Skip to main content

tv   Whatd You Miss  Bloomberg  January 19, 2022 4:30pm-5:00pm EST

4:30 pm
>> because he has never seen sanctions like the ones i promised would be imposed, number one. we are in a situation, number two, where vladimir putin is about two, we have had very frank discussions, he and i. the idea that nato is not going to be united, i don't buy it. i have spoken to every major nato leader and we had the nato russian summit. i think what you are going to see is that russia will be held accountable if they invade and it depends on what they do. fighting about what to do and not do. if they do what they are capable of doing with their forces on the border, it will be a disaster for russia if they
4:31 pm
further invade and our allies and partners are ready to impose costs and harm on the russian economy. i told them that if he does invade, i have already shipped over $600 million worth of sophisticated defensive equipment to the ukrainians. the costs of going into ukraine in terms of physical loss of life for the russians, they will be able to prevail over time but it will be real and inconsequential. letter of putin can confront the consequences early escalate. for example, everybody ducts about russia has control over the energy supply that europe
4:32 pm
absorbs. guess what? that money that they earn from that makes about 45% of their economy. i don't see that as a one-way street. they go ahead and edit off, like my mother used to say, you are biting your nose to spite your face. i spoke with the prime minister of finland and we were talking about concern on the part of finland and sweden on what russia is doing. the last thing they need is for finland to say they will change the status. i didn't say they were going to do that but they are talking about what's going on and how outrageous russia is being. we are finding ourselves in the position where i believe you are seeing there will be severe economic consequences. for example, anything involving dollar denominations, if they invade, they are going to pay. their banks will not be able to
4:33 pm
deal in dollars. a lot's going to happen. but here's the thing. how can we say this, we have no problem understanding one another. he has no problem understanding me or me him. the direct conversation was, i pointed out. i said you have occupied before, other countries. but the price has been extremely high. how long? you can go in at great costs over time, economic loss, go in and occupy you rain. but how many years? 1, 3, 5, 10? what, what is that going to take? the toll, what toll is a going to take? this isn't just a cakewalk for russia. militarily they have overwhelming superiority as it relates to ukraine.
4:34 pm
but they will pay a stiff price immediately, near term, and long-term if they do it. i'm sorry. ok, david sanger, new york times. >> thank you, mr. president. wanted to follow-up on your answer there about russia and you rain. when you were in geneva in june, you said to us about vladimir putin that i think the last thing he wants now is a cold war. since then of course you have seen him gather these troops around ukraine. the secretary of state said today that he thought he could invade at any moment. you have seen the cyberattacks and seen the demand that he have a sphere of influence in which she would withdraw all american troops and nuclear weapons from what used to be the soviet bloc. i'm wondering if you still think
4:35 pm
that the last thing he wants is a cold war. has your view of him changed in the past few months? if it has and he does invade, which are' to move back to the kind of containment policy that you saw so often when you were still in the senate? >> the answer is i still don't think he wants a full-blown war. number two, do i think you will test the west? test the united states and nato? as significantly as he can? yes, i think you will. i think you will pay a serious in dear price for it if he doesn't think now about what it will costs him and i think you will regret having done it. now, whether or not, i think that, how can i say this?
4:36 pm
in a public forum? i think that he is dealing with what i think he thinks is the most tragic thing that could have happened to mother russia, the berlin wall came down, the empire lost, nero abroad is gone, cetera. the soviet union has been split. ink about what he has. he has eight times on. burning tundra that will not freeze again naturally. a situation where he has a lot of oil and gas and is trying to find his place in the world between china and the west. so, i'm not sure that he has, he
4:37 pm
has to do something. by the way, the two things that he said to me that he wants, guaranteed, one is that ukraine will never be a part of nato in two, nato, there will not be strategic weapons station to new crane. we can work out something on the second piece, depending on what he does along the russian line as well. in the european area. on the first piece, we have a number of international treaties were companies -- countries get to choose who they want to be with. the likelihood that ukraine will join nato in the near term is not likely, based on how much more work they have to do in terms of democracy and a few other things. and whether or not major allies in the west would vote to bring ukraine in now.
4:38 pm
there's room to work if he wants to do that. but i think as usual he is going to, i probably shouldn't go any further. i think it will hurt him badly. >> sounds like the offramp is at least an informal assurance that nato is not going to taken ukraine anytime in the next few decades. it sounds like you are saying we would never put nuclear weapons there. he also wants us to move all our nuclear weapons out of europe and not have troops rotating to the old soviet bloc. you think there is space there? >> no, there is not space for that. we are actually increasing troop presence in poland if you won't work with us. we have a sacred obligation to
4:39 pm
defend those countries. we don't have that obligation in ukraine, though we do have a great concern about what happens there. thank you. maureen, usa today. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to follow-up on your comment on bill back at her and the pandemic. you said you are confident you could pass big chunks of bill back better this year. does that mean you are looking at breaking the package up into individual portions? and then on the pandemic, now that the supreme court has blocked the vaccination and test rule for larger businesses, are you reconsidering vaccines for domestic flights as a way to boost vaccination rates? >> look, first of all, on the last part of the question, the supreme court decision i think was a mistake. we still see thousands of thousands of people working for major corporations having to be
4:40 pm
tested as a consequence of the decision made by the corporation , not by any standard i set. i think you will first part of your question? >> comment that you made on breaking up -- >> it's clear to me that we are going to have to probably break it up. i think that we can get, and i have been talking to a number of my colleagues on the hill. i think it's clear that they need support for those $500 billion in energy and the environment. there are two people that proposed on the democratic side at least where they strongly
4:41 pm
support that. strong support for the ways in which to pay for these, pay for this proposal. i think there is, not going to, not going to negotiate against myself about what should end shouldn't be in it, but i think we can break the package up, get as much as we can now, come back and fight for more later. ken thomas, "wall street journal." >> on the economy, as you said earlier, americans are feeling the squeeze of inflation. oil prices have been at a seven-year high recently. how long should americans expect these higher prices when they are at the grocery store, the gas pump?
4:42 pm
is this something they will see into the summer or next fall? separately, you talk about the importance of the fed, but isn't that an acknowledgment that you are limited in what you can do if you are relying on the fed to make decisions and you are unable to get a bill back better proposal through, aren't you simply limited in what you can do to deal with inflation? >> look, as you know, ken, the inflation has everything to do with the budget. -- the supply chain. i think what you are seeing is that we have been able to make progress on speeding up the access to materials. for example, one third of the increase in cost-of-living is the costs of automobiles. the reason automobiles have skyrocketed is because of the lack of computer chips. we have the capacity and we will
4:43 pm
do everything in our power to do it to become self-reliant on the chips that we need in order to be able to produce more automobiles. that's underway. we already passed it within the context of another bill, money for that in the house of representatives, before the house of representatives. there is a way we can move, for example, to get that one thing done it can make a big difference in terms of the total costs of living. now, with regard to energy prices, that gets a little more complicated. but you saw what happened when i was able to convince everyone from including china, india, number of other countries to go with us into their version of the petroleum reserve, to release more into the market, bringing down the price 12, $.15 per gallon in some places.
4:44 pm
other places more. there is going to be a reckoning on the line as to whether or not we will continue to see oil prices going up in the ways they are going up now relative to the impact it will have on the producers. so, it's going to be hard. i think that's a place where most middle-class, working class people get hurt most at the pump. instead of $2.40 a gallon it's five dollars a gallon and that's really difficult. but we will continue to work on increasing the oil supplies available and there are ways i think where we can be value added in terms of price of gas, natural gas and the like, taking the burden off the european countries that are now totally dependent on russia. but it's going to be hard. it's going to be very hard. but i think that we have to deal with, for example, like i said,
4:45 pm
a circumstance where people pay more for a pound of hamburger meat than they ever paid. one of the reasons for that is many of the folks out there, they've got the big four controlling at all. more and more we are going to move on this competition piece to allow more and more smaller operations to come in and be able to engage in providing access to much cheaper meat then exists now. i assume the reason you said if i can't get bill back better was those so -- 17 nobel laureate economists who said it would lower league impact on inflation.
4:46 pm
it will be consequence -- the single best way to work with those folks is to pass the bill back better piece, the thing they are a lot of money forif yr gases for putting up higher prices for hamburgers and gas versus whether or not you are going to be able to pay for education and or childcare in the like, i think most people would make the trade. their bottom line would be better than middle-class households. >> sir, you mentioned china. do you think the time has come to begin lifting some of the tariffs on chinese imports? or is there a need for china to make do on some of its commitments in the phase one agreement? some business groups
4:47 pm
would like you to begin lifting up those tariffs. >> i know that in that is why my trade rep is working on that right now. the answer is uncertain. i would like to be able to be in that position where they are meeting those commitments and we could lift some of it, but we are not there yet. nancy, cvs. >> thank you so much, mr. president. this afternoon the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said the midterm elections will be a report card on your -- your progress on inflation, border security, and standing up to russia. do you think that is a fair way to look at it and if so, how do you think the report card looks? >> i think it's going to look pretty good if that's we are at. mitch has been very clear. he will do anything to prevent biden from being a success. i get on with mitch. i like mitch mcconnell.
4:48 pm
he has one straightforward objective. make sure nothing i do makes me look good with the public at large. that's ok, i'm a big way. i've been here. the fact is, i'm happy to debate and have a referendum on how i handle the economy. whether or not i have made progress on -- look, again, i'm taking too long answering your question, i apologize. i think that the fundamental question is what is mitch for? what's he for? on immigration. but see, what's he proposing? what c4, dealing with russia? what's different than what i'm
4:49 pm
proposing. but his colleagues supported? what c4 on these things? what are they for? every things a choice. choice. look, i have laid out a proposal on immigration that if we passed it, we would be in a totally different place right now. we are not there because not a single republican vote. my buddy john mccain is gone. so i mean, it's just, it's going to take time. again, i go back to, i go back to governor sununu's quote. rhetorical question. i knows not fair to ask the presse question, i'm not asking. but think about it. did you ever think that one man out of office could intimidate an entire party to where they are unwilling to take any vote
4:50 pm
contrary to what he thinks should be taken for fear being defeated in a primary? five republican senators have talked to me, been to me, sit with me. cold me that they agree with whatever i'm talking about. but joe, they say, if i do this i get defeated in the primaries. we got a break that. it's got a change. sounds like i'm being solicitous. they are all bright as hell, well-informed, more informed than any group of people in america. have any of you thought that it's got to the point were not a single republican could diverge on a major issue? not one.
4:51 pm
anyway. >> the five republican senators are? >> sure. no, you kidding me? [laughter] i maintain confidentiality. but i'm sure you have spoken to some. >> on voting rights, sir, at your first press conference 10 months ago i asked if there was anything you could do beyond legislation to protect voting rights and at that time you said yes but i'm not going to lay out a strategy before you in the world now. now that legislation appears to be hopelessly stalled. can you now lay out your strategy to protect voting rights? >> well i'm not prepared to do that in detail in terms of the executive orders and other things i can do, but the things that we do have, we have significantly beefed up the number of enforcements in the justice department. people who are there to
4:52 pm
challenge these unconstitutional efforts on the part of the republicans to stack the election and subvert the outcome. we have begun to organize in ways that we didn't before. communities beyond the civil rights community to make the case to the rest of the american people, what's about to happen and what will happen if in fact these things move forward. if i had talked to you. not you, but if i had talked to the public about the whole idea of subversion of elections by deciding who the electors are after the fact, people would have looked at me like -- i taught constitutional law for 20 years on a saturday morning and i never thought we'd get to a place where, where we were talking about being able to actually, but they tried to do this last time out, send different electors to state
4:53 pm
legislative bodies to represent who won the election. saying that i didn't win but the republican candidate was the winner. i doubt anybody thought that whatever happen in america in the 21st century, but it is happening. i guess what i'm saying is i think that there are a number of things that they can do. significant pieces of legislation if we don't get it all now. a big chunk of the john lewis legislation as well as the fair elections. >> on covid if you don't mind, you touted the number of americans now fully vaccinated with two shots but even some of your own medical advisors say that people are not fully protected unless they have the third shot, a booster. why hasn't the white house change the definition of fully
4:54 pm
vaccinated to include that third booster shot? is it because the numbers of fully vaccinated americans would suddenly look a lot less? >> no, it's not that it all. this is gotten clearer and clearer and every time i speak it, i say it, if you have been vaccinated, get the booster shot. it's the optimum protection you can have. you are protected very well with two shots if it is the pfizer -- anyway, you are protected. but you are better protected with the booster shot. >> the definition right now? >> i'm following what -- the answer is yes, get the booster shot. it's all part of the same thing. you are better protected. ok, alex. reuters. >> mr. president i wanted to follow up briefly on a question asked by bloomberg.
4:55 pm
you said that russia would be held accountable if it invades and it depends on what it does. one thing if it is a minor incursion and we have to fight about what to do and not to do. are you saying a minor incursion by rushing ukrainian territory would not lead to the threat sanctions you have threatened or are you effectively giving him permission to make a small incursion into the country? flex great -- >> [laughter] great question. big nations cannot luff, number one. number two, the idea that we would do anything to split nato, which would have a profound impact on one of i think his objectives, to weaken nato, would be a big mistake. so the question is, if it is something significantly short of
4:56 pm
a significant invasion or not even just significant, major military forces coming across, for example, it's one thing to determine that if they continue to use cyber efforts, we could respond the same way. cyber. they have fsb people in ukraine now trying to undermine solidarity within ukraine about russia to try to promote russian interests. but it's very important that we keep everyone in nato on the same page. that's what i'm spending a lot of time doing and there are differences. there are differences in nato as to what countries are willing to do depending on what happened and the degree to which they are willing to go. i want to be clear with you, the serious imposition of sanctions relative to dollar transactions and other things are things that
4:57 pm
are going to have a negative impact on the united states as well as a negative impact on the economies of europe as well. a devastating impact on russia. so, i got to make sure everybody is on the same page as we move along. i think we will if there is something where there is russian forces crossing the border, killing ukrainian fighters, etc., it changes everything. it depends on what he does and the extent to which we get total unity on the nato front. >> a quick one on iran, i wanted a sense of whether the vienna talks on making any progress and if you still think it is possible to get a deal for both sides to resume compliance with the iran nuclear deal or is it time to give up on that? >> the reverse. there is some progress being made. p5 plus one is on the same page but it remains to be seen.
4:58 pm
ok, kristin? nbc? >> very quickly on russia, i have a number of domestic policy issues, but on russia very quickly it seems like you have said you feel that he will move in. has this administration determined whether president putin plans to invade or move into ukraine, as you said? >> look, the only thing i'm confident of is that decision is totally, solely, completely his decision. nobody else is going to make that decision or impact that decision. he's making that decision. and i suspect it matters which side of the bed he gets up on in the morning as to exactly what he's going to do. and i think it is not irrational if you wanted to, to talk about dealing with strategic doctrine
4:59 pm
and with forced structures in europe and the european parts of russia. but i don't know if he has decided if he wants to do that or not. so far in the three meetings we have had, they have not produced anything because the impression i get from my secretary or stroke, my other senior officials whose meetings, is that there is a question as to whether the people they are talking to know what he is going to do. so, the answer is based on the number of criteria as to what he could do, for example, moving to occupy the whole country, particularly from the north, belarus, he will have to wait a little bit until the ground is frozen. to move in a direction where he wants to talk about what's going
5:00 pm
, we are continuing to provide for defense capacities to the ukrainians. we are talking about what's going on in both the baltic and black sea, etc.. there's a whole range of things i'm sure he's trying to calculate how quickly he can do what he wants to do and what he wants to do. but he's not, he's an informed individual and i'm sure, not sure, i believe that he's calculated what the immediate, short-term, near-term, and long-term consequences for russia will be and i don't think he's made up his mind. >> your domestic agenda, you have got a lot of questions about voting rights, mr. president, but i wanted to ask you about black voters, one of your most loyal constituencies. i was in the clyburn district


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on