1 00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560 Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every 2 00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440 Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most 3 00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440 Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more 4 00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040 Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, 5 00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,560 Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Legal analysts have 6 00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:26,280 Speaker 1: been anticipating that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would be requesting 7 00:00:26,320 --> 00:00:29,159 Speaker 1: an interview with President Trump. It's a natural part of 8 00:00:29,160 --> 00:00:33,240 Speaker 1: the course of Mueller's thorough and painstaking investigation, and now 9 00:00:33,280 --> 00:00:36,360 Speaker 1: several news sources are reporting that the interview could happen 10 00:00:36,640 --> 00:00:40,440 Speaker 1: very soon, possibly within weeks. Trump has said he's willing 11 00:00:40,440 --> 00:00:44,000 Speaker 1: to be interviewed, but his attorneys apparently do not agree. 12 00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:48,720 Speaker 1: They're discussing compromises to avoid an in person encounter between 13 00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:52,199 Speaker 1: Trump and Mueller. According to NBC News, My guest is 14 00:00:52,240 --> 00:00:55,639 Speaker 1: Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark Zaid. Brad is there 15 00:00:55,680 --> 00:00:58,640 Speaker 1: any doubt that the President will have to submit to 16 00:00:58,680 --> 00:01:02,080 Speaker 1: an interview with Mueller under oath or a grand jury 17 00:01:02,120 --> 00:01:05,679 Speaker 1: subpoena will be issued. I think it's pretty fair to 18 00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:08,280 Speaker 1: say that, at least in some context, he's going to 19 00:01:08,520 --> 00:01:13,680 Speaker 1: be questioned. UM a simple responding to written questions isn't 20 00:01:13,720 --> 00:01:16,679 Speaker 1: going to be enough. I can't fathom that Mr Mueller 21 00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:20,080 Speaker 1: would view that as sufficient. Given the nature of this investigation. 22 00:01:20,360 --> 00:01:24,800 Speaker 1: The question, of course becomes, what's the context, how limited 23 00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:28,240 Speaker 1: and restricted are the questions in the topics, and what 24 00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:32,120 Speaker 1: kind of negotiated agreement both the president's personal attorneys and 25 00:01:32,240 --> 00:01:36,280 Speaker 1: Mr Mueller's team um come to beforehand so as to 26 00:01:36,360 --> 00:01:40,240 Speaker 1: make this a voluntary interview under oath, as opposed to 27 00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:43,160 Speaker 1: Mller actually haying to take the steps of issuing a 28 00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:47,000 Speaker 1: grand jury subpoena and bringing the President before a grand jury. 29 00:01:47,240 --> 00:01:50,720 Speaker 1: We should I mention that legally Trump could take the fifth, 30 00:01:50,800 --> 00:01:54,960 Speaker 1: but there's a political risk, correct, I mean, it would 31 00:01:55,000 --> 00:01:58,040 Speaker 1: be political suicide more or less for the President at 32 00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:02,040 Speaker 1: this point to refuse to be interviewed, to take the 33 00:02:02,080 --> 00:02:05,440 Speaker 1: fifth and refuse to answer questions, given how he is 34 00:02:05,600 --> 00:02:09,560 Speaker 1: very broad boldly and broadly and definitively stated there was 35 00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:12,760 Speaker 1: no collusion, there was no crime, there was no obstruction. 36 00:02:12,840 --> 00:02:15,880 Speaker 1: For him to now try to invoke the fifth while 37 00:02:15,960 --> 00:02:19,440 Speaker 1: something he is legally permitted to do would nonetheless look 38 00:02:19,560 --> 00:02:23,639 Speaker 1: horrible from political perception standpoint, I would just devastate him 39 00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:25,919 Speaker 1: in terms of his ability to govern. So let's talk 40 00:02:25,919 --> 00:02:28,600 Speaker 1: now about what you talked about before the format. Let's 41 00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:31,040 Speaker 1: talk a little bit more about that. So you just 42 00:02:31,040 --> 00:02:33,760 Speaker 1: said that you think that Mueller would not accept written 43 00:02:33,840 --> 00:02:37,560 Speaker 1: question and answers. There's the possibility of an open ended 44 00:02:37,639 --> 00:02:42,080 Speaker 1: in person interview or a more restricted in person interview. 45 00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:47,480 Speaker 1: Is he likely to agree to a restricted interview? In 46 00:02:47,520 --> 00:02:51,840 Speaker 1: other words, only certain categories would be brought up. I 47 00:02:51,840 --> 00:02:55,040 Speaker 1: guess it depends on what Mr Muller knows that we 48 00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:57,959 Speaker 1: obviously in the public don't know about. So how much 49 00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:01,720 Speaker 1: information he has already gotten from other depositions, other interviews, 50 00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:05,440 Speaker 1: grand jury testimony that gives him context, and how much 51 00:03:05,480 --> 00:03:09,360 Speaker 1: he truly needs to question the president as opposed to 52 00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:12,480 Speaker 1: simply trying to go up through a narrow scope of 53 00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:15,359 Speaker 1: questions to see how the President responds, but already having 54 00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:19,200 Speaker 1: everything else he already needs in the background context. So I, personally, 55 00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:21,040 Speaker 1: if I were at the president attorneys, I certainly would 56 00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:23,720 Speaker 1: never agree to that open ended interview, especially with a 57 00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:26,839 Speaker 1: client like Donald Trump, who knows where his mind could 58 00:03:26,840 --> 00:03:28,919 Speaker 1: go into this context, who knows how it's go off 59 00:03:28,919 --> 00:03:30,880 Speaker 1: on a tangent. You wouldn't want him to do that. 60 00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:33,480 Speaker 1: So for Mr Mueller, it depends on what he already 61 00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:36,400 Speaker 1: knows and how much he truly needs a certain factual 62 00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:38,600 Speaker 1: information from the President as opposed to just trying to 63 00:03:38,640 --> 00:03:40,440 Speaker 1: get a sense of how the President would answer to 64 00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:43,240 Speaker 1: certain questions. Is it likely that Mueller would do the 65 00:03:43,320 --> 00:03:49,400 Speaker 1: interview himself or have one of his top people do it. 66 00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:53,240 Speaker 1: It's a good question. I think Mueller, out of respect 67 00:03:53,280 --> 00:03:57,440 Speaker 1: for the office, would want to handle it largely hisself, 68 00:03:58,000 --> 00:03:59,760 Speaker 1: as opposed to giving it to one of his dream 69 00:03:59,800 --> 00:04:02,760 Speaker 1: team attorneys. Certainly they could handle it, but I think 70 00:04:02,800 --> 00:04:04,480 Speaker 1: he would want to try to offer some measure of 71 00:04:04,520 --> 00:04:06,840 Speaker 1: respect in the prestige of having it to be the 72 00:04:06,840 --> 00:04:10,360 Speaker 1: special Counsel, not someone else questioning someone with the office 73 00:04:10,360 --> 00:04:12,200 Speaker 1: of the President itself. So I think it would be 74 00:04:12,200 --> 00:04:14,480 Speaker 1: a fair assumption to make that he'll do it himself. 75 00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:18,039 Speaker 1: Many people may not realize that it wasn't just President 76 00:04:18,120 --> 00:04:23,320 Speaker 1: Bill Clinton that submitted to questioning under oath or interviews. 77 00:04:23,839 --> 00:04:27,840 Speaker 1: Um Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald 78 00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:31,640 Speaker 1: Ford all either submitted to interviews or testified before a 79 00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:36,040 Speaker 1: grand jury. Why is the testimony before a grand jury 80 00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:40,240 Speaker 1: so much more difficult? Uh? In a grand jury, you 81 00:04:40,320 --> 00:04:43,080 Speaker 1: can't have your lawyers there by and large, So for 82 00:04:43,160 --> 00:04:45,839 Speaker 1: especially with a client left Donald Trump, again, you've got 83 00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:49,040 Speaker 1: to be worried a bit about how he'll answer certain questions, 84 00:04:49,080 --> 00:04:51,080 Speaker 1: whether or not he'll go off on a tangent, if 85 00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:53,200 Speaker 1: he doesn't have his lawyers there to guide him a bit, 86 00:04:53,440 --> 00:04:56,159 Speaker 1: which you do for any client who has that type 87 00:04:56,160 --> 00:04:59,719 Speaker 1: of speaking style. Um. But you also have the issue 88 00:04:59,760 --> 00:05:02,400 Speaker 1: you can Missilian book, the Fifth Amendment to protect to 89 00:05:02,400 --> 00:05:06,000 Speaker 1: protect yourself against the crimination in a grand jury proceeding, 90 00:05:06,080 --> 00:05:08,919 Speaker 1: unlike in any other interview. So it's would be a 91 00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:12,360 Speaker 1: more bigger risk to have the president sit before grand jury. 92 00:05:12,400 --> 00:05:14,440 Speaker 1: I mean Bill Clinton did it. Bill Clinton was a 93 00:05:14,480 --> 00:05:17,719 Speaker 1: trained attorney and he stumbled in a grand jury proceeding. 94 00:05:17,720 --> 00:05:19,760 Speaker 1: So if he's going to stumble, you gotta be worried 95 00:05:19,800 --> 00:05:22,000 Speaker 1: if you're Donald Trump's lawyers about how the president will 96 00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:25,960 Speaker 1: handled it. And look look what that happened after after 97 00:05:26,000 --> 00:05:30,839 Speaker 1: his stumble there, that led to his um the impeachment proceedings. Now, 98 00:05:31,440 --> 00:05:34,200 Speaker 1: and I've had a minute here, what would be the 99 00:05:34,240 --> 00:05:37,320 Speaker 1: top question on your mind if you were Robert Muller, 100 00:05:37,320 --> 00:05:40,320 Speaker 1: what would be the first question you wanted to get answered, 101 00:05:41,839 --> 00:05:46,880 Speaker 1: did you know about the June meeting at Trump Tower? 102 00:05:47,279 --> 00:05:50,120 Speaker 1: And if you did, what was the context of your knowledge? 103 00:05:51,160 --> 00:05:54,719 Speaker 1: You know there are in just about thirty seconds, explain 104 00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:59,760 Speaker 1: the prep for a normal deposition is so rigorous. What 105 00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:03,480 Speaker 1: it the preparation for a deposition like this be? You 106 00:06:03,480 --> 00:06:05,400 Speaker 1: would have to and part of it depends on what 107 00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:07,760 Speaker 1: the client is actually done, But you have to prepare 108 00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:10,560 Speaker 1: them for any number of angles that the prosecutor will 109 00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:13,000 Speaker 1: approach in terms of how they last questions. You have 110 00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:15,640 Speaker 1: to get them to get their answers down to simple, 111 00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:18,800 Speaker 1: concise and direct responses and not to go off on 112 00:06:18,839 --> 00:06:21,400 Speaker 1: a tangent, because that's how you get into trouble. Thank you. 113 00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:30,640 Speaker 1: Bradley Moss, partner at Mark Say did a federal appeals 114 00:06:30,680 --> 00:06:35,240 Speaker 1: courts strike down an FCC decision to preempt state laws 115 00:06:35,640 --> 00:06:40,039 Speaker 1: that restricted the expansion of municipal broadband? That's correct. So 116 00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:46,520 Speaker 1: under the Obama era, FEC attempted to prevent states from 117 00:06:46,520 --> 00:06:51,960 Speaker 1: preventing municipalities from engaging in municipal broadband. So it's basically 118 00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:55,200 Speaker 1: telling states that they couldn't tell their cities not to 119 00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:59,240 Speaker 1: get involved in municipal broadband. And the six Circuit ruled 120 00:06:59,279 --> 00:07:02,880 Speaker 1: that that decision overstepped the boundaries of federal law because 121 00:07:03,600 --> 00:07:07,200 Speaker 1: generally federal agencies don't have the ability to tell states 122 00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:10,840 Speaker 1: what they can and can't do with regard to portions 123 00:07:10,960 --> 00:07:14,520 Speaker 1: of the state apparatus, meaning the municipal governments themselves. That's 124 00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:16,680 Speaker 1: a little bit different, I think than states reaching out 125 00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:20,800 Speaker 1: and trying to regulate private entities like Comcast and Verizon. 126 00:07:21,360 --> 00:07:24,480 Speaker 1: General rules of preemption state that when UH federal and 127 00:07:24,640 --> 00:07:29,600 Speaker 1: state policy directly conflict, the supremacy clause gives the tie 128 00:07:29,600 --> 00:07:32,360 Speaker 1: to the offense. Let's talk about the different ways that 129 00:07:32,440 --> 00:07:35,680 Speaker 1: the states are approaching this. In New York, one bill 130 00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:39,800 Speaker 1: proposed would require internet providers to adhere to net neutrality 131 00:07:39,840 --> 00:07:44,320 Speaker 1: principles to land state contracts. Assemblywoman Patricia Faye He said 132 00:07:44,320 --> 00:07:47,480 Speaker 1: the restrictions would apply even if the behaviors took place 133 00:07:47,600 --> 00:07:51,280 Speaker 1: outside New York. Is that taking the issue a little 134 00:07:51,280 --> 00:07:53,800 Speaker 1: too far? So? I actually think this is the most 135 00:07:53,840 --> 00:07:58,640 Speaker 1: interesting of the many attempts by states to enact net neutrality. Uh. 136 00:07:58,760 --> 00:08:00,360 Speaker 1: What I think is really interesting about it is the 137 00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:03,760 Speaker 1: fact that it's using an indirect method, right, It's not 138 00:08:03,880 --> 00:08:07,400 Speaker 1: telling providers directly that they have to engage in net 139 00:08:07,400 --> 00:08:10,360 Speaker 1: neutral principles, but it's making it a voluntary condition of 140 00:08:10,440 --> 00:08:16,000 Speaker 1: receiving UH state funds that may actually survive general preemption 141 00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:20,320 Speaker 1: rule in the way that direct state legislative command wouldn't. 142 00:08:21,080 --> 00:08:24,160 Speaker 1: But then it raises the problem under the dormant commerce clause, 143 00:08:24,320 --> 00:08:26,880 Speaker 1: whether New York can use these conditions in order to 144 00:08:26,920 --> 00:08:30,520 Speaker 1: reach behavior beyond New York States borders. I think they'd 145 00:08:30,520 --> 00:08:33,400 Speaker 1: be in much better shape if they simply limited the 146 00:08:33,440 --> 00:08:37,360 Speaker 1: condition to UH activities that the companies undertake while in 147 00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:41,720 Speaker 1: New York. So in California, there are two bills, and 148 00:08:41,800 --> 00:08:45,200 Speaker 1: one of them California State Senator Scott Wiener introduced, and 149 00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:48,360 Speaker 1: that would only apply to behavior within the state, So 150 00:08:48,440 --> 00:08:51,280 Speaker 1: that you think has a better chance. I think that's 151 00:08:51,320 --> 00:08:55,400 Speaker 1: probably the best chance of all of them. Um. And 152 00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:57,760 Speaker 1: it's worth noting that it's not the first time that 153 00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:02,280 Speaker 1: states and Feds have clashed over something like US the UH. 154 00:09:02,400 --> 00:09:06,960 Speaker 1: Minnesota attempted about ten years ago to regulate void providers 155 00:09:07,000 --> 00:09:09,560 Speaker 1: like Vontage on the theory that this looks walks and 156 00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:12,280 Speaker 1: talks like a traditional telephone services, it happens to be 157 00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:15,720 Speaker 1: over the Internet rather than over traditional phone lines, and 158 00:09:15,800 --> 00:09:19,439 Speaker 1: so states can regulate UH telephone services should be able 159 00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:23,760 Speaker 1: to regulate void providers as well. UH. The SEC said 160 00:09:23,760 --> 00:09:26,320 Speaker 1: no and tried to preempt state regulation, and ultimately they 161 00:09:26,320 --> 00:09:29,240 Speaker 1: were successful in that. So DAN, with a large state 162 00:09:29,320 --> 00:09:32,640 Speaker 1: like California, no matter what a loss say is about 163 00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:37,480 Speaker 1: it applying only within the state, it can reverberate outside 164 00:09:37,480 --> 00:09:41,040 Speaker 1: the state. And so if there are bills in California 165 00:09:41,200 --> 00:09:45,000 Speaker 1: and New York and let's say Washington, will that affect 166 00:09:45,280 --> 00:09:50,200 Speaker 1: the Internet significantly? Yeah? So it might write because assuming 167 00:09:50,240 --> 00:09:55,960 Speaker 1: that California succeeds in UH tying its funding to the 168 00:09:56,960 --> 00:10:00,679 Speaker 1: practice of net neutral principles while operating within California, you been, 169 00:10:00,720 --> 00:10:04,680 Speaker 1: a company like Verizon would have to UH decide whether 170 00:10:04,800 --> 00:10:08,160 Speaker 1: it's possible to segment its network management practices and practice 171 00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:10,679 Speaker 1: one set of rules in California and another set of 172 00:10:10,760 --> 00:10:12,679 Speaker 1: rules for the rest of the country, or maybe it's 173 00:10:12,679 --> 00:10:16,720 Speaker 1: easier just to apply the California policy across the United States. Right. 174 00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:20,880 Speaker 1: That's why California winds up the facto setting things like 175 00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:25,040 Speaker 1: air quality management standards, right, because they hold auto providers 176 00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:28,160 Speaker 1: to a very strict rule, and companies find it easier 177 00:10:28,200 --> 00:10:32,520 Speaker 1: to manufacture cars across the country to meet California standards 178 00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:34,360 Speaker 1: than to create one set of cars to sell in 179 00:10:34,400 --> 00:10:36,400 Speaker 1: California another for the rest of the nation. And just 180 00:10:36,640 --> 00:10:39,600 Speaker 1: last month, more than a dozen states asked the Supreme 181 00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:43,000 Speaker 1: Court to block a California law that required egg sellers 182 00:10:43,000 --> 00:10:46,600 Speaker 1: to abide by certain guidelines in the treatment of hands. 183 00:10:46,679 --> 00:10:49,920 Speaker 1: So uh, then their argument was that attempts to regulate 184 00:10:49,960 --> 00:10:52,200 Speaker 1: industry in other states. So I guess we'll see where 185 00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:57,160 Speaker 1: that goes. Um. Now, let's talk about the lawsuits that 186 00:10:57,200 --> 00:11:00,400 Speaker 1: are coming. Because the FCC released the final text of 187 00:11:00,440 --> 00:11:04,839 Speaker 1: the net neutrality rule last week, so the lawsuits challenging 188 00:11:04,840 --> 00:11:08,120 Speaker 1: can proceed. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is leading 189 00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:12,480 Speaker 1: a coalition of other states attorneys general in a lawsuit. 190 00:11:13,000 --> 00:11:16,920 Speaker 1: Which has a better chance of success these lawsuits or 191 00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:19,480 Speaker 1: the state laws? That may be a very tough question, 192 00:11:19,840 --> 00:11:25,200 Speaker 1: but yeah, so um, the state legal challenge, I think 193 00:11:25,240 --> 00:11:28,440 Speaker 1: is going to map the legal challenge that Silicon valuing 194 00:11:28,480 --> 00:11:31,480 Speaker 1: other industry players are bringing against it, which look at 195 00:11:31,800 --> 00:11:35,040 Speaker 1: challenge the FCC's action on two grounds. One is the 196 00:11:35,120 --> 00:11:39,960 Speaker 1: legal ground saying the FCC lacked legal authority to reclassify 197 00:11:40,080 --> 00:11:43,559 Speaker 1: broadband as an information service. My sense is that's probably 198 00:11:44,320 --> 00:11:46,880 Speaker 1: a non starter of an argument, given that the SEC 199 00:11:47,000 --> 00:11:50,320 Speaker 1: was simply returning to the rules that governed prior to 200 00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:53,920 Speaker 1: two thousand fifteen. The other UM set of arguments or 201 00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:58,160 Speaker 1: procedural hurdles the idea that if the UM the FEC 202 00:11:58,320 --> 00:12:00,520 Speaker 1: could do what it did, but it did follow the 203 00:12:00,559 --> 00:12:05,560 Speaker 1: appropriate procedural requirements when doing so. Depending on how that 204 00:12:05,720 --> 00:12:09,400 Speaker 1: argument shakes out, that maybe the only chance UM that 205 00:12:10,120 --> 00:12:12,839 Speaker 1: opponents have. But as we saw in the last round 206 00:12:12,880 --> 00:12:15,800 Speaker 1: of these debates, right the administrative law is always stacked 207 00:12:15,840 --> 00:12:18,679 Speaker 1: in the agency's favor. There's a sense that as long 208 00:12:18,720 --> 00:12:20,920 Speaker 1: as the agency is crossing seas and dotting the size 209 00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:23,320 Speaker 1: the way it's supposed to, these types of policy questions 210 00:12:23,320 --> 00:12:25,120 Speaker 1: generally get left to the agency rather than to the 211 00:12:25,120 --> 00:12:27,280 Speaker 1: court to decide. So I think a legal challenge is 212 00:12:27,280 --> 00:12:30,120 Speaker 1: going to be an uphill battle. What about Senator Edward 213 00:12:30,280 --> 00:12:33,680 Speaker 1: Markey from Massachusetts, who's leading an effort to launch a 214 00:12:33,760 --> 00:12:38,800 Speaker 1: Congressional Review Act resolution in an attempt to reverse the 215 00:12:38,880 --> 00:12:43,199 Speaker 1: net neutrality rules that PIPE put into place. Yeah, I 216 00:12:43,240 --> 00:12:45,520 Speaker 1: think as a matter of politics, it's a pretty smart 217 00:12:45,520 --> 00:12:47,680 Speaker 1: move because it's trying to get each member of Congress 218 00:12:47,720 --> 00:12:52,920 Speaker 1: on record is UH discussing whether they are supportive of 219 00:12:53,000 --> 00:12:55,760 Speaker 1: or opposing to the SEC's action. That said, I don't 220 00:12:55,760 --> 00:12:58,920 Speaker 1: expect any substantive change because for the Congressional Review Act 221 00:12:59,040 --> 00:13:01,960 Speaker 1: to succeed, it has to pass both the House and 222 00:13:02,040 --> 00:13:04,360 Speaker 1: the Senate and either be signed by the President or 223 00:13:05,160 --> 00:13:07,920 Speaker 1: have his veto overridden. I don't see the President supporting 224 00:13:07,960 --> 00:13:12,760 Speaker 1: this at all. Dan. More than twenty states introduced broadband 225 00:13:12,840 --> 00:13:17,280 Speaker 1: privacy rules last year in response to Congress's decision to 226 00:13:17,400 --> 00:13:21,880 Speaker 1: roll back Obama era FCC rules that required Internet providers 227 00:13:21,920 --> 00:13:26,800 Speaker 1: to ask permission before collecting personal information for commercial uses. 228 00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:31,439 Speaker 1: How is that going as far as the states? How 229 00:13:31,440 --> 00:13:35,040 Speaker 1: are they succeeding with that? Well? So that's actually much 230 00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:38,480 Speaker 1: more interesting question of federalism because historically we've allowed states 231 00:13:38,520 --> 00:13:43,040 Speaker 1: to experiment with UH data privacy and data security issues 232 00:13:43,080 --> 00:13:45,920 Speaker 1: at the state level that we haven't done with regard 233 00:13:45,960 --> 00:13:49,160 Speaker 1: to things like broadband network management practices. So there's a 234 00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:51,760 Speaker 1: sense in which states have been operating by doing this, 235 00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:55,959 Speaker 1: are operating within the confines of regulatory authority that they've 236 00:13:56,000 --> 00:13:59,080 Speaker 1: traditionally had. That having been said, I think it's possible 237 00:13:59,120 --> 00:14:03,400 Speaker 1: to read the UH recent Net Neutrality Order as preempting 238 00:14:03,480 --> 00:14:07,800 Speaker 1: even some of those as well, because the the language 239 00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:10,839 Speaker 1: of the in the preemption portion of the statute or 240 00:14:10,920 --> 00:14:14,120 Speaker 1: the the order seems to reach really really broadly UH 241 00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:16,840 Speaker 1: to prevent anything that's inconsistent with the SCCS approach here. 242 00:14:16,880 --> 00:14:20,840 Speaker 1: So we'll see all that developed. And dan I mentioned 243 00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:24,520 Speaker 1: that the final rule is out of the final text. 244 00:14:25,440 --> 00:14:28,280 Speaker 1: Have you looked at it to see if it varies 245 00:14:28,640 --> 00:14:31,800 Speaker 1: to any degree from what was proposed? I've not done 246 00:14:31,760 --> 00:14:34,520 Speaker 1: aligned by line comparison, but it looks to me like 247 00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:37,840 Speaker 1: the general thrust of the order UH fits and matches 248 00:14:38,840 --> 00:14:42,680 Speaker 1: what German Pie released just prior to the Thanksgiving break. 249 00:14:43,080 --> 00:14:45,600 Speaker 1: I think to the extent that there's minor variations, it's 250 00:14:45,680 --> 00:14:50,320 Speaker 1: responses to the points made by the dissenting commissioners in 251 00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:53,400 Speaker 1: order to make sure that the order is UH as 252 00:14:53,520 --> 00:14:58,280 Speaker 1: robust as it can be. And in about twenty seconds 253 00:14:58,280 --> 00:15:00,880 Speaker 1: here do you find that the net neutral reality rules 254 00:15:00,920 --> 00:15:06,479 Speaker 1: are now crossing partisan lines, that people are both Republicans 255 00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:09,120 Speaker 1: and Democrats are having problems with the lack of rules. 256 00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:12,480 Speaker 1: So it's UM. I think one of the big points 257 00:15:12,480 --> 00:15:15,160 Speaker 1: that came out was seeing that Nebraska became the first 258 00:15:15,640 --> 00:15:20,280 Speaker 1: Republican leading state to join this state rebellion against the FCC. 259 00:15:20,520 --> 00:15:23,640 Speaker 1: So alright, suggest it. Thank you, Dan, Sorry to have 260 00:15:23,680 --> 00:15:26,440 Speaker 1: to leave it there. Dan Lyons, a professor at Boston 261 00:15:26,560 --> 00:15:29,880 Speaker 1: College Law School. Well, this is Bloomberg. Thanks for listening 262 00:15:29,920 --> 00:15:33,200 Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen 263 00:15:33,240 --> 00:15:36,840 Speaker 1: to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg 264 00:15:36,880 --> 00:15:41,600 Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg.