1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,680
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,080 --> 00:00:09,440
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has block House Democrats from getting access

3
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:13,960
Speaker 1: to confidential materials from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation

4
00:00:14,080 --> 00:00:18,239
Speaker 1: for now, granting a request from President Trump's administration. The

5
00:00:18,400 --> 00:00:21,840
Speaker 1: order raises new doubts about whether Democrats will see that

6
00:00:21,920 --> 00:00:25,840
Speaker 1: information anytime soon. Joining me is Greg Store, Bloomberg New

7
00:00:25,880 --> 00:00:29,960
Speaker 1: Supreme Court reporter. So Gregg explained with this is all about, Well,

8
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:32,760
Speaker 1: this is about the Mall Report that was released more

9
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:35,800
Speaker 1: than a year ago, with big parts of it redacted

10
00:00:36,320 --> 00:00:39,320
Speaker 1: and with a lot of the underlying grand jury material

11
00:00:39,720 --> 00:00:43,400
Speaker 1: not made available to members of Congress or the public

12
00:00:43,440 --> 00:00:46,519
Speaker 1: for that matter. And because the Mole Report left a

13
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:49,760
Speaker 1: lot of unanswered questions. For example, he did not decide

14
00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:53,560
Speaker 1: whether or not the president committed obstruction of justice. He

15
00:00:53,640 --> 00:00:56,520
Speaker 1: said that since since it's the Justice Department policy that

16
00:00:56,600 --> 00:00:58,680
Speaker 1: the president camp be indicted while in office, I'm not

17
00:00:58,720 --> 00:01:01,120
Speaker 1: going to reach that conclusion. And he sort of left

18
00:01:01,120 --> 00:01:03,880
Speaker 1: the ball in Congress's court. And what this is is

19
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:08,160
Speaker 1: Congress saying, Okay, to make that determination, we need to

20
00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:12,080
Speaker 1: see all the information, including the grand jury materials. So

21
00:01:12,480 --> 00:01:16,120
Speaker 1: what are the arguments against that isn't their case law?

22
00:01:16,200 --> 00:01:19,520
Speaker 1: I mean of thinking of the Nixon case where the

23
00:01:19,600 --> 00:01:24,959
Speaker 1: underlying documents were revealed. Yeah, this is actually a pretty

24
00:01:25,280 --> 00:01:28,559
Speaker 1: technical question that has to do with the federal rules

25
00:01:28,600 --> 00:01:32,679
Speaker 1: of criminal procedure. And they say that a federal district

26
00:01:32,720 --> 00:01:37,280
Speaker 1: judge can release grand jury material. Grand jeury materials is

27
00:01:37,400 --> 00:01:41,399
Speaker 1: generally secret. Uh, the judge can release that for a

28
00:01:41,560 --> 00:01:46,080
Speaker 1: judicial proceeding. And the question here is whether an impeachment

29
00:01:46,160 --> 00:01:49,160
Speaker 1: investigation is a judicial proceeding. We know that if it

30
00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:50,640
Speaker 1: were in the court, if there was something in the

31
00:01:50,720 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 1: courtroom a criminal trial, that would be a judicial proceeding.

32
00:01:55,200 --> 00:01:58,640
Speaker 1: And that's the underlying question that eventually the Supreme Court

33
00:01:58,680 --> 00:02:01,200
Speaker 1: may have to sort out. Was this just an order?

34
00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:05,080
Speaker 1: Was was there any opinion? There was no explanation. Uh,

35
00:02:05,280 --> 00:02:09,359
Speaker 1: no opinions, no noted descent. It was just the court saying,

36
00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:11,640
Speaker 1: we're going to put this lower court ruling that would

37
00:02:11,639 --> 00:02:13,680
Speaker 1: have required the material to be turned over. We're gonna

38
00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:17,160
Speaker 1: put that on hold while we consider whether or not

39
00:02:17,200 --> 00:02:21,120
Speaker 1: to take up the administration's appeal. And the court put

40
00:02:21,120 --> 00:02:24,560
Speaker 1: the case on a fast track by requiring that the

41
00:02:24,600 --> 00:02:27,639
Speaker 1: petition from the administration come by June the first. That

42
00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:30,679
Speaker 1: will mean the Court can stay before its term ends

43
00:02:30,880 --> 00:02:33,519
Speaker 1: whether it's going to hear the case. If they say no,

44
00:02:33,600 --> 00:02:36,079
Speaker 1: we're not going to hear it, then the material might

45
00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:38,880
Speaker 1: be turned over in short order. But if they agree

46
00:02:38,919 --> 00:02:41,840
Speaker 1: to hear it, that means we've extended this fight certainly

47
00:02:41,840 --> 00:02:44,480
Speaker 1: into the fall and probably to the to the end

48
00:02:44,520 --> 00:02:47,760
Speaker 1: of the current Congress in Trump's term in office. But

49
00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:50,840
Speaker 1: what do the lower courts say about this? Well, the

50
00:02:50,880 --> 00:02:54,120
Speaker 1: lower courts said that the material has to be turned over.

51
00:02:54,160 --> 00:02:58,359
Speaker 1: They said that the impeachment is a judicial proceeding under

52
00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:02,040
Speaker 1: the federal rules of criminal procedure, and had the Supreme

53
00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:05,080
Speaker 1: Court not intervened, the material would have had to have

54
00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:08,600
Speaker 1: been turned over with in very short order. That the

55
00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:11,200
Speaker 1: lower courts had set up a couple of tracks. There

56
00:03:11,280 --> 00:03:14,600
Speaker 1: was the first two categories of material, including the stuff

57
00:03:14,600 --> 00:03:16,960
Speaker 1: that is redacted in the report itself and the underlying

58
00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:19,760
Speaker 1: grand jury materials, would have to be turned over right away,

59
00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:22,760
Speaker 1: and the lower courts left open the possibility that later

60
00:03:22,800 --> 00:03:26,560
Speaker 1: stuff could be turned over if the House Judiciary Committee

61
00:03:26,560 --> 00:03:29,120
Speaker 1: showed a particular need for it. Since we went through

62
00:03:29,360 --> 00:03:32,640
Speaker 1: an impeachment proceeding already just comes to the court on

63
00:03:32,680 --> 00:03:37,320
Speaker 1: the merits. Might the Court look at this skeptically? You know,

64
00:03:37,320 --> 00:03:40,960
Speaker 1: there are the Democrats really looking into another, yet another

65
00:03:41,000 --> 00:03:46,040
Speaker 1: impeachment proceeding after the conclusion of the last one. Yeah,

66
00:03:46,080 --> 00:03:48,720
Speaker 1: that's one of the arguments that the Trump administrations listener

67
00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:52,160
Speaker 1: General Francisco are making, which is that you know, we've

68
00:03:52,160 --> 00:03:55,200
Speaker 1: already had impeachment that's over, and you know this is

69
00:03:55,240 --> 00:03:58,880
Speaker 1: just a continual investigation. The counter argument to that is

70
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:05,320
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee requested this material before the appeachment actually happened. Uh,

71
00:04:05,360 --> 00:04:08,480
Speaker 1: And of course the president was impeached on completely separate

72
00:04:08,800 --> 00:04:13,360
Speaker 1: charges involving strong army Ukrainian government do something that would

73
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:17,440
Speaker 1: help them politically. So you know, the counter is, well, hey,

74
00:04:17,480 --> 00:04:19,960
Speaker 1: you know, the only reason that we're we can't consider

75
00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:22,080
Speaker 1: this material in the Motor report is part of that

76
00:04:22,160 --> 00:04:24,760
Speaker 1: impeachment is because you dragged out the spite for more

77
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:27,520
Speaker 1: than a year. So people who saw the headlines on

78
00:04:27,560 --> 00:04:31,800
Speaker 1: this saw this as a possible indication of what the

79
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:35,839
Speaker 1: Supreme Court might do on the Trump's subpoena cases. Is

80
00:04:35,880 --> 00:04:39,160
Speaker 1: there any correlation? Well, that's always a fair inference, if

81
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:42,240
Speaker 1: only because when the court takes on a stay application,

82
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:44,040
Speaker 1: which is what this is. One of the things they

83
00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:46,800
Speaker 1: look at. One of the factors is how likely are

84
00:04:46,880 --> 00:04:50,359
Speaker 1: we to agree to hear the case and overturn the

85
00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:53,240
Speaker 1: lower court decisions. So that's something the court was supposed

86
00:04:53,279 --> 00:04:56,400
Speaker 1: to take into account when it decided to issue this

87
00:04:56,600 --> 00:04:59,960
Speaker 1: this stake. And given that this is a relatively concern

88
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:02,920
Speaker 1: privative court, one that has started with the Trump administration

89
00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:05,880
Speaker 1: on a number of big issues, Uh, there's certainly reasons

90
00:05:05,880 --> 00:05:09,240
Speaker 1: for Democrats to worry that they will will never see

91
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:11,560
Speaker 1: these documents, at least to what Donald Trump as president.

92
00:05:12,000 --> 00:05:14,839
Speaker 1: Let's talk now about the first case that came before

93
00:05:14,839 --> 00:05:19,440
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court involving COVID nineteen. So this was a

94
00:05:19,480 --> 00:05:25,680
Speaker 1: case involving inmates at a Texas prison for older inmates

95
00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:29,120
Speaker 1: and the two men who oppressing the case or age

96
00:05:29,200 --> 00:05:32,960
Speaker 1: sixty nine and seventy three, and they say that the

97
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:36,520
Speaker 1: facility has not done nearly enough to protect us from

98
00:05:36,600 --> 00:05:40,240
Speaker 1: the coronavirus, and they got a federal district judge to

99
00:05:40,400 --> 00:05:44,120
Speaker 1: issue an injunction requiring the prison and take a lot

100
00:05:44,160 --> 00:05:48,800
Speaker 1: of very specific steps, including things like cleaning schedules and

101
00:05:48,839 --> 00:05:53,000
Speaker 1: making hand sanitizer available and a federal appeals court then

102
00:05:53,279 --> 00:05:57,920
Speaker 1: blocked that lower court ruling, and the Supreme Court then said,

103
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:01,200
Speaker 1: we are not going to disturb appeals ord decision. We're

104
00:06:01,200 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: not going to reinspape the judges order. Were gonna let

105
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:07,960
Speaker 1: the litigations of work without any court ordered requirement on

106
00:06:08,160 --> 00:06:12,480
Speaker 1: the prison. So greg a federal appeals court had blocked

107
00:06:12,520 --> 00:06:15,960
Speaker 1: the judge's order while the case was on appeal, Was

108
00:06:16,000 --> 00:06:20,240
Speaker 1: that based on specific facts because the prison was saying

109
00:06:20,279 --> 00:06:23,440
Speaker 1: that they were doing a lot already. Yeah, that was

110
00:06:23,520 --> 00:06:27,000
Speaker 1: part of of what the uh, the appeals court said,

111
00:06:27,040 --> 00:06:31,960
Speaker 1: and and the district judges uh instructions to the prison

112
00:06:32,000 --> 00:06:36,920
Speaker 1: were very very detailed. Uh. And so the argument uh

113
00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:40,800
Speaker 1: from Texas officials was always, hey, we don't we are

114
00:06:40,880 --> 00:06:45,599
Speaker 1: taking uh most of these steps already. We don't need

115
00:06:45,800 --> 00:06:52,480
Speaker 1: court supervision on the details of this um certainly not

116
00:06:52,640 --> 00:06:55,880
Speaker 1: on this sort of emergency basis. So now there was

117
00:06:55,920 --> 00:07:01,159
Speaker 1: no dissent, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Ruth Bader

118
00:07:01,200 --> 00:07:07,000
Speaker 1: Ginsburg wrote something that sounded a little bit like a descent. Yeah,

119
00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:09,600
Speaker 1: it was not a descent. She said that there's a

120
00:07:09,640 --> 00:07:13,880
Speaker 1: really high standard too to intervene at the stage and

121
00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:15,640
Speaker 1: and we didn't quite reach that, but she said there

122
00:07:15,680 --> 00:07:21,000
Speaker 1: were quote disturbing allegations that the prison had not taken

123
00:07:21,160 --> 00:07:26,960
Speaker 1: seriously enough the threat. And she talked about things like

124
00:07:28,000 --> 00:07:31,200
Speaker 1: one inmate who had died, and she said that there

125
00:07:31,200 --> 00:07:34,840
Speaker 1: were indications that the prison hadn't moved nearly quickly enough

126
00:07:34,880 --> 00:07:40,160
Speaker 1: to isolate that person even after he had died of coronavirus,

127
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 1: and um, you know, she she pointed to other indications

128
00:07:44,080 --> 00:07:47,520
Speaker 1: that the prison hadn't actually done anything to improve its

129
00:07:47,560 --> 00:07:52,000
Speaker 1: cleaning protocols there. And she's just joined by Justice Ruth

130
00:07:52,000 --> 00:07:54,720
Speaker 1: Bader Ginsburg. Only the two of them, As you said,

131
00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:58,040
Speaker 1: it wasn't technically a descent, but it was certainly casting

132
00:07:58,040 --> 00:08:03,840
Speaker 1: a skeptical eye. Those two justices been uniting in several

133
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:07,560
Speaker 1: opinions lately. Or is it just my imagination, No, it's

134
00:08:07,600 --> 00:08:11,400
Speaker 1: not your imagination on all sorts of matters. So Doma

135
00:08:11,480 --> 00:08:15,160
Speaker 1: oreng Gensburg have been the two justices who are most

136
00:08:15,600 --> 00:08:20,840
Speaker 1: inclined to dissent. They are it's easy enough to characterize

137
00:08:20,840 --> 00:08:22,960
Speaker 1: them as the two most liberal justices at this point.

138
00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:26,160
Speaker 1: The other two Democratic appointees, Kagan and Brian, are much

139
00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:29,920
Speaker 1: more likely to look for areas of compromise and to

140
00:08:30,680 --> 00:08:34,800
Speaker 1: not rock the boat in the hope of potentially winning

141
00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:39,280
Speaker 1: over some justices to kind of be bridges with justices

142
00:08:39,360 --> 00:08:42,520
Speaker 1: like the Chief Justice John Roberts, but Soda oreng Gensburg

143
00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:45,920
Speaker 1: are not afraid to point out where they see some

144
00:08:46,040 --> 00:08:48,640
Speaker 1: sort of especially in an area criminal law, where they

145
00:08:48,679 --> 00:08:52,280
Speaker 1: see what to them is a is a gross injustice.

146
00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:56,079
Speaker 1: So when do we hear next from the court what

147
00:08:56,280 --> 00:08:58,120
Speaker 1: we do We may hear a lot more of these

148
00:08:58,160 --> 00:09:01,080
Speaker 1: prison related things. There are a couple more our applications

149
00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:04,760
Speaker 1: involving facilities that are UH that are pending. This is

150
00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:07,200
Speaker 1: going to be an ongoing issue as long as the

151
00:09:07,280 --> 00:09:11,280
Speaker 1: coronavirus is a threat UH and as long as there

152
00:09:11,280 --> 00:09:15,520
Speaker 1: are complaints that prisons aren't doing enough to protect inmates.

153
00:09:15,559 --> 00:09:18,320
Speaker 1: So we'll have some more of that. We should also

154
00:09:18,360 --> 00:09:21,120
Speaker 1: have the Supreme Court coming back next week with more

155
00:09:21,240 --> 00:09:23,199
Speaker 1: orders and opinions. One of the big things we are

156
00:09:23,679 --> 00:09:25,720
Speaker 1: waiting to hear is whether they're going to take up

157
00:09:25,760 --> 00:09:29,320
Speaker 1: a new Second Amendment case. If you recall, they recently

158
00:09:29,840 --> 00:09:33,920
Speaker 1: UH dropped this case involving handgun transportation restrictions in New

159
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:36,760
Speaker 1: York City. Now they've got so much bigger Second Amendment

160
00:09:36,800 --> 00:09:39,439
Speaker 1: issues and May. Uh, there are a lot of indications

161
00:09:39,440 --> 00:09:42,280
Speaker 1: that they will take one of those cases up and

162
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:45,000
Speaker 1: as the Court decided whether or not they're going to

163
00:09:45,080 --> 00:09:49,960
Speaker 1: extend the session because usually we hear all the decisions

164
00:09:50,040 --> 00:09:53,600
Speaker 1: by the end of June. Yeah, they haven't said anything.

165
00:09:53,679 --> 00:09:58,080
Speaker 1: It's it's reasonable to speculate that they will, given how

166
00:09:58,200 --> 00:10:02,160
Speaker 1: late those telephone arguments took place. Usually the the court

167
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:05,240
Speaker 1: hears its last arguments in April. Those arguments were heard

168
00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:08,040
Speaker 1: in May, and of course they included some really big

169
00:10:08,080 --> 00:10:12,840
Speaker 1: and potentially complicated issues like the subpoenas for the president's

170
00:10:12,960 --> 00:10:17,920
Speaker 1: financial information. Uh. And of course the Justice is, like

171
00:10:17,960 --> 00:10:21,280
Speaker 1: the rest of us, have seen their summer plans scuttled,

172
00:10:21,360 --> 00:10:25,440
Speaker 1: So we don't have to imagine that they are rushing

173
00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:27,320
Speaker 1: to get out of town so they can get to

174
00:10:27,400 --> 00:10:32,320
Speaker 1: their overseas teaching gigs or to uh attend some judicial conference.

175
00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:34,360
Speaker 1: They're probably going to be here, So I would not

176
00:10:34,440 --> 00:10:37,360
Speaker 1: be surprised if we go well into July this year.

177
00:10:38,040 --> 00:10:43,000
Speaker 1: Are the justices still considering what cases to take next term?

178
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,559
Speaker 1: Or is next term pretty filled? No, it's not filled yet.

179
00:10:46,600 --> 00:10:50,600
Speaker 1: They have more than they usually do uh in in

180
00:10:50,960 --> 00:10:53,120
Speaker 1: you know, around about this time of the year because

181
00:10:53,160 --> 00:10:55,920
Speaker 1: they had a number of cases that were originally scheduled

182
00:10:55,920 --> 00:10:57,679
Speaker 1: to be argued this this term and now we'll be

183
00:10:57,720 --> 00:11:01,560
Speaker 1: heard next term. But they've got plenty of room and

184
00:11:02,080 --> 00:11:04,800
Speaker 1: uh we can expect there are a lot of big

185
00:11:04,800 --> 00:11:09,280
Speaker 1: issues coming uh coming along that they will probably be

186
00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:12,920
Speaker 1: inclined to take up. So have you gotten any feedback

187
00:11:13,760 --> 00:11:18,520
Speaker 1: about how the oral arguments went. Is anyone talking about

188
00:11:18,559 --> 00:11:22,000
Speaker 1: them and saying, oh, they went really, well, we should

189
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:26,000
Speaker 1: do this again next year. Well, they may do them

190
00:11:26,040 --> 00:11:28,800
Speaker 1: again next year if if they decided if not safe

191
00:11:28,840 --> 00:11:30,920
Speaker 1: they have arguments in the courtroom again. The Court has

192
00:11:30,960 --> 00:11:33,760
Speaker 1: not given us any indication whether they are going to

193
00:11:33,880 --> 00:11:38,240
Speaker 1: go back to the normal procedures when they return in October.

194
00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:40,960
Speaker 1: And given the age of some of the justices, it's

195
00:11:41,040 --> 00:11:43,600
Speaker 1: it's not crazy they think that they might have to

196
00:11:43,640 --> 00:11:46,439
Speaker 1: do this again in terms of the arguments and themselves.

197
00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:49,560
Speaker 1: You know, I think from mixed views, Uh, you know,

198
00:11:49,720 --> 00:11:51,920
Speaker 1: in in some senses, it was a very It was

199
00:11:51,920 --> 00:11:54,760
Speaker 1: a rather dignified session. There was not a whole lot

200
00:11:54,880 --> 00:12:01,120
Speaker 1: of talking over one another. There was some probing questions. Uh,

201
00:12:01,520 --> 00:12:04,280
Speaker 1: lawyer's had a chance that answer. On the other hand,

202
00:12:04,320 --> 00:12:08,000
Speaker 1: there was this phenomenon where, uh, John Roberts was kind

203
00:12:08,040 --> 00:12:11,320
Speaker 1: of justice was constantly having to interrupt the lawyer who

204
00:12:11,360 --> 00:12:14,560
Speaker 1: was answering one justice's question to say, Okay, it's time

205
00:12:14,600 --> 00:12:19,319
Speaker 1: for another justice to ask a question. And you know,

206
00:12:19,760 --> 00:12:22,960
Speaker 1: there were a number of people who think that, you know,

207
00:12:23,280 --> 00:12:26,840
Speaker 1: the conversation was cough prematurely in a number of places.

208
00:12:26,960 --> 00:12:29,480
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on Bloomberg Law, Greg guess always that's

209
00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:33,400
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. The court will

210
00:12:33,400 --> 00:12:36,480
Speaker 1: be issuing orders on Tuesday of next week, but no

211
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:40,160
Speaker 1: opinions are expected next week. Johnson and Johnson's decision to

212
00:12:40,240 --> 00:12:43,320
Speaker 1: phase out the talent based version of its iconic baby

213
00:12:43,320 --> 00:12:46,680
Speaker 1: powder may signal the company is preparing for a global

214
00:12:46,760 --> 00:12:51,880
Speaker 1: settlement of almost twenty pending claims over allegations the product

215
00:12:51,960 --> 00:12:55,520
Speaker 1: causes cancer. My guess is Carl Tobias, a professor at

216
00:12:55,520 --> 00:12:58,880
Speaker 1: the University of Richmond Law School. For six years, J

217
00:12:59,040 --> 00:13:01,880
Speaker 1: and J has been involved in litigation over its iconic

218
00:13:01,960 --> 00:13:05,440
Speaker 1: baby powder. The company says the decision to phase it

219
00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:08,439
Speaker 1: out is a commercial decision, but what effect does it

220
00:13:08,520 --> 00:13:12,400
Speaker 1: have on the pending litigation? Well, I think most people

221
00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:16,040
Speaker 1: are close to litigation believe that there there will be

222
00:13:16,080 --> 00:13:23,120
Speaker 1: some type of substantial global settlement of all the cases.

223
00:13:23,480 --> 00:13:29,600
Speaker 1: I believe there's something like nearly twenty thousand cases around

224
00:13:29,600 --> 00:13:32,560
Speaker 1: the country have been filed, many in an MDL, but

225
00:13:33,160 --> 00:13:36,520
Speaker 1: very few have gone to trial, and some have been settled.

226
00:13:36,800 --> 00:13:39,920
Speaker 1: But I think this is a signal or even admission

227
00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:45,240
Speaker 1: against interest by the company that these cases are going

228
00:13:45,280 --> 00:13:48,640
Speaker 1: to be difficult to try, and they've lost a number

229
00:13:48,679 --> 00:13:53,640
Speaker 1: of them with very substantial verdicts, and so J and

230
00:13:53,720 --> 00:13:58,240
Speaker 1: J has a reputation for litigating very hard in these situations.

231
00:13:58,240 --> 00:14:01,000
Speaker 1: But I think this is a sign that now these

232
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:05,400
Speaker 1: cases will settle, and so I think that's the signal

233
00:14:05,520 --> 00:14:09,600
Speaker 1: that we see from that decision. The other problem, of course,

234
00:14:09,760 --> 00:14:12,360
Speaker 1: is the public relations aspect, because this is a company

235
00:14:12,400 --> 00:14:18,560
Speaker 1: Buildard's reputation on being family friendly, and the product is

236
00:14:18,679 --> 00:14:23,600
Speaker 1: one that has caused very serious cancer to thousands of

237
00:14:23,640 --> 00:14:29,760
Speaker 1: women of variant cancer mesiloma, and so these are horrible

238
00:14:29,800 --> 00:14:34,600
Speaker 1: cases and the diseases are horrible, and so it seems

239
00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:37,680
Speaker 1: likely that they will be settled that may help their

240
00:14:37,720 --> 00:14:41,200
Speaker 1: public relations as well as the bottom line. But the

241
00:14:41,240 --> 00:14:45,800
Speaker 1: figures I've seen on settlement are quite high, something between

242
00:14:45,960 --> 00:14:50,400
Speaker 1: ten and twenty billions. They've been pretty successful on appeal

243
00:14:50,680 --> 00:14:55,960
Speaker 1: in either knocking verdicts out or getting the amount knocked down.

244
00:14:56,760 --> 00:15:00,280
Speaker 1: Has anything happened recently or is it just accumulation that

245
00:15:01,040 --> 00:15:03,640
Speaker 1: led them to say, Okay, we'll take the product off

246
00:15:03,680 --> 00:15:07,840
Speaker 1: the market. We'll look toward a settlement. Now, it's not clear,

247
00:15:07,960 --> 00:15:11,520
Speaker 1: but I think those cases were the driver. And each

248
00:15:11,560 --> 00:15:15,880
Speaker 1: time one of those cases comes out with huge verdicts,

249
00:15:15,920 --> 00:15:18,520
Speaker 1: even if they are able to have it lowered on

250
00:15:18,560 --> 00:15:21,560
Speaker 1: appeal because the punity damages were too high or something

251
00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:26,920
Speaker 1: of that sort, that reminds consumers of the harm that

252
00:15:27,120 --> 00:15:30,880
Speaker 1: the product is doing, and so the sales are off

253
00:15:30,920 --> 00:15:34,680
Speaker 1: as well. And so I just think they are designed.

254
00:15:34,680 --> 00:15:37,920
Speaker 1: Discretion is a better part of valor. We want to

255
00:15:38,640 --> 00:15:42,560
Speaker 1: have some end date on these cases, and we may

256
00:15:42,720 --> 00:15:46,160
Speaker 1: need to stop fighting them because of the bad public

257
00:15:46,200 --> 00:15:49,280
Speaker 1: relations and we're losing them even if we win some

258
00:15:49,360 --> 00:15:52,800
Speaker 1: on appeal. And so that's the kind of decision that

259
00:15:52,960 --> 00:15:57,040
Speaker 1: was made. And we'll see what happened, But most observers

260
00:15:57,040 --> 00:16:00,960
Speaker 1: are expecting some type of major settlements in the near term.

261
00:16:01,000 --> 00:16:05,320
Speaker 1: If there is no settlement, could this decision to remove

262
00:16:05,400 --> 00:16:12,040
Speaker 1: the product from the market find its way into jury trials. Yes,

263
00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:14,960
Speaker 1: there are different ways in which planets could be able

264
00:16:15,000 --> 00:16:17,880
Speaker 1: to introduce some of this. Courts could take judicial notice

265
00:16:18,160 --> 00:16:21,200
Speaker 1: or that type of thing. But one people know about

266
00:16:21,280 --> 00:16:25,560
Speaker 1: that and the circumstances of removing it from the shelves,

267
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:28,680
Speaker 1: it may just filter through the society and people will

268
00:16:28,720 --> 00:16:32,760
Speaker 1: know that they're sitting on a jury or council raises

269
00:16:32,800 --> 00:16:36,840
Speaker 1: it or judges take notice of that. Planets are more

270
00:16:36,880 --> 00:16:39,600
Speaker 1: likely to win the cases and more likely to have

271
00:16:39,840 --> 00:16:43,680
Speaker 1: larger verdicts, So that's a problem for the company. Is

272
00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:47,400
Speaker 1: there any parallel litigation from the past mass tort litigation

273
00:16:47,760 --> 00:16:51,600
Speaker 1: that mirrors what's happened to J and J? Well in

274
00:16:51,720 --> 00:16:54,760
Speaker 1: some sense, yes, I mean because if you think of

275
00:16:54,800 --> 00:16:58,160
Speaker 1: the large verdicts for example in BUYO, some of the

276
00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:02,920
Speaker 1: cases in MBL, and then the large global settlement is

277
00:17:03,040 --> 00:17:07,040
Speaker 1: somewhat similar, not exactly the same um, but some of

278
00:17:07,080 --> 00:17:10,800
Speaker 1: the dynamics are are similar, and some of the ongoing

279
00:17:10,880 --> 00:17:16,400
Speaker 1: opioid litigation you see similar patterns, and so we'll see

280
00:17:16,400 --> 00:17:19,320
Speaker 1: what happens into the future. But it looks like a

281
00:17:19,359 --> 00:17:23,399
Speaker 1: settlements coming. I've often wondered with these global settlements, do

282
00:17:23,440 --> 00:17:27,439
Speaker 1: you have a plaintiff sometimes who will not settle, and

283
00:17:27,480 --> 00:17:31,560
Speaker 1: then what happens? Do they make a separate deal with them? Yes,

284
00:17:31,760 --> 00:17:35,240
Speaker 1: often they will. Um, there may be some discount or

285
00:17:36,000 --> 00:17:39,119
Speaker 1: there's an agreement if you win in a trial court

286
00:17:39,240 --> 00:17:42,200
Speaker 1: that there won't be an appeal, But um, the amount

287
00:17:42,280 --> 00:17:44,960
Speaker 1: of the verdict might be lowered. UM and it and

288
00:17:45,119 --> 00:17:47,119
Speaker 1: it may be worth it to the plaintifts not to

289
00:17:47,119 --> 00:17:50,560
Speaker 1: take the risk of perhaps losing on the field. So

290
00:17:51,040 --> 00:17:55,520
Speaker 1: those negotiations would be part of settlements too. J and

291
00:17:55,640 --> 00:17:58,880
Speaker 1: J spokeswoman said the decision to phase out the product

292
00:17:58,960 --> 00:18:02,800
Speaker 1: has no impact on their legal position. Quote, we are

293
00:18:02,880 --> 00:18:05,840
Speaker 1: confident in our legal strategy and our defense, which is

294
00:18:05,840 --> 00:18:09,760
Speaker 1: supported by decades of scientific evidence showing our talk is

295
00:18:09,840 --> 00:18:13,199
Speaker 1: safe and does not contain asbestos. Come up next on

296
00:18:13,280 --> 00:18:17,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. Another controversial nominee to one of the country's

297
00:18:17,640 --> 00:18:24,040
Speaker 1: most conservative federal appeals courts. Another controversial nominee to arguably

298
00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:28,280
Speaker 1: the most conservative appellate court in the country, Corey Wilson,

299
00:18:28,359 --> 00:18:30,199
Speaker 1: is up for a seat on the US Court of

300
00:18:30,200 --> 00:18:33,200
Speaker 1: Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that has been vacant since

301
00:18:34,640 --> 00:18:38,960
Speaker 1: Democrats question Wilson about his past writings critical of Obamacare

302
00:18:39,320 --> 00:18:44,399
Speaker 1: lgbt Q issues and questioning voter suppression claims. I've been

303
00:18:44,400 --> 00:18:47,439
Speaker 1: talking to Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond

304
00:18:47,520 --> 00:18:53,680
Speaker 1: Law School. Why has this seat seemingly been hard to fill? Well,

305
00:18:55,200 --> 00:18:59,040
Speaker 1: the judge from the Southern District of Mississippi, who was

306
00:18:59,080 --> 00:19:04,960
Speaker 1: Trump's first cominee for the vacancy that has been open

307
00:19:05,040 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 1: for a couple of years now since Grady Jolly took

308
00:19:09,320 --> 00:19:16,000
Speaker 1: senior status, wasn't sufficiently conservative for the Senate Judiciary Committee,

309
00:19:16,080 --> 00:19:20,840
Speaker 1: especially Senator Cruz and Senator Hawley from Missouri, and so

310
00:19:21,960 --> 00:19:24,520
Speaker 1: they suggested they would not vote for him, and so

311
00:19:24,880 --> 00:19:27,920
Speaker 1: he wasn't going to come out of committee, and so

312
00:19:28,119 --> 00:19:34,359
Speaker 1: finally his name was withdrawn. And now they have taken

313
00:19:35,160 --> 00:19:40,880
Speaker 1: uh Judge Wilson, who's on the Appellate Court in Mississippi

314
00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:45,360
Speaker 1: dominates for the Southern District, and moved him up as

315
00:19:45,400 --> 00:19:48,600
Speaker 1: the nominee for the fifth Circuit, and so he had

316
00:19:48,640 --> 00:19:53,760
Speaker 1: a hearing on Wednesday. What I'm curious about is he

317
00:19:53,800 --> 00:19:57,440
Speaker 1: has been sitting as a judge for about a year

318
00:19:58,280 --> 00:20:03,520
Speaker 1: on a state court. And similarly, we had Justin Walker,

319
00:20:03,560 --> 00:20:06,159
Speaker 1: who has been sitting about a year on a district

320
00:20:06,200 --> 00:20:10,320
Speaker 1: court why are they moving these judicial nominees who haven't

321
00:20:10,320 --> 00:20:14,480
Speaker 1: had that much experience up to the circuit courts when

322
00:20:14,480 --> 00:20:19,360
Speaker 1: there are so many others available who have more experience. Well,

323
00:20:19,400 --> 00:20:20,920
Speaker 1: I think the answers were coming to the end of

324
00:20:20,920 --> 00:20:25,320
Speaker 1: the administration and they want to be certain that they

325
00:20:25,480 --> 00:20:30,040
Speaker 1: feel every vacancy available, especially on important appeals courts like

326
00:20:30,200 --> 00:20:34,679
Speaker 1: this circuit DC circuit. And for example, with Walker, he

327
00:20:34,840 --> 00:20:38,240
Speaker 1: was confirmed for the district, served for five months, six

328
00:20:38,280 --> 00:20:41,760
Speaker 1: months in the Western District of Kentucky, I think fifteen

329
00:20:41,800 --> 00:20:46,840
Speaker 1: months for Wilson in the appellate court in Mississippi. And

330
00:20:47,080 --> 00:20:49,920
Speaker 1: basically they've been for most of the process, at least

331
00:20:49,920 --> 00:20:53,840
Speaker 1: for Wilson. And of course Walker was confirmed by the Senate,

332
00:20:54,119 --> 00:20:58,200
Speaker 1: and so that makes it easier and quicker. You all

333
00:20:58,240 --> 00:21:01,399
Speaker 1: the background work has already been done and by FBI,

334
00:21:01,680 --> 00:21:07,160
Speaker 1: the committee, members of the committee, and so it shortens

335
00:21:07,200 --> 00:21:10,520
Speaker 1: the time period. And they also have views that are

336
00:21:10,560 --> 00:21:15,240
Speaker 1: congenial with those politically of members of the Senate. For example,

337
00:21:15,640 --> 00:21:20,680
Speaker 1: as Senator Durban pointed out yesterday, both Walker and Wilson

338
00:21:20,800 --> 00:21:29,080
Speaker 1: vociferously opposed Obamacare before they were nominated, and so many Democrats,

339
00:21:29,200 --> 00:21:33,280
Speaker 1: especially Durban, were concerned that instead of addressing the pandemic,

340
00:21:33,760 --> 00:21:39,880
Speaker 1: the committee was bringing forward people who, uh seems staunchly

341
00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:45,360
Speaker 1: opposed to the A. Some critics say that they were

342
00:21:45,440 --> 00:21:51,879
Speaker 1: nominated specifically because of their hostility to Obamacare. Well, I

343
00:21:51,920 --> 00:21:54,239
Speaker 1: think that's right. I think that's what Democratic senators was

344
00:21:54,359 --> 00:21:59,640
Speaker 1: suggesting yesterday and earlier in Walker's hearing, and both were

345
00:22:00,040 --> 00:22:03,679
Speaker 1: scheduled why the pandemic was raging? Rather than has a

346
00:22:03,680 --> 00:22:07,879
Speaker 1: committee addressed all of the issues that are relevant to

347
00:22:08,040 --> 00:22:11,919
Speaker 1: the ongoing pandemic, some of which followed in the jurisdiction

348
00:22:12,000 --> 00:22:15,520
Speaker 1: of the Judiciary Committee, And so it seems as if

349
00:22:15,680 --> 00:22:20,240
Speaker 1: the Republican majority has a ten ear on what's actually happening.

350
00:22:21,160 --> 00:22:26,400
Speaker 1: So that's what it seems so striking, And I think

351
00:22:26,520 --> 00:22:31,399
Speaker 1: ironic was the word used by Senator Durban yesterday. It

352
00:22:31,560 --> 00:22:35,280
Speaker 1: also strikes me that in Wilson, they've picked someone who

353
00:22:35,359 --> 00:22:41,080
Speaker 1: has engaged in a lot of inflammatory rhetoric, from calling

354
00:22:41,440 --> 00:22:46,480
Speaker 1: President Barack Obama king to joining in the Crooked Hillary

355
00:22:46,840 --> 00:22:51,919
Speaker 1: kinds of attacks. It seems like he has more inflammatory

356
00:22:52,040 --> 00:22:58,440
Speaker 1: rhetoric than most judicial nominees. That's correct, And so a

357
00:22:58,520 --> 00:23:03,320
Speaker 1: number of Trump nominees have used similar rhetoric, especially during

358
00:23:03,359 --> 00:23:08,440
Speaker 1: the Obama years. But Wilson excused all of that by saying,

359
00:23:08,520 --> 00:23:12,199
Speaker 1: I understand the difference in the role of being a

360
00:23:12,359 --> 00:23:16,720
Speaker 1: judge and being a legislator. He was elected to the

361
00:23:16,760 --> 00:23:22,080
Speaker 1: Mississippi State House, uh, and then appointed to the Intermediate

362
00:23:22,119 --> 00:23:26,760
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals last year, and he's just saying, I

363
00:23:27,320 --> 00:23:29,399
Speaker 1: my role as a judge is completely different than my

364
00:23:29,520 --> 00:23:32,359
Speaker 1: role as a commentator or even as a legislator. Those

365
00:23:32,359 --> 00:23:36,080
Speaker 1: issues are now settled for courts to apply that president faithfully,

366
00:23:36,160 --> 00:23:39,440
Speaker 1: and I would do so. Those are direct quotes from him.

367
00:23:40,040 --> 00:23:44,880
Speaker 1: Senator Graham said something like to the Democrats, why are

368
00:23:44,880 --> 00:23:49,240
Speaker 1: you investigating his views here? Of course, we're gonna choose

369
00:23:49,240 --> 00:23:51,879
Speaker 1: people who match our views. When you get empower, you

370
00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:55,440
Speaker 1: choose people who match your views. Does that belie this

371
00:23:55,640 --> 00:24:00,200
Speaker 1: notion that these judges are going to apply the law

372
00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:04,560
Speaker 1: as written, interpret the law as written, without any regard,

373
00:24:04,640 --> 00:24:08,920
Speaker 1: as this judge kept saying, to their personal views. Well,

374
00:24:09,280 --> 00:24:14,520
Speaker 1: the Democrats think that that's precisely why these nominees are

375
00:24:14,560 --> 00:24:17,960
Speaker 1: being chosen. Uh. And we talked before about the settle

376
00:24:18,000 --> 00:24:21,800
Speaker 1: of society and its role, and so it's a matter

377
00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:27,080
Speaker 1: of who you believe, um. But the process is so

378
00:24:27,200 --> 00:24:33,879
Speaker 1: hyperpartisans um in the nominees themselves have been so partisans

379
00:24:34,040 --> 00:24:37,560
Speaker 1: in their criticisms that it's troubling what they have said

380
00:24:37,600 --> 00:24:41,439
Speaker 1: before they went on the bench. Uh. And Democrats I

381
00:24:41,480 --> 00:24:45,200
Speaker 1: think appropriately raised the question of temperament. If you engage

382
00:24:45,200 --> 00:24:49,960
Speaker 1: in personal attacks on high ranking officials in the other

383
00:24:50,119 --> 00:24:54,080
Speaker 1: party that you whom you oppose, what kind of temperament

384
00:24:54,080 --> 00:24:56,800
Speaker 1: would you have on the bench. And of course Democrats

385
00:24:56,880 --> 00:25:02,240
Speaker 1: keep asking the judicial compnies whether they can put aside

386
00:25:02,320 --> 00:25:09,480
Speaker 1: there um preconceived notions and avoid making policy judgments on

387
00:25:09,520 --> 00:25:12,159
Speaker 1: the bench, and of course they so, of course I

388
00:25:12,200 --> 00:25:16,199
Speaker 1: can do that, um, But it hasn't really shown up

389
00:25:16,280 --> 00:25:20,159
Speaker 1: in their decisions once they are on the bench. And

390
00:25:20,359 --> 00:25:24,880
Speaker 1: so Democrats are dubious uh. And has expressed that view.

391
00:25:25,440 --> 00:25:29,760
Speaker 1: And so we'll see. I expect we'll have another party

392
00:25:29,800 --> 00:25:34,440
Speaker 1: line vote on Wilson when they returned in June, as

393
00:25:34,480 --> 00:25:39,960
Speaker 1: they will for Walker. Trump has appointed five judges already

394
00:25:40,000 --> 00:25:42,520
Speaker 1: to the Fifth Circuit. Isn't that a large number for

395
00:25:42,680 --> 00:25:45,840
Speaker 1: one circuit in a three year period? How do they

396
00:25:45,880 --> 00:25:50,560
Speaker 1: have so many vacancies? Well, it is a pretty large number.

397
00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:54,080
Speaker 1: I believe they're eighteen or so active judges on that court,

398
00:25:54,800 --> 00:25:57,840
Speaker 1: but at least as to the Texas they can sees

399
00:25:58,560 --> 00:26:02,840
Speaker 1: they were very long vacant. These in two of the

400
00:26:02,920 --> 00:26:07,320
Speaker 1: seats that are allocated to Texas and the home state

401
00:26:07,400 --> 00:26:11,160
Speaker 1: senators Coin and Cruised failed to cooperate with the White

402
00:26:11,160 --> 00:26:16,520
Speaker 1: House in recommending people for those two vacancies for years,

403
00:26:16,840 --> 00:26:19,240
Speaker 1: so held they held them open. And then a third

404
00:26:19,280 --> 00:26:23,000
Speaker 1: one was someone on the court who from Texas who

405
00:26:23,119 --> 00:26:29,760
Speaker 1: was appointed ambassador to country in South America and he retired,

406
00:26:30,400 --> 00:26:34,199
Speaker 1: and so those three vacancies were filled. In Louisiana, there

407
00:26:34,240 --> 00:26:39,080
Speaker 1: were a couple of vacancies and those were filled by Trump.

408
00:26:39,680 --> 00:26:43,359
Speaker 1: So that's the answer. And then there's this sixth vacancy

409
00:26:43,720 --> 00:26:47,159
Speaker 1: where Judge Charley took the senior status a couple of

410
00:26:47,240 --> 00:26:51,119
Speaker 1: years ago. The Fifth Circuit is already considered the most

411
00:26:51,160 --> 00:26:56,520
Speaker 1: conservative circuit in the country. Was it also as conservative

412
00:26:56,840 --> 00:27:02,919
Speaker 1: before the Trump nominees took the bench. It was very conservative,

413
00:27:02,960 --> 00:27:06,240
Speaker 1: probably the most conservative court in the country in the

414
00:27:06,840 --> 00:27:12,920
Speaker 1: seventeen but uh now it's clearly the most conservative because

415
00:27:13,000 --> 00:27:17,880
Speaker 1: of the Trump nominees. And pretty soon if Wilson's confirmed,

416
00:27:17,920 --> 00:27:20,919
Speaker 1: he will have named around a third of the active

417
00:27:21,000 --> 00:27:24,320
Speaker 1: judges on that court. And so you have to look

418
00:27:24,320 --> 00:27:27,320
Speaker 1: at the legacy that's left. They'll sit for thirty or

419
00:27:27,480 --> 00:27:31,840
Speaker 1: more years, so you're replacing people in their sixties seventies

420
00:27:32,160 --> 00:27:36,199
Speaker 1: with people who in their forties. McConnell, how is he

421
00:27:36,320 --> 00:27:40,920
Speaker 1: moving these judges through during the pandemic? Are there any

422
00:27:40,960 --> 00:27:45,439
Speaker 1: problems that the pandemic has raised for him? Well, for

423
00:27:45,640 --> 00:27:49,240
Speaker 1: both the Walker hearing and the Wilson hearing, there were

424
00:27:49,280 --> 00:27:55,000
Speaker 1: only those individual circuit nominees before the committee, and typically

425
00:27:55,160 --> 00:27:59,119
Speaker 1: before the pandemic there would be a circuit judge nominee,

426
00:27:59,200 --> 00:28:05,160
Speaker 1: and we are four district nominees. So again they're emphasizing

427
00:28:05,200 --> 00:28:09,440
Speaker 1: the palate nominees and the emphasizing the district nominees even

428
00:28:09,440 --> 00:28:12,760
Speaker 1: though they're twenty or thirty awaiting hearing. So I don't

429
00:28:12,760 --> 00:28:15,119
Speaker 1: know what they'll do. Hopefully that would pick up in

430
00:28:15,280 --> 00:28:18,840
Speaker 1: June and July, but we'll see because it's July fourth

431
00:28:18,880 --> 00:28:23,719
Speaker 1: week and then August recess, so McConnell may have them

432
00:28:23,760 --> 00:28:26,879
Speaker 1: work in August, but they're pretty far behind on the

433
00:28:26,960 --> 00:28:32,080
Speaker 1: district nominees. On the other hand, three nominees came forward

434
00:28:32,240 --> 00:28:36,879
Speaker 1: for confirmation votes and all three were easily confirmed, two

435
00:28:36,920 --> 00:28:41,120
Speaker 1: for emergency vacancies and on the Monday they come back, um,

436
00:28:41,160 --> 00:28:44,440
Speaker 1: there'll be a closure vote on a four person um.

437
00:28:44,560 --> 00:28:47,680
Speaker 1: Three of the four are from Red states, which is

438
00:28:48,000 --> 00:28:52,480
Speaker 1: continuing a pattern, and so that's kind of where the

439
00:28:52,520 --> 00:28:57,960
Speaker 1: status is. There are presently seventy one district vacancies nationwide,

440
00:28:58,520 --> 00:29:01,200
Speaker 1: so that's a lower than spend for some time, and

441
00:29:01,800 --> 00:29:06,920
Speaker 1: I think forty two or forty three emergency baconcy and

442
00:29:07,040 --> 00:29:09,440
Speaker 1: that's better than it has been, but still there's a

443
00:29:09,440 --> 00:29:12,360
Speaker 1: long way to go. Thanks Carl. That's Carl Tobias of

444
00:29:12,440 --> 00:29:14,880
Speaker 1: the University of Richmond Law School, and that's it for

445
00:29:14,920 --> 00:29:17,880
Speaker 1: this edition of Bloomberg Long. I'm June Grasso. Thanks so

446
00:29:17,960 --> 00:29:19,760
Speaker 1: much for listening, and remember to tune in to The

447
00:29:19,760 --> 00:29:22,520
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show weeknights at tenne yam eastern rightdey Arms,

448
00:29:22,520 --> 00:29:23,240
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio.