WEBVTT - Jurors Hear Closing Arguments in Manafort Trial

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 --> 0:00:22.119
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com Slash podcasts. The defense and

0:00:22.160 --> 0:00:25.040
<v Speaker 1>the Paul Manafort trial rested its case without calling any

0:00:25.040 --> 0:00:30.000
<v Speaker 1>witnesses yesterday. Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing, explained why while walking

0:00:30.000 --> 0:00:35.000
<v Speaker 1>out of the Alexandria Federal Courthouse yesterday, Mr Manafort just

0:00:35.159 --> 0:00:38.400
<v Speaker 1>rested his case, and he did so because he and

0:00:38.440 --> 0:00:42.160
<v Speaker 1>his legal team believe that the government has not met

0:00:42.240 --> 0:00:46.520
<v Speaker 1>its burden approved joining me as former federal prosecutor Ellie Honick,

0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:51.280
<v Speaker 1>special counsel at Loewenstein Sandler Ellie as a federal prosecutor.

0:00:51.320 --> 0:00:53.440
<v Speaker 1>How many times do you think you heard the defense

0:00:53.479 --> 0:00:56.120
<v Speaker 1>say the government has not met its burden as an

0:00:56.160 --> 0:00:59.960
<v Speaker 1>explanation for White didn't present its case all the time,

0:01:00.640 --> 0:01:03.360
<v Speaker 1>whatever the number of trials I did, times a hundred um.

0:01:03.680 --> 0:01:07.560
<v Speaker 1>This is this is the the constant refrain from defense lawyers,

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:09.479
<v Speaker 1>and it should be you know, that's how our constitution

0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:12.600
<v Speaker 1>is set up. It is the burden of the prosecution

0:01:12.640 --> 0:01:15.200
<v Speaker 1>to prove every count beyond a reasonable doubt. And so

0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:17.319
<v Speaker 1>it's not at all on common to see the kind

0:01:17.319 --> 0:01:19.120
<v Speaker 1>of defense that we're seeing from Manapar here, which is

0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:21.280
<v Speaker 1>no defense really. Um. But I don't mean that in

0:01:21.280 --> 0:01:23.400
<v Speaker 1>a derogatory way. I mean they don't have to put

0:01:23.440 --> 0:01:25.880
<v Speaker 1>on in any kind of defense, and so it's what

0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:28.720
<v Speaker 1>we just call a reasonable about defense. Um. You don't

0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>put on any affirmative evidence of your own as a defendant.

0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:34.520
<v Speaker 1>You just claim the government has not carried its burden.

0:01:35.360 --> 0:01:37.160
<v Speaker 1>That's obviously true that you don't have to put on

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:40.520
<v Speaker 1>a case, and many defendants don't. But would you expect

0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:43.319
<v Speaker 1>with this the high caliber and high price of this

0:01:43.360 --> 0:01:46.640
<v Speaker 1>defense team, you have three defense lawyers basically in the courtroom,

0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:50.360
<v Speaker 1>that you would expect at least some character witnesses or

0:01:50.440 --> 0:01:54.480
<v Speaker 1>is that too dangerous? Uh No, I wouldn't equate, you know,

0:01:54.520 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 1>the quality with with quantity um and character witnesses. I've

0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:01.000
<v Speaker 1>I've been on trials where people have hall character witnesses.

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:03.800
<v Speaker 1>They really don't do much because all they come out

0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:05.720
<v Speaker 1>and say is this is a good person and he

0:02:06.000 --> 0:02:09.160
<v Speaker 1>gives the charity. And you know, the jury usually understands

0:02:09.200 --> 0:02:11.320
<v Speaker 1>that has nothing to do with whether he committed the

0:02:11.400 --> 0:02:13.280
<v Speaker 1>charge crimes. A person can be a good person and

0:02:13.480 --> 0:02:15.320
<v Speaker 1>take care of his family and donate to charity, but

0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:18.400
<v Speaker 1>still commit bank fraud and tax fraud. So um, sometimes

0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:20.280
<v Speaker 1>I think jury see that as as just a dog

0:02:20.280 --> 0:02:23.440
<v Speaker 1>and pony show. Is sort of superficial. So if I

0:02:23.480 --> 0:02:24.799
<v Speaker 1>was in the shoes of the defense or I think

0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:26.160
<v Speaker 1>I do the same thing he did, I think I'd

0:02:26.160 --> 0:02:29.639
<v Speaker 1>either mount a very robust defense or just go with

0:02:29.720 --> 0:02:34.239
<v Speaker 1>reasonable belt. So now closings today, Gates, Rick Gates, the

0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:37.760
<v Speaker 1>star of witness, appeared to have suffered some credibility problems

0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:41.359
<v Speaker 1>during a tough cross examination he which exposed some lies.

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:44.480
<v Speaker 1>Is the defense likely to stick with that blame the

0:02:44.480 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>star witness strategy and it's closing. They absolutely will. It's

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:50.600
<v Speaker 1>really the only place they have to go. You know,

0:02:50.639 --> 0:02:53.639
<v Speaker 1>you can't attack the documents. He can't really attack the

0:02:54.080 --> 0:02:57.560
<v Speaker 1>bank witnesses that the vendors that came in. So they

0:02:57.560 --> 0:02:59.800
<v Speaker 1>made clear in their opening they're gonna attack with Gates,

0:02:59.800 --> 0:03:01.840
<v Speaker 1>and and I would expect that's what they're gonna do.

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:03.760
<v Speaker 1>And you can already see, you know, the prosecution is

0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:07.160
<v Speaker 1>actually just within the last few minutes concluded, it's closing,

0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:10.160
<v Speaker 1>and you can see the prosecutors are already bracing for that.

0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:12.920
<v Speaker 1>And and the line out of the prosecution's closing is

0:03:13.160 --> 0:03:15.560
<v Speaker 1>the documents of the star witness in this case. Which

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:17.760
<v Speaker 1>when I saw that, I thought that's a smart line.

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:20.720
<v Speaker 1>It's it's not dazzling, it's not catchy or anything, but

0:03:20.760 --> 0:03:23.240
<v Speaker 1>I think it's a really good way for the prosecutors

0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:25.639
<v Speaker 1>to to sort of take the focus off of Rick

0:03:25.639 --> 0:03:28.040
<v Speaker 1>Gates as the criminal. Of course, that's why he's up

0:03:28.080 --> 0:03:30.400
<v Speaker 1>on the stand, you know, that's that's why Manafort liked him.

0:03:30.600 --> 0:03:34.240
<v Speaker 1>But ultimately, look at the documents. So the prosecution has

0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:37.800
<v Speaker 1>to prove that Manafort had criminal intent. How do they

0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:41.800
<v Speaker 1>get inside his mind when there are witnesses between Manafort

0:03:41.920 --> 0:03:46.120
<v Speaker 1>and the transactions. Yeah, that's a circumstantial you know. So

0:03:46.200 --> 0:03:49.080
<v Speaker 1>people people use the phrase circumstantial evidence like it's a

0:03:49.080 --> 0:03:53.160
<v Speaker 1>bad thing, but it's not necessarily and judges will instructures.

0:03:53.200 --> 0:03:56.520
<v Speaker 1>You may use your common sense inferences to to draw

0:03:56.720 --> 0:04:00.640
<v Speaker 1>to draw inferences about what the circumstances say. So if

0:04:00.720 --> 0:04:03.520
<v Speaker 1>these if these accounts are controlled by manaphor, which it

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.360
<v Speaker 1>seems clear that they are, and if he's ordering documents

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:08.560
<v Speaker 1>to be falsified, as it seems clearly that he was.

0:04:08.600 --> 0:04:10.960
<v Speaker 1>And if he's the one receiving all the benefit, all

0:04:11.000 --> 0:04:13.360
<v Speaker 1>the millions of dollars, which seems pretty clear as well,

0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:15.880
<v Speaker 1>then then a jury as well when it's right to

0:04:15.960 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 1>infer that he had the intent. Now we've talked about

0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:22.960
<v Speaker 1>the judge before moving the trial along, but we haven't

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:25.760
<v Speaker 1>talked about all the comments that the judge made during

0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:29.080
<v Speaker 1>the trial, some on the prosecution's evidence and one that

0:04:29.160 --> 0:04:32.560
<v Speaker 1>was flatly contradicted by a transcript which he brought out,

0:04:32.600 --> 0:04:35.760
<v Speaker 1>But he never really said he was wrong. Could his

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:41.080
<v Speaker 1>statements have an impact on the jury? They could. Juries,

0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:43.279
<v Speaker 1>of course listened to judges, and you know the judge

0:04:43.279 --> 0:04:45.360
<v Speaker 1>is the most powerful figure in the court room, and

0:04:45.440 --> 0:04:49.680
<v Speaker 1>juries literally look up at the judge. So yes, juries

0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:51.679
<v Speaker 1>are swayed by things judges say. I think the judge

0:04:51.680 --> 0:04:54.840
<v Speaker 1>got a few things wrong here, as you pointed out, um,

0:04:54.880 --> 0:04:56.920
<v Speaker 1>and I think he even sort of misstated the law

0:04:57.000 --> 0:04:58.839
<v Speaker 1>when he when he snapped at one of the witnesses.

0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 1>Can you tell us about bank loan that actually happened.

0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:03.479
<v Speaker 1>It's a climate if they tried to get a bank

0:05:03.520 --> 0:05:06.839
<v Speaker 1>loan illegally, even if that loan didn't happen, So that

0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:09.159
<v Speaker 1>could have an impact. I will say, though, on the

0:05:09.160 --> 0:05:12.440
<v Speaker 1>other hand, I've seen situations where judges have bullied one

0:05:12.480 --> 0:05:15.000
<v Speaker 1>party or another, maybe the prosecutors, maybe the defense. But

0:05:15.400 --> 0:05:18.880
<v Speaker 1>sometimes if the judge is really uh over, you know,

0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:21.919
<v Speaker 1>comes on too strong or abusive to a party, it

0:05:21.960 --> 0:05:24.080
<v Speaker 1>has the effect of actually rallying the jury to that

0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:26.280
<v Speaker 1>party side. You know that the party will sort of

0:05:26.560 --> 0:05:30.000
<v Speaker 1>start to empathize or sympathize with that side, and that

0:05:30.040 --> 0:05:32.200
<v Speaker 1>can actually sort of work the opposite way as well.

0:05:32.440 --> 0:05:35.080
<v Speaker 1>Let's turn to the Muller investigation for a moment. Trump's

0:05:35.120 --> 0:05:38.320
<v Speaker 1>lawyer Rudy Giuliani has been stating deadlines from Muller to

0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:41.240
<v Speaker 1>end the investigation just about since he got on the team.

0:05:41.360 --> 0:05:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Now he's claiming that if the investigation isn't over by September, quote,

0:05:45.560 --> 0:05:48.720
<v Speaker 1>then we have a very very serious violation of the

0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:54.040
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department rules. Explain that murky policy at the Justice Department,

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:56.680
<v Speaker 1>and whether where Trump isn't even on the ballot, there's

0:05:56.720 --> 0:05:59.720
<v Speaker 1>any problem here If Rudy is off base and he

0:05:59.800 --> 0:06:01.800
<v Speaker 1>knows he's he's been at this long he worked for

0:06:01.839 --> 0:06:04.920
<v Speaker 1>the Department Justice for decades um. This is first of all,

0:06:05.400 --> 0:06:07.839
<v Speaker 1>the idea that that you don't do things within sixty

0:06:07.880 --> 0:06:10.080
<v Speaker 1>days of an election is a custom and a practice.

0:06:10.120 --> 0:06:11.960
<v Speaker 1>It is not a rule. It is not a regulation,

0:06:12.040 --> 0:06:14.839
<v Speaker 1>It is not a statute. Second of all, Rudy seems

0:06:14.880 --> 0:06:17.680
<v Speaker 1>to be suggesting that the rule says either you absolutely

0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:21.040
<v Speaker 1>stop everything you're doing, you pause it until after the election,

0:06:21.200 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>or it sounds like what Rudy's really saying is they

0:06:23.080 --> 0:06:25.000
<v Speaker 1>have to finish by then and I have to just

0:06:25.120 --> 0:06:28.200
<v Speaker 1>end the investigation. And neither of those are true. What

0:06:28.360 --> 0:06:31.359
<v Speaker 1>the custom is is you don't take over steps, You

0:06:31.360 --> 0:06:33.599
<v Speaker 1>don't get behind a podium and announce a new set

0:06:33.640 --> 0:06:36.320
<v Speaker 1>of charges. You you know, typically don't go out and

0:06:36.360 --> 0:06:39.080
<v Speaker 1>do and arrest in that period. But can you continue

0:06:39.120 --> 0:06:42.080
<v Speaker 1>doing your work? Of course, and and uh Mulla has

0:06:42.120 --> 0:06:43.800
<v Speaker 1>made clear that he intends to keep doing his work.

0:06:43.839 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 1>There's already there's a known grand jury day for Kristin

0:06:46.720 --> 0:06:49.279
<v Speaker 1>Davis for September seven, So he has no intention on

0:06:49.440 --> 0:06:52.800
<v Speaker 1>stopping what he's doing on September one, nor should he. Now.

0:06:53.200 --> 0:06:56.279
<v Speaker 1>Giuliani has gotten the facts wrong at times, he's gotten

0:06:56.279 --> 0:06:59.719
<v Speaker 1>the law wrong at times, But has he succeeded in

0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:04.640
<v Speaker 1>confusing the public, murking the waters. It could be and

0:07:04.720 --> 0:07:07.280
<v Speaker 1>that may be the goal. Um. You know, he's certainly

0:07:07.279 --> 0:07:10.520
<v Speaker 1>been out there in visible and loud, and I guess

0:07:10.520 --> 0:07:12.960
<v Speaker 1>if he says something enough times, it sort of tends

0:07:12.960 --> 0:07:15.120
<v Speaker 1>to stick in people's heads. And you know, there is

0:07:15.160 --> 0:07:17.600
<v Speaker 1>pulling out there that shows that a good number of

0:07:17.600 --> 0:07:20.560
<v Speaker 1>people across parties Democrats are Republicans would like to see

0:07:20.640 --> 0:07:24.840
<v Speaker 1>Mueller finish up by September one. But everybody wants every

0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:28.280
<v Speaker 1>criminal investigation to finish up, whether you're being investigated or

0:07:28.320 --> 0:07:30.280
<v Speaker 1>you're just a member of the public. It's not pleasant,

0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:33.679
<v Speaker 1>but it's necessary that it go on until it's done

0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:37.000
<v Speaker 1>right and concluded. And certainly the length of the Mueller

0:07:37.080 --> 0:07:40.320
<v Speaker 1>investigation is far less so far than some of the

0:07:40.360 --> 0:07:43.600
<v Speaker 1>other Special Counsel investigations. Thanks so much, Ellie, always a pleasure.

0:07:43.880 --> 0:07:51.760
<v Speaker 1>That's Ellie Honick, Special Counsel A Lowenstein Sandler. It's unprecedented.

0:07:51.920 --> 0:07:54.680
<v Speaker 1>On Monday night, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted

0:07:54.720 --> 0:07:58.840
<v Speaker 1>to impeach another branch of government, the entire state Supreme Court.

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:02.040
<v Speaker 1>If the Senate also votes to impeach the justices, their

0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:05.280
<v Speaker 1>seats will be filled by the state's Republican governor, except

0:08:05.320 --> 0:08:08.760
<v Speaker 1>for one seat, which the voters will decide because Democratic

0:08:08.840 --> 0:08:12.440
<v Speaker 1>Justice Robin Gene Davis retired from her post effective one

0:08:12.480 --> 0:08:21.360
<v Speaker 1>day before the impeachment. The majority members have ignored, ignored

0:08:22.240 --> 0:08:26.000
<v Speaker 1>the will of the people who elected the justices of

0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:32.000
<v Speaker 1>this court. They have erased the lines of separation between

0:08:32.320 --> 0:08:35.599
<v Speaker 1>the branches of government. Joining me is Patrick McGinley, a

0:08:35.640 --> 0:08:39.199
<v Speaker 1>professor at the West Virginia University College of Law. Patrick,

0:08:39.440 --> 0:08:43.480
<v Speaker 1>is this really about extravagance spending by the justices or

0:08:43.559 --> 0:08:50.319
<v Speaker 1>is there more? Well? Certainly on the surface, uh, it's uh.

0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:56.160
<v Speaker 1>The focus has been on extravagant spending and mismanagement by

0:08:56.400 --> 0:09:02.440
<v Speaker 1>members of the Supreme Court, but critics UH suggests that

0:09:02.480 --> 0:09:06.480
<v Speaker 1>there's more to it. That this is a power play

0:09:06.640 --> 0:09:14.520
<v Speaker 1>by the Republican legislature and the governor to replace all

0:09:14.559 --> 0:09:19.240
<v Speaker 1>of the members of the Supreme Court with um UH

0:09:19.640 --> 0:09:26.880
<v Speaker 1>justices friendly to their perspective by appointment of the governor. UH.

0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:34.240
<v Speaker 1>And so that the specter of political impeachment certainly is

0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:38.040
<v Speaker 1>on the horizon as being discussed here in West Virginia

0:09:38.200 --> 0:09:42.800
<v Speaker 1>and exploring the media around the country, that's that's also

0:09:42.880 --> 0:09:46.880
<v Speaker 1>a topic of concern. The West Virginia's constitution, I understand

0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:50.360
<v Speaker 1>allows the judiciary to sit and control its own budget.

0:09:50.760 --> 0:09:54.880
<v Speaker 1>Are there specific laws or rules that govern the judge's

0:09:54.920 --> 0:09:58.800
<v Speaker 1>expenditures that you know? The West Virginia House of Delegates

0:09:59.000 --> 0:10:06.679
<v Speaker 1>points to, Well, there's there is a civil law. Uh.

0:10:06.840 --> 0:10:10.840
<v Speaker 1>The only one really cited specifically in the articles of

0:10:10.920 --> 0:10:17.199
<v Speaker 1>impeachment is one that uh uh that allows the court

0:10:17.360 --> 0:10:22.720
<v Speaker 1>to appoint retired judges to sit in places where they're needed,

0:10:22.760 --> 0:10:26.200
<v Speaker 1>where there's a heavy caseload, there's illness of a judge,

0:10:26.840 --> 0:10:35.880
<v Speaker 1>and that statute indicates that uh those um special especially

0:10:35.880 --> 0:10:43.120
<v Speaker 1>appointed judges, should not be compensated more than sitting circuit

0:10:43.160 --> 0:10:47.040
<v Speaker 1>court judges in the state. And apparently there have been

0:10:47.120 --> 0:10:54.120
<v Speaker 1>instances where uh the Supreme Court has approved the employment

0:10:54.600 --> 0:11:01.120
<v Speaker 1>of judges in certain uh circuits where they're cumulative income

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:05.600
<v Speaker 1>during a year um exceeds that of a sitting judge.

0:11:05.880 --> 0:11:09.680
<v Speaker 1>That's it's not a criminal statute, but that's what cited

0:11:09.720 --> 0:11:13.760
<v Speaker 1>in the articles of impeachment. Have is there a separation

0:11:14.000 --> 0:11:17.400
<v Speaker 1>of powers problem here that and this may set a

0:11:17.440 --> 0:11:22.320
<v Speaker 1>precedent in that area. Well, of course, there is uhh

0:11:22.600 --> 0:11:28.480
<v Speaker 1>the ability of one branch of government to displaced the

0:11:28.720 --> 0:11:34.199
<v Speaker 1>entire head of the judicial branches is a matter of concern,

0:11:34.520 --> 0:11:39.680
<v Speaker 1>and of course, UM that is more likely to rise.

0:11:39.920 --> 0:11:43.760
<v Speaker 1>I might say that it's really never these circumstances. Well,

0:11:44.880 --> 0:11:48.480
<v Speaker 1>all the members of the court have been impeached, and impeached,

0:11:48.480 --> 0:11:51.640
<v Speaker 1>by the way, doesn't mean conviction or removed from office.

0:11:51.679 --> 0:11:55.440
<v Speaker 1>It's a quote of an indictment. That's that's never occurred

0:11:55.480 --> 0:12:00.080
<v Speaker 1>in West Virginia or in the United States, so that

0:12:00.080 --> 0:12:05.600
<v Speaker 1>that's unusual and it's unsettling, But it only occurs in

0:12:05.640 --> 0:12:09.960
<v Speaker 1>a situation like this where the both the legislative branch

0:12:10.720 --> 0:12:16.079
<v Speaker 1>and the governor's office is occupied by members of the

0:12:16.120 --> 0:12:20.320
<v Speaker 1>same party. And I think historically you don't see this

0:12:20.559 --> 0:12:26.720
<v Speaker 1>because UH in state legislatures, the members are cognizant of

0:12:27.520 --> 0:12:32.680
<v Speaker 1>the impact of such a UH. Such a move would

0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:37.440
<v Speaker 1>be on the integrity of the entire judicial system, and

0:12:37.520 --> 0:12:42.320
<v Speaker 1>also the removal of all the judges would throw the

0:12:42.360 --> 0:12:47.160
<v Speaker 1>West Virginia court system into disarray, with styusands of pending

0:12:47.679 --> 0:12:53.320
<v Speaker 1>cases in the Supreme Court being the body that not

0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:59.319
<v Speaker 1>only here's UH appeals from lower courts, but also administers

0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:03.680
<v Speaker 1>a lower court system. So, Patrick, we have about a

0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:06.040
<v Speaker 1>minute here. Does it seem as if this is going

0:13:06.080 --> 0:13:08.440
<v Speaker 1>to go to the Senate. Will the republic is in

0:13:08.440 --> 0:13:12.719
<v Speaker 1>the Senate be able to to vote for impeachment? Will

0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:18.240
<v Speaker 1>this actually go through? I'm skeptical. Uh, the members of

0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:22.120
<v Speaker 1>the House have made their point. Uh, there's not going

0:13:22.160 --> 0:13:31.240
<v Speaker 1>to be excessive spending on renovations. Judges will will be um. Uh,

0:13:31.600 --> 0:13:36.880
<v Speaker 1>cognizance of spending tax pay money that's really seen the

0:13:37.000 --> 0:13:39.880
<v Speaker 1>many to be overkill. All right, Thanks so much, Patrick,

0:13:39.920 --> 0:13:43.640
<v Speaker 1>that's Patrick McGinley, professor at the West Riginia University College

0:13:43.640 --> 0:13:46.559
<v Speaker 1>of Law. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:50.960
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:13:51.040 --> 0:13:54.920
<v Speaker 1>and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:13:55.400 --> 0:13:56.680
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg