tv With All Due Respect Bloomberg January 18, 2017 9:00pm-10:01pm EST
♪ john: welcome to our special bloomberg coverage of donald trump's inauguration. days, weast couple of have taken a deep ties into the president-elect's policy agenda and spending proposal. trump's so-called swap training aspirations in our nation's capital. here is how donald trump has talked about his de-swamping to do list. reform will be a crucial part of our 100 day plan. we will drain the swamp of corruption in washington, d.c.,
drain the swamp. i will impose a five-year ban on executive branch officials becoming lobbyists, and a lifetime ban on officials becoming lobbyists for a foreign government. for too long, washington has tried to put us into boxes, age,ating us by race, income, geography, by place of birth. washington's politicians have spent so long appealing to competing interests that they have forgotten how to appeal to the national interest, combining the skills and talents of our people in a common cause. --aker paul ryan, i really oh, no, i have come to appreciate him. speaker paul ryan, where is the speaker? where is he? beenl you, he has terrific, and you know,
honestly, he is like a fine wine. every day goes by, i get to appreciate his genius more and more. we are going to need our more engaged be and more vigilant than ever before, to help us accomplish the reforms and overcome decades of stalemate and gridlock. we are going to get it done, folks. with cabinet confirmation hearings underway, we start by looking at the team trump is building to run his administration. we sorted into four categories, the generals, john kelly to head mattisd security, james for secretary of defense, and michael flynn as his national security advisor. mark: we are calling the next group the tycoons, rex tillerson to be secretary of state, steven
ross, who trump wants for commerce secretary, and the fast food mogul. choicecmahon is trump's at the small business administration, and tapping carl icahn for a special role of regulatory czar. there is no shortage of d.c. insiders on donald trump's team. piebus for chief of price,sean spicer, tom sessions gotjeff the attorney general nomination, and elaine chao, married to mitch mcconnell.
finally, a handful of outsiders to fill other top positions. this is the group that has drawn objections from opponents in part because it includes steve , a proponent of economic nationalism and a hero of the alt right as trump's chief strategist. the, those are some of names. broadly speaking, how is trump's team helping the president make good on his promises to drain the swamp? john: it is a mix between insiders and outsiders. thing to sayrtant is that this is the least experienced group of people ever to come into an administration in our lifetime in terms of government experience. there are some congressional people, but in the white house, very little experience running agencies, very little experience with federal government.
that may be a great thing, but it will be a big challenge. we will see how well they do, but given wall street ties, corporate ties, congressional insiders, this is not a group of outsiders. this is a group that does not look populist overwhelmingly to me. government people go government people go into business, they have to learn how to function and a new set of rules and ethical standards. every administration i have covered has done things that are perfectly legal, meetings and special access to donors, legal, but ethically questionable. my big question about these people with business background is that when their friends come calling or the paid lobbyists come calling, will they give them special access? favors, but special even special access is problematic and it will be interesting to see how much of that will be in this administration. this program and
many people in the press hammered hillary clinton when people who were connected to the clinton global initiative for even just a meeting at the state department. i thought we were right to criticize it then, but let's not have a double standard. let's apply the same standard to them as we go forward. mark: these people taking the totality of the group, a group buteople who are outsiders, there are not a lot of people who are populists reformers who will care about draining the swamp. there are few people of any interestaying special influence needs to be lower. not just business, labor and other special interests. that.i agree with after weeks of cryptic tweets, donald finally held a press conference last week to finally attempt to address concerns
about this business conflicts of interest that he has so many of as he starts his new job as president of the united states. instead of fully divesting himself, trump said he would instead turn over his business operations to his two oldest sons. the trump will take any profits from foreign government payments and donate them to the u.s. government and they will refrain from entering into international deals through the duration of a trump administration. any new deals would be vetted by an ethics advisor who would be paid by the president-elect himself. mp draining swa advocates view where donald trump has landed in terms of his business conflicts? mark: i agree with those who said the only way was to liquidate his business, but i knew he would never do that, because he spent his life
building the business with his family. people can look at what he did, and as i predicted he would, he went further than he might have. there were provisions that were further than i thought he initially would go. if he picked someone like ken feinberg, a respected independent auditor of these kinds of decisions, to oversee the new deals, and that person is truly independent, i think it is manageable, but if he pick somebody who is a crony or the public does not know and trust, this is not much of anything. john: i think this is a disaster in the making in my judgment and the judgment of the head of ethics for barack obama and george w. bush and many others. he should have recognized that he was going into public service and should have divested. if he did vested and liquidated everything, that's what i'm
saying, should have gone the whole way. now, there are opportunities for corruption and this administration higher than we have ever seen before. i expected to be a corrupt administration, and he will be sued practically on one for violating the constitution, so his administration on day one will be entangled in litigation. mark: he has to give a deposition. why pick ken feinberg? john: it's the right thing to do. this is just wrong. i'm not ready to roll my standards back. mark: i agree. it is wrong, and i wish he had liquidated his business. you are dealing with the reality of going forward. he needs to appoint someone like can feinberg, someone truly independent who has a public reputation so that if trump does
limits on congress to include six-year limits on house members, three terms, 12 your limits on senators, two terms. this will be harder to implement, and it is not something he has talked about as much since he won the election. the last time congress looked at term limits was 1995 after the supreme court said it is not constitutional to impose term limits on members of congress. ae only vote that resulted in majority was well short of the two thirds needed to advance the amendment to the senate. there was another similar result ar, and itng ye has not been tried since. if he decides to go for the grassroots campaign, it might be awkward for a republican to ignore. there is a warning for people
who watch government closely. up increasing the power and not decreasing the power of lobbyists because members who are in office for less time tend to rely more on the help of outsiders, usually paid lobbyists, as opposed to people who have been in congress long time and have developed expertise of their own. donald trump has banned registered state and federal lobbyists from serving in his administration. branch, trumpive has decreed a five lobbying ban, and they lifetime ban on advising foreign governments. swamp draining advocates view these moves, and with a make a difference? john: i don't know what the swamp draining advocates think, but i know what i think. mark: are you pro-drain? >> i am pro-drain and
anti-lobbyist. i don't think it will get anywhere. mark: if it's a constitutional amendment, then it won't the unconstitutional. john: it is bad for democracy. , people can go in and vote those people out. i'm not for it and i don't think it will pass. mark: it is interesting, people say they think the trump skeptics, i've asked them why he is doing these things, pure symbolism or does he believe it. lobbyists very effectively, so it will be interesting to see, the clinton and obama white house had limits on lobbyists and allowed exceptions. john: many exceptions. thingit will be and just to see if trump has exceptions. you do start to lose people. live is protected by the first
amendment. it will be interesting to see if he supports this vigorously. people thought trump would have trouble recruiting people into government. some people have said no. respected person when in, rex tillerson, john mattis, he's gotten some good people to agree to work in his government. in this case, he's getting good people and that is good. look, this stuff is, term limits will never pass. i am a little less against it than you are. the evidence will be pretty quick and coming. by the end of the first year, we will be able to say has this made a difference in having government move less toward special interest and more towards working class, real americans? we will know after one year or less.
john: donald trump has promised to withdraw from the tpp deal and create a plan to counter and investigate immigration and fees of fraud to executive actions. meanwhile, the relationships trump builds will be bigger than any policy moves throughout his career. joining us now to talk about how much trump can be expected to get done in washington dc, good to see you. let me start with you.
after a presidential campaign in which many republican members of congress were openly or privately opposed to the notion theynald trump, and now have to work for him. so how is it going? >> john, there has been a big fall ofe since the 2016, and they had some very critical unrestrained things to say about him in a way that party members don't generally say about their presidential candidate. now he is the president-elect and they have to work with him. there are you a number of people who have been nominated to important cabinet positions like jeff sessions and or who have the ear of the incoming president, and i think that will matter a lot, chris collins, duncan hunter. these people were on board the trump train early and will have the ear of the president. leadership, he is
trying to work with paul ryan, have mcconnell, trying to a good relationship with these people because he knows they are critical to his agenda. john: josh, trump is charming. he is a charming guy if anybody has ever met him. to the extent you have seen it, what is the sign that trumps charms are working at this early phase? that his charms are working on republican members? is the tone from republican members, generally positive. if you speak to people around trump, they say he will make a point of entertaining and bringing people in. he is a very sociable guy in a way that president obama was not. obama was not eager to socialize, back slap, and do the things presidents do. trump's advisers say he will be doing that, but the quality that trump instills is not friending
this, but fear. a lot of republicans are afraid of getting in donald trump's crosshairs, so we will have a honeymoon where people are deferential to trump because he was elected and he is the big man on campus. trump's approval rating stays where it is, extraordinarily low for an incoming president, will that make republicans less cautious about crossing him? >> personally, i don't think it will, at least not at first. we are in such a polarized age that making historical comparisons, politics is not the same as it was in 1980 when ronald reagan came in or 1992 when bill clinton was elected. there will always be 50% of the country that is strongly against trump, i would imagine, so i don't necessarily see that as a problem for him. the potential problem is that if
he does not get off to a fast start in the 100 days, if they repeal obamacare and they do not have a replacement, he does not look at a guy who can fix america's problems and make everything terrific, then you see the support erode and it becomes dangerous for trump. mark: president obama explored on some major pieces of was it possible to get a bipartisan deal and bring some republicans over on his big domestic policy efforts? in the end, he didn't. ryan, mitchat paul mcconnell, other members of the republican leadership, are they interested in trying to craft these major bills, on tax reform for instance, in a way that might draw democratic votes, or ram things through with republican party line votes? republicans have unified control of government. they will get the first byte of
the apple. they will have paul ryan's here in crafting this. mitch mcconnell has his own goal on tax reform. i think they will see where unity is and get the vast majority of them on board. ryan has a big majority to work with than he does not need democrats to pass anything. mcconnell will need a democrats if he's going to try to pass something outside of democratstion, which can filibuster, so mcconnell will have that problem in a way that paul ryan did not. john: stick with the rhine-mcconnell thing, mcconnell was chilly to trump during his rhine, ryan was openly hostile towards trump. was openly hostile towards trump. there seems to be almost like a weird bro-mance.
talk about the different relationships and those two big figures on capitol hill. >> your assessment is right. mitch mcconnell was quiet for the general election. on trumpd commenting when asked, and when he was forced to, he would say as little as he could get away with. paul ryan made it a point to convey that he was uncomfortable with a lot of things that donald trump was saying and talking about in the presidential campaign. that is changed. there are areas where there could be significant tension, because ryan is cut from the traditional limited government conservative school of thought, and trump is not a limited government guy. a $1 trillion infrastructure package. the more he pushes on these things outside the school of thought that ryan comes from, that is where we will see the attention. --ch mcconnell is encrypted
is a cryptic figure, but he is also a savvy operator and realizes this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity under unified control government. close observer of steve bannon, who has had meetings on capitol hill and has talked to members of congress, but has maintained his low profile. roledo you know about his in crafting policy and managing congressional relations? , i don't thinkon he has a major role in either of those areas, at least not a frontal role. his interactions with congress have tended to be negative in his capacity as chairman of breitbart news, and he is not a guy with a mind for policy. he is somebody more concerned with maintaining trumps image as a populist, a builder, a doer.
i know that steve bannon has talked about the need for infrastructure, and yet if you look at how the republican agenda is lining up, the first thing it looks like republicans will do is repeal obama care. that is not a big issue. notor right now, it does appear to me that stephen bannon is exerting a lot of authority over what trump is doing. as with things all trump, that could change in an instant. thank you very much for being on the show. we will be right back to talk about one of the day prizes of donald trump's election victory, the chance to fill that open seat on the supreme court. we will be right back with that. ♪
situation, we know the second amendment and everybody is talking about the second amendment and they are trying to change it. that was our soon to be president of the united states in a 60 minutes interview talking about the types of judges he will nominate to fill supreme court vacancies. trump announced he will announce his first pick within two weeks of taking office. mitch mcconnell refused to give president obama's pick a hearing last year, turned heads with this stern warning for democrats. >> i noticed my counterparts announced that their goal was to never fill the supreme court vacancy. that is an expansion of the biden rule. in 1992 was the senate would not confirm a supreme court nominee in the middle of a presidential election year, which was my view last year. in the schumer said
second bush administration that they would not confirm a supreme court nominee and the last 18 months of president bush 43's tenure. apparently there is a new standard now, which is to not confirm a supreme court nominee at all. something thes american people simply will not tolerate and we will be looking forward to receiving a supreme court nomination and moving forward on it. john: here to talk about what to expect is ace reporter greg store. will get something from trump in the next couple of weeks, we believe. is there a short list? he had long list during the campaign. >> there is a short list. he and his aides have said it's 4-6 people. we don't know who is on it. we can be sure that bill pryor and diane sykes who he mentioned
in the campaign by name, they are on the list, and there is a handful of other people who meet the criteria and would make the people who backed donald trump happy to have him on the supreme court. of thehis list was one things that trump did that was very concrete in order to reassure people on the right. if you lined them up from most conservative to most moderate, is there a big range or are they all center-right, justice roberts basically, tradition, but all the way on the right? >> it is varying shades of quite conservative. i think most of these people will be to the right of john roberts. it would be a disappointment by many conservatives if he nominated another john roberts. adequate' advocates say we
want to make sure this nominee has the courage of his or her conviction unlike john roberts in the obamacare case, so we will get somebody very conservative. john: mitch mcconnell and senate presidents wanted obama's desire to put garland on the court last year. upset democrats mightily in doing that. now you have chuck schumer saying turnabout is fair play. we might never give you a hearing or give you a confirm supreme court justice. mitch mcconnell firing back on that. this is going to be a big fight, right? the battle lines are drawn and we don't have a nominee yet. be at the fight. the big difference is that mitch mcconnell had a majority of the senate, and chuck schumer does not. excellent chance that democrats will filibuster this nominee, and an equally excellent chance that the
republicans will do the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster so they can with a simple majority vote get their person on the supreme court, and part of the reason is that we are probably not talking about this nomination. it is very likely that donald trump will have one more while republicannd with a majority senate, so republicans want to make sure they get that person on as well. mark: this is a replacement for the late justice scalia. is a justice there more conservative than scalia, because i don't think that is possible, but it will not move the court. it is someone who is not as far right as scalia, are there issues on which someone who is a conservative, but actually might vote differently than scalia, or is everyone on that list likely to vote as scalia would vote? >> there will be some issues. the person might be more conservative than scalia, some
criminal law issues that would surprise people and vote with the liberals, and that may not be the case for his successor. there is not a lot of room. i would be surprised if anybody donald trump nominates boats to strike down abortion allowctions or boats to significant gun restrictions, for example. fore won't be a lot of room the expert i've between scalia and his successor, i think. john: i don't want to be too morbid, but you mentioned that there is likely to be one more replacement that trump will have , a variety of reasons that vacancy could arise. in terms of handicapping in washington, who is the next likely justice to leave the court of their own volition. ? >> health is something that is hard to predict. ginsburg's 83.
everybody is watching her certainly. in terms of retirement, apart from health, anthony kennedy has long said he would like a republican to replace him. he often does phone with the liberals, but if he does indeed want a republican to replace him, he is 80 years old as well. was slow in hiring his clerks for the next term, suggesting that too many people that he was at least thinking about retiring. he will be certainly somebody that everybody watches every single year at the end of the term to see if he will retire. mark: the list the president-elect put out got favorable reaction amongst conservative interest groups, there onesl, are that people are pushing if you ask mitch mcconnell or chuck grassley or other prominent senators, are their favorites they would like to see nominated? >> everybody has their
favorites. i mentioned bill pryor, he is perhaps the most in your face kind of nominee that trump could make, somebody who has called wade at abomination. he is close to jeff sessions. sessions was bill pryor's mentor in the alabama attorney general's office, so the two of them are close, so you could expect that he has a key backer there and thinks the is 54, long -- he track record of conservatism, and he would certainly be very and dizzy astec the greeted by bevery enthusiastically graded by the folks there at the heritage foundation. out wase list trump put helpful politically. do conservatives believe donald trump cares about the supreme court? that they do,e
but i'm not sure it matters that much. from everybody i have talked to, they believe he will stick to this list, and it did make a difference to them and supporting his candidacy, so ultimately what matters is who he nominates, not whether he personally cares about what happens to the second amendment roe v. wade. trump's next, donald often hostile relationship with the media after these words from our sponsors. ♪
>> can we deliver a better product for the american people? can we do things better and smarter? that's what we have done in talking to reporters and other stakeholders. is it just washington media that should get access to the press room? we find modern technology to bring people who have a weekly newspaper in idaho into the process? think for too often, the mindset has been this is how it has always been done, and there is a level of innovation that needs to be brought to all government. >> daily briefings? >> sure, but do they need to be televised or in a particular place? is there a way instead of having 49 seats in the press corps, can we bring more americans into the
process by technology, a bigger space, or what have you? mark: that was the man in line to be the nation's press secretary, sean spicer, raising questions about what is likely to be a tomorrow treatise -- be a tomorrow to us margaret, trump's relationship with the media during the again,n was tumultuous blackballing news organizations, doing other things that would not be tom brady in the white house, and should not of been tolerated in the campaign, frankly. what is the state of your expectations about things that we know will be different and this white house rather than just speculation regarding relationships with the white house press corps and the wider media? mark: exactly as you said. exactly as you said.
sean spicer has been broadcasting the idea that they thisto shake things up and may be the way the briefings work themselves. as press corps welcomes that long as it is not to the extent of making the press secretary or top administration officials an available to answer questions, but if it is broadening the reach of journalists allowed to ask questions and the kinds of questions that can get asked and answered, that is good for the process. there is a lot of trip, but some early optimism, jeff mason and i and a few of our colleagues were able to have a substantial meeting with sean spicer and stephanie grisham for the transition team in early january , and we walked away from that feeling as if there were
unopened door of communication, good give and take, and a commitment by the transition , the president-elect trump plan to treat the white house differently than he treated the campaign, to treat the white house press corps in a different way than campaign correspondents were treated, and to offer things like the protected pool, air force one, and all that kind of stuff. that is important to maintaining eyes on the president and coverage of the white house. that sounds great, except for when donald trump had his first press conference, it was a melee that took place at trump tower last week. not only was it a melee, would be that unimaginable in the east room, but included things like him shouting down reporters, not
granting questions, accusing cnn of being fake news. the meetings are important and i'm glad to hear progress, but watching that, your reaction to it was what? >> for many reporters, startled, because it is not the way you think of a president elect or president dealing with the press corps at a time when he's trying to unify the country, but in the press corps, we all need to have a tough skinned and differentiate between unusual or guerrilla tactics we need to learn how to live with and things that cross the red line, and this is something we will need to be mindful of and adjust to, but it is a matter of keeping eyes on the prize, the ability to ask questions of the incoming president trump and his top staff on the record and get answered. and to have access to these buildings, the briefing rooms, the venues, where the questions take place. issueso one of the
alluded to is this question of should big news organizations that have historically dominated the daily briefings get better other smaller organizations, should they continue to dominate? on one hand, we are in a different age and anyone with a twitter account on one level is a journalist. on the other hand, it takes big news organizations to have experienced reporters to ask hard questions and won't be intimidated and has the institutional backing to do certain things. so where does that debate stand in your mind and where do you think it stands in the mind of the trump incoming administration? made clearident has to the incoming administration that while seeking in the briefing room is something that hca aten handled by the w
the request of republican and democratic press secretaries because it is easier for them than to handle the questions themselves. the questions about who do you call on first, what order, how many follow-up questions to allow them to ask, do you allow them to ask the same questions row, thats in a has always been up to the press secretary. it has always been the press secretaries assessment that it is important for the networks to get the shot they need or they won't be on the news that night. a lot of the issues that many observers might say this is stuff the press decides are issues that are already and have long been in the jurisdiction of the press secretary, and the reason why they have followed these traditions is precisely because some of these --anizations have the breath
the reach. ahn: a question for you as journalist who has covered presidents in the past, trump's twitter account and his twitter feed is a matter of great interest to a lot of people. there is a school of thought saying he is using it to distract people from real issues and the president should not -- the press should not cover what he tweets. others say this is his boys, a new form, but it is an official pronouncement coming out of the president-elect and soon to be president. trump hashandle that a distinctive twitter voice and it is clear he will continue to use it as president? speaking for myself, i am with you on this. this is the president directly addressing americans, and as much as i want everything on the record and the ability to answer questions, administrations have used different tools to get
to getnformation out -- their information out. this is the purest, most direct form of that. the question is do we cover each tweet by forwarding it and saying this is what donald trump is saying now, or do we cover it contextually, compare them to tweets from a day earlier, talk about the contacts, why he is tweeting the way he is and what the repercussions are? writing analytically about these tweets as part of our overall coverage that would now be part of what we do day-to-day. margaret, thank you very much. we will be right back with some final thoughts about donald trump's first 100 days in office, coming up soon, right after this. ♪
than donald trump is less 48 hours away becoming the 45th president of these united states. given everything we have talked about today, what kind of washington shakeups do think we can expect in the first 100 days? that there will be so much will happen that has never happened before, and a lot of it will be worthy of coverage. i'm watching the legislative agenda. can he bipartisan or not moved through tax reform, infrastructure, aca repeal and replace, immigration, other big things he wants to do? can he move them through congress or not? foreign affairs, i know
you're not excluding that from your discussion. he has been doing things and his floor with the intelligence community, there is no doubt people have been watching aghast , enemies of the united states delighted to see the president at war with the people who provide his information. can he fix his relationship with the intelligence community? to me, that will be the most important thing. at some point it will happen. and that way, how does he handle it and how does hs his team do? night, we will drill down on that in great detail. we have never had a president who has never served in the military or served in government before. john: the reason i mention it on this show, i do think that when
things like that happen, it's not just the president. the president has a lot of authority, but the defense department, the cia, all that stuff, it becomes not just your ability to react him a but simply marshall the whole force of the united states government, especially when it deals with national security, something for someone who has never been in government is extraordinarily a test. and for everyone's sake, i hope he passes. mattis.ank god for john: we will be -- ♪
♪ announcer from our studios in : new york city, this is "charlie rose." several days and counting for you, as the national security advisor to the president of the united states. are you ready to leave? susan very mixed feelings. it has been an extraordinary privilege to serve our country, and particularly under this president. i love the work i do, i love the team i work with. i'm going to be very sorry to leave that. on the other hand, after eight years as their -- either as