1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,760
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash Podcasts. Sources tell Bloomberg

6
00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:25,720
Speaker 1: that Special Counsel Robert Muller is getting ready to fast

7
00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:30,080
Speaker 1: track his investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump's presidential

8
00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:34,440
Speaker 1: campaign and Russians, with indictments possible by the fall. Former

9
00:00:34,479 --> 00:00:38,360
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained the significance of

10
00:00:38,360 --> 00:00:42,479
Speaker 1: that issue on Bloomberg earlier this month. What Bob Muller

11
00:00:42,520 --> 00:00:46,000
Speaker 1: and his team are doing is extremely important for the country.

12
00:00:46,159 --> 00:00:49,000
Speaker 1: There's a cloud I think that's over the nation, particularly

13
00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:52,040
Speaker 1: with respect to the issue of collusion and the I

14
00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:55,000
Speaker 1: think the only hope for actually resolving that one way

15
00:00:55,080 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 1: or the other is through the Special Council investigation. My

16
00:00:59,560 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 1: guest is Jimmy Grulier, professor at Notre Dame Law School. Jimmy,

17
00:01:03,520 --> 00:01:06,440
Speaker 1: the reports are that Mueller is first going to resolve

18
00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:10,200
Speaker 1: whether there was obstruction of justice. Why break up the

19
00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:14,240
Speaker 1: investigation that way? Well, I think that the obstruction of

20
00:01:14,319 --> 00:01:17,720
Speaker 1: justice charge. First of all, it's much more manageable. You know,

21
00:01:17,920 --> 00:01:23,600
Speaker 1: involves a single statute or and and and incidents involving

22
00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:27,240
Speaker 1: the president's conduct, and so I think it would be

23
00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:33,160
Speaker 1: easier to charge rather than going into the collusion Russian

24
00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:37,960
Speaker 1: coclusion issue, which by the way, could involve multiple UH

25
00:01:38,160 --> 00:01:41,080
Speaker 1: former members of the of the Trump campaign. There's been

26
00:01:41,120 --> 00:01:46,480
Speaker 1: at least thirteen individuals that have been identified with engaging

27
00:01:46,560 --> 00:01:50,480
Speaker 1: and suspicious activities involving the Russian So so that's much broader,

28
00:01:50,480 --> 00:01:54,160
Speaker 1: it's more, much more complex, and and therefore the obstruction

29
00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:58,480
Speaker 1: I think it's just an easier charge to to allege

30
00:01:58,600 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 1: and and to prove in the case. We know that

31
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:05,320
Speaker 1: Trump has said no collusion over and over again, but

32
00:02:05,360 --> 00:02:08,480
Speaker 1: there have been no suspicious contacts that you mentioned, and

33
00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:12,760
Speaker 1: enough to set off alarms among US intelligence officials earlier.

34
00:02:13,320 --> 00:02:18,440
Speaker 1: What's the case for collusion, Well, again, there's no actual

35
00:02:19,240 --> 00:02:23,280
Speaker 1: crime of collusion. Instead, it would be conspiracy would be

36
00:02:23,400 --> 00:02:26,840
Speaker 1: the charge. And whether or not it's it's conspiracy under

37
00:02:26,919 --> 00:02:32,320
Speaker 1: the general conspiracy Statute, So conspiring against the United States UH,

38
00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:39,000
Speaker 1: conspiring to violate the federal campaign laws would be another example.

39
00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:45,120
Speaker 1: Of the type of conspiracy or slash collusion collusion charge

40
00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:48,959
Speaker 1: that the MULLA would be considering an investigating. But again

41
00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:51,640
Speaker 1: it's important to note that there's no charge, there's no

42
00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:55,680
Speaker 1: federal charge of collusion. Would be conspiracy to violate some

43
00:02:55,919 --> 00:03:00,040
Speaker 1: other federal federal crime. And will you explain what it

44
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:04,560
Speaker 1: takes to prove that someone's involved in a conspiracy, Yes, conspiracy.

45
00:03:04,639 --> 00:03:07,920
Speaker 1: The essential element is an agreement. There is to be

46
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:11,800
Speaker 1: an agreement between two or more people to engage in

47
00:03:11,880 --> 00:03:16,640
Speaker 1: criminal conduct, to violate some some criminal statute, to commit

48
00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:21,359
Speaker 1: a crime. And so again that the agreement can be

49
00:03:21,400 --> 00:03:24,240
Speaker 1: proven through circumstantial evidence. I mean, it doesn't have to

50
00:03:24,280 --> 00:03:30,359
Speaker 1: be a proven through uh, let's say surveillance or electronic

51
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:34,560
Speaker 1: surveillance that indicates two people agree, you know, So it's

52
00:03:34,560 --> 00:03:39,160
Speaker 1: not doesn't require proving yes, let's violate this statute. You

53
00:03:39,320 --> 00:03:41,640
Speaker 1: and I, let's commit this crime. But it can be

54
00:03:41,680 --> 00:03:45,080
Speaker 1: inferred from from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

55
00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:49,280
Speaker 1: We've discussed this before, but in April, Deputy A. G.

56
00:03:49,520 --> 00:03:52,720
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein told Trump he was not a target of

57
00:03:52,760 --> 00:03:58,480
Speaker 1: the Mueller investigation. How does that statement fit in here? Well,

58
00:03:58,640 --> 00:04:02,240
Speaker 1: it's it's simply limited to that point in time. At

59
00:04:02,240 --> 00:04:05,280
Speaker 1: that particular point in time, that was the case, that

60
00:04:05,440 --> 00:04:08,840
Speaker 1: was the view of the former director of the of

61
00:04:08,920 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 1: the FBI. But evidence, uh, that's been collected since then

62
00:04:13,760 --> 00:04:17,960
Speaker 1: could have changed that that situation or that view, or

63
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:22,680
Speaker 1: perhaps it's still the same even today. But eventually it's

64
00:04:22,680 --> 00:04:25,799
Speaker 1: going to be the evidence that has been recovered uncovered

65
00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:28,400
Speaker 1: through this investigation that's gonna be that's gonna be telling.

66
00:04:28,440 --> 00:04:32,560
Speaker 1: So it's certainly not binding on on the Department of Justice.

67
00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:37,080
Speaker 1: It's simply a snapshot at that particular point in time.

68
00:04:37,600 --> 00:04:40,640
Speaker 1: Now there are reports that Mueller has called in some

69
00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:45,440
Speaker 1: new prosecutors to work on the part of the investigation,

70
00:04:45,520 --> 00:04:47,919
Speaker 1: sort of spinning off the part of the investigation that

71
00:04:48,000 --> 00:04:52,039
Speaker 1: pertains to the Russian firms that he previously indicted. What

72
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:54,440
Speaker 1: does that tell you if he's spinning that part off?

73
00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:57,479
Speaker 1: Is that a difficult part? Well? I think it's it

74
00:04:57,560 --> 00:04:59,919
Speaker 1: tells you a little bit about the focus of the

75
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:05,560
Speaker 1: investigation and uh, and that that particular aspect of the

76
00:05:05,640 --> 00:05:10,960
Speaker 1: investigation may require a particular skill set, particular expertise that

77
00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:16,159
Speaker 1: these particular investigators or lawyers have based upon their their

78
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:19,760
Speaker 1: their their prior practice, or perhaps when they were former

79
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:23,960
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors. So it is telling and in one sense

80
00:05:24,000 --> 00:05:27,320
Speaker 1: as to the direction and focus of the investigation, and

81
00:05:27,360 --> 00:05:30,440
Speaker 1: again the skills and the experience that's needed to develop

82
00:05:30,839 --> 00:05:34,080
Speaker 1: that aspect of the investigation more fully. Now tell me

83
00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:38,479
Speaker 1: if this is telling as well. Senator Mark Warner, a

84
00:05:38,520 --> 00:05:43,080
Speaker 1: Democrat from Virginia, hosted a dinner party Friday and said

85
00:05:43,120 --> 00:05:47,360
Speaker 1: apparently and and Trump has responded to this, um, if

86
00:05:47,360 --> 00:05:49,120
Speaker 1: you get me one more glass of wine, I'll tell

87
00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:52,640
Speaker 1: you stuff only Bob Muller and I know, and buckle up.

88
00:05:52,680 --> 00:05:55,280
Speaker 1: It's going to be a wild couple of months. And

89
00:05:55,360 --> 00:05:58,599
Speaker 1: Trump picked up on that in one of his his tweets, Well,

90
00:05:58,720 --> 00:06:00,520
Speaker 1: what does it tell you that a U A senator

91
00:06:00,640 --> 00:06:03,600
Speaker 1: saying something like that, and he's on the Intelligence Committee.

92
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:07,160
Speaker 1: It's it's difficult to ask to ask how much should

93
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:09,479
Speaker 1: be read into that. I mean that that again could

94
00:06:09,520 --> 00:06:13,599
Speaker 1: be simply maybe some boastful, loose language again at a

95
00:06:13,600 --> 00:06:16,919
Speaker 1: at a dinner party, and and and perhaps maybe there's

96
00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:19,600
Speaker 1: not all that much to it, but perhaps it could

97
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:23,760
Speaker 1: also be an indication that that the Department of Justice

98
00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:26,920
Speaker 1: has been keeping members of the of the Senate Intelligence

99
00:06:26,920 --> 00:06:30,800
Speaker 1: Committee updated on the development and progress of the investigation,

100
00:06:31,240 --> 00:06:34,200
Speaker 1: and that would of course require disclosing some of some

101
00:06:34,320 --> 00:06:38,720
Speaker 1: of the the the information regarding the scope of the investigation,

102
00:06:38,760 --> 00:06:42,080
Speaker 1: the focus of the investigation, the progress of the investigation.

103
00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 1: And so maybe the senator was was referring to that,

104
00:06:45,760 --> 00:06:48,720
Speaker 1: but again it's very unfortunate that he would make that

105
00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:53,440
Speaker 1: type of of a statement in public that that again

106
00:06:54,279 --> 00:06:56,920
Speaker 1: might be prejudicial or might be you know, might tip

107
00:06:57,000 --> 00:07:01,479
Speaker 1: off targets of the investigation. And uh, and probably a

108
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:05,560
Speaker 1: statement that should have been made. Now. Um, Michael Cohen,

109
00:07:05,600 --> 00:07:08,640
Speaker 1: that the name you know of Trump's personal lawyer, former

110
00:07:08,640 --> 00:07:12,120
Speaker 1: personal lawyer, keeps coming up, and there are all kinds

111
00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:15,560
Speaker 1: of rumors that he is going to cooperate. Is that

112
00:07:15,640 --> 00:07:19,520
Speaker 1: moving a little bit slowly? I don't think so. In fact,

113
00:07:19,560 --> 00:07:22,760
Speaker 1: there's a recent report that's the first of all, that

114
00:07:22,760 --> 00:07:26,520
Speaker 1: there was over three million items of evidence that were

115
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:31,000
Speaker 1: seized by federal investigators and when they conducted the executed

116
00:07:31,000 --> 00:07:36,400
Speaker 1: the search warrant at Michael Cohen's office and and then

117
00:07:36,440 --> 00:07:39,760
Speaker 1: of course they're the federal judge required that that those

118
00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:42,680
Speaker 1: items be examined to determine if any of those involved

119
00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:47,120
Speaker 1: attorney client or attorney client privileged information. And the latest

120
00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:50,680
Speaker 1: is of that approximately three point seven million dollar million

121
00:07:50,800 --> 00:07:54,760
Speaker 1: items sees only one d sixty one of those were

122
00:07:54,800 --> 00:07:57,600
Speaker 1: recommended to the judge and the judge agreed that they

123
00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:01,600
Speaker 1: were protected attorney client information. So again, well over three

124
00:08:01,640 --> 00:08:05,240
Speaker 1: million items are not protected. And so the question and

125
00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:07,960
Speaker 1: therefore they're going to be disclosed to the prosecution, and

126
00:08:08,000 --> 00:08:11,000
Speaker 1: the question is of those items, do any of those

127
00:08:11,040 --> 00:08:15,200
Speaker 1: items reveal any illegal activity between Michael Cohen and and

128
00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:18,840
Speaker 1: President Trump? Thank you, Jimmy. That's Jimmy Garoule, professor at

129
00:08:18,840 --> 00:08:27,520
Speaker 1: Notre Dame Law School. To be continued. A big win

130
00:08:27,600 --> 00:08:30,000
Speaker 1: for the Trump administration and one of the highest profile

131
00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:33,000
Speaker 1: cases of the year and one of the most contentious issues,

132
00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:36,080
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of held Trump's travel ban against a

133
00:08:36,080 --> 00:08:39,080
Speaker 1: broad legal attack. The vote was five to four along

134
00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:43,360
Speaker 1: ideological grounds, with the conservative justices in the majority joining

135
00:08:43,400 --> 00:08:46,760
Speaker 1: me Is Bloomberg. New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store Greg

136
00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:49,880
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority tell us

137
00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:53,640
Speaker 1: about the essence of his opinion Hi June. The essence

138
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:59,120
Speaker 1: of his decision is notwithstanding claims that he made discriminatory

139
00:08:59,160 --> 00:09:02,880
Speaker 1: comments toward towards Muslims in the campaign and after he

140
00:09:02,920 --> 00:09:07,319
Speaker 1: became president. UH. He said, we generally afford the president

141
00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:10,960
Speaker 1: very broad discretion in dealing with these questions about who

142
00:09:10,960 --> 00:09:14,280
Speaker 1: can come into the country. This was a policy that

143
00:09:14,320 --> 00:09:16,960
Speaker 1: went through multiple agencies, that has a lot of detail

144
00:09:17,400 --> 00:09:19,840
Speaker 1: in it, and we are going to defer to the

145
00:09:19,880 --> 00:09:24,079
Speaker 1: President UH in this area because it is generally an

146
00:09:24,080 --> 00:09:27,080
Speaker 1: area where Congress wants the president to decide and we

147
00:09:27,120 --> 00:09:29,440
Speaker 1: want to defer in terms of what he thinks about

148
00:09:29,440 --> 00:09:33,120
Speaker 1: the national security interests of the country. Justice is Stephen

149
00:09:33,160 --> 00:09:36,440
Speaker 1: Bryer and Sonya Soto Mayor read their descents from the bench,

150
00:09:36,559 --> 00:09:40,480
Speaker 1: which is rare, and I understand that Justice Soto Mayor

151
00:09:40,640 --> 00:09:46,280
Speaker 1: was some said furious. Yeah, she both in her words

152
00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:49,680
Speaker 1: and the pens and UH in the opinion itself, she

153
00:09:49,840 --> 00:09:53,120
Speaker 1: was very pointed. She she likened the decision to the

154
00:09:53,920 --> 00:09:58,600
Speaker 1: nineteen Cormatsu decision where the Supreme Court upheld the government's

155
00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:03,480
Speaker 1: policy of interning Japanese Americans during World War Two. Um,

156
00:10:03,559 --> 00:10:07,600
Speaker 1: she Uh invoked talked about all the individual people that

157
00:10:07,720 --> 00:10:12,480
Speaker 1: this will this policy will harm in her view. UH. Interestingly,

158
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:15,760
Speaker 1: it was a dissent that was joined only by one

159
00:10:15,800 --> 00:10:18,640
Speaker 1: other justice that was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justices Briar and

160
00:10:18,760 --> 00:10:22,600
Speaker 1: Kagan uh dissented on on different and and somewhat less

161
00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:26,520
Speaker 1: pointed grounds. You mentioned the Karamaso decision and the dissenters

162
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:31,800
Speaker 1: comparing that to Trump's policy. Chief Justice Roberts took umbrage

163
00:10:31,800 --> 00:10:33,840
Speaker 1: at that to say, the least tell us what he

164
00:10:33,880 --> 00:10:37,800
Speaker 1: said about that. Yeah, so he said that there that

165
00:10:38,120 --> 00:10:41,240
Speaker 1: the two things are not the same. Uh, the Chief Justice,

166
00:10:41,240 --> 00:10:43,360
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna I'm gonna find find the part in

167
00:10:43,360 --> 00:10:46,120
Speaker 1: the opinion here so I can quote quote it directly

168
00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:52,360
Speaker 1: for you. But essentially he said, uh, Kamatsu was a

169
00:10:52,440 --> 00:10:57,120
Speaker 1: morally repugnant order to a facially new Uh. He called

170
00:10:57,120 --> 00:10:59,600
Speaker 1: that a morally repugnant order. He said, it's not like this,

171
00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:02,880
Speaker 1: which is a neutral policy that just desies some people

172
00:11:02,920 --> 00:11:05,720
Speaker 1: the privilege of coming into the country. He also said,

173
00:11:06,679 --> 00:11:09,560
Speaker 1: essentially said now that you mentioned Kamatsu, which has never

174
00:11:09,640 --> 00:11:13,640
Speaker 1: formerly been overruled, he said that the decision was greatly

175
00:11:13,679 --> 00:11:16,360
Speaker 1: wrong the day it was decided and have no place

176
00:11:16,400 --> 00:11:20,120
Speaker 1: in the law under the Constitution. So he disavowed the

177
00:11:20,160 --> 00:11:24,200
Speaker 1: Cormatzi decision and said this is different. Well, President Trump

178
00:11:24,240 --> 00:11:27,079
Speaker 1: has called the Supreme Court decision a tremendous victory. We're

179
00:11:27,080 --> 00:11:29,920
Speaker 1: going to hear his comments in a few moments and said,

180
00:11:29,920 --> 00:11:32,360
Speaker 1: of course he'll go ahead with the travel ban. He

181
00:11:32,480 --> 00:11:35,240
Speaker 1: also proclaimed that the Supreme Court has upheld the clear

182
00:11:35,240 --> 00:11:38,199
Speaker 1: authority of the president to defend the national security of

183
00:11:38,240 --> 00:11:41,160
Speaker 1: the United States. That was in a written statement. How

184
00:11:41,240 --> 00:11:45,800
Speaker 1: far did the court go in upholding presidential authority? Well,

185
00:11:46,400 --> 00:11:49,559
Speaker 1: pretty far, but but the court had already gone pretty far.

186
00:11:49,679 --> 00:11:52,160
Speaker 1: This is an area where if you look at the

187
00:11:52,200 --> 00:11:55,120
Speaker 1: immigration laws, Um, they're pretty clear that the president has

188
00:11:55,280 --> 00:11:57,760
Speaker 1: very broad authority to decide who can come into the

189
00:11:57,800 --> 00:12:02,160
Speaker 1: country and can exclude uh classes of people if the

190
00:12:02,200 --> 00:12:04,440
Speaker 1: president deems it to be in the national security interests.

191
00:12:05,679 --> 00:12:08,800
Speaker 1: I think the way to look at this case was, Um,

192
00:12:09,240 --> 00:12:12,079
Speaker 1: you know, is there an exception to that general rule

193
00:12:12,520 --> 00:12:15,200
Speaker 1: in this particular case where you have a president who

194
00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:20,440
Speaker 1: has prohibited uh hundred and fifty million people from even

195
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:23,880
Speaker 1: qualifying for the possibility of entry into the country, and

196
00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:28,199
Speaker 1: where he has made some comments that suggests that he

197
00:12:28,280 --> 00:12:34,320
Speaker 1: was targeting Muslims with this order. The Supreme Court said, no,

198
00:12:34,480 --> 00:12:37,720
Speaker 1: we're not going to make an exception. So the broad

199
00:12:37,760 --> 00:12:41,480
Speaker 1: authority that presidents get over who comes into the country

200
00:12:42,080 --> 00:12:45,439
Speaker 1: applies to President Trump as well. Now, this was, as

201
00:12:45,440 --> 00:12:50,199
Speaker 1: I mentioned to five four split down ideological lines, and

202
00:12:50,320 --> 00:12:53,400
Speaker 1: we've seen in these final cases of the term, which

203
00:12:53,720 --> 00:12:57,199
Speaker 1: tend to be the most controversial, we've seen that same split.

204
00:12:58,040 --> 00:13:01,080
Speaker 1: Does that tell you anything, Greg, Yeah, you know, there

205
00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:03,520
Speaker 1: were a lot of cases this term June that could

206
00:13:03,600 --> 00:13:06,760
Speaker 1: have been ideologically divisive. Some of them the courts sort

207
00:13:06,800 --> 00:13:10,000
Speaker 1: of uh resolved on very narrow grounds and avoided the

208
00:13:10,000 --> 00:13:13,480
Speaker 1: ideological split. So I'm thinking about the partisan Gerryman Dreen

209
00:13:13,559 --> 00:13:15,800
Speaker 1: case and the case involving the baker who didn't want

210
00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:18,040
Speaker 1: to make a cake for same sex weddings. Those were

211
00:13:18,040 --> 00:13:20,000
Speaker 1: decided pretty narrowly and didn't end up with that sort

212
00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:21,920
Speaker 1: of split. But yes, we're getting to the end of

213
00:13:21,960 --> 00:13:25,199
Speaker 1: the term, and in the more recent cases, including this one,

214
00:13:25,240 --> 00:13:28,720
Speaker 1: possibly including one we'll get tomorrow. Um. Also including the

215
00:13:28,760 --> 00:13:33,839
Speaker 1: second second ruling today involving UH pregnancy clinics that that

216
00:13:33,880 --> 00:13:37,440
Speaker 1: oppose abortion UH, the court have been divided five to

217
00:13:37,480 --> 00:13:41,120
Speaker 1: four with the five conservatives on the victorious side. All right,

218
00:13:41,160 --> 00:13:43,800
Speaker 1: thanks so much, Greg, Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

219
00:13:43,880 --> 00:13:46,959
Speaker 1: Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

220
00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:51,720
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcast, SoundCloud and on bloomberg dot com slash Podcast.

221
00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:54,840
Speaker 1: I'm June Bolso. This is Bloomberg