WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: White House Responds to Leaks (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:03.080
<v Speaker 1>Our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, now exploring legal issues in

0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:06.439
<v Speaker 1>the news, and it's brought to you by American Arbitration Association.

0:00:06.720 --> 0:00:11.400
<v Speaker 1>Business disputes are inevitable, resolve faster with the American Arbitration Association,

0:00:11.680 --> 0:00:15.920
<v Speaker 1>the global leader in alternative dispute resolution for over ninety years.

0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:19.599
<v Speaker 1>More at a d R dot org. Well, today we

0:00:19.720 --> 0:00:22.040
<v Speaker 1>turned to the story that was gripping Washington and the

0:00:22.079 --> 0:00:25.160
<v Speaker 1>White House before news of that memo from former FBI

0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:28.200
<v Speaker 1>Director James Comy came out last night. That's the Washington

0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 1>Post report that President Trump revealed classified intelligence documents to

0:00:32.200 --> 0:00:35.239
<v Speaker 1>Russia's top diplomat during a meeting last week. For the

0:00:35.320 --> 0:00:38.880
<v Speaker 1>legal implications of that story, Bloomberg Law host Student Grosso

0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 1>and Great Store speak to Stephen Vladik, a professor at

0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:46.199
<v Speaker 1>the University of Texas School of Law. Steve, before we

0:00:46.240 --> 0:00:48.919
<v Speaker 1>get deep deeper into the details of federal law law,

0:00:49.000 --> 0:00:51.239
<v Speaker 1>let's just get to the bottom line. Is it possible

0:00:51.240 --> 0:00:54.880
<v Speaker 1>that Donald Trump broke the law? So I think it's

0:00:54.960 --> 0:00:56.880
<v Speaker 1>possible he broke the law, and I think it's the

0:00:56.880 --> 0:01:00.240
<v Speaker 1>most important point for folks to take away is what

0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:03.720
<v Speaker 1>he actually did is not what's being described Um. So,

0:01:03.760 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 1>there are a lot of folks, you know, saying that

0:01:05.480 --> 0:01:09.640
<v Speaker 1>the president has the power to declassify whatever information he

0:01:09.720 --> 0:01:13.080
<v Speaker 1>chooses to declassify. That may very well be true. That's

0:01:13.120 --> 0:01:15.360
<v Speaker 1>not what he did, um right. And we know that

0:01:15.440 --> 0:01:19.800
<v Speaker 1>because if the President had declassified the information he you know,

0:01:19.880 --> 0:01:23.160
<v Speaker 1>apparently told to the Russians, the Washington Post would then

0:01:23.200 --> 0:01:25.200
<v Speaker 1>have reported it, right as to say, the Post would

0:01:25.200 --> 0:01:28.360
<v Speaker 1>have then told us exactly what it was. It's still classified.

0:01:28.400 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>What happened here was the President authorized the Foreign Minister

0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:34.680
<v Speaker 1>of Russia, the Russian ambassador of the U. S. And

0:01:34.720 --> 0:01:37.600
<v Speaker 1>whoever else is in that room to receive this class

0:01:37.600 --> 0:01:40.720
<v Speaker 1>that information. You know, that's a very different legal question

0:01:41.080 --> 0:01:43.480
<v Speaker 1>than whether the president can you know, going forward, for

0:01:43.520 --> 0:01:48.040
<v Speaker 1>all purposes declassify national security secrets. Is it also a

0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:52.600
<v Speaker 1>question he was not only declassifying national security secrets, but

0:01:52.640 --> 0:01:57.600
<v Speaker 1>he was declassifying our allies secrets. That's a great point.

0:01:57.640 --> 0:02:00.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, so I think that's relevant both legally and

0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:04.120
<v Speaker 1>um politically. So legally, you know, it's very possible that

0:02:04.160 --> 0:02:09.120
<v Speaker 1>we have formal agreements with foreign intelligence agencies, including whichever

0:02:09.240 --> 0:02:12.920
<v Speaker 1>foreign intelligence agency was responsible for the information issues here,

0:02:13.320 --> 0:02:17.360
<v Speaker 1>that actually limits the circumstances in which any US official,

0:02:17.520 --> 0:02:20.640
<v Speaker 1>including the president, is allowed to share information that we

0:02:20.720 --> 0:02:24.079
<v Speaker 1>receive from that foreign intelligence agency. Frankly, would be surprising

0:02:24.120 --> 0:02:26.240
<v Speaker 1>if we didn't have that kind of an agreement. So

0:02:26.280 --> 0:02:29.960
<v Speaker 1>it's possible that the president's disclosure, you know, also violated

0:02:30.080 --> 0:02:33.680
<v Speaker 1>that kind of of legal constraint, but also optically, I mean,

0:02:33.680 --> 0:02:36.560
<v Speaker 1>I think the real problem is here. Even if President

0:02:36.560 --> 0:02:39.880
<v Speaker 1>Trump didn't break the law, that damage this does to,

0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:43.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, the prospect of trying to ask other foreign

0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 1>intelligence agencies to share information with US going forward, frankly

0:02:48.000 --> 0:02:51.200
<v Speaker 1>as mind boggling. That is Stephen Vladi, a professor at

0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:54.320
<v Speaker 1>the University of Texas School of Law, speaking to Bloomberg

0:02:54.360 --> 0:02:56.960
<v Speaker 1>Law host John Grusso and Greg's store. You can listen

0:02:56.960 --> 0:03:00.560
<v Speaker 1>to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one BM whilst time here

0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:04.280
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg Radio. That is this Morning's Bloomberg Law Brief.

0:03:04.360 --> 0:03:07.800
<v Speaker 1>You can find more legal news Bloomberg lawn dot com

0:03:07.840 --> 0:03:11.880
<v Speaker 1>and Bloomberg Bena dot com. Attorneys will find exceptional legal

0:03:11.880 --> 0:03:15.200
<v Speaker 1>research and business development tools there as well. Visit Bloomberg

0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:19.519
<v Speaker 1>Lawn dot com and Bloomberg Bienna dot com for more information.