1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:11,520 --> 00:00:14,640 Speaker 1: I was briefed about this discovery and surprise and learned 3 00:00:14,960 --> 00:00:18,240 Speaker 1: that there are any government records that were taken there 4 00:00:18,760 --> 00:00:22,400 Speaker 1: to that office, but I don't know what's in the documents. 5 00:00:23,680 --> 00:00:27,520 Speaker 1: The extraordinary circumstances here require the appointment of a special 6 00:00:27,520 --> 00:00:32,519 Speaker 1: council for this matter. Those extraordinary circumstances began with President 7 00:00:32,560 --> 00:00:36,960 Speaker 1: Biden's lawyers finding classified documents in his former office at 8 00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:41,120 Speaker 1: a Washington think tank on November, two documents that should 9 00:00:41,120 --> 00:00:44,159 Speaker 1: have been turned over to the National Archives. A second 10 00:00:44,159 --> 00:00:47,440 Speaker 1: set of classified documents was found in the garage of 11 00:00:47,520 --> 00:00:52,680 Speaker 1: his Wilmington's home on December and Biden's response was rather glib. 12 00:00:52,920 --> 00:00:55,880 Speaker 1: But by the way, my corvette in the lack karage, Okay, 13 00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:57,600 Speaker 1: so it's not like you're sitting out in the street. 14 00:00:57,760 --> 00:01:01,040 Speaker 1: And as late as this Thursday, yet an another classified 15 00:01:01,080 --> 00:01:04,040 Speaker 1: document was found in the library of his home. The 16 00:01:04,080 --> 00:01:08,080 Speaker 1: initial investigation by the Justice Department has been ongoing since 17 00:01:08,120 --> 00:01:12,440 Speaker 1: early November, when Attorney General Merrick Garland assigned John Laosch, 18 00:01:12,720 --> 00:01:15,720 Speaker 1: the U S Attorney from Chicago and a Trump appointee, 19 00:01:15,959 --> 00:01:19,959 Speaker 1: and laosh determined that further investigation by a special counsel 20 00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:23,480 Speaker 1: was warranted, so, for the second time in two months, 21 00:01:23,800 --> 00:01:28,240 Speaker 1: Garland appointed a special counsel to investigate the possible criminal 22 00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:33,240 Speaker 1: mishandling of classified documents by a president. The document authorizes 23 00:01:33,319 --> 00:01:36,760 Speaker 1: him to investigate whether any person or entity violated the 24 00:01:36,840 --> 00:01:39,880 Speaker 1: law and connection with this matter. John her the former 25 00:01:39,959 --> 00:01:43,040 Speaker 1: U S. Attorney from Maryland and also at Trump appointee, 26 00:01:43,360 --> 00:01:46,720 Speaker 1: is the new special council. But White House Press Secretary 27 00:01:46,840 --> 00:01:50,560 Speaker 1: Kareem Jean Pierre says his investigation will show that no 28 00:01:50,800 --> 00:01:55,200 Speaker 1: crime was committed. We are confident that a thorough review 29 00:01:55,240 --> 00:01:59,920 Speaker 1: will show that these documents were inadvertently misplaced, and the 30 00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:05,200 Speaker 1: president and his lawyers acted promptly upon discovering of this mistake. 31 00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:09,120 Speaker 1: My guess is national security expert Brad Moss, a partner 32 00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:13,120 Speaker 1: Mark Zad Brad, what does the appointment of a special 33 00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:16,480 Speaker 1: council here tell you about what the U S. Attorney 34 00:02:16,520 --> 00:02:20,920 Speaker 1: for Chicago found in his investigation. So it's difficult to 35 00:02:21,440 --> 00:02:24,480 Speaker 1: take too much from it, other than to say it 36 00:02:24,560 --> 00:02:27,800 Speaker 1: appears more than likely there was a least enough evidence 37 00:02:27,960 --> 00:02:30,239 Speaker 1: to raise concerns for the U. S. Attorney North The 38 00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:35,519 Speaker 1: District of Illinois, regarding how the documents were originally stored 39 00:02:35,680 --> 00:02:39,560 Speaker 1: in these different locations, and the extent to which efforts 40 00:02:39,560 --> 00:02:43,240 Speaker 1: were never made to ensure that any government records in general, 41 00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:48,160 Speaker 1: and particularly classified records, had been returned to the National Archives. 42 00:02:48,320 --> 00:02:52,200 Speaker 1: That doesn't necessarily mean there is sufficient evidence to charge 43 00:02:52,200 --> 00:02:56,120 Speaker 1: anyone with a crime. But given the political sensitivities of 44 00:02:56,160 --> 00:02:59,280 Speaker 1: the issue, given that involves the current president and his 45 00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:02,720 Speaker 1: staff of the ongoing Special Council probe in the former 46 00:03:02,720 --> 00:03:07,120 Speaker 1: President Trump, it's not surprising that Attorney General Garland decided 47 00:03:07,160 --> 00:03:10,280 Speaker 1: to appoint this new special Council specific to this issue. 48 00:03:10,520 --> 00:03:14,200 Speaker 1: But this is a criminal investigation, and for criminal charges 49 00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:17,360 Speaker 1: there has to be an intentional or a willful act. 50 00:03:17,440 --> 00:03:21,960 Speaker 1: It's not just accidental mishandling of classified documents, you know, 51 00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:26,400 Speaker 1: like sloppy housekeeping. So does that say that they're looking 52 00:03:26,440 --> 00:03:31,280 Speaker 1: at something that was intentional rather than just inadvertent. It's 53 00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:33,520 Speaker 1: tough to say. It makes me think there might be 54 00:03:33,560 --> 00:03:37,640 Speaker 1: more to this than just accidental mishandling. I don't know 55 00:03:37,920 --> 00:03:41,280 Speaker 1: who it would be by. I don't see any necessarily 56 00:03:41,320 --> 00:03:46,000 Speaker 1: any indication that if there was intentional mishandling, or if 57 00:03:46,000 --> 00:03:49,320 Speaker 1: there was any instruction that was done by Mr Biden 58 00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:51,840 Speaker 1: as opposed to one of the staffers. We'll have to 59 00:03:51,920 --> 00:03:54,400 Speaker 1: let the facts play out on that one, but I 60 00:03:54,440 --> 00:03:57,680 Speaker 1: think this is a just parmament, particularly Attorney General Garland, 61 00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:02,720 Speaker 1: just playing it extremely safe, recognizing the politics of the moment, 62 00:04:02,960 --> 00:04:06,480 Speaker 1: recognizing that Donald Trump has already filed for a third 63 00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:09,120 Speaker 1: bit for the White House, that President Biden is likely 64 00:04:09,160 --> 00:04:13,520 Speaker 1: to file for his reelection, and that the nature of 65 00:04:13,560 --> 00:04:16,880 Speaker 1: the moment requires pulling out all the stops, for lack 66 00:04:16,920 --> 00:04:19,760 Speaker 1: of a better phrase, to protect the institutional integrity of 67 00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:23,600 Speaker 1: the Justice Department. By no. He says he takes security seriously. 68 00:04:23,839 --> 00:04:27,640 Speaker 1: But they've discovered documents in his old office, in his garage, 69 00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:31,719 Speaker 1: and in the library, and that was just discovered on Thursday. 70 00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:34,000 Speaker 1: I think it speaks to how even those who we 71 00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:37,920 Speaker 1: assume are the more careful among us will make mistakes. 72 00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:40,120 Speaker 1: And that's what needs to be discovered here is once 73 00:04:40,200 --> 00:04:43,359 Speaker 1: this a set of mistake, was this loppiness by the 74 00:04:43,440 --> 00:04:47,280 Speaker 1: staffers to put this together or was there something more nefarious? 75 00:04:47,400 --> 00:04:50,159 Speaker 1: Was there a more deliberate intent by someone to remove 76 00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:53,560 Speaker 1: these records to these locations, and was there any effort 77 00:04:53,640 --> 00:04:57,000 Speaker 1: to conceal that from the government. That's what I think 78 00:04:57,000 --> 00:05:00,600 Speaker 1: will be the distinguishing point between this simply being administrative 79 00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:03,880 Speaker 1: flap on the wrist to somebody, as opposed to criminal charges. 80 00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:07,240 Speaker 1: And that's what got Donald Trump in trouble was not 81 00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:10,680 Speaker 1: the original mistake of the relocation of the records, but 82 00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:14,640 Speaker 1: the obstruction and the concealment of those records. How are 83 00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:18,839 Speaker 1: classified documents supposed to be handled should they even have 84 00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:22,200 Speaker 1: been in the Vice President's office for any length of time? 85 00:05:22,680 --> 00:05:24,400 Speaker 1: I mean, aren't they supposed to be handled in a 86 00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:29,040 Speaker 1: special place? So yeah, so depending on the level of classification, 87 00:05:29,120 --> 00:05:32,040 Speaker 1: there may be particular locations they're never supposed to be 88 00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:34,560 Speaker 1: removed from. But let's be clear, Wow, Joe Biden was 89 00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:37,200 Speaker 1: vice president, these materials would have no doubt been brought 90 00:05:37,240 --> 00:05:41,160 Speaker 1: in by the relevant security officials as part of briefing materials, 91 00:05:41,200 --> 00:05:44,200 Speaker 1: as part of information that they need to review in 92 00:05:44,279 --> 00:05:46,880 Speaker 1: advance of certain meetings. That happens all the time. The 93 00:05:46,960 --> 00:05:49,600 Speaker 1: question is who brought them there and why were they 94 00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:52,279 Speaker 1: left behind? That can be done so long as it 95 00:05:52,360 --> 00:05:55,120 Speaker 1: was in the proper location at the Vice President's residents 96 00:05:55,160 --> 00:05:57,360 Speaker 1: But the issue of how did they wind up at 97 00:05:57,400 --> 00:06:00,960 Speaker 1: the think tank is the unresolved question. It should never 98 00:06:01,000 --> 00:06:04,040 Speaker 1: have gotten there in the first place. That is a problem. 99 00:06:04,040 --> 00:06:07,080 Speaker 1: That is a breach of security. Whether or not there's 100 00:06:07,120 --> 00:06:09,800 Speaker 1: any criminal liability is what does not appear to be 101 00:06:09,839 --> 00:06:12,440 Speaker 1: lining up at the moment with respect to President buying 102 00:06:12,480 --> 00:06:15,640 Speaker 1: because of the proper actions to it. Turning, this happened 103 00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:19,200 Speaker 1: November two, so right before the mid terms. Shouldn't have 104 00:06:19,240 --> 00:06:22,400 Speaker 1: been disclosed to the public at that point. There was 105 00:06:22,560 --> 00:06:25,840 Speaker 1: no legal requirement for anyone to notify the public. Just 106 00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:29,880 Speaker 1: Department certainly doesn't comment on ongoing investigation, so they weren't 107 00:06:29,920 --> 00:06:32,839 Speaker 1: going to tell anybody. The National Archives didn't have any 108 00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:35,080 Speaker 1: need to at the time because they had already referred 109 00:06:35,080 --> 00:06:37,240 Speaker 1: things over the JUST Department, and the White House had 110 00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:40,080 Speaker 1: no obvious desire to do so, nor were they required 111 00:06:40,120 --> 00:06:44,000 Speaker 1: to do. And let's remember the ongoing saga at mar 112 00:06:44,160 --> 00:06:47,520 Speaker 1: Lago went on for months and months behind the scenes, 113 00:06:47,880 --> 00:06:49,920 Speaker 1: and no one in the public knew about it, because 114 00:06:49,920 --> 00:06:52,640 Speaker 1: they're not supposed to be talking about that stuff publicly. 115 00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:56,040 Speaker 1: We didn't know about the extended negotiations back and forth 116 00:06:56,279 --> 00:06:58,520 Speaker 1: to get the initial back of documents or the grand 117 00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:02,200 Speaker 1: jury subpoena that was enforced in June, there was a 118 00:07:02,279 --> 00:07:04,400 Speaker 1: sworn declaration given. At the time, we didn't know anything 119 00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:07,240 Speaker 1: about that until August, once there was finally a search 120 00:07:07,279 --> 00:07:11,360 Speaker 1: warrant executed. That's when we learned all the details. And 121 00:07:11,400 --> 00:07:13,800 Speaker 1: so there was no indications for the Just Department, who 122 00:07:13,800 --> 00:07:16,440 Speaker 1: have publicly acknowledged that this was going on in the 123 00:07:16,520 --> 00:07:20,200 Speaker 1: days leading up to mid terms, would have been political 124 00:07:20,200 --> 00:07:22,920 Speaker 1: of interference by the d o J on behalf of 125 00:07:22,960 --> 00:07:26,080 Speaker 1: the Republicans at that point. Do these incidents show that 126 00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:30,080 Speaker 1: there needs to be some reckoning about how classified documents 127 00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:34,880 Speaker 1: are being handled in general? So mishandling, the pure mishandling 128 00:07:34,880 --> 00:07:39,880 Speaker 1: of classified documents happens sadly a lot. The question always 129 00:07:39,880 --> 00:07:43,240 Speaker 1: from a criminal standpoint, and what the Just Department always 130 00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:47,760 Speaker 1: considers is was this accidental or was this something with 131 00:07:47,840 --> 00:07:51,600 Speaker 1: a measure of intent and or obstruction that would warrant 132 00:07:51,760 --> 00:07:56,080 Speaker 1: actually pursuing a criminal prosecution. So for most people, the 133 00:07:56,120 --> 00:07:59,480 Speaker 1: Just Department is happy to just let the administrative process 134 00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:02,680 Speaker 1: play up. Security clearance gets a vote, person gets fired, 135 00:08:02,840 --> 00:08:06,040 Speaker 1: something along those lines. Those aren't options obviously with someone 136 00:08:06,080 --> 00:08:08,520 Speaker 1: like a Donald Trump or Joe Biden, because in their 137 00:08:08,600 --> 00:08:12,360 Speaker 1: roles as constitutional officers their exempt from it. Donald Trump 138 00:08:12,480 --> 00:08:15,240 Speaker 1: is now no longer even working for the federal government 139 00:08:15,280 --> 00:08:18,119 Speaker 1: as president. He's a private citizen, so there's no administrative 140 00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:21,720 Speaker 1: steps to take. It's either criminal or nothing. But by 141 00:08:21,760 --> 00:08:24,960 Speaker 1: and large, with very rare exception, the Justice Departments does 142 00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:29,480 Speaker 1: not prosecute accidental mishandling of class fan information. They prosecute 143 00:08:29,480 --> 00:08:31,920 Speaker 1: if you're looking to sell it, if you're looking to 144 00:08:31,960 --> 00:08:34,880 Speaker 1: actually use it as more forms of espionage. If you 145 00:08:35,040 --> 00:08:37,840 Speaker 1: deliberately took documents and you're storing them for whatever purpose 146 00:08:37,880 --> 00:08:40,800 Speaker 1: you want at home, those are reasons they would pursue 147 00:08:40,880 --> 00:08:44,120 Speaker 1: a criminal prosecution, as well as if you obstructed any 148 00:08:44,160 --> 00:08:47,760 Speaker 1: effort to recover them. So right now, the job of 149 00:08:47,840 --> 00:08:50,280 Speaker 1: their special counsel pro to determine if there was any 150 00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:54,480 Speaker 1: crime committed beyond the breach of security itself, if there's 151 00:08:54,480 --> 00:08:58,480 Speaker 1: any particular criminal liability for anyone up to including obviously 152 00:08:58,559 --> 00:09:02,040 Speaker 1: Joe Biden, though given that the current president, it's obviously 153 00:09:02,120 --> 00:09:04,840 Speaker 1: d o J policy not to bring in indictment anyways. 154 00:09:04,920 --> 00:09:07,960 Speaker 1: But were any of the stafforts that anybody commit a 155 00:09:08,040 --> 00:09:11,440 Speaker 1: crime that needs to be prosecuted at this point, so 156 00:09:11,559 --> 00:09:15,640 Speaker 1: what possible criminal liability is there? What statutes are involved. 157 00:09:16,000 --> 00:09:18,440 Speaker 1: So you're gonna have some of the same legal provisions 158 00:09:18,480 --> 00:09:21,240 Speaker 1: that are in play in the Marlagua saga. You're gonna 159 00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:25,240 Speaker 1: have the Espionage Act provisions concerning the unauthorized retention of 160 00:09:25,360 --> 00:09:29,040 Speaker 1: national defense information. You're gonna have issues of potential obstruction 161 00:09:29,200 --> 00:09:32,120 Speaker 1: if there were efforts by whether it was Mr Biden 162 00:09:32,200 --> 00:09:35,640 Speaker 1: or any of the staffers to conceal or obstruct efforts 163 00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:38,960 Speaker 1: to recover these various records over the last six or 164 00:09:38,960 --> 00:09:41,400 Speaker 1: seven years. We have seen no evidence of that yet, 165 00:09:41,440 --> 00:09:43,880 Speaker 1: but that would be the type of statutory provision that 166 00:09:43,920 --> 00:09:47,520 Speaker 1: would come into play if evidence along those lines is developed. 167 00:09:48,080 --> 00:09:52,680 Speaker 1: Does taking this from an in house Justice Department investigation 168 00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:58,520 Speaker 1: to a special council investigation escalate the inquiry? Special counsel 169 00:09:58,679 --> 00:10:03,240 Speaker 1: don't always, but often do bring criminal charges. So what 170 00:10:03,400 --> 00:10:06,800 Speaker 1: making it into a special council changes more than anything, 171 00:10:06,840 --> 00:10:10,800 Speaker 1: in my view, is increases the likelihood of transparency, where 172 00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:14,000 Speaker 1: usually if the U. S. Attorney is simply investigating it, 173 00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:17,160 Speaker 1: if they choose not to bring charges, that's the end 174 00:10:17,160 --> 00:10:20,200 Speaker 1: of it. There's no public report, there's nothing, They just 175 00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:22,760 Speaker 1: end the investigation. A lot of times they won't even 176 00:10:22,800 --> 00:10:24,720 Speaker 1: make much of a comment, if any, to the public 177 00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:29,600 Speaker 1: about it with a special council. The regulations specifically anticipates 178 00:10:29,720 --> 00:10:33,240 Speaker 1: that a report outlining the entire to the investigation will 179 00:10:33,280 --> 00:10:36,440 Speaker 1: be compiled the presented to the Attorney General, and most 180 00:10:36,480 --> 00:10:41,240 Speaker 1: likely Attorney General Garland would make that public for American 181 00:10:41,360 --> 00:10:44,680 Speaker 1: voters to review and to take any consideration. So it 182 00:10:44,720 --> 00:10:46,880 Speaker 1: doesn't change anything, is my view, in terms of the 183 00:10:46,960 --> 00:10:49,640 Speaker 1: power of the Justice Department to bring charges. It doesn't 184 00:10:49,679 --> 00:10:52,040 Speaker 1: make it necessarily more likely charges are going to be brought, 185 00:10:52,080 --> 00:10:56,760 Speaker 1: but it ensures more transparently. Former President Trump, who has 186 00:10:56,800 --> 00:10:59,560 Speaker 1: claimed that he declassified all the records found his home 187 00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:03,079 Speaker 1: that providing any proof of that, said on his truth 188 00:11:03,160 --> 00:11:06,280 Speaker 1: social account quote, when is the FBI going to raid 189 00:11:06,320 --> 00:11:09,480 Speaker 1: the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House? 190 00:11:09,840 --> 00:11:14,960 Speaker 1: These documents were definitely not declassified. Donald Trump is making 191 00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:18,640 Speaker 1: another rant, Like Donald Trump does, it means nothing. Look, 192 00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:22,600 Speaker 1: if Joe Biden starts obstructing the investigation and submitting false 193 00:11:22,600 --> 00:11:25,600 Speaker 1: statements to his lawyers, and the Just Department develops evidence 194 00:11:25,640 --> 00:11:29,520 Speaker 1: that Joe Biden's team is concealing other records with classification 195 00:11:29,559 --> 00:11:32,400 Speaker 1: markings at other facilities, then they can go to the 196 00:11:32,400 --> 00:11:34,400 Speaker 1: magistrate and get a search warrant, just like they had 197 00:11:34,440 --> 00:11:36,960 Speaker 1: to do with Marlaco. But that was an eighteen month 198 00:11:37,080 --> 00:11:41,640 Speaker 1: process and the Trump team constantly obstructed that inquiry. There's 199 00:11:41,679 --> 00:11:44,720 Speaker 1: no indication the Biden team has done anything similar. Not 200 00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:46,760 Speaker 1: to mention this idea, are you going to raid the 201 00:11:46,800 --> 00:11:50,080 Speaker 1: White House? The White House is a government facility authorized 202 00:11:50,120 --> 00:11:53,880 Speaker 1: to hold those records, and Joe Biden, as the current president, 203 00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:56,400 Speaker 1: can do whatever he wants with them, just like Donald 204 00:11:56,400 --> 00:11:59,400 Speaker 1: Trump could do when he was the president. Does this 205 00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:07,000 Speaker 1: second special counsel investigation complicate the investigation of Special Counsel 206 00:12:07,120 --> 00:12:11,440 Speaker 1: Jack Smith of former President Trump and the decision by 207 00:12:11,480 --> 00:12:15,280 Speaker 1: Smith and Garland whether to prosecute. I don't think it 208 00:12:15,280 --> 00:12:20,439 Speaker 1: instily changes their legal calculus. It might alter their political 209 00:12:20,600 --> 00:12:24,040 Speaker 1: calculus of it. If you're Jack Smith and you're compiling 210 00:12:24,520 --> 00:12:28,520 Speaker 1: a potential indictment against the former president, you were already 211 00:12:28,559 --> 00:12:30,840 Speaker 1: on high alert to make sure your case was tight 212 00:12:30,920 --> 00:12:34,600 Speaker 1: in your facts were clean. Now you're gonna be even 213 00:12:34,679 --> 00:12:37,040 Speaker 1: more so worried to make sure that there are no 214 00:12:37,160 --> 00:12:40,920 Speaker 1: gaps in the evidence, that there are no witnesses whose 215 00:12:40,920 --> 00:12:44,080 Speaker 1: credibility you can't be sure of. You're gonna be even 216 00:12:44,120 --> 00:12:46,720 Speaker 1: more sensitive to that idea, because if you choose to 217 00:12:46,760 --> 00:12:50,160 Speaker 1: bring an indictment and the special counsel inted Biden mess 218 00:12:50,240 --> 00:12:54,480 Speaker 1: does not, there will be obvious political implications. And less 219 00:12:54,559 --> 00:12:58,360 Speaker 1: we forget there are actually three special counsels at the 220 00:12:58,400 --> 00:13:02,640 Speaker 1: same time. John d has been investigating potential misconduct in 221 00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:05,880 Speaker 1: the Trump Russia probe for about four years, So the 222 00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:09,880 Speaker 1: special counsel investigations can take on a life of their own. 223 00:13:10,280 --> 00:13:13,199 Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Brad. That's Brad Moss of mark Z 224 00:13:13,800 --> 00:13:17,320 Speaker 1: coming up next. The Supreme Court considers the attorney client 225 00:13:17,400 --> 00:13:20,920 Speaker 1: privilege in a case with special importance for in house counsel. 226 00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:26,040 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg, I'm wondering if you would just 227 00:13:26,080 --> 00:13:28,880 Speaker 1: comment on, you know, the ancient legal principle of if 228 00:13:28,920 --> 00:13:32,160 Speaker 1: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There was laughter 229 00:13:32,240 --> 00:13:35,920 Speaker 1: in the courtroom, as just as Elina Kagan suggested, there's 230 00:13:35,960 --> 00:13:39,480 Speaker 1: no need to change the scope of the attorney client privilege, 231 00:13:39,559 --> 00:13:44,400 Speaker 1: which protects the confidentiality of communications. The question that jostices 232 00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:48,640 Speaker 1: are deciding is what tests should courts use when communications 233 00:13:48,640 --> 00:13:51,720 Speaker 1: between a lawyer and a client involve both business and 234 00:13:51,880 --> 00:13:54,840 Speaker 1: legal advice. I mean, we've had the attorney client privilege 235 00:13:54,880 --> 00:14:00,160 Speaker 1: for a long time and until nobody ever uh and 236 00:14:00,200 --> 00:14:04,520 Speaker 1: suggested that the test that you're proposing is the right one. 237 00:14:04,880 --> 00:14:09,480 Speaker 1: Everybody instead used the primary purpose test. Should communications be 238 00:14:09,600 --> 00:14:13,520 Speaker 1: protected only if the primary purpose was to obtain legal advice, 239 00:14:13,840 --> 00:14:17,559 Speaker 1: or also if a significant purpose was to obtain legal advice. 240 00:14:17,920 --> 00:14:21,320 Speaker 1: It sounds like semantics, and many of the justices seemed 241 00:14:21,360 --> 00:14:24,200 Speaker 1: to agree with Justice Kagan that there's no need to 242 00:14:24,240 --> 00:14:27,800 Speaker 1: fix what ain't broke. Here's Chief Justice John Roberts and 243 00:14:27,880 --> 00:14:31,200 Speaker 1: Justice Ainy Coney Barrett to a certain extent. You know, 244 00:14:31,240 --> 00:14:36,800 Speaker 1: I think we're talking about labels rather than analysis, because 245 00:14:36,840 --> 00:14:38,760 Speaker 1: we can't really say tigeres to the runner right when 246 00:14:38,760 --> 00:14:41,520 Speaker 1: the burden is on the person invoking the privilege. We 247 00:14:41,600 --> 00:14:44,040 Speaker 1: can't get into this whole put a percentage on it 248 00:14:44,120 --> 00:14:46,080 Speaker 1: for the reasons that we've already talked about, So maybe 249 00:14:46,080 --> 00:14:49,479 Speaker 1: it's best to say nothing. Joining me is M. C. Sungaila, 250 00:14:49,680 --> 00:14:52,960 Speaker 1: head of the appellate practice at buck Alter. This case 251 00:14:53,000 --> 00:14:56,560 Speaker 1: involves a grand jury subpoena in connection with a criminal 252 00:14:56,600 --> 00:14:59,760 Speaker 1: tax investigation, and the law firm and the client in 253 00:15:00,200 --> 00:15:04,040 Speaker 1: the attorney client privileged to withhold documents, and the case 254 00:15:04,160 --> 00:15:06,560 Speaker 1: is shrouded in mystery in a lot of ways. The 255 00:15:06,600 --> 00:15:10,080 Speaker 1: petitioner isn't even named. Oh gosh, yes, Well, there's the 256 00:15:10,200 --> 00:15:13,000 Speaker 1: mystery having to do with the parties and the fact 257 00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:16,360 Speaker 1: what things are under seal and you know which law 258 00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:19,640 Speaker 1: firms involved, in which companies involved. I think there was 259 00:15:19,720 --> 00:15:23,360 Speaker 1: some reference in the government's briefs of the company involved 260 00:15:23,480 --> 00:15:28,280 Speaker 1: with the privileges involved in the cryptocurrency or something like that. 261 00:15:28,440 --> 00:15:30,800 Speaker 1: But yeah, there's a little bit of mysterious to the 262 00:15:30,840 --> 00:15:34,640 Speaker 1: individual participants, but the larger she's not a mystery, and 263 00:15:34,720 --> 00:15:38,320 Speaker 1: it's definitely one that is of interest, I would say, 264 00:15:38,400 --> 00:15:42,360 Speaker 1: particularly to in house council who often are in the 265 00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:46,880 Speaker 1: position where their communication could be seen as dual purpose. 266 00:15:47,120 --> 00:15:49,360 Speaker 1: So the question here is what is the test to 267 00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:53,640 Speaker 1: apply to communications that have both a legal purpose and 268 00:15:53,680 --> 00:15:57,800 Speaker 1: a business purpose. And is the test the single primary 269 00:15:57,840 --> 00:16:01,360 Speaker 1: purpose is legal and therefore it's subject to attorney client 270 00:16:01,920 --> 00:16:08,640 Speaker 1: privilege or is it sufficient that a significant purpose is enough? 271 00:16:08,680 --> 00:16:11,920 Speaker 1: So that's the question, I think, particularly given that there 272 00:16:11,960 --> 00:16:14,800 Speaker 1: are so many circumstances, especially when you're talking about in 273 00:16:14,880 --> 00:16:20,240 Speaker 1: house counsel in companies, they're often asked business strategy questions 274 00:16:20,240 --> 00:16:23,840 Speaker 1: and legal strategy questions what are really Internet? And so 275 00:16:23,880 --> 00:16:26,280 Speaker 1: they're paying a lot of attention to this case. So 276 00:16:26,480 --> 00:16:28,800 Speaker 1: M see you filed an amigest brief on behalf of 277 00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:33,160 Speaker 1: the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel supporting a broad 278 00:16:33,400 --> 00:16:37,240 Speaker 1: application of the privilege. Is the concern that a narrower 279 00:16:37,320 --> 00:16:42,640 Speaker 1: test might chill a client's communications with their attorney. Yeah, 280 00:16:42,680 --> 00:16:45,320 Speaker 1: I mean you want people to be forthcoming so that 281 00:16:45,360 --> 00:16:47,800 Speaker 1: you can give the best legal advice. You also, in 282 00:16:47,880 --> 00:16:51,080 Speaker 1: the course of providing legal advice sometimes to me to 283 00:16:51,320 --> 00:16:55,240 Speaker 1: get a lot of other personal information. So one of 284 00:16:55,280 --> 00:16:58,400 Speaker 1: the examples that came up in the argument was, well, 285 00:16:58,920 --> 00:17:03,200 Speaker 1: if you're asking for advice about property or the family 286 00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:06,280 Speaker 1: home or something like that, and you need to get 287 00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:10,560 Speaker 1: some evaluation information or factual information about the property in 288 00:17:10,680 --> 00:17:14,000 Speaker 1: order to offer google advice about it, you want as 289 00:17:14,080 --> 00:17:16,959 Speaker 1: much information as possible, and you want it as broad 290 00:17:17,080 --> 00:17:19,840 Speaker 1: as possible in doing that, so you can get the 291 00:17:19,920 --> 00:17:22,560 Speaker 1: full information you need to offer the best advice, and 292 00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:26,399 Speaker 1: also can ask a lot of different factual questions that 293 00:17:26,480 --> 00:17:29,280 Speaker 1: you need to render that advice. And sometimes two clients 294 00:17:29,320 --> 00:17:31,639 Speaker 1: don't know they think there might be a legal issue, 295 00:17:31,680 --> 00:17:33,720 Speaker 1: but they don't know, and they think they're asking a 296 00:17:33,760 --> 00:17:37,000 Speaker 1: business question, but it's really also a legal question. So 297 00:17:37,040 --> 00:17:40,080 Speaker 1: if you had this test of a single primary purpose 298 00:17:40,160 --> 00:17:43,960 Speaker 1: being seeking legal advice that they might say, as a client, well, 299 00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:47,040 Speaker 1: we didn't really know at the time we were asking questions, 300 00:17:47,040 --> 00:17:49,600 Speaker 1: but it was actually legal advice that we really should 301 00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:53,400 Speaker 1: be asking about. On the other side, the government argues 302 00:17:54,080 --> 00:17:58,120 Speaker 1: that having that kind of a broad test would allow 303 00:17:58,760 --> 00:18:04,240 Speaker 1: companies to shield documents about accounting and business development without 304 00:18:04,280 --> 00:18:08,480 Speaker 1: a compelling justification. And in this case, the government says, 305 00:18:08,520 --> 00:18:12,600 Speaker 1: the vast majority of the documents in dispute our communications 306 00:18:12,680 --> 00:18:16,200 Speaker 1: between the client and a non lawyer accountant that was 307 00:18:16,280 --> 00:18:19,800 Speaker 1: employed by the law firm to prepare tax returns. So 308 00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:23,800 Speaker 1: the government says that the broader test the significant purpose 309 00:18:23,960 --> 00:18:27,240 Speaker 1: is too broad. It's really interesting. There was a lot 310 00:18:27,280 --> 00:18:30,440 Speaker 1: of stock and forth about what each side position was, 311 00:18:30,960 --> 00:18:35,000 Speaker 1: whether there really was some, you know, significant disagreement by 312 00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:37,639 Speaker 1: the parties about what the tests should in fact be. 313 00:18:38,280 --> 00:18:40,720 Speaker 1: At one point Justice course that said, oh, I think 314 00:18:40,800 --> 00:18:45,760 Speaker 1: both of you might be adjusting your definition of the 315 00:18:45,800 --> 00:18:49,439 Speaker 1: test and might actually be coming to the same test, 316 00:18:49,560 --> 00:18:53,440 Speaker 1: which is not primary purpose but a significant purpose. And 317 00:18:53,680 --> 00:18:56,240 Speaker 1: you know, the government submurdered at one point somethw that 318 00:18:56,240 --> 00:18:58,440 Speaker 1: that's not exactly what we're saying, but it didn't start 319 00:18:58,480 --> 00:19:00,760 Speaker 1: to sound like it. But there were moved and goalposts 320 00:19:00,760 --> 00:19:04,040 Speaker 1: from what you described as you know, the government's positions 321 00:19:04,080 --> 00:19:07,199 Speaker 1: seemed to be moving a little bit scaring arguments. But 322 00:19:07,280 --> 00:19:10,320 Speaker 1: they did state that concerned that, I guess, the improper 323 00:19:10,359 --> 00:19:13,400 Speaker 1: invocation of the privilege or an effort to have everything 324 00:19:13,440 --> 00:19:16,199 Speaker 1: covered by the privilege when it really shouldn't be. And 325 00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:19,080 Speaker 1: they also talked about the specifics of this case, and 326 00:19:19,080 --> 00:19:21,440 Speaker 1: so I think that's really two things at play here. 327 00:19:21,560 --> 00:19:24,240 Speaker 1: One is the overall test which would apply while beyond 328 00:19:24,440 --> 00:19:27,320 Speaker 1: this case, and that's of course at the free court level, 329 00:19:27,359 --> 00:19:30,120 Speaker 1: with the justice is always remind everyone of. And they 330 00:19:30,160 --> 00:19:32,760 Speaker 1: did an argument which was, yeah, yeah, we're very interested 331 00:19:33,080 --> 00:19:35,359 Speaker 1: how this comes out in the particular case, but we're 332 00:19:35,359 --> 00:19:38,960 Speaker 1: most interested in what's the test and why we should 333 00:19:39,359 --> 00:19:41,760 Speaker 1: adopt a certain test, because that's the test is going 334 00:19:41,800 --> 00:19:44,439 Speaker 1: to be applied across multiple cases, so we want to 335 00:19:44,480 --> 00:19:47,679 Speaker 1: make sure it's workable. It seems pretty clear that the 336 00:19:47,760 --> 00:19:51,320 Speaker 1: government was on one side and all the aniquest briefs 337 00:19:51,600 --> 00:19:54,320 Speaker 1: were on the opposite side. From our perspective, from the 338 00:19:54,359 --> 00:19:57,440 Speaker 1: perspective of the bar associations and the business organizations that 339 00:19:57,640 --> 00:20:00,399 Speaker 1: files aniquest PAS in the case there's their cheene of 340 00:20:00,480 --> 00:20:04,159 Speaker 1: those rates. You know, all of those amagists are aligned 341 00:20:04,280 --> 00:20:07,720 Speaker 1: in having a concern about the test that the government 342 00:20:07,800 --> 00:20:11,280 Speaker 1: is avocating for a single primary purpose test, because we 343 00:20:11,359 --> 00:20:14,800 Speaker 1: want a practical, workable test that gives us some sense 344 00:20:14,960 --> 00:20:17,640 Speaker 1: in advance of what would be subject to the privilege, 345 00:20:17,680 --> 00:20:21,000 Speaker 1: and something that in retrospect also is more workable in 346 00:20:21,119 --> 00:20:25,439 Speaker 1: terms of analyzing whether the privilege attaches, and something that 347 00:20:25,560 --> 00:20:29,880 Speaker 1: also just reflects the practical realities of how legal advice 348 00:20:30,000 --> 00:20:33,040 Speaker 1: is given, the circumstances under which is given, and just 349 00:20:33,320 --> 00:20:37,080 Speaker 1: how things operate in the real world. And you know, frankly, 350 00:20:37,240 --> 00:20:40,000 Speaker 1: it's really nice to be on the Supreme Court and 351 00:20:40,040 --> 00:20:42,359 Speaker 1: to be in the position they're in. They don't have 352 00:20:42,400 --> 00:20:45,120 Speaker 1: to deal with those realities. So, you know, we hope 353 00:20:45,160 --> 00:20:48,359 Speaker 1: that the amagas greeps will help illuminate the practicalities of 354 00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:51,399 Speaker 1: that and how the test will be applied. So it 355 00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:56,320 Speaker 1: seems to be semantics the words significant and primary. It 356 00:20:56,359 --> 00:21:00,880 Speaker 1: doesn't seem like there's that much difference between those. Yeah, 357 00:21:01,040 --> 00:21:03,600 Speaker 1: not only some of the questions too, was how do 358 00:21:03,680 --> 00:21:06,959 Speaker 1: you define these terms? So, assuming we adopt a significant 359 00:21:06,960 --> 00:21:10,040 Speaker 1: purpose test, counsel, we do that mean to you? If 360 00:21:10,040 --> 00:21:11,840 Speaker 1: we weren't to define it, we don't have to, But 361 00:21:11,920 --> 00:21:15,160 Speaker 1: if we were, what would we say? And some of 362 00:21:15,200 --> 00:21:18,480 Speaker 1: those answers seemed to really dug tail between the government 363 00:21:18,720 --> 00:21:23,320 Speaker 1: and counsel seeking a broader privilege. So you say, hmmm. Ultimately, 364 00:21:23,640 --> 00:21:26,480 Speaker 1: as discourse is pointed out, I wonder how much light 365 00:21:26,600 --> 00:21:30,640 Speaker 1: there really is between the standards as applied that each 366 00:21:30,680 --> 00:21:34,120 Speaker 1: side's arguing for. So it really was kind of interesting, 367 00:21:34,160 --> 00:21:35,840 Speaker 1: and it did have you maybe stetching your head a 368 00:21:35,880 --> 00:21:38,600 Speaker 1: little bit after argument. But maybe Justine course has had 369 00:21:38,640 --> 00:21:43,000 Speaker 1: something There really isn't a significant you know, divide. So 370 00:21:43,000 --> 00:21:45,560 Speaker 1: where do you think will come out? I mean, if 371 00:21:45,560 --> 00:21:49,560 Speaker 1: you're just listening to the arguments and assuming that folks 372 00:21:49,600 --> 00:21:52,480 Speaker 1: are gonna kind of stick to their guns, and where 373 00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:55,320 Speaker 1: they seem to be mean during arguments, I would say, 374 00:21:55,640 --> 00:21:59,160 Speaker 1: just this course, it's Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh seemed, 375 00:21:59,480 --> 00:22:02,560 Speaker 1: you know, more predisposed to the argument for a significant 376 00:22:02,560 --> 00:22:06,160 Speaker 1: purpose test and something that gave more protection. The rest 377 00:22:06,200 --> 00:22:10,680 Speaker 1: of the court had various degrees of concern or consternation 378 00:22:11,000 --> 00:22:14,520 Speaker 1: about a test that was something different from the primary 379 00:22:14,560 --> 00:22:18,480 Speaker 1: purpose test. So, yeah, it's looking like not great for 380 00:22:18,600 --> 00:22:22,440 Speaker 1: this for the in house council. Is it possible to 381 00:22:22,520 --> 00:22:27,159 Speaker 1: come out with a test that's really clear in this area? 382 00:22:27,320 --> 00:22:29,560 Speaker 1: Is it possible that they come back and they don't 383 00:22:29,600 --> 00:22:33,720 Speaker 1: have a clear test? Yeah? I mean that was one 384 00:22:33,720 --> 00:22:35,440 Speaker 1: of the That was one of the things I thought 385 00:22:35,480 --> 00:22:39,760 Speaker 1: that Justice very kind of floated at one point during argument, 386 00:22:39,800 --> 00:22:43,040 Speaker 1: which was, well, if we can't really reach some kind 387 00:22:43,080 --> 00:22:46,240 Speaker 1: of consensus on the court itself about how do we 388 00:22:46,359 --> 00:22:50,600 Speaker 1: define a test and giving guidance about how to apply it, 389 00:22:51,320 --> 00:22:55,359 Speaker 1: one suggestion she made was well, if we just basically 390 00:22:55,400 --> 00:22:58,520 Speaker 1: say we adopt test X and then let it work 391 00:22:58,520 --> 00:23:01,960 Speaker 1: out afterwards through the system, that might be one way, 392 00:23:02,040 --> 00:23:04,959 Speaker 1: because I think she was reacting to the fact that 393 00:23:05,280 --> 00:23:07,879 Speaker 1: they probably weren't going to get certain people, you know, 394 00:23:08,000 --> 00:23:12,080 Speaker 1: on the court to agree to a particular outcome, so 395 00:23:12,200 --> 00:23:14,760 Speaker 1: she was maybe testing the waters or what if we 396 00:23:14,840 --> 00:23:19,240 Speaker 1: just said something very broad about which testfully adopt and 397 00:23:19,400 --> 00:23:21,920 Speaker 1: that would define and I think, you know, the suggestion 398 00:23:22,000 --> 00:23:25,199 Speaker 1: was if we adopt the primary purpose tests, then we 399 00:23:25,200 --> 00:23:28,760 Speaker 1: wouldn't need to flush it out too much because there 400 00:23:28,760 --> 00:23:32,600 Speaker 1: are state cases that interpret that and everybody could look 401 00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:36,000 Speaker 1: to those with a pre existing law interpreting those cases. 402 00:23:36,520 --> 00:23:39,240 Speaker 1: But in response to that, Jesfics cavan not pointed out, well, 403 00:23:39,880 --> 00:23:42,200 Speaker 1: but they say they apply some tests that they don't 404 00:23:42,480 --> 00:23:45,320 Speaker 1: they really seem to apply another one. So how clear 405 00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:48,919 Speaker 1: is that? Not very clear? So not very clear. Just 406 00:23:49,160 --> 00:23:54,000 Speaker 1: explain how this decision then could impact not only in 407 00:23:54,080 --> 00:23:58,000 Speaker 1: House Council but outside lawyers. Yeah, it was one of 408 00:23:58,119 --> 00:24:02,720 Speaker 1: the suggestions by um, the government at argument one that 409 00:24:02,800 --> 00:24:06,920 Speaker 1: I've seen in you know, previous advice letters or things 410 00:24:06,920 --> 00:24:09,679 Speaker 1: like that from from very well regarded law firms to 411 00:24:09,800 --> 00:24:12,000 Speaker 1: their clients. But how do we deal with this if 412 00:24:12,040 --> 00:24:15,320 Speaker 1: it is more of a primary purpose type test, how 413 00:24:15,359 --> 00:24:18,399 Speaker 1: do we proceed? And it was similar to how the 414 00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:21,879 Speaker 1: government suggested, Well, you have one email or one memo 415 00:24:21,960 --> 00:24:25,119 Speaker 1: that's focused on legal analysis, and you have another memo 416 00:24:25,440 --> 00:24:27,840 Speaker 1: or email that's focused on the business part, and you 417 00:24:27,920 --> 00:24:30,520 Speaker 1: keep them separate so that there's you know, none of 418 00:24:30,560 --> 00:24:36,679 Speaker 1: this kind of questioning having to parish between dual dual purposes. Really, um, 419 00:24:36,920 --> 00:24:40,160 Speaker 1: you would really solve it by keeping the legal completely separate. 420 00:24:40,800 --> 00:24:44,399 Speaker 1: And uh, when I heard that and also seen that 421 00:24:44,440 --> 00:24:47,399 Speaker 1: advice previously, I just I just thought, well, that's just 422 00:24:47,480 --> 00:24:51,280 Speaker 1: reveals how unworkable it is if you're focused on this 423 00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:56,879 Speaker 1: you know, primary purpose question, because I think in reality 424 00:24:56,960 --> 00:25:00,520 Speaker 1: it's just not practical. Oh, everybody stopped that mail chain 425 00:25:00,600 --> 00:25:03,920 Speaker 1: we're on where we're debating with the executives and other 426 00:25:04,000 --> 00:25:09,000 Speaker 1: people in the group about mixed the business and legal things, 427 00:25:09,040 --> 00:25:11,479 Speaker 1: shall we say, and we're gonna have the lawyers going 428 00:25:11,520 --> 00:25:14,320 Speaker 1: to pull out some separate emails. I know, everybody, we 429 00:25:14,359 --> 00:25:16,840 Speaker 1: need to have some separate email chain. That's only about 430 00:25:16,840 --> 00:25:20,280 Speaker 1: the legal advice. It's just it's counterintuitive, and it really 431 00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:26,040 Speaker 1: separates out um that legal advice from them from the 432 00:25:26,080 --> 00:25:32,080 Speaker 1: business concerns of the clients, and also from the property 433 00:25:32,200 --> 00:25:35,040 Speaker 1: question that came up at or larguments. Even for the 434 00:25:35,200 --> 00:25:38,720 Speaker 1: folks who aren't big companies, who who are clients individuals 435 00:25:38,760 --> 00:25:43,560 Speaker 1: those clients. This question of how much information you're giving 436 00:25:43,600 --> 00:25:47,520 Speaker 1: that may deem peripheral to the direct legal questions but 437 00:25:47,640 --> 00:25:51,040 Speaker 1: actually are important for the lawyer to know about in 438 00:25:51,160 --> 00:25:53,639 Speaker 1: order to give the best legal advice. You might be 439 00:25:53,680 --> 00:25:55,280 Speaker 1: a little more concerned, like I don't want to go 440 00:25:55,880 --> 00:25:58,800 Speaker 1: a field of you know, the things that would be 441 00:25:58,880 --> 00:26:03,040 Speaker 1: purely legal advice, because then I'm getting into this you know, 442 00:26:03,160 --> 00:26:06,919 Speaker 1: swampy area. I'm not sure whether things are actually protected 443 00:26:06,960 --> 00:26:10,320 Speaker 1: by the attorney client privilege or not. So those are 444 00:26:11,119 --> 00:26:14,919 Speaker 1: those are things we don't really like to see. We 445 00:26:15,000 --> 00:26:19,480 Speaker 1: want more open communication and transparency between clients an attorney 446 00:26:19,760 --> 00:26:23,280 Speaker 1: in order to have the best compliance, in order to 447 00:26:23,359 --> 00:26:27,840 Speaker 1: understand the legal risk to the utmost and um. It's 448 00:26:27,840 --> 00:26:31,879 Speaker 1: hard to be proactive when you have a test that unclear. 449 00:26:32,600 --> 00:26:36,720 Speaker 1: It seems like there wouldn't be five votes to change 450 00:26:36,800 --> 00:26:40,080 Speaker 1: the test. It doesn't sound like it's to me an argument. 451 00:26:42,440 --> 00:26:44,960 Speaker 1: It doesn't sound like an argument. I mean it might 452 00:26:45,040 --> 00:26:48,159 Speaker 1: be afterwards. What I'm thinking is there may be some 453 00:26:48,280 --> 00:26:52,360 Speaker 1: working out of things afterwards. The people that kind of say, okay, 454 00:26:52,600 --> 00:26:54,040 Speaker 1: if you have to have to write out what this 455 00:26:54,160 --> 00:26:57,399 Speaker 1: test means of how it would apply, maybe you'd have 456 00:26:57,520 --> 00:27:00,919 Speaker 1: some some second thoughts about how that is applied. And 457 00:27:00,960 --> 00:27:03,719 Speaker 1: if it turns out that you end up having some 458 00:27:03,800 --> 00:27:08,119 Speaker 1: kind of primary purpose tests that ultimately really in practice 459 00:27:08,400 --> 00:27:11,720 Speaker 1: ends up seeing something that looks much more like a 460 00:27:11,800 --> 00:27:15,760 Speaker 1: significant purpose test than maybe you don't lose. So I 461 00:27:15,800 --> 00:27:17,560 Speaker 1: think it really in this case, it will turn on 462 00:27:17,640 --> 00:27:21,119 Speaker 1: the details and where the court goes in terms of 463 00:27:21,160 --> 00:27:25,320 Speaker 1: how how much it's going to go beyond just announcing 464 00:27:25,359 --> 00:27:27,440 Speaker 1: some general standards. You've been going to break it down 465 00:27:27,480 --> 00:27:30,000 Speaker 1: a little bit more. It may turn out that the 466 00:27:30,160 --> 00:27:34,480 Speaker 1: tests maybe in name be different, but actually an application 467 00:27:34,680 --> 00:27:37,119 Speaker 1: it might not be. I think that's really kind of 468 00:27:37,160 --> 00:27:39,879 Speaker 1: the best reading of the tea leaves for the thirteen 469 00:27:40,520 --> 00:27:43,800 Speaker 1: guess of which my client is one um before the 470 00:27:43,840 --> 00:27:46,080 Speaker 1: court in the case, but you never know for sure. 471 00:27:46,200 --> 00:27:49,720 Speaker 1: Thanks so much, em C. That's mc sanila of buck Alter. 472 00:27:51,760 --> 00:27:55,560 Speaker 1: Dozens of President Biden's judicial nominees, some of whom waited 473 00:27:55,600 --> 00:27:58,480 Speaker 1: a year or more for a confirmation vote. We're in 474 00:27:58,520 --> 00:28:01,919 Speaker 1: a sort of limbo when the seventeenth Congress came to 475 00:28:01,960 --> 00:28:05,840 Speaker 1: an end in December. Now, Biden has resubmitted twenty five 476 00:28:05,880 --> 00:28:09,080 Speaker 1: of those nominees to the Senate, including lawyers for the 477 00:28:09,119 --> 00:28:12,440 Speaker 1: A c. L U Southern Poverty Law Center and Center 478 00:28:12,520 --> 00:28:17,600 Speaker 1: for Reproductive Rights who previously deadlock in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 479 00:28:17,840 --> 00:28:20,640 Speaker 1: The hundred and eighteenth Congress should be an easier one 480 00:28:20,720 --> 00:28:24,879 Speaker 1: for Biden's judicial nominations, as the Democrats enjoy a newly 481 00:28:24,960 --> 00:28:28,760 Speaker 1: boosted majority. Joining me as an expert in the judiciary, 482 00:28:29,160 --> 00:28:32,520 Speaker 1: Carl Tobias, A professor at the University of Richmond Law School. 483 00:28:33,080 --> 00:28:37,560 Speaker 1: Dozens of Biden judicial nominees were returned to the White House. 484 00:28:37,640 --> 00:28:42,160 Speaker 1: Explain why, Well, that's automatic because the hundred and seventeenth 485 00:28:42,360 --> 00:28:48,520 Speaker 1: Congress ended, and so you cannot carry people over into 486 00:28:48,560 --> 00:28:52,760 Speaker 1: the new Congress, so they need to be renominated if 487 00:28:52,760 --> 00:28:56,080 Speaker 1: they did not have a confirmation vote. That's what happened. 488 00:28:56,240 --> 00:28:58,560 Speaker 1: They came back to the White House to the President. 489 00:28:59,160 --> 00:29:04,040 Speaker 1: About half of them were renominated, and as I understand it, 490 00:29:04,560 --> 00:29:10,240 Speaker 1: during January, the others who were not renominated will be 491 00:29:10,640 --> 00:29:13,120 Speaker 1: There's a lot of paperwork and updating that has to 492 00:29:13,160 --> 00:29:16,320 Speaker 1: be done, and we're just coming off the holidays, and 493 00:29:16,400 --> 00:29:21,000 Speaker 1: so I think that explains why they're going to gradually 494 00:29:21,160 --> 00:29:24,719 Speaker 1: send all of the nominees who are willing to be 495 00:29:24,760 --> 00:29:27,640 Speaker 1: renominated by the end of the month when the standard 496 00:29:27,680 --> 00:29:31,360 Speaker 1: comes back. They actually came in for ceremonial duties and 497 00:29:31,400 --> 00:29:35,360 Speaker 1: swore in the new senators, but then left until the 498 00:29:36,040 --> 00:29:40,720 Speaker 1: three when they'll return and then start in earnest they're working. 499 00:29:41,320 --> 00:29:43,200 Speaker 1: So let's talk about some some of the nominees who 500 00:29:43,200 --> 00:29:46,680 Speaker 1: have been resubmitted. The ones that I saw seemed to 501 00:29:46,720 --> 00:29:50,560 Speaker 1: be candidates who are very progressive. So for the eleventh 502 00:29:50,560 --> 00:29:54,560 Speaker 1: Circuit Nancy A. Voudou of the Southern Poverty Law Center. 503 00:29:55,320 --> 00:29:57,959 Speaker 1: So tell us a little about her and what happened 504 00:29:57,960 --> 00:30:02,360 Speaker 1: to her nomination in the first place. Well, she received 505 00:30:02,920 --> 00:30:07,440 Speaker 1: very rigorous questioning from the GOP centators on the committee, 506 00:30:07,800 --> 00:30:11,000 Speaker 1: especially about her work at the Southern Poverty Law Center, 507 00:30:11,360 --> 00:30:14,320 Speaker 1: which has been at the center of some controversy. But 508 00:30:14,560 --> 00:30:19,760 Speaker 1: she responded to those criticisms by saying I was working 509 00:30:19,920 --> 00:30:24,280 Speaker 1: on helping people who cannot afford legal representation in the 510 00:30:24,320 --> 00:30:28,360 Speaker 1: civil rights and criminal defense areas, and said I didn't 511 00:30:28,520 --> 00:30:32,840 Speaker 1: run that center, which has called the Alliance Defending Freedom 512 00:30:33,240 --> 00:30:37,480 Speaker 1: hate group. And she received specific questions about that from 513 00:30:37,800 --> 00:30:41,560 Speaker 1: Holly and I think Cruiz but answered I think in 514 00:30:41,600 --> 00:30:46,000 Speaker 1: a straightforward way. She had a tie vote in committee 515 00:30:46,040 --> 00:30:49,680 Speaker 1: eleven to eleven, and I do not believe that Democrats 516 00:30:49,760 --> 00:30:53,240 Speaker 1: try to discharge her from committee, which they might have 517 00:30:53,280 --> 00:30:56,120 Speaker 1: been able to do on the floor. But she's now 518 00:30:56,160 --> 00:31:01,360 Speaker 1: renominated and I think with the sent it she will 519 00:31:01,480 --> 00:31:05,080 Speaker 1: be confirmed. It's just a matter of when. And she 520 00:31:05,280 --> 00:31:10,880 Speaker 1: like everyone else who was renominated, the people who had 521 00:31:10,960 --> 00:31:13,720 Speaker 1: committee votes. As I understand, it may have to have 522 00:31:13,920 --> 00:31:16,880 Speaker 1: another committee vote, but That will be easy because the 523 00:31:16,920 --> 00:31:20,080 Speaker 1: Democrats will now have a majority on the committee, so 524 00:31:20,120 --> 00:31:23,800 Speaker 1: there won't be high votes, and the Democrats and Republicans 525 00:31:23,800 --> 00:31:26,760 Speaker 1: to some extent, especially on the Committee, have voted pretty 526 00:31:26,800 --> 00:31:29,520 Speaker 1: much in lock steps. There have been very few departures 527 00:31:29,560 --> 00:31:32,960 Speaker 1: on the Republican side, except for Lindsay Graham, the former 528 00:31:33,040 --> 00:31:36,440 Speaker 1: chair of the Committee, who I think believes that the 529 00:31:36,480 --> 00:31:40,800 Speaker 1: President is entitled to his nominees. Unless Graham thinks that 530 00:31:40,920 --> 00:31:45,280 Speaker 1: someone is too far out of the mainstream, Well, they 531 00:31:45,280 --> 00:31:48,080 Speaker 1: have to have hearings again, or they could just be 532 00:31:48,200 --> 00:31:50,600 Speaker 1: voted out of the committee without a hearing. No, that's 533 00:31:50,600 --> 00:31:53,440 Speaker 1: a good question. They will not have to have hearings again. 534 00:31:53,840 --> 00:31:57,120 Speaker 1: They still would, I think, to have another committee vote, 535 00:31:57,240 --> 00:32:00,600 Speaker 1: but that's pretty perfunctory at this point, sup of people 536 00:32:00,600 --> 00:32:04,160 Speaker 1: who already went through committee on a majority vote when 537 00:32:04,520 --> 00:32:08,320 Speaker 1: there were eleven senators from each party. So it will 538 00:32:08,360 --> 00:32:11,680 Speaker 1: just be at the first or second Executive Business meeting 539 00:32:11,720 --> 00:32:14,920 Speaker 1: when they have the votes on Thursdays. The Republicans may 540 00:32:14,960 --> 00:32:16,880 Speaker 1: hold them over a week, but then there'll be a 541 00:32:16,960 --> 00:32:20,880 Speaker 1: vote for many, many dozens of nominees on the second 542 00:32:20,960 --> 00:32:25,400 Speaker 1: Thursday after they returned. Another nominee who's going to be resubmitted. 543 00:32:25,440 --> 00:32:28,600 Speaker 1: This is for the first Circuit Julie Reichelman, and she 544 00:32:28,720 --> 00:32:33,400 Speaker 1: represented the Mississippi Abortion Clinic in the case that overturned Row. 545 00:32:33,600 --> 00:32:38,080 Speaker 1: So there's a reason why she didn't get out of committee. Yes, 546 00:32:38,320 --> 00:32:41,720 Speaker 1: because abortion has been for forefront in the minds of 547 00:32:41,760 --> 00:32:46,520 Speaker 1: many Senators and many people around the country. Republicans consider 548 00:32:46,600 --> 00:32:50,840 Speaker 1: her to be controversial because she has litigated a number 549 00:32:50,840 --> 00:32:55,400 Speaker 1: of very important cases involving reproductive freedom. But she has 550 00:32:56,000 --> 00:32:59,280 Speaker 1: certainly known her way around the federal courts all the 551 00:32:59,280 --> 00:33:03,080 Speaker 1: way to the Super Court, and has served in capacity 552 00:33:03,160 --> 00:33:06,000 Speaker 1: as a lawyer in the appeals courts around the country 553 00:33:06,440 --> 00:33:10,120 Speaker 1: litigating that issue in many other issues, and so she's 554 00:33:10,200 --> 00:33:14,360 Speaker 1: very experienced. She said, I will apply the law and 555 00:33:14,400 --> 00:33:18,240 Speaker 1: the facts in every case, and I am cognizant of 556 00:33:18,880 --> 00:33:23,440 Speaker 1: Dobbs and will uphold dobs because that's the supreme court 557 00:33:23,920 --> 00:33:26,360 Speaker 1: law of the land. She answered that way on many 558 00:33:26,440 --> 00:33:30,960 Speaker 1: occasions when questioned about whether she would follow precedent. A 559 00:33:31,040 --> 00:33:35,560 Speaker 1: nominee to the Southern District is Dale Hoe of the 560 00:33:35,640 --> 00:33:39,320 Speaker 1: A c l U. Did he ever get a hearing. Yes, 561 00:33:39,400 --> 00:33:44,040 Speaker 1: he had a hearing, and Republicans were concerned about his 562 00:33:44,120 --> 00:33:49,280 Speaker 1: criticisms of some politicians, including some members of the committee 563 00:33:50,000 --> 00:33:53,480 Speaker 1: in his capacity as an advocate, and so they were 564 00:33:53,560 --> 00:33:59,240 Speaker 1: questioning him about whether he could leave behind those concerns 565 00:33:59,480 --> 00:34:03,320 Speaker 1: that the stors had and be a fair minded judge. 566 00:34:03,680 --> 00:34:06,680 Speaker 1: And he had done some I think tweeting and made 567 00:34:06,720 --> 00:34:11,279 Speaker 1: some statements on YouTube and various settings that concerned the 568 00:34:11,320 --> 00:34:15,200 Speaker 1: senators because he has been a strong advocate in context, 569 00:34:15,280 --> 00:34:18,840 Speaker 1: especially involving immigration and civil rights for the A C. 570 00:34:19,000 --> 00:34:22,400 Speaker 1: O You for a number of years, even though the 571 00:34:22,440 --> 00:34:26,680 Speaker 1: Committee was split on these Why didn't Chuck Schumer bring 572 00:34:26,719 --> 00:34:31,399 Speaker 1: it to the floor. Well, I think for some of 573 00:34:31,440 --> 00:34:37,360 Speaker 1: them whom we've been talking about, especially after the election 574 00:34:38,120 --> 00:34:42,960 Speaker 1: and then second election in Georgia where Senator Warnock won 575 00:34:43,040 --> 00:34:47,840 Speaker 1: the runoff, there wasn't a real big reason to bring 576 00:34:47,880 --> 00:34:50,759 Speaker 1: them up because Democrats have a majority and a better 577 00:34:50,800 --> 00:34:54,800 Speaker 1: majority than they had in the U seventeenth Congress now, 578 00:34:55,400 --> 00:34:58,520 Speaker 1: and so there was no reason to press forward and 579 00:34:59,040 --> 00:35:03,040 Speaker 1: risk a loss on the floor. I think now the 580 00:35:03,280 --> 00:35:06,360 Speaker 1: people who need discharge petitions if there are any, and 581 00:35:06,400 --> 00:35:08,720 Speaker 1: I think there are not going to be any given 582 00:35:08,800 --> 00:35:13,080 Speaker 1: the competition of the new Judiciary Committee with the Democratic majority, 583 00:35:13,160 --> 00:35:16,000 Speaker 1: that just would be no reason to force them through 584 00:35:16,440 --> 00:35:21,360 Speaker 1: and make Republicans mad and force Democrats to take a 585 00:35:21,440 --> 00:35:23,319 Speaker 1: vote that they might not want to take. It just 586 00:35:23,480 --> 00:35:26,800 Speaker 1: wasn't necessary. They may have to wait a couple of months, 587 00:35:26,800 --> 00:35:30,759 Speaker 1: but that seemed to be a preferable approach. Why you know, 588 00:35:30,840 --> 00:35:33,200 Speaker 1: force an issue that you know you can win in 589 00:35:33,239 --> 00:35:36,200 Speaker 1: a new Congress, And I think that was the thinking 590 00:35:36,280 --> 00:35:40,000 Speaker 1: by Humor and other leaders on the Democratic side. I mean, 591 00:35:40,080 --> 00:35:43,000 Speaker 1: is there any way that that having an extra committee 592 00:35:43,000 --> 00:35:46,319 Speaker 1: member is going to speed up the committee even more? 593 00:35:46,480 --> 00:35:51,560 Speaker 1: When Durban he's following the same path that other Judiciary 594 00:35:51,600 --> 00:35:55,960 Speaker 1: Committee chairman have followed before him. Well, yes, I think 595 00:35:56,120 --> 00:35:59,960 Speaker 1: that it will speed up the process, especially for people 596 00:36:00,160 --> 00:36:04,880 Speaker 1: who might be more controversial and at least before received 597 00:36:04,960 --> 00:36:08,000 Speaker 1: high votes. But now with the at least eleven ten 598 00:36:08,040 --> 00:36:11,120 Speaker 1: and maybe twelve ten of the Judiciary Committee, they will 599 00:36:11,160 --> 00:36:15,279 Speaker 1: easily go through committee. Hopefully the hearings won't be as 600 00:36:15,480 --> 00:36:19,120 Speaker 1: controversial as some have been, and it also depends partly 601 00:36:19,160 --> 00:36:22,080 Speaker 1: on who the not particular nominee is, but I think 602 00:36:22,239 --> 00:36:25,440 Speaker 1: it will go more smoothly from the Democratic perspective. I 603 00:36:25,480 --> 00:36:28,640 Speaker 1: think the other question you're asking in some progressive groups 604 00:36:28,640 --> 00:36:32,160 Speaker 1: have asked as well is are all those vacancies going 605 00:36:32,200 --> 00:36:34,040 Speaker 1: to be filled in the next two years, And there 606 00:36:34,040 --> 00:36:37,680 Speaker 1: are many seventy two at the district level and ten 607 00:36:38,480 --> 00:36:42,839 Speaker 1: at the pellate level, and then twenty five or so 608 00:36:43,680 --> 00:36:48,240 Speaker 1: future vacancies, and as judges continue to take senior status 609 00:36:48,320 --> 00:36:52,040 Speaker 1: or retire or die, they're going to be additional vacancies. 610 00:36:52,320 --> 00:36:56,240 Speaker 1: And everyone wants to see all of those vacancies felled, 611 00:36:56,400 --> 00:36:59,000 Speaker 1: and it just takes time. I was surprised to see 612 00:36:59,040 --> 00:37:02,120 Speaker 1: that the center, you know, left after one day of 613 00:37:02,440 --> 00:37:06,000 Speaker 1: purely introductory or for a couple of weeks. They went 614 00:37:06,040 --> 00:37:09,319 Speaker 1: home for day work periods until the twenty three you know, 615 00:37:09,400 --> 00:37:12,279 Speaker 1: after that will have President's Day. Um once we'll take 616 00:37:12,320 --> 00:37:15,920 Speaker 1: another week, and so the calendar moves on. So the 617 00:37:16,040 --> 00:37:19,360 Speaker 1: solution to that, which some have proposed, is either to 618 00:37:19,440 --> 00:37:23,160 Speaker 1: have more nominees in specific hearings or to have them 619 00:37:23,160 --> 00:37:26,719 Speaker 1: more often than one every two weeks, which is I 620 00:37:26,760 --> 00:37:30,200 Speaker 1: think the president you were referring to referring to. I 621 00:37:30,239 --> 00:37:36,480 Speaker 1: believe the Republicans under Trump rarely had hearings more often 622 00:37:36,960 --> 00:37:41,200 Speaker 1: than once every two weeks, and that's what Durban has 623 00:37:41,239 --> 00:37:46,560 Speaker 1: done systematically, But he has not scheduled them more often 624 00:37:46,600 --> 00:37:49,840 Speaker 1: than that, and so some progressive groups are urging that 625 00:37:50,520 --> 00:37:53,880 Speaker 1: or the other alternative is to have more nominees and 626 00:37:54,000 --> 00:37:58,239 Speaker 1: specific hearings. Durban usually has had one or two appellate 627 00:37:58,280 --> 00:38:02,960 Speaker 1: nominees and then three or four district nominees, And of 628 00:38:03,040 --> 00:38:05,640 Speaker 1: course if you have more nominees in each hearing, you 629 00:38:05,719 --> 00:38:09,759 Speaker 1: can move more people through, but that limits the time 630 00:38:09,800 --> 00:38:12,520 Speaker 1: for questioning. And so I think he's trying to be 631 00:38:12,560 --> 00:38:15,719 Speaker 1: as fair as he can and not unduly change a 632 00:38:15,800 --> 00:38:19,480 Speaker 1: number of the traditions of the Senate carl Are any 633 00:38:19,520 --> 00:38:23,799 Speaker 1: of the circuits likely to be flipped in the next 634 00:38:24,000 --> 00:38:28,480 Speaker 1: years or so? Perhaps, But there's an interesting question that 635 00:38:28,600 --> 00:38:34,040 Speaker 1: you raise. Most of the appellate vacancies that the president filled, 636 00:38:34,080 --> 00:38:35,960 Speaker 1: and there were twenty eight of them, which is a 637 00:38:36,040 --> 00:38:44,160 Speaker 1: substantial number. Those nominees were mostly replacing appointees of democratic president, 638 00:38:45,160 --> 00:38:48,680 Speaker 1: and that's one measure of the people use, which is 639 00:38:48,680 --> 00:38:52,600 Speaker 1: is relatively crude, but it's used by many observers of 640 00:38:52,640 --> 00:38:58,360 Speaker 1: the federal courts. And so that creates a bit of 641 00:38:58,400 --> 00:39:02,319 Speaker 1: a problem because you can't flip the circuits as you're 642 00:39:02,360 --> 00:39:09,080 Speaker 1: suggesting when you're only replacing democratic appointees. And so there 643 00:39:09,120 --> 00:39:14,920 Speaker 1: are some vacancies now that are held by appointees of 644 00:39:14,960 --> 00:39:20,400 Speaker 1: Republican pressments, and so those will make some difference, for example, 645 00:39:20,520 --> 00:39:25,160 Speaker 1: in the third circuit. But I see that they're not 646 00:39:25,280 --> 00:39:28,359 Speaker 1: very many appeals courts which will flip in the next 647 00:39:28,360 --> 00:39:34,960 Speaker 1: two years unless you have more GOP appointed judges at 648 00:39:34,960 --> 00:39:39,120 Speaker 1: the appellate level decides to take senior status or resigned. 649 00:39:39,160 --> 00:39:42,399 Speaker 1: We haven't seen very many of them, but some have. 650 00:39:42,880 --> 00:39:46,600 Speaker 1: And that's not a rule, that's just a custom or tradition, 651 00:39:47,200 --> 00:39:53,760 Speaker 1: and I think many Democratic and Republican appointees don't honor 652 00:39:53,880 --> 00:39:57,880 Speaker 1: that or honored in the breach and will take senior 653 00:39:57,920 --> 00:40:01,720 Speaker 1: status or retire when they want to. And some don't 654 00:40:01,719 --> 00:40:03,560 Speaker 1: have much choice. I mean, maybe they have a health 655 00:40:03,600 --> 00:40:06,879 Speaker 1: issue or something of that sort, and so it really 656 00:40:06,920 --> 00:40:10,200 Speaker 1: is specific to each judge. But so far the pattern is, 657 00:40:10,680 --> 00:40:15,600 Speaker 1: at least in the Biden years, has been more Democratic 658 00:40:15,920 --> 00:40:20,000 Speaker 1: appointees have assumed senior status than Republicans, and I think 659 00:40:20,040 --> 00:40:24,080 Speaker 1: it's something like three out of every four. So we'll 660 00:40:24,080 --> 00:40:26,040 Speaker 1: see if they'll be changes in the next two years. 661 00:40:26,360 --> 00:40:30,200 Speaker 1: Trump certainly was able to flip some circuits, that's right, 662 00:40:30,239 --> 00:40:35,960 Speaker 1: and partly because Mitch McConnell didn't allow obama Phil vacancies 663 00:40:36,000 --> 00:40:39,399 Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen and held them open for Trump, and 664 00:40:39,600 --> 00:40:45,000 Speaker 1: so that explains how he could appoint four new appellent 665 00:40:45,120 --> 00:40:48,240 Speaker 1: nominees in the four years he was president. And so 666 00:40:48,400 --> 00:40:53,080 Speaker 1: there were many leftover vacancies because they the GOP refused 667 00:40:53,480 --> 00:40:57,600 Speaker 1: to even give hearings to many of Obama's nominees for 668 00:40:57,640 --> 00:41:00,040 Speaker 1: those vacancies. So what will the agenda look like in 669 00:41:00,120 --> 00:41:03,279 Speaker 1: the senator's return. They'll come in and as soon as 670 00:41:03,320 --> 00:41:06,160 Speaker 1: they do, they'll start to move people. They'll finish off 671 00:41:06,360 --> 00:41:10,400 Speaker 1: I think in January renominating everybody and just keep moving 672 00:41:10,440 --> 00:41:13,719 Speaker 1: the process. So we'll see how that goes. But I 673 00:41:13,760 --> 00:41:17,120 Speaker 1: think the Democrats are very much determined to confirm as 674 00:41:17,120 --> 00:41:21,520 Speaker 1: many people as they can and keep moving in. So 675 00:41:21,840 --> 00:41:25,920 Speaker 1: they're committed to it and publicly thanks Carl. That's Professor 676 00:41:25,960 --> 00:41:29,000 Speaker 1: Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School. And 677 00:41:29,040 --> 00:41:31,160 Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. 678 00:41:31,520 --> 00:41:34,000 Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news honor 679 00:41:34,040 --> 00:41:38,360 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 680 00:41:38,400 --> 00:41:43,399 Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, 681 00:41:43,840 --> 00:41:46,440 Speaker 1: and remember to Tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 682 00:41:46,480 --> 00:41:49,960 Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June 683 00:41:49,960 --> 00:41:52,120 Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg