1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,480 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:13,440 Speaker 2: Three weeks and three perceived political enemies of President Donald 3 00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:19,240 Speaker 2: Trump indicted. Former Trump administration National security advisor John Bolton 4 00:00:19,600 --> 00:00:23,319 Speaker 2: was charged on Thursday with eighteen counts of retention and 5 00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:29,160 Speaker 2: transmission of national defense information. The outspoken critic of President 6 00:00:29,240 --> 00:00:32,840 Speaker 2: Trump is accused of sharing with his wife and daughter 7 00:00:33,159 --> 00:00:36,159 Speaker 2: more than a thousand pages of notes about his day 8 00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:42,800 Speaker 2: to day activities as national security advisor, including classified information. Trump, 9 00:00:42,840 --> 00:00:47,159 Speaker 2: who's repeatedly called for Bolton to face criminal charges, had 10 00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:49,840 Speaker 2: a rather muted reaction to the indictment. 11 00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:52,520 Speaker 3: I didn't know that. You told me for the first time. 12 00:00:52,600 --> 00:00:54,560 Speaker 3: But I think he's a bad person. 13 00:00:55,400 --> 00:00:58,520 Speaker 4: I think he's a bad guy. 14 00:00:58,640 --> 00:01:01,560 Speaker 3: Yeah, he's a bad guy, too bad. But that's the 15 00:01:01,560 --> 00:01:03,880 Speaker 3: way it goes the way it goes, right. 16 00:01:04,440 --> 00:01:08,360 Speaker 2: Bolton pleaded not guilty to the charges on Friday and 17 00:01:08,440 --> 00:01:11,480 Speaker 2: said he's the latest target in the weaponization of the 18 00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:15,880 Speaker 2: Justice Department to charge people Trump deems to be his enemies. 19 00:01:16,240 --> 00:01:20,399 Speaker 2: My guest is National security attorney Mark Zaid. So Mark 20 00:01:20,560 --> 00:01:24,040 Speaker 2: is the heart of this indictment. The diary entries he 21 00:01:24,080 --> 00:01:26,360 Speaker 2: made when he was national security advisor. 22 00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:29,640 Speaker 5: I think there's two things that this indictment really throws 23 00:01:29,680 --> 00:01:34,000 Speaker 5: out there that is significant. One, there is no indication 24 00:01:34,400 --> 00:01:38,200 Speaker 5: that any one of these charges pertains to any marked 25 00:01:38,600 --> 00:01:41,959 Speaker 5: classified documents. You know, folks may remember that it was 26 00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:44,640 Speaker 5: indicated that there were documents that were retrieved from his 27 00:01:44,720 --> 00:01:47,880 Speaker 5: home that were still marked as classified. Yet none of 28 00:01:47,920 --> 00:01:50,960 Speaker 5: that shows up in the indictment. And then the second 29 00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:55,000 Speaker 5: thing is that no count in this indictment actually deals 30 00:01:55,040 --> 00:01:59,280 Speaker 5: with information that was published in Bolton's book, The Room 31 00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:03,040 Speaker 5: Where It Happened. And that's really key because it was 32 00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:07,000 Speaker 5: the contents of the book that Judge Lambert, the Federal 33 00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:11,919 Speaker 5: District judge, had identified as actually having contained classified information. 34 00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:17,359 Speaker 5: So this indictment eighteen counts in all, looks to solely 35 00:02:17,400 --> 00:02:22,840 Speaker 5: be limited to this diary that John Bolton maintained that 36 00:02:22,919 --> 00:02:26,079 Speaker 5: he would send daily to his wife and daughter. 37 00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:30,760 Speaker 2: Is it problematic for Bolton that, according to the indictment, 38 00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:35,160 Speaker 2: some of the notes indicated that he was getting the 39 00:02:35,200 --> 00:02:39,520 Speaker 2: information in a secured environment. For example, one began with 40 00:02:39,800 --> 00:02:43,400 Speaker 2: while in the situation room, I learned that and another 41 00:02:43,960 --> 00:02:44,920 Speaker 2: the intel. 42 00:02:44,560 --> 00:02:49,919 Speaker 5: Briefer said, I have represented other national security advisors and 43 00:02:50,120 --> 00:02:54,919 Speaker 5: secretaries of Defense, and dozens of other federal employees who 44 00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:58,000 Speaker 5: have written books, who have come out of the intelligence community, 45 00:02:58,040 --> 00:03:02,359 Speaker 5: the military, law enforcement. I will say every single one 46 00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:05,520 Speaker 5: of them always comes to me and says, I wrote 47 00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:08,840 Speaker 5: this book to make sure it had no classified information 48 00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:11,720 Speaker 5: in it. They always think that, and they always want that, 49 00:03:12,160 --> 00:03:14,840 Speaker 5: But the reality is, when you're not the one making 50 00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:19,280 Speaker 5: the decisions any longer, it's the government that makes that decision, 51 00:03:19,760 --> 00:03:25,520 Speaker 5: and the government can really very broadly interpret information to 52 00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:29,800 Speaker 5: constitute something that is classified. Literally anything that deals with 53 00:03:29,840 --> 00:03:33,320 Speaker 5: foreign relations if it mentions a foreign country, could be 54 00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:38,400 Speaker 5: classified by a classifier in the US government. I have 55 00:03:38,440 --> 00:03:42,000 Speaker 5: been warning for a long time, long before Trump, but 56 00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:46,200 Speaker 5: now especially concerning because of Trump, that the Espionage Act 57 00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:51,080 Speaker 5: could be exploited and used as a weapon against individuals 58 00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:54,000 Speaker 5: because of how easy it is to charge someone who 59 00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:59,320 Speaker 5: had previously access to classified information with its mishandling. So 60 00:03:59,600 --> 00:04:03,320 Speaker 5: I'm not surprised that this is where the administration is going, 61 00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:06,520 Speaker 5: and it will be some time before we find out 62 00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:10,640 Speaker 5: whether or not this information was really classified or more 63 00:04:10,760 --> 00:04:12,760 Speaker 5: appropriately properly classified. 64 00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:15,720 Speaker 2: So then one of his challenges, you think, will be 65 00:04:15,760 --> 00:04:17,880 Speaker 2: a challenge to the classifications. 66 00:04:18,520 --> 00:04:22,080 Speaker 5: Very few espionage ZACK cases go to trial, and there's 67 00:04:22,120 --> 00:04:25,719 Speaker 5: a reason for that because the defenses are usually very 68 00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:29,440 Speaker 5: limited in nature. Every attempt, for the most part, that 69 00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:35,480 Speaker 5: has gone to try and challenge the classification determination generally fails. 70 00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:39,120 Speaker 5: So it is usually through pre trial motions, particularly through 71 00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:43,120 Speaker 5: what we call SIPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, where 72 00:04:43,160 --> 00:04:47,120 Speaker 5: you gray mail the government in the sense of well, 73 00:04:47,160 --> 00:04:50,600 Speaker 5: I need this information to be publicized for my defense, 74 00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:53,400 Speaker 5: and if the government's not willing to do that, then 75 00:04:53,440 --> 00:04:56,719 Speaker 5: they have to dismiss the indictment. John Bolton, of course, 76 00:04:56,760 --> 00:05:00,000 Speaker 5: will have similar motions, as we'll see in the James 77 00:05:00,080 --> 00:05:03,200 Speaker 5: Homie case and the Letitia James case of selective and 78 00:05:03,360 --> 00:05:08,479 Speaker 5: vindictive prosecution. Both of those motions are always incredibly difficult 79 00:05:08,520 --> 00:05:13,599 Speaker 5: as well. But if any case was poised for potential success, 80 00:05:13,680 --> 00:05:17,279 Speaker 5: it would be this type of weaponized case. But John 81 00:05:17,360 --> 00:05:22,200 Speaker 5: Bolton will have trouble with this indictment. It has nothing 82 00:05:22,240 --> 00:05:25,760 Speaker 5: to do with the specifics of his case, of which 83 00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:29,160 Speaker 5: I know nothing about. It has to do with just 84 00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:34,640 Speaker 5: how espionageac cases generally go, which is to oftentimes end 85 00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:35,680 Speaker 5: up in a plea. 86 00:05:35,760 --> 00:05:38,279 Speaker 2: Is there another case that seems similar to you, perhaps 87 00:05:38,400 --> 00:05:40,119 Speaker 2: the General Portrayus case. 88 00:05:40,839 --> 00:05:44,839 Speaker 5: I do think the Portrayus case is very similar for 89 00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:48,359 Speaker 5: folks who don't go that far back. General Portraeus, the 90 00:05:48,400 --> 00:05:52,440 Speaker 5: former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was writing a 91 00:05:52,480 --> 00:05:55,880 Speaker 5: book and he had a ghostwriter who happened to be 92 00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:59,799 Speaker 5: his mistress as well, and he was sharing classified information 93 00:06:00,600 --> 00:06:03,520 Speaker 5: with her. Now, she at least had a security clearance, 94 00:06:03,560 --> 00:06:07,120 Speaker 5: unlike John Bolton's wife and daughter, but it doesn't really 95 00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:11,280 Speaker 5: matter because she wasn't authorized to receive the information. And 96 00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:16,120 Speaker 5: as in both cases, there's no indication of any dissemination 97 00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:21,000 Speaker 5: of that information beyond the people who it was disseminated 98 00:06:21,040 --> 00:06:25,000 Speaker 5: to originally. Obviously there might have been a hack by 99 00:06:25,200 --> 00:06:28,400 Speaker 5: Iranian government officials, but I don't know of any evidence 100 00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:32,920 Speaker 5: that actually they did anything with the information, presumably because 101 00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:37,240 Speaker 5: perhaps there wasn't anything that really made any valuable contribution 102 00:06:37,480 --> 00:06:40,600 Speaker 5: to disseminate it. But General Petraeus, although this was a 103 00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:43,600 Speaker 5: decade ago and it was very different times, he only 104 00:06:43,640 --> 00:06:47,000 Speaker 5: got two years probation and one hundred thousand dollars. Fine, 105 00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:49,520 Speaker 5: you know, I would take that as a win in 106 00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:52,520 Speaker 5: this type of case. Easy, But we're not going to 107 00:06:52,600 --> 00:06:56,039 Speaker 5: get there until a whole number of pre trial motions 108 00:06:56,080 --> 00:06:58,240 Speaker 5: will be brought by Bolton's legal team. 109 00:06:58,640 --> 00:07:02,240 Speaker 2: I'm curious as to what you think about the government 110 00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:07,320 Speaker 2: putting in the indictment some of Bolton's commentary on for example, 111 00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:11,960 Speaker 2: Hillary Clinton and the email server or secretary hegset then 112 00:07:12,080 --> 00:07:13,800 Speaker 2: signal the. 113 00:07:13,720 --> 00:07:18,440 Speaker 5: Government included all these quotes from Bolton to demonstrate that 114 00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:22,600 Speaker 5: he as is well known because he's been around forever. 115 00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:25,240 Speaker 5: I first met him in nineteen ninety two when I 116 00:07:25,320 --> 00:07:28,400 Speaker 5: was in law school. He's had so many senior level 117 00:07:28,440 --> 00:07:32,680 Speaker 5: positions at the highest levels of classified access as well. 118 00:07:33,200 --> 00:07:36,600 Speaker 5: He knows what is classified and how to protect it, 119 00:07:36,600 --> 00:07:39,360 Speaker 5: et cetera. But this is what I see all the time, 120 00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:43,920 Speaker 5: no matter what level, they always think that they are 121 00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:48,600 Speaker 5: not revealing classified information. And he maybe one hundred percent correct. 122 00:07:48,720 --> 00:07:53,000 Speaker 5: Maybe at some point we'll find out, but it was 123 00:07:53,200 --> 00:07:57,840 Speaker 5: a sort of in your face attempt or pr effort 124 00:07:57,880 --> 00:08:01,560 Speaker 5: by the government to throw his own quotes him. It 125 00:08:01,640 --> 00:08:05,240 Speaker 5: might not make any difference, and likely doesn't as a 126 00:08:05,280 --> 00:08:08,600 Speaker 5: matter of law, but perhaps if he got to a jury, 127 00:08:09,280 --> 00:08:12,320 Speaker 5: this might have some impact on them of hey, you 128 00:08:12,320 --> 00:08:15,720 Speaker 5: should have known better. But the reality is, you know, 129 00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:19,600 Speaker 5: most of these cases are very factually different. I mean 130 00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:22,280 Speaker 5: you can come up with some analogies, but there's still 131 00:08:22,280 --> 00:08:25,680 Speaker 5: going to be some facts that distinguish one case from 132 00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:26,080 Speaker 5: the other. 133 00:08:26,720 --> 00:08:29,680 Speaker 2: Finally, do you think that there'll be a plea deal 134 00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:31,880 Speaker 2: in the case or it will actually go to trial. 135 00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:37,760 Speaker 2: He's the third perceived Trump enemy who's been indicted, But 136 00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:41,720 Speaker 2: do you see his case as very different from the 137 00:08:41,800 --> 00:08:46,440 Speaker 2: cases against former FBI director James Comy and New York 138 00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:48,200 Speaker 2: Attorney General Letitia James. 139 00:08:48,400 --> 00:08:51,439 Speaker 5: The Bolton indictment has more meat on its bones than 140 00:08:51,480 --> 00:08:55,520 Speaker 5: the Komy and James indictments, and that has to do 141 00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:59,120 Speaker 5: with who brought it. For one thing, Lindsay Halligan the 142 00:08:59,800 --> 00:09:02,680 Speaker 5: point to US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, 143 00:09:02,720 --> 00:09:06,280 Speaker 5: who has zero criminal experience. She's an insurance lawyer and 144 00:09:06,360 --> 00:09:10,480 Speaker 5: not even a very experienced insurance lawyer, and she did 145 00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:14,319 Speaker 5: the case herself with no experience and apparently no help. 146 00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:18,200 Speaker 5: And career professionals refuse to sign on. We're not seeing 147 00:09:18,240 --> 00:09:21,800 Speaker 5: that in the Bolton case. There are career national security 148 00:09:21,800 --> 00:09:25,000 Speaker 5: attorneys who have signed on to this case. It is 149 00:09:25,080 --> 00:09:28,480 Speaker 5: a much more detailed indictment, twenty six pages in length, 150 00:09:28,920 --> 00:09:31,520 Speaker 5: and there's a lot in there because they've brought these 151 00:09:31,600 --> 00:09:35,199 Speaker 5: cases many, many times. There aren't a ton of the 152 00:09:35,320 --> 00:09:38,960 Speaker 5: Espionagack cases when it really comes down to it, because 153 00:09:38,960 --> 00:09:42,240 Speaker 5: those are reserved for cases where the government knows they 154 00:09:42,280 --> 00:09:45,880 Speaker 5: can generally win. But this is a very similar on 155 00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:50,160 Speaker 5: paper case that we see very often, although I will 156 00:09:50,240 --> 00:09:54,000 Speaker 5: say the nature of it is very, very concerning, and 157 00:09:54,040 --> 00:09:57,679 Speaker 5: I'm not even talking about the vindictiveness. I'm talking about 158 00:09:57,679 --> 00:10:01,680 Speaker 5: what really is on trial in this indictment, and that 159 00:10:01,880 --> 00:10:06,040 Speaker 5: is the pre publication review process. In some ways, how 160 00:10:06,120 --> 00:10:09,240 Speaker 5: do senior officials or anyone in the government who had 161 00:10:09,280 --> 00:10:12,400 Speaker 5: access to classified information, how do they write a book? 162 00:10:12,559 --> 00:10:16,120 Speaker 5: Because I will say, what John Bolton is alleged to 163 00:10:16,240 --> 00:10:21,720 Speaker 5: have done is done every single day by government officials, 164 00:10:21,720 --> 00:10:24,440 Speaker 5: both Democrat and Republican. And if you're going to go 165 00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:27,160 Speaker 5: down that path one time, then you're going to have 166 00:10:27,200 --> 00:10:30,240 Speaker 5: to go down that path a lot more times if 167 00:10:30,240 --> 00:10:33,520 Speaker 5: you want to keep any type of consistency, and that 168 00:10:33,600 --> 00:10:37,840 Speaker 5: will involve and include Frump administration officials who are in 169 00:10:37,920 --> 00:10:40,680 Speaker 5: office right now who I guarantee you will do the 170 00:10:40,720 --> 00:10:41,199 Speaker 5: same thing. 171 00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:46,560 Speaker 2: Bolton's attorney, Abby Lowell, who also represents Letitia James, said 172 00:10:46,640 --> 00:10:49,760 Speaker 2: that the underlying facts in the case were investigated and 173 00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:53,360 Speaker 2: resolved years ago. And also that keeping diaries is not 174 00:10:53,440 --> 00:10:53,840 Speaker 2: a crime. 175 00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:56,880 Speaker 5: I will say first out front. Abby Lowell is also 176 00:10:56,920 --> 00:11:01,000 Speaker 5: my attorney representing me and a colleague and a friend, 177 00:11:01,240 --> 00:11:04,960 Speaker 5: and he's right, and he's a little bit not necessarily right. 178 00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:09,440 Speaker 5: For one thing. Sure, everyone can keep a diary. It 179 00:11:09,520 --> 00:11:12,880 Speaker 5: has to do with whether or not there is classified 180 00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:16,400 Speaker 5: or more precisely, national defense information in it that you 181 00:11:16,520 --> 00:11:19,880 Speaker 5: can't do. And I don't judge whether that's what happened, 182 00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:24,720 Speaker 5: because I don't know. But Abby is absolutely right that 183 00:11:25,120 --> 00:11:29,160 Speaker 5: the timing of this is incredibly suspect. This was all 184 00:11:29,200 --> 00:11:31,840 Speaker 5: known years ago. Now I suppose the government will say, well, 185 00:11:31,880 --> 00:11:34,600 Speaker 5: we didn't know about the diary, but they knew about 186 00:11:34,600 --> 00:11:38,120 Speaker 5: the book, and the diary is what comprised the book, 187 00:11:38,280 --> 00:11:42,400 Speaker 5: even though surprisingly none of the information published in the 188 00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:46,920 Speaker 5: book is at issue here, and I find that incredibly intriguing. 189 00:11:47,240 --> 00:11:52,400 Speaker 5: So the notion of what Balton did to write his book, 190 00:11:52,679 --> 00:11:56,600 Speaker 5: the Trump administration knew that four or five years ago, 191 00:11:56,920 --> 00:12:00,680 Speaker 5: and could have found out that fame information. They went 192 00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:05,240 Speaker 5: to court in an almost unprecedented civil action to try 193 00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:09,199 Speaker 5: and enjoin the book, meaning to make sure it wasn't published, 194 00:12:09,480 --> 00:12:13,760 Speaker 5: which they failed in doing because the standard to enjoin 195 00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:17,000 Speaker 5: a book dates back to the Watergate time in the 196 00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:21,520 Speaker 5: Pentagon Papers case, where the Supreme Court did not allow 197 00:12:21,559 --> 00:12:24,400 Speaker 5: the government to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers, 198 00:12:24,440 --> 00:12:27,800 Speaker 5: which was the secret war history of the Vietnam War 199 00:12:27,840 --> 00:12:30,960 Speaker 5: and the US involvement. No one has tried to enjoin 200 00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:34,000 Speaker 5: a book since because the standard is so high, And 201 00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:36,800 Speaker 5: I was very surprised that Trump administration tried to do 202 00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:39,560 Speaker 5: that because of how easy it was that they were 203 00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:42,640 Speaker 5: going to lose. But where they could have succeeded had 204 00:12:42,720 --> 00:12:46,359 Speaker 5: they wanted to, was to go after John Bolton criminally 205 00:12:46,760 --> 00:12:51,040 Speaker 5: back then, and they had far more evidence just what 206 00:12:51,280 --> 00:12:54,560 Speaker 5: existed at the time, because you had a federal district 207 00:12:54,640 --> 00:12:59,640 Speaker 5: judge say outright that there was classified information in the 208 00:12:59,720 --> 00:13:03,400 Speaker 5: man script in the book, and they chose not to 209 00:13:03,440 --> 00:13:07,800 Speaker 5: do it. So to do it now five years later, 210 00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:13,440 Speaker 5: and on the heels of a rant multiple times by 211 00:13:13,480 --> 00:13:15,840 Speaker 5: the President of the United States that he wants to 212 00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:19,880 Speaker 5: go after his enemies, calls into question the integrity of 213 00:13:19,920 --> 00:13:22,600 Speaker 5: this indictment, and that will be a factor in pre 214 00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:23,200 Speaker 5: trial motion. 215 00:13:23,760 --> 00:13:26,040 Speaker 2: Do you think that there'll be a plea deal in 216 00:13:26,080 --> 00:13:28,640 Speaker 2: the case or it will actually go to trial, or 217 00:13:29,040 --> 00:13:32,120 Speaker 2: third choice, will it be dismissed before trial. 218 00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:36,600 Speaker 5: There are some very good motions that will happen pre 219 00:13:36,720 --> 00:13:41,559 Speaker 5: trial that could definitely impact the structure of this prosecution. 220 00:13:42,480 --> 00:13:46,319 Speaker 5: Once the party start to get into discovery, particularly Bolton, 221 00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:49,120 Speaker 5: starts to get information from the government, you know, we'll 222 00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:52,520 Speaker 5: start to have a better picture of whether a selective 223 00:13:52,600 --> 00:13:57,440 Speaker 5: or vindictive prosecution effort or motion could work. Beyond that, 224 00:13:57,800 --> 00:14:02,280 Speaker 5: we've got two very stubborn parties here, both John Bolton 225 00:14:02,360 --> 00:14:05,880 Speaker 5: and President Trump and Pam Bonde as the Attorney General. 226 00:14:06,320 --> 00:14:12,240 Speaker 5: I doubt we will see a plea discussion anytime soon, 227 00:14:12,760 --> 00:14:15,880 Speaker 5: but down the line it could totally happen, especially if 228 00:14:16,040 --> 00:14:19,520 Speaker 5: one or both parties believe they're going to have egg 229 00:14:19,600 --> 00:14:22,400 Speaker 5: on their face and that in order to avoid that 230 00:14:23,000 --> 00:14:26,160 Speaker 5: is going to require some sort of plea deal. I 231 00:14:26,160 --> 00:14:28,840 Speaker 5: think at the end of the day, the Trump administration 232 00:14:28,960 --> 00:14:33,119 Speaker 5: could care less if John Bolton is convicted or acquitted. 233 00:14:33,600 --> 00:14:37,600 Speaker 5: It's far more about putting him Leticia James, James Comy 234 00:14:37,840 --> 00:14:42,280 Speaker 5: and others who are forthcoming through the ringer the way 235 00:14:42,400 --> 00:14:46,960 Speaker 5: he feels he was pulled through as well. So at 236 00:14:46,960 --> 00:14:48,960 Speaker 5: the end of the day, it probably won't matter. He 237 00:14:49,120 --> 00:14:51,120 Speaker 5: just wants them to suffer along the way. 238 00:14:51,320 --> 00:14:54,840 Speaker 2: So apparently a tough road ahead for Bolton. Thanks so much, Mark. 239 00:14:55,040 --> 00:14:59,600 Speaker 2: That's National Security Attorney Mark Zaid. Coming up next, will 240 00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:03,160 Speaker 2: the Supper Court gut the Voting Rights Act. I'm June 241 00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:05,400 Speaker 2: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. 242 00:15:09,080 --> 00:15:13,320 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 243 00:15:14,560 --> 00:15:17,880 Speaker 2: The Voting Rights Act is a landmark civil rights law 244 00:15:18,040 --> 00:15:20,640 Speaker 2: that for more than half a century has been a 245 00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:25,280 Speaker 2: guardrail against gerrymanderd congressional maps that discriminate on the basis 246 00:15:25,280 --> 00:15:29,040 Speaker 2: of race. In a complicated case involving a challenge to 247 00:15:29,120 --> 00:15:33,320 Speaker 2: a black majority district in Louisiana, one thing seemed clear 248 00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:36,320 Speaker 2: after two and a half hours of oral arguments, the 249 00:15:36,400 --> 00:15:41,680 Speaker 2: six conservative justices are ready to limit or potentially eliminate 250 00:15:41,880 --> 00:15:45,360 Speaker 2: the most important remaining provision of the Voting Rights Act. 251 00:15:45,840 --> 00:15:50,160 Speaker 2: Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the law was warranted sixty 252 00:15:50,280 --> 00:15:50,920 Speaker 2: years later. 253 00:15:51,600 --> 00:15:56,160 Speaker 6: Race based remedies are permissible for a period of time, 254 00:15:56,480 --> 00:16:01,800 Speaker 6: sometimes for a long period of time decades in some cases, 255 00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:06,880 Speaker 6: but that they should not be indefinite and should have 256 00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:11,440 Speaker 6: an endpoint, and what exactly do you think the endpoint 257 00:16:11,600 --> 00:16:14,560 Speaker 6: should be or how do we know? For the intentional 258 00:16:14,760 --> 00:16:17,760 Speaker 6: use of race to create districts. 259 00:16:17,760 --> 00:16:21,480 Speaker 2: But liberal Justice Elaina Kagan pointed out that the remedy 260 00:16:21,520 --> 00:16:25,640 Speaker 2: of redrawing districts only happens if a court has actually 261 00:16:25,760 --> 00:16:29,760 Speaker 2: found a specific current proved discrimination by the state. 262 00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:34,240 Speaker 4: What these Section two suits do is they ask about 263 00:16:34,600 --> 00:16:39,600 Speaker 4: current conditions, and they ask whether those current conditions show 264 00:16:40,120 --> 00:16:45,160 Speaker 4: vote dilution, which is violative of Section two. So they say, 265 00:16:45,320 --> 00:16:51,000 Speaker 4: is there racial segregation, racial residential segregation now? Is there 266 00:16:51,120 --> 00:16:57,960 Speaker 4: racially polarized voting now? And when the state fails with 267 00:16:58,040 --> 00:17:02,600 Speaker 4: respect to those issues, and those conditions obtain now. 268 00:17:03,160 --> 00:17:08,840 Speaker 2: However, some conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch, suggested that any 269 00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:12,720 Speaker 2: use of race and redistricting, even to correct a state's 270 00:17:12,800 --> 00:17:17,320 Speaker 2: discriminatory dilution of minority votes, is unconstitutional. 271 00:17:17,760 --> 00:17:21,240 Speaker 7: I'm asking is it acceptable under Section two? Is you 272 00:17:21,359 --> 00:17:25,800 Speaker 7: understand it? Given our precedents, for a court to intentionally 273 00:17:25,840 --> 00:17:29,040 Speaker 7: discriminate in a remedial map on the basis of race. 274 00:17:29,080 --> 00:17:32,240 Speaker 2: How quickly the Court hands down its decision could determine 275 00:17:32,280 --> 00:17:35,760 Speaker 2: whether or not states have enough time to redraw maps 276 00:17:35,840 --> 00:17:40,200 Speaker 2: before the midterms. Joining me is elections law expert Richard Breflt, 277 00:17:40,480 --> 00:17:43,880 Speaker 2: a professor at Columbia Law School. Rich tell us about 278 00:17:43,880 --> 00:17:48,760 Speaker 2: the impact of this decision. If the Justices decide as 279 00:17:48,800 --> 00:17:53,159 Speaker 2: expected to limit or even eliminate Section two of the 280 00:17:53,240 --> 00:17:54,440 Speaker 2: Voting Rights Act. 281 00:17:54,640 --> 00:17:56,320 Speaker 1: Clock clear are they going to do away with Section 282 00:17:56,359 --> 00:18:00,000 Speaker 1: two tholthough they will clearly change how they interpret it. 283 00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:03,240 Speaker 1: I think it's tricky because it's not clear how many 284 00:18:03,240 --> 00:18:05,840 Speaker 1: districts it's going to effect. It clearly will affect some districts. 285 00:18:06,240 --> 00:18:10,520 Speaker 1: It clearly will mean that certain lawsuits to improve minority 286 00:18:10,560 --> 00:18:14,119 Speaker 1: representation won't be brought. Probably the harder thing to figure 287 00:18:14,160 --> 00:18:17,879 Speaker 1: out is to what extent certain districts that have already 288 00:18:17,880 --> 00:18:21,840 Speaker 1: been created as minority opportunity districts, even if they weren't 289 00:18:21,880 --> 00:18:25,439 Speaker 1: a result of litigation. But we're done either defensively as 290 00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:28,160 Speaker 1: a way of a forestalling litigation or because the local 291 00:18:28,240 --> 00:18:31,000 Speaker 1: legislatures follow is the right thing to do. Whether those 292 00:18:31,040 --> 00:18:34,520 Speaker 1: can now be attacked as reflecting an excessive attention to race. 293 00:18:34,800 --> 00:18:36,720 Speaker 1: We don't know what the Court's going to say, and 294 00:18:36,880 --> 00:18:39,560 Speaker 1: we don't know how far this will go in terms 295 00:18:39,560 --> 00:18:44,360 Speaker 1: of unraveling pre existing districting practices. But certainly, whatever they do, 296 00:18:44,640 --> 00:18:47,760 Speaker 1: it will definitely have an impact on minority representation and 297 00:18:47,800 --> 00:18:50,359 Speaker 1: potentially on partisan representation as well. 298 00:18:50,800 --> 00:18:53,280 Speaker 2: Explain the central issue in the case. 299 00:18:53,640 --> 00:18:55,480 Speaker 1: It's very hard to explain what the issues is a 300 00:18:55,520 --> 00:18:58,960 Speaker 1: very complicated case. I mean, the underlying issue is to 301 00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:03,560 Speaker 1: what extent can or must states take race into account 302 00:19:03,640 --> 00:19:06,480 Speaker 1: in drawing their districts. This case grew out of an 303 00:19:06,480 --> 00:19:10,600 Speaker 1: earlier case in Louisiana, where the plaintiffs argued under Section 304 00:19:10,600 --> 00:19:13,040 Speaker 1: tip with a Voting Rights Act that a minority, in 305 00:19:13,040 --> 00:19:17,600 Speaker 1: this case, black voter representation was illegally reduced. That the 306 00:19:17,640 --> 00:19:20,840 Speaker 1: state is approximately a third block but only one out 307 00:19:20,840 --> 00:19:25,000 Speaker 1: of the six congressional districts had a majority minority population, 308 00:19:25,440 --> 00:19:27,920 Speaker 1: and the plaintiffs were able to persuade a lower court 309 00:19:28,000 --> 00:19:31,119 Speaker 1: that it was relatively easy to draw a second majority 310 00:19:31,119 --> 00:19:33,800 Speaker 1: minority district and that the state's failure to do so 311 00:19:34,160 --> 00:19:37,159 Speaker 1: under the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of 312 00:19:37,240 --> 00:19:39,960 Speaker 1: racial block voting in the state and historical factors in 313 00:19:40,000 --> 00:19:43,920 Speaker 1: the state, constituted a denial of equal representation. The state 314 00:19:43,960 --> 00:19:45,879 Speaker 1: went ahead and did that, but they did it in 315 00:19:45,920 --> 00:19:49,080 Speaker 1: such a way that by taking certain partisan factors into account, 316 00:19:49,080 --> 00:19:51,720 Speaker 1: they created a very strange looking district that kind of 317 00:19:51,720 --> 00:19:54,520 Speaker 1: goes across much of the state. Well, now another set 318 00:19:54,520 --> 00:19:56,639 Speaker 1: of voters in this new district have brought alow suit 319 00:19:56,720 --> 00:19:59,919 Speaker 1: saying that this district is drawn predominantly for racial res 320 00:20:00,600 --> 00:20:03,160 Speaker 1: and drawing on older Supreme Court president. They are because 321 00:20:03,160 --> 00:20:07,400 Speaker 1: that that's unconstitutional. The plaintiffs in the original case are 322 00:20:07,520 --> 00:20:10,360 Speaker 1: trying to defend the district by saying that it's okay 323 00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:13,880 Speaker 1: to use race, even in this significant way when it's 324 00:20:13,920 --> 00:20:17,600 Speaker 1: being used as a remedy for prior racial discrimination. Really 325 00:20:17,680 --> 00:20:20,840 Speaker 1: the issue here is when is it okay to use 326 00:20:21,080 --> 00:20:24,639 Speaker 1: race in drawing districts. In some sense, this case raises 327 00:20:24,640 --> 00:20:26,720 Speaker 1: the question of whether a compliance with the Voting Rights 328 00:20:26,720 --> 00:20:29,560 Speaker 1: Act is a compelling state interest or it could be 329 00:20:29,600 --> 00:20:32,760 Speaker 1: turned out to what chem of Voting Rights Act permissively require. 330 00:20:33,240 --> 00:20:35,560 Speaker 1: How is the court interple the Voting Rights Act. There 331 00:20:35,560 --> 00:20:38,600 Speaker 1: are a lot of questions all could have tied up 332 00:20:38,640 --> 00:20:40,680 Speaker 1: in a not in this case, and it could come 333 00:20:40,680 --> 00:20:43,280 Speaker 1: out in many different ways. One thing that seems pretty 334 00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:46,080 Speaker 1: clear is that the original plaintiffs, the black voters who 335 00:20:46,160 --> 00:20:49,120 Speaker 1: suit for change, are likely to lose. But on what 336 00:20:49,359 --> 00:20:52,320 Speaker 1: theory it could be any from a relatively narrow theory 337 00:20:52,359 --> 00:20:53,800 Speaker 1: to an extremely broad theory. 338 00:20:53,840 --> 00:20:57,560 Speaker 2: And now the conservative justice is would you say they're 339 00:20:57,840 --> 00:21:01,720 Speaker 2: sort of on a spectrum from a position of there 340 00:21:01,720 --> 00:21:06,000 Speaker 2: should be no consideration of race at all in redistricting 341 00:21:06,440 --> 00:21:08,240 Speaker 2: to something less. 342 00:21:08,800 --> 00:21:10,560 Speaker 1: I think I would phrase in terms of how big 343 00:21:10,600 --> 00:21:13,160 Speaker 1: a change do they want to make in the law 344 00:21:13,240 --> 00:21:14,920 Speaker 1: and when could race be used? And I do think 345 00:21:15,000 --> 00:21:17,000 Speaker 1: that some didn't think race could be used at all. 346 00:21:17,040 --> 00:21:19,720 Speaker 1: Others I think were open to the use of race, 347 00:21:19,920 --> 00:21:22,800 Speaker 1: but only in a relatively narrow set of circumstances. And 348 00:21:22,840 --> 00:21:24,600 Speaker 1: I think a lot of it had to do with 349 00:21:24,720 --> 00:21:28,320 Speaker 1: how do they fit this decision with an earlier Supreme 350 00:21:28,359 --> 00:21:30,920 Speaker 1: Court decision, one that is now almost forty years old, 351 00:21:31,400 --> 00:21:34,240 Speaker 1: in which they interpreted the Voting Rights Act. Section two 352 00:21:34,240 --> 00:21:37,119 Speaker 1: of the Voting Rights Act laid down a case called Jingles, 353 00:21:37,200 --> 00:21:39,919 Speaker 1: which set the pattern for Voting Rights Act enforcement for 354 00:21:39,960 --> 00:21:43,040 Speaker 1: the last forty years, including just two years ago with 355 00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:45,840 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court in a case coming out of Alabama, 356 00:21:45,920 --> 00:21:50,040 Speaker 1: which on fairly similar facts to this one, sustained the 357 00:21:50,160 --> 00:21:52,480 Speaker 1: use of race and drawing a remedial district. And so 358 00:21:52,600 --> 00:21:55,720 Speaker 1: I think what you saw what's called them the more 359 00:21:55,840 --> 00:22:00,760 Speaker 1: moderate conservatives, Justice Barrett, maybe Justice Kavanaugh, maybe the Chief 360 00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:04,080 Speaker 1: Justice looking for ways of squaring this case with that 361 00:22:04,160 --> 00:22:08,240 Speaker 1: Alabama case known as Milligan, or explaining why this case 362 00:22:08,280 --> 00:22:11,360 Speaker 1: could come out differently, and maybe explaining how this case 363 00:22:11,400 --> 00:22:14,439 Speaker 1: fits with the older precedent Jingles, And are they going 364 00:22:14,480 --> 00:22:16,959 Speaker 1: to overturn Jingles? Are they going to say this as 365 00:22:17,000 --> 00:22:20,199 Speaker 1: a clarification of Jingles, which would be a way of 366 00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:24,679 Speaker 1: changing it without flat out changing it. So my guess 367 00:22:24,760 --> 00:22:27,080 Speaker 1: is less likely that you're going to see a majority 368 00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:30,040 Speaker 1: striking down the voting right staff, but you're going to 369 00:22:30,040 --> 00:22:33,680 Speaker 1: definitely see a new interpretation of how it applies and 370 00:22:33,800 --> 00:22:36,600 Speaker 1: what it requires, at least based on the ural argument. 371 00:22:36,640 --> 00:22:39,359 Speaker 1: And it's always tricky to rely on the ural argument. 372 00:22:39,600 --> 00:22:42,200 Speaker 1: But you did see at least some of the justices 373 00:22:42,960 --> 00:22:45,720 Speaker 1: trying to figure out how to square this with the 374 00:22:45,800 --> 00:22:49,080 Speaker 1: decision that's just two years old and with the precedent 375 00:22:49,160 --> 00:22:50,320 Speaker 1: that is forty years. 376 00:22:50,119 --> 00:22:53,560 Speaker 2: Old, and what were the best arguments that the liberal 377 00:22:53,800 --> 00:22:58,720 Speaker 2: justices made. Not that they'll have any persuasive effect on 378 00:22:58,840 --> 00:23:00,679 Speaker 2: their conservative colleagues. 379 00:23:01,080 --> 00:23:04,280 Speaker 1: The liberal justices, i think primarily basically relying heavily on 380 00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:08,000 Speaker 1: story decisives. That is, we've decided this before, including two 381 00:23:08,040 --> 00:23:11,320 Speaker 1: years ago, that this case is on all fours with 382 00:23:11,400 --> 00:23:15,359 Speaker 1: the Alabama case, So that's one two. Another version of 383 00:23:15,359 --> 00:23:18,200 Speaker 1: story decisis is there is a doctrine that says that 384 00:23:18,400 --> 00:23:23,480 Speaker 1: court opinions interpreting statutes get super strong story decisives have 385 00:23:23,560 --> 00:23:27,840 Speaker 1: super strong presidential effect because whereas court decisions interpreting the 386 00:23:27,880 --> 00:23:31,800 Speaker 1: Constitution really can't be overturned except through an extraordinary process 387 00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:36,080 Speaker 1: of constitutional amendment, court decisions interpreting a statute, Congress can 388 00:23:36,119 --> 00:23:39,119 Speaker 1: always overturn them. And Congress has not tampered with the 389 00:23:39,160 --> 00:23:42,560 Speaker 1: Bonia Rights Accents nineteen eighty two third argument and didn't 390 00:23:42,560 --> 00:23:44,879 Speaker 1: come up as much in this argument as people might 391 00:23:44,920 --> 00:23:47,400 Speaker 1: have thought. If you go back to the Alabama case. 392 00:23:47,600 --> 00:23:51,360 Speaker 1: Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence. He echoed some of the language 393 00:23:51,440 --> 00:23:53,920 Speaker 1: Justice of Connor had used many years earlier in dealing 394 00:23:53,960 --> 00:23:56,080 Speaker 1: with affirmative action and saying there's got to be some 395 00:23:56,280 --> 00:23:58,960 Speaker 1: time limit for this, that it's not clear how much 396 00:23:59,000 --> 00:24:02,280 Speaker 1: longer you can keep taking effects into account in remedies, 397 00:24:02,600 --> 00:24:05,119 Speaker 1: and much of the argument of the lawyer for the 398 00:24:05,200 --> 00:24:08,280 Speaker 1: NAACP and the liberal justices is, well, actually there is 399 00:24:08,320 --> 00:24:11,240 Speaker 1: a built in time limit in Section two, plaintiffs have 400 00:24:11,320 --> 00:24:15,040 Speaker 1: to show that there is current racial block voting, that 401 00:24:15,080 --> 00:24:18,360 Speaker 1: there is a current disparate impact, and so therefore it's 402 00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:21,119 Speaker 1: not something that goes on forever. Plaintiffs can't make that 403 00:24:21,240 --> 00:24:24,400 Speaker 1: showing they lose. And they made the point that much 404 00:24:24,440 --> 00:24:27,800 Speaker 1: recent litigation, plaintiffs have lost a lot of voting rights cases. 405 00:24:28,600 --> 00:24:32,200 Speaker 2: So bottom line, Rich, a lot of legal experts are 406 00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:35,720 Speaker 2: predicting that the Court is going to just gut the 407 00:24:35,800 --> 00:24:39,320 Speaker 2: Voting Rights Act, But you don't think that the justices 408 00:24:39,359 --> 00:24:40,320 Speaker 2: will go that far. 409 00:24:41,320 --> 00:24:44,800 Speaker 1: No, I think they're going to make it much less effective. 410 00:24:45,200 --> 00:24:49,119 Speaker 1: I don't think there's a majority. Based on the questions, 411 00:24:49,480 --> 00:24:52,840 Speaker 1: it seemed to me that it's more likely that they 412 00:24:52,920 --> 00:24:57,199 Speaker 1: will reinterpret the Jingle's case and or the section of 413 00:24:57,200 --> 00:25:00,199 Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act in a way that places a 414 00:25:00,359 --> 00:25:05,880 Speaker 1: much higher burden on plaintiffs to prove something that would 415 00:25:06,119 --> 00:25:10,560 Speaker 1: entitle them to redrawing lines in order to enhance minority representation. 416 00:25:11,040 --> 00:25:14,800 Speaker 1: I think that may have the effect of making sure 417 00:25:14,800 --> 00:25:17,600 Speaker 1: that it'd be even fewer Voting Rights Act victories than 418 00:25:17,600 --> 00:25:20,320 Speaker 1: there are now. But based on the kinds of questioning, 419 00:25:20,680 --> 00:25:23,720 Speaker 1: it seemed to me that they're more likely to make 420 00:25:23,760 --> 00:25:27,240 Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act much less effective than to throw 421 00:25:27,240 --> 00:25:27,960 Speaker 1: it out altogether. 422 00:25:28,320 --> 00:25:31,960 Speaker 2: Where do you think the Chief Justice stands, because he 423 00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:35,840 Speaker 2: did write the majority opinion in the Shelby County case 424 00:25:36,480 --> 00:25:40,359 Speaker 2: that got rid of Section four of the Voting Rights Act. 425 00:25:41,440 --> 00:25:47,320 Speaker 1: A classic Roberts move would be to effectively change everything 426 00:25:47,640 --> 00:25:50,600 Speaker 1: without literally overturning it. You might see Thomas, Alito and 427 00:25:50,640 --> 00:25:55,040 Speaker 1: Gorsuch wanting to do more, possibly Cavanaugh, But my sense 428 00:25:55,080 --> 00:25:59,520 Speaker 1: of Roberts and Barrett anyway is they want to change 429 00:25:59,800 --> 00:26:04,240 Speaker 1: as little, formally as little as possible, while making a 430 00:26:04,280 --> 00:26:07,320 Speaker 1: big enough change to get rid of these kind of cases. 431 00:26:07,920 --> 00:26:10,600 Speaker 2: What do you think that timing looks like here? Do 432 00:26:10,640 --> 00:26:13,159 Speaker 2: you think the Court might try to rush this through 433 00:26:13,359 --> 00:26:16,720 Speaker 2: to get around the procel principle, which is that courts 434 00:26:16,720 --> 00:26:20,199 Speaker 2: shouldn't change election rules right before an election. 435 00:26:20,680 --> 00:26:23,000 Speaker 1: I mean, that's a good question, and I don't know. 436 00:26:23,320 --> 00:26:25,200 Speaker 1: I mean, one concern is that they come down soon. 437 00:26:25,680 --> 00:26:28,680 Speaker 1: There may be a lot of lawsuits challenging current plans 438 00:26:28,960 --> 00:26:31,800 Speaker 1: that were done either as a result of litigation or 439 00:26:31,880 --> 00:26:35,280 Speaker 1: as a way of forestalling litigation, that create either majority 440 00:26:35,320 --> 00:26:38,480 Speaker 1: minority districts or what are cold opportunity districts. Districts without 441 00:26:38,480 --> 00:26:40,760 Speaker 1: a lack or Latino majority, but are designed in a 442 00:26:40,800 --> 00:26:43,800 Speaker 1: way to make it easier for minority voters to elective 443 00:26:43,840 --> 00:26:46,359 Speaker 1: for the candidates of choice. So right, if there's a 444 00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:50,440 Speaker 1: decision between now and the spring, it's quite possible to 445 00:26:50,480 --> 00:26:55,280 Speaker 1: see yet more re redistricting. If it's much later than that, 446 00:26:55,520 --> 00:26:58,080 Speaker 1: I think it would be very hard for it to 447 00:26:58,119 --> 00:27:00,360 Speaker 1: show up in the twenty six election, but it would 448 00:27:00,359 --> 00:27:01,919 Speaker 1: sure lease the show up in the twenty eight election. 449 00:27:02,080 --> 00:27:04,240 Speaker 1: I mean, it's now been argued twice. They set it 450 00:27:04,320 --> 00:27:06,959 Speaker 1: up on the calendar early in the term. It's conceivable 451 00:27:07,359 --> 00:27:10,040 Speaker 1: that they'll be an early decision, but it's really very 452 00:27:10,040 --> 00:27:12,439 Speaker 1: hard to tell them, and maybe that they need some 453 00:27:12,680 --> 00:27:16,360 Speaker 1: time to figure out a theory that commands supporter could 454 00:27:16,440 --> 00:27:19,639 Speaker 1: very well be that there's multiple opinions. This is a 455 00:27:19,720 --> 00:27:20,720 Speaker 1: very hard case. 456 00:27:20,720 --> 00:27:23,000 Speaker 2: So hard that they argued it once before in the 457 00:27:23,080 --> 00:27:26,160 Speaker 2: last term and didn't come to a decision. So we'll 458 00:27:26,160 --> 00:27:29,160 Speaker 2: see what they decide after this re argument and how 459 00:27:29,240 --> 00:27:33,119 Speaker 2: fast they decided. Thanks so much, rich that's Professor Richard 460 00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:36,240 Speaker 2: Rufflt of Columbia Law School. Coming up next on The 461 00:27:36,280 --> 00:27:40,720 Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Federal trial judges appointed by President Ronald 462 00:27:40,760 --> 00:27:44,920 Speaker 2: Reagan are all in their eighties with decades of experience 463 00:27:45,000 --> 00:27:48,439 Speaker 2: on the bench, and they're emerging as vocal critics of 464 00:27:48,560 --> 00:27:52,880 Speaker 2: President Trump and his administration. I'm June Grosso and you're 465 00:27:52,960 --> 00:27:54,119 Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg. 466 00:27:56,240 --> 00:27:59,800 Speaker 3: It has become ever more apparent that to our president, 467 00:28:00,600 --> 00:28:04,080 Speaker 3: the rule of law is but an impediment to his 468 00:28:04,320 --> 00:28:05,520 Speaker 3: policy goals. 469 00:28:06,280 --> 00:28:10,359 Speaker 2: In February, Judge John Kuhauer was the first to rule 470 00:28:10,400 --> 00:28:16,160 Speaker 2: against President Trump's executive order denying automatic citizenship to children 471 00:28:16,200 --> 00:28:21,320 Speaker 2: born in the United States. The judge called it blatantly unconstitutional, 472 00:28:21,440 --> 00:28:24,040 Speaker 2: and he was blunt in both his criticism of the 473 00:28:24,080 --> 00:28:28,560 Speaker 2: president and his own determination to protect the rule of law. 474 00:28:28,920 --> 00:28:32,360 Speaker 3: There are moments in the world's history when people look 475 00:28:32,440 --> 00:28:35,920 Speaker 3: back and ask where were the lawyers? Where were the judges? 476 00:28:36,960 --> 00:28:40,240 Speaker 3: In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. 477 00:28:41,000 --> 00:28:43,680 Speaker 3: I refuse to let that becon go dark today. 478 00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:47,840 Speaker 2: Kuhnauer is just one of the judges appointed by President 479 00:28:47,920 --> 00:28:52,080 Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan who've become vocal critics of the President and 480 00:28:52,160 --> 00:28:57,000 Speaker 2: his administration's efforts to circumvent court orders or challenge the 481 00:28:57,080 --> 00:29:01,040 Speaker 2: rule of law. Most federal judges are more in pushing 482 00:29:01,080 --> 00:29:05,200 Speaker 2: for compliance with their orders. But the Reagan appointees, all 483 00:29:05,240 --> 00:29:08,680 Speaker 2: in their eighties with decades of experience on the bench, 484 00:29:09,040 --> 00:29:13,480 Speaker 2: are institutionalists who won't stand for parties trying to subvert 485 00:29:13,600 --> 00:29:17,120 Speaker 2: court orders and have no problem dealing out some harsh 486 00:29:17,160 --> 00:29:21,000 Speaker 2: criticism even to the President. Joining me is Bloomberg Law 487 00:29:21,040 --> 00:29:26,920 Speaker 2: reporter Jacqueline Thompson Jacqueline in general, how have Reagan appointees 488 00:29:27,720 --> 00:29:29,920 Speaker 2: viewed Trump in this administration? 489 00:29:30,360 --> 00:29:33,960 Speaker 8: And speaking generally, because I'm sure not every Reagan appointee 490 00:29:33,960 --> 00:29:37,160 Speaker 8: feels this way, but some of them really have sort 491 00:29:37,200 --> 00:29:39,840 Speaker 8: of blanched at the way that the Trump administration has 492 00:29:39,840 --> 00:29:42,840 Speaker 8: been approaching the law and then also been approaching the 493 00:29:42,840 --> 00:29:46,280 Speaker 8: courts in general, you know, the arguments that they make 494 00:29:46,360 --> 00:29:49,600 Speaker 8: in court. We've had judges sort of bristle at how 495 00:29:49,600 --> 00:29:54,360 Speaker 8: they've approached birthright citizenship. We've had judges detail times where 496 00:29:54,360 --> 00:29:57,200 Speaker 8: they feel like the administration isn't complying with their court orders, 497 00:29:57,280 --> 00:29:59,680 Speaker 8: or at least not doing so in a really fulsome 498 00:30:00,160 --> 00:30:02,920 Speaker 8: way that they feel, you know, recognizes the power of 499 00:30:02,960 --> 00:30:05,480 Speaker 8: the courts. And so it's just been interesting to watch 500 00:30:05,520 --> 00:30:08,800 Speaker 8: these judges who are in Seattle, they're in Boston. We've 501 00:30:08,840 --> 00:30:11,960 Speaker 8: won in d C. There's also one on the Fourth Circuit, 502 00:30:12,040 --> 00:30:15,360 Speaker 8: which covers Virginia. And you know, they've been pretty vocal 503 00:30:15,440 --> 00:30:18,520 Speaker 8: in talking about how they feel about the administration. 504 00:30:19,360 --> 00:30:22,840 Speaker 2: Like Judge William Young, the eighty five year old wrote 505 00:30:23,000 --> 00:30:27,280 Speaker 2: a scathing one hundred and sixty one page opinion which 506 00:30:27,400 --> 00:30:30,600 Speaker 2: was stunning in so many ways, finding that the Trump 507 00:30:30,640 --> 00:30:36,960 Speaker 2: administration's policy of deporting pro Palestinian students blatantly violated the 508 00:30:37,000 --> 00:30:45,520 Speaker 2: First Amendment. And he wrote, the Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, maires, customs, practices, courtesies, 509 00:30:45,680 --> 00:30:49,040 Speaker 2: all of it. The President simply ignores it all when 510 00:30:49,040 --> 00:30:51,040 Speaker 2: he takes it into his head to act. 511 00:30:51,480 --> 00:30:55,280 Speaker 8: Definitely, he really went through all the different ways that 512 00:30:55,360 --> 00:30:58,400 Speaker 8: he feels about the President within that opinion, and you know, 513 00:30:58,520 --> 00:31:01,280 Speaker 8: it was really just such a straight opinion, not just 514 00:31:01,320 --> 00:31:03,160 Speaker 8: because of what he said about Trump, but the way 515 00:31:03,200 --> 00:31:05,400 Speaker 8: that he wrote it. And it really felt like he 516 00:31:05,480 --> 00:31:07,520 Speaker 8: was trying to speak to the public there and almost 517 00:31:07,560 --> 00:31:09,960 Speaker 8: give them a sort of civics lesson, saying, you know, 518 00:31:10,120 --> 00:31:11,880 Speaker 8: this is the way that the courts function, and this 519 00:31:12,000 --> 00:31:14,920 Speaker 8: is the way they have historically functioned, and what I'm 520 00:31:14,960 --> 00:31:18,920 Speaker 8: facing today in my courtroom is not proper actions by 521 00:31:18,960 --> 00:31:22,080 Speaker 8: the administration and I haven't decided what I'm going to 522 00:31:22,120 --> 00:31:25,480 Speaker 8: do yet, but whatever I do do here will be 523 00:31:25,600 --> 00:31:27,480 Speaker 8: fully done. With all of that in mind. 524 00:31:28,240 --> 00:31:32,280 Speaker 2: Republicans seem to have a special reverence for President Reagan. 525 00:31:32,760 --> 00:31:35,720 Speaker 2: In fact, Trump has a portrait of Reagan hanging in 526 00:31:35,800 --> 00:31:39,400 Speaker 2: the Oval office. What kind of people did Reagan appoint 527 00:31:39,440 --> 00:31:39,960 Speaker 2: to the bench. 528 00:31:40,880 --> 00:31:44,120 Speaker 8: You know, Reagan also went with young conservatives the way 529 00:31:44,160 --> 00:31:46,920 Speaker 8: that Trump did, and that's why we have so many 530 00:31:46,920 --> 00:31:50,200 Speaker 8: Reagan appointees who are still active judges. These were folks 531 00:31:50,200 --> 00:31:53,040 Speaker 8: who were getting appointed in their thirties and their early forties. 532 00:31:53,440 --> 00:31:56,000 Speaker 8: They've been sitting on the bench anywhere from thirty six, 533 00:31:56,080 --> 00:31:59,520 Speaker 8: thirty seven years to nearly forty years some of them, 534 00:31:59,840 --> 00:32:02,120 Speaker 8: and you know they've spent a lot of time on 535 00:32:02,200 --> 00:32:05,840 Speaker 8: the court and seeing administration to administration, seeing all of 536 00:32:05,880 --> 00:32:09,320 Speaker 8: these changes. You know, Judge Lambert and DC, for one, 537 00:32:09,440 --> 00:32:12,520 Speaker 8: he's talked about how he was arguing on behalf of 538 00:32:12,720 --> 00:32:15,920 Speaker 8: the Reagan administration in court before he got a federal 539 00:32:15,960 --> 00:32:18,960 Speaker 8: judge ship. So these are folks that you know, Reagan 540 00:32:19,040 --> 00:32:23,479 Speaker 8: administration officials were familiar with, knew of them, and you know, 541 00:32:23,520 --> 00:32:26,239 Speaker 8: sort of had the conservative credentials that they wanted to 542 00:32:26,600 --> 00:32:28,520 Speaker 8: put onto the court. Now, of course, some of them 543 00:32:28,520 --> 00:32:31,040 Speaker 8: are in blue states. That means that they had blueslips 544 00:32:31,040 --> 00:32:33,880 Speaker 8: that were signed by Democratic senators in order for them 545 00:32:33,920 --> 00:32:37,239 Speaker 8: to get the seats. But overall, Reagan really had an 546 00:32:37,240 --> 00:32:40,680 Speaker 8: opportunity to shape the courts in a really conservative way, 547 00:32:41,160 --> 00:32:44,160 Speaker 8: just as Trump did during his first term and will 548 00:32:44,240 --> 00:32:46,520 Speaker 8: to the extent that's possible during a second. 549 00:32:46,960 --> 00:32:51,520 Speaker 2: But conservative ideology has evolved in the nearly forty years 550 00:32:51,560 --> 00:32:56,720 Speaker 2: since Reagan left office, and also the current administration doesn't 551 00:32:56,720 --> 00:33:00,880 Speaker 2: always seem to be interested in conservative ideality, but rather 552 00:33:01,440 --> 00:33:04,800 Speaker 2: gathering more power for the president and the executive branch. 553 00:33:05,440 --> 00:33:08,720 Speaker 8: Yeah, I think that's right, and it's just very interesting 554 00:33:08,760 --> 00:33:11,120 Speaker 8: to watch the divide that we see on some of 555 00:33:11,160 --> 00:33:15,720 Speaker 8: these courts where we'll even have instances where Reagan appointees 556 00:33:15,760 --> 00:33:19,440 Speaker 8: and Trump appointees are split over an issue and they 557 00:33:19,480 --> 00:33:21,680 Speaker 8: won't be lined up in ruling the same way. And 558 00:33:21,720 --> 00:33:24,400 Speaker 8: you would think, oh, you know, a conservative is a conservative, 559 00:33:24,480 --> 00:33:28,440 Speaker 8: but really we're dealing with shades of conservatism here. And 560 00:33:28,600 --> 00:33:30,440 Speaker 8: the way I've started to be thinking about it is 561 00:33:30,480 --> 00:33:34,680 Speaker 8: a little more okay, is a Trump appointee maybe even 562 00:33:34,760 --> 00:33:38,080 Speaker 8: further to the right than a Reagan appointee necessarily is, 563 00:33:38,560 --> 00:33:41,000 Speaker 8: and that's not the case for all courts. I cover 564 00:33:41,040 --> 00:33:42,760 Speaker 8: the Fifth Circuit a lot, and I think the Reagan 565 00:33:42,760 --> 00:33:45,480 Speaker 8: appointees on that court are quite in line with the 566 00:33:45,520 --> 00:33:48,480 Speaker 8: Trump appointees there. But in others that's not so much 567 00:33:48,520 --> 00:33:52,800 Speaker 8: the case. They're much more traditionalist conservatives. They really think about, 568 00:33:53,200 --> 00:33:57,520 Speaker 8: you know, the Buckley era of conservatism and what that 569 00:33:57,560 --> 00:33:58,360 Speaker 8: all means for them. 570 00:33:58,920 --> 00:34:01,680 Speaker 2: Well, it's more about well the rule of law. I 571 00:34:01,720 --> 00:34:05,080 Speaker 2: think for some of the Reagan appointees, the older judges, 572 00:34:05,440 --> 00:34:08,600 Speaker 2: and you talk to a former Reagan appointed judge in Miami, 573 00:34:08,680 --> 00:34:12,799 Speaker 2: Thomas Scott, who said, they're institutionalists. They're going to come 574 00:34:12,840 --> 00:34:15,360 Speaker 2: down very hard. You're playing games with the court and 575 00:34:15,400 --> 00:34:18,200 Speaker 2: it's not going to be successful. And I think we've 576 00:34:18,239 --> 00:34:18,680 Speaker 2: seen that. 577 00:34:19,120 --> 00:34:22,880 Speaker 8: Yeah, And it's also important to recognize again, these folks 578 00:34:22,880 --> 00:34:26,160 Speaker 8: have been on the courts for decades. They realize that 579 00:34:26,200 --> 00:34:29,880 Speaker 8: their power comes from people complying with their rulings. So 580 00:34:29,960 --> 00:34:32,560 Speaker 8: there's a little bit of self preservation. They're right in 581 00:34:32,640 --> 00:34:35,000 Speaker 8: terms of them wanting to say, hey, I still have 582 00:34:35,080 --> 00:34:38,000 Speaker 8: influence here, but I only have this influence if you 583 00:34:38,160 --> 00:34:41,880 Speaker 8: actually go along with what I'm doing here. And there's that, 584 00:34:42,040 --> 00:34:44,680 Speaker 8: but there's also this respect for the rule of law. 585 00:34:44,680 --> 00:34:47,720 Speaker 8: They've seen it play out again for years and years 586 00:34:47,760 --> 00:34:49,400 Speaker 8: on their time in the bench, and they've seen what 587 00:34:49,480 --> 00:34:52,440 Speaker 8: happens when it's not respected. They've seen what happens in 588 00:34:52,480 --> 00:34:56,280 Speaker 8: other countries when it's not respected. You know, Judge Kaffner, 589 00:34:56,320 --> 00:34:59,080 Speaker 8: one of the judges in Seattle, he brought up Eastern 590 00:34:59,120 --> 00:35:02,319 Speaker 8: European governments and saying, you know, he had spent time 591 00:35:02,400 --> 00:35:05,439 Speaker 8: there and watch what happened when the rule of law 592 00:35:05,480 --> 00:35:08,879 Speaker 8: disappeared and what it meant for people to be returning 593 00:35:08,960 --> 00:35:12,520 Speaker 8: to those democratic institutions. So they're bringing a lot of 594 00:35:12,640 --> 00:35:16,120 Speaker 8: perspective here, not just domestically, but globally. 595 00:35:16,760 --> 00:35:19,000 Speaker 2: The courts in the Northeast seem to be the center 596 00:35:19,040 --> 00:35:24,160 Speaker 2: of a lot of the cases involving challenges to executive power. 597 00:35:24,960 --> 00:35:26,080 Speaker 2: Is there a reason for that? 598 00:35:27,040 --> 00:35:30,160 Speaker 8: Yeah, So, just like during the Biden administration we saw 599 00:35:30,239 --> 00:35:33,680 Speaker 8: so many lawsuits filed in Texas, it seems like Boston 600 00:35:33,880 --> 00:35:36,480 Speaker 8: and other court set are within the First Circuit are 601 00:35:36,520 --> 00:35:40,320 Speaker 8: becoming the same draw for liberal litigators. And that's really 602 00:35:40,320 --> 00:35:44,080 Speaker 8: because there's a number of democratic appointees there that make 603 00:35:44,160 --> 00:35:47,560 Speaker 8: up the majority of those courts. So when you're going 604 00:35:47,560 --> 00:35:49,279 Speaker 8: to a circuit and you're saying, hey, I want to 605 00:35:49,320 --> 00:35:52,279 Speaker 8: get the best case law possible for my client. Where 606 00:35:52,280 --> 00:35:54,759 Speaker 8: do I want to file this lawsuit? You're probably going 607 00:35:54,840 --> 00:35:57,759 Speaker 8: to want to try and file it somewhere like Boston. 608 00:35:58,480 --> 00:36:01,200 Speaker 8: You could go. You know, Tord Island has had a 609 00:36:01,239 --> 00:36:03,920 Speaker 8: lot of cases as well, and they've even had a 610 00:36:03,920 --> 00:36:07,319 Speaker 8: Trump appointing in Rhode Island ruling against the Trump administration. 611 00:36:08,160 --> 00:36:12,120 Speaker 2: Maryland is another place where a lot of plaintiffs are 612 00:36:12,200 --> 00:36:16,800 Speaker 2: suing the Trump administration, so much so that the administration 613 00:36:17,000 --> 00:36:23,400 Speaker 2: filed an unheard of lawsuit against all fifteen federal judges 614 00:36:23,840 --> 00:36:27,680 Speaker 2: in Maryland. That case was thrown out by the federal 615 00:36:27,800 --> 00:36:31,239 Speaker 2: judge in West Virginia who was assigned the case, a 616 00:36:31,280 --> 00:36:34,000 Speaker 2: Trump appointee. By the way, I thought it was interesting 617 00:36:34,080 --> 00:36:38,080 Speaker 2: that retired judge John Tinder, who was on the Seventh Circuit, 618 00:36:38,480 --> 00:36:41,360 Speaker 2: said that the Reagan appointees' long tenures on the bench 619 00:36:41,800 --> 00:36:45,560 Speaker 2: might make them less patient and more likely to call 620 00:36:45,680 --> 00:36:48,960 Speaker 2: something for what it is rather than beat around the bush. 621 00:36:49,719 --> 00:36:49,919 Speaker 5: Right. 622 00:36:50,080 --> 00:36:53,799 Speaker 8: I think we all know from personal experience, when we 623 00:36:54,840 --> 00:36:57,319 Speaker 8: sit down with folks who've been doing jobs for a 624 00:36:57,360 --> 00:37:00,520 Speaker 8: long time, they know how the job is done. They 625 00:37:00,560 --> 00:37:03,200 Speaker 8: have no problem telling people how they think the job 626 00:37:03,280 --> 00:37:05,960 Speaker 8: should be done. And you know, that very well could 627 00:37:05,960 --> 00:37:07,560 Speaker 8: be what's happening here as well. 628 00:37:07,880 --> 00:37:10,359 Speaker 2: But some legal scholars have said there could be a 629 00:37:10,520 --> 00:37:15,360 Speaker 2: backlash to these kinds of blunt statements from judges, and we've. 630 00:37:15,239 --> 00:37:17,800 Speaker 8: Already seen that play out. You know, when I reached 631 00:37:17,840 --> 00:37:20,759 Speaker 8: out for comment for reaction from the White House to 632 00:37:21,000 --> 00:37:23,360 Speaker 8: Judge Young's one hundred and sixty one page ruling that 633 00:37:23,400 --> 00:37:27,000 Speaker 8: you referenced earlier, you know, a White House official shared 634 00:37:27,040 --> 00:37:29,520 Speaker 8: with me a list of cases in which Judge Young 635 00:37:29,600 --> 00:37:34,040 Speaker 8: had been refersed or had been chided by the Supreme Court, 636 00:37:34,440 --> 00:37:37,240 Speaker 8: and that stood out to me and them saying, hey, 637 00:37:37,760 --> 00:37:40,840 Speaker 8: you know this guy, he's not a perfect judge, to 638 00:37:40,880 --> 00:37:43,400 Speaker 8: which I say, you know which judge is perfect? I 639 00:37:43,440 --> 00:37:46,560 Speaker 8: cover them for a living, and I think it's hard 640 00:37:46,560 --> 00:37:48,920 Speaker 8: to say that any judge is perfect. They're all human 641 00:37:49,040 --> 00:37:51,759 Speaker 8: like the rest of us. So it was interesting to 642 00:37:51,800 --> 00:37:55,719 Speaker 8: see that level of pushback from the White House on that, 643 00:37:55,840 --> 00:37:59,319 Speaker 8: and you know, I think it'll only continue as we 644 00:37:59,360 --> 00:38:03,319 Speaker 8: see ruling come out. We may start seeing things pop 645 00:38:03,440 --> 00:38:08,240 Speaker 8: up from folks nomination hearings, some rehashing of that nomination 646 00:38:08,440 --> 00:38:12,000 Speaker 8: process that so many people say has become too politicized 647 00:38:12,040 --> 00:38:14,880 Speaker 8: and too toxic, and that should be forgotten the second 648 00:38:14,920 --> 00:38:17,640 Speaker 8: that they become judges on the bench. But is that 649 00:38:17,719 --> 00:38:20,400 Speaker 8: really possible. Can we really separate out the two? I 650 00:38:20,400 --> 00:38:20,759 Speaker 8: don't know. 651 00:38:22,080 --> 00:38:25,160 Speaker 2: Since Trump came into office this second time, there's been 652 00:38:25,160 --> 00:38:32,240 Speaker 2: this sort of phenomenon of fewer federal judges retiring, particularly 653 00:38:32,280 --> 00:38:36,040 Speaker 2: those on appellate courts, And there's a lot of speculation 654 00:38:36,200 --> 00:38:40,359 Speaker 2: as to why. So the Reagan appointees are all in 655 00:38:40,400 --> 00:38:43,719 Speaker 2: their eighties, they've been on the bench for decades. Have 656 00:38:43,880 --> 00:38:46,680 Speaker 2: any of them said it's time for me to retire 657 00:38:46,800 --> 00:38:49,560 Speaker 2: or I'm not going to retire, because. 658 00:38:49,800 --> 00:38:52,520 Speaker 8: None of these judges have come out publicly and said anything. 659 00:38:53,000 --> 00:38:55,720 Speaker 8: Some of them are already on senior status. For example, 660 00:38:55,800 --> 00:38:58,719 Speaker 8: Chudge Young is a senior judge. Judge Kauffener is a 661 00:38:58,719 --> 00:39:01,959 Speaker 8: senior judge. That means that they hear fewer cases. Judge 662 00:39:02,000 --> 00:39:04,880 Speaker 8: Lambeth is also a senior judge, but he's quite active. 663 00:39:04,920 --> 00:39:07,640 Speaker 8: He hears cases in DC and in Texas, which is 664 00:39:07,640 --> 00:39:10,320 Speaker 8: where he grew up, so he keeps himself very busy. 665 00:39:10,360 --> 00:39:13,040 Speaker 8: But just because your senior judge doesn't mean that you 666 00:39:13,080 --> 00:39:16,279 Speaker 8: work any less. I spoke to Judge Young maybe two 667 00:39:16,360 --> 00:39:20,120 Speaker 8: years ago for a totally unrelated story, and he sort 668 00:39:20,160 --> 00:39:22,480 Speaker 8: of made a comment to me about how he's gonna 669 00:39:22,560 --> 00:39:25,640 Speaker 8: keep going for as long as he can. And that's 670 00:39:25,680 --> 00:39:27,319 Speaker 8: something I've had in the back of my mind here 671 00:39:27,360 --> 00:39:28,840 Speaker 8: as we do this reporting. 672 00:39:28,880 --> 00:39:31,759 Speaker 2: And it's amazing that they're in their eighties and they're 673 00:39:31,760 --> 00:39:36,200 Speaker 2: handling these really complicated cases, high profile cases where the 674 00:39:36,239 --> 00:39:40,080 Speaker 2: parties don't always comply with court orders. I mean, it's 675 00:39:40,120 --> 00:39:43,040 Speaker 2: not easy being a federal judge, but it's great to 676 00:39:43,120 --> 00:39:47,640 Speaker 2: have that experience on the bench. Thanks so much, Jacqueline. 677 00:39:47,800 --> 00:39:51,600 Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Law reporter Jacqueline Thompson and that's it for 678 00:39:51,640 --> 00:39:54,279 Speaker 2: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can 679 00:39:54,320 --> 00:39:57,520 Speaker 2: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. 680 00:39:57,800 --> 00:40:02,000 Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts and at www 681 00:40:02,160 --> 00:40:06,440 Speaker 2: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember 682 00:40:06,480 --> 00:40:09,439 Speaker 2: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 683 00:40:09,440 --> 00:40:12,920 Speaker 2: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're 684 00:40:13,000 --> 00:40:14,239 Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg