This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Remember when Donald Trump said as president he could declassified documents by thinking about it.
If you're the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's stay classified, even by thinking about it, because you're sending it to mar a Lago or to wherever you're sending it, and there doesn't have to be a process. There can be a process, but there doesn't have to be you're the president. You make that decision, so when you send it, it's steak Classwick.
Well, the judge handling the criminal classified documents case against the former president, seems to be buying into that to some extent, and Special Counsel Jack Smith appears to be at the end of his rope with Judge Eileen Cannon. He took the Trump appointee to task in an almost scolding response to her request for jury instructions in the matter, with an unto subtle indication that he might have to go to the Eleventh Circuit, which has reversed Kenon twice
in the past. The judge came back quickly today with an order that's part win, part loss for the Special Council.
Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner maccarter in English, Bob, Before we get into all the details, I'd like you to explain what I think is one of the most off the wall claims by Trump that he transformed national security documents into his own personal property under the Presidential Records Act, and the prosecutors wrote that it would be pure fiction to suggest that highly classified documents created by members of the intelligence community and military
and presented to the President of the United States during his term in office were purely private. Yeah.
So what has prosecutors so incensed here is that the judge is fixating on the Presidential Record Act, which is, according to prosecutors, a law that has absolutely nothing whatsoever
to do with this case. And what they're concerned about is that if the judge gives an instruction about the Presidential Record back to a curate, it essentially nudges them, potentially towards an acquittal or possibly even leaving the door open for the judge herself to acquit the former president at the end of the proceeding by declaring that the government has failed to prove its case and the.
Special counsel not only attacks this on the law, but also on the facts, and he lays out all the facts showing that Trump did not designate the documents as personal while he was in office, and also when and how he quote invented the theory that they were personal for the first time in February of twenty twenty two.
Well, what prosecutors have done is essentially argues that this is a last minute argument and that there's no factual basis in the record whatsoever to even support a claim that these records were protected by the Presidential Records Act.
The Presidential Records Act was an active post Watergate to clarify what records belonged to the president and what records belonged to the public, and the idea was to restrict very clearly the types of records that a president could remove from the White House when they left office, and the Presidential Records Acts make very clear that only purely personal records, records relating to the president's personal activities, health records,
records related to the president's family, those types of personal records, those could be removed, But any records relating to the public, such as national security, national policy, anything related to the function of the president acting as president. Those records belonged to the White House and were not permitted to be
removed under the Presidential Records Act. What the defense here is trying to argue is that former President Trump transformed those records, which are clearly public in nature, into personal records merely by removing them and taking them to mar A Lago. They're not even suggesting that at any point in time former President Trump had designated them as personal
under the Presidential Records Act. And prosecutors pointed to the fact that they interviewed all of the people who were involved in those records in the White House at the time, and none of them recall any reference to those records being related to the Presidential Records Act. So the defense argument goes that simply because they were removed and brought to maur A Lago, they were transformed into personal records.
That's something that the prostitution think is absurd on his face, and even injecting that question into the trial and getting in front of the jury would be highly prejudicial to prosecutors.
The Special Council's response seems especially harsh. They flatly say the judge got it wrong repeatedly. Quote both of the court scenarios are fundamentally flawed. In any jury instructions that reflect those scenarios would be error. Sort of a scolding tone.
Yeah, prosecutors are taking a very aggressive approach with the judge here, but I think in their minds they have no choice because the judge has yet to make a decision on so many important motions that are still pending before her, and those could affect the trial going forward.
And the special counsel sort of gave her a nudge about a Trump motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act that she had not ruled on yet, and lo and behold, she ruled on it today, denying Trump's motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act.
So what the Trump defense team had asked the judge to do is to throw out the indictment all together based upon the Presidential Records Act, arguing that the fact that President Trump had removed those records from the White House as an indication that he had deemed them to be personal records, and that as a matter of law, that was enough to dismiss the indictment and there would be no trial. Today's ruling is very limited. What it
does is it says there will be a trial. It says, at least as far as the Presidential Records Act goes, that is not a basis to dismiss this indictment. But she does leave open the door to dealing with this issue at some point later down the road. She simply says, the Presidential Records Act is not a basis to dismiss this indictment pre trial, but it leaves the possibility that the defense will raise this issue at some point during
the trial. And this whole question about whether the jury will be instructed on the Presidential Records Act and whether or not has any relevance whatsoever to the trial has been left open to be decided on another day.
She pushes back on Smith's challenge to her request for jury instructions on the Presidential Records Act. She says, separately, to the extent the Special Council demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence. The Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust. Is his demand to know whether or not she's going to allow this defense unprecedented and unjust.
Well, what Jackspaths trying to do is to smoke the judge out on this issue and get a decision one way or the other, because of what prosecutors don't want to have happened is that the jury gets in paneled, the trial begins, and then this issue is decided, because at that point, once the jury is impaneled, double jeopardy attacks and prosecutors will not be able to appeal that decision.
If ultimately Judge Cannon decides that the presidential record is a viable defense, prosecutors know that that would be the death knell for their case because it would essentially tell jurors that simply designating records as personal is enough to avoid the Espionage Act, and it would entirely get the prosecution.
So prosecutors are trying to get the judge to go on record one way or the other on this issue, and all she's done so far is to say it is not something that will prevent this trial from going forward. But she's leaving the possibility that the Presidential Records Act will still be an issue down the road, and that's something that is going to have prosecutors very concerned, Bob.
Isn't the prosecution entitled to know which defenses the judge will allow before the trial?
Generally speaking, that's true. Prosecutors have the right to know what the defenses are going to be so that they can appeal them if they believe that they have no application to the case at all. Obviously, defenses are based upon evidence, and so to the extent that the defense can raise evidence to suggest that there's some applicability to the Presidential Records Act to this case, they'd be allowed
to raise that defense. But what prosecutors are saying is they've interviewed all these witnesses and nobody has said that President Trump ever designated any of these records personal under the Presidential Records Act. So they're saying there is no basis in law and no basis in fact to raise this defense, and they want the judge to go on record one way or the other whether she's going to allow it, and so far, she has resisted that attempt by prosecutors to pin her down on this issue.
And in a final sentence, in response to the Special Counsel's threat of going to the eleventh Circuit. She says, as always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law. So the Special Council won this order. In theory, can Jack Smith go to the Eleventh Circuit and try to get Judge Canon remove from the case.
Well, I think prosecutors are going back to the war room right now and trying to decide how to respond to this decision because they got a ruling, but they didn't get the ruling they want because it's only preliminary and it doesn't really ultimately decide the question of presidential records acting whether or not it will be a part of this trial, and I think prosecutors have to come up with a way to try to bring this issue to the Court of Appeals if they can, or to
force the judge to make that decision at some point prior to the trial. As long as she makes the decision before the jury's channeled, that gives prosecutors the opportunity to immediately appeal that case up to the Eleventh Circuit. That still, however, does raise the prospect if she waits until just prior to trial to address this issue that the trial will be delayed, and then that could push
the trial back after November. So prosecutors are dealing not only with trying to get this decision piify, but they also want to get the decision clarified as soon as possible so that they don't have an appellate delay that ultimately pushes the trial after November.
Okay, stay with me, Bob. Coming up next, we're going to be talking about Trump's hush money trial. Trump has now made eight requests to postpone the trials start, and Manhattan Judge Jan Mr. Shawn rejected his latest motion to postpone until after the Supreme Court determines whether he has immunity from prosecution in a different criminal case. I'm June
Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Federal Judge Eileen Cannon denied Donald Trump's bid to get criminal charges in the classified Documents case drop by claiming that the top secret records found that his Florida home were personal. The Special Council had vented frustration with the judge after she asked both sides for jury instructions on the Presidential Records Act before setting a trial date, saying her understanding of key
legal issues appeared to be fundamentally flawed. However, Canon refused the Special Counsel's request that she explicitly say the Presidential Records Act won't come up in the trial. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz of Macarter and English Bob. Judge Canon has many critics because of several decisions that don't seem grounded in the law or the facts.
Well, it's hard to say what's going on behind the scenes, but I can tell you, based upon many years of experience, that the way the judges handling this case procedurally is unusual. Typically, judges will go through a very orderly process in bringing a case to trial by resolving these motions to dismiss, then moving on to any other motions affecting the evidence that could be admitted during the course of the trial,
dealing with dury instructions. There's an order to which these things typically go, and she seems to be taking them out of order, and that's creating a lot of chaos for the prosecution. And there are risks here that if these decisions are not made and are not made soon, that this case may not go to trial until after the November election, and that is something that has prosecutors greatly worried.
The Special Council also alluded to seeking a rid of mandamus from the Appeals Court in his citations.
Yeah, prosecutors have alluded to filing a rid of mandamus, which is essentially a remedy that can be used to compel a lower court to perform an act that is ministerial in nature and that the court has a clear duty to do under the law. In this case, prosecutors are trying to get the judge to make decisions about all of these pending motions because they can't appeal those
decisions until those decisions are made. And the longer the judge sits on those decisions and doesn't rule on them, the more it jeopardizes this case going to trial before the Novment election. So they are getting more and more frustrated with the pace of this case and are now threatening to take that up to the Court of Appeals and essentially argue that this judge has failed in a procedural way, not what she ruled, but the fact that she has simply failed to rule on motions in a timely manner.
They've threatened to go to the Eleventh Circuit with some of her other decisions in the case, and the Eleventh Circuit has reversed her Yes.
Well, as you point out, Judge Cannon was reduced by the Eleventh Circuit in an earlier related proceeding back in twenty twenty two, when former President Trump brought a lawsuit attacking the FBI's document investigation. In that lawsuit, Judge Cannon granted what was an extraordinary request by former President Trump for a third party to review the FBI's twenty twenty two search of his Mar Lago resort for classified documents.
But basically happens when a search warrant is executed. As a federal agents come in, they remove the documents that are within the scope of the search warrant. Those documents are brought back to SBI headquarters and then they're reviewed
by prosecutors to determine the evidentiary value. In a case in which there's the potential for privileged information to be mixed in with those documents, prosecutors will set up a separate team of lawyers not involved in the case to review the documents, and they then remove anything that could be considered privileged while walling off the prosecution team from ever receiving knowledge of any of that information that is between an attorney and a client and should not be
available to prosecutors. In that case, Judge Cannon ordered what was an extraordinary and unprecedented decision where she ordered that an independent monitor, in other words, somebody separate apart from the Department of Justice, had to be brought in to review those documents. There was no base in law and no basis in precedent for inserting that additional layer of review. She relied on the fact that because it was a search of a former president's residence, that it somehow required
an additional level of scrutiny. The Eleventh Circuit looked at that issue and immediately reversed to ruling on that and rebuked her for essentially creating a layer of protection for a former president that would not apply to any other citizen of this country.
Some legal experts say, well, there's a risk in doing this, but as I mentioned, the Special Council has threatened to go to the Eleventh Circuit before with Judge Kenon, do you see any risk in the way this document is worded, or the tone or saying we want to go to the Eleventh Circuit.
But I think what procecutes are doing or they are trying to ratchet up the pressure on the judge and they're making it known to the judge that they will not hesitate to take this case the Eleventh Circuit. The judge was already rebuked in that prior case, and no doubt the judge is mindful of trying to get this
right and not being overturned by the Eleventh Circuit. So I think cross secutors are trying, in the strongest words possible, to state to the judge, judge, rightly or wrongly, you've got to make these decisions because if we think you're wrong, we are going to go up to the Eleventh Circuit and get that review. And they don't want the clock to run out before they have that opportunity.
So let's turn to the hush money case in New York, which is now the first criminal case that's actually scheduled to go to trial. Trump has now made eight various requests to postpone the trial start, and yesterday Judge Wan Mrchan rejected his motion to postpone the trial until after the Supreme Court determines whether Trump has immunity from prosecution in a separate criminal case. Is the judge on sound round here?
What we're seeing here is a motion by the Trump defense team to try to delay the trial for yet another reason, arguing that it ought to be delayed until a decision is made by the Supreme Court. In connect you with the January sixth insurrection case, which has to
do with a question of presidential immunity. What the judge in the New York case decided was that that issue could have been raised a long time ago, and to raise it now, only days before the trial is simply too late, and so he rejected that out of hand.
Trump is also asking to delay the trial due to pre trial publicity, which the Manhattan DA points out is of his own making. Also, pre trip publicity. Isn't that something that judges normally say, we can handle that in the voidir.
Yeah, whenever you have a high profile case involving a high profile defendant, and certainly this case fits the bill in every respect. In that regard, you always have jurors who have read about the case, who have formed an opinion about the defendant, who may have prejudged the case that's going to happen in every high profile case where all of the pre trial proceedings and all of the charges have been in the media for months, perhaps even years.
And so the vuas deer process, which is the opportunity for lawyers for both the defense and the prosecution to screen out the jurors who because in order to sit on that jury, the jurors has to say that they have not formed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, that they will be able to make a decision based solely upon the evidence that's presented during the trial, That they will not rely on any information outside of the courtroom, that they will not talk
to anybody or read any media accounts of the trial during the course of the trial. And that process may take some time, given the high degree of publicity that has predated this trial, but eventually they will find a set of jurors who meet that criteria. That happens a the time, and that will certainly happen in this case.
And Trump also they've renewed their request, which the judge turned down once before, for him to recuse himself because of his daughter's political work for Democratic politicians. The judge is not going to recuse himself at this point either. Why renew this motion? Is it just to put it in the public light.
Well, it's hard to say what motivated this emotion again, but as you point out, this is exactly the same motion that was made earlier when they challenged the judges impartiality and asked for a recusal based on his daughter's job and the judge's own small donations to Democrats. In that case, the Judicial Ethics Committee had taken a look at this issue and decided that the judges impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on his law contribution to Democrats,
or his daughter's career. And this is basically the same motion raised again. There's nothing new about it, But I think one thing that may be going on here is again playing not to the judge, but playing to the greater public. People who are sitting on that jury may be aware of this motion. They may come into the
courtroom and ultimately find their way on a jury. And the more that the defense team can project their defense arguments to potential jurors even before the trial starts, the better they have an opportunity of finding one juror who might not be willing to vote for a conviction.
Finally, Bob, we have the judge expanding his gag order because Donald Trump attacked his daughter on social media. The district attorney requested this, But is the judge on solid ground in expanding the gag order to include family.
These are rulings that we really have never seen before, because we've really never seen a defendant who has attacked the judicial system, who have attacked judges, who have attacked courtroom employees, who have attacked family members of prosecutors and judge before, and certainly not a defendant who has the platform that former President Trump has in order to launch
these attacks on the judicial system. And so we're seeing the judge place in a difficult position trying to allow for former President Trump's First Amendment rights to be able to speak his mind as to the judge, as to the prosecutors. But when he talks about people who are not directly related to the trial, and there is a certain risk of danger based upon some of the comments
that he makes. That's where I think we're seeing the judge try to carefully rein that in we'll begin the trials soon and those comments will no longer really be relevant. I think once we see the trial start, all the talking will go on in the courtroom and we'll see less commentary going on outside of the courtroom as the trial is unfolding.
And Bob, why don't the judges ever include themselves in these gag orders?
You know, these gag orders are a difficult balancing act. There is a First Amendment right of defendants to speak out, but on the other hand, there's also the judge's obligation to ensure that the trial proceeds in an orderly way, that jury pools are not tampered with, and perhaps most importantly, that people who are involved in the case, whether it's witnesses or court employees, are not in any way endangered by comments that a defendant may make. Generally speaking, the
judge and the prosecutor are considered public figures. They are considered people who are central to the trial. But at the same time they have essentially bought into this process. It's their job. So you'll almost never find a gag order that prevents a defendant from making comments about the judge or the prosecution. But when it bills over into other people, family members, court employees. That's where we see judges draw the line.
And we'll see if Trump chose the line. Thanks so much, Bob. That's former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. The Baltimore bridge collapse could be the most expensive marine insured loss in history, with estimates of losses up to four billion dollars, but the owner of the cargo ship that struck the bridge is looking to limit its liability. I'm June Gross and you're listening to Bloomberg. The divers who responded to the Baltimore bridge
collapse were honored today for their dedication and bravery. County Executive Angel Also Brooks praised the divers for jumping into action on that tragic day. The rest of our state, and I dare say the rest of the nation got to see what we see each and every day in all of you. It's the bravery, it is the carrying, it is the selflessness, it's the sacrifice. The bridge fell last Tuesday after being struck by the cargo ship Dolly,
which lost powers shortly after leaving Baltimore. Bad weather has hindered the around the clock salvage operations, joining me is maritime law expert Martin Davies, the director of Tulane University Maritime Law Center. What's gotten a lot of attention recently is that the owner and the manager of the cargo ship filed a court petition seeking to limit their legal liability for the disaster.
The law in question dates from eighteen fifty one. There are international equivalents based on international conventions, so limitation of liability is a very typical thing that occurs in the wake of any maritime casualty. And what the law allows is for a shipowner to petition to limit its total liability for any claims arising out of a single incident to the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage, plus any pending freight any sums owed to
it for carriage of cargo or passengers. The other main advantage of limitation proceedings is that it enables the shipowner to litigate the case in a single forum, in a single court of its own choosing, because what happen happens is that once the shipowner has petitioned the federal court for limitation of liability, it must pay into court or give security for the amount of the value of the
vessel at the end of the voyage. And then once that fund has been constituted, and it will be constituted by the ship's liability insurer, the P and I Club. But once the fund has been constituted, the federal court will then issue an order saying that no claimant can bring a claim in any other court except that federal court. So, for example, the claimants could not bring a claim in Maryland State court or New York State Court or California
State court anywhere. All claims must be brought against the fund that has been constituted in the court. So the two main advantages from the shipowner's point of view is one it has at least a chance of limiting its liability. But secondly, it can marshal all the claims into one place, the court of its own choosing, which in this case is the Federal District Court in Maryland.
I take it the judge is going to decide whether or not to limit liability. So what happens is it the plaintiffs who have to come up with reasons why the liability should not be limited.
It's a little confusing in terms of terminology because the plaintiff is the shipowner, and the shipowner must show that it was not guilty of what is called privity or knowledge, that's the expression in the statute, because it's only entitled to limit its liability if it itself the shipowner was not at fault, and it does have the burden of showing that it was not at fault. But it's the plaintiff.
So the liability claimants, which in this case will be the families of those who died, the personal injury claimants, and also the cost of the bridge, they are not actually the plaintiffs in this limitation proceeding. The procedure is a little bit feels a little bit upside down or back to front or whatever, because the shipowner must show that it was not guilty or fault or privity.
How does mechanical failure fit in?
Yes, mechanical failure will be a significant issue in this case, I think, because if the incident had occurred because of a pure sailing mistake on the part of those navigating the vessel, then the shipowner probably would be entitled to limit its liability. That was the example that everybody has been talking about in relation to the Titanic. The Titanic was a perfectly seaworthy, brand new vessel sank because of sailing errors. There the shipowner was held to be able
to limit its liability. But if the incident occurred because of some defect in the vessel, that looks much more like it might be the responsibility of the shipowner itself. It has to be personal fault of the shipowner or manager. And well, it's too early to say, but there clearly seem to have been some physical problems with the vessel itself, which I think will be front and center in the limitation proceedings.
What physical problems have you heard about?
Well, the engine, the power failed more than once, I believe, before the vessel struck the bridge. And there are also questions have been raised about the quality of the fuel that's been used. Most of that, I must say speculation, because none of that has been recorded yet. But if the ship's power failed, which it seems clearly that it did, that's going to raise questions of whether the shipowner is responsible for the condition of the vessel that caused the power to fail.
So this law has been used in the most notable maritime disasters. How often has it worked? Does it work more often than not.
No, it fails more often than not. The statistics show that the shipowner's petition to limit its liability succeeds in only about thirty two percent of the cases, so it fails most of the time under US law, as in
sixty eight percent of the time it fails. But that doesn't stop shipowners from petitioning in the event of a casualty, because the other benefit of the limitation proceedings, as I've said, is to bring all the claims together in one place, so that the shipowner then doesn't have to fight lots of different lawsuits about the same incident in different jurisdictions.
President Biden has said that the federal government would bear the cost of cleaning the debris and rebuilding the bridge. Is that something the federal government should be paying for or should the insurance be paying for that?
Well, that's an interesting question because I believe that the bridge did carry an interstate highway, which would be a reason for the federal government participating, if you like, in the cost of the repairs. But what the maritime law says is that only those who have suffered physical damage
to their property can claim against the vessel. So the question will be like who actually owned the bridge, And now if it's the State of Maryland, then the state of Maryland is the proper claimant, and the federal government choosing to pay looks much more like an economic loss. And there's a Supreme Court decision that says that purely
economic losses are not recoverable from the ship itself. So all of the economic losses that I'm sure are already being suffered in the city of Baltimore are not recoverable from the ship.
How long does a claim like this take to play out?
Oh gosh, years. It will be years to work out exactly what happened and the responsibility for it. Litigation of this complexity doesn't move very quickly. Plus it's going to be a long time before it's even known how much it costs to replace the bridge, so you know, the magnitude of the claim will not be clear for years, and litigation of this kind generally does not move very quickly.
Is there anyone besides the owner of the ship and the manager that can be sued here?
Well, there are lots of people that can be sued, but I don't think there's anybody other than the owner and manager. It seemed to be plausible candidates for litigation because the charter of the vessel, Mersk is merely the commercial operator. It's not responsible for navigational operation, and whatever happened here seems to have been a navigational problem, not
a commercial problem. There is a possibility I think that if the problem is with deficient fuel, then there might be the possibility of a cross claim against Mersk, but the principal responsibility will lie with the shipowner.
Could the harbor master be sued, I.
Mean, someone could try, but I really think that that's unlikely because once the ship is off the birth, the task of the tugs is done the harbor pilots. The ship is responsible for any fault on the part of the harbor pilots, although there doesn't seem to be any indication of fault on the part of the harbor pilots.
But the responsibility lies with the ship. And I mean, I guess it's conceivable that someone could try to sue the port authority for the tugs casting off too soon, but the vessel was in in the middle of the channel. I don't think it needed tugs anymore.
So insurance the insurance is about two or three billion.
Dollars three point one billion, thank you? What it is? Right?
All right? So will the insurance definitely cover this? Let's say, you know, it's found that they can't limit their legal liability. Does the insurance cover it, whether it's negligence or not.
Yes, most definitely. The insurers are what are called a P and I club protection and indemnity club, and they are mutual self insurance associations of ship owners and they don't operate like commercial insurers. Their instinct is to pay because they are all shipowners. And so every ship owner that's a member of the club, that has got a ship entered in the club is both an insurer and an assured and so the coverage offered by p and
I clubs is very comprehensive, has very few exceptions. It's not like a commercial insurer where there are all sorts of exclusions in the contract. And so the club will cover this even if it turns out to be negligence on the part of the shipowner, it will definitely be covered by the club. And then what happens is the club.
The particular club that Dari was entered in is Britannia, which is one of twelve p and I clubs forming something called the International Group, which covers over ninety percent of the ships in the world, and they have this complicated pooling arrangement if claims exceed a certain level, which they most certainly will in this case, the individual club longer bears it itself. It's pooled among all the twelve clubs in the International Group. They have commercial reinsurance, and
it's a complicated scheme. But the total pool of insurance sitting behind the shipowner is at present three point one billion dollars.
So there's no reason for plaintiffs to rush to file claims. There's enough there.
Well no, because now that the shipowners filed its limitation suit, they will have to file suit in those limitation proceedings, they'll have to bring claims against the limitation fund. What they will want to do is to try and argue that the shipowner itself was at faultrom therefore it's not entitled to limit its liability, which then gives them access to this sort of huge ocean of insurance funds.
Many are saying that this could be the most expensive marine disaster in history. Is there anything to be learned from these?
Well, yes, I mean it's it's a very unusual obviously in some respects not unique. I mean ships have knocked down bridges before. What is so spectacular about this one is that the bridge completely fell down and needs to be completely replaced. So in terms of the amount of money at stake, yes, it will be more expensive than perhaps any other. But in other respect the way that maritime casualties work is fairly clear and well settled, and I don't think there's any new law likely to be
made here. You know, this is obviously a spectacular casualty, but in other respects, and this sounds like an odd way of putting it, there's nothing particularly unusual about it. I mean, ships collide with one another, they run into things. You know, casualty cases happen all the time, and what I've been explaining to many journalists, including you, is fairly routine. I mean, there's always a limitation suit. There's always the
question of whether the ship owner wizard fault. There's always the question of the extent to which the club will respond. I mean it sounds glib, but we know how this works.
It seems like such a specialized area of the law. Thanks so much for joining us. That's Martin Davies, director of Tulane University's Maritime Law Center. 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