Don't get me wrong, Glass-Stegall was a useful law, which needs to be reinstated, but...

The "a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act" is a bit of a misrepresentation. The law prevented deposit banks from investing in financial markets of any description. It did not "break up" any banks and its reinstatement would not do so now. Some banks would have to separate their operations but, even under the old Glass-Stegall, they could still have common ownership and they would not have to become any smaller. Glass-Stegall had nothing to do with the size of banks.

It is also inaccurate to say that "the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash," because most of the "too big to fail" banks that were bailed out were almost entirely non-deposit investment banks like Lehman and Goldman Sachs.

It's also completely inaccurate to say that "America’s big banks used insured deposits to underwrite their gambling in private securities, and then dump the securities on their customers." They made their own investments in high-risk investments, but if they had, as Reich says, "dumped those risks on customers" they would not have been at risk of failure when the investment crashed, their customers would have been. They were, in fact, holding what the government later called "toxic assets" on their own books because they had bought them as investments, intending to make profit for themselves as their value increased.

But Hillary's friends at the banks don't want GS to be revived, so she won't do it.