Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Welcome to the Bloomberg This Weekend podcast with David Gura, Christina Raffini, and Elisa Matteo.
Thanks for joining us for today's selection of conversations from the show.
You can listen to our favorite discussions right here on the podcast, but also make sure to join us live every Saturday and Sunday morning, starting at seven am Eastern.
We're on Bloomberg Television, Radio and the Bloomberg Business App, bringing you unique takes and in depth interviews on news, politics, lifestyle, and culture.
President Trump has confirmed US negotiators are heading to Pakistan tomorrow for meetings that we'll start on Tuesday, and the straight offore Movis remains a key sticking point between the US and Iran as the key energy choke point remains.
Closed back with US.
As Bloomberg's whe House correspondent Courtney Supermanian and Courtney If your phone rings. During the course of this interview, the President has talked to Jonathan carl He's talked to Fox News, He's talked to ms NOW. If your phone rings and you need to take it, nothing here on mind as well take the call if you need to, we will proceed without you until then, though you have been synthesizing all that the President has been saying in these phone interviews.
Give us the latest on what we know of these meetings, the second round of talks that are going to be taking place here in Pakistan as the week begins.
Yeah, as you mentioned, he's given a series of interviews this morning, he's taken to true social He's trying to set the tone of what to expect in the coming days, and that is that Special Envoys Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner will return to Islamabad tomorrow evening for talks. He has just told MS now that JD Vance is not attending those talks for security reasons. I have actually while we're sitting here, texting the Vice President's staff to try
and confirm that. But I think all of this just underscores, in the last seventy two hours, just how much whiplash we're seeing here, and just underscores the unpredictable nature of this conflict and the erratic and sometimes contradictory messaging we've seen from the President. I think it's important to remember that Friday he told us that an agreement was all but agreed to, which included concessions that Iran had never
publicly agreed to. He even told ABC that he trusted the Iranians, and then, of course he crucially left the blockade of the Straight in place until an agreement was finalized, which prompted Tehran to close the Straight again and set this whole off, this whole situation off, and now we're seeing him again threaten Iranian power plants in bridges if they don't take the deal, you know, again escalating the rhetoric ahead of negotiations, which is of course a tactic
we've seen him use over and over again in this conflict.
Counie, one of the things I found interesting is having covered the first Trump administration, as we all did, when they pulled out of the around nuclear deal the first time, and even on the campaign trail leading up to that, the President was so critical of Iran, saying they couldn't be trusted, They could never be trusted to get into any kind of a nuclear deal and stick to it, They couldn't be trusted as negotiators. You know, where has
that changed? Why has that changed? And why is the president suddenly willing to take them at their word in these negotiations, in pursuit of a deal that seems like it's going to look very much like the one he pulls out of in the first place.
That's a great question. I do think that the President is looking for an off ramp. I think he is realizing the economic repercussions are really bearing out both globally but here at home as we look ahead to November and we see Americans really start to feel the economic pain of this at the gas pump, right And so this time, you know, this is the situation of his making, and he is looking for any opportunity to bring this
conflict to an end and move on. And so I think that has allowed him to sort of vacillate between you know, these this escalating rhetoric where he's really ramping up pressure but then taking the Iranians at their word that this that that they're going to come to the table and agree to a deal. But as you know, the Iranians are very good at dragging out negotiations.
All right, courtnessy reminding our White House correspondent, thank you so much for Johnny us this morning. Joining us now is former Defense Secretary Mark Esper he served in President Trump's first administration. Mister secretary, thank you for being with us. The first question I want to ask you is, when you look at this negotiating team, Steve Wikoff, Jared Kushner, it looks like Vice President Vance, we're learning this morning, will not be going for the second round of negotiations.
Do you think they're up to the task.
Well, they have the President's trust, so in that regard, they are up to the task. Though I assume that the Iranians will interpret the Vice President not coming as a downgrading of these this next round of talks, which could be the last round of talks for anytime soon, and so they may pull back on their delegation, which I think it's going to be hard to get a deal done, at least a deal in principle for that reason.
And then if you're going to believe the president, then the President says the attacks will begin, you know, following that if the talks fail, if they don't sign the deal, I think is what he literally said. If they don't sign the deal on Tuesday before the ceasefire, then he's going to go after their energy, after their infrastructure, after their power plants.
Mister Secretary, I want to ask you about the chronology here. So we had the announcement from the Iranian Ford Minister that the strait was open on Friday morning. Then a few hours later we saw a great deal of confusion. So and as the President indicated that blockade was going to stay in place. And that's kind of where I want to go with you. Is the role of that blockade going forward here? The importance of it as you see it. Is it something that you see as being
negotiable here? Do you think it will be negotiated upon in those meetings in Islamabad?
Well, I think, first of all, part of the blockade with regard to Iran, when the Foreign Minister came out, what he did say is it would be it was lifted, but he mentioned the conditions, and the nisitions, of course were still that shipping had to follow this new route which was close to the Iranian coastline between their islands, and that they would be managed by the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, But that wasn't reported as loudly.
It was just that they had opened it.
And then of course there was a lot of friction within Iran with the hardliners saying that the Forem Minister had overstepped his bounds. It was the wrong message, and in fact they were going to do all those things plus charged tolls, and that caused the counter reaction. Look, I think President Trump keeping putting the blockade on Iran
what a few days ago was a smart move. I think there's no reason why Iran should allow be allowed to reap the benefits of oil revenues coming out of golf and sustain its fight while shipping from friendly countries is not allowed to go.
So I thought that mate was smart.
I think that's what put pressure on the Iranians, and I was a little surprised that he didn't.
Lift it when they lifted it.
But nonetheless, we are where we are this morning with both it's clamping down on control of the straight and it effectively bottled up at this point in time once again.
And what do you make of the President's renewed threats here this morning? He says he will go after every single power point and every single bridge and Iran no more. Mister nice guy, do you consider that a war crime? And what does it mean for the state as a whole? David was asking earlier wouldn't that just lead to a failed state If there's no infrastructure left, there's no power center left, there's no ability to have a democracy.
And Iran, well, first of all, that's his negotiating style, right to threaten and to amp up the rhetoric and maybe force them to step down or at least reconsider that their position in the Iranians and so and so he's going back to where he was just about a week ago, I think, in terms of timing. So that's
not surprising. You know, this question with regard to war crimes, it all depends on how the planners, the targeteers, and the lawyers look at different targets, whether it's a power plant or a bridge or a highway, and how close it's connection is to the military. So, for example, if you have a power plant sitting on a military base powering that base, then it's a legitimate target. As you get further and further away from such direct connectivity, then
it becomes more dubious. And so I think they're going to have the military is gonna have to work through all those different issues case by case, target by target to come to that final understanding. If indeed that is where the military goes in this next phase.
I think the thing that has led to a lot of the fogginess we've experienced over the last thirty six or forty eight hours, it's just not being able to get a sense of degree to which what the President is saying the Orionions have agreed to is in fact what they have agreed to. And you know, well the difficulties of engaging in any kind of diplomacy or negotiations
with Rians. Of course, you were in the first term when the President pulled out of the jc POA talk a bit about that, if you would, the way the US can verify what in fact the Audians are actually saying they're doing what they have done. Yes, perhaps this will be haggled out over the table there in Islamabad. But leading up to it, how do we know what we know?
To ask? A very base can cover some question.
Yeah, look, it's tough.
I mean, obviously the President raises his expectations with some of the things he says.
Maybe he's picking up.
Spot reports from his advisors, which which maybe is missing some nuance, but nonetheless the expectation was real. Or as the President's been saying that we're very, very close to a deal, that it's that they want it really badly. And then what you hear coming out of Iran as recently as the last twenty four hours, where the lead negotiator, Speaker Glibof has said, yes, progress was made in Islamabad last week, but we are far from a significant There
are significant differences between our negotiating positions. Now he's the lead negotiator and un paraphrasing, but that shows.
There's a much bigger gap.
Now.
Look, I'll also say that what the Iranians say publicly to the West and what they say privately to their own people are two different things because they're trying to manage the domestic audience. So it is hard to pass through what's going on. But when I look at each side's negotiating positions, going back to the fifteen points proposed by President Trump and the ten points proposed by.
