1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,680 --> 00:00:12,879
Speaker 1: We had begun our jury selection process this morning, but

3
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:15,120
Speaker 1: I've been informed that there is a change of plea,

4
00:00:15,160 --> 00:00:15,800
Speaker 1: and then there.

5
00:00:15,720 --> 00:00:19,240
Speaker 2: Was another change of plea and another as the dominoes

6
00:00:19,280 --> 00:00:23,639
Speaker 2: started falling in the Georgia racketeering case accusing Donald Trump

7
00:00:23,680 --> 00:00:27,120
Speaker 2: and eighteen others of scheming to keep Trump in power

8
00:00:27,320 --> 00:00:29,240
Speaker 2: after he lost the twenty twenty election.

9
00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:32,760
Speaker 3: How do you plead to count fifteen conspiracy to commit

10
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:37,480
Speaker 3: filing false documents in indictment number two three SC one eight, eight, nine,

11
00:00:37,479 --> 00:00:39,320
Speaker 3: four seven guilty.

12
00:00:40,280 --> 00:00:44,640
Speaker 2: Four have now pleaded guilty, including three lawyers. Sidney Powell

13
00:00:44,680 --> 00:00:49,159
Speaker 2: pleaded guilty to six misdemeanors last Thursday. Kenneth Chesborough pleaded

14
00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:52,960
Speaker 2: to one felony the next day, and on Tuesday, Jenna

15
00:00:52,960 --> 00:00:54,600
Speaker 2: Ellis pleaded to one felony.

16
00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:58,800
Speaker 3: Tearfully, I believe in and I value election integrity. If

17
00:00:58,840 --> 00:01:00,960
Speaker 3: I knew then what I know now, I would have

18
00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:04,600
Speaker 3: declined to represent Donald Trump in these post selection challenges.

19
00:01:04,920 --> 00:01:07,520
Speaker 3: I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse.

20
00:01:07,880 --> 00:01:11,200
Speaker 2: Here to discuss how all this flipping affects the case

21
00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:14,800
Speaker 2: against Trump is Michael Moore of Moore Hall, the former

22
00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:18,360
Speaker 2: US Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia. So Michael,

23
00:01:18,440 --> 00:01:21,959
Speaker 2: four down, fifteen to go. How significant are these please?

24
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:25,959
Speaker 1: I think it's significant anytime that you have a co

25
00:01:26,080 --> 00:01:29,320
Speaker 1: defendive flip, and the lawyers flipping are a little bit

26
00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:32,319
Speaker 1: of a different bird baby than we normally see. When

27
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:35,039
Speaker 1: I listened to miss Ellis and the charges against her,

28
00:01:35,520 --> 00:01:37,920
Speaker 1: you heard a lot about the Trump campaign, You heard

29
00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:41,880
Speaker 1: about her direction from others. She called the more senior,

30
00:01:41,920 --> 00:01:45,240
Speaker 1: more experienced lawyers, and that seems to me probably where

31
00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:48,240
Speaker 1: the biggest jeopardy lies, and that is with those lawyers

32
00:01:48,280 --> 00:01:51,400
Speaker 1: who have instructed her to do something. So it sounded

33
00:01:51,440 --> 00:01:54,560
Speaker 1: like that would be potentially mister Eastmann and mister Giuliani.

34
00:01:55,040 --> 00:01:57,640
Speaker 1: And of course if they have pressure on them and

35
00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:01,120
Speaker 1: they were then to cooperate, then they may get to

36
00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:04,000
Speaker 1: the next level, which would be closer I think to

37
00:02:04,200 --> 00:02:05,040
Speaker 1: the former president.

38
00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:08,880
Speaker 2: These are all sweetheart deals, aren't they? The lawyer's deals

39
00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:10,040
Speaker 2: they are.

40
00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:13,240
Speaker 1: They are unusually liked. I mean, remember that this case

41
00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:17,920
Speaker 1: had been tagged as essentially the largest election fraud case

42
00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:20,239
Speaker 1: in history or something like that, and it's will be

43
00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:23,200
Speaker 1: a massive reco case, and people are basically walking away

44
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,359
Speaker 1: with a slap on the wrist. They up with probation,

45
00:02:26,520 --> 00:02:31,040
Speaker 1: no jail time, and a first offender plea, which means

46
00:02:31,040 --> 00:02:33,400
Speaker 1: that at the end of a certain period of their

47
00:02:33,400 --> 00:02:37,440
Speaker 1: probation and the completion of those requirements, the charges are

48
00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:41,120
Speaker 1: since the dismissed, so that with no record, they can vote,

49
00:02:41,160 --> 00:02:42,799
Speaker 1: they can have a gun, they can do all those

50
00:02:42,800 --> 00:02:45,919
Speaker 1: things once they have completed the requirements that the court

51
00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:49,240
Speaker 1: set out. So they're unusually light, and they are especially

52
00:02:49,720 --> 00:02:53,079
Speaker 1: like when you compare them with the sentences received by

53
00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:56,400
Speaker 1: people who were involved at the Capitol on January the sixth,

54
00:02:56,720 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 1: many of whom had jail sentences, some of them very significant.

55
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:03,760
Speaker 1: So it's maybe a little bit like the architects of

56
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:06,680
Speaker 1: the building are not going to jail, the construction workers

57
00:03:06,680 --> 00:03:08,760
Speaker 1: who worked on the building are. That's sort of how

58
00:03:08,800 --> 00:03:09,240
Speaker 1: I see it.

59
00:03:09,639 --> 00:03:12,160
Speaker 2: So I can see why Willis gave the deals at

60
00:03:12,160 --> 00:03:15,880
Speaker 2: this point to Powell and Chesbro so that she wouldn't

61
00:03:15,880 --> 00:03:19,240
Speaker 2: have to go to trial against them early and reveal

62
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:21,880
Speaker 2: evidence to Trump. But why give a deal such a

63
00:03:21,880 --> 00:03:23,440
Speaker 2: good deal to Jenna Ellis?

64
00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:27,120
Speaker 1: I think probably she has made some statements that the

65
00:03:27,360 --> 00:03:31,119
Speaker 1: ba will find useful against other people in the indictment.

66
00:03:31,360 --> 00:03:33,959
Speaker 1: I don't know necessarily that that's Trump, but I think

67
00:03:34,000 --> 00:03:37,000
Speaker 1: she probably gave them enough information to at least move forward.

68
00:03:37,840 --> 00:03:40,680
Speaker 1: And also too, I mean, she was essentially a mouthpiece

69
00:03:41,000 --> 00:03:45,200
Speaker 1: for other folks involved with the campaign, and her culpability

70
00:03:45,240 --> 00:03:47,720
Speaker 1: I think was probably less than other people who may

71
00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:50,880
Speaker 1: have been more of a puppet master than she was.

72
00:03:51,160 --> 00:03:53,880
Speaker 2: CNN I believe is reporting that Willis is talking to

73
00:03:53,960 --> 00:03:56,720
Speaker 2: six more defendants who will be left to go to

74
00:03:56,800 --> 00:03:59,600
Speaker 2: trial once it comes time for trial. I mean, does

75
00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:01,880
Speaker 2: she have a number in mind besides Trump?

76
00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:05,320
Speaker 1: I think maybe a half dozen people or a few

77
00:04:05,400 --> 00:04:07,720
Speaker 1: left that will be left standing. And those may be

78
00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:11,800
Speaker 1: Trump and Juliani, that may be one Eastman, maybe another,

79
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:15,360
Speaker 1: people who think they have different constitutional arguments to make.

80
00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:17,960
Speaker 1: They may be stronger arguments. It will be interesting to

81
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: see how Metas is involved. I mean, we've heard that

82
00:04:21,400 --> 00:04:23,520
Speaker 1: he was offered some of me into your cut a

83
00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:26,560
Speaker 1: deal with Jack Smith. That's very interesting to me given

84
00:04:26,640 --> 00:04:28,880
Speaker 1: the statements that he has made in the Georgia case,

85
00:04:29,120 --> 00:04:32,200
Speaker 1: especially during his motion to remove the case to federal court.

86
00:04:32,440 --> 00:04:34,760
Speaker 1: And you know, essentially he came to Atlanta in federal

87
00:04:34,760 --> 00:04:37,560
Speaker 1: court and said everything I was doing was lawful. This

88
00:04:37,640 --> 00:04:40,279
Speaker 1: is part of my job and it's protected activity, and

89
00:04:40,320 --> 00:04:42,760
Speaker 1: it should entitle me as a federal official to move

90
00:04:42,800 --> 00:04:44,919
Speaker 1: my case to federal court. And it sounds like to

91
00:04:44,960 --> 00:04:47,640
Speaker 1: the contrary. When he got to Washington, d C. He

92
00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:49,760
Speaker 1: decided that he wanted to cut a deal with the

93
00:04:49,839 --> 00:04:52,880
Speaker 1: special counsel and tell him that, well, I don't know

94
00:04:52,920 --> 00:04:54,720
Speaker 1: that I was doing the right thing, and I tried

95
00:04:54,720 --> 00:04:56,640
Speaker 1: to tell the former presence that he was telling lies

96
00:04:56,720 --> 00:04:59,360
Speaker 1: or whatever. I'm not quoting again, but something to that effect.

97
00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:02,520
Speaker 1: I don't think those are necessarily consistent positions, and it'll

98
00:05:02,560 --> 00:05:05,720
Speaker 1: be interesting to see how that plays out. So I

99
00:05:05,760 --> 00:05:08,040
Speaker 1: don't know if mss Willis at this point, given the

100
00:05:08,080 --> 00:05:10,960
Speaker 1: objections that he made to have his case tried in

101
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:14,920
Speaker 1: Fulton County, will look a favorably on a potential plya

102
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:16,839
Speaker 1: offer from him. So he may be one of the

103
00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:17,960
Speaker 1: few that remain.

104
00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:22,600
Speaker 2: That's really interesting because he has a very experienced attorney

105
00:05:23,200 --> 00:05:28,480
Speaker 2: representing him. Do you let your client testify in a

106
00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:32,720
Speaker 2: federal case to something that's going to cause you jeopardy

107
00:05:32,960 --> 00:05:34,120
Speaker 2: in a state case?

108
00:05:34,760 --> 00:05:37,200
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think you do. And I think that's

109
00:05:37,240 --> 00:05:39,160
Speaker 1: the problem. And I do think he has a very

110
00:05:39,160 --> 00:05:42,360
Speaker 1: good lawyer. I just think some of the statements that

111
00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:44,880
Speaker 1: he may have made in the federal court here in

112
00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:48,800
Speaker 1: Atlanta may not be exactly consistent with positions that he

113
00:05:48,880 --> 00:05:52,520
Speaker 1: has taken to the special counsel. And I don't know

114
00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:56,080
Speaker 1: how you claim that what you were doing was part

115
00:05:56,120 --> 00:05:59,400
Speaker 1: of your actual lawful role as a chief of staff

116
00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:03,080
Speaker 1: then suggest somehow that what you were doing, you know

117
00:06:03,160 --> 00:06:05,960
Speaker 1: you had objections to because you thought your boss was

118
00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:08,240
Speaker 1: not tell the truth in this kind of thing. So

119
00:06:08,640 --> 00:06:11,880
Speaker 1: those will be maybe inconsistencies, and what we have to

120
00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:15,080
Speaker 1: see actually the substance of each statement side by side.

121
00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:19,039
Speaker 1: We haven't seen those yet. But any inconsistencies certainly give

122
00:06:19,120 --> 00:06:22,200
Speaker 1: room to attack credibility with a witness, and may give

123
00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:25,640
Speaker 1: fodder to a defense attorney to raise objections, and certainly

124
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:28,400
Speaker 1: may give some interest at least to a prosecutor to

125
00:06:28,440 --> 00:06:30,560
Speaker 1: the side when or not you know that witness needs

126
00:06:30,600 --> 00:06:32,720
Speaker 1: to be put on, is a cooperating witness, or with

127
00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:36,159
Speaker 1: that witness independent needs to simply move forward toward trial.

128
00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:39,560
Speaker 2: So this scenario is what they think about when they

129
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:42,120
Speaker 2: say the dominoes are falling, Well.

130
00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:44,480
Speaker 1: It is. You know, if you think about a line

131
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:47,360
Speaker 1: of dominoes, a circle of dominoes or whatever, you know,

132
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:49,280
Speaker 1: you can pick a domino in the middle of the

133
00:06:49,320 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 1: line and push it to the right or the left,

134
00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:54,280
Speaker 1: and only the ones in the direction that's falling are

135
00:06:54,320 --> 00:06:57,440
Speaker 1: going to continue to fall. And so that's why prosecutors

136
00:06:57,480 --> 00:06:59,599
Speaker 1: try to work from the bottom up. They want to

137
00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:02,200
Speaker 1: push some that has information at the bottom to try

138
00:07:02,240 --> 00:07:04,160
Speaker 1: to get to the top. And some people argue you

139
00:07:04,360 --> 00:07:06,520
Speaker 1: should work your way down. That's not necessarily tear to

140
00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:09,400
Speaker 1: those people who are much less culpable, but you push

141
00:07:09,560 --> 00:07:11,480
Speaker 1: generally from the bottom of the top. Cut deals with

142
00:07:11,480 --> 00:07:13,040
Speaker 1: the people who are less colpable to try to get

143
00:07:13,080 --> 00:07:16,040
Speaker 1: people who are really the masterminds or the more guilty

144
00:07:16,520 --> 00:07:19,640
Speaker 1: of the organization. Here, I think there has been some

145
00:07:20,560 --> 00:07:23,000
Speaker 1: middle of the line pushing, if you will, and the

146
00:07:23,040 --> 00:07:26,080
Speaker 1: dominoes have fallen, maybe in one direction, which is why

147
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:28,920
Speaker 1: I think you saw ultimately deal cut with Jenna Ellis.

148
00:07:29,080 --> 00:07:31,480
Speaker 1: Now whether or not she then also can have information

149
00:07:31,520 --> 00:07:33,920
Speaker 1: toward the top, I don't know. But when we saw

150
00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:37,600
Speaker 1: Ms Powell, mister chesbro Ls, you know, in Er Please,

151
00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:40,560
Speaker 1: I think that was a section maybe of this arrangement

152
00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:43,440
Speaker 1: of dominoes and arrangement of dependence, and that sort of

153
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:47,200
Speaker 1: has now concluded itself. But for the other lawyers who

154
00:07:47,320 --> 00:07:49,800
Speaker 1: remain in the case, the key will be in the

155
00:07:49,840 --> 00:07:52,600
Speaker 1: bridge the prosecutor will have to make will be getting

156
00:07:53,080 --> 00:07:56,040
Speaker 1: from those folks in fact, to the people at the

157
00:07:56,040 --> 00:07:58,400
Speaker 1: top of the line, And the question is what information

158
00:07:58,520 --> 00:08:00,840
Speaker 1: do they have that will get in there. I don't

159
00:08:00,880 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 1: know if miss Powell has information about that or not.

160
00:08:02,800 --> 00:08:05,480
Speaker 1: She was president of meeting. She may have information about

161
00:08:05,480 --> 00:08:07,920
Speaker 1: who said what. At the same time, I don't think

162
00:08:07,960 --> 00:08:09,840
Speaker 1: that she's gonna be able to put the former president's

163
00:08:09,840 --> 00:08:12,440
Speaker 1: things with prints on Coffee County as we get there,

164
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:14,840
Speaker 1: I do think, and I thought this was sort of

165
00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:18,160
Speaker 1: telling of the things to come. When Miss Ellis made

166
00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:20,840
Speaker 1: the comment that she was simply doing what she had

167
00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:23,480
Speaker 1: been advised to do, I think you're hearing a preview

168
00:08:23,520 --> 00:08:25,679
Speaker 1: of the defense we're going to hear from the former president.

169
00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:27,880
Speaker 1: That is, in fact, I was simply doing what my

170
00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:30,760
Speaker 1: lawyers told me I should do, or what I had

171
00:08:30,760 --> 00:08:33,840
Speaker 1: a right to do. I was simply following legal advice

172
00:08:34,120 --> 00:08:37,559
Speaker 1: at the time. And then I think we open up

173
00:08:37,760 --> 00:08:41,160
Speaker 1: the can of executive privilege whether or not he's allowed

174
00:08:41,160 --> 00:08:44,440
Speaker 1: to rely out information from lawyers and advisors. We know

175
00:08:44,559 --> 00:08:47,000
Speaker 1: that the president is not covered by the Hatch Act

176
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:50,280
Speaker 1: any president, and so this whole issue, well, was it

177
00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:53,360
Speaker 1: a campaign or were you the president? That may not

178
00:08:53,400 --> 00:08:55,600
Speaker 1: be a hurdle as we go forward, and so I

179
00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:57,760
Speaker 1: do think you're going to hear a lot about Look,

180
00:08:57,800 --> 00:09:00,240
Speaker 1: I was doing what my lawyers and advisers told me

181
00:09:00,280 --> 00:09:03,040
Speaker 1: to do. I had taken advice from a number of

182
00:09:03,120 --> 00:09:05,760
Speaker 1: different councils, some of them had different opinions. I had

183
00:09:05,800 --> 00:09:08,280
Speaker 1: to make a choice. I felt like we had legitimate

184
00:09:08,360 --> 00:09:11,240
Speaker 1: move forward on the alternate electric scheme as told to

185
00:09:11,240 --> 00:09:14,640
Speaker 1: me by mister Chesbro. He cited to me the issue

186
00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:17,960
Speaker 1: in the circumstances in the Hawaii case from the nineteen

187
00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:20,120
Speaker 1: sixties or whatever it was. And so this is what

188
00:09:20,160 --> 00:09:22,680
Speaker 1: you're going to hear and ultimate fly. I think many

189
00:09:22,679 --> 00:09:25,240
Speaker 1: of the decisions and the ultimate outcome of this case

190
00:09:25,320 --> 00:09:28,480
Speaker 1: is going to rest not on allegations made in a

191
00:09:28,520 --> 00:09:32,880
Speaker 1: trial court, but ultimately what an appellate court and like

192
00:09:33,000 --> 00:09:36,880
Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court besides, is appropriate evidence and

193
00:09:36,960 --> 00:09:40,199
Speaker 1: an appropriate charge. When we're talking about former president of

194
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:42,959
Speaker 1: the United States being charged in for conduct occurring while

195
00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:45,520
Speaker 1: in fact he was president of the United States. And

196
00:09:45,559 --> 00:09:47,920
Speaker 1: so whether or not the appellate courts look at that

197
00:09:48,040 --> 00:09:50,880
Speaker 1: and say, well, he does have some privilege or some immunity,

198
00:09:51,040 --> 00:09:52,600
Speaker 1: I think that that's still an open question.

199
00:09:52,800 --> 00:09:55,360
Speaker 2: Yeah, a question that may be answered first in the

200
00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:58,840
Speaker 2: DC federal case. Thanks so much, Michael. That's Michael Moore,

201
00:09:58,920 --> 00:10:01,480
Speaker 2: the former US attorney for the Middle District of Georgia.

202
00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:05,959
Speaker 4: Welcome back to real estate investing. Made simple grant cardone

203
00:10:05,960 --> 00:10:08,840
Speaker 4: here in the Cardones On every Monday, I said, Steve,

204
00:10:08,840 --> 00:10:11,560
Speaker 4: would I pay you last month? Steve was paid thirty

205
00:10:11,559 --> 00:10:17,400
Speaker 4: one twenty dollars last month because he invested at Cardoncapital

206
00:10:17,640 --> 00:10:21,920
Speaker 4: dot Com, Cardoncapital dot Com, Cardoncapital dot Com.

207
00:10:22,440 --> 00:10:25,480
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving a

208
00:10:25,559 --> 00:10:29,640
Speaker 2: lawsuit against real estate management company Cardone Capital and its

209
00:10:29,679 --> 00:10:34,400
Speaker 2: CEO for making misleading statements in YouTube and Instagram videos.

210
00:10:34,800 --> 00:10:37,800
Speaker 2: The lawsuit was dismissed on other grounds, but the core

211
00:10:37,920 --> 00:10:43,160
Speaker 2: issue remains. Does hyping investment projects or touting crypto tookens

212
00:10:43,200 --> 00:10:46,720
Speaker 2: on social media make someone a seller who can be

213
00:10:46,800 --> 00:10:50,480
Speaker 2: sued under federal law by investors who are defrauded or

214
00:10:50,520 --> 00:10:53,920
Speaker 2: who bought an unregistered security. To put it another way,

215
00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:57,760
Speaker 2: what happens when a ninety year old securities law meets

216
00:10:57,760 --> 00:11:01,760
Speaker 2: social media. Joining me is Ann a business law professor

217
00:11:01,800 --> 00:11:05,640
Speaker 2: at tu Lane University. So, and let's start with the basics.

218
00:11:05,679 --> 00:11:08,640
Speaker 2: The very basics tell us about the securities laws and

219
00:11:09,120 --> 00:11:12,319
Speaker 2: where this definition of seller becomes important.

220
00:11:12,840 --> 00:11:15,160
Speaker 5: Okay, So Section twelve is from the nineteen thirty three

221
00:11:15,160 --> 00:11:18,679
Speaker 5: Securities Act and it basically has two separate provisions. The

222
00:11:18,760 --> 00:11:21,680
Speaker 5: first is that a purchaser of a security that was

223
00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:25,560
Speaker 5: sold unregistered when it should have been registered has a

224
00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:28,840
Speaker 5: right to sue the seller. Basically, it's a right of recision.

225
00:11:28,880 --> 00:11:31,040
Speaker 5: They can give the security back and ask for their

226
00:11:31,040 --> 00:11:34,480
Speaker 5: money back minus any income they've earned on it. So

227
00:11:34,520 --> 00:11:36,760
Speaker 5: they can sue whoever sold it to them if it

228
00:11:36,800 --> 00:11:40,640
Speaker 5: was sold in violation of the registration provisions. And then secondly,

229
00:11:40,880 --> 00:11:43,480
Speaker 5: they can sue anyone who sold it to them or

230
00:11:43,520 --> 00:11:48,760
Speaker 5: who solicited the purchase if the prospectus or sales documents

231
00:11:49,240 --> 00:11:52,520
Speaker 5: contained false statements. Now, sometimes there's a bit of a

232
00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:54,800
Speaker 5: debate about what counts as a perspectus, but what it

233
00:11:54,840 --> 00:11:57,280
Speaker 5: comes down to is that this is sometimes a more

234
00:11:57,280 --> 00:12:00,680
Speaker 5: attractive option than say, more traditional ways of suing for

235
00:12:00,800 --> 00:12:03,560
Speaker 5: false statements like Section ten B, which is the anti

236
00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:06,839
Speaker 5: fraud statute, because if you sue for false statements in

237
00:12:06,880 --> 00:12:10,680
Speaker 5: connection with essentially these unregistered security sales under section twelve,

238
00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:14,040
Speaker 5: you don't have to show that you relied on the

239
00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:15,760
Speaker 5: false statement, and you don't have to show that there

240
00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:17,440
Speaker 5: was any intent to make a false statement.

241
00:12:17,760 --> 00:12:22,079
Speaker 2: And so how did the Supreme Court define a seller

242
00:12:22,760 --> 00:12:23,800
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty.

243
00:12:23,559 --> 00:12:26,199
Speaker 5: Eight, So in the case of Pitter versus Doll, there

244
00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:28,880
Speaker 5: was a question of who counts as a statutory seller.

245
00:12:28,920 --> 00:12:32,240
Speaker 5: In other words, Section twelve speaks of people who sell securities.

246
00:12:32,400 --> 00:12:34,240
Speaker 5: So the question was, do you have to be actually

247
00:12:34,280 --> 00:12:37,080
Speaker 5: the person who transfer the title me to you or

248
00:12:37,120 --> 00:12:39,800
Speaker 5: could it be other people who are somewhat involved with

249
00:12:39,920 --> 00:12:43,000
Speaker 5: the sale? And the court first said it has to

250
00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:46,400
Speaker 5: be either a direct transfer of title or it has

251
00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:49,640
Speaker 5: to be someone who solicited the purchase. But they drew

252
00:12:49,679 --> 00:12:54,080
Speaker 5: a distinction between someone who is somehow involved and had

253
00:12:54,120 --> 00:12:57,320
Speaker 5: something to do with the buyer actively going out and

254
00:12:57,360 --> 00:12:59,960
Speaker 5: purchasing the security, and instead they said they have to

255
00:13:00,040 --> 00:13:03,240
Speaker 5: who have actually solicited and had some kind of relationship

256
00:13:03,280 --> 00:13:06,440
Speaker 5: with the buyer. They rejected a test that would be

257
00:13:06,520 --> 00:13:10,240
Speaker 5: somehow like people who are just substantially participate in the sale.

258
00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:14,120
Speaker 5: So that was interpreted by courts to mean that you

259
00:13:14,160 --> 00:13:16,880
Speaker 5: could only be liable under section twelve if you literally

260
00:13:16,880 --> 00:13:19,680
Speaker 5: transferred title it was your security and you sold it

261
00:13:19,720 --> 00:13:23,360
Speaker 5: to someone else, or if you had some kind of

262
00:13:23,400 --> 00:13:26,720
Speaker 5: direct contact with a relationship with the buyer so that

263
00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:28,280
Speaker 5: you induced the purchase that way.

264
00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:32,960
Speaker 2: So in our world of social media, where venture capital

265
00:13:33,000 --> 00:13:38,000
Speaker 2: firms and others are hyping investment projects online, are courts

266
00:13:38,040 --> 00:13:42,240
Speaker 2: having a difficult time determining whether they're sellers or not.

267
00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:43,120
Speaker 4: Yeah.

268
00:13:43,160 --> 00:13:46,400
Speaker 5: So the issue here is that after pinter versus Doll,

269
00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:49,760
Speaker 5: there were a bunch of cases involving what were basically

270
00:13:49,800 --> 00:13:53,440
Speaker 5: registered offerings. They were registered offerings, they were IPOs, where

271
00:13:53,440 --> 00:13:56,800
Speaker 5: people sued for false statements in the IPO documents. Now

272
00:13:56,840 --> 00:13:59,560
Speaker 5: there's a cause of action specifically for that false statements

273
00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:02,640
Speaker 5: in a register statement under section eleven, and they would

274
00:14:02,679 --> 00:14:06,000
Speaker 5: also sue under section twelve because Section twelve has liability

275
00:14:06,040 --> 00:14:09,000
Speaker 5: both for unregistered offerings, which these weren't, or for false

276
00:14:09,000 --> 00:14:12,840
Speaker 5: statements and a perspective, and courts rejected the Section twelve

277
00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:16,640
Speaker 5: liability looking at pinter in a lot of cases where

278
00:14:16,679 --> 00:14:20,680
Speaker 5: there was no direct contact with the buyer. So for example,

279
00:14:21,120 --> 00:14:24,640
Speaker 5: issuing companies, it was their security, but they sold in

280
00:14:24,680 --> 00:14:27,880
Speaker 5: a firm commitment underwriting, meaning the underwriters bought the securities

281
00:14:27,880 --> 00:14:30,480
Speaker 5: from the issuer. The underwriters then sold to the public.

282
00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:33,280
Speaker 5: The purchaser would try to sue the issuers inter Section

283
00:14:33,360 --> 00:14:36,239
Speaker 5: twelve because the issuer's name is all over the perspectives,

284
00:14:36,240 --> 00:14:39,600
Speaker 5: it's like their company, it's their securities being sold, and

285
00:14:39,640 --> 00:14:42,120
Speaker 5: the courts would say the issuer did not have enough

286
00:14:42,480 --> 00:14:46,200
Speaker 5: direct involvement with this particular sale to this buyer to

287
00:14:46,440 --> 00:14:49,920
Speaker 5: justify imposing Section twelve viability. Now, you could still have

288
00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:53,240
Speaker 5: other forms of liability because these were registered offerings, but

289
00:14:53,320 --> 00:14:55,920
Speaker 5: you couldn't have liability under section twelve. So the court

290
00:14:55,960 --> 00:14:58,320
Speaker 5: reading Pinder vicious now very narrowly to mean you have

291
00:14:58,400 --> 00:15:00,840
Speaker 5: to have had some kind of contact with a relationship

292
00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:03,320
Speaker 5: with the buyer. So now we fast forward to crypto,

293
00:15:03,440 --> 00:15:06,960
Speaker 5: and the problem is there isn't an alternative scheme because crypto,

294
00:15:07,080 --> 00:15:09,080
Speaker 5: assuming it's a security, which is a whole everything. But

295
00:15:09,120 --> 00:15:12,400
Speaker 5: let's assume it is a security. If crypto is a security,

296
00:15:12,440 --> 00:15:16,479
Speaker 5: it's not registered. So the liability regime that was available

297
00:15:16,640 --> 00:15:20,440
Speaker 5: in those IPO cases for registered offerings is not available

298
00:15:20,520 --> 00:15:24,560
Speaker 5: to these shareholders. So for these shareholders, Section twelve is

299
00:15:24,600 --> 00:15:28,200
Speaker 5: sort of the main potential avenue of liability other than

300
00:15:28,280 --> 00:15:31,680
Speaker 5: the anti fraud laws, which are much harder. So they're

301
00:15:31,720 --> 00:15:35,040
Speaker 5: suing under section twelve because that's it, and what we've

302
00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:37,920
Speaker 5: seen now is too appellate. Court said direct contact. We

303
00:15:38,000 --> 00:15:40,600
Speaker 5: never said that what are you talking about, known as

304
00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:43,400
Speaker 5: it's talent is a solicitation. As long as you make

305
00:15:43,440 --> 00:15:47,440
Speaker 5: these public statements in advertising urging people to buy, that's

306
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:50,720
Speaker 5: a solicitation, even if there's no personal relationship. Meanwhile, there

307
00:15:50,760 --> 00:15:53,320
Speaker 5: are at least a couple of other decisions that say, no,

308
00:15:53,560 --> 00:15:56,440
Speaker 5: we're sticking to the old interpretations of pinter that there

309
00:15:56,480 --> 00:15:58,960
Speaker 5: have to be this kind of direct relationship. And then

310
00:15:59,000 --> 00:16:01,040
Speaker 5: you have courts that are sort of like saying in

311
00:16:01,080 --> 00:16:04,840
Speaker 5: a case against Coinbase that Coinbase with air drops and

312
00:16:05,240 --> 00:16:08,600
Speaker 5: materials about particular securities, that wasn't a solicitation. But it's

313
00:16:08,640 --> 00:16:11,680
Speaker 5: not exactly clear why, you know, the court just says

314
00:16:11,760 --> 00:16:14,800
Speaker 5: that's not enough. So we don't know exactly what's enough

315
00:16:14,880 --> 00:16:16,800
Speaker 5: or what exactly the regime is going to be.

316
00:16:17,000 --> 00:16:20,520
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court decided not to take a case involving

317
00:16:20,600 --> 00:16:21,760
Speaker 2: cardone Capital.

318
00:16:22,280 --> 00:16:23,960
Speaker 5: Well, that was the case that was Actually it wasn't

319
00:16:23,960 --> 00:16:26,160
Speaker 5: a registered offering. I believe it was under Regulation A.

320
00:16:26,600 --> 00:16:30,560
Speaker 5: So Regulation A is an exemption from a full on

321
00:16:30,760 --> 00:16:34,600
Speaker 5: registered offerings, but it does require some degree of filing

322
00:16:34,640 --> 00:16:38,720
Speaker 5: and disclosure with the SEC. So it wasn't an unregistered offering.

323
00:16:39,360 --> 00:16:43,600
Speaker 5: But because it's not registered offerings, the standard protections available

324
00:16:43,600 --> 00:16:46,840
Speaker 5: in registered offerings are not available to purchasers. Instead, the

325
00:16:46,880 --> 00:16:49,760
Speaker 5: only liability available would be, you know, just straight up fraud,

326
00:16:49,800 --> 00:16:53,040
Speaker 5: which is again very hard to prove, or Section twelve liability.

327
00:16:53,080 --> 00:16:56,800
Speaker 5: That's what's available. And so this real estate company, they

328
00:16:56,880 --> 00:17:01,600
Speaker 5: use social media to advertise the officering that was filed

329
00:17:01,600 --> 00:17:03,440
Speaker 5: with the SEC, they had documents with the SEC and

330
00:17:03,440 --> 00:17:08,080
Speaker 5: so forth, and shareholders claimed that these advertisements were solicitations.

331
00:17:08,080 --> 00:17:11,639
Speaker 5: In the Ninth Circuit agreed and repudiated. I mean, you know,

332
00:17:11,680 --> 00:17:13,600
Speaker 5: some of the case law that had held there must

333
00:17:13,600 --> 00:17:15,440
Speaker 5: be direct contact hadn't come out of the Ninth Circuit,

334
00:17:15,440 --> 00:17:17,760
Speaker 5: So at very least it was disagreeing with the other

335
00:17:17,920 --> 00:17:22,439
Speaker 5: courts that had imposed something like a direct contact requirement.

336
00:17:22,560 --> 00:17:25,040
Speaker 5: But the Supreme Court denied sort. I mean, there are

337
00:17:25,119 --> 00:17:26,800
Speaker 5: any number of reasons why they could have denied CIRT.

338
00:17:26,880 --> 00:17:30,320
Speaker 5: But one possibility is that the social media cases are new.

339
00:17:30,640 --> 00:17:33,359
Speaker 5: They're you know, looking to this old precedent that was

340
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:36,560
Speaker 5: generated under IPO situations, and you know, it may take

341
00:17:36,600 --> 00:17:38,119
Speaker 5: some time to work through the court.

342
00:17:38,359 --> 00:17:40,600
Speaker 2: You know, if you ask an average person, it doesn't

343
00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:45,000
Speaker 2: seem like the difficult question. They're online, they're soliciting, Yeah,

344
00:17:45,040 --> 00:17:45,639
Speaker 2: they're selling.

345
00:17:46,600 --> 00:17:50,119
Speaker 5: What makes more difficult, Well, because the interesting thing is

346
00:17:50,240 --> 00:17:53,600
Speaker 5: that the word solicit it doesn't actually appear in the statute.

347
00:17:53,640 --> 00:17:57,520
Speaker 5: Nothing in the statute says imposing liability for solicitation, but

348
00:17:57,600 --> 00:18:01,360
Speaker 5: the statute says is imposing liability for selling. The Supreme

349
00:18:01,440 --> 00:18:04,960
Speaker 5: Court's interpretation of selling in Printer versus Doll, this case

350
00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:07,560
Speaker 5: from nineteen eighty eight is the one that imposed this

351
00:18:07,720 --> 00:18:11,800
Speaker 5: concept of solicitation with this very specific kind of definition.

352
00:18:12,040 --> 00:18:14,480
Speaker 5: And to be honest, Printer doesn't seem to really understand

353
00:18:14,520 --> 00:18:18,120
Speaker 5: how security sales works. There are parts of it display

354
00:18:18,160 --> 00:18:20,879
Speaker 5: a kind of lack of understanding. For instance, there's a

355
00:18:20,920 --> 00:18:23,160
Speaker 5: line in it that says you can't have liability for

356
00:18:23,359 --> 00:18:26,120
Speaker 5: a seller's seller. That if you sell to somebody and

357
00:18:26,240 --> 00:18:29,520
Speaker 5: that person sells to someone else, the original seller isn't going.

358
00:18:29,480 --> 00:18:30,040
Speaker 6: To be liable.

359
00:18:30,040 --> 00:18:32,159
Speaker 5: But that's a firm commitment underwriting, and courts have been

360
00:18:32,160 --> 00:18:34,200
Speaker 5: struggling with that. The sec has been struggling with that

361
00:18:34,240 --> 00:18:36,520
Speaker 5: ever since Pinter versus all held it. So, you know,

362
00:18:36,760 --> 00:18:40,359
Speaker 5: this concept of solicitation and exactly how we're defining it

363
00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:42,560
Speaker 5: is not in the statute. It comes from the Supreme

364
00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:44,280
Speaker 5: Court case launch. So now we're all trying to figure

365
00:18:44,320 --> 00:18:46,200
Speaker 5: out what the Supreme Court met and how you translate

366
00:18:46,320 --> 00:18:48,760
Speaker 5: a case in nineteen eighty eight to today.

367
00:18:48,720 --> 00:18:52,200
Speaker 2: The Ninth and the Eleventh Circuits? Are they in sync their.

368
00:18:52,080 --> 00:18:55,320
Speaker 5: Rulings, Yeah, they seem to be following the same path

369
00:18:55,359 --> 00:18:57,000
Speaker 5: that you know, at the very least, these sort of

370
00:18:57,000 --> 00:19:01,440
Speaker 5: widespread social media campaigns are sufficient. But what's really unclear

371
00:19:01,600 --> 00:19:03,119
Speaker 5: is like what would be like, I mean, once you

372
00:19:03,160 --> 00:19:06,200
Speaker 5: take away the requirement of direct contact, which is how

373
00:19:06,280 --> 00:19:08,800
Speaker 5: courts seem to be reading it before, then there's the

374
00:19:08,880 --> 00:19:11,760
Speaker 5: question of well, how much urging is enough? And that

375
00:19:11,880 --> 00:19:15,080
Speaker 5: was exactly what happened with coinbase, where you know, Coinbase

376
00:19:15,200 --> 00:19:17,199
Speaker 5: technically it did have direct contact. It was talking to

377
00:19:17,240 --> 00:19:19,280
Speaker 5: its customers and it you know, it does whatever it

378
00:19:19,320 --> 00:19:21,000
Speaker 5: does to say, you know, here's an airdrop of a

379
00:19:21,040 --> 00:19:22,960
Speaker 5: new security or whatever, and a court said, well, that's

380
00:19:23,040 --> 00:19:25,200
Speaker 5: just not enough. So now we have all kinds of questions,

381
00:19:25,200 --> 00:19:27,840
Speaker 5: like if social media is permissible, if you don't have

382
00:19:27,880 --> 00:19:31,919
Speaker 5: the restriction of direct contact, then how much urging is

383
00:19:32,200 --> 00:19:35,840
Speaker 5: enough to qualify solicitation? Given that in Pinter, the Supreme

384
00:19:35,880 --> 00:19:39,960
Speaker 5: Court's concern was, we don't want just substantial participation to

385
00:19:39,960 --> 00:19:41,800
Speaker 5: be enough. And the reason we don't was because we

386
00:19:41,800 --> 00:19:43,920
Speaker 5: want people to have certainty as to when they are

387
00:19:43,960 --> 00:19:46,480
Speaker 5: potentially liable or not. It's important that we have certainty

388
00:19:46,720 --> 00:19:48,760
Speaker 5: direct contact. At least that's a rule. It may not

389
00:19:48,800 --> 00:19:50,240
Speaker 5: be the best rule, it may not be the most

390
00:19:50,240 --> 00:19:52,679
Speaker 5: functional rule, but we know what it means. We know

391
00:19:52,800 --> 00:19:55,200
Speaker 5: when we see in. Now we're in this space where

392
00:19:55,200 --> 00:19:56,840
Speaker 5: it's not clear what's going to be enough.

393
00:19:57,840 --> 00:20:02,679
Speaker 2: Why don't these quotes sellers want to register just to

394
00:20:02,680 --> 00:20:03,520
Speaker 2: be safe.

395
00:20:03,800 --> 00:20:05,399
Speaker 5: So first of all, the crypto people, I'll say that

396
00:20:05,400 --> 00:20:07,720
Speaker 5: these aren't securities anyway, But the whole point is that

397
00:20:07,840 --> 00:20:11,080
Speaker 5: if you register them, there's a terrific amount of disclosure

398
00:20:11,160 --> 00:20:14,119
Speaker 5: you have to make, and there's very strict liability if

399
00:20:14,119 --> 00:20:17,320
Speaker 5: those disclosures are false That's why courts could get away

400
00:20:17,320 --> 00:20:19,480
Speaker 5: for so long saying well, we won't have Section twelve

401
00:20:19,560 --> 00:20:23,240
Speaker 5: liability for these IPO situations because there were alternatives. There's

402
00:20:23,240 --> 00:20:25,760
Speaker 5: some very strict liability for false statements. If you register,

403
00:20:25,960 --> 00:20:28,960
Speaker 5: you have to do a terrific amount of disclosure. It's

404
00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:32,040
Speaker 5: very expensive and you're risking this liability. And a lot

405
00:20:32,040 --> 00:20:35,560
Speaker 5: of crypto people say that the registration requirements, like the

406
00:20:35,600 --> 00:20:40,840
Speaker 5: disclosure requirements that attach, are simply not suitable for crypto,

407
00:20:40,920 --> 00:20:42,840
Speaker 5: Like they ask for things that don't make sense in

408
00:20:42,840 --> 00:20:46,120
Speaker 5: the crypto context, like principles of an organization when it's

409
00:20:46,200 --> 00:20:49,880
Speaker 5: a decentralized autonomous organization, or addresses when there is no address.

410
00:20:49,880 --> 00:20:52,879
Speaker 5: So the crypto people will say that, not only is

411
00:20:52,960 --> 00:20:56,080
Speaker 5: disclosure expensive and opens us up to all this liability,

412
00:20:56,320 --> 00:21:00,280
Speaker 5: but the SEC hasn't updated the registration requirements to really

413
00:21:00,280 --> 00:21:01,600
Speaker 5: makes sense in a crypto world.

414
00:21:02,119 --> 00:21:04,480
Speaker 2: So then will it be up to the Supreme Court

415
00:21:04,680 --> 00:21:08,240
Speaker 2: to clarify this so that there is clearer guidance?

416
00:21:08,960 --> 00:21:11,000
Speaker 5: Very possibly. I mean, you know, there's a lot that

417
00:21:11,000 --> 00:21:13,120
Speaker 5: could happen in between now and then. I mean, first

418
00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:15,320
Speaker 5: of all, if all the circuits come to settle on

419
00:21:15,359 --> 00:21:18,360
Speaker 5: something I mean, the Supreme Court doesn't have the kind

420
00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:21,680
Speaker 5: of passion for securities cases that say I do. So

421
00:21:23,040 --> 00:21:28,000
Speaker 5: if the circuits coalesce around a principle that's coherent, then

422
00:21:28,040 --> 00:21:30,399
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court may not step in at all. And

423
00:21:30,520 --> 00:21:33,119
Speaker 5: you know, we can all argue about it. But you know,

424
00:21:33,160 --> 00:21:35,960
Speaker 5: I'm not convinced that crypto is, you know, the wave

425
00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:39,239
Speaker 5: of the future. So at some point, if crypto has

426
00:21:39,240 --> 00:21:42,200
Speaker 5: becomes less popular, then we may just see less of

427
00:21:42,240 --> 00:21:46,240
Speaker 5: these cases. I mean, Regulation A was how this came

428
00:21:46,359 --> 00:21:48,959
Speaker 5: up in the Ninth Circuit, and that will still exist

429
00:21:49,000 --> 00:21:52,040
Speaker 5: because that's sort of a formal disclosure space for securities

430
00:21:52,080 --> 00:21:54,199
Speaker 5: that you don't want to do full registration for. But

431
00:21:54,240 --> 00:21:57,640
Speaker 5: reggae isn't really that popular to begin with, So I mean,

432
00:21:57,960 --> 00:22:01,240
Speaker 5: if crypto becomes less of a thing, it may simply

433
00:22:01,240 --> 00:22:04,320
Speaker 5: be that the disdute kind of settles down by itself.

434
00:22:04,640 --> 00:22:06,800
Speaker 2: Well, it's been great to talk to you, Anne. I

435
00:22:06,920 --> 00:22:11,399
Speaker 2: love your enthusiasm about securities law. That's Anne Lipton, a

436
00:22:11,440 --> 00:22:14,399
Speaker 2: business law professor at Tulane University.

437
00:22:14,440 --> 00:22:18,199
Speaker 4: This is not about Donald Trump versus Michael Cohen or

438
00:22:18,240 --> 00:22:22,240
Speaker 4: Michael Cohen versus Donald Trump. This is about accountability, plain

439
00:22:22,320 --> 00:22:23,200
Speaker 4: and simple.

440
00:22:23,119 --> 00:22:26,520
Speaker 2: But it did seem a lot like Michael Cohen versus

441
00:22:26,560 --> 00:22:30,199
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, as Trump's former lawyer and fixer took the

442
00:22:30,280 --> 00:22:33,280
Speaker 2: stand against him this week in New York State's two

443
00:22:33,359 --> 00:22:36,320
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty million dollars civil front case against the

444
00:22:36,359 --> 00:22:39,919
Speaker 2: former president, And it also seemed like Trump saw it

445
00:22:39,960 --> 00:22:40,400
Speaker 2: that way.

446
00:22:40,840 --> 00:22:45,360
Speaker 4: He's a lie trying to get a better deal himself, having.

447
00:22:45,119 --> 00:22:49,240
Speaker 2: Word and what played out during Cohen's testimony at times

448
00:22:49,240 --> 00:22:52,800
Speaker 2: seemed more like a TV legal drama than a real trial.

449
00:22:53,200 --> 00:22:55,760
Speaker 2: Joining me, as someone who was there for I'm going

450
00:22:55,840 --> 00:23:00,280
Speaker 2: to save the show, Pat Patricia hurtadd O, Bloomberg Legal reporter, Pat,

451
00:23:00,320 --> 00:23:03,199
Speaker 2: this was the first time in five years that Trump

452
00:23:03,240 --> 00:23:06,399
Speaker 2: and Cohen have come face to face. What was it

453
00:23:06,520 --> 00:23:09,200
Speaker 2: like in the courtroom where there were just about twenty

454
00:23:09,200 --> 00:23:10,160
Speaker 2: feet from each other?

455
00:23:10,480 --> 00:23:13,760
Speaker 3: They had a stair doown match. When it came time

456
00:23:14,160 --> 00:23:17,800
Speaker 3: for Cohen to take the stand, Trump his whole body

457
00:23:17,960 --> 00:23:20,639
Speaker 3: was pivoted with his seat turned to look at the

458
00:23:20,640 --> 00:23:21,560
Speaker 3: witness box.

459
00:23:22,200 --> 00:23:25,520
Speaker 2: Did the prosecution start by having Coen testify about his

460
00:23:25,640 --> 00:23:26,520
Speaker 2: past crimes?

461
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:30,920
Speaker 3: He described what he played guilty to. Of course, he's

462
00:23:31,000 --> 00:23:34,199
Speaker 3: backtracked from what his actual crimes were, and you know,

463
00:23:34,640 --> 00:23:36,600
Speaker 3: sort of said that he didn't commit some of the

464
00:23:36,600 --> 00:23:39,600
Speaker 3: frauds that they assert that he committed. But the State

465
00:23:39,640 --> 00:23:44,480
Speaker 3: Attorney General's office was asking him basically to describe what

466
00:23:44,680 --> 00:23:48,080
Speaker 3: he was supposed to do for Donald Trump, and he

467
00:23:48,119 --> 00:23:53,320
Speaker 3: said between twenty twelve until twenty fifteen, each year, Trump

468
00:23:53,400 --> 00:23:56,159
Speaker 3: would ask him to come into his office along with

469
00:23:56,200 --> 00:23:59,640
Speaker 3: Allen Weisseelbergen, you know, basically asked him to quote unquote

470
00:23:59,680 --> 00:24:03,359
Speaker 3: re engineered the finances and ask him, you know, how

471
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:05,960
Speaker 3: much do you think I'm worth? And then Trump would

472
00:24:05,960 --> 00:24:09,359
Speaker 3: say I'm actually not worth three point seven billion, it

473
00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:12,359
Speaker 3: should be eight billion, And he and Weiseelberg would have

474
00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:15,640
Speaker 3: to go back and go through the numbers and reevaluate

475
00:24:15,720 --> 00:24:18,119
Speaker 3: all the properties and assets to come up with a

476
00:24:18,119 --> 00:24:21,520
Speaker 3: figure that Donald Trump had decided was his networth.

477
00:24:21,880 --> 00:24:24,959
Speaker 2: So Donald Trump was just getting this figure, you know,

478
00:24:24,960 --> 00:24:25,720
Speaker 2: out of thin air.

479
00:24:26,400 --> 00:24:30,000
Speaker 3: Yees. Basically, Donald Trump wanted something, and so they would

480
00:24:30,000 --> 00:24:32,440
Speaker 3: go back and he and Weislberg would put their heads

481
00:24:32,440 --> 00:24:35,440
Speaker 3: together and try to value assets, be it golf courses

482
00:24:35,560 --> 00:24:38,639
Speaker 3: or whatever, so that they would achieve the number that

483
00:24:38,680 --> 00:24:39,479
Speaker 3: Trump named.

484
00:24:39,800 --> 00:24:44,560
Speaker 2: And Alan Weiselberg, who was the former Trump Organization CFO,

485
00:24:44,960 --> 00:24:49,000
Speaker 2: has already testified at the trial. Did he confirm these meetings.

486
00:24:49,600 --> 00:24:52,200
Speaker 3: This is the first time we've had an insider's book

487
00:24:52,280 --> 00:24:56,159
Speaker 3: about what these meetings were about. Weiselberg was very cagy

488
00:24:56,160 --> 00:24:59,760
Speaker 3: when he testified. Weiselberg is a descendant. He, along with

489
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:04,160
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, was sued by the State ag so he

490
00:25:04,240 --> 00:25:06,800
Speaker 3: wasn't very forthcoming and helpful. And so this is the

491
00:25:06,840 --> 00:25:10,399
Speaker 3: first time we're getting descriptions of the eating happening with

492
00:25:10,520 --> 00:25:13,400
Speaker 3: Trump calling them in. He said, basically, his boss called

493
00:25:13,440 --> 00:25:14,840
Speaker 3: him in and told him what he wanted.

494
00:25:15,119 --> 00:25:19,600
Speaker 2: Were there any surprises in the documents that Coen testified about.

495
00:25:19,800 --> 00:25:21,920
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, it's just kind of shocking to see

496
00:25:21,960 --> 00:25:24,080
Speaker 3: these things because then we were shown the actual statements

497
00:25:24,119 --> 00:25:27,520
Speaker 3: of financial condition and the statements about Trump's net worth,

498
00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:30,159
Speaker 3: and they would say, like Trump is worth eight billion

499
00:25:30,240 --> 00:25:32,639
Speaker 3: dollars or something like that, and they would say, oh,

500
00:25:32,680 --> 00:25:35,320
Speaker 3: by the way, we're adding the thirty percent premium to

501
00:25:35,400 --> 00:25:38,160
Speaker 3: the fact that this is a golf course that has

502
00:25:38,200 --> 00:25:42,360
Speaker 3: been constructed in good condition. And so basically, you know,

503
00:25:42,440 --> 00:25:45,639
Speaker 3: Trump is giving credit for the brand because the building's

504
00:25:45,800 --> 00:25:49,040
Speaker 3: complete and the constructions is finished. You know, that's like

505
00:25:49,119 --> 00:25:52,040
Speaker 3: saying my house is worth thirty percent more because I

506
00:25:52,160 --> 00:25:54,760
Speaker 3: keep the upkeep nicely outside and I have a nice

507
00:25:54,800 --> 00:25:58,159
Speaker 3: little window box outside, you know. He said, I was

508
00:25:58,240 --> 00:26:01,639
Speaker 3: tasked by mister Trump chewing increased the total assets based

509
00:26:01,720 --> 00:26:05,920
Speaker 3: upon a number he arbitrarily selected, and my responsibility, along

510
00:26:05,960 --> 00:26:10,160
Speaker 3: with Alan Weisserberg, predominantly was to reverse engineer the various

511
00:26:10,200 --> 00:26:13,480
Speaker 3: different asset classes and increase those assets in order to

512
00:26:13,520 --> 00:26:16,080
Speaker 3: achieve the number mister Trump had tasked us to do.

513
00:26:16,480 --> 00:26:19,320
Speaker 3: That's the heart of this case. I mean, Leticia James,

514
00:26:19,440 --> 00:26:23,119
Speaker 3: the New York Attorney General, asserts that Trump has inflated

515
00:26:23,160 --> 00:26:26,840
Speaker 3: his assets. Where the argument was and the Trump people

516
00:26:26,880 --> 00:26:31,680
Speaker 3: as law. You know, there's all these disavowals and declarations

517
00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:34,879
Speaker 3: that warn the reader of these documents to say, you know,

518
00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:38,240
Speaker 3: we don't really stand by these documents. They're just the number, right.

519
00:26:38,800 --> 00:26:42,960
Speaker 3: And we saw this document from twenty fourteen where Trump

520
00:26:43,040 --> 00:26:46,000
Speaker 3: was trying to fly that Buffalo Bill's football team and

521
00:26:46,080 --> 00:26:49,680
Speaker 3: he claimed to be worth eight billion dollars, and that

522
00:26:49,880 --> 00:26:52,760
Speaker 3: was a big discussion. Trump's lawyers were saying that it's

523
00:26:52,800 --> 00:26:55,720
Speaker 3: no fair, you can't bring this in. No evidence, this

524
00:26:55,920 --> 00:26:58,680
Speaker 3: claim of trying to buy the Buffalo Bills was ever

525
00:26:58,880 --> 00:27:02,080
Speaker 3: made to anybody, and he didn't buy the Buffalo bills,

526
00:27:02,080 --> 00:27:05,240
Speaker 3: So what's the harm? No foul, right, And the judge

527
00:27:05,320 --> 00:27:09,600
Speaker 3: allowed it finally into evidence because the AG's office says, well,

528
00:27:09,720 --> 00:27:12,760
Speaker 3: you know what, he claimed that this was his network,

529
00:27:12,920 --> 00:27:15,680
Speaker 3: and these are the documents that went to Morgan Stanley,

530
00:27:16,000 --> 00:27:19,680
Speaker 3: which was accepting bids. So Trump claimed he wanted to

531
00:27:19,720 --> 00:27:22,840
Speaker 3: put in a billion dollar bid to buy the Buffalo

532
00:27:22,880 --> 00:27:25,800
Speaker 3: Bills in twenty fourteen, and he claimed to be worth

533
00:27:25,880 --> 00:27:29,600
Speaker 3: eight billion dollars and he had Deutsche Bank bankers back

534
00:27:29,720 --> 00:27:32,320
Speaker 3: him with, you know, in a testing letter from Deutsche

535
00:27:32,320 --> 00:27:34,640
Speaker 3: Bank saying that he was valuable and they had seen

536
00:27:34,720 --> 00:27:37,919
Speaker 3: his net worth. When Michael Cohen is saying, hey, it's

537
00:27:37,960 --> 00:27:40,159
Speaker 3: all the house of cards built on nothing.

538
00:27:40,440 --> 00:27:44,160
Speaker 2: And was it Michael Cohen's testimony that got the AG

539
00:27:44,600 --> 00:27:46,520
Speaker 2: started investigating Trump.

540
00:27:46,760 --> 00:27:50,320
Speaker 3: Cohen's claims have basically triggered all sorts of investigations. He

541
00:27:50,480 --> 00:27:55,920
Speaker 3: testified about seven different congressional investigation. It prompted an investigation

542
00:27:56,240 --> 00:27:59,320
Speaker 3: of the hush money case. It prompted all kinds of

543
00:27:59,359 --> 00:28:03,440
Speaker 3: investigation of Trump and his assets. Now we stand here,

544
00:28:03,720 --> 00:28:06,480
Speaker 3: and I'm not saying that he's the only whistleblower, but

545
00:28:06,680 --> 00:28:09,320
Speaker 3: he was the insider that said this is what Trump

546
00:28:09,440 --> 00:28:11,919
Speaker 3: was doing, and it started everybody looking at him. And

547
00:28:12,000 --> 00:28:15,320
Speaker 3: certainly this case originated from Michael Cohen's complaint.

548
00:28:15,680 --> 00:28:20,280
Speaker 2: And I understand that the cross examination got nasty pretty quick.

549
00:28:20,720 --> 00:28:23,920
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, you know, Cohen's a lawyer, and he

550
00:28:23,960 --> 00:28:27,959
Speaker 3: got very offended when Alena Haba, who is Trump's lawyer,

551
00:28:28,359 --> 00:28:31,639
Speaker 3: started asking him questions about that he lied to a

552
00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:34,480
Speaker 3: federal judge, just like he lied to his wife on

553
00:28:34,520 --> 00:28:38,200
Speaker 3: his tax return. And Cowen got very angry, and there

554
00:28:38,280 --> 00:28:40,720
Speaker 3: was a lot of back and forth, you know, asked

555
00:28:40,720 --> 00:28:44,760
Speaker 3: an answer. It was like a movie watching people arguing

556
00:28:44,840 --> 00:28:49,000
Speaker 3: and bickering on the stand. Was like, Cohen is a lawyer,

557
00:28:49,040 --> 00:28:51,760
Speaker 3: and he objected, he goes objection, so he is a

558
00:28:51,800 --> 00:28:55,600
Speaker 3: witness objected through Alena's question. You don't see that other day,

559
00:28:55,720 --> 00:28:58,360
Speaker 3: No you don't. And you know, at one point Alena

560
00:28:58,480 --> 00:29:01,080
Speaker 3: shot back, do not on me, Copa, You're not on

561
00:29:01,120 --> 00:29:05,480
Speaker 3: your podcast, you're not on CNN. Answer my question. So

562
00:29:05,640 --> 00:29:08,160
Speaker 3: you can see there's a little bit of drama planes

563
00:29:08,240 --> 00:29:11,440
Speaker 3: on both sides. This is Cohen, I'm objecting to your question.

564
00:29:11,640 --> 00:29:14,240
Speaker 3: And at one point, probably we've all heard, you know,

565
00:29:14,280 --> 00:29:17,440
Speaker 3: when the judge will say that question was asked and answered,

566
00:29:17,480 --> 00:29:20,840
Speaker 3: and that's an objection, and Cohen said, asked an answered

567
00:29:21,040 --> 00:29:24,520
Speaker 3: because she kept repeating about four times, did you lie

568
00:29:24,640 --> 00:29:27,640
Speaker 3: to Judge Pauli, who was the federal judge he pled

569
00:29:27,640 --> 00:29:31,600
Speaker 3: guilty too, And then subsequently Cohen claimed that he was

570
00:29:31,640 --> 00:29:34,280
Speaker 3: forced to play guilty by his lawyers and he hadn't

571
00:29:34,320 --> 00:29:36,600
Speaker 3: really committed some of the crimes that he pled guilty

572
00:29:36,600 --> 00:29:38,120
Speaker 3: to originally, and.

573
00:29:38,120 --> 00:29:40,320
Speaker 2: This is in front of a judge. So all of

574
00:29:40,320 --> 00:29:41,240
Speaker 2: this is yeah, so.

575
00:29:41,160 --> 00:29:44,320
Speaker 3: This is like right, this is exactly right. There's almost

576
00:29:44,360 --> 00:29:47,160
Speaker 3: like two divergent trials going on at the same time.

577
00:29:47,520 --> 00:29:50,719
Speaker 3: There's the trial that's being held if you had a jury,

578
00:29:51,360 --> 00:29:55,000
Speaker 3: and the lawyers are being very dramatic and even the

579
00:29:55,040 --> 00:29:58,280
Speaker 3: witness to you know, oh a check. And you're watching

580
00:29:58,400 --> 00:30:02,320
Speaker 3: some kind of like reality TV show someone playing a lawyer,

581
00:30:02,760 --> 00:30:05,280
Speaker 3: and that's being played too, as if there were a jury,

582
00:30:05,480 --> 00:30:07,840
Speaker 3: and that might be more effective if there were a jury,

583
00:30:07,880 --> 00:30:11,320
Speaker 3: but there isn't a jury. And obviously it seems like

584
00:30:11,360 --> 00:30:13,560
Speaker 3: some of the lawyers know they have a very important

585
00:30:13,600 --> 00:30:16,120
Speaker 3: client in his name is Donald Trump, so they're asking

586
00:30:16,240 --> 00:30:19,640
Speaker 3: questions to please him. And then again you have the

587
00:30:19,640 --> 00:30:22,400
Speaker 3: one person who is the jury of one who is

588
00:30:22,520 --> 00:30:25,600
Speaker 3: judge and Gaurance who's deciding this. So that's what I said.

589
00:30:25,640 --> 00:30:29,440
Speaker 3: It's like a parallel universe. There's two parallel trials, the

590
00:30:29,520 --> 00:30:32,680
Speaker 3: one that's being played out Bible parties in the well

591
00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:35,440
Speaker 3: as well as the one that's actually going on before

592
00:30:35,480 --> 00:30:37,800
Speaker 3: the judge. And he has to keep reminding the lawyers

593
00:30:38,000 --> 00:30:41,160
Speaker 3: you know, actually there's no jury here. I'm the trier

594
00:30:41,240 --> 00:30:41,760
Speaker 3: of fact.

595
00:30:42,000 --> 00:30:46,880
Speaker 2: So did Trump react during Cohen's testimony that you could say, Oh.

596
00:30:46,760 --> 00:30:49,760
Speaker 3: He had his arms crossed and he was really he

597
00:30:50,000 --> 00:30:52,520
Speaker 3: muttered something under his breast. I could not hear someone

598
00:30:52,560 --> 00:30:56,640
Speaker 3: else claiming they had heard him say something about Cohen's credibility.

599
00:30:56,760 --> 00:31:00,040
Speaker 3: But he was obviously very annoyed, and like I said that,

600
00:31:00,120 --> 00:31:03,360
Speaker 3: he literally turned his entire chair around so that his

601
00:31:03,520 --> 00:31:06,280
Speaker 3: arms crossed to glare at Cohen.

602
00:31:06,880 --> 00:31:10,720
Speaker 2: And more drama to come, as Ivanka Trump has been

603
00:31:10,800 --> 00:31:13,560
Speaker 2: ordered to testify. That may be as soon as next week.

604
00:31:13,840 --> 00:31:17,400
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Pat. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado.

605
00:31:17,640 --> 00:31:21,680
Speaker 7: So today we're announcing a federal lawsuit against Meta met

606
00:31:21,760 --> 00:31:25,200
Speaker 7: of course, is the parent company of Instagram and Facebook,

607
00:31:25,560 --> 00:31:29,600
Speaker 7: for knowingly harming the mental health of young social media users.

608
00:31:30,600 --> 00:31:35,400
Speaker 7: In short, Meta intentionally designed its social media platform to

609
00:31:35,440 --> 00:31:37,400
Speaker 7: be more addictive to kids and young people.

610
00:31:37,880 --> 00:31:42,360
Speaker 2: Forty one states are suing Meta platforms, claiming it exploits

611
00:31:42,440 --> 00:31:46,080
Speaker 2: young people for profit by building an addictive features that

612
00:31:46,320 --> 00:31:51,000
Speaker 2: basically hook kids on Instagram and Facebook, harming their mental health.

613
00:31:51,240 --> 00:31:54,600
Speaker 2: At a press conference by the Attorney General of Washington State,

614
00:31:54,920 --> 00:31:59,360
Speaker 2: two teenagers describe their struggles trying to cope with social

615
00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:01,600
Speaker 2: media side like Instagram.

616
00:32:01,880 --> 00:32:05,640
Speaker 8: The worst part was these pictures and videos were never ending.

617
00:32:06,200 --> 00:32:09,480
Speaker 8: The addictive algorithm and the constant flood of new content

618
00:32:09,760 --> 00:32:12,280
Speaker 8: kept me glued to my phone, and before I knew it,

619
00:32:12,800 --> 00:32:14,440
Speaker 8: I began to hate myself and.

620
00:32:14,400 --> 00:32:15,120
Speaker 9: The way I looked.

621
00:32:16,400 --> 00:32:18,880
Speaker 8: This all happened before I turned thirteen.

622
00:32:20,800 --> 00:32:23,240
Speaker 9: So I would go on my phone and tending to

623
00:32:23,280 --> 00:32:26,920
Speaker 9: do other things, and then instinctively start opening up Instagram,

624
00:32:26,960 --> 00:32:31,520
Speaker 9: opening up different social media platforms without even meaning to,

625
00:32:31,760 --> 00:32:34,760
Speaker 9: and then getting stuck in the cycle of scrolling seeing

626
00:32:34,800 --> 00:32:37,240
Speaker 9: other people's lives and interactions.

627
00:32:37,640 --> 00:32:42,040
Speaker 2: Joining me is Matthew Shettenhelm, Bloomberg intelligence analyst so Met.

628
00:32:42,120 --> 00:32:45,880
Speaker 2: The federal lawsuit says Meta did not disclose that its

629
00:32:45,920 --> 00:32:50,960
Speaker 2: algorithms were designed to capitalize on young users, dopamine responses,

630
00:32:51,320 --> 00:32:55,520
Speaker 2: and create an addictive cycle of engagement. So the allegation

631
00:32:55,920 --> 00:33:00,840
Speaker 2: is that Meta specifically designed an algorithm to teenagers.

632
00:33:01,400 --> 00:33:04,160
Speaker 6: That's exactly right. So the lawsuit takes aim at a

633
00:33:04,240 --> 00:33:08,120
Speaker 6: number of features that are sort of fundamental to how

634
00:33:08,320 --> 00:33:12,960
Speaker 6: Meta designed its social media platforms. Using data about the

635
00:33:13,080 --> 00:33:17,400
Speaker 6: teens to send them content that keeps them scrolling and

636
00:33:17,560 --> 00:33:21,640
Speaker 6: keeps them reading, sending them notifications that keep them coming

637
00:33:21,680 --> 00:33:23,920
Speaker 6: back to the service as soon as they look away

638
00:33:23,960 --> 00:33:27,680
Speaker 6: from it. Using the like system that entices them and

639
00:33:27,760 --> 00:33:30,440
Speaker 6: draws them in and pushes them to put more content

640
00:33:30,600 --> 00:33:35,080
Speaker 6: out there. And the allegation is that Meta knew that

641
00:33:35,400 --> 00:33:40,640
Speaker 6: its social media service was harmful to teens, but it

642
00:33:40,880 --> 00:33:46,640
Speaker 6: withheld that knowledge and misled users and proceeded to deliver

643
00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:50,680
Speaker 6: its product to teens. Anyway, there's a separate lawsuit actually

644
00:33:50,680 --> 00:33:54,240
Speaker 6: in this same federal court that goes to the design

645
00:33:54,480 --> 00:33:58,720
Speaker 6: of the product itself and whether that violates product liability

646
00:33:58,800 --> 00:34:01,840
Speaker 6: law or whether face Book was negligent in designing it.

647
00:34:02,240 --> 00:34:05,000
Speaker 6: This suit's a little bit different. It's not about the

648
00:34:05,120 --> 00:34:10,400
Speaker 6: design itself. It's about did Meta lie, did it mislead users?

649
00:34:10,840 --> 00:34:15,080
Speaker 2: And a lot of this is based on the whistleblower

650
00:34:15,239 --> 00:34:18,279
Speaker 2: who released internal documents in twenty twenty one.

651
00:34:18,800 --> 00:34:20,759
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that's the real start of this, when

652
00:34:20,800 --> 00:34:24,640
Speaker 6: Francis Hoggin came out with her release of the internal

653
00:34:24,719 --> 00:34:29,360
Speaker 6: documents suggesting that Facebook knew more about the risk to

654
00:34:29,480 --> 00:34:33,440
Speaker 6: children than it was letting on. So this has really

655
00:34:33,680 --> 00:34:37,279
Speaker 6: been playing out ever since that moment. Now Facebook disputes

656
00:34:37,400 --> 00:34:41,000
Speaker 6: her allegations and says that they're overblown, and that's the

657
00:34:41,080 --> 00:34:44,120
Speaker 6: sort of allegation that would be tested in this case

658
00:34:44,239 --> 00:34:46,400
Speaker 6: if it gets past a motion to dismiss.

659
00:34:46,560 --> 00:34:50,040
Speaker 2: Meta said, we share the Attorney General's commitment to providing

660
00:34:50,120 --> 00:34:54,960
Speaker 2: teens with safe, positive experiences online and have already introduced

661
00:34:55,080 --> 00:34:58,520
Speaker 2: over thirty tools to support teens and their families. Do

662
00:34:58,560 --> 00:35:00,000
Speaker 2: you know what kind of tools they're talking about.

663
00:35:00,440 --> 00:35:03,200
Speaker 6: I think these are features like there are settings that

664
00:35:03,760 --> 00:35:06,840
Speaker 6: teens can put on the product to turn off after

665
00:35:07,640 --> 00:35:10,120
Speaker 6: so many minutes on the product. I think there are

666
00:35:10,360 --> 00:35:13,280
Speaker 6: a handful of features like that that they have added.

667
00:35:13,480 --> 00:35:15,560
Speaker 6: If you go into the settings, you can turn off

668
00:35:15,600 --> 00:35:18,640
Speaker 6: the data that is used about you for ads. I

669
00:35:18,680 --> 00:35:21,839
Speaker 6: think as a practical matter, these features may not be

670
00:35:22,040 --> 00:35:25,520
Speaker 6: used all that frequently. I know my teenager doesn't jump

671
00:35:25,600 --> 00:35:29,040
Speaker 6: to find those features, and I suspect that's true of

672
00:35:29,280 --> 00:35:32,520
Speaker 6: many other teams as well. So I think the negotiation

673
00:35:32,719 --> 00:35:35,839
Speaker 6: here before this lawsuit was filed with the States likely

674
00:35:35,880 --> 00:35:38,719
Speaker 6: trying to push Meta to find more features and more

675
00:35:38,760 --> 00:35:42,040
Speaker 6: effective features. And I think eventually, if you saw this

676
00:35:42,120 --> 00:35:45,320
Speaker 6: lawsuit settle, you might see a push for even more

677
00:35:45,360 --> 00:35:46,200
Speaker 6: in that direction.

678
00:35:46,719 --> 00:35:51,399
Speaker 2: Thanks Matt. That's Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matthew Shettenhelm, and that's

679
00:35:51,440 --> 00:35:54,080
Speaker 2: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

680
00:35:54,120 --> 00:35:56,200
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our

681
00:35:56,200 --> 00:35:59,719
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts

682
00:36:00,560 --> 00:36:05,600
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

683
00:36:06,000 --> 00:36:08,560
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

684
00:36:08,640 --> 00:36:12,520
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,

685
00:36:12,680 --> 00:36:14,279
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg