Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The eyes of the crypto world turned to Washington, DC
Speaker 1: this week as Grayscale Investments faced off against the Securities
Speaker 1: and Exchange Commission with about five and a half billion
Speaker 1: dollars in unlocked value at stake and huge implications for
Speaker 1: the crypto industry. The drama centers on the fourteen point
Speaker 1: eight billion dollar Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, which has been trading
Speaker 1: at a steep discount to the cryptocurrency it holds. Grayscale
Speaker 1: wants to convert its Bitcoin trust into an exchange traded fund,
Speaker 1: but the SEC rejected the plan. In June, the DC
Speaker 1: Federal Appeals Court judges grilled the SEC on its decision
Speaker 1: to reject their proposed spot bitcoin ETF when it had
Speaker 1: earlier approved a similar product based on bitcoin futures. Here's
Speaker 1: Chief Circuit Judge Sri Shrine Vassin and Judge Naomi Rao
Speaker 1: whether Commission really needs to explain is how it understands
Speaker 1: the relationship between bitcoin futures and the spot price a bitcoin,
Speaker 1: Because it seems to me that these things, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, one is just essentially a derivative of the
Speaker 1: other they moved together in ninety nine point nine percent
Speaker 1: of the time, it's just going to follow like the
Speaker 1: night follows the day that it affects both because the
Speaker 1: futures market, of course, it turns on the spot market.
Speaker 1: Joining me is security's law expert Robert him a partner
Speaker 1: at Tartar Krinsky and Drogan. Bob tell us. How we
Speaker 1: got to arguments at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Well,
Speaker 1: this all started when Greyscale wanted to create an exchange
Speaker 1: traded product for its Bitcoin trust, and the Bitcoin Trust
Speaker 1: is priced and trades in actual bitcoins, unlike some of
Speaker 1: the other exchange products that are currently on the market
Speaker 1: that concern futures contracts, and as a result, Grayscale and
Speaker 1: an exchange called ARCA applied to the SEC asking permission
Speaker 1: for gray scales Bitcoin Trust to become an exchange traded
Speaker 1: product and be available for retail investors. The SEC rejected
Speaker 1: that proposal in twenty twenty two, and Grayscale sued the
Speaker 1: SEC and file the petition with the DC Circuit Court,
Speaker 1: arguing that the SEC's rejection of its request was an
Speaker 1: arbitrary and capricious decision which should be overturned. By the court.
Speaker 1: Why did the SEC reject gray Scales application. The SEC's
Speaker 1: entire argument for why it rejected gray Scales application is
Speaker 1: that gray Scales product with Bitcoin it trades in the
Speaker 1: spot market, which means essentially that Grayscale has a trust
Speaker 1: that actually owns bitcoin digital currency, and the current products
Speaker 1: that are on the market that are exchange traded products.
Speaker 1: The underling asset in those products are futures Bitcoin futures contracts,
Speaker 1: and according to the SEC's reasoning, the SEC told the
Speaker 1: court that there's a big difference between those two types
Speaker 1: of structures because with futures contracts, those are regulated products.
Speaker 1: They're overseen by the CME, there's market surveillance, and there's
Speaker 1: all sorts of investor protections in place, whereas with the
Speaker 1: bitcoin spot market, it's essentially an unregulated market. There's no
Speaker 1: regulator that oversees that. As a result, the SEC felt
Speaker 1: that there just wasn't enough safeguards in place for Gray
Speaker 1: Scales trust to warrant it being approved for retail trading.
Speaker 1: And how did Grayscale frame its arguments to the DC circuit.
Speaker 1: What the court specifically is looking at is whether the
Speaker 1: SEC has articulated a reasonable position or not when it
Speaker 1: distinguishes between exchange traded products that are based on futures
Speaker 1: versus exchange traded products that are based on actual bitcoin,
Speaker 1: and arding to Grayscale, their arguments are is that there's
Speaker 1: really no meaningful distinction between the two and that any
Speaker 1: sort of concerns the SEC has about manipulation or fraud
Speaker 1: in the unregulated bitcoin market, you know, essentially also have
Speaker 1: to carry over to the futures market because those futures
Speaker 1: contracts are based on this unregulated market. So what gray
Speaker 1: Scales argument to the court is is that the SEC
Speaker 1: is drawing a distinction here that has no real substantive
Speaker 1: weight behind it, and the SEC obviously disagrees with Dad
Speaker 1: and is putting forward its reasons for why it thinks
Speaker 1: there's a difference between the two markets. In the oral arguments,
Speaker 1: the judges seem to be grilling the SEC's attorney more
Speaker 1: than gray Scale's attorney. The judges really seem to be
Speaker 1: picking up a lot of the points that gray Scale
Speaker 1: raised in their briefs, especially when it was the SEC's
Speaker 1: lawyer's turn to argue. The judges were really pressing the
Speaker 1: SEC to explain and justify the position that there is
Speaker 1: some sort of meaningful distinction between the bitcoin futures market
Speaker 1: and the bitcoin spot market. And from listening to the
Speaker 1: judges questions and seeing how they responded to the arguments,
Speaker 1: it seemed like the judges were really not convinced by
Speaker 1: the SEC's arguments that there was a valid basis between
Speaker 1: distinguishing these different types of exchange traded products. Tell us
Speaker 1: about the different ways the Court could rule here. So
Speaker 1: I think there's still a lot of uncertainty ahead for Grayscale,
Speaker 1: because the Court here can do a few different things.
Speaker 1: One of course, it could agree with the SEC that
Speaker 1: there is some sort of reasonable basis for the arguments
Speaker 1: that the SEC is making, And the court's role is
Speaker 1: really not to sit in second guests the SEC and
Speaker 1: to substitute its judgment for the SEC's judgment. The courts
Speaker 1: they are really to ensure the SEC hasn't gone off
Speaker 1: the rails and has not presented any sort of reasonable
Speaker 1: argument for its position. If the Court finds that there's
Speaker 1: even some reasonableness to the section, it could very well
Speaker 1: sustain the SEC's position and uphold the denial of the listing.
Speaker 1: Gray Scales argument is that the SEC's position is just arbitrary, capricious,
Speaker 1: and their lawyer, Donald Barelli, who is the former Solicitor
Speaker 1: General of the United States, made the point in his
Speaker 1: argument that this is a very different case because gray
Speaker 1: Scale is actually asking for more regulation. They've applied to
Speaker 1: the SEC to become a regulated exchange traded product, and
Speaker 1: they want that SEC regulation in order to offer and
Speaker 1: trade their shares because right now this is traded in
Speaker 1: the over the counter market, which is subject to a
Speaker 1: lot less regulation. So gray Scale is actually arguing that
Speaker 1: they want to come under SEC regulation for this product.
Speaker 1: And what's your best guess about how the court might
Speaker 1: rule here. You never really know in litigation how things
Speaker 1: are going to come out, even though some of the
Speaker 1: questions seem to be favorable to gray Scale, and the
Speaker 1: Court could still do a couple of things. Even if
Speaker 1: it doesn't rule outright in favor of the SEC. It
Speaker 1: could rule in favor of Grayscale and just overturn the
Speaker 1: SEC's decision and allow the fund to begin trading. Or
Speaker 1: kind of a middle ground approach is that the Court
Speaker 1: could send it back to the SEC and say you
Speaker 1: need to reconsider this because we don't find your reasoning persuasive,
Speaker 1: and I think that might be the most likely scenario,
Speaker 1: especially given the recent blow up of FTX and all
Speaker 1: the problems that have been occurring in the crypto market.
Speaker 1: I think the judges are going to be reluctant to
Speaker 1: just replace the SEC's judgment with their own and say
Speaker 1: that this exchange fund can now begin trading which is
Speaker 1: based on bitcoin. There may be a lot of reluctance
Speaker 1: on the judge's part to do that, and it may
Speaker 1: be more comfortable for them to send it back to
Speaker 1: the SEC with more guidance and have the SEC take
Speaker 1: a second look at this. Do you think that a
Speaker 1: spot bitcoin ETF protects investors better? As the really argued? Well,
Speaker 1: I think that the SEC's arguments were fairly weak. While
Speaker 1: their concerns about fraud and manipulation are well justified in
Speaker 1: the bitcoin market. The SEC specifically mentioned things like wash trading,
Speaker 1: insider trading, hacking. You know, those are all very legitimate
Speaker 1: concerns that need to be addressed, But the SEC really,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, didn't do a very good job of
Speaker 1: explaining why those same risks are less when you have
Speaker 1: a futures product based on bitcoin, And it seems to
Speaker 1: the judges and to me that there really are the
Speaker 1: same risks. And the interesting thing about the Grayscale case too,
Speaker 1: is that there's been a number of amiki that have
Speaker 1: filed Friends of the Court briefs, and in some of
Speaker 1: those briefs there was some pretty compelling arguments made about
Speaker 1: all the steps that the exchanges and other service providers
Speaker 1: take to try to address those sort of fraudulent and
Speaker 1: manipulative practices in the bitcoin spot market. Grayscale has said
Speaker 1: that if it loses, it will appeal to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court and that if it loses, it may try a
Speaker 1: tender offer. Do you think the Supreme Court would take
Speaker 1: this case? Well, this case has more going for it
Speaker 1: than the average case. It is a very important case
Speaker 1: to the crypto industry, as is evidenced from the fact
Speaker 1: that so many amicus briefs were filed, and bitcoin is
Speaker 1: the largest digital currency by far its market cap is
Speaker 1: four hundred billion. The gray Scale Trust itself has twelve
Speaker 1: billion of bitcoin, so this is clearly a case that
Speaker 1: has national implications and importance for a developing industry. And
Speaker 1: as of the last few years, the Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: also shown an interest in taking cases where the SEC
Speaker 1: has been a respondent, because there are a number of
Speaker 1: cases that have come out over the last five years
Speaker 1: where the SEC has lost at the Supreme Court because
Speaker 1: the Court viewed the Commission is either overstepping its boundaries
Speaker 1: or acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. So I
Speaker 1: do think that this cases more than an average cases
Speaker 1: chance of success in being taken up by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: But still it's a very small percentage of cases are
Speaker 1: taken by the Supreme Court. Yes, smaller and smaller every year,
Speaker 1: it seems. Something So, And what about Grayscale trying a
Speaker 1: tender offer? You know, I think that's going to be
Speaker 1: an interesting option. You know, it's clearly PLANEDZ. I think
Speaker 1: for Grayscale it's not an ideal solution because it's going
Speaker 1: to be quite a bit more costly. It's a different
Speaker 1: regulatory path that's involved, and I think that Grayscale would
Speaker 1: much prefer to have this product traded in the market,
Speaker 1: and it would also allow it to grow and to
Speaker 1: really set this standard. The tender offer may be something
Speaker 1: that they would look at. I don't think they've really
Speaker 1: fleshed out the idea very much in terms of pricing
Speaker 1: and valuation and how that would work with the discount
Speaker 1: to the market, whether the tenderoffer would be made at
Speaker 1: some premium or whether it would be the full discount.
Speaker 1: So I think there's a lot of open questions on
Speaker 1: the tender for plan. Still, has the SEC been cracking
Speaker 1: down on digital asset products in general, Yes, I would
Speaker 1: say so. Ever since the new chair came in, Gary Gensler,
Speaker 1: he's been very aggressive in terms of tackling the cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: issues and digital asset issues. There has been a number
Speaker 1: of enforcement cases under his tenure against digital asset companies.
Speaker 1: I would say it's it's a real effort on the
Speaker 1: SEC's part to expand their turf and to bring these
Speaker 1: digital assets under the umbrella of securities regulation and everything
Speaker 1: that goes with it in terms of disclosures and regulation
Speaker 1: of trading platforms and all of the surveillance and so forth.
Speaker 1: So yes, and that emphasis only got stronger in the
Speaker 1: wake of the FTX collapse and really brought that to
Speaker 1: the top of the SEC's agenda in terms of regulating
Speaker 1: digital assets and cryptocurrencies. So the SEC has rejected several
Speaker 1: applications for ETF similar to this. If the court rules
Speaker 1: against the SEC here, will it have to reconsider those applications.
Speaker 1: Not necessarily because this case is going to be limited
Speaker 1: just a gray scale, but if the SEC loses, those
Speaker 1: other funds certainly may want to reapply to the SEC
Speaker 1: and get the benefit of any sort of favorable decision
Speaker 1: on that. And it's an interesting point the SEC is
Speaker 1: making because the gray Scales almost their entire argument is
Speaker 1: that the SEC is treating their bitcoin fund differently than
Speaker 1: the exchange traded products that were approved, even though essentially
Speaker 1: in gray scale's view, they're economically very, very similar, and
Speaker 1: the SEC notes that, well, you know, in their view,
Speaker 1: that's not the case. The SEC says that they've been
Speaker 1: very consistent in terms of rejecting exchange traded products that
Speaker 1: were based on bitcoin spot prices, just like here, though
Speaker 1: the SEC is arguing to the court the relevant comparison
Speaker 1: is not looking at futures based funds to spot based funds,
Speaker 1: but the relevant consideration is how did the SEC treat
Speaker 1: other spot funds, And they've rejected those applications too, So
Speaker 1: in the SEC's view, they are being consistent in the
Speaker 1: way they're treating gray Scale because they've rejected gray Scale
Speaker 1: just like they've rejected other spot ETF types of funds
Speaker 1: for bitcoin. A lot of people interested in this decision,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert him of Tartar, Krinsky
Speaker 1: and Drogen. Special Counsel Jack Smith is moving aggressively in
Speaker 1: his investigation, subpoenaing former Vice President Mike Pence, former White
Speaker 1: House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and several of Trump's
Speaker 1: attorneys to testify before the grand jury. Multiple news outlets
Speaker 1: are reporting that the special counsel is asking a judge
Speaker 1: to bypass the attorney client privilege claims made by Trump's attorney,
Speaker 1: Evan Corkran due to the crime fraud exception. Joining me
Speaker 1: is former federal prosecutor Robert Mints, a partner McCarter and English.
Speaker 1: Trump's attorney, Evan Corkran had raised attorney client privilege claims,
Speaker 1: but the special counsel is asking the judge to bypass
Speaker 1: those claims of attorney client privilege by invoking the crime
Speaker 1: fraud exception. Explain what the crime fraud exception is. The
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege is a broad privilege that protects all
Speaker 1: communications between a client and an attorney, whether it's information
Speaker 1: that the client is giving to the attorney in or
Speaker 1: to seek legal advice or advice that the attorney is
Speaker 1: giving to the client. But there is one exception to
Speaker 1: that that is often used by prosecutors, and that's something
Speaker 1: called the crime fraud exception. What that means is that
Speaker 1: there's an exception where there's reason to believe that the
Speaker 1: legal advice that the attorney is giving is being used
Speaker 1: in furtherance of a crime. So, in other words, of
Speaker 1: a client and comes in and talks about something they
Speaker 1: did in the past, that would all be covered by
Speaker 1: the privilege, even though the prior conduct may constitute a crime.
Speaker 1: What you cannot do is close your conversations with your
Speaker 1: attorney going forward if you're talking about a prospective crime.
Speaker 1: So if you're asking for advice from an attorney about
Speaker 1: conduct that may in and of itself be criminal and
Speaker 1: has not yet occurred, that is something that does not
Speaker 1: fall within the attorney client privilege, but is something called
Speaker 1: the crime fraud exception. What does it tell you that
Speaker 1: the special counsel is invoking that here? Does it tell
Speaker 1: you just that they suspect that a crime was committed,
Speaker 1: or that they suspect the lawyer was involved in the crime. Well,
Speaker 1: in this case, mister Corkran was among at least three
Speaker 1: lawyers for a former President Trump who appeared before a
Speaker 1: grand jury in January as part of the investigation into
Speaker 1: classified documents discovered at former President's Trump Maralago's residence in Florida.
Speaker 1: And during the course of that investigation, mister Corkran emerged
Speaker 1: as a figure of interest because federal investigators spoke to
Speaker 1: him about the fact that he handled mister Trump's response
Speaker 1: is the government's request to return those records that the
Speaker 1: government said belonged to the presidency and did not belong
Speaker 1: to mister Trump personally. And in fact, there came a
Speaker 1: point in time where there was a statement that was
Speaker 1: signed by another attorney, not by mister Corkrane, where that
Speaker 1: attorney vouched for the fact that they had done a
Speaker 1: diligent search of Marilago and did not believe that they
Speaker 1: were any classified documents located at the former president's resident.
Speaker 1: Following that, we all know the federal government came in.
Speaker 1: The FBI came in and did a search of Marilago
Speaker 1: and found additional classified documents. And still likely what they
Speaker 1: want to talk to mister Corkran about is what he
Speaker 1: did in terms of looking for those documents and whether
Speaker 1: or not his conversations with former President Trump in any
Speaker 1: way facilitated and obstruction of justice crime. Going forward, do
Speaker 1: prosecutors often invoke the crime fraud exception or is it unusual?
Speaker 1: The crime fraud excepts is not something that comes up
Speaker 1: all the time because judges are generally pretty wary of
Speaker 1: piercing the attorney client privilege. It is such a bedrock
Speaker 1: concept in our protections and our civil rights in the
Speaker 1: way that individuals are able to talk to their attorneys
Speaker 1: and they have to be able to believe that all
Speaker 1: the conversations with their attorneys are protected in order to
Speaker 1: get fair legal advice. You can't be in a situation
Speaker 1: where a client is fearful that the information that he's
Speaker 1: giving he or she is giving to his attorney will
Speaker 1: somehow be made public. On the other hand, where it's
Speaker 1: clear and organized crime cases are One example that I
Speaker 1: prosecuted and we did see this come up time and again,
Speaker 1: is where an outside council can be used not to
Speaker 1: give advice to a client about some prior conduct at
Speaker 1: defense against the potential criminal charge. It could be brought
Speaker 1: down the road, but lawyers have been used in order
Speaker 1: to help guide organized crime figures and other criminals in
Speaker 1: terms of perpetrating crimes in the future. And that's where
Speaker 1: you see a piercing of the attorney client privilege based
Speaker 1: upon the crime product exception. So while it's unusual, it's
Speaker 1: certainly not unheard of. Since Jack Smith was appointed special counsel,
Speaker 1: does it seem as if his department is moving aggressively
Speaker 1: their subpoenaing former Vice President Mike Penson, former White House
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, And here you have they're
Speaker 1: trying to get more information out of the lawyers. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't call it aggressive, but I would call it mindful
Speaker 1: of the fact that the presidential election is approaching, the
Speaker 1: presidential primaries are approaching, and there is a general rule
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice that you do not want
Speaker 1: to return indictments so close in time to an election.
Speaker 1: They could in some way impact that election. So while
Speaker 1: on the one hand, as the prosecutor and someone who's
Speaker 1: going to be careful and thorough, you want to make
Speaker 1: sure you're dinning while your eyes, you're crossing your keys.
Speaker 1: You want to take your time and build your case
Speaker 1: to make sure if you do seek an indictment from
Speaker 1: the grand jury, that it's a strong one and ultimately
Speaker 1: you're going to be able to convict when you get
Speaker 1: to trial. On the other hand, in a sense, the
Speaker 1: special prosecutor is racing against the political clock, because clearly
Speaker 1: he does not want to be in a position where
Speaker 1: he's returning an indictment close in time to the primaries
Speaker 1: or close in time for the presidential election, such that
Speaker 1: there can be an argument that could be made that
Speaker 1: is in some way political interference with the outcome of
Speaker 1: the election. As far as the subpoena of Mike Pants,
Speaker 1: let's talk first about what former President Trump is trying
Speaker 1: to do to block that subpoena, or at least to
Speaker 1: block specific issues he claims were covered by executive privilege.
Speaker 1: Former President Trump has repeatedly invoked the legal protection of
Speaker 1: executive privilege to try to block the testimony of his
Speaker 1: allies from subpoenas related to the January sixth attack on
Speaker 1: the US capital. In this case, he has thought to
Speaker 1: block the testimony of former President Might Tense on the
Speaker 1: basis that that is also covered by executive privilege. Executive
Speaker 1: privilege is a legal protection for the president of the
Speaker 1: United States that allows them to shield some of their
Speaker 1: private communications from Congress and the course, and basically, at
Speaker 1: its core, it is designed to allow presidential advisors to
Speaker 1: give candidate advice free from fear of public disclosure, to
Speaker 1: allow presidents to deliberate productively, to have all the information
Speaker 1: they may need in order to make a decision without
Speaker 1: the fear that those discussions would someday become public. In
Speaker 1: this case, there's a question about whether the former president
Speaker 1: has a right to invoke executive privilege. That's something that
Speaker 1: has been tested by the courts, and in most instances
Speaker 1: the courts have ruled against former President Trump. In addition,
Speaker 1: executive privilege is clearly not something that is absolute, and
Speaker 1: generally the courts have held that if the information that
Speaker 1: is being sought is in connective with a criminal investigation
Speaker 1: that overrides executive privilege, is it more for the current
Speaker 1: president than a prior president. The question of whether a
Speaker 1: former president can invoke executive privilege is still somewhat unsettled.
Speaker 1: President Nixon tried to invoke executive privilege after he left
Speaker 1: office when prosecutors were seeking tapes in connection with the
Speaker 1: Watergate break, and in that case, we know Nixon lost
Speaker 1: the case. He had to turn over the tape, but
Speaker 1: the court was never entirely clear on the question of
Speaker 1: whether a former president could exercise executive privilege or not.
Speaker 1: So far, in the cases that have been tested by
Speaker 1: former President Trump, he has not prevailed. In most cases,
Speaker 1: of course, never a looted on the fact that the
Speaker 1: information that was thought was done in connection with a
Speaker 1: criminal investigation, and that is something that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has always acknowledged will outweigh the protection of executive privilege.
Speaker 1: Mike Pence himself is not using an executive privilege argument.
Speaker 1: He's using the speech and debate clause. I think it's
Speaker 1: the first time it's been used by a vice president
Speaker 1: in these kinds of circumstances. Explain what that's about. The
Speaker 1: speech or debate clause is designed as a safeguard against
Speaker 1: politically motivated civil litigation or criminal prosecutions that can kill
Speaker 1: congressional debate or arguably intimidate legislators. In this case, the
Speaker 1: former Vice president Pence is calling the subpoena by the
Speaker 1: Special Council unconstitutional, arguing that the executive branch cannot summon
Speaker 1: officials in the legislative branch into court or in any
Speaker 1: other place. The facts here are that as Vice president,
Speaker 1: Vice President Pence with a member of the executive branch
Speaker 1: during the Trump administration, but also held a unique role
Speaker 1: as all vice presidents do, as also acting as President
Speaker 1: of the Senate, and he does preside over the joint
Speaker 1: session of Congress, in this case, the one that certified
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty electoral vogue count. The Vice president also
Speaker 1: acts in the legislative capacity by breaking ties in the Senate.
Speaker 1: So the argument in support of his contention that the
Speaker 1: Special Council is not in pedal to subpoena him in
Speaker 1: connection with his role and certifying the twenty twenty election
Speaker 1: is that he was acting in the legislative capacity rather
Speaker 1: than an executive capacity when he was deciding whether or
Speaker 1: not he would certify those election results. Lindsay Graham used
Speaker 1: this to try to block a subpoena in Georgia. The
Speaker 1: subpoena was not blocked, but the judge said he could
Speaker 1: raise objections during the testimony to specific things. Is that
Speaker 1: a ruling that Mike Pence might face? Sure? I mean
Speaker 1: this question of whether or not vice president draws the
Speaker 1: same speech or debate protections as members of Congress is
Speaker 1: largely unsettled. It's a murky area where frankly, there is
Speaker 1: no clear outcome. On the other hand, I think it's
Speaker 1: clear that it will not act as a blanket or
Speaker 1: wholesale protection against Vice President Pence from having to appear
Speaker 1: before the grand jury and answer any questions at all.
Speaker 1: As you point out, when Lindsey Graham tried to raise
Speaker 1: the question of speech or debate clause, which frankly is
Speaker 1: arguably a stronger argument than the one being raised by
Speaker 1: Vice President Pence, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said
Speaker 1: that he had to appear in front of that grand jury.
Speaker 1: They compel them to testify, and they said so long
Speaker 1: as investigators steer their questions away from anything involving his
Speaker 1: legislative responsibilities, they were entitled to make him appear before
Speaker 1: the grand jury and answer questions. I think in this case,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, Vice President Pence will
Speaker 1: also be required to answer questions about some of the
Speaker 1: act vities. Exactly the scope of the speech or debate
Speaker 1: cosse protection is unclear, but it will likely not act
Speaker 1: as a blanket protection that will bar the special prosecutor
Speaker 1: for asking him any questions whatsoever in connection with the
Speaker 1: certification of the twenty twenty election. Thanks Bob. That's Robert
Speaker 1: Mints of McCarter and English, and that's it for this
Speaker 1: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and
Speaker 1: remember to tune in to The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Junie Grossow,
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg