1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,040
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It's been just

6
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:25,960
Speaker 1: four days since Special Counsel Robert Mueller accused thirteen Russians

7
00:00:25,960 --> 00:00:31,920
Speaker 1: of a sophisticated disinformation campaign to interfere with the presidential campaign,

8
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:35,200
Speaker 1: and the Special Council announced new charges in the Russia

9
00:00:35,200 --> 00:00:38,680
Speaker 1: investigation this morning. Mueller has charged a lawyer who worked

10
00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:41,519
Speaker 1: for a prominent law firm with making false statements to

11
00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:45,800
Speaker 1: FBI agents. Alex Van Derswand was charged with lying about

12
00:00:45,840 --> 00:00:49,639
Speaker 1: conversations related to his work on a report prepared by

13
00:00:49,640 --> 00:00:53,240
Speaker 1: his law firm on the legitimacy of the criminal prosecution

14
00:00:53,280 --> 00:00:56,400
Speaker 1: of a former Ukrainian prime minister. Joining me to help

15
00:00:56,400 --> 00:01:00,440
Speaker 1: sort this out, as Andrew can't, Professor at Fordham Law School, Andrew,

16
00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:05,200
Speaker 1: this involves allegations of lying about conversations with Rick Gates.

17
00:01:05,360 --> 00:01:08,959
Speaker 1: The information and connections here get a little complicated. Can

18
00:01:09,000 --> 00:01:13,560
Speaker 1: you describe them? They? Do you know? Rick Gates and

19
00:01:13,680 --> 00:01:18,600
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort worked for quite quite a long time for

20
00:01:18,959 --> 00:01:23,040
Speaker 1: the government of Ukraine, the you know, the Kremlink government

21
00:01:23,040 --> 00:01:26,319
Speaker 1: of Ukraine, and as part of that work Um which

22
00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:31,440
Speaker 1: apparently tried to sort of make more palatable the government's

23
00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:34,640
Speaker 1: image in the West. And one of the reasons that

24
00:01:34,640 --> 00:01:36,920
Speaker 1: folks in the West were quite critical is because of

25
00:01:36,959 --> 00:01:42,280
Speaker 1: the jailing of the previous president of Ukraine. UH believe

26
00:01:42,280 --> 00:01:47,640
Speaker 1: her name is pros Tamashko Julia Smashko Um and apparently

27
00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:51,280
Speaker 1: US law firm Scott and ARBs, where this person who's

28
00:01:51,520 --> 00:01:55,520
Speaker 1: who's just criminally charged by mother worked, was commissioned to

29
00:01:55,560 --> 00:01:59,240
Speaker 1: write a report essentially suggesting that what appeared to most

30
00:01:59,280 --> 00:02:04,480
Speaker 1: people to be entirely politically motivated, almost sham prosecution of

31
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:09,120
Speaker 1: her was in fact perfectly legal under Ukrainian law. And

32
00:02:09,400 --> 00:02:12,400
Speaker 1: um it seems like as part of as part of

33
00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:18,320
Speaker 1: investigating Gates and Manifort, this lawyer was approached by agents

34
00:02:18,360 --> 00:02:21,639
Speaker 1: working for for Muller end Lede and destroyed documents which

35
00:02:21,639 --> 00:02:24,799
Speaker 1: are obviously two big no nos and the FBI and

36
00:02:24,840 --> 00:02:27,920
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. So there's no indication that the

37
00:02:28,000 --> 00:02:31,040
Speaker 1: charges have anything to do with the Trump canpaign or

38
00:02:31,080 --> 00:02:34,760
Speaker 1: the investigation into possible collusion. But let's talk about the timing.

39
00:02:35,400 --> 00:02:39,320
Speaker 1: Um this lawyer was charged on February six, Muller's office

40
00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:43,440
Speaker 1: released the information today. Is there something like a one

41
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:45,919
Speaker 1: to punch to keep people off balance or is it

42
00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:49,639
Speaker 1: just the normal course. It's hard to say. I mean,

43
00:02:49,720 --> 00:02:54,120
Speaker 1: the thing that's probably most significant about the timing is

44
00:02:54,120 --> 00:02:56,040
Speaker 1: is the fact that it was a criminal information that

45
00:02:56,160 --> 00:02:59,880
Speaker 1: was released, not a formal indictment. And usually what the

46
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 1: means is that the person who's being charged is in

47
00:03:03,639 --> 00:03:07,000
Speaker 1: the process of finalizing a plea deal in some kind

48
00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:12,360
Speaker 1: of cooperation agreement with the prosecutor, and so um, you know,

49
00:03:12,639 --> 00:03:15,000
Speaker 1: probably the you know, the most interesting thing we can

50
00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:17,640
Speaker 1: say about the sequence of events is this seems to

51
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:21,720
Speaker 1: be yet another person who's going to be working with

52
00:03:21,760 --> 00:03:25,920
Speaker 1: the prosecutors against Paul Manafort. And that's quite significant because

53
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:28,240
Speaker 1: Gates has also been widely reported to be in a

54
00:03:28,280 --> 00:03:31,639
Speaker 1: plea deal against Manafort. So if if Muller has two

55
00:03:31,639 --> 00:03:34,560
Speaker 1: co operators against Manafort, there's a huge amount of pressure

56
00:03:34,560 --> 00:03:37,880
Speaker 1: on Manafort to himself plead because you know, the additional

57
00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:41,360
Speaker 1: charges can be easily racked up against him, and Manafort

58
00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:43,240
Speaker 1: to slot by many people to be sort of the

59
00:03:43,320 --> 00:03:47,920
Speaker 1: key to understanding what Trump knew and intended about all

60
00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:50,920
Speaker 1: of these things, because he's such an important go between

61
00:03:51,000 --> 00:03:56,160
Speaker 1: between you know, the Russian uh Russian Kremlin affiliated people

62
00:03:56,520 --> 00:03:59,640
Speaker 1: and the Trump campaign that you you answered my next

63
00:03:59,720 --> 00:04:02,280
Speaker 1: question and as well, which was the Rick Gates plea,

64
00:04:02,440 --> 00:04:06,160
Speaker 1: which according to Los Angeles Times could come any day.

65
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:08,720
Speaker 1: So there have been let's turn to the the to

66
00:04:08,920 --> 00:04:13,800
Speaker 1: Friday and the Special Council's indictment of thirteen Russians. There

67
00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:18,240
Speaker 1: have been various theories about whether the indictment is just

68
00:04:18,440 --> 00:04:21,160
Speaker 1: that and self contained, or if it might be the

69
00:04:21,160 --> 00:04:26,279
Speaker 1: basis for future indictments of Americans, especially with the conspiracy theory.

70
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:30,479
Speaker 1: It sets out which camp are you in? I think

71
00:04:30,520 --> 00:04:33,280
Speaker 1: probably the most cogent thing that I've read about this

72
00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:35,800
Speaker 1: was written by Bob Bauer, who is White House Council

73
00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:39,000
Speaker 1: to President Obama. He's also an election law expert, and

74
00:04:39,040 --> 00:04:42,640
Speaker 1: he pointed out that um that the way the indictment

75
00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:47,120
Speaker 1: was framed suggests that Mueller may be interested in bringing

76
00:04:47,160 --> 00:04:50,240
Speaker 1: in some Americans also in the future, and what his

77
00:04:50,320 --> 00:04:54,040
Speaker 1: theory was that you know, the futtal election campaign law

78
00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:58,960
Speaker 1: is quite clear that that non US citizens cannot give

79
00:04:59,480 --> 00:05:03,120
Speaker 1: anything as of value to UH to participate in the

80
00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:06,240
Speaker 1: US political process, and it would have been quite straightforward

81
00:05:06,279 --> 00:05:12,040
Speaker 1: to charge federal election campaign violations here, but instead Mueller

82
00:05:12,200 --> 00:05:15,440
Speaker 1: framed it differently. He framed it as a conspiracy to

83
00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:19,760
Speaker 1: defraud the United States and its ability to carry out

84
00:05:20,320 --> 00:05:23,200
Speaker 1: a free and fair election, and Bower said that this

85
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:27,760
Speaker 1: is significant because it's legally uncertain whether U s citizens

86
00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:32,320
Speaker 1: can be charged under the federal election campaign rules here

87
00:05:32,320 --> 00:05:34,960
Speaker 1: in the same way that non citizens clearly can. So

88
00:05:35,000 --> 00:05:38,640
Speaker 1: it seems like by choosing the conspiracy rather than the

89
00:05:38,640 --> 00:05:42,480
Speaker 1: election theory, Mueller might be wanting to make it legally

90
00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:47,280
Speaker 1: easier and less controversial to loop in American participants in

91
00:05:47,320 --> 00:05:51,280
Speaker 1: this conspiracy in the future. Is there a reason that

92
00:05:51,320 --> 00:05:55,040
Speaker 1: he would there these Russians are not going to be extradited.

93
00:05:55,560 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 1: Is there a reason that he came out with this

94
00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:02,000
Speaker 1: by itself? I mean, is their public relations sort of

95
00:06:02,080 --> 00:06:04,840
Speaker 1: reason where he wants to say, hey, I am working

96
00:06:04,920 --> 00:06:10,040
Speaker 1: on the Russia investigation as well as everything else. Yes,

97
00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:12,919
Speaker 1: I mean, you're absolutely right that none of these people

98
00:06:12,920 --> 00:06:15,560
Speaker 1: who were charged are are likely to ever see a

99
00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:19,320
Speaker 1: US courtroom, So there have to be other reasons that

100
00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:23,960
Speaker 1: that Mueller had for for issuing these indictment, and um,

101
00:06:24,000 --> 00:06:25,560
Speaker 1: you know that you can think of a couple. One

102
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:27,240
Speaker 1: is that, you know, the President of United States has

103
00:06:27,279 --> 00:06:30,640
Speaker 1: said repeatedly that the idea that Russia interfered in the

104
00:06:30,680 --> 00:06:33,680
Speaker 1: election on his behalf is a hoax, a witch hunt,

105
00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:38,640
Speaker 1: a made up story, sour grapes by Democrats, etcetera. And um,

106
00:06:39,480 --> 00:06:43,320
Speaker 1: you know, Muller was charged with investing investigating whether there

107
00:06:43,360 --> 00:06:45,880
Speaker 1: was Russian interference of the election, and he's given an answer.

108
00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:48,719
Speaker 1: He said, yes, there wasn't it, and it was criminal,

109
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:51,320
Speaker 1: had violated a lot of our criminal laws. So it

110
00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:54,440
Speaker 1: kind of puts to bed the idea that this was

111
00:06:54,560 --> 00:06:56,680
Speaker 1: just some you know, made up story, fake news, which

112
00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:00,200
Speaker 1: I think it's important for the country. In one way

113
00:07:00,240 --> 00:07:02,400
Speaker 1: in which it's important for the country is maybe now

114
00:07:02,839 --> 00:07:04,760
Speaker 1: the President is going to be able to move beyond

115
00:07:06,040 --> 00:07:09,920
Speaker 1: his fake news rhetoric and instead think about how the

116
00:07:10,160 --> 00:07:14,120
Speaker 1: Russian future operations might be deterred by by our government.

117
00:07:14,160 --> 00:07:16,400
Speaker 1: You know, the intelligence chiefs were up on Capitol Hill

118
00:07:16,440 --> 00:07:19,600
Speaker 1: in the last week testifying unanimously that Russia is likely

119
00:07:19,640 --> 00:07:22,720
Speaker 1: to uh to be already trying to interfere with our

120
00:07:22,880 --> 00:07:25,920
Speaker 1: two thousand eighteen midterm elections, and the president of so

121
00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:30,160
Speaker 1: far shown really no interest in defending against that. So, um,

122
00:07:30,200 --> 00:07:33,240
Speaker 1: I think I think it's it's a quite significant indictment

123
00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:35,080
Speaker 1: in a variety of ways. Um, you know, I just

124
00:07:35,120 --> 00:07:38,480
Speaker 1: mentioned one, even though these people are not likely to

125
00:07:38,560 --> 00:07:42,000
Speaker 1: be jailed at any time that you know, we can imagine, Andrew.

126
00:07:42,040 --> 00:07:45,239
Speaker 1: Over the weekend, election officials from all fifty states received

127
00:07:45,280 --> 00:07:49,880
Speaker 1: classified briefings on risk to their electoral systems. And that's

128
00:07:49,880 --> 00:07:52,320
Speaker 1: according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

129
00:07:52,400 --> 00:07:55,640
Speaker 1: The Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI joined the sessions.

130
00:07:56,360 --> 00:07:59,280
Speaker 1: Do you have a sense that this can be done

131
00:07:59,760 --> 00:08:03,560
Speaker 1: for checking the election and people having confidence in it

132
00:08:03,680 --> 00:08:09,720
Speaker 1: without the president's intervention? We have about thirty seconds, so

133
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:12,720
Speaker 1: so protecting it in fact and people's confidence, I think

134
00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:16,320
Speaker 1: are two pretty different things. Uma. The United States election

135
00:08:16,360 --> 00:08:20,760
Speaker 1: apparatus is extraordinarily decentricalized and localized, and that you know,

136
00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:23,200
Speaker 1: in a way, that's a good thing. It makes there's

137
00:08:23,240 --> 00:08:24,960
Speaker 1: so many pieces that would have to be attacked in

138
00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:27,640
Speaker 1: order to have a real life Andrew, I'm sorry, we'll

139
00:08:27,640 --> 00:08:30,040
Speaker 1: have to pick this up some other time. That's Andrew Cash,

140
00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:38,000
Speaker 1: Professor at cored In Law School. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court

141
00:08:38,040 --> 00:08:41,560
Speaker 1: has redrawn the map of the state's eighteen congressional districts,

142
00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:44,040
Speaker 1: a map that will be used for the state's mid

143
00:08:44,160 --> 00:08:47,360
Speaker 1: term elections. Election experts say the new map could help

144
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:51,160
Speaker 1: Democrats pick up seats. Today, President Donald Trump tweeted that

145
00:08:51,200 --> 00:08:54,440
Speaker 1: he hopes Republicans challenged the new map, quote all the

146
00:08:54,480 --> 00:08:57,360
Speaker 1: way to the Supreme Court if necessary. The U. S.

147
00:08:57,360 --> 00:09:00,959
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has already rejected one challenge to the Pennsylvania

148
00:09:01,040 --> 00:09:04,559
Speaker 1: courts ruling. Joining me is Michael Morley, a constitutional law

149
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:08,760
Speaker 1: professor at Barry University. Michael tell us about the map

150
00:09:08,880 --> 00:09:13,839
Speaker 1: and how it changed the prior GOP drawn map. Sure,

151
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:17,600
Speaker 1: thank you very much for having me. The current map

152
00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:20,800
Speaker 1: that the legislature had had adopted at the beginning of

153
00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:25,280
Speaker 1: the decade gave the Republicans an advantage, leading to a

154
00:09:25,440 --> 00:09:30,400
Speaker 1: thirteen to five split, with thirteen congressional districts being held

155
00:09:30,400 --> 00:09:34,040
Speaker 1: by Republicans and five being held by Democrats. The map

156
00:09:34,200 --> 00:09:37,280
Speaker 1: that the that the Court adopted in connection with the

157
00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:41,560
Speaker 1: political gerrymander in case can swing an Estimates vary on this,

158
00:09:42,040 --> 00:09:44,439
Speaker 1: but can swing as many as a total of ten

159
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:49,120
Speaker 1: or eleventh seats, Democratic, switching control of Pennsylvania's congressional delegation

160
00:09:49,640 --> 00:09:52,720
Speaker 1: from one party to the other. So if these maps

161
00:09:53,120 --> 00:09:56,480
Speaker 1: do wind up being implemented, you can see a potentially

162
00:09:56,600 --> 00:10:01,199
Speaker 1: dramatic shift in the political composition of the state delegation.

163
00:10:01,640 --> 00:10:08,040
Speaker 1: Does this map favored Democrats unfairly? Well, that's in part

164
00:10:08,120 --> 00:10:11,880
Speaker 1: one of the things that the that the parties are disputing.

165
00:10:12,480 --> 00:10:15,840
Speaker 1: One of the one of the concerns is that the

166
00:10:16,120 --> 00:10:19,280
Speaker 1: court ordered that maps be drawn. They got a new

167
00:10:19,320 --> 00:10:23,080
Speaker 1: map be drawn based on a particular criteria, such as

168
00:10:23,800 --> 00:10:28,480
Speaker 1: maintaining compact as compact districts as possible. The Court didn't

169
00:10:28,520 --> 00:10:32,320
Speaker 1: expressly order that maps be drawn in order to try

170
00:10:32,360 --> 00:10:35,840
Speaker 1: to achieve some sort of proportional representation. And yet it

171
00:10:35,880 --> 00:10:39,160
Speaker 1: appears that's one of the goals that this map has

172
00:10:39,200 --> 00:10:43,800
Speaker 1: attempted to maximize. And so one question is the extent

173
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:46,719
Speaker 1: to which this this map actually is consistent with the

174
00:10:46,760 --> 00:10:51,400
Speaker 1: courts order. The bigger overarching objection that I would anticipate

175
00:10:51,440 --> 00:10:55,160
Speaker 1: the Republicans would raise doesn't really stem so much from

176
00:10:55,240 --> 00:10:59,280
Speaker 1: the state constitution or the Court's order, but the US Constitution.

177
00:10:59,360 --> 00:11:02,040
Speaker 1: That that that they have several arguments that as a

178
00:11:02,080 --> 00:11:07,760
Speaker 1: matter of federal constitutional law. The state constitution doesn't limit

179
00:11:07,760 --> 00:11:10,400
Speaker 1: the legislature's power in the first place, and it's the

180
00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:14,080
Speaker 1: role of the legislature, not a court, to impose a map.

181
00:11:14,840 --> 00:11:18,480
Speaker 1: The National Republican Congressional Committee is filing a lawsuit in

182
00:11:18,520 --> 00:11:22,680
Speaker 1: federal court to challenge the map tomorrow, it said, Now

183
00:11:22,840 --> 00:11:27,200
Speaker 1: Justice Samuel Alito refused to block the redistricting, so how

184
00:11:27,320 --> 00:11:34,120
Speaker 1: far will Republican arguments get? Well, there, there's at this point,

185
00:11:34,160 --> 00:11:38,640
Speaker 1: there's really two main avenues for challenge. The first is

186
00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:42,760
Speaker 1: to seek relief from the Supreme Court. Justice Alito denied

187
00:11:43,160 --> 00:11:46,000
Speaker 1: a request for a state, denied a request to put

188
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:50,679
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania Supreme Court order on hold. But a denial

189
00:11:50,720 --> 00:11:53,520
Speaker 1: of a state has no presidential way. That doesn't imply

190
00:11:53,559 --> 00:11:56,040
Speaker 1: anything about the merit of the case. So you can't

191
00:11:56,080 --> 00:11:59,040
Speaker 1: read too much into that. Now that a new map

192
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:01,360
Speaker 1: has actually been ordered by the court, Now that the

193
00:12:01,360 --> 00:12:04,360
Speaker 1: Supreme Court can see what this new map is, how

194
00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:07,240
Speaker 1: much it deviates from what the legislature did, it can

195
00:12:07,280 --> 00:12:10,680
Speaker 1: see that the legislature hasn't reached an accommodation with the governor,

196
00:12:10,720 --> 00:12:13,880
Speaker 1: and the court arguably the case is much more right

197
00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:17,480
Speaker 1: now for the Supreme Court to get involved, and so

198
00:12:17,679 --> 00:12:20,240
Speaker 1: there's a there. I think there's a substantial possibility the

199
00:12:20,320 --> 00:12:23,959
Speaker 1: legislature could ask for another stay now that the situation

200
00:12:24,040 --> 00:12:27,080
Speaker 1: has evolved and developed, and they can also file what's

201
00:12:27,080 --> 00:12:29,480
Speaker 1: called the petition for search yourry, which is asking the

202
00:12:29,559 --> 00:12:32,000
Speaker 1: court to hear the case on its merit that even

203
00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:34,679
Speaker 1: if the court won't issue an emergency stay, even if

204
00:12:34,720 --> 00:12:38,040
Speaker 1: the court won't put things on hold immediately, it could

205
00:12:38,080 --> 00:12:41,800
Speaker 1: still nevertheless agree to hear the case and have full briefing,

206
00:12:41,880 --> 00:12:45,840
Speaker 1: full oral arguments. You know, petitions for searchiari. Most of

207
00:12:45,840 --> 00:12:48,080
Speaker 1: them wind up getting rejected. It's always a long shot,

208
00:12:48,360 --> 00:12:52,480
Speaker 1: but this is certainly an important case. It is national ramifications.

209
00:12:52,520 --> 00:12:55,200
Speaker 1: There's an important federal issue as to whether what the

210
00:12:55,240 --> 00:12:59,160
Speaker 1: state Supreme Court did is permissible under the US Constitutions

211
00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:02,760
Speaker 1: Elections Clause. So there's so that would be the door

212
00:13:02,840 --> 00:13:07,679
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. A separate federal lawsuit brought by

213
00:13:07,720 --> 00:13:10,960
Speaker 1: the END were brought by the NRCC, would face would

214
00:13:10,960 --> 00:13:16,280
Speaker 1: face its own independent challenges. Of the most salient thing

215
00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:18,920
Speaker 1: is they would have to establish what's called standing. They

216
00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:22,199
Speaker 1: would have to show that they have the right to

217
00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:25,080
Speaker 1: that they have the right to seek really from the

218
00:13:25,080 --> 00:13:27,880
Speaker 1: court that they have the right to enforce the elections

219
00:13:27,920 --> 00:13:30,360
Speaker 1: clause and the limits that it imposes in that case.

220
00:13:30,880 --> 00:13:34,320
Speaker 1: And so that's that's a that's a separate threshold barrier

221
00:13:34,360 --> 00:13:37,760
Speaker 1: that an independent lawsuit would face. Thank you so much.

222
00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:41,559
Speaker 1: That's Michael Morley, professor at Barry University. Will learn more

223
00:13:41,600 --> 00:13:45,040
Speaker 1: about the Republican challenge to this map when the Republican

224
00:13:45,320 --> 00:13:49,280
Speaker 1: Congressional Committee files that lawsuit in federal court. Thanks for

225
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:52,600
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

226
00:13:52,679 --> 00:13:55,920
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on

227
00:13:55,960 --> 00:14:00,720
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is

228
00:14:00,760 --> 00:14:07,199
Speaker 1: Bloomberg h