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.
Welcome to the Tuesday edition of Bloomberg Sound On. How is possibly only Tuesday? I'm Joe Matthew in Washington with a lot to talk about. We're going to start with the situation in Ukraine and actually what's happening here in the capital today. It's pretty important as Ukraine makes this last ditch effort to pull something here out of the fire in terms of funding, dispatching top leaders from Kiev
to the capital. They're here now, including President Zelenski's chief of staff, the Defense Ministry, the speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, and President Zelenski himself not in person, but will zoom in to a meeting with senators later on today to make the case here. This is apparently something that the Biden administration helped to arrange and with us at the table to talk about this, among other issues, is Kurt Vulker.
You've heard him on the program before, the former US ambassador to NATO former Special Representative for Ukraine negotiations with US at the table. Mister ambassador, it's great to see you and I appreciate your coming here today. And what's a pretty important moment for the cause in Ukraine. Will this in person cajoling help.
You know, it's always good for the Ukrainians to make the case and to be communicating and to get some reassurance that any assistance they get is being used well. But this is caught up on something completely different. You have the Republicans, basically a majority of the Republicans and a majority of Democrats as well, supporting a to Ukraine. If you took this to a floor vote in the House,
you'd get three hundred and fifty votes. What they are concerned about is doing that without something on this, you know, funding for the southern border, yes, because they want to show that we are taking care of American security in addition to helping Ukraine with its security, and this is something the White House doesn't want to do. So they're trying to turn up the heat on the letter that you saw from omb Yes yesterday. It's such sharp language, it's making it so dire. We're going to run out
of money. Ukraine's gonna fall, It's gonna be a disaster, yes, which is partially true. But the reason it's being emphasized that way is to try to avoid getting that funding for the southern border that they don't want.
So let's unpack a couple of things that you just said there and we'll start with the letter. How is it partially true then? Because Shlanda Jung says Ukraine is out of money and running out of its time, right.
Is that's the part that's true. That's what I'm saying.
It is true that the money that was approved back in December last year was good for a supplemental to carry us till about September. Then we had a small increment on top of that that got us through December. What's in front of the Congress now is enough money to cover us for next year and then we're not gonna have to vote on this again during the election.
That's what everybody wants.
So that is true that that's when that money scheduled to run out. What I'm saying is that the emphasis on this now raising the political temperature has all to do with this package that is trying to get put together in the Senate.
So let's talk more about that for a moment then, because you know, here we are hashing out details on asylum law, talking about the parole system here in Washington. What does Kiev make of this debate and being somehow drawn into the debate about our work.
This is the curse of Ukraine. They are always sucked into our domestic politics in one way or yeah, and they don't like it.
They don't want it.
They were the subject of the impeachment against President Trump, They're the subject of all the Hunter Biden stuff.
They're now the subject.
They're the roadkill or the football that gets passed around when we're talking about immigration policy.
And the argument here is we can't help someone else and their security until we help ourselves.
That is the argument that the Republicans are making, and it's it seems to me, you know, you want We've been in Washington a long time.
We see this almost every year.
People raise the temperature on both sides, They go down to the last minute, and then they finally just stitch it together, pass a package and is done and then forget about it.
Well, so what's the argument from Vladimir Zelenski today that maybe hasn't been heard already, is it that Putin will win if you don't pay, and then that's what lawmakers keep hearing. But it's not moving the.
Needle here, No, it's not. It's not a new argument.
It is a moral clarity argument that they are actually fighting for democracy, of fighting for freedom, against barbarianism, against war crimes, horrific things that the Russians have done and continue to do. And I guess one of the things that he'll be saying now is what we are seeing with hamas terrorism against Israel, it's very similar to what we saw with Russia against Ukraine, just on a larger scale.
Let's talk about what's actually happening on the ground there By the way, we've been so focused on a debate overfunding, we've heard as well that the window could be closing in terms of military opportunity. But we're going into winter. And I believe it was General Mark Kimmitt who said on the program that that's actually a good thing for Ukraine, that it will slow things down, that it might actually be an opportunity if Ukraine should have a gap in funding.
Right.
I think Mark is right on that the Ukrainians have tried to launch a substantial counter offensive. They got a little bit, but not very much. The Russian defenses have held pretty well. The Ukrainians have then turned toward longer range, precision guided attacks against logistics and infrastructure that are sustaining
the Russian forces. If the weather then slows the Russians down in their attacks against Ukraine, they can get a little bit of a breather, and yet they keep the pressure on the Russian logistics through those precision guided attacks that actually could work the Ukraine's advantage and help them emerge from the winter a little bit better shape than the end.
Now, if you went back twenty or thirty years, I know these questions are fun, and you went up on Capitol Hill and got all the Republicans in our ruin and said, hey, we've got we've decimated half the Russian military. A little bit more money, we could actually finish this job, and no Americans got involved. Would that not be sold?
That would be in a heartbeat.
I mean literally, less than five percent of the annual US defense budget has eliminated half of the Russian conventional military capability.
Incredible.
Ukrainian has done the best job of threat reduction of anyone from a US perspective.
Yeah, So what does that leave Ukraine, however, still badly outnumbered.
Well, if you think about the numbers here, Russia has poured about one hundred, one hundred and fifty billion into their war effort against Ukraine, the US and.
The EU twenty.
Two times the size of the Russian economy, and we've put in about the same amount.
So that's why it's stuck.
If we actually leaned into this, Russia would be on its back feet.
It's an interesting oar that doesn't seem to be landing terribly.
Well, it's not right now, it's not And I think one of the things, and again I point back to the Republican members in the House, people like Speaker Johnson have indicated that they want to bring it to the floor, they want to vote in favor, but they just want
to hear clear answers. What is the goal, what's the strategy for achieving the goal, and what are the resources needed to do it so that we actually do it, And instead we get a lot of very vague statements like as long as it takes or what's it?
What are we trying to do?
Well, that's the call that we've been hearing from a number of senators here. There was a particular quote that I was looking for, and I'm not going to find it. But Speaker Johnson wants an endgame. Yeah, he wants to know what the strategy is that'll be different in twenty four than it wasn't twenty three. Is the administration capable of answering that or is that just the wrong question if.
You asked, No, I think it's the right question, And I think what we see is the administration don't want to answer that because they don't want to talk about defeating Russia because of the risks of escalation, the risk of possible nuclear use. They don't want to get sucked into saying something that will then be used against them as saying, oh, you're getting as into World War III.
So they just don't want to answer that.
But I honestly believe that we do have to answer that we can help the Ukrainians defeat the Russian forces so that the war would end that way on better terms, and bring Ukraine into NATO as quickly as possible and stop the war, shut it down. I don't think that anyone really wants to see any nuclear use I don't think the Russian military wants that. I don't think Putin
wants that. But as long as he thinks that they can win, and as long as we keep signaling that we'll never bring him into NATO, as long as the war's going on, that's an incentive for Putin to keep fighting.
Could Ukraine win this war in twenty twenty four.
It could, It could.
I think it all depends on what happens inside Russia. They've lost over a hundred thousand lives fighting this war. That's an awful lot. And you think about the number of wounded. You think about the impact in Russian society. You think about the impact that sanctions have had on travel, on air travel, on Russians not able to use their credit cards when they travel abroad. I mean, this is a significant impact on the Russian society, and you just wonder how long they can sustain that.
Well, we are wondering that, and of course a little lawmakers want to bet on a winner, right, They want someone to say we'll have this thing done by July.
Yeah, I would flip that around.
If I was talking to the lawmakers, I'd say, imagine a situation where Putin wins where Ukraine has defeated, the US and the West appear not to have had the will and the resolve to defend Ukraine and stop Putin from taking over another country. How is that going to go over anywhere in the world. What are the Iranians going to make of that? What are the Chinese going to make of that? What are the North Koreans going
to make of that? You open the door to a lot more risk if you don't help Ukraine win.
A great conversation. I'm so glad you could come in, former ambassador, great to see you, sir. You're always welcome here at the table at Bloomberg.
And now we get to hear from the great Rick Davis.
That's right, Former colleagues, that's right. Rick is here every day and he's joined by Jim Kessler. Today is we assemble our political panel for their take on all of this, Rick Davis, your thoughts today on the conversation that we're having and the impact that it might have. Remember, President Zelenski was here in person in September. He's going to be zooming into this meeting today. But a lot of folks, very high officials, ranking officials from Kiev are actually pressing
flesh today on Capitol Hill in the Senate. Will it matter, Yeah, I think it matters.
It mattered then when President Zelenski came a very well orchestrated trip. He's done this repeatedly at global confabs around the world, in other capitals in NATO, and so I give him immense credit for knowing who his friends are right making sure he spends the time and is senior leadership spend the time talking with answering questions for and representing how much value our money and weapons, systems and support mean to the Ukrainian people and to the war effort.
That being said, I think, you know, bast Volker great shout out, thank you, Kurt. You know, he makes it a very critical point, which is that this is a very nuanced and managed message at this point right nobody is talking about how they get to an ultimate victory over Russia. They you know, it's it's one of these things where it's like, how do you sustain the battle without being too specific on what the ultimate endgame is.
In other words, will you win in six months? Will this surge result in you know, regaining x amount of territory and and so we're in this period of time where uh, it's harder to pinpoint what the positive effects of our support are than it is to be able to talk about what the negative impact would be if we don't support Ukraine. And of course that's what we saw in that O m B language. It focused on
here's the negative impact Congress that you're gonna have. You're going to reward Vladimir Putin if you don't get that money in the pipeline. So, uh, I think this is really a critical period of time. And I'm and I'm and I'm not surprised that that they are the Ukrainian officials are drawing parallels to the attacks uh from Hamas on Israel, because that is what's first of mine right now, it's still a fresh concept.
And and and and.
As as Ambassador Bolker said, it's just a it's a matter of scale. I mean, that same thing's happened uh in Ukraine, and it just happened uh longer and and and and impacted even more people.
Jim Kessler, welcome back. It's good to see you, speaker. Mike Johnson tweets Republicans quote have legitimate concers yarns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid unquote. What should be the answer to that?
That's an unhelpful tweet. Let's just start with that. I thought what Ambassador Volker said was you know, very important and worth listening to. And the most important thing was imagine that Vladimir Putin wins. I mean, that is the case that you, you know, the Republicans need to hear. Look, I'm shocked and disappointed where a lot of elected Republicans are. There is a growing isolationist wing within the Republican Party that says that America is not an essential force for good,
a military force for good out in the world. And we're seeing that in Ukraine. And you know, look, I think we all had greater hopes that the last six months would bring more gains.
Take a quick breath on that, Jim, We're going to have much more time straight ahead with Jim Kesler and Rick Davis.
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.
And all Senators classified briefing is set for a bit later today, a briefing on Ukraine that will feature President Zelenski himself via zoom to make a last ditch pitch for funding. But Senators just got a whole bunch more
news here. We're going to talk about this. We'll talk through all of it in fact with our panel, Jim Kesler from Third Way, Democratic analyst and Republican strategist, Rick Davis, BLOOMBERGOL contributors or with us here with breaking news now NBC and Politico both reporting that the coach relents, Senator
Tommy Tuberville is releasing his holds. He's lifting his holds on a number of military promotions that of course have been held up for months here in his lone man protest against the abortion travel policy at the Pentagon details Now, this happened behind closed doors at a GOP lunch in a short time ago. Tubberville will release holds except for four stars. We actually told you about this in reporting a couple of weeks ago that this might be the
off ramp, the form that this takes. Let them all go, but the four stars. Let these families who have been holding personal decisions, keeping kids out of school, not being able to move and so forth, let them go and get some movement here. This of course following a rule change that Senator Chuck Schumer brought forth. And that's where we'll start with our panel here, Jim Kessler. They said it would take Republicans to end this. Was it in fact Chuck Schumer that paved the road?
Well he did.
And you know, let's give credit to Mitch McConnell on this too, because you know he wanted this to end as well. Trooperville caved. Let's be clear, he should have caved six months ago. We have too many performance artists in the US Congress and in the US Senate right now. This was an absolute pointless waste of time for the United States Senate. Our military leaders did not need this.
Congratulations to Chuck Schumer for you know, twisting his arms, and congratulations from Mitch McConnell for showing his impatience on this.
What do you think, Rick Davis, We've talked about this a lot. We've even had Tommy Tuberville come on to defend his position. Here. Was it that rule change? Was it the threat of finally have Republicans point him in a different direction that changed his view? Yeah?
Absolutely, I mean nothing else actually happened. In fact, as I understand from the reporting, he even said that the deal he would like to do is he'll lift the hold on four hundred nominations for confirmation. If Republicans chose to vote against the standing rule, that would have undermined his ability to block any of them. So look, I mean, nobody wanted to change the Senate rule. They shouldn't have had to. As Jim Kessler said that none of this
should have been happening. Along the way, Tommy Tubberville, the coach, did a lot to diminish our military and his sort of performance art around abortion. And at the end of the day, he's not going to get anything other than now a group of four stars who have to cowtow
to him in order to get their confirmations passed. I mean, why you would let four hundred nominations go forward and hold up the people who are most responsible for making the decisions about our country's security abroad and keep them locked up. It makes no sense. But nothing he has done on this issue has made much sense today.
What is the point of that, Jim, Is that sort of the equivalent of the you know, the the top one percent, they're elitists or something. He's disparaged high ranking generals before saying they're staff does all the work is at the point of that delineation with the four stars.
So you're asking me to get into the head of these senators Alabama here. It's not a place I generally try and tread. Look, I think he's trying to get some big leaf from showing that he's still standing on some sort of principle while he beats a belated but
at this point haste to retreat. You know, there is this myth that there's wokeness in the arts and in the military that I think is that again, I think it plays on social media and on some cable channels, and you know, we just have too much, too many people playing to the bleachers on this in the United States Senate. And he backed down ninety five percent of the way, you know, hopefully back down the other five percent when you know there's there's no victory for him to find here.
Well, I wonder what plane of the bleachers means for border reform here, Rick, because that's what we were getting to at the top of the hour. Here this pitch from top brass in Ukraine trying to unlock funding here in the US, having heard from the White House that they're out of money. We're all out of money in funding this war effort by the end of the year. It all hinges on a border deal, though we know that, and the language from those who are directly involved is remarkable.
Senator corn And to NBC News, this is not a traditional negotiation. This is a price that has to be paid in order to get the supplemental. They're not interested in dancing with Democrats here. They want a certain measure of reform here that's going to have to unlock the Ukraine money. Speaker Johnson says, it's HR two or nothing. Now, look at Jim Langford, Republican, who's leading the negotiations. He says,
we're going to get it resolved. But I'm got to pick up twenty senators, twenty Democrats rather in the Senate to get to sixty. Chris Murphy says, I understand the consequences of the tactic Republicans have decided to use, and it's Vladimir Putin marching into Europe. Does this sound like we're close to a deal? Rick, Yeah, it actually does.
That means there's press rise.
Just a couple of days ago we were talking about they killed the negotiation. On Friday, everybody went home. We thought there'd be progress.
There wasn't.
Now after twenty four hours in town, we've got all these different scenarios and ironically, none of them have anything to do with the policy that Republicans are trying to get embedded. It's like, how do you count votes? And look, this is how Washington works. It used to be called a trade.
I'll give you.
What you want if you give me what I want, and we'll call that a deal.
Now it's called extortion.
If you want funding for Ukraine and for Israel and for Taiwan, then you have to give me my southern border funding the way I want it and the rules that go along with it. I actually think this is a positive. It's a crappy way to do business. Welcome to Washington. But if we could get border security or some you know, sort of manifestation of that along with
funding these important fights that the West is endorsed. You know, I'll take it as I can get it, As ambassad Volker said, if you got that bill in front of the House, it doesn't matter what the speaker says. They're three hundred and fifty votes. They're going to say, let's go forward.
Isn't that something Jim Kesseler, you worked for Chuck Schumer, maybe you can get into his bran a little bit here, because Jim Langford, who's actually touching Democrats, he's he's actually dealing with this in a real way and leading negotiations, says HR two did not get a single Democrat vote in the House. So what does Chuck Schumer think he can sell Democrats in the Senate.
Well, let me just say first, I think Rick Davis is right. I looked at this blow up and by first thought was I think they're getting close to a deal. I mean, it's always darkest before the dawn. And you know the truth is is that the right people are in the room on this. And you know Chris Murphy is the right Democrat. Pearston cinema former Democrat now and independent.
She's the right person in the room. The Republicans there, Langford and others like they're the right people, and this feels like something is going to get done, and you know, I think Schumer probably feels this way as well. I just want to say though, on the border, that look, Republicans have always had an advantage on this issue because if nothing gets done, if there's chaos at the border, it benefits Republicans politically, and that's been the way it's
been for over twenty years now. So they get to play a stronger hand on this and force Democratic concessions because walking away bears very little price for them. But I'm fairly optimistic that we're going to get something done, more so than I was forty eight hours ago.
Does it include actual asylum law changed?
Jim My guess is though will be some asylum law changes. I mean, there's plenty of Democrats who agree that there needs to be some changes to asylum. And you need to create a system that is you know, fair, fast and final with asylum. But it has to be fair and it has to be you know, a coherent, fast system. It can't be a complete closed door, which some Republicans want. Their asylum is legit, but it does need reforms.
I hope people appreciate what we have going here on this program. These are two individuals in Jim and Rick, who have actually been in the room for these kind of negotiations. You can find a lot of places where we'll have a panel scream at each other and get nowhere, but these are the real insights.
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.
Senator Tommy Tuberville and his single man blockade against military promotions and protest of the panic on abortion travel policy, which we've talked about endlessly here on this program. He appears to be buckling the pressure from within his own party, knowing that there was a rule change that would allow them to move these promotions on block and Chuck Schumer now says that he does plan to move military promotions
as soon as possible. It's not all of them, though, Tuberville says he's lifting the hold on all promotions shy of four star generals, and we're trying to get our heads around the logic there, but this is moving as we have a grand debate over border security underway here, a big ask on Ukraine, as we talked about earlier.
President Zelenski speaking remotely with senators and classified all senators briefing today, and we have a lot to talk about with Stephanie Murphy, the former congresswoman from Florida, is with us, who of course served on the January sixth committee. Back with us at the table today in Washington. Welcome back to the capital. It's lovely to have you, and it's good to see you. I didn't think i'd be talking
about Tommy Talk reveal today. And I know that you have a background at the Defense Department, and it's something we discussed before in a state of course that you represented teaming with veterans and active members of the military. Why would you stop at four stars? Do you get that?
I don't actually get it, and I think it's incredibly damaging to our Defense Department, but also to our national security. We are in a situation where we have a ground war in Europe, we have war in the Middle East. We need leadership in those post like yesterday, and so I've never really understood why he wanted to hold those things up, putting our national security at jeopardy for his own personal political motives.
Well, you know, even when we asked him here at Bloomberg, he seemed to kind of resent the upper ranks of the military as being elitist, is relying on staff. They don't do a lot, They didn't get a lot done. Anyway, he was quoted as saying, never mind the whole wokeism and all of that, is that what this is some kind of poke at elitism in the military.
You know, if you work at the Department of Defense, you know that the general officers and the flag officers provide incredible leadership. And our system of leadership in our military is the advantage that we have over a lot of our adversaries. You know, when you look at the Russian War, like they talk about how Russia's army is basically failing because they don't have good military leadership. So I don't think that he's right in criticizing our flag
and general officer ranks. They provide important role in both the Department and as well as out in the field.
Well, I felt like it's worth asking someone who's actually done this before, because you hear a lot from folks who have never served, never worked for DoD and it's an easy target. Sometimes. In the case of Tommy Teberville, you wonder if this chink in the armor, it's more than that. Obviously more than half of the promotions he's been holding up or being lifted. But maybe this leads to him to stand down altogether. Republicans be the ones to make that happen.
I certainly hope so. Republicans for so long have wrapped themselves in the American flag. Supposedly, the people who support the military, support law enforcement, are supposed to be strong on national security. For them to have somebody who's never served in uniform, might I stand in the way of
these confirmations, is really kind of shameful. I'm glad that they've finally approved enough pressure on him that he's standing down, but he needs to stand all the way down and allow the four stars to get confirmed as well.
It's pretty remarkable how long this has been going on for. There's a lot more to talk about, as I mentioned here, and boy, it must be days like these you missed the job. I say that sarcastically, because we've got a lot on the line, and it's riding on a deal on border security. We spent the last hour with Jim Kessler and Rick Davis, who both were encouraged by some of the rhetoric, the frustration, the exasperation that we're hearing from members on both sides, suggesting that that is used
the darkest before dawn kind of moment here. What are you hearing from your former colleagues and having been in the middle of this yourself, are we capable of doing this right now?
Well, the Congress is so narrowly held, both in the Senate and in the House, and the House has demonstrated that it is quite chaotic, this Congress, So is it capable of anything.
It's kind of figure outw to fund the government, that's.
Right, and they've kicked that can down the road into next year. But they're really trying to focus on this supplemental that addresses Israel and Indo Pacific as well as Ukraine and border security. But you have to have people who are willing to negotiate and to get to yes. And my understanding is over the weekend, the Republicans doubled down on positions that just aren't going to be palatable and aren't in a place of moving off of those
or even trying to find common ground. Hopefully, as we get closer to the day that they get to leave for the holiday, that will create some pressure and get people in a more positive mood maybe willing to negotiate.
So what's the fault line for Democrats? Because we're hearing from members, particularly those who might be up for reelection, that they might be open to changes to asylum law in principle, changes to parole that allow the president to make humanitarian exceptions might be a bridge too far. Where are the fault lines in this?
You know, I think any changes in the policy has to also begin with bolstering our actual border security. So none of the programs that we have in place for people to seek asylum or legal status in the United States really work unless we actually know who's coming in and out. And so that's really the first line that they have to be able to agree on, is that some amount of resources for border security, and then we can look at changing our programs and creating legal pathways,
whether that's asylum or an expanded visa program. And you know, we're really starting to talk about maybe a little more comprehensive immigration reform that has all of those free elements, which would be you don't have enough time for that.
We've been waiting a generation for that to happen. There was a quote from John Cornyn that jumped off the page to me in a conversation with NBC News. This is not a traditional negotiation. This is a price that has to be paid in order to get the supplemental which sounds like extortion.
You know, this is something that happens in Washington all the time. When there is broad five partisan support, as there is for Ukraine funding or Israel funding, it becomes a leverage point for something that has a little less support and is a little more difficult. And I think that's why you see the supplemental funding lumped together with border security.
Well, so maybe this is an opportunity, though maybe I don't know if you're optimistic about this or not. Do we flip this around and say that this is in fact an opportunity to finally unlock an agreement on border funding because of the urgency behind Ukraine and Israel.
I certainly hope. So I'm an optimist, and I think that, you know, maybe one of the interesting outcome of having such narrowly held congresses and divided government is a push to more bipartisanship because you can't get it done with just one party anymore.
Sure right, Wouldn't Democrats love to go on the trail this year though, and say, hey, we helped to solve the border crisis.
I think they need toy. The president needs this. He needs to not only be able to have a win as it relates to foreign policy and national security, but also domestic border security.
Your governor in Florida certainly talks about it a lot. Sure would would that take the teeth out of that argument for Joe Biden even in the presidential campaign trail, because he'll have to face this one way or the other.
I think it would defang at least one of the attack lines against him. I think the American people feel both some economic insecurity as well as some physical insecurity, and this would at least address the physical security part in some measure if they felt like we were addressing the border security issues.
Do you believe the administration that Ukraine is out of money? Who were out of time?
You know?
I believe that Congress likes to test those deadlines.
You know when they test.
I'm not sure I.
Would, but I'm somebody who believes in supporting our allies and fighting against authoritarians. But that's what you know. Congress works best when it has a deadline, and they've put that deadline out at the end of the year. Hopefully they can clear this out of the way so that when they come back from the holiday break they can focus on appropriations.
Funding concept, actual spending bills. Congresswoman, how dare you? We're spending time with Stephanie Murphy, the congresswoman from Florida. Mike Johnson speaking today the Speaker of the House about the January sixth committee, and I thought, okay, well, we need to get the congresswoman's reaction to this. I don't know if you heard what he said, but a couple of days ago he decided to release all of the security
footage from January sixth. Today he implied that more needs to be done to obscure the faces of the rioters before the rest is released, so they are not somehow targeted by DOJ And he went on to say this about the work of the committee. This is literally just a couple of hours ago. Speaker Mike Johnson, I think.
The January sixth committee was a partisan exercise. They claimed that it was bipartisan, but I think we all recognized that the two Republican members that served on that committee had another agenda. I think that what we got was a biased report. I think they hit some of the important evidence. And look, we want the American people to draw their own conclusions.
And they will by hearing conversations like these, So I want you to react or respond the way that you see fit. But knowing that Mike Johnson tried to help overturn the twenty twenty election results in writing that amicus brief on the Texas case, what is he trying to do here?
You know, it's really deeply disappointing that the Speaker of the House is trying to shield people who actually attacked the House in the Capitol physically on January sixth. But it isn't surprising, as you said, he was a part of one of the efforts to overturn the outcome of a free and fair election. But it should underscore for
Americans the importance of this coming election. Imagine if on January sixth, we have a Speaker Johnson with the gabble, and he's able to delay the certification of presidential which was what they tried to do on January sixth. The purpose was to delay the certification. I think we'd be in a lot of trouble as a democracy. And so, you know, we are seeing signs all over the place
how important this next election is. And I know everybody always says this is the most important election for years, every four years, but I honestly.
Was more important every four years.
Why well, when we're looking at the possibility of walking ourselves into electing a dictator or somebody who intends to use authoritarian means to govern. You know, I believe the former present when he says he will seek retribution when he lives up to the things that he promises that he's going to do. And so I think that's a really a dangerous situation to put our democracy.
You think reelecting Donald Trump is electing a dictator.
He has made statements about how he plans on using his power, about how he plans on changing the Department of Justice, about how he plans on going after political opponents.
You think it meets that definition.
I definitely think it has shades of authoritarianism and definitely is not democratic democratic.
Let me push it a step further. Liz Cheney was on TV this morning, and her book has been quite the trove of over the past couple of days. The book just being released today, I believe. She was asked by NBC News if Donald Trump was elected, if he would ever leave, if you would attempt to overstay his term. She said one hundred percent yes, that if he is re elected, he will try to hold onto power as long as possible and never leave the White House. Do you agree with that?
You might remember that the former president remarked in awe at President She's ability to make himself stay in.
Power for rests Stump speech now right.
And so in January sixth was an attempt to stay. The difference was that there were people involved who stood up to him, Republicans primarily, who wouldn't let their commitment to him override their commitment to this country. I'm not sure we'll be so lucky the next time.
It must be strange for you to rationalize the work that you did on the January sixth Committee as a career defining moment. You can correct me if I'm wrong. You've been lauded for it. You'll be awarded again for it tomorrow in New York. To rationalize that with what you're hearing from the Speaker of the House today was such an extreme contrast.
You know, to me, my service on January sixth was a patriotic thing to do. I love this country, and I know you know you fight hard in campaigns for your team to win, but when you don't, you accept the loss and you have a peaceful transfer of power. That's core to maintaining our democracy is a peaceful transfer
of power. And I couldn't believe that, as somebody who had escaped a country that made political transitions through violence, that I found myself on January sixth hiding in the basement of the Capitol while my fellow Americans ransacked the building in an effort to overturn the elections. So my service on January sixth was my patriotic duty to shed light on what happened and to ensure that it never happens again.
Incredible. I appreciate your answering that the way you did. Stephanie Murphy, the former congresswoman Democrat from Florida, thank you for always being with us when you come to Washington. It's great to see you again. I've bet a great Thanksgiving. Happy new You're in advance if we don't see it before then, but we'll try to fix that. I'm Joe Matthew on the fastest show in Politics. Stay with us US here on the radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube. 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 played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Not a very fun day in the classroom for the presidents of some of America's top universities today, including Harvard. This hearing underway on Capitol Hill that we told you about with the presidents of Harvard, Mit, and Penn. It has to do with anti semitism on campus, and you can imagine where lawmakers are going on this. They've received enormous criticism for the language and the actions that we've heard and seen from pro Palestinian protesters on these campuses.
Here's a taste with Harvard President Gay, who is speaking with at least Dephonic earlier, Claudine Gay of Harvard. Again with your counterparts from pen and mights he here's Stephonic and Gay in the hearing earlier.
I will say again that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.
Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard's code of conduct? Or is it allowed at Harvard?
It is at odds with the values of Harvard.
Can you not say here that it is against the code of conduct at Harvard?
We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It's when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying.
Does that speech not cost that barrier? Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel.
That's more of what I expect here, and we could keep going with it as we introduce Wendy Benjamins into the conversation of Chris Bloomberg's senior Washington editor in a regular voice here on the program. This is an interesting exercise because I'm not sure anything comes of it. Will there be new policies or is this just a public scolding from some angry lawmakers.
Well, that's what the lawmakers exactly are saying, is that these are very nice words that doctor Gay and the others are saying that they don't tolerate hate speech, and they don't tolerate their students feeling threatened, etc.
Etc.
But Okay, then what's next seems to be the big question here? Are they going to institute policies? And there's a very fine line between instituting policies against threatening speech and squelching the freedom of speech on a university campus where one is supposed to be able to air all the views. So I don't envy being in the presidence
of the university's shoes. On the other hand, right outside the hearing room, as our field producer Tyler Kendall was telling us, there were it was incredibly angry and like pre fight pushing and stuff like that from pro Palestinian protesters at pro Israeli protesters. So it was going on in real time just outside the door.
Yeah, really incredible optics here, And you wonder if it's not lawmakers who will end up make a difference, but very wealthy alumni right who are not only protesting think of Bill Ackman, think of even Mitt Romney, but pulling back on money.
Right, some of them, who are some of the best grassroots fundraisers for these universities, have decided, I mean in terms of collecting other alumni donations and giving them. They are down to one dollar donations in protests. And then while this hearing was going on, a group of U Penn students sued the university in a Philadelphia court for not doing enough to protect them on campus. So it's just a very very tense and difficult. This is almost
the culmination of what's been happening on campuses for a while. Yes, as a lot of views are being heard, the word you didn't always be heard on campuses.
Listen to Penn's Liz McGill. Everyone has their own approach here and how she interacted with lawmakers today.
This is from opening Anti Semitism, an old, viral and pernicious evil has been steadily rising in our society, and these world events have dramatically accelerated that surge. Few places have proven immune, including Philadelphia and campuses like ours. This is unacceptable. We immediately investigate any hateful act, cooperating with
both law enforcement and the FBI. Where we have identified individuals who've committed these acts in violation of either policy or law, we initiate disciplinary proceedings and engage law enforcement.
Isn't that a more effective message? Here's the action which.
Takes Yes, that is a much just what I was thinking before you as that much more effective message, much
more calming congress down, much more calming down. And what they really don't want is any federal oversight or pulling back of grants or things like that that these that I mean, this is a pocketbook issue for these universities, not only alumni donations as we mentioned earlier, but students not wanting to go there, and then of course the federal government pulling back on on any large ass they give they give the university. So yes, I think here's
what I'm going to do about it. Isn't better response.
We'll see what comes, if anything, of this hearing and talk about it with our pal Wendy Benjaminson. But it's a debate. We're looking forward to tomorrow night. We got the lineup only for this time, right. Actually, this is terrible. I had to stop and think, well, wait, who else was there?
Was?
Tim Scott?
Was Tim Scott the last time?
I don't know if that makes a difference for any of these four. It's going to be DeSantis, Haley, Christy Ramaswami. What's the strategy for any of them?
Is this?
I mean, who's watching? Does it matter? This is the big race for second big deal right.
Right exactly our college Philip Bump and the Washington Post had a headline today that said, Nikki Haley surges dot dot dot to double digits.
You know, this is to thirty points behind Trump, right.
I think there is still benefit in hearing from the alternatives. You know, Trump is on a glide path to win Iowa and go on and on and win the nomination. On the other hand, the governor endorsed somebody else. Nikki Hilly is doing well in New Hampshire. There is a lot of discomfit among you know, Republicans with Donald Trump, and so if they are looking for an alternative. Okay, your chart shows Hally as ten percent to Donald Trumps sixty one. You know, maybe there's twenty twenty eight.
After and that's nationally realizing she's doing better in New Hampshire she's doing. You know. Alan Lickman was calling us out on Balance of Power last evening for being part of essentially a media narrative that this is some sort of mainstream media narrative that there's no real difference between what Nikki Haley and Ronda Santis are doing. They're both losing badly to Donald Trump.
Well at the moment they are. But he does have a point that let's see what happens when the votes are taken.
Yes, but do you qualify momentum as a real thing, because that's what we're talking about here.
Well, yeah, I mean momentum works until it doesn't, right, I mean he has momentum and then he could say something as she has. She does have moments.
Described as a wounded bird if you asked right.
Right, he is getting. The attention he's getting is increasingly negative. The attention she is getting Haley is increasingly positive. She has also got the benefit of people who are looking whose primary goal is to stop Donald Trump from coming back to the White House, and it doesn't really matter to them who it is as long as it's not Donald Trump. Jamie Diamond was suggesting that even Democrats give to Nicki Haley, and I think Reid Hoffman today gave
to Nicki Haley two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. That's not jump change. And so you know, yes, I guess she does have momentum. The question is will it be enough to beat him in a significant state of course, right after New Hampshire for the Republicans of South Carolina, her home state.
And a chance to codify what may.
Have just happened right exactly. With Tim Scott out of the running, he was the South Carolina Senator. That could be that South Carolinians will come around for her. On the other hand, he got tremendously cheered at a stadium in South Carolina a couple of weeks ago.
I have to ask you, Wendy, while you're with us, about whether young people are showing up. This new youth vote poll from Harvard the Institute for Politics pretty interesting. Here. It finds just forty nine percent of eighteen to twenty nine year olds definitely planned to vote for president forty nine percent. That's down from fifty seven percent in twenty nineteen.
Was good.
One Hispanic Americans had the steepest drop Black American Young Black American voter's second steepest. They've basically ruled out both of these old guys. As they see it, they are what we called double haters. That's right, Okay, if you're looking at eighteen to thirty year olds, though, that's coming out of Joe Biden's side, if anywhere, it.
Is largely coming out of Joe Biden's height. I'm sure there are young people to support Donald Trump, but yes, mostly the reason they turned out so much in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty, well, first let's start at they turned out incredibly in two thousand and eight to elect Barack Obama because that was going to be part of history,
and it's fun to be part of history. But twenty sixteen and twenty twenty, it was an anti Trump movement, and Biden seemed like their kind of guy, and he promised a lot of things on climate and student loans and all these things. Well, here we are four years later, and the bill has come due, and we have an eighty one year old Democratic president and a seventy eight year old likely challenger and people eighteen to thirty. I mean, these guys are their grandparents' age. They just don't see
they don't see politics the same way. They don't see the world the same way. They've grown up in a completely different world than these guys did, and so yes, I think their thought is forget it, I'll just stay home, which is terrible because we need their voice here.
We are, I guess six months to a year. But the bill has come due, boy, and Wendy has receipts. It's great to see you as always, Wendy Benjamins in Bloomberg Washington, Senior Editor. 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.