tv With All Due Respect Bloomberg November 15, 2016 8:00pm-9:01pm EST
mark: i am mark halperin. john: and i'm john heilemann. ben carson, you had one job. john: on the show tonight, conflict about trump's conflicts of interest. the state of his paper secretary of state. first, more transitions for trump's transition team. mike rogers abruptly resigned, removing an establishment national security voice and prompting the liberations about how trump will build his cabinet. he called his work a privilege,
but reports suggest that warring factions, particularly those around his son-in-law jared kushner and chris christie, have gotten this building adventure off to a slow and rocky start. legal paperwork installing mike pence as the new head of the transition team is delaying coordination with the white house, and bloomberg is reporting that the departments of defense, justice, state, and homeland security still have not heard ap from trump land. today, paul ryan, who was unanimously reelected as speaker, went out of his way to defend trump's staff higher -- hire. how is the transition going? mark: not as smoothly as it could. there are factions in trump tower. the decision to replace christie has had fallout that continues to follow. i have covered a lot of transitions. there is always drama. people are both overstating the drama and understating the extent to which this happens. the proof will be in the pudding.
he has got to be ready by january 20, there's 20 of time. the decision to put in christie and remove him as having repercussions. moment, they are completely unprepared to take over running the government. at this stage, there is always inviting -- that is true. the fact that, as bloomberg reports, most of the major government agencies cannot get their phone calls returned and the transition team has not yet signed the documentation that would allow them to interface with those agencies they are taking over and 66 days is assigned they do not have their act together at all. mark: post-9/11, the expectations of how fast the transition will be as much greater, as it should be. they should not be scrabbling. but i will say, they do have time. this is what happens when the country elects an outsider. they have people have never done this before. this needs to be watched closely. thehey get further down road and they still are not geared up, it is going to be a
problem. there is still time. john: i don't disagree. he will judge their state of preparedness when they make the formal transition and he becomes president. at this hour, they are not where they should be. that may be a reflection of an outsider president. you have people wandering around the west wing when they went to visit, asking, how many of these jobs we have to phil, how many stay and how many go? that is a sign of cluelessness that even people who are not insiders should know. if you watch the west wing, you should know you have to replace all those people. mark: it is potentially a problem and it is troubling, but this shows that the press is obsessed about process when it comes to donald trump, when -- john: if clinton was doing this, i would be assessed with it, too. if they were walking around wondering, how many of these jobs to we have to fill, i would criticize them just as much. mark: give them another week and see where they stand.
every day, we get a few more clues about what the administration will and won't look like. today, major news of something that won't happen -- ben carson says he will not be part of the government. he had been mentioned as a possible head of health and human services, but we are told he took himself out of the running for that or any other job. lauren ingram is reportedly being considered for white house press secretary. secretary of state is being watched closely -- two names are reportedly at the top of the list, former u.s. ambassador john bolton and rudy giuliani. most would be controversial and contentious picks. what does it say if trump is down to these two guys as his final picks? would it create more controversy that he does not need? john: we are going to talk about harry reid and the steve bannon controversy, which to me is still overshadows everything. as bad as rudy giuliani or john bolton might be, depending on your ideology, they are not as
potentially poisonous as steve bannon. he reflects -- the main thing is, what does it say about donald trump's on policy? we heard through his entire campaign that he was not interventionist, and rudy giuliani has no foreign-policy experience to speak up. the notion of him as a diplomat goes contrary to everything we know about his temperament. john bolton is the ultimate neocon. if one of those gets the job -- rudy giuliani has neocon tendencies as well. if one of them gets the job, what does that say about what we thought donald trump represents to be his foreign-policy? particularly bolton, who has a long track record -- john: the most interventionist man on earth. mark: some of rudy giuliani's allies say he is not what he once was in terms of his preparedness. i do not have problem in the abstract of picking someone who does not have formal foreign-policy experience. but it seems like a strange pick
for giuliani, who seems not to want to be attorney general. chomp, you go back to the word loyalty. he wants to reward the people who stuck with them. senator sessions name has been floated for secretary of state, attorney general, and defense secretary. i expect he will get one of those three. the question is, where do the remaining slots go? the: giuliani, it is not lack of formal foreign-policy or diplomatic background, it is temperament. he is the least dramatic person, in the same way that bolton is the most interventionist -- he is the least romantic -- least diplomatic. maybe neither of these guys will get the job, but at this moment, they both seem weird. mark: every day we get further away from the election, so many questions unanswered. is trump the architect of his foreign-policy? i do not think he will be, so who will be?
that is why these personnel things are more important than ever. john: here is something we do know -- he will enter this white house with more potential conflicts of interest and less financial transparency than any recent president or any president in history. the trump organization says it is transferring its management and portfolio to trump's eldest children, donald junior, ivanka trump, and eric. they also have positions on the trump transition team, which is raising eyebrows all over the place. cbs reported last night that trump is considering avenues to get security clearances for family members. the transition team tells bloomberg that the cbs report is not true. a potential overlap between the administration and his family-run businesses are now sure to raise questions about conflicts of interest with every policy decision the administration makes on corporate tax return, tax breaks, and union disputes. is there anything that trump can
do along the path he is currently going to keep conflict of interest from being a dominant storyline in his new term? mark: leaving aside whether there are storylines and trying to do the right thing. there are certain things you cannot do. he is not going to erase his family business. his kids are going to run the business, and there are going to be conflicts. the hotel in the old post office building. the biggest thing that concerns me here -- there must be transparency and minimizing of conflict -- is donald trump's history of hiring lawyers and accountants who do not do their best to bend over backwards to avoid conflict or impropriety. everything that was done with the foundation. i hope the lawyers look at it not with an eye towards donald trump businessman trying to minimize taxes and cut corners, i hope they look at it with the absolute premium on minimizing the appearance of conflict and actual conflict.
you will never get rid of it all because of the nature of his holdings. john: if this was not donald trump, we would say, he should put his financial assets into a blind trust. mark: he knows he owns the hotel. the family is but going to be running the business. putting aside the question of the transition team -- ludicrous for them to have an official role in forming the government that will form the policies that affect the business they will run, it is just ridiculous. apply -- not these are not businesses that are heavily involved in federal government decisions. john: they are affected by corporate tax rates. mark: he is not going to stop getting advice from his kids. i think they should be -- i think they should aside if they want to be involved in government or private business. they should pick one. john: that would go a long way, but i still don't see why we
have to apply a different standard and say a blind trust is out of the question because, what? he knows he owns the hotel, so cannot be totally blind. john: it could not be totally blind, but he could take his family out of running the operation. mark: do they want to be involved in the government or private sector? john: up next, president obama distances himself from democratic losses. ♪
under elizabeth warren, sending a letter to the president-elect accusing him of how many -- accusing him of having too many wall street insiders and lobbyists on his team and potential cabinet list. that is mild compared to what harry reid has done. his statement called trump a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate. harry reid was at it again today on the senate floor, railing against trump's pick for white house chief strategist, steve bannon. >> if trump is serious about seeking unity, he should rescind his appointment of steve bannon. don't do it. think about this. don't do it. rasulg as a champion of the vision is -- a champion of racial division is in the oval office, it is impossible to take his efforts at unity seriously. i say to donald trump, take the responsibility seriously. rise to the office of the president.
step out from behind your twitter account and show americans that racism, bullying, and bigotry have no place in the white house or america. mark: are these kind of attacks targeting on the very things democrats went after trump for during the election helpful to democratic party and the country? john: those are two different things. indiscriminate attacks that are and onr the map in concerted, tactically sound, on strategic way, don't help the democratic cause. i think almost never have i ever said the words i agree with harry reid. i think the steve bannon appointment is outrageous and detrimental to the cause that trump ostensibly has been espousing, that he wants unity. steve bannon -- you can have a range of opinions on the guy. on the most civilized, they start with bad too much uglier. i don't see how that appointment
cannot be seen as poisonous. when i hear harry reid's speech on that point, i think, yeah, what else are democrats supposed to say? going todemocrats are have to figure out how they want to attack trump and where they want to be seen as reasonable. they have not found the balance. mark: i wonder what will happen when prompt reaches out to democrats and tries to get them to work with him. ,ight now, read is departing but very few have spoken out against's adopted. -- spoken out against the posture he has adopted. they are not offering to work with the new president. i get why they are upset and i agree the steve bannon things at a minimum needs to be explained. but the scattershot approach of acting like we are in the midst of a campaign rather than the doorstep of a new presidency, i don't think it is good for the country or the democratic party. they should be fiercely oppositional on substance.
elizabeth warren, great for her to speak out. john: you say you want to drain the swamp -- mark: that is fantastic. john: you have got to pick your fights. you can't fight every battle, pick the ones you can win. when the e-mail editorial for the washington post, i'm not sure that is helping that much. no offense to the washington post. john: president obama's reaction can be summed up in three words -- not my fault. today present conference in greece, he was asked if don trump victory was a referendum on his presidency and whether democrats underestimated the simmering anger from voters. instead, obama blamed personalities and how campaigns are run, as well as the country's inevitable desire for change after party has been in the white house for eight years. are pretty healthy majority of people agree with my worldview on a bunch of things. howow that x the question,
is it that somebody who appears to have a very different worldview just been elected? as i said, sometimes people just feel as if we want to try something, to see if we can shake things up. that, i suspect, was a significant phenomenon. john: this comes a day after obama took what appeared to be another failed shot at hillary clinton's campaign, when he's adjusted the democrats struggled in iowa because they did not spend as much time on the ground as they did when he was a candidate. row, obamaond in a also offered up some positive and hopeful remarks about donald j. trump. a lot of democrats already think that obama is normalizing trump and absolving himself of any blame in this debacle of an election. do you think he is risking recording backlash among members of his own party?
mark: i think members of his own party, including advisors -- it is a strange cap he is taking. i get he feels a responsibility to help the transition, and i don't think he has normalized him excessively. to what he did today basically say, everybody liked me and my policies -- and his approval rating is high -- and saying none of this is my fault, you have to look deeper at what has happened to the democratic party. i don't think he can say it is nothing to do with him. john: it is the case that a lot of people in the party now are saying that obama is in denial about trump, speaking to favorably, and in denial about his role in where the party is right now. the point you are trying to make is if you look at where the party was when obama entered office and where it is today, it is in a much worse place. there is no doubt that his failure to build the party, to care about the party, to argue for the party -- the interested
thank you for coming back. how do you feel about the republican president to be, donald trump? you were opposed for much of the campaign. i spent the last year trying to get a house reelected, a majority for paul ryan, and help in the senate. most of my time was spent in the house and senate. pretty good cycle for republicans. we also now have the white house. i'm pretty excited for the republican party broadly over the next few years. mark: personally, are you excited about a trump presidency? spencer: i am excited, because i think this means that the agenda the paul ryan put forth over the last year can actually get put on a president's desk who will sign it, and we can move that through. i am very excited. john: did you not agree with the things mitt romney said about donald trump in march? spencer: i did not support donald trump in the primary.
i did not get involved in the primary. john: governor romney said some pretty harsh things. did you agree or disagree? spencer: he wrote that speech himself. there were parts i agreed with, parts i disagreed with. at this point, governor romney wants donald trump to be successful, he wants to support the office of the presidency. itt spent the better part of last year trying to help paul ryan and ron portman. tuesday night was a very good night for mitt romney. john: can i ask you why? a totally human question. romney's speech was powerful and and i meant of trump -- and then indictment of trump's character. he said he was totally ill-equipped to be president, totally not qualified, not temperamentally sound. so, explain to me how mitt
romney has reconciled himself with donald trump? i know you know him pretty well. spencer: how is that any different from the people who are now being up for cabinet posts and what they said about donald trump in the primary? mitt romney gave a speech in march during the primary because he believed that someone else was better fit to be the nominee of their public and party, but that is no different -- nominee of the republican party, but that is no different than what the people up for cabinet posts said. john: that just makes the argument that those people are hypocrites, too. he said that donald trump was uniquely on qualified to be president. spencer: now donald trump has won the election, and we have to look forward. mitt romney wants donald trump to be successful. he made that clear when they spoke on the phone. mark: how does the wider romney political family feel about the coming trump era? spencer: many of them have
embraced it and were on the trump team early on. some had not joined the team during the election, but i suspect far and wide, republicans will come together and support a donald trump presidency. mark: you wanted to comment on your friend harry reid? spencer: my friend? mark: i say that in the way john mccain would say my friend. spencer: in my opinion, he is -- how do i say this? mark: pretend you are from south boston. spencer: harry reid is a has been, political hack who wishes he were still relevant. tois not like he did a lot change the outcome of this election. i think there was divisiveness in the democratic party that at some point will get reported. harry reid and elizabeth warren are just posturing. why don't they look at what barack obama is saying, which is, let's give this guy a chance?
we need the office of the presidency to be successful. harry reid only wants himself to be successful. romney, youo mitt spent a fair amount of time trying to get mitt romney to one for president. do you think if you had been successful, you think he would have been trump and won the nomination? spencer: i have no idea. what i do know is that donald trump was successful in the primary and general at tapping into a movement. he called it a movement, i agree. i'm not sure anybody could have beaten donald trump in the primary or general. john: do think that if mitt romney had run, could he have beaten hillary clinton? spencer: i do, i believe he would have won. john: even though his appeal is different from trump, not a populist guy at all. spencer: hillary clinton did not exactly appeal to a movement of people. mark: when did you know trump was going to win? spencer: probably when you said
front row seat in history. it is been an amazing experience and one that has been long and difficult at times. asked meesident-elect to do something in his administration, that would be an honor, but i have no plans. john: that was former campaign manager corey lewandowski. there is a lot of news coming out of the trump transition team these days. bloomberg senior national reporter jennifer jacobs has been tracking all of it. she joins us from washington, d.c. one of the things i love about having you on the program is i can say, jennifer, what do you know, and whatever comes out of your mouth will be interesting. jennifer: we know there are some power struggles going on now that trump's rising to power when no one expected him to. now that he is in power, there is a lot of shifting and the transition team is experiencing another shakeup.
we have been told there is a purging going on of the chris christie loyalists. that has something to do with an old grudge between christie and trump's son-in-law jared kushner , who has become a very influential voice. differentring lots of camps weighing in for who they would like to have for key posts. lots of people going in and out of trump tower. we have got some landing teams, as they call it, that are going to be launching in the next few days. those are interim teams that will go into the federal agencies and start looking for reforms and preparing the agencies for the new administration's priorities. mark: what do we know about what trump is going for? rewarding loyalty is a factor in the names that are being talked about. we know what else? is he going to cleanse capitol hill -- please capitol hill, diversity, intellectual
excellence? jennifer: i think the biggest factor is loyalty and trust. the people whose names have been thrown into the mix are all people who were with him in the campaign. someone who helped him raise money is up for treasury, wilbur ross, another fundraiser. -- myiuliani understanding is he can get whatever position he would like, but his heart's desire is to be secretary of state. jeff sessions, who also was a key ally during the campaign. it sounds like maybe he is leaning toward secretary of defense. all those positions and people are people who were very loyal to trump, that when the republican establishment was not and it was difficult for him to find friends. john: the steve bannon appointment has caused a huge furor, in my view justifiable. he is taking a lot of heat, not
just from democrats, but from republicans who look at this and say, this is a poisonous, divisive appointment. is there any chance that trump, under pressure from a bipartisan array, would change his mind and rescind that appointment? jennifer: no, at least i'm not hearing any rumblings of that. he likes steve bannon very much. he credits him for getting him to the position he is in. steve bannon has a real influence over trump, and trump listens to him and respects his opinions. if you ask steve bannon allies, is this guy a white nationalist, they say, no. mark: talk about whether kellyanne conway will take a white house job or work from the outside. are there other women being talked about for senior cabinet jobs that you have heard of? jennifer: not that i have heard of so far, although i am told that he is looking at women and has hired women for his trump
organization and he values women's opinions and has always promoted them into leadership opinions. that will be no different, is what his aides are telling me. john: another topic we discussed earlier, the conflict of interest. he is getting hit pretty hard for the notion of having his children run the business and be on the transition team. he still has not exposed his tax returns. how are those complaints being heard in the trump world? jennifer: they pushed back a little bit about it and say they have not formally applied for the top-secret clearance for the kids that people are talking about. perhaps that question came from someone lower down within the transition team. trump values his children's opinions, and if he could get them clearance, i'm sure he would. he trusted very few people, and the kids are among the people he does trust and leans on and is willing to have an open conversation with. said hep has always
wants his kids to be close, he wants them to run the organization while he is in the white house. he still intends to remain very close to his children. john: thank you very much. we could talk to you all day, but we have to get to a couple of people who were so wrong about this election. we have to ask them why. we normally think of them as very smart. mike murphy and bill carrick, coming up. ♪
is running behind, and i'm being generous. everybody he knows is voting for trump, all anecdotal. people, brian monahan shake lines, my cousins in connecticut are voting for you. >> we're going to all these places. it is third and 65. you can try to drop kick from here. john: that was a clip of our next to guests discussing the long odds of a trump presidency. here for a postelection follow-up, former director of the jeb bush super pac mike murphy in chicago and the brilliant are just bill carrick -- brilliant democratic strategist bill carrick in los angeles. i got it wrong, too. i got it wrong, wrong, wrong. this is not just me blaming you guys forgetting getting it wrong without accepting responsibility. i got it wrong. having said that, starting with mike, why did you guys -- why
did you -- so confident for so long there was no way trump would win. why were you wrong? mike: that is the question, because i own it, too. i was so stunned. i think the only person more surprised than me was trump -- president-elect donald trump my morning to say it. here is why i think i missed. i read a good op-ed. numbers,o look at the the polling data and the demographic makeup of the electorate, and it was pretty clear. he did get at least 2 million fewer votes than hillary clinton , but where my blind side was is i did not think he would do better than romney with latinos. i assumed he would get historic numbers of african-american turnout in detroit and milwaukee, which hillary clinton did not do. and i knew he would do well with non-college-educated white working-class, but i did not know he would break the meter. i was looking at a pennsylvania
county, a good working class democrat area -- he blew away reagan numbers. i have never seen anything like it. i was not expecting that outlier. towns around michigan, wisconsin, was enough to give him a lead of about 100,000 votes in those three states and pick the lock in the electoral college. he won fair and square, and i missed that because that has not been in before -- seen before. wrong., too, was unfortunately, i relied too much on the news media for information. [laughter] inl: the polling was wrong some fundamental ways. wellw trump do extremely with non-college-educated working people, but the mythical college-educated suburban woman disappeared. nobody really caught the
magnitude of the rural discontent with secretary clinton, and the popularity of trump. -- the obama coalition was not able to be replicated by the clinton campaign. turnout,t the level of and they did not get the numbers that obama got with a number of key constituencies. mark: is the democratic party in as bad a chain -- and as bad a shape as some people are saying? you are the current leaders besides obama? bill: the congressional leadership will be out front. obviously this is a big deal for senator schumer, and he will be a major player because there will be a lot going on in the senate in terms of whether trump's legislative agenda will succeed or not. there will be a new chairman,
who that is is not clear. it will take a while to dig out of this. there is going to be a lot of reflection. every day, you find out new information, new data, or something the campaign focused on where did not focus on. the biggest mistake strategically was -- is this a change election or was this about trump's temperament, style, disposition, personality? goodrned out to be, by a 10 point margin, a serious change election. i think a hell of a lot of people missed that. mark: if donald trump and his advisers want to not only succeed but remakes the electoral college map and lock in the gains, what could they do? mike: he has got to double down on what got him there, working-class lunch pail economics. he has convinced a section of the middle class that has not had a raise in wages for a long
time that they should be upset and blow up washington. he has got to keep that promise to the seven and bay county, michigan's of the world. that is where the power of his coalition is. all the political junkies who got this thing wrong are looking county by county election returns. trump underperformed in some republican suburbs. he massively over performed in the rural areas and metal bending talents. he has got -- metal bending towns. he has got to find a way to deliver some things. with spencer zwick, we were talking about the way in which mitt romney condemned trump and is now welcoming him. for people like you, what you think is the right course for republicans who did not just criticize trump and sacred not win, but said he was temperamentally unfit for office? what should republicans in that position do now? mike: my first instinct as an
anti-trump republican has been liquor. once i move beyond that, i believe the president deserves a shot to succeed. i want to see him rise to the office and do well. i hope he understands that the campaign won fair and square, but there is a stain on his campaign that has divided the country for some of the things he has done. he has an opportunity to lift up the dialogue. he did a good job on election night. we need to see more, and he needs to put this thing back together, or he is going to be like lbj or nixon with one million people marching against him. the has to rise to the occasion, and i hope he does succeed. john: let me go back to the question earlier about obama. the guy arrived in 2008 on a historic victory, democratic control of the congress. he leaves with the party in shambles, utter disarray. to what extent is barack obama
responsible for the current state of abject disarray of the democratic party? what responsibility does he there? bear?re -- bill: the irony is he is at the height of his popularity. before for a long time barack obama, the focus on legislative races on the democratic side was not as aggressive as it was among republicans, and they both played a role. the other thing that is pretty clear, they got a jump on us in statehouses. sometimes it was candidate quality, campaign quality, whatever -- we got clobbered in governors races. we have got to fix both of atse, legislative problems the state level and also governors races. we tend to be more of a washington oriented party with a
one-size-fits-all message. we may have to figure out how to talk to people differently in different parts of the country in these campaigns, because we have not been doing that. mark: i can't believe you suspended the radio show, mike. what are going to do instead? mike: it is a podcast. it is one of the top republican podcast ever. you are both invited on it. i have buried the resistance radio transmitter in the backyard, because i want the president to succeed. if he acts like he did during the campaign, then republicans should support him when he is right and opposing when he is wrong. mark: bill, do you want him to succeed? bill: obviously, i do in sort of a theoretical way. [laughter] bill: will i be disappointed if he does not succeed? probably not. i think mike hit it on the head. his success is going to be based
on his behavior. can he modify his behavior in a radical way? if he can be reassuring to people instead of somebody who is a leader of less than 50% of the voters. john: mike murphy, bill carrick. as you were. we are always happy to hear from you. we will hold office hours now with professor eddie glaude. ♪
about thelk about democratic party and its current state. how would you describe the current state of the party, and what does it have going for it? eddie: it is in disarray because they underestimated the significance of donald trump and his campaign. i think they took for granted a large number of folks who are out in the country, who are suffering. folks who are tired of business as usual. it is a crisis. in every moment of crisis, there is an opportunity. i think the opportunity presents itself for more progressive fore too come to the put forward an agenda that speaks to every day, ordinary working people and their dreams and aspirations. and two in some ways revive the democratic party.
not so much revive it, but reimagine it so it can speak to the most vulnerable, to those on the margins. it is an opportunity amid crisis. this is what we have to do. john: we have discussed it a couple of occasions on the show. barack obama, the first african-american president, came into office, big majority senate, house, now leaves in disarray. how much blame does obama blamed for the state of the democratic party? eddie: i think a lot falls on his shoulders. i am pretty struck by -- remember that amazing speech he gave at the congressional black caucus, where he put his entire legacy -- go out and vote, if you want to send me off, go out and vote. if you want to protect my legacy, go out and vote. there was this kind of appeal to black voters based upon our uncritical loyalty to him that we would transfer that loyalty to hillary clinton. that did not play itself out in
the way they expected, but i think -- remember, he did not transfer his apparatus, his operation to the dnc. , think alongside his failures i think there is also a failure of the clinton campaign -- i have said over and over again there was a kind of confusion among the clinton folk where they wanted to embrace the obama coalition at the same time they wanted to embrace bill clinton's old strategy of triangulation. they spent an inordinate amount of time trying to attract the bush republicans while taking their base for granted. is ad again, what we saw case of the chickens coming home to roost. the short answer, he bears a lot of blame. the long answer, there is a lot of blame to spread around. mark: donald trump picks steve bannon for a white house job that does not require senate confirmation. a lot of complaints and criticism. i think all three of us agree donald trump is not going to
suddenly say, let me fire steve bannon. what can be done for public policy or setting an example for children? what should people opposed to steve bannon -- what can they do now, short of getting him out of the job, that would be the right thing to do? eddie: that is a hard question, mark. to model for our children, we have to continue to oppose him. -- wennot normalize him cannot normalize him, even though there is a recalcitrance on the part of donald trump. -- byt think we can appealing to his credentials, whether he is a goldman sachs banker or harvard business school graduate, he is who he is. he?is the? -- he has a guy who has a cozy relationship with the albright -- the alt-right, rebranding of white supremacists. we need to be clear about that. we have to understand that trust is not simply given.
healing does not happen by pronouncing it needs to happen. it is predicated upon genuine, mutuality, a building of trust. there is no grounds for it. i think this is important on the part of folks -- when you asked the question, do we want him to succeed? i kept asking myself, succeed at what? succeed at deporting people? succeed at incrementing a tax policy that is going to devastate the poor? succeed at what? given what he has said, i am not rooting for him at all. john: i wish we had more time with you. it is all our fault. i wanted to have a conversation about dave chapelle. next time you're on the show. thanks a lot for coming on. we will be right back. ♪
john: what is the most surprising thing you have seen in the last 48 hours out of this transition drama? mark: barack obama saying he has got nothing to do with it. john: a lot of weird stuff going on. mark: rudy giuliani for secretary of state, too. john: that is the weirdest by far, not good. check out bloomberg.com for more updates on trump's transition. next on bloomberg technology, the upcoming snapchat ipo. until tomorrow, sayonara. ♪
to a trading link with china. members hold opec meetings to bridge the divide on production cuts. rishaad: we have the trump thect, this is the chart of hour. year to date, what is it telling us? haidi: the trump affect driving up volatility after the elections, and this could be good for asian assets. if you look at where the price is now and going forward in terms of futures options, some discounts coming through. we can see how volatility has spiked after the election taking place. the results in a way are off the higher valuations and price-to-earnings multiples, 13.8,