# Fauci Held in Contempt & 5th Circuit Judges Cry Foul

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 6 Aug 2026, 40 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/82737a29-a616-4e07-8e9b-b49e017b2eb4/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Dave Aronberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney, discusses a Senate committee voting to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress. Then Bloomberg Law reporter Jacqueline Thomsen discusses Fifth Circuit judges crying foul on the number of en banc hearings. And Ben Penn, Bloomberg Law reporter covering the Justice Department, discusses FBI Director Kash Patel planning to reduce the number of FBI lawyers. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:09] Speaker 2: Under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my
[0:12] Speaker 2: right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain
[0:17] Speaker 2: from answering your questions.
[0:19] Speaker 3: Doctor Anthony Fauci took the Fifth Amendment more than one
[0:23] Speaker 3: hundred times during a Senate committee hearing on his handling
[0:26] Speaker 3: of the COVID nineteen pandemic, arguing that the hearing was
[0:30] Speaker 3: intended to trap him into committing perjury rather than uncovering
[0:35] Speaker 3: new information. And committee chair Republican Senator Rand Paul has
[0:40] Speaker 3: made no secret of his desire to see Fauci behind bars.
[0:44] Speaker 2: Any reasonable person who was followed his unhinged obsession with
[0:51] Speaker 2: me would readily come to the same conclusion.
[0:56] Speaker 3: The committee voted along party lines to hold Fauci in
[0:59] Speaker 3: content empt of Congress over his refusal to answer questions
[1:03] Speaker 3: at the hearing.
[1:04] Speaker 4: We're voting on whether or witness who has received the
[1:07] Speaker 4: benefit of a sweeping federal pardon can be ordered by
[1:10] Speaker 4: this committee to answer questions and then defy that order
[1:14] Speaker 4: without consequence.
[1:15] Speaker 3: But Fauci's pardon from President Joe Biden only covers acts
[1:20] Speaker 3: from twenty fourteen through January twenty twenty five, the day
[1:24] Speaker 3: it was issued. It doesn't protect Fauci from state level
[1:27] Speaker 3: prosecutions or from prosecutions over a testimony that he gives
[1:33] Speaker 3: that lawmakers think is false. Joining me is Dave Ahrenberg,
[1:36] Speaker 3: former Palm Beach County State Attorney. Dave explain why Fauci
[1:41] Speaker 3: took the fifth on advice of his lawyer.
[1:44] Speaker 1: Anthony Fauci took the Fifth Amendment because he knew he
[1:47] Speaker 1: was walking into a perjury trap, and his lawyers knew
[1:50] Speaker 1: that and told him that perjury is not part of
[1:54] Speaker 1: the pardon you received, that you can still be prosecuted
[1:56] Speaker 1: for that. And even though it's going to look bad
[1:58] Speaker 1: in the court of public opinion, you have to realize
[2:01] Speaker 1: that public statements made by Rand Paul and others show
[2:04] Speaker 1: that their intent was to lock Fauci up, and you
[2:07] Speaker 1: were just walking into a buzzsaw because they just dropped
[2:11] Speaker 1: thousands of pages of documents right before the hearing. And
[2:15] Speaker 1: you have an eighty five year old man who's going
[2:17] Speaker 1: to be asked all these details in if he slips up,
[2:20] Speaker 1: if he makes a mistake, he's on a one way
[2:22] Speaker 1: ticket to the huscal and If you had any doubts
[2:26] Speaker 1: about that, just ask James Comy, who was prosecuted for
[2:30] Speaker 1: lying to Congress even though he didn't lie to Congress,
[2:33] Speaker 1: or Jerome Powell, who was sent as a referral to
[2:36] Speaker 1: the DOJ for allegedly making a false statement to Congress
[2:40] Speaker 1: when he didn't or Jack Smith, who currently is under
[2:44] Speaker 1: a referral from Congress to the DOJ for making a
[2:47] Speaker 1: false statement to Congress that he did not make. So
[2:49] Speaker 1: if Congress wants to weaponize the DOJ against you, they
[2:53] Speaker 1: will under this administration.
[2:56] Speaker 3: Senator Rand Paul continues to say that Fauci had no
[3:00] Speaker 3: soh valid Fifth Amendment claim because the pardon nullified it,
[3:04] Speaker 3: and that he waived any remaining protection by testifying.
[3:09] Speaker 1: Okay, First, a pardon does not shield a witness from
[3:11] Speaker 1: potential state level charges, and there are states who could
[3:14] Speaker 1: prosecute him, and so he does have a legitimate claim
[3:17] Speaker 1: to the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. Plus, a pardon
[3:21] Speaker 1: does not protect against a perjury charge because Aparton only
[3:24] Speaker 1: protects you from charges that would have stemmed from things
[3:28] Speaker 1: you've done in the past, not from something you're doing now,
[3:31] Speaker 1: which is a statement before Congress. And if the Congress
[3:35] Speaker 1: thinks that you are fibbing, they will refer it for prosecution.
[3:39] Speaker 1: Plus a pardon does not affect state level charges. And
[3:42] Speaker 1: so that's why he did have a legitimate claim of
[3:45] Speaker 1: the Fifth Amendment. Here, it's Rampaul's own words being used
[3:49] Speaker 1: against him that he wants to lock this guy up.
[3:51] Speaker 1: And so this was not just a fact finding enterprise
[3:55] Speaker 1: where they had a good faith discussion about the origins
[3:58] Speaker 1: of COVID.
[4:00] Speaker 5: He's testified many times before about this. What this was
[4:03] Speaker 5: about was to.
[4:04] Speaker 1: Find a reason a way to get Fauci, prosecute an
[4:08] Speaker 1: eighty five year old man for slipping up and then
[4:11] Speaker 1: getting what Rand Paul has dreamed of, which is Anthony
[4:14] Speaker 1: Fauci waking up in an orange jumpsuit and a pair
[4:17] Speaker 1: of steel bracelets.
[4:18] Speaker 3: What's this fixation that Rand Paul has with Fauci.
[4:25] Speaker 5: It's historic.
[4:27] Speaker 1: It's something that's like the half feels on the McCoys,
[4:29] Speaker 1: except you're dealing with a one on one situation where
[4:34] Speaker 1: they just have this deep seated dislike of each other.
[4:38] Speaker 1: And Rand Paul has blamed COVID in the way that
[4:41] Speaker 1: it was handled on Fauci from the leak of the
[4:45] Speaker 1: lad that he believes was funded by Fauci through the
[4:49] Speaker 1: research that he was doing, to the mistakes made afterwards.
[4:55] Speaker 1: And now it was ran Paul who leaked Fauci's diary.
[4:58] Speaker 1: I mean, if rand Paul was really trying to act
[5:01] Speaker 1: in good faith and trying to get answers, why embarrass
[5:03] Speaker 1: a guy by leaking his diary. I mean, I thought
[5:06] Speaker 1: Rampaul was a libertarian who wanted less government. But this
[5:09] Speaker 1: is the government getting the diary of a now private
[5:13] Speaker 1: individual and leaking it.
[5:15] Speaker 5: For the world to see. It doesn't sound like less
[5:17] Speaker 5: government to me.
[5:18] Speaker 3: Could Rand Paul have given Fauci immunity for his testimony.
[5:22] Speaker 1: Well, perjury cannot be immunized, so you could say that
[5:27] Speaker 1: you're getting immunity for anything you answer, But if.
[5:32] Speaker 5: You lie, that could be prosecuted.
[5:34] Speaker 1: And remember, if you're trying to get someone to commit
[5:37] Speaker 1: perjury to set up a perjury trap, then saying you're
[5:42] Speaker 1: immunized from prosecution is not good enough.
[5:44] Speaker 5: You could always find a way.
[5:46] Speaker 1: If Rampaul wants her to twist Fauci's words to refer
[5:49] Speaker 1: to the dog, we've seen this. He saw Sir Jack
[5:51] Speaker 1: Smith and throwing Powell and James COMI. I mean, they
[5:54] Speaker 1: didn't lie to Congress, but they were referred to prosecution
[5:57] Speaker 1: because that was the intent of the politicians who wanted
[6:02] Speaker 1: these individuals prosecuted. Well, that's why Fauci was like, Hey,
[6:06] Speaker 1: I thought what this is about. I've seen this move
[6:08] Speaker 1: before and I'm not going to be part of it.
[6:11] Speaker 5: So, yes, he takes a hit in.
[6:12] Speaker 1: The court of public opinion because it doesn't look good
[6:15] Speaker 1: when you invote the fifth so many times, But at
[6:18] Speaker 1: the same time, he'll do so as a free man.
[6:21] Speaker 3: Paul said the prosecution referral would be hand delivered to
[6:25] Speaker 3: the Justice Department, So he bypassed a vote by the
[6:30] Speaker 3: full Senate, perhaps because it's only voted twice in the
[6:33] Speaker 3: past half century to hold someone in contempt.
[6:37] Speaker 1: Well, that's going to be another argument for Fauci's lawyers
[6:41] Speaker 1: if this ever results in a prosecution, because you're supposed
[6:44] Speaker 1: to send it to the full Senate for the vote,
[6:46] Speaker 1: and he is short circuiting that process. He's attempting to
[6:50] Speaker 1: bypass a full Senate vote to send it directly to
[6:52] Speaker 1: the DOJ, and that deviates from standard institutional procedure. Plus,
[6:56] Speaker 1: the vote was on a narrow party line committee vote.
[6:59] Speaker 1: So I don't think that's legal, but something that can
[7:02] Speaker 1: be tied up in the court. Remember, a lot of
[7:04] Speaker 1: this is not necessarily to convict Fauci of anything.
[7:07] Speaker 5: It's to make life miserable for the guy.
[7:09] Speaker 1: This is Ram Paul wielding his power against an eighty
[7:12] Speaker 1: five year old man who served for many decades in
[7:15] Speaker 1: public life, and to humiliate him, and then to make
[7:19] Speaker 1: him spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting against the
[7:23] Speaker 1: criminal charge. And there's an old saying that we used
[7:26] Speaker 1: to say at the State Attorney's office that you can
[7:29] Speaker 1: beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride.
[7:31] Speaker 3: The top Democrat on the committee, Senator Gary Peters, said
[7:36] Speaker 3: that if the committee tries to punish a witness for
[7:38] Speaker 3: asserting their Fifth Amendment rights, future witnesses will argue that
[7:43] Speaker 3: appearing before Congress exposes them to punishment regardless of whether
[7:48] Speaker 3: they comply with the subpoena and invoke a constitutional protection.
[7:53] Speaker 3: Do you think that future witnesses would be chilled by
[7:56] Speaker 3: what's happening here.
[7:57] Speaker 1: I think that all future witnesses who are in the
[8:00] Speaker 1: crosshairs of President Trump and leaders of the MAGA world
[8:05] Speaker 1: are going to think twice. This is what happens when
[8:07] Speaker 1: you weaponize the Department of Justice to go after Trump's enemies,
[8:11] Speaker 1: whether it's Jerome Powell or Jack Smith or James Comy.
[8:14] Speaker 1: Future witnesses are going to see that and they're going
[8:16] Speaker 1: to say, wait, wait, these guys didn't lie to Congress,
[8:19] Speaker 1: and yet they're being referred for criminal prosecution for lying
[8:23] Speaker 1: to Congress. I mean, James Comy even was charged with
[8:27] Speaker 1: lying to Congress, and that was based on ambiguity. So
[8:31] Speaker 1: you can see why they're saying, Okay, this is not
[8:34] Speaker 1: just a figment of our imagination. Normally, you cannot just
[8:38] Speaker 1: take the fifth because you don't want to enter into
[8:41] Speaker 1: a perjury trap.
[8:41] Speaker 5: But this perjury trap is real.
[8:43] Speaker 1: This is a case where the monsters under your bed
[8:46] Speaker 1: really do exist.
[8:48] Speaker 3: They're saying that it's now up to the DCUs attorney
[8:51] Speaker 3: Janine Pierro whether to prosecute or not. I mean, is
[8:54] Speaker 3: there any doubt that she will prosecute a man who's
[8:58] Speaker 3: somewhere near the top of Resident Trump's enemies list.
[9:02] Speaker 1: They're getting to the impureau at the perfect time, which
[9:05] Speaker 1: is a time of vulnerability where she's worried about being
[9:07] Speaker 1: fired by President Trump because she moved to dismiss the
[9:12] Speaker 1: case against David Hearn, the guy who was wrongfully prosecuted
[9:17] Speaker 1: for vandalizing the reflecting pond, which he didn't do.
[9:21] Speaker 5: And so Trump is very upset with her. So to
[9:23] Speaker 5: keep her job, she's.
[9:24] Speaker 1: Going to do, in my mind, what the administration expects
[9:28] Speaker 1: her to do. But the issue is that this does
[9:31] Speaker 1: open the way for a defense lawyer to say this
[9:35] Speaker 1: is an illegal procedure're supposed to get the approval of
[9:38] Speaker 1: the full Senate. You can't just go around that procedure. Now,
[9:41] Speaker 1: under federal law, a statutory criminal contempt of Congress charged
[9:46] Speaker 1: that obligates the US Attorney to bring the case has
[9:49] Speaker 1: to be certified by the full Senate or the full House.
[9:53] Speaker 1: So what they're trying to do here is to send
[9:56] Speaker 1: it to the DOJ as a recommendation, without a legal
[10:00] Speaker 1: mandate to act, just as a request. But I still
[10:05] Speaker 1: don't think that holds water because the DJ can always
[10:09] Speaker 1: reject vote by the US House or the US Senate.
[10:13] Speaker 5: They've done that in the past.
[10:14] Speaker 1: Merreck Garland did that when the Democratic House tried to
[10:19] Speaker 1: send some people to the DJ for contempt who didn't
[10:23] Speaker 1: want to cooperate with the January sixth investigation.
[10:26] Speaker 5: It's up to the DOJ. They have prosecutoral discretion.
[10:29] Speaker 1: So I don't think you can get around the full
[10:32] Speaker 1: Senate having to approve this by saying it's just a recommendation,
[10:36] Speaker 1: not a mandate. It's never a mandate to the DOJ.
[10:39] Speaker 1: It's always really a recommendation, Dave.
[10:41] Speaker 3: So let's say he is indicted. Is it a good
[10:45] Speaker 3: defense that this was a perjury trap?
[10:48] Speaker 1: Oh? Absolutely, And they're going to use rand Paul's words
[10:52] Speaker 1: against them because Ran Paul and others said that, yeah,
[10:55] Speaker 1: we want to prosecute he needs to be in handcuffs,
[10:58] Speaker 1: and so you can't look at this in a bubble.
[11:00] Speaker 1: Normally you would say, no, you can't take the fifth
[11:03] Speaker 1: in a situation like this where you're being asked questions
[11:08] Speaker 1: and you've been given a pardon and the only criminal
[11:12] Speaker 1: liability here is just the fact that you may or
[11:17] Speaker 1: may not be telling the truth. Now, in response, thousands
[11:21] Speaker 1: lawyers are going to say the perjury trap is real.
[11:23] Speaker 1: We're not living in normal times. You can't look at
[11:26] Speaker 1: this in a bubble. This is a situation where the
[11:30] Speaker 1: senators have said we want to prosecute him. We're bringing
[11:34] Speaker 1: him back before this body, not as a fact finding mission,
[11:39] Speaker 1: because we've already done that, but to catch him in perjury.
[11:43] Speaker 1: And then the defense leaders will point to Jack Smith
[11:46] Speaker 1: and James Comy and Jerome Pallace here, this is what
[11:49] Speaker 1: we're trying to avoid. And then on top of that,
[11:52] Speaker 1: they can also mention you've got very aggressive Republican state
[11:56] Speaker 1: attorney generals who are around the country trying to oscute Fauci,
[12:00] Speaker 1: and Fauci's pardons do not protect him against that, so
[12:03] Speaker 1: he does have a legitimate claim to take the Fifth Amendment.
[12:07] Speaker 3: Yeah, so state attorneys general in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and
[12:12] Speaker 3: Oklahoma are launching inquiries, and the Florida Ag in your
[12:17] Speaker 3: neck of the woods, Dave said that Florida law on
[12:21] Speaker 3: deceptive trade practices, fraud or public nuisances could be invoked.
[12:27] Speaker 3: I mean these sound like uphill battles, to say the least.
[12:30] Speaker 3: And you've also got statute of limitations problems.
[12:34] Speaker 1: So number one, the Attorney General of Florida is up
[12:37] Speaker 1: for election in November, and this is the type of
[12:41] Speaker 1: thing that will motivate his political base. And it's one
[12:45] Speaker 1: thing to say you're investigating some other thing to actually
[12:48] Speaker 1: bring charges. Does Florida have jurisdiction over a national figure here,
[12:52] Speaker 1: someone who is a federal official at the time. You're
[12:55] Speaker 1: not given the ability under the supremacy clause to do that.
[12:58] Speaker 1: You're a state official. There's the doctor of federal immunity.
[13:02] Speaker 1: State officials generally lack the jurisdictional authorities to prosecute federal
[13:06] Speaker 1: executive officers for things that they've done within the scope
[13:09] Speaker 1: of their official federal duties, so you wouldn't have the jurisdiction. Plus,
[13:13] Speaker 1: is there a Florida connection to the gain of function research?
[13:17] Speaker 1: Is there a Florida connection that gives him jurisdiction? Does
[13:19] Speaker 1: the statue limitations bar any prosecution? There are so many
[13:23] Speaker 1: reasons why you cannot get a prosecution here, and it
[13:28] Speaker 1: just shows that it's all political. But the fact that
[13:30] Speaker 1: the state attorneys general are threatening this gives yet another
[13:35] Speaker 1: defense to Fauci's lawyers to say, this is why we
[13:38] Speaker 1: took the Fifth Amendment.
[13:39] Speaker 3: Peter Navarro was found guilty of contempt of Congress and
[13:42] Speaker 3: served four months. Steve Bannon also served four months for
[13:46] Speaker 3: contempt of Congress. Their appeals multiple appeals failed. So is
[13:52] Speaker 3: Fauci any different?
[13:54] Speaker 5: Yes, very different.
[13:55] Speaker 1: You know what the biggest different June, It's that Peter
[13:58] Speaker 1: Navarro and Steve Banner didn't even show up. Anthony Fauci
[14:02] Speaker 1: showed up. He showed up to answer questions, but then
[14:05] Speaker 1: when he realized he was walking into a perjury trap
[14:07] Speaker 1: where the Senator is saying we're gonna prosecute you, where
[14:10] Speaker 1: state attorneys general are like chomping at the bit, that's
[14:13] Speaker 1: when they took the fifth. That's different than Bannon or Navarro,
[14:16] Speaker 1: who thumbed their noses at the committee, didn't even show up.
[14:20] Speaker 1: And that's why I think you'll see Fauci defend himself
[14:25] Speaker 1: and win as opposed to Navarro and Bannon who lost.
[14:29] Speaker 3: It's always great to talk to you, Dave, Thanks so much.
[14:32] Speaker 3: That's former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg coming
[14:37] Speaker 3: up complaints from judges at the Fifth Circuit. This is Bloomberg.
[14:42] Speaker 3: The Fifth Circuit is on its way to making on
[14:45] Speaker 3: bank history, with fourteen total grants and twelve rehearings scheduled
[14:50] Speaker 3: this year, and now, in an extremely rare move, some
[14:54] Speaker 3: of the judges have started dissenting from the grants of
[14:57] Speaker 3: full court review, voicing their consternation as the number of
[15:01] Speaker 3: on Bank cases rises. An on Bank review means that
[15:05] Speaker 3: all the judges in the circuit hear oral arguments and
[15:08] Speaker 3: decide a case after a party requests a rehearing from
[15:12] Speaker 3: a decision of a three judge panel. At the New
[15:15] Speaker 3: Orleans based Federal Court, three judges, a Ronald Reagan appointee,
[15:19] Speaker 3: a George W. Bush appointee, and a Barack Obama appointee
[15:23] Speaker 3: have voiced their consternation at the number of Ombank cases
[15:28] Speaker 3: being heard. Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Jacqueline Thompson. So,
[15:33] Speaker 3: Jacqueline tell us about the Fifth Circuit hearing more Ombank
[15:37] Speaker 3: cases lately?
[15:39] Speaker 6: They definitely have, and I sit in the courtroom for
[15:42] Speaker 6: all of them, and the judges are even talking about
[15:45] Speaker 6: how many cases they're hearing. Back in January, they were
[15:48] Speaker 6: scheduled to hear seven arguments and it ended up once
[15:52] Speaker 6: got scuttled at the last minute, so they had six
[15:54] Speaker 6: arguments across seven cases.
[15:56] Speaker 7: Then they had two more in May.
[15:59] Speaker 6: They have five hours arguments across four cases set up
[16:01] Speaker 6: for September, and that number has just been ticking up
[16:04] Speaker 6: since all the Trump appointees have joined the appeals Court.
[16:08] Speaker 6: You know, obviously there was a bunch of litigation against
[16:10] Speaker 6: the Biden administration that ended up within the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction,
[16:15] Speaker 6: and those are all really high profile cases. Some judges
[16:18] Speaker 6: want to, you know, be able to dip their toes
[16:21] Speaker 6: in and make their voices heard, especially if they disagree
[16:25] Speaker 6: with the underlying panel opinions. So you know, we have
[16:28] Speaker 6: been seeing the full slate of active judges be especially
[16:32] Speaker 6: eager to be taking up en banc cases lately.
[16:36] Speaker 3: Describe the composition of the Fifth Circuit for US, I
[16:39] Speaker 3: usually say that it's the most conservative circuit in the country.
[16:43] Speaker 6: Right, So there are seventeen active judges. Six of those
[16:48] Speaker 6: currently are Trump appointees, There's two Reagan appointees.
[16:52] Speaker 7: There's a handful of George W.
[16:53] Speaker 6: Bush appointees, a handful of Clinton and Obama appointees as well.
[16:58] Speaker 6: But it's that conservative block which I sort of count
[17:02] Speaker 6: as the six Trump appointees plus the two Reagan appointees
[17:05] Speaker 6: that make up you know, the driving force here, because
[17:08] Speaker 6: that is eight out of seventeen votes. And then if
[17:11] Speaker 6: you know, you have any judges who have to refuse
[17:13] Speaker 6: can't hear a case, you know, that gives that block
[17:16] Speaker 6: even more power. One of those judges, Kurt Engelhart, he's
[17:20] Speaker 6: a Trump appointee. He's going to be taking senior status,
[17:23] Speaker 6: so he'll soon no longer be part of the en
[17:25] Speaker 6: banc proceedings. But another Trump appointed judge will be taking
[17:30] Speaker 6: his place, we expect in the next few months.
[17:33] Speaker 3: A descend from a denial of emotion for an on
[17:37] Speaker 3: bank hearing is more common than these descents, which are
[17:41] Speaker 3: descents from the granting of emotion for an onbank hearing. Right.
[17:46] Speaker 6: Yeah, we see descents from denial all the time, and
[17:49] Speaker 6: that could be because a judge wants to flag it
[17:52] Speaker 6: for the Supreme Court. Sometimes judges want to say, we
[17:55] Speaker 6: should have heard this case, we should have reviewed it
[17:58] Speaker 6: as a full court, and here are the reasons why
[18:00] Speaker 6: I think this is the situation. I think we need
[18:03] Speaker 6: to revisit bad precedent. I think we need to realign
[18:06] Speaker 6: what the court is doing with what the Supreme Court
[18:09] Speaker 6: has told us to do, you know, things along those lines.
[18:11] Speaker 6: So often when they put out those ascents, it can
[18:14] Speaker 6: either be to a get their opinions out on the
[18:17] Speaker 6: record or to be sort of raise a hand up
[18:19] Speaker 6: to the Supreme Court and say, hey, our full court
[18:22] Speaker 6: messed up. You should take a look at this and
[18:25] Speaker 6: review of what the panel did.
[18:27] Speaker 3: How are the descents from the grant of on bank hearing?
[18:31] Speaker 3: I mean, can you categorize what they're like?
[18:34] Speaker 6: So there's been so few of them that it's kind
[18:37] Speaker 6: of hard to say with a broad sweep of what
[18:40] Speaker 6: exactly they're like. But you know what's interesting about them
[18:44] Speaker 6: is you would think with an no Bank case, you
[18:46] Speaker 6: know that it's getting argued before the full court, judges
[18:50] Speaker 6: have the opportunity then to share their feelings about them
[18:53] Speaker 6: hearing the case. They have the opportunity when the opinions
[18:56] Speaker 6: are issued to lay out how they feel about here
[19:00] Speaker 6: a case. But here they're sort of you know, dipping
[19:03] Speaker 6: in early in the process and they're going, hey, before
[19:06] Speaker 6: we do anything else of this, I just want to
[19:08] Speaker 6: stick my hand up and say we're wrong.
[19:11] Speaker 7: We are wrong to.
[19:12] Speaker 6: Even hear this case in the first place. I was
[19:15] Speaker 6: till recently apparently the term for this is actually a discrantle,
[19:19] Speaker 6: and that is what the judges are doing here. They
[19:23] Speaker 6: are disgruntled and they've issued a discrantle. And you know,
[19:27] Speaker 6: there are various reasons why they might want to be
[19:30] Speaker 6: saying all of this, they might want to flag it
[19:32] Speaker 6: for briefing in the case in the future, you know,
[19:35] Speaker 6: before the parties step up and say anything and give
[19:38] Speaker 6: an opportunity for outside parties to file anarchist briefs and
[19:43] Speaker 6: raise issues here, or they're saying, Hey, we're wielding our
[19:47] Speaker 6: en banc power weirdly, and I don't like it, and
[19:50] Speaker 6: I think we need to revisit exactly when we're hearing
[19:54] Speaker 6: these cases, and why.
[19:56] Speaker 3: Tell us about some of the cases where we've had
[19:59] Speaker 3: these disgruntled disgruntled whatever is so.
[20:04] Speaker 6: The first one I had noticed was last year's judge
[20:07] Speaker 6: Leslie Southwick. He's a George W. Bush appointing on the Court.
[20:10] Speaker 6: He's sort of a more moderate voice in this day
[20:13] Speaker 6: and age. Maybe in an earlier version of the Court
[20:16] Speaker 6: not so much. But he had been on the initial
[20:19] Speaker 6: panel for the case, which was over the Trump administration's
[20:22] Speaker 6: use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals
[20:27] Speaker 6: from the country, and what he said there was I
[20:31] Speaker 6: don't understand why our full court is hearing this case.
[20:35] Speaker 6: I think this should have just gone straight to the
[20:37] Speaker 6: Supreme Court. This is obviously an issue of high importance.
[20:41] Speaker 6: And we need them to be able to weigh in
[20:43] Speaker 6: on it. And it's going to end up there anyway,
[20:45] Speaker 6: So why are we delaying all of this? One of
[20:47] Speaker 6: the Trump appointees on the court, Judge James Hoe, he
[20:50] Speaker 6: stepped in. He filed a concurrence. He said, you know,
[20:54] Speaker 6: DOJ asked us to hear this case. It's compelling, it's interesting,
[20:59] Speaker 6: it's important, So we're gonna hear it. And that's the
[21:02] Speaker 6: deal there. So you know, that could be sort of
[21:05] Speaker 6: the Circuit trying to hold onto their power and influence
[21:08] Speaker 6: too and saying no, we also can issue very important decisions.
[21:13] Speaker 7: It's not just the Supreme Court. So that was one instance.
[21:17] Speaker 7: A few weeks ago.
[21:18] Speaker 6: Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, there was a criminal
[21:20] Speaker 6: case that they took up bom banc. It was a
[21:24] Speaker 6: discovery dispute in a long litigated murder trial, and he
[21:29] Speaker 6: had written the underlying panel opinion and said, you know,
[21:33] Speaker 6: I wrote my panel opinion. Judge Southwick wrote a dissent
[21:38] Speaker 6: that should have been totally fine. We don't need to
[21:40] Speaker 6: revisit this. As a non banc court. We hear very
[21:43] Speaker 6: important cases as a non bank court. I love en
[21:45] Speaker 6: banc proceedings. We should have more of them, but this
[21:49] Speaker 6: is not the case. And then the last one was
[21:52] Speaker 6: Judge Stephen Higginson. He's a Barack Obama appointing on the court.
[21:57] Speaker 6: The court has taken up a constitutional challenge to the
[22:02] Speaker 6: felon gun in possession law, which has been really widely
[22:06] Speaker 6: litigated over the last few years, given recent Second Amendment
[22:09] Speaker 6: rulings from the US Supreme Court, and then most recently,
[22:13] Speaker 6: the Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion where he said, hey,
[22:18] Speaker 6: I think that maybe this gun ban is unconstitutional under
[22:22] Speaker 6: the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
[22:25] Speaker 7: Now four weeks.
[22:25] Speaker 6: Later, the Fifth Circuit says, hey, let's take up this
[22:29] Speaker 6: fellon gun in possession case. And Judge Higginson says, I
[22:33] Speaker 6: think this is actually about the Commerce clause thing and
[22:36] Speaker 6: not applying another precedent, which is what I'd been raised
[22:40] Speaker 6: in the briefing below. So he started bringing up all
[22:45] Speaker 6: the issues he had with revisiting these sorts of issues
[22:49] Speaker 6: with taking up a Commerce clause challenge. He said, you know,
[22:52] Speaker 6: this brings up the potential that our circuit is going
[22:56] Speaker 6: to completely upend the US Code. We could get challenges
[22:59] Speaker 6: to all certain kinds of laws. It could be security regulations,
[23:03] Speaker 6: it could be child sexual abuse, possession charges. You know,
[23:07] Speaker 6: we're sort of opening Pandora's box here. And he put
[23:11] Speaker 6: out a list of groups that he thinks will want
[23:13] Speaker 6: to file briefing in the case. And it seemed to
[23:16] Speaker 6: be a little bit of him going to the outside world. Hey,
[23:19] Speaker 6: everyone take a look and make sure your voice is
[23:22] Speaker 6: heard when we.
[23:23] Speaker 7: Hear this case.
[23:25] Speaker 3: I mean, the Supreme Court has been taking a lot
[23:27] Speaker 3: of cases from the Fifth Circuit the last few years.
[23:30] Speaker 3: In fact, last term it took more cases from the
[23:33] Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit than any other circuit. The circuit is sort
[23:37] Speaker 3: of known for pushing the envelope as far as the
[23:41] Speaker 3: law is concerned.
[23:42] Speaker 6: That is what some observers say. This last term was
[23:45] Speaker 6: a little weird at the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit
[23:48] Speaker 6: cases seemed to just be cases that happened to come out.
[23:51] Speaker 7: Of the Fifth Circuit.
[23:53] Speaker 6: Now, there were a few that were definitely what I
[23:56] Speaker 6: think of as quintessential Fifth Circuit cases. For example, if
[24:01] Speaker 6: you are voting on election day, can you only vote
[24:03] Speaker 6: on election day? Or can your vote that was postmarked
[24:07] Speaker 6: after the facts still be counted? And that was over
[24:11] Speaker 6: a Mississippi statute allowing military members to vote from overseas
[24:15] Speaker 6: by mail. So there are always a few of those cases,
[24:18] Speaker 6: but this past term was a little more. Things just
[24:22] Speaker 6: happened to happen within the Fifth Circuit and that case
[24:25] Speaker 6: just happened to be taken up by the Supreme Court.
[24:27] Speaker 3: Are there any other circuits that are hearing more cases
[24:30] Speaker 3: on bank than they used to?
[24:32] Speaker 7: I don't know if it's more than they've used to.
[24:35] Speaker 6: The Ninth Circuit has always been incredibly active on unbanked cases,
[24:40] Speaker 6: and they even have their own procedure because they have
[24:42] Speaker 6: so many judges. I believe they have twenty nine active judges,
[24:45] Speaker 6: so they have a situation where not all of the
[24:49] Speaker 6: judges sit on the en banc court when they were
[24:51] Speaker 6: reviewing underlying panel opinions. And as a result, we actually
[24:56] Speaker 6: do see more of the descents from grants of en
[24:59] Speaker 6: banc on that circuit because judges are going, oh gosh,
[25:03] Speaker 6: I don't know if I'm going to be on this
[25:05] Speaker 6: court and I got something to say, so I'm going
[25:08] Speaker 6: to say it right now.
[25:09] Speaker 3: On the DC Circuit, it seems that a lot of
[25:12] Speaker 3: times when there's a two to one decision with two
[25:15] Speaker 3: Republican appointees in the majority, the full DC Circuit will
[25:20] Speaker 3: take the case and then it ends up getting reversed.
[25:23] Speaker 3: And I'm wondering if the opposite is true here, if
[25:26] Speaker 3: when you have two Democratic appointees in the majority in
[25:30] Speaker 3: a two to one case, that then the full circuit
[25:33] Speaker 3: takes the case and reverses.
[25:36] Speaker 7: Yeah, that's a trend I've seen pop up.
[25:39] Speaker 6: I'll say that I haven't crunched the numbers for the
[25:41] Speaker 6: most recent six cases or so, but earlier in the
[25:45] Speaker 6: year I actually took a look at the number of
[25:48] Speaker 6: underlying panel rulings that senior judges were on, and the
[25:52] Speaker 6: senior judges on the Fifth Circuit are more moderate. They
[25:56] Speaker 6: tend to not be in the same camp necessary as
[26:00] Speaker 6: the Trump and the active Reagan appointees, and as a result,
[26:05] Speaker 6: the conservative majority of active judges says, Okay, well we'll take.
[26:09] Speaker 7: Up this case.
[26:10] Speaker 3: Thanks for keeping such a close eye on the Fifth
[26:12] Speaker 3: Circuit for us, Jacqueline, I really like to talk about
[26:16] Speaker 3: trends on the circuit courts. It's so interesting. That's Bloomberg
[26:19] Speaker 3: Law reporter Jacqueline Thompson coming up next on the Bloomberg
[26:23] Speaker 3: Law Show. FBI director Cash Patel is planning to reduce
[26:28] Speaker 3: lawyers at the FBI, deepening divisions with his general counsel.
[26:34] Speaker 3: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. FBI Director
[26:39] Speaker 3: Cash Patel is planning to shrink his legal advisory office,
[26:43] Speaker 3: deepening divisions with his general counsel as outside lawsuits are
[26:48] Speaker 3: challenging prior staff termination. That's according to Bloomberg sources, and
[26:53] Speaker 3: the FBI's Office of the General Council has begun carrying
[26:57] Speaker 3: out Patel's instructions by put wishing its workforce to take
[27:01] Speaker 3: early retirement. Joining me is the Bloomberg Law reporter who
[27:05] Speaker 3: covers the Justice Department, Ben Penn. He wrote this story
[27:09] Speaker 3: on the FBI. Ben start by telling us about the
[27:12] Speaker 3: FBI Office of the General Council.
[27:16] Speaker 8: Sure, it has a number of functions behind the scenes.
[27:20] Speaker 8: There are a couple hundred lawyers as of recently, or
[27:25] Speaker 8: as of at least before the start of this administration,
[27:28] Speaker 8: when people started taking the fork in the road, there
[27:32] Speaker 8: were about three hundred lawyers there who are split into
[27:35] Speaker 8: national security, criminal investigation, and litigation branches. And so they do,
[27:43] Speaker 8: you know, whenever there are sensitive investigations going on, they
[27:48] Speaker 8: will be advising agents. They'll be advising senior FBI executives
[27:54] Speaker 8: up to the Director on ensuring that investigations are conducted
[27:59] Speaker 8: in a law manner, that they're complying with the Constitution,
[28:03] Speaker 8: with ethical guidelines. It's also the General Counsel's Office is
[28:07] Speaker 8: also going to be coordinating with prosecutors at Main Justice
[28:13] Speaker 8: to have those lawyer to lawyer conversations so that the
[28:18] Speaker 8: FBI is on the same page with the lawyers who
[28:22] Speaker 8: are actually going into court to bring cases based on
[28:26] Speaker 8: the investigations that the Bureau has conducted. They're also going
[28:30] Speaker 8: to be working with thej lawyers in responding to lawsuits
[28:34] Speaker 8: that the FBI faces from say, in this administration, this
[28:38] Speaker 8: has been a recurrence from former agents and officials who've
[28:42] Speaker 8: been terminated by Director Cash Bettel. The General Council's Offices
[28:47] Speaker 8: going to play a significant role behind the scenes in
[28:51] Speaker 8: coming up with the litigation strategy.
[28:53] Speaker 3: Project twenty twenty five advocated for the elimination of this office.
[29:00] Speaker 3: Why Yeah.
[29:01] Speaker 8: They felt that it was duplicative that the work could
[29:06] Speaker 8: be handled instead by attorneys at Justice Department headquarters. That's
[29:11] Speaker 8: the where the legal work should be done. The FBI
[29:15] Speaker 8: doesn't need to have this function as well.
[29:18] Speaker 3: So up to this point, have they been letting people go.
[29:21] Speaker 5: No.
[29:21] Speaker 8: That's what's interesting is that even as there have been
[29:25] Speaker 8: terminations of senior and line level employees of the FBI
[29:32] Speaker 8: under Director Patel, we have not seen those sort of
[29:36] Speaker 8: adverse personnel actions at the General Council's Office, and the
[29:41] Speaker 8: current General Counsel Sam Raymer, has been able to stave
[29:44] Speaker 8: off until now at least, has been able to stave
[29:48] Speaker 8: off the kind of workforce reductions that we've seen elsewhere.
[29:51] Speaker 6: In the bureau.
[29:52] Speaker 3: Tell us about your story and this plan to shrink
[29:57] Speaker 3: the office.
[29:58] Speaker 8: Sure, so the reporting has evolved essentially in recent months.
[30:03] Speaker 8: You know, there have been tensions between the General Counsel
[30:07] Speaker 8: and the FBI Director, according to my sources, and we
[30:12] Speaker 8: saw that play out in a number of ways. A
[30:15] Speaker 8: couple months ago, there was a demand from the Director's
[30:19] Speaker 8: office that the General Council's Office find any attorney to fire,
[30:22] Speaker 8: to sort of send a message to the staff, and
[30:26] Speaker 8: that wound up going away and nobody was fired. And
[30:28] Speaker 8: then more recently, it was the understanding of my sources
[30:31] Speaker 8: that there was a demand that twenty five percent of
[30:35] Speaker 8: the attorneys at the General Council's Office be cut, and
[30:39] Speaker 8: even more recently than that that has evolved a bit
[30:42] Speaker 8: into less of a firm demand. Twenty five percent is
[30:47] Speaker 8: no longer understood to be a hard expectation. And now
[30:53] Speaker 8: what is happening is FBI lawyers are being offered voluntary
[30:57] Speaker 8: early retirement as a means of getting out the door
[31:02] Speaker 8: before they'd otherwise be eligible for retirement. And the FBI
[31:08] Speaker 8: is not denying this reporting, but they're characterizing it as
[31:13] Speaker 8: part of a reorganization that they say is long overdue
[31:16] Speaker 8: at the General Counsel's Office.
[31:18] Speaker 3: So you said that they were trying to send a message,
[31:21] Speaker 3: or cash Patel was trying to send a message. What's
[31:23] Speaker 3: the message they were trying to send?
[31:25] Speaker 8: The assumption and again this is what you know. This
[31:28] Speaker 8: is the understanding of my sources. It's not we would
[31:30] Speaker 8: have to ask cash Pateel or his inner circle exactly
[31:34] Speaker 8: what their intention was. But the you know, the understanding
[31:37] Speaker 8: room from the people I talked to, is that it
[31:39] Speaker 8: was sort of to ensure that nobody feels to secure
[31:42] Speaker 8: in their in their jobs and that they need to
[31:45] Speaker 8: ensure that they are serving the mission. There was a
[31:49] Speaker 8: statement provided by Patel's spokesperson that was something to the
[31:53] Speaker 8: effect of anybody who is weaponized would deserve to be terminated.
[31:59] Speaker 8: You know, we have seen people lose their jobs under
[32:03] Speaker 8: this FBI director if they got crosswise with the director's agenda,
[32:08] Speaker 8: which has been very closely aligned with the White House
[32:11] Speaker 8: in this administration.
[32:12] Speaker 3: Ben give us an example of one of the investigations
[32:16] Speaker 3: closely aligned with the White House.
[32:19] Speaker 8: The six Democratic lawmakers who posted a social media video
[32:23] Speaker 8: last year at reminding military officers of their duty not
[32:28] Speaker 8: to obey unlawful orders, and that led to an FBI
[32:33] Speaker 8: investigation in dj failed attempt at criminal prosecution. That's an example,
[32:39] Speaker 8: a very stark example of this FBI being willing to
[32:44] Speaker 8: initiate investigations that many veterans of the bureau have criticized
[32:49] Speaker 8: for lacking any predication that a crime even existed.
[32:52] Speaker 3: So what is the relationship between the General Council and Patel.
[32:58] Speaker 8: The General Council and Cash Ptel. There is no known
[33:03] Speaker 8: history between them as far as I understand. Sam Raimer
[33:07] Speaker 8: is somebody who's a very experienced government lawyer and a
[33:11] Speaker 8: GOP attorney on Capitol Hell and he worked in the
[33:17] Speaker 8: Trump White House Counsel's Office in the president's first term.
[33:20] Speaker 8: I don't know for sure. There's no apparent history the
[33:23] Speaker 8: two of them have until they started working together in
[33:26] Speaker 8: this administration. Sam Raymer, by all accounts, is hardly an obstructionist.
[33:31] Speaker 8: He's somebody who has made it clear to his staff
[33:34] Speaker 8: that they need to view it as their jobs as
[33:37] Speaker 8: doing everything they can to get to yes when they
[33:40] Speaker 8: are advising the director and his team on whether they
[33:47] Speaker 8: are legally permitted to undertake certain actions that they want
[33:51] Speaker 8: to take, and it is not their job unless something
[33:54] Speaker 8: in their minds is very blatantly illegal, to recommend against it.
[34:00] Speaker 8: That has been a shift that was somewhat shocking to
[34:02] Speaker 8: some of the people I talked to in how the
[34:06] Speaker 8: FBI General Counsel's Office would approach its role. And you know,
[34:09] Speaker 8: that would seem to suggest that Raymer could fit in
[34:13] Speaker 8: in the long run continuing to work for this director.
[34:15] Speaker 8: But more recently their relationship has been strained. This is
[34:20] Speaker 8: something that the director's spokesman said is false. But according
[34:27] Speaker 8: to my reports, they are no longer as simpatico as
[34:31] Speaker 8: they once were, and that you know, there are several
[34:35] Speaker 8: examples that people pointed to the General Counsel's Office having
[34:39] Speaker 8: waning influence in recent months, including a sense that they
[34:44] Speaker 8: had to justify their existence by scrambling to put together
[34:47] Speaker 8: a list of accomplishments to the director to show their worth.
[34:53] Speaker 8: There was a legal conference for FBI lawyers nationwide that
[34:58] Speaker 8: was canceled on very short notice. I have other reporting
[35:02] Speaker 8: too to suggest that the General Counsel's Office may not
[35:06] Speaker 8: be in good graces right now with the Director.
[35:10] Speaker 3: So and you wrote that they don't voice recommendations against
[35:15] Speaker 3: particular actions. That's something that they used to evaluate.
[35:19] Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean that the people I talked to said
[35:22] Speaker 8: that that has the default has become to avoid voicing objections,
[35:28] Speaker 8: legal objections, that now people are trying to lay low
[35:32] Speaker 8: and to help the FBI Director get to yes, And
[35:38] Speaker 8: that if they even have objections, that they are going
[35:41] Speaker 8: to be very careful and how they voice them, not
[35:43] Speaker 8: to overtly advise against doing something, but maybe to more
[35:48] Speaker 8: subtly lay out what the risk might be in order
[35:51] Speaker 8: to avoid being cast as an obstructionist wing of the
[35:55] Speaker 8: Justice Department.
[35:57] Speaker 3: Let's turn to another one of your stories out the
[36:00] Speaker 3: Justice Department, overstating the extent to which the Nevada US
[36:05] Speaker 3: Attorney's Office has increased criminal charges and indictments while losing
[36:11] Speaker 3: prosecutors during President Trump's second term.
[36:15] Speaker 8: To make a long story short, I spent months reporting
[36:18] Speaker 8: on some of the troubles that have been happening at
[36:23] Speaker 8: the US Attorney's Office based in Las Vegas in the
[36:26] Speaker 8: current administration and under the leadership of the office's top prosecutors,
[36:31] Speaker 8: Segal Chada. And after writing a sort of a deep
[36:36] Speaker 8: dive on the tumultuous past year that Chada has had
[36:41] Speaker 8: leading the office, you know, I was struck by a
[36:44] Speaker 8: statement that they provided in that story in which they
[36:47] Speaker 8: said that the office is essentially doing more with less,
[36:50] Speaker 8: that they have increased their criminal charges or cases charged
[36:55] Speaker 8: by fifteen percent despite losing twenty percent of their prosecutors.
[36:59] Speaker 8: So we asked to show their work and where they
[37:01] Speaker 8: were getting those numbers from. We never got a response.
[37:03] Speaker 8: So here at Bloomberg Law, our sharp data analysts did
[37:08] Speaker 8: our own analysis and came up with numbers showing that indictments,
[37:13] Speaker 8: criminal indictments, strangury indictments are down by six point four
[37:17] Speaker 8: percent year over year from twenty twenty four to twenty
[37:20] Speaker 8: twenty five, and that the office's overall charges, which would
[37:25] Speaker 8: include cases that were brought without just indictments and would
[37:30] Speaker 8: include complaints that those increased by four percent, contrary to
[37:36] Speaker 8: the fifteen percent figure that the office presented to us.
[37:39] Speaker 8: We came back to them with our findings, they started
[37:41] Speaker 8: changing their narrative a bit to say that they were
[37:45] Speaker 8: now measuring their productivity in just indictments now, and they
[37:49] Speaker 8: said that indictments had increased by ten point seven percent
[37:53] Speaker 8: year over year last year, and despite our findings that
[37:57] Speaker 8: they had actually gone down by six point four percent.
[38:00] Speaker 8: They were never able to show us their work explain
[38:03] Speaker 8: where they were getting those numbers from. We showed them
[38:05] Speaker 8: all of our work. Basically, long story short, what this
[38:08] Speaker 8: is getting at is this is a Justice Department right
[38:11] Speaker 8: now that is increasingly relying on statistics to try to
[38:15] Speaker 8: refute the narrative that we are seeing in outlets, not
[38:19] Speaker 8: just here at Bloomberg, that the Justice Department has been
[38:23] Speaker 8: losing quite a bit of prosecutorial experience over the past
[38:28] Speaker 8: year and a half, and they are trying to use
[38:31] Speaker 8: statistics that, in their minds demonstrate that DOJ is still
[38:35] Speaker 8: able to do more with less, and that prosecutions are
[38:39] Speaker 8: at a record high. And this is just a snapshot.
[38:42] Speaker 8: This is just one office out of ninety three. But
[38:45] Speaker 8: our analysis shows that the Nevada US Attorney's Office, which
[38:48] Speaker 8: is one of the many offices that have suffered from
[38:51] Speaker 8: significant attrition, that the indictments are down over the past year.
[38:57] Speaker 8: And the other point that's missing here is that measuring
[39:00] Speaker 8: a DOJ prosecution office's success can't be done solely by
[39:06] Speaker 8: looking at the total number of cases charged. That that
[39:10] Speaker 8: requires a much more exhaustive and really complicated review if
[39:16] Speaker 8: we want to really get under the hood and see
[39:19] Speaker 8: how an office is performing, because it's not just the
[39:21] Speaker 8: quantity of cases, it's the quality of cases. And sometimes
[39:25] Speaker 8: you can have much more impact by bringing fewer cases
[39:29] Speaker 8: but much more meaningful cases. So I want to make
[39:32] Speaker 8: that point clear. But in this case, if this is
[39:37] Speaker 8: how DOJ wants to show the public that they are
[39:41] Speaker 8: still performing and that losing bodies doesn't actually have an impact,
[39:45] Speaker 8: I believe that we deserve a little more transparency into
[39:50] Speaker 8: where they are deriving their numbers from.
[39:52] Speaker 3: It's an interesting time to be covering the Justice Department.
[39:55] Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Ben. That's Ben Penn, Bloomberg Law Reporter,
[40:00] Speaker 3: And that's it. For this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
[40:03] Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
[40:05] Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[40:09] Speaker 3: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
[40:15] Speaker 3: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[40:18] Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
[40:22] Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.