[applause] thank you all for being here. Looking for to this discussion. No one appears congenitally shy so im hoping all of you can ignore me and ask each other questions. Have a lot of ground to cover and a lot of lively subjects. Lets start with the basics and then towards the end of the conversation i want to move into the world we are in now, the digital age, age of social media which creates a whole new set of questions. Jill, let me start with you. Editorial decisionmaking, for our colleagues in the audience, it is a little bit like case law. Yesterday principles behind you, certain standards and then casebycase try to apply them to complex stuff. When the reporter come to you with a story that reveals National Security information. What are the principles that you have in mind when you evaluate what to publish . Example, iy in that wearingless it was some something externally sensitive are innately i would stake, i lives were at would encourage the journalists and reporter with the story to find more about it. In order to make very difficult decisions about what stories to actually publish a letter to hold a story whether to hold a story or in a very unusual situation, to actually not publish something, information really helps you. End, these decisions should say explicitly, are the most excruciating i confronted both as Washington Bureau chief because stories involving National Security and intelligence rigid in washington and as manager of the times and executive editor. That i always panelistss one of the this morning pointed out, we llye a constitutiona;; protected mandate to hold power accountable and keep the public informed. That is our first responsibility. In the balancing test, that has to be balanced. Story really going to cause harm to the country . As journalists, we are citizens want to dot to be everything we can to keep the current country safe. Our professional duty is really jobsform and i had these period meagerly after 9 11 but the war on terror and alter the end of the Bush Administration and by the obama s, and itation certainly closer to 9 11 there but fewer of these requests you have to ask yourself the fundamental question that actually one of down his colleagues put brilliantly which is if they were on terror is being waged in the name of the people, too that the people know about it shouldnt the people know about it and its dimensions . With all the new programs launched, they had not really some of the to dark side programs being carried out. End, you responded to several constituencies. Because youublic the importance of keeping them informed and Holding Power accountable. The country. You dont want to make a precipitous decision that could actually harm the country and then youre on reporters because you get into and as to the true shooting nature of these decisions that the reporters have worked really long on the stories and to get them ironclad , the sources have put themselves in harms way. They feel the credibility is on the line because the sources expect the story to be published and all of those are in the air. Did isst thing that i when an administration raised serious National Security concerns and asked the near times to either hold a story or not publish it entirely, you hit the pause button. Public that a lot of the has the impression that we get these leaks. Intelligence justams and then we publish them right away. I cannot be further from the case. I dont think it is right to just assume that administrations and president s and their chief aides are a firing wall and that being cavalier to publish something quickly i think its not the right response. I know over time because the request became more frequent to various news organizations to hold stories or kill stories. That there are news organizations that no longer call the white house for comment on some of the stories which is not always, the administration finds out that you have a sensitive story. To stay in addition for one more beat, in search of refer to oneere to easy to agree on, if you judge that publishing will directly lead to the death of individuals or the publishing of gratuitous operational detail where the messing up an ongoing battlefield movement, no public reason, is a relatively easy principles. But when you get to the assertion of harm to the country, National Security damage may involve less direct effects. Exposure of agreements between allies or other sensitive matters. How do you think through that territory . Define National Security damage why you considered whether to withhold a certain detail . We seek information about that and then try to make the best decision after having as much information as possible, including from experts of her own staff. Our own staff. The best answer with an illustration, the Pulitzer Prize winner, the intelligence agencies, she is a very gifted reporter who had many sources from the top to the bottom of Intelligence Agency and there came a time some years after that her she realized cia sources worker concerned about something, very worried about seven. This was not a leak. Nobody dump this on her, she was just picking up this. Its and pieces of information. There was a puzzle and it turned out to be the cia secret prisons abroad, particularly Eastern Europe were highvalue terror suspects are being held and questioned. We know some cases with course of questioning techniques. Once you piece together a lot of this, she did what she should do and when to resources in the cia and including the person in charge of Public Information and then she was sent to the senior person in charge of the entire operation and listen to them about what was going on. First, he was a note this is true. You want to know if this is true. You need to talk to the government to know if they it is true. You what to establish the veracity of it and established interNational Security concerns. Decisionsrent can doing to make . She kept me informed alter this. All through this. When we conclude that we were going to publish some kind of story and newark try to figure what to include, during my quartercentury of making these kinds of decisions, we surrender story but we often withheld very specific details. Things like conans operations. Names of individuals. Locations of where the earliest drones were shot from. Country iof the still dont want to say the name of that country. Not because the government was not to, but they said if we can do country at the time, it would end. We do not want to do that. We went to the cia at the director off the the cia or director of National Intelligence and listened to them argued that we should not run the story at all and as usual i asked lots of questions. What is the specific harm involved here . Harm to human life . Be bad for thest agency reputation. Secondly, it means our allies would not trust us. That is your problem, not ours. And we got to two things like setting out secret prisons. Shutting down sick prison. And there are other types of operations going on with more these countries. Counterterrorism cooperation. They were identified as the Country Holding some of these resins. You could bring that governments or under security cooperation. My ears perked up because you can do the storage without necessarily name in the countries. I told them as i always did, we will consider this and she was with us and she asked questions. For were more one form that my work. We were invited to the white ceo, and donald graham, and publisher and myself, the and he wasas there sitting in the one come on a childs am on the couch and the necessary goals National Security adviser was having hovering around. And the president made the same conversation and it kind of harms. I asked a lot of questions you most of which were answered by stephen hadley. Out, i asked specific questions and we would make a decision and it was my decision whether would be read by him. Which is what we always do. Out, when an adjustment in the room with his arm around my shoulder, i had nothing for some time and said youre not putting in those countries. He could tell that is where is headed. Thought, thatther is what we did. As a result, we took a lot of pills from people who thought it was terrible for us to reach the secret on the one side and a lot of people saying that we do not mean the countries, chicken. From the other side of the sure runningm through some of these conversations from the cia or the pentagon, what rules would you write . Frankly, my experience with leading newspapers like the times and Washington Post and wall street journal and others, was that they really did try to exercise good judgment. These are tough calls. It is not easy. That i have times those discussions was where we had the potential, if a story went out, that is sensitive source would probably be and it meant jeopardizing the life of that source and when i had the discussion. , thaters doing their jobs is what they go after. A lot them have good sources in the agency whether you like it or not. When you pick up these stories, you look at them and, frankly, i would say that nine out of 10 stories, they go. The reporter is doing his job. You dont particularly like the story getting out there but that is the name of the game. You that 10th story where but, on that 10th story where somebodys life is in jeopardy and you can make that case frankly, most the time i talked confirm the and reporters story. Reporter would be sensitive enough to take it to his bosses. I think the very fact that a light was in jeopardy was enough to kind of balance the scales. I was never in a situation where it involved a broader policy issue similar to what you described. Thank god. Thereways felt that was one time where it involved i actually talked with the editor of the post and i got a fair hearing. The end, they delayed the story and then ultimately, they said we will delay it for a while and then we would like to come back to you. And they did. I have to tell you, my experiences were that this was pretty straightforward and that i was really pleased that when you are making these decisions and dont forget that they have a reporter and they have a story. If it is a hot story, it will make a lot of news. To be able to call back from that because the National Interest is involved is not an easy call. But, at least in my experience, the papers always made the right call. Your commentscome on the principles question. You have been speaking in a very striking way about the need for transparency in agencies in order to build the credibility with the voting public that democracy requires. I. R. Number when you are at nsa being surprised that a reporter would call up and the phone number was answered and he used to be called no such agency. Though i asked for some help, the next thing i knew i was having lunch or coffee with you in your garden. Seemed tock that you have a selfconscious strategy of trying to build some kind of balance of visibility for a secret agency. What was on your mind in those days and what is the broader goal that you think you can reach . Mr. Hayden a lot of things to comment on. The traditional answer when someone called the Public Affairs office was, how did you get this number . We made a conscious effort. The phrase we used was to put a more human face on the agency. At the time, for nsa, we knew that we were getting into very uncharted territory. There was no National Debate about the appropriateness of an interceptingsa soviet Strategic Rocket placements, looking for words of interest like launch or Something Like that. [laughter] but, we knew that the 21st century equivalent of those isolated soviet command and control networks would be out pursuing terrorists, proliferator, traffic or associations. Gmail. At hotmail or we felt that we could not get the political sanctions or the money that we needed to pursue 21st century targets if we were still in the bunker at fort meade and hadnt built up a stronger sense of confidence that we could be on those networks, we could bump your emails, but we wouldnt miss treat them. It was a conscious effort to raise our profile. Very briefly, the last great nsa story was the snowden revelation. Metadata stuff. My old agency and administration was horribly flatfooted. They needed to be out there more telling their story. The way it was rode up took the story to a very dark corner of the room. It was very hard to explain what the agency was doing. The agency felt they were fine. After the great intelligence scandals of the 70s, the grand compromise with to take the oversight of intelligence which used to be and still is in most democracies, the province of the executive, and actually share oversight with the legislative branch. We have to select committees on intelligence now. Also, a special Court Whenever it touched americans. The 215 program, authorized by legislated by congress, overseen by the oversight committee, and were checked off by the fisa court. The is the medicineia madisonian trifecta. Without thought we were good to go and we werent. Reaction fromarp the general population and not tinfoil wing nuts with on their heads but really serious americans. What happens reinforcing what we tried to do in 1999 and 2000 what happened was that a lot of now said that no longer constituted consent of the governed. That may be consent of the governors. You may have told them, but you didnt tell me. That social contract that we had built on the compromise, we had real the social contract was american democracy wants to have a more personal knowledge of what its Intelligence Services do before they willingly validate the activities of the intelligence service. , we are going to shave points off of effectiveness. But my point is, if we are not more open, youre going to take a step away from us anyway and we are not going to do anything. Now, the great challenges, how do we inform the public to a degree that we have never informed them before in order to have the kind of legitimacy that the public used to concede to us simply by taking subdued by keeping a couple of committees. Couple of committees informed. I want to follow up on that about the communication you are talking about between the intelligence and Government Services on one hand and the journalist on the other. I am familiar with some of how it is being done. It has been very important for the protection of National Security or communication to go on between the journalists and the government. The advantage of the journalists for one thing to make sure it is accurate. In some cases it is complicated stuff where you dont understand if you dont have help and in other cases it might have been a proposal that never went into action and you dont find out and let the government cooperated. There are some things that will never be public because the National Security arm would greatly outweigh the public reasons to know that you are talking about. Post m has, the mr. Hayden the problem is, the post has been more responsible. Theyou go over here to guardian. Then you go to laura poitras. Attorney general eric holder was quoted last week as saying that he thought in the end that snowden had done some sort of public service. I dont know the context but that is what he was quoted as saying. He didnt break the law but what he did may have been public service. Coming from an attorney that saw the great number of presley prosecutions. End pressthe leak prosecutions. I wonder, in the end, if it was necessary to bring the public in . Mr. Hayden ive spoken a lot about this. Thatttom line is that young man accelerated but badly distorted a necessary national conversation. The other 98 of the stuff he gave to these reporters had nothing to do with it, it had to do with your nation, great britain, and australia collects legitimate foreign intelligence. I was offended by the attorney general thinking that that slice there somehow ameliorates all of that. You have an who, we in the intelligence agencies, we are dealing with national secrets, classified information. The president of the United States has the responsibility to defend the country using both covert and overt operations to protect the country. So, in order to maintain covert operations, you have to maintain classified information and you need people who swear and of to basically protect press basically protect classified information. Intelligence agencies could operate if everybody decides on their own what they think should be revealed and what they think ought to be held. The reality is that things are classified and you are sworn to protect classified information. When you have somebody who decides, i am going to dump a bunch of classified information because i dont like some of the things i am seeing, he violates the law antioch to be prosecuted for violating the law. He ought to be subject to justice and he tried. I think if you really felt loyalty to this country, there is no reason why he should hide out in russia. The outcome back here and face justice on that issue and he can present whatever defense he wants. So, it is wrong. Debate on the issue that he discussed, is that a good debate for this country to have . Of course it is. But that doesnt justify what he did. Willie lohman used to rob banks. Heroesnt make him a because we now know we should protect our money in the banks. The same thing is true for snowden. He violated the law. He is subject to being prosecuted under the law. That thed to that information that was revealed in fact did damage the security that we had developed in terms of being able to track terrorist. Terrorists is that dont use the same system anymore. So, we have got to redevelop our approach of how we track terrorists. It is impacted on lives that were out there because there were sources out there whose lives were jeopardized by virtue of revealing that information. So, understand the damage that was done. Should we have a debate on transparency and what we are doing . Absolutely. But, you dont do it by dumping a bunch of classified information that could jeopardize and damage the security of this country. Mr. Hayden the secretary and i are talking about snowden. That is not the way the conversation would go in some other countries. Go to prior restraint and also let you join in on this. That snowden did make a decision to use journalists as interlocutors and gatekeepers and he turned over the judgment to her the balancing tests lied guardian, the intercept. Lets suppose he built a website and decided to dump the document to the it brings us back question of whether the government will again after the make an papers case, argument for prior restraint on the press. You mentioned to me when we were preparing for this that there were a couple of times after the decisions were made that you restraint. Prior talk a little bit about whether you think we are close. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is the Supreme Court decision on the pentagon papers does not preclude prior restraint. I dont think the Snowden Snowden website wouldnt have crossed that i dont know. I worryre right that that the decision that the Supreme Court reached in the pentagon papers case in 1971 isnt ironclad. The bar is really high as you said. Make a furthero point about the precursor in a way to the snowden story was at story that the times broke about what was droppingwarrantless is of conversations between people in the u. S. And people overseas. Legal. S not that, and i remember this correctly, when you were Washington Bureau chief, they asked you to withhold portions of that story. Ms. Abramson i was the Washington Bureau chief. Requested the urgent that they cease all reporting on this story. I think any responsible editor wants more information. The reporters who cover intelligence tend to be very careful just on their own. Reportingto stopping and then there was a request when we hadte house enough confirmation for a story that we not publish. The editor was the ultimate decisionmaker, and he consulted with me, and a very difficult decision was made to hold the story. That decision was made literally days before the 2004 election. The story, when we get published and caused a huge rockets ckus and some uproar. Mr. Coll if you could do it again, you would do it differently . Ms. Abramson i certainly would not have held the story for a here. There were two occasions where i made the decision that we would. Ithhold the information i regret them both. When i had a history as part of the balancing test, that is an important part of it. I felt that, in that case, the , but it weighs as a difficult question for both of theres someone in your agency that knows that something illegal is happening, are they under the same blanket . You agreed to not disclose classified information. Mr. Coll just before we leave the prior restraint question, general hayden and secretary panetta, did you ever hear anyone propose mr. Hayden i never heard a whisper of prior restraint. There are a range of views on the lawfulness of the program. Source was not somebody from the Intelligence Agency, but somebody from justice, and someone from justice who have not read into the program. We dont need to relitigate this. I cannot let this stand that it was presumptively illegal. Ms. Abramson although you had to go back to the congress to have the program mr. Hayden actually, we continued the program after your december story until 2006 and 2007 to actually put what was then done under president ial article 2 authority into a was described as a safe harbor of the other political branch. But you got a find the decision . Decision. Mr. Hayden we got it on the part that jim didnt know anything about and we got it before the story. Every other country of the world has it, including great britain. The government would have simply send a notice to her saying that you have to stop. You cant even tell anybody we sent this notice. Ms. Abramson that is why in the snowden case, the guardian is in britain, which has no prior restraint protection, they literally had to let government officials watch as they took sledgehammers to the computers. Mr. Hayden we were talking about this depending on who wins the next election. For instance, when making a record here. We were going to publish something involving the cia and we went to the University Club around the corner of the Washington Post. They immediately called the Justice Department and they said, casey was just over here saying that he wanted us to prosecute you if you run the story and we laughed him out of the office. I am not sure that would happen now. Attorney general holder has prosecuted a number of government sources and in one case, a Justice Department brief and a u. S. Court of appeals decision cited him with aiding and abetting and essentially called him a criminal. That was prior restraint but with criminal prosecution afterwards. General hayden, i want to go back to your theory of sort of transparency about secrecy and democracy. It is an appealing subject. To wait into another sensitive case. I think, on enhanced interrogation techniques, you and secretary panetta, as i understand, you thought they were valuable in producing intelligence and defensible. Nder International Law secretary panetta, i thinks, acknowledges they produced reliable information but on the holocaust outweigh the benefits. View, was anything lost by keeping these operations so secret for so long . Easier to it is explain a program that actually started, like the one we are talking about here with the gym n story. The jim rise i inherited the program and was trying to reshape it and resize it. In this case, one of the big in the big itches story one aspect was actually the 215 program that snowden released that had pretty much unremarked even in the press exposes of the program. Is metadata, very closely guarded, under tight restraints, which is the good part of the story that unfortunately the administration didnt tell. Database thata seems like it might be very ominous. In retrospect, we might have seen the community against the simply beingon by more candid about metadata, how metadata is used, and even pointing out that metadata is not constitutionally protected. Demands of security have placed on security agencies so you have a better idea. Id use the word transparent on a panel about this about a year ago. I said, were going to have to be more transparent. Leiter, he turns to me and says, i agree with your principal but it is not transparent. We need to be translucent. Actually a very elegant distinction. Transparent, when you turn the gain up on the telescope or microscope, get to the fine print and begin to make the things that were the reasons for doing it in the first place not worthwhile. Public ce, to the not the oversight committee, they get transparency but the public gets translucence. They get to see the broad shape and Broad Movement of what the Intelligence Services are doing. To get a broad sense of what is going on and to build up that level of foundation that i think we are going to need going forward. Mr. Panetta i think the fundamental principle here is trust in the American People. If thelity is that American People know that steps are being taken to protect their National Defense and their National Security, and they know what those steps are, the American People will be supportive. If you try to keep that from the American People or hide that from the American People, obviously there will be a lot of concern about what exactly is going on. I always get asked the questions about the things that are going on. I remind people that, when 9 11 happened, this country rose up in anger, asking, how the hell did we let that happen . The National Commission came together that was established in order to determine why did that happen, what went wrong. They determined that intelligence agencies were not sharing information. They determined that other agencies were not working effectively to track terrorists and be able to determine who was trying to attack this country. As a result of that commissions report, a number of steps were taken to improve our intelligence operations, our intelligence sharing, lawenforcement operations or counterterrorism operations. Basically aimed at trying to protect this country and making sure we didnt have another 9 11. It is important that the American People be reminded of the fact that these are steps being taken to protect them. I dont believe that we have to choose between protecting our freedoms and protecting our security. In a democracy, we have checks and balances. You do have laws that are passed, you do have an executive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch, all aimed at making sure that we protect our freedoms at the same time as protecting our security. There is an additional job which is that you cant just keep this to yourselves. You have got to be able to define this in a way to the American People. I think part of that responsibility is with the president. I think part of that responsibility rests with the people who had some of these agencies, to make clear that we are not just operating behind a wall, that what were trying to do is to fundamentally protect this country from another 9 11 type attack in order to protect you. If we can be transparent about that, that i think this country would support the steps that are being taken in order to ensure that another attack doesnt happen. I think that when that was actually put to the test a few years after 9 11 with the disclosure that there were these secret prisons, torturing some of the terrorists who were being questioned, the photographs of a great of abu ghraib and what was going on there, that really tests fundamental issues of how our country behaves. I think there again was such a huge reaction to that because it came out of the blue as though i agree with you that where in the end these decisions reside have to be the white house. Is thehouse president is charged with defending every word of the constitution. That is what happens on his inauguration day. The First Amendment concerns should come up but in the case, certainly in the case of the leak investigations, i dont believe there was anybody involved in the room and they were discussing whether to approve a criminal case against a source or not about what the consequences for informing the public are. What is the role of the press in a society that have to be informed to make informed decisions . With always uncomfortable the request to hold a story when it came from the nsa department because, you cia have a specific mandate and i understood and respected how carefully you take that but the president s mandate is a little different. It is supposed to take what we do and the importance of informing the public into account. Why i end, that is actually went on one of my trip dniashington, i asked the of james clapper, many of the him. Sts were coming from so asked him if we could just get together and kind of talk through all of this. He was very open to doing it. Could as aactually garden visits with steve may have helped, i thought it helped for him to understand my mandate. The way to the responsibility with all the actors here, in place, im probably almost as an comfortable as you are the prosecutions in the last several years. Not that it were not that things these people did not, the people did bad things, but the Collateral Damage to the free press and legitimate inquiry was going to be very considerable. Token,same taliban election [indiscernible] i dont think they should have gone with the outcome that pictures. In my dutcher, their americans today who are dead because the press published the pictures of b. U gara we can argue if the pictures were necessary or not for the intent of the store. My judgment is probably not and theainly if you weigh influence that not those pictures on the American Public that the pictures and inputs on the enemy. Influence on the enemy. The structure of the global age digital age is global. The distribution of the photographs is instantly global. Back to our editorial decisionmaking, the Washington Post, and there comes, or seeking global audiences. Seeking to make money from global audiences. Everybody is. Are your judgments now affected by whether or not the Public Interest of the Democratic Federal of germany is served by disclosing that we listen to phone . Kel xfone that does not concern me. If we publish the story about the kidnapping of the rich family kids whom the police have asked us not to come of it into me to try and find him to keep him alive would be part of our decision. I can see anything different in germany or thailand or anything like that. The political impact, no. I was not concerned about the initical implant impact the Eastern European countries. I was concerned about what i was convinced by of american authorities to harm what would have been that the congress relationships with them that may have affected american National Security. Minutes with him taking questions as we wrap up. If any of you do have questions and what to make them, please go ahead. I want to get in one question about the time we are in now. We have talked about the structure of disclosure of National Security information by the snowdens has changed. He can to get all of this information on a thumb drive. So has the structure of public. Were have a conversation with question posed in your times were just about all that happen. Unfortunately, that is not the case. One manifestation is the rise of social media platforms like facebook and Companies Like apple. Their global and their business model, have interests that are the way thed from near times newsroom would have to find such judgments. I was struck, as im sure anyone reading the news was by your statement about the applicant credit in case apple encryption face when he fought against the fbis pursuit of breaking that encryption. Could you explain why you ended up on that side of the issue . And also where the dominance of the social media platforms and distributors of information and news takes us as we wrestle with the issues weve been talking about . Weve been familiar with this. Mind it is on a constitutional question. I think the government has the authority to direct apple to do it. It is not a privacy question. He is dead. It is office phone. No privacy implications. It is a question of security. My judgment is although the right had the government have the right to do that, i did not think it was a good idea. There are a lot of dangers to american security. Terrorism is wondered kernel activities and so our cyber attacks. Frankly, youre going to be better defended by apple in american industry that cyber divine that he will be by the american government. It is the nature of the domain. [laughter] why would you let for arguably legitimate counter some use here, i would take three or four times before went over here and crippled and american industry that seems a pretty good encryption to keep you safe. The security lane alone, just security, i think i go with apple. I the broader social media, just finished a book. I did a lot of research sitting on my home computer. One of the things that people like the secretary and i and our excesses are going to have to live with is the sources and they will give you a point of light here in a point of light here. The ability now of a good reporter to fill in between those two points because of the nature of modern communication is exponentially greater than it has ever been before. Then there are more secrets out there. But it may not because there are more leaks. It might be that the nature of the modification environment which leads to all sorts of ofdamental reconsiderations what is necessary or legitimate secrecy. Let me comment on this. I think it is a sign of the times. Applect is whether it is or Silicon Valley or the u. S. Government, hopefully were on the same side. When come to dealing with people who would attack this country. I dont know what broke down in the situation. Usually behind every problem in washington is a personality problem where someone got pissed that somebody off at somebody. The fact is when i was director and i think it is true for my end, we had a close relationship with companies in Silicon Valley. I Close Relationships with people in hollywood. These are all good patriots. They were very loyal to this country. They were willing to be health and we have to keep it confidential. And i understood that. And we did keep it confidential. We were operating on the same team. If we needed help, they would give us help. That is the way it should be. I dont know what broke down here. And why suddenly justice takes apple to court and apple has to defend itself in the situation. My recommendation was that both sides need to get back in the apple hasgreed, look, the right to protect its consumers around the world. I understand that. Take a privacy. But when it does come to clear evidence of a terrorist whos going to use that information to ought this country, there to be a way to get that information and we ought to be able to Work Together to achieve that. Done, or on the public or Congress Tries to do it [laughter] the reality is it has redone in a room where people are sitting down and developing a process that both sides can agree to and work with. A couple of questions. This has been a wonderful panel. There two things i wrote down that caught my attention during the discussion. Holding power accountable. And the second was a discussion about the positive. Perhaps they can explain the effect on the positive pause button and was hit with the times on benghazi and the reason i ask that is i happen to be tuned into al and it during the event was artie been reported. Already being reported. Yet it was several hours before i heard anything in the media here. I will defer to the secretary who was in government at the time. [laughter] you cant get away from the stuff. [laughter] was no pause button. There were no discussions with the press. Place, the press was made aware, they knew the attack was taking place. And they published whatever they wanted to publish on the issue. There was no effort to impact on the press and how they reported that incident. Please believe that. There is enough shkreli stories going around already. Dont believe that. The prosecution question, if someone has disclosed classified information, there should be repercussions. Is there any gray zone . [indiscernible] who makes the decisions of what is allowable . President , attorney general nobody . The Justice Department is the one that looks at these cases and then makes a decision as to whether or not they will prosecute these cases. Both the general paternos case emma stone case may clear they would and the snowden casemate clear they would prosecute. Case. The mitigating circumstances are that the individual would present to the court, that takes place in the confines of an individual case. In the does make a determination based on that. There. S if the law is violated, a prosecution takes place. That is the way it should be. The role i had and when i can the sterling case. Criminalizinge what he did, i was upset over what mr. Sterling did. At the investigation was unfolding, i was asked as director of the cia, having worked secretly willing to put into the Public Domain in a Court Process in order to pursue the prosecution. Give the justice was whatever they need. Justices whatever they need. This was a serious breach of faith. Happened is because of that dynamic, former secretly want to make public before we go to court . We had made individually correct narrow decisions saying dont do that. With the strategic affect that there were serious leaks without consequences. Contribution. I want to say two things about this. Times, numberny of times there have been leaks as important of information. It is from a relatively low level person and you wonder how they had access to that in the first place. Chelsea manning being a good example. Thee are real breakdowns in Intelligence Services about how secrets are being kept. That needs to be remembered. The second, overclassification of information which i know the general agrees with me about. It is ridiculous. Chelsea manning case, we saw the documents classified. Some of them were newspaper stories. [laughter] Everybody Knows that and there was a commission, a president ial commission created to deal with this. It may good recommendations about how to straighten out the classification Administration System and be obama measures and has done nothing with it. Administration has done nothing with it. I referenced some operations that my agency was involved with and talked about some stories were in the New York Times and Washington Post and they said, have to have all the stuff presented to the agency and the agency said it is classified. But it was in the New York Times . [laughter] the president of United States spoke about it. What am i missing here . If you have a double classifying things, he had the job. Atfrom your experience as the cia, office of useful anoirs and books, i have office groaning with the memoirs of cia officers. Agencys no other secret in the world that is produced so many books has produced some ebooks. So many books. [laughter] what is inside the agency, i think there is some tension about this . You can only keep your mouth shut for so long. [laughter] there was torture, the euphemism, there are a range of use. You have a generation of cia toicers who at least went give their view of the story out there. Strongas been a pretty rush of some fairly senior in their good officers who attempted, thats not the way i saw. Who just want to put it out there on the public record. Gsa short question we will get out of here on time if you ask a short question, well get out of here on time. Trust. The root cause of some of these problems is a lack of trust in the agencies you run. Most recently with the apple thing. I want to zero in on something the secretary said about snowden. Said he should be prosecuted. So there are other ways to have a conversation. If that conversation was not being had and there is no evidence that it would have been had, absent his illegal method, we need to talk about it. I disagree. I think first noted to have taken the time to go up and talk feinstein,n sign he would be more than willing to listen for that kind of information. That is the kind of sherman she was. Chairman she was. Would beuse side, he open to anyone coming in and providing the kind of information. He did not even try. Was not even an effort. At least talk to somebody responsible position. And say, wait a minute, im concerned about what is going on. Our system would respond to that. People dont drop the ball on that because once somebody talk to somebody, they know that if they dont do anything about it, that could be a story. Experience, working with good people in some of these responsible positions, these are the people that you ought to turn to to say im concerned about whether or not our freedoms are being protected in this program. Heres the evidence that i have. A historical footnote if you as we have made many references in our discussion to the pentagon papers and in that case, Daniel Ellsberg who is the source of the pentagon papers actually did it first approach a senator. He very much wanted the senate to hold hearings on what was on the pentagon papers including the fact that the Johnson Administration had told epic lies about the war and he was basically told we are not getting anywhere near this. It is almost like a recourse. We can go on for another half hour about whistleblowers inside Government Systems and you have your experiences that would be very interesting to hear about. I think as reporters our impression is that if government bureaucracies in general were able to manage internal dissent in a fair and consistent way without ruining the lives of dissenters repeatedly than we would be out of business. Because the press not ill intent, but just the nature of bureaucratic culture is a very difficult to dissent credibly inside. It can happen but it is a hard thing to build and sustain. Amendment, the Founding Fathers were wise about that. To me conclude by asking you think they buy thinking this great group of americans. [applause] thank you, all. Pounding chairman passed away this week at the age of 89. Not only was he one of the first cable operator to support the idea for cspan, he continued to work on our behalf for almost 40 years. I want to introduce the settlement on my right, bob rosenkranz. Our first chairman. During the first money to get cspan started in 1977. In august, 1977, bob rosenkranz, then president of you a Coleman Cable and Business Partner for the first Cable Operators to agree to support the idea for cspan. At that time, only about 90 of American Homes were wired for cable. Mr. Rosenkranz who passed away this week wrote a check for 25,000. With that money, cspan created the infrastructure to send out cable televisions first live views of the u. S. House of representatives on march 19, 1979 to some 3. 5 million homes served by 350 cable systems. Understandpublic what goes on in washington. What the issues are and how to deal with them. I think about all the mission here at cspan has been just that and we are very proud of that. The Nonprofit Network to the initial challenging years and continued to serve on cspans board of directors until his death. Most recently in the role of chairman emeritus. Of an issue can only benefit from more exposure to our political process. Inform people but young and old both young and old and give us all a better feeling that we are percent is paid in participating in this process. I give her much. Thank you very much. Up next on cspan, Public Health officials talk about some of their findings from this summers hiv aids conference in south africa. Then a look at the comparisons between Richard Nixon 1968 campaign and donald trump residential run. Later, remarks from Homeland Security secretary jeh johnson. Health officials will talk about the zika Virus Outbreak and the need for reproductive and Material Health care access. Watch live coverage from the center for American Progress at 12 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Later, the white house Cyber Security coordinator will part of a discussion about how the federal government response to cyber attacks. That is hosted by the u. S. Chamber of commerce. Live coverage begins at 2 15 p. M. Eastern. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up on thursday morning, editor of the Campaign Promises made by Hillary Clinton and donald trump at the Partys National conventions and recent weeks. He will also discuss how politicized measures the truth and accuracy of statements and promises. Then the congressional reporter for military times on how military and veteran issues are playing out in the president ial campaign. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal live beginning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. Join the discussion. Next, conversation on hiv aids research and funding. A Panel Discusses the binding from this Summers International aids conference. The center for strategic and International Studies hosted this event. Good afternoon. Welcome to the center for Strategic International studies. Im a Senior Vice President here and i direct the Global Health work. Today is that safe vacation over 12 years in which we have joined together with the Kaiser Family foundation to jointly host this debrief on an international aids conference. Proud to do that. We have found year in and year out when we have done these that there is a very strong interest. Th