1 00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560 Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every 2 00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440 Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most 3 00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440 Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more 4 00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040 Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, 5 00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,800 Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. They've been branded 6 00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:25,880 Speaker 1: as hipsters by their critics, but it has nothing to 7 00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:28,240 Speaker 1: do with what they wear or the music they listen to. 8 00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:31,240 Speaker 1: It has to do with their views on antitrust. They're 9 00:00:31,280 --> 00:00:34,440 Speaker 1: a small group of policy wonks critical of the increasing 10 00:00:34,520 --> 00:00:38,800 Speaker 1: consolidation of corporation. You can probably name many of those 11 00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:42,479 Speaker 1: corporate giants. They not only want a toughen antitrust enforcement, 12 00:00:42,520 --> 00:00:46,120 Speaker 1: but also to return antitrust policy to its early twentieth 13 00:00:46,200 --> 00:00:50,160 Speaker 1: century roots. Bloomberg News legal reporter David McLaughlin has written 14 00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:52,800 Speaker 1: about their mission in this week's Bloomberg Business Week, and 15 00:00:52,840 --> 00:00:56,760 Speaker 1: he joins us now, David, tell us about these competition 16 00:00:56,880 --> 00:01:00,640 Speaker 1: policy wonks as you describe them in your story. Yeah, So, 17 00:01:00,680 --> 00:01:05,160 Speaker 1: there are a group of folks here in Washington, mostly UM, 18 00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:09,240 Speaker 1: that have been speaking out a lot about UM big 19 00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:15,640 Speaker 1: companies UM, warning about the threat from UH monopolies, especially 20 00:01:16,400 --> 00:01:22,479 Speaker 1: in in in technology and UM they were basically spun 21 00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:25,600 Speaker 1: out of a think tank uh here in in DC 22 00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:28,679 Speaker 1: called New America, and they they formed this uh new 23 00:01:28,800 --> 00:01:32,040 Speaker 1: organization called Open Markets and they've been gaining a lot 24 00:01:32,040 --> 00:01:36,000 Speaker 1: of attention because UM, you know, there's been a long 25 00:01:36,080 --> 00:01:40,080 Speaker 1: debate in the world of any trust about UM how 26 00:01:40,160 --> 00:01:43,000 Speaker 1: tough to be on mergers and in big companies for 27 00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:45,560 Speaker 1: many years and and and the pendulum is sort of 28 00:01:45,880 --> 00:01:49,280 Speaker 1: swung back and forth on that during different administrations. But 29 00:01:49,560 --> 00:01:53,200 Speaker 1: you know, essentially, the the basic playbook for how to 30 00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:57,080 Speaker 1: evaluate mergers and monopolies has always been the same. And 31 00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:00,160 Speaker 1: these guys are saying that whole playbook just needs to 32 00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:04,280 Speaker 1: be thrown out. So tell us about the old playbook, 33 00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:09,280 Speaker 1: which is based on the notion of consumer welfare. Right. 34 00:02:09,560 --> 00:02:14,720 Speaker 1: So that was a notion that UM came to be 35 00:02:14,919 --> 00:02:19,720 Speaker 1: really in the early nineteen eighties. UM. It was Uh. 36 00:02:20,000 --> 00:02:24,639 Speaker 1: It was brought up by Robert Bourke UM in a 37 00:02:24,760 --> 00:02:26,920 Speaker 1: in a book he called in a book he wrote 38 00:02:26,960 --> 00:02:32,880 Speaker 1: called the antitrust paradox. UM. Essentially, the ideas that when 39 00:02:32,880 --> 00:02:35,520 Speaker 1: we think about whether a merger should be should be 40 00:02:35,560 --> 00:02:38,640 Speaker 1: blocked or should be allowed, and when we think about 41 00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:42,440 Speaker 1: dominant companies in their in their market power. That the 42 00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:46,200 Speaker 1: question is are you know, is the deal or is 43 00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:49,160 Speaker 1: the company harming consumers? And and and for the most 44 00:02:49,200 --> 00:02:52,359 Speaker 1: part that has meant has meant price. So in anti 45 00:02:52,400 --> 00:03:00,200 Speaker 1: trust enforcers um investigate a merger, they're primarily focused on 46 00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:05,480 Speaker 1: on price and will the combined company gain the power 47 00:03:05,639 --> 00:03:08,120 Speaker 1: from from combining to be able to raise prices on 48 00:03:08,560 --> 00:03:14,200 Speaker 1: you know, their their customers, um and UM. That's been 49 00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:20,359 Speaker 1: basically the framework and so UM the but there's been 50 00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:22,480 Speaker 1: these these swings. So like you know, typically, like you know, 51 00:03:22,520 --> 00:03:25,320 Speaker 1: in the Embroment administration, they were seen as somewhat more 52 00:03:25,320 --> 00:03:29,280 Speaker 1: aggressive on merger enforcements. During the Bush administration the sort 53 00:03:29,320 --> 00:03:31,920 Speaker 1: of conventional thinking as they were slightly more hands off. 54 00:03:32,080 --> 00:03:35,120 Speaker 1: But but the kind of the way to evaluate the 55 00:03:35,120 --> 00:03:38,880 Speaker 1: deals is thinking about consumer welfare. That's always been sort 56 00:03:38,880 --> 00:03:42,640 Speaker 1: of the the agreed upon framework. So what is the 57 00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:47,080 Speaker 1: main criticism of the theories of these competition policy walks. 58 00:03:48,760 --> 00:03:51,960 Speaker 1: What's the opposition saying about them? Yeah, so they say 59 00:03:52,040 --> 00:03:57,280 Speaker 1: that that this this whole notion is sort of um, 60 00:03:57,320 --> 00:04:04,240 Speaker 1: you know, corrupted. UM the uh, the the reason for 61 00:04:04,320 --> 00:04:08,000 Speaker 1: the reason why any trust laws were um brought into 62 00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:11,240 Speaker 1: place A hundred years ago. UM. This was the time 63 00:04:11,240 --> 00:04:13,880 Speaker 1: of you know, standard oil, et cetera, in the in 64 00:04:13,920 --> 00:04:17,920 Speaker 1: the in the the trusts, so a hundred years ago UM. 65 00:04:18,440 --> 00:04:23,520 Speaker 1: And so they say that basically this, you know, pursuing 66 00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:27,400 Speaker 1: this framework has got us not has basically harm consumers 67 00:04:27,440 --> 00:04:32,000 Speaker 1: because it's led to these gigantic companies UM like technology 68 00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:38,200 Speaker 1: like in technology or very consolidated UM airline industry, UH, 69 00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:41,760 Speaker 1: A very consolidated banking industry. So you can look at 70 00:04:41,839 --> 00:04:45,480 Speaker 1: a number of different industries that UM that have consolidated 71 00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:50,680 Speaker 1: over the years, UH, and they say this has UM. 72 00:04:50,720 --> 00:04:53,760 Speaker 1: This may be in some cases led to lower prices 73 00:04:53,800 --> 00:04:56,839 Speaker 1: for consumers, but there have been other harms that the 74 00:04:56,880 --> 00:05:00,520 Speaker 1: framework or the consumer welfare standard has has sore, have missed, 75 00:05:00,520 --> 00:05:03,599 Speaker 1: and that those are harms that have affected UM workers 76 00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:08,280 Speaker 1: and other elements of supply chains in different industries. So, David, 77 00:05:08,440 --> 00:05:13,400 Speaker 1: are we seeing some shift in antitrust enforcement policies? For 78 00:05:13,440 --> 00:05:16,400 Speaker 1: example with the Justice Department going to court to stop 79 00:05:16,440 --> 00:05:19,279 Speaker 1: the merger of A T and T and Time Warner, 80 00:05:19,320 --> 00:05:24,240 Speaker 1: where they're not just looking at vertical versus horizontal. UM. 81 00:05:24,279 --> 00:05:27,200 Speaker 1: You know that that deal in particular was definitely a 82 00:05:27,240 --> 00:05:31,919 Speaker 1: shift UM. I don't think though, that it was because 83 00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:36,440 Speaker 1: of this hipster any trust movement, although they certainly supported 84 00:05:36,440 --> 00:05:40,640 Speaker 1: the challenge UM that that was certainly a shift in 85 00:05:40,680 --> 00:05:44,920 Speaker 1: that um because it was not a horizontal deal as 86 00:05:44,920 --> 00:05:48,440 Speaker 1: a vertical deal. Vertical deals had tended to be tended 87 00:05:48,480 --> 00:05:52,919 Speaker 1: to be approved with with conditions on how companies operated, 88 00:05:53,839 --> 00:05:56,360 Speaker 1: and that surprised a lot that the A T and 89 00:05:56,400 --> 00:06:00,800 Speaker 1: T lawsuit surprised a lot of people because, uh, um, 90 00:06:00,839 --> 00:06:02,800 Speaker 1: the government is going to court to block it and 91 00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:06,640 Speaker 1: basically saying there are no behavioral or conduct conditions that 92 00:06:06,640 --> 00:06:09,920 Speaker 1: that can fix um, that can fix the deal. So, 93 00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:12,200 Speaker 1: you know, I think it's still kind of early in 94 00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:15,160 Speaker 1: this administration to know whether their approach is going to 95 00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:18,719 Speaker 1: be significantly different UM or whether the you know, the 96 00:06:18,760 --> 00:06:21,440 Speaker 1: A T and T cases is sort of a one off, 97 00:06:22,720 --> 00:06:25,120 Speaker 1: but it has certainly that that case certainly has a 98 00:06:25,120 --> 00:06:27,680 Speaker 1: lot of people asking that question. Let's turn for a 99 00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:30,200 Speaker 1: few moments to Broadcom, which is one of the world's 100 00:06:30,240 --> 00:06:33,000 Speaker 1: largest chip makers through a string of acquisitions over the 101 00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:37,080 Speaker 1: past few years. It said it's under investigation by US 102 00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:42,120 Speaker 1: anti trust officials for potentially anti competitive conduct. Can you 103 00:06:42,160 --> 00:06:47,880 Speaker 1: explain what's happening with Broadcom. So the Broadcom Broadcom said 104 00:06:47,920 --> 00:06:51,400 Speaker 1: yesterday they put out a statement saying that the UM 105 00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:54,520 Speaker 1: at the Federal Trade Commission UM, which is the other 106 00:06:54,520 --> 00:06:59,600 Speaker 1: anti trust enforcement agency in the US, is investigating anti 107 00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:04,000 Speaker 1: competiti of conduct by the company. It didn't elaborate on 108 00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:08,200 Speaker 1: exactly what conduct that is, although it said that it's 109 00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:12,280 Speaker 1: not UM it's not related to their wireless business. This 110 00:07:12,400 --> 00:07:15,320 Speaker 1: is about I think UM. If it's not their wireless, 111 00:07:15,360 --> 00:07:20,480 Speaker 1: would be a sort of network UM network business UM. 112 00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:22,600 Speaker 1: So we don't know exactly what the FTC is concerned 113 00:07:22,640 --> 00:07:27,360 Speaker 1: about UM. I think the news of that investigation spooked 114 00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:31,280 Speaker 1: the market briefly because Broadcom is in the process of 115 00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:35,520 Speaker 1: trying to buy its rival, rival shipmaker call Calm, So 116 00:07:35,960 --> 00:07:38,720 Speaker 1: I think some investors were concerned that, well, if the 117 00:07:38,760 --> 00:07:44,320 Speaker 1: FDC is worried about broad coons con Broadcom's conduct, then 118 00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:48,560 Speaker 1: that might affect the merger review UM with the Call 119 00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:52,920 Speaker 1: Calm merger of view. So we'll have to see, we will, 120 00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:56,200 Speaker 1: and I'm sure there's a lot more antitrust at coming up. 121 00:07:56,280 --> 00:08:00,320 Speaker 1: Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg News legal reporter David mclauch Bucklin, 122 00:08:00,560 --> 00:08:02,920 Speaker 1: and you can read his article in the latest Bloomberg 123 00:08:02,920 --> 00:08:06,840 Speaker 1: Business Week. It's entitled Hipsters Versus Chicago, The Fight to 124 00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:16,200 Speaker 1: rewrite the Antitrust Playbook. Claims of executive privilege during Steve 125 00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:19,760 Speaker 1: Bannon's testimony at the House Intelligence Panel have thrown a 126 00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:23,200 Speaker 1: glaring spotlight on the potential conflicts of interest of White 127 00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:26,960 Speaker 1: House counsel Don McGan McGann has not only been interviewed 128 00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:29,960 Speaker 1: by investigators for the Special Counsel in the Russia probe, 129 00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:33,480 Speaker 1: Bannon's lawyer is also his lawyer, and McGann's office was 130 00:08:33,520 --> 00:08:36,600 Speaker 1: involved in instructing ban and on which questions from the 131 00:08:36,640 --> 00:08:40,000 Speaker 1: House panel he should answer he shouldn't answer, according to 132 00:08:40,000 --> 00:08:43,679 Speaker 1: a person familiar with the matter. Walter Shab, former director 133 00:08:43,679 --> 00:08:47,000 Speaker 1: of the Department of Government Ethics, spoke about McGann's position 134 00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:50,600 Speaker 1: with CNN earlier this month. He can try to hide 135 00:08:50,679 --> 00:08:53,520 Speaker 1: behind the I was only following orders. But that didn't 136 00:08:53,520 --> 00:08:56,040 Speaker 1: work at Nuremberg and it's not going to work here 137 00:08:56,120 --> 00:08:59,680 Speaker 1: because as an attorney, the president is not his client. 138 00:08:59,840 --> 00:09:02,840 Speaker 1: The Office of the President is is his client, and 139 00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:06,880 Speaker 1: he's ultimately answerable to the American people. Joining me is 140 00:09:06,920 --> 00:09:11,840 Speaker 1: Tom Schoenberg, Bloomberg News Financial Crime reporter Tom describe what 141 00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:15,360 Speaker 1: happened when these areas of concern to the White House 142 00:09:15,480 --> 00:09:18,959 Speaker 1: came up during Bannon's testimony. Sure, so, over the course 143 00:09:19,000 --> 00:09:21,720 Speaker 1: of about uh you know, about nine hours or so 144 00:09:22,160 --> 00:09:26,800 Speaker 1: that Steve Bannon was on the on Capitol Hill. Um, 145 00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:31,280 Speaker 1: a question would be asked, they would pause while his attorney, 146 00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:35,160 Speaker 1: Bill Burke would uh place a phone call to the 147 00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:38,000 Speaker 1: White House to get an answer as to whether or 148 00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:39,920 Speaker 1: not he can answer the question. And this went on, 149 00:09:40,000 --> 00:09:43,920 Speaker 1: and uh, you know they uh he refused then to 150 00:09:43,960 --> 00:09:47,080 Speaker 1: answer a number of questions about his time both in 151 00:09:47,160 --> 00:09:51,600 Speaker 1: the White House and even uh during the transition. Uh, 152 00:09:51,679 --> 00:09:54,600 Speaker 1: you know, the given the advice from the White House 153 00:09:54,640 --> 00:09:59,040 Speaker 1: being that they may want to assert executive privilege. So 154 00:09:59,240 --> 00:10:02,760 Speaker 1: McGann is supposed to defend the office of the president, 155 00:10:02,960 --> 00:10:06,280 Speaker 1: not the president himself. But he's also a witness to 156 00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:11,400 Speaker 1: controversial events under investigation by Muller and Congress and reportedly 157 00:10:11,559 --> 00:10:14,280 Speaker 1: took part in some of them. So he could be 158 00:10:14,320 --> 00:10:18,560 Speaker 1: a witness or possibly a defendant. What kind of potential 159 00:10:18,640 --> 00:10:21,920 Speaker 1: conflicts do you see there? Well, here, you know, at 160 00:10:21,920 --> 00:10:24,840 Speaker 1: the moment, it's it's kind of this, uh, this appearance 161 00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:28,400 Speaker 1: of possible conflict as far as we know Don McGann 162 00:10:28,520 --> 00:10:33,680 Speaker 1: hasn't recused himself from decisions on whether to assert executive privilege, 163 00:10:34,160 --> 00:10:40,439 Speaker 1: uh in questioning over the Russia the Russia matter, and um, 164 00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:43,440 Speaker 1: you know he's been someone who also has had this 165 00:10:43,520 --> 00:10:47,560 Speaker 1: front row seat. So uh, you know, it's it's sort 166 00:10:47,559 --> 00:10:51,040 Speaker 1: of looks a little strange when you potentially have kind 167 00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:54,920 Speaker 1: of one witness calling another witness, you know, for advice 168 00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:58,160 Speaker 1: on how to answer questions. And with lawyers, it is 169 00:10:58,200 --> 00:11:01,920 Speaker 1: the appearance of improprietor a that is also supposed to 170 00:11:01,920 --> 00:11:06,120 Speaker 1: be avoided. What is the line? Do we know what 171 00:11:06,200 --> 00:11:09,280 Speaker 1: the line is between defending the office and defending the 172 00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:12,280 Speaker 1: man in the office. Right, Well, well, defending the office, 173 00:11:12,320 --> 00:11:16,319 Speaker 1: I mean asserting executive privilege, um is kind of one 174 00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:18,880 Speaker 1: of your one of your jobs assessing whether that needs 175 00:11:18,920 --> 00:11:21,840 Speaker 1: to happen, because again, as White House counsel, you do 176 00:11:21,960 --> 00:11:26,280 Speaker 1: not necessarily want Congress, um and others to be able 177 00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:28,400 Speaker 1: to kind of pull in and get into the sort 178 00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:31,120 Speaker 1: of business and decision making of the White House. It's 179 00:11:31,120 --> 00:11:33,600 Speaker 1: one of the protections for the you know, for the 180 00:11:33,600 --> 00:11:35,320 Speaker 1: White House to be able to do its job. It 181 00:11:35,360 --> 00:11:38,359 Speaker 1: gets a little tricky in situations where you have investigations 182 00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:41,120 Speaker 1: that reach into the White House and reach into that 183 00:11:41,400 --> 00:11:43,559 Speaker 1: sort of role of the White House counsel where the 184 00:11:43,679 --> 00:11:46,880 Speaker 1: person's a potential witness, and this has come up, Uh, 185 00:11:46,960 --> 00:11:49,680 Speaker 1: you know, questions about that role has come up in 186 00:11:49,720 --> 00:11:55,280 Speaker 1: past administrations Nixon, Clinton, Uh, and those investigations, court rulings 187 00:11:55,280 --> 00:11:57,800 Speaker 1: that kind of came out of their kind of really 188 00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:02,000 Speaker 1: sort of limited, Uh, the protections of that sort of 189 00:12:02,040 --> 00:12:04,400 Speaker 1: that White House Council really asserted that they're there not 190 00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:07,000 Speaker 1: to protect the person in the office, but the office 191 00:12:07,040 --> 00:12:11,640 Speaker 1: of the presidency itself. Mcgan's lawyer not only represents Bannon, 192 00:12:11,840 --> 00:12:15,520 Speaker 1: but also Ryan's previous and there's nothing ethically wrong with 193 00:12:15,640 --> 00:12:18,960 Speaker 1: that at this point. But you spoke to Nicholas Allardin 194 00:12:19,160 --> 00:12:21,680 Speaker 1: of brook And Law School. Tell us what he said 195 00:12:21,679 --> 00:12:26,920 Speaker 1: about the difficulty of representing three people in the same matter. Sure, Um, 196 00:12:26,960 --> 00:12:30,680 Speaker 1: you know again you have three you have three sort 197 00:12:30,720 --> 00:12:35,760 Speaker 1: of key players here in this in this investigation, and um, 198 00:12:36,080 --> 00:12:38,560 Speaker 1: to just try and get your arms around what each 199 00:12:38,720 --> 00:12:41,040 Speaker 1: each one of those knows and their various sort of 200 00:12:41,760 --> 00:12:45,760 Speaker 1: rights and uh, you know, how they're gonna, how they're 201 00:12:45,760 --> 00:12:48,960 Speaker 1: answering questions or where they are and you know where 202 00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:51,839 Speaker 1: they kind of fit into the probe is a is 203 00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:55,200 Speaker 1: a pretty big job. You know. Bill Burke, the lawyer 204 00:12:55,280 --> 00:12:58,640 Speaker 1: for all three UM, He's a prominent defense lawyer in Washington. 205 00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:02,480 Speaker 1: He's handled uh, you know, big political cases in the past. 206 00:13:02,559 --> 00:13:06,520 Speaker 1: He represented UM Virginia Governor Bob McDonald's wife in a 207 00:13:06,559 --> 00:13:09,440 Speaker 1: corruption case there a few years ago. So he's a 208 00:13:09,520 --> 00:13:12,920 Speaker 1: very experienced individual and he knows how to do big 209 00:13:12,960 --> 00:13:16,640 Speaker 1: Also in corporate cases, where it's it's not that unusual 210 00:13:16,760 --> 00:13:19,920 Speaker 1: for a lawyer to handle uh, you know, represent kind 211 00:13:19,920 --> 00:13:25,000 Speaker 1: of multiple employees and a probe. I think the difference is, uh, 212 00:13:25,040 --> 00:13:27,920 Speaker 1: you know, it's it would be unusual for a single 213 00:13:28,000 --> 00:13:31,720 Speaker 1: lawyer to handle representation for a CEO CFO and the 214 00:13:31,760 --> 00:13:37,360 Speaker 1: CEO definitely now. And it comes up in criminal cases 215 00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:41,120 Speaker 1: where sometimes a lawyer at the beginning will represent two defendants, 216 00:13:41,160 --> 00:13:44,520 Speaker 1: but then if their interests diverge at all, the judge 217 00:13:44,520 --> 00:13:46,719 Speaker 1: will tell them that, you know, you need to get 218 00:13:46,720 --> 00:13:50,240 Speaker 1: a separate lawyer to protect your own interests. This hasn't 219 00:13:50,280 --> 00:13:53,400 Speaker 1: reached that point, but if it does, I take it 220 00:13:53,480 --> 00:13:57,000 Speaker 1: that Mueller will be there to say something, because he's 221 00:13:57,000 --> 00:14:00,640 Speaker 1: already challenged some of the lawyers who have uh to 222 00:14:00,880 --> 00:14:04,839 Speaker 1: interest tell me about that. Yeah, he Uh. So with 223 00:14:04,920 --> 00:14:07,760 Speaker 1: regards to the uh, the the cases, the case brought 224 00:14:07,800 --> 00:14:12,200 Speaker 1: against Paul Manafort and UH and Rick Gates. Um in 225 00:14:12,320 --> 00:14:16,440 Speaker 1: that matter, there was you know, a lawyer that Rick 226 00:14:16,480 --> 00:14:19,840 Speaker 1: Gates had had hired who uh, a New York lawyer 227 00:14:20,280 --> 00:14:23,920 Speaker 1: happened to also be involved in a current case that 228 00:14:24,720 --> 00:14:28,600 Speaker 1: Mueller's team felt, uh Gates could possibly be a witness 229 00:14:28,600 --> 00:14:30,360 Speaker 1: in that matter. So you had the lawyer kind of 230 00:14:30,360 --> 00:14:33,000 Speaker 1: representing a defendant in the case in New York as 231 00:14:33,040 --> 00:14:37,640 Speaker 1: well as Rick Gates who could potentially be a witness 232 00:14:37,640 --> 00:14:40,360 Speaker 1: in that case. And so the judge in the in 233 00:14:40,440 --> 00:14:45,400 Speaker 1: the Manafort Gates matter here in Washington, UH, she kind 234 00:14:45,400 --> 00:14:48,200 Speaker 1: of you know, had the party sort of explained to 235 00:14:48,240 --> 00:14:50,680 Speaker 1: her the situation, and at the end of the day, 236 00:14:50,760 --> 00:14:53,560 Speaker 1: you know, Gates was allowed to kind of keep his lawyer, 237 00:14:53,560 --> 00:14:56,920 Speaker 1: I think once all sort of the you know, everything 238 00:14:56,960 --> 00:14:58,640 Speaker 1: was kind of explained in terms of what he would 239 00:14:58,640 --> 00:15:01,280 Speaker 1: be giving up, you know, the the potential for harm there. 240 00:15:02,320 --> 00:15:05,000 Speaker 1: Something that has has come up in the news is 241 00:15:05,040 --> 00:15:09,960 Speaker 1: that though Bannon asserted, well, he kind assert executive PRIs 242 00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:12,960 Speaker 1: but though he refused to answer some questions based on 243 00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:16,920 Speaker 1: the president's claim of executive privilege when he goes to 244 00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:22,280 Speaker 1: talk to Mueller's investigators whenever that time is set up. Um, 245 00:15:22,680 --> 00:15:25,880 Speaker 1: people familiar say that he is not going to assert 246 00:15:26,000 --> 00:15:29,360 Speaker 1: executive privilege at that point. So does that put his 247 00:15:29,440 --> 00:15:34,120 Speaker 1: lawyer in a strange position? Yeah, it's uh, you know, 248 00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:39,560 Speaker 1: in these big investigations like this, He's Washington investigations. Um, 249 00:15:39,560 --> 00:15:43,040 Speaker 1: obviously the Hill, the Hill's probe isn't a criminal probe, right, 250 00:15:43,080 --> 00:15:45,840 Speaker 1: so you want to make sure that you're going to 251 00:15:45,920 --> 00:15:48,240 Speaker 1: be as open as possible when you do talk to 252 00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:52,040 Speaker 1: the sort of criminal investigators. And so you know, if 253 00:15:52,080 --> 00:15:55,600 Speaker 1: they were to assert executive privilege, and then we may 254 00:15:55,640 --> 00:15:58,280 Speaker 1: be in a situation like we have in past investigations 255 00:15:58,600 --> 00:16:01,360 Speaker 1: where uh M, there's team could challenge it next thing 256 00:16:01,400 --> 00:16:03,920 Speaker 1: and nowhere, and you know, we're creating some new uh 257 00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:07,160 Speaker 1: some new precedent um the type of which we haven't 258 00:16:07,160 --> 00:16:10,560 Speaker 1: seen in some years. Could it get any more complicated? 259 00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:14,720 Speaker 1: That's a rhetorical question. It will. Thanks for being here. 260 00:16:15,160 --> 00:16:19,480 Speaker 1: That's Tom Schoenberg, Bloomberg News Financial crime Reporter. Thanks for 261 00:16:19,560 --> 00:16:22,800 Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and 262 00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:26,120 Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts. SoundCloud and on 263 00:16:26,200 --> 00:16:30,920 Speaker 1: bloomberg dot com slash Podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is 264 00:16:30,960 --> 00:16:31,560 Speaker 1: Bloomberg