulnerability and exploited it to the full.
And what they're facing in this counter offensive is just a completely different enemy. One that's dug in and hardened.
And so the idea that they were going to be able to really punch through, break through the line and take large amounts of territory and get to that objective I think was always very ambitious, and so you know, I hate to call it a failure because in some sense it has allowed an opportunity for the Ukrainians, for the Western supporters as well, to maybe become a little bit more realistic about what the balance of power might look like on you.
You know, what we were told though, Kaylee, leading up to this is that they're empty in jails, they don't even have These aren't even real soldiers. There are a bunch of drunks out there. This is an opportunity for Ukraine to take ground. And you just wonder how credible a lot of those analysts were.
Oh totally. And the question that then follows is if expectations were too high for this specific counter offensive, what about expectation at all for Ukraine to be able to win this war? I mean, what endgame realistically are we looking at here? If they can't find success in this.
Well, I think again we had asked what does it mean by win? Because in some sense, you could say that they've already won in one way because they denied Russia its main objective in this war, which was the top of the government and capture Kia.
And that's more than a moral victory. That's real.
That's real, and you know, most people didn't think they stood a chance, you know, at the start of the war. They've also managed to take back a lot of territory from the Russians. Those are real accomplishments. I think what we're seeing is most wars don't like World War Two, where one side is completely victorious on the battlefield and
the others, you know, unconditional surrender. What we're seeing is what most wars actually look like, and that they're messier, and that is probably gonna end up at some negotiating table and they're going to be arguing over pieces of territory and exchanging pieces of territory and where the lines are going to be drawn.
That could be in a month and a year or more. But we have to figure out funding in the meantime here, and that's going to be a pretty ugly debate. It's looking like as we hear from all sides, won't even say both because I think there are some folks kind of caught in the middle on this, from the not another dollar to you know, as long as it takes
on the other side with Joe Biden. If there is not a sense though that victory is at hand or even possible, how long can the administration keep this going?
Yes, And I think this actually weighs very heavily on the Ukrainians as well, because they're aware of this dynamic.
You know.
I think what you will start to see, you know, if we don't see more progress with this controfensive is over the next share, more talk about what a settlement like look like, and more pressure perhaps on the Ukrainian It's not just coming from the Americans, but also for a Western European alibis as well about really starting to think seriously about negotiations and how to provide some kind of security guarantees to Ukraine, you know, not necessary NATO membership,
but maybe you know, the Israeli model has often talked about to sweeten that deal so that they're willing to accept it. So I think the pressure's really going to build and us to master politics, I think is going to be a big factor in that.
Okay, so if we're talking about potential de escalation if you will in the future, when so much to this point of the allies of the US's action has been keeping in mind that they don't want to escalate things further. Hence the hesitation to even deliver F sixteens in the first place, or any other list of weaponry and tanks for example, that they hesitated on for a really long time before finally doing so. Is there anything else that could be left to give that could be seen as escalatory?
Yeah, I'm laughing because I just read something today where you know, the F sixteens are you know, going to be coming eventually to Ukraine. And then I think it's also significant they're coming from the Netherlents in Denmark. They're not coming from the United States, so it's like one, you know, step removed from US. But I've read something where someone was saying, well, now they need cruise missiles.
Uh, so not sure that's going to.
Happen right exactly.
You know.
Again, so there's always nothing layer.
Yes, you've heard a Tacklem's brought up. There's always going to be some other system. The F sixteens if they don't work, and you know, can't deal with the air defenses. We're going to start hearing about F thirty Five's probably so. But again, it's not a technology problem or real lack of capability. It's about trying to master something that's so difficult, which is how to combine all of that in a way that can overcome defensive fortifications.
So we've isolated a strategic problem also a political one. What happens if we're heading into a Trump administration. Does this administration start to work against the clock?
Yes, I mean I think that, Yes, I think that is is a rail. You know, I think that happens with this administration. I think it happens with Europe, and it's a kind of support it's been providing for Ukraine and trying to figure out, maybe rather rapidly, how it
can shift some of that over. It's going to put a lot of pressure, I think, on the administration and on Zolenski himself to try to perhaps come to a deal, but a't the same time, Putin's going to be aware of these factors and he may not want to negotiate under those circumstances.
Thinking exactly right, I thought Trump would have that done in twenty four hours.
That's what he said. Right one day after he takes the Oval office back, all of this would be over. So he says, So to come back to the idea that no one technology is going to fix this. This is really about the operations of the Ukrainian military, their ability to fire and all these different soilators at once. Essentially, So is this a training question for Western allies? Is that really what we should be focusing on? I mean, how can aid in that effort?
Well, that's a really great question because it raises I think like two different approaches, which is one, should we be training them more in our Western way of war, which is this combined armed warfare approach, which is what we did over the winter when there were forces in Ukraine that went to Germany and the United Kingdom And three months was clearly, you know, maybe not long enough, particularly because they're a way accustomed to an old way
of warfare, so it's almost like you have to unlearn a bad habits and then learn a new way. The other question, though, I think the other approach is should we actually not be encouraging them to fight a Western way? They have a way of warfare that works for them and should we be allowing them to use their own tactics it's what they know best, and supporting it with capability in that way.
Wait, you know, you talk about the idea of a settlement, I'm assuming that if that were to take place right now, it would be crime in parts of the Dunboss that go to Russia. That said, though, I want to get back to something you mentioned earlier Kiev, the rest of the country still standing, while flattened in many cases from these horrible attacks, but also NATO not still intact, but having been expanded in a way that nobody could have seen and likely would not have happened without this war
taking place. That actually still sounds like victory for the quote unquote West, I.
Mean, certainly. I mean the first thing I would say was a success is the Russian military has been really degraded. You know, I was never one who really believed Russia's opposed a very significant military conventional military threat before this war to NATO, and even more so now it's going to take them, you know, at least ten years, if
not longer, to recover from this. And so you know, the Russian threat is being degraded, and unfortunately is being degraded at the cost of Ukrainian lives, blood treasure.
Yeah, so, I guess it was probably initially, as you were talking about, you know, at the beginning of this war, we all thought Kiev was going to fall eminently, very shortly four days and it may have been a matter of not just underestimating the Ukrainian forces, but also overestimating the Russian ones.
Yes, the combination. And you know, one of the things about the fact the Russians are degraded is that it makes it a much more manageable problem for our NATO allies, our EUROPEANATO allies to step up and take more responsibility for their defense and security that they don't necessarily need, you know, as much direct American support in Europe, which would allow us to shift resources attention to the Indo Pacific, where we're more concerned about the China threat.
Great conversation, Kelly, I'm to light that you come in to talk to us. With all of that said, let's say they finally get the F sixteen six months down the road post settlement, is it easier for Ukraine to defend itself with an air force that has F sixteens? Is that a long term gain.
Well, I would just say, first of all, I actually don't think it will be six months. I know Ukraine is saying that. I think it's going to be at least a year, all right, just based on some things that General Hecker said and pretty.
Tough fighter jets. Though when the time comes, maybe.
It will be useful for creating a new Ukrainian Air Force.
Kelly greek So, senior fellow the Stimpson Center. Great to have you with us. I'm Joe Matthew with Kayleie Lines. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern.
On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Let's talk to Joel Rosenblatt about the recovery a bit here, because look, the the number of uninsured people, the number of homeowners who have nothing, it's just unclear how exactly this is going to play out for them. The federal government may be offering help, but so far seven hundred dollars checks are a bit short of what people are
going to need. So there's a question about this strategy that actually pushed PG and E stock down, and Hawaiian Electric stock was down like fifty eight percent the end of last week. On the strategy that property owners may use. Here illegal shortcut that was used by fire victims in California to secure compensation, and Joel is writing about this. Joel Rosenblatt is Bloomberg's legal reporter in with us now on sound on Joel, it's great to have you can describe how the strategy works.
I sure. The strategy is known as inverse condemnation, which is kind of a complicated term that's actually rooted in a rather basic and simple principle of eminent domain, which is maybe more familiar to everybody listening, which is the power of the government to take private property for public infrastructure and in return compensate the owner. Another expression for that is the property being condemned, and inverse condemnation is
kind of is the inverse of that. It's property owners suing a government agency to recover damages to property that was accidental.
Usually, but je does it first need to be proved that it was Hawaiian electric equipment that contributed to these fires. I just wonder, you know, if that's kind of step one that needs to be established first, or they can pursue the strategy even an absence of that.
Well, great question, because that's the great advantage of inverse condemnation is that you don't you don't have to prove that the company was negligent at all. You do have to prove you do have to show that that the company's equipment was the source of the fire. But that's that's in many cases, in a surprisingly number of cases, not that difficult to show. What's more difficult to show is that there was a there was negligence, that the
company was actually negligent. That's a that's illegal fight that can take years, and inverse condemnation side steps that fight. You don't have to prove that the company's negligent, just that the company's equipment was the source of the fire.
This ended in a third thirteen zero point five billion dollars settlement in California in twenty twenty. Joel, do we know how long residents have to make this plan or to decide which course to take.
Well, it's really it's really you don't have to It's not one or the others. So the lawsuits that have been filed against Hawaiian Electric a legend number of different counts, a number of different claims, not all of them are pursuing in verse condemnation. So even ones that are pursuing wrongful death or other claims of negligence, have some have added in verse condemnation and others have not. There's a there's not a history of inverse condemnation in Hawaii in
the wildfire context at all. So Hawaiian courts are going to have to consider, you know, consider that claim, and I think it's likely that they're going to look to California for for what's happened here in making those decisions.
I wonder how in factoring into an ultimate decision, though, it would be taken into account that this is the main utility for Hawaii. It provides power to I believe, ninety five percent of the state's population. Theoretically, if they were to be pursued for billions of dollars in potential liabilities, it could mean its entire existence is in question. Would that be allowed to happen given its importance as a.
Utility, Well, well, that's a great question, and we're just going to see what happens there. The same was true of PG. I mean, PG this utility Hawaiian Electric is just teeny compared to PGEN in California. But in California, the damages were just unbelievable, right, I don't know, you know, if everybody remembers the fire in Paradise that killed more than eighty five people and many other fires, I mean,
the damage was just overwhelming the company. The claims together, not just the inverse condemnation claims, but all the claims together pushed PGN into bankruptcy. And then it was restructured and the victims, the fire victims were eventually paid out in this settlement. So I think the same thing could happen here. The scale is just different.
Joe Rosenblatt, Thank you, Joel. Find the story on the terminal Maui fire lawyers I tactic that got Californian's thirteen point five billion dollars. Thanks for listening to the Sound on podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com