WEBVTT - Manafort Sues Mueller, Rosenstein for Overstepping (Audio)

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.160
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It's a very

0:00:22.239 --> 0:00:25.200
<v Speaker 1>unusual move for a defendant, and just the latest in

0:00:25.200 --> 0:00:28.440
<v Speaker 1>a string of attacks challenging the authority of Special Counsel

0:00:28.520 --> 0:00:33.519
<v Speaker 1>Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman,

0:00:33.880 --> 0:00:37.000
<v Speaker 1>was indicted by the Special Council in October on criminal

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:40.760
<v Speaker 1>charges of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering related to his

0:00:40.800 --> 0:00:45.280
<v Speaker 1>lobbying on behalf of a Russian friendly political party in Ukraine. Now,

0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:49.640
<v Speaker 1>Manafort has filed a civil lawsuit claiming that Mueller overstepped

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:52.760
<v Speaker 1>his authority and charging him with crimes related to business

0:00:52.840 --> 0:00:57.280
<v Speaker 1>conducted long before he became Trump's campaign chairman involving events

0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:01.480
<v Speaker 1>unrelated to Russian election meddling. My guest is Jeffrey Kramer,

0:01:01.560 --> 0:01:06.440
<v Speaker 1>managing director at Berkeley Research Group and a former federal prosecutor. Jeff,

0:01:06.600 --> 0:01:09.880
<v Speaker 1>we might expect a motion to dismiss the charges, but

0:01:10.000 --> 0:01:12.360
<v Speaker 1>have you ever seen a civil suit like this in

0:01:12.440 --> 0:01:17.639
<v Speaker 1>response to criminal charges. Uh. No, this is uh throwing unique.

0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:21.120
<v Speaker 1>I mean in a normal context where you have justice

0:01:21.240 --> 0:01:25.480
<v Speaker 1>or a former federal prosecutor uh writing a defendant, and

0:01:25.560 --> 0:01:29.559
<v Speaker 1>I've never seen a suit arguing that the prosecutor didn't

0:01:29.560 --> 0:01:32.680
<v Speaker 1>have jurisdiction. Now, this is unique because it's a special counsel,

0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:35.120
<v Speaker 1>but I don't think it's I don't think it's a

0:01:35.160 --> 0:01:40.400
<v Speaker 1>winning argument in any events. Explain maniforts claims briefly, you know,

0:01:40.880 --> 0:01:43.520
<v Speaker 1>just briefly, and I'll give you his argument, and I'll

0:01:43.760 --> 0:01:46.039
<v Speaker 1>tell you where I think it goes awry. He's basically

0:01:46.080 --> 0:01:48.800
<v Speaker 1>saying that in there's a couple of counts in one

0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:52.080
<v Speaker 1>county saying the w Attorney General did not have an

0:01:52.080 --> 0:01:58.440
<v Speaker 1>authority to appoint Muller to pursue uh these uh financial doings.

0:01:58.800 --> 0:02:03.520
<v Speaker 1>And this is uh that Mueller himself uh needed short

0:02:03.600 --> 0:02:07.600
<v Speaker 1>and didn't have the jurisdiction to pursue anything beyond the

0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:11.079
<v Speaker 1>election and Russian interference. That's the argument. Um, where I

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:14.520
<v Speaker 1>think it goes awry, as that it confuses U. I'm

0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:18.679
<v Speaker 1>sure purposely so. The special council law with a special

0:02:18.720 --> 0:02:23.400
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor legislation and that's where the difference is. What are

0:02:23.440 --> 0:02:27.600
<v Speaker 1>the chances of a judge setting aside the Special Counsel's

0:02:27.639 --> 0:02:30.840
<v Speaker 1>appointment as one of the things that Manafort asked for,

0:02:31.360 --> 0:02:35.079
<v Speaker 1>or the charges against Manifort, or doing anything else with

0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:38.839
<v Speaker 1>a case that's going on in another court. I think

0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:42.320
<v Speaker 1>it's a slim to none is probably generous. Um. There

0:02:42.320 --> 0:02:45.919
<v Speaker 1>will certainly be a response, but I can't see a

