Trump Indictment May Be Imminent

about revenge. This is my position is that at the end of the day, Donald Trump needs to be held accountable for his dirty deeds if in fact that's the way that the facts play out. That plus an invitation to Trump to testify before the grand jury, indicate that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is close to an indictment. The first criminal charge is against a former president in our nation's history. Trump's reaction to it all has been predictable.

These are which huntsees have been going on for a long time. They've weaponized justice in our country. It's a disgrace, and I think people are very angry about it. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, a professor at NYU Law School. The prevailing view of most legal experts, including Trump's own attorney, is that he will be indicted in Manhattan. Do you agree, Yeah, that seems to be

what's happening. I mean, the practice of the Manhattan BA is to invite descendants to participate in the grand jury at the end of an investigation, before they seek an indictment. And so they've been putting all the witnesses that they would need, you know, Michael Cohen and others into the grand jury, and they've invited Trump to participate, which he declined wisely, and so it does look like they're wrapping

up with the grand jury. I mean, you know, you do an investigation, you talk to all these witnesses, there's no reason to actually put them in unless you're going to speak in indictment. And so it seems very much like that's where it's headed. His attorney's met with prosecutors recently to make their case against an indictment in a case like this. I mean, is there really any hope that they could change prosecutors' minds? No, No, not much. You know, it rarely happens in any kind of case,

but in this kind of case. It's a fairly simple case. Factually, there, of course, is a tricky legal issue. I don't know if it's tricky as much as it's just not been done before, So it's a bit unknown whether the felony will hold up on heel if they get the convictions. But where everything is already known to the prosecutors, it's really just almost a formality. But you know, defense lawyers always want that chance to come in and make the pitch,

and prosecutors are willing to give them that chance. So they did it and it didn't work, And all that's very predictable tell us about the legal theory they're going to try to use to the misdemeanor of falsifying business

records into a felony. So in New York State, the falsification of financial records that prosecutors alleged was done here where they took this money that was paid to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet before the election, and instead of just writing her a check from the Trump organization or Trump writing her a personal check, they instead had Michael Cohen pay her and then they paid him back from the business, pretending that it was for legal expenses.

So that's the falsification of records that the Trump organization kind of hid all of these payments. That's a misdemeanor in New York State. So in order for it to be a felony, that crime has to be committed in conjunction with another crime, so in order to facilitate or

to cover up a different crime. So what they are alleging here, we think is that this cover up was done, the falsification of records was all done in order to commit a campaign finance crime, meaning that this payment actually was done to benefit the campaign because had she come out and told her story in the week leading up to the election, he wouldn't have been elected. So it's a benefit to the campaign. The campaign hid that benefit. They didn't disclose it as part of the paperwork that

they have to file with election officials. And so that's what they say is the second crime that the falsification crime facilitated, and that makes it a felony under New York day law. The Manhattan DA didn't bring charges against Trump in the criminal tax fraud case where they brought charges against his former CFO, Alan Weisselberg. Now they appear to be going after him with this untested legal theory, and it seems kind of odd to me that they would proceed with a novel theory in the first case

ever against a former president. Yeah, it's hard to know how they assess their case and exactly what they're thinking. Of course, they know more about the case than we all know sitting outside here, but you know, I think that they're probably trying to assess it in terms of is this case something that we would charge someone else with? You know, yes, it's untested, but do we think it's right? Do we think that it will stand up on appeal legally?

The issues with it being a former president make it really tricky in terms of what is a jury going to do once they're speeded. You know, when you have twelve people in the box, are we going to get twelve people who are going to be able to assess this fairly? But the untested portion of it is a legal issue on that front, it's more about is it going to stand up in front of the judges who will be affessing it. Can we get it through the trial court level? On appeal? Will the appellate court judges

say that it meets legal muster? So I think they're probably just saying, listen, do we think this is a correct theory, and can we convince the judges of this. It's not really a jury issue. And then on the jury side, you just say, listen, if we think he has done this and we think that we would charge someone else with it, we should take a shot at it, former president or no, you know, he's not above the law. We should have that accountability. And then on the other

case that's apparently still kicking around. It's definitely true that earlier last year, Alvin Bragg, the brand new DA at that time, decided not to go into the grand jury with the case about inflating and decreasing the assets in order to get benefits. But they say that investigation is ongoing, and a lot of it had to do with whether they were able to get the true and complete cooperation of Alan Weisselberg, which by all accounts they have not. So that kind of I think has more to do

with that side of things. And listen, they may ultimately bring that case if they think that they can. Apparently they're still working, honestly, that's what the DA's office to say. So Trump has called this a politically motivated witch hunt, said he did absolutely nothing wrong and denied having an affair with the porn star Stormy Daniels, and said Bragg's inquiry was an effort to take down the leading Republican

candidate in the twenty twenty four presidential election. I'm wondering if the fact that the former DA didn't charge Trump and Bragg, you know, as you just mentioned, may still but didn't charge him in that another case, can that be used by the defense in any way to say this is politically motivated. They kept on trying and trying

and trying until they got him. Well, listen, this is of course Trump's playbook, right, Anything that anybody does that accuses him of anything is a politically motivated witch hunt. So this is kind of how he responds to everything. There's no evidence that anyone has gone after him for political reasons. When the DA, just prior to Alvin Bragg, cy Van was investigating, you know, they needed to do this investigation. You can't decide on charters until you know

what you're dealing with. And they didn't finish. They didn't finish the investigation that they were focused on. They appear to put this one kind of on the back burner, probably because of the untested nature of the legal theory as far as the felony charge goes, and they focused on the other thing. Bragg thought they hadn't gotten there yet, so he switched gears. I mean, there's just nothing to suggest that it's political at all. This is just kind

of Trump's play. And once you get to court, you know, he makes all of these statements in the public realm because you know, that's just how he works, and he's trying to influence ultimately with the public thinks, because they're the voters and also of course potentially the jury pool. But when you get into court it's a little bit different. You know, you can't just stand up and yell, which

hunts all the time. If you're going to claim something like prosecutorial misconduct or that you are actually being targeted because of political reasons, you have to prove that in order to make that case in court, or the judge will say you can't make that argument. So once you get into the four corners of the courtroom, he won't be able to just without any basis at all, which there is none, claim that, so you know it'll be a little different once you're actually in front of the

jury and the judge in this case. In the meantime, of course, he's just trying to kind of poison, if you will, the well a little bit with the public in terms of saying that which you always said. Some of the defense attorneys has said that this payment wasn't part of a campaign, It was to save face, to save Milania from any embarrassment, sort of a nuisance payment.

Is that a defense for him in this case? So it's kind of interesting when people were talking about a pure campaign finance violation, like on the federal side what Michael Cohen pleaded guilty too. It would I mean, if you could convince the jury that the reason that you didn't report this as a campaign benefit is that that's not what it was to you, right, it was instead trying to cover it up for your wife or what have you, then yes, it would be a defense to that.

I mean, I don't know if you remember way back that John Edwards case that was brought against Senator John and Edwards he was acquitted and the jury hunts on accounts of his case because he made that argument and apparently it was successful that the money that he paid to this woman he hid for personal embarrassment reasons and

so on, not because of his campaign. The problem for Trump is that that only helped him on the piece of it that makes it a felony, right, So, I mean, he falsified the records of his organization in order to make this payment. By admitting now that he has made those payments, which he is doing basically by saying, oh, I did it for this reason, not for that reason, he's effectively admitting that he's guilty of the primary charge, which is the misdemeanor. So it's just now about the

piece that makes the felony. And the question is do you believe that? I mean, is it really believable that in the run up to the election he does all of this just to keep it from his wife in public? I mean, a man who's been credibly accused of sexual assault and even rape by multiple people and he's so concerned about this one person. You know, it doesn't necessarily ring true, I think, although ultimately a jury will decide that, but it doesn't help him on the primary charge that

the DA appears to be proceeding on. Anyway, Does the case hinge on the testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer an attorney, and if so, what are the problems with his having pleaded guilty to the hush Bunny and lying to Congress and going to prison over it. So on the first question, if it hinges on him, I

don't know exactly how much it hinges on him. I mean, certainly they put him into the grand jury, and they talk to him many many times, so it seems that at least they are strongly considering using him, or think that they might need him. I just don't know what else they have on the key piece of how much former President Trump actually knew about this. They obviously have the records, They have other people, I think who will

talk about that. So it's unclear to me whether he's really really necessary and they couldn't proceed without him, or whether they think he just adds enough to make it worth it. You know, Listen, he's a difficult witness to put on because he has lied before and has been to prison. As you say, he's a convicted spellon. But prosecutors deal with this issue all the time, honestly. I mean, one of the things you sometimes stay instammation is Listen, I wish I could put on the witness stand, you know,

rabbis and priests and ministers for you all. But those aren't the sort of people who get caught up in crime, right. I need to put on the stand people who can tell you about what happened here, people who this criminal sitting at the defense table associated with. So it's not uncommon for prosecutors to have to deal with a witness

who has lied, who has admitted lying. If you lie for the defendant previously to cover up what the defendant has done and what you yourself has done, and then you come clean and then you're going in there and talking to them under oath, that's something that prosecutors can explain and do explain all the time. And that's what happened here. So you know, I think that they definitely have a shot at putting on Michael Cohen's testimony and

getting a jury to believe it. And you do that by explaining what it is and also by corroborating it. You know how much corroboration is there. Michael Cohen says he was paid you know, periodically in this amount, and guess what you have the checks that support that, you know, and you kind of corroborate it by the physical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses, and you put it all together and say do you believe him? Yeah? You should.

You're telling you the truth, and here's how you know that. So, you know, looks like they're going to use him. I assume that means that they think that they need him, and we'll see how it goes. What do you think of the fact that they call Stormy Daniels in to talk to them the prosecutors did, but not to testify before the grand jury. Yeah, it's it's interesting. I mean, I'm not surprised that they want to speak to everyone who might potentially be a witness or has some information.

If they don't put her in the grand jury, it suggests she's not strictly next story. In New York State, it's different from the federal system. In the federal system, you can go into the grand jury with just one witness that can be your case agent, and they can testify about everything that they've learned about the case, including from other people and so on. In New York State,

you can't put in hearsay. So if they thought that they needed something from her, that she's the only person who could provide they would have to put her into the grand jury really in order to get their indictment, So it suggests they don't really need her need her. Maybe they're just trying to assess whether they want to use her as an added benefit. You know, I'm not sure exactly why they were talking to her now, except that it again kind of highlights that they're really at

the end of this thing. You know, they really are wrapping everything up and you know, wanting to talk to everyone and put their case fully together before they seek

the indictment. So we'll see, it makes it kind of sensational, right, And the question is do you want to try to do this in this streamline a case is possible like the way that you would with any other case, I mean, bringing Stormy Daniels in to testify, because of course you won't have any personal knowledge about how the payments were done and how Michael Cohen was reimbursed and what Trump

knew about those reimbursements and stuff. She's only brought in to say, you know, yes, we had sex, and so is that worth it in terms of making this even more sensational than it already is? So they might be mulling over that question. So if they do indict him, I mean, I'm sure there won't be a perp walk or handcuffs, But otherwise, will he be treated like an average defendant? I mean, can he be treated like an average defendant when he has Secret Service with him all

the time. Yeah, I think he'll be treated like a very very important person, like an uber rich defendant, that sort of thing. They certainly will make an agreement with him to surrender at a certain time. He will not be arrested at six am with handcuffs, perp walks everything. As you say, He'll get to show up at a time that's agreed with his lawyers. He'll have to be processed. I mean, he'll have to go through the same steps and go before the judge and do everything like any

other defendant in a sense. But they'll work that out with his lawyers, and they'll work with his Secret Service detail and all of that to make sure. You can kind of look to how FBI conducted the search warrant at Marologa, right, I mean, they went and searched his home, and you have to give the lawyers and you have to give the Secret Service detail a heads up and that sort of thing when things like that are happening,

and that's what'll happen here. They're professionals, they'll be able to work it out, and so of course they'll be a Donald Trump mug shot. Yeah, yeah, for sure. And I mean obviously that mug shot will be on the front pages of every publication and so on whenever gets released. But yeah, I mean, all of that, of course happens behind closed doors, the processing and stuff, So it'd be great to see a camera in there, but that's not how it works. Going to be quite a case, thanks

so much, Jennifer. That's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, a professor at YU Law School. The legal dominoes are being lined up and the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. On the federal side, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are looking into possible misconduct

by SVB officers, according to Bloomberg sources. On the civil side, investors have filed their first class action lawsuits against both banks, joining me as attorney Jim Baar, president of CMBG Advisors. The Justice Department and the sec are investigating the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. What kind of things do you think they're investigating? And is it unusual? So it's non unusual when you have a large collapse like this because obviously a lot of people are going to be yelling

and screaming, think you know what happened? How did this happen? And they want to get to the bottom of it. So I don't think it's unusual from that perspective. The real question is what is it they're looking for here and what are the legal risks that are out there for the board of directors and you know, the other people working at Silicon Valley Bank. And the answer is

that there's two aspects of this bank failure. There is the fact that there was a run on their deposits, where you have to have a certain amount of deposits obviously in order to have you meet your counter requirements. And the run on the bank obviously was a problem. But that begs the question, which is was there a reason a concern that all of a sudden had been

underappreciated that came out. Because if there's an unappreciated risk, there's the depositor who are at risk, but there's also the investors who are at risk because people are buying the stock in the stock market, they're trading in the securities on the basis that they think it's a good investment.

So when the stock has gone down as dramatically as it did and there was this risk, which is all these deposits could disappear, the question is was their mismanagement, was their fraud, was their negligence in the way that it was described in their financial statements, And that's what the SEC's focusing on. Apparently they're also examining stock sales that svb's officers may have made days before the bank failed. That is correct, So there's two issues there as well.

So again, officers that own stock in a bank are able to sell, but one of the concerns is they have access to inside information and if they trade on that information, they're in an advantage. That the regular investment does not have access to that information, they're at a disadvantage. So the question is when the officers sell stock, did they do so appropriately or did they trade because they knew something bad was going to happen that other people

did not, which is considered unfair. So we should point out that very recently they continued to tighten up the rules under which officers can sell. There are restrictions in terms of time periods, there are waiting periods. There are things designed to level the playing field so that officers are not able to take advantage of insight information and sell when no one else knows what's really going on.

And in this instance, because those news rules were in effect, my understanding is that the officers did sell consistent with those new rules. But it still begs the question were they aware that there were more risks with the bank that have been otherwise properly disclosed in their financial statements? And if there were, then they have exposure. From that perspective, the SEC and the DOJ investigating after an incident like this or a few incidents like this, that's not unusual,

is it. I mean, it doesn't indicate that anything really was done wrong. No, I think again, I've said this before. I don't like this mass hysteri where people jump to conclusions. We really do try to have a system that says innocent until proven guilty. And so the answer is that, yes, something this large is going to trigger an investigation, but

that doesn't mean that there was nefarious activities like m RON. Also, we've had the first securities class action, the first of many I suspect, and this goes to what the officers did,

so explain what the security class action is about. So when you have a stock decline in a precipitous manner, there's a whole industry of what we call plaintiff's attorneys securities lawyers that follow the stock market, and when the stock declines quickly, they often file what's called a class action lawsuit alleging that there was something materially misleading in the financial statements, either there was an omission or a misstatement. Now there's an old expression, bad facts make bad law,

and also looking at something with twenty twenty hindsight. But what these lawyers have figured out is where there's smoke, there is often fire. So when a stock declines precipitously, it begs the question, if you had been disclosing your risks properly, why wouldn't the market react over time and bring the stock to an appropriate level. But if there's a precipitous drop, was there something you should have been telling people that you weren't, So, for instance, the fact

that they had so much money in deposits that were unensured. Well, that's an unusual situation. Is it something that should have been disclosed? Was it disclosed? I don't know, but it begs the question was this bank at a higher degree of risk and other financial institutions because it had such a law large percentage of its money in non sticky deposits. And if that was the case, was it disclosed? Number one?

Then number two? For instance, the bank had certain types of investments we focus on over those good investments in terms of buying T bills, You're buying T bills in a rising interest rate environment. That portfolio went down and valued dramatically? Was that disclosed? Should they have disclosed that they weren't hedging like other financial institutions. So what these class action lawyers are looking for is evidence in the financial disclosures with the sec the ten ks, the annual report,

and so forth. They're looking for evidence that proper disclosures were not being made. Do you expect a rash of lawsuits requesting class action status? Yeah? I think what's going to happen is as more and more companies disclosed the true nature of their earnings. So again, if you're a bank, or you're a company that's been artificially making profits based

on these low interest rates that we've experienced. As interest rates stay higher than people expect, what's going to happen is you're gonna have more and more companies reporting lower earnings and their stocks are going to get hammered. And yes, there will be lawsuits saying how could this happen? And I think we are just at the beginning of that cycle. A lot of people are looking at the rollback of

the Dodd Frank under the Trump administration. Do you think if those rules had been in place that this would not have happened. So that's a great question, and the answer is will never know for sure, But we certainly know that these financial institutions in two and eighteen lobbied Congress to change dot Frank, to basically change the rules such that if you were a certain size institution, you

were not one of the quote, really large banks. There was an ability to loosen up the regulations and allow less scrutiny by the regulators and broader flexibility in the guise of investments that you made and the man in which the company is being runned. And so that law was changed in twenty eighteen in Silicon Valley Bank did benefit from it, and as did by Play many other financial institutions, and that's what we're still waiting to see. Is the other shoe gonna drop? Because it does bang.

The question are there risks out there with many other banks that have not been properly disclosed. My suspicion is that there are other banks out there where these things had not been disclosed. What's happening with SVB now The FDIC has stepped in and is essentially running the bank at this point, and they are looking to sell off

pieces of the bank. My understanding is they had other divisions and operations that are also being marketed, and at this point, really what's happening is they're looking to see if there are institutions they want to take over the different aspects of the business, just like I don't know if you saw in Britain they sold the British subsidiary for a dollar or a pound. Yesterday, President Biden said the FDIC is in charge of the bank and all the bank officers are going to be fired and basically

we're going to hold people responsible. Do you think that's really likely to happen? You know, just like when we look back to the two thousand and eight crisis, it started and you know, there were certain warning signs, and then there was Lehman and there was bear Stearns, and there's AIG's built if you go back, they started raising interest rates, right, So the first most vulnerable thing to

blow is crypto. We had the fts situation. When credit starts drawing up, the people that are the most over leveraged and the most exposed, they're the first to fall. So it started with crypto. Crypto really fell and it's continuing to fall and go back and forth. Now technology, right, because technology also you had over extension and people having

to go back and refining it. And so when you look at this from the government's perspective, they came out hard against crypto because looking back to the days where we had President Obama and the whole issues with Occupy Wall Street, there was a huge political backlash because no one went to jail and they bailed out the banks. Well, this time they're saying, we didn't bail out anybody with

government money. The financial system is being taken care of by its own, meaning we're going to raise fees on banks to pay off the losses at Signal Bank in Silicon Valley Bank. That's the beginning and they can do that, and then they can also try to make examples of some of these executives to say, see, we're getting tough on this. We're not going to stand still like what's happening in crypto. What begs the question is if this spreads to other institutions, you're a lot more people exposed

than just a few institutions. And then the question is what's the government going to do, Because at the end of the day, this is the government caused problem. The government kept interest rates artificially low, which led money going to risky assets, and investors are going to basically, if they're given money and they have to invest it, they're going to invest it one way or the other. That's what they do. And the government led up regulations, so

you have a perfect storm. No regulation or limited regulation together with low interest rates is going to lead to a lot of loss of money. And then the government's going to have a lot of explaining to do. And yes, I think they're going to be looking for holding people accountable, but at the end of the day, I think it's all of the money going into politics. It's allowed these regulations to get rolled back, and it's the lack of accountability.

And so I'm hoping what happens is that we do a deep dive like we did after the Great Depression when we adopted the thirty three and thirty four Act and what we started to do. If you read Obama's book, he said he didn't go far enough. Well that's true. Like the Guns of August. Barbara Tuckman's book, World War One never ended. World War two is a continuation. I don't think the recession of two and eight, two thou

nine ended. We've papered it over with cheap money and rolling back regulation which allowed this party to go on in other twelve years. Well, guess what with a thirty one trillion dollars deficit and a FED balance sheet of ten trillion dollars, the party is over and it's going to be painful. Thanks so much for being on the show, Jim. That's Jim Bear, President of CMBG Advisors. The danger of

forever chemicals has long been known. Environmental and public health advocates have called for federal regulation of PFOS chemicals for years, and so have lawmakers. Let's not beat around the bush here. The chemicals are toxic. They are known as forever chemicals. They do not easily break down. Instead, they accumulate in the environment and in the human body. You know, there's an old saying that says nothing lasts forever. Unfortunately, nothing

that is, except for fluorinated chemicals. That was former US Representative Harley Ruda and Representative Debbie Dingle at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Environment more than three years ago. Public concern has increased in recent years as testing reveal p fos chemicals in a growing list of communities.

The US hasn't regulated a new contaminant in drinking water in nearly thirty years, but on Tuesday, the Environmental Protection an Agency proposed the first federal limits on harmful forever chemicals and drinking water along away to protection, the agency said, will save thousands of lies and prevent serious illnesses. Journing me is environmental law attorney Joel Johnston, a partner at Hollestal. I want to start with having you explain exactly what

are forever chemicals. So pfas, which are referred to as forever chemicals, are really quite a number. You know, there's probably hundreds of them that exist. They're used throughout every type of product virtually. They're used in raincoats, they're used

in food packaging, they're used in rugs and textiles. And once they get into the environment, either through a release at say a chemical plant or a manufacturing facility, or simply through the breakdown of products, you know, wherever they are, these compounds get into the environment. They get into the soil, they get into the water, and we find that they get into people's bodies and they really don't break down

efficiently at all, and so they're widespread use. And then the fact that they really don't degrade like a lot of other chemicals do over time means that they're just very very prevalent throughout the environment. We're finding and what are the health hazards that have been reported or discovered? So a lot of that is still being researched, but there have been confirmations that a number of these compounds are cancer causing with really no safe level of exposure.

Others are linked to various types of reproductive health, cardiovascular issues, organ damage, and so forth. So how big a step is this for the EPA seems like it was years in the making. It has Benjie, And the reality is that PFA compounds have been identified as being problematic for quite some time, and with pretty overwhelming bipartisan support and

I think support throughout even industry. What's happened is that in twenty twenty one the EPA, the administration laid out really a roadmap, if you will, of various actions that it was looking to take with respect to PFA's This is really just one of those, but I think it's a significant one in the sense that it really seeks to limit exposures through the way that so many people can annoyingly be exposed, which is through just water coming

out of the faucet. And the impacts will be potentially significant on water utilities that identify that they've got problems with their supply. But you know, some water systems are going to have no issue. They don't detect them business

as usual other than ongoing sampling requirements. Water systems that identify that they have these contaminants present in amounts that exceed the EPA's threshold that they're setting through this rule would be required to either clean up that water or to provide a new source of water tell us a

little about the proposed rule. So the main brunt of these new rules is that if they are finalized, which the EPA would hope to do through the rulemaking process by the end of the year starting in twenty twenty four, essentially every water supply system in the country would be required to sample their water supply a number of times over the following twelve months to confirm that they do

or do not have these compounds present. And as the rule is effectively drafted, what that would then require for those water systems that you know identify these compounds is either they need to remove the compounds from the water some sort of engineering filters, that kind of thing, or

they would need to source new water. So that's really the brunt of it is a the sampling obligations to test and confirm and identify and then be if there are issues, the requirement to resolve those issues so that the levels present in the water supplier below the EPA threshold.

How difficult will that be and how costly for water utilities? Well, the good news is that the Infrastructure Act has already started to provide funding for this type of sampling, specifically targeted at rural water systems, smaller water systems, and water systems in areas where the community just can't afford to take this on. But the sampling obligations are more comprehensive.

For larger water utilities, the requirements are a little bit lower, for there's not quite as much sampling required for smaller utilities that supply I think under ten thousand people or something, and so you know that we're talking about sampling a couple of times a year from all throughout their system. So for example, where I live in Denver, Denver Water has got a lot of samples that they're going to need to collect, for example, all their storage locations and

so forth. I think the bigger challenge is that some of the chemicals that are being regulated have been determined to have really no safe exposure level. Yet the technology, the current state of test doesn't really effectively allow us to test below the level that the EPA has had to set, which is very very low for some of these, you know, four parts per trillion, and the testing to determine compounds at that low of a concentration is complicated.

And so I think that what we'll also see over time as you know, presumably that technology, those testing methodologies, you know, improve and get more accurate over time. This, as you mentioned, is a proposed rule. It has to be finalized. Do you think there'll be opposition from industry groups like the American Chemistry Council and water utility groups

to some degree? Yes, you know, there are a number of states, I think six or seven states that have already passed fairly stringent regulations about PFA's main is one that has really banned them in any consumer product, whether they're added or not. California has got a number of fairly stringent regulations. So states have already been moving Some states have already been moving towards this. I think that it's the rule around drinking water is fairly hard to oppose.

It doesn't directly cut into manufacturers. It's not, you know, regulating how much they can use in their factory or how they have to report it. It's really strictly addressing the exposure at the at the community drinking water level. I think that most water utilities support the rule, but are going to have some concerns I would expect about the testing frequency, the testing methodologies, and so forth. They want to make sure that those are pure reviewed and

accurate and consistent. So I think what we would see from the manufacturing community our concerns about, you know, some of these compounds are pretty necessary in today's world, and there's not replacements for them in the moment. So I think, especially with food packaging, it's been a challenge to you know, get the pfas out of all of the types of packaging.

And so I think that that's where we tend to see the pushback, not so much on allowing unbridled use, not so much opposition to restricting them in drinking water, but concerns about, you know, in ways where they can't be avoided, and also with respect to, you know, for the water utilities, making sure that the that the next step if they have an issue is fairly clear. I'll

give you a quick example. Utah, for example, has been sampling their water supply systems and they discovered a number I think two or three of their water water systems had issues that exceed this threshold that was published in the EPA rule the other day. One of those systems is Park City, and in Park City, they're attributing the PFA levels in their drinking water to the use of ski wax, particular types of flora based ski wax, and so they're moving and may have by now banned the

use of that particular type of ski wax. So these are so prevalent that it's those types of uses that I think industry is resistant to restrictions on because of this idea that there's nothing to replace it. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. That's environmental law attorney Joel Johnston, a partner at hall Estill. 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 in to The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg