This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
The headline is that Musk has your data, that Musk has control of the systems as a Treasury appointee.
That is unfathomable.
The extraordinary empowerment of Elon Musk by Donald Trump is a headline that keeps repeating. Alarm bells rang after Musk and his young deputies gained access to the Treasury Department's computer network, where the private financial data of nearly every American is stored. That means names, phone numbers, social security information,
and bank information. Many Democratic members of Congress, like Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and Representative Ayanna Presley of Massachusetts, joined protests this week in d c against the world's richest man and his Department of Government efficiency.
You've got we don't know anything about, looking at potentially all of our personal information, all of the money flows that go out of Treasury. The Banking Committee needs to bring up the dose folks who are illegally in Treasury and have them testify. I am so tired of these billionaire boys in their grubby.
Little hands, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessen told Bloomberg it was a lot of misinformation.
There is no tinkering with the system. They are on read only. They are looking. They can make no changes. It is an operational program to suggest improvement.
Nevertheless, a DC federal judge placed temporary limits on Doze's access after a group of unions sued. So far, the courts have been the only restraint on the Trump administration, with judges issuing a mere of court orders this week, delaying, limiting, or outright blocking Trump's actions. My guest is an expert in constitutional law, Harold Krent, a professor at the Chicago
Kent College of Law. How at this point does it seem as if Trump is issuing these executive orders without any consideration of their legality?
In my mind, he's acting with respects of the law, sort of the way he is with respect to foreign policy, and the way he did with business or which was to start out dramatically asking for the moon, frightening everybody, and then slowly chipping away at demands. And it's proved effective in business to a large extent. I don't know how effective it'll be with tariffs and other kinds of international relations, and I think it'll be slightly effective with respect to legal challenges as well.
Let's turn to musk sweeping moves to downsize the federal government. He orchestrated a physical takeover of the US US Agency for International Development, which he's trying to shudder. His people are doing who knows what, not only a treasury, but at the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, et cetera. Trump did sign an executive order giving Musk's workers unfettered access to government agencies. But as a professor once told me, executive orders are just pieces of paper.
Yeah, in so many areas, there's a level of violations of congressional enactments. Some are more egregious than others, some are subtle. I mean, the role of Musk as a special governmental employee at this time is one of those gray areas, because there is a role for special governmental employee that can assume powers for a limited period of time,
and so far obviously Musk has not exceeded that. But in terms of what he's actually done, there appears to be violation differences of the privacy actedturas are getting access of all those Social Security numbers. That's a pretty good indication. And of course the USAID was set up by Congress, So a presidential order cannot dismantle an agency that's been chartered by Congress. So I think there's a spectrum of action.
Some appear to be clearly unconstitutional, like the birthrate Citizenship Order. Some are closer in question. There's another lawsuit that was stiled gave against Chicago or its sanctuaries city policies. I think it's a closer call in terms of where you draw the line. So there's just a lot that's being thrown up against the wall, but some have some merit, and it's going to take a while for the courts
to unravel. That we haven't mentioned yet, the whole challenge to the independent agencies, since he's fired a member of the National Labor Relations Board, which is an independent agency that I think has a chance of success ultimately a Supreme Court, given what the Supreme Court has said previously. But whether Trump then can take the next step and try to get rid of civil service, I'm far more dubious about that.
Also, it seems like there's absolutely no oversight. In a sort of Friday night massacre, he fired the inspectors general for at least seventeen agencies.
Well, Congress has a structure in place that allows for dismissal of the spector generals, but Trump didn't follow it, So in that sense, obviously the resort is to court.
Again.
We'll have to wait see things play out. But I think what's really frightening is not just that the Doge got the private information. The question is what do they really want to do with it? Do they really want to just make the government more efficient and make sure payments aren't going to the wrong people. That's one thing.
It's another thing to have kind of a deep state and have big Brother watching everything we do because we all have personal identifiers, and that must people may be sort of tacking on to these personal identifiers other kinds of individual indications for statistics, which gives rise to kind of Chinese type of big government watching all of us. We're not there yet, but that is at least one step.
Of the way.
By the way, I do want to mention that one of those two Musk employees at Treasury resigned on Thursday after some of his social media posts were described as racist. There's also a lot of controversy and a lawsuit over what's been called buyout offers for some two million federal employees. They're not really buyout offers. They're more like deferred resignation offers. So dose emailed federal employees to resign and be paid until the end of September or risk losing their jobs.
There are problems with this offer because a there's a federal rule that administrative leave can only be used for ten working days a year, and b the government hasn't been funded past March fourteenth.
On this level, I think that's the action. Amisation is
probably legal, just like any other kind of buyouts. And yes, there are issues about what happens if funding drives out in terms of paying these settlements, and maybe they'll be able to use some of the money from somewhere else to pay the settlements going forward, if that part is obviously unclear, that the idea in basic of saying to a federal employee, you have a right under civil service to continue your job, but we will give you an incentive to leave early, and when some of them were
planning to leave anyway, I think that probably is closer to the legal line in comparison to some of the other moves the administration has been making. I mean, maybe there are some procedural issues that I'm not aware of that the SPORT will look to to try to stop the buyout, you know, questions of again, can you bind the federal government to make these payments when there is
not continuing funding? You know, I think that lots of issues are contingent upon continual funding by the government and not hitting the debt fealing, et cetera. But again, in comparison to the other moves that we've been seeing in terms of discharge of general, the discharge of the pediven LRB, that's dismantling of AID, I think this is far less concerning than some of the other moves the Trump administration is making.
We should find out more about this on Monday, because a Massachusetts judge has temporarily paused the buyout offer until a hearing on Monday. The court seemed to be the only impediment to Trump's executive orders, some of which are clearly beyond his presidential power, like the funding freeze and
the ending of birthright citizenship. This week, two federal judges, one in Seattle and one in Maryland, block Trump's birthright citizenship order, and Seattle judge John Kunauer accused Trump of trying to change the constitution.
There are moments in the world's history when people look back and ask where were the lawyers? Where were the judges? In these moments, the rule of law becomes a specially vulnerable I refuse to let that be can go dark today.
Yeah, and the big picture is are the guard RILs going to come from nowhere? Or are they going to come from the court or from Congress? Ultimately, and members of the Republican Congress idly going to say, you know, we were elected to do an independent job, and the
president has taken away our legislative authority. We don't know where the guardils are going to come, and we just have to hope that one of those two branches will be able to step up and limit some of the cruiter moves that the administration is already taken.
Speaking of courts, let's talk about the Supreme Court. On the last day of the last term, the court issued that controversial decision giving presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts. A lot of the conservative Supreme Court justices also ascribed to the unitary executive theory, under which the president has sole authority over the executsative branch, and then of course, the Court has been sort of taking a sledgehammer to agency power. So what do you think will the Supreme
Court be supportive of Trump? They were not in his last term, but they were this last year.
Absolutely. I mean, I think that community decision is a one off. It's a terrible decision for what the Court will do in the future. But the Court has adopted, as you mentioned, the form of the unitary executive Authority, which means the president should be able to fire any policy maker at will in order to make sure that all actions that are final of the government can be
traced to the president. So I would not be surprised if the Court is sympathetic with respect to giving the power to the president to fire agency head officials, including most fighting We need the head of the FED, because that's just another type of policy that's being administered by
right now, an independent agency head. But I don't think that even if the Supreme Court takes that step, they will expand the unitary to say that the civil service is an unconstitutional Many unions right now public employee beings are very concerned that the next objective of the Trump administration will put the civil service in the cross hears, and I think the court will be sympathetic to the principles under civil service.
Of course, Trump is going to keep appealing to the Supreme Court. That's been his pattern. But it'll be interesting to see how many of these cases the justices actually decide to take. Thanks so much. How that's Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago Kent College of Law coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Why FBI agents are suing the Justice Department. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
to Bloomberg time and time again. Donald Trump has promised to exact revenge against those involved in the cases against him.
Look, when this election is over, based on what they've done, I would have every right to go after them. And it's easy and sometimes revenge can be justified, though, I have to be honest, you know, sometimes it can.
And the President seems to be keeping those promises with purges at the FBI and Justice Department, where dozens of senior career officials have been pushed out and thousands more FBI agents may follow them out the door. Because the Justice Department has had a list compiled of all bureau employees who worked on the criminal investigations into Trump or the January sixth riots, to quote determine whether any additional
personnel actions are necessary. So two groups of FBI agents went to federal court to prevent the government from disclosing the names on that list, fearing it could lead to retaliation against them. After all, January sixth rioters who were pardoned by Trump have already taken to social media, identifying prosecutors and agents who worked on their cases and making threats.
But I will tell you now, it's our church.
One of the lawsuits cites these comments by Enrique Tario, the former leader of the Proud Boys, who was serving a twenty two year sentence before his pardon.
The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. They need to be put behind bars.
At a hearing before DC Federal Judge Giacab on Friday, the US government agreed not to make that list of FBI employees public, either directly or indirectly, until the judge rules on the merits of the lawsuits, so a temporary solution. My guest is national security law expert Brad Moss, a partner at Mark Zaid. He represents the seven FBI agents and the FBI Agents Association in their lawsuit against the Justice Department, rad tell us what's been happening at the FBI.
So what's been transpiring at the moment with the FBI and the Justice Department is that a set of instructions came down from the White House pretty much starting from day one, to identify everyone involved and associated with the prosecutions and investigations not only into Donald Trump, but also everyone who was prosecuted for the January sixth riots and the seditious attempts. The set of prosecutors from the January six cases that specifically were on Jack Smith's team that
went after Donald Trump. Those individuals apparently were already fired without cause, which is something that will likely be subject to litigation. But the more immediate and more widespread concern is that the Just Department ordered the FBI to compile a list identify everyone within the FBI. Special Agents Technical Assistance supports that Fredericks xameters everything to pile list and send it to the Justice Department to identify everyone involved
in any of the January sixth investigations and prosecutions. With the obvious concern being not only this, it is going to be shared with the Just Department, but also with the White House, and that these names will be made public.
The lawsuits that were filed, there's two different lawsuits, one of which I'm a list of attorney on are designed to keep those names of those FBI personnel private and anonymous, just like it's always done for government officials who are not otherwise public facing individuals.
And the FBI has already turned over to the Justice Department that list of some five thousand FBI employees who worked on the criminal investigations into Trump or January sixth.
This remains the concern is what is the purpose of this, where are they going with this, and what is the White House plan to do with this information, because remember one of the first things Donald Trump did was pardon everyone convicted further actions tied to January sixth, including the Proud Boys, including the Healthkeepers, all these violent militants who had gone in with a plan to take down the government to install Donald Trump after he lost in twenty twenty.
Those individuals are now publicly threatening the FBI officials who went after them and who investigated them as part of those prosecutions, and there's a real threat to those FBI officials' lives and their safety to see their family members if their names get released in.
Your lawsuit, are you concerned about dismissals or are you only concerned about retaliation?
Right now, this is strictly about keeping the anonymity of the names of these various officials because no other action has been taken to actually fire these personnel. We're not there yet on bringing a challenge to it. It's premature. If DOJ does go through that, if there is a mass purge of personnel, our lawsuit could obviously be amended and updated to address that as well.
Let's talk about the grounds for your suit. Are you suing under the First Amendment and the Federal Privacy Act?
So?
Yeah, the First and Fifth Amendment constitutional protections due process for these individuals, particularly the stigma of being defamed essentially an accused of miscarriage of justice by the White House if their names are publicly released. First Amendment retaliation in the sense that this is all about the fact that they are not politically aligned and ideologically aligned with the White House, which for civil servants is not something they're
supposed to be doing. They're not supposed to be political. But also the Privacy Act, which puts strict limits on what agencies can do with the personal identifying information of personnel and where it can and cannot be disseminated absent employee consent, which, to be clear, these personnel are not giving their consent for this personal identifying information to be disseminated outside of the FBI, let alone to the public.
I'm curious about whether a lot of people from the FBI have approached you with their concerns about this.
So we've been approached by a myriad an untold number of personnel across the FBI, not just in DC, but across the country who we are representing as a part of this collective group. There is a select number of individuals who have agreed to be the plaintiffs in this action. We're keeping their identities protected at the moment that the court agreed to allow them to proceed as John Doe's
and Jane does for now. We're also working to make sure to try to keep their identities secret from the government itself, sadly to try to prevent and avoid retaliation for having engaged in this section. But also the Agent Association is also a listed plaintiff, which represents agents across the country and has an obvious organizational interest in protecting it's personnel from this political retribution. We want this addressed immediately.
We cannot wait with the way this administration is moving and just this reckless, you know, move fast and break things attitude that Elon Musk and Donald Trump have. Time is of the essence, and every day that passes is another day that these names could be disseminated to the public. So everything is about moving quickly right now to halt any dissemination until these legal issues can be resolved through standard briefing.
There have been accusations from former Trump officials that FBI agents went beyond their authority when they executed the search warrants at Mara Lago. Was there any litigation or court decisions about those accusations.
There is no merit to that. Every challenge regarding the lawfulness of the effidavits, the lawfulness of the searches do not even fly in motions before Judge Cannon. There has been zero valid claim that these officials went beyond the scope of their authority or otherwise violated Donald Trump's Fourth Amendment rights with respect to his actual property that was at mar Lago. This is political hatchet jobs, smearing by individuals trying to color it as being an issue of misconduct.
If they had actual, verified claims of misconduct against any of these officials, they could bring it through the normal administrative process. They don't want to do that because they know those claims won't hold up to scrutiny.
And so big picture, what you're saying is these are FBI agents who were doing their jobs, who were doing what they were assigned to do.
Correct and not just I don't ever want to go with thee We're just doing our jobs lined because that harkens back to World War Two. These were people following lawful orders to investigate potential crime in the sense of the attack on the capital of January sixth, as well as the unauthorized retention of classified documents at Mara a Lago. Those are existing crimes. There was a standard investigation. The only quote unquote misconduct they did was they dared to
be part of an investigation into Donald Trump. And the point that this White House is trying to push is that people like Donald Trump and his friends and allies are above the law and can never be investigated.
There have been many controversies in the history of the FBI, But have you ever heard of anything like this with possible retaliation against thousands of agents.
This makes you think of, you know, the Hoover days in terms of the idea of such blanket politicization of the just Department of the FBI. We moved beyond that after Hoover for a reason. The civil service that its protections exist for a reason. We're trying to move beyond the flaws and the states of the part of our past in this country, not just in the FBI, but
in the political system itself. To allow Donald Trump to do what he's trying to do would cripple the existing system and bring us back to the days of Tammany hall and blanket abuses of power. We cannot go back to that. That is why these losses are beinging brought. That is why lawyers like us are standing up to protect these individuals.
During her confirmation hearings, Pambondi, who's now the Attorney General, assured senators that she wouldn't retaliate against Justice Departments staff simply because they'd been assigned to cases involving Trump, and that the weaponization of the Justice Department was over.
I will not politicize that office. I will not target people simply because of their political affiliation.
Finally, during her confirmation hearing, Pambondy, who's now the Attorney General, assured senators that she wouldn't retaliate against Else's department staff simply because they've been assigned to cases involving Trump.
I will not politicize that office. I will not target people simply because of their political affiliation.
Trump's pick for FBI Director, Cash Patel, also testified that he wouldn't seek retribution against the President's adversaries.
The only thing that will matter if I'm confirmed as a director of the FBI is a de weaponized, depoliticized system of law enforcement, completely devoted to rigorous obedience of the Constitution.
Do their statements give you any reassurance that retribution at the Justice Department will be stopped?
None? Those promises, those reassurances mean nothing more than the reassurances given by certain Supreme Court nominees about the sanctity of Roe v. Wade. Their politicized you know, cover your your end statements that were made to get appointed, to get confirmed, that they will happily circumvent and throw out the window once they're in power, knowing that there's no one who's going to do anything to stop them, certainly
not the existing majority in the House or Senate. They have no interest in going after these officials if they end up doing what they promised they would not do. And those officials like Pam Bonding know that.
Thanks so much for being on the show, Brad. That's Brad Moss of Mark Zaid. Coming up next. The Trump administration's first anti trust suit. I'm June Gross. When you're listening to Bloomberg. It didn't take very long for the Trump Justice Department to file its first anti trust lawsuit. The government sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprises fourteen billion dollar acquisition of Juniper Networks, arguing to tie up with harm competition in the market for enterprise wireless equipment used
by large companies, diversities, and hospitals. The government says the deal would consolidate the sector from three major players HPE, Juniper, and Cisco Systems down to two that would control seventy percent of the market. But Antonio'neary, the CEO of HPE, told Bloomberg that the DOJ's reasoning is flawed.
We believe there is no case here. This is pro competitive. We will bring it two complementary technologies together, which also will enable us to compete outside the United States in the context of the previous competition we have with Josh against the Chinese vendors in the context of national security, particularly in cloud and the service provider space.
Joining me is anti trust expert Harry First, a professor at NYU Law School. Harry Many expected the Trump administration to sort of ease up on the aggressive anti trust enforcement by the Biden administration. Is it a surprise that they brought an anti trust lawsuit so soon.
It's a surprise, yes, that they didn't wait for the new team really to be in place. And the complaint is very much a Biden administration type complaint. It's written like and refers to the merger guidelines that were adopted during the Biden administration. So it's curious. I don't know. Maybe they're acting Assistant Attorney General just never got the memo,
doesn't read his emails. I can't quite explain why they decided to go ahead with this, unless there was some time pressure on the deal, I'm not certain about that.
Is the acting Assistant Attorney General, a Trump appointee, does he have experience in the anti trust division.
So the complaint is signed by the acting Assistant Attorney General, who was put in place over the person who would normally have been put in place for this position. So the way it's gone, particularly recent times, is the most apolitical person in the division is appointed as acting It's usually it's the head of criminal enforcement, which is really a political is no one who says, oh, no, we like cartels and we think they should flourish, so enforcement
against cartels. No one objects to that that I know of. So the person who was head of criminal enforcement was instead reassigned to an immigration unit, which of course is presumably something they reassigned them to so that he would then leave the same as Manish Kumar. Fine guy, I mean, you know, he couldn't have been on anybody's enemies list that I can imagine. So they reassigned him to it's a sanctuary city's task force. It's ridiculous to a waste
of his talent. And then they brought in this person who has just been in the any trust divisions, just joined last year. He's been in the White House Counsel's Office, in the prior Trump administration, so they appointed him as acting head. But why he decided to go ahead and sign this complaint, I honestly do not know. And why he couldn't wait for Gail Slater to be confirmed, which I assume she will be to review it. So I don't know the answer to that.
So, I mean, they're assigning environmental lawyers to that sanctuary Cities unit, whatever it is. But these people have expertise, this guy, for example, in anti trust or environment and they're setting them to a totally different.
Well, it's a political I mean, just the name of it. I don't know for sure, but just the name of it. It's something designed too, I don't know, rub their noses in it. It's a perversion of any good use of talent and designed to humiliate them. I don't know. But I was sort of shocked that they did that to Kumar.
It doesn't make sense, you know, in anybody's world. And for all I know, he might have been more moderate and said, you know, we should hold up and for the new head of the division to be approved by the Senate. So it's sort of a curious turn of events that, you know, this complaint is the result.
So tell us about the deal.
Okay, So this is a deal that was announced in January of twenty twenty four, so it's been sitting there for a little while under investigation. And it involves the w land industry, wireless local area network industry, but on the commercial scale, not the routers that you and I have in our houses that create this little local area network that we can connect to wherever we are in
the house. But you know, for enterprises, universities, offices, big companies that need to connect all their employees wirelessly wherever they're working to some access point. So it's all the equipment necessary for putting those wireless local area networks together. And Cisco is the leader worldwide and in the United States apparently, and according to the complaint, it's market share is more than twice what HPE Hewlett Packard Enterprises market
share is. HP is second in the US market. And Juniper, the company being acquired by HPE, it's not clear where they sit in the market. The complaint doesn't say they're third, so maybe they're not quite third in the market. Maybe they're fourth or fifth, but I don't know. Their market shares vary around the world. In different markets, but they're smaller than HPE, so Cisco's market share is more than twice what HPEES is, so they really dominate the market.
And the combined market share of the three firms now, the Justice Department complaints says, will be more than seventy percent, so a very concentrated market. And the increase in concentration, which is a key figure for merger enforcement, is over the thresholds for highly concentrated market where there's a presumption that competition may be substantially lessened in the future. So the market's highly concentrated at the increases over the thresholds.
And again according to the twenty twenty three guidelines which the complaint sites, that's presume to violate the law, and that's sort of the core of the case.
Will there be questions about market definition or anything like that, or is it pretty clear.
There are always questions about our definition because as we know, this is what any trust lawyers love, And yes, there will probably be some, but I'm not sure in the end that that's going to be the thing that matters, even though the parties will fight over it. What makes the case more interesting is that this merger was cleared by the European Commission and by the UK Competition Markets Authority,
the CMA. So both of them cleared this merger in August finding really no problems, and what had been the pattern during the Biden administration had generally been all three of those agencies were in agreement on most of the controversial mergers. They were not out of step. They all agreed that they violated European law or law in the United Kingdom or the United States. So this is unusual in the sense that the US is trying to block a merger that the other two just didn't go any
further with. They both issued reports saying, hey, no problem.
What's gotten a lot of attention is a memo in twenty twenty one from an HPE sales leader encouraging his team to quote kill missed, exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point, and on and on. There were like forty exclamation points, and missed was the name of Juniper's competing product.
We love those memos. Yeah, that's the kind of thing. When NHS lawyers do that, they go, oh my god, we cannot suppress those else people. You know, they keep using language that get us into trouble, and yes, that's featured prominently in the complaint. Who wouldn't feature that prominently in the complaint? But in a number of these cases, those sorts of kill memos are often used where the conduct is exclusionary. In other words, the idea it was, you know, will cut off their air supply. This is
back in the old Microsoft case. They were in a browser war, and that was the colorful language, but it was to exclude them from the market. These memos are a little different in the sense that he's telling his
group to really compete hard and win these contracts. So the more specific parts, beyond the concentration in the market, is that these are head to head competitors that often competed for contracts with the same parties, the same buyers, and this merger will eliminate that head to head competition that had produced lower prices. So it's kill was not so much exclusionary, you know, as in kill, but quite hard. However you want to look at it, and that's what
I think the defense will say. So what you're witnessing is competition. So every time we have competition, you can't say, oh my god, let's cry foul. This is what we want.
I mean, is there any doubt that consumers benefit from having three players in the market rather than two.
Well, I'd be a little cautious about three rather than two. The complaint doesn't say there aren't others, and in fact, at one point the complaint says, there are many suppliers, and if you look at the markets described both in the UK and in Europe, there are obviously more players, and so there are other sources of supply, and so presumably they will argue, well, we are head to head competitors, but we're also head to head competitors with other suppliers.
And if now after the merger, the new HPE Juniper decides to try to raise its price, customers will just switch to the other suppliers like Hey, Cisco which has seventy percent of the market, or other small suppliers.
Does the government have a strong case here, you think so?
In one sense, yes, if they get a court that's willing to stick with the twenty twenty three guidelines that emphasize the highly concentrated market, increase in concentration creating a presumption and says okay, it's up to you HPE and Juniper to justify this merger, to show why it will increase competition, what the pro competitive effects are. So if they can convince a judge to shift the burden over to the defendants to justify the deal, then I think that's,
you know, they have a shot at it. They obviously have some business documents that show this head to head competition. I don't know whether they have testimony from buyers of this equipment saying we're afraid that prices are going to go up if the deal goes through, So it would be helpful to them if they have testimony like this. But it's possible that they'll be able to convince the district court judge to go ahead and stop the merger.
But the reason why I'm hesitant is that fictions and you know, the theory that's being advanced, the head to head competition theory was pretty much sloughed off in both of those jurisdictions.
Business leaders thought that this administration would be more amenable to deals involving tech companies, just more amenable to M and A. Is it too soon to tell whether it will be with this one lawsuit, I.
Would be hesitant to draw much, if anything, from this one case. Because the person who's going to make these decisions is just not in place. Unless I had some intelligence indicating that the acting head really was acting in a way that he knew was consistent with what the incoming had wanted, I would view this as a one off and not make predictions what the future might hold until we really see what new heads of the two agencies do with the twenty twenty three merger guidelines.
Always a pleasure, Harry, Thank you. That's Professor Harry First of NYU Law School, and that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Junie Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg