Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump started fundraising off his mugshot less than an
Speaker 2: hour after it was released in the Georgia racketeering trial
Speaker 2: last Thursday, and once again slammed the prosecution.
Speaker 3: To what has taken place here is the travesty of justice.
Speaker 1: We did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong, and everybody
Speaker 1: knows it.
Speaker 2: The former president is also criticizing the decision of DC
Speaker 2: federal Judge Tanya Chuckkin to set a date of March
Speaker 2: fourth for the federal trial over his alleged efforts to
Speaker 2: overturn the twenty twenty election. That's one day before Super Tuesday.
Speaker 2: Trump called her a biased Trump hating judge on social media.
Speaker 2: Trump's team had asked for a trial date two years later,
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty six, but prosecutors argued a speedy trial
Speaker 2: is needed to prevent the jury pool from being tainted.
Speaker 2: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden. Judge Tanya
Speaker 2: Chutkin said that Trump, like any defendant, will have to
Speaker 2: make the trial date work regardless of his schedule. There's
Speaker 2: a societal interest to a speedy trial. Should a judge
Speaker 2: take into account the fact that he is campaigning for
Speaker 2: president and she's scheduling a trial date in the midst
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 3: To a certain extent, I think yes, But overridingly I
Speaker 3: think no. That is to say, I think there are
Speaker 3: circumstances by which people should be allowed to have timeouts
Speaker 3: in the course of a trial or in the run
Speaker 3: up to the start of a trial, but not in
Speaker 3: the nature of the types of timeouts that Trump is
Speaker 3: asking for. For example, whether there be a trial in
Speaker 3: January or March of this coming year, or twenty twenty six,
Speaker 3: as Trump askedport. I think in those broad terms she
Speaker 3: has to say no, I'm sorry, your day job just
Speaker 3: doesn't permit it. But if there's a short time for
Speaker 3: extenuating circumstances, and I think she should be mindful of it.
Speaker 3: And I think he actually is trying to do that
Speaker 3: when she moved the trial from January to March, saying, look,
Speaker 3: it's complicated, you've got a lot of stuff going on.
Speaker 3: I'm going to give you two extra months from what
Speaker 3: the prosecutor wants. And I think that's what should happen
Speaker 3: in this case.
Speaker 2: The defense is arguing that they can't go to trial
Speaker 2: in four months given them millions of documents. The prosecution says,
Speaker 2: you know, there aren't that many key documents, and we've
Speaker 2: created a file of three hundred documents. Quote, it's essentially
Speaker 2: a roadmap to our case. Can the defense rely on
Speaker 2: what the prosecution says is a roadmap to their case?
Speaker 3: No, they have to make their own roadmaps, and they
Speaker 3: have to be able to have enough time to call
Speaker 3: through the documents to make sure that they can create
Speaker 3: their own roadmaps. But in this case, much of the
Speaker 3: documents that form the basis of the case, the heart
Speaker 3: of the case, come from the defendant himself. They are
Speaker 3: his texts or emails from his associates, or documents that
Speaker 3: they've produced in respect to subpoenas. So it's not like
Speaker 3: these are documents that they are lacking familiarity with, and
Speaker 3: so I think that it is not unreasonable for them
Speaker 3: to have a trial date in March. I think that
Speaker 3: if they acquire the resources to look through this, then
Speaker 3: they should be able to the One thing that we
Speaker 3: have to keep in mind is one someump had a
Speaker 3: lawyer worked on this case for a year and a
Speaker 3: half or so and just fired him and hired a
Speaker 3: new lawyer. The new lawyer says, I don't have the
Speaker 3: resources to really call through all this discovery. Well, Trump
Speaker 3: is purportedly a billionaire, and if he doesn't have the
Speaker 3: resources necessary, then Laurel the attorney, he has to say
Speaker 3: with client, we have a trial day coming up. I
Speaker 3: need more resources, and it should be under dependent and
Speaker 3: obligation to make sure that his team is properly resourced,
Speaker 3: because they can't claim lack of resources and get a
Speaker 3: trial delayed, so they can't use it as a delayed tactic.
Speaker 3: But to the sent that they really have honest need
Speaker 3: for additional time, then I think they can petition the
Speaker 3: court periodically for that. But I think she's given him
Speaker 3: a good enough leeway to get this done.
Speaker 2: So prosecutors said the DC federal trial would take four
Speaker 2: to six weeks, so that would push past the March
Speaker 2: twenty fifth date of the New York trial. But Judge
Speaker 2: Chutkins said that she had a phone call with Judge Murchhon,
Speaker 2: who's the trial judge for the New York trial. So
Speaker 2: do you think that they worked it out?
Speaker 3: Yeah? And I think that Brad the district attorney in
Speaker 3: New York, has signaled that he's willing to delay his
Speaker 3: trial to let the federal case go forward. So yes,
Speaker 3: I think that New York will take a second feat
Speaker 3: behind the January sixth trial, and that won't create a conflict.
Speaker 2: What about the Atlanta trial if it starts on October
Speaker 2: twenty third, In other words, if three defendants go on
Speaker 2: trial and it's not Trump, I mean, is there any
Speaker 2: you know, excuse for him there?
Speaker 3: I don't think so. If there is speedy trial with
Speaker 3: Sidney Powell and Cheeseborough or anybody else who wants to
Speaker 3: join it, and the judge severs those defendants from the
Speaker 3: remainder who want to delay the trial, then I think
Speaker 3: the trial would proceed against those who have asserted their
Speaker 3: rights to a speedy trial, and Trump or any other
Speaker 3: defendant can sit in and watch that trial and get
Speaker 3: a preview of how the government's case will come in,
Speaker 3: and there's an advantage to them in that. Of course,
Speaker 3: there's a disadvantage, which is that those three people out
Speaker 3: the speedy trial most likely are going to blame Trump
Speaker 3: and say that they were just following orders and it
Speaker 3: was he who was the culprit, and he won't be
Speaker 3: in the courtroom to defend himself. So there's a un
Speaker 3: in the angle of this thing. But no, that would
Speaker 3: not be a basis in my view, for that trial
Speaker 3: to be delayed because Trump says, I can't be there
Speaker 3: and therefore I'm going to be.
Speaker 2: Prejudiced before we go back to the DC federal trial.
Speaker 2: So it's Cheeseborough who has been characterized as the architect
Speaker 2: of the facal scheme, and Sidney Powell and johnny'sman all
Speaker 2: lawyers want a speedy trial. Why do you think they
Speaker 2: want a speedy trial.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that they think that one it's in
Speaker 3: their best interest to just get this over with. But two,
Speaker 3: I think more importantly, I think there's an advantage to
Speaker 3: somebody like Cheesboro or Sidney Powell, who are lawyers who
Speaker 3: will be able to say in a separate trial of
Speaker 3: their own. All we did was provide legal advice, and
Speaker 3: to the extent that there were actions that were taken
Speaker 3: that contravened the law, that was not our intention. Our
Speaker 3: intention was to say, here are our theories. Even if
Speaker 3: there was a hail mary component to it, it was
Speaker 3: still non frivolous legal advice, and we would rather be
Speaker 3: two lawyers sitting in the courtroom pointing a finger at
Speaker 3: Donald Trump as a person who misinterpreted what they said
Speaker 3: and acted in an illegal way, and not have him
Speaker 3: there to say to the contrary, you guys were the architects.
Speaker 3: I think it allows for them to put in their
Speaker 3: defense of just you know, advising their client without anyone
Speaker 3: pointing back to fingers and say to them, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: you were co conspirators in a criminal trial. So I
Speaker 3: think separating them from the others, probably the lawyer's view,
Speaker 3: is in their better interest in a more streamlined prosecution.
Speaker 2: Now we'll go back to the DC Court. John Loro,
Speaker 2: who is Trump's attorney, said he's going to file several
Speaker 2: motions and one which I think everyone expected, arguing that
Speaker 2: Trump was immune to the charges given that the indictment
Speaker 2: covers the period when he was president. Is that a
Speaker 2: good argument.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good argument in the sense that it's
Speaker 3: not been decided by the Supreme Court. Whether it's an
Speaker 3: argument that will prevail is a different question. And there
Speaker 3: are lots of cases that are sort of dancing around
Speaker 3: this point. Trump versus Vand is one of them. Murder
Speaker 3: that's the Supreme Court case that was just in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty when Trump said he should be immune from a
Speaker 3: grand jury subpoena for his tax records, and the court
Speaker 3: said that though the president enjoys no absolute immunity from
Speaker 3: state criminal subpoenas, and they made the private papers available
Speaker 3: to the prosecutors, so said in that context no immunity.
Speaker 3: Then you had Nixon versus Fitzgerald, where Nixon claimed immunity
Speaker 3: and the court said, no, he's not immune from civil lawsuits.
Speaker 3: And you had PAULA Jones similarly. So there are a
Speaker 3: lot of cases out there which sort of narrow the
Speaker 3: circumstances under which immunity applies, But there's nothing directly on
Speaker 3: points as to whether or not in the context of
Speaker 3: a criminal case against the former president he has immunity.
Speaker 3: I think the question will arise similar to the way
Speaker 3: it arose yesterday in the Mark Meadows case for removal
Speaker 3: to federal court, which was were the actions under inquiry
Speaker 3: undertaken in the official capacity of the officeholder or the
Speaker 3: case of Meadows, the chief of staff, And if they
Speaker 3: were undertaken in his official capacity as president or as
Speaker 3: an official capacity of the case of staff, then it
Speaker 3: makes it a very close questions to whether or not
Speaker 3: immunity and in the case of Meadows, removal applies. So
Speaker 3: he is absolutely right to file the motion, and it's
Speaker 3: a good motion to file. I just don't know, because
Speaker 3: there's not been a decision directly on point how it
Speaker 3: will be decided. A more important question perhaps is, say
Speaker 3: the court, here's the motion that dismissed the case for immunity,
Speaker 3: and the court says, you know what, I don't think
Speaker 3: so I don't think you were acting in your official capacity.
Speaker 3: If that is a decision that is made on a
Speaker 3: legal question, then it is immediately appealable. If the factual question,
Speaker 3: you have to wait till after the trial. So there's
Speaker 3: another whole question of if they're denied their emotion for immunity,
Speaker 3: can they immediately appeal it to the Court of Appeals
Speaker 3: and into the Supreme Court, which, if they can, means
Speaker 3: this case is not going to trial for two years.
Speaker 2: He said he'll ask the judge to pause the criminal
Speaker 2: trial until the immunity issue is fully resolved. But is
Speaker 2: this judge likely to do that.
Speaker 3: No, the judge doesn't seem to have any indication that
Speaker 3: Kiefi's will pause it. But that's not to say that
Speaker 3: if they take appeal of the order denying removal or
Speaker 3: once they get the most dismissed denying immunity, whether they
Speaker 3: have a right to immediately appeal it or not. That
Speaker 3: to me also is an unsettled question, and they will
Speaker 3: ask the Quarter of Appeals to take an immediate appeal
Speaker 3: from it, which if they accept it, will delay the trial.
Speaker 3: If they don't accept it, the trial will go forward,
Speaker 3: and then after the trial they'll file a motion for
Speaker 3: a new trial on the ground that the immunity decision
Speaker 3: was wrong and they should have had immunity.
Speaker 2: Laura also said he's going to make a selective prosecution
Speaker 2: motion that the indictment was brought as retaliation for the
Speaker 2: federal investigation of Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, which began
Speaker 2: during Trump's administration. He said he'd used this as a
Speaker 2: political prosecution.
Speaker 3: Dead on arrival. I think I don't believe that that
Speaker 3: is viable. I think his most viable motions are motions
Speaker 3: to dismiss because of immunity, and then defenses at trial,
Speaker 3: which are I lack criminal intent and I was acting
Speaker 3: on the advice of counsel. I think that's what this
Speaker 3: trial is about.
Speaker 2: Laura sometimes took an aggressive tone, and the judge had
Speaker 2: to caution him twice to turn down the temperature. Do
Speaker 2: you think his tone was for the media or was
Speaker 2: he just impassioned. I mean, a seasoned trial lawyer shouldn't
Speaker 2: lose his cool, should he.
Speaker 3: No, And Laua has a good reputation from president mind
Speaker 3: who practice in the courts in Florida where Laurel practices.
Speaker 3: They say he's a smart guy and a good lawyer.
Speaker 3: I don't know whether he was posturing for his client.
Speaker 3: That's one of the problems that you often have with
Speaker 3: a client that's the belligerent, that you feel like you
Speaker 3: have to be belligerent too. I was surprised to read
Speaker 3: about the tone he took, and I was also surprised
Speaker 3: to hear him say sort of cavalierly or threateningly. Let
Speaker 3: me tell you this, judge right now, if you make
Speaker 3: us go to trial, I will not be able to
Speaker 3: be effective in my assistance of counsel. So like threatening
Speaker 3: her to say, if you make us go to trial,
Speaker 3: get ready for an appeal if we lose on effective
Speaker 3: assistance to council graud. I just don't think that's a
Speaker 3: good approach to this court or any court to be
Speaker 3: that belligerent.
Speaker 2: Also, it appeared to upset Judge Chuck Kid that he
Speaker 2: had cited Powell versus Alabama on nineteen thirty two Supreme
Speaker 2: Court decision that reversed the convictions of the Scottsboro Boys,
Speaker 2: nine young black men who were falsely accused of raping
Speaker 2: a white woman. He had cited it in his brief,
Speaker 2: and the judge said the cases were profoundly different at
Speaker 2: their core. I mean, why side that case?
Speaker 3: Stuttering because I can't understand it. The scots Boys, as
Speaker 3: you said, falsely accused of rape, were brought to trial
Speaker 3: within six days, I believe, of their indictment in a
Speaker 3: racially charged environment, as was often the case in those
Speaker 3: types of kangaroo court white supremacy based prosecution. To say
Speaker 3: that that is any way analogous, this is I think
Speaker 3: an insult to the court, especially an African American woman,
Speaker 3: to say that somehow my client, Donald Trump analogizes to
Speaker 3: the Scottsborough Boys. You know, I just don't get it.
Speaker 3: I just don't get it, because actually they're an apposite.
Speaker 3: You know, six days versus almost a year of preparation
Speaker 3: and white racially charged prosecution and early neutral prosecutions. In
Speaker 3: this case, I just there was another example of bad
Speaker 3: decision making by this lawyer.
Speaker 2: It's stunning to me that a trialery with his experience, would,
Speaker 2: you know, take this attitude with the trial judge so
Speaker 2: early on, this combative, aggressive tone.
Speaker 3: I don't know. Maybe he thinks that somehow he is
Speaker 3: going to bully her. If he is of that mind,
Speaker 3: he doesn't know this judge, I mean, this judge comes
Speaker 3: out of the Public Defender Service in the disc of Columbia,
Speaker 3: which is perhaps the best public defender service in the
Speaker 3: United States. These lawyers who I've worked with when I
Speaker 3: was a prettyman fellow in the Sure Court of Disco
Speaker 3: of Columbia. We work side by side on cases together.
Speaker 3: These are among the best lawyers in the country who
Speaker 3: are used to very hard fights. If he thinks he's
Speaker 3: going to come into her court from Tampa, Florida with
Speaker 3: bravado and try to sort of roll her in some way,
Speaker 3: he needs to go back to Florida.
Speaker 2: Let's switch to Mark Meadows, which I mean was a
Speaker 2: busy day yesterday. So Meadows fought testifying to the January
Speaker 2: Sixth Committee and to the DC Federal Court. Now he's
Speaker 2: testifying to save himself. How risky is it for him
Speaker 2: to take the stand?
Speaker 3: Well, I think that he really didn't have a choice
Speaker 3: because he has the burden of proving that which is
Speaker 3: required for removal, that he was a federal employee, that
Speaker 3: he was acting the scope of his employment, and that
Speaker 3: he has a colorable defense. You weren't going to hear
Speaker 3: from mc mulvaney or any of the other Trump chiefs
Speaker 3: of staff to say, you know, yes, this is what
Speaker 3: chiefs of staff for Trump to do. There was no
Speaker 3: one who could help him meet his burden actually other
Speaker 3: than himself, And so I think George to Wilker, who
Speaker 3: was a friend and a good lawyer, felt that getting
Speaker 3: this case removed is Menows's best chance to prevail on
Speaker 3: the merriage, and they took the chance to put him
Speaker 3: on the stand because I think they were going to
Speaker 3: lose without him. I said earlier there was a hail
Speaker 3: mary sort of legal analysis from the Cheeseborough group, but
Speaker 3: I think this is in some sense was a similar fourth
Speaker 3: down and twenty yards to go type of pass, and
Speaker 3: they just went foot. I don't know that they connected.
Speaker 3: I think that the judge was very skeptical that that
Speaker 3: which Meadow says was in the scope of his federal employment,
Speaker 3: like calling Astenberger or visiting the site of the audit,
Speaker 3: was that which a federal employee can do, especially when
Speaker 3: the Hatchat prohibits federal employees from getting involved in political campaign.
Speaker 3: So I think he's not going to win. But I
Speaker 3: think that Williger thought that this was an important gamble
Speaker 3: to take, and he took it.
Speaker 2: There were several times when he said that he couldn't
Speaker 2: recall the details of events in late twenty twenty and
Speaker 2: early twenty twenty one, and you know, the judge also
Speaker 2: pressed him at some points to be more specific or
Speaker 2: to actually answer the questions. And it seemed as if
Speaker 2: there were a lot of holes in his testimony.
Speaker 3: For sure. And when he said, I'm the president's alter
Speaker 3: ego on his right hand, I am the person who
Speaker 3: is the gatekeeper. I know essentially everything that there is
Speaker 3: to know, because that's my job, and then says, oh,
Speaker 3: I didn't realize that there were going to be lawyers
Speaker 3: on the telephone call to Georgia and that this was
Speaker 3: about the election interference losses to have Oh, I didn't
Speaker 3: realize that we were suing. The campaign was suing in missions.
Speaker 3: It doesn't strike me that you can read those things
Speaker 3: side by side and not say, oh, really, you're the
Speaker 3: alter ego, you're the right hand man, you know everything
Speaker 3: that's going on. But on these two crucial events that
Speaker 3: you are named in this diamond, you say, oops, I
Speaker 3: didn't know that. I think the judge will be very
Speaker 3: skeptical about it. So I think that it was just
Speaker 3: the gamble that they thought they needed to detect. But
Speaker 3: I don't think that Meadows helped himself a lot.
Speaker 2: And also was it a two part gamble, because if
Speaker 2: the judge says this was in the scope of his
Speaker 2: official duties and transfers the case to federal court, then
Speaker 2: the next move he'll make is to make a claim
Speaker 2: of immunity.
Speaker 3: Correct exactly. So if you get a trial judge who says, yes,
Speaker 3: you were acting in the scope of your and therefore
Speaker 3: this is removable, then that same analysis that got him
Speaker 3: the removal will be the same analysis that they'll argue
Speaker 3: gets him immunity. So it was a predicate for that,
Speaker 3: not that you needed to do it that way, but
Speaker 3: the trial judge ruling on the question of in the
Speaker 3: scope of employment in the removal case, you know, sort
Speaker 3: of would help that decision for immunity when the most
Speaker 3: of dismissed immunity grounds is filed.
Speaker 2: Finally, so, what do you think the chances are that
Speaker 2: one of these criminal cases will be tried and completed
Speaker 2: before the election.
Speaker 3: Well, I think, honestly, the case that should be completed
Speaker 3: and tried before the election is the Marlogo case. That's
Speaker 3: the most straightforward case. There's some national security documents issues
Speaker 3: that need to be worked out, but it's a pretty
Speaker 3: narrow set of questions that have to be answered. So
Speaker 3: if Eileen Cannon, you know, sort of moves this case along,
Speaker 3: that case really should be able to go forward before
Speaker 3: the election. As to the January sixth or the Bolton
Speaker 3: County case, it really depends on what happens in the
Speaker 3: pre trial motion states. If all these motions are filed
Speaker 3: and the defendants lose and they're not immediately appealable, then
Speaker 3: I think we'll get a trial also in one of
Speaker 3: both of those cases before the election. But there are
Speaker 3: so many if but if there's this case filed, what
Speaker 3: if there's that boy, So you can't really say, but
Speaker 3: if it all goes to prosecutors way, and I think
Speaker 3: the calendar allows for it.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Michael. That's former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden.
Speaker 2: Were the ninety three thousand claims have been filed by veterans,
Speaker 2: their relatives, or camp employees who blame their cancer, Parkinson's disease,
Speaker 2: and other health issues on the contaminated water at Camp
Speaker 2: Lea June. So far, the Navy has not settled any
Speaker 2: of the claims. That's led to more than eleven hundred
Speaker 2: lawsuits that potential victims have filed in federal court, and
Speaker 2: now there's a clash between the plaintiff's lawyers and the
Speaker 2: Justice Department over how the court should manage what could
Speaker 2: be thousands of lawsuits over payouts by the government. Marine
Speaker 2: sickened by their tours at Camp La June say they've
Speaker 2: waited nearly forty years to have the right to present
Speaker 2: their case in court, and they don't want to wait
Speaker 2: any longer. Joining me is Costubasu, senior enterprise reporter for
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law tell us about the background of this fight
Speaker 2: by veterans over the contaminated water at Camp La June.
Speaker 1: Well, you know this has been a battle of like
Speaker 1: twenty years in the making. You know, early lawsuits were
Speaker 1: thrown out of court. However, in August of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: President Bidens signed a bill called a Backtact which included
Speaker 1: compensation a possible compensation for those affected by toxic water
Speaker 1: at Kampbla June in North Carolina, and a way for
Speaker 1: them to file lawsuits if their claim was denied by
Speaker 1: the Navy.
Speaker 2: So more than ninety three thousand claims and more than
Speaker 2: a thousand lawsuits. So they have until August of next
Speaker 2: year to file their claims with the Navy.
Speaker 1: Yes, and we are expecting that number to go up substantially.
Speaker 1: You know, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that about
Speaker 1: one million people could have been exposed to toxic water
Speaker 1: at Cantila June. So that explains the scramble by law
Speaker 1: firms and the search agencies to find more legion clients.
Speaker 2: I mean, the Navy hasn't settled any of these claims.
Speaker 1: Yes, and you know people have been filing claims essentially
Speaker 1: since the bill was signed into law, and there have
Speaker 1: been about ninety three thousand claims as of this week,
Speaker 1: and they told me yesterday that none of these claims
Speaker 1: have been settled the veterans, you know, if a claim
Speaker 1: is not settled in six months but the Navy or
Speaker 1: it's denied, they can file a lawsuit. In the Eastern
Speaker 1: District of North Carolina.
Speaker 2: Both sides have file proposals on how this should be managed.
Speaker 2: What do the competing sides want.
Speaker 1: Attorneys for the potential victim, they say that they've been
Speaker 1: waiting for four decades to make their argument in court.
Speaker 1: They don't want to wait any further. They want the
Speaker 1: first trial to be in the first quarter of Onty
Speaker 1: twenty four. The United States Department of Justice, they say
Speaker 1: that it might take a little longer to develop relevant
Speaker 1: expert testimonies. And they're saying that, yeah, we could go
Speaker 1: to trial in twenty twenty four, it'll be some time.
Speaker 2: Later, and so who'ld make the decision.
Speaker 1: So there are four judges in the Eastern District of
Speaker 1: North Carolina who will be deciding in the coming weeks
Speaker 1: how to manage these huge volume off cases and come
Speaker 1: up with the plan.
Speaker 2: Also been a challenge to the appointment of the lead
Speaker 2: plaintiff's lawyer and the lead lawyer has a lot of
Speaker 2: power in a case like this.
Speaker 1: Yes, the lead console who'll ed Bell South Carolina lawyer,
Speaker 1: and there's six other co lead counsoles. They essentially have
Speaker 1: a lot of control on how these cases will move forward.
Speaker 2: And what do we know so far about how the
Speaker 2: cases are going to be tried.
Speaker 1: We don't really know at this point. If they're going
Speaker 1: to bring a whole lot of cases together and have
Speaker 1: one trial or have a Tellweather case. It's kind of
Speaker 1: up in the air. They'll definitely look at these two
Speaker 1: proposals and kind of mesh them in some ways. I
Speaker 1: think will know in the coming week.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Stu. That's close to Basu, Senior Enterprise reporter
Speaker 2: for Bloomberg Law. And that's it for this edition of
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
Speaker 2: latest legal news by subscribing to the Bloomberg Law Podcast
Speaker 2: or downloading this show at Bloomberg dot com, USh podcast,
Speaker 2: Slash Law and attorneys get the latest in AI powered
Speaker 2: legal analytics, business insights and workflow tools at Bloomberg law
Speaker 2: dot com. With guidance from our experts, you'll grasp the
Speaker 2: latest trends in the legal industry, helping you achieve better
Speaker 2: results for the practice of law, the business of law,
Speaker 2: the future of law. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com. I'm
Speaker 2: June Bronco and you're listening to Bloomberg