0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:50.440
<v Speaker 1>judge entertaining are certainly granting this motion. The Special Council

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 1>law is clear, it gives pretty wide birth as long

0:02:53.480 --> 0:02:56.920
<v Speaker 1>as the Deputy Attorney General reviews what's going on, and

0:02:56.960 --> 0:02:59.600
<v Speaker 1>there's touch points, and if we look at what the

0:02:59.639 --> 0:03:03.560
<v Speaker 1>Deputy Attorney General said in his recent testimony has been

0:03:03.600 --> 0:03:07.080
<v Speaker 1>on top of Robert Mueller. There's a constant community and

0:03:07.160 --> 0:03:10.000
<v Speaker 1>he's abiding what needs to happen under the Special Council.

0:03:10.639 --> 0:03:13.200
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of latitude there. The argument is akin

0:03:13.240 --> 0:03:16.280
<v Speaker 1>to it a defendant saying not that I didn't do it,

0:03:16.320 --> 0:03:19.600
<v Speaker 1>but basically this should have been kept concealed. You shouldn't

0:03:19.639 --> 0:03:22.799
<v Speaker 1>have looked here. It's an absurd argument. Well, we should

0:03:22.800 --> 0:03:26.760
<v Speaker 1>mention that Mantaford is not only only suing Mueller, but

0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:29.640
<v Speaker 1>he is also suing Rod rosen Stein, who is the

0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:32.760
<v Speaker 1>acting Attorney General who's in charge of the Russian investigation

0:03:32.880 --> 0:03:36.200
<v Speaker 1>and the U. S Department of Justice. I'm looking at

0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:40.080
<v Speaker 1>the order appointing the Special Council that Rosenstein signed, and

0:03:40.120 --> 0:03:44.680
<v Speaker 1>it says that included in the authority to conduct the

0:03:44.680 --> 0:03:49.520
<v Speaker 1>investigations any matters that arose or may arise directly from

0:03:49.560 --> 0:03:54.960
<v Speaker 1>the investigation. So does that clearly cover events even if

0:03:55.000 --> 0:04:00.760
<v Speaker 1>they're unrelated to the Russian election meddling. I think exactly right,

0:04:00.800 --> 0:04:03.520
<v Speaker 1>And that's the what I was alluding to before. It's

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 1>a pretty broad discretion for Muller. And if he was

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:10.240
<v Speaker 1>looking for monies overseas may have been Russian and Ukrainian

0:04:10.240 --> 0:04:13.880
<v Speaker 1>moneys that could have impacted influence on the Trump administration.

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:17.800
<v Speaker 1>And he started uncovering what Paul Manafort was doing overseas,

0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:21.240
<v Speaker 1>he doesn't have to then turn away um and uh

0:04:21.279 --> 0:04:24.000
<v Speaker 1>and go elsewhere. He can follow the evidence where it leads.

0:04:24.040 --> 0:04:27.080
<v Speaker 1>And I think that's exactly what we want from any prosecutor.

0:04:27.400 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>So as long as he did anything illegal or improper,

0:04:30.440 --> 0:04:32.640
<v Speaker 1>the defendant got caught, and he's saying you shouldn't have

0:04:32.680 --> 0:04:36.359
<v Speaker 1>caught me. That's that's argument, this seems more like a

0:04:36.400 --> 0:04:39.159
<v Speaker 1>political move than a legal move. But is it likely

0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:44.320
<v Speaker 1>to cause any problems or distractions from Muller and his team? No,

0:04:45.160 --> 0:04:47.479
<v Speaker 1>you've seen anything, And obviously we we don't even know

0:04:47.520 --> 0:04:50.080
<v Speaker 1>a small percentage of what's going on behind closed doors.

0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:53.120
<v Speaker 1>But we can tell h that Bob Muller and his

0:04:53.200 --> 0:04:56.160
<v Speaker 1>team have been pretty straightforward as in pursuing this. There's

0:04:56.160 --> 0:05:00.400
<v Speaker 1>been no leaks, there's been no press conferences or news

0:05:00.440 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 1>releases or anything that like Billy conversation we've heard from

0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:06.360
<v Speaker 1>Bob Mueller has been in the form of criminal cases.

0:05:06.680 --> 0:05:08.360
<v Speaker 1>So I think they're putting their heads down. This is

0:05:08.400 --> 0:05:10.960
<v Speaker 1>a distraction, although they'll have to respond, as I said,

0:05:10.960 --> 0:05:13.359
<v Speaker 1>in in federal court because it is is a valid

0:05:13.400 --> 0:05:16.400
<v Speaker 1>complaint um. But then they'll just keep doing what they're

0:05:16.440 --> 0:05:19.240
<v Speaker 1>doing and this will be brushed aside um. And then

0:05:19.240 --> 0:05:21.080
<v Speaker 1>Paul Manaford is going to have to face the fact

0:05:21.080 --> 0:05:23.640
<v Speaker 1>that he's looking at a decade or more in jail,

0:05:24.080 --> 0:05:25.960
<v Speaker 1>and then the question is does he want to cooperate

0:05:26.040 --> 0:05:29.680
<v Speaker 1>or not. But this attempt to dismiss the charges um,

0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:31.600
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's gonna it's gonna go very were

0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:35.839
<v Speaker 1>just about a minute here, Jeff, there's it's also seems

0:05:35.880 --> 0:05:38.520
<v Speaker 1>to be a phishing expedition in some respects where they're

0:05:38.560 --> 0:05:42.800
<v Speaker 1>asking for certain documents. Is there any possibility that a

0:05:42.880 --> 0:05:46.719
<v Speaker 1>judge might require mulitor turn anything over like that? You know,

0:05:46.720 --> 0:05:49.719
<v Speaker 1>I don't think we're gonna get to that part of discovery. Um.

0:05:49.800 --> 0:05:53.240
<v Speaker 1>I think this gets dismissed right after a complaint, after

0:05:53.279 --> 0:05:56.280
<v Speaker 1>a response gets filed. I'd be surprised if it got

0:05:56.360 --> 0:05:58.720
<v Speaker 1>to the point where it is discovery. Um, you're right,

0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:03.760
<v Speaker 1>that would certainly benefit the defendants. The problem isn't somewhat ironic. Um,

0:06:03.800 --> 0:06:06.120
<v Speaker 1>It's not that Paul Manafort is gonna sum off to

0:06:06.240 --> 0:06:09.640
<v Speaker 1>being deposed in this civil lawsuit. He's got fish and

0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:13.360
<v Speaker 1>bigger problems. So usually when a civil suit goes on

0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:17.600
<v Speaker 1>contemporaneous with a criminal case, the civil suits just stayed

0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:20.160
<v Speaker 1>because there are certain protections we have in the criminal

0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:22.560
<v Speaker 1>realm that we don't have in civil. Here, it's the

0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:25.680
<v Speaker 1>flip of it. You have the defendant actually filing a

0:06:25.839 --> 0:06:29.880
<v Speaker 1>civil case. So Paul Manaford maybe looking for documents from Mueller,

0:06:30.240 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 1>but the last thing he wants to do is subject

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:36.960
<v Speaker 1>himself to Mueller's questioning a Deposition. Thanks for insights as always.

0:06:37.040 --> 0:06:45.880
<v Speaker 1>That's Jeffrey Kramer, Managing director, Berkeley Research Group. California began

0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:49.840
<v Speaker 1>selling recreational marijuana on Monday, the seventh state to approve

0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:54.080
<v Speaker 1>the sale of recreational marijuana. However, marijuana is still illegal

0:06:54.160 --> 0:06:57.560
<v Speaker 1>under federal law, but the Obama administration announced it would

0:06:57.600 --> 0:07:00.360
<v Speaker 1>not stand in the way of states that legalized Mary Juanna.

0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:04.200
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General Jeff Sessions is about to rescind that policy.

0:07:04.279 --> 0:07:08.440
<v Speaker 1>According to the Associated Press, Sessions has long considered marijuana

0:07:08.480 --> 0:07:11.760
<v Speaker 1>as comparable to heroin and has blamed it for spikes

0:07:11.800 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 1>in violence. Joining me is Alex Crete, professor at Thompson

0:07:16.320 --> 0:07:20.800
<v Speaker 1>Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Alex Session will let federal

0:07:20.840 --> 0:07:25.280
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors where pot is legal decide how aggressively to enforce

0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:28.800
<v Speaker 1>federal marijuana law. According to a p how does that

0:07:28.840 --> 0:07:31.880
<v Speaker 1>fit in with the idea of federal law being enforced

0:07:32.000 --> 0:07:37.080
<v Speaker 1>uniformly across the country. Yeah, it is I think hard

0:07:37.120 --> 0:07:41.280
<v Speaker 1>to make sense of this announcement um from that perspective.

0:07:41.480 --> 0:07:44.800
<v Speaker 1>If the idea is that marijuana is illegal federally, and

0:07:44.880 --> 0:07:48.280
<v Speaker 1>that Sessions believe that that federal law needs to be enforced,

0:07:48.360 --> 0:07:50.440
<v Speaker 1>it would make I think a lot more sense for

0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:55.280
<v Speaker 1>UH Sessions to say we're going to just enforce this uniformly. UM.

0:07:55.320 --> 0:07:58.040
<v Speaker 1>And also from a policy perspective, I think the prospect

0:07:58.040 --> 0:08:03.080
<v Speaker 1>of having uneven enforced and depending district by district across

0:08:03.080 --> 0:08:06.320
<v Speaker 1>the United States where marijuana is legal, I think could

0:08:06.320 --> 0:08:08.200
<v Speaker 1>be very, very disruptive. I mean, you could have a

0:08:08.240 --> 0:08:10.880
<v Speaker 1>situation where in one part of the state, the federal

0:08:10.920 --> 0:08:14.680
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor is cracking down and sending people operating businesses to prison,

0:08:14.880 --> 0:08:16.440
<v Speaker 1>and in the other part of the state, the federal

0:08:16.520 --> 0:08:20.200
<v Speaker 1>prosecutor is allowing the businesses to move forward just as

0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:22.720
<v Speaker 1>they have been for the past few years. Right, because

0:08:22.720 --> 0:08:25.800
<v Speaker 1>we should point out that many states like New York

0:08:25.880 --> 0:08:30.320
<v Speaker 1>have a couple of federal prosecutors or more. A recent

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:35.520
<v Speaker 1>gallipole shows of Americans believe marijuana should be legal. It's

0:08:35.559 --> 0:08:39.840
<v Speaker 1>become a multibillion dollar industry. A bipartisan group of centators

0:08:39.880 --> 0:08:44.560
<v Speaker 1>in March urged Sessions to uphold existing marijuana policy. Is

0:08:44.600 --> 0:08:47.360
<v Speaker 1>there likely to be a backlash and even an effort

0:08:47.400 --> 0:08:51.000
<v Speaker 1>in Congress if U S attorneys actually begin in forcing

0:08:51.040 --> 0:08:54.600
<v Speaker 1>federal law. Yeah, I think it is quite possible. UM.

0:08:54.679 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>And it's telling that a core Gardener, Republican senator from

0:08:58.040 --> 0:09:03.400
<v Speaker 1>Colorado has already tweet doubt today a very strong response

0:09:03.480 --> 0:09:06.439
<v Speaker 1>to this, saying that this is in conflict with what

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:09.240
<v Speaker 1>Senator Sessions had told him, and that you know, he's

0:09:09.320 --> 0:09:12.520
<v Speaker 1>very upset about this announcement, and so it's possible that

0:09:13.040 --> 0:09:15.760
<v Speaker 1>this announcement from Sessions will sort of backfire on him

0:09:16.000 --> 0:09:19.440
<v Speaker 1>and might spur Congress to finally take action to change

0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:23.880
<v Speaker 1>federal law to accommodate state marijuana laws. It also appears

0:09:23.920 --> 0:09:26.680
<v Speaker 1>to break a promise made on the campaign trail by

0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:32.240
<v Speaker 1>President Trump to respect state decisions on marijuana law. And

0:09:32.600 --> 0:09:38.640
<v Speaker 1>for people who support states rights, isn't it also a problem? Yeah?

0:09:38.720 --> 0:09:40.800
<v Speaker 1>I mean I think that this is, you know, in

0:09:40.880 --> 0:09:45.719
<v Speaker 1>conflict with uh, you know, sort of Republican or traditional

0:09:46.120 --> 0:09:50.160
<v Speaker 1>sort of Republican position on allowing states to have leeway

0:09:50.240 --> 0:09:52.520
<v Speaker 1>to make these kinds of policy decisions. That's certainly with

0:09:52.600 --> 0:09:55.040
<v Speaker 1>the odds with what Trump said on the campaign trailer,

0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:58.160
<v Speaker 1>as you noted, and it's with odds with what polling shows.

0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:02.000
<v Speaker 1>Polling shows that stantial majority of Americans, even if they

0:10:02.040 --> 0:10:05.320
<v Speaker 1>don't support marijuana legalization, a lot of people who oppose

0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:08.040
<v Speaker 1>legalizations still believe it should be up to states to

0:10:08.160 --> 0:10:10.599
<v Speaker 1>make that decision. Last poll I saw, I think it

0:10:10.600 --> 0:10:13.439
<v Speaker 1>was somewhere around seventy five percent or so, uh, somewhere

0:10:13.440 --> 0:10:15.160
<v Speaker 1>in that range said that they thought this should be

0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:18.200
<v Speaker 1>left to the states, even if they personally didn't support legalization.

0:10:18.320 --> 0:10:21.600
<v Speaker 1>So this is I think a very unpopular political move

0:10:22.200 --> 0:10:24.600
<v Speaker 1>to say that the federal government should interfere with what

0:10:24.640 --> 0:10:27.640
<v Speaker 1>states are doing here. So, Alex, looking at it from

0:10:27.679 --> 0:10:30.640
<v Speaker 1>the other side, is there any reason why this is

0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:34.520
<v Speaker 1>a good move? Well, I mean, I think that the

0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:36.640
<v Speaker 1>you know, argument that one would make in favor of

0:10:36.640 --> 0:10:39.600
<v Speaker 1>this move, and I personally, you know, I don't think

0:10:39.600 --> 0:10:41.000
<v Speaker 1>it's a good move, But I'd say the argument that

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:43.880
<v Speaker 1>you would, you know, make, uh in favor of this

0:10:43.960 --> 0:10:46.880
<v Speaker 1>is to say, look, federal law says marijuana is illegal

0:10:47.440 --> 0:10:51.920
<v Speaker 1>until that changes the that law should be enforced, and Congress,

0:10:51.960 --> 0:10:53.680
<v Speaker 1>if they want to change law, they should act and

0:10:53.760 --> 0:10:56.360
<v Speaker 1>do it. And you know, certainly, I think there's something

0:10:56.400 --> 0:11:00.320
<v Speaker 1>to be said for the idea that Congress has been um,

0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:02.320
<v Speaker 1>I think turning a little bit of a blind eye

0:11:02.320 --> 0:11:05.360
<v Speaker 1>to this conflict. The reality is that it's been easy

0:11:05.400 --> 0:11:07.720
<v Speaker 1>for them to do the past few years because the

0:11:07.920 --> 0:11:10.559
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutors have been using their discretion to allow this

0:11:10.679 --> 0:11:14.520
<v Speaker 1>to go forward, but still federal law says this is illegal,

0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:17.480
<v Speaker 1>and really it Congress should change that. I mean, Congress

0:11:17.880 --> 0:11:21.280
<v Speaker 1>needs to face up to this conflict. It's untenable to

0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:24.760
<v Speaker 1>have so many states with legalization laws and yet federal

0:11:24.840 --> 0:11:28.120
<v Speaker 1>law says this is all a crime. Alex, the d

0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:32.080
<v Speaker 1>e A has marijuana listed as a Schedule one drug

0:11:32.160 --> 0:11:37.960
<v Speaker 1>alongside heroin. If the d e A changes that, will

0:11:37.960 --> 0:11:40.960
<v Speaker 1>that make a difference. It changes where marijuana is on

0:11:41.000 --> 0:11:44.320
<v Speaker 1>the schedule of drugs. No, No, not really, So that

0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:47.800
<v Speaker 1>is certainly an issue that's come up, the rescheduling of marijuana,

0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:51.640
<v Speaker 1>maybe moving marijuana to a less restrictive schedule. But even

0:11:51.679 --> 0:11:54.480
<v Speaker 1>if marijuana was rescheduled to say Schedule to or even

0:11:54.520 --> 0:12:00.400
<v Speaker 1>Schedule three. Uh, the fact is that substances and Rules

0:12:00.400 --> 0:12:03.960
<v Speaker 1>two and three they can only be distributed for medical purposes.

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:06.840
<v Speaker 1>And so even if you were to reschedule marijuana, that

0:12:06.880 --> 0:12:10.440
<v Speaker 1>would do nothing to solve the conflict between federal prohibition

0:12:10.520 --> 0:12:16.000
<v Speaker 1>and state legalization laws for recreational use. Let's so, let's

0:12:16.040 --> 0:12:20.520
<v Speaker 1>say next week, do you expect to see anything happening

0:12:20.679 --> 0:12:24.280
<v Speaker 1>in states that have legalized marijuana or do you think

0:12:24.320 --> 0:12:28.679
<v Speaker 1>that U. S. Attorneys are going to wait or perhaps

0:12:28.800 --> 0:12:31.920
<v Speaker 1>never do anything at all. Yeah, I mean that I

0:12:31.920 --> 0:12:34.080
<v Speaker 1>think is the big question mark now that's been left

0:12:34.080 --> 0:12:36.720
<v Speaker 1>by this announcement from Sessions is that this is going

0:12:36.760 --> 0:12:38.880
<v Speaker 1>to be up to individual U S attorneys to make

0:12:38.920 --> 0:12:41.920
<v Speaker 1>these decisions. Now, um, what are they going to do?

0:12:42.559 --> 0:12:44.880
<v Speaker 1>And I don't think at this point in time we

0:12:44.920 --> 0:12:48.120
<v Speaker 1>have any clear answer about when we'll know that. Uh.

0:12:48.160 --> 0:12:52.439
<v Speaker 1>And the reality is that in some of these UH districts,

0:12:52.920 --> 0:12:55.679
<v Speaker 1>Trump hasn't even nominated anyone to fill the U. S

0:12:55.679 --> 0:12:59.600
<v Speaker 1>attorney position, um. And in others somebody has been nominated

0:12:59.600 --> 0:13:02.560
<v Speaker 1>but not confirmed. And then other districts there have been

0:13:02.600 --> 0:13:05.520
<v Speaker 1>Trump nominees confirmed. So that's sort of another question mark

0:13:05.520 --> 0:13:08.440
<v Speaker 1>as well. UH. In California, at least last I checked,

0:13:08.440 --> 0:13:11.120
<v Speaker 1>I believe is only one of the four districts had

0:13:11.120 --> 0:13:13.320
<v Speaker 1>a nominee from Trump, and I don't believe that person

0:13:13.360 --> 0:13:15.640
<v Speaker 1>has been confirmed yet, in the Eastern district of California,

0:13:15.920 --> 0:13:20.679
<v Speaker 1>just as an example. So that's another sort of uncertainty

0:13:20.720 --> 0:13:23.960
<v Speaker 1>that's out there, which is that in some parts of

0:13:23.960 --> 0:13:26.360
<v Speaker 1>the country where marijuana is legal, you might not even

0:13:26.400 --> 0:13:28.400
<v Speaker 1>have someone to check in as far as the U

0:13:28.480 --> 0:13:32.200
<v Speaker 1>S Attorney right now. Thank you, Alex. That's Professor Alex

0:13:32.320 --> 0:13:35.360
<v Speaker 1>Kright of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Thanks for

0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:38.680
<v Speaker 1>listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

0:13:38.760 --> 0:13:42.000
<v Speaker 1>listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

0:13:42.080 --> 0:13:46.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Bralso this is

0:13:46.840 --> 0:13:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg