1 00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:09,320 --> 00:00:13,920 Speaker 1: Over the years, Donald Trump has faced criminal investigations, special 3 00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:18,760 Speaker 1: counsel inquiries, even impeachments, but none has stuck. That may 4 00:00:18,800 --> 00:00:22,480 Speaker 1: be changing, as a flurry of witnesses, including Trump's former 5 00:00:22,560 --> 00:00:26,600 Speaker 1: fixer Michael Cohen, have testified before a Manhattan grand jury 6 00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:31,200 Speaker 1: considering criminal charges against the former president. This isn't a 7 00:00:31,320 --> 00:00:34,520 Speaker 1: question of vindication. It's not a question, as I stated before, 8 00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:39,680 Speaker 1: about revenge. This is my position is that at the 9 00:00:39,760 --> 00:00:42,240 Speaker 1: end of the day, Donald Trump needs to be held 10 00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:45,479 Speaker 1: accountable for his dirty deeds if in fact that's the 11 00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:49,280 Speaker 1: way that the facts play out. That plus an invitation 12 00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:52,640 Speaker 1: to Trump to testify before the grand jury, indicate that 13 00:00:52,760 --> 00:00:56,640 Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is close to an indictment. 14 00:00:57,080 --> 00:01:00,240 Speaker 1: The first criminal charge is against a former president in 15 00:01:00,280 --> 00:01:04,560 Speaker 1: our nation's history. Trump's reaction to it all has been predictable. 16 00:01:04,880 --> 00:01:06,920 Speaker 1: These are which huntsees have been going on for a 17 00:01:06,920 --> 00:01:10,640 Speaker 1: long time. They've weaponized justice in our country. It's a disgrace, 18 00:01:10,680 --> 00:01:12,840 Speaker 1: and I think people are very angry about it. Joining 19 00:01:12,880 --> 00:01:16,399 Speaker 1: me is former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, a professor at 20 00:01:16,520 --> 00:01:20,800 Speaker 1: NYU Law School. The prevailing view of most legal experts, 21 00:01:21,080 --> 00:01:24,720 Speaker 1: including Trump's own attorney, is that he will be indicted 22 00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:28,360 Speaker 1: in Manhattan. Do you agree, Yeah, that seems to be 23 00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:32,800 Speaker 1: what's happening. I mean, the practice of the Manhattan BA 24 00:01:32,959 --> 00:01:37,559 Speaker 1: is to invite descendants to participate in the grand jury 25 00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:40,560 Speaker 1: at the end of an investigation, before they seek an indictment. 26 00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:44,000 Speaker 1: And so they've been putting all the witnesses that they 27 00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:47,080 Speaker 1: would need, you know, Michael Cohen and others into the 28 00:01:47,160 --> 00:01:50,400 Speaker 1: grand jury, and they've invited Trump to participate, which he 29 00:01:50,480 --> 00:01:54,200 Speaker 1: declined wisely, and so it does look like they're wrapping 30 00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:56,400 Speaker 1: up with the grand jury. I mean, you know, you 31 00:01:56,480 --> 00:01:59,040 Speaker 1: do an investigation, you talk to all these witnesses, there's 32 00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:01,880 Speaker 1: no reason to actually put them in unless you're going 33 00:02:01,920 --> 00:02:04,520 Speaker 1: to speak in indictment. And so it seems very much 34 00:02:04,560 --> 00:02:08,079 Speaker 1: like that's where it's headed. His attorney's met with prosecutors 35 00:02:08,120 --> 00:02:11,800 Speaker 1: recently to make their case against an indictment in a 36 00:02:11,880 --> 00:02:15,040 Speaker 1: case like this. I mean, is there really any hope 37 00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:19,880 Speaker 1: that they could change prosecutors' minds? No, No, not much. 38 00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:23,720 Speaker 1: You know, it rarely happens in any kind of case, 39 00:02:24,040 --> 00:02:28,560 Speaker 1: but in this kind of case. It's a fairly simple case. Factually, there, 40 00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:32,200 Speaker 1: of course, is a tricky legal issue. I don't know 41 00:02:32,240 --> 00:02:34,919 Speaker 1: if it's tricky as much as it's just not been 42 00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:38,000 Speaker 1: done before, So it's a bit unknown whether the felony 43 00:02:38,040 --> 00:02:41,040 Speaker 1: will hold up on heel if they get the convictions. 44 00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:44,359 Speaker 1: But where everything is already known to the prosecutors, it's 45 00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:47,720 Speaker 1: really just almost a formality. But you know, defense lawyers 46 00:02:47,760 --> 00:02:50,000 Speaker 1: always want that chance to come in and make the pitch, 47 00:02:50,080 --> 00:02:53,040 Speaker 1: and prosecutors are willing to give them that chance. So 48 00:02:53,360 --> 00:02:55,320 Speaker 1: they did it and it didn't work, And all that's 49 00:02:55,440 --> 00:02:58,639 Speaker 1: very predictable tell us about the legal theory they're going 50 00:02:58,680 --> 00:03:02,560 Speaker 1: to try to use to the misdemeanor of falsifying business 51 00:03:02,639 --> 00:03:07,040 Speaker 1: records into a felony. So in New York State, the 52 00:03:07,360 --> 00:03:12,400 Speaker 1: falsification of financial records that prosecutors alleged was done here 53 00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:15,360 Speaker 1: where they took this money that was paid to Stormy 54 00:03:15,440 --> 00:03:19,120 Speaker 1: Daniels to keep her quiet before the election, and instead 55 00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:22,160 Speaker 1: of just writing her a check from the Trump organization 56 00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,440 Speaker 1: or Trump writing her a personal check, they instead had 57 00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:28,160 Speaker 1: Michael Cohen pay her and then they paid him back 58 00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:31,280 Speaker 1: from the business, pretending that it was for legal expenses. 59 00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:35,040 Speaker 1: So that's the falsification of records that the Trump organization 60 00:03:35,160 --> 00:03:38,120 Speaker 1: kind of hid all of these payments. That's a misdemeanor 61 00:03:38,160 --> 00:03:40,520 Speaker 1: in New York State. So in order for it to 62 00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:43,040 Speaker 1: be a felony, that crime has to be committed in 63 00:03:43,080 --> 00:03:47,880 Speaker 1: conjunction with another crime, so in order to facilitate or 64 00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:51,400 Speaker 1: to cover up a different crime. So what they are 65 00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:56,080 Speaker 1: alleging here, we think is that this cover up was done, 66 00:03:56,120 --> 00:03:59,320 Speaker 1: the falsification of records was all done in order to 67 00:03:59,320 --> 00:04:04,040 Speaker 1: commit a campaign finance crime, meaning that this payment actually 68 00:04:04,160 --> 00:04:08,160 Speaker 1: was done to benefit the campaign because had she come 69 00:04:08,160 --> 00:04:10,640 Speaker 1: out and told her story in the week leading up 70 00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:13,360 Speaker 1: to the election, he wouldn't have been elected. So it's 71 00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:16,479 Speaker 1: a benefit to the campaign. The campaign hid that benefit. 72 00:04:16,520 --> 00:04:19,719 Speaker 1: They didn't disclose it as part of the paperwork that 73 00:04:19,760 --> 00:04:22,960 Speaker 1: they have to file with election officials. And so that's 74 00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:26,080 Speaker 1: what they say is the second crime that the falsification 75 00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:29,240 Speaker 1: crime facilitated, and that makes it a felony under New 76 00:04:29,320 --> 00:04:33,200 Speaker 1: York day law. The Manhattan DA didn't bring charges against 77 00:04:33,240 --> 00:04:36,679 Speaker 1: Trump in the criminal tax fraud case where they brought 78 00:04:36,760 --> 00:04:41,240 Speaker 1: charges against his former CFO, Alan Weisselberg. Now they appear 79 00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:45,159 Speaker 1: to be going after him with this untested legal theory, 80 00:04:45,279 --> 00:04:47,400 Speaker 1: and it seems kind of odd to me that they 81 00:04:47,400 --> 00:04:51,239 Speaker 1: would proceed with a novel theory in the first case 82 00:04:51,279 --> 00:04:54,640 Speaker 1: ever against a former president. Yeah, it's hard to know 83 00:04:54,720 --> 00:04:57,640 Speaker 1: how they assess their case and exactly what they're thinking. 84 00:04:57,720 --> 00:04:59,839 Speaker 1: Of course, they know more about the case than we 85 00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:03,440 Speaker 1: all know sitting outside here, but you know, I think 86 00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:07,200 Speaker 1: that they're probably trying to assess it in terms of 87 00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:10,880 Speaker 1: is this case something that we would charge someone else with? 88 00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:14,280 Speaker 1: You know, yes, it's untested, but do we think it's right? 89 00:05:14,720 --> 00:05:17,400 Speaker 1: Do we think that it will stand up on appeal legally? 90 00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:20,839 Speaker 1: The issues with it being a former president make it 91 00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:24,360 Speaker 1: really tricky in terms of what is a jury going 92 00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:26,600 Speaker 1: to do once they're speeded. You know, when you have 93 00:05:26,640 --> 00:05:28,760 Speaker 1: twelve people in the box, are we going to get 94 00:05:28,760 --> 00:05:32,080 Speaker 1: twelve people who are going to be able to assess 95 00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:35,800 Speaker 1: this fairly? But the untested portion of it is a 96 00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:39,479 Speaker 1: legal issue on that front, it's more about is it 97 00:05:39,520 --> 00:05:41,560 Speaker 1: going to stand up in front of the judges who 98 00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:44,120 Speaker 1: will be affessing it. Can we get it through the 99 00:05:44,160 --> 00:05:47,560 Speaker 1: trial court level? On appeal? Will the appellate court judges 100 00:05:47,640 --> 00:05:51,200 Speaker 1: say that it meets legal muster? So I think they're 101 00:05:51,200 --> 00:05:53,919 Speaker 1: probably just saying, listen, do we think this is a 102 00:05:53,960 --> 00:05:56,800 Speaker 1: correct theory, and can we convince the judges of this. 103 00:05:56,960 --> 00:05:59,920 Speaker 1: It's not really a jury issue. And then on the 104 00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:02,560 Speaker 1: jury side, you just say, listen, if we think he 105 00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:05,320 Speaker 1: has done this and we think that we would charge 106 00:06:05,360 --> 00:06:08,000 Speaker 1: someone else with it, we should take a shot at it, 107 00:06:08,120 --> 00:06:11,000 Speaker 1: former president or no, you know, he's not above the law. 108 00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:14,320 Speaker 1: We should have that accountability. And then on the other 109 00:06:14,400 --> 00:06:18,719 Speaker 1: case that's apparently still kicking around. It's definitely true that 110 00:06:18,920 --> 00:06:23,160 Speaker 1: earlier last year, Alvin Bragg, the brand new DA at 111 00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:26,000 Speaker 1: that time, decided not to go into the grand jury 112 00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:30,320 Speaker 1: with the case about inflating and decreasing the assets in 113 00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:34,400 Speaker 1: order to get benefits. But they say that investigation is ongoing, 114 00:06:34,680 --> 00:06:36,320 Speaker 1: and a lot of it had to do with whether 115 00:06:36,360 --> 00:06:39,400 Speaker 1: they were able to get the true and complete cooperation 116 00:06:39,440 --> 00:06:42,400 Speaker 1: of Alan Weisselberg, which by all accounts they have not. 117 00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:45,000 Speaker 1: So that kind of I think has more to do 118 00:06:45,040 --> 00:06:47,960 Speaker 1: with that side of things. And listen, they may ultimately 119 00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:50,279 Speaker 1: bring that case if they think that they can. Apparently 120 00:06:50,320 --> 00:06:53,479 Speaker 1: they're still working, honestly, that's what the DA's office to say. 121 00:06:53,720 --> 00:06:57,239 Speaker 1: So Trump has called this a politically motivated witch hunt, 122 00:06:57,640 --> 00:07:00,840 Speaker 1: said he did absolutely nothing wrong and denied having an 123 00:07:00,839 --> 00:07:04,719 Speaker 1: affair with the porn star Stormy Daniels, and said Bragg's 124 00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:07,839 Speaker 1: inquiry was an effort to take down the leading Republican 125 00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:12,160 Speaker 1: candidate in the twenty twenty four presidential election. I'm wondering 126 00:07:12,160 --> 00:07:16,320 Speaker 1: if the fact that the former DA didn't charge Trump 127 00:07:16,480 --> 00:07:19,560 Speaker 1: and Bragg, you know, as you just mentioned, may still 128 00:07:19,600 --> 00:07:21,920 Speaker 1: but didn't charge him in that another case, can that 129 00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:24,400 Speaker 1: be used by the defense in any way to say 130 00:07:24,480 --> 00:07:27,840 Speaker 1: this is politically motivated. They kept on trying and trying 131 00:07:27,840 --> 00:07:30,440 Speaker 1: and trying until they got him. Well, listen, this is 132 00:07:30,440 --> 00:07:33,480 Speaker 1: of course Trump's playbook, right, Anything that anybody does that 133 00:07:33,560 --> 00:07:36,800 Speaker 1: accuses him of anything is a politically motivated witch hunt. 134 00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:39,280 Speaker 1: So this is kind of how he responds to everything. 135 00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:42,640 Speaker 1: There's no evidence that anyone has gone after him for 136 00:07:42,760 --> 00:07:46,520 Speaker 1: political reasons. When the DA, just prior to Alvin Bragg, 137 00:07:46,960 --> 00:07:51,040 Speaker 1: cy Van was investigating, you know, they needed to do 138 00:07:51,080 --> 00:07:53,880 Speaker 1: this investigation. You can't decide on charters until you know 139 00:07:54,120 --> 00:07:57,720 Speaker 1: what you're dealing with. And they didn't finish. They didn't 140 00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:00,720 Speaker 1: finish the investigation that they were focused on. They appear 141 00:08:00,760 --> 00:08:02,600 Speaker 1: to put this one kind of on the back burner, 142 00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:06,640 Speaker 1: probably because of the untested nature of the legal theory 143 00:08:06,880 --> 00:08:09,720 Speaker 1: as far as the felony charge goes, and they focused 144 00:08:09,760 --> 00:08:12,400 Speaker 1: on the other thing. Bragg thought they hadn't gotten there yet, 145 00:08:12,400 --> 00:08:14,640 Speaker 1: so he switched gears. I mean, there's just nothing to 146 00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:17,680 Speaker 1: suggest that it's political at all. This is just kind 147 00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:20,480 Speaker 1: of Trump's play. And once you get to court, you know, 148 00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:22,800 Speaker 1: he makes all of these statements in the public realm 149 00:08:22,840 --> 00:08:25,720 Speaker 1: because you know, that's just how he works, and he's 150 00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:29,640 Speaker 1: trying to influence ultimately with the public thinks, because they're 151 00:08:29,640 --> 00:08:32,600 Speaker 1: the voters and also of course potentially the jury pool. 152 00:08:32,760 --> 00:08:34,680 Speaker 1: But when you get into court it's a little bit different. 153 00:08:34,720 --> 00:08:36,480 Speaker 1: You know, you can't just stand up and yell, which 154 00:08:36,559 --> 00:08:38,680 Speaker 1: hunts all the time. If you're going to claim something 155 00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:44,000 Speaker 1: like prosecutorial misconduct or that you are actually being targeted 156 00:08:44,040 --> 00:08:47,320 Speaker 1: because of political reasons, you have to prove that in 157 00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:49,280 Speaker 1: order to make that case in court, or the judge 158 00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:51,400 Speaker 1: will say you can't make that argument. So once you 159 00:08:51,480 --> 00:08:54,440 Speaker 1: get into the four corners of the courtroom, he won't 160 00:08:54,480 --> 00:08:57,240 Speaker 1: be able to just without any basis at all, which 161 00:08:57,240 --> 00:08:59,920 Speaker 1: there is none, claim that, so you know it'll be 162 00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:02,319 Speaker 1: a little different once you're actually in front of the 163 00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:05,800 Speaker 1: jury and the judge in this case. In the meantime, 164 00:09:05,840 --> 00:09:08,839 Speaker 1: of course, he's just trying to kind of poison, if 165 00:09:08,840 --> 00:09:10,880 Speaker 1: you will, the well a little bit with the public 166 00:09:10,920 --> 00:09:13,240 Speaker 1: in terms of saying that which you always said. Some 167 00:09:13,320 --> 00:09:17,160 Speaker 1: of the defense attorneys has said that this payment wasn't 168 00:09:17,160 --> 00:09:20,160 Speaker 1: part of a campaign, It was to save face, to 169 00:09:20,400 --> 00:09:25,559 Speaker 1: save Milania from any embarrassment, sort of a nuisance payment. 170 00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:28,640 Speaker 1: Is that a defense for him in this case? So 171 00:09:28,840 --> 00:09:31,880 Speaker 1: it's kind of interesting when people were talking about a 172 00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:36,439 Speaker 1: pure campaign finance violation, like on the federal side what 173 00:09:36,720 --> 00:09:39,839 Speaker 1: Michael Cohen pleaded guilty too. It would I mean, if 174 00:09:39,920 --> 00:09:43,600 Speaker 1: you could convince the jury that the reason that you 175 00:09:44,000 --> 00:09:46,800 Speaker 1: didn't report this as a campaign benefit is that that's 176 00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:49,200 Speaker 1: not what it was to you, right, it was instead 177 00:09:49,880 --> 00:09:51,680 Speaker 1: trying to cover it up for your wife or what 178 00:09:51,800 --> 00:09:54,520 Speaker 1: have you, then yes, it would be a defense to that. 179 00:09:54,600 --> 00:09:56,360 Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know if you remember way back 180 00:09:56,400 --> 00:09:59,960 Speaker 1: that John Edwards case that was brought against Senator John 181 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:04,080 Speaker 1: and Edwards he was acquitted and the jury hunts on 182 00:10:04,280 --> 00:10:07,160 Speaker 1: accounts of his case because he made that argument and 183 00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:10,199 Speaker 1: apparently it was successful that the money that he paid 184 00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:14,000 Speaker 1: to this woman he hid for personal embarrassment reasons and 185 00:10:14,000 --> 00:10:16,600 Speaker 1: so on, not because of his campaign. The problem for 186 00:10:16,679 --> 00:10:20,079 Speaker 1: Trump is that that only helped him on the piece 187 00:10:20,120 --> 00:10:22,800 Speaker 1: of it that makes it a felony, right, So, I mean, 188 00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:26,679 Speaker 1: he falsified the records of his organization in order to 189 00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:30,880 Speaker 1: make this payment. By admitting now that he has made 190 00:10:30,880 --> 00:10:33,640 Speaker 1: those payments, which he is doing basically by saying, oh, 191 00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:35,600 Speaker 1: I did it for this reason, not for that reason, 192 00:10:35,880 --> 00:10:39,040 Speaker 1: he's effectively admitting that he's guilty of the primary charge, 193 00:10:39,040 --> 00:10:42,120 Speaker 1: which is the misdemeanor. So it's just now about the 194 00:10:42,160 --> 00:10:44,920 Speaker 1: piece that makes the felony. And the question is do 195 00:10:44,960 --> 00:10:47,800 Speaker 1: you believe that? I mean, is it really believable that 196 00:10:47,880 --> 00:10:50,400 Speaker 1: in the run up to the election he does all 197 00:10:50,440 --> 00:10:53,720 Speaker 1: of this just to keep it from his wife in public? 198 00:10:53,760 --> 00:10:58,080 Speaker 1: I mean, a man who's been credibly accused of sexual 199 00:10:58,160 --> 00:11:01,640 Speaker 1: assault and even rape by multiple people and he's so 200 00:11:01,840 --> 00:11:05,520 Speaker 1: concerned about this one person. You know, it doesn't necessarily 201 00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:08,720 Speaker 1: ring true, I think, although ultimately a jury will decide that, 202 00:11:09,000 --> 00:11:11,760 Speaker 1: but it doesn't help him on the primary charge that 203 00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:14,920 Speaker 1: the DA appears to be proceeding on. Anyway, Does the 204 00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:19,199 Speaker 1: case hinge on the testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump's former 205 00:11:19,240 --> 00:11:22,640 Speaker 1: fixer an attorney, and if so, what are the problems 206 00:11:22,640 --> 00:11:25,920 Speaker 1: with his having pleaded guilty to the hush Bunny and 207 00:11:26,240 --> 00:11:29,880 Speaker 1: lying to Congress and going to prison over it. So 208 00:11:30,960 --> 00:11:33,520 Speaker 1: on the first question, if it hinges on him, I 209 00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:37,160 Speaker 1: don't know exactly how much it hinges on him. I mean, 210 00:11:37,200 --> 00:11:39,280 Speaker 1: certainly they put him into the grand jury, and they 211 00:11:39,360 --> 00:11:42,040 Speaker 1: talk to him many many times, so it seems that 212 00:11:42,160 --> 00:11:44,920 Speaker 1: at least they are strongly considering using him, or think 213 00:11:45,000 --> 00:11:47,280 Speaker 1: that they might need him. I just don't know what 214 00:11:47,400 --> 00:11:49,880 Speaker 1: else they have on the key piece of how much 215 00:11:50,040 --> 00:11:53,160 Speaker 1: former President Trump actually knew about this. They obviously have 216 00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:56,560 Speaker 1: the records, They have other people, I think who will 217 00:11:56,600 --> 00:12:00,240 Speaker 1: talk about that. So it's unclear to me whether he's 218 00:12:00,520 --> 00:12:03,560 Speaker 1: really really necessary and they couldn't proceed without him, or 219 00:12:03,600 --> 00:12:05,720 Speaker 1: whether they think he just adds enough to make it 220 00:12:05,800 --> 00:12:09,400 Speaker 1: worth it. You know, Listen, he's a difficult witness to 221 00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:13,080 Speaker 1: put on because he has lied before and has been 222 00:12:13,160 --> 00:12:16,199 Speaker 1: to prison. As you say, he's a convicted spellon. But 223 00:12:16,400 --> 00:12:20,360 Speaker 1: prosecutors deal with this issue all the time, honestly. I mean, 224 00:12:20,360 --> 00:12:22,800 Speaker 1: one of the things you sometimes stay instammation is Listen, 225 00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:25,600 Speaker 1: I wish I could put on the witness stand, you know, 226 00:12:25,720 --> 00:12:28,439 Speaker 1: rabbis and priests and ministers for you all. But those 227 00:12:28,480 --> 00:12:30,800 Speaker 1: aren't the sort of people who get caught up in crime, right. 228 00:12:31,200 --> 00:12:33,120 Speaker 1: I need to put on the stand people who can 229 00:12:33,120 --> 00:12:36,000 Speaker 1: tell you about what happened here, people who this criminal 230 00:12:36,040 --> 00:12:38,800 Speaker 1: sitting at the defense table associated with. So it's not 231 00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:41,240 Speaker 1: uncommon for prosecutors to have to deal with a witness 232 00:12:41,320 --> 00:12:44,080 Speaker 1: who has lied, who has admitted lying. If you lie 233 00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:47,760 Speaker 1: for the defendant previously to cover up what the defendant 234 00:12:47,800 --> 00:12:49,840 Speaker 1: has done and what you yourself has done, and then 235 00:12:49,880 --> 00:12:51,760 Speaker 1: you come clean and then you're going in there and 236 00:12:51,800 --> 00:12:55,120 Speaker 1: talking to them under oath, that's something that prosecutors can 237 00:12:55,240 --> 00:12:57,760 Speaker 1: explain and do explain all the time. And that's what 238 00:12:57,840 --> 00:13:01,400 Speaker 1: happened here. So you know, I think that they definitely 239 00:13:01,440 --> 00:13:04,800 Speaker 1: have a shot at putting on Michael Cohen's testimony and 240 00:13:04,840 --> 00:13:07,200 Speaker 1: getting a jury to believe it. And you do that 241 00:13:07,280 --> 00:13:10,520 Speaker 1: by explaining what it is and also by corroborating it. 242 00:13:10,600 --> 00:13:13,160 Speaker 1: You know how much corroboration is there. Michael Cohen says 243 00:13:13,240 --> 00:13:16,280 Speaker 1: he was paid you know, periodically in this amount, and 244 00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:18,560 Speaker 1: guess what you have the checks that support that, you know, 245 00:13:18,600 --> 00:13:21,320 Speaker 1: and you kind of corroborate it by the physical evidence 246 00:13:21,440 --> 00:13:24,200 Speaker 1: and the testimony of other witnesses, and you put it 247 00:13:24,200 --> 00:13:26,520 Speaker 1: all together and say do you believe him? Yeah? You should. 248 00:13:26,559 --> 00:13:28,600 Speaker 1: You're telling you the truth, and here's how you know that. So, 249 00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:31,200 Speaker 1: you know, looks like they're going to use him. I 250 00:13:31,240 --> 00:13:33,520 Speaker 1: assume that means that they think that they need him, 251 00:13:34,080 --> 00:13:37,719 Speaker 1: and we'll see how it goes. What do you think 252 00:13:37,760 --> 00:13:40,320 Speaker 1: of the fact that they call Stormy Daniels in to 253 00:13:40,480 --> 00:13:44,280 Speaker 1: talk to them the prosecutors did, but not to testify 254 00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:48,040 Speaker 1: before the grand jury. Yeah, it's it's interesting. I mean, 255 00:13:48,200 --> 00:13:51,000 Speaker 1: I'm not surprised that they want to speak to everyone 256 00:13:51,120 --> 00:13:55,520 Speaker 1: who might potentially be a witness or has some information. 257 00:13:56,160 --> 00:13:58,160 Speaker 1: If they don't put her in the grand jury, it 258 00:13:58,240 --> 00:14:01,920 Speaker 1: suggests she's not strictly next story. In New York State, 259 00:14:02,040 --> 00:14:04,800 Speaker 1: it's different from the federal system. In the federal system, 260 00:14:05,080 --> 00:14:06,839 Speaker 1: you can go into the grand jury with just one 261 00:14:06,880 --> 00:14:08,959 Speaker 1: witness that can be your case agent, and they can 262 00:14:09,000 --> 00:14:11,880 Speaker 1: testify about everything that they've learned about the case, including 263 00:14:11,920 --> 00:14:14,120 Speaker 1: from other people and so on. In New York State, 264 00:14:14,120 --> 00:14:16,760 Speaker 1: you can't put in hearsay. So if they thought that 265 00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:19,320 Speaker 1: they needed something from her, that she's the only person 266 00:14:19,400 --> 00:14:21,520 Speaker 1: who could provide they would have to put her into 267 00:14:21,520 --> 00:14:24,360 Speaker 1: the grand jury really in order to get their indictment, 268 00:14:24,400 --> 00:14:26,960 Speaker 1: So it suggests they don't really need her need her. 269 00:14:27,320 --> 00:14:29,760 Speaker 1: Maybe they're just trying to assess whether they want to 270 00:14:29,880 --> 00:14:33,560 Speaker 1: use her as an added benefit. You know, I'm not 271 00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:37,080 Speaker 1: sure exactly why they were talking to her now, except 272 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:40,000 Speaker 1: that it again kind of highlights that they're really at 273 00:14:40,000 --> 00:14:42,160 Speaker 1: the end of this thing. You know, they really are 274 00:14:42,200 --> 00:14:44,960 Speaker 1: wrapping everything up and you know, wanting to talk to 275 00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:48,120 Speaker 1: everyone and put their case fully together before they seek 276 00:14:48,200 --> 00:14:52,640 Speaker 1: the indictment. So we'll see, it makes it kind of sensational, right, 277 00:14:52,720 --> 00:14:55,680 Speaker 1: And the question is do you want to try to 278 00:14:55,720 --> 00:14:59,040 Speaker 1: do this in this streamline a case is possible like 279 00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:01,280 Speaker 1: the way that you would with any other case, I mean, 280 00:15:01,320 --> 00:15:04,160 Speaker 1: bringing Stormy Daniels in to testify, because of course you 281 00:15:04,200 --> 00:15:07,840 Speaker 1: won't have any personal knowledge about how the payments were 282 00:15:07,920 --> 00:15:11,440 Speaker 1: done and how Michael Cohen was reimbursed and what Trump 283 00:15:11,520 --> 00:15:14,320 Speaker 1: knew about those reimbursements and stuff. She's only brought in 284 00:15:14,360 --> 00:15:17,480 Speaker 1: to say, you know, yes, we had sex, and so 285 00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:20,320 Speaker 1: is that worth it in terms of making this even 286 00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:23,640 Speaker 1: more sensational than it already is? So they might be 287 00:15:23,720 --> 00:15:26,920 Speaker 1: mulling over that question. So if they do indict him, 288 00:15:27,320 --> 00:15:29,200 Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sure there won't be a perp walk 289 00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:34,240 Speaker 1: or handcuffs, But otherwise, will he be treated like an 290 00:15:34,240 --> 00:15:36,920 Speaker 1: average defendant? I mean, can he be treated like an 291 00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:40,160 Speaker 1: average defendant when he has Secret Service with him all 292 00:15:40,160 --> 00:15:43,800 Speaker 1: the time. Yeah, I think he'll be treated like a 293 00:15:44,200 --> 00:15:48,400 Speaker 1: very very important person, like an uber rich defendant, that 294 00:15:48,440 --> 00:15:50,520 Speaker 1: sort of thing. They certainly will make an agreement with 295 00:15:50,600 --> 00:15:53,360 Speaker 1: him to surrender at a certain time. He will not 296 00:15:53,440 --> 00:15:57,720 Speaker 1: be arrested at six am with handcuffs, perp walks everything. 297 00:15:57,760 --> 00:15:59,920 Speaker 1: As you say, He'll get to show up at a 298 00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:03,000 Speaker 1: time that's agreed with his lawyers. He'll have to be processed. 299 00:16:03,000 --> 00:16:05,360 Speaker 1: I mean, he'll have to go through the same steps 300 00:16:05,360 --> 00:16:07,720 Speaker 1: and go before the judge and do everything like any 301 00:16:07,760 --> 00:16:10,200 Speaker 1: other defendant in a sense. But they'll work that out 302 00:16:10,240 --> 00:16:12,920 Speaker 1: with his lawyers, and they'll work with his Secret Service 303 00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:15,520 Speaker 1: detail and all of that to make sure. You can 304 00:16:15,600 --> 00:16:19,560 Speaker 1: kind of look to how FBI conducted the search warrant 305 00:16:19,680 --> 00:16:22,920 Speaker 1: at Marologa, right, I mean, they went and searched his home, 306 00:16:23,080 --> 00:16:25,080 Speaker 1: and you have to give the lawyers and you have 307 00:16:25,120 --> 00:16:27,320 Speaker 1: to give the Secret Service detail a heads up and 308 00:16:27,360 --> 00:16:29,640 Speaker 1: that sort of thing when things like that are happening, 309 00:16:29,680 --> 00:16:32,680 Speaker 1: and that's what'll happen here. They're professionals, they'll be able 310 00:16:32,680 --> 00:16:35,440 Speaker 1: to work it out, and so of course they'll be 311 00:16:35,720 --> 00:16:38,720 Speaker 1: a Donald Trump mug shot. Yeah, yeah, for sure. And 312 00:16:38,760 --> 00:16:41,320 Speaker 1: I mean obviously that mug shot will be on the 313 00:16:41,320 --> 00:16:45,120 Speaker 1: front pages of every publication and so on whenever gets released. 314 00:16:45,280 --> 00:16:47,000 Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean, all of that, of course happens 315 00:16:47,040 --> 00:16:50,120 Speaker 1: behind closed doors, the processing and stuff, So it'd be 316 00:16:50,160 --> 00:16:52,400 Speaker 1: great to see a camera in there, but that's not 317 00:16:52,440 --> 00:16:55,040 Speaker 1: how it works. Going to be quite a case, thanks 318 00:16:55,040 --> 00:16:59,160 Speaker 1: so much, Jennifer. That's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers, a 319 00:16:59,280 --> 00:17:04,520 Speaker 1: professor at YU Law School. The legal dominoes are being 320 00:17:04,600 --> 00:17:07,480 Speaker 1: lined up and the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and 321 00:17:07,640 --> 00:17:11,240 Speaker 1: Signature Bank. On the federal side, the Justice Department and 322 00:17:11,280 --> 00:17:15,679 Speaker 1: the Securities and Exchange Commission are looking into possible misconduct 323 00:17:15,720 --> 00:17:20,280 Speaker 1: by SVB officers, according to Bloomberg sources. On the civil side, 324 00:17:20,440 --> 00:17:24,880 Speaker 1: investors have filed their first class action lawsuits against both banks, 325 00:17:25,359 --> 00:17:29,400 Speaker 1: joining me as attorney Jim Baar, president of CMBG Advisors. 326 00:17:29,840 --> 00:17:34,520 Speaker 1: The Justice Department and the sec are investigating the collapse 327 00:17:34,560 --> 00:17:37,639 Speaker 1: of Silicon Valley Bank. What kind of things do you 328 00:17:37,680 --> 00:17:42,639 Speaker 1: think they're investigating? And is it unusual? So it's non 329 00:17:42,760 --> 00:17:47,359 Speaker 1: unusual when you have a large collapse like this because 330 00:17:47,440 --> 00:17:50,520 Speaker 1: obviously a lot of people are going to be yelling 331 00:17:50,520 --> 00:17:53,840 Speaker 1: and screaming, think you know what happened? How did this happen? 332 00:17:53,840 --> 00:17:55,359 Speaker 1: And they want to get to the bottom of it. 333 00:17:55,520 --> 00:17:57,639 Speaker 1: So I don't think it's unusual from that perspective. The 334 00:17:57,680 --> 00:18:00,640 Speaker 1: real question is what is it they're looking for here 335 00:18:01,320 --> 00:18:04,440 Speaker 1: and what are the legal risks that are out there 336 00:18:04,480 --> 00:18:07,040 Speaker 1: for the board of directors and you know, the other 337 00:18:07,400 --> 00:18:09,919 Speaker 1: people working at Silicon Valley Bank. And the answer is 338 00:18:10,359 --> 00:18:14,080 Speaker 1: that there's two aspects of this bank failure. There is 339 00:18:14,119 --> 00:18:16,280 Speaker 1: the fact that there was a run on their deposits, 340 00:18:16,800 --> 00:18:19,199 Speaker 1: where you have to have a certain amount of deposits 341 00:18:19,240 --> 00:18:22,440 Speaker 1: obviously in order to have you meet your counter requirements. 342 00:18:22,480 --> 00:18:25,159 Speaker 1: And the run on the bank obviously was a problem. 343 00:18:25,200 --> 00:18:29,040 Speaker 1: But that begs the question, which is was there a 344 00:18:29,080 --> 00:18:32,640 Speaker 1: reason a concern that all of a sudden had been 345 00:18:32,760 --> 00:18:36,840 Speaker 1: underappreciated that came out. Because if there's an unappreciated risk, 346 00:18:37,480 --> 00:18:41,040 Speaker 1: there's the depositor who are at risk, but there's also 347 00:18:41,080 --> 00:18:43,520 Speaker 1: the investors who are at risk because people are buying 348 00:18:43,560 --> 00:18:46,679 Speaker 1: the stock in the stock market, they're trading in the 349 00:18:46,760 --> 00:18:50,720 Speaker 1: securities on the basis that they think it's a good investment. 350 00:18:50,800 --> 00:18:53,760 Speaker 1: So when the stock has gone down as dramatically as 351 00:18:53,800 --> 00:18:57,120 Speaker 1: it did and there was this risk, which is all 352 00:18:57,119 --> 00:19:02,640 Speaker 1: these deposits could disappear, the question is was their mismanagement, 353 00:19:02,840 --> 00:19:06,280 Speaker 1: was their fraud, was their negligence in the way that 354 00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:09,199 Speaker 1: it was described in their financial statements, And that's what 355 00:19:09,280 --> 00:19:14,520 Speaker 1: the SEC's focusing on. Apparently they're also examining stock sales 356 00:19:14,560 --> 00:19:19,360 Speaker 1: that svb's officers may have made days before the bank failed. 357 00:19:20,160 --> 00:19:22,560 Speaker 1: That is correct, So there's two issues there as well. 358 00:19:22,680 --> 00:19:26,920 Speaker 1: So again, officers that own stock in a bank are 359 00:19:26,960 --> 00:19:30,120 Speaker 1: able to sell, but one of the concerns is they 360 00:19:30,160 --> 00:19:34,480 Speaker 1: have access to inside information and if they trade on 361 00:19:34,520 --> 00:19:39,040 Speaker 1: that information, they're in an advantage. That the regular investment 362 00:19:39,119 --> 00:19:41,879 Speaker 1: does not have access to that information, they're at a disadvantage. 363 00:19:42,240 --> 00:19:45,680 Speaker 1: So the question is when the officers sell stock, did 364 00:19:45,680 --> 00:19:50,240 Speaker 1: they do so appropriately or did they trade because they 365 00:19:50,320 --> 00:19:52,560 Speaker 1: knew something bad was going to happen that other people 366 00:19:52,600 --> 00:19:55,480 Speaker 1: did not, which is considered unfair. So we should point 367 00:19:55,520 --> 00:19:59,439 Speaker 1: out that very recently they continued to tighten up the 368 00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:04,439 Speaker 1: rules under which officers can sell. There are restrictions in 369 00:20:04,520 --> 00:20:08,719 Speaker 1: terms of time periods, there are waiting periods. There are 370 00:20:08,720 --> 00:20:12,800 Speaker 1: things designed to level the playing field so that officers 371 00:20:13,040 --> 00:20:16,840 Speaker 1: are not able to take advantage of insight information and 372 00:20:16,920 --> 00:20:19,240 Speaker 1: sell when no one else knows what's really going on. 373 00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:24,120 Speaker 1: And in this instance, because those news rules were in effect, 374 00:20:24,480 --> 00:20:28,679 Speaker 1: my understanding is that the officers did sell consistent with 375 00:20:28,720 --> 00:20:32,720 Speaker 1: those new rules. But it still begs the question were 376 00:20:33,280 --> 00:20:37,560 Speaker 1: they aware that there were more risks with the bank 377 00:20:38,080 --> 00:20:41,480 Speaker 1: that have been otherwise properly disclosed in their financial statements? 378 00:20:41,480 --> 00:20:44,679 Speaker 1: And if there were, then they have exposure. From that perspective, 379 00:20:44,960 --> 00:20:50,359 Speaker 1: the SEC and the DOJ investigating after an incident like 380 00:20:50,400 --> 00:20:53,560 Speaker 1: this or a few incidents like this, that's not unusual, 381 00:20:53,760 --> 00:20:56,320 Speaker 1: is it. I mean, it doesn't indicate that anything really 382 00:20:56,640 --> 00:21:00,000 Speaker 1: was done wrong. No, I think again, I've said this before. 383 00:21:00,359 --> 00:21:03,440 Speaker 1: I don't like this mass hysteri where people jump to conclusions. 384 00:21:03,800 --> 00:21:05,800 Speaker 1: We really do try to have a system that says 385 00:21:05,840 --> 00:21:09,360 Speaker 1: innocent until proven guilty. And so the answer is that, yes, 386 00:21:09,520 --> 00:21:13,000 Speaker 1: something this large is going to trigger an investigation, but 387 00:21:13,040 --> 00:21:17,959 Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that there was nefarious activities like m RON. Also, 388 00:21:18,119 --> 00:21:21,080 Speaker 1: we've had the first securities class action, the first of 389 00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:26,120 Speaker 1: many I suspect, and this goes to what the officers did, 390 00:21:26,240 --> 00:21:30,280 Speaker 1: so explain what the security class action is about. So 391 00:21:31,080 --> 00:21:36,240 Speaker 1: when you have a stock decline in a precipitous manner, 392 00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:41,120 Speaker 1: there's a whole industry of what we call plaintiff's attorneys 393 00:21:41,880 --> 00:21:45,600 Speaker 1: securities lawyers that follow the stock market, and when the 394 00:21:45,680 --> 00:21:50,200 Speaker 1: stock declines quickly, they often file what's called a class 395 00:21:50,200 --> 00:21:55,919 Speaker 1: action lawsuit alleging that there was something materially misleading in 396 00:21:56,000 --> 00:22:00,960 Speaker 1: the financial statements, either there was an omission or a misstatement. 397 00:22:01,320 --> 00:22:05,440 Speaker 1: Now there's an old expression, bad facts make bad law, 398 00:22:05,640 --> 00:22:09,080 Speaker 1: and also looking at something with twenty twenty hindsight. But 399 00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:13,200 Speaker 1: what these lawyers have figured out is where there's smoke, 400 00:22:13,280 --> 00:22:17,760 Speaker 1: there is often fire. So when a stock declines precipitously, 401 00:22:18,400 --> 00:22:22,120 Speaker 1: it begs the question, if you had been disclosing your 402 00:22:22,240 --> 00:22:28,880 Speaker 1: risks properly, why wouldn't the market react over time and 403 00:22:29,240 --> 00:22:31,880 Speaker 1: bring the stock to an appropriate level. But if there's 404 00:22:31,880 --> 00:22:35,080 Speaker 1: a precipitous drop, was there something you should have been 405 00:22:35,119 --> 00:22:38,640 Speaker 1: telling people that you weren't, So, for instance, the fact 406 00:22:38,720 --> 00:22:44,000 Speaker 1: that they had so much money in deposits that were unensured. Well, 407 00:22:45,320 --> 00:22:48,399 Speaker 1: that's an unusual situation. Is it something that should have 408 00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:51,520 Speaker 1: been disclosed? Was it disclosed? I don't know, but it 409 00:22:51,640 --> 00:22:56,159 Speaker 1: begs the question was this bank at a higher degree 410 00:22:56,200 --> 00:22:59,560 Speaker 1: of risk and other financial institutions because it had such 411 00:22:59,560 --> 00:23:03,280 Speaker 1: a law large percentage of its money in non sticky deposits. 412 00:23:03,640 --> 00:23:06,760 Speaker 1: And if that was the case, was it disclosed? Number one? 413 00:23:07,160 --> 00:23:10,160 Speaker 1: Then number two? For instance, the bank had certain types 414 00:23:10,200 --> 00:23:13,040 Speaker 1: of investments we focus on over those good investments in 415 00:23:13,119 --> 00:23:15,480 Speaker 1: terms of buying T bills, You're buying T bills in 416 00:23:15,520 --> 00:23:19,320 Speaker 1: a rising interest rate environment. That portfolio went down and 417 00:23:19,440 --> 00:23:23,440 Speaker 1: valued dramatically? Was that disclosed? Should they have disclosed that 418 00:23:23,520 --> 00:23:27,520 Speaker 1: they weren't hedging like other financial institutions. So what these 419 00:23:27,560 --> 00:23:31,240 Speaker 1: class action lawyers are looking for is evidence in the 420 00:23:31,320 --> 00:23:36,439 Speaker 1: financial disclosures with the sec the ten ks, the annual report, 421 00:23:36,800 --> 00:23:42,640 Speaker 1: and so forth. They're looking for evidence that proper disclosures 422 00:23:42,680 --> 00:23:46,040 Speaker 1: were not being made. Do you expect a rash of 423 00:23:46,119 --> 00:23:50,960 Speaker 1: lawsuits requesting class action status? Yeah? I think what's going 424 00:23:51,040 --> 00:23:55,960 Speaker 1: to happen is as more and more companies disclosed the 425 00:23:56,000 --> 00:24:00,800 Speaker 1: true nature of their earnings. So again, if you're a bank, 426 00:24:01,160 --> 00:24:06,679 Speaker 1: or you're a company that's been artificially making profits based 427 00:24:06,720 --> 00:24:11,800 Speaker 1: on these low interest rates that we've experienced. As interest 428 00:24:11,880 --> 00:24:17,040 Speaker 1: rates stay higher than people expect, what's going to happen 429 00:24:17,119 --> 00:24:19,679 Speaker 1: is you're gonna have more and more companies reporting lower 430 00:24:19,720 --> 00:24:23,360 Speaker 1: earnings and their stocks are going to get hammered. And yes, 431 00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:26,800 Speaker 1: there will be lawsuits saying how could this happen? And 432 00:24:27,200 --> 00:24:29,800 Speaker 1: I think we are just at the beginning of that cycle. 433 00:24:30,520 --> 00:24:33,240 Speaker 1: A lot of people are looking at the rollback of 434 00:24:33,359 --> 00:24:37,359 Speaker 1: the Dodd Frank under the Trump administration. Do you think 435 00:24:37,480 --> 00:24:41,080 Speaker 1: if those rules had been in place that this would 436 00:24:41,160 --> 00:24:45,720 Speaker 1: not have happened. So that's a great question, and the 437 00:24:45,800 --> 00:24:49,919 Speaker 1: answer is will never know for sure, But we certainly 438 00:24:50,000 --> 00:24:57,360 Speaker 1: know that these financial institutions in two and eighteen lobbied 439 00:24:57,480 --> 00:25:04,800 Speaker 1: Congress to change dot Frank, to basically change the rules 440 00:25:04,840 --> 00:25:07,480 Speaker 1: such that if you were a certain size institution, you 441 00:25:07,520 --> 00:25:11,400 Speaker 1: were not one of the quote, really large banks. There 442 00:25:11,480 --> 00:25:15,520 Speaker 1: was an ability to loosen up the regulations and allow 443 00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:19,399 Speaker 1: less scrutiny by the regulators and broader flexibility in the 444 00:25:19,440 --> 00:25:22,960 Speaker 1: guise of investments that you made and the man in 445 00:25:22,960 --> 00:25:26,440 Speaker 1: which the company is being runned. And so that law 446 00:25:26,600 --> 00:25:30,080 Speaker 1: was changed in twenty eighteen in Silicon Valley Bank did 447 00:25:30,119 --> 00:25:34,640 Speaker 1: benefit from it, and as did by Play many other 448 00:25:34,760 --> 00:25:38,320 Speaker 1: financial institutions, and that's what we're still waiting to see. 449 00:25:38,320 --> 00:25:40,440 Speaker 1: Is the other shoe gonna drop? Because it does bang. 450 00:25:40,520 --> 00:25:44,000 Speaker 1: The question are there risks out there with many other 451 00:25:44,119 --> 00:25:47,439 Speaker 1: banks that have not been properly disclosed. My suspicion is 452 00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:50,679 Speaker 1: that there are other banks out there where these things 453 00:25:50,720 --> 00:25:55,840 Speaker 1: had not been disclosed. What's happening with SVB now The 454 00:25:55,960 --> 00:25:59,280 Speaker 1: FDIC has stepped in and is essentially running the bank 455 00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:02,800 Speaker 1: at this point, and they are looking to sell off 456 00:26:03,480 --> 00:26:06,080 Speaker 1: pieces of the bank. My understanding is they had other 457 00:26:06,160 --> 00:26:09,800 Speaker 1: divisions and operations that are also being marketed, and at 458 00:26:09,800 --> 00:26:12,560 Speaker 1: this point, really what's happening is they're looking to see 459 00:26:12,600 --> 00:26:16,119 Speaker 1: if there are institutions they want to take over the 460 00:26:16,200 --> 00:26:18,520 Speaker 1: different aspects of the business, just like I don't know 461 00:26:18,520 --> 00:26:22,240 Speaker 1: if you saw in Britain they sold the British subsidiary 462 00:26:22,240 --> 00:26:25,760 Speaker 1: for a dollar or a pound. Yesterday, President Biden said 463 00:26:25,840 --> 00:26:28,720 Speaker 1: the FDIC is in charge of the bank and all 464 00:26:28,720 --> 00:26:31,639 Speaker 1: the bank officers are going to be fired and basically 465 00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:34,400 Speaker 1: we're going to hold people responsible. Do you think that's 466 00:26:34,440 --> 00:26:36,919 Speaker 1: really likely to happen? You know, just like when we 467 00:26:36,920 --> 00:26:38,920 Speaker 1: look back to the two thousand and eight crisis, it 468 00:26:39,080 --> 00:26:41,600 Speaker 1: started and you know, there were certain warning signs, and 469 00:26:41,640 --> 00:26:43,639 Speaker 1: then there was Lehman and there was bear Stearns, and 470 00:26:43,680 --> 00:26:47,919 Speaker 1: there's AIG's built if you go back, they started raising 471 00:26:47,960 --> 00:26:51,399 Speaker 1: interest rates, right, So the first most vulnerable thing to 472 00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:56,080 Speaker 1: blow is crypto. We had the fts situation. When credit 473 00:26:56,160 --> 00:27:00,960 Speaker 1: starts drawing up, the people that are the most over 474 00:27:01,240 --> 00:27:05,240 Speaker 1: leveraged and the most exposed, they're the first to fall. 475 00:27:05,920 --> 00:27:10,080 Speaker 1: So it started with crypto. Crypto really fell and it's 476 00:27:10,119 --> 00:27:14,480 Speaker 1: continuing to fall and go back and forth. Now technology, right, 477 00:27:14,560 --> 00:27:18,840 Speaker 1: because technology also you had over extension and people having 478 00:27:18,880 --> 00:27:22,359 Speaker 1: to go back and refining it. And so when you 479 00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:26,080 Speaker 1: look at this from the government's perspective, they came out 480 00:27:26,200 --> 00:27:31,200 Speaker 1: hard against crypto because looking back to the days where 481 00:27:31,240 --> 00:27:35,360 Speaker 1: we had President Obama and the whole issues with Occupy 482 00:27:35,440 --> 00:27:39,479 Speaker 1: Wall Street, there was a huge political backlash because no 483 00:27:39,520 --> 00:27:43,359 Speaker 1: one went to jail and they bailed out the banks. Well, 484 00:27:43,520 --> 00:27:46,720 Speaker 1: this time they're saying, we didn't bail out anybody with 485 00:27:46,840 --> 00:27:50,840 Speaker 1: government money. The financial system is being taken care of 486 00:27:50,880 --> 00:27:53,959 Speaker 1: by its own, meaning we're going to raise fees on 487 00:27:54,040 --> 00:27:58,800 Speaker 1: banks to pay off the losses at Signal Bank in 488 00:27:58,880 --> 00:28:02,120 Speaker 1: Silicon Valley Bank. That's the beginning and they can do that, 489 00:28:02,880 --> 00:28:04,680 Speaker 1: and then they can also try to make examples of 490 00:28:04,760 --> 00:28:07,120 Speaker 1: some of these executives to say, see, we're getting tough 491 00:28:07,160 --> 00:28:10,120 Speaker 1: on this. We're not going to stand still like what's 492 00:28:10,119 --> 00:28:14,960 Speaker 1: happening in crypto. What begs the question is if this 493 00:28:15,080 --> 00:28:20,240 Speaker 1: spreads to other institutions, you're a lot more people exposed 494 00:28:20,600 --> 00:28:23,600 Speaker 1: than just a few institutions. And then the question is 495 00:28:23,640 --> 00:28:25,840 Speaker 1: what's the government going to do, Because at the end 496 00:28:25,880 --> 00:28:30,240 Speaker 1: of the day, this is the government caused problem. The 497 00:28:30,280 --> 00:28:33,920 Speaker 1: government kept interest rates artificially low, which led money going 498 00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:37,560 Speaker 1: to risky assets, and investors are going to basically, if 499 00:28:37,560 --> 00:28:40,840 Speaker 1: they're given money and they have to invest it, they're 500 00:28:40,840 --> 00:28:42,640 Speaker 1: going to invest it one way or the other. That's 501 00:28:42,640 --> 00:28:47,520 Speaker 1: what they do. And the government led up regulations, so 502 00:28:47,600 --> 00:28:51,120 Speaker 1: you have a perfect storm. No regulation or limited regulation 503 00:28:51,680 --> 00:28:54,920 Speaker 1: together with low interest rates is going to lead to 504 00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:57,320 Speaker 1: a lot of loss of money. And then the government's 505 00:28:57,320 --> 00:28:59,680 Speaker 1: going to have a lot of explaining to do. And yes, 506 00:28:59,760 --> 00:29:02,520 Speaker 1: I think they're going to be looking for holding people accountable, 507 00:29:02,880 --> 00:29:04,680 Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, I think it's 508 00:29:04,760 --> 00:29:08,600 Speaker 1: all of the money going into politics. It's allowed these 509 00:29:08,640 --> 00:29:12,640 Speaker 1: regulations to get rolled back, and it's the lack of accountability. 510 00:29:12,840 --> 00:29:16,160 Speaker 1: And so I'm hoping what happens is that we do 511 00:29:16,240 --> 00:29:18,960 Speaker 1: a deep dive like we did after the Great Depression 512 00:29:19,360 --> 00:29:21,800 Speaker 1: when we adopted the thirty three and thirty four Act 513 00:29:22,520 --> 00:29:24,960 Speaker 1: and what we started to do. If you read Obama's book, 514 00:29:25,200 --> 00:29:28,320 Speaker 1: he said he didn't go far enough. Well that's true. 515 00:29:28,360 --> 00:29:31,360 Speaker 1: Like the Guns of August. Barbara Tuckman's book, World War 516 00:29:31,400 --> 00:29:34,440 Speaker 1: One never ended. World War two is a continuation. I 517 00:29:34,480 --> 00:29:36,520 Speaker 1: don't think the recession of two and eight, two thou 518 00:29:36,720 --> 00:29:40,160 Speaker 1: nine ended. We've papered it over with cheap money and 519 00:29:40,880 --> 00:29:44,520 Speaker 1: rolling back regulation which allowed this party to go on 520 00:29:44,640 --> 00:29:47,320 Speaker 1: in other twelve years. Well, guess what with a thirty 521 00:29:47,320 --> 00:29:49,920 Speaker 1: one trillion dollars deficit and a FED balance sheet of 522 00:29:49,960 --> 00:29:53,880 Speaker 1: ten trillion dollars, the party is over and it's going 523 00:29:53,920 --> 00:29:56,960 Speaker 1: to be painful. Thanks so much for being on the show, Jim. 524 00:29:57,360 --> 00:30:03,480 Speaker 1: That's Jim Bear, President of CMBG Advisors. The danger of 525 00:30:03,560 --> 00:30:08,320 Speaker 1: forever chemicals has long been known. Environmental and public health 526 00:30:08,360 --> 00:30:13,120 Speaker 1: advocates have called for federal regulation of PFOS chemicals for years, 527 00:30:13,160 --> 00:30:16,440 Speaker 1: and so have lawmakers. Let's not beat around the bush here. 528 00:30:16,480 --> 00:30:19,600 Speaker 1: The chemicals are toxic. They are known as forever chemicals. 529 00:30:20,080 --> 00:30:22,800 Speaker 1: They do not easily break down. Instead, they accumulate in 530 00:30:22,840 --> 00:30:27,600 Speaker 1: the environment and in the human body. You know, there's 531 00:30:27,600 --> 00:30:32,400 Speaker 1: an old saying that says nothing lasts forever. Unfortunately, nothing 532 00:30:32,560 --> 00:30:36,760 Speaker 1: that is, except for fluorinated chemicals. That was former US 533 00:30:36,880 --> 00:30:41,280 Speaker 1: Representative Harley Ruda and Representative Debbie Dingle at a hearing 534 00:30:41,280 --> 00:30:44,200 Speaker 1: of the House Subcommittee on the Environment more than three 535 00:30:44,280 --> 00:30:48,200 Speaker 1: years ago. Public concern has increased in recent years as 536 00:30:48,280 --> 00:30:52,120 Speaker 1: testing reveal p fos chemicals in a growing list of communities. 537 00:30:52,400 --> 00:30:55,880 Speaker 1: The US hasn't regulated a new contaminant in drinking water 538 00:30:55,960 --> 00:31:00,000 Speaker 1: in nearly thirty years, but on Tuesday, the Environmental Protection 539 00:31:00,000 --> 00:31:04,240 Speaker 1: an Agency proposed the first federal limits on harmful forever 540 00:31:04,400 --> 00:31:08,560 Speaker 1: chemicals and drinking water along away to protection, the agency said, 541 00:31:08,600 --> 00:31:12,840 Speaker 1: will save thousands of lies and prevent serious illnesses. Journing 542 00:31:12,880 --> 00:31:17,120 Speaker 1: me is environmental law attorney Joel Johnston, a partner at Hollestal. 543 00:31:17,560 --> 00:31:21,440 Speaker 1: I want to start with having you explain exactly what 544 00:31:21,560 --> 00:31:27,320 Speaker 1: are forever chemicals. So pfas, which are referred to as 545 00:31:27,480 --> 00:31:32,960 Speaker 1: forever chemicals, are really quite a number. You know, there's 546 00:31:33,000 --> 00:31:38,240 Speaker 1: probably hundreds of them that exist. They're used throughout every 547 00:31:38,320 --> 00:31:43,200 Speaker 1: type of product virtually. They're used in raincoats, they're used 548 00:31:43,240 --> 00:31:49,440 Speaker 1: in food packaging, they're used in rugs and textiles. And 549 00:31:50,080 --> 00:31:53,600 Speaker 1: once they get into the environment, either through a release 550 00:31:54,080 --> 00:31:59,120 Speaker 1: at say a chemical plant or a manufacturing facility, or 551 00:31:59,240 --> 00:32:03,840 Speaker 1: simply through the breakdown of products, you know, wherever they are, 552 00:32:04,200 --> 00:32:07,520 Speaker 1: these compounds get into the environment. They get into the soil, 553 00:32:07,600 --> 00:32:10,400 Speaker 1: they get into the water, and we find that they 554 00:32:10,440 --> 00:32:14,400 Speaker 1: get into people's bodies and they really don't break down 555 00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:18,680 Speaker 1: efficiently at all, and so they're widespread use. And then 556 00:32:18,720 --> 00:32:22,160 Speaker 1: the fact that they really don't degrade like a lot 557 00:32:22,240 --> 00:32:25,520 Speaker 1: of other chemicals do over time means that they're just 558 00:32:26,160 --> 00:32:31,040 Speaker 1: very very prevalent throughout the environment. We're finding and what 559 00:32:31,120 --> 00:32:34,800 Speaker 1: are the health hazards that have been reported or discovered? 560 00:32:35,720 --> 00:32:38,760 Speaker 1: So a lot of that is still being researched, but 561 00:32:39,200 --> 00:32:43,160 Speaker 1: there have been confirmations that a number of these compounds 562 00:32:43,160 --> 00:32:47,560 Speaker 1: are cancer causing with really no safe level of exposure. 563 00:32:48,360 --> 00:32:54,840 Speaker 1: Others are linked to various types of reproductive health, cardiovascular issues, 564 00:32:55,040 --> 00:32:58,320 Speaker 1: organ damage, and so forth. So how big a step 565 00:32:58,520 --> 00:33:01,520 Speaker 1: is this for the EPA seems like it was years 566 00:33:01,520 --> 00:33:05,680 Speaker 1: in the making. It has Benjie, And the reality is 567 00:33:05,760 --> 00:33:10,440 Speaker 1: that PFA compounds have been identified as being problematic for 568 00:33:10,560 --> 00:33:17,800 Speaker 1: quite some time, and with pretty overwhelming bipartisan support and 569 00:33:17,880 --> 00:33:22,640 Speaker 1: I think support throughout even industry. What's happened is that 570 00:33:22,680 --> 00:33:27,040 Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one the EPA, the administration laid out 571 00:33:27,080 --> 00:33:30,920 Speaker 1: really a roadmap, if you will, of various actions that 572 00:33:31,320 --> 00:33:35,200 Speaker 1: it was looking to take with respect to PFA's This 573 00:33:35,320 --> 00:33:38,160 Speaker 1: is really just one of those, but I think it's 574 00:33:38,160 --> 00:33:42,240 Speaker 1: a significant one in the sense that it really seeks 575 00:33:42,280 --> 00:33:45,480 Speaker 1: to limit exposures through the way that so many people 576 00:33:45,880 --> 00:33:49,960 Speaker 1: can annoyingly be exposed, which is through just water coming 577 00:33:50,000 --> 00:33:54,000 Speaker 1: out of the faucet. And the impacts will be potentially 578 00:33:54,040 --> 00:33:59,400 Speaker 1: significant on water utilities that identify that they've got problems 579 00:33:59,440 --> 00:34:03,440 Speaker 1: with their supply. But you know, some water systems are 580 00:34:03,440 --> 00:34:06,080 Speaker 1: going to have no issue. They don't detect them business 581 00:34:06,160 --> 00:34:10,640 Speaker 1: as usual other than ongoing sampling requirements. Water systems that 582 00:34:10,719 --> 00:34:14,719 Speaker 1: identify that they have these contaminants present in amounts that 583 00:34:14,840 --> 00:34:18,800 Speaker 1: exceed the EPA's threshold that they're setting through this rule 584 00:34:19,080 --> 00:34:22,239 Speaker 1: would be required to either clean up that water or 585 00:34:22,400 --> 00:34:25,320 Speaker 1: to provide a new source of water tell us a 586 00:34:25,320 --> 00:34:30,080 Speaker 1: little about the proposed rule. So the main brunt of 587 00:34:30,160 --> 00:34:34,399 Speaker 1: these new rules is that if they are finalized, which 588 00:34:34,400 --> 00:34:37,280 Speaker 1: the EPA would hope to do through the rulemaking process 589 00:34:37,320 --> 00:34:40,839 Speaker 1: by the end of the year starting in twenty twenty four, 590 00:34:41,640 --> 00:34:46,920 Speaker 1: essentially every water supply system in the country would be 591 00:34:47,000 --> 00:34:51,720 Speaker 1: required to sample their water supply a number of times 592 00:34:51,800 --> 00:34:56,600 Speaker 1: over the following twelve months to confirm that they do 593 00:34:56,719 --> 00:35:01,319 Speaker 1: or do not have these compounds present. And as the 594 00:35:01,480 --> 00:35:05,719 Speaker 1: rule is effectively drafted, what that would then require for 595 00:35:05,800 --> 00:35:10,960 Speaker 1: those water systems that you know identify these compounds is 596 00:35:11,280 --> 00:35:15,000 Speaker 1: either they need to remove the compounds from the water 597 00:35:15,520 --> 00:35:19,360 Speaker 1: some sort of engineering filters, that kind of thing, or 598 00:35:19,640 --> 00:35:23,280 Speaker 1: they would need to source new water. So that's really 599 00:35:23,320 --> 00:35:27,680 Speaker 1: the brunt of it is a the sampling obligations to 600 00:35:27,719 --> 00:35:31,920 Speaker 1: test and confirm and identify and then be if there 601 00:35:31,960 --> 00:35:37,120 Speaker 1: are issues, the requirement to resolve those issues so that 602 00:35:37,200 --> 00:35:41,640 Speaker 1: the levels present in the water supplier below the EPA threshold. 603 00:35:42,120 --> 00:35:47,960 Speaker 1: How difficult will that be and how costly for water utilities? Well, 604 00:35:47,960 --> 00:35:52,160 Speaker 1: the good news is that the Infrastructure Act has already 605 00:35:52,239 --> 00:35:58,160 Speaker 1: started to provide funding for this type of sampling, specifically 606 00:35:58,200 --> 00:36:04,520 Speaker 1: targeted at rural water systems, smaller water systems, and water 607 00:36:04,600 --> 00:36:10,040 Speaker 1: systems in areas where the community just can't afford to 608 00:36:10,080 --> 00:36:14,880 Speaker 1: take this on. But the sampling obligations are more comprehensive. 609 00:36:14,920 --> 00:36:19,360 Speaker 1: For larger water utilities, the requirements are a little bit lower, 610 00:36:19,400 --> 00:36:24,040 Speaker 1: for there's not quite as much sampling required for smaller 611 00:36:24,160 --> 00:36:28,240 Speaker 1: utilities that supply I think under ten thousand people or something, 612 00:36:28,719 --> 00:36:32,000 Speaker 1: and so you know that we're talking about sampling a 613 00:36:32,040 --> 00:36:35,280 Speaker 1: couple of times a year from all throughout their system. 614 00:36:35,400 --> 00:36:38,200 Speaker 1: So for example, where I live in Denver, Denver Water 615 00:36:38,280 --> 00:36:40,840 Speaker 1: has got a lot of samples that they're going to 616 00:36:40,920 --> 00:36:45,759 Speaker 1: need to collect, for example, all their storage locations and 617 00:36:45,760 --> 00:36:50,160 Speaker 1: so forth. I think the bigger challenge is that some 618 00:36:50,239 --> 00:36:53,840 Speaker 1: of the chemicals that are being regulated have been determined 619 00:36:53,880 --> 00:36:58,040 Speaker 1: to have really no safe exposure level. Yet the technology, 620 00:36:58,600 --> 00:37:02,960 Speaker 1: the current state of test doesn't really effectively allow us 621 00:37:03,080 --> 00:37:06,480 Speaker 1: to test below the level that the EPA has had 622 00:37:06,520 --> 00:37:09,400 Speaker 1: to set, which is very very low for some of these, 623 00:37:10,000 --> 00:37:14,480 Speaker 1: you know, four parts per trillion, and the testing to 624 00:37:14,520 --> 00:37:19,520 Speaker 1: determine compounds at that low of a concentration is complicated. 625 00:37:20,200 --> 00:37:23,080 Speaker 1: And so I think that what we'll also see over 626 00:37:23,160 --> 00:37:29,200 Speaker 1: time as you know, presumably that technology, those testing methodologies, 627 00:37:29,640 --> 00:37:33,000 Speaker 1: you know, improve and get more accurate over time. This, 628 00:37:33,120 --> 00:37:35,200 Speaker 1: as you mentioned, is a proposed rule. It has to 629 00:37:35,239 --> 00:37:39,799 Speaker 1: be finalized. Do you think there'll be opposition from industry 630 00:37:39,840 --> 00:37:45,160 Speaker 1: groups like the American Chemistry Council and water utility groups 631 00:37:45,760 --> 00:37:49,600 Speaker 1: to some degree? Yes, you know, there are a number 632 00:37:49,640 --> 00:37:53,000 Speaker 1: of states, I think six or seven states that have 633 00:37:53,080 --> 00:37:59,560 Speaker 1: already passed fairly stringent regulations about PFA's main is one 634 00:37:59,640 --> 00:38:04,240 Speaker 1: that has really banned them in any consumer product, whether 635 00:38:04,280 --> 00:38:07,400 Speaker 1: they're added or not. California has got a number of 636 00:38:07,880 --> 00:38:13,279 Speaker 1: fairly stringent regulations. So states have already been moving Some 637 00:38:13,320 --> 00:38:17,080 Speaker 1: states have already been moving towards this. I think that 638 00:38:17,239 --> 00:38:22,200 Speaker 1: it's the rule around drinking water is fairly hard to oppose. 639 00:38:22,960 --> 00:38:28,239 Speaker 1: It doesn't directly cut into manufacturers. It's not, you know, 640 00:38:28,440 --> 00:38:32,080 Speaker 1: regulating how much they can use in their factory or 641 00:38:32,080 --> 00:38:36,279 Speaker 1: how they have to report it. It's really strictly addressing 642 00:38:36,680 --> 00:38:39,800 Speaker 1: the exposure at the at the community drinking water level. 643 00:38:40,320 --> 00:38:44,360 Speaker 1: I think that most water utilities support the rule, but 644 00:38:44,840 --> 00:38:48,320 Speaker 1: are going to have some concerns I would expect about 645 00:38:48,360 --> 00:38:53,480 Speaker 1: the testing frequency, the testing methodologies, and so forth. They 646 00:38:53,520 --> 00:38:56,920 Speaker 1: want to make sure that those are pure reviewed and 647 00:38:57,280 --> 00:39:01,160 Speaker 1: accurate and consistent. So I think what we would see 648 00:39:01,239 --> 00:39:07,040 Speaker 1: from the manufacturing community our concerns about, you know, some 649 00:39:07,120 --> 00:39:12,080 Speaker 1: of these compounds are pretty necessary in today's world, and 650 00:39:12,160 --> 00:39:15,000 Speaker 1: there's not replacements for them in the moment. So I think, 651 00:39:15,520 --> 00:39:19,960 Speaker 1: especially with food packaging, it's been a challenge to you know, 652 00:39:20,040 --> 00:39:23,719 Speaker 1: get the pfas out of all of the types of packaging. 653 00:39:24,600 --> 00:39:26,799 Speaker 1: And so I think that that's where we tend to 654 00:39:26,800 --> 00:39:30,640 Speaker 1: see the pushback, not so much on allowing unbridled use, 655 00:39:30,920 --> 00:39:34,640 Speaker 1: not so much opposition to restricting them in drinking water, 656 00:39:35,360 --> 00:39:39,120 Speaker 1: but concerns about, you know, in ways where they can't 657 00:39:39,120 --> 00:39:43,480 Speaker 1: be avoided, and also with respect to, you know, for 658 00:39:43,520 --> 00:39:47,200 Speaker 1: the water utilities, making sure that the that the next 659 00:39:47,200 --> 00:39:50,919 Speaker 1: step if they have an issue is fairly clear. I'll 660 00:39:50,920 --> 00:39:54,160 Speaker 1: give you a quick example. Utah, for example, has been 661 00:39:54,400 --> 00:39:58,240 Speaker 1: sampling their water supply systems and they discovered a number 662 00:39:58,680 --> 00:40:01,920 Speaker 1: I think two or three of their water water systems 663 00:40:01,960 --> 00:40:06,360 Speaker 1: had issues that exceed this threshold that was published in 664 00:40:06,400 --> 00:40:09,800 Speaker 1: the EPA rule the other day. One of those systems 665 00:40:09,880 --> 00:40:13,799 Speaker 1: is Park City, and in Park City, they're attributing the 666 00:40:13,840 --> 00:40:17,400 Speaker 1: PFA levels in their drinking water to the use of 667 00:40:17,480 --> 00:40:22,520 Speaker 1: ski wax, particular types of flora based ski wax, and 668 00:40:22,920 --> 00:40:26,279 Speaker 1: so they're moving and may have by now banned the 669 00:40:26,400 --> 00:40:30,399 Speaker 1: use of that particular type of ski wax. So these 670 00:40:30,440 --> 00:40:34,520 Speaker 1: are so prevalent that it's those types of uses that 671 00:40:34,560 --> 00:40:38,879 Speaker 1: I think industry is resistant to restrictions on because of 672 00:40:39,040 --> 00:40:42,000 Speaker 1: this idea that there's nothing to replace it. Thanks for 673 00:40:42,040 --> 00:40:45,320 Speaker 1: being on the Bloomberg Law Show. That's environmental law attorney 674 00:40:45,360 --> 00:40:48,719 Speaker 1: Joel Johnston, a partner at hall Estill. And that's it 675 00:40:48,800 --> 00:40:51,400 Speaker 1: for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you 676 00:40:51,400 --> 00:40:53,840 Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg 677 00:40:53,960 --> 00:40:57,520 Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 678 00:40:57,760 --> 00:41:02,759 Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, 679 00:41:03,160 --> 00:41:05,360 Speaker 1: and remember to tune in to The Bloomberg Law Show 680 00:41:05,440 --> 00:41:09,320 Speaker 1: every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June 681 00:41:09,320 --> 00:41:11,480 Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg