Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo, car Play, and then Roun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
I have to say here in Washington, we're still paying a lot of attention to what's happening up in New York because big news from Governor Kapi Hochel today, Joe indefinitely postponing the congestion pricing tax that was set to go into effect at the end of this month. That's obviously was going to raise a ton of money, funnel
it towards transit. Climate activists were happy about it, and yet it also could have had some negative political implications potentially for say, vulnerable Democrats in the state of New York. And a world war factored into this decision.
That's look, there's some reporting on this. Politico says that the call came from Washington. Potentially in a world war, pricing is number one issue in the you know, for Democrats, you have this deal with a lawsuit already in place from the state of New Jersey. Maybe not a great look when you're trying to win a Democratic majority in the House. Whether Hakeim Jeffries was directly involved not something
that we can verify. But there's a lot of messaging coming out of the House right now in the Senate, as we discussed earlier.
That's why it's good to have Megan Scully with us ED.
It's our congressional coverage here in Washington, d C. As it gets to pick your issue or pick your day, chamber, pick your party, everyone has a message.
To send the absolutely and we're seeing it in both chambers this week. It seems to be a lot of social issues, whether it's on spending bills in the House or on votes on contraception and IVF and whatnot that are planned in the Senate well.
On the contraception the Right to Contraception Act is what the Senate is going to be voting on today. Is it likely that it will pass or Republicans are going to not vote for it and say that it was all just, you know, election year gimmicks on the part of Democrats, even if it could hurt them being on the record voting against access to contraception.
I think we're going to see it probably not getting the sixty votes necessary. Even if it were to, it would not pass in the House. This bill isn't going anywhere. It's a pure messaging bill, and it's something we're going to see more and more of in both chambers. Chuck Schumer himself has said they planned several votes over the next several weeks specifically targeting these issues.
Messaging comes in a lot of different forms. You could hold a hearing too, and we see a lot of those. That's kind of been a full time occupation for the Judiciary Committee and for the Oversight Committee, whether it's Hunter Biden we're talking about in the case of this week Merrick Garland, which was kind of the most recent example of a hearing moving far away from what its intended purpose originally was just so we could browbeat a member
of the administration. So we're not making laws, we're making commercials.
Absolutely, you're seeing campaigning essentially moved to Capitol Hill, even though technically they're not to be campaigning from the capital. This happens every cycle. This year, given the stakes with the presidential election year and both chambers in play, we're seeing it a little earlier than usual, I think.
Well, given that it is an election year, it also raises the question around the funding battle to come. Considering September thirtieth is the end of the fiscal year, the deadline to fund the government for the next one that comes, what's five weeks out from election day, So everybody assumes that the can will be kicked down the road. And yet we are seeing the House, as you suggested earlier, trying to move today on at least one appropriation's bill.
Should we take this as a sign that they're getting ahead on their work or they're just starting what could be a very bitter partisan fight early.
I would say starting a bitter partisan fight early. The bill that passed the House today, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Bill, is the least contentious of all of the spending bills. It's usually the bill that they use as the engine to push other spending bills through, and it is locked in a bitter part isan debate. The White House is threatened to veto it because it cuts military construction spending. It also has language and a policy
language strongly opposed by Democrats. To really restrict diversity and inclusion efforts. It would ban any gender affirming care or taxpayer dollars being used for gender affirming care at the VA, and a litany of other things that Democrats really oppose but that Republicans can use to sell to their base.
The word from Katie Britt was the.
Scary summer, let me get it, the summer of scare tactics and a campaign of fear mongering. She called this vote today on contraception. But that's essentially what we're hearing from both parties. They seem to agree on that.
Yes, yes, I mean they're both equally messaging. Yes, they're both equally using their majorities in each chamber to send these messages to really mobilize their base and to use this for fundraising. You know, we saw last week with Trump's conviction and how Republicans were actually both sides were able to mobilize quickly on that to rally their bases to raise money, and we're going to see that on all of these.
Very high profile bills that.
Are not going to become law.
So much to look forward too. Bloomberg's Megan Scully, who leads our congressional coverage, thank you so much. And of course, Joe, you brought this up with Megan just a moment ago. The pretty contentious hearing we saw in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday when the Attorney General Mayor Garland was testifying in exchanges that sometimes got pretty fiery, including this one with Republican Congressman from Florida Matt Gates.
Our concern is that the facts in the law aren't being followed. A target is acquired here. Trump.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with anything you just said, but I'm not going to comment on it.
Okay, so you won't comment on it, mister Attorney General, but you had no problem dispatching Matthew Colangelo.
Who's Matthew Colt is false?
I did not dispatch matth Colangul Matthew Colangelo. Matthew Clangelo.
For more reaction to what we saw yesterday and what we continually see in terms of messaging from Capitol Hill, please to say former Congressman Denver Riggleman is with us. Of course, We're a Republican from Virginia. Welcome back to balance and power. So great to have you back on
Bloomberg TV and Radio. Whether it is what went down in the Judiciary Committee yesterday with Merritt Garland in the hot seat, or just what we have heard over the course of the last almost week from congressional Republicans in the aftermath of Donald Trump's guilty verdict in New York last week. What do you make of it all?
I think, by the way, thanks for having me on again. It's always great to be here with you all. I think when they saw the polling after Trump's conviction, I think you're seeing some panic, especially from the questions and what you see from people like Matt Gads from Marjorie Taylor Green is really not just panic. It's just throwing
out as much. It's almost like throwing as much opaque disinformation or just asking questions, which is what they always say in order to get talking points for their own fundraising, to make sure that they keep President Trump happy at mar A Lago. And it really has nothing to do with facts. The issue is is a lot of the American public can't discern between facts and fiction when you actually have leaders oh the free world, congressional representatives putting
that kind of stuff out. But I think what you're saying really is is panic questioning and panic screaming going on from the law of the far right especially those close to Trump and mar A Lago. And that's what I make of it, because that's what they do.
Right.
You're messaging to your constituency, constituency, not necessarily to the American public at large.
Well, i'll tell you, Denver, it's good to have you back.
While we're talking specifically about this Merrick Garland hearing. Yesterday, Andy Biggs, Chip Roy, Tom Massey, three members of the Freedom Caucus sent Merrick Garland a letter about January sixth.
I brought this up yesterday.
I don't mean to belabor it, but you were deeply involved in the investigation into the January sixth riots, and they'd said in this letter that they wanted to explore the FBI's possible involvement in facilitating the events of January sixth, the involvement in facilitating the sacking of the US capital. We've heard this from certain members of Congress before that there were unmarked vans, that there were FBI agents in
the crowd trying to stir all of this up. But this is now going to be on the record from this hearing. Denver, what do you do with that?
I think you do exactly what you should do as a sane, rational human as you scoff it and you destroy them with facts and data. And the facts and data are this. Did they read the over one thousand charging documents? Have they actually read the sentencing guidelines? Have they seen the evidence? Do they knew the number of
weapons that were there? Are they really going to go down this QAnon rabbit hole of a deep state globalist false flag, which is exactly what they're inferring, because again they're talking to a base that's breathless with this kind of belief systems.
This is a religion.
Now, I would say that, you know, when you're talking about J six, when you're talking about QAnon, I think what they're trying to do is they're trying to make J six people into veterans of some kind of political war where they are on the right side of history. And a lot of that has to do with making Donald Trump happy. This all goes back to mar A Lago.
It all goes back to their fundraising, goes back to their polling, It goes back to cynicism and the very fact either they're deliberately oubts, either they're stupid right, or they're cynical right, and all that is not good for the American public. But the fact that they're going down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole in twenty twenty four when everything has been debunked and it's absolutely ludicrous. You know,
maybe they're watching Skinwalk or Ranch too much. You know, I think maybe that's where we're at right now as far as these congressional representatives.
But it's not just members of Congress Denver. You also have former President Trump repeatedly referring to those who've been incarcerated because of their involvement in January sixth as hostages. Especially, consider this happened three and a half years ago, and we are still reltigating the events surrounding it, what exactly happened, who was involved, who was at fault? And this is still an ongoing live conversation, and Donald Trump uses language
like that still to this day repeatedly. Is it too late? At this point? We're too far gone for the truth to really permeate.
It's a great question.
You know, a lot of this is already baked in, and I you know, I've been telling people this and you know we've talked before. The best question, right is the fact is that that people believe that J six was a some peaceful terrorist thing that a couple people got out of hand. I don't know how we turn that regardless of evidence, right, And what Trump is saying to his supporters and what his congressional sick offense are saying is, you know, don't believe your lying eyes, believe us.
You know, you got to remember too, is Donald Trump's the same guy who retweeted that you know, Obama and Biden killed Seal Team six. I mean, this isn't a guy he's either again completely cynical or no, he's lying, an incredible grifter of disinformation, or he's fairly ignorant. Right, he definitely has you know, he's one piece of wood, shy of accord, right. I mean, that's that's that's the
only way that you can look at this. And I think again, we had to be brutally honest about what we're seeing as we're seeing disinformation and conspiracy theories being propagated from the former president of the United States all the way down to congressional members and to leaders of the Republican Party.
Well, it's interesting, you know, Denver, you hear this line to take people at their word, you know, believe people when they show you who they are. Donald Trump is talking to Newsmax and float to the possibility of imprisoning his political opponents if he becomes president.
Again.
This is not new, he said, not that long ago.
It was in June.
I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of America, Joe Biden.
Do you take him at his word?
Yes, I mean he's you know, he likes to do what he says. You know, a lot of it's ridiculous and it's half baked. I think what you're going to see the difference though, between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty four. If you know Donald Trump is to win and it's at the cabinet he picks, He's going to value loyalty over any type of competency. And I think that's what should worry individuals, is that if anybody like the Cash hotels, or Rick Rennel's or Mike Flynn's or in the conversation,
for being in the cabinet, that's a real issue. Or the Matt gateses right, which has been in the conversation. I mean, you have really some of the least talented individuals to ever serve in the American government that would actually be in there and also completely under the thumb of Donald Trump and his sycophants. Right, and you see the R and C's already bought by so you know, believe in what they say? How about this though? And I'm want to ask you all this too, and I
know you're asking me questions. I'm sorry, but you know somebody who even says that and doesn't mean it? What's wrong with them?
Right?
Is that a joke? Right? And that's the thing too, is that you're saying, well, do you believe him? Yes? But if he's if he's just spouting bs, why would somebody who actually held the highest you know, office in the land be saying that anyway? It's it's irresponsible and it goes to a judgment and maybe he's a band stage and maybe he's losing something upstairs.
That's the not Kaylee, that you hear or the respe last of the year's either locker room talk or he's joking around. You know, take the man seriously, not the message.
Isn't that the line we used to hear?
Yeahs to have more on that, No, exactly right now, I was just listening to you, and that's exactly right. I mean, you're on it, right, is that then they'll say, well, he's just joking, you know. Goodness gracious, you know, they say the worst, most awful, horrible things that goes after the very structures of our American institutions and government, and then somehow it's a joke. It's the same thing that the in sells pool. It's the same thing that QAnon conspiracy,
theorist pool. It's just the same thing. And it's just the same people doing the same thing and pushing the same message every day.
Well, in one of those messages is the unfairness of the US justice system, the idea that it's being weaponized against Donald Trump specifically. And yet a member of the Biden family is currently in trial in Delaware, Hunter Biden, Denver,
we should disclose. I believe you know him quite well, but especially given what we have seen the panic you were describing in the aftermath of Trump's guilty verdict, what happens if a Hunter Biden is convicted of these federal gun crimes with which he's charged, or if he's not, if he's found innocent, does that just make all of this worse.
You know, I mentioned this a little bit yesterday, and again it's pretty interesting. What if he's convicted and goes to jail. What if he's convicted and gets probation. What if he's convicted and gets community service. What if he's convicted and gets counseling, What if he's not convicted. All these things I think have different levels of response. What's going to be very difficult for any Trump apologist or
messaging if Biden is convicted at all. Number one, Wow, that's you know, it's going to take away a huge talking point. And I think, by the way, if we can go full circle, I think that's why they're going after Merrick Garland. They need another target because the Biden impeachment stuff is over. It's been proven completely ridiculous. All the laptop stuff's gone, right, So now what you have right now is that they're trying to actually latch onto something.
But if Biden, if Hunter is actually convicted of this gun charge, and you have to let law and order take its course, right and President Joe Biden said that too. He's convicted of this and gets probation, and it's pretty dire. I think it's going to be very difficult for any of the mega types to actually go after it. If he gets jail time, which would be very unfortunate based on his addiction and this gun charge, that would be something.
But you know what I find amazing is that the Lindsay Grahams and people like that are starting to come out saying why are they actually going after him based on this gun charge where I think there's just so many, so little people have actually been actually prosecuted for this. So I think you're seeing a real issue here. Hunter could be found guilty if he gets probation or jail time, I think it's going to be very difficult for the Trump acolytes to actually play what's going on with Trump
in a good way. But if he's innocent, I think then you're going to see conspiracy theory screaming happening at the top of everybody's lungs. I mean, hair on fire, ridiculousness.
Come back and see us and when we get a verdict. Denver. It's good to see you, Denver.
But I love to talk with Republican congressman from Virginia. It's always a pleasure to get you back on Bloomberg TV and radio. Never a dull moment, Kayley, even when we're not making laws in Washington.
I think we've learned here today.
Yeah, absolutely, messaging bills.
That's correct, with a lot more word game where those came from. Stay with us on the Fastest show in Politics. Will assemble the panel next Genie Shanze, No, Lisa Camusa Miller with us today only on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then ron Oto with 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.
Up until last Thursday, we were all captivated by the proceedings in New York of the first ever criminal trial of a former president. And of course it was on Thursday that Donald Trump was found guilty of thirty four felony counts of falsifying business records. We know very well
how Donald Trump feels about this conviction. He plans to appeal it, He maintains his innocence of these crimes, and also continually suggests that this is a persecution political persecution, that the justice system is being weaponized against him, and it raises the question whether he would look to potentially
weaponize it in return if he does. Indeed, when another go at the White House come November, he was asked a question about this in an interview on Newsmax yesterday, and this was his response.
Nobody wanted to bring it until I decided to run and then was beating everybody by a lot, and then was beating Biden by a lot.
In the polls.
But you know, it's a very terrible thing.
It's a terrible precedent for our country.
Does that mean the next president does it to them?
That's really the question, he said.
More than that, that's really the question. It's very possible that it's going to have to happen to them.
And this is not new.
Kayley, the former president already said in the wake of the document's case being announced, quote, I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of America, Joe Biden, and go after the Biden crime family. Quote, tying in Hunter Biden as
well into the conversation. As we assemble our panel for their take on this and Some of the other stories were following Jeanie Shanzho, Bloomberg Politics contributor and senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for the Study of the Presidency in Congress, joint Today by Lisa Kamuso Miller, Republican strategist, former communications director at the RNC, host of the Friday
Reporter podcast. I guess we get back to a question I already asked Denver Rickleman earlier this hour, Lisa, do you actually take Donald Trump at his word?
I absolutely do, I absolutely do. I thought Denver's comments about the former president were absolutely spot on. I thought that he was right. I think that it's a calculated mistake that members have made and Republicans have made over and over again to not accept him and not take
him for his word. If you and I remember the three of us, four of us probably were on just months ago talking about the fact that the reason why people were speculating that Donald Trump got into the race as early as he did was because he was already anticipating that they were going to be charges brought against him, and he was seeing that as an opportunity to perhaps make sure that some of that didn't happen to him, and now, of course it has and he's changing history
just like he always is. He changes the rules and he changes the sort of the facts to his own benefits. So yes, I think we should accept him for his word at his word, and I think that it's the challenge that I think Republicans are going to have to make over and over again about how much they defend what he has to say, because he keeps saying these things that are concerning and that are worried. So the
American people don't want more investigations. What they want is for the American electeds to get back to work and to help them with the issues that they are elected to fix. Right, And so this just becomes another back and forth between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and it's
going to continue to go on. As I mentioned earlier in the broadcast, is that this is the kind of election that we're going to see over and over again, the back and forth and Donald Trump creating sort of these stories that are going to be ones that we have to respond to.
Well, Genie, when we considered the prospects of this actually happening should Donald Trump win in November, isn't this just as much about who he surrounds himself with, who would be leading Donald Trump's Department of Justice as attorney general.
Absolutely, and he said that, he said, you get the right person in there. He equated it to getting the right builder, the right contractor in place, you can do great things, he said. And so this is another one of those norms that Donald Trump has said that he will break if he goes back to the White House and the you know, when you think about it, this
is not just Donald Trump. And I want to stress that you are hearing it all throughout his base, from Steve Bannon, who is a big voice for Donald Trump's base, who are talking about prosecuting and jailing Alvin Bragg the Manhattan DA. You're also hearing calls for demo for Republican rather red state public officials das if you will to
start charging democratic public officials. So this is a real possibility, and I would just stress it is much much bigger than Donald Trump, although he is certainly the leader at this point in terms of this movement.
Yet Genie, referring to comments from Steve Bannon talking with Axios, Kaylee, pretty remarkable here about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the quote.
Of course Bragg.
Should be and will be jailed, he said in this interview, pointing to the fourteenth Amendment, equal protection, the fourth Amendment outlawing unreasonable searches and seizures, plus quote scores of other laws. Genie, should the Manhattan DA prepare to go to jail if Donald Trump selected?
You know, I hope not. I have big questions and challenges with the prosecution, but you know that is not the response. But this is the reality we are living in and you're hearing this. And the fact is Steve Bannon has a big microphone, as do so many other people who are making these cases. I will just point to the head of the Federalists, for instance, who has
made similarly really upsetting and frustrating comments. And so I think people have to think about this as they go to the ballot box and have a choice that many Americans aren't happy about between Biden and Trump.
Well, and one of the reasons many Americans aren't happy about those choices is because the majority of them both think these candidates are simply too old. But that seems to be a problem much larger for Joe Biden, who is eighty one, and perhaps that problem exacerbated by reporting today in the Wall Street Journal, the headline reading behind
closed Doors, Biden shows signs of slipping now. In the context of the article, while they detail a number of meetings that happen at the White House, characterizations largely from Republicans about how those went down, it does say most of those who said Biden performed poorly were Republicans, though some Democrats said he showed his age in several of the exchanges. So, Lisa, we have to consider that there
are caveats in this reporting. Even Nancy Pelosi, the speaker Ofmerita, suggested a number of Democrats spent time with the Wall Street Journal and did not have their views adequately expressed. But isn't this damaging?
Nonetheless, it's absolutely damaging. But this is the Wall Street Journal, which to me is another sort of outreach in another sort of voice that people look to for Republican points of view. Regardless of how you feel about the journal or how you feel about the ownership of the journal, it is one of those things that people are starting to say, maybe that's a little bit irresponsible for them to have talked about that and not necessarily about how
his administration is governing. But there's other questions about all of this, right, I mean, we have to consider the fact that people are starting to think about either one of these candidates. I think the reality is that either one of these candidates stands a chance of not making
it through the next world. And that means we have to consider who is their vice president, and who is underneath them, and who is working with them in their in their cabinet, and those kinds of things are even unknown on the Republican side at this point.
Well, it is interesting here, as the article notes itself, quote, most of those who said Biden performed poorly were Republicans unquote. The White House genie with a statement calling the claims quote false and politically motivated. But does it matter or is this welcome to the NFL.
It's campaign season? You know, I think that the journal can be questioned for only quoting Republicans. Sure, the White House and others are trying to spin this as a political hit job, but I would just suggest that you look at those two reporters, those two journalists, There is nothing about their past work that suggests a political hit job. Annie Lynsky in particular about both of them, and I have a lot of respect for both of them. The fact is that Wall Street Journal is not alone today.
There is also a transcript out from a Time magazine interview the president did, which is raising big, big questions amongst people. And you can criticize the Biden team and Joe Biden for not being accessible to the press to the extent that they should, which is helping fuel these problems. So, you know, I am not sure I think all of the Democratic pushback on this. I really raised questions about Just yesterday, the House was talking about release the her interview.
Why not? I still don't understand. Why not release it? It suggests that it is that bad. So I think the White House is walking into this. I am not suggesting there's truth to the fact of what people are saying about Joe Biden, but please make yourself more accessible. It makes the debate much more important. Talk to the
You are president of the United States. You've done very good things, and the American public deserve that because quite frankly, you're in your eighties running for president and asking for another four years. So but I just mostly want to say that those journalists have my respect, and this is the you know, something that I have a problem with the attacks on the journalists in particular.
Very well, said Jeanie Shanzeno. Thank you so much for joining us alongside Lisa Camuso Miller today our wonderful political panel. Great to have both of you, and of course Jow. We should point out Genie's in New York, Lisa's from New Jersey. There's been a lot of news in that region. Today is local pauses the conjection congestion tax.
That's right, they had the gantries already up there. Yes, we're supposed to start June thirtieth. Now it's an indefinite Wait. What are the chances this might be scheduled for after November?
I wonder it's an excellent question as we consider the implications for all of the incumbent representatives in the state of New York.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and roud Otto with a Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Thank you for being with us here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. The fastest show in politics, Live from Washington with a vote that we are anticipating later today in the US Senate on the Right to Contraception Act. We've been talking about this a bit today because it's being looked at as a messaging bill. Democrats say it would make it federal law that an individual has the right
to obtain contraceptives and engage in contraception. Kaylee, I'm not sure this would even be an issue if Donald Trump hadn't said in that interview that he might move to outlaw contraception, but then he walked that back. The fact of the matter is we're anticipating a really important ruling on Miffa Pristo on the abortion pill from the US Supreme Court.
Yeah, that's due by the end of the term. So we should have an answer on that from the High Court by the end of June. But all of this, Joe spells out how just confusing the law can be in many cases in a post Dobbs America since the
overturning of Roe versus Wads. So we wanted to get some expert insight into this, and please to say joining us as Mary Sigler, she is Martin Luther King, Junior Professor of Law at the University of California at Davis and the author of a number of books, including Roe, The History of a National Obsession. Professor, welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. It's great to have you. Can I first just ask you, considering that this has probably very little likelihood of becoming law, even if it got
through the Senate, probably wouldn't pass the House. If it doesn't become law, is there not legal protection nationally for contraception in a post row America?
There is right? So the Supreme Court hasn't overruled its decisions on the right to contraception from nineteen sixty five in nineteen seventy two. I think the reason there's been some anxiety about it is because the logic of the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade essentially said, we only have rights that were recognized as rights at the
time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. And if that's how the Supreme Court is actually going to approach rights going forward, no one would have thought there was a right to use contraception in eighteen sixty eight or eighteen sixty five. Right, it was at pretty much precisely that time that states were actually criminalizing access to contraception for the first time. So I think there's some fear that down the road, the Court may reconsider its rulings on contraception. There's also
some concern that states are redefining contraception. In other words, there are concerns that conservatives believe that the morning after pillas in abortifation, or the birth control pillas in abortifation or iud's are abortifations. And so while they may not pass laws banning contraception, they may pass laws redefining contraception in ways that threaten access to common FDA approved drugs.
Well, as we've seen so many states act in the wake of the Row ruling. What's your take on this actual piece of legislation. Is this something that's necessary on the federal level.
Well, I'm kind of torn about it because, I mean, on the one hand, to your point, this is obviously a messaging bill. I think Democrats have introduced this bill in part because they know Republicans will vote against it.
But at the same time, the fact that Republicans will vote against it is revealing in and of itself, right, I Mean, we've seen the equivalent strategy unfolding at the state level, as many state right to contraception bills have also been defeated in state legislatures by Republicans who claim to support the right to contraception. Now, some of the Republican responses to simply say there's no need for these bills because the right to contraception is already protected, and
that's true as far as it goes. But the same also applied to same sex marriage, and Congress did pass protections for same sex marriage, even as Republicans claim that
those protections were unnecessary. I think the reason you're seeing a different response from Republicans to some extent is because some of their constituents are either worried about what they view as conscience based objections raised by conservative Christians who don't support contraception, or they're concerned about the objections of constituents who see a lot of common contraceptives as abortifacients and therefore on the merits don't support right to contraception bills.
So I think this is both a messaging bill and a messaging bill that's exposing that Republicans are more uncomfortable with this issue than they'd like to admit. And that might help make sense of what you saw former President Trump do, right and making a statement that he would think about how to regulate contraception and then walking it back because he's probably not up on exactly how complicated the feelings of the Republican base could be on some of parts of this issue.
Well, we've also seen some complications around Republican messaging on IVF in particular after, of course, the ruling in Alabama earlier this year. Even though IVF protections have been put back into place in that state, there was efforts to protect that federally that haven't necessarily been able to find further progress on Capitol Hill, Mary, How should we think about that issue in particular, and where the conversation around in vitro fertilization goes from here in a post Dobbs world.
Yeah, I think that again, the idea that there's no threat to in vitro fertilization, which is something you're also
hearing Republicans seeing, is a little bit misguided. We've seen, for example, prominent figures in the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest conservative Christian denomination in the United States, announcing that they're going to be pushing for a resolution condemning in vitro fertilization and urging conservative Protestant churches to begin lobbying for state laws prohibiting or regulating in vitro fertilization.
We've seen prominent campaigns announced by anti A worship groups to either litigate to establish that fetuses and embryos are persons and that in vitro fertilization is potentially unconstitutional, or urging legislatures to introduce new restrictions on it. And so I think as a result, the in vitro fertilization restriction
issue is a long way from over. Even in Alabama, there's new litigation seeking to establish that Alabama's new law protecting IVF providers violates the state constitution by denying embryos constitutional rights. So the conversation in the States is a really complicated one, even if it's not one that's likely
to change anything imminently. Because voters do support in vitro fertilization, I think again, Republicans are in a tricky place on this because there's so much popular support for IVF, but a lot of conservatives in base voters view IVF as contradicting the principle that a fetus or embryo is a constitutional person, which is what many of them believe in
the context of abortion as well. So you're likely to see I think Republicans continuing to thread this needle of saying they support IVF while being unwilling to actually introduce legal protections for IVF that would be unpopular with some of their constituents.
Well, lastly, Mary, as senators are asked to put their name on the record here on where they stand, Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate Health Committee, says, Americans vote, We'll be watching closely as this vote takes place.
Is she correct?
Well, I don't know. I mean, I think it's unclear if Americans take seriously threats to contraception. I think that the threats are not imminent, but they're real, and so I think it may be a question of whether Americans are watching now or whether they will look back on this vote later when there may be are some of the moves to address contraception come to fruition, this vote may look very different in historical context to voters than it does today.
Mary, it's great to have you back.
Mary Zigler with us as we anticipate the vote later today. Mary, appreciate the insights as always. Martin Luther King, Junior Professor of Law at the University of California at Davis.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast can Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roun Oo with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on ammaz on Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
We sat here together on Friday and brought you the President Live from the White House, in which he rolled out a ceasefire proposal that has felt on again off again depending on the moment or the day, and the interviews that benjaminettya Who is doing, and the speeches that Joe Biden is giving. There's clearly a disconnect, and it's hard to tell if we are closer to a breakthrough or further away from one than we were at the
start of this week. Marra Rudman joins US professor at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia and director of the Ripples of Hope projects focused on democratic solutions Mara, It's great to have you back.
Welcome to Bloomberg.
Do you have a sense of how close we are to something or are you starting to think there never was a deal?
No, I think we are closer than we have been previously. I believe it is a key inflection point. And I see what President Biden is doing as very skillfully pushing Israel and in the form of Prime Minister net To Yago particularly and Yaya Sinwar, by moving forward and putting out publicly what is this Israeli proposal that he spoke about Friday, and then continuing quite persistently on the same point on the contours of that proposal, on what it involves.
And I think it's meaningful that Bill Burns, our CIA director, is meeting with Katars and Egyptians, I believe today in Doha.
Okay, that's actually an important element of this story. When Bill Burns shows up, the gears tend to start turning. But Hamas says just in the last twenty four hours that Israel must commit to a permanent ceasefire and full withdrawal from Gaza, which Israel says it is not prepared to do. Until Hamas does not exist longer. How do you get past such an obvious standoff here.
That's the art of negotiation, and also that is I believe some of the art of what is embedded in this proposal. Phase two of the proposal. President Biden, as I heard him Friday, was very careful in the words he chose. He described it in his own words as a ceasefire, and then very quickly quoted from the proposal
which talked about a cessation of hostilities. And as you move from phase one to phase two of the proposal, there are negotiations to go on on essentially what the terms are that would govern phase two and phase three. And as with any very difficult and seemingly intractable issue, you need to find a way to get through what two parties both date as their bottom lines that can be seen as essentially concessions to both parties from whom
you have to get agreement. And I think that's what the proposal seems to do as I hear it.
Interesting this is something that Joe Biden rolled out on Friday as a piece of text that had been authorized by Benjamin Netanyaho's office, and Netanyah who said that as well, how much further, did Joe Biden push this three phased plan in his speech beyond his phone calls with Netanyahu. It seemed to catch net Yahoo off guard.
I think it's unlikely that it caught Prime Minister Netanyahu off guard in terms of the substance of the proposal President Biden wouldn't.
Do you think Joe Biden was going to say as much as he did publicly.
Probably not exactly. That's where the way in which I think President Biden quite deliberately went to speak to the people of Israel, frankly two Palestinians as well, since both Israelis and Palestinians where they are similar is that they are not hearing for a variety of different reasons the real bottom lines from the people who are executing at this point, in one case, in defending Israel and in terms of Hamas and Yaya Sinwar in perpetrating this ongoing attack.
And so what Present Biden did on Friday was both to quote quite specifically from the proposal, which was an Israeli proposal, and at the same time put it in a broader context that could speak to the people who are so directly affected by what is going on.
You mentioned Bill Burns showing back up at the table. What else do you have your eyes on for signs of hope or otherwise to get a sense of what direction this is moving in.
Well. I view Bill Burns, as you noted, is very important, mostly because I don't think he shows up unless there's something substantive to discuss and go through. I believe that the Egyptians in the countries are probably having some challendes from what I have read, Yaya sin has not yet
signed off. There may be some promising signs from others than in Hamas, but we know that sinoir As, the perpetrator of the current conflict, is the key decision maker at this point on the Hamas side, and we've heard silence from him as well as the public statements that you described from Hamas and at the same time from Netanyahu.
You know, verious jockeying inside Israel, which Jake Sullivan I believe described today or yesterday as as signs of the raucous democracy that is in fact, and it's a kind way to put it, but what goes on in Israel, so that's important. As our President Biden's meetings in Europe, there are a number of different sidebars that accompany his visit for this adieth anniversary of a key World War
Two battle, and he also has ongoing meetings. He's got a NATO anniversary coming up, and he's got a G seventh summit, so a lot of key discussions with allies at the same time.
Really great point.
There are going to be some important sideline conversations happening as we move our way into the G seven as well.
Mara, how flexible.
Should we all be here when we consider the proposal versus a final product. We're used to talking about the legislative process on this program every day when it comes to diplomacy. How much of this is a starting point versus a final product?
I think it's somewhere in between the two. Joe, as with getting to legislative legislation that can in my mind, and again this is harkening back to a prior life for me on the hill. You want to you need to get to sixty votes in the Senate generally if you can possibly do it, as opposed to fifty one. You want to get something that can pass under suspension
in the House. That often involves finding language that can work for a number of different people from a number of different angle than it's going to have a certain amount of ambiguity in it, and you need to, in this case, with diplomacy, get this process started, get into phase one, get that critical humanitarian aid in, get the hostages out, the immediate group of hostages out, and then dive deeper to iron out the details on phase two.
So what I would hope and my caution would be not to let from any perspective, the perfect be the enemy of the good, because we need the good to start moving forward.
You know, we talk about the military operation in Rafa, we talk about the diplomacy around a potential ceasefire. Not often enough do we talk about the actual hostages who would be released under a deal like this. Does that remain the primary motivator for Israel?
I believe it's the primary motivator for President Biden. I think in the racket it as is humanitarian aid. I think in Israel, when Jake Sullivan refers to the raucous democracy includes frankly, the far right extremist and president in Prime Minister Nyahu's coalition, who have made very clear, frankly that their priority is not the hostages. Whereas I think for many Israelis that is the top priority, and for Prime Mister Yaho, he's gone a little bit back and forth on that.
Glad you come talk to us, Mars, stay close as we learn more. We could be talking about a breakthrough or a fallout.
Next time. We're joined by Maura Rudman. Great conversation.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.