The Iranians, I just see few areas of agreement. The big issues.
There's a major disagreement when it comes to nuclear richment, when it comes to returning the nuclear fuel, when it comes to what's going to be the future of the straight of hor Moves. I mean, when we talked yesterday about what the Foreign Minister said and what the IRGC is saying is the new normal they want to establish is that they have sovereignty over the strait and they will control manage who goes through, and they will impose tolls, much like what happens at the Panama Canal. And that's
clearly something we the West cannot tolerate. So I think this is just going to have to play out of the coming days. I still see the positions based on my historical understanding of where both sides are. It's too far apart to get a deal here in the next forty eight to seventy two hours.
Do you think this conflict was a strategic blunder by the US given that Iran has now figured out even if it gives up its nuclear program, it has a more powerful card to play in closing the.
Strait, at least economically. Ye.
You know, you can't tally the score until the game's over. And you know, right now, obviously we've had considerable progress at the military level, which with regard to taking down the military objectives of defeating their navy, degrading their air defense, their air force, so forth, and saw on. But at this point time, at the strategic level, we know that Iran is still refusing to yield to our nuclear demands, and that was ostensibly the reason why we got into
this conflict eight weeks ago. If you recall in Geneva, whit Cough and Kushner said, look, the Iranians aren't serious on the nuclear issue. We need to try something different, and that's when Operation Epic Fury was Lost was launched.
I'm sorry. So would you.
In your time, if the president came to you when you were running the Pentagon, would you have said this was a good idea.
Well, this happened to times during my tenure.
I would say, look, these are the things we can do, but wars are unpredictable. Once you get into them, it's easy to get in, but hard to get out. And I talk about this a lot in my memoir about how we would have these discussions, and it would be myself and the Chairman warning about getting into a conflict without positioning troops in advance, without being prepared for a ground war, and without being prepared for all these other
consequences we're seeing. So that's look that I thought that was my job a to prepare plans to go to war, make sure the force is ready, but b give my best advice with regard to the pros and cons. And you know there's been documentation about the presence of russ being at various positions on this with regard to getting it.
But the views he felt emboldened after after what happened last June with Midnight Hammer, with the Venezuela operation, and was maybe convinced that if he did this operation decapitated the government, they might fall.
And clearly clearly it didn't.
Let me ask you lastly about Lebanon, which of course has been such a crucial issue here, and we have headlines this morning from Israel's Defense Minster saying he and Benjamin and Yahoo instructed the idea of to ask with act with all force from the ground, from the air, even during the ceasefire, to protect our soldiers in Lebanon from any threat. A crucial issue year for the US is the greed to which they and Israel are going
to be on the same page. How big a challenge is that going to be going forward here?
Well, Israel clearly has different goals than we have when it comes to both Iran and Lebanon, and the Lebanon issue has been dragging on for the Israelis as long as Hesbelah has been in existence since the early nineteen eighties. So and this isn't the first time that there's been some type of agreement or a commitment by the Lebanese government to disarm Hesbelah to move them back up north. So look, I think Israel clearly wants to go in and push the Hesbela further north of the Latawni River,
disarm them once again, take out their leadership. But they're playing to President Trump's fiddle right now because Trump wants a deal, and to get the deal, he had to push them to us to have a ceasefire with the Lebanese, with Hesbela, to be more specific, in order to get the Iranians to back down a little bit. So I think the question will be is if the ceasefire between the United States and Iran breaks down in three days, will the ceasefire between hesb Law and Israel also break down?
That'll be an important point to watch.
I mean, very quickly, what do you think will happen? Do you think it will break down?
Where the rhetoric is this morning, I see it very hard to get an agreement in forty eight hours. So my sense is the President might be forced to launch some type of military tax to live up to what he said, rather than kind of yielding or extending the agreement.
But who knows, we'll see.
Thank you so much for taking time. Former Defense of Tarry Mark Esper joining us this morning.
Stay with us for more on Bloomberg this weekend.
Right after this, President Trump says Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will head to Islamabad for talks on Tuesday, if that could last until Wednesday, after Ron reversed this decision to reopen shipping to the strait of horror moves. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was on CNN's State of the Union earlier and had this to say about negotiations.
Negotiations are going very well.
A lot of the chatter and noise you here in public is really the signs of a regime that's falling apart. Different factions go in different directions. They're worried about trying to get some leverage at the end of these negotiations. I think President Trump and Vice President Vance have us on a pathway to a good ending of this conflict before long.
Join US now is access is White House supporter Marcapudo and Atlantic staff rider Nancy useef Mark. Let me start with you and just get your read of the latest here, the present making the rounds over the course of the morning, indicating that Steve Woodcoff Jared christ are gonna be the point. People go into these talks curious what you make of that the latest there, and sort of what you think will be notably different at this meeting compared to the
one that took place between JD. Vance and his running counterparts last week.
Well, I have no idea what's going to be notably different. One of the things that seems to be through line is everything seems to be notably the same. The only through line we have so far is that there's generally a ceasefire between the United States and Iran, between Israel and Lebanon. But otherwise everyone keeps claiming that progress is being made, but what's really happening. As a result, we've had a few things in axios that we had reported.
One that there is an idea out there that the US had started to advance of providing Iran access to its frozen assets, its currency bank accounts, essentially of about twenty billion dollars in return for them giving up uranium to the United States. It's highly rich uranium stockpiles. The Iranians wanted more money, and then the President came out
and said he wasn't going to do this. However, there remained the very big issues, which is Iran has highly enriched uranium, the United States has access to Iran's money and has basically frozen them out from it. That's a possible trade item. Iran has closed the straight of horm moves, the United States wants it open and has a blockade. Those things seem tradable. And then more broadly, the United
States has lots of weaponry and sanctions against Iran. Iran funds terrorist proxy groups like Hamas, has Bulla and Houthis, and so that also seems to be a trade item. But so far we have not seen anything in writing that clearly shows what's up for trade, what's up for discussion,
what the progress is. So until then you have statements from President Trump and what you just played there, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright saying all this progress is happening, and then you have the running saying no, no, it's not. We do know they're talking, because obviously they're talking, and also they're not shooting.
I do need to ask you, as we were speaking at your Axios colleague, Brockervied was now contradicting the President, who said earlier that Vice President Jadevans would not be attending these talks. Axios is now reporting that Vice President jd Vance will lead the US delegation for another right of talks Islamabad. I know you've been on with us, but I didn't know if if you'd heard that as well, and what you're thinking.
Is on that.
I didn't want to come out and say it because I wasn't sure if it had come out yet. It would be a shocking breach of protocol if jady Vance were not there. So when you just listed those two names and didn't list jade Vance, I was rather surprised. Yes, jady Vance is the lead negotiatory supposed to be, and he's going to be taking that role here as well.
All right, Nancy, let's go to you. I want to talk to you about some of the mixed messaging we're getting, not just from the administration but also on the Iranian side as well. We've had infighting between IRGC members and
political more political elites. We've had this very bellicose tweet this morning or social media posts from the President threatening to once again take out Iran's bridges and power plants, but at the same time going back to talks and saying things are progressing and they think that the US can get a deal. What is going on here?
So you make a very important point because over the end of the weekend, or at least on Friday, we saw talks about a ceasefire from the Foreign Minister, for only the state news media to say that actually the Aya Tola was on board. And the reason that was significant not just because it impacts the talks, but it was the first rule break we've seen our fissures within the regime, something we've been looking for as a sign of potential fractures for the regime, and so that was noteworthy.
But I think you get at a very important point is we're also seeing some broken patterns in the United States where the President, facing challenges in terms of reaching a strategic outcome that is beneficial to the United States, is turning back to tactical threats. We saw this earlier with the threat to kill a civilization. And now, as you note in this latest social media post, he's threatened to strike Iranian infrastructure. In addition to being a violation
to the Geneva Conventions. Doing so doesn't answer the ultimate question that the US is trying to resolve, which is how to get the strategic outcome that they want. And so it feels to me that we're on a cycle in which we're trying to leverage the US military superiority to reach and understanding what we want to achieve through
these war aims. And as your colleague noted, there are a lot of things that the United States and iron are trying to achieve, the nuclear program, reopening the Strait sanctions, relieve what would happen with the proxies, the Iruni proxies, and the Warren Lebanon. The last time there were serious negotiations about this, it took nearly two years to reach
an agreement on just one component of it. And so I know there's been a back and forth today about whether the Vice President is attending and what that means.
I'm also curious if there will be more technical experts in this next round of negotiations, because in the past these negotiations were successful not when the top sort of headline making attendees were there, but when the experts were able to work out these details such that when folks like the Vice president or the president's top negotiator came to the table, it wasn't to iron out these very very specific points, but to really sort of put the
final signature on it. So I'm curious if we'll see a different tactic in terms of how how the United States approaches these talks, not just through who's attending from the White House, but who's attending from government agencies that could really help get to a resolution.
Mark, we got about a minute left, but I do want to ask you about your reporting on what's happening with Cuba, because the President has maintained that that's still very much a live issue for him going forward.
Here.
I'm struck the last time I sat down with Cuba's ambassador to the UN, he was reluctant to tell me with whom the Cubans had been meeting. Wouldn't safe with Secretary Ruby or others. We now know that there has been a meeting. Give us in this minute that we have left. The latest that you know of the status of those conversations as the President's threats continue.
Friday before last, eight days ago, a high level State Department delegation went down to Havana, touchdown in Havanah, first time the United States government plane had done that since
twenty sixteen when President Obama went. They had meetings with the Cuban officials, Cuban apparatrics, as well as the grandson of Raoul Castro known as Raulito, also nicknamed El Congrejo the Crab, and they basically delivered the United States long standing message that we need to have economic and democratic reforms, free political prisoners, and start discussing returning seized assets that were taken during the revolution to US persons and corporate interests.
In return, the United States didn't offer much. They offered to help set up Starlink to increase internet access. They also made very clear what the United States did to the Cubans that if there's a huge problem and a humanitarian crisis or societal collapse in Cuba, the United States is not going to stand idly by. That's not a direct threat, but boy, it's an indirect one.
All right, We're going to have to leave it there. Mark Pudo white House repporter for Axios and Nancy Yusef with The Atlantic. Stay with us for more on Bloomberg this weekend right after.
This birthday is this Wednesday, April twenty second.
And of course, one of the biggest threats to the planet is climate change. According to a recent study, climate change could the world economy some thirty eight trillion dollars per year by the middle of the century.
And of course climate chang josh so impacts the food we eat, how we eat it, how we get it. And joining us now is award winning chef, TV host and restaurant tour Andrew Zimmern. He's also the author of a new cookbook, the Blue Food Cookbook, Delicious Seafood Recipes for a Sustainable Future. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you great to be here.
So explain to us blue foods. Is that like blue zones we talk about those for health? Or what does this mean? And why did you want to write this?
No, that's my buddy Dan Butner's book, which is great in an olternative consequence. Is the production company that I owned produces his podcast and he's one of my best friends.
A great book and you should buy that too.
Sarreally blue works for him. I'm gonna use it as well.
I got it.
Thanks exactly, well exactly.
The United Nations use this term over a decade ago,
and then nobody else did. And my co author Barton sever and our collaborators fed by Blue, who helped vet all the technical information in the book, we all felt it was really important to come up with a way to talk about food that comes from water fish, shellfish, lake fish, brook trout, seaweeds very importantly, and be able to talk about them from a global perspective as opposed to green foods and green economies, which are obviously terrestrial.
If we want to combat climate change, if we want to feed a hungry year planet, if we want to do so economically, and we want to make sure that hunger is something that is statistically eliminated on planet Earth, which is actually possible to do, there is a path of success for that, then that all the solutions start with blue foods and our water systems most importantly, because we have I have to protect them, but we also
have to produce from them. At the same time, every second breath we take comes from the ocean, and by working on the ocean. Working in the ocean and all of our water systems, we can do a better job of protecting it and producing from it.
At the same time, we're going to ask about at least one recipe here in a moment. But let me just ask you about when I go to the store and buy seafood, what should I be looking for?
In other words, in the spirit of going.
After blue foods, what are the best things for me to target or purchase as a food eating consumer here in America in twenty twenty six.
You should simply ask the person who's behind the counter or wearing the red vest if they're stalking the frozen aisle or the canned isle, because remember, responsibly source seafoods that are properly handled are in three places in your markets. But ask the person you know about the catch of the day, Ask about what's fresh, Ask, most importantly, is it responsibly sourced. The questions that people ask themselves with fish and shellfish all the time is fressure, frozen, wild or farmed?
And those questions are really irrelevant.
There are bad actors in the fresh and frozen space. There are bad actors in the farmed and the wild fisheries management space, but the good actors far outweigh them.
Well, there's a recipe in here for chocolate chip Kelp brownies. Seafood didn't be a dessert. Any other outliers that you think might take some convincing, but you're going to stand by well.
Seaweedn't desert.
It is just a great way to get something super healthy into your body. The FAO and the OMB all estimate that by twenty forty five, which is nineteen years from now, we will produce see more seafood by weight in America than we will potatoes.
Think about that. Seaweed is the food of the future.
It requires very little equipment, and it is all a plus side. I would encourage people to be eating nutritious oily fish that are good for our brain health and our body's development. A sardine, a fresh sardine, but also a tin one are literally perfect foods when it comes to our health. We need to be incorporating more foods like that into our diets.
I want to ask you lastly just about the changes that we've seen in terms of availability of fish, lobster, bivalves as well. Climate changes is having a role there, how do you think about that in the context of what you're advocating people leader or go after.
How much is that landscape changing.
Well, it changes all the time, which is why I've been calling for in America for one national agency to.
Help us monitors heat food.
Right now, we have an alphabet soup of different agencies, all of which are doing good jobs, but nobody is really talking to each other. It's also why I've advocated for a Secretary of Food, a cabinet level position. Food and food adjacent businesses are one of the largest sections of GDP. You know, independent restaurants alone. Forget about farms and all of the food production companies, but just independent
restaurants alone is about six percent of GDP. We have food decisions being made by six different alphabet agencies in Washington, DC alone, So I think we need to centralize all that under one office. I think the other thing that we need to do is we need to remember that the oceans are always changing. What's available one day is not available the other. Lobsters are marching north to colder climates,
so are crabs in search of food. And I think what people should do is they should be communicating more with the person behind the counter at a supermarket, at a big box store, or at a fish store about what that store thinks they should be eating.
Let them right now be the gatekeeper for you.
Eat lower on the food chain and try to make sure that you become a good global citizen. To answer David's question more exactly, shop the fish, not the dish. If you go into the market, you're going to make fish and chips with cod, and cod's not there. Ask the person behind the counter, Hey, I was going to make fish and chips with cod. There's no cod. What should I use instead? Let those people help be your guidepost Shop the dish.
Not the fish.
All right, I think we're gonna have to leave it there.
Thank you so much.
Have a great day, all right.
The book is the Blue Food Cookbook, Delicious Sepid Recipes for a Sustainable Future.
Stay with us for more on Bloomberg this weekend. Right after this.
Good News now this weekend's pointed news quiz, the news quiz for risk takers.
David is this week have you been practicing so.
Much as I can? You know, I read regularly, and you know.
Tim beat my very first lost him tell me more. But I was reveling in this.
However, we have a guest star we do playing along with us, and.
I think this is probably like the most dreads enough I felt in my embarrassed even joke.
About the same way.
But it'll be fine, Lisa, Master will make you look good.
Okay, let me explain it to you because you're new to this ed. Okay, So basically, we have three different categories. Okay, do you have ten, ten, ten, thirty chips in front of you?
Okay? What you do with those chips?
You figure out how confident are you are with each category. If you know the first category, you're gonna put ten chips, you're gonna be twenty chips.
Maybe maybe thirty all in one, it depends. I usually just go to even.
But if you're really confident on one, you can slide another.
I'll ask you the question, you write it on your board, and I'll tell you guys to flip it and we'll see who gets it wrong.
Okay.
If he's wrong, what happens? You take the chips and if you're.
Wrong, I get your chips a little piece of your salt.
That's right, Okay, So let's get to the category.
Categories.
Categories okay.
First category is investigations, second category business leader, and third category con cons.
Does cons mean like pro and console con artists or convictions?
Okay? Thank you, not that I'm but it's.
Good to ask ye.
To spell the word sentence.
All right, are you ready for the first How are you betting?
How are you?
I put nothing on the person?
You put nothing on the first one?
Ten?
Five?
No, you can't go five.
I can't.
Literally let's go ten.
Ten alright, okay, okay, so you're going ten o the first so ten ten, ten, ten, okay, good, all right, here we go.
The question is.
Gomez was charged with influence, peddling and commercial bribery. Her hut bind is which country's premiere? Her name is miss? Her husband is which country's premiere?
Really?
Now, come on, David, all right, everybody's read.
I just love the music, which is the reason.
I like to he does.
Okay, flipp it? What do you got David? There will start, David.
You got Columbia, Christina Spain ed.
Spain is the answer.
For the record.
Only, So you didn't bet anything, David. Okay, we're doing well, we're.
Doing we're winning.
We're against David. Here we go next, one category business leaders.
Are you ready? Okay, hold on, sorry, yes?
Are you going to ten for business leaders?
Yes?
And again?
Okay, good, you're going with twenty twenty for business leaders? Okay. A man allegedly through a Maltov cocktail at the San Francisco home of which business figure. What was the name of this business figure?
It's the other one, the other one.
If it's one of them, it's the one.
I'm gonna be all right.
We're all ready flip its moment, alady, everybody got it? Okay, good, good, good, good, excellent.
For the record, I've got twenty points for that.
Okay, but they still have their their two so we're all tied up here, all right.
Have had more conviction that I was going to do? You should have known that.
All right?
Are you ready for the cons Okay?
This is like okay the French City.
Oh no, no, okay.
The founder, the founder of which annual New York event was arrested on charges that he stole money raised for charity. What is the name of that New York you know?
This is?
I hate this thing.
Yes, some issue with the question which we can get into.
Let's do think the category isleting I.
Know we'll get to it.
Okay, I'm right, okay, okay, flipp it.
What do we got calla David?
I read.
Charity event?
Charity event in San Francisco as well, like a New York City thing started in New York. I don't know, but it had to about that, did you bet? Oh?
I get your chips. David, you're down.
This is probably my most low in the city.
All right, David, terrible. We got to go for a bonus. Then, you know that is your uload.
This current news quiz is your most loath day. Find out the end of this at the end of the Okay, all right, we've got about all right, we have a bonus only minute.
Okay.
It has thirty Christinas there and you have ten twenty David, all right, anti trust this is the category?
All in?
Yeah, all in, Okay, okay, okay, okay, all right, here we go. Which confectioner, a large consumer of hazelnuts, was a target of European Union anti trust raids this week? Which confection what is the name products?
I can't think of the company.
It's a large consumer of hazelnuts, very distinction.
No does it so delicious on a piece of bread?
Milk. I help, spelling is not counting here, come on the name of the company. The company.
Sorry, exactly what I was saying, I was going to write.
Ferrero like kind of I did not know until I was that.
I didn't know.
But Motela inside of Otemus too in the spacecraft was the biggest story.
It was.
It floated right past the date about the game, perhaps more than the game itself.
Don't kill our colleagues in the.
Game, Sundbag to you, guys, you did say really good, you have to come back. You did it?
Okay, thank you. I appreciate that patronizing statement. All right, you.
Can test your knowledge and all ten questions. Take the Portynews quiz at Bloomberg dot com slash forty. Thanks for choice, Yeah, probably me.
Thanks for joining us on today's Bloomberg This Weekend podcast. Don't forget to tune in live for the show every Saturday and Sunday morning, starting at seven am Eastern.
We're on Bloomberg Television Radio and the Bloomberg Business App, bringing you unique takes and in depth interviews on news, politics, lifestyle, and culture.