Loading summary
Transcript103 lines
- [00:00]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
At Duke Energy, we're making smart investments to add enough capacity to power 10.5 million more homes over the next five years. It's all part of our commitment to deliver the reliable energy America needs. Learn more at duke-energy.com poweringamerica
- [00:18]
Podcast Announcer
Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio News. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.
- [00:40]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Israel and Iran have stopped firing at each other for now. We'll see how long that holds. It does, though, seem that that is really the desire and the outcome that President Trump has pushed for as he's continually pushing for a deal with Iran, though the US Is still obviously maintaining its naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. This is all things that he discussed in a Meet the Press interview recorded on Friday air yesterday. Listen to what the President said.
- [01:06]
Denver Riggleman
We have the ultimate blockade.
- [01:09]
James Comer
I don't consider that a war. My red line would be if I
- [01:12]
Denver Riggleman
think I wasn't going to make a deal or if I wasn't going to make a deal fast enough. So we're having very good negotiations with the people that are leading the country now. We'll either have something done fairly quickly or we'll finish it out militarily.
- [01:26]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
So for more we go to Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall, our Washington correspondent live at the White House. So Tyler, I guess it becomes a question of fairly quickly. The president was pressed to on the timeline and he continually pointed back to wars of the past that lasted years. So where are we now? A few months in?
- [01:43]
Tyler Kendall
Well, Kelly, at this point we got a lot of fast moving developments and headlines earlier this morning after what was considered to be the largest flare up in fighting overnight since the cease fire was announced back in April. This White House maintains that diplomacy is still a viable option and that they are making progress in the talks. We did hear from Pakistan's foreign minister earlier today urging all sides to come to the table and negotiate. Pakistan course a key mediator in this conflict. And we did get some movement in the right direction earlier today. As you mentioned, President Trump out with a flurry of posts on Truth Source Social urging an end to the hostilities and that there would be an imminent cease fire between Israel and Iran. Shortly after, both sides did confirm that they will stop firing at each other, at least for now, because the IRGC came out with a statement saying that the cease fire will only hold if Israel stops its operation against the Iranian backed militant group head Hezbollah in Lebanon. But then we heard from Israeli media essentially saying that Israel at this point doesn't have plans to stop that specific front in this war, which both Israel and the US have said is a totally separate operation. But Joe and Kelly, as you both know, it does risk derailing the US Iran talks because Iran has now maintained that a cease fire needs to extend to Lebanon. It is an interesting development in all of this considering that just last week the US did help to broker a truce between Israel and Lebanon, but ultimately those terms rejected by the Iranian backed militant group Hezbollah.
- [03:16]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Tyler, thank you so much. Live from the White House, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall, as we add the voice of Heather Connelly with the American Enterprise Institute, former deputy assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of European and Eurasian affairs in the George W. Bush administration. Heather, it's great to have you back. Thank you for joining us. I don't know how long we can keep this back and forth kind of slather and repeat. It's been incredible to see it unfold even within the premarket hours this morning to go from depths to now. Stocks moving higher on hopes for peace. The president's post on truth social 5:36am Israel and Iran must immediately stop shooting in quotation marks. He signed it. President DONALD J. Trump Is that why they stopped?
- [04:01]
Heather Conley
Well, no, I mean, they, Iran needed to, I think, exert itself here. As we've talked about, the negotiations now have been stuck for weeks and in some ways Iran needs to help move that impasse and Lebanon is the perfect connectivity for them to do it. So they don't want a sustained conflict. They want to demonstrate that they can continue to have ballistic missiles hit the region, that their demands need to be respected. And by linking Lebanon with the conflict in Iran, it places Israel in a terrible predicament. And that predicament really increases the tensions between the United States and Israel, which is not good for both countries. So they're playing a very crafty game. And the president, you know, using social media to say stop. These two have vested interests in continuing. That's the problem.
- [04:58]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Well, and it's not just on social media. The president also has suggested in interviews, including one over the weekend with the Financial Times, that he's in charge here, not Israel. And yet Israel still retaliated against Iran. How willing do you think Benjamin Netanyahu is? How willing is he to go against the wishes of President Trump?
- [05:15]
Heather Conley
So Prime Minister Netanyahu has a terrible line to watch. He has to Defend and protect Israel from missiles that coming from Hezbollah, from Iran, from the Houthis we saw. And as he does that, again, this is why when the Iranians linked Lebanon to resolution of this conflict, they widened it. And, you know, I think he, he will craft this very careful line because he knows he needs the United States, he needs their support, but he must take action to defend his country. Please also remember there's a election that's going to happen in Israel in October. Public opinion has, you know, this is not going to be a good election for Prime Minister Netanyahu. And people want, you know, want some action here, although the Israelis understandably, are very tired of this conflict.
- [06:05]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Well, enter the Houthis once again, who you just invoked, essentially announcing a ban of Israeli vessels in the Red Sea. Is this the most likely reason why hostilities resume? Would this be a whole new shooting war between Israel and the Houthis?
- [06:21]
Heather Conley
Well, it's going to be. It's really the card that hasn't been fully played. If you think about Iran could have used this lever with the Houthis very early in the conflict. I think they held it back. Houthis were certainly damaged in the conflict in 2023, 2024, but said that we
- [06:39]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
left a lot behind, that we did
- [06:40]
Heather Conley
not destroy 100% and we weren't effective at eliminating that conflict. So this is really, I think, for Iran, invoking the Houthis is really a power play with the Gulf states because as you've seen the Emiratis, the Saudis have used pipelines to try to get and divert the energy to the Red Sea. If the Iranians can bottle that up through the Houthis and you still have this blockade, it just puts more pressure on the region to try to cede to Iranian demand. So these are all interlinked. Let's see how much the Iranians have to be careful as well. Egypt is part of this negotiating team. This impacts Egypt terribly economically. So lots of careful balancing acts to come.
- [07:25]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Well, and so when we consider the Houthis or with Hezbollah and Lebanon as well, how much control does Iran have in the decision making? Should we assume that that link between they, them and proxies that they have funded is that ironclad where they can say, you know what, leave the Red Sea for now, we'll let you know when it goes? Or could the Houthis still decide to act kind of independent of Tehran's wishes?
- [07:48]
Heather Conley
Kelly, it's a great question. I mean, we can't give, you know, too much credit for the Iranians for full control over this. And I think, in fact, the Houthis were damaged somewhat also don't want to have everything taken away from them. So I think there is some judicious use. But Iran does have enormous sway in support of Hezbollah and Houthis. And as we've seen over the last 48 hours, Iran's ballistic missile program is still quite lethal. It can hit, so it hasn't been degraded as much as we had hoped after the initial conflict in February.
- [08:25]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Our Republican strategist, Rick Davis suggested in a conversation earlier today that Iran is bracing for the long haul. Do Americans need to start getting that into that mindset? I know the president says we're on the verge of peace every 24 to 48 hours. This could be months, this could be longer.
- [08:42]
Heather Conley
Yeah, Joe, but, but the president does such an excellent job of, of verbalizing and the markets respond to him. So, I mean, that is. That probably won't change for him.
- [08:51]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
You're right.
- [08:52]
Heather Conley
I mean, the reason that I think energy prices are remaining and a reasonable China has pulled. So, I mean, they're not importing, they've stopped. So there's so many different mechanisms here. Iran does have huge economic pressures building on it. The attack on this Indian tanker that just went through Oman, empty tanker. They need storage before they shutter wells. They're under pressure, but they see that they now have leverage over the United States in Lebanon to get Israel to stop, certainly in the Strait. And the Iranian elite, I hate to say this, are enjoying using this leverage over the United States. So, yes, they think they have time and they want these economic pressures to build in the region and in the United States so that we will cede to their demands. So I think we'll be back at this conversation quite a bit. We are very, very stuck in this moment.
- [09:46]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Well, and because we are stuck in this moment and this moment is taking up so much oxygen, a lot of us are paying less attention to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but Russia is feeling that economically as well. Bloomberg reported last week that the Russian Finance Ministry told Vladimir Putin that this is becoming unsustainable financially. Could we see an end to that conflict, some kind of negotiated outcome there, before we actually end up with a negotiated outcome in the Middle East?
- [10:10]
Heather Conley
So I think these both are going to be working on parallel tracks. The senior Ukrainians believe that they can continue to apply what they call long term sanctions, which are their drones that are just attacking Russian refinery capacity. There's energy fuel shortages within Russia because they're having, they're doing such an effective job that they sense that there could be some movement. Look, the Russian technocrats that have been managing the Russian economy brilliantly over the last four years to manage all this, they've run out of tricks. And now the pressure is on Vladimir Putin. But Putin, I don't think will be dissuaded. He believes he can still achieve these gains. And what he said during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, he's saying that they are winning on the battlefield. Although the Ukrainians have now claimed over 600 square kilometers, they're gaining ground slowly. They're hitting Russian supply lines. It will continue to be very dynamic, but I don't see any give right now in Vladimir Putin's view. He thinks he can still keep marching forward at great cost, unfortunately.
- [11:17]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
All right, Heather Conley, thanks for being with us.
- [11:19]
Heather Conley
Great to be with you.
- [11:20]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Non resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thank you so much.
- [11:25]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Stay with us. On balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after show the this at Duke Energy. We deliver reliable energy that powers lives, grows businesses and transforms communities. That's why we're making smart investments to add up to 14 gigawatts of new capacity over the next five years. That's enough to power 10.5 million more homes. Putting customers first, advancing American progress, powering the next generation. Learn more@duke-energy.com Powering America.
- [12:01]
Podcast Announcer
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa.
- [12:18]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Play Bloomberg 11:30, the new working week here in Washington as well. After the Senate in the early hours on Friday passed a $70 billion budget reconciliation bill to fund ICE and CBP for three years, we now look to the House this week to get a sense as to whether or not this will easily get across the floor in the other chamber. And I'm pleased to say joining us now is the chair of the House Oversight Committee, the Republican congressman from Kentucky, James Comer, here with us on Bloomberg TV and radio. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being with us. Welcome back to Bloomberg. And we do want to talk about investigation your committee just released into fraud in Minnesota. But if we could begin with reconciliation, what is your understanding of when exactly you will be voting on this package and whether the votes will be there? Attendance wise and frankly, policy dispute wise?
- [13:08]
James Comer
I think policy wise, we're in good shape. Attendance is always an issue when you look and see that the Democrats usually vote in block against anything that President Trump wants. So, so it's imperative that the Republicans are here because we usually use lose Massey on these kinds of votes. But it's my understanding that tomorrow the leadership, the whip office thinks that enough members are going to be here to where we can in fact pass what the, what the Senate passed last week on reconciliation. I don't think there are very many major policy disagreements. We all can find fault in these, in these bills. But you know, when they're what I always say about Congress, biggest problem with Congress is there are too many Congressmen. It's very difficult to get 218 votes in the House and then 60 votes in the Senate. But I think, I think we will get to 18 this week.
- [14:01]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Yeah, the math is kind of sticky. Mr. Chairman, thanks again for joining us today on Bloomberg you mentioned Tom Massie. There's also Brian Fitzpatrick who's voicing concerns still about this anti weaponization fund that the President says he prefers. He said he'd be disappointed if it did not see its own creation. How many members does he speak for? Or is it the congressman from Pennsylvania on an island inside your conference?
- [14:24]
James Comer
No, there's a lot of heartburn over that weaponization fund. I don't think that there are many Republicans that dispute that the government has been weaponized. I don't think there are many of us that dispute that there are people who are victims of weaponization that probably deserve some type of compensation. But there were just so many question marks about how it was created, where the funding came from, who was going to determine who received compensation and who didn't. It was just not something that I think was, was rolled out very well. So I'm pretty confident that's not going to be a part of any legislation moving forward anytime soon.
- [15:08]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Do you support the idea, Congressman, or depends on how it's made up?
- [15:12]
James Comer
Well, I would have a lot of questions. So right now I'll hold off any support or anything like that. I have a lot of questions. But you can look at my interviews over the past three years. I don't think there's anyone that has been more critical of a weaponized government than I have. There are instance after instance where I've given interviews on national TV complaining about the Department of Justice or some other government agency, usually in the intelligence community that has weaponized or abused their office. So I do believe that that's a problem. It's just a matter of how you create a fund. I think that needs to be debated In Congress. I think it needs to be transparent and I think we need to be crystal clear on who will be the decision makers on who receives any type of compensation in the future.
- [16:03]
Denver Riggleman
Got it.
- [16:04]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Well, and to your point, on your concern about intelligence being weaponized, Mr. Chairman, that's why you have expressed some criticism of FISA, specifically Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, warning that it can be abused, that there potentially is risk to civil liberties. That, of course, is a live question this week as those authorities are set to expire on Friday. We are seeing in the Senate that being held up by the President's tapping of Bill Pulte as the Acting Director of national intelligence. Knowing Mr. Chairman, he is someone that used non public mortgage data to go after perceived enemies of the President. Are you concerned that those abuses could happen as he's helming dni?
- [16:45]
James Comer
I think there, there's always going to be a concern that abuses can happen. Throughout history, regardless of which party's in power, there have always been instances where no name bureaucrats, we often call them deep state bureaucrats, abuse their power. So yes, I'm always concerned about that. I don't know this particular nominee, that's something the Senate decides, not the House. So I don't really have a say in that. So, you know, haven't put a lot of thought into that. But at the end of the day, I don't think that's a good reason not to vote to extend fisa. I would prefer warrants. I believe that that's something that's very important warrants for Americans know that something that we fought for in the House. But at the end of the day, I do have confidence in Cash Patel and John Radcliffe and a lot of the guys that are leading our intelligence agencies right now to do the right thing. And we've got a lot of bad actors in the world. You know, whether you're talking about people in China, we're talking about people from Iran. There are hotspots all over Russia. There are a lot of people that are, as we speak, trying to do things to disrupt our government, to disrupt our economy, to create havoc. And I think the intelligence community should have all the tools at their disposal to be able to identify and protect Americans.
- [18:07]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Sounds like you don't believe that it will expire, Mr. Chairman. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm wondering what would happen if it did.
- [18:14]
James Comer
Well, I think we've already heard from Marco Rubio, who I think is doing a tremendous job as Secretary of State, that this would create a lot of problems for our intelligence agencies that are, that are, you know, as we speak, trying to monitor some of these bad actors. So I hope that it does. But I know there's a lot of concern in both parties about warrants for Americans as there should be. That's a constitutional right. So hopefully we'll get these resolved and hopefully we can give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect America.
- [18:49]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Mr. Chairman, Kaylee mentioned the work you're doing on the committee around fraud in Minnesota. And we do want to talk about this because you dropped a more than 200 page investigation here in which you allege the Governor Tim Waltz and the Attorney General Keith Ellison and allowed fraud to occur. We saw you pull them both before the committee back in March, I believe it was early March. What's, what's the end game here? Will this investigation lead to a piece of legislation?
- [19:16]
James Comer
Yeah, we're going to vote on a lot of bills this week that are going to put more guardrails on federal funds going to states. I think that's one reason you're going to see through J.D. vance's task force on fraud, through our work on the House Oversight Committee, you're going to see just, just many, many people hopefully get indicted and prosecuted for welfare fraud in, in lots of different areas. Medicaid especially. One reason is because this is federal money that's sent to the states. And I think if the states had, if it was 100% state money, I think they would stay on top of the fraud a little bit better. But because it's federal money and they don't want to do anything to disrupt the money, if you say, oh, we've got all this fraud here, that might trigger what we're seeing now in Minnesota where President Trump, Trump put the brakes on certain different types of Medicaid funding into Minnesota until they get the fraud under control. So what our investigation did, we had whistleblowers come in who were predominantly Democrat career state employees in Minnesota that have been saying this fraud's been taking place for years. And they had under oath told us that they had warned Tim Waltz and Attorney General Keith Ellison and they didn't want to do anything about it.
- [20:31]
Denver Riggleman
It.
- [20:31]
James Comer
And I think that's criminal. I think that's something that every hard working taxpayer American is sick and tired of sending money to Washington, another hard earned paycheck and then seeing it lost to fraud and fraudsters. There's always going to be fraud. But to know about it, to have these state employees blow the whistle and say there's fraud happening here with this particular program, whether it's the daycare, whether it's the hospice program in California, whether it's the Madica, the Medicaid fraud in Minnesota and for the leaders to not do anything. That's what our investigation was focused on. And we had enough testimony and enough evidence, emails, depositions to determine that the governor and attorney general knew about it, yet did nothing about it.
- [21:18]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Well, and can you actually quantify it? In the report, you write about an estimated 300 million in federal child nutrition funds and potentially $9 billion in Medicaid related funds. Pulling that est from the Department of Justice. Were you able to independently confirm those figures or are these just estimates?
- [21:40]
James Comer
The 300 million confirmed? And you know, there were reports when the fraud was being uncovered, media reports that range anywhere from a billion to 18 billion. But we are confident it's over $1 billion, which is, you know, that's real money in Kentucky. I don't know that it reached 18 billion because I don't think that would have been 100% of every dollar that went to Medicaid. And a lot of the money did reach the people that it was intended to reach, but a lot of it didn't. And that's where we come in. We want to make sure that every penny that is entitled to someone who's truly disabled, who, someone who's truly Medicaid eligible gets their benefits. And what we're seeing is because Medicaid dollars are being wasted by such a large amount in all 50 states that a lot of programs that are funded by Medicaid are being cut now. And we believe that we could sustain the current levels of Medicaid spending in America if we eliminated fraud. And we're trying. The only way to eliminate fraud is to hold people accountable for defrauding the government. And that's what we're trying to do. And we're seeing that in Minnesota. There have been over three dozen people arrested in Minnesota. And I think that's just the tip of the iceberg.
- [22:55]
Rick Davis
Bloomberg.
- [22:57]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Mr. Chairman, thanks for coming to talk to us today. James Cohen, thank you. Chair of the House Oversight Committee, Congressman from Kentucky, we thank you for the time as we assemble our political panel now to weigh in on everything that we just heard. We covered a range of topics. Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeannie Shan Zaino and Rick Davis are with us now. Jeanne is our Democratic analyst and democracy visiting Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center. Rick is our Republican strategist and partner at Stone Court Capital Capital. I want to go back to what we heard from the chairman, Jeannie, about the anti weaponization fund. Fascinating as he made very clear that this was toxic. So he didn't use that word. But this was a nonstarter for a lot of members not named. Brian Fitzpatrick, what did you make of that?
- [23:41]
Jeannie Shan Zaino
Yeah, if I heard him correctly, I think he said there's a lot of heartburn. And then when you asked him if he would, but yeah, if he would vote against it, he wouldn't rule it out. And I think that is what is so astonishing because on the one hand he said he had there's lots of examples of weaponization but they do not feel comfortable with the way this was ruled out. So I thought that was fascinating that while there's consternation or heartburn, as he said, they haven't ruled it out. And of course what we're talking about is a president who basically sued himself, wealth won and the taxpayers are paying for it on top of a shield by the IRS so stunning that it would not raise even more heartburn and be immediately codified as a non starter, huh?
- [24:28]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Well, of course the President suggested in his Meet the Press interview this weekend, Rick, that he still supports the idea of the fund, talked about people's lives who have been ruined, that he knows that Congress would have to act. He'd be disappointed if they didn't do so. But if the chair of the Oversight Committee, James Comer, is suggesting unease around this, is that basically telling you that this would never actually get through Congress if the President were to pursue that?
- [24:55]
Rick Davis
Yeah, I think that the evidence was the way the administration kind of bent over backwards to try and turn off the heat by saying they weren't prepared to do it at this time, they didn't give it up, but it's only going to get harder and harder. Right. I mean you have a two vote margin in the, in the House and you've just heard a committee chair, you know, talk about the fact that he probably might vote against it. You've probably got 25 other guys who have a lot more reason to vote against it than he does and I think they'd be lining up to do so. So the House is just a non starter. If the administration tried to implement this because they would actively go out and have legislation to deny it and, and then the Senate's presented with a different issue. Not let's include an opposition to it in a clean bill, but let's actually deal with this House bill that now says we're going to ban it. And I think you'd See a lot of people coming out of the woodwork in the Senate to vote for that bill do something offensive rather than defensive. So.
- [25:55]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
So really, yeah.
- [25:56]
Rick Davis
But this Congress is all but done and who knows what the makeup of it's going to look like. Like after the midterm elections.
- [26:04]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Do they have the votes for reconciliation today? Rick, with this anti weaponization fund in mind and by extension fisa, it's kind of the same conversation. Is Bill Pulte going to create enough heartburn to keep Pfizer from being renewed?
- [26:17]
Rick Davis
Well, I was really impressed that the Chairman didn't seem to think there was a problem getting FISA done. Except expires on Friday and there's no vote planned. So that's pretty cavalier for an important piece of legislation like that that actually has kicked and kicked and kicked down the road. My guess is they may kick it down the road again and some kind of a short term fix. Don't have to deal with any of the opposition. There's a lot of it in the House Conservative Caucus. You know, they want warrants for this kind of thing. They, they want to attach other things to it. So my guess is the most we can hope for right now is just some kind of an extension that can whip through the House and Senate on reconciliation. It's clean now, but as you point out, I mean, two votes and you've already got people grumbling. There are 16 House members who are retiring from the House of Representative and not seeking future office. Every one of those could be a vote against reconciliation.
- [27:16]
James Comer
Wow.
- [27:16]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
It's a lot of YOLO members. We talk about it in the Senate, but as Rick points out, there's a lot in the House just on this FISA issue. Jeannie, Even if we were to see a short term extension, it becomes a question of what will unlock the long term nod from Democrats. So long as Bill Pulte is still in there as Acting Director of National Intelligence. Is it going to take the administration nominating someone for the full time position before any Democrat is going to cast a vote to extend FISA powers?
- [27:44]
Jeannie Shan Zaino
Yeah, I don't know about any Democrat. I think we could see like a Fetterman, maybe not John Fetterman exactly, but I do think for the most part that that is absolutely the case at this point that Democrats, Democrats feel, and I think some Republicans feel like the President is keen on dismantling fisa. Why else would he have nominated Bill Pulte and then talked openly about the fact that we're going to get rid of some of the Dead wood and so on and so forth. So for people who are serious about protecting the nation's intelligence community and who feel that a time of war and when FIFA coming and all of these threats, threats that we need this, this FISA to be renewed, and you know why he threw the monkey wrench of Bill Pulte in, just says to people he's not serious about this renewal. And so I do think they're going to wait and see. Does he pull Pulte down or does he in fact nominate somebody else who at least has some experience in intelligence?
- [28:49]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
The President talked a lot about the anti weaponization fund in his interview with Meet the Press, which then devolved into a back and forth once again about election integrity. The President restating on a program that aired in June of 2026 that the 2020 election was rigged. He went even further to say that the primary in California just last week was also rigged. Then the back and forth with the host, Kristen Welker began until the President literally pulled off the mic and walked out. This is what happened on meethood.
- [29:19]
Denver Riggleman
The press, your elections are crooked and you're crooked. At least the press is crooked. And so is ABC And CBS and CNN, Mr. President, one sided crooked network. So let's call it quits because I've had enough. Thank you, darling. Have a good day.
- [29:34]
Heather Conley
Mr. President, let's please. I traveled all the way to Wisconsin.
- [29:37]
Denver Riggleman
I've traveled. I know I traveled all the way
- [29:41]
James Comer
to Wisconsin for an hour on and
- [29:42]
Denver Riggleman
off in the rain. And I've given you enough time. You ought to straighten out your press because you know what? A country can never be great with a dishones.
- [29:51]
Jeannie Shan Zaino
He traveled all the way to Wisconsin for this interview.
- [29:56]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
When the President said that last week's California primary was rigged along with 2020, Welker said there was no evidence. He said all I have to do is. Look, Rick, if we're still having this debate this many years later and the President is expressing anger on the level that he did on a Sunday morning program, what does that tell you about the way he's looking at the midterm election cycle in the primary campaign? We're still in.
- [30:22]
Rick Davis
Yeah. First of all, I got to say, the idea that somehow you travel all the way to Wisconsin is somehow a compelling reason to continue the interview is baffling to me.
- [30:32]
James Comer
Would she walk there?
- [30:33]
Rick Davis
I mean, what is that all about? Yeah, but look, I mean, we know the President has had a lot of anxiety about these elections and he may or may not have any ability to articulate what he really thinks, thinks there are a lot of conservative Republicans who don't like the way California administers its elections. Same day registration, you know, there's harvesting of ballots, there's all these kinds of things. They can't count very quickly. And you would think a country with the, or a state with the resources that California has would actually be able to implement its election process better than this. That being said, it is an old harp that he likes to play. And frankly, I think most of the voting public have just already come to the conclusion that he's wrong on this and they tune him out when he starts to say these things.
- [31:27]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Well, when it comes to California specifically, when Kristen Welker pointed out to the president that Republicans were doing well, the president said, effectively paraphrasing him, not as more votes come in. And that is indeed the case in the LA mayors race. Jeannie, Spencer Pratt looked like he was going to advance to the run one off. That is not to be now it's going to be another Democrat going against the incumbent, Karen Bass. But the fact that he came close, what does that tell us about the politics of the moment and specifically the populism of the moment?
- [32:00]
Jeannie Shan Zaino
Yeah, no reprisal of the hills, Kelly, where it's over for Spencer Pratt, you know, and by the way, I would say Kirsten Walker did sit in the rain. That was very loud rain. So I give her props on that. With the president, they had a, a metal roof. Go figure, you know, but, but I do think it says that people are very unhappy and the leadership out there has been very frustrating. Now, in a state like California, in a place like L. A, you'd have to do a lot more work than Spencer Pratt was able to do in a short period of time. But I think it is just indicative of how unhappy people are. And I would just say let's not forget Donald Trump's very open about his attacks on the press. He says his strategy is to attack the press because then when they say things, people don't believe them. And that is of course, a concern for anybody who cares about democracy because the facts are clear that there was no stealing of the 2020 election. So we should be very, very clear about that. As much as he wants to pull off his mic and run away from the pounding rain.
- [33:08]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
All right, Jeannie, Shan Zaino and Rick Dan, our Bloomberg Politics contributors, thank you so much.
- [33:13]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Stay with us. On balance of power. We'll have much more coming up after this.
- [33:21]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
With LPL Financial, we provide the services to help push you forward when it comes to your finances, your business, your future.
- [33:27]
Tyler Kendall
The only question should be what if
- [33:29]
Podcast Announcer
you could pin Advertisement Anna Kendrick is not a client of LPL Financial LLC
- [33:32]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
and receives compensation to promote lpl.
- [33:33]
Podcast Announcer
Investing involves risk, including potential Answer Principal
- [33:35]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
LPL Financial LLC Member Finras IPC you're
- [33:38]
Podcast Announcer
listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app Listen on Demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube as
- [33:54]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
we wait to hear from the House of Representatives on what happens next to the reconciliation bill. The Rules Committee set to be behind closed doors at this hour to pick up the legislation passed by the Senate and potentially get it to the floor, most likely by tomorrow, where it is expected to pass. This is funding for ice, Customs and Border Protection and it's been held up a bit by a debate over the President's anti weaponization fund that he told Meet the Press just yesterday it was something that he would be disappointed if it did not see the light of day knowing there was a grand debate in the Senate, Kaylee, about all of this and they didn't have the votes. It came down to one vote in an amendment which would have banned such a fund using taxpayer money to make make up, I guess, pay damages for people who have been purportedly weaponized by the government. Didn't pass the Senate. It is still a live issue, however, in the House and a lot of Republicans don't want this.
- [34:50]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Yeah, and you have some Republicans, like the Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, Brian Fitzpatrick, willing to actually pursue a codification of the idea that a weaponization fund cannot be put into law. The question, of course, is going to become whether the kind of mass support support for it is there. But the chair of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, did suggest to us that there are a lot of Republicans who have, what did he call it,
- [35:14]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
heartburn, heartburn on this one about this. So I wonder what Denver thinks about this. We have a lot to discuss with Denver Riggleman, the former Republican congressman from Virginia who did intelligence on the January six Committee in Denver. It's great to see you. Welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. Of course, I know that you've been traveling literally the world raising money for your company rig technology, which I'd love to hear more about. But as far as this story is concerned, concerned, as somebody who knows more about January 6th than most, the idea, maybe you can speak to the mentality that somebody like Brian Fitzpatrick has in publicly crossing the president Knowing what happened that day, the idea of paying people with taxpayer dollars who attacked law enforcement and in many cases served jail time for it. Does it give you heartburn?
- [36:00]
Denver Riggleman
Oh, it's much more than heartburn. It's great to be back. I missed you guys. I think Brian is actually saying, I think that's the issue that you have, you know, with other Republicans that are maybe for this weaponization fund. But there's a few things I want to point out, and obviously, you both can ask me any questions. I will answer them. First of all, the number 1.776 billion, 1776 being sort of the rallying cry for QAnon during the stolen election conspiracy theory. So when you're looking at the weaponization fund, I think people have heartburn for two reasons. I think those two reasons are that most of that money will go to, to Trump donors or recidivist criminals. And that's really what it comes down to, is that this fund is about codifying conspiracy theories. So when you look at I started this warning, I feel like Cassandra, you know, you're talking About August of 2020, Tom Malinowski and I first submitted the QAnon resolution about that violence could happen based on these type of conspiratorial, you know, this conspiratorial thinking theories. And this downstream effect now is you have Donald Trump and the Welker interview listening to that. When you replayed it, you know, it's sort of stunning. It's much more than heartburn. It's discussed. And it's also this impending fear that the same things we warned about in 2020 with violence in the elections in 2026 and 2028 could come to fruition based on this radicalization path that we're seeing. And I think we have to be very specific and blunt about what we're saying. It was almost disgusting to me to see people laugh it off or to try to diminish or sane wash what he's saying. What he's saying is that the election was stolen. It's going to be stolen again if you lose. And people that believe this become radicalized, that somehow they have to protect our Constitution by listening to a madman spout lies again. It's just a rehash. And I think that's what scares people. And lastly, I think that it's been institutionalized. You have institutional capture where there is no checks or balances on Trump's craziest thinking. And when you see people like Bill Pulte, Tulsi Gabbard before him you see, the weapon, the real weaponization is what scares me.
- [38:03]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
Well, on your point on Bill Pulte, and I ask you this as a former intelligence officer, what's the greater risk that you have an acting DNI who might be able to use intelligence against certain individuals who are perceived by the President to be enemies of him, his or that because Pulte was tapped as acting DNI, FISA Section 72 doesn't get extended and goes dark after Friday?
- [38:29]
Denver Riggleman
Oh, gosh, that's a fantastic question. As you know, I actually built FISA packages. I'm happy to talk about this, but I think there's a couple things here. When you have somebody like Bill Pulte, you already had, again, I said I felt like Cassandra. You already had a Trojan horse in Tulsi Gabbard. Bill Pulte continues that you have somebody that has only ever told anybody what people want to hear. Intelligence being odni is about truth, facts and data. When you have somebody like Bill Pulte who was a Twitter influencer and really a Nepo baby, you have somebody like that that's in charge of 38 years old with no experience, and you have this active appointment for 210 days. What it is, it's an end run. It's an end run around the Senate. The Senate has to identify and choose somebody with significant national security expertise. It's almost as if our institutional credibility is a form of sovereign capital. And once you start giving away that capital and the trust in those institutions, we have a complete breakdown of not only our financial system, but any system of trust with our allies. And I think that's what scares me. Right. Bill Pulte is so woefully underqualified. I mean, that would be like. I mean, honestly, like asking me to dunk a basketball.
- [39:41]
Rick Davis
Right.
- [39:41]
Denver Riggleman
It's never going to happen. So that's the issue that we have right now, is that we have people, people that are unqualified sycophants, yes men and yes women, that are looking at foreign interference in elections that's going to be made up and it just continues with that $1.76 billion fund, is that Bill Pulte can now make up foreign interference in elections that could affect some of the executive orders or things that Trump does in the 2026 and 2028 election.
- [40:05]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Really remarkable. Institutional credibility is a form of sovereign capital. I'm going to have to think about that. Congressman, were you surprised by James Comer's response to the anti weaponization fund? He seemed less concerned about fisa but is clearly turned off here. The President has found the line. It seems for many in his conference it was January 6th that did it, huh?
- [40:29]
Denver Riggleman
Well, they have to, right? If you're listen, it's so cynical, right. And it's almost like a form of weaponized ignorance. When you talk about institutional credibility, you can't have it when facts and data point to something specifically as truth. You have congressional representatives, they're so worried about re election or polling in their specific districts that they're willing to give up the truth and facts to the American people for their own hide. So they get invited to Mar a Lago, they get invited to parties. It's so, you know, and when you look at Brian Fitzpatrick, right. And you look at the bravery, some of us saying this is ludicrous. Ludicrous. It's beyond ludicrous. It's the self dealing we've seen throughout the Trump administration. And again, I think we have to get to a point where adults are back in the room. But again, our institutional credibility is shot when people like James Comer do what they do.
- [41:19]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
And finally, Congressman, we just have a minute left here, but you obviously are now running Enrich Technologies and artificial intelligence company and I wonder if you feel like this administration is doing enough to create guardrails around it because you're focused on cyber specifically. How great is that threat? Are we doing enough about it?
- [41:38]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah, when you're looking at it, you know, I think people need to look at NSPM 11, I think that was just released on June 5th. It was a great question by the way. And I've read in SPM 11, I think what's interesting is there's some good things there about AI, specifically with China. Now I would argue we don't know that there's no guardrails for China, but I can and I can actually argue that point that that might be a good point. I think the issue that I have, and it's a great question, so they're talking about ideological bias in that and that people can be fired for that. And I think again we really have a community or an administration that has no guardrails themselves. I think that's what scares me.
- [42:14]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
All right, we'll leave it there. Looking forward to having you back soon. Deborah Riggleman, the former congressman and now CEO of Rig Technology. Thank you for being with us on Balance of Power. I'm Kailey Leinz alongside Joe Matthew here on Bloomberg TV and Radio.
- [42:30]
Host (Kelly Leinz)
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already at Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington D.C. at Noontime Eastern@Bloomberg.com It's 10:01am on a Monday all at once. Your sales leader needs to know which deals are at risk, your PM wants feature adoption by cohort and your CFO needs one last graph for the board. Now your data team has to say no to somebody. Hex changes that Ask any data question in plain English and get an analyst grade response all backed by your actual business context as defined by your data team. Start saying yes to more data questions
- [43:14]
Denver Riggleman
at Hex AI Dog Grooming Genius Here
- [43:18]
Host/Interviewer (Kelly Leinz or Joe Matthew)
most people see a busy dog salon
- [43:20]
Jeannie Shan Zaino
but I see operational experts excellence thanks
- [43:23]
Tyler Kendall
to Genius from global payments scheduling, personalized
- [43:28]
Jeannie Shan Zaino
checkouts, instant absolutely Genius.
- [43:32]
Tyler Kendall
From game day crowds to every groomer in this shop, Genius keeps everything flowing seamlessly.
- [43:37]
Jeannie Shan Zaino
Schnauzer is styled flawless execution, big league
- [43:41]
Heather Conley
reliability for any business.
- [43:43]
Jeannie Shan Zaino
That's genius.