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 --> 00:00:13,400 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 --> 00:00:22,320 Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The winner take 6 00:00:22,360 --> 00:00:25,680 Speaker 1: all electoral college system, used in almost all states, is 7 00:00:25,720 --> 00:00:28,800 Speaker 1: going to be on trial in federal courts across the country. 8 00:00:29,200 --> 00:00:32,560 Speaker 1: Civil rights activists are challenging the legality of the winner 9 00:00:32,560 --> 00:00:36,880 Speaker 1: take all method of allocating US presidential electoral college votes 10 00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:41,960 Speaker 1: in California, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Texas, claiming the practice 11 00:00:42,080 --> 00:00:45,760 Speaker 1: violates the constitutional right to an equal vote. Joining me 12 00:00:45,800 --> 00:00:48,479 Speaker 1: as election law expert Josh Douglas, a professor at the 13 00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:51,880 Speaker 1: University of Kentucky Law School, the winner take all system 14 00:00:52,040 --> 00:00:55,480 Speaker 1: describes itself basically the Canada. Who wins the most popular 15 00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:58,720 Speaker 1: votes in the state gets all the electors. Josh, why 16 00:00:58,760 --> 00:01:03,600 Speaker 1: do the challengers say this system is unconstitutional? Well, thanks, June. 17 00:01:03,760 --> 00:01:07,360 Speaker 1: I think they're saying that the system violates the principle 18 00:01:07,400 --> 00:01:11,319 Speaker 1: of one person, one vote, that ideal that everyone's vote 19 00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:14,319 Speaker 1: is worth the same, And their argument is that if 20 00:01:14,360 --> 00:01:18,880 Speaker 1: you're allocating multiple electoral college votes in a state based 21 00:01:18,880 --> 00:01:22,120 Speaker 1: on winner take all, than anyone who voted for the 22 00:01:22,160 --> 00:01:26,479 Speaker 1: losing candidate has their vote worth nothing, and everyone who 23 00:01:26,560 --> 00:01:29,720 Speaker 1: voted for the winning candidate gets all of the spoils 24 00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:33,200 Speaker 1: all the electoral college votes in that state. On its face, 25 00:01:33,280 --> 00:01:36,800 Speaker 1: it would seem fairer to allocate the electors. Why do 26 00:01:36,959 --> 00:01:41,199 Speaker 1: forty eight states use this winner take all system? Well, 27 00:01:41,240 --> 00:01:44,400 Speaker 1: the Constitution leads it up to the states to decide 28 00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:48,280 Speaker 1: how to allocate their electoral college votes. Um. And you know, 29 00:01:48,520 --> 00:01:51,240 Speaker 1: historically at the founding some states even just had the 30 00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:55,120 Speaker 1: legislature itself decide how to allocate or who who to 31 00:01:55,200 --> 00:01:58,160 Speaker 1: award its electoral college votes. Too. So it's truly historical 32 00:01:58,200 --> 00:02:02,200 Speaker 1: practice that has been occurrent ring for in most places 33 00:02:02,200 --> 00:02:05,160 Speaker 1: since the beginning of our country and the beginning of 34 00:02:05,200 --> 00:02:07,680 Speaker 1: the use of the electoral college, that states have done this. 35 00:02:07,720 --> 00:02:12,320 Speaker 1: As you noted, uh, states do so. Two states actually 36 00:02:12,280 --> 00:02:15,600 Speaker 1: allocate by district. Um. So it's just a long historical practice. 37 00:02:16,160 --> 00:02:19,560 Speaker 1: The lawsuits were filed in two states seen as solidly 38 00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:24,400 Speaker 1: blue and too steen as solidly read. Why that choice 39 00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:29,440 Speaker 1: of defendants, Well, the challenges are certainly trying to make 40 00:02:29,440 --> 00:02:32,880 Speaker 1: the argument that this is not a partisan push. They're 41 00:02:32,880 --> 00:02:35,480 Speaker 1: not trying to favor one side or the other by 42 00:02:35,520 --> 00:02:39,920 Speaker 1: selecting two predominantly red states to prominently blue states, or 43 00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:42,480 Speaker 1: you know, states that the Democrats have typically one, or 44 00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:45,280 Speaker 1: the Republican nominee is typically one. What they're trying to 45 00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:48,079 Speaker 1: show is that anyone who lives in a state where 46 00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:52,640 Speaker 1: the one candidate or one party's candidate always wins systematically 47 00:02:52,680 --> 00:02:55,359 Speaker 1: has their votes dilute or their value of their vote 48 00:02:55,400 --> 00:02:58,160 Speaker 1: not worth anything. And by doing it on both sides, 49 00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:01,280 Speaker 1: I think they're trying to make a push that this 50 00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:03,720 Speaker 1: is a problem that affects the system as a whole, 51 00:03:04,120 --> 00:03:08,240 Speaker 1: not just one political party. There's a possibility the courts 52 00:03:08,560 --> 00:03:11,520 Speaker 1: will rule in different ways, and whatever the outcome, it 53 00:03:11,560 --> 00:03:14,440 Speaker 1: will surely go to the Supreme Court. Is there any 54 00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:19,200 Speaker 1: way this issue will be decided by presidential elections? I 55 00:03:19,240 --> 00:03:23,040 Speaker 1: think it's possible if UM the courts act quickly. I mean, 56 00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:25,640 Speaker 1: it's got to go through the entire court system, but 57 00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:28,440 Speaker 1: that's ultimately the challenger's goal here is to get this 58 00:03:28,520 --> 00:03:31,560 Speaker 1: issue before the U. S. Supreme Court. Now, I do 59 00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:35,720 Speaker 1: think it's possible that UM the challenges could lose in 60 00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:37,720 Speaker 1: all four of the states, in which case the Supreme 61 00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:40,880 Speaker 1: Court would not necessarily take it up. But they're hoping 62 00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:42,560 Speaker 1: to get at least to win and one of them 63 00:03:42,840 --> 00:03:46,040 Speaker 1: to create a split among the courts and and increase 64 00:03:46,160 --> 00:03:48,640 Speaker 1: likelihood that the Supreme Court would take the issue. So 65 00:03:48,680 --> 00:03:51,640 Speaker 1: you see this as an uphill battle. I do think 66 00:03:51,640 --> 00:03:54,200 Speaker 1: it's somewhere of an uphill battle. Um in part, there's 67 00:03:54,240 --> 00:03:57,680 Speaker 1: a case from I believe this thankteen sixty nine where 68 00:03:57,720 --> 00:04:01,760 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a lower lower court, a 69 00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:05,760 Speaker 1: three judge panel um district court, that had rejected a 70 00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:09,720 Speaker 1: similar challenge out of Virginia. And so although the Supreme 71 00:04:09,720 --> 00:04:12,320 Speaker 1: Court didn't speak directly on the issue, there's at least 72 00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:16,000 Speaker 1: some precedent that they summarily summarily affirmed a decision that 73 00:04:16,040 --> 00:04:18,200 Speaker 1: rejected a similar challenge. So they've got at least that 74 00:04:18,279 --> 00:04:21,400 Speaker 1: hurdle to get over. Maine and Nebraska are the only 75 00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:25,360 Speaker 1: states that don't follow this system. What system do they 76 00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:31,440 Speaker 1: use and is it better? So they allocate a electoral 77 00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:35,960 Speaker 1: college vote for each congressional district, and then two electoral 78 00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:39,080 Speaker 1: College of votes go statewide for the statewide winner, and 79 00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:42,600 Speaker 1: that tracks the number of electors that each state receives. 80 00:04:42,640 --> 00:04:45,800 Speaker 1: Each state receives the number of electors equal to the 81 00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:49,200 Speaker 1: member numbers of Congress they have, UH and then adding 82 00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:53,279 Speaker 1: to for members of the Senate. UM, and so Maine 83 00:04:53,279 --> 00:04:56,320 Speaker 1: in Nebraska split it up that way. Whether it's better 84 00:04:56,400 --> 00:04:59,520 Speaker 1: or not is really a question of political philosophy. UM. 85 00:04:59,560 --> 00:05:02,279 Speaker 1: It's certain does not raise the same kind of one person, 86 00:05:02,360 --> 00:05:06,440 Speaker 1: one vote concerns that the challengers here are raising. But 87 00:05:06,600 --> 00:05:09,719 Speaker 1: I think their ultimate goal is is trying to UH 88 00:05:10,040 --> 00:05:13,560 Speaker 1: change the system so that people's value of their votes 89 00:05:14,200 --> 00:05:16,880 Speaker 1: seems to make more of a difference. Will there be 90 00:05:17,600 --> 00:05:20,640 Speaker 1: some a lot more attention to this because of the 91 00:05:20,760 --> 00:05:24,520 Speaker 1: star power involved. The lawyer leading the litigation is David Boys, 92 00:05:24,560 --> 00:05:26,039 Speaker 1: who is one of the best known lawyers in the 93 00:05:26,080 --> 00:05:29,440 Speaker 1: country and also represented al Gore when he won the 94 00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:33,200 Speaker 1: popular vote. Yeah, and and the other person really behind 95 00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:37,240 Speaker 1: this is a professional Gary lessig Um from Harvard UM. 96 00:05:37,279 --> 00:05:39,600 Speaker 1: I certainly think one of the main goals, or I 97 00:05:39,640 --> 00:05:42,080 Speaker 1: don't know main, but one of the goals of the 98 00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:44,880 Speaker 1: litigation is to increase attention to the issue. You know, 99 00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:47,600 Speaker 1: I think that they're often a lot of people who 100 00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:50,640 Speaker 1: are pushing for this national popular vote plan for states 101 00:05:50,640 --> 00:05:53,520 Speaker 1: to adopt the system where the national popular vote winner 102 00:05:53,520 --> 00:05:56,320 Speaker 1: would win the presidency, and they say that that is 103 00:05:56,360 --> 00:05:59,279 Speaker 1: even a better system at least lessig in a blog 104 00:05:59,320 --> 00:06:01,400 Speaker 1: post that said, at um, and this is the next 105 00:06:01,440 --> 00:06:04,880 Speaker 1: best route, the litigation route he's taking. But I think 106 00:06:04,920 --> 00:06:08,960 Speaker 1: the ultimate goal here is also to increase public understanding, 107 00:06:09,080 --> 00:06:12,320 Speaker 1: and so perhaps other legislators would go ahead and move 108 00:06:12,360 --> 00:06:15,440 Speaker 1: towards the national popular vote system. About forty five seconds 109 00:06:15,480 --> 00:06:19,839 Speaker 1: here for the national popular vote system, would that face 110 00:06:20,920 --> 00:06:22,479 Speaker 1: change that you have to have a change in the 111 00:06:22,520 --> 00:06:26,920 Speaker 1: constitution to do. The current plan is to get states 112 00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:29,840 Speaker 1: to pass a law that says, regardless of who wins, 113 00:06:29,880 --> 00:06:33,039 Speaker 1: our state will award our electoral college votes to the 114 00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:35,560 Speaker 1: national popular vote winner. And so it's kind of a 115 00:06:35,600 --> 00:06:39,800 Speaker 1: workaround of the electoral college. Now there's some constitutional concerns 116 00:06:39,839 --> 00:06:42,599 Speaker 1: about that as well, but right now the plan is 117 00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:44,520 Speaker 1: to go state by state. In about eleven states have 118 00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:47,960 Speaker 1: already passed that. We'll see what happens here. It comes 119 00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:50,800 Speaker 1: up every time they're the four times that there has 120 00:06:50,839 --> 00:06:53,840 Speaker 1: been a president elected who was not the winner of 121 00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:56,960 Speaker 1: the popular vote. Thanks Josh. It's Josh Douglas, professed at 122 00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:06,160 Speaker 1: the University of Kentucky Law School. Special Counsel Robert Mueller 123 00:07:06,200 --> 00:07:08,960 Speaker 1: has filed new charges in the case against x Trump 124 00:07:09,080 --> 00:07:13,320 Speaker 1: campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his former deputy, Rick Gates, 125 00:07:13,400 --> 00:07:17,000 Speaker 1: but they are under sealed. The one page document doesn't 126 00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:20,120 Speaker 1: specify the nature of the charges or whether it expanded 127 00:07:20,160 --> 00:07:23,240 Speaker 1: the case against both men or added others. They were 128 00:07:23,240 --> 00:07:26,320 Speaker 1: indicted in October for money laundering and failing to register 129 00:07:26,360 --> 00:07:29,840 Speaker 1: for political consulting work performed in Ukraine, joining me as 130 00:07:29,920 --> 00:07:33,160 Speaker 1: Brad Moss, a partner at Mark Sade Brad. There has 131 00:07:33,200 --> 00:07:36,560 Speaker 1: been a lot of activity in the Special Counsel's office 132 00:07:36,680 --> 00:07:41,080 Speaker 1: lately and yet no leaks. How unusual is that cone 133 00:07:41,160 --> 00:07:45,960 Speaker 1: of silence? Well, it's been pretty impressive what Mr Mueller's 134 00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:48,480 Speaker 1: office has pulled off here. We have been routinely and 135 00:07:48,560 --> 00:07:51,880 Speaker 1: repeatedly shocked by what's come out and the fact that 136 00:07:51,960 --> 00:07:54,640 Speaker 1: we knew so little about what was going to emerge 137 00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:57,760 Speaker 1: from his office. No one, almost no one saw the 138 00:07:58,400 --> 00:08:00,880 Speaker 1: indictments of the thirteen Russian national coming a week ago. 139 00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:03,360 Speaker 1: That came out of pretty much nowhere. And it's come 140 00:08:03,400 --> 00:08:06,000 Speaker 1: on again and again where everybody has been speculating and 141 00:08:06,040 --> 00:08:08,760 Speaker 1: what's going to happen but once we finally get some action, 142 00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:11,080 Speaker 1: it's pretty much not what anybody else had known. Was 143 00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:13,640 Speaker 1: that kind of oncurd This is pretty impressive on the 144 00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:16,520 Speaker 1: part of the Special Counselce office. So, speaking of speculation, 145 00:08:17,480 --> 00:08:22,560 Speaker 1: is this likely a superseding indictment replacing the previous indictment 146 00:08:22,840 --> 00:08:27,040 Speaker 1: or Mueller's office has hinted at possible new charges in 147 00:08:27,120 --> 00:08:31,120 Speaker 1: a separate filing last week. What is this likely to be? 148 00:08:31,280 --> 00:08:34,200 Speaker 1: Your best guess? Yeah, it's likely. I think you're ready. 149 00:08:34,200 --> 00:08:36,800 Speaker 1: It's likely to have been a superseding indictment adding on 150 00:08:36,920 --> 00:08:43,120 Speaker 1: additional charges, almost all certainly tax or money laundering type 151 00:08:43,120 --> 00:08:45,640 Speaker 1: of charges that we were all that we were hearing 152 00:08:45,640 --> 00:08:47,720 Speaker 1: about that there was a lot of media reporting about that. 153 00:08:47,800 --> 00:08:50,679 Speaker 1: Maybe Stemla's office just wasn't ready to bring when he 154 00:08:50,800 --> 00:08:54,880 Speaker 1: filed the original indictment several months ago, but which they've 155 00:08:54,920 --> 00:08:57,120 Speaker 1: now collected sufficient evidence to have brought up the grand 156 00:08:57,200 --> 00:09:00,840 Speaker 1: jury and sought the superseding indictment, And the obvious purpose 157 00:09:00,920 --> 00:09:04,320 Speaker 1: of doing it, particularly with respect to Mr Manafort, is 158 00:09:04,360 --> 00:09:08,320 Speaker 1: to pressure him into making a plea agreement, into becoming 159 00:09:08,320 --> 00:09:12,160 Speaker 1: a cooperating witness to find what else he knows about 160 00:09:12,200 --> 00:09:15,120 Speaker 1: what occurred. In the Trump campaign, if anything that would 161 00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:18,760 Speaker 1: be relevant to Mr Mueller's overarching mission, which is to 162 00:09:18,840 --> 00:09:22,160 Speaker 1: investigate Russian interference in the election. He certainly has put 163 00:09:22,160 --> 00:09:25,439 Speaker 1: a lot of pressure on him with with the bail conditions, 164 00:09:25,480 --> 00:09:28,760 Speaker 1: and it doesn't seem to be working. What would it take, 165 00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:33,479 Speaker 1: with the amount of money that Manafort has to hire lawyers, 166 00:09:34,120 --> 00:09:37,600 Speaker 1: great lawyers, and to fight these charges. It would take 167 00:09:37,800 --> 00:09:41,080 Speaker 1: a lot, wouldn't it to get him to plead well. 168 00:09:41,440 --> 00:09:44,839 Speaker 1: The sixty four th dollar question is how much money 169 00:09:44,920 --> 00:09:48,360 Speaker 1: does manafortuately have at this point. His loans are now 170 00:09:48,400 --> 00:09:52,280 Speaker 1: all under scrutiny. Some of the charges, if we understand 171 00:09:52,320 --> 00:09:54,640 Speaker 1: the supporting correctly, has to do with some of those 172 00:09:54,640 --> 00:09:57,199 Speaker 1: most recent loans, a sixty million dollar loan that he 173 00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:01,319 Speaker 1: got during the course of the campaign. So how much 174 00:10:01,320 --> 00:10:03,280 Speaker 1: money he truly has at this point, how much he 175 00:10:03,320 --> 00:10:07,720 Speaker 1: can truly afford to put towards lawyers while still maintaining 176 00:10:08,440 --> 00:10:10,880 Speaker 1: his standard of living, remains an open question, And I 177 00:10:10,880 --> 00:10:13,960 Speaker 1: think that's going to be especially if Rick Gates pleads 178 00:10:14,000 --> 00:10:18,520 Speaker 1: guilty possibly tomorrow, which is the assumption and speculation right now, 179 00:10:18,880 --> 00:10:22,080 Speaker 1: and start cooperating in a case against Mr Manafort. The 180 00:10:22,160 --> 00:10:24,720 Speaker 1: question then it just becomes what kind of deal can 181 00:10:24,840 --> 00:10:28,960 Speaker 1: Mr Manafort make to save himselves, to get the reduced 182 00:10:29,040 --> 00:10:31,480 Speaker 1: charges as much as he can and avoid expending the 183 00:10:31,480 --> 00:10:33,599 Speaker 1: rest of his life in prison as part of the 184 00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:36,600 Speaker 1: cooperating redness with a special counsel. It's hard to know 185 00:10:36,720 --> 00:10:42,280 Speaker 1: about manaforts wealth because everything that he's filed about it 186 00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:44,360 Speaker 1: is under sal. If you look at the docket for 187 00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:47,480 Speaker 1: his case, it's under seal, under seal. Under seal, you 188 00:10:47,480 --> 00:10:51,800 Speaker 1: almost can't get any documents there um. And the judge 189 00:10:51,840 --> 00:10:54,800 Speaker 1: had made a complaint about that last week. But yet 190 00:10:55,320 --> 00:10:59,480 Speaker 1: still more sealed filings. Why would this particular one be 191 00:10:59,600 --> 00:11:03,120 Speaker 1: under seal? I mean, why would not come out with 192 00:11:03,160 --> 00:11:07,040 Speaker 1: it and say we're we're doing a superseding indictment on him, 193 00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:10,440 Speaker 1: and it could be tied to behind the scenes negotiations. 194 00:11:10,480 --> 00:11:13,440 Speaker 1: We don't, We just don't know what the strategy was here. 195 00:11:14,000 --> 00:11:16,400 Speaker 1: But but yeah, I noticed what the what the judge 196 00:11:16,400 --> 00:11:18,120 Speaker 1: had said, and I was surprised by that as well. 197 00:11:18,240 --> 00:11:22,320 Speaker 1: The number of sealed filings here are rather odd. The 198 00:11:22,360 --> 00:11:24,880 Speaker 1: fact that judge has not moved against them at this 199 00:11:24,960 --> 00:11:28,120 Speaker 1: point is also somewhat surprising. But at the same time, 200 00:11:28,120 --> 00:11:31,120 Speaker 1: without knowing what's contained within those filings without knowing the 201 00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:34,920 Speaker 1: details of the justification that the work all kind of 202 00:11:34,960 --> 00:11:37,360 Speaker 1: spinning our wheels here and speculating as to what it 203 00:11:37,400 --> 00:11:40,600 Speaker 1: could be. There maybe somewhat garment reasons for this information 204 00:11:40,640 --> 00:11:44,120 Speaker 1: to remain under steel. Now you mentioned Rick Gates, and 205 00:11:44,480 --> 00:11:46,520 Speaker 1: lawyers for Rick Gates are going to meet with the 206 00:11:46,559 --> 00:11:50,520 Speaker 1: trial judge tomorrow and the request, the request that's on 207 00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:54,840 Speaker 1: the table is to have his attorneys withdraw from the case. 208 00:11:55,120 --> 00:11:59,040 Speaker 1: What the speculation is from several sources is that he 209 00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:01,520 Speaker 1: is going to to plead. I think the Los Angeles 210 00:12:01,559 --> 00:12:03,880 Speaker 1: Times was the first to to come out with that. 211 00:12:04,320 --> 00:12:08,840 Speaker 1: The attorney said in a February first submission, irreconcilable differences 212 00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:12,600 Speaker 1: have developed with the client, which makes our effective representation 213 00:12:12,760 --> 00:12:18,240 Speaker 1: of the client impossible. Could pleading be an irreconcilable difference 214 00:12:18,280 --> 00:12:20,360 Speaker 1: or is this something that has nothing to do with 215 00:12:20,400 --> 00:12:23,959 Speaker 1: a possible plea. It could be one or the other. 216 00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:25,920 Speaker 1: It could be part of the plea, but my assumption 217 00:12:25,960 --> 00:12:27,560 Speaker 1: is it has more to do with the issue of 218 00:12:27,640 --> 00:12:32,000 Speaker 1: funding and his ability to handle the bills and continue 219 00:12:32,120 --> 00:12:36,079 Speaker 1: forward in a financial arrangement that the firm can you 220 00:12:36,240 --> 00:12:39,320 Speaker 1: as acceptable. But even if it wasn't surely about money. 221 00:12:39,360 --> 00:12:41,040 Speaker 1: The idea that he's going to move forward with a 222 00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:43,920 Speaker 1: plea deal that might be against the advice, the very 223 00:12:43,920 --> 00:12:46,720 Speaker 1: strict advice of his lawyers, and they in every lawyer 224 00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:49,400 Speaker 1: has a clause and their retainer agreement that they have 225 00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:53,480 Speaker 1: the right to withdraw if the client refuses to heed 226 00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:57,320 Speaker 1: their guidance and advice. That's understandable, the sense of if 227 00:12:57,320 --> 00:12:59,680 Speaker 1: you don't want to listen to my guidance, then we 228 00:12:59,720 --> 00:13:02,480 Speaker 1: can terminate this business arrangement and you can secure the 229 00:13:02,559 --> 00:13:05,240 Speaker 1: council who will agree with you. But my view, my 230 00:13:05,360 --> 00:13:07,160 Speaker 1: role here is only to try to assist you and 231 00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:09,600 Speaker 1: guide you. I am not bound to you beyond the 232 00:13:09,600 --> 00:13:11,800 Speaker 1: strict terms of the retainer regrant. So it could just 233 00:13:11,880 --> 00:13:14,200 Speaker 1: be the idea that they don't agree with his plea deal, 234 00:13:14,440 --> 00:13:17,640 Speaker 1: which might ultimately be due to financial considerations more than 235 00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:21,480 Speaker 1: anything else. It's it's a it's a puzzle behind a 236 00:13:21,559 --> 00:13:25,319 Speaker 1: mystery behind the curtain, and I don't know how long 237 00:13:25,320 --> 00:13:27,200 Speaker 1: it will take us to figure it all out. But 238 00:13:27,280 --> 00:13:30,440 Speaker 1: thanks as always for your help doing that. Brad. That's 239 00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:33,160 Speaker 1: Brad Moss. He's a partner at Mark Say. Another thing, 240 00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:36,920 Speaker 1: happening today is a former Donald Trump political advisor, Sam Nunberg, 241 00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:40,880 Speaker 1: will be interviewed by the Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigating 242 00:13:40,920 --> 00:13:44,679 Speaker 1: the Russian meddling today, according to a person familiar with 243 00:13:44,720 --> 00:13:47,000 Speaker 1: the matter, and he has been told he is not 244 00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:50,080 Speaker 1: a target of the investigation and there will be no 245 00:13:50,200 --> 00:13:54,760 Speaker 1: charges against him provided he does not lie. Coming up 246 00:13:54,800 --> 00:13:59,640 Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Politics, Policy, Power and Law, civil rights activists 247 00:13:59,640 --> 00:14:02,800 Speaker 1: are wishing back against states who use a winner take 248 00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:06,920 Speaker 1: all electoral college system. Four states are being sued, but 249 00:14:07,040 --> 00:14:10,000 Speaker 1: forty eight states use it. This is Bloomberg. Thanks for 250 00:14:10,040 --> 00:14:13,320 Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can subscribe and 251 00:14:13,360 --> 00:14:16,600 Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on 252 00:14:16,679 --> 00:14:22,080 Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg.