Speaker 1: Yeah, a court order is forcing some of Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: former top tax lawyers to give thousands of documents to
Speaker 1: investigators showing the risk attorney's face when their own actions
Speaker 1: go under a microscope. Joining me is Christopher for a
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law team leader for the business of law. So
Speaker 1: Chris tell us about these documents that the lawyers have
Speaker 1: to turn over. So a judge ordered these attorneys that
Speaker 1: Morgan Lewis, who have been representing and advising President Trump
Speaker 1: and his companies on various tax matters, to turn over
Speaker 1: a couple of thousand dot com pages of documents at
Speaker 1: least regarding some of that advice in some of the
Speaker 1: specific tax transactions that Trump was involved in. And it's
Speaker 1: they're being turned over to the New York Attorney General
Speaker 1: that Tisha James as part of a probe um into
Speaker 1: some accusations of tax cheating by Trump and the Trump organization.
Speaker 1: Did the law firm try to fight the request, try
Speaker 1: to claim attorney client privilege? And how did that go?
Speaker 1: Apparently not so well they did, and it didn't go
Speaker 1: well for them. The firm made two arguments that it
Speaker 1: was these documents were covered and protected by attorney client
Speaker 1: privilege between the firm and the company, and also that
Speaker 1: they were attorney work product, which doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: turned over under the rules for this kind of thing.
Speaker 1: The judge rejected that argument and said that UM a
Speaker 1: lot of these documents had to do with UM sort
Speaker 1: of talking about statements to the media UM communications of
Speaker 1: a non legal advice matter. Whether that's because the actual
Speaker 1: subject of the communication was not a legal question, or
Speaker 1: because non lawyers and folks who were not UM clients
Speaker 1: were also involved in some of those communications. We have
Speaker 1: not seen the actual documents ourselves, those have been under
Speaker 1: UH feel by the court UM. But what we do
Speaker 1: know is that they the investigators are looking in particular
Speaker 1: at two acts deals that these lawyers advised Trump on.
Speaker 1: One of them has to do with the property in Westchester,
Speaker 1: New York, UH and the other one is out in
Speaker 1: l a UM. And what they're looking at here is
Speaker 1: that there were certain property and easement on certain property
Speaker 1: owned by Trump was donated UH for charitable causes as
Speaker 1: a conservation easement. And what they're looking at there is
Speaker 1: how much of a tax UH break the company took
Speaker 1: in return for donating those easements, and the tax break
Speaker 1: is based on how those the properties were valued. And
Speaker 1: there are some allegations there that the Trump organization has
Speaker 1: been inflating the value not only of these two easements,
Speaker 1: but of a wide range of property for several years
Speaker 1: now in order to get tax breaks UM and favorable loans.
Speaker 1: How much is done by accountants and how much by lawyers,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of money involved here and
Speaker 1: a lot of different things in play, so I think
Speaker 1: can vary based on the situation, but it was safe
Speaker 1: to assume that an organization the size of the Trump
Speaker 1: organization would not only have tax lawyers working on these things,
Speaker 1: but professional accountants as well, and so it would be
Speaker 1: done under the advice of both the lawyers and the accountants. UM.
Speaker 1: My understanding and what I was told from some of
Speaker 1: the experts here is that the accountant would certainly be
Speaker 1: the first line there and the person who's who's calculating
Speaker 1: what the value of this property is UM, But the
Speaker 1: tax lawyers would ultimately be reviewing that and making calls
Speaker 1: in terms of how whether that's um you know, they're
Speaker 1: pushing the envelope too much in terms of the value
Speaker 1: or running into potential legal questions. Otherwise, the lawyers who
Speaker 1: have represented him. The tax lawyers have represented him for
Speaker 1: a while. Right, that's right. The firm is Morgan Lewis,
Speaker 1: and it's a pair of attorneys, most notably a woman
Speaker 1: named Sherry Dillon, who some oakes may remember appeared at
Speaker 1: with then President elect Trump in two UM at a
Speaker 1: closely watched UM press conference at his hotel in Manhattan
Speaker 1: in which President Trump pledged and rolled out a plan
Speaker 1: under which he was going to divest from all of
Speaker 1: his various businesses before entering the White House. And he
Speaker 1: also showed up with a stack of boxes which he
Speaker 1: claimed where his tax returns um which he also said
Speaker 1: he was willing to turn over just as soon as
Speaker 1: this ongoing UM audit was finished. And so Dylan was
Speaker 1: standing by his side there and and even was wampooned
Speaker 1: on on Saturday Night Live the next week when they
Speaker 1: did their own skit on that press conference. UM. So
Speaker 1: she's been well known as a Trump tax advisor for
Speaker 1: several years, even dating back to before when she joined
Speaker 1: Morgan Lewis six or seven years ago. And then the
Speaker 1: other person at issue here is a guy named William Nelson,
Speaker 1: who's a tax law veteran, had worked UM during the
Speaker 1: Reagan administration and has been with the firm for several decades.
Speaker 1: Both of these attorneys, in addition to a few others
Speaker 1: from Morgan Lewis, has really been the primary advisors for
Speaker 1: the Trump Organization and President Trump on a lot of
Speaker 1: his tax matters. Can lawyers advising clients about tax matters
Speaker 1: be themselves found responsible for a client's illegal acts or
Speaker 1: illegal claims made? Potentially? And I think it's worth pointing
Speaker 1: out here that there has been no public accusation that
Speaker 1: either of these two attorneys, or that the firm otherwise
Speaker 1: has violated ethics laws, ethics rules, criminal laws, or itself
Speaker 1: is facing any civil liability. But it is interesting to
Speaker 1: see that investigators are taking a closer look at these transactions,
Speaker 1: and it specifically are looking at these lawyers roles in
Speaker 1: those transactions. So my understanding is that there is certainly
Speaker 1: some gray area and some wiggle room here, and that
Speaker 1: attorney UM should be allowed to, if they're clients, full
Speaker 1: throated advice. And if you know, it turns out down
Speaker 1: the road that the I R S or the SEC
Speaker 1: or a judge maybe UM disagrees with the legal conclusions
Speaker 1: that the attorney reached. That's not necessarily going to get
Speaker 1: the attorney in hot water unless the advice was just
Speaker 1: so reckless or off base. But where attorneys can run
Speaker 1: into trouble are in these situations where either they are
Speaker 1: putting their stamp of approval knowingly on some sort of
Speaker 1: unlawful behavior, or if they're just burying their heads in
Speaker 1: the sands and pretending like it's not going on. And
Speaker 1: so we've seen that in some high profile cases over
Speaker 1: the course of the last decade or so, where attorneys
Speaker 1: may face even criminal penalties, and in one situation where
Speaker 1: a tax firm because of the civil penalties that they faced,
Speaker 1: wrapped up in one of those cases that wound up
Speaker 1: going out of business. So a lot of times a
Speaker 1: lawyer will give advice and it pushes the envelope and
Speaker 1: the client says, let's go for it. Is that kind
Speaker 1: of advice testing the limits of the law. Is that
Speaker 1: kind of advice criminal? I'm hesitant to say that it's criminal,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly moving into that gray area where there
Speaker 1: could be some problems. I mean, one person's view of
Speaker 1: what's pushing the envelope and another of what criminal certainly
Speaker 1: could be different. And some of the tax law experts
Speaker 1: and legal ethics experts say that firms are more and
Speaker 1: more aware of these gray areas and more and more
Speaker 1: UM unwilling to test them, particularly the larger firms that
Speaker 1: have a lot to risk. We're not talking about taking
Speaker 1: advantage of tax loopholes, correct, UM. Certainly there's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with UM any person or business taking advantage of all
Speaker 1: of the tax benefits and breaks that are available to
Speaker 1: them under the law. In this particular case, what we
Speaker 1: know about the allegations is that investigators both the state
Speaker 1: and the city level at the Manhattan d A's office
Speaker 1: are looking into whether the Trump organization violated UH several
Speaker 1: laws by really inflating and overvaluing these properties. In order
Speaker 1: to does a lawyer have to report a client if
Speaker 1: he or she suspects the client is doing something illegal
Speaker 1: like inflating assets. There is a that's a very very
Speaker 1: gray area and very largely based on the situation and
Speaker 1: the state that you're in, because you're talking about largely
Speaker 1: state legal ethics rules UM, which vary from state to state.
Speaker 1: But that being said, in recent cases, what you're seeing
Speaker 1: UM is not the firm or the lawyer necessarily reporting
Speaker 1: the client anywhere, but they do have an obligation to
Speaker 1: step down UM and top advising or representing the clients
Speaker 1: in particular, and attorneys looking at potential um personal liability
Speaker 1: or ethics charges if they knowingly sign their name to
Speaker 1: something that's filed with the I R. S ors filed
Speaker 1: in court that they know is false or is misleading
Speaker 1: or otherwise violating the law. So who are they bringing
Speaker 1: the charges against them? It doesn't sound like it's criminal charges. Unclear,
Speaker 1: I'll say for now, the both Letitia James, the A. G.
Speaker 1: Her Office, and the Manhattan DA Civans have been um,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of holding their cards close to the
Speaker 1: vest in terms of the details of what they're looking
Speaker 1: into and what potential liability either the President or his
Speaker 1: companies may face as a result of that. It seems
Speaker 1: certainly like um everything is is potentially on the table um.
Speaker 1: And it also seems certainly like the president, the former
Speaker 1: president and his companies are the primary target of these probes.
Speaker 1: The lawyers are simply being swept in as those probes playout.
Speaker 1: Because it seems like you have two different factors. You
Speaker 1: keep describing gray areas, and there certainly are a lot
Speaker 1: of gray areas in this where it's even hard to
Speaker 1: draw a line. And then on the other side, you
Speaker 1: have these tax rules that are so complex that a
Speaker 1: client by themselves wouldn't be able to in most instances
Speaker 1: come up with these things. They need an expert exactly.
Speaker 1: And you could certainly see why an individual or the
Speaker 1: the person at the company who's signing their name on
Speaker 1: these these tax documents would turn around and say, well,
Speaker 1: I just listened to the advice of my accountants and
Speaker 1: my lawyers. Um. And certainly that would be a hurdle.
Speaker 1: Although that's not a defense, could certainly be a hurdle
Speaker 1: in terms of where these investigations go um probing into
Speaker 1: the Trump organization and the former president. I'm certain that
Speaker 1: the investigators are trying to dig in there and get
Speaker 1: a better sense of who was making the calls on
Speaker 1: these things, who knew what was going on, and there
Speaker 1: was the envelope was being pushed or lines were crossed,
Speaker 1: Who was making that call? And because I take it
Speaker 1: because you mentioned a few cases in your story that
Speaker 1: there aren't that many cases that have been brought against
Speaker 1: lawyers in tax matters, that's right. I mean the ones
Speaker 1: that you see are the ones where, UM, folks are
Speaker 1: really caught red handed there, you know, whether it's in
Speaker 1: communications or or they admit to it in cord or
Speaker 1: to investigators where UH lawyers are knowingly violating the law
Speaker 1: to assist that their clients, and those are the sort
Speaker 1: of open and closed cases, UM, and that are easier
Speaker 1: to prosecute. I would assume, and you could see why investigators,
Speaker 1: because there's so much gray area here, UH may not
Speaker 1: to vote resources to those cases where it's unclear, UM,
Speaker 1: you what's legal advice and what's criminal activity. Has any
Speaker 1: lawyer gone to prison over this? Yes? UM, there was
Speaker 1: a lawyer I believe he was at Sidley Austin, and
Speaker 1: he was sentenced to six and a half years in
Speaker 1: prison for writing letters that authorized tax shelters that k
Speaker 1: PMG had created for various wealthy customers. So he did
Speaker 1: six years in jail. UH, and the firm Sidley was
Speaker 1: forced to say more than thirty nine million dollars in
Speaker 1: a civil penalty to the I R. Tell us about
Speaker 1: the timing here. This is all happening at the same
Speaker 1: time that Morgan Lewis is trying to separate itself from
Speaker 1: Trump and the Trump organization as a client. A week
Speaker 1: or two before the judge made this ruling, the firm
Speaker 1: said publicly that it would be no longer representing Trump
Speaker 1: for his companies. Can they just drop a client in
Speaker 1: the middle of an investigation? It's not that easy, for sure.
Speaker 1: And I should say that these Morgan Lewis attorneys are
Speaker 1: among a small army of lawyers from various firms that
Speaker 1: are representing Trump contax in a wide range of other matters,
Speaker 1: so he has no shortage of attorneys at his disposal.
Speaker 1: But there are legal and ethical responsibilities in terms of
Speaker 1: a firm extricating itself from a client in the middle
Speaker 1: of an investigation or a court case. So, UM, it's
Speaker 1: not something where they can say, Okay, we're done here. Uh,
Speaker 1: and that's the end of it. There's you know, um
Speaker 1: ethical rules that have to be met, and um, they
Speaker 1: have to make sure that Trump has other council available
Speaker 1: and and that they're checking all the boxes from the
Speaker 1: ethics side. Thanks Chris. That's Christopher op for a Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law team leader for the Business of Law. I've been
Speaker 1: talking to former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner of
Speaker 1: Carter in English about the unprecedented second impeachment trial of
Speaker 1: former President Donald Trump, seems as if we know the
Speaker 1: come already, what's the point. Well, that is a great question,
Speaker 1: and that highlights the fact that that an impeachment in
Speaker 1: the House followed by a trial in the Senate looks
Speaker 1: a lot like a criminal trial, but in many respects
Speaker 1: it's nothing like it at all. In fact, an impeachment
Speaker 1: process is really a purely political process. For example, if
Speaker 1: this were to be a criminal trial and jurors were
Speaker 1: to have already announced that they were inclined to either
Speaker 1: convict or a quit a defendant, they would not even
Speaker 1: be permitted to sit on that jury. But in this case,
Speaker 1: the jurors are members of the United States said it,
Speaker 1: many of whom have already announced that they were leaning
Speaker 1: either towards conviction or acquittal. Some have maintained that they're
Speaker 1: going to keep an open mind, but in this case,
Speaker 1: it seems that the outcome is preordained. There was emotion
Speaker 1: presented by Senator brand Paul already before this process has
Speaker 1: already be gone, in which senators voted on the question
Speaker 1: of whether or not this impeachment trial was even constitutional
Speaker 1: to begin with. The argument was that to cause President
Speaker 1: Trump is no longer sitting president, that this impeachment is unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: And there were enough Republican senators forty five of them
Speaker 1: in fact, who already voted in favor of that motion,
Speaker 1: that suggests that they are disinclined to vote for conviction
Speaker 1: based upon this argument that the entire process is unconstitutional
Speaker 1: at this point. So it does seem that unless there
Speaker 1: is a huge shift in opinion on the part of
Speaker 1: the Republican senator's very unlikely we're going to see a
Speaker 1: conviction at the end of this process. So the first
Speaker 1: day is going to be devoted to arguments about the
Speaker 1: constitutionality of having an impeachment trial when a president is
Speaker 1: out of office, and we can expect the vote to
Speaker 1: be similar to that taken after Rand Paul's argument. So
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, the actual trial will start. Reportedly, the house
Speaker 1: managers have learned from last time, and they're going to
Speaker 1: have a much more concise and shorter presentation, heavy on video.
Speaker 1: What are you expecting to see? Reportedly, the house managers
Speaker 1: have learned from the last time, and they're going to
Speaker 1: have a much shorter presentation, heavy on video. What do
Speaker 1: we know about what they might do here. I think
Speaker 1: we're going to see the House managers having learned quite
Speaker 1: a bit from the first impeachment trial, which went on
Speaker 1: for almost three weeks, and many people, including members of
Speaker 1: the Senate who stat through that trial found much of
Speaker 1: the presentation repetitive and uninteresting. In this case, I think
Speaker 1: we're going to see something entirely different. This is going
Speaker 1: to be a video heavy presentation. It's going to be
Speaker 1: very visual, and there's going to be a reliance on
Speaker 1: primary source material as opposed to witness testimony. So what
Speaker 1: I mean by that is instead of having videos of
Speaker 1: individual who testified before House committees, we're going to see
Speaker 1: the presentations by House managers here largely replaying actual clips
Speaker 1: of President Trumps giving speeches, of President Trump tweeting out comments,
Speaker 1: and that is going to be the focus of their case.
Speaker 1: They are going to try to build this case around
Speaker 1: President Trump's own words and own tweets. It seems like
Speaker 1: the problem is going to be connecting his words to
Speaker 1: his supporters actually storming the capital. I think we we're
Speaker 1: going to see here is a presentation that takes the
Speaker 1: Senate chronologically through the month long build up to the
Speaker 1: January six storming of the Capital. They're going to try
Speaker 1: to replay all the speeches, all of the comments, all
Speaker 1: of the tweets that were made by President Trump challenging
Speaker 1: the legitimacy of the election, challenging the outcome of the
Speaker 1: voting process, and then they are going to build to
Speaker 1: the presentation of Presidents Frump speaking outside the White House
Speaker 1: only hours before the mob overtook the police and invaded
Speaker 1: the Capitol building. They're going to key, in particular on
Speaker 1: the President's comments his supporters to fight like hell and
Speaker 1: march to the capital and confront Congress when Congress was
Speaker 1: at that point certifying the election. The challenge for House
Speaker 1: managers here is whether or not they can convince any
Speaker 1: number of Republican Senators that it was foreseeable based upon
Speaker 1: the president's comments that this insurrection should happen. It all
Speaker 1: changes on the question of what was the President's intent
Speaker 1: and was it foreseeable that this violence would erupt based
Speaker 1: upon his language. That is going to be the challenge here,
Speaker 1: and at the end of the day, it's going to
Speaker 1: be difficult to convince the number of Republican senators seventeens
Speaker 1: in order to gain a convintion. But let's remember also
Speaker 1: that this impeachment process and this Peachman trial is largely
Speaker 1: aimed at public opinion. House managers know that it's unlikely
Speaker 1: they're going to get a conviction here, and so what
Speaker 1: they're really trying to do is create a record for
Speaker 1: the public to consume as they watch the events leading
Speaker 1: up to January six unfold again during this trial, all
Speaker 1: indications are that they're not going to call witnesses. Does
Speaker 1: it leave something out of the presentation if you don't
Speaker 1: have witnesses talking about what President Trump's reaction to the
Speaker 1: riot was and his failure to take quick action to
Speaker 1: stop the riot. Well, it's interesting because some of the
Speaker 1: key witnesses in this trial are actually the members of
Speaker 1: the Senate themselves, who leaves through the events of January six.
Speaker 1: So that's another way in which this is a very
Speaker 1: unusual trial. Typically, if this were to be a criminal trial,
Speaker 1: for example, you would never have somebody sitting as a
Speaker 1: juror who is actually also a witness. But here we
Speaker 1: have all of the members of the Senate who sat
Speaker 1: through the events of January six and witnessed the events
Speaker 1: unfolding in real time before their very eyes. But what's
Speaker 1: missing here is direct evidence of President Trump's reaction to
Speaker 1: these events. We know that he was slow to ask
Speaker 1: the rioters, the people who had overtaken the police and
Speaker 1: taken control of the Capitol building to leave, but other
Speaker 1: than that, there isn't a lot of evidence that shows
Speaker 1: president state of mind while these rioters had stormed the
Speaker 1: Capitol Building. There is some indication that the president's lawyers
Speaker 1: may use video from Democrats talking to crowds, trying to,
Speaker 1: I guess, replicate the idea of riling up a crowd,
Speaker 1: But does that have any bearing here. There is a
Speaker 1: possibility that in the president's offense, you're going to see
Speaker 1: his lawyers find examples of Democrats giving speeches that they
Speaker 1: will argue, we're equally incendiary. In other words, they're going
Speaker 1: to argue that Democrats in other contexts gave speeches to
Speaker 1: their supporters that were just as fiery, that were just
Speaker 1: as incendiary, and in those cases nobody said anything, and
Speaker 1: they were not responsible for any violence that may have ensued.
Speaker 1: In this case, there was violence of a different sort.
Speaker 1: There was the storming of the capital. But the point
Speaker 1: that the president's lawyers will be trying to make here
Speaker 1: is that the president was not responsible for that conduct
Speaker 1: because it was, in some substance not all that different
Speaker 1: from the same type of language that Democrats used in
Speaker 1: trying to speak to their base of supporters. Another constitutional
Speaker 1: argument the defense is going to use is that Trump
Speaker 1: had the First Amendment right to make the speech that
Speaker 1: he did. Is that a strong or weak argument in
Speaker 1: your opinion? Well, it's really not a case about First
Speaker 1: Amendment right. It's a case about whether it was foreseeable
Speaker 1: that this insurrection would have resulted as a result of
Speaker 1: the words that were spoken. One of the interesting issues
Speaker 1: that we may see unfold in terms of the president's
Speaker 1: defense team is how they handle the president's claims about
Speaker 1: election fraud and that the results of the election were
Speaker 1: stolen from him. That's a highly controversial area that Republicans
Speaker 1: in the Senate do not want to see as the
Speaker 1: centerpiece of that defense. So far, the defense lawyers have
Speaker 1: handled that in a very delicate way by arguing that
Speaker 1: there was quote unquote insufficient evidence it true that the
Speaker 1: president's claims about election fraud were fall So in some
Speaker 1: ways they're trying to thread the needle there by not
Speaker 1: taking on that issue directly, which is something that Senate
Speaker 1: Republicans do not want to see as a centerpiece of
Speaker 1: the President's defense, but at the same time not leaving
Speaker 1: it out altogether, which is something that former President Trump
Speaker 1: legedly feel strongly about. In the brief that the defense
Speaker 1: filed today, their final brief before trial, they really made
Speaker 1: a political argument against the Democrats as well. They said
Speaker 1: that this was an act of political theater and that
Speaker 1: the Democrats were exploiting the chaos and trauma of the
Speaker 1: Capitol riot just continuing their attacks on Trump. Is that
Speaker 1: a good argument to make in a case like this
Speaker 1: to blame the prosecution basically, But what they're trying to
Speaker 1: argue is that the Democrats are trying to take political
Speaker 1: advantage of this very unfortunate event that costs the line
Speaker 1: of five Americans when individual store in the Capitol building.
Speaker 1: And in a sense they are correct and that this
Speaker 1: is a political process. But I think that argument is
Speaker 1: going to get overwhelmed by the visual evidence of the
Speaker 1: events of the day, showing these people storming the building,
Speaker 1: pushing past Capitol police officers. That is going to be
Speaker 1: something that is gonna be very difficult to rebut and
Speaker 1: trying to suggest that this is all about politics, I
Speaker 1: think is probably not going to be a particularly persuasive
Speaker 1: argument for those people who are going to watch this
Speaker 1: trial unfold on television. Do you think that it's an
Speaker 1: uphill battle to prove Trump's intent? If this were a
Speaker 1: criminal trial, would they be able to prove his intent
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, that is a great question,
Speaker 1: But remember it's not a criminal trial here until the
Speaker 1: standards that ultimately senators will use to either convict or
Speaker 1: a quit here, or whatever they feel in their heart,
Speaker 1: in their soul as they look at this evidence is
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. There is no legal standard
Speaker 1: by which senators will judge either the guilt or innocent
Speaker 1: of the president in this case. It seems that both
Speaker 1: sides want this to be a really quick trial, about
Speaker 1: a week long. Is that too short to get all
Speaker 1: this in and in a week? A week would be
Speaker 1: an unprecedented impeachment trial. Remember that President Trump's first impeachment
Speaker 1: trial lasted three weeks. And this is of course the
Speaker 1: first time that any president in US history has been
Speaker 1: impeached twice. So this is going to be a very
Speaker 1: abbreviated trial. It's going to be mostly visual and video testimony,
Speaker 1: and in the end, both sides want to see this
Speaker 1: over as quickly as possible for their own reasons. Democrats
Speaker 1: don't want to be seen as overdoing this case. They
Speaker 1: were in some ways criticized during the first minute impeachment
Speaker 1: trial for giving a case that went on longer than
Speaker 1: it should have, it lost the public's interest in some ways,
Speaker 1: and was very repetitive, and other proportions of their presentation here.
Speaker 1: They want something that's going to be riveting, that's going
Speaker 1: to be very cinematic, almost Hollywood like, something that they
Speaker 1: will hope that the public will watch closely for one week. Republicans,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, also want to have this over
Speaker 1: as soon as possible because they would like to get
Speaker 1: this behind them and move on. Some Republicans want to
Speaker 1: move on to what they hope will be a post
Speaker 1: Trump Republican party. Others are continuing to build their future
Speaker 1: around Trump Party. So we'll just have to see how
Speaker 1: that plays out for Republicans. Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints
Speaker 1: of McCarter and English, and that's it for the edition
Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Lawn Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for listening, and remember you can always get the
Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get
Speaker 1: your favorite podcasts. You're listening to Bloomburn