WEBVTT - Bloomberg Law Brief: US & UK Intelligence Relations (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

0:00:02.480 --> 0:00:05.360
<v Speaker 1>exploring legal issues in the news. It's ROSSI you buy

0:00:05.400 --> 0:00:10.320
<v Speaker 1>American Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business Dispute Resolve Faster

0:00:10.440 --> 0:00:13.640
<v Speaker 1>with the International Center for Dispute Resolution, the leader in

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:17.000
<v Speaker 1>alternative dispute resolution around the world i c d R

0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:20.320
<v Speaker 1>dot org. Today Bloomberg LAJO student Grosso and Greg Stuart

0:00:20.400 --> 0:00:24.680
<v Speaker 1>discussed strained relations between US and UK intelligence services after

0:00:24.720 --> 0:00:28.360
<v Speaker 1>information about the Manchester bombing leaked to US media. Is

0:00:28.440 --> 0:00:31.440
<v Speaker 1>seek at Bradley Moss, a partner at mark z PC,

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 1>and Andrew Kent, a professor at Fordham University Law School.

0:00:36.200 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>Will this affect intelligence sharing with the UK? Yeah, I

0:00:40.960 --> 0:00:43.280
<v Speaker 1>think it's hard to say. From what I can tell,

0:00:43.320 --> 0:00:46.720
<v Speaker 1>it's still unclear from whose side, you know, whether it's

0:00:46.920 --> 0:00:49.519
<v Speaker 1>the American or the US side the leaks came. I mean,

0:00:49.560 --> 0:00:52.920
<v Speaker 1>it seems Prime Minister May thinks it's from the American side,

0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:55.720
<v Speaker 1>and and maybe it is. But you know, these kinds

0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:58.040
<v Speaker 1>of leaks are pretty common. You know. The photos published

0:00:58.040 --> 0:01:00.760
<v Speaker 1>by the New York Times did not you know, I mean,

0:01:00.760 --> 0:01:03.560
<v Speaker 1>they're primecing photos, but do not seem to be amazingly

0:01:03.600 --> 0:01:05.960
<v Speaker 1>sensitive not not on the on the same order of

0:01:06.000 --> 0:01:09.839
<v Speaker 1>the kind of thing that President Trump apparently disclosed. So

0:01:10.160 --> 0:01:12.560
<v Speaker 1>I would be surprised if a you know, decades long,

0:01:12.640 --> 0:01:16.280
<v Speaker 1>incredibly strong and fruitural intelligence relationship between the UK and

0:01:16.319 --> 0:01:19.160
<v Speaker 1>the United States is you know, meaningfully harmed by this.

0:01:19.360 --> 0:01:22.720
<v Speaker 1>But you know, it certainly doesn't help Bradley UH Justice

0:01:22.760 --> 0:01:25.280
<v Speaker 1>Department apparently is going to look into this. What what

0:01:25.440 --> 0:01:29.360
<v Speaker 1>laws conceivably could have been broken by the leak of

0:01:29.400 --> 0:01:32.479
<v Speaker 1>this information? Well, by and large, the standard ones we've

0:01:32.520 --> 0:01:35.559
<v Speaker 1>heard with respect to any leak of classified information, even

0:01:35.600 --> 0:01:39.559
<v Speaker 1>class of information that's been shared by a UH foreign

0:01:39.560 --> 0:01:44.080
<v Speaker 1>partner government could conceivably fall under one of various statutory

0:01:44.120 --> 0:01:47.880
<v Speaker 1>provisions under the Espionage Act, or a couple of different

0:01:47.880 --> 0:01:53.160
<v Speaker 1>ones with respective misdemeanors for improperly removing classified information or

0:01:53.160 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 1>what's called national defense information. The question, of course, is

0:01:57.320 --> 0:01:59.400
<v Speaker 1>who you know, even assuming that this was a leak

0:01:59.520 --> 0:02:03.480
<v Speaker 1>from the U West side, what particular agencies or organizations

0:02:03.480 --> 0:02:05.600
<v Speaker 1>with the US government would have received it, And was

0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:07.840
<v Speaker 1>it from the intelligence community or was it coming from

0:02:07.880 --> 0:02:11.120
<v Speaker 1>White House officials. We just don't know yet. Is this

0:02:11.200 --> 0:02:13.400
<v Speaker 1>information to actually classify? Would you expect that to be

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:17.040
<v Speaker 1>the case. From what has been described, I am candidly

0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:21.079
<v Speaker 1>not certain. It sounds like it was likely at least sensitive.

0:02:21.120 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 1>Whether or not it met the definition for classified is

0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:26.840
<v Speaker 1>kind of up in the air, and that's going to

0:02:26.919 --> 0:02:30.160
<v Speaker 1>be part of the problem is there's very clear statutory

0:02:30.160 --> 0:02:36.000
<v Speaker 1>provisions in US law for criminalizing people who leak classified information.

0:02:36.440 --> 0:02:41.120
<v Speaker 1>When it comes to unclassified but sensitive information, it's a

0:02:41.120 --> 0:02:43.880
<v Speaker 1>lot harder to make a criminal case, if at all.

0:02:43.960 --> 0:02:46.320
<v Speaker 1>And if that's what that's what we have here. If

0:02:46.320 --> 0:02:49.760
<v Speaker 1>it's information that's not classified, it's a basis for possibly

0:02:49.840 --> 0:02:53.200
<v Speaker 1>firing the person who leaked it, but making a criminal

0:02:53.240 --> 0:02:56.960
<v Speaker 1>case is far more difficult. As Ranley Massa partner at

0:02:57.000 --> 0:02:59.919
<v Speaker 1>Mark Zade PC and Andrew Kentner, professor at Fordham you know,

0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:03.240
<v Speaker 1>Versity Law School speaking at Bloomberg La host Doing Grosso

0:03:03.280 --> 0:03:05.960
<v Speaker 1>and Greg Sture. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays

0:03:05.960 --> 0:03:09.120
<v Speaker 1>at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio

0:03:09.480 --> 0:03:11.600
<v Speaker 1>and that's this morning's Bloomberg Labrate. If you can find

0:03:11.639 --> 0:03:15.400
<v Speaker 1>more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg

0:03:15.480 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 1>b and A dot com. Attorneys will find exceptional legal

0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:21.239
<v Speaker 1>research and business development tools there as well. Visit Bloomberg

0:03:21.280 --> 0:03:23.880
<v Speaker 1>Law dot com and Bloomberg b and a dot com

0:03:23.960 --> 0:03:24.760
<v Speaker 1>for more information.