Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Earlier this afternoon, Donald Trump was arraigned on a New
Speaker 1: York Supreme Court indictment returned by a Manhattan grand jury
Speaker 1: on thirty four felony counts of falsifying business records in
Speaker 1: the first degree. Donald Trump, the first former US president
Speaker 1: to be indicted, pleaded not guilty to thirty four criminal
Speaker 1: counts in the Manhattan District Attorney's case against him, amid
Speaker 1: an intense national debate over the prosecution. At a press conference,
Speaker 1: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg said the office has brought these
Speaker 1: kinds of cases before. Thirty four false statements made to
Speaker 1: cover up other crimes. These are felony crimes in New
Speaker 1: York State. No matter who you are, we cannot and
Speaker 1: will not normal serious criminal conducts. The thirty four counts
Speaker 1: are ordinarily misdemeanors under New York law, but are charged
Speaker 1: as felonies in the case because they were allegedly committed
Speaker 1: in the service of another crime, in this case, promoting
Speaker 1: Trump's candidacy by unlawful means. The indictment stems from Bragg's
Speaker 1: probe of hush money payments made just before the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election to cover up an alleged decade old affair.
Speaker 1: Trump denies the affair and any illegal acts. My guest
Speaker 1: is former prosecutor Joshua Castenberg, a professor at the University
Speaker 1: of New Mexico Law School. So tell us about the
Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney's case against Trump. So it's thirty four
Speaker 1: charges of their bones information that doesn't give the general
Speaker 1: public a full outline of who the hush money went
Speaker 1: to and what the defined purpose was. But you can
Speaker 1: drill down and understand that the hush money was paid
Speaker 1: as an expense other than what it was and reported
Speaker 1: for matters other than what it was stated for, and
Speaker 1: it was done to affect the election, and under New
Speaker 1: York law, that makes it a felony. What did you
Speaker 1: think about the way Alvin Bragg tried to address I
Speaker 1: think his critics who'd been saying that this was, you know,
Speaker 1: much ado about nothing, he said that this is a
Speaker 1: lie time and time again, and then a cover up. Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he made the case as to
Speaker 1: why he brought these charges, and that these charges were
Speaker 1: brought not as a personal vendetta, but rather because there
Speaker 1: was evidence of a crime. What he didn't say, and
Speaker 1: he perhaps was wise not to add, is that, you know,
Speaker 1: for the six years that have preceded the four years
Speaker 1: of the presidency, the election before the presidency, there wasn't
Speaker 1: inkling that Trump didn't do things by the books, by
Speaker 1: the rules, and there was sort of the thumb in
Speaker 1: the eye sort of mentality that would go on, and
Speaker 1: that this isn't a case of the FBI or New
Speaker 1: York investigators targeting an individual who's unknown to the public,
Speaker 1: but rather investigating the finances of someone who has kind
Speaker 1: of fallen under scrutiny before. So do you think that
Speaker 1: he hasn't been answered his critics enough when he said that,
Speaker 1: you know, we investigated, and then I bring cases when
Speaker 1: they're ready to be brought. No, I think he did
Speaker 1: exactly what he needed to do, because if he said
Speaker 1: what I said or made that suggestion, he would go
Speaker 1: a step too far and violate prosecutorial ethics. So he
Speaker 1: made the case. I didn't make this clear enough. He
Speaker 1: made the case as far as he would be permitted
Speaker 1: to under prosecutorial ethics without crossing any lines. But that's
Speaker 1: the best he could do. So in that regard. I
Speaker 1: think he did a very effective press confidence And also
Speaker 1: what about his trying to talk about New York the
Speaker 1: importance of business records and how this is just another
Speaker 1: one of hundreds of cases that we've brought like this,
Speaker 1: his white collar crime. Yeah, look, he has the ability
Speaker 1: to say that this is not the first or the
Speaker 1: hundreds or the thousandth white collar crime that New York
Speaker 1: criminal courts will try over the course of the next year,
Speaker 1: or have tried in the prior year or two. That's
Speaker 1: absolutely right. This case is unique because of the defendant
Speaker 1: who's going to be on trial for it, but not
Speaker 1: because of the charges. Explain what happens next, Well, what
Speaker 1: happens next is there'll be a process known as a
Speaker 1: discovery process, and that's a constitutional process under both the
Speaker 1: US and the New York Constitution that require the prosecution
Speaker 1: to provide all evidence in their possession that they intend
Speaker 1: to use at the trial, and also all known exculpatory
Speaker 1: evidence that they may have obtained. So it's not enough
Speaker 1: to just give to the defense, Hey, herow witnesses, and
Speaker 1: here's documentary evidence that we're going to bring to trial.
Speaker 1: The prosecute also has an obligation through that process to
Speaker 1: give evidence that would tend to negate the guilt or
Speaker 1: prove the innocence, if you want to put it another way,
Speaker 1: of mister Trump or any other defendant. That process takes
Speaker 1: a while, and then they'll be all sorts of pre
Speaker 1: trial hearings, including motions raised by the defense to dismiss
Speaker 1: the charges, probably change venue. That'll probably be one. And
Speaker 1: also you may see emotion for a gag order or
Speaker 1: some other type of speech restriction raised in the future
Speaker 1: as well, if there's another true social type picture with
Speaker 1: the former president, the baseball bat and the like. These
Speaker 1: allegations have been out there for a long time and
Speaker 1: we've heard most of them. Do you think that the
Speaker 1: defense has to do really any kind of investigative work
Speaker 1: beyond what they already know? Oh? Probably so. Mister Trump
Speaker 1: has hard working defense counsel, and they're not going to
Speaker 1: just rely on the information and data that's given to
Speaker 1: them that by mister Bragg. They're going to conduct their
Speaker 1: own investigations, and they're probably want to investigate matters that
Speaker 1: their own client tells them, you know, matters that you
Speaker 1: would tend to undermine the integrity of the witnesses called
Speaker 1: by the prosecution, so they will investigate. How long it takes,
Speaker 1: I can't speculate. Do you think that they'll be able
Speaker 1: to get it dismissed as a novel kind of legal argument, No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I mean, these laws have been
Speaker 1: on the books for a long time. I think the
Speaker 1: defense is most likely avenue to make a hard case
Speaker 1: for dismissal. Is a statute of limitations case as well
Speaker 1: as you know, the prosecution not having evidence of mister
Speaker 1: Trump's specific intent to commit a fraud, but rather him
Speaker 1: just signing hundreds of documents on any given day and
Speaker 1: not always knowing what he was signing, and what about
Speaker 1: a change of venue, it's likely if they can show
Speaker 1: that there aren't jurors who are bare and impartial. Now,
Speaker 1: the law doesn't require adults serving on a jury to
Speaker 1: be an empty vessel. It doesn't require someone to have
Speaker 1: been a sort of a sleep coma and now they're
Speaker 1: awakened and they're like, oh, I didn't read about this.
Speaker 1: But it does require people to be fair and impartial
Speaker 1: and come in with an open mind, with no preconceived notions,
Speaker 1: and not have a bias against mister Trump. And that's
Speaker 1: the important point. You know, I'm convinced that in the
Speaker 1: United States's largest city there are enough citizens out there
Speaker 1: that you could get a jury. But if the process
Speaker 1: takes too long, or if it looks improbable, they'll change
Speaker 1: venue if the defense raises emotions. We've been speculating and
Speaker 1: speculating about what this will be. It's partly what I expected.
Speaker 1: I expected these charges, but I also expected a broader
Speaker 1: charge of conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something broad like that,
Speaker 1: an all encompassing charge, and that wasn't in there, and
Speaker 1: so that caught me by surprise. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: of mister Bragg brought that charge, he would be accused
Speaker 1: of overreach. And so I think, you know, there's an
Speaker 1: old rule in charging cases that prosecutors have, and that's
Speaker 1: prosecute what's serious and what you know. You can prove
Speaker 1: what you believe in your heart you can prove. And
Speaker 1: so I think that's what we're looking at right now.
Speaker 1: So and do you think that looking at the indictment
Speaker 1: and all the months of work that the prosecutors basically
Speaker 1: have their case set out, Oh they do. I mean
Speaker 1: when they asked for it, when they asked for an
Speaker 1: early trial date. I think they asked for an early
Speaker 1: trial date not to call a bluff or make a
Speaker 1: bluff on the court, but because they believe they're ready
Speaker 1: to go. What do you think about the strength of
Speaker 1: the charges. Well, you know, first of all, we don't
Speaker 1: know what the evidence is that's going to be backing
Speaker 1: these charges. The charges are simply ink on a sheet
Speaker 1: that the prosecutor was able to show to a grand
Speaker 1: jury and obtain an indictment by probable cause for that.
Speaker 1: So I'll get more clarity to the strength of the
Speaker 1: prosecution's case in the days and weeks ahead through a
Speaker 1: process known as discovery, and that's when the prosecutor has
Speaker 1: to name witnesses and provide evidence over to mister Trump's
Speaker 1: defense counsel. Having said that, you know, these charges business
Speaker 1: fraud type charges are going to be characterized in a
Speaker 1: lot of different ways, but at their core, whenever someone
Speaker 1: is charged with a crime of fraud, there really is
Speaker 1: essentially just like tax fraud, they're charged with a crime
Speaker 1: of not paying into the system what the system demands
Speaker 1: of them. In this case, you think about you know
Speaker 1: money that New York, the State of New York collects
Speaker 1: this is money that goes to police salaries, teacher salaries,
Speaker 1: school improvements, road improvements, keeping the subways running. Things like that.
Speaker 1: You know you're going to hear. Look, it's a political crime.
Speaker 1: They're not serious charges. Well, if you talk to a
Speaker 1: police officer who hasn't gotten a raise or a teacher
Speaker 1: who's looking at retirement, it all adds up. This case
Speaker 1: was termed a zombie case by a former prosecutor in
Speaker 1: the office because it died and kept getting revived over
Speaker 1: the years. Does that make a difference in the long run.
Speaker 1: It matters that it takes that long to bring a
Speaker 1: case to trial. But I think we can read a
Speaker 1: lot of different angles into that. And one angle I
Speaker 1: suggest is, you know, the Trump's attorneys, they're saying, well, look,
Speaker 1: even the dj didn't bring this forward, and as are
Speaker 1: the former president's backers in Congress. But let's keep in
Speaker 1: mind that mister Trump dismissed a very well regarded United
Speaker 1: States Attorney from the Southern District of New York, you know,
Speaker 1: mister pret Barr. He put his own people in there,
Speaker 1: and so we don't know what happened in the US
Speaker 1: Attorney's office, whether they looked at the charges and said
Speaker 1: they're good, but we're not going to go forward, or
Speaker 1: they looked at potential charges and said they're terrible, We're
Speaker 1: not going to go forward. Then we get to divance
Speaker 1: his tenure as DA. These may not be the identical
Speaker 1: charges that Vance's team was looking at. We don't know
Speaker 1: that either, but it is problematic because it makes for
Speaker 1: quite a bit of political fodder, both in Congress and
Speaker 1: on the street. Well, thanks so much, Joshua. That's Professor
Speaker 1: Joshua Castenberg of the University of New Mexico Law School.
Speaker 1: It was the most expensive race for a state Supreme
Speaker 1: Court seat in US history, thirty nine million dollars spent
Speaker 1: on advertising, and it swung Wisconsin's highest court toward liberals
Speaker 1: for the first time in fifteen years. Milwaukee County Circuit
Speaker 1: Judge Janet Proto Sawitz, a liberal, defeated former Justice Dan Kelly,
Speaker 1: a conservative, by more than ten points. Speaking to supporters
Speaker 1: after the election, Proto Sawitz said the state was ready
Speaker 1: for a change in its highest court. Our state is
Speaker 1: taking a step forward to a better and brighter future
Speaker 1: where our rights and freedoms will he protected. In his
Speaker 1: concession speech, Kelly was less than gracious and accused his
Speaker 1: opponent of running a dirty campaign. I wish that in
Speaker 1: a circumstance like this, I would be able to concede
Speaker 1: to a worthy opponent, But I do not have a
Speaker 1: worthy opponent to which I can concede. Joining me is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: National politics reporter Ryan Teague backwith Ryan tell us about
Speaker 1: all this money spent on advertising. The good news for
Speaker 1: in Wisconsin is that the there are for ten years,
Speaker 1: so that money will keep for a while, as though
Speaker 1: I imagine that there'll be some more competitive Supreme Court
Speaker 1: reasons coming up in the coming years. Most of his
Speaker 1: money was spent on behalf of Janet fer Se, who's
Speaker 1: the Milwaukee area judge who it was backed by Democrats.
Speaker 1: She was able to use her money more effectively too,
Speaker 1: because it came directly from Democrats. So because she's spending
Speaker 1: the money herself, then she gets a better rate from
Speaker 1: the broadcasters under the rules. She spent not only more
Speaker 1: money than the Republican backed candidate Dan Kelly, but she
Speaker 1: got more big for her box. So she was running
Speaker 1: a lot of that, and she was spending most of
Speaker 1: those bad time talking about abortion, whereas dan Kelly most
Speaker 1: of the money was being spent for him by outside groups.
Speaker 1: What was the focus of the campaigning Was it one
Speaker 1: particular issue? You know, State Supreme Court races are kind
Speaker 1: of weird because the candidates usually don't want to talk
Speaker 1: for sort of judicial essex reasons. They don't want to
Speaker 1: get too much into what they think about the issue.
Speaker 1: This one really broke the mold on that there is
Speaker 1: an upcoming case involving in eighteen forty nine, one that's
Speaker 1: essentially banned abortion in Wisconsin since Roe versus. Wade was overturned,
Speaker 1: and that case is clearly going to be decided by
Speaker 1: the winner of this rate. There was a four three
Speaker 1: conservative majority on the One of those conservatives was being
Speaker 1: vacated and the replacement would determine which side had the majority.
Speaker 1: Janet Perta was running basically by going out there with
Speaker 1: a wink and a nod and saying, I really support
Speaker 1: women with abortion. So she was really clearly signaling that
Speaker 1: she would overturn the law and restore abortion rights in Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: Dan Kelley has done some work for our anti abortion
Speaker 1: groups in the past. He was more circumspecting. He wasn't
Speaker 1: going to say how he would rule, and that her
Speaker 1: claims that he would uphold the band were inaccurate, and
Speaker 1: that she was violating judicial ethics by even tipping her
Speaker 1: hand as much as she was. So abortion was clearly
Speaker 1: clearly the driver of the rights. Were Democrats so focused
Speaker 1: on this as well because they have no chance of
Speaker 1: regaining control of the state legislature in the near future. Yes,
Speaker 1: jerrymandering is the other issues that this really would decide,
Speaker 1: although I don't think it really motivates voters and it
Speaker 1: wasn't really a focus of the ads for to say,
Speaker 1: which was very clear in saying that she thinks that
Speaker 1: there are current maps in the state are as she
Speaker 1: called them rigged. Political scientists I've talked to have a
Speaker 1: number of different ways of measuring how jerrymander maps are.
Speaker 1: Basically they all come back saying that these are jerrymandered,
Speaker 1: and they've been that way since two eleven, and there's
Speaker 1: not really any way to fix that under the current
Speaker 1: law and under the current court. So for to say,
Speaker 1: what's indicated that she would revisit that issue and that
Speaker 1: those maps may be overturned, which would give Democrats a
Speaker 1: fighting chance that winning back the legislature and winning a
Speaker 1: few more in the Congessional delegation, which is also turnemas.
Speaker 1: So as we know, Wisconsin plays a part repeatedly in
Speaker 1: presidential elections, So explain what happened in twenty twenty when
Speaker 1: it came within a single state Supreme Court vote of
Speaker 1: switching the state's electoral college. This was another issue that
Speaker 1: was kind of low key but was present in the
Speaker 1: race because Dan Kelly had done some work for the
Speaker 1: state Republican Party in that capacity, he advised them on
Speaker 1: a fake elector scheme during Trump's attempts to overturn his
Speaker 1: loss in Wisconsin in twenty twenty, and he was cited
Speaker 1: by the January sixth Committee in its Furt Court as
Speaker 1: one of the people who had worked on that. He
Speaker 1: tried to sort of downplay that and say, you know,
Speaker 1: I was just asked my opinion on things and gave
Speaker 1: something of advice and it was a one time conversation.
Speaker 1: But that raised a lot of questions, and there was
Speaker 1: some third party groups that ran as attacking him on
Speaker 1: that issue and saying we don't want someone on Supreme
Speaker 1: Court who might back one of these efforts in the future.
Speaker 1: And we have seen in other races where that's become
Speaker 1: an issue that people really don't like election denial, and
Speaker 1: electri deniers pretty much lost in most of the state
Speaker 1: wide races that they were on the ballot for last November.
Speaker 1: In Wisconsin, this is particularly Germane because there was a
Speaker 1: OR three decision with one of the conservative justices joining
Speaker 1: with the liberals to throw out the attempt by Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to challenge his loss and say we're not going
Speaker 1: to hear it. We're going to We're not going to
Speaker 1: go there. So there was some concern there that they
Speaker 1: were one vote away, as there were from from hearing that,
Speaker 1: and who knows what might have happened from there. His
Speaker 1: concession speech was not what you would call graceful. He said,
Speaker 1: I wish you that in circumstances like this, I would
Speaker 1: be able to concede to a worthy opponent. But I
Speaker 1: do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede.
Speaker 1: Were there hard feelings between the two of them, I mean,
Speaker 1: aside from even saying I don't have a worthy opponent?
Speaker 1: He said, to which and not to whom y are
Speaker 1: known for those little ticks there, but like he didn't
Speaker 1: even call her a person. Basically, in what passed for
Speaker 1: a consession, I guess I mean that was really really
Speaker 1: classless and not gracious at all. Now, he was very
Speaker 1: upset because he did not like the ads that were
Speaker 1: running against him, and they're one debate that they had
Speaker 1: in late March. He really went after her for her
Speaker 1: ads and said that you don't know what I'm thinking.
Speaker 1: You're slandering me with these ads about abortion, and you know,
Speaker 1: seemed to really be bothered by that. The ads did
Speaker 1: not strike me, as someone who watches a lot of
Speaker 1: political ads as being particularly beyond the pale. I know
Speaker 1: judges and he was a past justice on the State
Speaker 1: Supreme Quarter, had been appointed may not be used to
Speaker 1: that rough and tumble, but he also worked for the
Speaker 1: State Republican Party, So it was a little mystifying to
Speaker 1: me that he was quite this bothered by his loss. Now,
Speaker 1: that wasn't eleven point loss, and it wasn't second time
Speaker 1: time that he's lost an election for the State Supreme
Speaker 1: Court in the last few years, So maybe he was
Speaker 1: just taking it more personally. There's some people who are
Speaker 1: worried that this signals that there may be more to
Speaker 1: come here the legislature. The Republicans just warned a supermajority
Speaker 1: on the legislature and a special election that was also
Speaker 1: on the ballot, and that gives them the ability to
Speaker 1: impeach statewide officials. And there had already been some people
Speaker 1: in the state Republican party throwing around the idea of
Speaker 1: impeaching for to se with if she was elected. That's
Speaker 1: to several steps between now and that possibility, which I
Speaker 1: think is still fairly remote because you're kind of got
Speaker 1: to get everybody on board with that idea. But if
Speaker 1: it looks like she's going to throw out the Gerryman
Speaker 1: and during and that could affect the livelihood of all
Speaker 1: of the members of the legislature, there may be a
Speaker 1: temptation to take the fight and continue it. So I
Speaker 1: think we'll see where that goes. It's definitely a very
Speaker 1: closely fought state that it's very evenly tied between the
Speaker 1: two parties, and Republicans have been able to use that
Speaker 1: during Mandarin to end their control of the screenport in
Speaker 1: the state to really kind of old power for a
Speaker 1: long time. Democrats with this win look to be breaking
Speaker 1: that lock, and so I expect that their counter reaction
Speaker 1: to that will be pretty fierce. So we'll see this
Speaker 1: state the real locus of activity. I think in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, do they have grounds that they are going
Speaker 1: to use to impeach her on already? Are they going
Speaker 1: to come up with grounds? I think if you're saying,
Speaker 1: let's impeach someone who hasn't even been in office, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you're kind of tipping your hand that you
Speaker 1: don't exactly have grounds. But they probably could come up
Speaker 1: with something like, well, you know, because she said these
Speaker 1: maps were rigged and now she is refusing to refuse
Speaker 1: herself from you know, a case on it, then she
Speaker 1: should be impeached. They also, we were attacking her for
Speaker 1: accepting money from the State Democratic Party, although that's a
Speaker 1: pretty routine thing, you know, saying that she should recuse
Speaker 1: herself from any cases involving the State Democratic Party. So
Speaker 1: imagine that there will be a lot of different arguments
Speaker 1: that they could make if they decided that something that
Speaker 1: they want to do. And again, if if it really
Speaker 1: looks like, you know, they could lose control of the
Speaker 1: left fature by new maps being drawn up, then that
Speaker 1: may be something that moves more closer to a possibility.
Speaker 1: But I would still say we're always awesome, and she
Speaker 1: won by a wide margin, so it didn't even end
Speaker 1: up being that close of a race. Yes, he won
Speaker 1: by eleven percent. This was a blowout. This was turnout
Speaker 1: was up, and turnout was and and the youth turnout
Speaker 1: was incredibly high. The area around the University of Madison, Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: Turnout was extremely high there and they were voting. And
Speaker 1: Dane County there by like eighty percent for pro to
Speaker 1: say with even as for to say was holding down
Speaker 1: down the Republican margin and some of the suburbs that
Speaker 1: they traditionally win. So this has shown I think again
Speaker 1: as with our Governor Tony Win in November, that Democrats
Speaker 1: have figured out how to win Wisconsin right now, and
Speaker 1: it's largely using abortion. It's an issue that's helping them
Speaker 1: win the suburbs, and it's helping them to turn out,
Speaker 1: and it's helping them win women voters, and by enough
Speaker 1: of a margin to offset what otherwise, like I said,
Speaker 1: is a really closely tied stake. Do you think that
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to be looking at this race and
Speaker 1: the abortion strategy used and perhaps using it in national
Speaker 1: races or in other races. I mean, I definitely think
Speaker 1: that we're going to see that be an issue nationally
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four. President Biden does not like talking
Speaker 1: about social issues because he thinks that they rile people
Speaker 1: up on the other side as much as they rile
Speaker 1: up your side, and so he looks for ways to
Speaker 1: de escalate them whenever possible and change the object to
Speaker 1: kitchen table stuff. Abortion is the one exception there, and
Speaker 1: that's larger because it clearly right now riles up more
Speaker 1: people on the side of supporting abortion right then it
Speaker 1: does rile up people who are opposed to abortion, Like
Speaker 1: there is a turnout advantage here. If you can make
Speaker 1: a race about abortion and you can show that there
Speaker 1: will be an actual consequence if you vote on this,
Speaker 1: then you're going to get that higher turnout and you're
Speaker 1: going to win those voters. So I think Democrats are
Speaker 1: definitely going to be looking to making more races about that,
Speaker 1: and I think that Biden will definitely be talking about
Speaker 1: it a lot in his ads and his campaign stops,
Speaker 1: even though it's not a natural issue for him, because
Speaker 1: this has just yet another example of that being a
Speaker 1: very effective message for Democrats and one that the Republicans
Speaker 1: really did not have a good counter for the State
Speaker 1: Supreme Court are a lot of their decisions so close. No,
Speaker 1: it's really just on that handful of issues where you
Speaker 1: really get that partisan divide and it matters. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of issues that state supreme courts consider
Speaker 1: about this law or that law, and you know, how
Speaker 1: should we determine legislative intent of this or that? And
Speaker 1: those can break in all kinds of ways. They're really
Speaker 1: not a part of some sort of hotbeds that I
Speaker 1: think people see, like the Supreme Court. But when it's
Speaker 1: crunch time, Um, you know, on a handful of issues
Speaker 1: there there are divisions. The proportion was clearly one and
Speaker 1: jerrymandering is clearly another. And you know, I imagine it's
Speaker 1: been fifteen years since Democrats had a majority on the
Speaker 1: state supreme courts. Imagine there's a lot of issues that
Speaker 1: they hadn't even bothered with because they didn't think they
Speaker 1: would win. So we may see you know, some Democratic
Speaker 1: allied groups going to the state Supreme Court with the
Speaker 1: arguments about union organizing or social issues and trying to
Speaker 1: see if they can win a case there that might
Speaker 1: help them out or help them achieve them policy goal.
Speaker 1: So you know, it will definitely be a fee change
Speaker 1: there in the state in terms of who has the power.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Ryan, that's Bloomberg. National politics reporter Ryan
Speaker 1: Teague beckwith I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg,