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 --> 00:00:22,119
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. A lot of

6
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:25,599
Speaker 1: activity at the Supreme Court on this Monday, oral arguments

7
00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:28,320
Speaker 1: in two major cases, and the Court rejected a Trump

8
00:00:28,360 --> 00:00:34,120
Speaker 1: Administration appeal aimed at ending deportation protections for young undocumented immigrants.

9
00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:37,360
Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store was there for it,

10
00:00:37,479 --> 00:00:40,800
Speaker 1: of course, and joins me, now so Greg. The Justices

11
00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:44,400
Speaker 1: turned down the administration's request to appeal the ruling that

12
00:00:44,440 --> 00:00:49,279
Speaker 1: has kept the doccer program in place. Tell us more so,

13
00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:52,600
Speaker 1: this was a really unusual maneuver, June. They were asking

14
00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:55,480
Speaker 1: that the administration was asking the Supreme Court to take

15
00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:58,480
Speaker 1: up this appeal even though the Appeals Court hadn't had

16
00:00:58,480 --> 00:01:00,720
Speaker 1: a chance to hear it first. It's something the Supreme

17
00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:06,000
Speaker 1: Court really very rarely does. It was in some ways

18
00:01:06,200 --> 00:01:10,560
Speaker 1: it was definitely a long shot appealed by the administration,

19
00:01:10,959 --> 00:01:13,640
Speaker 1: and without any publish the scent, the Supreme Court said

20
00:01:13,680 --> 00:01:15,360
Speaker 1: no we're not going to hear it now. We're not

21
00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:17,640
Speaker 1: saying you can't appeal at a later point, but but

22
00:01:17,760 --> 00:01:20,040
Speaker 1: we're staying out of it for now. And in a statement,

23
00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:22,240
Speaker 1: the White House said, we look forward to having this

24
00:01:22,319 --> 00:01:26,280
Speaker 1: case expeditiously heard by this Appeals Court and, if necessary,

25
00:01:26,319 --> 00:01:29,440
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, where we fully expect to prevail. So

26
00:01:29,480 --> 00:01:32,640
Speaker 1: I assume that they're going onto the Ninth Circuit, would

27
00:01:32,640 --> 00:01:34,720
Speaker 1: it be? That's right? So this case we'll go to

28
00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:36,880
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit. There is another case that is very

29
00:01:36,959 --> 00:01:41,120
Speaker 1: very similar. District judges issued a similar ruling in New York,

30
00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:43,520
Speaker 1: and that one will go up to the Second Circuit. Uh,

31
00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:46,720
Speaker 1: So we're gonna have a multifront battle here. Uh. It

32
00:01:46,840 --> 00:01:49,080
Speaker 1: could ultimately get back up to the Supreme Court. On

33
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:52,280
Speaker 1: the other hand, we could see action by Congress that

34
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:56,040
Speaker 1: would make this entire legal legal fight mood. So this

35
00:01:56,160 --> 00:01:59,920
Speaker 1: was a day that an argument today that unions were dreading.

36
00:02:00,080 --> 00:02:04,320
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court considered an issue about mandatory union fees

37
00:02:04,720 --> 00:02:08,120
Speaker 1: that it's considered before. What was the highlight of the

38
00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:10,960
Speaker 1: oral arguments or how would you describe them? Well, they

39
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:14,920
Speaker 1: were very contentious among uh, seven of the nine justices

40
00:02:15,000 --> 00:02:18,240
Speaker 1: and along the lines you would expect the more liberal

41
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:22,960
Speaker 1: justices uh, Ginsburg, Briar, Kagan, Soda, and your We're all

42
00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:26,399
Speaker 1: highly skeptical of the idea that you could have, uh,

43
00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:28,440
Speaker 1: that there was a free speech right to object to

44
00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:32,000
Speaker 1: these mandatory fees that pay for the cost of collective bargaining.

45
00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:35,679
Speaker 1: And UH the more conservative justices uh seem to be

46
00:02:35,760 --> 00:02:38,520
Speaker 1: much more supportive. That's what we expected. The two justices

47
00:02:38,600 --> 00:02:41,480
Speaker 1: we didn't hear from Clarence Thomas, who never speaks at arguments,

48
00:02:41,480 --> 00:02:45,079
Speaker 1: and crucially Neil Gorsch, who we know is going to

49
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:48,560
Speaker 1: cast the deciding vote in this case, because when the

50
00:02:48,600 --> 00:02:51,800
Speaker 1: Court took up this issue two years ago and Justice

51
00:02:51,840 --> 00:02:55,120
Speaker 1: Scalia died and left a vacancy, the other eight justices

52
00:02:55,160 --> 00:02:58,240
Speaker 1: split four to four, and that means that Justice Corsett,

53
00:02:58,280 --> 00:03:00,960
Speaker 1: who has since joined the Court will be the one

54
00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:03,519
Speaker 1: to cast of deciding vote. To the expectations, he will

55
00:03:03,919 --> 00:03:07,040
Speaker 1: uh side with uh the free speech objection and say

56
00:03:07,080 --> 00:03:10,360
Speaker 1: mandatory union fees are unconstitutional. But he didn't say a

57
00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:13,799
Speaker 1: word during the argument today, So Gregg, is that pretty

58
00:03:13,840 --> 00:03:16,120
Speaker 1: unusual for him? I mean, I know there have been

59
00:03:16,160 --> 00:03:19,320
Speaker 1: times that he hasn't asked questions, but he's normally pretty

60
00:03:20,200 --> 00:03:24,239
Speaker 1: h active, loquacious. Yes, he is very he is very active.

61
00:03:24,280 --> 00:03:27,799
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's extremely active. There has been at least one

62
00:03:27,880 --> 00:03:32,760
Speaker 1: or two other cases where he didn't ask any questions. Uh. So, yes,

63
00:03:32,800 --> 00:03:35,920
Speaker 1: it is unusual. You know, it may have uh you

64
00:03:35,960 --> 00:03:39,280
Speaker 1: know that this is certainly a case where he doesn't

65
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:42,520
Speaker 1: have to try to convince anybody uh in the courtroom.

66
00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:44,680
Speaker 1: And maybe that's one reason he decided not to say anything.

67
00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:47,720
Speaker 1: The other members of members of the court seem to

68
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:50,000
Speaker 1: have made up their minds, so uh, there might not

69
00:03:50,040 --> 00:03:52,680
Speaker 1: have been a reason for him to uh to speak,

70
00:03:52,760 --> 00:03:55,320
Speaker 1: or that might be one fewer reason for him to speak.

71
00:03:55,680 --> 00:03:57,240
Speaker 1: He didn't apparently have a lot to say in the

72
00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:00,200
Speaker 1: in the argument afterwards. I wasn't there for but I

73
00:04:00,240 --> 00:04:03,440
Speaker 1: understand and and I trust case involving America Express, he

74
00:04:03,480 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 1: had a ton of questions. So it's not like he's

75
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:08,840
Speaker 1: he's forgotten how to ask. It's uh, it's it's it's

76
00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:11,600
Speaker 1: a it's very unusual. I don't know well how what

77
00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:14,560
Speaker 1: to read into it actually either, But so let's talk

78
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:17,520
Speaker 1: a little bit. Is this the exact same issue that

79
00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:21,520
Speaker 1: was before the Supreme Court when they tied for four

80
00:04:22,279 --> 00:04:24,680
Speaker 1: It is basically the exact same issue. It's a it's

81
00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:28,400
Speaker 1: a somewhat different context that that case involved a California

82
00:04:28,480 --> 00:04:33,800
Speaker 1: teacher's ruling. This case involves a UH Illinois and a

83
00:04:33,920 --> 00:04:38,320
Speaker 1: child support specialist and the union UH that represents him

84
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:42,960
Speaker 1: in negotiations. But it is essentially the same argument, which

85
00:04:43,040 --> 00:04:46,400
Speaker 1: is that UH people objecting to these fees say, when

86
00:04:46,400 --> 00:04:49,880
Speaker 1: the union is negotiating a contract, they are taught they

87
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:54,320
Speaker 1: are UH discussing matters of public concern, and I disagree

88
00:04:54,320 --> 00:04:56,520
Speaker 1: with the union, and therefore I have a free speech

89
00:04:56,600 --> 00:05:00,120
Speaker 1: right not to have to pay money UH that to

90
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:02,520
Speaker 1: help the union out there. The argument on the other

91
00:05:02,560 --> 00:05:06,520
Speaker 1: side is that, UM, there is this governmental interest in

92
00:05:06,720 --> 00:05:11,040
Speaker 1: having what people call labor peace and having a well

93
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:18,239
Speaker 1: organized and coherent and UH peaceful process of of reaching

94
00:05:18,320 --> 00:05:21,600
Speaker 1: agreement with the union, and when you let people opt out,

95
00:05:21,920 --> 00:05:25,120
Speaker 1: you you threatened to undercut that entire process. So we've

96
00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:28,800
Speaker 1: talked about the Boot case before. Would the Supreme Court

97
00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:32,680
Speaker 1: have to directly overrule that case? Or is there a

98
00:05:32,680 --> 00:05:35,799
Speaker 1: ways to get around it? They are being directly directly

99
00:05:35,800 --> 00:05:38,000
Speaker 1: asked to do that. That's the nineteen seventy seven ruling

100
00:05:38,080 --> 00:05:41,400
Speaker 1: that that said that it is constitutional to require workers

101
00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:45,520
Speaker 1: to pay these fees. UM. In the earlier case from

102
00:05:45,520 --> 00:05:47,960
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago, two years ago, Uh, there

103
00:05:48,080 --> 00:05:51,520
Speaker 1: was another an offering for the court where they might

104
00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:55,960
Speaker 1: have said something about just giving workers a more clear

105
00:05:56,040 --> 00:05:58,599
Speaker 1: right to opt out of paying those fees or to

106
00:05:58,680 --> 00:06:01,279
Speaker 1: require them to opt in in order in order, but

107
00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:04,599
Speaker 1: before they are built for these fees. Uh, that particular

108
00:06:04,680 --> 00:06:07,839
Speaker 1: off rap is not available for the court in this case.

109
00:06:07,839 --> 00:06:10,400
Speaker 1: Nobody has suggested it. So it's a pretty direct attack

110
00:06:10,480 --> 00:06:13,080
Speaker 1: on on the Aboud ruling. So we only have a

111
00:06:13,160 --> 00:06:20,039
Speaker 1: minute here. So how do the conservative justices justify overturning precedent? Well,

112
00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:22,880
Speaker 1: the Well, essentially there are a number of reasons, but

113
00:06:23,000 --> 00:06:25,200
Speaker 1: part of it is that they say the argument today

114
00:06:25,320 --> 00:06:28,000
Speaker 1: was that that precedent is out of step both with

115
00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:32,599
Speaker 1: rulings before it came out and with rulings after uh,

116
00:06:32,640 --> 00:06:37,719
Speaker 1: and that uh it was incorrectly decided, and uh that

117
00:06:37,800 --> 00:06:41,560
Speaker 1: worker for free speech rides should should be vindicated in

118
00:06:41,560 --> 00:06:46,000
Speaker 1: this case. Well, maybe the court will surprise us everyone, everyone,

119
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:50,960
Speaker 1: the union side and and the the employment side, everyone,

120
00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:53,600
Speaker 1: and including you. I'm sure think that this is going

121
00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:57,760
Speaker 1: to go uh the way of against unions. But you

122
00:06:57,880 --> 00:07:00,440
Speaker 1: never know. Greg. Thank you so much. It's always a

123
00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:03,320
Speaker 1: pleasure to have you on. That's Bloomberg News Supreme Court

124
00:07:03,360 --> 00:07:10,840
Speaker 1: reporter Greg Store. In the saga of the dueling memos,

125
00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:14,920
Speaker 1: on Saturday, a House panel released a lengthy, extensively redacted

126
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:18,600
Speaker 1: Democratic response to the Republican memo that alleged bias and

127
00:07:18,680 --> 00:07:22,040
Speaker 1: misconduct by the FBI and Justice Department early in their

128
00:07:22,040 --> 00:07:26,040
Speaker 1: investigation of Russian election interference. The White House signed off

129
00:07:26,080 --> 00:07:29,160
Speaker 1: on the release of the memo following negotiations between the

130
00:07:29,240 --> 00:07:33,000
Speaker 1: FBI and the committee's top Democrat, Adam Schiff over what

131
00:07:33,080 --> 00:07:36,440
Speaker 1: should be redacted in the document. On CNN State of

132
00:07:36,440 --> 00:07:39,240
Speaker 1: the Union Friday, Shift said the FBI gave all the

133
00:07:39,320 --> 00:07:43,040
Speaker 1: necessary political context to the fies A Court, but followed

134
00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:47,760
Speaker 1: FBI practice. It's ironic that Republicans would attack the FBI

135
00:07:47,880 --> 00:07:52,080
Speaker 1: for following their procedures, which require that they minimize the

136
00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:54,880
Speaker 1: names of US persons and U S entities that are

137
00:07:54,920 --> 00:07:57,480
Speaker 1: not the subject of a warrant. So even Hillary Clinton

138
00:07:57,560 --> 00:08:00,280
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump are referred to as candidate one in

139
00:08:00,360 --> 00:08:03,720
Speaker 1: Candidate to they're supposed to mask the identities of people.

140
00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:06,800
Speaker 1: Trump took to Twitter and called the memo a total

141
00:08:06,840 --> 00:08:10,440
Speaker 1: political and legal bust. Joining me is William Banks, professor

142
00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:13,720
Speaker 1: at Syracuse University Law School. Bill. We'll look at the

143
00:08:13,800 --> 00:08:17,120
Speaker 1: individual claims in a moment. But taking the Democratic memo

144
00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:21,080
Speaker 1: as a whole, how well does it rebut Republican claims

145
00:08:21,120 --> 00:08:25,840
Speaker 1: about FBI bias in the FISER process. I take it

146
00:08:25,880 --> 00:08:31,320
Speaker 1: rebuts the claims pretty effectively. The two parts really, One

147
00:08:31,480 --> 00:08:35,000
Speaker 1: is the part that Representative Shift just reviewed. That is

148
00:08:35,080 --> 00:08:40,840
Speaker 1: that the failure to identify steal or his backers, who

149
00:08:40,880 --> 00:08:45,200
Speaker 1: was simply the FBI following rules that are always applied

150
00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:49,440
Speaker 1: in the fiser process. It's called minimization. Uh. It's it's

151
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:56,800
Speaker 1: ironically a controversy that Representative Nunas brought up himself about unmasking.

152
00:08:57,000 --> 00:09:02,040
Speaker 1: So the masking was high the appropriate here, and of

153
00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:07,280
Speaker 1: course the context of the memo reveals that the fives

154
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:10,440
Speaker 1: of court judges could certainly have told that there was

155
00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:17,120
Speaker 1: a political UH operators that was behind the so called dossier.

156
00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:20,680
Speaker 1: Second thing is that on the facts, it shows that

157
00:09:20,800 --> 00:09:25,880
Speaker 1: indeed they knew about Gates and his activities well before

158
00:09:25,960 --> 00:09:30,240
Speaker 1: the dossier was ever prepared or at least in the

159
00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:33,160
Speaker 1: hands of the FBI. And of course Gates had been

160
00:09:33,520 --> 00:09:38,480
Speaker 1: the subject of the FBI interest since at least the

161
00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:44,320
Speaker 1: car to Page. Yes, okay um, So the Democrat memo

162
00:09:44,400 --> 00:09:48,400
Speaker 1: suggests the FBI had independent reasons for investigating car to Page,

163
00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:53,160
Speaker 1: but they were redacted from the memo, weren't they? Many

164
00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:56,400
Speaker 1: of them were because again of the intelligence sources and

165
00:09:56,480 --> 00:09:58,960
Speaker 1: methods that would be revealed here. You know, we have

166
00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:02,120
Speaker 1: to back up and rema umber that the newest Memo

167
00:10:02,240 --> 00:10:07,000
Speaker 1: itself was an extraordinary breach of the usual protocol, of

168
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:11,559
Speaker 1: the not usual, but of the unanimously followed protocol and

169
00:10:11,840 --> 00:10:14,680
Speaker 1: rising instances, which is that we do not see the

170
00:10:14,760 --> 00:10:19,760
Speaker 1: surveillance application. We see pieces of it now because of

171
00:10:19,800 --> 00:10:24,679
Speaker 1: the newest Memo, and then the Democratic response had to

172
00:10:24,720 --> 00:10:27,840
Speaker 1: act in kind. We shouldn't have ever seen any of this,

173
00:10:28,240 --> 00:10:31,360
Speaker 1: and that's the underlying point here. And because of the

174
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:34,560
Speaker 1: gravity of the threat to intelligent sources and methods, were

175
00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:38,040
Speaker 1: certainly not going to learn the missing pieces of information

176
00:10:38,160 --> 00:10:41,640
Speaker 1: that now we'd all like to have. So one of

177
00:10:41,679 --> 00:10:46,320
Speaker 1: the questions was the role of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

178
00:10:46,840 --> 00:10:50,360
Speaker 1: He approved at least one of the FBI's applications to

179
00:10:50,400 --> 00:10:53,800
Speaker 1: extend the surveillance of Carter page. What did you learn

180
00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:58,880
Speaker 1: from the Democratic memo? Well, we learned that again Rosenstein,

181
00:10:59,240 --> 00:11:04,120
Speaker 1: like his predecessor, had multiple sources of information upon which

182
00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:07,719
Speaker 1: to rely and deciding whether or not to approve an application.

183
00:11:08,400 --> 00:11:11,880
Speaker 1: And as we've discussed before June on the program, when

184
00:11:11,960 --> 00:11:15,800
Speaker 1: fires applications have made, they go to an extensive set

185
00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:19,840
Speaker 1: of vetting inside the Department of Justice before the Deputy

186
00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:24,360
Speaker 1: Attorney General finally signs off. So Rosenstein wouldn't have signed

187
00:11:24,360 --> 00:11:27,120
Speaker 1: off on the basis of Steel Dostier. He would have

188
00:11:27,160 --> 00:11:29,640
Speaker 1: signed off on the basis of a complete set of

189
00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:32,880
Speaker 1: materials that would have built a probable cause case that

190
00:11:33,000 --> 00:11:35,559
Speaker 1: he thought they could reputively make before the five of

191
00:11:35,679 --> 00:11:39,120
Speaker 1: Court bill. Let me ask you this came out, it's

192
00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:42,040
Speaker 1: been it seems like longer than it has been since

193
00:11:42,080 --> 00:11:45,959
Speaker 1: the since the Republican memo came out. It's been quite

194
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:50,000
Speaker 1: a while, and it's almost out of the immediate consciousness

195
00:11:50,000 --> 00:11:53,240
Speaker 1: of the public, certainly out of the immediate news cycle.

196
00:11:54,000 --> 00:11:56,719
Speaker 1: Is it wise to bring this up again, to resurrect

197
00:11:56,840 --> 00:11:59,640
Speaker 1: all the questions again and have people looking at this again.

198
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:03,319
Speaker 1: For the Democrats, I mean right now, I think they

199
00:12:03,400 --> 00:12:08,240
Speaker 1: were less had to respond because this news memo cast

200
00:12:08,280 --> 00:12:10,959
Speaker 1: the Democrats in a very poor light and cast the

201
00:12:11,040 --> 00:12:15,720
Speaker 1: Fiser Court and the Department of Justice, with Rosenstein leading

202
00:12:15,720 --> 00:12:18,640
Speaker 1: the charge, as partisan and their motives. I think the memo,

203
00:12:19,400 --> 00:12:22,400
Speaker 1: the Shift memo, clearly shows that that was not the case.

204
00:12:22,960 --> 00:12:25,600
Speaker 1: Now we should all forget about all of this because

205
00:12:25,679 --> 00:12:29,520
Speaker 1: both of the most absolutely add nothing to our knowledge

206
00:12:29,720 --> 00:12:34,079
Speaker 1: of the underlying question, which is Russian involvement in our elections,

207
00:12:34,080 --> 00:12:37,480
Speaker 1: and then secondarily whether the Trump administration had something to

208
00:12:37,520 --> 00:12:40,520
Speaker 1: do with it. So this was part of the attack

209
00:12:40,640 --> 00:12:44,920
Speaker 1: on the FBI. But since then the FBI has come

210
00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:48,880
Speaker 1: under attack again because of the tip it received in

211
00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:52,680
Speaker 1: January from someone close to the Florida shooter and some

212
00:12:52,760 --> 00:12:56,480
Speaker 1: other information it received that it didn't follow up. So

213
00:12:56,760 --> 00:13:01,520
Speaker 1: how much does this do to resurrect the opinion of

214
00:13:01,559 --> 00:13:06,640
Speaker 1: the FBI for many people who have been disappointed with

215
00:13:06,679 --> 00:13:11,800
Speaker 1: the organization. The Florida incident is, of course horrific and

216
00:13:12,360 --> 00:13:16,840
Speaker 1: deserves careful scrutiny. I think that these two memos should

217
00:13:16,880 --> 00:13:20,720
Speaker 1: be quickly put in the and the so called recycled

218
00:13:20,720 --> 00:13:24,720
Speaker 1: them and never thought of again, because they add nothing

219
00:13:24,800 --> 00:13:28,080
Speaker 1: to our knowledge about the underlying questions. And I don't

220
00:13:28,120 --> 00:13:30,600
Speaker 1: think they reflect poorly on the FBI, and I think

221
00:13:30,640 --> 00:13:35,000
Speaker 1: the two memos read together, you know, the the Democratic

222
00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:38,719
Speaker 1: memo rebuts the Republicans on the facts, and indeed, the

223
00:13:38,760 --> 00:13:42,520
Speaker 1: Republican response to the Shift Memo over the weekend was

224
00:13:42,880 --> 00:13:45,960
Speaker 1: not to quibble with them on their interpretation of the facts,

225
00:13:46,000 --> 00:13:50,199
Speaker 1: that simply to make allegations again about partisan leanings. As

226
00:13:50,240 --> 00:13:54,040
Speaker 1: the facts are read, the FBI was balanced in making

227
00:13:54,120 --> 00:13:56,560
Speaker 1: its request to the five the Court, as they always

228
00:13:56,559 --> 00:13:59,880
Speaker 1: have been. And how many people do you think actually

229
00:14:00,040 --> 00:14:04,360
Speaker 1: read one or both of these memos? A few of

230
00:14:04,440 --> 00:14:08,559
Speaker 1: US legal academics and some other said political operatives, a

231
00:14:08,679 --> 00:14:11,600
Speaker 1: journalists in Washington. I hope not too many because the

232
00:14:11,640 --> 00:14:15,319
Speaker 1: Shift memo, the Shift Memo was long and pretty detailed.

233
00:14:16,080 --> 00:14:19,000
Speaker 1: It was It's ten pages with a lot of redactions,

234
00:14:19,560 --> 00:14:21,480
Speaker 1: and I think they were forced to go to that

235
00:14:21,560 --> 00:14:27,200
Speaker 1: length to clearly respond to the factual allegations inside the

236
00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:32,120
Speaker 1: neonest mammo. So well, perhaps this will be it'll be

237
00:14:32,120 --> 00:14:36,240
Speaker 1: a long time before we hear about another FISA application.

238
00:14:36,360 --> 00:14:39,400
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Bill. As always, that's William Banks. He's

239
00:14:39,400 --> 00:14:43,760
Speaker 1: a professor at Syracuse University Law School. Thanks for listening

240
00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:47,040
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen

241
00:14:47,080 --> 00:14:50,680
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg

242
00:14:50,720 --> 00:14:55,440
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg