This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. The sounds of baseball not only the national pastime and a more than ten billion dollar industry, but also the only sport in the country that's exempt from the anti trust laws. And now some minor league teams are asking the Supreme Court to eliminate baseball's anti trust exemption. Why, as they put it in one brief enough. Already joining me is anti trust expert Harry First, a professor at
NYU Law School. Harry tell us how baseball got this anti trust exemption.
Well, this is one of the most reviled exemptions from the point of view of antitrust lawyers unless they represent baseball companies or teams or leagues, and even the courts don't like it. So it came about originally because of a decision in nineteen twenty two by the Supreme Court called Federal Baseball. And this is an opinion written by Justice Holmes Uliver Wendell Holmes distinguished jurists, and it was
an effort to actually push out some competing leagues. And Holmes said that, well, the any trust laws don't cover this. Baseball is neither commerce nor interstate commerce. It's just sport and it just takes place locally. So even though players even then traveled from state to state and there was a lot of money involved, perhaps Justice Holmes as the Boston Brahmin disdain baseball. It was sort of like us now raised with a certain kind of entertainment reviewing video games.
What is that? And is there so much money involved? Are you serious? So maybe that was a poem's reaction. I don't know, But in any event, that was a decision any trust laws didn't apply. So that's nineteen twenty two. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that decision in a case called Toolson in nineteen fifty three involving New York Yankees. My memory is correct, and the court said, even though the decision was sort of dubious when made, it's now precedent,
and all aspects of that decision had been undermined. Even in the intervening period, the courts had a rather a narrow conception of what constituted interstate commerce, perhaps in nineteen twenty two, but it had expanded clearly in the New Deal era, and any trust cases had gone along. And there's no doubt that baseball should have been considered an interstate commerce all along point a business, but the Court said in business of baseball is exempt from any trust
laws from the Shermanac. And then the third case in this is a case called Flood against Kune. This involved Kurt Flood, who didn't want to be bound by what was called the reserve clause, which prevented players once they were under contract from going to some other team even after the contract was over. And this was an opinion written by Justice Blackman. This goes beyond it put of
any trust law. If you teach a course in law school about precedent and the need to follow precedent, you know you would want to teach this opinion because it's a payon to baseball and the greats of baseball and how they flourished under this system. I mean, it was very clear that Harry Blackman was a great baseball fan and loved all these players. And now you come along, Kurt Flood, You're going to challenge the system. Give me
a break. You know, everyone prospered. So on the basis of the doctrine of starry decisives, let the decision stand. The Supreme Court refused to overrule Tulsen and Federal Baseball behind it, saying no, we've had this exemption, this decision too long, no matter what we think of it, legally were bound. Now there's no one who will stand up
for this, as I said, except people who represent baseball teams. Now, there is one final little bit of a change, which is Congress passed the law in nineteen ninety eight called the Kirk Flood Act, which took out of the exemption, put back into anti trust any contracts involving the employment of major league baseball players at the major league level, So just for major league baseball players like Kurt Flood, that would now be subject to sort of the normal
rules of anti trust and labor law for that matter. But these clauses aren't used anymore anyway, so it's sort of in some sense factually irrelevant, but maybe a little legal issue. Congress left everything else that this law doesn't apply to anything else involving baseball. So in effect, the exemption, which Congress never approved, very different from all other exemptions that we have. Virtually all other exemptions Congress never approved this one. The exemption continues.
Does baseball operate like a monopoly? And is that unlike football or basketball or hockey.
So we could argue whether football and hockey and all of those operate like monopolies, separate argument. At least they are all subject to the anti trust laws. So all sports professional the NCAA, you know, college sports, all sports have been subject to the anti trustlaws. In the court, sport after sport will say, you know, baseball is its own thing. You're covered. So they are not free to violated any trust laws. Now, whether what they do is
legal under d any trust laws is another story. And your quest is a really good one because in the most recent Supreme Court case involving organized sports, which involved the NCAA with NCAA against Allston and the effort of the NCAA to suppress the amounts of compensation to quote what they like to call student athletes, and basically they wanted to argue in the Supreme Court that you should really treat us differently, and the Supreme Court wrote, no,
we're not treating you differently. You don't have any reason to. And Justice Dorsach for a majority sort of dropped a little hint about this and mentioned that the Supreme Court in the past had balied this is his word with what looks like an exemption for professional baseball. But we're not going to give it to you, folks. So you andCA are fully subject to the any trust laws, and
your conduct is subject to any trust laws. So the court seems to have recognized, as this decided in twenty twenty one again, that baseball is a bit of an aberration.
In this case, you have minor league teams who are eliminated alleging a violation of the Sherman Act caused by a horizontal agreement between competitors that has artificially reduced and capped output in the market for MLB teams affiliated with MLB clubs, and a federal judge dismissed it because of the baseball exemption right, Federal Judge Andrew Carter said, plaintiffs believe that the Supreme Court is poised to knock out the exemption, like a boxer waiting to launch a left
hook after her opponent tosses out a torbid jab. It's possible. So this would squarely present the baseball exemption to the Supreme Court.
So that's correct, that's what's seeing up the interest at the moment. The case went to the Court of Appeals which just sort of summarily agreed with the trial court. Great quote that you read there. And now the minor league teams who alleged a violation by being excluded from an agreement that the majors have made which limit the number of minor league teams they can affiliate with, are
now asking the Supreme Court to take the case. So it's not clear whether the Court will actually take the case. The Court has discretion as to whether they take it or not, So the first question is will they take it, And presumably if the Court takes it, it means that they're interested in overruling the three cases that I mentioned. And the Supreme Court, you know, doesn't lightly overrule cases.
Well maybe I should say recently, yeah, And the.
Court has overruled on occasion longstanding any trust precedent that parties had followed for many years. The case is called Legion, which involved the legality of setting resale prices. The Supreme Court overruled an older case which had stood for ninety years, even longer than Federal baseball. So it's possible that the Court would would take this case, but I would wait to see if the Justice Department expresses desire to have the court take the case and overrule these other three cases.
So I'm not certain whether the Justice Department will away in on this case. They did already in this particular case in the district court and in the Court of Appeals, but they did not ask the courts which couldn't actually to you know, ignore the exemption.
Do you think this exemption is lasted because baseball is seen as you know, the national sport.
The exemption is a sport in itself. You know, that's a very good question. So there's been a fair amount of litigation around this issue, with Litigan's trying to narrow it, you know, to keep it very closely read as an exemption as they you know, bring cases in lower courts that you know, are forced to follow the three cases that I mentioned. So there has been an effort by parties to do something about it, not an effort by the government to do something about it. As I think
about it, you know, not to tuch this positive. So why has it lasted? Well, you know, part of it is a very basic theory of story decisives of following precedent. Courts are forced to do that, and the Supreme Court hasn't paid attention to this area that much, and for a while wasn't paying much attention to anti trust. Now that's sort of changed recently, so maybe now the court will have an appetite to look at it. They've messed around with other sports, why not baseball.
In twenty twenty two, the MLB Commissioner wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who is hearing this issue, that players could lose job opportunities and communities could lose minor league teams if baseball is stripped of its anti trust exemption. But let's say this does go to Supreme Court, what kind of an argument could they make that they should still have an anti trust exemption?
Yes, in a case in which communities are losing their minor league teams exactly because without this asciliation they don't have the financial support to continue. Well, they're not going to make that argument, I guess this case. Presumably they would. They would pitch a lot of it on stability and expectations that parties have based their relationships over the years
on operating collectively. Leagues need to operate collectively, and this would, you know, subject this sport to needless litigation, which might in the end result in massive costs and not produce better baseball. It's a hard argument to make when every other sport is subject to any trust laws. So I think when it gets the Supreme Court, they'll have to look for things which explains for some reason why this sport should be sort of outside normal rules of competition law.
And the Court, once presented with that sort of actual argument, will often say, you know, hey, not our call, pardon joke, not our coal. Congress generally says, you know that we like competition, and if you think that competition is not the way to go here, go to Congress. You've never done that. You've never gotten congressional approval to this. You know, lots of other industries have. So if you want to make your case, make it there, don't make it here.
The normal rule is competition, and we don't really like exemptions. So I think maybe in the end the question is going to be whether the Supreme Court thinks this is important enough to take or you know, let's just sort of rock along this spike. Certainly, baseball is a big enough industry, and you know, normally we like commercial relationships, particularly when lots of money's involved and lots of consumer interests,
lots of labor interests, frankly community interests. You know, normally we like that to be decided by marketplace.
The best argument I thought was the minor league teams, in a brief to the Second Circuit, said, but the court should, if it sees fit, dispatch this case to the Supreme Court, where the message attached enough already.
Well, you know there's precedent for courts of appeals to do just that, to sort of say, look, our hands are tied. This is a terrible result, but our hands are tied, and sort of say, please take this now. The Second Circuit didn't quite do that, actually, I mean, they could have gone through the reasons. And there are opinions like this in other areas of any trust, going through the reasons for why this is so out of step. Commentators have written about this, there are books on this,
uniformly condemned it, and you know why. They say it would only help fans and everybody except maybe the owners of these franchises. But owners of sports franchises seem to be doing pretty darn well even when the anti trust wall was applying, So they could have done more. But I'm actually waiting to see what the Justice departm.
I do think they need a sports case this term. Thanks so much, Harry, it's always a delight. That's Professor Harry First of NYU Law School. Coming up next, we'll look at the charges against New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
Everything I've accomplished, I've worked for despite the naysayers and everyone who has underestimated me. I recognize this will be the biggest fight yet, but as I have stated throughout this whole process, I firmly believe that when all the facts are presented, not only will I be exonerated, but I still will be the New Jersey's senior senator.
New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez told the public he was not guilty of bribery and corruption charges and entered a
not guilty plea in court today. The Democratic senator has faced corruption charges before, his last trial, ending with a deadlock jury in twenty seventeen, but this time it appears different, and his fellow Democratic senators are calling on him to resign, including New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who said the indictment showed shocking allegations of corruption and specific disturbing details of wrongdoing. The office of the Manhattan US Attorney, Damian Williams brought the charges.
The indictment alleges that through that relationship, the senator and his wife accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes in exchange for Senator Menendez using his power and influence to protect and to enrich those businessmen and to benefit the government of Egypt.
And there were pictures of some of the evidence seized from Menendez his home, the gold bars worth more than one hundred thousand dollars, nearly five hundred thousand dollars in cash stoffed in envelopes and hidden in clothes and closets, and the Mercedes convertible. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School. The allegations against Menendez were stunning to many people, So tell us about them.
Well, he's charged in three counts of bribery. They basically used the same facts to charge it, using three different statues, kind of a belt and suspenders approach. But it's effectively that he did favors official acts in his role as senator and as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee for these three businessmen who then paid him for those favors and cash and gold bars and a Mercedes convertible and some other stuff.
The one hundred thousand dollars in gold bars sort of stands out because who has gold bars? And add to that his Google search for how much is one kilo of gold worth? Do you think the prosecutors framed this in a way to bring out the dramatic in it.
Well, you know, there's always a little bit of flair for the drama, I think. You know, jackets stuffed with cash too has a sort of flare that looks good in the photos too. But you know, really, prosecutors have to prove three things. They have to prove that something of value was given, and that's the point of saying this cash was found, the gold bars, the car. They have to prove that official acts by the public official were promised or given. And then they have to prove
the quid propo the connection between the two things. So you know, prosecutors have to prove all three of those things. So they're going to be careful to make sure to do that. But I think, you know, they just took advantage of the fact that this is really a textbook bribery case. You so clearly have all three of those things, and it's just so obvious. I mean, who keeps that kind of cash around? Who keeps it in that way? You know, not in a safe, stuffed in jackets and things.
So I just think it was so photogenic. I guess, if you will, just such a kind of textbook, quintessential bribery case that it makes it easy to be a little bit dramatic with it.
Tell me what you think of Menandez's explanation for the nearly five hundred thousand dollars in cash he had in the house for thirty years.
I have withdrawn thousands of dollars in cash from my personal savings account, which I have kept for emergencies and because of the history of my family facing confiscation in Cuba. Now this may seem old fashioned, but these were moneys drawn from my personal savings account based on the income that I have lawfully derived over those thirty years.
Yeah, that's just silly. I mean, he's really just begging them to do what would be called an unexplained wealth analysis, right, like, oh, really, that's all his legitimate money from his paychecks. All right, Well, let's look at what his paychecks are and what other means he has. I mean, is he independently wealthy? Does
he have major investments that he converted to cash? You know, what is the explanation for having that kind of cash in the first place when you look at his bank accounts and how much money he makes being a senator. And I don't think it's going to stack up. So I doubt that that defense, well he kind of offered it in the first instance, is going to make its way into the trial. I think that they'll have to focus on other things if they end up actually taking this to trial.
So what struck me? And you know, maybe this happens more often than I know, But how often do the FEDS test money for fingerprints and DNA especially?
Yeah?
Not very often. Yeah, I understand that there was some DNA sound on I think on an envelope that some of the money was in. You know, it's not a great conductor of fingerprints. You know, metal and other surfaces are much better. But you really do want to try if you can to establish the connection between the bribes and the people who were giving the bribes. So in this case, it makes sense to test if you think
you can get something like fingerprints, and it worked. They were able to establish a link between that particular bunch of money and one of the business men who was one of the bribe wars and co defendants, so it worked for them.
Is the toughest part of this case for the prosecution to prove the quid pro quo.
I think actually in this case. I mean that often is the toughest I think in this case because they have such a wealth of evidence with the text that they recovered that they I think did a wire tap on that really sets out the scheme in the back and forth. So I think the most challenging thing in this case is actually proving the official acts that the things that Menendez did and promised to do for the bribe Wars his co defendants were actually technically official acts.
Because over the years, the last ten or so years, the Supreme Court really has narrowed what that means to be an official act, and we don't yet exactly know the outside contours of that because you know, every time you litigate one of these cases and the Supreme Court speaks on it, then you kind of know on that particular set of facts. So you know whether or not every single thing that Menendez did and agreed to do will be ultimately deemed an official act under the Supreme
Court's version of that is undetermined. I still think they have a strong case. I think many of the actions are clearly official acts. But that's where it gets a little bit muddy on the edges about what they can try to challenge.
So he's also accused of giving Egyptian officials highly sensitive information. Is that part of the charges or is that just background?
So that's a really interesting piece of this. They did not charge him with being a foreign agent or anything that would require them to prove that he basically was acting and he just interests against the US's interests. It is a piece of evidence in the bribery case because it's one of the things that he did for them, right, one of the things that he gave them was this information, and they bribed him for it. They gave him money
or you know, whatever the case may be. In that particule, regular instance, they give him a bribe for that information. So it does come in. It's part of the bribery case, but it's not charged separately in terms of like a foreign agent charge or anything like that. And I think prosecutors were very smart about that, because charging that kind of case leads to all sorts of complications with classified information,
makes discovery more complicated, makes the trial more complicated. They charged it just lean and mean, just the bribery, very strong, unclassified, easy to do discovery, easy to do the trial if it comes to that. So I think that was a wise strategic decision.
Do you think the Justice Department learned from the last trial and didn't want the same thing to happen twice.
Well, it's a different group of prosecutors. This prosecution is out of the Manhattan US Attorney's Office. The other one was out of Main Justice, So it's not the same people. But sure every time you see a case falter, you learn from that experience and you know the thing is here is really just a completely separate set of facts.
You know, last time the charges involved someone allegedly bribing Menendez, who was a close personal friend, and ultimately I think the jurors couldn't figure out whether the official accidne were because of the bribes or because of the friendship here, there's no relationship like that. This was purely transactional. It's all laid out there in the text, so they don't have the same challenges. But yeah, I mean, anytime you have a loss, hopefully you learn something from it.
Why is a Manhattan US attorney bringing this And how much of a disadvantage is that for Menandez not having a sort of a home court advantage.
Well, I don't exactly know. I mean, it would depend in part on which FBI office started the investigation. You know, what they learned first that kind of triggered the case for them to trigger the investigation. You know, sometimes there are multiple offices involved, and then the Department of Justice main Justice will decide who gets it. So it's hard to know. You know, they obviously will have to have some ties to Manhattan or else they wouldn't have venue.
But it's not exactly clear. And I mean, I think he probably would prefer to be in New Jersey because you know, those are his constituents. But you know, at the end of the day, everybody knows Bob Menendez. I don't know that he would get a better jury in New Jersey than he'll get in Manhattan. It's still if you want to think about it politically, it's still a very blue area. I guess if he's a Democratic senator,
and you may think that that helps them. Now, I'm not exactly sure why I ended up there, but listen, that's my old shop, and so I'm biased, but I think they're the best prosecutors anywhere, So I think it's a good thing that it did.
Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Jennifer Rogers and we'll talk about what possible defenses Menendez may have. I'm June Gross. When you're listening to Bloomberg, I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers about the federal charges against New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez. For just explain in a little more depth what happened during that twenty seventeen trial.
Yeah, so there were a few things that happened.
You know.
First of all, as I said, there's been this kind of ten year period where the Supreme Court has been changing the law effectively in these public corruption cases, and so prosecutors really have been at a disadvantage in terms of figuring out what to charge, how to charge how to ask for jury instructions and then crossing their fingers that it would get all undone by the next public corruption case that went up to the Supreme Court. So some of that is kind of the uncertainty. But they
charged two kinds of bribes in that case. And this basically is the relationship between the Senator Menendez and his close personal friend and ophthalmologists from Florida, doctor Melgan. And you know, they charged two kinds of bribes. They charged
campaign donations. And the challenge with campaign donations, if you charge them and they are reported properly and so on, is you have to prove an explicit quid problem that like, I'm giving you these campaign donations in exchange for the following official acts, right, which is virtually impossible to actually get. So they had trouble with that one. They didn't have
that proof of trial. And then they charged a set of bribes that were in the form of trips, basically trips where doctor Melgan and Senator Menendez went together on the private jet to the fancy home sometimes overseas, etc. And those are deemed gifts to Menendez, right, he didn't pay his friend doctor Melgan back for the expenses associated
with those trips. But the problem with that theory is that I think a lot of the jurors thought, well, how do we know that that's not because of the friendship. I mean, if you had a really wealthy friend, maybe that friend would spring for you to go on vacation with him or her. Right, So they had trouble saying that the things that Senator Menendez did for doctor Melgan, and there were things, I mean, he did definitely try to influence certain official actions on behalf of doctor Melgan.
Like that side of the case was okay, But the question is we're the bribes actually in exchange for those benefits, and that's where that case had trouble.
Can you see a defense that Menandez could raise.
The case is very strong, I think on all fronts. The most likely place where they have a little bit of wiggle room some arguments to make is the official act piece of it, because it's not entirely clear the outside limits of what an official act can be. We know from the Supreme Court case the McDonald case about the former Virginia governor that it has to be something governmental, right, not just that you do because you're a senator, for example.
But it really goes to kind of a typical government function, so passing a piece of legislation, holding up a piece of legislation, doing an investigation in Congress like those are the sorts of things that would definitely be seemed to be an official act, but it's not one hundred percent clear that other things to just using your influence would necessarily clear that bar So they've charged him with or they've mentioned in the indictment that he tried to influence
prosecutors in New Jersey about cases that his co defendants were interested in. They said he tried to influence an official at the US Department of Agriculture to help these co defendants in a business that they wanted. Those sorts of things are a little bit on the line, so, you know, I think they could be deemed to be
official acts, but it's not one hundred percent clear. So if I'm menndez a lawyers, That's where I'm probably going to be looking and seeing if there are arguments to make there for you know, those things maybe distasteful, but are they technically official acts as far as the statute goes. That's what I'd be looking for.
Do you think prosecutors are going to try to flip some of the other defendants, not his wife, but the others.
They might, I assume would at least be open to talking to those lawyers and those defendants about that issue. I mean, you know, they have so many communications, they have all these text messages, and so I don't know that they need a cooperator in the way that you often really want one in a case like this. That said, prosecutors in my experience are always willing to listen to a defendant who wants to come forward and say, here's why I deserve a cooperation agreement. So I think they'll
probably listen to them and listen. If they can provide evidence that they don't already have that will help them with their case, they probably would sign one of them up or two of them up, depending on you know what the facts are.
Would all the defendants be tried together or do you think Menandez might be able to get his trial severed.
I think they'll all be tried together. I mean, usually to conserve resources, they try to keep cases like this together. The only real reason he would have to try to sever it is if there are defenses that conflict with each other. You know, if there's no fair way to try them together because they're pointing the finger at each other in an antagonistic way, you know, that's where you would see a problem with something like that. But you know,
I we'll have to see how it developed. I think there's a you know, there's a presumption for keeping cases like this together because obviously to try it twice, you know, not to mention five times with five defendants, would be just too much of a burden on the system.
So this is a bit of an opinion question. But it seems like Senate Democrats have already tried and convicted him just based on the allegations and the complaint. I'm wondering if you think that's because the allegations are so striking or just because it's politics.
You know, it's hard to know what they're all thinking. As far as the political side. I will say there might be a bit of fatigue with Senator Menendez because we have been through this before, and even though he ended up with a hung jury and not being convicted, you know, there were clear ethical violations there the Senate down So you know, here we go again, right on the heels of the determination that he wouldn't be retried on that case. He's you know, meeting up with these
people and starting a similar scheme all over again. I also think that the nature of the evidence has explained in the indictment is pretty black and white. It's not as if they say, you know, in the indictment, we have a cooperating witness c W one and the witness says X, Y and Z, and you can think, well, maybe the witness is lying, maybe his credibility problems. You know, they have these communications, they are what they are, black
and white. There will be transcripts, so you know, I think those things together probably suggest to these politicians that there's not a lot of opportunity to wiggle out of this. And you know, we'll see when the discovery gets turned over, which should be pretty soon, whether Menendez comes off of his claim that he won't resign and you know, is
going to surge forward. I think once he actually confirms that what is in the indictment is accurate, he's probably going to be talking to his lawyers about how to try to mitigate this and look for some sort of plea deal to a lesser offense or something like that.
You think that's possible that the prosecutors would agree to a lesser offense.
Sure, sure, I mean the trick in a case like this is finding one, honestly, because all three of these offenses that they've charged are really just different ways to charge bribery, and the sentencing guidelines are going to be the same for all of them. So the trick would be trying to find something with a lesser guidelines range. But yeah, prosecutors are always looking to save resources by
pleading things out. And you know, when you have a case, a public corruption case with a corrupt politician who is still in office, prosecutors have an interest in getting that person out of office. So if he comes in and says, you know, listen, I'd like to take a plea, they're like, great, that, you know, wraps up our case. We don't have to do a long period of pre trial and then go to trial. And if it includes a deal that he'll resign all about, you know, he's he's out sooner than
he would otherwise be. So I'm sure prosecutors would be willing to think about that. The question is, you know, what can they find it would be agreeable to both sides For him to plead.
To Do you think that any deal would have to include jail time.
I don't know. Yeah, I don't know where prosecutors would come out on that. You know, on the one hand, he's on the older side, you know, is he I was going to say, is a recidivus? I guess actually if he is a recidivist, because we had the other case and then this one on the heels of it. But if he's removed from office, you know, the opportunity for this sort of thing will be obviously significantly lessened. So I'm not sure whether they would insist on something
with jail time. I mean, prosecutors never get to decide the sentence anyway. Even if you agree on a range, is ultimately up to the judge. So you know, I certainly could see them picking a range that is low enough that a judge might decide, you know, ultimately to just give probation. But you know, they know the case much better obviously than we all do from the outside, So yeah, I'm not sure how they would view the and decide, you know, what they think is the appropriate Then.
What's interesting is several people told Politico that after Friday's indictment Menandez seemed emboldened almost. And I saw he was being questioned by reporters yesterday as he was running through the Senate halls, and he said, because I'm innocent, what's wrong with you guys? But maybe when he sees the evidence.
Yeah, I mean he may just his knee jerk reaction may have been, you know, I beat you before I can beat you again, forget about it. But you know, in the cold, sober light of day, when they have the evidence, when he's sitting down with his lawyers, and when they explain to him the differences between this case and the prior case, you know, I suspect he won't have so much bravado, at least in private. You know,
who knows what he'll continue to maintain in public. He's kind of on the ropes politically, right with all of these colleagues of him, of his calling for his resignation. So maybe he feels like that's the face he has to put on to fight that battle in this moment. But you know, behind the scenes, I'm sure he'll be more thoughtful about this case.
So always great to have you on, Jennifer and to get your insights that's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers a lecture in law at Columbia Law School. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg