Support for this episode comes from rent the runway with runway. You'll get access to an ever rotating positive highquality designer pieces at a flat afford monthly subscription rate you thousands of styles from over seven hundred fifty designers, including the Johnson apprentice, Cooler Andreasen well where your headed step out on the town with your budget a little bigger or closet a little cooler and Europe, and a little jealous he's promo code get thirty four thirty percent. is only valid for a limited time, so visit rent runway dot com today terms and conditions apply. Did you

that linked in his partnering with creators. Their new creator, accelerator programme offers a building community of like minded people and credible tools to elevate everything you make and the training you need to start compelling conversations about the world of work start building community create more than just content and when fifteen thousand dollars to help bring your vision to life as that for accelerated had over two linked in Dakar, slash creators to apply to day, hey folks, Kathy recently launched something to help you keep on top of today's new cycle? The cafe brief: it's a weekly newsletter that recap snoozing analysis of politically charged legal matters, sign up to stay and formed a cafe dot com. Slash brief! That's cafe outcome! Slash brief from cafe welcome to stay tuned, I'm prepared. He cared very deeply. What we say in English, as we would say, other things hint

we are critical of him. I think deeds at him. He is in some ways still trying to win the war he was waging as a celebrity. He wants the New York Times to say flattering things about it: that's David Mc Cross Keys Deputy General Council for the New York Times, which means he's on the front If of some of the thorniest legal battles and newsroom can face, you mean on the cross. Of his viral letter to trumps lawyer. Responding to the but of a level suit. Croft actively argued that trumps Rep, patient could not be ruined any more than it already is. But first, let's get your questions. That's coming up stated. I greet your security in the region or in arms. it is about the census. That's coming out in whether or not you have that citizenship question gives any general on the census. Are people required to answer all the questions or two major in the the with interested answer?

take years due from Britain Oregon thanks, requested Look I ve been a subject of a lot of debate and discussion, the issue of whether or not the citizens, a question should be added to the senses, we ve been talking about how this is pending further Supreme Court and has been further proceeding in the district court in the southern district of New York because a lot of people believe I think correctly, that the addition of a citizenship question will suppress a lot of people's participation in the senses I, will also as a result, do harm to people of minority communities and that's not a good thing- unclear the Supreme Court will rule. Now. Your general question, which I understand the spirit of about the requirement of having answer all the questions. Yes, you're supposed to answer all the questions the census is very important is actually in the constitution article one section, two weeks, is the Eu S government count. Every person living in the country and a census must be conducted every ten years that said in the ordinary course, because senses takers try very hard to get full and complete information, because it's a very difficult and important county responsibility if they have an incomplete or partially filled out

questionnaire. The likelihood is that there will be a follow up or a phone call, or another visit in fact is understand it senses takers and make up to six attempts on every household that they visit to make sure that they get a response and a complete response, so I'm not endorsing in any way anything other than filling out and answering every question on the census. Addition. As I understand it, the government does have the ability to find people for refusing to answer census. Question essentially giving a false answer, which would be more likely in terms of a fine but that hasn't happened very much past the all just because it has in the past, doesn't mean medium would happen in the future, particularly in some enormous norms are being trampled on. So, generally speaking, everyone's best answer, if you- and it's not a crime not to do so. The likelihood of there a fine is low, but it remains a possibility. I previously Larry from Atlanta Attorney General Bars name was put. The nomination seem to me that you thought he was a choice, as a best case

choice. I now is one of the most dangerous people in the country, and I wonder if you think the same thing and whether you were putting back my change your view of him. Thank you for all. You do Malaria thinks requesting I've been saying for some time. I think on this past and also most reach the cap, insider podcast and the accompanying newsletter that yeah I've had a pretty significant change of heart about Bill bar. I didn't embrace him in the way that that some others did, but I cautiously optimistic that he would be at a minimum. A huge improvement over me Whittaker was acting attorney general and because of my friends with him when he was the General Council of HORIZON in his prior stint as attorney general of the United States before and his reputation for being institutionalists, that he would at least be an adult voice. Who would stand for the proposition? That, though, is the law and everyone faces equal justice before the law, any care,

More about the institution of the Justice Department then know any kind of field. Your loyalty to protect personally, the president. I no longer have that same tartuffism anymore. In fact, have a significant amount of pessimism, and as I said in a cafe insider note this week, when asked the question recently, will what did you expect will you have the trader was hampered by the president? Isn't it standard operating Caesar for that attorney general or some high ranking cabinet official. To do everything here she can to protect the president. I thought about that for second, then it occurred to me that we have lots of examples, your people have their own particular lines. For example, toolbars own said it confirmed. Predecessor, three General Jeff sessions decided based the advice of queer people, ethics folks at the department justice did he, who cares himself from everything having to do with a rush investigation, even though he had the pressure to unlock use himself We got mocked and humiliated by the president on a regular basis and ultimately was set of office. Because of that refusal, Jeff sessions didn't do the president's bidding,

because he had some higher principle, at least with respect to that issue, them again, the former Buenos Council, who I know things any kind of heroic legal figure. Billy's based on his pride before coming to the White House, but he too, as data at length in the Mulder report, had a line that even cross the question of whether he would make phone calls and make inquiries that would. out in the removal of our mother, a special council. He didn't do that. He had aligned to we re these under appreciated top officials at the Justice Department under President from does not traffic in some of this provocative language like spying, inclusion, that Bill Barr seem to adopt and has no problem with Chris re quietly defences, institution, the generally stays above the fray and he's not looked upon like some kind of lacking to the president. So there examples of people who can go about this, does. He might not agree with on every issue. You might disagree with a lot of issues and you might have reason to criticise but there should learn that they will not across and there's a certain separation an arms length status that they will insist upon between them.

in their actions and the president, as evidenced by the examples of Chris Re Jeff sessions and down began. I hoped and expected that Bar would be a little bit more in that category which, by the way that very high bar, but sadly he's not Prefixes Judy from Westchester oh hi. I love you shown a love, your book, programmers, wonderful with Benjamin Dry, and I just want to tell you. I loved diagram senses back in the nineteen. Fifty is what I was an elementary school. Any of my question is: would it be possible to make presidential candidates apply for a security clearance? I dont think that we would have a president trump if he had had together security currents before running for peace, thanks and keep up the good show by the Hague. Judy thanks your question and it's good to hear from a soul. Mate sentence diagram her

so the question of whether to make of cannot supply for securing learn so much for how that would work. I understand the sentiment amazing, You could have a process which we have now by which you would require presidential candidates to apply for a security clearance which, by the way, take so a lot of time and energy in effort when you got seven thousand people running democratic nomination or you could work, tell someone becomes a nominee for the purpose. It being known that the person qualified for security clearance or not, in other words, notwithstanding what Donald Trump has done. No security clearances in his many problems I don't think we can actually have a situation where the present has duly elected, does not happen, the very security clearance to do. Job of commander in chief when everything Adele or the next president or the president after that and, however compromised you think someone is so long, as is the case that the president is the most important powerful leader in the country and is charged with keeping a safe. That present has to have access to classified information has to have access to briefings to make sure

that he and his staff. The carbon and everyone else are taking the proper actions to defend the country. That's just the waiters. There may be other people who should be fired from positions at the kid, Contain security clearance, working in the White House or in the CIA and the FBI, or for that matter, and he was attorney's office, and I understand the perversity of having someone who is not wise worthy if they had been alive. FBI agent not be able to get a security clearance having one is elected president, but I think it's a necessary thing for the country to be safe. This question comes from twitter user and Calvin who asks operate. Ferrara what do you mean by hint up in reference to a criminal target fleeing eyes? on page? Seventeen of your book and assume is illegal term of art but wanted, Sure hashtag asked preacher without legal terms. But the term used to use in the US office and no copy editor, including german dryers. I should change it. Maybe I should have explained that little more

and up is a term that we would use to. For to somebody who was worried that he was under investigation, that the heat was as you might say, the cops are closing, The appeal may be prevailing him that there is a chance of being charged. That's a person whose linked up just be sure that I have not been misusing the term for a couple of decades. We look Urban dictionary always interesting resource in an dictionary in double find as when an alleged criminal believes that the cops are after them or when they have figured out. Cops know their whereabouts, as in Cops says he was heaped up in the backdoor before we can grab him and obviously, in on a number of occasions, including on page seventeen. I describe situations where agents and officers had to proceed cautiously, they didn't have enough to arrest somebody and how to make us but set decision in this case with respect to a suspected ankara, two named his intimacy, who is about to get on the plane to fly to ITALY.

and we didn't know if he was flowing ITALY cause he was hanged up or if it was a regular trip previously planned my guess this week is David. Mc Grath he's dead. Billy General Council for the New York Times an author of the recent book. Truth in our times inside the fight for press freedom in the age of alternative facts, the real facts for you? I'm not only read his book twice, but it also reviewed it for the New York Times. If you read my review, you know what I think David didn't read it. So I had to tell him the crime, discuss press freedom and press bias, and we talk about why? I'm seldom uses the l, a word driving wanna trumps falsehoods. That's coming up stated. stay tuned, supported by zipper critter, I'm self was out of a job not so long ago, and let me tell you finding a new jobs can be. A lot of work was zip recruiters technology, you get your

personal recruited to help you find a better job. Just down the job search up put in the kind of if you're interested in and zip recruiter, started doing the work, the zipper killer, app finds the jobs you want put your profile in front of employers who may be looking for someone like you. If an employer lecture profile zip recruiter lets, you know that's why zip recruiter is the top rated jobs. and based on the Third party survey, seven out of ten who found a new job, unzip recruiter, increased their salaries. Don't wait, download the freezer, recruiter job search out today and let the power of technique gee work for you, the sooner you download the freezer, procurator job search at the zoo, It can help you find a better job, David Lacrosse, thanks for being on the show, Grammar in wanting to have you want for awhile full disclosure. I love your book,

I was the one who reviewed for the New York Times and I repeat, a very favourable because There was a great red and cumbersome essential porn topics. It wasn't enough for me to read it once or twice in also read the book of you, but also shares your experiences and knowledge with our listeners. Thank you. I'm glad to hear it. I haven't read the review on that thin skinned is good. Half that girl without as well. I guess I was willing to accept that on how to people who were goodwill that night you won't know some of the questions of winners and, of course, that great book is called truth in our times inside the fight for freedom in the age of alternative facts. To first question: do you have a favorite amendment to the constitution? I didn't go. The first is that, because it's the four one and you never got past it. I've always wanted to do the quartering soldiers, not awhile litigation around the ninth amendments. You think, I'm pretty loyal to the first to be worried about how the country treats the first amendment

I think we should be worried about how the country treats press freedom, not sure it's really connect. Anything legal? I think it's much more about culture. You make this point very eloquently really talk about what to be going on in the United States these days. How does a fight taking place in the country for the hearts and minds the public- and you say in the book, as you just said now- nervous but the law exactly me most is the law. Protecting press freedom had never been stronger. You right, You say something that really hit me because an indifferent, in my own book? I make a similar point about the limits of the law and he was in. The law can solve everything that you can't even in this area,. You say the law can do only so much. It can give the press the freedom to matter, but it can't make the press matter and then even more convincingly. You say doesn't really matter how much freedom the press has in a society. If the press is not believed, a distrusted press is little different from a shackled press, so I found a profound and troubling: can you make us feel better

you know I was writing the book. I saw a pole then by the polling group Ipsos, which found that twenty six percent of the respondents thought that the president should be allowed to close news organizations and misbehave. That is so far from the framers vision and I'm not talking about criticizing the price. I think that's vital to any institution, but the idea that we simply are going to close them at the president's will is chilling percentage of people even more troubling lady, who would say the President wanted a third term. You should maybe get one that was unconstitutional. There's a group of people who think things that are very worried about. What do you think it's gun dramatically worse somewhat worse or is it just more being talked about now, because I have a president who, from time to time, but some frequency issues barbs against particular journalist by name and your outlet, the court and court failing your times more specifically, I think,

Gotten worse is the silence of the Republicans. I think that there are many many republicans who have long held, that an important part of conservative philosophy is the importance of private checks on government, the most important, those, perhaps the press, and they stance. I, and that just is contrary to the way the system first work. They know better in. They should say something that I didn't learn about: free press on the streets of Manhattan. I learned about it in the streets. Monticello annoy parents were concerned. veterans and when you are growing up in Illinois in nineteen sixty is the one thing you know is the governor goes to jail. Walker had to jail out, o Connor went to jail and we were very happy

There was a free press that maybe would be able to expose that, and that was part of being a conservative with believing in that. Do you think, these days, when the press is under attack from some quarters outlets like the New York Times, Washington, post others? Maybe all of them can less afford to make a mistake of fact than ever before. That's right- and I talked in the book that one particular day where Sean Spicer decided to have a private press conference for his fav TIA outlet That section opens with us doing. Correction has nothing to do with Trump had to do with story about drug use on long island, and we understood we put ourselves in the crosshairs every time we make a mistake, it's going to be treated as a pattern as a symbol of something as a sign of something. Much much worse. Do you find yourself in your job as the Debbie General Council,

not on the reporting staff. The one to sort of wag your finger and say don't make mistakes. Is the mistake issue about the law as well as about credibility, and do you have a role in both? I do feel some obligation to think about our reputational interests. We don't get sued very often to rival suits a year by people, never heard of to what we're doing a story. You, like trumps taxes, a lot of what I'm doing is being a sounding board. Thinking about have we done this fairly? Have we hit all the right points? If we put it in contact complicated stories, we want to get them right, and much of that is not because we fear, I fear we're going to get sued. Most of that is about. We don't want to make ourselves a target, so it's like a setback.

Linda folks. What the hell it is. You do. You have a legal background, Anna journals and background. You were in the general councils officer than your times. Are you someone that reporters don't like to hear from, or do like to hear from two? They think that you protect them, what your relationship with the reporters and how do you define what your job is? My relationship with reports is really really good. It's taken years of doing what I, you in standing up for stories in standing up for our right to publish difficult stories to make everybody convinced that that's my role. People come from other newspapers where, as they say, the legal departments were stories goaded die, that's never been are either. I think that my role is, I think, about It is. Has several aspects will one is that I review stories in advance when asked to do so that simply looking to see if there's ain't legal vulnerability, I help our reporters get access to information. We bring forward, suits, we were getting documents from,

agencies, state federal local, when our reporters have questions about news gathering, which is often were involved in as well. Did you being a journalist, I it was a very good at it. and cry very self aware. Why would she got out? I'm sure? That's not true, because your way, Very good book, the writing is never a problem. I was. I was a fairly shy. Kid when I came out of college and shyness doesn't really reward itself in ending in journalism. You said that you would get sued twice a year, that's kind of surprising. I think a lot of people is that, because you to such a great job, making sure that there is no problematic things written. Is it because people are afraid of the deep pocketed near times? Is it because the libel laws are so strong people don't want to waste their time? an effort combination of all those things, probably the least of them being my skills and fortune. I work

in an organization the does deep reporting that still has a lot of editors, looking a copy and making decisions, but the law, the longing states not intended to balance its an imbalance, is an attempt to free the press. That's what Just Brennan decided when he wrote, TIGERS Sullivan an eight other justice agreed with him was really an imitation, be brave. We have had since the nineteenth twenties a policy is a company of not paying defended to settle. Why will suit? So if people are looking for a quick bach, they need to look elsewhere and I think that's helped as well. Do you think other papers, your suit, is seldom monsieur? I think most big city newspapers don't have that big a portfolio. I paint no better than did get involved in these most lawyers who look at a libel case understand it a lot easier way to make money for free. So you may not be

Billy sued that often but there's a greater number of occasions where somebody sometimes that person is named Trump, threatens to sue, explain how this works. somebody who is very mad at something that has been written or something it's about to be written, and you give a number samples with respect to trumps, wouldn't go through having the two or three those mode. Frisbie generally about this, somebody says: that's nonsense, that crap We're going to sue you? Do you laugh that off? Do you a man, the hatches, what What's the response when someone prettily someone who has a big megaphone start saying than your time says, written something awful, terrible and libelous. If I hear from most, lawyers they are representing? Clients who, I think in good faith, way, believe we ve got something wrong there. They are often wrong themselves, but we need to have a conversation.

If we ve got something wrong, we owe to our readers to get it right, so there is with most attorneys who deal with me: a productive, sometimes frustrating for them, but an open conversation tell me what we are all show me the facts. When its Donald Trump to the world, the Harvey Weinstein's of the world, the National Football League through the world it many times, is more political theatre than actual legal com, They release their letters to us on the internet and right we, to respond in kind so as to allow time for a moment in first with respect to legal skirmishes that were threatened, it didn't happen or otherwise occupied your time and there a couple of interesting stories. One relates to reporting and by the New York Times in connection with Thou trumps Importunate, our trumps tax returns. Yes, the reporters Suzanne Craig, who found a few the tax returns. But how did you get involved in that and in what was a drama they're here so soon goes Tramell

watch the x one day and finds that somebody has sent her, we don't know who it is still don't to this day has sent three pages from Donald Trump State tax returns from twenty years earlier, one thousand nine hundred and ninety five, and soon calls me, I'm in San Diego with my son and state, very nonchalantly that she's receive these in the mail which seem to me a gross understatement, given that we just two years writing about. Over and over again trumps promised to deliver is tax returns and he never did. That really is, is the beginning of this sitting down with reporters and looking at those three ages and then being kind of amazed at their ability to construct a story from that? Because, let us be honest, the thought that that may have been set up was very in front of our mind, rights was very fraught. So how do you know? How do you authenticate some that, and I guess the reporters are they thinking trust,

us and we were lying around sleuthing skills or hey. Mr lawyer, given your background, can you make the determination about whether or not this is authentic These reporters were so good that when they involve me it was really gestate quiz of where could we get these and the public record? Who might have them? How about the Casino Commission in New Jersey, every suggestion I came up with they had already exhausted for the purpose of getting through some other source that was more easily authentic, get it to find it for a public record where something on their some number on their would conform with something is in the public record that would help us out. Ultimately, David BAR shower standing, investing reporter, went to Florida and found the accountant who had prepared them

and he looked at them and he remembered well because the numbers were so big. He had a useless electric. Typewriter tick compliment his software to make sure that the right numbers were on the form as everything they got you over the edge deciding was okay to publish. I, it seems to me that we had knocked down once the accountants said: yadda, those are the tax returns I prepared for Donald Trump and ninety ninety five. If there had been no account and that conversation not taken place, would we have seen this tax returns? I think so the story would have been framed differently. I would like to make it more speculative speculative Finally, I think that we would have pointed out. There is saying we had taken these steps and if we had been honest with the readers, your ears, the steps we too

and the White House is either denied that their realer said that that they when comment? But it was pretty clear that once we had done that with the accountant and the White House had responded with its usual Donald Trump as a great business man, he write what he was required to that we were on the right track. Did you have to deal with it? shenanigans with don't drop in his lawyers. With respect to the publication of that story. They started writing on Saturday. They like to write letters they leveller at leaden riding out. Yes, when the good things they do so the yes, they started writing to us Saturday and saying it was illegal, went committed a crime, all of which I knew was was untrue. Just was not an accurate account of the law, but I felt it getting the story up on the web early made sense, given how much stirring there was about it. The EU, let's face it. Plainest, can often find a soft headed judge who doesn't really know a lot about the first amendment who will try to sleep, down, so in that case the lawsuit and the trial. How did that work out? Well as international

David Red Giuliani, goes on and misrepresents what story says but doesn't deny it goes from their bit. The concerning thing for me: he was to be the Yankee game the next day and have suit Craig call me and asked me if I read the wash imposed, which I wasn't doing at the ankle, is anyone get punished in the face of exactly right? So but the given the accurate arrived too to it up when I did to go on my phone? Look it up and wash imposed, had a column that said that we risk legal trouble by publishing these. The story didn't quite say that, but that's what the headline said concern may that people who lived and died by the first amendment and have a better understanding of how to deal with Washington. And now I just send them alone. Now I don't ya to wash imposed. We don't collude either Linda cleverly, with a large Nepal's declared with anyone. I try not to accept their borders and the newsroom. So that was a case where there was here. Are some sound and fury signifying nothing and then there's the story tell early on from years earlier in the lifetime of the trunk business, which I sought sort of.

say I wonder both as a lawyer, I have some questions for you about it, but then also this as an observer of this person, who has been a conspicuous figure in Lord for a very long time, and I both heard of him alone for a long time as of virtually all new Yorkers, and it gives you a little bit of a sign of what was to come. The nobody expected to become President states that their certain things at Donald Trump cannot abide Some things are fine and obviously he takes a lot of tourism from a lot of sources over the years in the tabloids, Well, not just New York Times, and the thing that he can abide is a suggestion that one of his boasts is false, and I believe in this case, which is very interesting that he had made the claim. If I have correct that he was the largest real estate developer in New York. That's right was that true, we dug a hole, storage. There wasn't true, no matter how you slice it up, whether you can't number of units, whether you total up the value of the property Ernie else in his lawyers are immediately on the phone to me. As I plan on the book wanna things

they gave me early with no problem with the hair. You can always talk about trumps here and he's not gonna worry about we don't want. You ought to hear stories about the way I've seen that national section they really so that the idea with the value of these buildings, the size of his wealth. Very sensitive topic even will recall he sued TIM O Brien for his book, Trupp nation right over a single two or three paragraphs, section that suggested Donald Trump wasn't as rich as he said. He was that's really that the hop went for him. There was one of the few suits you brought mostly, he threatens, doesn't do anything in this area at least eight. It is one thing I don't understand about him is that he, when he's involving liable, suits, he's more often the defendant he just lost in the How a division a couple weeks ago, if that cases and reversed on appeal by the court of Appeals, be entrapment. He's gonna be making this very same defences as the failing New York Times

and he should be lining up on the other side, the ball. He should be very thankful. We are reliable laws. We do. Do you think that this explains this habit of his to get upset when some boast of his or some achievement is under assault that that is the reason. Why does certain things? For example? That's why he got upset about any suggestion that he didn't. who won the election in his own right? Lots of people like to say he's in the pocket of the Kremlin, he's a russian asset, etc. People have their views now. We will further strengthen or eroded to penny they read the Mulder report- that a lot of this is not about something war, then ego promoted, and maybe We also suggest the reason is

not releasing his tax returns. Is that cuz he's trying to hide some intricate financial relationship might be inappropriate, but that his boasts over time about his wealth or not true? Is that less nefarious? I'm not sure it's less nefarious in a president, but I do think it's one of the things that that motivates a he. He says something he wants to make it stand up and that bending of the truth is really been through the heart of how he has approached the press and how he's approached governing really? How do you think the relationship between the New York Times and Donald Trump has evolved over his presidency? Three confusing to me. We had A foot Abrams, who has been an important I first met, were in this country when the most prominent that they must promote, whose often been outside council Senor Times without Maggie Harriman on who has an odd relationship with the White House, sometimes from likes, or sometimes he doesn't. What is the relationship between the Euro Times and this White House? And why,

Should the relationship between a major news outlets and a sitting president? He cares very deeply what we say and he wishes, we would say other things and the fact that we are critical of him. I think at him. He is in some ways still trying to win the war he was waging as a celebrity before he was a politician. He wants the New York Times to say: flattering things about him, which should the relationship be. The relationship should be that our reporters are doing hard stories about, the President, the president is answering hard questions and ultimately, the public gets a chance to decide which of those matter to them and what they want to do about them.

We should not be in a battle over whether there's fake news. He knows, there's not fake news. If he really means that to be news, its fabricated and it is attack on the institutions of journalism and the rule of law, you will really I'm becoming. How would you describe the relationship between the new times and President Obama or President Bush for that matter? I think that they were words were nuanced. I think that oh Obama probably didn't really care very much for a lot of what we did in terms of news coverage, but I think he, as a constitutional scholar, and a more establish politician, understood. It was a long game and that attacking the press was

I'm going to really win political points nor curry, favor with the press. President Bush was a charming fellow from everything I knew. I think him part because of nine hundred and eleven he got I'm not going to call it a honeymoon, but I think that the country came together. and the focus was very much on how the wars were being conducted in what was going on to fight terrorism and those stories don't really lend themselves to partisan narratives, ever known of president either during your time. I been here long time or before, who was now but of the coverage in the New York Times now. I think that

It doesn't happen. I think that's a good thing. Why is it a good thing? Because if the press is simply flattering the culture or flattering the president or flattering whoever's empower, I think the press is failing the population at that point, it's an odd thing, maybe you're going to say this is exactly why we should think than your times is getting it right that you have a lot of liberals observed near times for various reasons, and you have does upset about in your times, and in particular you have the president observed in your times. Do you say what some lawyers often say and judges often say after a settlement? If every walks away. Happy is probably right decision where they say book a may be a sign that you're doing a really terrible job and hiding from no one. I did have somebody at a book. You ending in Cambridge want to know why we were so mean to Putin. That was the first I too have had to shut up.

For the most part. I think that when politicians are unhappy with this, that's probably a pretty good sign that we're doing what the constitution invasions. You have a fascinating discussion in the book. I refer to in this very well written review that you have chosen not to read an aside. I found a staffing where you type journalistic bias, and this is a constant debate. The people have people of good faith and bad faith. Both a journalist buys, but there are liberals empty within your times. They all liberals, the hate, Republicans and people had is disputes in debates about in the making college campuses also, but we're sticking with the press here. The EU acknowledges certain lean on the part of journalists, and you say in your book quote: many journalists are biased, just not in the way that most people

think about it, and so, if you read on and new say, essentially, reporters tend to champion the underdog and it's that kind of world view that causes them to have an approach to their coverage. And then you write the easy rap. Is that most reporters lean liberal true, and that dictates how they cover a conservative like from false They believe all other things being equal, that the little guy is being screwed. The repertory old default is to think that most regulations are good and connected dont need more money or power. The bias is not left or right thing. What is it then, A world view that most journalist bring to their work that they want to change the world you win prizes by causing change you win prizes for standing up to corrupt and powerful people. You, prizes for champion the cause of the underdog and did

mean a certain kind of stories get written and others kind of stories are less likely to get written absolutely, but that's differ from having bias and stories. You know this well as a lawyer. You can have totally pulses clients and when you go into court, you put that aside. That's what it is to be a professional when I was a young associate. I was in this kind of scary. Second seeding a criminal trial and federal court are client was was repulsive. He was awful is awful to us. He done awful things and we stand for the judge that decision matter the same way with journalists they need do, and I think the good went all do this. They report against their sources. Somebody tells him something they go and try to prove wrong. when I was doing, though the criminal case I mentioned, we were doing it without pay, and I remember coming back to the firm and getting a lot of questions about why we will be representing somebody who is charged with arranging a murder and

I didn't realize that it had to be everybody in America against one. I thought it was ok to have somebody stand up and say the government has to make their case. Did you get in any trouble with your colleagues of the times? For this analysis, I have not the boy people really latch onto that. I write about two hundred it is about lawn and one page of the highest you set because you say most reporters lean, liberal true. He gave some grass tap to some folks. We say most reporters what's which are percentages either of those who are who actually bothered to be recognized by party. You know you're, probably talking seventy eighty percent, probably a lot who, who simply say a pox in both your houses and things don't really get involved to any reporters were truly apolitical. A in the sense of care, about the horse race, and rather than who wins a lot,

and it's one of things it goes on and cover it right that the person whose behind suddenly is getting all kinds of favourable attention until a person's in front and then the pendulum swings back. Do you worry about the reporters at times who now published not only in the printing of a digital versions also this thing called social media and some of the most prominent ones often have opinions that they put forward. I think it's fair to call Dan opinions all the debate about what's an opinion on. What's not on twitter, do you, as the lawyer for the times worry about that or sculpt people. I don't I certainly don't hold people the social media guidelines that we put out. While I was writing the book never cross, my desk, other people were involved with them more for my employment labour standpoint, not the fairness cop, I may be a fact, carbon alone, a fairness cup, I, like fairness. I think we should be fair. I think we are get sued. I'd rather defend a fair story

story that that would be read by a jury to be leading one way or the other. But ultimately the laws about getting it right and doing everything possible to try to get it right. One of the criticisms that's been levelled at the New York Times and other periodicals news outlets as well, intelligent everywhere else, when you call something a lie and when you call the lie from the perspective of what good reporting is and what meaningful analysis verses? What legal considerations there are gaps in New York law lie, is more often than not seen as an opinion, because your speculating on site but a state of mind emotive now Mr Trump actually is a defendant for having called somebody a liar, and the judge made a very careful analysis

but he was in there. He was in the room, he saw it, and so, if he saying she's a liar, he speaking from facts and, as you know, only factual statements can be the subjects libel cases wearily successful ones. I think it's distracting to certain and I think people get hung up on real. Why didn't you call the? Why? Why don't you label it as such and almost inevitably. Whenever I talk about the book people raises, I fear that it distracts, let's say with we have come to. and the truth to be what the evidence shows. Let's say what the other person is set with less prisoner anybody else. Let the reader decide sadder mistake why? Why do you think it causes people such additives when they think something's lie in a new account, will sort of repeated and use what those

excess critics will say are minutes afterwards, like misleading or without evidence or something else. Why do you think people like to see a lie called out his ally in part, because they don't trust our fellow citizens in part? They believe that their fellow citizens are gonna, be misled unless somebody Tellson what to think about it. I believe, because I think I have believe, is first amendment guy that the public gets it right more often than not. I think of you present the facts and someone wants to conclude its alai. They are going to see that for what it is, There are times when your x and others will use what you called. The l word think he described in the book. The l word made its way into our coverage with two stories and September two thousand, and sixteen both about

the decision to stop suggesting that a bomb was not born in the? U s. What was the case there? He hid prided himself on being a birth or in insisting on seeing the birth certificate, and he finally said that he was convinced that Abominate been born in the United States and editors decided that we could refer to his prior statement as lies That was the beginning of that. We said at the time that we would use the same standard for others, and I think we have, but I think we ve not said lie that often, since is there some sort of applicable guidelines as to how to grow, Your point about not having to say lie a mature agree with it, but I understand the point but use it, Times and other times, and that is going to beg the question will what's the standard bright right and it's an editorial decision, so I'm

As a lawyer I don't have to. I cannot do it, but I think it would be the same as any reporting undertaking you did is their proof that someone new acts and said why we talk about some experiences. You ve had withdrawn private citizen and from, as president I want to talk about this thing that, as you describe in the book sort of went viral, you better known than he had expected to be in that was with respect to a story or stories than your time's running that addressed down from the treatment of a couple of women. What was the story? First story was a report on two women who said them in groped by Mr Trump years earlier. The timing of its important, the access Hollywood tape had come out a few days before that. Mr Trump addressed the allegations of mistreatment of women at the debate on Sunday night. We do this story. The following Tuesday and Wednesday. Peered on internet Tuesday shows up on Wednesday.

and I remember reading it in advance of publication on the subway- that's going to teach my class it and why you- and I thought you did what journalism should do it presented credible counts of misconduct, but at the same time it also explained, that the women had not come forward earlier and If someone wanted to raise doubts about those counts, they had all the information from them. and how is that received by not well by half Well, when MR trumps called for comment. He says without relying on code like when he talks with Michael Cohen. He says they were going to see you a few powers that story. that's followed by a drumbeat of announcement from his campaign the day the story appears that they're going to suicide. And continues well into the evening. I got a call from our pr person at eight o clock saying she heard that they were about to file

client, and I had no idea where they would do that brought criminal court. I don't know where they're gonna find it occurred to do this filing, but it was surely after midnight that the letter from the castle, which firm shows up essentially saying they will be sued unless we retract the story, and then you cited. The latter should be responded to I D. Every good letter deserves our utter, a very good pen, power and Erika. Exactly like the. leading the morning news CAS that this letter been said was all over cable tell us

on twitter, you name it. There were tv trucks outside the building, even though I thought that it was an empty threat. When opera footnote on that, I thought it was an empty threat, while the campaign with ongoing bought, if Trump loss, maybe he would have time to suicide, I felt we needed to respond. We need to respond publicly, so you wrote a letter and it was kind of colorful, but it as far as I'm concerned correctly relates the libel standard moves us. Let's recite the proviso that so you have your letter, a clear statement the law of libel, where you say an unproductive way. The essence of a lively claim, of course, is that a statement lowers the good reputation of another in the eyes of his community, their statement, noncontroversial statement, non provocative statement, right, but that makes clear that what is relevant to a reliable claim is what the actual reputation of that person is in the community. So if it's a good reputation and the claim,

was it then maybe have a viable libel claim and threatened? If, with respect to the matter at hand, the person has an awful reputation, will the? How can harm be done? That's right, that's exactly right and that's all fair so far and say: the statement must lower the good reputation of another in the eyes of the community, and you point out fairly Mr Tromp has about his non consensual, sexual touching of women he has bragged intruding a naked beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He actually to a radio hosts request to discuss. Own daughter, as a quote piece of ass, close quote me women not mentioned in article, have publicly come forward to report on Mr Trumps, unwanted advances. A thing in our article has had the slightest Second, the reputation that Mr Trump. Through his own words and actions has already created for himself. damn? That's libel. I wanna one, Why was it such a big deal if you're just restating

lie below one one. I think that there were people who thought it was too partisan. There were journalists, nodded organization, but elsewhere we thought that it was an ad hoc, imminent attack. I felt that I was stating a lot. I think in many ways the last sends the letter where it says, if you feel that- got. This wrong service was probably more provocative in many ways, at least from people who thought it was time. Somebody said that to him did anybody edit the letter I sat with three of my colleagues from legal. We spent a lot at home. talking about the paragraph you just read and the ending, and in the end we pretty much agreed that the draft I had was the best we were going to do go with it, but nobody in management was involved What was a reaction to the letter accounting book about her? R C, o marked Thomson suddenly was visible to me. I had a glass office

and I saw him coming towards me right up to the letter been posted and he had the letter in one hand and had an odd look on his face, and I had moment this idea that perhaps we shouldn't have gone quite so far without seeing and seeing the latter, but he came into my Listen any an Englishman, and he said you know this is a brilliant letter, but I'll never understand why you, Americans, capitalize after a coal and and and very relieved at that point and vindicated envy gay didn't I don't use the capital AGRICOLA anymore. You see, another kind of letter of that nature in your future? While I wrote the book so the would not be in the first sends a mile bitch, whereas I have some cover enough. I do another letter there. There have been other controversial issues and high six issues. You had to deal with things that we read about in the paper, including stories that then your times was going to publish about Harvey Winston allegations against him, which became somewhat thorny for the New York Times, because one of the lawyers for

if he wants to was David boys will no more who also had some involvement. As a lawyer for the New York Times, I didn't tell you to appreciate fully the degree to which that was thorny for a person like you behind the scenes, yeah so The boys firm had represented the New York Times in commercial matters for twenty years actually started well before my time and it wasn't a a close relationship. It was an occasional piece of work here and Kayden or piece of work. They are at the same time, David and his partners represent some of the most controversial people on the planet, and so we would receive letters from his firm complaining about our coverage of, say. The prime minister Asia, chinese businessmen and others, and we double I was in the normal course, but it was always a balancing act. My fellow media lawyers, at other news organisations, thought we were crazy, that his firm was instigating, suits or threatening them,

What are we doing spending time with them, but it has become particularly pointed during the wine steam coverage, because as we were in the middle of a big lie, will soon wear one of David's partner. Very, very good lawyer PETE Skinner used work in your office was representing us and was doing a terrific job in fact the case, and it was in the midst of that case, that we discovered that day it was not only representing Harvey Weinstein's he'd signed a contract. Further black cube a rather sketchy investigative firm that was, among other things, following our reporters to try to get what the killer story. There was in their contracted the black. Your contract provided a bonus if black cube was able to in whatever way they do their magic. Stop the New York Times from publishing about Harvey everyone sitting and that cross Why have you ever come across a situation where a lawyer had retained service like that to follow reporters and regulatory killed in that way, never

they wouldn't tell me about. Twelve. Are you in a minute you ve, been here long dry, ride and ride, and and look civil litigant, including the New York Times, will from time to time higher investigators. That's what we need to do sometimes to find out about facts that we need to use in litigation, but I'd never seen a contract. Like this, which is different from the garden variety hiring an investigator investigator is going out and looking up facts usually in public records or perhaps our interviewing people, the idea, That investigator was being hired to thwart our main business by somebody who was at a firm that was receiving a lots of money from us with Simplink on trouble to me, and you said, cross the line. I don't think across the legal line. We had signed a waiver which we do when we hire big firms that they can have other clients, but I just It is a matter of the way you treat people. It was wrong,

have a story that caught my eye on the upper edge, this person who purported to work in the troubled ministration. Remember the phrase used, but a high level officials yep set down in an up had published by your paper all sorts of terrible things about how the White House is being run. and was kind of in the vein of whistleblowing, which some people appreciated. Others did not because that person did not put his or her name to the peace and their ensued. A great frenzy among, chattering class and the non chattering classic us all the classes, but who that person was in part to try to make a determination. about the credibility of the accusation. Someone really on the outs. Is it a high level officials, something someone who works three levels away from the top of an agency? Speculation was maybe some very, very close to the president. What was rising to me, is obviously before you decide to publish that You got bringing the lawyer right that you and you read the document you may

the determination that it was ok to publish right all fair, I'm with you so far, ok, and then you have the opportunity as the lawyer to learn the identity of anonymous and so who'd you learn to be. I chose not to What is that I knew I had to do the rest of my life. I almost wrote you a crappy review as I learn, because what kind of a person are you incurious persona, Looking after you will We, given, I think, a sealed envelope that asked I want to see what was in it anymore. It's like I mean some people to speak, even if they had been asked. But you said no I'd rather not. Please explain sell to the american people as a human being. I really want to know. As a lawyer, I didn't feel I needed to. I appreciate that

were dry, the distinction that is often made, but never so honestly, as you did, that a lawyer and a human being are not the same in any way. We actually sometimes go in different directions, certainly regret because I regret the decision for you. Well, I don't give me a chance to speculate with. Everybody in America makes me closer to everyone. Ok, that's very late when you concern here is my: will you concerned if you learn the identity and you came on his podcast, I would have been able to get it. you, you probably would have you have your man, I think you know I I I forgive you did. I think it makes a lot more sense now. Do you think it's more dangerous now to be rapporteur in the world than has been in the past? It is, it is a way when I first started in your times in two thousand to it, was not a common to hear that some reporter had been rounded up by low level militant someplace,

and by the time we figured out protocol. What to do. Percent have been released in those days before social media people involved in conflict needed in York Times Wash imposed CNN Bbc to get their message out. Do matter whether you like them or not, but we were part of that, can do it of informing and that they wanted to get out to the world. Now they have social media. They don't need reporters and reporters become easy targets for them, like social workers and aid workers to be financial propositions of vacancy them. Do you think our libel laws will remain as they are for the foreseeable future You know, having read my book twice. Thank you is that it is a testament. Unfounded optimism saw going to say yes haven't. I think they're guy says there is. I ask because the present like to talk about it, I'd like to talk about, and so we should loosen among men, as you point out, the presence on the wrong side of that more often than is on the right side of that. But you know when the present,

state says: maybe we listen these things up and make it easier to sue Ann you have presented people you recited earlier who say a president. his or her whim should be able to shut down help with ordinary people who were not first, a memo. Scholars tend to worry. Why would it be so hard for something like that to be accomplished? It would require a couple of things president does have a lot of control over one is state law, because libel is still driven by state law and second, the interpretation, the constitution, which he does have an effect on by whom he points to the Supreme Court and, to some extent, the dust

Judges that he's appointing we'll have a chance to way and unreliable cases. I actually think the conservatives that are being appointed tend to be libertarian on this issue that there are likely to stand behind a broad view of the first amendment. I also think that most of them, not all of them, believe that decided cases should remain decided cases right, but what about Clarence Thomas Clarence Thomas right, a concurrence a few weeks ago saying that tighter soul was wrongly decided, and I look at that glasses, one nightfall, nobody, nobody, nobody assigned onto that with him, and I just see a lot of people looking out at the american landscape today saying you know, thing that America really needs is more rich people suing in winning lots of money when they have libel claims. I just don't see that as a cause.

in the long run. I think people need to keep in mind. Ties are sold and worked. It was designed to stop powerful people from using light, will cease to silence, and it has worked to just explain to people again nor times, Rosa Sullivan stands for the proposition that a public official later expanded to public figure who Zeus Reliable, has to prove more than the story was wrong. That person also asked to prove that this story was printed with recklessness the car, the truth in the best way to think about that is the publisher new, is false and publish it anyway. When that decision came down in nineteen, sixty four, it was designed to stop southern power brokers from using the libel law to silence the northern press? The northern press was coming into Alabama and Mississippi and elsewhere, and talking about what was really going on the ground, the civil rights movement

and they were using. I will soon to try to silence than your time CBS and everybody else. The Supreme Court had heard enough. We surprised by clans Thomas's opinion. Oh, I I was surprised that he decided to issue it at this point. It seemed unrelated dating going on before the court, they were denying certain case. There is no need to say he was addressing what's going on in the country. I think to some extent he was. I think that is very, very odd. It is all about right either that criticism has been around for a really long time. Ties are Sullivan is a revolutionary decision which took on a big lift, which was to find an estate cause of action. A tour cause of action liable cause of action have constitutional dimension. I thought it was kind of brilliant, but there's no question that it broke from everything that come before now, there's Thomas, but now has been around for a long time, has been around for a long time and worked too

anything in the law currently as relates to Muse gathering or the first amendment that should be changed shut up. I was expecting you start. Stuff was pretty good, they have a long list or I give out with their needs me much greater protection of reporters to keep sources confidential That would be number one. I think that that's a very hard to do in Congress, I worked in the Senate. I worked in a free flow of information ACT version. Whatever the reason was F were three or four years. The senator spectres and her shimmer would introduce many sticking points one of the main targets for this, a second one of which I found was assuming you're talking about universe of people who are acting in good faith and did believe in free press into believing protection. It was impossible to determine in a way that was definitional, ok, how to define a journalist who gets the protection crack and you could formula the definition that would leave out of certain kind,

people who may be operated online or in their basement, who should be included and other ways in which you would include things based in a definition, that should not be included in you kind of knew it when you saw it, but the definition of a journalist was very very hard to come by and how do you? How do you overcome that? Thirty nine states found a way all the states that thirty nine states? I believe it last count have some for me. the law they have had to address that issue. You're, never gonna get a complete definition. The laws like every other part of the law, judges, you're gonna, have to interpret it, and I thought that there was a way to get there. I think the politics behind it made a very difficult because bloggers and other she felt there being excluded were heard from and that I think caused a thing to to fall apart unreformed front. Do you find reformed. Free information. Lobbies were far from top to bottom and, as a lobbyist told me not that long ago you will get for your report.

when you don't call it for your reform policy. Health may be allocated through Congress. How important is the freedom of Information ACT even though the current Foremans enormously my office delegated on the other side of alliances, way cases for good or ill Mahomet borders at the news gathering it's important news gathering culturally that allow of what is turned over routinely now is turnover routinely because for you would make somebody do that if that government official was suit. So culturally, it's important. There are times when it's important to compliment reporting, but it's never a stand alone too. Will I think it s always should be seen as just one tool that a reporter uses. It would be better if it wasn't so laborious who be better if more things were public, but that would require Congress to do.

What is chosen not to do which is due to give it real teeth, give advice to people about how they should consume the news and how they should determine what their reading is. True and accurate yeah I do they should read things they disagree with as a regular diet in the internet is so incredible because it it has given us access to so much. I always compare it to the The worst LAS Vegas buffeted piles of food every place. Those are all good all that a very vague uttered and and people had all this choice and instead they go and have a round the dessert table any what they want and she's, not Good, as a diet is not really good, is awaiting becoming inform. Citizens are you

ultimately I know the answer. This cuz, I read the book twice. Are you ultimately optimistic or pessimistic about this issue of people's care? For the truth, I have to be optimistic. If you're not up to missed, you can't really believe in the first amendment. You don't believe that, ultimately, that give enough time and give enough information to the people, make the right choice. Then you're talking about entirely different system government than the one we have given. The growth Thank you. So much for being on the show the book once again truth in our times inside the fight for press freedom in the age of alternative facts very important book, thanks for letting it thanks for being with us. Thank you, the conversation continues for members of the cafe insider community. special bonus David tells me how he dealt with a kidnap reporter feelings on the Julian Assange indictment in one. he's a raving moderate to hear that and to get away, Kathy insider Podcast subscribed to

cafe: dot com, slash inside So we talk a lot in the show about the power policy in the power that elected officials have what also like to point out all the times that individual citizens, private citizens, ordinary people. Sometimes name is sometimes not can also make a difference. It can also be influential and can also cause change. This week we heard from a voice that I miss Alot could not and on a regular basis anymore. Talking about the issue of compensation and help for the many first responders who came to the aid of suffering people agree. zero. On September, eleventh two thousand one: an attorney the nine eleven victim Compensation fund may be willing to such a degree that pay me the first responders and others might go down and rather than hear me talk about I can do no better than the words spoken in a anyhow

judiciary. Sub committee hearing before the summer and civil rights and civil liberties by one of my favorite people in comedians John Stewart. He's John Stewart addressing a nearly empty panel of that Sub Committee in Washington this week, sickened dying, they brought themselves down here to speak, then no one, shameful Its embarrassment to the country- and it is a stain on this institution and you ashamed yourselves for those that aren't here, but you won't be because accountability doesn't appear to be something that occurs in this chamber.

your indifference costs these men and women their most valuable commodity. So one thing they're running out of it should be flipped is hearing should be flicked. These men and women should be up on that stage, and Congress should be down here. Answering these questions as to why this is so damned hard Well, that's it for this episode of state to thanks again. My guest David Mccraw Tweet, your questions, Preetbharara with a hashtag asprey, or you can call six hundred and sixty nine two hundred and forty seven seven thousand three hundred and thirty eight and leave me a message that six thousand six hundred and ninety two for Preet or you can send an email to stay.

a cafe dot com? If you like what we do rate and review the show, an apple pie cast you review, help you listeners find the show say: tunes presented by cafe executive producer is tomorrow separate. The senior producer is Arundel them in a cafe team. If Carl appearing Julia Doyle tell them Lord and basking in jeopardy. our music, you perhaps dust unprepared. stay too When was the last time you were excited about getting dressed endless cycle of because, while it has, its benefits is gone boring and its its new options in the max?

We run the runway, you can gain access to a constantly rotating closet, full of designer pieces, easy to use and with zero commitment, rent the runway charges a flop, affordable monthly subscription rate. Would you can post or cancel at any time going back into the our fears are heading out for a patio happy hour. You can enjoy the highest of wearing new designer close without the loss of buyers. Remorse these promo code get thirty four thirty percent off, it's only valid for a limited time, so visit rent the runway dotcom today.

terms and conditions apply? This episode was brought to you by Lincoln's creator accelerator Programme, which has given community minded creators. Fifteen thousand dollar grants to bring their vision to life if you're interested in exploring the ways we all work and are more interested in sparking exciting conversation than just turning out content. Lincoln's creator accelerator programme is, for you get access to a dedicated creator manager, a built in creator community and all the tools and support you need to do great things get started by applying a linked in dotcom, slash creators. Today.