Justice Roberts Will Avoid Partisanship At All Cost

professors testified on the potential impeachment of President Trump. One of those law professors joins us today, Noah Feldman, Professor of law at Harvard University. He's also Bloomberg Opinion calumnist. He's based in Boston, Massachusetts. He joins us here on the phone. Now, thanks so much for joining us. Um again, compelling testimony by you and your fellow professor's last week. Just give us your sense, your takeaway of the testimony.

My takeaway is that we laid out a clear case for why the framers wanted impeachment to exist at all, UM, namely, the deal with a situation where a president distorted the use of his office for ultimately purposes of his own

like reelection. That we talked about what high crimes and misdemeanors really are, that they are, in essence, the abuse of office, and then we suggested that if you believe the stuff you've been watching on TV and reading about it, if you believe that the allegations against President Trump are accurate,

then it would follow that impeachment would be appropriate. Do you feel like you're speaking into an empty vacuum that basically the only people who would hear you would be people who agreed with you and everybody else you aren't going to convince. I really hope not. You know, I think it may be that sometimes, uh, in places where people are obsessed with the impeachment, they think they know all the details and they formed views already, which is fine.

But in most of the country, I think there's still a lot of people who are trying to figure out exactly what's going on, who are busy, people with some jobs and lives who haven't been obsessively focused on this until now, and so with any luck, but this provided was just a clear statement of why it's worthwhile to take this as seriously, why it's appropriate to take up the valuable time with the American people on this issue,

and I think you know on that. In my sense, at least from the mail and social media context that I've connections that I'm getting, there are people who were glad to hear it laid out simply and clearly. So No, I think the consensus is that the House will likely vote for impeachment. It will then go to the Senate

and then go along party lines. If a Republican senator votes not to move forward with is that senator saying that he or she does not believe that there were impeachable offenses despite what you're saying, and some others are saying, these really are impeachable defenses. Well, there are two things

that the senator could be saying. One would be I think these things are in principle impeachable, but I don't believe that the president did them, And a little hard to believe that someone would have that view, given how overwhelming the evidence is. But maybe somebody would think that, maybe they'll say that, and you know, if that's the case fair enough, you know, I mean, whether you believe the evidence or not is very much ape of individual

credibility determination. The other thing they could be saying, as you say, is that they think it's fine for the president the United States to go out and use the office of the presidency to try to get personal advantage in an election through investigations from a foreign country of his opponent. And I would be really saddened if any member of the Senate believed that that was not impeachable conduct, because it's just so clear from what the Framer said.

And it's also just even if you leave the Framers out of it, it's just so obvious that that's the kind of conduct that we can't tolerate in the president because it's the start's re election. And so I really hope that no senator would vote h not to you know, vote to ecquit the president on that basis. There's an interesting legal question here, and your prefer your perfect to weigh in on this. Justice Roberts would be the third justice to preside over an impeachment trial in the U. S.

Senate if it gets there. Um, he is overseeing the Senate, but he is the first who has openly asked, with the president who is potentially going to be impeached, what do you think he's going to do if this comes to pass. Chief Justice Roberts is someone who, throughout his career has shown a very very deep commitment to protecting the legitimacy of the Supreme Court by making sure that it's not partisan. Now, the Court, of course is ideological.

Different people on the Court of different beliefs, including Chief justus as Roberts. But there's a difference between being ideological, which means you have values and ideas and they affect you, and being part of it, which means you do what the political party that you're affiliated with wants you to do. And I think he will bend over backwards to make sure that he is not partisan in any way, and I think he will try very hard to be as objective as he can be. I would add that his

powers are somewhat limited. Most things the Chief Justice does in an impeachment hearing could be overturned by a bare majority of the Senate on a vote. So if he makes a decision on say, an evidence question, the Senate could vote to override him in any moment. So one thing he could do is if there's anything really controversial, he could just turn to the Senators and say, okay, you guys, vote on it. I'm not even gonna the

decision and have you overruled me? And that would be one way for him to stay out of the crosshairs of the partisan fight. So, uh no, it appears like it's being reported that, you know, the House is trying to move for a vote prior to them leaving for recess on December twenty. Give us a sense of the timing if that does occur and it goes to the Senate. Give us a sense of the timing of what it

could be in the Senate. The trial Actually, well, when the Senate comes back in January, you know, it can take up that trial right away if it wants to, or it can choose through its the majority leadership there to to delay. That's very much a question in the hands of the Senate. There's no nothing in the Constitution that tells you how fast the Senate has to take up the question. My guesses that they would probably take it up pretty quickly. And then the question is how

full of trial would it be. The House traditionally sends over some members of the House who are called the impeachment managers, and they literally go over to the Senate chamber and they argue the caves like prosecutors, and they usually have the opportunity historically to call some witnesses and then a defense is usually mounted by the president. But we don't know if the president will mount a defense here or not, and if he doesn't, it could be

a relatively short and compact process. And then again it's up to the Senate to decide when they will go for a vote, and then um, then that will happen. So it could it could all happen relatively quickly. My guess is that it would not be over by the end of January, but I think it's highly probable that it would be over some time by the end of February. Now just quickly here, I'm wondering, can you tell us a little bit about the experience of testifying and how

cold it was in the room. Yeah, I mean it was a very strange experience, as you can imagine. First all, it was weirdly cold in the room, and Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the committee, actually took some time out of his public statement to say that it was too cold, and also he didn't like his chair, So that gives you some sense of the weirdness of it. All um. You know, ultimately, their cameras are there, the people are in the room, but your audience is not

just the sitting there. Your audience is also the broader public, and especially the public that isn't obsessed with these hearings and just wants to know what are you doing here? And all you can really do is try to stay your case simply and concisely. And I did that and

I'm happy I had a chance to do that. And then, you know, the other side comes after you, and very often they say something mean about you, and then they don't actually ask you a question where you could respond, and that's always a little frustrating, always feels a bit like a cheap shot. No Felment, thank you so much for being with us, and good advice to anyone who's going to testify in front of Congress. Bring tea and especially yes. No Feltment is Professor of laud at Harvard University,

also a Bloomberg opinion columnist, joining us by phone. As the US and China push forward to some type of trade deal, one of the fallouts we're seeing is maybe each other's governments, you know, want to go beyond that. Maybe what we're seeing here from China. So news coming out today that Lisa and I agree is really really important as we think about the negotiations between US and China, and that's Chinese government taking further steps to remove foreign

technology from state agencies and other organizations. To get a sense of how important that is, we welcome on and Shrini Boston. He's a senior semi conductor and hardware analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, joining us here on a Bloomberg in actor broker studio so on in Beijing, saying that they may remove as many as twenty million computers at government agencies with domestic products over the three years. That seems

like a big deal to me and to Lisa absolutely. Look, it is a big deal, and effectively it is trying to create an alternative ecosystem across the PC, semi conductor and hardware food chains. It's not easy to do. It's

not going to be overnight. It's going to be particularly painful because UM, Intel, Microsoft, UM, all the PC makers, the motherboard makers, the driver makers, the UM the flash software that goes into the firmware that goes into each of these chips have been tested and tested again and tested across every single combination over the past thirty years.

And we have this iterative sort of systemic knowledge that is built up so that when a system is implemented like a PC desktop in an average desk workers UM workstation, UM, and this is not his or her main function, you know it works, right, You can't afford to take those chances. It works, it's stable for the most part, and it

just gets allows him or her to get stuff done. UM. To go to an alternative platform means that you are from the bottom of the stack, from the semiconductor that is used to the top of the stack, which is the operating system and the applications that run on it. You are replacing that entire food chain and you're you're giving a quality of service to that individual that is air free, highly reliable, and what we call in the industry seven nine reliable. It's not going to be it's

it's not going to be uh that reliable. Okay. That's which is probably the reason why you're seeing Microsoft, Microsoft, Dell, and HP shares doing nothing today. Basically, even though you have China ordering all government offices and public institutions to move forward a computer equipment and software and these will

be the companies that could potentially hurt from it. So is it insignificant or is it just you know that this sort of edifies a feeling that have been in the market for a while, which is China is going to gradually push in order to have its own technology supersede international competitors. Yeah, the creating of the bifurcation is

a serious risk from our technology development track. When you're trying to develop something on your own and then this is a replay of the VHS Betamax story all over again, separated by national boundaries. It is not good from our technology development track for either side of the track, regardless of how better or worse one technology might be. Okay, but for tech ignorance like myself, Um, are we just talking about a PC? Are we talking about cloud? Are

we talking about everything? It's everything, right, So we can replace the Dell PC with a Chinese mainstake Lenovo, which is a global market leader number one in PCs. Could happen right away, right, except that what's powering the Lenovo PC, it's still in next A D six. Okay, you say, I don't want to use Intel, Let's go with the other option m D which also is American. Then you say I don't want to use Microsoft? What are your choices? You use a Linux kernel? How many apps are on

the Linux kernel? How do you how are you going to replace Excel? You say no, I'm going to go to Google Docs. Wait, that's American too. Details details. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and it's changes don't come easily and it's going to be painful. All right, let's just step back a little bit. It appears that we're moving ever so slowly towards a phase one type of deal. What's the feeling on Silicon Valley about trade just in general, our relationship with China? Is

it a big, big concern that this thing could go sideways? Look, I think that, in my opinion, we're we're pricing in for sure, uh, some sort of a deal, some sort of a phase one deal. Hopefully that doesn't drop the boat too much from current level of tariffs. Number one. Number two is from a China Silicon Valley relationship. Again, it's one of those don't if you do, don't if you don't scenarios. You need them because they're twenty market for all of our products and services. You need them

because they are a supply change, supply chain essential. But we also recognize that this is not a healthy relationship and that you have to move away from h TO to a distributed manufacturing model for example, but that it's

going to cost more. Well, I will say this has been a fascinating conversation and just to leave with this tidbet analysts at Jeffrey's estimate that US to knowledge companies generating as much as a hundred and fifty billion dollars a year in revenues from China, which is the reason why trade discussions and any mandate from Beijing should be taken seriously, if not perhaps literally, at least if you look at the stock price right now, A non street of Austin, thank you so much for being with us,

an nonstret of Austin who saved his Yiddish for before the segment, A senior semiconductor and hardware analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. We will certainly go down as a year for risk on assets out performance across the board. The question is is it time to take a little bit more risk as we head into going forward. Right now, let's welcome Luca Paolini, Chief strategist for pick Ta Asset Management over two billion dollars assets under management, based in London, but

joining us here on our Bloomberg and Actor broker studio. Look, thanks so much for joining us. You have a call here where you're overweight emerging markets. So that's saying we had a good run in twenty nineteen. I'm willing to take a little bit more risk going forward. But actually our view is letly different. We think the marketing next year we actually struggle a little bit. We think that the real trade for next year is more on sector

and regional allocations. So this year everything that could go up went up. Next year, I think we have to be most selective, and what we like is either the extreme valuation of some markets or actually when we look at them, or sectors and regions where we think there is a solid earnest girls behind it. When you look at value, you cannot avoid a conclusion that emerging markets Europe, Japanese a different story, offer much better value than the US.

And so we think that this is where the value is. Emerging markets Europe, even the UK, and much less in the US. This is interesting. I'm thinking about it, and I'm wondering whether it's actually accurate that everything has gone up that's been riskings. We've seen the triple cs like behind, and we have seen emerging markets like behind in part because people have been concerned and showing some discretion. So which areas within emerging market do you think people have

been leaving behind more than they showed? Right? And there has to be a fundamental backdrop that supports this view as well, Right, Yeah, I think when you look at emerging markets, let's say two critical or key driving emerging market performance is actually the dollar and global growth, especially if especially emerging market growth. So what we see, and maybe we're wrong on this, we expect the dollars to pick and the reason why the dollar is going to

struggle next year is simple. Until recently, the US economy was significantly outperformed. The FAT was acting a rate when everybody was cutting rates. Now you're in a situation when the FAT is cutting rates like everybody else where. US grows. It's not very different from Europe. This court is going to be one percent one point five, so there is a convergence of growth, and the dollar is twenty percent

one expense. So we assume the dollar is going to go down and global growth is weak, but I think we start to see some kind of signal stabilization that's normally a good combination from the emerging markets. And obviously the evaluation is also very attractive. So within emerging markets, are there certain markets you like more than others? We've had some interesting performance Brazil and some others in Latin America VERSUS Eastern Europe for example, Actually we continue to

prefer Russia. Russia has been if you look at the past two years, been the best market in two years in a row. And Russia actually as upper from the US is ninety six, believe it or not in the other terms, so we continue to be lived in Russia. Emerging Asia is also interesting because the evaluation and if you have any kind of um let's say c as far in terms of trade war and distabilization in growth, Emerging Asia actually would do much better on bonds. Russian

born and Mexican bonds by far the best opportunities. And how do you like to get access or exposure to these to these nations that basically local currency dead or is it equities, or we prefer, as I said, we for Russia and Mexico We like local cacy bonds because you have the advantage of having a significant or let's say rear rates roughly three or four percent and under value currency and central bank accuntney rates. So the upside

for bonds emerging markets from the currency and form. From the equity side, Asia is much more interesting, you know, Korean, So it actually looks actually quite quite quite cheap, considering that we mad just about to see some subidization global growth. You say like financials, that's not a widely held view. Folks walking through the door here, tell us about your thoughts on the financials. I have to say that meeting quite a few clients, quite a few attempted to buy

into financials. But financials, like Japan in the last way, every time you get excited about it, you tend to make a mistake. So now the question about financial is really what are the kid drivers they could have is Bonniels and basically the mark. So let's say financials do well when when bonnie Els and market are going up. This year, market is going up, but actually bonnie Els hasn't, so we expected Bonnials to start going up next year.

And if this is this this is true, well all the value kind of cyclical value stocks, financials, energy mining can actually offer the potentially is a tactical code. Though I wouldn't personally invest in financials over the next five years, but over the next six or one month I think could be could be a good trade. What about the US equity is broadly a lot of people have been saying that that's still going to remain the performer. Do

you agree? No, I think I think the prom that with the with US eecurities is that there is no question the US companies a much more profitable better around the European Japanese one. We all know that that's that's no news. I have a promin though, on in terms of ernest growth, which is basically flat. Margins have picked, wage growth is picking up. We are probably towards the end of the business second, and you see that in

the curve. Default rates in a lot of indicators and and the in evaluation see continue to be quite expensive. So I think I personally the US we'll start to want to perform next year, especially in dollar terms. We respect the dollar to to decline real quick, treasury else rising. We have two percent for the end of next year, so a marginal increase notch, but you know you're not gonna make a lot of money with once next year. Now twenty more seconds. I'm just wondering, what did you

have for breakfast? Uh? Three cross on if you believe it or not? Three al Mont cross on at four o'clock because it's some kind of a jel leg issue. Three croissants cross on three one must have been tiny because I I don't think so, but he must be a marathon runner. Thank you so much for being with us.

Really a wonderful information. Luca Paolini. He is chief strategistic peaked, A asset management with more than two hundred billion dollars under management normally in London today gracing our interactive Broger studios. We've had the Opeque plus meeting. They are instituting a further production cuts. We've already gotten me Saudi a Ramco I p O, if you could call it that. Going forward, the balance of oil prices be determined by supply or demand.

That is one of the key questions joining us now Regina Mayor. She has global energy head for KPMG based in Houston, Regina. I want to start there with the supply demand side because Honestly, for the most of this year, Uh, the demand side was driving things, and we're seeing that again today with the prices dipping just a bit on the heels of trade uncertainty going into will the supply

side start to take the helm. I think the supply side is going to take be taken into um being factored in largely because the market likes negative signals when it comes to oil price. So given that we have extensive supply overproduction numbers that are coming out, and especially for Q one of next year, then we're seeing supply

factored into the downward pressure on the price. I see supply and demand when they have an impact, it's a downward pressure, which is very frustrating for the industry overall. But I'm in a very barished mood when it comes accrewed price. So, Regina, we you know, they had some announcements about the cuts, but whenever I read OPEC or OPEC plus, uh, you know, production cut announcements, Yeah, I feel like we have to take them with a green of salt. Do you think they will hold this time?

And if not, who will be the the bad actors or actors? Compliance is definitely the name of the game and probably the reason why the meeting took so much longer than they had anticipated last week. The bad actors

are Russia in particular. I thought that their little fine print agreement around declassifying condensate out of their numbers was a nod toward Russia's non compliance and the fact that they will continue to be noncompliant, but they're going to calculate it differently so they don't look as bad as they had perhaps in the past. And the U S sanctions on Iran and Venezuela are only helping the OPEC

pictures overall. But Saudi is going to have to muscle their way through it, and they're going to have to be the ones that bear the brunt of the lion's share of the cuts. Regina, you said that you have a very barish take right now on the price of crude. I'm looking at crewe traded in the n Imax flat uh down just to touch three or four basis points form from Friday. I'm trying to figure out what's driving that, What where do you think that's going to be going?

In other words, are we headed? Is is a threshold forty or the threat that the sort of threshold seventy dollars. Well, I don't think it's either. I think the the OPEC plus agreement helps us stay in this sort of not too hot, not too cold, and I wouldn't say just right in a goldilocks sense, but within a range that people feel mostly comfortable with. If we can keep w t I close to sixty, and if we can keep Brent close to sixty, that is what producers are aiming for.

That's still not That means that US shale is still not really in the money across the board and will still continue to see a lot of pressure on capital investment on the U S shale producers. So Regina, let's shift gears just a little bit too. Saudi A Ramco, the company priced it's I p O last week I think thirty two reals each raising twenty five point six billion dollars UH. That was at the top end of the range here. So it's gonna start trading on Wednesday.

My concern is they have virtually no Western investors in this transaction. What's the feeling within your world about how this thing was structured? I really just kind of limiting it to some of the Middle East. It's interesting I was in a conference last week with a lot of private equity investors here in Houston, and they were asking would you invest in that deal? And most people in the room said absolutely not. There are far less risky places to put your capital within an energy context than

investing in that deal. They will have subscribers, and there are a lot of sovereign wealth funds out there that will place a bet and it will allow the South East to monetize this asset and drive improvements in their budgets that they need right to improve their their country and their economy. But it's not going to necessarily be some thing that's super complicated and that a lot of Western investors are going to be knocking down the doors

to invest in. So back in the US with shell producers under fire because this is just not economic for them with oil prices where they are, we are seeing capital expenditures fall pretty much across the board in the shell patch. I'm trying to figure out though, why this isn't bullish for prices, the idea that on the margins you are seeing UH producers realize that things are going to change that much, which is going to reduce supply. Yeah, so there's a projection that US supply goes up to

thirteen and a half noion barrels per day. For I think personally that projection is at risk because I am seeing a slowdown in US shale production and I am seeing a lack of capital. If you look at some of the smaller players in US shale, and if you look at some of the impairments that were recorded in Q three, that's where you'll start to see it. It's a treadmill that they've been on and they've had to continue to invest to sort of stay a pace, and

that capital is drying up. So I, personally and UM more bullish that US supply starts to get a little bit constrained, which could help promote prices longer term and could play into opex hands in the Saudi I p O, which will be positive from an overall producer perspective. Regina, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate your thoughts. Regina Mayor, Global Energy head at KPMG, talking all things oil. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast.

You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa A. Bram Woyds. I'm on Twitter at Lisa A. Bram Woyds. One before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio