Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Attorney General Pam Bondi used to say that the Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein files would be released.
Speaker 2: You know, tens of thousands of pages of documents and
Speaker 2: hundreds and hundreds of victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So the
Speaker 2: FBI they have been working round the clock at my directive,
Speaker 2: at Kashptel's directive. Now Dan Bongino's there.
Speaker 3: Who is a great asset for all of us at
Speaker 3: the FBI as well. But yeah, we have to protect
Speaker 3: their identity, their personal information to make sure they're safe.
Speaker 3: But other than that, we are releasing all of these
Speaker 3: documents as soon as we can get them redacted.
Speaker 1: That was Bondi on Fox in March. Now the question
Speaker 1: is whether even a congressional subpoena will make the Attorney
Speaker 1: General release the files, particularly in light of a Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal report that Bondi toll President Trump. His name
Speaker 1: appears multiple times in the finals. As pressure on the
Speaker 1: administration to release the Epstein files grows, the Justice Department
Speaker 1: is taking a detour, apparently casting itself as searching for
Speaker 1: more information on the Epstein case, with Deputy Attorney General
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche meeting today with Glaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former
Speaker 1: girlfriend who's serving a twenty year sentence in Florida. Joining
Speaker 1: me is Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney.
Speaker 1: Dave the number two person at the Justice Department, Todd Blanche,
Speaker 1: Trump's former criminal defense attorney, is meeting with a convicted
Speaker 1: sex trafficker, Gallaine Maxwell, that the Justice Department successfully prosecuted,
Speaker 1: and it comes as she's appealing her twenty twenty one conviction.
Speaker 1: How odd is this?
Speaker 4: It's extremely odd because generally the number two person at
Speaker 4: the deparminative Justice doesn't conduct interviews with potential witnesses, especially
Speaker 4: those who have already been convicted by their department of
Speaker 4: such a serious crime. I mean, why would you ever
Speaker 4: believe anything this woman says. He's not only a convicted
Speaker 4: human trafficker, but she's also a liar. She was indicted
Speaker 4: for perjury back in twenty twenty and she is someone
Speaker 4: who is untrustworthy. But both sides want something here. She
Speaker 4: meaning Glen Maxwell, wants a pardon from the President who's
Speaker 4: very transactional, and President Trump wants her to exonerate him
Speaker 4: to say that Trump had nothing to do with any
Speaker 4: of the crimes. Now, I personally believe that Trump had
Speaker 4: nothing to do with any of the crimes. But there's
Speaker 4: a lot of smoke here because of Trump's name being
Speaker 4: in the Epstein files. And you know what they say,
Speaker 4: it's not the crime but the cover up. And the
Speaker 4: cover up here is to prevent the release of these
Speaker 4: files when you promised it over and over again to
Speaker 4: your supporters. So, yes, this whole thing is extraordinary. Not
Speaker 4: the lease of which is that the number two person
Speaker 4: of the Department of Justice doesn't get on a plane
Speaker 4: and get a briefcase in a notepad and start acting
Speaker 4: like a line prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Bland said he wants to know if Glaine Maxwell has
Speaker 1: information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims. But
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has said that nothing in
Speaker 1: the files warranted further investigation or prosecution. So what's going on?
Speaker 4: This is about CYA. It's to protect Donald Trump. This
Speaker 4: is to protect him because his name is in the files. Now,
Speaker 4: his supporters were led to believe that anyone whose names
Speaker 4: in the files must have committed some crimes. They were
Speaker 4: led to believe that the number one name in the
Speaker 4: file would be Bill Clinton, filed by Bill Gates and
Speaker 4: then every other prominent Democrat. Of course, they were lied to,
Speaker 4: they were made to look like fools. I mean, these
Speaker 4: folks thrive on conspiracy theories and now they're outraged and
Speaker 4: they're ready to revolt. So the administration is trying to
Speaker 4: placate them further by saying, see, we'll get more information
Speaker 4: from this disgraced, convicted human trafficker. Well, what makes you
Speaker 4: think she'll be telling the truth? She has every incentive
Speaker 4: to lie. She's lie before, she will lie again. Anything
Speaker 4: that she says should be corroborated. And then if she
Speaker 4: says something to Todd blanche who was President of Trump's
Speaker 4: former defense lawyer, his personal defense lawyer, what makes you
Speaker 4: think will make its way to the public if it
Speaker 4: at all implicates Donald Trump. So this is not how
Speaker 4: an investigation should be done. And if the administration wanted
Speaker 4: full transparency, they should just release the file subject to
Speaker 4: court orders and other privacy concerns involving the victims, and
Speaker 4: then I think people would start to move on from
Speaker 4: this story. But until that happens, this story ain't going away.
Speaker 1: Did you think that she's talking to Blanche. If she
Speaker 1: is talking to Blanche, do you think that she's talking
Speaker 1: to him under some kind of agreement like queen for
Speaker 1: a day where nothing you say is going to be
Speaker 1: used against you.
Speaker 4: Her lawyers would never allow her to talk to a prosecutor,
Speaker 4: even if it's the number two person at the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice and not aligned prosecutor. They would never let
Speaker 4: her talk to anyone without a guarantee that she has
Speaker 4: immunity for at least those comments on that day. So
Speaker 4: some call it a Queen for the day. But she's
Speaker 4: not going to jeopardize her appeal and her potential because
Speaker 4: she has an appeal pending if she is retried. She
Speaker 4: doesn't want this information to come back and haunt her.
Speaker 4: So she wants something out of Donald Trump. She wants
Speaker 4: a pardon, and she's probably going to be willing to
Speaker 4: say anything to get it, but she doesn't want it
Speaker 4: to come back at her in a future trial. So yes,
Speaker 4: she will get some sort of immunity before she speaks
Speaker 4: to Todd Blash. Now she goes before Congress, that too
Speaker 4: will require immunity because her lawyers, I would think, would
Speaker 4: have the same issue They don't want her to implicate
Speaker 4: herself any more than she already has.
Speaker 1: Her brother told The New York Post that she's compiling
Speaker 1: new evidence pretending to allege government misconduct stemming from her trial,
Speaker 1: to hand over to the Justice Department.
Speaker 4: Every criminal defendant believes that there's government misconduct for their case,
Speaker 4: especially if you're convicted. So yeah, she's going to compile
Speaker 4: her evidence. Meanwhile, she had any real evidence that could
Speaker 4: be of use to the government to release the victims
Speaker 4: and to the public, she would have done so already
Speaker 4: because now she's facing twenty years in prison. She's not
Speaker 4: getting out until she's seventy five years old at the earliest.
Speaker 4: And so if she didn't have the goods back then,
Speaker 4: why would we believe she has the goods now. I
Speaker 4: think there's a desperate woman who was willing to say anything.
Speaker 4: She'll do anything for a pardon. She does not want
Speaker 4: to spend her next decade or so behind bars. She's
Speaker 4: not used to this lifestyle. She's used to the high life,
Speaker 4: life of privilege, life of prestige, and now she's the
Speaker 4: only one being locked up for the whole Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 4: saga because Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
Speaker 1: Dave about the congressional subpoena. The House Overside Chair Republican
Speaker 1: James Comer has subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition. In what
Speaker 1: circumstances would her lawyer allow her to testify? How would
Speaker 1: that kind of testimony help her at all?
Speaker 4: It will help her if she publicly exonerates President Trump.
Speaker 4: It will help her get a pardon. That's what she's
Speaker 4: aiming for. She wants either a pardon a commutation. She
Speaker 4: wants the Department of Justice to not retry the case
Speaker 4: if she wins on her appeal, which is going before
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court. So there are things that Trump can
Speaker 4: offer her, and that's why she'll be doing this. Otherwise,
Speaker 4: there's no reason for her to be doing this. I mean,
Speaker 4: she's a convicted human trafficker, she's a proven liar. She's
Speaker 4: a criminal. And for the Magabase, which thinks that Jeffrey
Speaker 4: Epstein is Satan himself, to me how they're willing to
Speaker 4: roll out the red carpet for Satan's accomplice.
Speaker 1: The House Oversight sub Committee voted Wednesday to subpoena the
Speaker 1: DOJ for the Epstein files. And they're not only looking
Speaker 1: for the files, but also communications between former Biden officials
Speaker 1: and the Justice Department related to the Epstein matter. Well,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department hand them over, especially now that the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal has reported that Bondie and Blanche informed
Speaker 1: the President in May that his name appears multiple times
Speaker 1: in the Epstein files.
Speaker 4: Oh, the Department of Justice is not giving Congress anything
Speaker 4: with Donald Trump's name in it. So if they give
Speaker 4: up the Epstein file, maybe will be a redacted version
Speaker 4: of it. But they're not going to do anything to
Speaker 4: harm the Boss. I mean, that's why the folks are
Speaker 4: there to begin with. That's why Donald Trump put his
Speaker 4: two defense lawyers at top positions at the Department of Justice.
Speaker 4: That's why I picked the loyalists like Pam Bondi to
Speaker 4: be Attorney General. He doesn't want this thing to get
Speaker 4: out of hand and get a mind of its own.
Speaker 4: That's why he's not going to appoint a special counsel.
Speaker 4: People said, we should have a special counsel. Yeah, well,
Speaker 4: I remember Bill Clinton had a special counsel. You remember
Speaker 4: Janerino stepped aside and had Kenneth Starr investigate Whitewater. Well,
Speaker 4: the investigation in Whitewater became an investigation into Monica Lewinsky
Speaker 4: and led to Bill Clinton's impeachment. Donald Trump doesn't want
Speaker 4: to go down that road. He wants to button this
Speaker 4: thing up. But the irony is in his attempt to
Speaker 4: cut this off at its knees, he has prolonged the agony.
Speaker 4: It's not the crime, it's the cover up. And it
Speaker 4: looks like there's been a cover up here, at least
Speaker 4: the many in the public, which is why people are
Speaker 4: still talking about this.
Speaker 1: Does Congress have any levers to pull to force the
Speaker 1: Justice Department on this?
Speaker 4: They can subpoena the documents and then go to court,
Speaker 4: but you really think the Republicans in Congress are going
Speaker 4: to go to court to fight the Republicans and the
Speaker 4: executive branch. One thing we've learned from this is that
Speaker 4: when the going gets tough, they roll over, They turn
Speaker 4: tail and run away. This Congress has a masculated itself
Speaker 4: to the executive branch. And I know they're starting to
Speaker 4: sense penisn't ask questions about this because their base demands it.
Speaker 4: Both They'll only go so far. Donald Trump is the
Speaker 4: leader of their party, and when Donald Trump wants something
Speaker 4: badly enough, he gets it.
Speaker 1: Coming up next, why a Florida judge decided not to
Speaker 1: release the transcripts. This is Bloomberg. I've been talking to
Speaker 1: Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney, about the
Speaker 1: pressure on the Trump administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the grand jury transcripts first. You can
Speaker 1: explain why the transcripts will not reveal client lists or
Speaker 1: any of the other things that the conspiracy theorists are
Speaker 1: looking for.
Speaker 4: The grand jury transcripts are just a portion of the
Speaker 4: portion of what people are looking for. See what they
Speaker 4: wanted the Epstein files. They want the names of these
Speaker 4: third parts parties who allegedly were involved with human trafficking.
Speaker 4: Who were these girls trafficked too, That's what people are seeking.
Speaker 4: That's not going to be in the grand jury transcripts,
Speaker 4: especially redacted once. It's not going to be in there.
Speaker 4: So it's pretty much a distraction that the administration is
Speaker 4: just seeking these grand jury transcripts and we come on.
Speaker 4: First of all, they're not going to get him. The
Speaker 4: judges will reject it, and then they can blame the judiciary,
Speaker 4: which is part of the strategy because if there's one
Speaker 4: group that the MAGA world hates more than the media,
Speaker 4: it's the judiciary. It's judges. So that was actually a
Speaker 4: smart move I thought by Trump to put the focus
Speaker 4: on the judges. But it's still not going to work.
Speaker 4: It's not going to satisfy the MAGA base who've been
Speaker 4: led to believe there's this client list and that you
Speaker 4: have this democratic conspiracy to have a child sex trafficking green. Well,
Speaker 4: it's a different role when you go from being a
Speaker 4: blogger to being in government. When you're in government, you
Speaker 4: got to produce. When you're a blogger, you can say
Speaker 4: whatever you want and never be held accountable for it.
Speaker 4: And that's a lesson that Caspitel and Dan Begino and
Speaker 4: others are learning.
Speaker 1: The Florida said judge has already declined to release the
Speaker 1: transcripts on what grounds.
Speaker 4: There are grand jury secrecy rules and you can't get
Speaker 4: the grand jury transcripts unless you have an exception under
Speaker 4: the federal law, and there's no exception here just because
Speaker 4: the public wants to see it. Also, you need to
Speaker 4: go to victims and get their permission and approvals, but
Speaker 4: the administration didn't do that. They just went right to
Speaker 4: the judge because it was about the show. It wasn't
Speaker 4: about to go. It was about the show. They wanted
Speaker 4: the public to think that they were doing something about transparency.
Speaker 4: But the judge rule, as we all expected, the judge
Speaker 4: the rule. But even if the judge did produce these
Speaker 4: grand jury transcripts, I mean, it's really, as I said,
Speaker 4: just a portion of what the public wants. The public
Speaker 4: wants names. Grand jury transcripts wouldn't produce those names of
Speaker 4: third parties. It would just be the testimony that was
Speaker 4: written down and the exhibits that were provided inside the
Speaker 4: secret grand jury that led to Epstein's indictment. It's not
Speaker 4: going to be what implicates uncharged third parties. And so
Speaker 4: if you are waiting for the grand jury transcripts to
Speaker 4: answer your at Jeffrey Epstein questions, you'll be waiting a
Speaker 4: long time.
Speaker 1: There are still two judges in New York considering the
Speaker 1: government's requests to release the grand jury transcripts in the
Speaker 1: Epstein and Maxwell cases. They're taking more time and requesting
Speaker 1: more information. What do you think they're just not, you know,
Speaker 1: denying them out of hand and saying grand jury secrecy.
Speaker 4: The rules up there in that circuit in New York
Speaker 4: are a little better for the public to get access
Speaker 4: to grand jury transcripts. There's there's a slight opening. It's
Speaker 4: not impossible. It's hard, but it's not impossible. So there's
Speaker 4: an outside chance that could happen up there. But as
Speaker 4: I said, even if you get them, they're going to
Speaker 4: be disappointing. They're going to be largely a nothing burger
Speaker 4: of people, and it probably suits Trump more if the
Speaker 4: judges just reject the request, then Trump can say, see,
Speaker 4: I tried, I try to be transparent. Blame those unelected
Speaker 4: liberal judges, even though he may have appointed some of them.
Speaker 4: But you can just blame the people wearing the black
Speaker 4: ropes who get lifetime appointments and carry the gabble. Much
Speaker 4: easier to do than to turn and shine the flashlight
Speaker 4: on yourself.
Speaker 1: And I want to get your reaction to the Trump
Speaker 1: administration falsely claiming that President Obama deliberately manufactured and politicized
Speaker 1: intelligence reports about Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: I don't know how we got back to this point.
Speaker 1: Do you know what this is about?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's about distraction. It's to take your mind off
Speaker 4: of the Jeffrey Epstein situation. So he has Pulsey Gabbert,
Speaker 4: who has no business being in government. Quite frankly, she's
Speaker 4: a hack. She's not qualified to be the director of
Speaker 4: D and I, and she's doing Pulsy Gabbert things by
Speaker 4: creating a story out of nothing. Even what she produced
Speaker 4: doesn't show what she says it shows. All shows is
Speaker 4: that Russia did not manipulate votes. They did not change
Speaker 4: the outcome of the election by the voting. But they did,
Speaker 4: and it's been proven over and over again, even by
Speaker 4: the report by Senator Marco Rubio's Senate Intelligence Committee that
Speaker 4: Russia did interfere with the election. They had a favorite
Speaker 4: in the election, Donald Trump, and they had a strategy
Speaker 4: that they implemented to get involved through spreading disinformation. But
Speaker 4: they didn't hack into voting machines. So I don't know
Speaker 4: what this thing is about that Tulsa Gabbert is trying
Speaker 4: to show, except it's nothing except for a distraction on
Speaker 4: the Jeffrey Epstein matter and approves why Tulsa Gabbard is
Speaker 4: unfit for office.
Speaker 1: Obama spokesman said these bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a
Speaker 1: weak attempt at distraction. I mean, this is not the
Speaker 1: first time that Trump has attacked Obama.
Speaker 4: Well, that's how he built his political career by claiming
Speaker 4: that Obama born in Kenya. This is why the magabase
Speaker 4: is so upset about this latest conspiracy theory, because they
Speaker 4: were led to believe that there are conspiracies under every
Speaker 4: mattress in DC, whether it's Obama being from Kenya, or
Speaker 4: the election of twenty twenty being stolen, or Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 4: being part of a Democrat at cabal. But as the
Speaker 4: conspiracy theories get destroyed, the magabases is starting to wonder
Speaker 4: if they've been misled, if they've been made to look
Speaker 4: like fools, And they're understandably point their finger at their
Speaker 4: own team because their own team is the one who
Speaker 4: has led them astray.
Speaker 1: Turning to other legal news, one of the world's most
Speaker 1: vulnerable countries to the fallout from climate change has won
Speaker 1: a landmark legal battle, giving countries new ammunition to pursue
Speaker 1: some of the planet's biggest emitters. Joining me is environmental
Speaker 1: law expert Michael Girard, director of Columbia Law schools Saban
Speaker 1: Center for Climate Change Law, tell us about this decision
Speaker 1: by the International Court of Justice.
Speaker 5: So the International Court of Justice just issued a unanimous
Speaker 5: opinion by all fourteen of its judges on climate change.
Speaker 5: The decision said that climate change is a grave threat
Speaker 5: to humankind and many elements of international law require every
Speaker 5: country to act very strongly to try to fight climate change.
Speaker 1: And tell us about the case that was brought to
Speaker 1: years ago by.
Speaker 5: Vanuatu vano Watu, which is one of the small island
Speaker 5: nations in the Pacific that is really endangered by subl rise,
Speaker 5: who was able to organize an international effort and persuade
Speaker 5: the UN General Assembly to send to the International Court
Speaker 5: of Justice in the Hague questions about what are the
Speaker 5: obligations of countries to reduce their greenhouse assmentions and among
Speaker 5: other things, to save small island states and everybody else
Speaker 5: from the ravages of climate change.
Speaker 1: The ICJ doesn't have the power to enforce the decision
Speaker 1: on its own. US is among the countries that doesn't
Speaker 1: automatically recognize its legal authority. So what weight does this
Speaker 1: opinion have.
Speaker 5: That's right, the ICJ opinions in this kind of case
Speaker 5: our advisory. They don't have enforcement power. Many countries of
Speaker 5: the world do take the ICJ's decisions seriously, and we've
Speaker 5: already seen in quite a few countries around the world
Speaker 5: decisions by their own courts saying that their governments aren't
Speaker 5: doing enough. I think we'll see a lot more of
Speaker 5: those kinds of lawsuits all around the world. We'll see
Speaker 5: more lawsuits brought by environmental groups and others in their
Speaker 5: national courts saying that under the ICJ opinion and other
Speaker 5: legal doctrines, those countries are not doing enough to produce
Speaker 5: their green ask gas missions, and that could lead to
Speaker 5: enforcement by those national courts against those national governments.
Speaker 1: Last year, at least two hundred and twenty six new
Speaker 1: climate cases were brought. Are those mostly against countries? Are
Speaker 1: they against you know, corporations? You know? Where are they
Speaker 1: bringing these suits?
Speaker 5: They're mostly against countries, but very few of them are
Speaker 5: what we call strategic litigation, that is trying to get
Speaker 5: the country to act more broadly, Most of those lawsuits
Speaker 5: are concerning particular projects or our particular small actions. But
Speaker 5: we have seen strategic cases that are ordering countries to
Speaker 5: do more. We saw them in successful cases the Netherlands, Germany, France, Mexico, Nepal, Brazil,
Speaker 5: South Africa. Most recently Hungary, several other countries all around
Speaker 5: the world. We're seeing these kinds of cases, these kinds
Speaker 5: of decisions from the courts, and I think now we'll
Speaker 5: see more of them.
Speaker 1: And our countries complain vying with the results of these
Speaker 1: cases when they're decided.
Speaker 5: Not necessarily that's a very good question. We've seen that
Speaker 5: the countries are doing something but not necessarily enough, and
Speaker 5: frequently the plaintives go back to court to try to
Speaker 5: seek more specific enforcement. So the decisions do have a
Speaker 5: positive effect, but they're not completely solving the problem.
Speaker 1: Are there other international courts that are taking a stand
Speaker 1: on climate Yes.
Speaker 5: In the last year and a half or so, we've
Speaker 5: seen decisions from the European Court of Human Rights, the
Speaker 5: Inter American Court of Human Rights, and the International Tribunal
Speaker 5: on the Law of the Sea, and all three of
Speaker 5: those international tribunals also said that the countries have an
Speaker 5: obligation to reduce their green ass gas emissions and otherwise
Speaker 5: address climate change.
Speaker 1: Is litigation the best way forward for climate activists or
Speaker 1: negotiations ongoing anywhere?
Speaker 5: I wouldn't say that litigation is necessarily the best way.
Speaker 5: I think the best way is to try to get
Speaker 5: politicians to pass and implement strong laws, but in few
Speaker 5: countries as that actually happens. So litigation is one important
Speaker 5: part of the toolkit. It's not the biggest part, but
Speaker 5: it's one important part, and it just became a lot
Speaker 5: stronger with yesterday's decision.
Speaker 1: As far as the United States and the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: how has the Trump administration impacted the environment and environmental protections?
Speaker 5: Well, the Trump administration is basically a denying climate change,
Speaker 5: or at least that they have to do anything about it.
Speaker 5: They're working very hard to stop all of the actions
Speaker 5: that had been taken under previous administrations to control climate change.
Speaker 5: They again withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement. So the
Speaker 5: Trump administration is very much moving backwards on all of this.
Speaker 1: Let's say that after Trump's term ends, there as a
Speaker 1: president who is more concerned about the environment. Can the
Speaker 1: Trump administration's actions be easily reversed.
Speaker 5: They can be reversed, but it will take time. Of course.
Speaker 5: In the first Trump administration they moved backwards, although not
Speaker 5: as faster as quickly, and then when Biden came in,
Speaker 5: they did reverse of that and secured passage of the
Speaker 5: Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress has now partly revoked. One
Speaker 5: of the big problems is loss of staff, loss of expertise,
Speaker 5: loss of scientific capability. That'll take some time to rebuild.
Speaker 5: So the legal issues most of us can be restored,
Speaker 5: but actually regaining the momentum is going to take time.
Speaker 5: We will have lost a lot of time that we
Speaker 5: don't have.
Speaker 1: What can environmental activists do is it file suits to
Speaker 1: try to slow down the Trump administration.
Speaker 5: Yes, and there's already a lot of that, and quite
Speaker 5: a few of those lossits have had early successes in
Speaker 5: the district court, serve in quite a few preliminary injunctions
Speaker 5: granted against what the Trump administration is doing. And those
Speaker 5: states that still care about climate change are doing a
Speaker 5: lot in New York, California, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois, several other
Speaker 5: states are acting on their own to reduce their emissions.
Speaker 5: But I think the most important thing that needs to
Speaker 5: be done is is that nepolling place is to elect
Speaker 5: officials at every level, federal, state, and local, who really
Speaker 5: are going to act on climate change.
Speaker 1: I mean, how do climate deniers even support their position?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean there's a small handful of climate deniers
Speaker 5: or climate not so batters, as I call them, are
Speaker 5: out there, several of whom have just been hired by
Speaker 5: the federal government to advise them. They're complete outliers in
Speaker 5: the scientific community, but there are a few of those
Speaker 5: out there, and there are some news media outlets that
Speaker 5: put that out. Nobody has the nerve. No lawyer goes
Speaker 5: to court denying climate change. They know that that would
Speaker 5: be a real loser, but we still see that in
Speaker 5: the political arena and in some media outlets.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much. That's Michael Gerard, director of Columbia Law
Speaker 1: school Saban Center for Climate Change Law. And that's it
Speaker 1: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg