1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,279 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosso with Michael Best. 2 00:00:03,720 --> 00:00:07,680 Speaker 1: The three former currency traders call themselves the Cartel and 3 00:00:07,680 --> 00:00:11,440 Speaker 1: the Mafia and chat room messages, and fitting those names, 4 00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:14,840 Speaker 1: they've now been charged with a conspiracy to rig currency rates. 5 00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:18,680 Speaker 1: US prosecutors have charged three London traders with being at 6 00:00:18,680 --> 00:00:21,799 Speaker 1: the heart of a criminal investigation that has ensnared the 7 00:00:21,800 --> 00:00:25,840 Speaker 1: world's biggest banks over the manipulation of currency rates. It's 8 00:00:25,880 --> 00:00:28,840 Speaker 1: alleged the three men used an online chat room to 9 00:00:28,920 --> 00:00:32,519 Speaker 1: coordinate trading of US dollars and euros to fix the 10 00:00:32,560 --> 00:00:35,519 Speaker 1: prices of those currencies. Some of the biggest banks in 11 00:00:35,520 --> 00:00:38,159 Speaker 1: the world have paid a total of ten billion dollars 12 00:00:38,159 --> 00:00:41,320 Speaker 1: in fines as part of the scandal. Our guest today 13 00:00:41,320 --> 00:00:44,560 Speaker 1: are Peter Henning, professor at Wayne State University Law School, 14 00:00:44,600 --> 00:00:48,840 Speaker 1: and John Coffey, professor at Columbia University Law School. Peter 15 00:00:48,960 --> 00:00:53,680 Speaker 1: start us off by explaining what these traders allegedly did 16 00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:58,880 Speaker 1: in the chat rooms. Well, it's fairly simple in that 17 00:00:58,880 --> 00:01:03,360 Speaker 1: they have this spot where each could tell the others, 18 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:07,000 Speaker 1: uh at least according to the government, where they wanted 19 00:01:07,080 --> 00:01:13,080 Speaker 1: the price of the dollar in the euro set. So 20 00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:17,120 Speaker 1: how that number is figured out each day and then 21 00:01:17,319 --> 00:01:21,280 Speaker 1: used for various transaction is there is a fix. There 22 00:01:21,360 --> 00:01:24,480 Speaker 1: is a particular point in time when you get a 23 00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:27,600 Speaker 1: quick snapshot of the market, and that says this is 24 00:01:27,640 --> 00:01:30,080 Speaker 1: the value of the euro versus the dollar and with 25 00:01:30,120 --> 00:01:33,680 Speaker 1: other currencies. And so they were trading messages back and 26 00:01:33,800 --> 00:01:37,959 Speaker 1: forth to if you will fix the fix and try 27 00:01:38,000 --> 00:01:41,000 Speaker 1: to have it help out their positions because they're at 28 00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:45,240 Speaker 1: competing banks. So theoretically the price really should be set 29 00:01:45,319 --> 00:01:49,600 Speaker 1: by the market. This is conspiracy to violate the antitrust 30 00:01:49,680 --> 00:01:54,240 Speaker 1: laws because they're trying to fix the price. Well, John, 31 00:01:54,320 --> 00:01:56,800 Speaker 1: one of the things that's interesting about this case. There's 32 00:01:56,880 --> 00:01:59,640 Speaker 1: lots that's interesting, but one thing is that while they're 33 00:01:59,640 --> 00:02:03,000 Speaker 1: being rigs under US law, British authorities had cleared them 34 00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:07,800 Speaker 1: for this. So how is that possible? Well, of course 35 00:02:08,000 --> 00:02:10,959 Speaker 1: you can offend the laws of two different countries. If 36 00:02:11,000 --> 00:02:14,240 Speaker 1: you shoot a bullet across the state line from one 37 00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:17,680 Speaker 1: state into the next day, those states have jurisdiction for 38 00:02:17,760 --> 00:02:21,280 Speaker 1: what happens because you did something, either the intent or 39 00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:24,360 Speaker 1: the effect was in each jurisdiction. Uh. Now, it is 40 00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:28,520 Speaker 1: true that the US historically has enforced its law more 41 00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:31,800 Speaker 1: aggressively than has Great Britain, and it may be that 42 00:02:31,880 --> 00:02:34,359 Speaker 1: the U. S has were able to accumulate better evidence. 43 00:02:34,880 --> 00:02:37,200 Speaker 1: I also would point out that this is the last 44 00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:41,040 Speaker 1: nine days of the Obama administration, and I think they're 45 00:02:41,040 --> 00:02:43,200 Speaker 1: trying to get all the cases that were in their 46 00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:47,960 Speaker 1: pipeline into formalized proceedings, both partly to get credit and 47 00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:52,160 Speaker 1: partly to uh embarrass the future administration if it dropped 48 00:02:52,200 --> 00:02:55,040 Speaker 1: these cases. But I think this was the last chance 49 00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:58,200 Speaker 1: they had, and they took that chance. Because you notice 50 00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:01,600 Speaker 1: they haven't indicated that the any of these people are 51 00:03:01,600 --> 00:03:05,680 Speaker 1: in custody. More normally, you would not indict people until 52 00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:08,080 Speaker 1: you had arrested them, so there was no chance that 53 00:03:08,120 --> 00:03:11,320 Speaker 1: they would go into hiding. So this is the case 54 00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:14,120 Speaker 1: that obviously is being rushed by the end of the 55 00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:18,120 Speaker 1: Obama administration. Peter, there have been years of criticism against 56 00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:22,560 Speaker 1: the Justice Department for getting multi billion dollar corporate penalties 57 00:03:22,560 --> 00:03:26,800 Speaker 1: without holding individuals to account in this take. In this case, 58 00:03:26,840 --> 00:03:30,720 Speaker 1: the Justice Department is touting this as showing it is 59 00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:34,560 Speaker 1: holding individuals accountable. Do you think this is a good 60 00:03:34,560 --> 00:03:38,880 Speaker 1: example of that? Well, a very good question, and you'll 61 00:03:38,920 --> 00:03:42,520 Speaker 1: notice that um, the person who made the statement on 62 00:03:42,560 --> 00:03:46,200 Speaker 1: behalf of the Department of Justice was Sally Yates, and 63 00:03:46,640 --> 00:03:50,560 Speaker 1: that Justice Department policy is called the Yates Memo, and 64 00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:54,320 Speaker 1: it says that we're going to go after uh individuals 65 00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:57,840 Speaker 1: and anyone who wants credit for cooperating any company they 66 00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:01,680 Speaker 1: have to give us individuals. I guess from a pr 67 00:04:01,760 --> 00:04:05,720 Speaker 1: point of view, yes, this is an implementation of that policy. 68 00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:11,160 Speaker 1: But of course this investigation goes back to when the media, 69 00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:16,360 Speaker 1: especially Bloomberg, pointed out the fixing in the foreign exchange market. 70 00:04:16,480 --> 00:04:21,880 Speaker 1: So in a sense this all predates that change in policy. 71 00:04:22,240 --> 00:04:25,680 Speaker 1: And certainly that the chat room, the cartel, the mafia 72 00:04:25,839 --> 00:04:28,800 Speaker 1: chat room and all that, the Justice Department has had 73 00:04:28,839 --> 00:04:33,279 Speaker 1: that information for years. So I don't know whether it 74 00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:36,680 Speaker 1: is so much an impact of the change in policy 75 00:04:36,839 --> 00:04:41,599 Speaker 1: or just announcing, hey, look at us, that we did 76 00:04:41,640 --> 00:04:44,039 Speaker 1: what we said we were going to do, when in 77 00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:46,040 Speaker 1: fact I suspect they may well have done it all 78 00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:50,080 Speaker 1: along regardless of the change in policy. Well, John, you're 79 00:04:50,120 --> 00:04:53,200 Speaker 1: talking earlier about the the fact that you know that 80 00:04:53,400 --> 00:04:55,039 Speaker 1: they're not in custody. It's not just that they're not 81 00:04:55,080 --> 00:04:58,240 Speaker 1: in custody there in another country over in the UK. 82 00:04:58,839 --> 00:05:01,200 Speaker 1: So is it possible that you know, how are they 83 00:05:01,200 --> 00:05:04,000 Speaker 1: gonna proceed? Has it just department going to proceed with 84 00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:07,760 Speaker 1: this case? Well, historically the US has had fairly good 85 00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:11,960 Speaker 1: cooperation from Great Britain and extraditing people for violations of 86 00:05:12,080 --> 00:05:15,400 Speaker 1: US law. In contrast, we have never gotten people out 87 00:05:15,440 --> 00:05:18,480 Speaker 1: of France or Germany. So these are people who are 88 00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:22,400 Speaker 1: subject extradition, but that will be something that might be contested. 89 00:05:22,960 --> 00:05:24,920 Speaker 1: Let me add one further point to what was just 90 00:05:24,960 --> 00:05:27,960 Speaker 1: being said by Peter. This case, which does seem to 91 00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:32,080 Speaker 1: exemplify the eights memorandum being implemented, fits hand and glove 92 00:05:32,360 --> 00:05:35,920 Speaker 1: with what also is going on in Volkswagen today. In Volkswagen, 93 00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:38,800 Speaker 1: we had Mr Strange arrested in Miami at the beginning 94 00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:42,640 Speaker 1: of the week, and today the Volkswagen Supervisory Board is 95 00:05:42,680 --> 00:05:46,800 Speaker 1: agreeing to plead guilty to serious felony accounts which will 96 00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:50,200 Speaker 1: have real collateral consequences and other proceedings. So I do 97 00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:53,480 Speaker 1: think there is a new tougher tone, at least at 98 00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:56,600 Speaker 1: the end of the Obama administration, in some real contrast 99 00:05:56,640 --> 00:05:58,640 Speaker 1: to where they were in two thousand and eight when 100 00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:01,240 Speaker 1: some banks look like they were too big to hill. 101 00:06:02,040 --> 00:06:06,200 Speaker 1: Peter will the decision by the UK Serious Fraud Office 102 00:06:06,320 --> 00:06:10,400 Speaker 1: to drop its criminal investigation into alleged four X rigging, 103 00:06:11,040 --> 00:06:13,880 Speaker 1: which also scrutinized the actions of the chat room. Will 104 00:06:13,920 --> 00:06:19,600 Speaker 1: that complicate matters of extradition because the lawyers are already saying, hey, 105 00:06:19,640 --> 00:06:25,560 Speaker 1: our clients weren't charged. Right. It doesn't directly impact because 106 00:06:25,600 --> 00:06:29,160 Speaker 1: as Jack said, each sovereign, each country can enforce its 107 00:06:29,200 --> 00:06:33,440 Speaker 1: own laws. But it may well set a tenor for 108 00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:37,400 Speaker 1: the case. And you know, judges may claim that they're 109 00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:42,760 Speaker 1: not influenced by outside pressures, but in fact that it 110 00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:45,400 Speaker 1: could have an impact. There was a case going back 111 00:06:45,960 --> 00:06:49,039 Speaker 1: a decade coming out of the end Ron prosecution, the 112 00:06:49,520 --> 00:06:53,560 Speaker 1: so called Matt West three, three British bankers who helped 113 00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:58,680 Speaker 1: Enron in its various financial transactions, and it generated a 114 00:06:58,680 --> 00:07:01,919 Speaker 1: lot of controversy in Eited Kingdom. Now they were eventually 115 00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:05,039 Speaker 1: extradited to the United States, and it may well be 116 00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:08,120 Speaker 1: that this uh will be one part of a public 117 00:07:08,160 --> 00:07:13,320 Speaker 1: relations campaign if these defendants decide to fight extradition. Now, 118 00:07:13,640 --> 00:07:17,200 Speaker 1: the downside to doing that is if you are extradited, 119 00:07:17,680 --> 00:07:20,760 Speaker 1: then the government typically points to that and says you 120 00:07:20,760 --> 00:07:24,120 Speaker 1: should be held in jail because you might flee and 121 00:07:24,240 --> 00:07:27,200 Speaker 1: run away to a third country where we can't get you. 122 00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:29,760 Speaker 1: So that's going to be one of the calculations that 123 00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:32,520 Speaker 1: goes into this do you want to fight when the 124 00:07:32,640 --> 00:07:38,680 Speaker 1: US and Great Britain have traditionally exchange defendants through extradition. Well, 125 00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:41,120 Speaker 1: John one other thing. I mean you talk about sort 126 00:07:41,120 --> 00:07:44,840 Speaker 1: of the pr implications in ways that it was. It 127 00:07:44,880 --> 00:07:46,960 Speaker 1: will look when it gets to court. You have people 128 00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:50,880 Speaker 1: calling themselves a cartel and mafia and those sorts of names. 129 00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:53,239 Speaker 1: It doesn't really appear from this, does it that they 130 00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:56,320 Speaker 1: seem to think what they were doing was completely above board. 131 00:07:57,440 --> 00:08:00,760 Speaker 1: I think that's correct. Actually, the method oology here is 132 00:08:00,800 --> 00:08:04,680 Speaker 1: not very different than the liber conspiracy. In one you 133 00:08:04,800 --> 00:08:08,000 Speaker 1: were trying to conspire to manipulate the London inner bank 134 00:08:08,200 --> 00:08:12,080 Speaker 1: lending rate, and here you're trying to manipulate a different 135 00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:15,120 Speaker 1: kind of benchmark rate. This just used on a daily 136 00:08:15,160 --> 00:08:18,680 Speaker 1: basis for the spot market for currency. But in both 137 00:08:18,760 --> 00:08:21,920 Speaker 1: markets there was an inside group of repeat players who 138 00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:25,360 Speaker 1: regularly communicated and tried to push the rates in the 139 00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:29,080 Speaker 1: jet direction they deemed favorable. I think it suggests that 140 00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:31,880 Speaker 1: all these private markets need to be monitored very closely, 141 00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:35,000 Speaker 1: because sooner or later insiders will find a way to 142 00:08:35,120 --> 00:08:39,520 Speaker 1: advantage themselves. We're talking about three former currency traders who 143 00:08:39,520 --> 00:08:43,480 Speaker 1: have been charged by US prosecutors. They called themselves the 144 00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:47,480 Speaker 1: cartel and mafia in chat room messages, and they've been 145 00:08:47,559 --> 00:08:50,320 Speaker 1: charged with being at the heart of a criminal investigation 146 00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:54,040 Speaker 1: that has ensnared the world's biggest banks over the manipulation 147 00:08:54,200 --> 00:08:58,000 Speaker 1: of currency rates. We've been talking with John Coffee, professor 148 00:08:58,040 --> 00:09:01,280 Speaker 1: at Columbia University Law School, and Peter Henning, professor at 149 00:09:01,280 --> 00:09:06,320 Speaker 1: Wayne State University Law School. Jack three currency traders have 150 00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:09,680 Speaker 1: been who are in this car so called cartel, have 151 00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:14,360 Speaker 1: been charged, and a fourth one is cooperating with the government. 152 00:09:14,840 --> 00:09:17,440 Speaker 1: Does that lead you to think that there might be 153 00:09:17,559 --> 00:09:21,880 Speaker 1: some others who might be flipped along the way. Oh, 154 00:09:21,920 --> 00:09:25,400 Speaker 1: I think that's very likely, because collusion is a group activity. 155 00:09:25,520 --> 00:09:29,479 Speaker 1: One or two people can't collude to rig and manipulate 156 00:09:29,559 --> 00:09:33,520 Speaker 1: a huge, multi trillion dollar daily market. So others were involved, 157 00:09:33,559 --> 00:09:36,800 Speaker 1: but these may have been the principal players. Incidentally, the 158 00:09:36,800 --> 00:09:41,120 Speaker 1: person who's cooperating may be availing himself of the Antitrust 159 00:09:41,200 --> 00:09:45,960 Speaker 1: Division's leniency program. The only Trust Division realizes that price 160 00:09:46,040 --> 00:09:49,040 Speaker 1: fixing is very hard to detect so they will give 161 00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:53,080 Speaker 1: the first person who comes forward complete immunity if he 162 00:09:53,160 --> 00:09:56,079 Speaker 1: comes forward prior to the point at which the Justice 163 00:09:56,080 --> 00:10:01,000 Speaker 1: Department has basically detected the conspiracy. Peter, we're talking earlier 164 00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:03,960 Speaker 1: about the fact that, you know, the Obama administration wanted 165 00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:07,240 Speaker 1: to get these indictments done before it went out of office. 166 00:10:07,679 --> 00:10:10,080 Speaker 1: If this is uh, you know, the Deputy Attorney General 167 00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:13,680 Speaker 1: had wanted to prosecute individuals for this sort of behavior. 168 00:10:14,360 --> 00:10:17,160 Speaker 1: Is it likely that the Trump administration, when it takes 169 00:10:17,160 --> 00:10:20,800 Speaker 1: over the Justice Department is going to aggressively pursue extradition 170 00:10:20,960 --> 00:10:23,880 Speaker 1: and also pursue these kinds of cases as aggressively as 171 00:10:23,920 --> 00:10:26,480 Speaker 1: the Obama administration has wanted to show that it does. 172 00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:31,400 Speaker 1: I would certainly think on this particular case, with the extradition, 173 00:10:31,679 --> 00:10:37,520 Speaker 1: I would expect that the Justice Department, the new incoming leadership, 174 00:10:37,800 --> 00:10:40,640 Speaker 1: will continue the case. And in fact, again most of 175 00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:44,920 Speaker 1: the attorneys in the Department of Justice our career people, 176 00:10:45,080 --> 00:10:50,200 Speaker 1: and so I would expect that it will be pursued. Uh. 177 00:10:50,520 --> 00:10:54,439 Speaker 1: On the broader question of will the Justice Department be 178 00:10:54,600 --> 00:10:57,640 Speaker 1: as aggressive? Of course, one of the criticisms of the 179 00:10:57,679 --> 00:11:02,240 Speaker 1: Obama Justice Department was that it wasn't aggressive enough at 180 00:11:02,320 --> 00:11:05,760 Speaker 1: least in pursuing individuals. Now we're starting to see more 181 00:11:05,800 --> 00:11:11,480 Speaker 1: individuals named. I don't see the Justice Department announcing a 182 00:11:11,679 --> 00:11:15,040 Speaker 1: turnaround saying no, we're not going to go after individuals, No, 183 00:11:15,120 --> 00:11:18,400 Speaker 1: we're not going to investigate companies. UM. I don't think 184 00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:21,040 Speaker 1: any prosecutor wants to announce what they're not going to do. 185 00:11:21,760 --> 00:11:24,640 Speaker 1: It's really going to be a question of what are 186 00:11:24,679 --> 00:11:29,959 Speaker 1: the priorities and where are the resources going to be allocated? Um? 187 00:11:30,080 --> 00:11:33,760 Speaker 1: Will they continue to put in the same number of 188 00:11:33,800 --> 00:11:38,360 Speaker 1: prosecutors to pursue these cases? These are not easy cases. UM. 189 00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:41,000 Speaker 1: It takes a lot of time and a lot of 190 00:11:41,080 --> 00:11:44,160 Speaker 1: effort and a lot of money to do something as 191 00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:47,200 Speaker 1: complex as this. So it's really going to be a 192 00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:50,680 Speaker 1: matter of what are they going to do rather than 193 00:11:50,720 --> 00:11:55,320 Speaker 1: what they say. Jack Jeff Sessions is in the midst 194 00:11:55,360 --> 00:11:59,800 Speaker 1: of having his judiciary hearings to be the next Attorney General. 195 00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:05,480 Speaker 1: Do we know about his position on on these kinds 196 00:12:05,520 --> 00:12:09,160 Speaker 1: of issues? Is he is he likely to prosecute them? 197 00:12:09,280 --> 00:12:14,400 Speaker 1: Or they high on his list of things to get to? Well, 198 00:12:14,400 --> 00:12:18,080 Speaker 1: this much I can say without predicting everything. Mr Sessions 199 00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:21,760 Speaker 1: is a very law and order former U S attorney 200 00:12:22,040 --> 00:12:24,120 Speaker 1: if the case has been brought, I think he will 201 00:12:24,160 --> 00:12:27,000 Speaker 1: pursue it, and thus I think he will seek extradition. 202 00:12:27,480 --> 00:12:31,160 Speaker 1: As a U S Senator, he opposed some pro business 203 00:12:31,160 --> 00:12:34,720 Speaker 1: groups that we're seeking legislation in the Senate which would 204 00:12:35,280 --> 00:12:38,640 Speaker 1: restrict the ability of U S attorneys UH to demand 205 00:12:38,679 --> 00:12:41,440 Speaker 1: a waiver of the attorney client privilege and return for 206 00:12:41,520 --> 00:12:45,280 Speaker 1: something called a deferred prosecution agreement. In that regard, he 207 00:12:45,400 --> 00:12:49,440 Speaker 1: was being tough as nails and saying, I want corporations 208 00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:53,080 Speaker 1: as well as individuals strictly prosecuted. Now with regard to 209 00:12:53,120 --> 00:12:55,439 Speaker 1: overall priorities. The one thing I have to tell you 210 00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:59,960 Speaker 1: is the Department of Justice is an extremely decentralized organization 211 00:13:00,400 --> 00:13:03,599 Speaker 1: with a great deal of discretion in each individual U S. 212 00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:06,440 Speaker 1: Attorney here in New York, A pre Baha is going 213 00:13:06,480 --> 00:13:08,840 Speaker 1: to remain as US attorney, and I think you'll have 214 00:13:08,920 --> 00:13:12,280 Speaker 1: the same priorities in the next administration as he had 215 00:13:12,280 --> 00:13:15,160 Speaker 1: in the last. They took a known person, he'll keep 216 00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:20,360 Speaker 1: it up. Other US attorneys probably will have somewhat different priorities. Peter, 217 00:13:20,440 --> 00:13:23,040 Speaker 1: do you agree with that? You think, uh? You think 218 00:13:23,080 --> 00:13:25,960 Speaker 1: that the decentralized nature of the Justice Department, the career 219 00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:30,320 Speaker 1: nature of the prosecutors and and the the Attorney general, 220 00:13:30,360 --> 00:13:34,000 Speaker 1: the incoming attorney generals um, law and order stance are 221 00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:38,280 Speaker 1: going to militate for even more of this kind of stuff. Well, certainly, 222 00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:41,920 Speaker 1: you know, the vast majority of the Department of Justices 223 00:13:42,080 --> 00:13:45,320 Speaker 1: cases UM, whether in the U. S. Attorney's Office or 224 00:13:45,840 --> 00:13:50,160 Speaker 1: through what's called Main Justice in Washington, are really quite mundane. 225 00:13:50,200 --> 00:13:54,640 Speaker 1: They are just day to day criminal offenses that have 226 00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:59,400 Speaker 1: no political overtones, and so that's not going to be changed. 227 00:13:59,640 --> 00:14:03,560 Speaker 1: I get where change could come in is on the 228 00:14:03,640 --> 00:14:08,240 Speaker 1: higher priority cases. What does the Justice departments say that 229 00:14:08,400 --> 00:14:12,200 Speaker 1: we want to put our effort, in our energy into. 230 00:14:12,679 --> 00:14:17,840 Speaker 1: But certainly Jeff Sessions was a United States attorney and 231 00:14:18,280 --> 00:14:23,400 Speaker 1: that they prized their independence, and I would expect that 232 00:14:23,440 --> 00:14:26,680 Speaker 1: he will continue to be very aggressive. He is a 233 00:14:26,800 --> 00:14:31,400 Speaker 1: supporter of, for example, mandatory minimums, and I don't see 234 00:14:31,520 --> 00:14:36,000 Speaker 1: him backing away or having the Department of Justice back 235 00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:40,840 Speaker 1: away from aggressive prosecutorial policy. So I think we're going 236 00:14:40,880 --> 00:14:44,400 Speaker 1: to see at least quite a bit of more of 237 00:14:44,440 --> 00:14:46,840 Speaker 1: the same. I want to thank you both for being 238 00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:49,280 Speaker 1: on Bloomberg. Lots a pleasure to have you both on 239 00:14:49,920 --> 00:14:53,440 Speaker 1: individually and especially together. That's Peter Henning, Professor at Wayne 240 00:14:53,480 --> 00:14:56,960 Speaker 1: State University Law School and John Coffee, Professor at Columbia 241 00:14:57,040 --> 00:14:58,120 Speaker 1: University Law School.