This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Jack Smith should be considered mentally deranged and he should be thrown out of the country. Somebody said, why don't you be nice to him? I said, it wouldn't matter. Wouldn't matter. This guy's a maniac. We wouldn't be under investigation by deranged Jack Smith. He's a deranged human man. You take a look at that face. You say that guy is a sick man. There's something wrong with him.
Donald Trump has berated and ridiculed Special counsel Jack Smith over and over again, so much so that many consider Smith to be at the top of the president elect's list of targets when he takes office. But Smith reportedly intends to resign before that and a sort of cleaning house before inauguration day. Today, he filed motions to drop all federal charges against Trump in the case over his effort to overturn the twenty two any presidential election and
the case over his mishandling of classified documents. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporters Zoe Tillman. Did this come as any surprise or were we expecting this?
We were expecting this in broad strokes, given the Justice Department policy which is longstanding that sitting presidents can't be charged or prosecuted. And you know, we had confirmation that the Special Council would be winding down these prostitutions. I think what was unclear was, you know, whether they would let stand a lower court ruling finding the Special Council and constitutional in the Classified Documents case, or whether they
would try to preserve some part of that appeal. And we got that answer today, which is that they will try to move forward with it for now. But you know, once Trump takes office, he has the ability to shut it down completely or to pardon his co defendants. So there's not much more that can be done. But for now, at least you know that part of the case is still active.
So the Classified Documents case had already been dismissed by a Florida judge, so.
He dropped the election interference indictment against Trump and also said that they would no longer appeal the dismissal of charges against Trump in the Classified Documents case. Lower court judge in Florida, Judge Aalen Cannon had already dismissed that indictment. Finding that Jacksmith's appointment and funding more unconstitutional. So prosecutors
were in the middle of appealing that decision. They're not really dismissing the indictment because it was already dismissed by a judge, but they're just saying we're not going to appeal anymore. That's part of the case.
That decision by Judge Eileen Cannon finding the Special Council unconstitutional was totally novel and went against all the precedents. Do they really want that decision remaining on the books?
Well, see they right now they've said we are not dismissing the appeal. As to Trump's co defendants, Walt Nauda and Carlos the ala Vera, there's a reply brief from the government in the next few days. If something, they
don't spile it today along with their notice. The Eleventh Circuit hasn't set arguments yet, so it's still possible that if the court wanted to move quickly before Trump is sworn in on January twentieth, the Eleventh Circuit could hear arguments and rule on the issue before he takes office. It would be a very expedited schedule. But we've certainly seen courts move quickly when asked to under certain circumstances.
So I think that's the one outstanding question is whether prosecutors can you know, get more done on this in the next months than a half or so.
Tell us what jack Smith said specifically, Did he say anything about the strength of the case.
Yeah, so, you know, you could sort of describe it as the grudging dismissal of the case in the election obstruction case, at least in their notice that they were, you know, asking the judge to dismiss it. On the first page, Jacksmith says, you know, we stand fully behind the strength of the case. This is not about the merits, which we still think, you know, we're valid and should
have moved forward. But that gives Justice Department policy on not prosecuting sitting presidents is categorical and sort of forced,
basically forced his hands, you know. The other thing to note is that they asked Judge China Chutkin to dismiss the indictment without prejudice, which sort of leaves the door open to a future Justice Department four years from now under whoever is president next, thinking about whether they would want to try it again, which then raisesultsors of questions about whether, you know, could Trump self pardon in the White House to head off that possibility. It's just a
lot of uncertainty. But you know, notable that they didn't say we're going to close the door on this altogether.
So this really shows how Trump's policy in all his cases of delay, delay, delay, really worked for him.
It did, I think, there's no question about that. And you know, from the beginning the move had been to argue in favor of schedules. You know, first they were saying there should be no trial to ask the election, and no judge was on board with that, even in Florida, where you know, Judge Cannon was seen as more accommodating of you know, what the president elect was asking for. But she Eden said, I'm not going to push this back, you know, until after the election is and do that
kind of political calendar making. But in the end, you know, he successfully pressed appeals that delayed. He raised issues that just forced later deadlines by virtue of the rule criminal rules of person jervis. He files motions that requires responses, and everyone needs time to press the briefs and argue. You know, Judge Chucklin and Washington tried very hard to
keep her case on track. But when there's a question of presidential immunity, that is, and everyone agreed that is immediately appealable up to the Supreme Court, and these things just take time, so you know, to the extent, they found ways to file motions that no one could really argue would build in delays. They ran out the crocs successfully, and.
The Supreme Court helped out with its decision on presidential immunity.
I mean, the court did side with him. He prevailed in that they didn't agree that he had absolute immunity against the case, so it kept it alive. But certainly, you know, the majority of justices agreed with him that at least some of the indictment would be off limits, the part dealing with his discussions with Justice Department officials, anything that was sort of overtly part of business in the White House. And then you know, said we're going to send it back to a lower court judge to
do another round of determinations. So you know, in theory, I guess the Supreme Court could have said, we're going to resolve all these questions ourselves and put the case back on track if they thought that any part of it could survive, but didn't send it back to Judge Chuckkin, who then had to set up schedule for more brief And at that point it seems impossible that it could be on track for a trial before election day.
So still Judge Chuckkin has to sign off on this.
She does yees.
Generally speaking, judges have very little discussion in these types of situations if the government says we don't want to pursue this case anymore, especially ahead of a trial. You know, one instance where we saw judge put a hold on cod trying to drop something within the case of Michael Flynn, who was Trump's former national security advisor, and Flynn had been prosecuted under a former Special Council and then spun off to a US attorney office related to the Russian investigation.
But Michael Frinn had already had pleaded guilty. So the judge in that case has said, you know, I'm not sure if I can drop this right away if he's already been factual findings about guilt and acceptance of responsibility, et cetera, et cetera. But that's not the case here. There's been no fact finding. It's much early. Even though it feels like so much has happened, it's really much
earlier in the proceedings. So, you know, I don't think there's an expectation that Judge Chuckkins would refuse to dismiss it at this point. But whether she calls them in for some other reason, you know, it's with final questions. I guess we could wait and see that. It would be very unusual to have her do that.
Now, what about Jack Smith? There are reports that he is going to step down before Trump takes.
Office, So our reporting has signaled that he is expected to resign from his position as special counsel before Trump is sworn in. Whether he would leave the Justice Department all together, you know, sort of what form that takes exactly, we're not sure and waiting to see sort of what he announces he'll do. You know, we're waiting to also see if he finishes a report on his investigation on his work, what happens with that, so you know, today it doesn't walk out the door and never come.
Back, you think.
So we're not quite sure. But you know, even if he were to stay in the Justice Department in some capacity in the next few weeks. There's little doubt that Trump would fire him immediately.
Well, Trump has promised that, and he's also said that Smith should be thrown out of the country. That seems beyond even his power as a president. But isn't Smith required to file a report on his charging decisions to the Attorney General before he leaves office?
You know, I'd have to go back and check their regulations, but the expectation is that you will write a report and submit that to the Attorney General to close out his office, sort of administrative task that he also has to do. We'll get a final budget report as he
closes down on the office, you know. I guess another unanswered question is if there were other investigative threads that they were pursuing, whether they would send those files, you know, send them off to a US attorney office for further investigation, or to redirect them like we saw with Special Council Luller, where you know, certain issues were redirected to US attorney offices after he left. So, you know, I think this
is not little astically heard from Jacksmith. But I think depending on timing, you know, he files his report before inauguration and the pressure will be on Attorney General's Garland to release that ice effect. But we just haven't heard one way or the other sort of what's next, And so we.
Tell us about the push from Texas to get access to Smith's files.
There's a case pending from the Texas Attorney General's office. Kim Paxton has been a long time ally of Trump, trying to get Jacksmith's files and release more of his work and what happened in that office. I think there's also the next beat will be like the investigation into the investigation of Jack Smith.
It seems to be never ending, and one has to wonder about what parts of Jack Smith's investigation the Texas Attorney General would release to the public. Some more to come, Thanks so much, Zoe. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Zoe Tillman. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Federal prosecutors are presenting their case in the trial of the longest serving House leader in the country, Michael Madigan. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg Dan.
Yes, Mike Madigan speaker, How are you? I I'm good.
How are you? Michael Madigan, the longest serving House leader of any state in US history. Is an almost mythical figure in Illinois politics. His three decade rain earned him the nickname the Velvet Hammer because of the way he led the Illinois House and extracted fealty from its members.
If you can get near you, mind that your client is only Mike Madigan.
Now, the eighty two year old Madigan is on trial for bribery, extortion, and racketeering for allegedly running a criminal enterprise to add to his vast political power, get business for his private law firm and reward his friends and allies. Government attorneys are building their case against him with witnesses who've made plea deals and war wires, documents, emails, and hundreds of wiretap conversations like these.
I generally never refer to the speaker. I just say our friend. So if you could say our friend, no one really knows what we're talking about.
Speak of that.
Hey, micaeh, Hey, will you tell the speaker I took care of burials and Pennonovic Did you just throw away that note? Yep.
For those outside of Illinois who don't know about Madigan, you know, tell us a little bit about his background. Why you was nicknamed the velvet hammer.
So Mike Madigan is the longest serving speaker of the Illinois House in history, and in addition to the extraordinary political power and influence that he wielded from that position, he also had a private practice of laws. The indictment charges that he used both of these positions to retain and consolidate his power.
So the prosecutors are alleging that he used his political power in offices as a criminal enterprise. I mean, what exactly are they charging there?
Yes, that's exactly right, a criminal enterprise which is casually referred to as the Madigan enterprise. And in brief, it boils down to what is at the heart of all public corruption cases, which is precisely money and power, the abuse of public office for private gain, and the abuse
of power to retain and consolidate power. The evidence that's been introduced in the case so far focuses on Commed, the public utility here in Illinois, and Madigan's essentially leveraging commed dependence on his political power, depending on Madigan's support for legislation and policy that are favorable to Commed in exchange for a variety of things. This is one large issue among others.
His co defendant, Mike McClain, And he's already been convicted on public corruption charges. Why are they trying to show that he's an agent of Madigan?
So Mike mclan, as you say, has already been convicted in a separate trial. That trial is referred to as the trial of the comment for in this instance, Mike McLean is charged as a co defendant and an agent of the former speaker Mike Madigan. And under an agency theory of liabil Mike Madigan's knowledge, his criminal intent, and the actions that he directs are all imputed to Mike McLean as his agent. This is the theory of the prosecution. Of course, mister McLean contests it.
Let's talk about the defense. Is the defense that this is what politicians do? Is it that defense that we've heard a million times? Or is there more to it?
That is essentially the defense. It is a defense that has gained credence in recent years with a series of Supreme Court rulings that have held in essence that federal prosecutors have been overly ambitious with their interpretation of public corruption laws and have swept into their prosecutions instances of politics as usual constituent services, and the type of deal making,
which is how the sausage is made. And in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts in the case of the former Virginia governor Bob McDonald, it may be unseemly, but that doesn't mean it's criminal.
The Supreme Court has been pairing back public corruption law since the McDonald case, and last June, in the Snyder case, the Justices undid the conviction of a former Indiana mayor who received thirteen thousand dollars from a trucking company after it was awarded city contracts. In this case, how are the prosecutors getting around the Snyder decision?
Well, First of all, the Snyder case involved a very particular statute. It involved a charge of illegal gratuities, which the prosecution argued was included in eighteen US could six sixty six, which is a federal law that applies to state and local bribery. The Supreme Court Court ruled in Snyder that that interpretation was in correct, that six sixty six encompasses quid pro quol bribery, but not illegal gratuities, which was the theory of liability in Snyder. The Madigan
case by contrast, is not a theory of illegal gratuities. Rather, it is a criminal enterprise. So rico is charged along with wire fraud and actual bribery. Bribery is considered one of the necessary predicate offenses that can be used as a basis to charge a racketeering enterprise.
Are quid pro quo allegations key to the government's case against Madigan and McLain.
A theory of quid pro quo liability, yes, But the reason that quid pro quo, although it's a commonly used term in the vernacular for corruption, is not a legal term of art, is because in truth, corrupt acts are most often far more complex than the concepts of this for that. So, in the case that's been brought by the government against Madigan, what is alleged is that essentially comed owed Mike Madigan. The company was indebted to him for numerous times he had helped them benefit with legislation
that was favorable to the company. So you're in a situation where the defendant already has influenced power, clout and leverage. What is alleged is that Mike Madgan in turn then use that to demand favors from coned, So it is a quid pro quo, but it's not a simple or isolated transaction.
So the government has all kinds of evidence. People who wore wires, the wire tapped, they have documents. What do you see as the longest evidence they have so far.
All of the government's evidence has strengths, and it also has ways in which it can be attacked by defense counsel, and it is being attacked by defense counsel. Government witnesses who are so called cooperating witnesses, including those who have negotiated flea deals, of course, have received the benefit from the government. These are individuals who have negotiated a flee deal in exchange for their cooperation with the government, and
they have an expectation of a reduced sentence. Therefore, Council for the Defense will be cross examining them on their bias, on their incentive to curry favor with the government, and arguably what they will certainly argue to the jury is that those witnesses are therefore not credible, not to be believed. Recordings, of course, are not of witnesses who may or may not have an incentive to shade the truth on the witness stand. A famous Chicago defense attorney once said, you
don't need to believe me, Just believe mister Panasonic. You press play, and the recording speaks for itself. Now, in some instances, these recordings are grainy, of lower quality, may not be the smoking gun that they have been made
out to be. And so I am certain that the jury is listening very carefully when the videos and audio recordings are played to see if the content actually lines up with what the government promised the evidence would show in its opening statement, because you can bet that if it doesn't, when the defense makes its closing argument, it will point out the ways in which the government's case fell short.
Some of the recordings seemed pretty stunning, one where MacLean said, your client is only mag Madigan. It's not the Democratic Party, it's not anybody who hired you, it's not your mom and dad. But the defense, I assume, can frame that in a different.
Way, certainly, and you can see both sides of that coin. On the one hand, it speaks to Speaker Madigan's really extraordinary influence in a way that certainly undermines a democratic or meritocratic process. On the other hand, you can say, well, yeah,
who is the leading Democrat in Illinois. He was conflated with the Democratic Party, and MacLean is just making clear that Madigan's agenda is the overwhelming agenda that we'll get through in Springfield, and indeed, for many years that was the case.
Is there any indication that Madigan might take the stand.
There has been no indication as of yet. He will need to make that decision when the government rests its case. The government is still, of course presenting its case in chief, and the burden of proof remains with the government at all times. The Speaker, of course, is entitled to a presumption of innocence and also entitled to a right to remain silent. So if he chooses not to take the stand, the jury must draw no inference from that, and the
government cannot comment on it. Speaker Madigan is obviously an intelligent and shrewd person, and I imagine that he's listening very closely along with his skilled defense counsel as the evidence comes in. If you're asking me to place a wager, I will wager that he is not going to take a stand.
The prosecution would certainly have a lot to cross examine him on if he did. As you mentioned, there were guilty verdicts against Commed's former top executive and three of its former lobbyists. We're conspiring to bribe Madigan. But then a trial on charges at form At and t Illinois President Paul Lacchiatza illegally influenced the X speaker resulted in a hung jury. Was there a problem in that later trial that the government might encounter in a Madigan trial?
So the problem with that case is the problem with all public corruption and indeed white collar cases. These are specific intent crimes, and the government must prove corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt. So not just the actions themselves, but the individual's state of mind. And when one can argue that a state of mind is politics as usual, and you do hear that line in the Madigan trial as well. This is how things are done in Illinois.
This is politics as usual that can undermine evidence that goes to corrupt intent, especially when it is circumstantial evidence. And that's another point. These individuals are smart, they are sophisticated. You will never here then use the term quid pro quo. You will never hear then use the word bribe. And so frequently the evidence in corruption cases is circumstantial, and jurors are asked to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.
So access the prostitutions of public corruption cases are hard?
Are they harder in Illinois? Because the city is known from the days of mayor daily and you've had several I think Illinois governors who've been prosecuted. I mean, are the citizens of Chicago sort of inord to it? You know? Are they just sort of stealed against it?
Well, the social science literature related to popular perceptions of corruption indicates the opposite. Actually, public corruption is deeply unpopular with ordinary citizens, and indeed it is something that motivates people when it comes to casting votes to seek in coll change. I'm not in a position to say whether public corruption prosecutions are harder or easier in Illinois, but I would tend to doubt that they would be harder.
A long way to go in this one, yet, Thanks so much, Juliet. That's Professor Juliet Sorenson of Loyola University Chicago Law School coming up the Supreme Court today. This is Bloomberg. The Supreme Court released its calendar for the February argument session. The justices will hear cases on reverse discrimination, nuclear fuel storage, post conviction DNA testing, and whether the
Mexican government can sue US gun manufacturers. And today the Justices announced that they'll weigh a new line of attack on federal administrative power, agreeing to consider the constitutionality of the decades old Universal Service Fund. Joining me is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store So, Greg tell us about the Universal Service Fund, which some people may not know about, but there's a charge on there wireless phone bills for it every month.
So this is an eight billion dollar program. And what it is at the standpoint of a consumer, on your monthly phone bill, there's a charge for there's a Universal Service Fund, and that is used to subsidize the cost of phone and internet service for poor people in rural areas, for schools and libraries. And that program has been around
since nineteen ninety six tele Communications Act. But now it is being challenged as exceeding both Congress's authority and the Federal Communications Commission's authority.
So this was a circuit split, I mean, basically, was the Fifth Circuit, which is often an outliers circuit, extremely conservative, And what did the Fifth.
Circuit do with Fifth Circuit declared it invalid. That caused a split with two other appeals courts that had said it was constitutional, and the Fifth Circuit said it was invalid sort of for a combination of reasons. There is this doctrine that is known as the non delegation doctrine that the Supreme Court hasn't invoked since the New Deal. But the idea is that Congress can't just hand off
its legislative power to a federal agency. And then there's also this related notion as the private non delegation doctrine, which is that the agency can't just hand over its authority to some private entity. And this circuit said that this program was set up in a way where the Congress gave an awful lot of authority to the SEC to set the amounts of that charge on your phone bill, and then the SEC in turn gave a private entity a lot of power to determine exactly what that charge
would be. And the combination of those two issues made it unconstitutional, a violation of the separation of powers.
Are people anticipating that the Supreme Court may use this case to cut back further on agency powers.
It's certainly a possibility now I don't want to read too much into the fact that they took this case. They didn't have a whole lot of choice, given that the Fifth Circuit had said this program is invalid, and two other appeal sports had gone the other way. But this notion of the non delegation doctrine is sort of the last big thing. Let me, I shouldn't ay last big thing, but the next big thing for people who
want to reduce administrative power. So the Supreme Court a few years ago establish the thing called the Major Questions Doctrine that said Congress has to be super clear if it's going to delegate a major question to an agency. Then the Court last term overturned the so called Chevron doctrine that gave agency is an awful lot of discretion to interpret ambiguous statutes. And this is sort of the next thing. It would potentially limit what Congress can do.
It would say there are constitutional limits to what Congress can hand off to the agency. In terms of legislative power. Congress has to be the one to make these decisions like say how big this this charge is that's going to be on your phone bill?
Greg The arguments will take place when Trump has already taken office, so there'll be a new solicitor general. I mean, might the Trump administration reverse course and disagree with the Biden administration.
It's certainly possible, and it's worth watching. This is not one of those things that this fund. The criticisms about this fund have tended to be more about what businesses are in charge of collecting it. And so right now, I said that this is the charge that shows up in your phone bill, so that the telecom companies that are sort of on the hook to collect it from
you and then pay into the fund. And a lot of folks think internet companies should be doing that, they should be carrying some of the load as well, And that tends to be the sort of thing one might expect the Trump administration to weigh in on and say, you know, we want to change how the fee is put together, rather than knocking out the fund altogether, because as I said, it does cover an awful lot of people, poor people, people in rural areas. A lot of them are,
frankly the folks who voted Donald Trump for president. And it may not be top of the list of things that the Trump administration wants to do when it starts trying to eliminate regulations.
So the court decided not to take a case from the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is fighting putting these really graphic pictures on cigarette packs.
Yes, this has been a long time coming. There's eleven of these warnings are supposed to be on the top half of a package of cigarette. One of them is a woman with this baseball sized bulge in her neck and with a thing that says warning, smoking causes head and neck cancer. And the tobacco companies basically made the argument, led by our Jo Reynolds, basically made the argument that this is a free speech violation. You're compelling us to
say something we don't want to say. And in this case a lower court federal appeals court said the Fifth Circuit actually said, know what this is. It's akin to regulation of deceptive advertisement. As long as the company is only being forced to say something that is purely factual and uncontroversial, that is okay. That phrases from a nineteen eighty five Supreme Court decision. So the Fifth Circuit rejected
the free speech challenge. The tobacco companies turned to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said, no, we're not going to take your case.
And I mean when I say graphic, these pictures a lot of them are really hard to look at, which I suppose is the point. But is there anything left for the tobacco industry to do well?
There is, of course a new administration coming in that is potentially one one avenue. This was something that Congress told the FBA, the Food and Drug Administration to do
to put these sorts of advertisements together. Now, these exact pictures that you're talking about that are so graphic, and go to Bloomberg dot com and find find the story, you'll see some of those, yeah images, But it is something that Congress Commerce asked for in these very very graphic warnings as well, very descriptive warnings about what smoking does also the sort of thing that Congress required. So it's possible that to really prevent this from happening, we
need new legislation. But I could certainly imagine that the back of companies will try to get the FDA a reverse course once the Trump presidency resumes.
So now, last Friday, the Court dismissed a case that had been argued Facebook's appeal of the shareholder lawsuit against it.
Yeah, so this stems from the data harvesting scandal involving the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytic, and essentially in these shareholders are claiming that Facebook inflated share prices by misleading shareholders about the risk that scandal would cause a misuse of user data. And there are various points along the timeline where the shareholders say, you knew more than you told us. A federal appeals court fed the lawsuit against
Facebook could go forward. The Supreme Court in June agreed to consider the appeal by Meta Meta is the new name for Facebook hurt arguments in the case actually the day after the election, and then for reasons that it did not describe, decided we're not going to decide this case. We're going to drop it. And so that is the first quote opinion of the Supreme Court's term to not decide this Facebook appeal.
There were also oral arguments in a sort of similar case, an appeal by Nvidia of a shareholder's lawsuit against it. And I'm wondering if the same thing might happen to the Nvidia case, that they might dismiss it as improvidently granted, because I remember that some of the justices were saying, I don't know why we took this case.
Yeah, there were, by my account for justices who said I don't know why we took this case. And to be honest with you, that was what I thought we were going to beginning on Friday instead of the Facebook case, because oftentimes when there's an argument and a number of justices start saying things like that, the court will dismiss an appeal. That case is a very different issue in terms of securities law. It's all about what kind of specificity you need in your lawsuit, in your complaint for
a case to go forward. This is a case involving whether the video was forthcoming enough about where its revenue was coming from. The shareholders say, you were actually more dependent on crypto mining revenue to being used for crypto mining than you let on. And that's a bad thing because everybody knows the crypto industry is very volatile, and so crypto industry took a big dip. That meant that in videos, shares also dipped because you eventually had to
reveal that sales were down any of that date. The Supreme Court did suggest during arguments. As I said that this did not present deserved broad legal issue that would be a good candidate for a Supreme Court ruling. But from the time being, at least, it looks like the Court is going to go ahead and decide that case.
And in the Facebook case, back to Facebook for a minute, there were comments that once you let the case go forward to the discovery phase where they're exchanging documents, I think it was just as Kavanaugh that said game over, because then it almost forces the companies to settle the cases. And what are the estimates of a settlement in the Facebook case.
Matt Settenhelm, is an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, says that potentially in the Facebook case, we're talking about billion with a B dollars because the amount of the market drop was something like two hundred billion dollars, and geralders say that was caused in large part by these misleading disclosures, So it is potentially a very large sum of money. You know, Facebook is such a big company that two billion dollars means a little less to them than it
does to you and me. But that is what you hear all the time from the companies that yes, once you get past that stage in litigation, once you get to the discovery phaise, once the planks have a right to start demanding documents and other evidence from you, that's when litigation gets really, really expensive, and that's when companies have a real incentive to go ahead and settle.
So we'll wait for Nvidia next. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter Greg Store and that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our bloom podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg