Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
So guess who's in studio Floyd Abrams -- First Amendment attorney and the author of this book go out and get -- friend of the court.
On the front lines with the First Amendment -- good timing well I did my best -- it's amazing which at.
It right now no it really is that really -- in fact.
I'm as I'm writing the book I was deciding should I include a chapter on confidential sources are not -- hadn't had any big fights about that.
For the last few years Judith Miller was the last -- was the last round.
And she's here now -- and she spent time in prison rather give up the source 88 days writes -- the First Amendment.
The First Amendment matters a lot to you you have fought for a party are -- than anyone else in this country.
-- James Rosen has a source and James Rosen works that source.
And then he finds out that the FBI is investigating him for criminal activity according to -- -- the original race is the the FBI agent working this says -- we're looking into him at the very least he's -- aiding and abetting.
-- -- -- -- -- This source within the government about the US is North Korean policy.
And they said that the he -- he is actually.
Playing to his vanity and ego.
Is that illegal.
-- look this one.
Really breaks the sound barrier.
It's one thing to subpoena journalists.
Journalists can go to court that can fight back that you get a judge to decide and but to say that a journalist has committed a criminal act.
For committing an act of journalism.
For really asking questions.
Of a source.
To say and then in -- document files and record this is really outrageous and and a matter of real concern because there's this breaks all the old rules.
The the dance sometimes between the government in the press this play it.
Jay Carney is a Press Secretary -- journalist -- a couple of dikes -- so.
Floyd Abrams what -- putting has -- -- second -- give you a little bit of the play that play what happened yesterday once this story about teams Rosie gain public.
People went to bat -- this is Jonathan Karl.
Do you approve those contacts again -- have more I cannot comment on the specific ongoing investigation I certainly.
-- -- I think most Americans do the president's belief that we need to have.
You know that a -- it is.
And able to pursue investigative journalist.
And it we have to defend the first man and I'll also think it's very important.
As I think members of both parties have said that we need to make sure that police are not tolerated because leaks they can endanger the lives of our men and women endanger our national security need to be taken very serious.
So is that a good explanation for you.
Let's not an explanation at all I don't think it and even response.
Just bear in mind what -- with the government position was.
It wasn't just that they wanted to find out who the leaker was.
It was that the journalist the journalist by asking these questions.
And and you read earlier by playing up to the vanity and ego.
Of a potential source.
May have or if you believe this FBI affidavit did.
Commit some sort of -- on him.
Mean that's new ground if if if asking someone.
In the government questions.
-- about classified material asking the questions.
Is itself a crime.
Then then we're in a very dangerous state where we've never been before in this area.
So we just found out before from Jennifer Griffin were you listening -- have us so Jennifer says -- -- my -- another reporter and another producer there are under investigation.
Says he very looked at the Associated Press I know it's such -- fox.
Here's what Gary Pruitt said the CEO of the AP.
Curious talking about the impact.
Of the sweeping.
Subpoena of the phone records without their knowledge cut 32.
I think that it will hurt journalism in fact we're already seeing some impact already.
Officials that would normally talk to us and people we talked to in the normal course of news gathering are already saying to us that -- a little reluctant.
To talk to -- they fear that they they will be monitored by the government.
So I'm not surprised.
-- remember why why would wouldn't be surprised.
That these people are reluctant or more reluctant.
To talk if they can get in trouble I -- that's why -- oppressed offers confidentiality.
Promises not to disclose sources.
But if you can just cut through that either by going to the telephone company or.
Where she saying look look the journalist as a criminal -- shouldn't be asking those questions.
Then -- and he really.
-- you really have succeeded.
In preventing that communication.
And you've also.
Led the American public to a situation where.
They're not gonna get whistle blower information they're not gonna get information about what's going on inside the government except what the government wants you to know.
Floyd Abrams a meticulous have -- -- what is a journalist breaks a story about -- because an irresponsible.
Of somebody in government says hey I got news for.
We have a guy in Saudi many cell.
That is going to -- a plot to blow up the US airliner.
While you write that story.
And that could jeopardize American lives maybe fifty -- 10200.
The war -- -- clearly that could be used -- to security breach.
What do you want President Obama to do just allow that to happen his guys embedded in cells in North Africa all be in danger.
No I think what he ought to do is actually what the administration first.
With the AP's situation.
-- talk to the a -- tell him ask him.
Not to go with the story the AP withheld that story.
It was only when they found -- the administration.
Is holding a press conference the next day.
That they finally went out themselves.
And announced what they knew when no one was -- in danger.
Right today handed the right way originally did there when they went out to bta.
That's in the AP they ended that press conference right put it forward bright -- but.
But look I mean there -- going to be some tough situations.
And we can only hope for a press that is responsible.
In not publishing stories.
That that can.
You know imperil American lives.
That's why it's important to leave the lines of communication open between the press in the administration.
Every act they've taken that we've learned about this week closes those lines and if the press learns.
That if you go to the administration.
Maybe you can be held.
As some sort of criminal who are they gonna go now Floyd the president you could argue this I find it hard that you would argue this.
Has a better relationship with the press -- any president in my lifetime.
In fact even joked about the washing correspondents dinner a few years ago he said it's good to be in front of my -- since then.
Is he in danger of actually -- he he didn't because they seem quite angry and should they be.
Yeah I think they are angry and and they should be.
I mean I think it's true that -- that the presses.
You know generally admired the president and then the and then one couldn't tell it from -- some of the coverage.
You know whether whether the press is gonna turn on -- now.
There's something else but but I -- I treat -- -- I'm sure this.
They gonna take this very seriously.
Maybe you could say well you know that's it's in their businesses so so that's why and that maybe that's part of it.
No but it's also what the press does that's most important during the press at its best we know the press and his worst the press at its best.
Does see a lot of exposure revealing telling.
-- to what's going on to the public.
And -- they're cut back.
In these ways -- their comeback just to get their phone records are available are better cut back because they're gonna be accused of being criminals we'll all pay the price.
Floyd -- -- -- book is called friend of the court on the front lines of the First Amendment allergy your god knows a lot about the First Amendment called Bernstein he's you wanna put these on.
-- which he said about what's happening right now and this was just on the AP -- -- But there's a second scandal.
And that fact is is that hundreds of millions of dollars.
Had been used in C -- that are supposed to be used as nonprofit social welfare of their case.
Got to go back to the Pentagon papers that these investigations are always meant for a political purpose.
More than anything not for genuine national security weeks.
So he's -- don't don't don't fall for that to -- worried about this is security leaks.
He's like the Pentagon papers.
I was independent -- papers case and let's talk about that we get that was different -- but.
Look I think.
The -- situation at least one could say.
You know involve the potential.
To someone good helping out the United States.
That's why the AP with tell the story that's why I'd like to think that's why the administration.
Asked him to withhold this story.
And and that was taken Janeiro.
A lot of the big flare ups are indeed Carl Bernstein was right there are indeed for.
For political purposes of these leak investigations are -- they're nature's secret.
So I don't think they're done.
To make a splash.
I mean their -- The administration any administration.
Leak investigations to be secret rather than public.
But the effect of them is nonetheless.
To chill the press and the -- we've had a situation where you just have to say -- we've had more leak investigations.
Under this administration.
Than all the other ministers.
And put together and I want you to put in perspective and talk about some of the things you talk about -- -- book when we come back Floyd -- this year he's mr.
First Amendment the name of the book -- friend of the court.
Back in a moment plus back everyone -- is still in studio yeah -- -- to friends podcast which I know Floyd Abrams has.
He could watch himself at UVs subscribe there if you want to recap of any she'll write your email box go to -- -- our country Kilmeade condensed.
The left clips from Floyd Abrams who.
-- timed his book brilliantly.
-- First Amendment attorney wrote this book friend of the court on the front lines with the First Amendment as being -- I attacked wherever you go.
I gotta bring it to Citizens United everyone's talking about Citizens United have these -- once he fortune even exist.
Tell me about the case and why you one of the few that supports it.
Well Citizens United.
Is -- -- which you know begins after all.
-- -- organization called Citizens United conservative organization.
Sort of its job but a documentary.
On Hillary Clinton.
Under the law.
You couldn't put that on television or cable or satellite within sixty days of an election.
Period it would be a crime.
If any corporate money went into it and this was a corporation.
That -- some of its funding from corporations.
Is that that can't be consistent.
With a First Amendment which cannot be a crime.
And this law made it -- -- the McCain Feingold law it cannot hear crime.
To put on a political documentary attacking someone.
This was during the last campaign are -- to the two campaigns ago theoretically he wanted to say anything about so long just too good corporate money and no I mean every.
Every big political.
Speaker of this program I mean fox as a corporation PBS's.
Corporation New York Times is -- Corporation.
To me the idea of saying.
Well you know when you don't really kind of doubted that corporations have too much power therefore.
We're gonna make it a crime.
To let him speak within sixty days of an election and endorse or oppose a candidate.
Is inconsistent with the First Amendment whether it's of for profit corporation.
Or not for profit or not for profit on purpose or not.
That's where I started and then -- the -- view -- sort of a minority view.
A -- is that the court was quite right in saying but the First Amendment itself.
Required a ruling -- that law was unconstitutional.
-- -- she -- senator Menendez to I wanna put those hits it's on senator Menendez who dis agrees with you with this but there's a second scandal.
And that fact is is that hundreds of millions of dollars had been used in -- force that is supposed to be uses non -- social welfare entities.
For political purposes.
And it's pretty outrageous that the IRS went after small Tea Party groups when Karl Rove is out there saying he's using -- -- forced to change the outcome of the next election.
So I think both of those scandals have to be looked at.
And look my view is there ought to be more public disclosure.
Then there is now.
That we ought to know.
Basically in general -- spending money on politics.
And that that's a good idea but that's not an answer by the way.
But to what the IRS -- I mean that's another -- another topic the FBI arrested a Tea Party patriot like organizations in targeted them yeah I mean -- what the one thing you can't allow the IRS to do.
This to make politicize judgments.
About who to look at period.
Let's hope we -- -- a -- that eventually the that that's got to be non negotiable right.
I wanna talk about the impact of the Pentagon papers and what it means for the First Amendment as well as we key -- -- the cover both -- four minutes stern first of WikiLeaks.
Julian Assange says I've gotten these documents don't ask me how I got to -- important but I'm publishing a -- private darkness never -- for the public.
Well I I've got two answers about him first of all.
I think he's deeply reckless.
And has done some very dangerous things and some of the things -- -- these published.
He's not a heroic figure.
And you'll see in the book I have a good deal of criticism.
Of him and WikiLeaks.
Which I think has really.
In and and often dangerous way.
As to whether.
WikiLeaks would be given First Amendment protection.
I don't think you can distinguish Ricky -- from other entities WikiLeaks is irresponsible and worse.
Other organizations which reveal information.
May be more responsible.
I want to keep the government out of that that to the full extent.
That we can.
But but the bottom line here.
-- I don't believe we do reaches the press but still -- First Amendment protection.
But any organization.
That that's just hands out without reading.
Vast amounts of material that they've -- That's not journalistic that's political activist but political activists -- First Amendment protection to.
On the Pentagon papers case but it's -- still a law and it's and it's great law.
That even if the government says that publishing some material.
Will do harm to national security.
That the rule except in the most extraordinary certain.
-- Does -- that's for the press to decide that enough the government.
And ensure the government can prove that it'll lead to terrible harm that something.
Viewers something else out by the way congratulations on the book in the timing friends of the court -- the front lines -- the first tournament.
Floyd Abrams it's -- education thanks so much provide either my audience laughter hey go get his book a Memorial Day -- -- -- --
Filter by section