Miranda, Johnny Depp and Marjorie Taylor Greene

Law and Order. It's clear that the landmark Miranda decision bars coerced confessions from being used in court, But what's not clear is whether a police officer who fails to give Miranda warnings can be sued for damages for violating a suspect's constitutional rights. This week, at the Supreme Court, the joice is debated whether Miranda provides a constitutional right.

Chief Justice John Roberts Injustice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that in a case affirming Miranda, the late Chief Johnice William Renquist stopped short of calling it a constitutional right. Justice ran Quist he would have been very aware of the debate we're having today. And when it came to Dickerson, he was also somebody careful with his words. He didn't say Miranda is in the constitution. He talked about constitutional underpinnings,

constitutional basis. So Dickerson didn't ever use the word constitutional right. It seemed very carefully worded to say a constitutional rule or constitutionally required joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan Reuben Jordan explained the central question here. So the question here is whether the failure to give Miranda warnings can give rise to a federal civil rights lawsuit. Now, for such a lawsuit to go forward, their needs to have

been a violation of a constitutional right. And so that's what raised the question is whether this Miranda right is a constitutional right or something else. And that's been a long simmering question, and that was the focus of this argument. As you said, Miranda was subject to a lot of criticism in the eighties and nineties, and a decision by Chief Justice ran Quist put that to rest. So tell us about that decision, right, So that was really interesting

that Dickerson case in two thousand. As you mentioned, ran Quists and other conservatives had long been critical of not just Miranda, but it was really a part of a series of these Warren Court era criminal procedure decisions, part of this so called criminal procedure revolution, and so these really became the opinions that were not liked on the conservative side and really enemies to be taken down over time. And so that didn't wind up happening exactly with Miranda.

And in a two thousand case, Dickerson rank Was actually wrote an opinion, a seven to opinion effectively upholding Miranda when he obviously could have disagreed with it. And so really the question in this case now is what exactly did Dickerson mean? And some subsequent cases as well, And so it's not just the fact that Frankist didn't overturn Miranda in that Dickerson case, but what exactly was he doing there? And so that's really where a lot of

this case is going to be decided. The central question you mentioned whether miranda warnings are a constitutional right, what were the justice's concerns and the Renquist opinion, what did they say it meant, and so really delving into the specifics of that Dickerson opinion by Ranquist, it was pointed out by some of the more conservative justices. That Ranklist was careful with his words and didn't exactly refer to

Miranda as a constitutional right. He referred to it having constitutional underpinning, sort of a constitutional essence to it, if you will, but specifically not saying constitution all right, And that distinction could wind up being very important in this case, because remember, the question is is Miranda a constitutional right that can give rise to such a federal civil rights suit like the one that Mr Tico is trying to bring. Here the chief Justice clerk for ren Quist, what did

he say about the opinion and rend quist intention. So I found Roberts to be interesting at this argument because he said a couple of things that I really think went both ways. So on the one hand, he Roberts pointed out that if it wasn't for the Constitution, you wouldn't have this Miranda ruling, and you wouldn't be able to keep unwarned confessions out of evidence. So he asked Vegas lawyer, why isn't this a right that's secured by

the Constitution? And so that type of question could lead one to think that, well, maybe Roberts is thinking along the lines of the plaintiff wanting to be able to sue here. But on the other hand, Roberts told the lawyer for the plaintiff how Ranked Whist was someone who was careful with his words, and so in the Dickerson case, how Ranklist pointed out or at least didn't explicitly say

miranda is a constitutional right. He talked about constitutional underpinnings, constitutional basis, and so Roberts, who cleared for Ranklist, said things that could have gone both ways that the argument. But if his words to Tico's lawyer are to be representative of how he views the case, then he's someone who maybe doesn't see miranda as this constitutional right which

can give rise to a federal civil rights suit. Did you get a feel for how many of the justices might decide that miranda does not provide a constitutional right. So I think that it was fair to say that some comments from Avanaugh and Barrett were also along the

lines of the Chief Justice. An interesting part of the argument to me was an exchange between the deputy's lawyer and Justice Thomas, because the deputy is pointing to a case that came after Dicker's it called Chaves, where a plurality of the court meaning less than a majority effectively endorsed the view that Miranda isn't a constitutional right exactly, and is more of what's called this prophylactic rule, a preventative rule, not a constitutional right per se. And so

at the argument, the deputy's lawyer brings that up. And so you might think Justice Thomas, who is actually the one who wrote that plurality opinion in Javis, might be wanting to go along with that. But it was interesting to me that Thomas himself pointed out he couldn't get

a majority in that case. Let's listen to part of that exchange, and the Chaves plurality I think addresses this issue head on, and it says that because Miranda's judicially created prophylactic rule, the violation of that rule doesn't violate anyone's constitutional rights. And that's consistent, as I was saying earlier, with what the Court had previously said in cases like Pain and Elstad. Yeah, but I couldn't get a majority in Shav, so the that I don't know how much

that does for you. Um. So that's not to say that if Thomas can get more people on board this time, that maybe now he can accomplish what he wasn't able to accomplish in the Chavez case, and so he just might given changes in the court between two thousand three and now. And so whether that's exactly going to happen, I think or means to be seen, but it's certainly a possibility. That's what happens when you're on the court

this long you see changes. Has the court in the past been cutting back on these kinds of suits against police officers under this oh, I think that's certainly fair to say, as a general matter, as Kavanaugh put it at the argument, in some ways they're looking to not extend precedents. And so whether someone sees that as even cutting back on them, or at least not extending them, is certainly fair to say that no precedents are going

to be extended at the court. But certainly in these types of suits, I think it's fair to say that the court certainly hasn't been in the business of expanding them generally. I don't know if this case is necessarily going to fall into that category. It's really going to

be interesting to see how it turns out. But you have to think that anybody who's trying to bring a claim like Tico in this case, or defending the type of claim that Tico's bringing, because it was actually the deputy who petitioned for certain here that they have a tough road at this court. Not impossible, but certainly a tough road. It'll be so interesting to see what happens here. Thanks so much, Jordan's that's Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan Ruben,

that's great. Did you advocated the President Trump to impose martial law as a way to remain in power? I don't recall, yes, so you're not denying did it? You just don't remember. I don't remember. That was Congresswoman Marjorie

Taylor Green's answer to question after question. She didn't remember her own statements or social media posts, whether it was advising former President Donald Trump to invoke martial law or calling on supporters to flood the Capitol Building and the Georgia congresswoman denied calling Speaker Nancy Pelosi a traitor to her country until the plaintiff's lawyer showed a quotation from her saying that do you think that Speaker Pelosi is a trader to the country? Right, You're I'm not answering

that question. Of speculation. You've said that, having you in this Green, that she's a trader to the country. No, I haven't said that. Put up pens Exhibit five please, oh no, wait hold on now, I believe by not upholding the securing the border that that violates her oath

of office. Green is set to appear on the Republican ballot for the States May primary and has been endorsed by former President Donald Trump, but voters in her district have said that Green helped facilitate the January six insurrection, making her inelig wable for reelection under a rarely sided section of the fourteenth Amendment dealing with insurrection or rebellion.

Green has repeatedly denied aiding or engaging in an insurrection, and has filed a lawsuit alleging that the law of voters are using to challenge her eligibility is itself unconstitutional. Here's Ron Fayne, legal director of Free Speech for People, which is representing Georgia voters, and James Bob Green's lawyer.

She urged and encourage and health facilitate violent resistance to our own government, our democracy, and our constitution, and in doing so she engaged in exactly the type of conduct that triggers disqualification under Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is to say she engaged in insurrection. The challenges will try to use the First Amendment protected political speech of reference and brain as evidence of clothes. Engaging in

an insurrection are rebellion. That's unconstitutional and should not be allowed. Joining me is Richard bald, a professor at Columbia Law School. Rich tell us about this unusual use of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So there's a provision in the Constitution, in the fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted by Congress and ratified by the people right after the Civil War, that was designed to deny people who had taken the oath of office of the United States the senators or congressman, and then who had joined up with the South and the Civil War and

basically went into rebellion. In the language the Constitution uses, anybody who actually swore north of allegiance the United States as a member of Congress and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States would be denied the ability to serve in Congress again unless Congress by two thirds votes that they could. I mean, there's a little bit more to it than that, but that's the essence

of it. If you took an oath of office the member of Congress, then you engage in insurrection or rebellion,

you are not eligible to serve again in Congress. And the argument that's been raised perspect to a number of members of Congress who, like Marjorie Taylor Green, been brought by by voters in their districts is that she and Madison Carthon from North Carolina and a couple of congressmen from Arizona were connected to the attack on Congress January six in connection with the electoral College, that they were either involved in the planning of or they knew about it,

or in some way or form gave aid and comfort to the insurrection. So that's the argument, is that because she gave an aid and comfort to the insurrection um January six, she is not eligible to be placed on the ballot. This argument has failed with respect to Madison Cawthorne in North Carolina and was just last week's thrown out with respected two congressmen, including goes Are in Arizona.

But the federal judge in Georgia said there was enough there in the allegations that Marjorie Taylor Green would have to go before in the minustrate of law judge, a state judge in Georgia and basically be examined by the groups that are arguing that she's just should be disqualified about her role in the events of January six. She said a lot of, you know, other inflammatory things about the election, but I've denied being involved in planning or

supported that there would be violence. When was the last time the fourteenth Amendment was used in this way. I'm not sure that it's been used at all, but certainly it's it's very little about it that has known. I mean, you know, it may have been used in incidents in the mediate post Civil War period. I'm not familiar with there being any modern cases using it. So it's it's

it's elicited a lot of debate. There was a boot these in the Times the other day saying that it's not self enforcing, that Congress doesn't have to pass a law.

There's an argument that's been made by Marjorie Taylor Green's lawyer, and I think was also for the same lawyer from Madison Clothorne that Congress several years after this amendment was passed passing the owners the Amnesty Act, freeing most people of the um the restrictions of the fourteen Amendment except for members of Congress who had served in Congress during the opening years of the Civil War and people like that.

On the other hand, some people have arguable that doesn't make any sense, that that that it's not clear that they intended to not have this ever applying in in the future. So there is an argument that that law, the Amnesty Act of eighteen seventy two, which seems to limited to people who had actually been in Congress in the eighteen sixty three period, that would basically mean that

that this amendment could never be enforced. So there's a debate, you know, as to whether or not this is self executing, that is to say, whether the provision itself does the work, or you need a law in Congress. Whether the law Congress passed in the eighteen seventies basically allowing most people who had lower level positions took the oath, like the people in the army who took the oath and then switched to the Confederate side, were free other than people

sat in Congress in that period. And then of course there's a question as to whether or not what she and these other members of Congress did counts as giving eight and to the insurrection, whether it was an insurrection, and whether she was involved in it, especially in the absence of any formal indictments by the Justice Department of anybody accusing them of having participated in an insurrection. So it seems to me it's kind of a stretch, but

it's an interesting argument. The defense attorney objected to a lot of the questions of Marjorie Tillagreen by saying it violated her right of free speech. So where does free speech end and insurrectionist talk begin. That's, of course one of the big underlying question here, and involving not just her but many of the people who are involved in the events of January six, who argue that what they were doing with speech Obviously a lot of them went

well beyond speech. In her case, you know, we don't know, I mean, you know, we don't know enough about what she was doing behind the scenes as to whether or not she was actively supporting an attack on Congress or was, as she says, only supporting a protest of what she claimed she believes was a fraudulent vote, and it's just

very hard to know. I know that the January six Committee in Congress is exploring some of this, but you know that is one question is to how far in terms of the kinds of statements and actions she took, how far did she get beyond sort of permissible political opposition and enter into insurrection. I mean, you can ask that questions come up again with kind of members of the Trump administration and maybe President Trump themselves. The judge

doesn't make the final call here explain what happens. So this is whre an administrative law judge in Georgia. He will then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State of Georgia, Brad Rathnsburger, who is the ultimate decisions to whether or not to take her off the ballot. And I think that's got to be reasonably soon because they have a primary coming up. So again, this is I think the only one of the cases that have been

brought which has gotten this far. In other cases the federal judges sort of dismissed them outright, but the federal district court judge and Georgia said there's enough here at least to support a hearing some people argue that this is the wrong way to go about this, that if they want to get rid of Marjorie Tella Green, they should work to get her voted out of office. Yeah, I mean, you could argue, I mean, I understand that point, And certainly there's a concern that if you do it

this way, she just becomes a martyr. On the other hand, if she lives in you know, she's in a solidly one party district, it's hard to not to primary. And if she is in fact engaged in you know, insurrectionary treasonous activities, there's a there is grounds for removal, although it could be that the better way to do it would be for Congress to do it, and of course, given the partisanship of Congress, that's unlikely to happen. So,

you know, it's it's attention here. It's both at the level of speech versus rebellion, but also kind of the level of politics and law, as this ultimately so political that you know, it's for the voters or for Congress

as a whole. And do we are we comfortable with judges making these kinds of decisions, But there is a constitutional provision there that does say that people who have you know, engaged in insurrection or aid and gave aid and protein insurrection should not as having previously taken an oath um of office to support the constitution and specifically including members of Congress, that breaking that oath in this

way disqualifies them. So there is that provision there which can you talk a little bit about what's happening in New York with the maps? Yeah, yeah, it's a little complicated. So in New York State amended its constitution. The voters approved it to move New York towards an independent redistriant

commission type process. And commission was created with a point Republican and Democratic appointees and they were charged with developing maps for the two state chambers of the state legislature and the congressional districts um and they were told there was a process that laid out in the constitution for them to do that, and they of course needed to have a super majority of their commission that so there will be at least some people from both parties supporting

their recommendation. Well, they couldn't do that. The commission was divided, and so there was not a recommended and in fact they submitted two maps, two sets of maps, I should say that kind of let's holding the Democratic maps and the Republican maps, each each of which got a vote of half the commission, but not a majority. Uh something

not the supermajority of the constitution required. The state Constitution then said that the legislature is supposed to either accept those maps of the map or rejected, but they can't amend it. And if they rejected, the commission was to send a second set of maps. Well, what happened this time is the legislatures said, well, here we got these commission is divided, forget it. We're just going to write

our own uh, and so the commission. So they rejected the commission's maps, didn't wait around for a second set of maps to come from the Commission, but just did their own. And those maps the legislature right now, with Democratic majorities in both chambers, Democratic governor, they passed maps which UM, many people believe favorite Democrats. Uh. Those maps have been challenged um and the trial court basically, Uh,

it's interesting the Republicans brought the challenges. They challenged only the congressional maps and the maps for the state Senate, not the map for the state lower house. The trial court uh concluded that the maps were an effect doubly unconstitutional. One was that they were um um that they violated the constitutional procedure of because there was never a second recommendation from the independent re District Commission. And also and so that leeds to throwing out even the map for

the lower House, which Reroblicans had and challenged. And then he also said that the maps, I think at least a map, the congressional map was was a partisan gerry manager in violation of another new provision of the state constitution,

which that basically no partisan jerry manders. Um the that the Intermediate Court of Appeals issued a decision on that I think last week, basically disagreeing with the point about the process and basically said that in effect that given the deadlock and the commission, it was okay for the legislature to begin the process of passing its own maps, which restored the assembly map, but basically agreed that there was a partisan gerrymanager for the congressional map, and there

I think they divided on that three to two. So that's going to go to the Court of a Pilsne or state's highest Court, So I think conceivably they could take up the question again about whether or not the process was unconstitutional, in which case all the maps are invalid, or they could just agree with the lower court that the process was okay given the deadlock in the commission, and then just focus on whether or not there was a Jerrymander. Thanks for being on the show, rich that's

Professor Richard Rafault of Columbia Law School. Two formally married Hollywood stars suing each other for defamation. Johnny Depp is suing his ex wife Amber Heard for fifty million dollars over op ed piece she wrote in The Washington Post referring to herself as a quote public figure representing domestic abuse. Heard has counterclaim with a information suit of her own

for one million dollars. While the lawsuit centers on whether Depp was defamed in the op ed. In four days on the Stand, Depth testified about everything from childhood abuse to a near mental breakdown. Never did I myself reached the point of h striking Misheard in any way, nor have I ever struck any woman in my life. My guest is defamation lawyer Jeff Lewis of Jeff Lewis law. Johnny Depp lost a British case in the actors sued the Sun newspaper for printing a headline that called him

a quote wife beater. A judge found that there was overwhelming evidence that Depp had assaulted her repeatedly during their marriage and that he had put her in fear of her life. Did Depp testify in that case? He did testify, although in this present case he is testifying extensively. His answers are longer, he's emoting more. Everyone thinks he's suing to revive his career because he doesn't want the outcome of the British court to be the last word on

these allegations. So even if he doesn't win this case, he wants all the testimony that's being videotaped and put on Twitter that to be the final word on these allegations. That's really why sue to restore his career and explain the defamation claims. Yeah. Look, Pard wrote this op ed piece in the Washington Post that says she was a victim of domestic abuse. She didn't name Johnny Depp by name.

That Johnny has testified in court, and I'm sure he'll have others testified that everybody understood who she was talking about. And by the way, she countersued for defamation, So it's not just his claims against her, but she's counter suit for defamation. Her counter suit is based on things that his former lawyer said. Yeah, very very unusual theory there. The theory is that Johnny Depp and his prior lawyer

conspired to make these harmful statements about Amber heard. One of the interesting things is when you're dealing with a public figure plaintiff or cross complaint, you have to prove things like malice, that the person who spoke said things without a belief they were true or reckless disregarded. Here, it's an odd situation where Johnny Depp is being sued for statements made by his lawyer. Whose state of mind

is that issue? Is that his lawyer state of mind or Johnny state of mind in terms of malice, who knew what was said was false? How can he be held responsible for something that his former lawyer said and the lawyers not being sued. Yes, it's very unusual theory there. Uh. The theory is under conspiracy liability, you could be liable for making an agreement with someone to do something that by lead to the law. You and I agreed on this podcast today to say false things about somebody you

could be liable for things that I say. What does he have to prove in his case, Well, he's got to prove that he didn't abuse her. He's got a refute the allegation in the opening statement, the new allegation in this trial that there was sexual assault. That's not something that came up in the prior trial in England. And the hardest thing he's got to prove is that when ever heard wrote this off ed, she knew what she said was false or had reckless disregard to whether

it was false. How well did he do during his testimony on direct I think he's done very well. On Direct. He's brought up some things that the public has heard about for the first time, for example, his abuse by his mother as a child, physical abuse. He's been very forthright about his substance abuse. And keep in mind, this case is not really about substance abuse or whether or

not she accused him of usince apiece. It's goot domestic violence, and he's testified how his life was destroyed by these allegations. Book in terms of losing his career and on the personal front, and it's been pretty pretty impactful. One of the things that stood out as far as was her throwing a bottle at him and severing his finger. Yeah, that that incident is a real headliner for a lot

of reasons. First of all, there's testimony by him that he used the tip of his finger to write messages in blood on the walls after that injury, and he says that she's responsible for that injury. Amber Heard has, through lawyers, cast out on that story, suggesting that he injured himself and that she was not responsible. What problems do you see with his cross examination? Well, in cross examination, he has come out as somebody who is explosive, who

has temper issues, who abuses drugs. There's been crumful photographs of him falling asleep in a chair with ice cream melting into a pool at his feet. But some observers think that some of that testimony or is backfired insofar as it makes him sympathetic that amber Heard is taking pictures of him at his lowest moments, that he was driven to the point of self harming he's testified to and that he was using substances as a response to

the abuse he was suffering at her hands. So I think on balance, he's done everything he's needed to do in terms of testifying and getting sympathy from a jury in this whole case is really going to turn on her credibility, and especially these new allegations about sexual assault and whether a jury believes that that sexual assault occurred. What was the most damaging part of the cross examination? Well, I think the most harmful testimony was a sound bite

that was played. Johnny Depp is heard saying to her that a blood bath is going to occur if they don't go their separate days. That's pretty harmful. The violence that he shows in terms of damaging hotel rooms and his kitchen, and the text messages that he sends two friends describing Amber heard are not flattering. Does he have anything besides his word to back this up? For example, with his finger, he didn't tell the doctors in the

emergency room what had really happened. So does he have a problem with backing up these allegations that she was the violent one. Yeah, that's the That's the real crux of this case. In these private moments when these things happen with just she and he are there in the room alone. There is not a whole lot of corroborating testimony. And he told the jury that he lied to the e R doctors to protect basically to protect the Amber

Heard and not put his personal business out there. The question is, you know, will a jury believe that in the moment at the R he was covering for her or that he was being truthful. He claims that it cost him acting jobs, but Heard's lawyer is going to claim or has claimed that the damage was already done to his career, that his career was already on a downward trajectory. That's right. You know, in every case it

has to prove causation. That's something that offendant did caused harm to the plane off and Amber Heard lawyers have done an effective job of showing, for example, that Disney had already decided to cut Johnny Depp out of the

Pirates franchise before that offense ever was published. But keep in mind, to win this case, because we're talking about defamation per se, because we're Johnny Depp has been accused of criminal conduct domestic violence, he doesn't have to tie any of her false statement to any specific damages to win, he only has to prove causation to win a huge monetary verdict. But if all he wants the verdict from the jury saying Johnny Depp was right and Amber Heard lied,

he might get that. But without proving causation, he's not going to get much in the way of money. How will he have to prove damages? He'd have to prove, for example, that the Disney executives or maybe more apt, the Warner Brothers executives that made decisions about the Harry Potter franchise, that they made decisions on whether to cast him or not cast him a pull production based on the op ed and not any of the other rumors swirling him around. Johnny Depp, was there testimony that backed

up his claims were in his case now? Still, it was a couple of interesting points there. One, there's lots of photographs of amber Heard walking the runway at times where she claims she was abused and had bruises all over her body, and you don't see those in the

red carpet photos. The other interesting kind of side issue that's come up was an issue via a makeup company during opening statements, Amber Heard's lawyers stood up to the jury, it held up a makeup case, said Amber Heard used this makeup case to cover up her bruising caused by Johnny Depp. But it turns out, according this makeup company, that particular brand and makeup didn't exist when the abuse allegedly occurred, and so that may come back to haunt

Amber Heard as lacking credibility in terms of abuse. A therapist they went to said that they were mutual abusers. If that's the case, does Amber Heard win? In other words, if it's proven that they both abused each other, You know, that's a great question. I don't know why they called this witness because the therapist did use the term mutual abuse, and if the jury walks away from that speaking mutual emotional abuse, well then maybe Johnny Depp can still win.

But if the jury takes that testimony of that therapist to be mutual physical abuse, then this case is over. If you were the lawyer for Amber Heard, what would you vise her about her testimony coming up? She's got to be well prepared for cross examination because the whole case comes down to her. I think if you think that social media is an accurate read of how maybe

the jury might be taking Johnny Depp's testimony. Social media is very favorable as to Johnny Depp, and so what I ever heard has to do is to prove up what was promised during opening statements, meaning the sexual assault allegation that's brand new. Why didn't this come up during the proceedings in England? Why is this coming up for the first time in this trial. She's got to be prepared to answer that question, and she has to come

off as credible and not endictive. And she's got to explain why, in terms of all the bruising that she claims occurred, why there's no photographic evidence of that when she walked the red carpet at certain premieres. Her lawyer has released a potential witness list which includes Elon Musk and James Franco. Are though good witnesses or do they bring a lot of baggage with them? Yes, and yes and yes. So witnesses like this. You know, jurors can't

get star struck just like anybody else. But at the end of the day, it's what these witnesses might say in our three or four or five of their testimony after the shock of seeing a celebrity on the stand wears off that's really going to count. But also would keep in mind I'm a trial lawyer, and trial lawyers often pack the witness list at trial with all sorts of witnesses that they might call. Maybe, but just because somebody's on a witness list doesn't mean they're gonna show up.

And most of the time, the witnesses on a witness list don't show up. So I would have been on Elon Musk taken by the way, Elon Musk's deposition was never taken. As a trial lawyer, you never want to put somebody on the stand if you don't know really what they're gonna say. And that rule applies doubly to Elon Musk is a little bit of a wild card. So I would be really surprised if the Musk testifies

a trial. What other interesting issue is Johnny Depth's longtime friends with Robert Downey Jr. And I don't know if you were called rock. Downey Jr. Had some serious problems out here in California in terms of drug use, breaking to someone's house, and he even serves the time, and yet he's able to overcome all that and become a

huge Hollywood star notwithstanding those issues. And I suspect Johnny Depp with this case, he's trying to follow the playbook that Robert County Jr. Dated in terms of getting the truth out there and rehabilitating his career. Thanks Jeff. That's defamation lawyer Jeff Lewis of Jeff Lewis Law. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news, honor 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 to The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten b m. Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg three