This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Welcome to Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosso. Ahead. In this hour, the prosecution is wrapping up its case against Sam Bankman Freed, leaving him with a critical decision to make. Inside the Supreme Court's second decision allowing Biden's ghost gun regulations, Jack Smith tells Trump to put up or shut up, and another judge imposes a gag order on Trump res to Suard that this committee will not stop until we uncover
the full truth behind the collapse of FTX. Last December, at the House Financial Services Committee hearing on the collapse of cryptocurrency firm FTX, John Ray, who was appointed to pick up the pieces, testified about what was uncovered during an internal investigation.
The FTX groups collapse appears the time from absolute concentration of control in the hands of a small group of grossly inexperienced, unsophisticated individuals who failed to implement virtually any of the systems or controls that are necessary for a company entrusted with other people's money or assets.
And it's with three of those inexperienced and unsophisticated individuals that the prosecution has built its criminal fraud case against Sam Bankman Freed, accusing him of using billions of customer funds from FTX to spend lavishly and engage in speculative trading through its sister hedge fund. The prosecution is expected to wrap up its case next week, leaving the defense with the critical question of whether Bankment Freed will take the stand in his own defense, and any answer is
fraught with uncertainty. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein of Coal Shots. Michael. In week three, it seems like the prosecution has built an almost insurmountable case against Bankman Freed.
It's an extremely strong case for three reasons. Number one, because they have first hand individuals who were in the room at the table discussing certain acts those being criminal, which present a problem for Sam Bacon Freed. They also have documents and slack messages and text messages which are problematic as well, which supports the improper discussions that were
being held. And then number three, they have the industry itself is fraught with problems and the representations that were made to investors and things of that nature, which he has said publicly prior to the criminal charges being brought. So that's a trifecta of problems for mister Freed, and I think his defense lawyers are having a difficult time chipping away at some of the things that are being said through testimony, notwithstanding the great efforts that they are trying to make.
And I've raised this before that even pre trial, the most important rulings seem to go again against the defense, and during the trial on cross examination, Judge Caplan seems to be keeping the defense lawyers very much in check.
Yeah, so that's correct. So not only is the defense up against testimony and documents, they're up against the judge and the structure of the proceeding, and the judge prior to trial, for example, you know, prohibited certain of the defense witnesses that they wanted to bring in. Example number one is the expert from Britain that they wanted to bring in to talk about the terms and conditions. So their hands were tied from the start of this case,
and that's really playing out now. In reality, those.
Will be appealed. But how much are issues like that left to the discretion of the judge. I mean, we all know it's very difficult to get a conviction, assuming he's convicted overturned. How much is that in the discretion of the judge.
A tremendous amount. The judge is the referee essentially, and he is able to call balls and strike when necessary. And there is guidance through the appellate courts, through the Second Circuit, for example, or through other rulings that the courts have made, or for instance, the Federal rules of
criminal procedure guide the court in making those decisions. But the judge has given great latitude in determining the type of evidence, the relevance of that evidence, how it comes in, whether it comes in, whether it can be challenged, things of that nature.
So you had these three witnesses who decided to cooperate with the state to our longtime friends of his ones a former girlfriend. Does that make their testimony more believable?
I think it does. And the reason is because they're not nuanceto the scene. It's not as though for six months, you know, they dropped in out of the sky, and then in that six month period there were some criminal acts. They gave a little bit of the longer history that they had with Sam Bank and Free both the run up to him starting the business, their involvement, their role in the company, and then ultimately it's spiraling out of control.
And I think that gives them a little bit of credibility in the jury's eyes, because you know, they can give a little bit more context, and when they speak to things like what Sam bank Unfried was saying at some of those meetings and some of the decisions he was making, they can give some context to that because they've known him so long and so from my perspective, when you've got that longtime relationship, that favors the government.
Insofar as the testimony coming out and really hurting the defendant, by.
All accounts, the defense didn't make much headway in the cross examination of those three Inner Circle witnesses. They did poke some holes in the testimony here and there. Does that really help.
In the end? I think the answers probably know it's like chopping down an oak tree. You can take a couple of swings with an ax, but that's not going to take down the tree.
What about the fact that all three of the Inner Circle witnesses, the cooperating witnesses, testified, Yeah, I took part in this, but he directed me to do it, and when things fell apart, it was mea culpa, maya culpa. And now they're testifying to get a better deal, maybe even to avoid jail time.
Well, that certainly is how the defense wants to frame it. I think the difficulty with that is they're not getting off. They've pled guilty to very significant and very material criminal charges which will carry with its significant penalties. And that's the response to when the defense says to them during a cross examination and did say to them, well, aren't
you getting a sweetheart deal now? And that's always the push and pull when you have a cooperating witness on the witness stand, is you know, are they getting really a sweetheart deal? And that's where the jury to assess their credibility to a jury to assess are they testifying only to get a better deal here? It doesn't look
like they got a great deal here. They knew that they were kind of dead in their tracks and wanted to save some semblance of the remainder of their life by fleading guilty and then moving on with their life. But as a consequence to that, they had to testify against their former friend.
Do you think they'll actually serve jail time.
I think they have real exposure. Yes, there's a lot of money here. I think a lot of eyes are going to be looking at all of these pleas and I think they have some real problems here.
What do you think of the prosecution's portrayal of bankman Freed as this evil puppet master pulling everyone's strings.
Look, I mean, I think that's somewhat of the narrative that the government has to tell. They don't want to suggest that he was this ninety twenty year old kid just you know, playing with house money. I think they have to make him out to be a little bit more sinister, a little more systematic. I'm a little bit
more conniving. That is just part of their narrative. I mean, when I look at all of these guys, the three cooperating witnesses who played guilty and standbank and free, it just reminds me of when I sit in the room and I look at my nieces and nephews who were in their twenties, and I look and I think to myself, could they be entrusted with ten twenty thirty billion dollars?
And the answer is no, you know, And it's remarkable to me that very sophisticated investors gave so much money repeatedly to a group of people that were in their mid twenties, and we're, you know, waving a shiny object, which was cryptocurrency. So that's a larger takeaway from this situation. I think all four of them have some real exposure here.
The big question is at every criminal trial is whether the defendant will take the stand in his own defense.
What do you think? I think that's a great question, and someone in Vegas is probably betting on that. I think he may want to do something. His lawyers may want to do something very different, although I think they're setting it up with the recent argument that he's not getting his medication, he's not able to assist in his own defense. So you can kind of see the ground work being laid where they may not call him because he's not getting his medication, and maybe they're setting up
an appeal issue that he maybe would have testified. But look, the reason defendants testify is because they believe that they can tell their story better and they can provide an explanation and they can justify what they did and how they did it. Here, that's very, very difficult because he's going to have to counter three people who were in the room during these discussions, who all gave pretty consistent testimony.
And for him to testify, of course, he's opening himself up and risking a pretty ferocious cross examination, and that is a real problem for him in all.
The prior statements he's made. But well, I want to say it's his only hope, his only chance to convince perhaps one or two jurors.
Correct. I mean, he may feel, and his defense lawyers may feel, what have I got to lose? We're deep in the hole here, and this may be the only ladder out is to have him testify and to humanize the situation and to talk about how he really tried to do all the right things, and he wasn't misleading anyone, and he really tried to make, you know, good decisions, and he relied upon other people. He relied upon Miss Ellison, he relied upon mister Gary Wong, things of that nature.
But again, as good as he thinks his testimony is going to come off, the prosecution is salivating, waiting in the wings to cross examine him and to use a multitude of statements he's made previously in their examination and that's going to be quite fascinating.
Well, if he does take this, and there's one thing that's certain, the courtroom will be packed, and we may find out as early as next Thursday. Thanks so much, Michael. That's former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein of Cole Shots. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. It's a Supreme Court decision about regulations on ghost guns. But the justices seem to be sending a strong message to the Fifth Circuit and a Texas judge. I'm June Grosso and you're
listening to Bloomberg. Last month, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that in a search of a private daycare in Harlem, police recovered drugs, ghost guns, and the three D printer used to make them. Who would have thought that we must add to our list of inspections of do we have three D printers that.
Can print guns?
The Biden administration has issued regulations on these ghost guns, which are assembled from kits without the usual serial numbers and background checks on purchasers, making them attractive to teenagers and those with criminal records. And this week, for the second time in three months, the Supreme Court has reinstated those regulations, blocking a second nationwide injunction issued by Texas Federal Judge Rite O'Connor and okayed by the Fifth Circuit.
Does this mean the Supreme Court is telling the judge and the Fifth Circuit no, means no? Or does it mean something more substantive about ghost gun regulations joining me is Heidi Lee Feldman, a professor at Georgetown Law. So let's go back to the August decision where the Supreme Court blocked a nationwide injunction by Judge rite O'Connor and allowed the government to keep enforcing the regulations on ghost guns. Should that have been the end of this until the case was fully litigated.
One would have thought so. And that's certainly ultimately the position the government took. It was very peculiar that they sought an injunction pending appeal. That is, an alteration in the procedural posture of the case. They didn't give any new reason for seeking an injunction while the case was pending, and that was I think the really controversial thing. Nothing had changed in the facts or the law that would
be relevant to granting an injunction. So ordinarily, if a party did that the judge would just deny it because they had just had an injunction overturned by the Supreme Court. Of course, in this case, Judge O'Connor granted the injunction and didn't give any new reasons, and the Court really just put the kebash on that and said no, no.
Also, the Fifth Circuit upheld his order.
Yeah, look, there's several very contested matters that are driving this litigation. Ghost gun manufacturers come in and say, we object to this ATF rule making, which seems to require us to take all sorts of steps that people who make firearms have to take. We're arguing we're not firearms manufacturers, we're parts suppliers. So that whole dynamic introduces guns into the mix. Then we have a federal agency ATF, which
has its own long complicated history. Then we have a judiciary, certainly O'Connor and the Fifth Circuit, that's very keen to invalidate agency rulemaking. So I think the Fifth Circuit as a whole was very moved by that agenda, and so they do uphold O'Connor's order, And so ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court is rejecting the Fifth Circuits position as
well as O'Connor's position on the injunction. But the fact that the Supreme Court took that position isn't an indication of how they would ultimately rule on the merits as much as I think it was a rejection of the challenge to the authority of their earlier ruling.
So the Court's August order was a five to four decision where Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Cony Barrett joined the Court's three liberals. So there were four descents in August, but no justice publicly dissented from this order that was handed down on Monday. Does that mean the justices are telling the judge in the Fifth Circuit no means no? Or does it mean something more substantive about ghost gun regulations.
It's very hard to read tea leaves from these orders that are issued without opinions, and these are orders that relate to not the final merits on the case. So
I want to sound a note of caution. I think that there are justices on the Court who may be very unsympathetic to the ATF rulemaking related to ghost guns, who realize that you simply cannot operate our system of litigating ca case by case and letting different courts reach different conclusions if they disagree, and seeing what emerges up through the process and what rit O'Connor and the Fifth Circuit wanted to do absolutely disrupts that process. It also
wastes the Supreme Court's time. I mean, they do not want to have to keep issuing redundant interlocutory orders. That's just completely inefficient for them. So I think you could have justices who may be less sympathetic to the idea of letting the ATF rule making stand or more sympathetic to relatively unfettered sales of ghost guns, who nevertheless see procedural chaos from what the Fifth Circuit and Judge O'Connor did.
The Fifth Circuit last term lost I think seven out of a cases at the Supreme Court, and they have a lot of cases before the court this year, and many of them are from judges in Texas like rit O'Connor that seem to have novel shall we say, novel legal reasoning and their decisions.
I mean, do you think we have to I think we have to be as a stronger word than novel. Look in sophisticated litigation in federal courts, advocates, and courts are advancing the law, So there's often something novel in what they argue, in what courts hold. That's neither unexpected nor unusual. What is problematic is when you have a court and the federal judiciary in Texas, the district court level is like this, and the Fifth Circuit is like this,
that is receptive to extreme arguments. They're not just creative novel, they are highly contentious. Now, if you have a court that is receptive to that, maybe some of those highly contentious and highly extreme arguments well ultimately be vindicated. But the more extreme the substance is of a position that's being taken, the more cautious general courts are in composing big procedural consequences until those big arguments and positions go
through the appellate process of review. So I think that the Fifth Circuit and the Texas district courts in general generate a lot of extreme positions. What we saw here was this intersection of extreme positions and willingness first to issue a very sweeping injunction on the basis of the extreme position nationwide injunction, and then to sort of double down on that after the Supreme Court said it wasn't appropriate.
The combination of extreme positions and aggressiveness about imposing consequences before the appellate process has played out thoroughly is a way of really throwing a spanner in the gears of adjudication, as the Federal Court understands it, and they're just not going to tolerate that.
So frame for us the message the Supreme Court is sending to the Fifth Circuit and Judge O'Connor.
They're saying, don't play games with us about procedure. If you have very good reason to believe that we've taken a given position, don't pretend we haven't taken that position and act contrary to what we already said. I mean, in some ways, what they're saying is you cannot pretend that we haven't spoken. I mean, in some sense, it sounds so simple. When you have a judicial system that's founded on the idea of appellate review, lower courts are
answerable to higher courts in that system. So in some sense, it's very bizarre for the High Court to have to issue an order that I think is basically saying you're totally acting way outside of your job.
You are flouting your role.
That's what I think they were saying.
And we'll see if the Fifth Circuit and Judge O'Connor have gotten that message. Thanks so much. That's Professor Heidi Lee Feldman of Georgetown Law. A note. Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg Radio, is a donor to groups that support gun control, including every Town for Gun Safety. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, special counsel Jack Smith
tells Donald Trump to put up or shut up. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the President was both, and you know, I didn't want to be a part of it, and that's one of the reasons that went into me deciding to leave when I did.
Former Attorney General William Barr is just one of a number of lawyers from the Justice Department, the White House, and his own campaign who advised Donald Trump that the twenty twenty election was not fraudulent. But the former president rejected that advice and looked for outside lawyers who would tell him what he wanted to hear, like John Eastman,
Sidney Powell, and Rudy Giuliani. Trump and his attorney John Laurrow have repeatedly said publicly that they're going to use the advice of those outside lawyers as a defense at his trial on charges of attempting to overthrow the election.
Mister Trump had the advice of counsel mister Eastman, who was one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the United States, giving him advice and guidance.
But the Trump defense team hasn't told the trial judge whether they're going to use that blame the lawyer's strategy. So now special counsel Jack Smith is telling Trump in non legal terms to put up or shut up. Joining me is Barbara McQuaid, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Mission Again. She's written a column for
MSNBC on the consequences of Trump using this defense. Jack Smith, as you write in your column, is asking former President Donald Trump to put his money where his mouth is, or at least of what his documents there tell us. What it's about well.
Donald Trump has very publicly hinted that his defense in the case is going to be advice of counsel, that he relied on lawyers like John Eastman and others to tell him what he could do to challenge the election results, and therefore he acted me faith and that makes it impossible for the prosecution to prove his guilt. That's fine if he wants to rely on that, but first he has to show he had a legitimate attorney client privilege
with the people he's talking with. So far, twenty five different people have asserted attorney client privilege in the case, So that is not a foregone conclusion that he will be able to establish that he had that relationship with all twenty five of them, that he relied on their
advice and good faith. And if he wants to use this defense, he must waive the attorney client privilege and turn over all the documents memorializing any conversation he had then he relied on, as well as anything that might tend to negate that defense. And so he gets to make a choice. Does he want to preserve his attorney client privilege, that's fine, But if he does, and he
can't use this advice of council defense. And on the contrary, if he wants to use the advice of council defense, then he can't continue to safeguard the attorney client privilege of these documents. And so the court has given a discovery cut off date of December, and Special Counsel Jacksmith is said, that's the time.
Which is it.
Are you going to use this defense or are you going to turn over all of the material you previously has said is privilege.
Is the special counsel contending that Trump can't use this defense, doesn't meet the qualifications to use it.
He says, we are not making that argument yet, but I will. I'm not waving that argument. I can test his ability to use it. But if he uses it in the court says he can use it, then he must turn over all of those privileged materials materials to Achu's claiming privilege. You can't have it both ways, and so he's got to at some point make a decision.
Is the Special Council estimating that this is you know, ten documents, twenty hundreds, I mean, is it a vast volume of documents?
Perhaps no one really knows. It could be zero and maybe that there's nothing. But there're twenty five people who declined to testify or produce documents when subpoena to do so by asserting attorney client privilege. And so I think the time has come to litigate that to find out whether any of them really has an attorney client privilege. And if he's going to say I relied on the advice of my attorneys, well.
Let's see it.
What was the advice. We need to see it, We need to hear it so that prosecutors can rebut that defense.
I know in the Sam Bankman Freed trial, the judge there ruled that the defense couldn't refer to advice of counsel in the opening statements, that it would cause too much confusion for the jury, and that if they wanted to raise it later on and introduce evidence about it, they would have to consult him. So does the judge make the decision as to whether or not Trump can use the affirmative defense of adviceive counsel.
Yes, it's sort of a threshold affirmative defense, and so if he can show that he's got a basis for it, he'd have to reveal this privileged material and then the parties would argue it and litigate it, and the judge would decide whether he gets to tell the jury about this. Now, the jury might still say, I don't think it was reasonable when you got this advice. No one would have
relied on this advice as any legitimate thing. But before it even gets to the jury, the judge has to make that heat keeper decision about whether it's going to come in, and that is based on whether it meets kind of the legal definition that it was privileged, that a privileged relationship was developed, and that Donald Trump relied on it in good faith. You have to make a prima facie showing you know some evidence to suggest that
this is true before it'll go to the jury. And the concern is if it is not a legitimate, then you don't want to confuse the jury by letting them hear about it without the judge first making that gatekeeper's call.
As you mentioned in your column, Trump rejected the advice of White House lawyers, Justice Department lawyers, campaign lawyers in favor of these outside council and three of them have been indicted with him. In Georgia and Justice Week two, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Cheeseborough have pleaded guilty to charges in that case. Can Trump just pick and choose which attorney's advice he wants to follow?
Well, the question for a jury if he gets past that threshold stage would be to decide whether his reliance on the Advisive Council was reasonable, And so I think this would be evidence that cuts against a finding that it was reasonable. I think William Barr has said this, as has Mark Short, who was counseled to Mike Pence to say, the Justice Department, the White House, his campaign lawyers all said you cannot do this, and he went looking for another opinion that would satisfy him that he
still had a route to victory. And it was sort of a Kakameimi wild theory that he looked for until he found the one that he liked. And so I think the prosecutors would argue that to the extent he relied on that advice who was not in good faith.
This is a really tough decision for the defense, isn't it, Because you have all this material that they have to turn over or we assume all this material. But then on the other side, you have a defense that might not work, and the judge might not even allow yes.
And I think, you know, this is some of the strategy that occurs pre trial in cases that are usually kind of outside of public view but are really interesting questions that lawyers have to decide tactically. I imagine one of the things you'd want to look at is what is the material, how much is there and how damaging is it to the defense. But this really has been, at least in the court of public opinion, the defense raised
most frequently. That Donald Trump genuinely believed he could do this because he has lawyers telling him he could, and so it seems that he almost has to go with that defense. And if he's going to, he needs to turn over these documents. Now, I suppose he could change his tech and decide that's not his strategy. After all, he's got some other defense he's going to use, or you know, he's not going to raise an affirmative defense
at all and put the government to its proofs. But he can't have it both ways.
And that's the point that jacksm is making it his please.
Sometimes he changes strategies in mid sentence. I don't know so, Barbara, from reading the papers, it seems the prosecution is admitting that there's nothing in the federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that says a judge can require a defendant to reveal this advice of council defense before trial, which is what the Special Council is asking here. So where do the courts stand on that? Will it be up to the judge to decide yes.
So there's nothing that really answers this question either way. This is not a defense that gets raised with enough regularity. I imagine that there's a specific rule on it. So, for example, the Rules of Criminal Procedure do say you must give advanced notice for an alibi defense or an insanity defense or public authority defense, And that's because it takes some time for the prosecution to sort of run down those defenses to make sure they've got evidence to
rebut them. If you just allow the defendant to assert it in the middle of a trial, it could encourage people to raise it without any real basis, and the government would lack the ability to investigate to try to disprove those defenses. For adviceive counsel. The rules are really silent on whether there needs to be advanced notice or not.
But what Jacksmith is arguing is this is very much like those kinds of defenses, like an alibi defense or an insanity defense, where if you spring it in the middle of trial, it's going to be very difficult for us to investigate this in a way that is thorough and accurate, and so he should be forced to show
his hand before trial. They suggest December on this discovery cutoff date, so that if he's going to use this defense, they are going to get all of that allegedly privileged material, and if it gets dumped on them in the middle of trial, it would either causeous delay or an inability to review it all at that stage.
When the defense responds to the Special Counsel's motion, it'll be interesting to see whether there are any hints about Trump's intention to use that advice of council defense. Thanks so much, Barbara. That's Professor Barbara McQuaid of the University of Michigan Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll tell you about the partial gag or the judge in the case issued against Donald Trump. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. My speech has.
Been taken away from me.
I'm a candidate that's running for office, and I'm not allowed to stay. This is a real road. It's all coming out of the Deparment of Justice.
Is all set up by bike and his thuffs that.
He's surrounded with.
Of course, contrary to his assertions, Donald Trump was in fact still speaking to the media about his trial even after federal Judge Tanya Chutkin imposed a partial gagg order on him. The order bars the former president from publicly criticizing witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff involved in the Special Council's case charging him with plotting to overturn the twenty twenty presidential election. Remarks like this, and.
Did you see today that deranged Jack Smith. He's the prosecutor. He's a deranged person, wants to take away my rights.
The judge found that Trump's barrage of verbal attacks on those involved in the case posed a significant and immediate risk of intimidating witnesses and jeopardizing the safety of the public servants involved. Joining me is former prosecutor Rebecca Royfie, a professor at New York Law School. Rebecca tell us about the competing interests the judge had to weigh in making this decision on Monday.
So judges are in a difficult position because they're weighing the importance of the integrity of their proceedings and concern for manipulation of witnesses, potential jurors, and any other kind of undermining of the fairness of the process, along with a extremely important First Amendment right that anyone has to speak out, but particularly somebody who's running for president of the United States. She has to assert herself as control in her courtroom in some manner. I mean, she can't
just let this go by. And so you know, I think this is as good a solution as any. There's certain restrictions, and my guess is she's not going to police things when he runs right up to the line. But you know, there's an outer limit and he can't
go too far beyond it. And I think, you know, threatening particular witnesses, calling people out by name, the kind of thing he did in the New York civil case where he's posted a picture of a core clip, I mean, and that's just making a mockery of the court room.
She mentioned some options if he violates the gag order, including admonishing Trump in court, which I believe has been done before by a couple of crimes, imposing financial panel's home detention or evoking his pre trial Least, we know that Trump has defied these kinds of court orders before. What do you think it will take to make her act on it.
I think what she's trying to do is emphasize the power of a court order that once it's in place, it's easier to enforce than these vague conditions of release that may or may not have been violated, and that requires some kind of adversary process that she's saying this could be very quick and very swift and severe, and that is just a way of trying to get him not to do it. Whether that's successful, I don't know, because he also understands that her hands are tied in
part by his role. That to put him on home arrest or to put him in prison while he's running for president, I mean, that would be so extreme and there's no chance that she's going to do that, So she puts it on the table. Of course, legally she's allowed to do it, but she's never going to do it. And to what extent is he here to push that? And if she does it. It's this great political windfall for him because he could say that the Biden administration locking me up so I won't win, or he gets
away with it. And so in a way, it's sort of a genius move.
I mean, this is.
Trump's particular genius, his ability to do this and his willingness to do this.
A day after the judge issued this order, Trump filed notice that he's going to appeal it. Do you think that this order will withstand and appeal?
My guess is it will. It was narrowly drawn, and it isn't too far away from what judges do in situations like this. I think the untested territory is just the stature and the nature of the defendant here, and he is running for president, and so the core political speech is like at the very core of the very core, and so you know, it is possible that an appellate court could disagree with her, but there's a lot of deference here, and she hasn't done anything wild or extremely
unusual here. So my guess is that there won't be a reversal of the gag order. And he runs right up to the line and kind of pushes it, and she admonishes, and this is kind of a game that goes all the way up until March.
We'll see what the DC Circuit says. Thanks so much, Rebecca. That's Professor Rebecca Royfe of New York Law School. This is Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. I'm June Grosso. Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.