enough it doesn't work but what really keeps you going is that affection and love for one another i don't care what happens i will not leave him uncovered so you fire for your buddy going forward and then muscle memory goes forward and the marines are very good about that you go into a fight with a lot of confidence. >> good evening. thank you for coming out. we are really pleased to have with us alice, professor of science and economics and a

whole list of other things i could go into a very talented woman and writer which has the support of an ambivalence to whistleblowers. [applause] before we get started i want you to be aware there has been some controversy of members of our community feel very strongly this should not go on. we are an independent bookstore we believe very strongly it's our responsibility to make sure both authors and books are represented regardless of the ideas of the values that they have. and we hope if there is disagreement we can have those

discussions in a respectful and civilized manner. [inaudible] [laughter] we will get to that. >> that you are no stranger to protest you got involved in one sometime ago. >> that's correct. [laughter] i am a fierce defender of freedom of expression and i believe the problem with this country is we are not having called fact-based discussions so actually i was injured for agreeing to engage through an influential figure in republican circles. i thought that my students here have alternative points

of view i ended up with whiplash and a concussion. but i want you to understand as a professor my job is to speak the truth. not to spin. to listen to perspectives and try to say my version of the truth. so i hope you can listen to what i have to say about whistleblowers and keep that in mind. people think that is biased or unfair than we will have a discussion about that. >> you have been talking about whistleblowing for some time. what is or what isn't? you have to find that very narrowly. >> there is some confusion about the public today given we have a 24/7 new cycle.

and their is on - - it is anxiety provoking. but whistleblowing is not a partisan issue it is an american issue. in america has the first whistleblower protection law in the world passing in 1778 before the constitution of the united states is w ratified. but to understand it is not partisan to think it is an attempt to be honest to review what needs to come to life. >> and with the continental congress decision they were very clear that this wasn't a. right it was a duty. >> they say it's your duty as

a public servant to report misconduct the matter how you see it. and that's because we felt strongly that britain was a corrupt democracy those that believed associated to rule of law did not apply to them to the colonies they were on equal. there is a very strong sense to corrupt britain and that would be founded in a way to let corruption flourish. that's why they had this law that basically stands against using your public office. would you like a story? because the first commodore of

u.s. navy named mister hopkins he was an unsavory character all around. from rhode island. involved in the slave trade. most of rhode island's economy at the time so he tortured british prisoners of war which is extraordinary when you think about it is unacceptable even during wartime human torture the enemy. so i did research to dig around in the real thing going on is that hopkins was abusing his public office for private

gain. george washington was sending him to chesapeake bay and hopkins to take the navy somewhere else. he took them to the bahamas. because this was lucrative for him personally. so i think it's fascinating in the first law congress passed there is this issue of public officials are supposed to serve their country and not themselves if you getry confused about that you don't go anyplace good. so congress wound up passing the law and got those founders that were in jail they paid their legal fees and said all the records which is why we tell the story today. >> it's fascinating.

and that it come so early in history but despite this law and weaving into ourat own fabric whistleblowers are perceived as tattle tales at the best and at worst traders. why are we so conflicted about this? >> there are number of layers to that question and it's important to realizer america is distinctive that make sense of the democracy. so whistleblowers are looking at the status quo to say no. this is not acceptable and people don't agree with them.

so it's a challenging thing even in the united states but in other countries that are not democracies for like the czech republic to find out it has negative connotations that you are a snitch because the regime is oppressive and to be upheld by whistleblowing. but even in america we have problems with whistleblowers. >> despite what they have gained over the years it's terribly high nobody sets out to be a whistleblower to be

driven by conscience but they don't know what will line up against them. >> if it for one - - occurs again and again but if they just report this wrongdoing that the person will say oh my god i can't believe that's going on this do something about it but if the leader hears that goes against the principle or company norms you will never hear about that externally but whistleblowers find the powerful don't want to hear this. so for a variety of reasons they start off idealistic and then wind up quite jaded because they lose everything time and time again.

is the paradox of whistleblowing we do celebrate them in theory that's why democrats and republicans unanimously agreed to turn the whistleblower complaint over to congress. practice is another matter entirely when the attention sgoes elsewhere that's when they lose everything theirar careers, jobs, families that are retaliated against it has occurred again and against we need to do better by whistleblowers in my view to make you finish the manuscript then you get into post- 9/11 and edward snowden and then went back to the drawing board. it's almost as if there was an earlier simple or world of whistleblowing that changesin as it becomes more complicated. what is changing? >> a couple of things.

as john points out i had a whole draft of this book completed than the snowden case happened i started to look and i thought oh my god i've got to start over. [laughter] i've got to figure it out. so this went through five manuscript iterations and hundreds of pages of carefully polished on the cutting room floor i'm the terrible example of how to write a book but i do like the finished product. but two things have changed. the first and the reason i divided into two parts before thee internet and after the internet because that has all kinds of effects we can talk about. but the other is the national security state develops after world war ii.

which makes us different from any other country we have enormous national security state and intelligence community more than any other free nation. so that's where we have the whole idea of the national security whistleblower which is problematich for all sorts of reasons so then to break the rules to uphold the rule of law. that's very complicated. >> i was thinking of that line out of the vietnam war you have to destroy it to save it. basically they have to criminalize themselves to protect our rights to privacy. the other thing that changes is the whole issue of support of a national security system which further cloudsd the issue

to be closed off to scrutiny. >> actually that is right from my previous book was called one nation unders contract and looking at the privatization of america's national security that contractors are increasingly used instead of government employeesea is a problem with national security and there is a belief that it will be better to be more efficient and get the job done and all of these things not necessarily our true but then i realize to blur the line between businessss and government. and that led to the influence

economy and also this revolving door and for the private sector 30 years ago it used to be called selling out. now it's called cashing in. . . . .

to do the right thing for the american people and not to serve d themselves. even the founders wouldn't have done that. that's why they created the separation of powers. that's what they do is they keep honest when the system is functioning. the issue of course that raises is whistleblowers from these private sectors are not protected so that in itself discourages whistleblowing and sets up the chamber. the scrutiny is there.

>> it creates additional problems. i don't want to bore you with a survey of the walls around whistleblowing. but i will tell you we have a patchwork that's developed over time as an old concept and you need a lawyer ifur you are a whistleblower to navigate so it'st a real problem and then with contractors remember edward is a contractor at the time, so they don't have protection. there is a weird situation where they are doing the work of government, so then also national security creates a potentially problematic mix because i trust, i want to believe the intelligence committee is serving to keep us

safe at the same time from what i've learned to ensure that that happens. >> i think people were startled by the pervasiveness of the scrutiny. >> that is what he'd revealed if you followed that story. i interviewed the entire group because i wanted their perspective. there's always two sides toaid every story. what i try to do, i try to let the officials speak for themselves, so general alexander is a character in the book and i try to let the whistleblowers speak for themselves and get what the truth is but enough

information to judge for yourselves. but snowden is an interesting case. he showed that after 9/11, they adopted procedures because we had been attacked on american soil, world trade centers, the pentagon, the plane that went down in pennsylvania. we want to prevent w another t attack. what happened is those emergency procedures became business as usual without any public discussion or whether or not it was something the american people wanted. he forced the discussion and as a result coming and got change. he may one day be considered

america's first traitor patriot because he provided a public service but also broke the law to do it. >> you mentioned the internet earlier and one of the issues it seems to me technology specific is moving so quickly that the normal democratic processes don't have the ability to keep up and legislate. >> part of what you are seeing with technology today and maybe some of you are in the field and know this, the technology has outstripped the law. some of it may not be in our best interest as a country but that is what the nsa was doing.

they were not breaking the law. they were exploring loopholes in the wall law but have since been addressed. >> what you write about seems to be predictive in the ways of dealing with things some of what we see today, and it sounds partisan but as if this was almost predetermined given the way things were flowing. >> that is the interesting thing about the book because it went into production a year ago, and i wrote it as an exercise to understand the history of what was going on as a context to better understand it andb it was clear to me given my experience

in the intelligence community and the nsa whistleblowers that they were behaving in a really dnusual way with this president. and if they were doing it i could see because they saw the president as a national security threat. they don't normally behave this way. if you know anybody in the committee, they are obsessed and won't even tell you what they do. i don't know if any of you have friends or family in the community for national security jobs. they really believe that even the most innocuous piece of information could be that missing jigsaw puzzle piece that's going to allow them to put something together that could allow them to undermine ite national security of the united states. so it's totally unlike them to be leaking as they are doing but they are doing it because they swear an oath like the president

to protect, preserve and defend the constitution of the united t states and i think they see his behavior as somehow violating everything they've given their life for because if you are in government, you are not doing it for thee money. you can make a lot more money somewhere else. so, they really believe they are serving the country and their job is to provide the unvarnished truth to politicia politicians. and then the politicians decide what to do with it and that is what they see being turned on its head. it's, i mean, red flag alert when campaign officials are having repeated interactions with russian operatives. that's never happened before in dhe united states, and they have a loss that you can understand it better. it's called the two half rule.

