WEBVTT - Mueller Begins Looking into Collusion

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.760
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash Podcasts. Sources tell Bloomberg

0:00:22.840 --> 0:00:25.720
<v Speaker 1>that Special Counsel Robert Muller is getting ready to fast

0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:30.080
<v Speaker 1>track his investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump's presidential

0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:34.440
<v Speaker 1>campaign and Russians, with indictments possible by the fall. Former

0:00:34.479 --> 0:00:38.360
<v Speaker 1>Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained the significance of

0:00:38.360 --> 0:00:42.479
<v Speaker 1>that issue on Bloomberg earlier this month. What Bob Muller

0:00:42.520 --> 0:00:46.000
<v Speaker 1>and his team are doing is extremely important for the country.

0:00:46.159 --> 0:00:49.000
<v Speaker 1>There's a cloud I think that's over the nation, particularly

0:00:49.000 --> 0:00:52.040
<v Speaker 1>with respect to the issue of collusion and the I

0:00:52.080 --> 0:00:55.000
<v Speaker 1>think the only hope for actually resolving that one way

0:00:55.080 --> 0:00:59.440
<v Speaker 1>or the other is through the Special Council investigation. My

0:00:59.560 --> 0:01:03.400
<v Speaker 1>guest is Jimmy Grulier, professor at Notre Dame Law School. Jimmy,

0:01:03.520 --> 0:01:06.440
<v Speaker 1>the reports are that Mueller is first going to resolve

0:01:06.480 --> 0:01:10.200
<v Speaker 1>whether there was obstruction of justice. Why break up the

0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:14.240
<v Speaker 1>investigation that way? Well, I think that the obstruction of

0:01:14.319 --> 0:01:17.720
<v Speaker 1>justice charge. First of all, it's much more manageable. You know,

0:01:17.920 --> 0:01:23.600
<v Speaker 1>involves a single statute or and and and incidents involving

0:01:24.560 --> 0:01:27.240
<v Speaker 1>the president's conduct, and so I think it would be

0:01:27.280 --> 0:01:33.160
<v Speaker 1>easier to charge rather than going into the collusion Russian

0:01:33.200 --> 0:01:37.960
<v Speaker 1>coclusion issue, which by the way, could involve multiple UH

0:01:38.160 --> 0:01:41.080
<v Speaker 1>former members of the of the Trump campaign. There's been

0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:46.480
<v Speaker 1>at least thirteen individuals that have been identified with engaging

0:01:46.560 --> 0:01:50.480
<v Speaker 1>and suspicious activities involving the Russian So so that's much broader,

0:01:50.480 --> 0:01:54.160
<v Speaker 1>it's more, much more complex, and and therefore the obstruction

0:01:54.200 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 1>I think it's just an easier charge to to allege

0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:01.320
<v Speaker 1>and and to prove in the case. We know that

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:05.320
<v Speaker 1>Trump has said no collusion over and over again, but

0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:08.480
<v Speaker 1>there have been no suspicious contacts that you mentioned, and

0:02:08.639 --> 0:02:12.760
<v Speaker 1>enough to set off alarms among US intelligence officials earlier.

0:02:13.320 --> 0:02:18.440
<v Speaker 1>What's the case for collusion, Well, again, there's no actual

0:02:19.240 --> 0:02:23.280
<v Speaker 1>crime of collusion. Instead, it would be conspiracy would be

0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:26.840
<v Speaker 1>the charge. And whether or not it's it's conspiracy under

0:02:26.919 --> 0:02:32.320
<v Speaker 1>the general conspiracy Statute, So conspiring against the United States UH,

0:02:32.400 --> 0:02:39.000
<v Speaker 1>conspiring to violate the federal campaign laws would be another example.

0:02:39.200 --> 0:02:45.120
<v Speaker 1>Of the type of conspiracy or slash collusion collusion charge

0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:48.959
<v Speaker 1>that the MULLA would be considering an investigating. But again

0:02:49.000 --> 0:02:51.640
<v Speaker 1>it's important to note that there's no charge, there's no

0:02:51.800 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>federal charge of collusion. Would be conspiracy to violate some

0:02:55.919 --> 0:03:00.040
<v Speaker 1>other federal federal crime. And will you explain what it

0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:04.560
<v Speaker 1>takes to prove that someone's involved in a conspiracy, Yes, conspiracy.

0:03:04.639 --> 0:03:07.920
<v Speaker 1>The essential element is an agreement. There is to be

0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:11.800
<v Speaker 1>an agreement between two or more people to engage in

0:03:11.880 --> 0:03:16.640
<v Speaker 1>criminal conduct, to violate some some criminal statute, to commit

0:03:16.680 --> 0:03:21.359
<v Speaker 1>a crime. And so again that the agreement can be

0:03:21.400 --> 0:03:24.240
<v Speaker 1>proven through circumstantial evidence. I mean, it doesn't have to

0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:30.359
<v Speaker 1>be a proven through uh, let's say surveillance or electronic

0:03:31.080 --> 0:03:34.560
<v Speaker 1>surveillance that indicates two people agree, you know, So it's

0:03:34.560 --> 0:03:39.160
<v Speaker 1>not doesn't require proving yes, let's violate this statute. You

0:03:39.320 --> 0:03:41.640
<v Speaker 1>and I, let's commit this crime. But it can be

0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:45.080
<v Speaker 1>inferred from from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:49.280
<v Speaker 1>We've discussed this before, but in April, Deputy A. G.

0:03:49.520 --> 0:03:52.720
<v Speaker 1>Rod Rosenstein told Trump he was not a target of

0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:58.480
<v Speaker 1>the Mueller investigation. How does that statement fit in here? Well,

0:03:58.640 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 1>it's it's simply limited to that point in time. At

0:04:02.240 --> 0:04:05.280
<v Speaker 1>that particular point in time, that was the case, that

0:04:05.440 --> 0:04:08.840
<v Speaker 1>was the view of the former director of the of

0:04:08.920 --> 0:04:13.640
<v Speaker 1>the FBI. But evidence, uh, that's been collected since then

0:04:13.760 --> 0:04:17.960
<v Speaker 1>could have changed that that situation or that view, or

0:04:18.000 --> 0:04:22.680
<v Speaker 1>perhaps it's still the same even today. But eventually it's

0:04:22.680 --> 0:04:25.799
<v Speaker 1>going to be the evidence that has been recovered uncovered

0:04:25.800 --> 0:04:28.400
<v Speaker 1>through this investigation that's gonna be that's gonna be telling.

0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:32.560
<v Speaker 1>So it's certainly not binding on on the Department of Justice.

0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:37.080
<v Speaker 1>It's simply a snapshot at that particular point in time.

0:04:37.600 --> 0:04:40.640
<v Speaker 1>Now there are reports that Mueller has called in some

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:45.440
<v Speaker 1>new prosecutors to work on the part of the investigation,

0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:47.919
<v Speaker 1>sort of spinning off the part of the investigation that

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:52.039
<v Speaker 1>pertains to the Russian firms that he previously indicted. What

0:04:52.160 --> 0:04:54.440
<v Speaker 1>does that tell you if he's spinning that part off?

0:04:54.520 --> 0:04:57.479
<v Speaker 1>Is that a difficult part? Well? I think it's it

0:04:57.560 --> 0:04:59.919
<v Speaker 1>tells you a little bit about the focus of the

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:05.560
<v Speaker 1>investigation and uh, and that that particular aspect of the

0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:10.960
<v Speaker 1>investigation may require a particular skill set, particular expertise that

0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:16.159
<v Speaker 1>these particular investigators or lawyers have based upon their their

0:05:16.240 --> 0:05:19.760
<v Speaker 1>their their prior practice, or perhaps when they were former

0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:23.960
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutors. So it is telling and in one sense

0:05:24.000 --> 0:05:27.320
<v Speaker 1>as to the direction and focus of the investigation, and

0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:30.440
<v Speaker 1>again the skills and the experience that's needed to develop

0:05:30.839 --> 0:05:34.080
<v Speaker 1>that aspect of the investigation more fully. Now tell me

0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:38.479
<v Speaker 1>if this is telling as well. Senator Mark Warner, a

0:05:38.520 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Democrat from Virginia, hosted a dinner party Friday and said

0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:47.360
<v Speaker 1>apparently and and Trump has responded to this, um, if

0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:49.120
<v Speaker 1>you get me one more glass of wine, I'll tell

0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:52.640
<v Speaker 1>you stuff only Bob Muller and I know, and buckle up.

0:05:52.680 --> 0:05:55.280
<v Speaker 1>It's going to be a wild couple of months. And

0:05:55.360 --> 0:05:58.599
<v Speaker 1>Trump picked up on that in one of his his tweets, Well,

0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:00.520
<v Speaker 1>what does it tell you that a U A senator

0:06:00.640 --> 0:06:03.600
<v Speaker 1>saying something like that, and he's on the Intelligence Committee.

0:06:03.800 --> 0:06:07.160
<v Speaker 1>It's it's difficult to ask to ask how much should

0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:09.479
<v Speaker 1>be read into that. I mean that that again could

0:06:09.520 --> 0:06:13.599
<v Speaker 1>be simply maybe some boastful, loose language again at a

0:06:13.600 --> 0:06:16.919
<v Speaker 1>at a dinner party, and and and perhaps maybe there's

0:06:17.000 --> 0:06:19.600
<v Speaker 1>not all that much to it, but perhaps it could

0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:23.760
<v Speaker 1>also be an indication that that the Department of Justice

0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:26.920
<v Speaker 1>has been keeping members of the of the Senate Intelligence

0:06:26.920 --> 0:06:30.800
<v Speaker 1>Committee updated on the development and progress of the investigation,

0:06:31.240 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 1>and that would of course require disclosing some of some

0:06:34.320 --> 0:06:38.720
<v Speaker 1>of the the the information regarding the scope of the investigation,

0:06:38.760 --> 0:06:42.080
<v Speaker 1>the focus of the investigation, the progress of the investigation.

0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:45.560
<v Speaker 1>And so maybe the senator was was referring to that,

0:06:45.760 --> 0:06:48.720
<v Speaker 1>but again it's very unfortunate that he would make that

0:06:48.760 --> 0:06:53.440
<v Speaker 1>type of of a statement in public that that again

0:06:54.279 --> 0:06:56.920
<v Speaker 1>might be prejudicial or might be you know, might tip

0:06:57.000 --> 0:07:01.479
<v Speaker 1>off targets of the investigation. And uh, and probably a

0:07:01.520 --> 0:07:05.560
<v Speaker 1>statement that should have been made. Now. Um, Michael Cohen,

0:07:05.600 --> 0:07:08.640
<v Speaker 1>that the name you know of Trump's personal lawyer, former

0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:12.120
<v Speaker 1>personal lawyer, keeps coming up, and there are all kinds

0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:15.560
<v Speaker 1>of rumors that he is going to cooperate. Is that

0:07:15.640 --> 0:07:19.520
<v Speaker 1>moving a little bit slowly? I don't think so. In fact,

0:07:19.560 --> 0:07:22.760
<v Speaker 1>there's a recent report that's the first of all, that

0:07:22.760 --> 0:07:26.520
<v Speaker 1>there was over three million items of evidence that were

0:07:26.600 --> 0:07:31.000
<v Speaker 1>seized by federal investigators and when they conducted the executed

0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:36.400
<v Speaker 1>the search warrant at Michael Cohen's office and and then

0:07:36.440 --> 0:07:39.760
<v Speaker 1>of course they're the federal judge required that that those

0:07:39.840 --> 0:07:42.680
<v Speaker 1>items be examined to determine if any of those involved

0:07:42.880 --> 0:07:47.120
<v Speaker 1>attorney client or attorney client privileged information. And the latest

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:50.680
<v Speaker 1>is of that approximately three point seven million dollar million

0:07:50.800 --> 0:07:54.760
<v Speaker 1>items sees only one d sixty one of those were

0:07:54.800 --> 0:07:57.600
<v Speaker 1>recommended to the judge and the judge agreed that they

0:07:57.600 --> 0:08:01.600
<v Speaker 1>were protected attorney client information. So again, well over three

0:08:01.640 --> 0:08:05.240
<v Speaker 1>million items are not protected. And so the question and

0:08:05.440 --> 0:08:07.960
<v Speaker 1>therefore they're going to be disclosed to the prosecution, and

0:08:08.000 --> 0:08:11.000
<v Speaker 1>the question is of those items, do any of those

0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:15.200
<v Speaker 1>items reveal any illegal activity between Michael Cohen and and

0:08:15.520 --> 0:08:18.840
<v Speaker 1>President Trump? Thank you, Jimmy. That's Jimmy Garoule, professor at

0:08:18.840 --> 0:08:27.520
<v Speaker 1>Notre Dame Law School. To be continued. A big win

0:08:27.600 --> 0:08:30.000
<v Speaker 1>for the Trump administration and one of the highest profile

0:08:30.120 --> 0:08:33.000
<v Speaker 1>cases of the year and one of the most contentious issues,

0:08:33.320 --> 0:08:36.080
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court of held Trump's travel ban against a

0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:39.080
<v Speaker 1>broad legal attack. The vote was five to four along

0:08:39.200 --> 0:08:43.360
<v Speaker 1>ideological grounds, with the conservative justices in the majority joining

0:08:43.400 --> 0:08:46.760
<v Speaker 1>me Is Bloomberg. New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store Greg

0:08:46.800 --> 0:08:49.880
<v Speaker 1>Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority tell us

0:08:49.920 --> 0:08:53.640
<v Speaker 1>about the essence of his opinion Hi June. The essence

0:08:53.679 --> 0:08:59.120
<v Speaker 1>of his decision is notwithstanding claims that he made discriminatory

0:08:59.160 --> 0:09:02.880
<v Speaker 1>comments toward towards Muslims in the campaign and after he

0:09:02.920 --> 0:09:07.319
<v Speaker 1>became president. UH. He said, we generally afford the president

0:09:07.480 --> 0:09:10.960
<v Speaker 1>very broad discretion in dealing with these questions about who

0:09:10.960 --> 0:09:14.280
<v Speaker 1>can come into the country. This was a policy that

0:09:14.320 --> 0:09:16.960
<v Speaker 1>went through multiple agencies, that has a lot of detail

0:09:17.400 --> 0:09:19.840
<v Speaker 1>in it, and we are going to defer to the

0:09:19.880 --> 0:09:24.079
<v Speaker 1>President UH in this area because it is generally an

0:09:24.080 --> 0:09:27.080
<v Speaker 1>area where Congress wants the president to decide and we

0:09:27.120 --> 0:09:29.440
<v Speaker 1>want to defer in terms of what he thinks about

0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:33.120
<v Speaker 1>the national security interests of the country. Justice is Stephen

0:09:33.160 --> 0:09:36.440
<v Speaker 1>Bryer and Sonya Soto Mayor read their descents from the bench,

0:09:36.559 --> 0:09:40.480
<v Speaker 1>which is rare, and I understand that Justice Soto Mayor

0:09:40.640 --> 0:09:46.280
<v Speaker 1>was some said furious. Yeah, she both in her words

0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:49.680
<v Speaker 1>and the pens and UH in the opinion itself, she

0:09:49.840 --> 0:09:53.120
<v Speaker 1>was very pointed. She she likened the decision to the

0:09:53.920 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 1>nineteen Cormatsu decision where the Supreme Court upheld the government's

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:03.480
<v Speaker 1>policy of interning Japanese Americans during World War Two. Um,

0:10:03.559 --> 0:10:07.600
<v Speaker 1>she Uh invoked talked about all the individual people that

0:10:07.720 --> 0:10:12.480
<v Speaker 1>this will this policy will harm in her view. UH. Interestingly,

0:10:12.640 --> 0:10:15.760
<v Speaker 1>it was a dissent that was joined only by one

0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:18.640
<v Speaker 1>other justice that was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justices Briar and

0:10:18.760 --> 0:10:22.600
<v Speaker 1>Kagan uh dissented on on different and and somewhat less

0:10:22.640 --> 0:10:26.520
<v Speaker 1>pointed grounds. You mentioned the Karamaso decision and the dissenters

0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:31.800
<v Speaker 1>comparing that to Trump's policy. Chief Justice Roberts took umbrage

0:10:31.800 --> 0:10:33.840
<v Speaker 1>at that to say, the least tell us what he

0:10:33.880 --> 0:10:37.800
<v Speaker 1>said about that. Yeah, so he said that there that

0:10:38.120 --> 0:10:41.240
<v Speaker 1>the two things are not the same. Uh, the Chief Justice,

0:10:41.240 --> 0:10:43.360
<v Speaker 1>and I'm gonna I'm gonna find find the part in

0:10:43.360 --> 0:10:46.120
<v Speaker 1>the opinion here so I can quote quote it directly

0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:52.360
<v Speaker 1>for you. But essentially he said, uh, Kamatsu was a

0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:57.120
<v Speaker 1>morally repugnant order to a facially new Uh. He called

0:10:57.120 --> 0:10:59.600
<v Speaker 1>that a morally repugnant order. He said, it's not like this,

0:10:59.640 --> 0:11:02.880
<v Speaker 1>which is a neutral policy that just desies some people

0:11:02.920 --> 0:11:05.720
<v Speaker 1>the privilege of coming into the country. He also said,

0:11:06.679 --> 0:11:09.560
<v Speaker 1>essentially said now that you mentioned Kamatsu, which has never

0:11:09.640 --> 0:11:13.640
<v Speaker 1>formerly been overruled, he said that the decision was greatly

0:11:13.679 --> 0:11:16.360
<v Speaker 1>wrong the day it was decided and have no place

0:11:16.400 --> 0:11:20.120
<v Speaker 1>in the law under the Constitution. So he disavowed the

0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:24.200
<v Speaker 1>Cormatzi decision and said this is different. Well, President Trump

0:11:24.240 --> 0:11:27.079
<v Speaker 1>has called the Supreme Court decision a tremendous victory. We're

0:11:27.080 --> 0:11:29.920
<v Speaker 1>going to hear his comments in a few moments and said,

0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:32.360
<v Speaker 1>of course he'll go ahead with the travel ban. He

0:11:32.480 --> 0:11:35.240
<v Speaker 1>also proclaimed that the Supreme Court has upheld the clear

0:11:35.240 --> 0:11:38.199
<v Speaker 1>authority of the president to defend the national security of

0:11:38.240 --> 0:11:41.160
<v Speaker 1>the United States. That was in a written statement. How

0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:45.800
<v Speaker 1>far did the court go in upholding presidential authority? Well,

0:11:46.400 --> 0:11:49.559
<v Speaker 1>pretty far, but but the court had already gone pretty far.

0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:52.160
<v Speaker 1>This is an area where if you look at the

0:11:52.200 --> 0:11:55.120
<v Speaker 1>immigration laws, Um, they're pretty clear that the president has

0:11:55.280 --> 0:11:57.760
<v Speaker 1>very broad authority to decide who can come into the

0:11:57.800 --> 0:12:02.160
<v Speaker 1>country and can exclude uh classes of people if the

0:12:02.200 --> 0:12:04.440
<v Speaker 1>president deems it to be in the national security interests.

0:12:05.679 --> 0:12:08.800
<v Speaker 1>I think the way to look at this case was, Um,

0:12:09.240 --> 0:12:12.079
<v Speaker 1>you know, is there an exception to that general rule

0:12:12.520 --> 0:12:15.200
<v Speaker 1>in this particular case where you have a president who

0:12:16.120 --> 0:12:20.440
<v Speaker 1>has prohibited uh hundred and fifty million people from even

0:12:20.480 --> 0:12:23.880
<v Speaker 1>qualifying for the possibility of entry into the country, and

0:12:24.000 --> 0:12:28.199
<v Speaker 1>where he has made some comments that suggests that he

0:12:28.280 --> 0:12:34.320
<v Speaker 1>was targeting Muslims with this order. The Supreme Court said, no,

0:12:34.480 --> 0:12:37.720
<v Speaker 1>we're not going to make an exception. So the broad

0:12:37.760 --> 0:12:41.480
<v Speaker 1>authority that presidents get over who comes into the country

0:12:42.080 --> 0:12:45.439
<v Speaker 1>applies to President Trump as well. Now, this was, as

0:12:45.440 --> 0:12:50.199
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned to five four split down ideological lines, and

0:12:50.320 --> 0:12:53.400
<v Speaker 1>we've seen in these final cases of the term, which

0:12:53.720 --> 0:12:57.199
<v Speaker 1>tend to be the most controversial, we've seen that same split.

0:12:58.040 --> 0:13:01.080
<v Speaker 1>Does that tell you anything, Greg, Yeah, you know, there

0:13:01.080 --> 0:13:03.520
<v Speaker 1>were a lot of cases this term June that could

0:13:03.600 --> 0:13:06.760
<v Speaker 1>have been ideologically divisive. Some of them the courts sort

0:13:06.800 --> 0:13:10.000
<v Speaker 1>of uh resolved on very narrow grounds and avoided the

0:13:10.000 --> 0:13:13.480
<v Speaker 1>ideological split. So I'm thinking about the partisan Gerryman Dreen

0:13:13.559 --> 0:13:15.800
<v Speaker 1>case and the case involving the baker who didn't want

0:13:15.800 --> 0:13:18.040
<v Speaker 1>to make a cake for same sex weddings. Those were

0:13:18.040 --> 0:13:20.000
<v Speaker 1>decided pretty narrowly and didn't end up with that sort

0:13:20.000 --> 0:13:21.920
<v Speaker 1>of split. But yes, we're getting to the end of

0:13:21.960 --> 0:13:25.199
<v Speaker 1>the term, and in the more recent cases, including this one,

0:13:25.240 --> 0:13:28.720
<v Speaker 1>possibly including one we'll get tomorrow. Um. Also including the

0:13:28.760 --> 0:13:33.839
<v Speaker 1>second second ruling today involving UH pregnancy clinics that that

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:37.440
<v Speaker 1>oppose abortion UH, the court have been divided five to

0:13:37.480 --> 0:13:41.120
<v Speaker 1>four with the five conservatives on the victorious side. All right,

0:13:41.160 --> 0:13:43.800
<v Speaker 1>thanks so much, Greg, Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

0:13:43.880 --> 0:13:46.959
<v Speaker 1>Law podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

0:13:47.000 --> 0:13:51.720
<v Speaker 1>on Apple Podcast, SoundCloud and on bloomberg dot com slash Podcast.

0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:54.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Bolso. This is Bloomberg