This is a hour and a half. Good morning. Were going to start up again. For those who are newly arrived. Im sanford ungar. Im glad to welcome you to continueuation of our simplest possess yum on the legacy of the pentagon papers. When putting Something Like this together, one of the best sources of ideas for questions and panelist and moderators are students, so i want to make sure we had at least one faculty of georgetown and somebody who was interested in furthering dialogue of this sort and all signs pointed to ellen gor dan and interesting in the pentagon papers for the cultural significant and what they told us about the democratic system in this country. She agreed to be the moderator and can ill turn it over to you now. Its important to talk go whats going on. The title of this panel is what will happen next. Im looking forward to looking forward what they think will happen next. Definition of the term leak, and the idea of Civil Servants, different segments of society seeing themselves as bull works against some kind of inkroechment of a lack of understanding of facts or news or what the truth is. I think one quote thats informative comes from sandys book in the decision the judge, whether or not the New York Times would be allowed to publish them. He made the following declaration. The security of the nation is not at the rampart alones. A cantankerous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve freedom of expression and the right of the people to know. These are troubled times. I think we can say this same is true now. Theres no greater safety val of very claims than freedom of expression many any form. This has been genius of our institutions throughout the history. The distinguish us from other nations under different forms of government. Thats one issue i would like to talk with susan and marty about the difference in American Media and can government how and they play out here. And the judges word will help lead us into discussions. We have marty baron of the Washington Post. Before coming to the post he was editor of the boston globe. And also in a film called spotlight, which im sure you have seen. He journalist whose work reflects impression to willingness to pursue the truth without regard to professional or personal. Im excited to have him here. Susan hennessey, managers of the law fir and at brookings institute. She is fellow there. Prior to joining brookings, general counsel of the nsa. She wrote an article for the law of leaks. Its a examination of the law surrounding government leaks. Now the white house might seek to investigate them and how we might see them as a remedy in terms of information with regard to failings potential failings in the government what the nature of the leaks investigation and enforcement mean more the government and the people in general. We have pat rowan a partner of the law firm. Where he focuses on international and security matters. He was with the department of justice. During his time he served assist attorney general National Security. And handled oversight of espionage investigations among other things. In november of 2016 he was named member of the new administrations landing team for the department of justice. Thou fank you for coming. I look forward to what you have to say. Well talk about the legacy of the leaks. We heard daniel els burg speak about the discussion with the government about how this may play out and his decision as a citizens and Civil Servant about why he felt this information needed to be known. My first question is for marty, the post has been, sort of the Major Players right now in terms of reporting whats been going on this continued questions about what a leak is whether or not it is more as bob said, vigorous reporting that elicit information as supposed to actual leak, a document or Something Like that thats brought to the paraphernalper. I think that its interesting to think about the way that the plethora of information coming out thats process. How does the post sourt through the amount of information, about what d people expect would be result do you think if you have notion of that. I would love to hear. First of all, theres not a plethora, its limited to whats being release. And we welcome more. So i think theres a lot more, to be known, and people have more to reveal, we could be receptive to receiving it. Its limited. Leaks its a broad term. It can apply to a lot of different things. In most instances as in the recent instances or the last severely weeks, the reporters have spent careers developing sources, these are beat reporters, people on our staff that covered intelligence for a long period of time. Others have covered Justice Department, Law Enforcement of every time and they they are able to as a result of cultivating the source they have been able to gather information. In other instances things are dropped in our lap. We have a welcome sign to people who send us stuff and we provides way to send it to us with a what we hope is a high degree of confidentality in the most wellknown recent case obviously, Edward Snowden provided a huge volume to us and to the guardian and other publication. That were highly classified. And he initiated that effort even though he was not familiar initially with the glenn greenwald. Testifi he was introduced to them. We then looked through the documents. Why do people provide the information . There are a variety of reasons. In the case of snowden, he felt that the government had gone through extreme with regard to surveillance and that General Motors motivated him. Why do people leak in the realm of intelligence is reason they leak in other realms and they have reasons for doing that. It could be a broad range of reasons for doing so. We want to know what the motive is but we want to evaluate the information in its own right. David sanger talked about a drop box that the times has offered to people and he indicated that there was a higher percentage of available information he thought there would be. He said he thought it would be 99 of noninformation. He sees 10 of useable information. They have something similar to us. I dont flknow what the volume. We have people that review it. Its sirlated to the people who examine it. Its i dont know what the percentage would be even if its 1 . Well take it. Do you have Something Like that. We do. Its on the home page of the website. Its offers eight different ways to send us information. Thats how the New York Times was able to get a portion of Donald Trumps taxes. It sound good. Susan and pat, can you us through the route how this will play out in terms of someone who decides to provide information to someone like the new york or Washington Post. Is a procedures where they need to be counselled by attorneys. I know els burg talk people with disabilities talked about that last night. Can you see that things have happened in terms of for instance, the espionage act or that things in the digital age have made prosecution different, harsher, i know you mentioned you see antileak prosecution as note being something that more likely to happen now . I think one thing important is the rhetoric. So we see if from both sides of the aisle the strong terms, incredible irresponsibility, obama took a lot of hit for it and george bush. Theres been a sort of this righteous indignation about how we discuss leaks in the public. The federal government that larger body of sensitive private information thats not meant for public disclosure. We know that the government theres authored leaks, theres quasi authored leaks. So whatever we think about what repercussions may look like, where in the spectrum we fall, general cartwright who had pled guilty has been pardoned by president obama for confirming a piece of information. That was quasi authored to have a conversation with the journalist maybe said something he should not have. Ultimately was pled guilty for providing lying to the federal agencies. Its not something going rogue or blowing the whistle, some have relationship with the press, publication have a story they want to run with it, or in order to be convinced that certain pieces of information should not be brought to the public. Its a serious obligation. Its a little bit more complex than just have you leaked information or have you not leaked information. Theres lot of moving pieces in the space. It would vary if its a goodwill leak or a sanction leak or something thats a rogue action all of these result in different kinds of ramifications . Its not intent base did you have a good leak or bad leak. Its not possible to investigate everything obviously, not everyone face the same consequences. Putting them into the appropriate context. Its levels of mitigation. What sort of line has been crossed our agencies doues do a refer for the investigation. For dibl aggravating factors that occur afterwards, the cover up being worse than the crime. Potential changes in terms of Trumps Administration in response to leaks, theres discussion earlier about Obama Administration not wanting to prosecute reporters themselves in some cases. Do you see that changing . Well, you mentioned i have on on land team, i have no idea what the Trump Administration wants to do about leak. As a general matters, every our focus will be on the not that received the information. Thats one of the challenges of leak investigations is that you have this person, the reporter out there that is this remarkable source of information where they got their leak from. The investigation works around that person. That was true in the Obama Administration and before that. Its a longstanding policy. In the beginning they didnt want to suffer a statue that might encroach on their per ogty. They put in place a policy that requires fbi agents to come to me and get approval from the attorney general. That policy is part of why we have seeb so few leak informations over the years its a very real check on the prosecutor to go after the repore they see as having all of the information. There is a judgment call where they dont have much in the way except a sense of how to balance and so could an individual attorney general strike that balance in im sure they could. Theres a long sort of constitutional tradition there of taking that very seriously. I wouldnt expect that to be discarded very reasonably. Would he be particularly concerned about attitudes changing towards reporters. I dont know if you have thought about this as well but the idea that that might inhibit some reporting to the extent that they feel that there could be some kind of challenge or they would be in fear of. I have no idea what the Trump Administration might do in the case of a leak investigation. Well see if they only try to go after the leaker of try to go after the reporters. I hope they are not coming after it. It would be my strong preference. There are issues about how justice pursues such an investigation i would hope it is the result of extensive organizations arising out of their investigation of received by jim risen, the New York Times and several others. And so but, you know, when attorney general sessions was going through his confirmation hearings he asked about that and he kind of ducked the question. We dont have an answer on that. As to how we would do our reporting we could continue do the reporting the way we always have. I dont think anybody is at the post or at other media organizations feels intimidated in any way. We will continue to do that job. They come in with the idea they will do their job the way they did it no matter what the pronouncements are that come out of the president himself. Just to follow up, i think one reason for this sense of anxiety, despite the fact we havent seen anything beyond parents statements here and there are they are not legal. There is not a statute that says this is what the Justice Department can or cant do. They couldnt investigate everything they wanted to. The norm of prioritizing political apoeopponents. The Justice Department rules are discretionary. They could alter them. I think a little bit of sort of the concern is matching that sense of theres a little bit of vulnerability because theres not kind of clear lines here paired with an administration that sort of prided itself on breaking norms and not having sort of respect for those institutional that we rely on. I think it lead to a feeling of anxiety. We dont know if it is justified or not. I think its a reck nice that what we are talking about is not some legal protection. It is some sort of represent for the institution of the press department of justice, those kinds of things. Those are really matters of agreement and sort of public virtue. I think thats where some sense of concern is coming from. I agree. You said we are not at war with the administration. Some kind of on oppositional sense. You have said that the press is the Opposition Party. How do you see that sort of new paradigm even if coming from certain people of the white house that it doesnt effect you at all. I think a lot of people now are going to that kind of niche journalism to sort of understand the executive order and all of the Different Cases that have been filed now and to kind of parse for lay people how it all works, how they might look to the future. We are not journaljournalists. It is amongst the bureaucracy. It has been a very interesting type of conversation between a very passionate sort of dozens of more than that but a relatively small group. There is lots more interest from the outside. I think theres a hunger for expertise and primary source materials. I think it is a little bit of a different role, but certainly lots of different forms are having to navigate whatever this new sort of place is. Well, look, i have only said once, actually. I was asked yesterday about the opposition thing. I said we are not at war with the administration we are at work. Thats what we are doing. We are doing our job. We are doing it the way it is supposed to be done. I think we have been in dangerous territory when being independent which is what we are, what we will be, what we should be. It is por troyed trayed as the opposition. We would if Hillary Clinton would be elected president we would be applying resources towards her administration as well. As we actually did during the campaign, contrary to lots of statements otherwise. So we were independent of her campaign. We are independent of the Trump Administration. Being independent does not make you the opposition. I think that its disturbing that it is now portrayed as the opposition. It kind of sounds like that on the domestic front. With them in the sense that we are part of them we are not terrorists either. We are just doing our job. Just the idea while this has hit very quickly in the new administration it is harm through leaks and to all of a sudden for somebody like Senior Intelligence official and said we send you all of these crime reports. Why havent there been any cases made. So that pressure on the system has certainly existed before. Honestly i recognize that the amount of that pressure can vary. There is a process in place. There are challenges that dont change regardless of how badly the president or administration would want to see. There are a lot of hurdles. Those are still there. I missed the talk. The idea of con sunlight an attorney in advance was an interesting one. I think anybody who is involved in a leak investigation has to worry about whether or not they get charged with a crime is the terrific stress and potentially financial cost that they may suffer in the context of dealing with the investigation itself. Its probably not going to change. Losing a clearance perhaps. Losing a clearance is a killer. Even before then having to go hire a lawyer and having to worry. It means go home to your spouse and tell them that the fbi called and they want to speak to me next week. Those are really challenging things regardless of what happens when the investigation finally shakes out. Let me just if i could add, i think that even during the Obama Administration as a result of their investigation and their concern, you know, that information was being given in an unauthorized way to the press. There were so many people who wouldnt even talk to the press for fear that they would be subjected to a leak investigation. They were saying it could subject me to an investigation. It will cost me a fortune. The very fact that i spoke to you makes me a suspect. I think thats a you know, a concerning environment for our government that so many people in government would be terri terrified. Do you a lot of discussions about the sort of idea of a Civil Servant try to go figure out his or her role they made to defend the constitution. I understand what youre saying about Civil Servants saying maybe not feeling some kind of need or on his or her part to release information. What about those people that do and that see themselves as defending, so in some cases people argue that they saw sally yates defending the people, defending the constitution as opposed to sort of having an allegiance to the administration or to her role in the sense that she was connected. Do you think it has potential to change . I dont know. First i think its an important and sort of discussing sally yates letter or firing. Theres a difference between the career Civil Servants and political appointees. Some of the other leaks we have heard about for the administration to dont talk about classified materials. I think most take that oath. You know, take it to heart and mean it is for the constitution and not to the president. It sort of transcends politics necessarily. You know, when we talk about leaks or classified information its often the leakers often use these terms of personal conscience. The problem is that no one person has all of the relevant facts. When youre participating where it is highly consequential there is that the con kwenss of leaking can be peoples lives or sensitive military operations. It is a high stakes area. The problem with the notion of everybody going off and making an independent judgment with regards to classified information is they are substituting a personal judgment for sort of the judgment of a relatively well developed system in deciding what needs to be secret and what doesnt. It is challenging when we get to that we dont want every Civil Servant going out. We want a system that is informed. It is a high stakes area. I do think we should sort of be careful in how we talk about discharging that oath. Yes, the oath is larger than a single administration. I think its a discussion they were having. Thats a decision he made that the pentagon or the government at large he felt was not doing something that made sense to him. He quoted chelsea saying i realized i was participating in something that i didnt agree with so its not an encouragement but with regard to examples like snowden, manning and in this case, is that not something that you can imagine people are thinking about these days . Repercussions are severe and grave. How do you see that playing out . If something were to decide i dont have faith in this system, that this sort of mitigates any issues that might upset me, so i need to do something here because i feel like im being compromised in terms of the oath i took. How do you see it playing out in the future . I think the issue, they have not seen that as a viable option. So, you know, i think just to recognize thats a wrap that folks dont seem to find very attractive. I think it is a very hard to fit yourself into that. The other thing i would say, just to sort of state the obvious, theres no sort of Public Benefit in connection with unique prosecution. If you get yourself to the point of facing a prosecution at least thus far the court theres nothing in the statute and did not recognize i was doing what i thought my conscience and constitution dick tatate. There may be a time when it is sort of created. Its not there now. And do Civil Servants think what am i going to do . I cant sit by and watch this happen. I think they do. I think they have in the past and i think some will in the future. It is interesting to think about whether or not whether the kind of quick issues here at the begins of an administration would sort of encourage that. Obviously from the administration and National Community they want to push back against that idea. They want to discourage the idea that we are at a new space where it is a little more acceptable to do what your conscience dictates. I think most people because of the president s press conference are thinking about the leaks in regard to former National Security adviser. I have no personal knowledge, but in all likelihood it is a person that would run to the content of those calls. Honestly it was made public. It was given to the press. It appears pretty clear there was an effort to bring it to the administration right. It appears what was sort of the motivation for the leaks was the administrations failure to recognize the concerns of these individuals and then also false statements to the public. Thats something that i think will start to become more of a Pressure Point or may encourage really, you know, not unprecedented behavior but unprecedented scale. We are seeing more than we have and the rate is astounding. I do think there is always a pressure between the need for secrecy and legitimacy and sort of the basic compact of the government and the people. That is one mechanism to relieve the pressure. Hopefully well see a little more responsible rhetoric moving forward. If it is a persistent in the administration where its a belief that the political levels are affirmatively lying to the public i do think well see an unprecedented amount of leaks. Those will have security consequences. We shouldnt pretend because we happen to, you know, agree there arent actually consequences. There are. I dont think well see it slow down until we see a change of the topic. Okay. And you talked about the post will keep doing what it has always done. It is not an opposition. Youre doing the work you have always done. What about in the current context of some kind of claim that the mainstream media, newspapers like the Washington Post are providing news that isnt based in reality, that its alternative, that you have maybe other Media Outlets provides oppositional information in some ways. How do they deal with sort of this kind of context where so we are accused of fake news, is that it basically . [ laughter ] i dont know. Youre very tempted to respond like whatever. There is nothing to it. I mean they were entirely accurate. They havent been contra dilkted. When you say the leaks are true but the stories are fake news, it doesnt make any sense to me. The stories were accurate. They continue to be so. I think they have served public purposes. Here is someone who lied to the Vice President apparently and certainly didnt tell the truth to the american public. Thats what we ought to be doing, giving Accurate Information to the american public. Can you help explain to us in terms of the changes since 9 11, changes in surveillance of the American People and the general sort of increased digitization. How does it work with regard to information thats been leaked . Theres a bunch of different impacts, some of which are sort of proprosecution and some of which are anti prosecution. One of the results of the reworking of the Intelligence Community after 9 11 is there was such a push for information sharing. That means the number of people who may have received the classified information has dramatically expanded. Thats one of the keys to having a successful investigation is starting off with a relatively small number of suspects. Information sharing has made the governments National Security efforts generally much more efficient. It has made it harder to investigate a leak. Not so much because of 9 11 but because of increasing digital nature of our world there are many more digital records and they are much more easy to get ahold of. I assume in the past a Government Official could sit in his office and use a land line in his office to call a reporter and speak to him. And now that official, if she chooses to use her cell phone she creates a digital record that didnt exist with land lines. There is the case involving the state Department Employee named kim that was in touch with james rosen. One of the pieces of evidence they used in that case is they were working out of the secured turnstiles. It didnt exist before as a bit of evidence. Now they can show these two walked out and came back in together. There are a lot of pieces that make it easier to identify the individual that may have met with the reporter and spoken to him that didnt exist in the past. So when the National Security adviser flynn was on the phone he would have understood that those conversations were being at least tracked or recorded it must have changed civil serva s servants. In what ways does the legal system allow for the idea that people understand that they have surveilled. They have culpability if they are being traced. I think the key thing you think you see is that its harder to lie to the fbi. You see a lot of cases where the problem is that they lie and its easier to prove the lie than it ever used to be. My assumption is the past, if the fbi, they say okay, its 50 people that knew about this bit of classified information. Well go talk and ask them, did you meet with this reporter . Do you know anything about this . I assumed in many intastances people would say no. I hadnt. They need to be much more aware. The fact of the conversation is much more easily provable by getting ahold of that officials phone records and showing that he or she may have talk today a reporter or at least called that number associated with a newspaper or something. Thats certainly one piece. I think some of the top cultural sort of works around this especially since 9 11. It is detailed. Is there a sense of people and to the government in general there needs to be more transparen transparency. Theres no allegation that Michael Flynn was being targeted or recorded. It is within the scope of the lawful authorities. It is not unusual for United States officials to interact with foreign powers and the conduct of their duties to be intercepted, not sort of that incidental collection. I think it would be a mistake to sort of generalize because a limited set of conversations might be picked up for Intelligence Mission that that means that people should assume their conversations are recorded everywhere or theres no privacy. The other thing is individuals who hold clearances work on National Security matters consent to rather detailed monitoring. It is where they are observed and thats sort of one of the conditions with a great deal of trust and being given this information. One of the ways you reciprocate is by undergoing, but also agreeing to that kind of ongoing monitoring. It is being done on a basis of what you agreeing to. Okay. Obviously you can see at a particular time. Different apps have a Location Information that would tell where you are. If youre using uber they can show up a lot of places we dont notice them they are tremendous. It is in a range of ways it is easier to sort of track the movements in a way that didnt exist decades ago. That makes, i think more difficult for someone in government to provide information to the press and more difficult for the press to sort of try to obtain that information. I think its much more difficult environment right now. And there are people that, for example, the reporter that was done by a British Intelligence officer. It is ultimately did publish that document after cnn reported that the president himself on the other hand another segment of the public is part of the problem because we are receiving leaks and things like that. They dont want that level of transparency. It is security over transparency and even over privacy. You know, the Public Opinion shifts from one time to the next. When this snowden came out it was a large sentiment among the public for there was greater concern about privacy. As terrorism became a greater concern it was more concern about security and less concern about privacy. So Public Opinion can swing and a lot depends on which segment youre talking about. Is the espionage act viable in technology and things like that . Yeah. I dont think that the changes in technology have effected the espionage act in terms of its use as a tool. The problem is its a 1917 statue. It has a series of abcd, various provisions, including some that are targeted as classic espionage and some that are useful far leak information in that it is a disclosure of defense information by someone authorized to receive it. It has been a lot of discussion that its not a particularly good fit for these kinds of matters for both because its overinclusive in circumstances but every time there has been any serious effort to look at this i think the conclusion thats been reached is this is too complicated and difficult to fix it both from the governments perspective there might be a desire to make it eeds sier to prosecute these cases there are concerns about how it would dramatically restrict activity we think is appropriate. There for a lot of reasons people dont think its digging into this. There is nothing about the digital age that made it less useful. It is just the challenge of using an old law that wasnt particularly written and certainly doesnt have the defenses in it that some people might want to see in this year for this kind of activity. Do you see revising Something Like this and bringing it up to date . There might be an appetite but these are it is hard enough to sort of pass the basic apropuations laws these days. You know, the way we think about these things. In the past we always have sort of taken the approach they should publish anything. It should be true and have some public relevance if thats not news worthy. But it shouldnt be published. Thats sort of the thats we have gone thats the way we arrived at this point. One of the challenges the massive scope of where information is ago gri gaited. If we look at, for example, Hillary Clintons Campaign Managers emails we had our Intelligence Services saying that was hacked by an intelligence service. It is being distributed for the purposes of influencing their positions. It is sort of active measures or other forms of espionage. We saw the press really struggling to say well, is it certainly news worthy . Does this qualify . We saw them reporting on that information. It raises a really difficult question, which is is wiki leaks different than the secure drop box . Now that we have the ability to take lots and lots of information in a way that the individuals are receiving it dont necessarily know whos producing it or for what rans should their obligation be the sort of basic practices of is it true and news worthy. We will be seeing it happen with more frequency because there is more information and because the ability to understand who is source is might have changed . Sandy a revent post about being called the Opposition Party said good, yeah, this is good. Im sorry. Maybe you can speak to that. Also, he mentions in the book for a brief period not only the post but press in general enjoyed a honey moon period. By midto late 80s it sort of died out. Do you see a resurgence in terms of people in i know the post and times have increased . I think it is actually quite similar. Reporting a sharp increase and many of these come with notes that they have glad we are doing what we are doing, they want us to do that kind of work. They do believe that government should be held accountable they feel they can no longer take the work they do for granted and they should support it by putting a hand in their pocket and buying a subscription. We appreciate that. It actually is necessary to have the resources to do this kind of work. So i do think there is among a segment of the population an increased confidence in the media, however, my concern is that its i think we should all have all of us should be concerned about the levels of confidence in our profession which have been at historic low points. It is among people who have democrats and republicans. It is dropped dramatically among republicans particularly over the last two years. I think it is now among republicans only about 15 where it was at a not terribly impressive 25 two years ago. I think the confidence levels among democrats is in the 40s, somewhere like that. Overall we are in the 30s, which is not great. We are above congress. We are above big business, but that too is not very impressive. It also comes along with a significant decline in confidence a confidence essentially all institutions. The only ones holding their ground are the military and to some degree Law Enforcement. It is a little bit shaky too. Pretty much all others have seen a significant decline in public comments. Right now we are seeing among certain segment of the population an increased confidence in what we do and willingness to support work that we do. It is in terms of going to seeing them in some ways that shifted. All kinds of interesting changes. It is to briefly say what you think of when you think of the pentagon papers and the decisions that were made. We talked about snowden and the idea of leaks in general. What do you see as a legacy. I guess they think pentagon papers that sort of they laid their t road it is remarkable that, you know, the main criminal statue that will come back from 1917. The pentagon papers, here we are now and the legal landscape hasnt changed much sense then. Not only it is a powerful set of events. It is the focus it is for him or herself. It has really been an important part of and thats really framed the way people come to understand events that occur. I think more and more as these become more common a historically rare event and unusual thing that can stand on their own. I think how we address the notion that people are complex and have different motivations and that we might need to disentangle from the personal heroism in terms of is it a good or bad thing and how do we want to think about legitimacy and sort of public transparency and those kinds of things. The other thing is pendulum swing in terms of the press and the government. So i think sort of, you know, moving from, you know, when a government asserted a National Security interest or said you cant disclose this because someone will die as a result and thats the end of the conversation. It is setting in notion the press that wanted to see the evidence, the revolving relationship of theres responsibility to be careful and treat this information with appropriate sensitivity. They say somebody will be hurt if i publish this. Show me. Prove it. It is sort of more of that sort of challenging posture which may have seemed like an annoyance in the past. I think we are really going to see sort of the importance of the role of independent journalism in our National Security and thats actually they play really really Important Role in not only public transparency and constraining those choices ensuring they are carefully made. That little thing in your head that some day this is going to be on the front page of the Washington Post really does influence the way government think about their work. We are about about to see a lot more of these things. That sort of historical Reference Point will be important. Makes sense. When the pentagon papers case was taking place i was in high school. You know, at a time that was hostile to the press. It is similar to what we have today. Incredible attacks on the press. The Vice President at the time was a constantly going after the press and obviously nixon himself had animosity towards the press. Prior to the pentagon papers case that had had a chilling ifect on the press. He site in the book in a report that satd that press had gone from an extreme level of security and a feeling of vulnerability. That has rez nates today. I think it had an impact by energizing the press and reminding the press about a Public Service role. I think that the press has try today pursue that Public Service role, perhaps more aggressively in the years sense than it did in the years prior to the pentagon cases. When i was thinking about this as i was looking i was thinking wow, it looks like an easy decision to publish. It dealt with a report that involved history of the vietnam war. And it was kind of a history report. It didnt involve Current Operations and so some of the kinds of things we have been dealing with and talking about disclosures have involved Current Operations. Its a much more difficult territory. In fact i think one of the defenses on the pentagon papers is it involved historical information. I do think that the pentagon papers case helped obviously establish the idea that they shouldnt be prior restraint because there was some allowance and they pointed to say this ruling is not a complete victory for the press on that front. You know, i think that the case doesnt really help us very much so there were some threats about sort of i dont know if they were vailed or neiled or not ve. They said they werent threats but sounded like threats, that the Washington Post could be prosecuted for publication of those papers not with standing the Supreme Court ruling in the case. There have been other instances where people have been threatened with prosecution. So obviously the case was helpful. I think it helped to set a frame work for the press and decades since, which i think has been helpful and served the public interest, but it does not provide us complete protection. We are in this sort of strange territory and unsettled territory today. We and government have to operate on that territory. Thank you. Im sure we have some great questions. Yes. Thank you. Chris blare, following the actions of fbi director comey and his corresponding inaction following the information that came out about Michael Flynn and the statement they are not going to investigate do you all have an opinion on the federal azwren sis and Going Forward the effects it could have on potential leaks . Would you like a particular person to start . So an easy one first. I think its a very very dangerous path to walk down to start imputing motives to people that when ever we dont have all of the relevant information. So one way to sort of know whether or not you have acted in a fair way is when both sides are equally angry at you. So i think if we look at his actions sort of over totality it doesnt endorse or condemn any particular decision. One thing i do think is troubling is starting to hear this rhetoric that frankly was set by the Current Administration itself about sort of the politization and we should be suspicious of these things, that will not help us defend our constitutions to the extend they are under attack. It does highlight the importance of not just a functions press but will understand the difference between genuine and false leaks. One thing we saw after the leak of comeys letter and not the public was a series of stories that turned out to be false about the state of the investigation at that time. It is really problematic. They are as potentially consequential with true ones. Similarly there were early reports prior to the inauguration about the exist ens and maybe tent and maybe a leak story. I said no. He has been cleared. The fbi says theres nothing there. It really ended the inquiry until there was a later revelati revelation. I think it is to take a step back when we think about try to go do their job or sort of political appointees and in the government trying to discharge their duties, how they interact with the press. I think it sort of necessarily saying this was done to help one candidate or the other thats a serious allegation. I think its one we should be pretty careful and conservative before we make. We dont know whether it was or not. We only know people say it was politici politicized. It is decisions that comey made. People in public and people within the political arena have made accusations but i dont think we are in a position to say that was the motive at all. The other thing i would say is that, you know, just like any organization the work was done by people at a much lower level. That work bubbles up in the state that it is in. Making a political decision about a matter like that is complicated. Even if a person has an ill motive these facts are before them and they exist and it is very hard, i think, to sweep facts aside and say we will do x because thats what we want to do. It is full of people two feel strongly about following the rules, following not just the law but following the standard practices of how they conduct and investigation and so i also am not quick to assume that it would be very easy for somebody at a senior level to make a political decision if the facts were to push them in another direction. Okay. Can you give us some hope . In the watergate one didnt face alternate news and false facts hitting the media. Here it seems like the few responsible press are up against all kinds of obstacles to bring the truth out. Look, first of all i would say there are a lot of reporters doing their job today. It is a myth that at the time of watergate you had great reporters who all did their job and today you have reporters who dont do their job not true. What do you did have then is a healthier who had a lot more in the way of resources and things like that. You know, people who own the networks were concerned about licenses being renewed and all that. The situation in congress and obvio obvious obviously you would see things unfold at a more rapid pace. At least this is what we have. The internet environment is concerning and on a lot of levels. I am deeply concerned about the spread of false information and also just about people gaf ta gravitating that affirm their preexisting point of view. Both of those are concerning. We see People Living in parallel universes. It is hard to find Common Ground and very hard to find Common Ground in a democracy. Youre asking for hope. Im not helping you here. Yeah. Where is the hope . Yeah. It is hard in democracy. You have to agree. There were a time we agreed on a basic set of facts. Y we agreed on the facts, what happened yesterday. We could agree on that. Now we cant. You know, it was the late senator who said youre entitled to your own opinions but not entielte entitled to your own facts. You have your facts. I have my facts. You know, thats problematic for a democracy. I dont know what we can do about that. I am very concerned about that. And i dont think its helpful when we have politicians who endeavor to not just criticize us, not just marginalize us but really endeavor to delegitimatize us and actually to dehumanize us if you actually look at the language. I dont think thats helpful. I dont think its helpful to run down the key institutions in this country, whether it is the government institutions or others that are basically pillars of the society that we have and the democracy that we have. And that is whats happening day unfortunately. So not terribly hopeful. Got you. Oh, back there maybe. Yeah. You touched on it earlier about congresss unwillingness or ambivalence to maybe create a select committee to investigate the leaks or for the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor or investigator to investigate the leaks. Given that seems like more of the burden is falling on the press to conduct the investigation and therefore its possible or we can predict that more leaks will come to the press as the investigation takes place with the press, can you talk about the consequences of that . So i think there are sort of two strains. So one is investigations into ties between the president and his associates sort of ties to russia. Thats a broad bucket with lots of different strains. And then there are leaks sort of related to that investigation that go in both directions. So the senate actually has formed thats the cia is undertaking an independent investigation. A number of other congressional committees are as well. The important thing, some people have called for sort of a bipartisan commission, something that looks more like the 9 11 commission. That might be a good idea. The important thing is the investigation thats currently exist have two features. One, they have subpoena power. They force the government to produce tern tangible objects and make certain statements. Thats why its significant that we see leaks that say hey, theres a transcript of these calls, theyre bringing the forms of evidence to the public. Thats significant for the independent investigation. They said theres a concern. The executive branch might not fully discharge its function to the extent somebodys worried about that. The other feature is that these committees have the ability to review highly classified information. Its another way that you can sort of control these types of investigations if youre worried about that or slant them. Use National Security rationales to sort of prevent information from coming forward. We have two important pieces. The third piece thats absolutely critical and we dont know if we have it yet is a bipartisan motivation to get to the bottom of this and to get to the truth of the matter. Weve seen some hopeful signs from senators Lindsey Graham and john mccain and others. The more we hear from both sides of the aisle about discussions from a place of prepolitical commitments, that this really isnt about beating up the administration but saying something is happening here that is threatening our basic institutions and the things that we sort of put before our individual party or policy preferences. These investigations will take a very long time. They will require some political fortitude. I think what remains to be seen and will be really important is whether or not Congress Sort of has that sense of courage and responsibility to discharge its constitutional duty here. Weve seen some good signs and some bad signs. It will not be sort of a note of caution that this will not be a short process or well be talking about these investigations for a very, very long time. Do you have any thoughts about that . No. I think the Law Enforcement the fbi investigation i understand what you said. Your skepticism about the attorney general. But i think the fbi and linelevel attorneys involved in the investigation will be very productive and then the question will be will what they find be shared more broadly . And thats i think theres going to be a lot of pressure on them both from the media and the hill to share that information. So there may be more about what is learned about what they actually learn. Okay. Maybe one or two more questions. Yeah. Gabriela munoz. Im a junior here at georgetown. I just wanted to ask, because the digital age has made tracking easier, covering or observing easier and even hacking easier, do you think at all that there might be a regression or a return to more oldfashioned forms of communication either within agencies or between journalists and their sources . Yeah so, if youve ever looked at a set of foia documents from the government and you see an email chain, oftentimes the last thing on that email chain will be can you call me . We are all adaptive organisms, right . And people will sort of, to the extent they are willing to seek out privacy and have conversations that arent recorded either pursuant to public records acts or in their private capacities, i think thats sort of a natural instinct. How successful well be, how capable we are of actually opting out of sort of producing digital evidence remains to be seen. One thing that will be really important is just personal relationships. You have to know people and trust people. And sort of the core of understanding whos responsible credible actors in the media and in the government, thats going to be really important. Id be interested in hearing what you have particularly about young reporters because we all have this stereotype about younger people not being as used to speaking face to face or on the phone and they want to send a text instead and whether or not how that affects the way young reporters report. I am concerned with that. I would welcome a return to some of the old to the old habits of telephone calls, meeting people in person. I think we need to go back to that. First of all, i think it fill states better communication, understanding of what people are saying rather than responses to emails and things like that. I think thats helpful. I think everybody now is much more careful about what they put in emails or at least they should be. I hope they will be. Weve encouraged everybody to be. Because a determined hacker can get in pretty much anywhere. I think we can see that. And we have to obviously its important that people have more safeguards on email and access to their Information Systems and things like that. But you know, its interesting to me that the New York Times when they got some pages of trumps tax returns that it was sent by mail, rather than somebody faxing it or anybody use fax anymore . I dont know. Or you know, taking a picture and sending it via email. But they used oldfashioned email. They put the wrong address on there. They should have put 1301 k street washington, d. C. , 20071. But in any event it was a return to sort of old ways of providing information. But i think the problem is there are engrained habits among people and the engrained habits are to use email and i think people feel very comfortable with that. But if there are more leak investigations and more concerns about hacking i suspect people are going to be much more careful about how they communicate. Mark, just one more. Yeah. Hi. Im james hoyt and about to graduate from the university of kansas majoring in journalism. And i just find it kind of bewildering going back home and talking to people. Theres been fantastic reporting out there about taxes, Michael Flynns connections to russia and stuff like that. And its just been kind of bewildering talking to people and just hearing that they dont care. And it seems like shiny objects are being thrown out all the time by this administration that bury this stuff. So i guess my question is whats it going to take to get a story to stick and to not get it knocked off not to get it knocked off primetime by a feud with Arnold Schwarzenegger or something . I dont know, actually. Im going to get a flavor of that. Im speaking at kansas state in april. And im sure ill itll be interesting to hear what kinds of questions i get. Especially since im supposed to talk about ethics in journalism. So you know, i think these things do stick in some ways. We have to take the long view, not to make a comparison with the present day, but watergate the investigation was under way and nixon got reelected. It took a long time. Years. Is it was not something that happened instantaneously. I think theres a tendency these days to expect that a story appears, has immediate impact, people immediately do an investigation and we wrap this up within a few weeks, that sort of thing. That just doesnt happen. I mean, look, when trump went into office he had according to the polls the lowest Approval Rating of i think any president ever who entered upon entering office. His Approval Rating has declined. I mean, i think that, you know, a lot of thats a reflection of things that he himself has done, has nothing to do with the press. But i think things have an impact over a longer period of time. Our job in the press is to provide information to that people need and deserve to know. And they make their decision. And you know, theyre entitled to we have a democracy. They should be the ones to make the decision. And i have absolute respect for that process. Its the same democracy that allows us and the press to do our jobs to publish what we think we should publish. And you know, we have a system that works in its own ways. Its not a Straight Line always. 1k3i think we dont know quite what the impact is of what were publishing, sometimes for years. Ive within sort of thinking about this in a different context, coming from the Intelligence Community and hearing the way the administration talks about the Intelligence Community and talks about some of the facts, the similar kind of sense of bewilderment. One thing i think is sort of a really striking thing within the Intelligence Community is you walk into the cia, in marble engraved on the wall it says you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. And that is really a motto of that particular community. And i think it is actually an article of faith that exists that actually binds the Intelligence Community and parts of Law Enforcement and the press. Just sort of this faith that the truth matters. Expertise matters. And sort of being able to have the faith to be a really, really tenacious reporter or really tenacious intelligence agent. Someone who just sets yourself to finding the truth, no matter whether it supports your political views or not or is helpful or what its impact might be. So to the extent that i have sort of hope moving forward its that i see that in a lot of different places and i think that something about this moment has really activated that sense in people. And inspired young people to enter journalism, young people to enter intelligence, and thats sort of i think its the one thing that americans share and its the way were going to have to find our way through whatever this next period is going to look like. It would be great if out of all thats happening these days that we as a society, whether people in the press, people in government, or people who are ordinary citizens rededicated themselves to the value of evidence, the value of expertise, and the value of experience. Well said. We at georgetown have been so lucky to have you three join us today. Thank you very, very much. [ applause ] sorry, we went over a few minutes. This weekend cspans cities tour along with our Comcast Cable partners will explore the ordinary life and history of richmond, virginia. Saturday at noon eastern on book tv. Well talk with former Virginia Governor douglas wilder, author of son of virginia a life in americas political arena. Now a professor at virginia commonwealth university, he was the first africanamerican to be elected governor of the commonwealth. And i keep an ear to the ground. People are always ahead of politicians. Always. Politicians hear what they want to hear. People hear what they have to hear. Reporter well also visit the Edgar Allen Poe museum. The poet was a richmond native and the museum houses the largest collection of mr. Poes art akts, manuscripts and memorabilia. If it hadnt been for richmond, poe wouldnt have produced a lot of his best work and wouldnt have had that chance to experiment when he was in his earl qi 20s and find his literary voice. Reporter on sunday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv explore richmonds history. From the american revolution, the civil war, and today. And then well visit the home of maggie walker, a leader in richmonds Africanamerican Community at the turn of the 20th century. She became the first female ceo of a bank in the United States. And mrs. Walk yers goal waso primarily help women of the organization and black women of the entire community. And thats where the strength of the independent order of st. Luke came to be. And from that platform working with the independent order of st. Luke mrs. Walker goes on not just to have an effect in richmond but toward civil rights and equal opportunities for black women across the United States. Watch cspans cities tour of richmond, virginia saturday noon eastern on cspan 2s book tv and sunday afternoon at 2 00 p. M. On American History tv on cspan 3. Working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. Since its official opening last september, the National Museum of africanAmerican History and culture has welcomed over 750,000 visitors. And sunday American History tv on cspan 3 takes you inside the museum for a live exclusive afterhours tour. Our special takes a look at the galleries and exhibits telling the africanamerican story from slavery to the first africanamerican president. Well talk with the museums specialist, mary elliott, and its curator william fretser, and throughout the program our guests will be talking to you and hearing your input via your phone calls and tweets. Join us for an exclusive live visit inside the museuican hist culture. Live sunday beginning at 6 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv. On cspan 3. Next, the confirmation hearing for president trumps pick to head the centers for medicare and medicaid services. Nominee seema verma testified on the Financial Sustainability of the programs and how to improve quality and access. This is just under three hours. The committee will come to order. Id like to welcome everyone to this mornings hearing. Today were going to consider