1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:24,000
Speaker 1: Have You put a Good Way? Eight point seven million

3
00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:29,840
Speaker 1: and gross commissions all from pink sheet stop Boys. There's

4
00:00:29,880 --> 00:00:32,880
Speaker 1: the financing of the film The Wolf of Wall Street,

5
00:00:33,200 --> 00:00:36,519
Speaker 1: the two hundred million dollars super yacht, the purchase of

6
00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:40,920
Speaker 1: paintings by Monet van Go and bosc yacht. Eight million

7
00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:45,519
Speaker 1: dollars in jewelry, extravagant parties, all from the billions of

8
00:00:45,600 --> 00:00:49,479
Speaker 1: dollars bankers allegedly looted from the Malaysian fund known as

9
00:00:49,600 --> 00:00:54,720
Speaker 1: one MDB, an international embarrassment for Goldman Sachs, and now

10
00:00:54,760 --> 00:00:57,880
Speaker 1: trial begins for the only person in all of Goldman

11
00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:00,600
Speaker 1: Sacks to stand trial in the US for a scandal,

12
00:01:00,960 --> 00:01:05,120
Speaker 1: former banker Roger Ing, charged with helping to launder billions

13
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,720
Speaker 1: of dollars embezzled from the fund and bribery. Joining me

14
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:12,960
Speaker 1: is Jonathan Macy, a professor at Gale Law School. Jonathan

15
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:16,640
Speaker 1: tell us about the broad outlines of the scandal. This

16
00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:22,160
Speaker 1: is one of the largest scandals in history where Goldman

17
00:01:22,240 --> 00:01:28,960
Speaker 1: banker Tim Leisner and Malaysian financier Joe Low basically diverted

18
00:01:29,080 --> 00:01:33,080
Speaker 1: four point five billion dollars from a fund called the

19
00:01:33,120 --> 00:01:36,480
Speaker 1: one m dB Fund to pay for a very lavish

20
00:01:36,600 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 1: Fife dial and to buy yachts and private jets and

21
00:01:41,800 --> 00:01:46,480
Speaker 1: jewelry and fund the movie The Wolf of Wall Street. Basically,

22
00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:51,560
Speaker 1: the idea is Goldman sold securities and these proceeds from

23
00:01:51,560 --> 00:01:55,960
Speaker 1: the securities were supposed to be used to build infrastructure

24
00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:59,000
Speaker 1: and benefit the Malaysian people, but it was really just

25
00:01:59,080 --> 00:02:02,400
Speaker 1: a massive ripped ball. Goldman has paid five billion dollars

26
00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:06,040
Speaker 1: in fines and apologized for breaking the law. How much

27
00:02:06,040 --> 00:02:10,680
Speaker 1: of a black mark was that for the investment bank? Well,

28
00:02:10,720 --> 00:02:13,480
Speaker 1: he was a black mark. But you know, Golden already

29
00:02:13,560 --> 00:02:16,720
Speaker 1: has a reputation for being pretty edgy when it comes

30
00:02:16,720 --> 00:02:20,320
Speaker 1: to ethical issues, and his clients seem to stick with it.

31
00:02:20,520 --> 00:02:24,120
Speaker 1: So they're kind of the Teflon bank. They can do

32
00:02:24,600 --> 00:02:29,480
Speaker 1: seemingly virtually anything as far as being involved in scandals

33
00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:34,839
Speaker 1: and rip off without experiencing any reputational consequence. So how

34
00:02:34,840 --> 00:02:37,960
Speaker 1: did it end up that Ing is the only Goldmen

35
00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:43,120
Speaker 1: employee to face trial for this. That's a great question.

36
00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:48,240
Speaker 1: There is a Goldman partner who was Thing's boss, a

37
00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:53,320
Speaker 1: guy named him Wisner, and he has pled guilty to

38
00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:59,240
Speaker 1: money laundering, paying bribes and circumventing Goldman's internal control system

39
00:02:59,280 --> 00:03:02,360
Speaker 1: and his qua operating with the government, and they've held

40
00:03:02,360 --> 00:03:07,280
Speaker 1: off his sentencing till after he testifies in this trial. Basically,

41
00:03:07,680 --> 00:03:12,440
Speaker 1: Goldman's lawyers have succeeded in sort of cabining the scandal

42
00:03:12,639 --> 00:03:19,639
Speaker 1: to Malaysia. Prosecutors have emails and online chats indicating things involvement,

43
00:03:19,960 --> 00:03:23,840
Speaker 1: as well as financial records. What's his likely defense here?

44
00:03:24,240 --> 00:03:26,760
Speaker 1: I think the core of his defense was that he

45
00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:30,239
Speaker 1: was involved in helping on the deal, but he didn't

46
00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:33,520
Speaker 1: know about any of the shenanigans. He didn't know about

47
00:03:33,560 --> 00:03:37,680
Speaker 1: any of the diversion of funds that occurred later. It's

48
00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:39,880
Speaker 1: gonna be the core of his defense. You know, what

49
00:03:40,000 --> 00:03:43,800
Speaker 1: thing is gonna say is that he warned Goldman and

50
00:03:43,880 --> 00:03:46,400
Speaker 1: that he came back to the United States to face

51
00:03:46,520 --> 00:03:50,920
Speaker 1: trial as opposed to blows decisions to flee. A lot

52
00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:54,000
Speaker 1: of this will come down to how credible Leisner is

53
00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:56,920
Speaker 1: and what sort of holds the defense can poke into

54
00:03:57,040 --> 00:04:00,520
Speaker 1: Leisner's testimony. I think his testament it will be the

55
00:04:00,560 --> 00:04:03,000
Speaker 1: most important part of the trial. And do we expect

56
00:04:03,000 --> 00:04:05,560
Speaker 1: to see the typical attack on a witness who's flipped

57
00:04:05,880 --> 00:04:10,160
Speaker 1: that Leisner is implicating Ing to save himself. Absolutely, but

58
00:04:10,320 --> 00:04:13,680
Speaker 1: Mr Ring's lawyers made it very clear that that's what

59
00:04:13,760 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: they planned to allege. Then he's trying to get a

60
00:04:17,160 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: lighter sentence. Leisner sentencing has been delayed until after testimony.

61
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:26,039
Speaker 1: It sounds like you're classic prosecutorial quid pro quote. You

62
00:04:26,040 --> 00:04:28,159
Speaker 1: would think that he would take a deal as well

63
00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:31,800
Speaker 1: as Leisner. Well, the problem is, I think Wise there

64
00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:35,920
Speaker 1: had a card to play, which was testifying against a

65
00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:39,560
Speaker 1: It's not clear that Ing has the card to play,

66
00:04:39,600 --> 00:04:42,080
Speaker 1: so he may not have been able to command the

67
00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:44,840
Speaker 1: same sort of deal. It's also when you have two

68
00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:49,680
Speaker 1: high profile defendants like this, Leisner and Ing, it's often

69
00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:52,920
Speaker 1: a kind of a race who you know cooperates first.

70
00:04:53,000 --> 00:04:55,720
Speaker 1: It looks like Wise there beat him to it. The

71
00:04:55,800 --> 00:04:58,240
Speaker 1: jury is going to hear about all this extravagance spending,

72
00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:01,000
Speaker 1: but might there be some simple the for Ing as

73
00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:04,760
Speaker 1: sort of the scapegoat the only Goldman employee to be tried.

74
00:05:05,320 --> 00:05:09,560
Speaker 1: I don't think that juries have a lot of sympathy

75
00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:13,200
Speaker 1: for investment bankers. So to the E said that he

76
00:05:13,279 --> 00:05:17,280
Speaker 1: was involved in conspicuous consumption, and the prosecution can draw

77
00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:19,560
Speaker 1: that out I think that will hurt him with the jury.

78
00:05:19,839 --> 00:05:22,560
Speaker 1: I think there will be a question raised is too,

79
00:05:23,160 --> 00:05:26,839
Speaker 1: why is being the only person on trial? That will

80
00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:31,800
Speaker 1: be a question that naturally will come up with the jury.

81
00:05:31,880 --> 00:05:34,960
Speaker 1: But it doesn't get him off the book. But the

82
00:05:35,000 --> 00:05:38,120
Speaker 1: amount of time involved here, if he faces as much

83
00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:41,440
Speaker 1: as thirty years in prison, that seems like a murder

84
00:05:41,480 --> 00:05:45,880
Speaker 1: sentence right. Well, it's it's attributable to the very large

85
00:05:45,880 --> 00:05:49,720
Speaker 1: amounts of money involved. And when you're talking about fraud

86
00:05:50,200 --> 00:05:54,680
Speaker 1: in the billions, the misappropriation to two point seven billion

87
00:05:54,960 --> 00:05:58,480
Speaker 1: from one MDB, then you get, you know, into pretty

88
00:05:58,520 --> 00:06:02,000
Speaker 1: long prison sentences. And then after this he is likely

89
00:06:02,040 --> 00:06:05,839
Speaker 1: to be extradited back to Malaysia for another truck. Thanks John.

90
00:06:06,279 --> 00:06:12,000
Speaker 1: That's Jonathan Macy of Yale Law School. Vote delution occurs

91
00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:16,240
Speaker 1: when an electoral practice minimizes or cancels out the voting

92
00:06:16,279 --> 00:06:19,720
Speaker 1: strength of members of a racial group or language minority group.

93
00:06:20,279 --> 00:06:23,960
Speaker 1: When we issue that guidance, I noted that discriminatory redistricting

94
00:06:24,000 --> 00:06:28,640
Speaker 1: schemes are illegal. Attorney General Merrick Garland explained why vote

95
00:06:28,640 --> 00:06:32,400
Speaker 1: delution is illegal under Section two of the Voting Rights Act,

96
00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:36,640
Speaker 1: but a divided Supreme Court ignored that definition. By a

97
00:06:36,720 --> 00:06:40,240
Speaker 1: vote of five to four, the Court reinstated an Alabama

98
00:06:40,240 --> 00:06:44,040
Speaker 1: congressional map that a panel of judges found diluted the

99
00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:47,880
Speaker 1: votes of blacks in violation of Section two. Joining me

100
00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:51,200
Speaker 1: is Rebecca Green, a professor and co director of the

101
00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:55,400
Speaker 1: Election Law Program at William and Mary Law School. I've

102
00:06:55,440 --> 00:06:58,839
Speaker 1: seen a lot of headlines that say, in one form

103
00:06:58,960 --> 00:07:02,839
Speaker 1: or another, that is a blow to minority voting rights.

104
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:07,200
Speaker 1: Do you agree, and if so, how much of a blow? Well,

105
00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:10,960
Speaker 1: if you believe in the protections the Voting Rights Act

106
00:07:11,080 --> 00:07:16,160
Speaker 1: is supposed to afford minority voters in redistricting cases, then

107
00:07:16,160 --> 00:07:20,000
Speaker 1: this is certainly a blow because the map that the

108
00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:25,160
Speaker 1: state of Alabama drew is sort of textbook vote dilution.

109
00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:28,480
Speaker 1: In other words, it packs minority voters in one districts

110
00:07:28,520 --> 00:07:31,920
Speaker 1: and it cracks a group of minority voters in half

111
00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:34,640
Speaker 1: to dilute their strength. So it's it's sort of textbook

112
00:07:34,680 --> 00:07:37,120
Speaker 1: packing and cracking um. And to the extent that the

113
00:07:37,160 --> 00:07:40,520
Speaker 1: court's order means that the maps will go forward with

114
00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:45,320
Speaker 1: those deluted districts, then that certainly will be harmful irreparably

115
00:07:45,400 --> 00:07:48,880
Speaker 1: to minority voters in Alabama. And just go back for

116
00:07:48,920 --> 00:07:53,040
Speaker 1: a moment and explain what the lower court panel, which

117
00:07:53,440 --> 00:07:58,440
Speaker 1: consisted of three judges, one appointed by former President Clinton

118
00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:02,520
Speaker 1: and two appointed by former President Trump, what they found.

119
00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:07,480
Speaker 1: So Section two cases in the vote dilution context require

120
00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:11,120
Speaker 1: a three part test. First, the court has to examine

121
00:08:11,160 --> 00:08:14,960
Speaker 1: whether or not the minority voters are sufficiently large and

122
00:08:15,200 --> 00:08:19,679
Speaker 1: compact to warrant their own district of majority minority district.

123
00:08:20,240 --> 00:08:22,800
Speaker 1: Then the next two parts of the test look at

124
00:08:23,080 --> 00:08:27,160
Speaker 1: vacially polarized voting, so whether or not, for example, majority

125
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:31,200
Speaker 1: voters vote against minority voters candidates of choice, or whether

126
00:08:31,280 --> 00:08:35,560
Speaker 1: the minority community itself is politically cohesive. And on all

127
00:08:35,600 --> 00:08:39,720
Speaker 1: three measures, the lower court unanimously found that those tests

128
00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:44,719
Speaker 1: were met, meaning that the legislature had diluted minority votes improperly,

129
00:08:44,760 --> 00:08:47,160
Speaker 1: at least in violation of Section two. And that's why

130
00:08:47,160 --> 00:08:50,800
Speaker 1: they ordered a second minority district d drawn. Chief Justice

131
00:08:50,960 --> 00:08:55,000
Speaker 1: John Roberts was in the forefront as the Supreme Court

132
00:08:55,080 --> 00:08:58,280
Speaker 1: guarded section five of the Voting Rights Act in the

133
00:08:58,280 --> 00:09:01,560
Speaker 1: Shelby County case. What does it tell you that he

134
00:09:01,720 --> 00:09:04,880
Speaker 1: joined with the liberals here in support of having a

135
00:09:04,880 --> 00:09:09,120
Speaker 1: new map drawn in Alabama? Well, Chief Justice Roberts has

136
00:09:09,360 --> 00:09:13,720
Speaker 1: long been skeptical of Voting Rights Act section to jurisprudence,

137
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:16,280
Speaker 1: but the legal test or sort of the process is

138
00:09:16,320 --> 00:09:18,600
Speaker 1: set up by the Voting Rights Act in those two

139
00:09:18,640 --> 00:09:22,080
Speaker 1: different sections are extremely different. So you're ruling in one

140
00:09:22,160 --> 00:09:24,680
Speaker 1: case in Section five in Shelby County in two thousands

141
00:09:24,720 --> 00:09:28,400
Speaker 1: thirteen just doesn't map on to this section because the

142
00:09:28,480 --> 00:09:30,600
Speaker 1: law is just very different. So it's hard to sort

143
00:09:30,640 --> 00:09:34,120
Speaker 1: of make connections other than to say, you know that, certainly,

144
00:09:34,160 --> 00:09:37,319
Speaker 1: Justice Robert has been skeptical of the Voting Rights Act

145
00:09:37,360 --> 00:09:40,440
Speaker 1: sort of large obviously for a very long time. But

146
00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:44,160
Speaker 1: what's interesting about this case is that the law as

147
00:09:44,200 --> 00:09:49,360
Speaker 1: it exists today is very clear. And that's probably why

148
00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:52,920
Speaker 1: you had an unanimous opinion below, because, like I said,

149
00:09:52,920 --> 00:09:55,079
Speaker 1: this is sort of a textbook violation of section to

150
00:09:55,360 --> 00:09:57,319
Speaker 1: at least as far as the Court has been concerned.

151
00:09:57,400 --> 00:10:01,000
Speaker 1: Up until now. There's no opinion for of the majority.

152
00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:05,240
Speaker 1: But in a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by

153
00:10:05,360 --> 00:10:10,320
Speaker 1: Justice Samuel Alito, said that this decision was necessary because

154
00:10:10,400 --> 00:10:14,400
Speaker 1: the lower court had acted too soon before a coming election.

155
00:10:14,720 --> 00:10:18,320
Speaker 1: Do you buy that reasoning, Well, it's certainly a novel claim.

156
00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:21,480
Speaker 1: I mean, the Purcell principle, as it's known, is this

157
00:10:21,559 --> 00:10:24,679
Speaker 1: idea that federal courts shouldn't make changes right before an

158
00:10:24,679 --> 00:10:27,400
Speaker 1: election because it would confuse voters and would make it

159
00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:31,240
Speaker 1: difficult for the election officials to administer the election. But

160
00:10:31,440 --> 00:10:35,080
Speaker 1: neither of those issues are present here where we're months

161
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:38,160
Speaker 1: and months away from an election and where repeal maps

162
00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:40,960
Speaker 1: could be drawn, you know, basically with the snap of

163
00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:44,960
Speaker 1: a finger. So it's hard to square that argument. And

164
00:10:45,000 --> 00:10:48,719
Speaker 1: it's certainly a very big extension of the principle and

165
00:10:48,800 --> 00:10:51,439
Speaker 1: to say, you know, months out, a federal court can't

166
00:10:51,480 --> 00:10:53,840
Speaker 1: mess with the state's plan. And I think but especially

167
00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:56,719
Speaker 1: worrisome about it is maybe it's going to mean that

168
00:10:56,920 --> 00:10:59,959
Speaker 1: line jars dragged their feet to pass maps because if

169
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:02,400
Speaker 1: they can get it within, you know, many months out

170
00:11:02,520 --> 00:11:04,640
Speaker 1: from a primary election, and maybe they can win on

171
00:11:04,679 --> 00:11:07,160
Speaker 1: the first sell principle, which just is a very bad

172
00:11:07,160 --> 00:11:10,920
Speaker 1: sort of incentive to set up. In her descent, Justice

173
00:11:11,080 --> 00:11:15,880
Speaker 1: Kagan faulted the majority for using what's called the shadow docket,

174
00:11:16,280 --> 00:11:20,760
Speaker 1: basically emergency orders to usher in a major legal shift,

175
00:11:21,360 --> 00:11:26,360
Speaker 1: and Justice Kavanaugh responded by saying Kagan was using catchy

176
00:11:26,480 --> 00:11:30,160
Speaker 1: but worn out rhetoric. Was there some tension there? I

177
00:11:30,200 --> 00:11:33,720
Speaker 1: think clearly there's been a lot of concern about how

178
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:37,040
Speaker 1: much activity is happening at the court in these emergency

179
00:11:37,160 --> 00:11:40,079
Speaker 1: orders where you know there is an argument, there isn't

180
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 1: reason opinion. There's sort of a lot of action happening

181
00:11:42,920 --> 00:11:46,360
Speaker 1: in this sort of extraordinary way where it's this emergency

182
00:11:46,360 --> 00:11:49,240
Speaker 1: docket as opposed to your typical Supreme Court case. And

183
00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:52,120
Speaker 1: so I think there's tension between members of the courts

184
00:11:52,160 --> 00:11:54,160
Speaker 1: who think that that's just the order of the day

185
00:11:54,160 --> 00:11:57,080
Speaker 1: and that's how those Supreme Court functions versus those that

186
00:11:57,160 --> 00:12:00,599
Speaker 1: see an uptick in the number of these kinds of rulings,

187
00:12:00,640 --> 00:12:03,959
Speaker 1: and some concerns since there's no reasoning and no opportunity

188
00:12:03,960 --> 00:12:08,080
Speaker 1: for argument and so forth. Alabama's argument here was that

189
00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:13,840
Speaker 1: it shouldn't have to elevate race over traditional redistricting criteria.

190
00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:19,160
Speaker 1: Does this decision indicate that the Court's conservative majority may

191
00:12:19,200 --> 00:12:23,360
Speaker 1: be open to weakening the role race plays in drawing

192
00:12:23,440 --> 00:12:27,000
Speaker 1: voting districts. I have a very short answer, which is yes.

193
00:12:27,440 --> 00:12:31,560
Speaker 1: Tell us why you said yes. What's extraordinary about this

194
00:12:31,679 --> 00:12:34,520
Speaker 1: is that in two thousand thirteen, when the Court struck

195
00:12:34,559 --> 00:12:38,480
Speaker 1: Section five, but said, you know, don't worry, we have

196
00:12:38,559 --> 00:12:42,160
Speaker 1: Section two still here to protect minority voters. And then

197
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:44,480
Speaker 1: now you have the Court kind of coming in and saying, oh,

198
00:12:44,559 --> 00:12:48,040
Speaker 1: you know, if states prioritize race. This isn't what they've held,

199
00:12:48,040 --> 00:12:50,120
Speaker 1: of course, because the case hasn't been hurt on the merits.

200
00:12:50,120 --> 00:12:54,600
Speaker 1: But the implication is that if a state prioritizes minority voters.

201
00:12:54,640 --> 00:12:59,440
Speaker 1: Protecting minority voters, that there's somehow violating the Constitution would

202
00:12:59,440 --> 00:13:02,839
Speaker 1: effectively the render section to a constitutional That is, you

203
00:13:02,920 --> 00:13:06,520
Speaker 1: simply can't protect minority voters under Section two because doing

204
00:13:06,559 --> 00:13:10,480
Speaker 1: so is somehow prioritizing race unconstitutionally. So it's a pretty

205
00:13:10,679 --> 00:13:14,480
Speaker 1: surprising idea because for a long time the Court has

206
00:13:14,600 --> 00:13:18,839
Speaker 1: given Congress authority to enforce minority voting rights under the

207
00:13:18,840 --> 00:13:21,400
Speaker 1: fifteenth Amendment, and so this would essentially be taking away

208
00:13:21,440 --> 00:13:23,680
Speaker 1: of Congress's power and at least to do what it

209
00:13:23,679 --> 00:13:27,600
Speaker 1: did in Section two. The Attorney General is challenging Texas

210
00:13:27,679 --> 00:13:32,520
Speaker 1: is voting maps. How does this decision play in that case? Well,

211
00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:36,560
Speaker 1: any time that a plaintiff is challenging maps trying to

212
00:13:36,600 --> 00:13:39,600
Speaker 1: assert a section to claim their ears are going to

213
00:13:39,640 --> 00:13:42,560
Speaker 1: be perking up here. In terms of the courts probable

214
00:13:42,640 --> 00:13:46,079
Speaker 1: thinking on Section two compliance. So I think if you're

215
00:13:46,080 --> 00:13:49,000
Speaker 1: a voting rights attorney hoping to use Section two to

216
00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:51,920
Speaker 1: challenge a map, you know you're shaking in your boots.

217
00:13:51,920 --> 00:13:55,800
Speaker 1: Thanks Rebecca. That's Rebecca Green of William and Mary Law School.

218
00:13:56,240 --> 00:13:58,520
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

219
00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:01,199
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

220
00:14:01,280 --> 00:14:05,559
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

221
00:14:05,760 --> 00:14:10,760
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

222
00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:13,800
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

223
00:14:13,840 --> 00:14:17,319
Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June

224
00:14:17,320 --> 00:14:19,479
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg