I'm Worried About GDP Growth, Fed's Kaplan Says

much for being with us. All right, let's honor Mr Farrell here and begin with what's going on in Spain? Is this, first of all unexpected and what do you believe this no confidence vote will lead to? Well, we had some good news out of Spain in the middle of the week because the long delayed budget what was passed because of the Catalonia issue is last year that had been postponed and I had passed, so that was

actually good news. And now we get this corruption scandal coming to head, not just the treasure apparently, but also the party that the Conservative Party as a whole, being in the dock and now what looks like a non confidence vote um and perhaps new elections. Now this is all sort of unfolding as we as we speak, I guess, so we can't draw any firm conclusions yet, but I think the general story about Spain is here's an economy which has bounced back very nicely from to crises um

and the problems come down a lot. The economy is growing fast. The economy the government so far has been doing the right things, which is why people would be worried if it's elected out of office. The good news is that Spain, unlike other countries, especially Italy, doesn't really have any Euroskeptic parties. So whatever combination of coalition we get next in Spain, I think they're worried that it would dramatically change the direction of the economy. UM. I

think is is quite low. We have to say that with caution, but I think it's quite low. As someone messaged me this morning, there's a big difference between pro European populism and anti European populism within Spain and within Italy. UM. Then we've got the price. What's in the price? There

is a one hundred basis points spread. It's coming in a little bit now, about ninety seven basis points between the Italian and Spanish ten year there's a one percent difference a hundred basis point difference to be more precise, between Italian and Spanish tenure debt makes sense to you based on politics and economics, Christian, Well, I think you know, Spanish debt ratios are much lower than than Italy's, potential growth is much higher than in than in Italy, so

I think there's plenty of reasons. And politics are more stable than in Italy, so I think there's plenty of reasons to believe that Spain has become something like a semi core euros own country. Yeah, much closer to say Germany than than to the real periphery like Italy and increase, and I think that's that's justified. But in the short term, you know, uncertainty can rebound. We've seen it last year

with the Catalonia referendum. We may now see some uncertainty around potential elections, but I think the general story is still the same. I'm more confident in the Spanish outlook than in Italian. Christian, I just wonder what it means for markets, because the lesson of the last several years in Europe since the European debt crisis is to fade political risk that's how you made money. You faded the Catalonia risk last year. You fade the risk in in

France last year. Why is the situation in Italy any different? Oh, it may not be. I think there's plenty of scenarios of where we can go from here with Italy. There is the scenario that we've seen quite play out quite a few times now recently, where um an event looks like a big risk, but then people torn down the reth rig don't take the most aggressive decision. They could

be taking some of the Italian context. That would mean a relatively smooth summit EU summit at the end of June, perhaps, you know, putting all these fiscal easing pledges a bit on the back burner, and very quickly you'd be back to a scenario where Italy isn't prized as much bigger

risk there was before this government would befall. But there's also, of course, the risk of a very confrontational, judent summit of the government very quickly moving to reverse the pension reforms and do all these tax cuts, becoming fiscally unsustainable. UM the e c B becoming involved in all of this UM. The Greece scenario if you like UM, which, of course with Italy instead of Greece, would be a much bigger risk than it was perhaps, But at the same time, the e c B is cutting back on

its stimulus program. This has got to be count availing to what's going on in Italy. Yes, but they're only cutting back on the net purchases UM. So the thirty billion per month that they're buying, they have of course already bought about two point five trillions, So the monthly extra purchases are becoming less and less important, and more and more important is that the stock of bonds they

have already bought in which they're continuing to reinvest. So I don't think that the ecb ending purchases at the end of the year isn't necessarily such a big negative for for these peripheral markets. Kristin Schell is always going to Canty with the City Group, Global director of European Research,

joining US out of London. Well. North Korea said that it was surprised by President Donald Trump's decision to cancel the June twelfth summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong on, and now North Korea says it remains willing to meet with the United States at any time. Here to tell us more about the situation is Thomas Byrne. He is the president of the Korea Society, and he is an adjunct professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University's

School of International and Public Affairs. And I should say that the Mr. Burns education into the world of Korea and the Korean Peninsula goes all the way back to his time in the Peace Corps, in which he served in South Korea. And I'm wondering, Professor Byrne, if you can just give us a little bit of perspective as to what do you believe is actually going on in North Korea. Yeah, well, my my thinking about North Korea

is um. You know, Kim Jong l and the leader of North Korea surprised everybody on January one, h saying he's willing to engage South Korea, willing to UH prioritize economic development over military prowess and UH and that's set into motion. What we've seen play out with the summit UH with Kim Jong Lun in China toward China is historic one with South Korea, Poma and German at the end of April and almost one with President Trump would have been the first time UH sitting president has met

a North Korean leader. I think what's going on in that North Korea this is a very dramatic shift strategically.

It really hasn't baked in very well that to to give up its military first policy and go to something like economic development, and really of North Korea series about economic development, it really does have to abandon its nuclear weapons program and has to develop resources, um and not just money but also institutional resources to developing an economy, and it won't be able to do that under the sanctions that exist. Do you believe that Kim Chong is

UH secure in his position in North Korea? Well, I get, I mean who knows, right, I mean he has been very uh very firm, if not ruthless and rooting out opposition reports star there's been you know, more executions in his short UH time and wet this about six years now, I think, uh than under his father's And I think if he was willing to go to Singapore, assuming that

was serious, I think he feels pretty pretty secure. He didn't make two trips to China for the first time, first time he left North Korea since coming to power in the end of it's almost that the South Koreans happening that the president has canceled the summit. What I

read is that they're they're they're disappointed. South Korean hopes were very high, and I you know, uh, the country has been divided since since n UM, it's been in a state of armistice and for sixty five years, three years of a very very devastating war, and they were hoping they could turn the corner and and see, you know, peace and prosperity for the whole peninsula. I think those hopes and aspirations were still in play. I don't think UM, they've got out the window. I think we're in much

better position now we're in December last year. So putting things into perspective, I think maybe events moved a bit too quickly. UM. North Korea was not quite sure on on how much it could, on what the how much would have to give up to to have this meeting with the President Trump and to really embark upon a program of the new ecularization Thomas for Wall Street, there's

a big question in the last twenty four hours. UM. For a while, over the last year the President has been leaning on China to put the pressure on North Korea, and in many ways he's tied that effort into the trade policy story as well, willing to back away on trade if the Chinese can put the pressure on the North Koreans to come to the table. What has China's role in all of this now? But China has a big role, and it's really hard to figure it out.

I mean, first of all, I think it's I think it's safe to say that China is in with the ultimate objective that the US has an also staff koreative Republic of Korea, that is a we dismantling of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, and that's the so called Libyan model. Um Oliba model happened to be on very rapidly. So

they're all in favor of that. China may have a different timetable and want to see more concessions from the US up front than the US is probably willing to give, given the disappointing record of twenty years of that type of diplomacy with North Korea and where North Korea is today with nuclear bombs, with with the intercontinental ballistic missiles. But I think they both agree on the fundamental strategic objective, it's really on how to get there. Um so I

it's how they work that out. Now. One of the one of the dynamics of this whole complicated process is that if North Korea word who embark on a genuine program of the nuclearization or path the nuclearization, who would probably imply that they would move close to the South Korea and would be some distance between more distance between North Korea and China, And maybe it is uncomfortable about that.

Thomas Byrne. Previous to your role at the Korea Society, you were with Moody's Investors Services, you were the director of Analysis for the Sovereign Risk Group for Asia Pacific. What can you tell us about the reaction perhaps in Japan and other nations in the region. Well, everyone, I think was very hopeful that this, uh, this this great geopolitical risk would be contained and eliminated through a process of the nuclearization. However, I don't think anyone has given

up hope that that outcome could still be achieved. Um One of the one of the things to understand, the biggest deterrent to geopolitical risks in Northeast Asia has been the r O k US Alliance for UH since since nineteen fifty three, for sixty five years. UM this has prevented UH an outbreak of the Second Korean War. It's been defensive in nature, it hasn't been aggressive and that Korea at all and UH and this has enabled South Korea to developed into such a prosperous country that it

is today and also a democratic country. Can North Korea achieve some kind of advance economically without striking a deal with the United States? I don't think so. I think it could well. First of all, the question is UH, you know, UH, it's deprived of resources right now. A deal with the US would really mean that North Korea has the opportunity to open to the rest of the world.

They joined the i m F. Now, if North Korea one is expecting to get help from the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank or even the the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in Beijing, they have to join the I m F. However, North Korea perhaps can get China could ease or relax some of the sanctions that it has been enforcing. How But China, because it will not do that until North Korea and barracks on the nuclearization Thomas justly, I just want to come through if I

possibly can, just to jump in up. Possibly can Thomas um. The question I think, just to wrap things up, is whether the North Korean regime is collapsing. A lot of people have made a big deal about the destruction of the nuclear test site. There are some reports that actually it collapsed a long while ago, and that's why the North Korean leader has come to the table. Just how bad are things in North Korea right now? Well, North

Korea is a black box. I mean it probably no one would have advanced noticed if the if the regime is collapsing. But I think the economy is in trouble. I think it's been in trouble for for some years. If you look at the import figures, it's not importing. The imports for going down even before the sanctions were introduced.

The new comprehensive sanctions that if they're continued, would be much have a much greater impact on North koreezy economy than the Orian sanctions had on the ring An economy. So it's hard to say, but you know, it's a very repressive government. It has keptain power since Niking forty through war and through famine, so it's it has more staying power than any probably any other government any anywhere

else in the world. Thomas Burn gret to catch up with you, say thank you very much for giving your time, the Korean Society president and Columbia University professor on North Korea, the South and the relationship with the United States. I'm really pleased to say that we can now cross over to Bloomberg's Michael McKay, who's standing by with the Dallas Federal Reserve. President. Well, thank you very much, and good

morning to everybody on Bloomberg television and radio worldwide. And thank you, miss President for joint don't you like to be able to call Mr President? Welcome to Texas, Mike. We're glad to have you here. Thank you. Fundamentals, I don't think anybody doesn't know your position, but just for the record, you see growth picking up, unemployment going down, and two more rate moves this year is and that my base cases three for the year. Uh, we should

be gradually moving toward neutral. And the other caution that I've repeated various times as while this year's growth will be strong, next year will be somewhat weaker, and by we're gonna head back down to potential, which is closer to one and three quarters to two percent. The reason I mentioned it, that's on my mind when I think about the shape of the Fed funds curve. What would it take to get you to support a fourth move

this year? UH, continued strengthen the economy, But more than that, I'd want to see some actions that suggested to me at least that sustainable GDP growth was improved, and so that would be things that improve growth in the workforce. UH, it would it would show some policy moves that might suggest we're going to improve skill levels of our workforce, education levels, some of the fundamental drivers UH would need

to change for me to be more aggressive. The Open Market Committee in its last statement put symmetrical higher up there. With the choice of that word, What are you trying to tell the markets that inflation may run a little bit above two percent or that you are going to tolerate it for a while running above two percent? I

think it's the probably the former. It's that inflation may run a little bit above two percent, and our job is is to try to keep inflation so that it doesn't persistently run above two or persistently below and now we've been running seven or eight years below two. But in the future would I would tolerate some moves above too, But if I thought it would be persistently staying above two,

I'd want to take more policy action. The forecast you mentioned in June you have to make a new one for the Open Market Committee, meaning tax cuts, trade, tariffs, budget deficits, all the things that are going on in the world right now. How confident are you in what you think is gonna happen. Well, this is part of the job. You've always got all these variables changing, which makes this job interesting and also why it's not a

static thing. It's a dynamic thing. But the tax legislation, as I mentioned it for this year is a positive, but you mentioned debt on the flip side. While it's a stimulus now, I think it may create a head wind in the out years because we're gonna need to moderate deck growth. We're already it's unsustainably high levels of

deck growth. On the trade tearor front, I've said consistently, UH trade is an opportunity for the United States, particularly in North America, and I would be concerned if we don't ultimately get this trade agreement updated and agreed to with Mexico and Canada because it's an intermediate good relationship. It helps logistics supply chains, it adds jobs here, and it makes us more potent in negotiating the chan which it well in your mind, what's the biggest threat or

threats to the U s economy right now? Still the big The biggest threat are the things that are staring us in the face. UH. Our workforce growth is slowing because we're aging, and we're not yet making policy decisions to address that. Our skill levels in the United States are lagging the rest of the world. We rank twenty five out of OC countries, and our skill levels aren't

keeping up with disruption. And the last thing is we're very highly leveraged, and we just leveraged up late in the economic cycle, and I'm worried that that's going to create a headwind for economic growth. It also means in the next downturn we don't we may not have capacity for fiscal policy. Those things are the things that ultimately matter the most and worrying me the most. Well, non financial corporate debt, is it a record Speaking of leverage.

There's a view that could be the trigger for the next real financial crisis. How do you see it. I probably don't see that. Uh So, Yes, corporate debt to GDP is higher, but the financial sector is part of that is as D level urged. And what I'm looking for is systemic risk. If a company fails or defaults, that's not a good thing, but it's not going to pull down or shouldn't pull down the rest of the economy. So corporate debt to GDP is something to watch, but

I don't think. I don't I don't see a red flag on that at this point. Another thing you didn't mention is oil. You're the guy in the oil patch here for the fat. What do you see happening with oil prices? And how much of a danger is it to the economy. It's not a danger. You know. We're in a We're in a fragile equilibrium right now. You've heard me say before, And what do I mean by that? We're in relative supply demand balance globally, but part of

that balance is based on OPEC. Another oil producing countries are green. They're gonna cut one point eight million barrels a day and there's some talk that maybe they're going to revisit that. Having said that, we think for the next three to five years you're gonna see sort of a volatile up and down in oil prices, with shale being the incremental supplier to global demand. My concern is not the next few years, it's in the out years.

We think, well, we may well likely get into a global undersupply situation because we as prolific as shale is, it's not going to be enough to keep up with global demand, and we're not spending on long life projects, so we we think there's spike risk to the upside. That would worry me because if we're growing slowly in these out years and then you get an oil increase or a gasoline increase, it's like a tax on consumers. But I think we're in a we're in a fragile equilibrium,

in pretty good shape for the next few years. There is always the question of when people think recession might be coming. Um. I assume you're of the view that recession, as FED officials are, processions don't die of old age. But there's a feeling in the mass right that that maybe we uh, we're seeing the yield curves start to tell us something. Well, uh, there's always some not material, not immaterial probability of recession. As you know. Uh, what

I'm worried about is sustainable economic growth. We're gonna have recessions. My job is to make sure that an ups and down cycles. You know, we've got maximum sustainable employment and price stability. And what I'm worried about right now is not the short term cyclical questions. But I'm worried we're not. Are we doing the right things to grow to grow GDP? GDP is made up of growth in the workforce and growth in productivity, and I don't see us making policy

steps to address either. And I think both it look like they're gonna be sluggish in the outyears. We just don't notice it as much right now because we've got a very large fiscal stimulus and up to now, the FED has been accommodative. Are you getting less? So how do we know when you get to the point that we're starting to tighten policy. Well, we're obviously raising the FED funds rate and moving toward neutral neutrals, the theoretical

FED funds rate where we're no longer accommodative. Uh, I think that level is probably in the neighborhood of two and a half two and three quarters, which basically a half a percent to three quarters per cent of a point real. Uh, we're at one fifty to one now, so three or four moves we will be at neutral. So you said you would not intentionally vote for a policy that would invert the yield curve. But that's almost

a tautology. I mean, why would you do that? The real question is can you avoid a policy accident by raising the federal funds rate too far but not realizing it? Uh? Yeah, that that could happen because we don't control the curve. As you know, we controlled just the Fed funds rate, and right now two's to tens is roughly you know, fifty basis points. So this is why I've said, and others have said, every day I'm gonna be watching very

carefully the shape of the yield curve. And what the shape of the yield curve tells me is prospects for future growth out your growth are sluggish, and so I think it's worth paying attention to that. But that will That's the reason why I'm saying, let's just keep the base case for this year at three I'm not looking to increase that because I've got the shape of the yield curve and out your growth in the back of my mind. Well, given that, what would your outlook for

rate moves in two thousand nineteen. Are we going to see a pause from the FAM? No? I I still think we should be gradually moving toward a neutral policy. And again neutrals two and a half and two or three quarters just a question of the pace. But but that's still my overall view. Uh, we should be gradually moving to two and a half two and three quarters, but watching these other factors as we move along that curve. We are talking with Robert Kaplan, the President of the

Dallas Federal Reserve, on Bloomberg Television and Radio worldwide. Uh, have inflation dynamics changed when you look at what you think you need to do? I think they have. And as you know, we're at a conference here that we're hosting on technology enabled disruption. I think one of the

reasons is technology enable disruptions. It means technology replacing people, but more importantly, consumers having at their disposal computing power that literally most companies didn't have twenty five years ago. The power of what consumers can now do has has shifted, and so businesses have much less pricing power, and so it relates to inflation. It means that if a business wants to increase prices, they really aren't as able to do it, and technology is grinding that down and globalization

is a part of it too. So yeah, I think that's part of the reason, in my view, why the Phillips curve is flattered or more muted. I think the economy and the structure has changed. Well. We came out of the Great Recession with companies managing the bottom line rather than trying to grow the top line by investing. Has that changed now that the economy has picked up or are we still because of disruption or whatever, going to see the emphasis be on cutting people and keeping

wages down. Well, companies would love to grow the top line and obviously work with my companies my entire career and that hasn't changed. They want to they want to grow, but uh, I think it's not easy, and so what you're seeing companies do is try to get more scale, in part by merging. Uh. And that's why you see so much merger activity. It's due to disruption and lack of pricing power. And the other thing you're seeing them

do is continue to invest aggressively in technology. But I think when you see all this merger activity people, you should probably connect that with the fact lack of pricing power. Businesses are getting more scale and trying to to protect their margins and so uh, that is having a pretty

profound effect on workers. If you've got a college education, all the data showing you can probably adapt this' not that it won't be traumatic, uh, but if you're a high school educated person or less, which is forty six million workers in this country, you're probably seeing your job disrupted or eliminated. And unless you get retrained, which is easier to say, harder to do, you're likely going to see your productivity and income decline. And that's that's the

grinding and discomfort that we're seeing in the economy. All these wonderful Texas businesses, the CEOs, are they going to be increasing investment because of the tax cuts. Uh, From what I can tell so far, there's greater capex investment this year. That's the good news. The bad news is a lot of it from my discussions with CEOs, is

just moving from next year in the year after two. Now, businesses I don't think are going to fundamentally increase their cap X over the medium term unless they see greater demand, and because of sluggish workforce growth, sluggish out your GDP growth, I think they're still in a cautious stance right now. They're focusing a lot more on costs and investing and trying to maintain margins and still see solid demand, but

not breakaway demand. Let me ask you something for our friends of the fixed income trading guests out there, what do you make of the drift upward in the effective federal funds right over the last couple of months. Some see a quantitative tightening at work here that will shorten the time that balance sheet normalization goes well. I think the market is paying attention to what the Fed is saying.

We've got strong GDP growth, and so I think people are probably putting a little more weight on our forward guidance and our dot plot as to what we say we're gonna do. But that's on the short end, and so you see that in the one year, in the two year and six month libory. On the long end, you're seeing a drift up but not very rapid, and

that's creating this flattening. So that's what I make of it. Well, the minutes show that the Open Market Committee discussed maybe raising ioe are the top end of your range by only twenty basis points um to compensate. Is that necessary? Would you support that? Is that something we could look for and I would support it. And I think this is a this is a little bit of a technical matter, UH flow of funds at or UH and and for listeners, this is about the mechanics of how we set the

FED funds right. And I think a little bit of recalibration is not surprising and it probably appropriate. You think that's likely for June? I mean, is it is there a general feeling that you need to you need I'm going to stay away from that and leave those discussions for in the for for the within the f O m C there and UH and you'll see what we decide when it comes out in the minute. But we shouldn't be surprised. In other words, it is obviously I

think we foreshadowed it. You've seen a little foreshadowing of it. Yeah, you came to Texas from Massachusetts and you live for a long time in New York too high tax, high regulation states. You come here, anybody who comes here nose. They talk about the success of the Texas e company being based on low regulation, low taxes. Have you become a convert? Do you think they're right? Uh? I think

there's a lot of advantages to Texas. And one of the things you and I've talked a lot about, one of the things that's helped Texas over the last fifteen years is migration of pete in firms. Ten years ago, the population of Texas million Today it's nine. We think in the next years it's gonna exceed forty million. And the reason I mentioned this, we don't talk about it enough. In the United States, population growth workforce growth is a

key engine of GDP growth. Texas has got that. Uh. And this is a challenge for probably thirty to thirty five states in the United States. Their population and workforce growth is flat to down. And so uh, Texas has got more latitude than to collect property taxes. It's got a value added tax. We have some taxes here that other states don't, but we don't have an income tax, either at the corporate or the individual level. Uh. And you've got a very business friendly, can do environment and

UH and so, and it's been a virtuous cycle. The more people that move here in businesses, the more other businesses want to come. So uh, Texas prospects are very bright. I think other dates can do it in a different way. But but every state I talked to, and every governor I talked to, has got the same challenge. How do we attract workers and people and grow the workforce that affects their investment in education underfund attention funds. And that's

why I talk about demographics so much. We are letting the population growth in this country UH slide. We've had it before in our history. Immigration UH in improving immigration, it could be skills based, much more employer based. But to think we're gonna cut immigration and grow GDP, I think it's going to create a challenge for many states in the country. Robert Capelan President of the Dallas FAT thank you for joining us from live from deep in the heart of Texas. Well. It is time now to

get a preview of Face the Nation. Margaret Brennan, of course, the host this weekend on Bloomberg Radio. Listen to Face the Nation Sunday, two pm. New York, Washington, d C. And now on Bloomberg one oh six one Boston, Newburyport. That's Face the Nation. It's on this Sunday at two pm on Bloomberg Radio Market. Always a pleasure. I have a feeling it's quote a sort of a pick your Hotspot program. You get to choose which part of the world is more unstable, what what is the sort of

focus for you. This week, we will be honing in on Asia, not just because of this North Korean summit being pushed off, the June twelve summit in Singapore not happening at land Um, but also asking the question of what China's rolling as the President has been public in his suspicion that China maybe the reason using their influence to slow down progress with the US on the North

Korean issue. We'll talk about that um as well as some of these trade bears with Marco Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, who has been a critic of the administration in terms of what they're offering or at least rhetorically offering to do to help out that Chinese telecom firm z t e UM. We also have Jim Clapper who, as you know, was a Director of National Intelligence under

the Obama administration. He's been a critic of the President, particularly when it comes to Russia, but on the issue of North Korea, he thinks it was the right idea to meet face to face with Kim Jong un, and he's going to talk to us about where we go next.

You know, Margaret, it's interesting. The guest lineup is fascinating to me because it raises a question of how important is it for there to be some degree of consensus, some united front that the United States is putting out there when it negotiates trade with China and with the European Union. I mean, what are you expecting to hear from them on that score, given the fact that they've expressed their descent vocally amid a pretty fractured policy of

the White Houses. Well, the way House says they've got Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, going to Beijing to have some of these talks and the issues z t either trying to claim it separate and apart from the broader

carraffs and trade dispute. Of course, for Beijing, they don't often see these things as siloed as US officials would like to present them ass um and that's why the President has made clear his suspicion that all of its bleeding together and influence perhaps progress on the North Korea front. Marco Rubio and a number of Republicans have had issues with the President's approach on trade. So it's very popular with some Democrats in this country who like to see

the kind of protectionist measures the presence and threatening. So there is no unified message either within the Republican party or within the Democratic one at the moment. It's kind of a state by state, industry by industry difference of opinions here. We're also going to have an ally of the President, Mark Vetta to Republican congressions in North Carolina is going to be on the show to talk to us, uh, not just about this but the immigration debate right now

and what he's hearing from the President. Margaret, just a little bit more on Senator Marco Rubio, because on Tuesday, remember he said that he wanted to push for what he described as a veto proved congressional action to check the Trump administration's deal to save the Chinese telco company a ZTE. Then the Senate Banking Committee approved an amendment from Senator Chris Van Hollend of Maryland, the Democrat, to limit the president's ability to remove sanctions from the Chinese telco.

Is this demonstrating that the president's actions are going to be limited, perhaps not just on China trade. Well, certainly, um, there are those in Congress who would like to try to limit the president's actions on this. Yes. Uh. Margaret Warner, the former telecom ceo who's the current Democratic Senate from Virginia, was really passionate about it when I spoke to him last week, that this is a national security issue and Congress is very concerned about what the president might even

be considering doing here. Of course, the question is with the president if if the public posture is actually reflected in what they're considering doing policy wise, and that's not clear. And just finally, h James Clapper of course has been back and forth with his comments about the president, but he says he did not say that Donald Trump keeps saying what he said, What is this about? This is

like a rhetorical whiplash. Yes. Well, James Clapper, of course was the Director of National Intelligence UH during the election and saw first hand he's written in this new book details about what they were seeing behind the scenes. Would

Russian election meddling. What he has said was trying and that he got criticized by the President for was his uh assessment here in terms of how to refer to what the President is calling a spy within his campaign, but which others would just simply call someone who was an informant to the FBI, um someone who's been in contact both with FBI officials and the Trump campaign on

the issue of election medaling. The President says you that that Clapper defended his point of view in some ways by admitting there by Clapper said, no, no, I was talking about trying to spy on the Russians and what the Russians were doing. This is a war of words, but it's really just being put in the context partisan politics. Alright, Well, we're gonna be listening. Thank you very much, Margaret Brennan. You can hear Margaret Brennan this weekend on Bloomberg Radio.

Listen to Face the Nation Sunday two pm in New York, Washington, d C. And now Bloomberg one oh six one Boston, New Gradport. That's Face the Nation. This Sunday at two on Bloomberg Radio. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio