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