for that reason when they see campaign officials meeting with russian operatives this red alert goes off and they want to investigate it.

i'm happy to elaborate further on why it isn't. so that's the way that i see it. >> how do you balance the need of the full transparency. what you've got to look up with the whistleblowers not the motives. l i think some of the interestig people, but they are not ordinary people what is it that they are revealing and then

you've got to investigate and see whether they are saying makes sense. then you will see the vast overwhelming majority don't see the light of day especially in the intelligence community and they don't get settled in their favor. mostre of them are thrown out. so it's not something that is easy to do and when it rises to the level somebody says it is urgent and credible when you place things in historical context or comparative context comparing this to other

countries, you feel very hopeful about where we are and where we can go. i can go through some of the examples if people are interested that there have been the circumstances before befort what corruption is and the abuse of power is. if you look at the first gilded age for example that is a totally corrupt democrat who basically is handing the money out to his cronies and finally get the whistleblowing on him for that and he built most of new york city during that peri period. the public it was an outcry.

that is what is distinctive of the situation. in my view we are kind ofat confused about what is shameful and what is not. it's partially just because of the privatization that has gotten us confused about how you served your country. you are serving yourself rather than thinking about the country and the american people to the common good at-large. if you look at the inspector general system through which this miraculous complaint rose, that was built in response to richard nixon, people look around and say how can we

prevent that from happening again. what law can be passed to ensure that it doesn't and that is why congress passedn the act of watergate is to try to prevent the recurrence of the same thi thing. it is enemy of the people and it tells the story of a whistleblower who in the end basically loses everything but les final line resonates with a lot of whistleblowers and it's a sort of confused statement of but i was right and it doesn't seem to have made a difference.

what they were doing was wrong. there is a sense of right and wrong. i didn't have a choice. there were a lot of people who were not like that.lo >> i'm going to send you to the mercy of the audience. the microphone will find you with questions so they can get it on tape. just raise your hand and she will come and find you. >> you can ask me anything. >> i was wondering if you came across whistleblowers who were not right who maybe have their own sense of what's right or wrong and it may not agree with what the law is.

so, what is your thought on that? >> that is a good question and the way it is, you have to have a reasonable belief that what you have seen is wrong. people can be wrong about that. you don't hear about those whistleblowers because the cases are investigated and you never hear anything more about it. you only hear about them when they turn out to be right people might think that there is wrongu but there isn't and you don't hear about them. we are humans. we all have our biases and misconceptions and some people are just plain difficult. >> you talk about defining what

a whistleblower is and isn't early on i but very narrowly. >> i wanted it to be connected to the american tradition which is rooted in the rule of law which means there is a distinction between fact and fiction, truth and falsehood and we can look at the evidence and see whether something violated to see whether something violated the law or is unconstitutional. >> if you are writing a book today, woul, what you write it differently than you did g originally? >> that is a good question. i struggled for so long it was seven years in the making if you can believe that. that is a very painful thing i call it might exercise and revenge through suffering but the upside is i'm happy with how it turned out. you have to read it and tell me what you think because i wrote

the last chapter in the past tense i make some suggestions about the things we could do but it's funny i could see something like this coming because i know a lot of people think that the state is partisan and nefariously plotting to overthrow american leaders but that is in thet intelligence committee that i encountered in my research. so that is kind of what is going on and you start paying closer attention.

[inaudible] [laughter] the thing that made a difference if i was talking with a screenwriter who made the film zero dark 30 because he was working on a television series. this isn't revealing anything secret. you will see it on. this was a couple of years ago, russian intervention in our elections. i got asked -- it was fun for mo as an academic to think about a tv show. sometimes it feelsu like we are in a tv show that kind of jumped the shark and i want to change hthe channel, but they say to pt it in two pages. who were the main characters, what is the characteristics? what are the main narrative lines in the overarching two

pages? so i i did that for them and it was the next minute it was through that but it crystallized for me what the book was about and what i was trying to explain which is how we have arrived at ther present moment and how we should interpret it and what we should do about it. so i'm happy with how it came out. i'm not a good model for writing books. don't publish your prose, people. make sure the structure is right. >> how do we keep whistleblowers face. >> it's a very important question right here and now, and i think it's frightening because the president in another unprecedented incident has decided to retaliate. we are not necessarily worried about trump and the media advisers doing something. it's just the supporters in the internet age, which changes everything because that allows for people unconnected to the

president to take justice into their own hands and harm the whistleblower, terrorize their family. all of this isn't going to do so would we need to do is if the american people realize that it's an important part of the american experience that helps keep democracy alive and insists the whistleblower be protected, congress will respond, the whistleblower will be protected and indeed, what you see is we may not even need the whistleblower to testify because all fees for merck officials are coming forward now. incidentally that is something i learned in my book. nobody is going to let you go on the record with their name. but if you interview them after they leave the position, they can say things on the record they wouldn't see otherwise have the same is true of people being called to testify. >> one of the things that struck

me in the incitement to find the whistleblowers is the shades of henryt the second. aren't we reliving history? >> they don't typically talk about enemies of the people. you don't typically see that in a democracy. it can be kind of damaging. >> with thwhat the president sai think really matters. >> my question, professor, i

heard you describe some of the others. i had a cousin i was in the cia for eight years but i know that you are an affinity for that culture that i do and i appreciate that i thought i heard you describe people that were making the conscious based week's not separate from those channels such as whistleblowing and i don't accept the fact and think you should be conquering it on the notion of taking an oath of office come during the license to break federal law which i think is what i heard you say. >> that's a great question and you are getting to the heart of what is difficult about the question because you are right. we don't want an intelligence community behaving this way. my argument in the because they are behavinbook as theyare behae

are in an emergency situation where the system itself is at stake but what i say at the end is what we need to do after it's passed is not celebrate but instead relies that there was a necessary evil ifn you will to deal with an emergency and we've all got to go back to normal. the intelligence community, we don't want them behaving in this way. we want to suggest that it's acceptable inm an emergency situation but definitely not desirable so i used the example you should read it and tell me what you think. winston churchill after world war ii dishonored their hair -- arthur harris. if you go to westminster today

you will not find his name or the names of the pilots inscribed on the walls of westminster abbey. you'll find the pilots there you will not find the bomber pilots and the reason is that churchill needed them to do these nasty things because the system itself is at stake. democracy was at stake but after the war, he dishonored arthur harris to restore the moral universe that had been upended so we are going to need something similar to move forward and that is going to require both parties to say thy have been excesses on both sides, shake hands and say thisl is for the american people, for the rule of law, for the free markets and democracy and we are going to make a break with the past behavior and do better in

the future. human beings are human beings but democracy was restored in britain. we can do something similar in the same make a symbolic break by dishonoring the behavior that was necessary but shouldn't be acceptable. the sputnik sends? >> does that make sense? >> i had a question. are you comfortable with the termrm whistleblower as it appls to the person who discussed the conversation between the president of ukraine and president of trump in regards to orom what i've heard mostly secondhand information, not first command of the person is

anonymous regardless what the future people are discussing it may bring down the president. the term whistleblower do you think that applies or is it something else? scenic that is a great question i'm glad you asked that because there's been a lot of claims this isn't a whistleblower. it's partisan and it's importat to focus on what the law says and what the president trump's own intelligence community inspector general says. if you go to the community and website you will find a letter from michael atkinson who is the trump appointee said he is the onee who says officially on ther website this person is awe whistleblower, the complaint went through the proper channels and now it's got to be investigated but it's important

to realize the whole first and second hand thing doesn't matter. what matters is the content of become that which the whistleblower isn't going to prove himself or herself, you've got to investigate to see if the complaint has any water and that is what you see people doing. that's why the whistleblower may not even need to testify because you have officials coming forward to say that they were onto something important for us to know about and discuss. it's legitimate people are confused about this. have you heard about whistleblowers before a couple weeks ago? >> a littlet bit. but not in the national intelligence community. so, it is legitimately confusi confusing, but i think my book provides a great context for understanding it and i wrote it to be readable. it's got 100 pages of

bibliography and footnotes that it's only 200 pages long because i wanted to go from the founding to the present in 200 pages and view, the reader, can be the judge of whether i succeeded at doing some thing else in the u.s. or entertainment value. >> president trump has claimed that the amendment right should allow him to confront his whistleblower. if this goes to an impeachment proceeding, how would that apply? >> i don't even know what that means. i've never heard of a sixthar amendment right. confront your accuser. >> but we are not in the court of law. we are just gathering information right now to see if there should be a trial.

that is what impeachment would bimpeachment wouldbe so it does. >> the point of the question of this once it gets to the impeachment proceedings, does that change anything? >> no. that isn't a court trial either. >> the sixth amendment issue which is to confront -- arthur at the point that it moves to the senate and an actual trial doesn't take in but that isn't a legal proceeding either. here you have this also interesting thing going on where our legal proceedings with the rest of the associates, so that's the other interesting thing in the tax returns have

been subpoenaed. we are entering a really interesting moment where life can be revealed. some of you may not be aware that i'm writing a piece that's coming out in the atlantic in the next couple of days on whistleblowing in europe and you might say how is that going into the united states. it's relevant because there are international corruption networks that have rocked europe anin all sorts of ways and allod them to pass the most comprehensive whistleblower protection law anywhere. it exceeds the united states in all sorts of ways. and that's because there were a number of corruption cases in europe. they lead to the death of the investigative journalists investigating the corruption. so there was a journalist was killed by a car bombing.

the real centerpiece of all sorts of corruptions. guess who buys the passports? the russians and they used themm to travel freely through europe. nothing was done to prosecute this murder. in slovakia there's a man who was murdered by his fiancée ended up as a public outcry. there were enormous demonstrations and it led to the fall of the government and the election of the first female prime minister. so, europe is sort of interesting because these are international corruption networks. there might be a european whistleblower that reveals information relevant to the situation in the united states because think about it. the rule of law and anticorruption, they are two sides of the same coin.

crony capitalism isn't the sort of capitalism that free-market america celebrates. we pride ourselves on our small business, entrepreneurship. you don't have that with crony capitalism. that's why if you support small business you should be in favor of anticorruption and also the rule of law that makes. it possible. >> if you listened to whistleblowing in europe or great britain at all? >> it's a great question. it's interesting because cultural differences come out that are fascinating. in the whistleblowing in europe they went through all of the

words in the european countries and almost all of them are negative. the way that this came about is this is an american thing. americans were very involved in advising to hear opinions on how to draft the law because they have a wealth of expertise having 200 plus years with the whistleblower protection but it's really seen as an american concept and then the british adopted the law in 1998 and they say that's an anglo-american concept. and in what seems it seems a dc concept applies across europe ande i think that's important because if we are going to keep democracy alive, we need a coalition of civilizations fighting to make it so and that is precisely what brought about the directive in europe and it's precisely what can keep democracy vibrant in the united

states today. i mean we've got a situation where he lead elites are being criticized by both the left and the right for failing to serve ordinary people, and that is a serious issue and the whistleblowersea help us get the information we need to come from an. there is a question right here. go ahead and ask me anything. >> you take it to your higher up and if you see that nothing is resolved, what do you do then and what kind of protection would you have? i know there was a tobacco case many years ago. >> that was in my book. >> i don't remember what happened but what kind of protections do they have? >> this is what is interesting is the connection between the first amendment and

whistleblowing, can you see how there might be a connection between the two, so what happens if the higher-ups don't pay attention. they typically go to the press and that is something as a company you should not want. you should want to resolve it internally because anybody remember enron? [laughter] enron and worldcom. ifd those companies listened to whistleblowers inside of your wn organization, they could have righted the ship before the companies went belly up. if you are a smart ceo, you are going to want to create a climate in which people feel comfortable in telling you when something needs toth be fixed. that's hard to do. you've got to be pretty self-confident human to take that criticism but there are leaders like that and they are

extraordinary. >> [inaudible] from you.et them hear i love hearing questions from chicago. i'm from chicago. i mean i was born here is what i was trying to say. >> does this move to the movement of the need to as well >> there were whistleblowers in the movement because let's face it, what was happening as everybody knows that's wrong. there's all these wall laws on e books but sometimes the powerful don't want to enforce their rules even if it is in their interest so they exposed the blind spots and get the society to confront the hypocrisy that

is the gap between the ideals and actual behavior and it's a very human thing. it's useful to think about what your blind spots are and try to understand alternativeta pointsf view and that is what the hash tag of the movement data. now we could have debates about how it played out in other various political instances. let me just say that i think this ideological folks on the left and the right. the american constitutional democracy isn't an ideological concept in my view. it's committed to the free and open discussion and with citizens from all walks of life and different political orientation to begin to deliberate to figure outo figure the country should go.

but they served a popular purpose in the initial movement regardless where you think it wentt, about their. i don't think it's important as the principal that is important. we could have a difference of them on the political application. there's a place called. it involves someone from russia who i think was poisoned. it is that in your vote or have you given any thought to the situation flex >> i speak russian and i've studied western. -- russian. my dissertation was a funny thing to go through because i decided three months later there was no soviet foreign policy. [laughter]as i decided a new era of public

peace. i'm not going to rent debate could realize what they kept saying to me that it is true. they've had a police state for a long time and that's why he immediatelimmediately when i see campaign meeting with all these russians i'd like to -- you are in trouble now. they will play you and i think that is why the intelligence committee was alarmed by it, to back. it's a dangerous -- these networks are dangerous and that's why we brought the rule of law because the alternative is you realize you get the mafia to enforce contract when nobody trusts institutions. i don't think we are at the point where we need the mobs rule. we can resuscitate the rule of

law. >> if he considered a whistleblower and was there gnough information to consider him? be you are pointing to the connection between the first time management and journalists and whistleblowers. he is a journalist but for things that saudi arabia didn't want to attend and he was kill killed. obviously i don't support the that's why this is unsettling to me. i talked the policy and one to g i know is that you need a team

for ford in policy. foreign policy. ica another student. we need to work together and it's a very disastrous. the united states had official anticorruption policy that was being applied to ukraine and rudy giuliani and the president for running a shadow o shadow pn direct contradiction to the official policy of the united states. the matter what you think elected to policy shoul should e interesting is that it's different from what the policy is andi it's different to the anticorruption efforts of the

world because it flourishes around the world that the united states isn't the idea was to decide option. some of this bill was revealed, they were laundering all this money until the united states stood up and said that's corrupt moe bank is to be closed. it's important for the world to know what we do with corruption because of the unite if the unis doesn't stand up for the rule of law, the cause globally is damaged. that's why you see so many public workers come forward and say i've ever seen some like this. it's something i feel compelled to speakl out about.

thank you for the question. atu commented that you were hopeful. can you elaborate on that a little more? >> i'm looking at you and feeling hopeful because let's face it, we are all provincial become from particular community is and let me put it this way they maypr think the east coasts provincial but they don't realizeal that they also are provincial. the difference between the developed the country and the

coast is you are aware you have something distinctive. the east coast believe they are not provincial, this is universal. so why you might hopeful if i really believe that americans know what's right and wrong they know what corruption is and when someone is serving themselves rather than their country and that is also apparent that it's

pretty obvious to you want them to be out for themselves. he is giving it in an assertive way speaking the truth and these are good things but it's also clear that he's selfish. i don't think americans are selfish. they don't enjoy people hurling insults at each other and they are all american.

i don't know what your political persuasions are but everybody here, take someone to breakfast with whom you disagree and discuss theer future of the country. i think small things like that can make a difference. so don't give up. >> anybody want to ask a asked?n that hasn't you seem to be pretty optimistic about the marketplace of ideas within the institutions that we have. can you square that away with their advertisement that's about

all i know on the subject but do those facts always go now but it seems like when it's more of a subjective area so i am challenging your optimism. this is a great question and that is my next book. checkth back with me in the eye here. i am determined to do with the right way this time before i start polishing things. i want to do it right. i am an i optimistic person by nature. i was convinced if i stood there

and explained to people why it was important that they engage with people whom they profoundly disagree i thought i would persuade people that was the case. i was unsuccessful. we have some challenges in our country, but that is something individuals we can attend to. i don't know how many of you go to church as a part of the faith-based community you see people from all walks of life and income levels and persuasions. in my church in vermont, we had the governor of vermont who vetoed gay marriage and we had

those that filed the suit that resulted in the overturning of the defense of marriage act. we have it within us to reach out to people that are differe different. it is worth preserving and it's in our hands to do so. so that's why i'm optimistic. [applause] we don't pay our authors to come but we don't want them to go home empty-handed.

>> thank you so much. [applause] we will have you signing books over at the table. read it and let me know what you think. thank you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] good evening, every