This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
I'm not tap of nine names, along with phone numbers are some of the wealthiest and most famous people in the world. I put the numbers in my phone and composed a simple message, There'd be a game tomorrow night. At the Cobra launch, there was a ten thousand dollars
buy in. Two weeks later, around two am, there was a pot that was up to one point three million pre flop with five players still in the game belonged to Player X. People wanted to say they played with them the same way they wanted to say they wrote on air Force one.
Do you understand that you were charged in count twenty with operating an illegal gambling business.
The indictment in the NBA gambling scandal sounds a lot like the movie Molly's Game High Stakes Poker, where celebrities called face cards draw in unsuspecting rich players called phish who dropped big money in illegal private games by organized crime.
Federal prosecutors alleged that Portland Trailblazers head coach Chauncey Billups and former player Damon Jones were the face cards who were on the so called cheating team, luring big money players into rig poker games where a sophisticated technology like hidden cameras in poker chip trays, rigged card shuffling machines, and even X ray equipment built into the tables helped
them cheat the fish out of millions of dollars. Almost thirty other people are charged in the poker scheme, including members of the Banano, Gambino, and Genevici crime families with expected colorful nicknames like Flappy the Wrestler, black Tony, Big Bruce, and Pooky. My guest is former federal prosecutor Joshua F. Talis,
a partner at Palace Partners. He prosecuted the real life Molly Bloom and the others involved in that one hundred million dollar gambling ring that was fixtionalized in the movie Molly's Game. Josh, the high stakes poker games in this indictment look a lot like those in Molly's Game and even use the same terminology.
Yeah, I mean, it's funny. When I was an associate at Walktell Lefton, I did an independent investigation for the NBA that cum it intid called the Pedowitz Report, which is when a referee named Tim Donneghe was indicted in the Eastern District for being part of a scheme with LCN where the allegations were that he was throwing games
or betting on games. And then you fast forward to Molly's Game, which is one of the first big cases I worked on when I was a prosecutor, where they are running illegal gambling businesses, including poker rooms, and you sort of mushed the two together, and then you have these new Eastern District indictments.
And tell us what the indictment says happened with these poker games.
So there are two crimes being charged. The first one is operating in illegal gambling business. So it's the business aspect of it, which is generally that what's called the how, so that people who are sponsoring the game are taking a rake or percentage of the pot or the money on the table. So that's where the sponsors or the people running the game are profiting, regardless of what happens with the cards. They're just taking a percentage of the money.
That's what makes it illegal in New York State at least.
So you can play in a poker game for money and that's not illegal.
If the two of us ever had the pleasure of sitting down to play poker with a couple other people, that's totally okay.
But in this case, they're saying that the game was rigged so that the so called fish would lose.
Right.
That's like the added layer of it. It's sort of like a fraud piece, which is the game wasn't even fair. The card shufflers were rigged. The tables had some camera set up that allowed them to see the cards, the cards were marked in some ways, people were wearing some sort of contact lens or glasses. It wasn't a fair game to begin with. In addition to being an illegal business.
Phillips and Jones were referred to as face cards. In the indictment, it said that everyone at the table who wasn't a target was in on the scam. They were charged with wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy, but were in charge with operating an illegal gambling business.
I mean, generally the fraud and money laundering charges are more serious than the gambling charges, or at least they expose an individual to more jail time potentially.
Can you tell how strong the case is against them?
It's always hard to tell when you read an indictment. An indictment, it makes it sound like it's obvious. It's a great case. I mean, if true. You know, the government always thinks it holds the best hand. That's why they brought the case. I'm sure there's another side of the story. Whether it holds up, I don't know.
Chauncey Billups attorney said, to believe that Chauncey Billups did with the federal government is accusing him of as to believe that he'd risk his Hall of Fame, legacy, his reputation, and his freedom.
Well, that's exactly the point, which is, these guys make a lot of money from their day job. Why are would they risk it all here, which, by the way, makes good sense and has so on a jury appeal.
If they actually took part in the game, what kind of defenses could they raise.
It's always hard to tell from the diamy exactly what's going on, but I think part of it may be. Listen, just being there doesn't mean they were part of it, right. They may be playing cards, they may be betting, they
may be doing whatever. That doesn't mean they're in on it, which happens all the time, right, they may have been participating in what was it otherwise the illegal game, and the promoters may have been using that as a way to draw people in, but that doesn't mean that they were in on the whole scheme.
So the charge is that from April of twenty nineteen to the present, the rick poker scheme caused losses to the victims of seven million dollars. That doesn't seem a lot over six years. And when the director of the FBI said the fraud is mind boggling.
I mean, seven million dollars is still a lot. But I agree with you. Given the amount of money that flies around in these games, I wouldn't call it mind bottling. I mean these high stakes poker games, there can be millions of dollars changing hands at a night.
To establish the money laundering and wire fraud, what do the prosecutors have to prove.
The way to think of frauds is when someone makes a misrepresentation to someone to get them to turn over money and they lose money as a result. You have to make a misstatement to someone with the intent that you're defrauding them. And then laundering money is either you are moving money that was derived from a criminal scheme, or you are out of the scheme, or you're moving money in to promote the scheme. Those are like the basic types of money laundering, but you have to have
the fraud to prove the money laundering. Generally, like the fraud is sort of a prerequisite.
There are more than thirty defendants here. How do you try a case like this? I assume separate trials, But how is that decided?
You can't try thirty people at once. It's not permitted. It's also just practically impossible. What generally happens in a case like this where this many people charged is those that sort of don't have much of a defense or they're not charging with the very serious client, they may just plead out and it could reduce into a smaller group of people if they choose to go to trial. That's what happened in the Mally's Game case. We indicted I think thirty three people where there were three separate
racketeering schemes. In the end, we'd never had a trial because everyone basically pled guilty.
And then came the book and the movie. Do you think that the FBI pursued this investigation for so long because of the alleged mafia connections.
I mean, when you have the mafia, when you have sports betting, when you have the integrity of the game at stake, obviously that interests a lot of parties. It's not necessarily clear to me that the f I was looking at this since twenty nineteen. It may be that as the investigation went on they learned about conduct that
proceeded when they started the investigation. So that doesn't mean that they couldn't charge it if they had started the investigation twenty twenty four and then they learn Actually all this is singing on from twenty nineteen.
And tell us about the second indictment involving sports betting, where Miami Heat guard Terry Rosier was charged.
Sure, I mean, I think that's the one that goes the integrity of the game. I kind of view that
as the more serious of the indictments. It is that the NBA has a code of conduct, and one of the provisions of the code of conduct is that there's confidential information or non public information, and in this case, it would be which players are injured, who's going to sit out, who may not play, and that information was being leaked and then used by people to make prop bets, and a prop bet is like a proposition bet, where you can not necessarily even bet on who's going to
win the game, but how a particular player will perform. And some of the bets were saying that someone would play or not player score certain number of points, and some of them were just bets on the outcome of the game. But here it's a kin to insider trading. But I don't want to suggest it is insider trading because it's a wire fraud case. This isn't securities fraud.
But the gist is that there was non public information about NBA players that was used to bet and that violated the code of conduct.
Well.
In hyping up the indictment, the director of the FBI cash Ptail called it the insider trading saga for the NBA. One thing about Rosier, the NBA cleared him after an investigation, didn't they.
I think the issue is the devil's in the details. I mean my recollection of Rozier is that he may have texted one of the other members of the scheme saying that he was going to leave the game early, and there was discussion about bets being placed, which doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't hurt, But what it means is that he was telling someone who wasn't supposed to know that he was injured or that he wasn't going to play the whole game. The NBA is very good at this,
at policing betting and the integrity the game. Adam Silvers is amazing as the commissioner, and they take this seriously. The question is, you know, did they have access to everything that the FBI had access to. The NBA doesn't have the powers of the FBI.
These are two separate indictments, separate schemes that involved thirty four defendants, only three connected to the NBA. Yet it was announced with such fanfare. About twenty people crowded on the stage, including the director of the FBI and New York City's police commissioner. The gations date back years, and yet the announcements were made the opening week of the NBA season. This seems like a lot of hype.
Oh sure, that's definitely what the government's doing. They want to amplify the press impact of the indictments and the extent that it confuses what the NBA employees players were doing. It just makes it more pressworthy. Obviously, it matters if someone is actually a playing for the NBA or working as a coach at the time they do certain of the conduct. That's why it would matter in terms of
leaking the information. And then to extend that these guys were doing something on their own time involving poker, it's kind of irrelevant. I don't think this is the type of investigation that you needed to be announced on the eve of you know, the timing was a little odd when the FBI director shows up for an announcement of
an investigation like this. Again, criminal cases are serious, but you know, this isn't like they broke the biggest insider trading case ever, or this is a big terrorism case where the FBI director may show up. It's a big case and that it goes to the integrity of the game, but it's kind of just a run of the no gambling case in the poker world.
We'll see how many defendants are left when and if this goes to trial. Thanks so much, josh that's former federal prosecutor Joshua F. Talis of Palace Partners. President Donald Trump has once again suggested he'd like to extend his stay at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue for a third term.
I would love to do it. I have my best numbers.
Ever.
Trump has flirted with the idea of a third term before, for example, in March, just a little over a month into his second term.
They do say there's a way you can do it, but I don't know about that.
I'm just telling you I have had more people say please run again, but this time. There is also those Trump twenty twenty eight red baseball caps that set on his desk during a meeting with congressional leaders this month. There's the thing tank called Third Term Project. And there's even a Justice Department lawyer in six circuit oral arguments referring to a new administration quote three years in the future or seven years in the future. And of course
Trump has not explicitly ruled out a third term. Joining me is constitutional law expert David super, a professor at Georgetown Law. So, David, I reread the twenty second Amendment. It plainly states that no one can be elected president more than twice. I mean, how plain is it? How clear is it?
It could not be clearer, and it could not be plainer. It's short it's sweet. It's to the point not allowing anyone to run for a third term.
Now, there are different kinds of scenarios out there that Trump allies have put forward. One of the arguments is that the twenty second Amendment only explicitly bars a person from being elected more than two presidential terms, but doesn't say anything about serving a third term. So the theory is that Trump could run as vice president and then have whatever lucky candidate for president it is resign and then Trump takes the White House.
That doesn't work either, because of the twelfth Amendment, which says that any candidate for vice president must be constitutionally qualified to serve as president, which mister Trump isn't.
In fact, Trump himself sort of dismissed that. He said, I'd be allowed to do that, but I think people wouldn't like that. It's too cute. Also, didn't Vladimir Putin sort of do something like that years ago where he put a deputy in to serve in his place for one term and then he took over.
It's disappointing that this country is taking its political lessons from Russia these days, But yes, what Putin did was stepped down from being president for one term and let a trusted ally of his serve as a figurehead president while Putin ran things as Prime minister, then came back and became president again. A few problems with that. One is it's too cute. Two is we don't have prime ministerships here, so there's no obvious alternate role for Trump
to go into to serve it. Three, Russia's limit is on consecutive terms. The twenty second Amendment is a limit on total terms. And four, why are we taking our political lessons from Russia?
And just explain to get rid of the twenty second Amendment? What would it take?
Repealing the twenty second Amendment would take a two thirds vote from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states, which is thirty eight states. So you would need ratification from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts. Somehow, I don't think those states are going to be working very hard to get mister Trump a third term.
Yeah, even how Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed repealing the twenty second Amendment.
I don't see a way to amend the constitution because it takes about ten years to do that.
Speaking about the Speaker of the House. Yet another theory is that Trump could become the Speaker of the House, which apparently posits that it's easy to be elected Speaker of the House, and then if both the president and vice president, who would have to be Trump Ally's, resign he could take over.
Yeah.
I keep sending in my resume to be Speaker of the House and nothing ever happens. I'm not sure what the problem is in eery that could be said to be valid. The Speaker of the House is elected, and if the purpose of electing mister Trumps speaker is to make him president, I think there's an argument that that would also violate the twenty second Amendment of the Constitution, But it certainly puts a thumb in the eye of popular intent. We had had a four term president, President Roosevelt.
The country across all political lines concluded that that was too much power for any individual to have, that it resembled authoritarian countries too much, and we decided we didn't want to do that anymore. And this is yet again mister Trump and his allies disregarding the people's choice through their constitution.
Have you heard any other theories of how he could become president for a third.
Term and then the other one. I guess it's very straightforward. Just do it and see if anyone stops you. And this Supreme Court has been willing to avoid a number of constitutional violations and most obviously declining to consider or allow anyone else to consider whether mister Trump was disqualified under the insurrection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. He may just take the position that he can run, he can do it, and he doesn't think anyone will stop him.
Is this speculation hopeful in a way because Trump is still talking about legal ways to stay in office and not suggesting that he would just refuse to leave.
Well, there has been talk in the past that he might do something like what you're suggesting. He made some comments about that in twenty twenty, which I hope were not taken very seriously. Certainly didn't deserve to be taken very seriously. But some of his supporters have suggested that he could somehow declare some kind of a state of emergency someone called it a sovereignty crisis and suspend elections on that basis. There's no authority whatsoever in the constitution
for that. If he were to do that, he would effectively be repudiating the Constitution.
And you think that the Supreme Court might not even step in if he decides to run for a third term.
No, I think they would. I think this Court is hoping against hope that he won't force their hand by doing something completely delegitimizing. But I don't believe that there are five justices who have so totally lost faith in the country that they would put up with that.
I mean, it could be he's trolling the Democrats, he's entertaining his base, or he doesn't want to look like a lame duck.
Yes, I think so. Presidents have often had a lot of trouble in their second terms in office. President Reagan was unstoppable in his first term and stumbled quite badly in his second. President Bush was very strong in his first and got the Great Recession and Hurricane Katrina in the second. President Obama lost all kinds of esteem by his second term. And I think President Trump doesn't want to follow that example.
And was it President Reagan who suggested getting rid of the twenty second Amendment.
He did, I'm not sure how seriously. A number of presidents get fond of the job and start thinking that the twenty second Amendment is a bad idea, but I don't think anyone took him very seriously or move very far with it, in part because President Reagan was already quite a fanst age. Of course, President Trump is much older.
And Trump would be the oldest president in history by the time he leaves office. David. In the last nine months, Trump has already done so much to expand his presidential authority, and he's used the specter of national emergencies over and over again, for example, to impose tariffs, to send troops into democratic led cities, to crack down on illegal immigration, and on and on. He declared eight national emergencies in
his first hundred days. Has any other president during peacetime exercised such.
Power now, there's nothing remotely close to this. Richard Dixon was accused, with some justification of trying to build an imperial presidency. But I can't think of anything that mister Nixon tried to do that mister Trump hasn't done much more of. And I can think of many things that mister Trump has done that mister Nixon never dreamed of doing.
President Lincoln used a great many powers during the Civil War, some of which may have exceeded his constitutional authority, not on the level of what we're seeing here.
Of the Supreme Court cases coming up that are going to test presidential authority, is the Tariff's case the most signif again, or is there another one that's more significant.
The CAF's case is extremely significant because the Supreme Court is filled with self defined textualists, and it's almost impossible to find anything like the powers the President is claiming in the text of the statute he is citing. So the Court is going to have to either abandon any pretense of textualism or limit the president's authority very dramatically.
There.
The other case that I'm watching very closely is the case involving doctor Cook in the Federal Reserve, because the Supreme Court basically told President Trump, you can fire anyone except a Federal Reserve governor, and he turned around and fired a Federal Reserve governor. If the Supreme Court is willing to let him do that, then they are effectively allowing themselves to be humiliated by the President, and we can't really expect much of them going forward.
What do you think of Trump saying he's going to attend the Supreme Court oral arguments on the tariffs.
I think oral arguments are fascinating and you think for a good time. I think with most courts, when a party speeaks to pressure them, the court feels considerable pressure to demonstrate its independence. If I were a lawyer at the White House or Justice Department, I would beg him not to do that.
Well, we'll find out next Wednesday if Trump is in the audience for the oral arguments or not. So he's great to talk to you, David, Thanks so much. That's Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. The latest salvo in the national redistricting fight is coming from New York City. I'm June
Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump's push for Republicans to redraw US House districts ahead of next year's midterm elections has triggered unprecedented mid decade gerrymandering, starting with the states of Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio, where Republicans have already drawn nine new GOP leaning House seats, but Democratic states led by California are fighting back or trying to as gerrymandering in many blue states is hampered
by independent redistricting commissions or bans on mid decade redistricting. House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffreys was in Illinois this week to try to convince Democrats there to redraw the state's maps.
Donald Trump and Republicans have decided that they were going to try to jerrymander congressional maps all across the country as part of their effort to rig the midterm elections and deny the American people the ability to decide who should hold the gavels in the aftermath of the elections that will take place in November of twenty twenty six. Democrats have made claire that we are going to.
Respond, and the latest Democratic response comes from New York City in a lawsuit by a group of voters claiming that the congressional district held by the city's only Republican representative is impermissibly drawn to shut out black and Latino voters. My guest is Jeffrey Weiss, a professor at New York Law School who directs the school's New York Elections, Census and Redistricting Institute. Jeff tell us about this lawsuit that's challenging New York's eleventh Congressional district.
Well, we have a new lawsuit filed earlier this week by a group of New York voters who are arguing that the current congressional district that includes Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn teluts pnority voting strength, that the black and Hispanic voters power is diminished by the way the district is drawn now, and that they would have a much more effective voice in the ability to elect a preferred candidate if parts of Manhattan were appended to the district instead of Brooklyn.
Is this an unusual lawsuit.
It's unusual in the sense that's being brought mid decade. Obviously, it's got political connotations that it would change the dynamic of who's running for re election in New York, that current Republican congress Member Nicole Meliotacus would find herself no longer in conservative white areas in Brooklyn, but rather parts of Lower Manhattan. That it would be a district where
the Democrats are expected to do a lot better. It's also a district where Dan Goldman, who is the incumbent now in a district that includes Manhattan and Brooklyn would probably find himself in better territory and also probably stave off a primary challenge within the Demo Credit Party from several Brooklyn elected officials who have indicated their intent to run against him in a primary.
Is this lawsuit different because it's based on the New York State Constitution rather than the US Constitution? So well, test how protective the state constitution is of minority voting rights.
Well, this claim is based on the state constitutional protections that redistricting maps have to honor minority voting strain that you cannot dilute minority voters from their ability to elect preferred candidates, and the state constitution uses very similar language to the Federal Voting Rights Act, which happens to be subject to a challenge now from the Louisiana Congressional redistricting
before the US Supreme Court. The validity the future of the Federal Voting Rights Act was heard in a case two weeks ago, and we expect any time from the end of this year, but more likely by the end of June, for the Supreme Court to hand down a decision where most of us think they're going to do something to change the dynamic of the Voting Rights Act, but not eliminated entirely. But that's reading the tea leaves too much.
Well, your prediction there fits in with the predictions of other election law experts. So let's say the Supreme Court does change the Voting Rights Act in some way. Will that affect the New York Constitution.
Well, it could affect the state Constitution to the extent
of what the Supreme Court might limit. Right now, the gold standard in vote dilution is Section two of the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court adopted a test in the mid nineteen eighties in a North Carolina case called Thornberg versus Jingles, where a challenging minority group has to demonstrate to a court that, if it claims it should have an effective minority district, you've got to have fifty percent or more of a district being comprised of
minority voters. Second, you have to show that the minority voters vote cohesively pretty much the same way for similar candidates. And third, most importantly, you've got to show that there is a high level of racially polarized voting, where white voters constantly outvote minority voters' abilities to elect preferred candidates in primaries or general elections. So if you meet those three prongs, size, cohesiveness, and polarized voting, then you have
a Voting Rights Act violation situation. And the Supreme Court is now being asked whether that test is still a cogent one to use now in the twenty first century.
So, in this case, black and Latino voters constitute nearly a quarter of the voting population in that congressional district. Is that enough then?
Well, what the plaintiffs are doing here. They're challenging the map based on the state Constitution, but they're trying to incoperate the New York State Voting Rights Act, which was enacted by the legislature in twenty twenty two. The State Voting Rights Act does not apply to congressional districts, but it does lay out different kinds of criteria and standards that courts should look to when looking at vote dilution
claims in counties, towns, cities, and villages. So they're saying that there is similar preamble language in both the state Constitution and the State Voting Rights Act that it makes a lot of sense to also incorporate the State statue standards into the state constitutional situation, and that will probably be one of the first arguments that I think intervening Republicans will make to dismiss this case is that the
State Voting Rights Act doesn't apply. What the plaintiffs are doing here is using these state Voting Rights ac criteria that, unlike federal law, where you need to have a district of a at least fifty percent plus minority voter population, the federal Voting Right Stack requires the fifty percent pretty much of one racial group, be the black or Hispanic orasion.
But the state law permits you to aggregate or put together smaller communities of what's the black and Hispanic populations that you can combine voters, and that, in essence is what they're looking to do by adding a part of Manhattan to the Staten Island based district.
Would doing this create one of those odd looking shape districts on the map.
The Hispanic population in Lower Manhattan is not adjacent to South Ferry right the foot of Manhattan Island by the New York Harbor. It's considerably north there, so you'd have to take Staten Island, take the Staten Island Ferry over to Manhattan and drive up aways basically up to the Brooklyn Bridge, where you have an Hispanic population in the
lower east side, up to by fourteenth Street. And that raises the question of whether race is the predominant factor in creating this district, because that runs against what the Supreme Court has said about racial garry mandering, which is subject to strict scrutiny and has to be narrowly tailored to remedy specific problem. So the plaintiffs are going to have to demonstrate to the court why a district that constitutes Staten Island and parts of Old Manhattan makes sense, as if a lot.
Of these new districts make sense. So Melia Takis said, it's a frivolous lawsuit trying to upband our congressional district. And she noted that the current map was approved by New York's Democratic controlled state legislature and Democratic governor. Does she have the advantage here? In other words, is this an uphill battle for the Democrats?
Yeah, the clock is ticking. The State Supreme Court only has two months to render a decision, which we take us to mid to late December. Petitioning for the twenty twenty six election cycle right now gets underway in late February, so that leaves very little time for New York's mid level appeals court, the Appellate Division, and then finally the State Court of Appeals and already to hear this case.
And you can pretty much be sure that whoever objects to this case, and I'm anticipating Republican interveners will strenuously try to slow this case down and prevent it from impacting the twenty twenty six elections.
Jeff. There was litigation around the New York maps for years, and the Democrats control both houses and the governor's office. Now they're suing over their own maps. Tell us how we got.
Here, well, I think by twenty twenty four, after a failed process in twenty twenty two where a state commission that was proved by the voters twenty fourteen basically imploded and subject to a court order, went back to work and finished the job by January twenty twenty four, the legislature wanted to end this process have a new map for twenty twenty four, actually a bipartisan map with Republican support.
So the map that was agreed to took some strenuous effort early last year, and the case that's been brought now you can consider somewhat democrats challenging democrats.
Is there any other effort underway in New York State to.
Redistrict Well, there is another approach. Earlier in the summer, the Senate Deputy majority Leader and a member of the Assembly introduced a resolution in the legislature that would permit New York to redraw the district lines mid decade, if and only after any other state does the same thing in mid decades. So since Texas already went ahead and mid decade redistricted, this amendment would let New York also redistrict mid decade. The state constitution right now prohibits that.
But the barrier to that is that, since the state constitution now currently does are mid decade redistricting, you have to change the constitution, and to do that you need to have an amendment go through two separately elected legislatures.
So the plan now is to pass something, whether it's the amendment that was introduced earlier this summer or possibly a more expansive amendment, but to do that next year, then pass it again with the new legislature in twenty twenty seven, so that the voters can then approve the question and then enable the legislature to redraw a new map for twenty twenty eight. This is similar to the
process that's getting underway this week in Virginia. The New York situation is complicated in that we've got politics, personalities, competing lawsuits, and the calendar all running against each other at the same time.
With all these states redistricting, what are the maps going to look like after the midterms? All Republican House seats in one state, all Democratic House seats in another.
That's why I think this will continue till twenty twenty eight, and then we have twenty thirty ahead of us, where the White House is already trying to manipulate the way the census is conducted to base the numbers on citizens and not on the whole number of persons as the Constitution requires. So this is a multifaceted battle.
Multifaceted and seemingly never ending. Thanks for an interesting conversation, Jeff. That's Professor Jeffrey Weiss of New York 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