Okay. So i think what this case illustrates in the broader trends that we were talking about are some threats to press freedom, but i think its important to put that into a global context. And there are many countries, including russia, that have far worse press freedom records and where journalists are imprisoned, journalists are killed and their murders are never investigated. Indeed, in most cases of george journalist murders, nine out of ten are never investigated. Several outstanding in russia as well. We have to keep this in perspective. I mean, there are threats certainly to the free practice of journalism. Luckily we live in a country that has rule of law and due process. In many countries those things are missing. Lets keep this in perspective and not let this become an excuse for say authoritarian governments to use in their crackdown on press freedom. Just in the same light, nor should we let the fact that authoritarian regimes exist give us an excuse to brow beat journalists that are doing their jobs. The core of the issue is the expansive National Security state. And so one can make an argument that, you know, in the name of National Security you can do x, y or z. You can censor speech by classifying certain information and so on. The problem is, though, that the number of classified documents has increased exponentially since 9 11 and actually turned into something where information that is embarrassing to the government becomes classified. I know this in my experience as an attorney representing guantanamo detainees and later were representing criminal suspects in the United States. And never had you asked me five, seven years ago if i thought that my expertise in National Security or in guantanamo would make me suitable or would be the value add to joining a case where i represent a journalist, i mean, just think about that. I mean, i get calls from journalists that want me to represent them because i represented guantanamo prisoners. So thats perspective. So i had another question for james. I know you dont want to take anymore questions. Could you talk about the harassment you faced under the Bush Administration for your National Security reporting . And also the fact that this subpoena was dropped by the Bush Administration and has been renewed under the Obama Administration. Youre going to get me in trouble with my lawyers. Now, first of all, the subpoena wasnt dropped by the Bush Administration. It expired. The first one expired in 2009. So it was after the Bush Administration left and then it was renewed by the Obama Administration and a whole series of subpoenas. Yeah. In my affidavit, one of my affidavits in the case, i think i filed several of them actually, i talk about the harassment that i got during the Bush Administration. So thats on its public in the Court Documents where i describe the all of the efforts, both public and some private efforts by the administration to, in my view, to harass me and to try to, you know, try and have a Chilling Effect on reporting that i was doing. It was if you remember what if you were around in 2005 or 2006, there was a lot in the press about that. So, it was a fairly concerted effort against both me and eric lichtblau, my colleague at the New York Times. So, yeah, it got pretty intense. Thanks. Hello. Im wondering how hopeful are you that this collective effort will make a dent . I remember that you said that this is just the beginning and what would follow . And a sideline question is, is this an opportunity to push again with the federal shield law . Thanks. Whoever really. Thanks. Well, ill address the first part of that. You know, as a 2008 obama delegate to the Democratic National convention, i can say that the Democratic Party has given hope a bad name in the last few years. So, your question about how hopeful i am, i have some trepidation to directly answer. But i do think that this is inherently a political case that is being pursued by this administration. Youll notice again, if you go to rootsaction. Org, youll see where you can read all the statements and also at the freedom of the press foundation website, all of the statements issued, now 20 this week, by Pulitzer Prize winners. One of those journalists flat out says something that i certainly think is true based on the evidence, this is a vendetta. This is a vendetta against james risen. And if you read john rizzos book, former Legal Department head of the cia that came out this year, company man, he makes clear that there has been a lot of hostility towards james risen at the cia for quite a while. Matter of fact, hes the most named, vilified journalist in the entire book of memoirs of 30 years. So, that to me indicates the political nature of this entire effort by the Justice Department. And the hope that i think we genuinely have is to continue the momentum of what weve seen in recent weeks to bring this issue to public spotlight and to create more and more of a ground swell of public pressure. Anybody have comments on the other aspect question . You know, one thing that i see from these kinds of actions is that well, first of all, if you look at it, theres a political washington and then theres a career washington. And its really career washington, the fbi, the nsa people, and all those who do these investigations and want to stop leaks in the first place. And post9 11, theyve had more and more power to track that information. And so my point is, you know, not to give the Obama Administration any breaks here, but its going to get worse no matter who is in charge politically. And so the best and maybe the only antidote to that is a ground swell of public support that says were not going to stand for this anymore. And thats why i think petitions like this are so important. And that is also hopefully going to lead to a federal shield law because congress doesnt act in the abstract. It needs to see, unfortunately, somebody going to jail or threatened with jail to really get going and act. And thats in the states thats often how we see shield laws enacted, when there is a state controversy, and on the federal level its happened the same way first with Valerie Plame and then with other incidents. This is the kind of thing that will prompt action and i hope it is enough along with the popular outpouring in favor of it to get something done in congress. I had a followup for you, mr. Leslie. Youre talking about the shield laws currently being discussed in the senate and the house. Would those apply to National Security issues like the ones that james risen has covered . Its all in the wording, obviously. Thats always what it comes down to. But we think its finessed enough to say that the exemption for National Security cases is really going to come into play when theres an ongoing threat to National Security, not when theres just an effort to examine something in the past. As long as we maintain that and, you know, obviously the wording can change day to day as it goes through every step of congress, but thats a critical thing. The government will always want the ability to investigate incidents where there truly is a current, real, meaningful threat to the National Security. And, you know, were never going to win that one. You know, it makes sense that if theres literally a bomb thats going to go off, theyre going to want to investigate everything they can. So, as long as theres that limit in there and we can keep that, i think it can be meaningful and i think it can help in cases like this. Im not a journalist, but i have a followup question. Lyme a lawyer and a standford stude student. Im just curious if you could talk a little bit more about how the shield bill would actually as its written protect journalists like mr. Risen. I know he spoke at the sources and secrets conference a couple months ago and indicated he didnt think he would be protected under the bill as its currently written. I think the language that might be relevant that youre pointing to in the Senate Version theres language about preventing or mitigating future attacks and the idea of preventing or mitigates doesnt seem to have a future tense to it. The idea of mitigating an attack seems like we could be focussed on any sort of ongoing terrorist activities. So anything could be covered under the exception. So, i ask you this because i wonder if you could help me see the bill the way you see it because the way i read it everyone is going to fall through the loophole and so the way its written now it actually might do more harm than good. That said, aside from the shield bill, are there other solutions that you might be able to put forward that might be equally useful to help address the kind of situation that were seeing here . Thanks. Well, i think the thing i would point out is that everything we hope for is an incremental change. Theres no Golden Ticket thats going to solve everything. You know, you cant ask the government to solve everything. They wont do it. You know, it has to be by reporters continuing to do great work and having the public stand up for that. So, you know, with that in mind, you know, weve never felt that the shield law was perfect. We feel its an incremental change. Weve never felt that the National Security exception should be as broad as the senate wants it to be, but you fight over every little word and hope to get something that will put the brakes on most investigations. And, you know, mitigating harm from a terrorist attack, if thats the only exception, thats going to allow thats going to stop a lot of the subpoenas that weve talked about, a lot of the whistle blower investigations that weve talked about in you know, even today or when we name all the ones that the Obama Administration is looking into. So, yeah, its not a cureall. Theres no perfect way to get all this done. But every little thing helps. Getting the department of justice to have a better policy about what it will do before it issues a subpoena is a big step. You know, assistant u. S. Attorney out there who now knows he has to jump through a lot of hoops and ask for permission from washington and directly from the attorney general will hesitate much more often than an ausa who can just subpoena anybody or get any records. So, it all helps, and none of it is perfect in a sense the best i can say. You know, weve never thought the shield law was perfect. I would argue for an absolute privilege in the courts if only the courts would agree with me. I think congress is your problem. I think we have time for one more question. I have a question to james risen. Its not about your work but its about the effect of the last six years on your sources. Are they still motivated or maybe even more motivated and what new guarantees do they ask . What has changed in their way of coming out with the information especially in the sector of National Security . You dont really think im going to answer that, do you . Im not going to answer it. Thanks. Ill give you an answer. At least as someone who is representing the sources in a lot of this. I mentioned that there are literally are i can count on two hands the number of journalists that i actually feel safe taking a whistleblower to in this country because of the climate. And one of them is jim risen. And its a very strict test to ask someone if they would be willing to go to jail to protect a source, but whistleblowers have to face that question every day now. Are you willing to go to jail to blow the whistle and to tell the truth and to reveal fraud, waste, abuse, and illegality. Are you willing to be the one put in jail or even worse, exiled from your country and rendered stateless . Its a huge price to pay that both whistleblowers and journalists are taking to get this information out to the public interest, out to the public, and we need your support in congress on whistleblower protection bills, on surveillance reform bills, and on reporter shield bills. I know in the whistleblower protection legislation, the National Security exemption loophole swallows just about everything because i could probably link this glass of water to National Security if you gave me five minutes. So i hope that helps answer. Can i make two quick points . Go ahead. Im sorry. I just want to add to that, i mean, the community to protect journalists put out a report last year that includes dozens of interviews with journalists about the impact of these issues on their reporting. And its on the website cpj. Org. But essentially the broad overview was it has had an impact on sources going i mean, not only whistleblowers, but just sources in general. And the society of professional journalists recently sent a letter about new rules that have come out from the administration and from various departments of the government prohibiting, you know, basic contact with journalists, the Insider Threat program and other things like this that cpj and other organizations here have signed on to in opposition. So we see across the board from whistleblowers onto just general functionaries and subject experts that this is having an impact on reporters being able to speak to their sources. On that note, i want to mention that as we adjourn the news conference, we do have this room for another hour or so for oneonone interviews and discussions, so you dont have to rush off. But i want to thank everybody for being here. [ applause ]. I just wanted to add before everyone leaves, im bernie lunzer, president of the newspaper guilt gild guild, and we did award the herb block Freedom Award to james risen yesterday, which we hope hell receive in october. And its not enough to commit journalism, you have to act to protect it and thats why we honor james risen. And it was the night riddle bureau in the leadup to iraq, then it became thank you. [ applause ]. Our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a week full of debates. Tonight at 7 00, live coverage of the pennsylvania governors debate between republican tom corbett and democrat tom wolf. And thursday at 7 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan, live coverage of the illinois u. S. House debate for the 17th district between u. S. Representative democrat cheri bustos and bobby schilling. And later pat quinn and republican bruce rouner. Friday night live at 8 00 eastern, the wisconsin governors debate between incumbent governor republican scott walker and democrat mary burke. And saturday night on cspan at 8 00 eastern, live coverage of the Iowa Senate Debate with u. S. Congressman democrat bruce braley and state senator republican joni ernst. And sunday, the michigan governors debate between republican rick snyder and democrat mark shower. Cspan campaign 2014, more than 100 debates for the control of congress. Here are just a few of the comments weve recently received from our viewers. Im calling in reference to the show concerning the secret Service Organization hearings with julia pearson. I think it was a good show that cspan put on. I think the message that should be taken from this show is that were falling short of protecting the white house. The whole purpose of the secret Service Organization was put in place to protect the white house and the president of the United States. How will we be able to defend ourselves if even our secret Service Organization cannot defend a small place like the white house and a small family like the president s family . I watched hearings about the secret service. I do not like intel or secret service hearings. Most of their questions cannot be answered in an open forum. Pearson does know what shes talking about and the stats, but she cant say in an open forum. Now after the hearing is over theyre in a closed hearing, all of them, all the congress people, but theyre not going to be able to tell you either or the media because they took an oath not to. So i hope everybody out there gets it out there in conspiracy land, and thank you, cspan. Cspan is probably my Favorite Channel to watch. I am absolutely dumbfounded at the attitude of calmness that pervades this inquiry with the exception of mr. Lynch of the state of massachusetts. This whole thing is extraordinary in its meekness. Action should be taken now, immediately to fire whatever her name is, the head of security, and also just to revamp the whole thing, and it shouldnt take a matter of days to fire those that should be fired and replace them with top of the line security people. This is a job that requires the creme de la creme. You know, theyre not guarding a warehouse. Frankly, im furious and it takes a lot to get me into this mood and it takes me a lot to pick up the phone and call cspan. I rarely do things like this, but this is extraordinary. Lets get it cured and cured quickly. And continue to let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Call us at 2026263400. Email us at comments cspan. Org or send us a tweet at csp cspan comments. Like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. Now, the washington posts bob woodward moderates a discussion on journalism and National Security. It was part of the annual sources and secrets conference from earlier this year. This is about 50 minutes. Do we get a cold start here or im bob woodward from washington post. Let me introduce the panel. Weve got a great group. First jane mayer who ive known for forever. For forever it seems. Worked at the wall street journal, the new yorker for nor almost 20 years. Its astonishing. Many journal