thank you again for having me. it has been a lot of fun. [applause] announcer: for nearly 20 years, "in-depth" has featured the nation's best-known nonfiction writers for live conversations about their work. this year, as a special project, we are featuring best-selling fiction writers. "in-depth: fiction edition." join us for our first program sunday at noon eastern with david ignatius, the author of several national security thrillers, including "agents of innocence," "blood money," and "the quantum spy." our special series with author david ignatius, sunday live from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2.

discussion on, a the history and the impact of the pentagon papers. from ""washington journal," this is an hour. continues. joining us from new york city is david rudenstine, a professor of law at the core does a school of law -- core does that -- or does out -- cordozo school of law. he is also the author of "the day the presses stopped: a history of the pentagon papers case." thank you for joining us today. thank you. i am delighted to be here. phyllis coming up that focuses on the washington post coverage of the pentagon papers.

remind us of what the pentagon papers work. papersthe pentagon totaled 2.5 million words, 7000 pages, and it weighed 60 pounds. it was a history of how the united states got involved in totnam from roughly 1945 1968. "the washington post" covering the made it to the supreme court. explain what happened. guest: that is a complicated question. given to there "new york times" in 1971. , 1971, "the new york series"pushing a 10-part

publishing the papers. the papers were classified top secret. later, a judge enjoined with the going forward publication pending a hearing because the government claimed international security. three days later, "the washington post" again publishing the papers. that is how the newspapers got involved in the case at the district court level. court to the supreme within 12 days. case ont decided to june 30, 1971. it took only days from the time

it was filed to when it was decided by the supreme court. host: talk about the decision to allow "the washington post" to publish the papers even though they were classified at the time. what impact does that have today in washington? historic. case was the decision was a landmark decision because the supreme court imposed on the government a heavy burden if it ever wanted to secure a prior restraint against newspapers. it did not define with details what a heavy burden was, but it was pretty clear it was going to be a really heavy burden. the evidence in this case did not measure up, and that is why the court ruled against the government. significance, the one can only imagine what a

newspaper would look like if the government had actually won the case because then the government would be in a position to censor newspapers every time they published classified materials. if you are an average reader of of newspaper, take any week any national newspaper that focuses on national news, and cut out all of the articles based upon classified materials. it would not learn very much after that about national security matters because almost everything related to those subjects are classified. the significance of the case is that we as voters in the country continue to learn a great deal about what our government is doing in our name. host: we are talking with david

rudenstine joining us from new york city. he is a cardozo school of law professor talking about the , according tos his new book, "the day the presses stopped: a history of the pentagon papers case." we have a line for democrats, republicans, and independents. restraint,e of prior president trump this week threatened a libel lawsuit against the author of a tell-all book called "fire and fury." trump's attorney threatened legal action to block it. the president initially sought

to have publication of the book stopped. it was unsuccessful. the publishers pushed up the publication to this week instead of next week. talk about how this pentagon papers case applies to situations like this. guest: the pentagon papers case makes it just about impossible for the government to get prior restraint. in a case like this, i do not think there is a chance at all the president would be able to stop the publication of this book. not a chance. what they are threatening to do is sue for damages, sue the publisher and author for damages. that is a different claim from trying to stop publication. i think there is zero chance they will prevail because the president is what we would call a public, government figure.

he has to prove the information he thinks is damaging to him was published knowing that it was false or in reckless regard of the truth. the likelihood is he is not going to be able to prove that, so i think this is a threat that will not go anyplace. brian is calling for michigan on our independent line. you're on with professor rudenstine. go ahead. caller: thanks for your time. it seems like we had more fortitude back then than we do now even though we had a lot of problems. getting to today's world and the white house press corps, do you think it would be advantageous that we set the bar higher in these so-called journalists intually have a degree in pr

journalism as opposed to anything else? i look at cnn and fox. none of them have degrees in journalism. if i was going to get my car worked on, i would want a licensed camtek -- mechanic. the talking heads on cnn and others do not even have a degree in journalism. bar?o we not set that it could be easily done. it does not need court approval. i think that is an interesting question and i'm glad you asked about what constitutes proper qualifications for a responsible journalist. while a journalism degree might seem attractive and an easy requirement, i think that is a misleading shortcut to what you want. what you really want is qualified and responsible people

doing the work the nation requires so voters know what is going on in our name. i think there are lots of different roads to that i end point. you could be a political scientist, economist. there are a lot of academic roads to that end. i'm not sure a print journalism degree would be the only way to do it. times" interviews the whistleblower about what he hopes his new book will accomplish. he said he hopes it will inspire the military to become whistleblowers.

host: he is hoping to inspire more whistleblowers like he was. what do you think about that? guest: he was a courageous whistleblower in 1969-1971 when he acted the way he did. she knew that he was risking criminal prosecution -- he knew that he was risking criminal prosecution. and yet, he did what he did and provided a great service to the nation. what he has been doing ever since is trying to set an example for others and encourage others to do what he did. mr. snowden is certainly exhibit a along that line. he is continuing to try to motivate people to disclose secrets he thinks would be important for the public to know

in which would not in a direct or immediately injure national security. i admire the effort. i do not know how successful he will be. host: we will have a clip from daniel ellsberg in a moment. first, i want to show a clip on the publisher when she appeared on c-span in 1997 to talk about her autobiography and relationships with the players in the pentagon papers story. let's take a look. [video clip] >> pentagon papers. how do you deal with it in a town like this? do you ever get confused? >> no. because once people are in the government, the relationship changes. you can be friends with people in the government, but they and you remember the paper comes

first. sometimes, the paper attacks your friends or does things you think are unfair to your friends. sometimes, you can reason with the editors. but mostly, you have to stand by them. host: talk about that relationship. do you see or believe the same sort of relationships take place today between the press and the players in stories like this? guest: the katharine graham story is particularly poignant on this matter. she was close friends with robert mcnamara at the time. in the late 1960's during the , there was a lot of coming and going between people in government and the press and universities and foundations and think tanks. so, it could get to be very confusing. the thing that was so special

about this moment in history for katharine graham is she had to let go of a lot of attachments in order that she had for her to move forward and give the green light to publish the pentagon papers. she made the decision to do that in the course of a two-minute telephone conversation where she was being advised by lawyers and financial people not to do it, and yet she still decided to do it. this was a moment where she stepped into her own as a dynamic and responsible, and courageous leader of a major public company to do the right thing for the nation. what that is like today in washington, i have to confess i am in new york and not in washington, i am a law professor and not in government.

i am not sure if the relationships in washington today are like what they were in the 1960's where there was a lot of coming and going and back and forth. host: marcus calling from boston on our independent line -- mark is calling from boston on our independent line. you are on with professor david rubenstein. caller: "the washington post" published the pentagon papers. what is the difference between that and what julian assange is doing? and why is there such a 100-80 degree turn from people on the liberal left for what he is doing? it seems whoever is in power is theatened by people like "washington post" at that time. i think it is a very different

organization now. i want to get your thoughts. it seems totally the same thing. host: what do you think, professor? guest: that is an interesting question. the dramaticpon changes in the country with media to traditional outlets and social media. let me bring you back to 1971. we did not have twitter. we were not online. we did not have all the cable television we do. we had what we called the established news outlets. a lot of people who worked in the established media were people who had government experience. they were sensitive to national security matters. and they were no more interested in injuring the national security than anybody else. they might disagree a lot with people in the government as to what constituted injury to

national security, but they would have argued to the end of their time that they would not -- were not going to injure national security in any serious way. for them, when you give them which was documents true at "the new york times" and "the washington post," they went through the papers carefully to make sure what they disclosed would not injure national security in any way that would cause regret. you cannot say the same thing about wikileaks. i don't think anybody would try to say the same thing about wikileaks. the difference is the difference between what we had in 1971 and what we have today in terms of media outlets, i'm afraid. host: i want to play a clip of daniel ellsberg from 2015 when he was on this show. he was asked about his views on chelsea manning and edward

snowden. [video clip] >> i see chelsea manning and edward snowden in the tradition of nathan hale. when i heard that chelsea giveng said i am ready to this information about war crimes, assassinations, tortured by americans, i want to get it out even if it means jail for which he was, faced with. when i read that, i thought, i waited 40 years to hear somebody say that. that is what i thought in 1971. i have a very strong sense of identification with her and in hissnowden who said exile it has enabled him to speak confidently with reporters through encrypted communication to explain the background of what he has given them and further the conversation.

he said some things are worth dying for. and that is true. i agree with that. i hope other people will be inspired by that. host: what are your thoughts on that, professor? guest: that is a moving set of comments by daniel ellsberg. i think you want to make sure you draw a distinction between the individuals making the publishers,and the the people who get the information and have to decide whether or not to publish it. you have to draw that distinction clearly and firmly. as far as the leakers are concerned, they often do not go through the material with care to decide what they think should or should not be disclosed because of national security matters.

but that does not relieve the disseminatorpublic of the responsibility of doing that. comment is respecting admiring the leaker. is respecting admiring the leaker. i think it leaves entirely on the table to? asked -- i think it leaves entirely on the table the question mark asked. host: tom is calling from pennsylvania on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i don't think the nuclear pellets are worth any money. i would not send anybody out to do hand-to-hand combat unless they volunteer for it. and we need joe the plumber. host: professor, what do you think about this issue of leaking out of the white house?

is it an issue that needs a fix or a plumber? guest: oh, you know, we have had leaks out of the white house probably since we have had a white house. the idea you will stop white house leaks is totally naïve. whether we are having more than ever before, i am not a being counter andean cannot really comment on that. i do know that leaks out of the white house are important if we are going to be informed about what the government is doing. host: we have been talking about daniel ellsberg. a recent conversation in chicago will be airing tonight on c-span2 at 11:00 eastern. you can also catch that on c-span.org. during the pentagon papers case, the government argued the

publication of that information would cost american troops their lives. what did you think about that claim? guest: that was a very serious claim. if the government had been able to refer the court to pages in the pentagon pages that would support the claim, i think the government would have won. the problem is they were not able to do that. the government made all kinds of significant claims. they could not provide chapter and verse citations to support their claims. that is why the government lost. host: similar claims about american security have been made about the government efforts on fisa warrants. the government surveillance

program, to keep that up and running, the same arguments have been made. do you see parallels between the n.s.a. surveillance program and what happened with the publication of the pentagon papers? guest: kimberly, you are absolutely right. that is exactly what happened. when mr. snowden made his disclosures, there were all kinds of claims out of washington that these disclosures would seriously harm national security. and yet, two government agencies, and i tracked this in "the age of deference," two government agencies reviewed the snowden disclosure and decided the programs he revealed the public in no way contributed to making america safer than it was otherwise and therefore the disclosures did not harm national security as government officials were claiming at the

time. host: charlie is calling from roslyn heights, new york, on the independent line. someone talked about the lack of real journalism in our country. i definitely see it. tv and radio was a lot different than it is today. i was drafted into vietnam but did not go. realized what eisenhower said in his farewell speech in 1961 about the military-industrial complex and like to know how that ties into what this gentleman is talking about. host: go ahead, professor. guest: the military-industrial complex that eisenhower summarized in that neat phrase is certainly a lobbying power that supports pentagon

expenditures, research and development, and weaponry advancement. to that extent, they help arm america and make it strong. and at the same time, that effort perhaps results in military clashes around the that may not be necessary or in the best interest of the country. the vietnam war is a good example. died,nds of americans millions of vietnamese died. for what we have in the is aary-industrial complex powerhouse that helps shape american foreign policy and military policy that is not always in the best interest of the american people. host: al is on the republican line from maryland. caller: thank you for the opportunity to talk on the

subject. the pentagon papers, i remember them well. i had just returned from vietnam. i was a combat soldier. tension andhe atmosphere at that time. the pentagon papers came out. and all of a sudden, it was access to more information -- there was access to more information. , how did youhat feel about the indifference under the obama administration about the information on hillary clinton's emails and how that information was protected and hidden and obstructed from turning it over?

the f.b.i. n.g.i. and everybody else -- the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. and everybody else. how did he feel about them up screwing that from the public? guest: we have to be clear about what the pentagon papers revealed. paragraphs of "the new york times" report made it clear the government's own history of its own decision-making processes over the better part of a quarter of a century indicated government officials misled if not lied to the american people about the goals they were pursuing in vietnam, how well the war was going, and what their plans were for how the war was going to end. that was a very serious charge. it was a charge that captivated the american public at the time. as far as i know, and i am a

student of the hillary clinton emails, there is nothing like that whatsoever. she made a serious mistake by having her own server and not doing everything through the government stuff. i may not know any more about that than you do. as i understand it, it was not illegal. whether she improperly disclosed national security matters inappropriately is something congress has looked at. i do not know if they have reached a definitive conclusion about it. host: professor, thank you so much. your book is "the day the presses stopped: a history of the pentagon papers case." you can find him online and on twitter.

minutes. >> the muslim public affairs council hosted a discussion on national security and civil rights as part of their annual convention in los angeles. it's 40 minutes. >> good afternoon everyone. ahme