WEBVTT - Wells Fargo Plunges After Fed Growth Ban

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.440
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.000
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.759
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Central bank enforcement

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:26.160
<v Speaker 1>actions against banks have been ratcheting up in recent years,

0:00:26.280 --> 0:00:28.840
<v Speaker 1>and now Wells Fargo has been hit with a sanction

0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:33.960
<v Speaker 1>called unprecedented by FETE officials. After markets closed on Friday, Janet,

0:00:34.000 --> 0:00:36.960
<v Speaker 1>Yellen's final work day in office, the FED announced a

0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:39.920
<v Speaker 1>harsh new punishment for Wells Fargo, which has been involved

0:00:39.920 --> 0:00:43.239
<v Speaker 1>in scandal after scandal. The FED banned the bank from

0:00:43.280 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 1>growing until it convinces authorities it's fixed. It's many problems. Yellen,

0:00:47.720 --> 0:00:52.000
<v Speaker 1>speaking on CBS Sunday Morning yesterday, cautioned against rolling back

0:00:52.120 --> 0:00:57.520
<v Speaker 1>enforcement of banks. They are now much safer, much sounder,

0:00:57.880 --> 0:01:01.040
<v Speaker 1>and much better at managing their rit and it would

0:01:01.040 --> 0:01:04.840
<v Speaker 1>be a grief mistake to rules that back. My guess

0:01:04.840 --> 0:01:08.680
<v Speaker 1>is Robert Hockett, professor at Cornell Law School, Bob, how

0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:14.120
<v Speaker 1>harsh and how unusual is this action against Wells Fargo. Well, Hi, Jane,

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:16.759
<v Speaker 1>thanks for having me on it's actually not as harsh

0:01:16.800 --> 0:01:19.839
<v Speaker 1>as one might have thought. It's definitely unprecedented, and that's

0:01:19.959 --> 0:01:22.839
<v Speaker 1>what's sort of interesting about this. It's unprecedented, I think

0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:26.400
<v Speaker 1>precisely because the regulators were trying to decide whether there's

0:01:26.440 --> 0:01:29.920
<v Speaker 1>some sort of potent form of enforcement that nevertheless falls

0:01:30.040 --> 0:01:33.720
<v Speaker 1>short of the much more severe enforcement actions that the

0:01:33.720 --> 0:01:37.240
<v Speaker 1>FED could have taken. Describe what the action actually is.

0:01:38.560 --> 0:01:41.440
<v Speaker 1>So essentially it's a limitation placed on the right of

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:44.520
<v Speaker 1>the institution to grow. And what that means is it's

0:01:44.560 --> 0:01:47.200
<v Speaker 1>going to be limited as to the size of its

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:50.600
<v Speaker 1>asset portfolio until it convinces the ft that it has

0:01:50.600 --> 0:01:54.640
<v Speaker 1>taken appropriate action directed by its internal governance and law

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:59.000
<v Speaker 1>compliance measures or programs. So essentially what they're saying is okay,

0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:02.520
<v Speaker 1>well as a sort frozen at its current size. Um.

0:02:02.600 --> 0:02:05.040
<v Speaker 1>Now that's a punishment in the sense that in two senses,

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:07.600
<v Speaker 1>I guess. On the one hand, banks typically do like

0:02:07.720 --> 0:02:10.720
<v Speaker 1>to grow their asset uh portfolio is because, of course,

0:02:10.720 --> 0:02:13.120
<v Speaker 1>that means that they're standing to it to yield higher

0:02:13.120 --> 0:02:16.160
<v Speaker 1>profits to their shareholders. In that sense, it hurts. But

0:02:16.240 --> 0:02:19.040
<v Speaker 1>more importantly, I think it hurts because it gets a

0:02:19.040 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>lot of attention precisely because it's an unusual form of sanction,

0:02:23.560 --> 0:02:25.880
<v Speaker 1>and that means that the public is once again paying

0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:28.880
<v Speaker 1>close attention to repeat offender and to the fact that

0:02:29.200 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 1>Wells is a repeat offender. Major US banks have bounced

0:02:33.639 --> 0:02:36.960
<v Speaker 1>back from past crackdowns. Do you expect this to be

0:02:36.960 --> 0:02:41.600
<v Speaker 1>any different? I'm sorry? Is what major US banks have

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:46.360
<v Speaker 1>bounced back from these crackdowns before, Morgan, Chase, City Group, etcetera.

0:02:46.440 --> 0:02:50.160
<v Speaker 1>Do you expect it to be any different for Wells Cards? No?

0:02:50.480 --> 0:02:52.480
<v Speaker 1>I actually don't. I mean, at least I don't expect

0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:54.800
<v Speaker 1>it to be any different if they actually do correct

0:02:54.800 --> 0:02:57.480
<v Speaker 1>what's been going on internally, and it looks as that

0:02:57.520 --> 0:02:59.080
<v Speaker 1>they're trying to do that. As you know, there's a

0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:01.800
<v Speaker 1>major shuffle has been underway on the board and that

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:04.720
<v Speaker 1>is itself, that's to say, the Wales Board and that

0:03:04.880 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 1>is itself and attempts to sort of get a wrap

0:03:07.400 --> 0:03:10.079
<v Speaker 1>on or get a get a grip on its internal

0:03:10.120 --> 0:03:14.240
<v Speaker 1>compliance problems and to sort of impose a discipline within

0:03:14.280 --> 0:03:16.440
<v Speaker 1>the organization, which apparently has been rather difficult for the

0:03:16.480 --> 0:03:19.000
<v Speaker 1>board to do in the past. What else does it

0:03:19.080 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>have to do, Bob in order to get to fix

0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 1>its problems Well one thing is to develop, typically with

0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:31.000
<v Speaker 1>an outside consultant and effective form of internal compliance procedure.

0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:34.360
<v Speaker 1>That can include hotlines or anonymous tip lines for employees

0:03:34.400 --> 0:03:37.000
<v Speaker 1>to be able to report abuses that they see going on.

0:03:37.600 --> 0:03:41.800
<v Speaker 1>It can include uh sort of heavier reporting requirements that

0:03:42.160 --> 0:03:44.640
<v Speaker 1>higher ups might place on those lower down to ensure

0:03:44.680 --> 0:03:47.320
<v Speaker 1>that they're all complying with the law, any number of

0:03:47.360 --> 0:03:49.960
<v Speaker 1>such things. And then the second thing is that it's

0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>typical to seek some kind of endorsement of the measures

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 1>that have been adopted from some outside so called reputational intermediary,

0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:01.680
<v Speaker 1>which could could be any number of intermediaries, including the

0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:04.680
<v Speaker 1>standard of PORES or fits or you name it. UM.

0:04:04.760 --> 0:04:07.840
<v Speaker 1>And if the board, the FED board that is, finally

0:04:07.880 --> 0:04:13.440
<v Speaker 1>becomes satisfied UH with the warrant of reputational intermediaries that

0:04:13.640 --> 0:04:17.640
<v Speaker 1>the internal compliance procedures adopted by Wells are substantial and

0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:20.960
<v Speaker 1>indeed likely to work, that could indeed see a relaxation

0:04:21.000 --> 0:04:25.080
<v Speaker 1>than of the sanction looking forward as far as other

0:04:25.120 --> 0:04:28.520
<v Speaker 1>banks are concerned to are looking at this harsh penalty.

0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:32.479
<v Speaker 1>President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he wants to loosen

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:36.800
<v Speaker 1>constraints on the financial industry, so does this harsh penalty

0:04:36.920 --> 0:04:41.040
<v Speaker 1>signal a new reality or is it Yellin's final salvo.

0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:45.000
<v Speaker 1>I think it signifies just the same reality as we

0:04:45.080 --> 0:04:47.160
<v Speaker 1>had before. To tell you the truth, a couple of

0:04:47.320 --> 0:04:49.520
<v Speaker 1>couple of reasons for that. The first is, as I

0:04:49.560 --> 0:04:52.640
<v Speaker 1>mentioned earlier, it is possible for the regulators to impose

0:04:52.760 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 1>much more difficult, much more onerous sanctions, including monetary fines

0:04:56.520 --> 0:05:00.279
<v Speaker 1>or even imprisonment or regulatory sanctions against individual human beings

0:05:00.279 --> 0:05:03.000
<v Speaker 1>who make decisions in an organization. And I note that

0:05:03.040 --> 0:05:05.159
<v Speaker 1>the FETE has not done anything quite like that in

0:05:05.160 --> 0:05:07.920
<v Speaker 1>connection with Wales, so in that sense, it's not that unusual.

0:05:07.920 --> 0:05:11.080
<v Speaker 1>It's also I mean, it's not that that's harsh, um uh,

0:05:11.120 --> 0:05:13.920
<v Speaker 1>And it doesn't really change. It's a significant move away

0:05:13.960 --> 0:05:16.320
<v Speaker 1>from where we were in the previous two or three years.

0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:19.200
<v Speaker 1>For another thing, is you know, Trump has suggested that

0:05:19.200 --> 0:05:22.560
<v Speaker 1>while he wants to relax the various regulatory requirements and

0:05:22.560 --> 0:05:24.800
<v Speaker 1>the like, he has also been claiming that he wants

0:05:24.839 --> 0:05:28.120
<v Speaker 1>the penalties to be harsh for those who nevertheless violate

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:30.720
<v Speaker 1>what rules remain. Now, of course, we always have to

0:05:30.760 --> 0:05:32.839
<v Speaker 1>say what Mr Trump says with a grain of salty

0:05:32.920 --> 0:05:35.560
<v Speaker 1>might say something different. Tomorrow. But there's no I think

0:05:35.640 --> 0:05:37.760
<v Speaker 1>signal at this point that there's going to be some

0:05:37.839 --> 0:05:39.359
<v Speaker 1>fun of it will change in the way that we

0:05:39.440 --> 0:05:43.240
<v Speaker 1>deal with banks, the size of of wells. This was

0:05:43.279 --> 0:05:45.960
<v Speaker 1>a consent degree, so perhaps they had to give a

0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:48.480
<v Speaker 1>little to get a little, and that's why it wasn't

0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:53.080
<v Speaker 1>as harsh as anticipated by you. Uh, it's that's possibly

0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:55.839
<v Speaker 1>the case, um, you know. So the idea here is

0:05:55.880 --> 0:05:58.960
<v Speaker 1>that typically if you can get the regulated entity to

0:05:59.040 --> 0:06:04.120
<v Speaker 1>agree with whatever penalty or rectificatory measure has been decided

0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:06.680
<v Speaker 1>on by the regulator, that does make things easier for

0:06:06.720 --> 0:06:08.599
<v Speaker 1>the regulator because of course it spares it the trouble

0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:11.400
<v Speaker 1>having to engage in litigation. But of course it also

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:15.039
<v Speaker 1>spares the litigated, i mean the regulated entity from possible

0:06:15.040 --> 0:06:17.480
<v Speaker 1>litigation expenses as well. So while it is sort of

0:06:17.520 --> 0:06:20.040
<v Speaker 1>a given take that arrives at a consent decree, it's

0:06:20.040 --> 0:06:23.479
<v Speaker 1>probably worth keeping in mind that both signs gain if

0:06:23.520 --> 0:06:26.680
<v Speaker 1>they can avoid litigation, which is to say that both

0:06:26.720 --> 0:06:30.400
<v Speaker 1>sides gain if they can reach an agreement as to

0:06:30.480 --> 0:06:34.440
<v Speaker 1>some sort of direct deficatory measure. About thirty seconds, you

0:06:34.440 --> 0:06:37.920
<v Speaker 1>can have a quick answer here. You mentioned criminal penalties,

0:06:37.920 --> 0:06:40.400
<v Speaker 1>which we never see. Do you expect to see them

0:06:40.400 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 1>in the coming years. I fear not. I don't think them.

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:46.039
<v Speaker 1>To the Trump administration, we're likely to see anything um

0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:47.840
<v Speaker 1>in the way from old cudalts. Is particularly given that

0:06:47.880 --> 0:06:50.240
<v Speaker 1>we didn't see anything like that during the Obama years.

0:06:50.320 --> 0:06:52.680
<v Speaker 1>So they force your you might stay of Obama was

0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:54.839
<v Speaker 1>allowed to do this. I suspect the Trump, who seems

0:06:54.839 --> 0:06:57.640
<v Speaker 1>to be more friendly to big bankers, won't do it either.

0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much, Bob. As always, that's Robert Hockett, professor

0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:08.279
<v Speaker 1>at Cornell Law School. The House Intelligence Committee is holding

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:11.680
<v Speaker 1>a closed door session at five PM to consider releasing

0:07:11.680 --> 0:07:15.800
<v Speaker 1>the Democratic rebuttal memo to the Republican memo that alleges

0:07:15.880 --> 0:07:19.240
<v Speaker 1>bias in the Russia investigation. President Donald Trump and some

0:07:19.360 --> 0:07:22.240
<v Speaker 1>Republican allies are using the so called Newness Memo to

0:07:22.280 --> 0:07:26.400
<v Speaker 1>allege bias in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Several former

0:07:26.440 --> 0:07:30.400
<v Speaker 1>intelligence officials have publicly criticized the memo, drafted by the

0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:34.040
<v Speaker 1>chair of the committee, Republican devon Newness. Here's former CIA

0:07:34.120 --> 0:07:38.520
<v Speaker 1>director Leon Panetta speaking on Fox News Sunday. I think

0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:44.000
<v Speaker 1>in this instance, very frankly, that the Newness charges against FISA,

0:07:44.080 --> 0:07:49.080
<v Speaker 1>particularly without looking at the entire application, without talking to

0:07:49.120 --> 0:07:53.840
<v Speaker 1>the judges who actually make these decisions. I think that's irresponsible.

0:07:54.600 --> 0:07:59.239
<v Speaker 1>The Democratic counter memo was authored by California Representative Adam

0:07:59.320 --> 0:08:03.120
<v Speaker 1>Shift The pan Top Democrat. Joining me is William Banks,

0:08:03.120 --> 0:08:06.840
<v Speaker 1>professor at Syracuse University Law School. Bill, you've read the memo.

0:08:07.000 --> 0:08:12.440
<v Speaker 1>What's your analysis? Well, I agree with what Mr Panetta

0:08:12.560 --> 0:08:16.080
<v Speaker 1>said just now, and I think it's a very unfortunate

0:08:17.000 --> 0:08:20.720
<v Speaker 1>turn of events for the investigation to have. It may

0:08:21.040 --> 0:08:28.680
<v Speaker 1>have the elements of the investigation by the Mueller team

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 1>revealed in this way. It's a it's clearly partisan, it's

0:08:33.440 --> 0:08:38.120
<v Speaker 1>an effort to protect President Trump, and it's you know,

0:08:38.200 --> 0:08:43.280
<v Speaker 1>it compromises a valuable intelligence source that the Bureau had

0:08:43.360 --> 0:08:47.720
<v Speaker 1>been working with. And it of course is also very

0:08:47.880 --> 0:08:52.000
<v Speaker 1>much a sort of a cherry picked gleaning of a

0:08:52.040 --> 0:08:56.120
<v Speaker 1>few elements of a much larger FISE application. Tell us

0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:59.440
<v Speaker 1>about the FIS accords and what it takes to get

0:09:00.240 --> 0:09:05.599
<v Speaker 1>a surveillance on an American citizen. It's important to remember,

0:09:05.679 --> 0:09:08.800
<v Speaker 1>June that the purpose of the FIZER process is to

0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:13.440
<v Speaker 1>collect foreign intelligence or counter intelligence. In this case, it

0:09:13.600 --> 0:09:17.600
<v Speaker 1>was counter intelligence involved in Carter Page, this is not

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:21.000
<v Speaker 1>a criminal process, so we don't expect the same Fourth

0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:24.960
<v Speaker 1>Amendment protections for citizens that we would if a criminal

0:09:25.480 --> 0:09:31.160
<v Speaker 1>sanction or possible jail could be forthcoming. Still, the process

0:09:31.240 --> 0:09:34.520
<v Speaker 1>does do more to protect Americans than it does persons

0:09:34.559 --> 0:09:38.560
<v Speaker 1>who are not from the United States. So the the predicate,

0:09:38.640 --> 0:09:41.559
<v Speaker 1>if you will, is still the same probable cause to

0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:44.760
<v Speaker 1>believe that the target is an agent of foreign power,

0:09:44.840 --> 0:09:50.040
<v Speaker 1>in this case Russia. The thing that's different about US

0:09:50.160 --> 0:09:53.520
<v Speaker 1>persons in this regard is that none of the uh,

0:09:53.640 --> 0:09:56.480
<v Speaker 1>none of the activities that are the base for an

0:09:56.600 --> 0:10:00.719
<v Speaker 1>order of surveillance could be based on protected First Amendment activities,

0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:07.000
<v Speaker 1>and the process requires that they seek remol of the

0:10:07.080 --> 0:10:10.440
<v Speaker 1>authorization more frequently than they would have to if the

0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:14.199
<v Speaker 1>target were not a US person. So something I find

0:10:14.240 --> 0:10:18.280
<v Speaker 1>difficult to understand is this memo is about Carter Page,

0:10:18.840 --> 0:10:22.160
<v Speaker 1>who White House officials described as a peripheral member of

0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:26.600
<v Speaker 1>a relatively peripheral advisory committee, and last December, White House

0:10:26.640 --> 0:10:30.360
<v Speaker 1>attorney Don McGan wrote to Page to cease saying he's

0:10:30.360 --> 0:10:34.720
<v Speaker 1>a Trump advisor and doesn't didn't the FBI have a

0:10:34.840 --> 0:10:37.959
<v Speaker 1>lot more on Page? He was interviewed by them as

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:41.800
<v Speaker 1>early as ten as part of an investigation into a

0:10:41.880 --> 0:10:46.520
<v Speaker 1>Russian inspiring So shouldn't the FBI had had more information

0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:50.680
<v Speaker 1>on him than the Steel dossier. They clearly did, and

0:10:51.120 --> 0:10:54.120
<v Speaker 1>I think if the Democratic Memo is released, will learn

0:10:54.120 --> 0:10:57.400
<v Speaker 1>more about some of that other information. You know, the

0:10:57.400 --> 0:11:03.160
<v Speaker 1>defies application is a lengthy process that involves internal vetting

0:11:03.200 --> 0:11:07.640
<v Speaker 1>inside the Department of Justice by numerous officials, lawyers and

0:11:07.720 --> 0:11:11.160
<v Speaker 1>policy officials, and the application itself, when it's carried to

0:11:11.240 --> 0:11:14.520
<v Speaker 1>the FIES the court would have been lengthy, I don't know,

0:11:14.640 --> 0:11:19.160
<v Speaker 1>fifty pages, maybe more so. The Steel dossier would have

0:11:19.200 --> 0:11:22.920
<v Speaker 1>been a very small part of a larger package of materials.

0:11:22.960 --> 0:11:26.040
<v Speaker 1>As you say, they've been looking at at Steel or

0:11:26.080 --> 0:11:29.560
<v Speaker 1>a page rather for up to three years prior to

0:11:29.679 --> 0:11:34.240
<v Speaker 1>this application. And of course it's also important to remember

0:11:34.440 --> 0:11:37.440
<v Speaker 1>this was actually stated at the bottom of the of

0:11:37.480 --> 0:11:42.320
<v Speaker 1>the newest Memo that the investigation of the potential uh

0:11:42.480 --> 0:11:47.640
<v Speaker 1>for collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference

0:11:47.760 --> 0:11:52.840
<v Speaker 1>was first investigated concerning Adopolis, not Card or Page. So

0:11:52.920 --> 0:11:58.640
<v Speaker 1>there was a prior application that had already been reviewed. No,

0:11:58.960 --> 0:12:01.360
<v Speaker 1>we hardly on Panetta to say, you know, we shouldn't

0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:04.800
<v Speaker 1>do this without talking to the judges. Judges don't normally

0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:09.560
<v Speaker 1>explain their decisions to people unless there's some kind of

0:12:09.600 --> 0:12:12.400
<v Speaker 1>criminal process, and you know, they have to look into

0:12:12.440 --> 0:12:15.960
<v Speaker 1>what the judge found. And so is that likely to

0:12:16.000 --> 0:12:19.839
<v Speaker 1>happen that one of the judges would come forward, Oh,

0:12:20.920 --> 0:12:23.760
<v Speaker 1>it's it's almost surely not going to happen. We don't

0:12:23.760 --> 0:12:27.240
<v Speaker 1>even know which judges might have been involved in the

0:12:27.320 --> 0:12:32.480
<v Speaker 1>Carter page application as the as the materials reveal the

0:12:32.640 --> 0:12:37.040
<v Speaker 1>page request was renewed on two or three occasions. I

0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:40.400
<v Speaker 1>forget the details. Now, it's likely that on the first

0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:42.880
<v Speaker 1>occasion and then on the renewals, there might have been

0:12:42.920 --> 0:12:46.439
<v Speaker 1>a different judge involved each time. The judge wouldn't have

0:12:46.440 --> 0:12:50.880
<v Speaker 1>been identified. The judge won't identify himself for herself now,

0:12:50.960 --> 0:12:53.240
<v Speaker 1>and that's the way the process is supposed to work.

0:12:53.720 --> 0:12:57.840
<v Speaker 1>So Bill, now, let's say the Democrats are allowed to

0:12:57.840 --> 0:13:01.719
<v Speaker 1>come out with their memo. Is good to have to

0:13:02.440 --> 0:13:07.960
<v Speaker 1>dueling memos out there and about the FBI's process. And

0:13:08.480 --> 0:13:12.600
<v Speaker 1>is it dangerous to release the second memo? You I

0:13:12.720 --> 0:13:15.720
<v Speaker 1>doubt that it's dangerous to release it at this point.

0:13:15.840 --> 0:13:20.160
<v Speaker 1>It's about achieving turbopartisan balance here. The best result is

0:13:20.200 --> 0:13:22.760
<v Speaker 1>for no memos to have been released, because it was

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:25.959
<v Speaker 1>a real affront to the integrity and the Apartment of

0:13:26.080 --> 0:13:29.800
<v Speaker 1>Justice in the whole five process, the entire intelligence community

0:13:29.880 --> 0:13:32.960
<v Speaker 1>for that matter. So I think the better thing would

0:13:32.960 --> 0:13:35.240
<v Speaker 1>have been for there to be no memo. I think

0:13:35.280 --> 0:13:39.439
<v Speaker 1>once there's a heavily partisan memo out, it's fair to

0:13:40.000 --> 0:13:43.960
<v Speaker 1>have a rebuttal memo out. I think that Representative Shift

0:13:44.000 --> 0:13:48.960
<v Speaker 1>and others would be very careful not to release sensitive information,

0:13:49.840 --> 0:13:52.920
<v Speaker 1>uh in the chance that their memo does come out. Now,

0:13:53.679 --> 0:13:57.520
<v Speaker 1>another part to this is that Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck

0:13:57.520 --> 0:14:01.840
<v Speaker 1>Grassley is calling on the FBI to stop blocking the

0:14:01.880 --> 0:14:04.720
<v Speaker 1>release of key portions of his memo that calls for

0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:08.680
<v Speaker 1>a criminal investigation of Christopher Steele, which is who's the

0:14:08.720 --> 0:14:11.760
<v Speaker 1>former British spy who compiled that dossier we know so

0:14:11.840 --> 0:14:14.440
<v Speaker 1>much about. In about a minute, can you tell me

0:14:14.559 --> 0:14:20.040
<v Speaker 1>what grass Lee is trying to accomplish. Uh, It's very

0:14:20.080 --> 0:14:23.080
<v Speaker 1>hard to know exactly what he's trying to accomplish. One

0:14:23.080 --> 0:14:27.240
<v Speaker 1>of the things that we learned, unfortunately, is that in

0:14:27.240 --> 0:14:30.840
<v Speaker 1>in releasing the newest memo, we now know that Steele

0:14:31.080 --> 0:14:36.840
<v Speaker 1>was an FBI source prior to the so called dossier

0:14:37.040 --> 0:14:41.000
<v Speaker 1>and prior to the investigation, Carter page. So, in the

0:14:41.080 --> 0:14:44.360
<v Speaker 1>context of the of the larger investigation, one of the

0:14:44.400 --> 0:14:47.360
<v Speaker 1>things that happened is that the Bureau was lost the

0:14:47.400 --> 0:14:52.000
<v Speaker 1>source that had been using for foreign intelligence gathering for years.

0:14:52.040 --> 0:14:54.680
<v Speaker 1>So I think coming out with more now, I think

0:14:54.720 --> 0:14:58.080
<v Speaker 1>that they've already lost Steel and whatever value that he

0:14:58.160 --> 0:15:02.040
<v Speaker 1>might have provided to the process or law. Well, we'll

0:15:02.040 --> 0:15:04.400
<v Speaker 1>see how this plays out, and there are certainly different

0:15:04.640 --> 0:15:06.920
<v Speaker 1>different parts of this. Now it seems as if there

0:15:07.080 --> 0:15:09.360
<v Speaker 1>it's like a tree with the branches spreading. Thanks so

0:15:09.440 --> 0:15:12.280
<v Speaker 1>much for being here. Bill. That's William Banks, professor at

0:15:12.280 --> 0:15:15.880
<v Speaker 1>Syracuse University Law School. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

0:15:15.960 --> 0:15:19.000
<v Speaker 1>Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

0:15:19.080 --> 0:15:23.760
<v Speaker 1>on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.

0:15:24.160 --> 0:15:26.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg