WEBVTT - Facebook Prepared to Battle Antitrust Concerns

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 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.680
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com Slash podcasts. Mark Zuckerberg's two

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:26.720
<v Speaker 1>days of testimony on Capitol Hill maybe over, but scrutiny

0:00:26.760 --> 0:00:29.280
<v Speaker 1>over the data leak that sparked the worst crisis in

0:00:29.360 --> 0:00:33.000
<v Speaker 1>Facebook's history clearly is not. There have been increasing calls

0:00:33.040 --> 0:00:36.760
<v Speaker 1>for antitrust action against Facebook. That was echoed in questions

0:00:36.760 --> 0:00:40.920
<v Speaker 1>from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham about whether Facebook was a monopoly.

0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:45.440
<v Speaker 1>The average American uses eight different apps, okay, communicate with

0:00:45.479 --> 0:00:48.160
<v Speaker 1>their friends and stay in touch with people, ranging from

0:00:48.159 --> 0:00:51.839
<v Speaker 1>texting apps, email service. You provide well, we provide a

0:00:51.880 --> 0:00:54.400
<v Speaker 1>number of differences Twitter the same as what you do.

0:00:54.720 --> 0:00:57.480
<v Speaker 1>It overlap the portion. Don't think you have a monopoly.

0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 1>It's certainly doesn't feel like that to me. Zuckerberg's answer

0:01:02.920 --> 0:01:05.520
<v Speaker 1>may have gotten a laugh, but it's no laughing matter.

0:01:05.920 --> 0:01:10.199
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Gary Reback of counsel a car and Ferrell. Gary.

0:01:10.200 --> 0:01:13.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to begin by asking what Lindsay Graham was

0:01:13.080 --> 0:01:16.480
<v Speaker 1>basically asking Zuckerberg and never got a straight answer. Is

0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:21.440
<v Speaker 1>Facebook a monopoly? Well, it hasn't been judged a monopoly

0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:24.959
<v Speaker 1>in any case yet the way Google has. But I

0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:27.320
<v Speaker 1>think all the year marks and all the hallmarks are there,

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:32.399
<v Speaker 1>of course, explain that a little more. Well, the easiest

0:01:32.520 --> 0:01:35.319
<v Speaker 1>way to define a monopoly is the way the Europeans do,

0:01:35.520 --> 0:01:38.040
<v Speaker 1>which is that you can set all your terms of

0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:41.959
<v Speaker 1>sale and your terms of engagement with consumers without even

0:01:42.040 --> 0:01:46.280
<v Speaker 1>considering what competitors might do. And I think that clearly

0:01:46.319 --> 0:01:53.960
<v Speaker 1>describes Facebook, as Senator Graham indicated, Uh, the closest competitors

0:01:53.960 --> 0:01:57.520
<v Speaker 1>to Facebook are now owned by Facebook. That's What's App

0:01:57.560 --> 0:02:01.320
<v Speaker 1>and Instagram. So there's nothing really on the horizon that

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:06.440
<v Speaker 1>challenges Facebook's hed gemony in social networking. And the notion

0:02:06.640 --> 0:02:11.240
<v Speaker 1>that email as a competitor for a social network platform

0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:15.919
<v Speaker 1>really is risible. I think Zuckerberg was prepared to cite

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:19.359
<v Speaker 1>competition with China and the overall ad market if asked

0:02:19.400 --> 0:02:21.960
<v Speaker 1>whether Facebook should be broken up. According to a photograph

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:24.320
<v Speaker 1>that was published by a p of a binder of

0:02:24.400 --> 0:02:29.520
<v Speaker 1>internal notes he took to the hearing, Are those good responses? Uh?

0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:32.560
<v Speaker 1>I think the China part is almost a joke that

0:02:32.600 --> 0:02:37.280
<v Speaker 1>has been raised initially by Google in response to antitrust scrutiny.

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:39.679
<v Speaker 1>I mean, first Google would say, you don't have to

0:02:39.720 --> 0:02:42.280
<v Speaker 1>worry about us. We have competition from Apple, and then

0:02:42.280 --> 0:02:45.639
<v Speaker 1>they would say we have competition for Facebook from Facebook.

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:49.080
<v Speaker 1>And now they say we have competition from China. And

0:02:49.200 --> 0:02:51.560
<v Speaker 1>I think sort of all these big tech companies have

0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:54.560
<v Speaker 1>gotten together and decided that in students, instead of shooting

0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.360
<v Speaker 1>at each other, they'll just shoot at China. But the

0:02:58.400 --> 0:03:01.280
<v Speaker 1>real issue from an anti trust for perspective, is not China.

0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:05.680
<v Speaker 1>It's having a healthy US economy and a robust competitive

0:03:05.760 --> 0:03:08.440
<v Speaker 1>market and social networking. And I don't think the Chinese

0:03:08.440 --> 0:03:12.520
<v Speaker 1>playing that in any respect. Graham also asked Zuckerberg about

0:03:12.560 --> 0:03:16.200
<v Speaker 1>regulation in Europe, where a new General Data Protection regulation

0:03:16.360 --> 0:03:19.040
<v Speaker 1>or GDP or law is about to kick in. Tell

0:03:19.120 --> 0:03:22.560
<v Speaker 1>us about that. Yeah, Now, of course that's not that's

0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:26.000
<v Speaker 1>a privacy issue and not really an antitrust issue. But

0:03:26.760 --> 0:03:30.720
<v Speaker 1>generally speaking, the Europeans are way ahead of the United

0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:35.720
<v Speaker 1>States on concerns about privacy. They've been investigating breaches by

0:03:35.760 --> 0:03:39.040
<v Speaker 1>Google and by Facebook for quite some time, and there's

0:03:39.080 --> 0:03:44.160
<v Speaker 1>a new law that's coming into effect that essentially requires

0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 1>affirmative consent by users before any use of their data

0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:54.400
<v Speaker 1>might be made. And even more than that June, it

0:03:55.000 --> 0:03:58.160
<v Speaker 1>prevents companies from saying take it or leave it. In

0:03:58.240 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 1>other words, you can't just say, hey, you want on

0:04:00.560 --> 0:04:04.200
<v Speaker 1>my side, you agree to my terms. The point is, uh,

0:04:04.440 --> 0:04:07.400
<v Speaker 1>you want to use user data, You've got to get affirmative,

0:04:07.880 --> 0:04:11.560
<v Speaker 1>knowledgeable consent. There's also another law on the works in

0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:15.640
<v Speaker 1>Europe behind that that would go even further. And the

0:04:15.640 --> 0:04:18.479
<v Speaker 1>big tech companies i am told are law being hard

0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:22.520
<v Speaker 1>against that. The antitrust division of the Justice Department under

0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:26.040
<v Speaker 1>Trump has seemed to be more expansive in attacking mergers.

0:04:26.080 --> 0:04:28.440
<v Speaker 1>We see the trial over the A T and T

0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:34.919
<v Speaker 1>Time Warner merger. Might it look at Facebook? Uh? First

0:04:34.920 --> 0:04:37.159
<v Speaker 1>of all, I think you're quite right that part of

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:40.280
<v Speaker 1>the unpredictability of the Trump administration is they do seem

0:04:40.320 --> 0:04:42.440
<v Speaker 1>to be enforcing the n trust laws more than the

0:04:42.480 --> 0:04:47.520
<v Speaker 1>Obama administration did. Um. But is Facebook and the crosshres.

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:51.440
<v Speaker 1>Most of the focus on Facebook. The scrutiny of Facebook

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:55.080
<v Speaker 1>heretofore has been about privacy, and conversely, most of the

0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:58.400
<v Speaker 1>antitrust scrutiny and high tech has been about Google, and

0:04:58.480 --> 0:05:02.080
<v Speaker 1>so there are Google cases has very far ahead, both

0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:04.120
<v Speaker 1>in the United States and in Europe in terms of

0:05:04.200 --> 0:05:08.880
<v Speaker 1>investigation than anything and I trust wise involving Facebook, I mean,

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:11.080
<v Speaker 1>I think the first order of business for the new

0:05:11.120 --> 0:05:13.479
<v Speaker 1>Federal Trade Commission when they're confirmed, just what they're going

0:05:13.560 --> 0:05:18.200
<v Speaker 1>to do about the alleged violation of the consent decree

0:05:18.279 --> 0:05:21.000
<v Speaker 1>they had with Facebook. But you know, they would have

0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:25.600
<v Speaker 1>to start a Facebook investigation from scratch. Might they do that?

0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:29.000
<v Speaker 1>Of course they might, is something that's going to happen

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:34.040
<v Speaker 1>very soon. I doubt it. So the Senators and we're

0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:37.919
<v Speaker 1>talking a lot about regulating Facebook, and you know, it

0:05:37.920 --> 0:05:40.880
<v Speaker 1>looks like regulation is upon us, etcetera. They made all

0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:44.640
<v Speaker 1>these big statements, but what kind of regulation would it take.

0:05:44.680 --> 0:05:47.400
<v Speaker 1>And I'm talking about the monopoly aspect of Facebook as

0:05:47.400 --> 0:05:50.479
<v Speaker 1>well here, what kind of regulation would it take? What

0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:53.240
<v Speaker 1>would it look like if Congress actually did want to

0:05:53.240 --> 0:05:58.960
<v Speaker 1>pass something. Well, I uh, if we're talking about and

0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:01.520
<v Speaker 1>I trust in force spentthon, Congress doesn't really need to

0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:04.760
<v Speaker 1>pass anything. I mean, Congress needs to enforce what's there.

0:06:05.000 --> 0:06:09.200
<v Speaker 1>And as we've discussed in this interview, The way Facebook

0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:12.400
<v Speaker 1>got its dominant market position was that the anti trust

0:06:12.400 --> 0:06:17.159
<v Speaker 1>officials allowed Facebook to buy its too closest competitors. So

0:06:17.360 --> 0:06:19.839
<v Speaker 1>if you were looking at this anti trust wise and

0:06:19.920 --> 0:06:22.719
<v Speaker 1>you wanted to bring a case against Facebook, you'd have

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:26.160
<v Speaker 1>to point out some anti competitive behavior that that really

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:30.040
<v Speaker 1>hasn't been focused on yet. But then you would focus

0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:32.000
<v Speaker 1>on what kind of remedy you could get under the

0:06:32.000 --> 0:06:35.400
<v Speaker 1>anti trust laws, which would logically involve spinning off those

0:06:35.400 --> 0:06:37.840
<v Speaker 1>two companies, and it would focus on data. I think

0:06:38.400 --> 0:06:41.919
<v Speaker 1>the Europeans have said that data is a barrier to entry.

0:06:42.760 --> 0:06:46.040
<v Speaker 1>Small companies can't get the necessary data to compete with

0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:48.479
<v Speaker 1>a big company like Facebook, and so if you're going

0:06:48.520 --> 0:06:51.200
<v Speaker 1>to spin off any companies from Facebook, you would spend

0:06:51.200 --> 0:06:54.320
<v Speaker 1>them off with the same database that Facebook currently has,

0:06:54.720 --> 0:06:58.200
<v Speaker 1>making them robust competitors from day one. We have about

0:06:58.240 --> 0:07:01.080
<v Speaker 1>a minute and a half here, Gary. If you look

0:07:01.080 --> 0:07:05.480
<v Speaker 1>in the future, do you see any kind of regulation

0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:09.600
<v Speaker 1>of Facebook in the US on the horizon? In reality,

0:07:09.640 --> 0:07:13.960
<v Speaker 1>when you look at it, you know, I'm having done

0:07:14.000 --> 0:07:16.680
<v Speaker 1>this for many years now, I'm kind of cynical about

0:07:16.880 --> 0:07:22.520
<v Speaker 1>what Congress can do. The the likelihood is that not

0:07:22.600 --> 0:07:24.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot is going to happen. I think I have

0:07:24.520 --> 0:07:27.800
<v Speaker 1>to admit that, um, if something happens, it will be

0:07:27.800 --> 0:07:31.080
<v Speaker 1>the result of an administration of an initiative through the

0:07:31.120 --> 0:07:33.480
<v Speaker 1>Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or through the

0:07:33.480 --> 0:07:36.880
<v Speaker 1>Federal Trade Commission, not I think through anything that Congress

0:07:36.920 --> 0:07:40.680
<v Speaker 1>has done. Thanks so much, Gary, it's it's been fascinating

0:07:40.680 --> 0:07:42.680
<v Speaker 1>and we will pick up with this, I'm sure again

0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:46.280
<v Speaker 1>in the future. That's Gary reback of car and Beryl.

0:07:49.920 --> 0:07:54.000
<v Speaker 1>President Trump discussed firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein with

0:07:54.040 --> 0:07:57.240
<v Speaker 1>White House Aids yesterday. According to a person familiar with

0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:01.400
<v Speaker 1>the matter, Rosenstein is overseeing the Mall investigation, and Trump

0:08:01.440 --> 0:08:04.559
<v Speaker 1>appears to be ratcheting up his personal attacks on Mueller

0:08:04.640 --> 0:08:07.400
<v Speaker 1>this week as well, after an FBI raid on the

0:08:07.440 --> 0:08:11.040
<v Speaker 1>home and office of Trump's personal attorney. William Banks is

0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:14.200
<v Speaker 1>our guest. He's a professor at Syracuse University Law School. Bill.

0:08:14.360 --> 0:08:17.120
<v Speaker 1>We have discussed Trump's threats to fire Mueller in the

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:22.000
<v Speaker 1>similarity Richard Nixon's Saturday night massacre. Would firing Rosenstein have

0:08:22.080 --> 0:08:28.000
<v Speaker 1>the same basic consequences, Well, it could, June Rosen. He

0:08:28.080 --> 0:08:34.880
<v Speaker 1>could order Rosenstein to to dismiss Mueller. Rosenstein would likely

0:08:34.920 --> 0:08:38.200
<v Speaker 1>decline to do that, because, as we've discussed before, there's

0:08:38.240 --> 0:08:42.600
<v Speaker 1>a Justice Department regulation that says that the Independent Council

0:08:42.679 --> 0:08:47.800
<v Speaker 1>Special Prosecutor can only be dismissed for cause for misseeasons

0:08:47.840 --> 0:08:51.720
<v Speaker 1>in an office, and certainly Mueller can't be reasonably accused

0:08:51.720 --> 0:08:57.480
<v Speaker 1>of that. So but fire Rosenstein? Could he fire Rosenstein? Yes,

0:08:57.640 --> 0:08:59.959
<v Speaker 1>he could do that and then try to replace him

0:09:00.080 --> 0:09:04.400
<v Speaker 1>with someone more inclined to rein in what he views

0:09:04.559 --> 0:09:09.000
<v Speaker 1>as as an investigation that's run off the rails. So

0:09:09.080 --> 0:09:12.080
<v Speaker 1>that would not be as precipitous an action as firing

0:09:12.640 --> 0:09:18.199
<v Speaker 1>Mueller or telling fire Muller. That's right, because after all,

0:09:18.280 --> 0:09:22.640
<v Speaker 1>these are executive branch officials. The President appoints uh these

0:09:22.679 --> 0:09:27.400
<v Speaker 1>officials with the advising consented Senate, so he generally has

0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:30.160
<v Speaker 1>the legal authority to remove them, and to remove them

0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:33.320
<v Speaker 1>for any reason at all, so long as the reason

0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:37.599
<v Speaker 1>isn't an unlawful reason. And here, because Jeff Sessions is

0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:42.880
<v Speaker 1>recused from the from the question surrounding this investigation, then

0:09:42.880 --> 0:09:46.000
<v Speaker 1>it's up to the deputy Attorney general. President doesn't like

0:09:46.120 --> 0:09:48.520
<v Speaker 1>the way the deputy Attorney general, he could do his job.

0:09:48.600 --> 0:09:50.800
<v Speaker 1>He could dismiss him. I think that would be a

0:09:50.840 --> 0:09:53.920
<v Speaker 1>politically very damaging thing for the president to do. But

0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:57.480
<v Speaker 1>of course he uh, you know, he hasn't let that

0:09:57.520 --> 0:09:59.679
<v Speaker 1>stop him in the past and probably won't let that

0:09:59.679 --> 0:10:02.839
<v Speaker 1>stop up him in the future. So Noah Feldman, a

0:10:02.920 --> 0:10:05.440
<v Speaker 1>professor at Harvard Law School and a Bloomberg View Columns,

0:10:05.440 --> 0:10:08.640
<v Speaker 1>has a new column entitled what if Trump fires Muller

0:10:08.679 --> 0:10:11.520
<v Speaker 1>and Mueller says no? And it talks about what might

0:10:11.559 --> 0:10:14.720
<v Speaker 1>happen if Trump tries to fire Muller without rescinding those

0:10:14.720 --> 0:10:18.240
<v Speaker 1>special counsel regulations you just spoke about. Muller is a

0:10:18.280 --> 0:10:20.800
<v Speaker 1>stickler for the letter of the law. Do you agree

0:10:20.800 --> 0:10:25.480
<v Speaker 1>that he would be within his rights and refusing to leave. Well,

0:10:25.520 --> 0:10:31.880
<v Speaker 1>if if Trump attempted to dismiss Muller without following the remove,

0:10:31.960 --> 0:10:36.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, without at first removing Rosenstein and then asking

0:10:36.520 --> 0:10:40.440
<v Speaker 1>Rosenstein's replacement to remove Muller, then I believe yes, it's

0:10:40.480 --> 0:10:44.120
<v Speaker 1>possible that if Trump tried to remove Muller directly, with

0:10:44.200 --> 0:10:48.480
<v Speaker 1>Rosenstein still in place and in violation of the regulations

0:10:48.520 --> 0:10:51.760
<v Speaker 1>that are still the law and the Justice Department, Muller

0:10:51.840 --> 0:10:55.160
<v Speaker 1>might well choose to hold ground and say I'm still

0:10:55.240 --> 0:10:58.000
<v Speaker 1>lawfully in my job and I'm going to continue to

0:10:58.040 --> 0:11:01.200
<v Speaker 1>do my job. And I've seen in Feltman's column in

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:04.640
<v Speaker 1>that case, you could precipitate a crisis, a very serious

0:11:04.679 --> 0:11:08.240
<v Speaker 1>crisis like the one that was nearly upon us in

0:11:08.360 --> 0:11:12.960
<v Speaker 1>the Nixon administration after the Saturday Night massacre. We there

0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:16.559
<v Speaker 1>are some set to. Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Tillis

0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:20.640
<v Speaker 1>have put together legislation to protect Mueller's job, but as

0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:24.200
<v Speaker 1>people have pointed out, they would need sixty seven Senators

0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:27.559
<v Speaker 1>and two thirds of the House to override a likely

0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:32.880
<v Speaker 1>veto from President Trump. So what might it be is

0:11:32.920 --> 0:11:36.480
<v Speaker 1>that why the Republicans are sort of hanging back on

0:11:36.559 --> 0:11:40.520
<v Speaker 1>that legislation because it would really put the spotlight on

0:11:40.520 --> 0:11:45.280
<v Speaker 1>on them. Well, they have been hanging back, as you say,

0:11:45.360 --> 0:11:49.120
<v Speaker 1>but certainly the mood has changed in Congress with these

0:11:49.600 --> 0:11:52.560
<v Speaker 1>recent rumblings from the from the White House. I think

0:11:52.640 --> 0:11:56.760
<v Speaker 1>this legislation should have been considered seriously several months ago

0:11:57.600 --> 0:12:00.880
<v Speaker 1>and was left to languish and commits. He if it

0:12:00.920 --> 0:12:03.520
<v Speaker 1>does smoke through committee now in the next week or two,

0:12:03.679 --> 0:12:07.560
<v Speaker 1>as it may, well they'll have a chance to pass it. Certainly,

0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:11.480
<v Speaker 1>even if if it's not capable of surviving a presidential

0:12:11.559 --> 0:12:15.400
<v Speaker 1>veto legislation would send a very strong signal to the

0:12:15.400 --> 0:12:19.600
<v Speaker 1>White House that, you know, disobeying the will of Congress here,

0:12:19.760 --> 0:12:23.320
<v Speaker 1>the majority of Congress, would put Trump in a very

0:12:23.360 --> 0:12:27.480
<v Speaker 1>bad light politically and set up likely grounds for impeachment

0:12:27.559 --> 0:12:30.360
<v Speaker 1>down the road. Bill. You know, we've talked so many

0:12:30.440 --> 0:12:35.000
<v Speaker 1>times about about the possibility that the President might fire

0:12:35.120 --> 0:12:38.280
<v Speaker 1>Muller and the different things he might do. He hasn't

0:12:38.400 --> 0:12:41.400
<v Speaker 1>done any of that yet. But does it seem to

0:12:41.440 --> 0:12:44.480
<v Speaker 1>you that this ratcheting up of his you know, of

0:12:44.600 --> 0:12:49.880
<v Speaker 1>his tweets against Mueller, direct personal attacks, now that it

0:12:50.000 --> 0:12:54.440
<v Speaker 1>might lead to something, might lead to something. I think

0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:58.080
<v Speaker 1>the other road that that the President might choose to

0:12:58.120 --> 0:13:01.280
<v Speaker 1>take care as the pressure increases now with Michael Cohen

0:13:02.080 --> 0:13:05.640
<v Speaker 1>under investigation, is to begin issuing pardons and to try

0:13:05.679 --> 0:13:10.640
<v Speaker 1>to clear the the way for himself by pardon he

0:13:10.720 --> 0:13:14.079
<v Speaker 1>knows who would otherwise be inclined to provide evidence that

0:13:14.120 --> 0:13:16.360
<v Speaker 1>could be used against him, if not in a court

0:13:16.360 --> 0:13:21.280
<v Speaker 1>of law eventually in an impeachment inquiry. Would those pardons

0:13:21.440 --> 0:13:25.880
<v Speaker 1>be looked at It's obviously he has the power to pardon,

0:13:26.760 --> 0:13:29.760
<v Speaker 1>but would those pardons be looked at as an obstruction

0:13:29.920 --> 0:13:34.000
<v Speaker 1>another obstruction of justice. They could they could down the road.

0:13:34.640 --> 0:13:38.160
<v Speaker 1>He as you say, clearly has a constitutional power to pardon.

0:13:38.240 --> 0:13:42.360
<v Speaker 1>But but if information comes out, uh, either before the

0:13:42.400 --> 0:13:45.440
<v Speaker 1>issuance of those pardons or after them in some other way,

0:13:46.480 --> 0:13:49.199
<v Speaker 1>then that information would be available to Congress to use

0:13:49.240 --> 0:13:52.439
<v Speaker 1>for its own purposes, as a political purposes. The impeachment,

0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:57.560
<v Speaker 1>of course, is a lawful process, but it's primarily driven politically,

0:13:57.960 --> 0:13:59.839
<v Speaker 1>so that could happen. And it's also you know, we

0:14:00.000 --> 0:14:02.200
<v Speaker 1>should remember in the case of Colin as well as

0:14:02.280 --> 0:14:06.960
<v Speaker 1>others who can under investigation, there's a possibility, even after

0:14:07.000 --> 0:14:11.840
<v Speaker 1>a pardon, that state governments, through their attorneys general, could

0:14:12.000 --> 0:14:15.880
<v Speaker 1>pursue charges against those who've been under investigation. The pardon

0:14:16.000 --> 0:14:21.280
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't affect the possible availability of state criminal prosecution, so

0:14:21.320 --> 0:14:23.560
<v Speaker 1>the information could come out that way. And we know

0:14:23.640 --> 0:14:27.720
<v Speaker 1>that Mueller is has already been working in concert with

0:14:27.880 --> 0:14:31.840
<v Speaker 1>the New York AG, so that seems likely. Thanks so much, Bill,

0:14:31.880 --> 0:14:35.160
<v Speaker 1>that's William Banks, the professor at Syracuse University Law School.

0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:38.440
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:42.200
<v Speaker 1>subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:14:42.280 --> 0:14:46.160
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg Dot com Slash Podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:14:46.640 --> 0:14:47.920
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg