"new york times" published a top secret federal report of the vietnam wars called "the pentagon papers." the report was stolen. given to "times" by federal employees. other news outlets subsequently published the papers. the supreme court upheld the media's right to publish the stolen "pentagon papers" in a 1971 ruling 6-3 majority ruling. oh, well, they didn't steal or conspire to steal it. okay. it wasn't ruled wrong by the supreme court. there is the precedent. roger stone or the "new york times" or anyone else wanted to find out if there were smoking on the podesta e-mails in 2015, that says it is not a crime unless they steal it. they hack or they conspire to steal it. nobody has even suggested that happened. this is important. with that said, according to leaked information surrounding the president's written answers to the special counsel, roger stone never informed trump about the existence of the wikileaks e-mails. roger stone will join me in a few minute. he told me on the radio show today that trump absolutely told the truth on the answer. as i said earlier looking for dirt

but what we do know that it's in relation to the pentagon papers and this is long overdue this is a very welcome step after all and there's talk about nine hundred clients being managed from a b.v.i. subsidiary in twenty sixteen of the dacha bank which all race red flags apparently in the prosecutors or the investigators ice and that is really one of the machias tax havens in the world the british virgin islands so i'm very encouraged to hear about these news. surprised. i was somewhat surprised that. officials would take finally action because it's been now two years that they've been icing these files and we have seen in other circumstances and other situations that german prosecutors to very long to take action for example with the k'nex files these massive tax avoidance schemes they only informed foreign european counterparts many many years after we found out about it details and took no action to prevent german losses so this this is the first instance that i know all the german prosecutors have taken action on a massive scale not to prevent german tax income but also to. let money

long history of the espionage act being used but it wasn't really journalism and even even the pentagon papers they never voted there this is the precedent that's being said here is that a publisher can be made to face charges under espionage as a traitor to his kind country he's aiding and abetting an enemy whatever though there's no enemy has been a den of fide in this in this case here so i mean this is the criminalization of journalism ice as i said in my introduction. well you know i think that's that's absolutely right i think what what you're talking about here is precisely a response to the the moeller teams need for the ability to squeeze the joy in a sunshiny that appears to be the real prize that is that they see within their grasp or potential grasp i had thought originally that. really this was about the cia's embarrassment over the vulgarisms by wiki leaks of the vault seven documents because they were so clearly showing that the cia not only has been rampaging through all of the electronic media or electronic devices of everyone across the globe but that they had the capability

is protected as a journalist under the new york times versus the united states case with the pentagon papers so he has a right under basic press freedoms to go and find out and he can even look at them and he can report on them you add to this the context of the twenty sixteen election and of course he made his political biases known to the public he's pro-choice and of course i'm interested in this and see if i can help the trunk and paint drum corps he's been more honest and transparent and put his biases on the table more than the investigation which looks like the core body was honest but you have to get everything to weigh in on that because i mean there are there is a long history of the espionage act being used but it wasn't really journalism and even even the pentagon papers they never invoked had there this is the precedent that's being said here is that a publisher can be made to face charges under espionage as actually a traitor to his country country he's aiding and abetting an enemy whatever though there is no enemy has been identified in this in this case here so i mean this is

these tensions since the pentagon papers have not gone away. right? we've seen them in the modern era, with the question whether "the new york times" can and should have published information about what we can now talk about as the terrorist surveillance program, president bush famously declassified after that "new york times" story. or about the snowden disclosures where edward snowden i think nobody would disagree violated the law and the requirements he had under the law to protect classified information, but did so at least with respect to one program where he purported to be defending america's civil liberties. a program designed to collect substantially all the phone calls or at least information about all the phone calls in the continental united states. your phone calls. my phone calls. your e-mails. my e-mails. the to/from information about all those conversations. he also revealed, stole and revealed a tremendous amount of other information that had little to no impact on americans' privacy and civil liberties. debate about whether snowden w

beginning and we've seen this tension raise its head up in the modern era beginning with the pentagon papers case where we saw the "new york times" on one side, the "washington post" as we saw in that well-watched movie recently fighting over the question of whether these national secrets about the vietnam war, some of which were designed to not simply protect troop movements but designed to protect the decisions made -- erroneous, by the administration then in power and the prior administration before it and the doubling down in the war on vietnam and the secret wars we were fighting in cambodia and laos, not so secret secret wars we were fighting and the question whether newspapers could talk about these things publicly. cases that went all the way to the supreme court. the supreme court in a famous decision defending and protecting the right of the papers to publish this information. these tensions have not gone a away. we've seen them in the "new york times" about what can be and cannot be talked about. president bush declassified them after the "new york times" discovery. or the snowden

documents me out of data material was evaluated from the pentagon papers i don't know. who. we thought that we had provided to the authorities all the relevant information regarding quantum of papers and. also coming up tonight russian president vladimir putin began the day thinking that his meeting with u.s. president trump at the g twenty summit in argentina is on i wonder if putin is a betting man. i probably will be meeting with president food we have been terminated that big i was thinking about it and getting a full report on the plane. we begin the day with one hundred seventy german police officers walking into georgia banks main office this morning and they did not bother to knock first the headquarters of germany's largest lender in frankfurt raided today as part of an investigation into possible money laundering suspicions first came to light in twenty sixteen in the panama data leak the leak was reportedly led investigators to focus on two unnamed bank employees. prosecutors said today the raid should not have surprised anyone. defy docked. mission of rose in the

believe that this organisation, so identified with its history with exposing the truth behind the pentagon papersu believe that your own organisation is capable of running, resourcing those sorts of expensive investigations today? yes, i do. we are doing those investigations and in many ways i think those kinds of investigations are the business model. because the public wants us to do that. they see us as their representative in holding government accountable. and they support us as a result. that is why they subscribe to us. when you look at it, yes, there is a lot of focus on trump, but what people really want is an independent news organisation that is holding their government officials, their politicians, and the policymakers, accountable. can you truly call yourself independent when you owned by one of the — actually, the richest man in the united states, jeff bezos, owner of amazon? can you really call yourselves independent? i think we can. i think the proof is in the work we do. if anyone looks at our work in holding powerful individuals and government officials and policymakers accounta

it was her decision to publish the pentagon papers and then to break the watergate story. you may wonder how we got from my paper timeline to our book. i used to take that scott state together timeline to venues around denver as i taught classes for the vision leadership in the two. on one occasion, i was presenting before the women vision board. john miller was there, a senior vp, and she looked around the world -- around the room at those papers, shaking her head. she said charlotte, computers have come a long way. [laughter] we can do better than this. and they did. deserving of our heartfelt thanks, converted our vision into a beautiful visual display. we showed that display in a number of places because we had that display in hand. we were able to attract interest from the woman who became our book agent. this beautiful visual display enabled her to sell the book to harpercollins. .lways, thank you our editor at harpercollins had varies the civic ideas about how the information would be presented. she insisted we use a specific graphic designer from harpercollins. laur

kollywood came out with their film the post and celebrating the washington post when it came to the pentagon papers in one thousand nine hundred ninety one. and you have ellsberg in wellsburg he was the enemy of the nixon administration but the post in other journalists they stood up for. freedom of the press and for freedom of the. uniformly that's not the case today that it's a tragedy of journalism we day we saw a big turn not just with the media is the mainstream media but with the democratic party well right and glenn pointed this out very well flipping on this they supported it when it was against the bush administration and then the question is what happened why have they sided with some of the most extreme elements of the you know the trumpet ministration and so on and glenn points to the very well which going green was going green while the article were talking. the other day but the grand irony is that many democrats will side with the trump d.o.j. over the obama d.o.j. supposedly. their own motional personal contempt for us so much. due to the fact that he helped defeat their relief that

believe that this organisation, so identified with its history with exposing the truth behind the pentagon papersyou believe that your rhone organisation is capable of running, resulting those sorts of expensive investigations today? —— sorts of expensive investigations today? —— your own. sorts of expensive investigations today? -- your own. i do. we are those investigations are they any many ways they think those investigations are the business model. because the public wants us to do that. they see us as their representative and holding government accountable. the supporters as a result. that is widely ascribed to us. when you look at it, there is a lot of focus on trunk of what people really want an independent news organisation that is holding their government officials, their politicians, and the policymakers, accountable. any critical use of independent when you owned by one of the— actually, the richest man in the united states, jeff bezos? at it we can. i did approve this in the work we do. if the looks at our work in holding powerful individuals and government officials and policymakers

asking how he could justify the pentagon papers and then to ask the other officials involved how theyjustify themselves what made them feel they r had a right to keep silent for the crimes committed to the american people? so he himself carrying home from vietnam with that overarching mistake with the military leaders so major donald huntsman and with those uniforms on everybody would be happy to see them. and those who still look back the experience was huge i was part of killing i could not confess but to say that i was there for them around one third of the people were killed or wounded sometimes will visit at five or six in the morning that when others are around i'm glad to have it. is about ten names. minnesota, chicago and to see the tree line. the prettiest sites that i saw were the choppers over the tree lines. the people who ran america. they knew what was happening. we didn't so now it is possible to extend forgiveness for those that make those disastrous decisions and later repented 1967 and that was critical. and to discuss ammunition requisitions 2000 rounds for every in

the following year, that guy again would work with another guy to release the pentagon papers. when the pentagon papers splashed across the new york times or the washington post, what do they tell the american people? >> that we have been deliberately and systematically lied to by this administration from eisenhower to johnson. so why does this matter? then we are going to take a break. so the public starts to get that perception. >> you have a threat and they are not going to back you again. the credibility gap keeps getting bigger and bigger and when you go back, you are going to lose all faith. >> what about if you are doing good stuff? the good stuff that we have to do right now is take a break. before my credibility gap grows. good stop. yes, i do believe. okay. so we see this growing credibility gap. if you are lyndon baines johnson, what do you know? they don't go and they might be right, and you have lost middle america. here is my good friend lyndon baines johnson, and in many ways, he is a very tragic figure. if you are johnson, what you want to be in the history book

is the fact that if he is legitimately a journalist of some sort, you have to think about the pentagon papers. they were stolen, classified documents. they were published by the washington post and "the new york times." and there was talk at that time that both newspapers could be indicted. however, the justice department backed off and kind of set a precedent that when the press is publishing truthful information, even if it was stolen, the feds kind of back off on that and worry about first amendment problems. that's where assange will go eventually with his defense. >> the difference here of course is that a foreign power stole the documents and handed them. that's the position of the u.s. intelligence committee and the wild card and how this is handled going forward. thanks very much. >> joining us now, cnn political analyst and former adviser to four u.s. presidents, david gurkin. good to have you both here. to you first as this pertains to what could or could not come. some of those answers could be submitted today pertaining to collusion. so how does this new news about julian assange

it is no true based on the pentagon papers, the supreme court decision, 6-3.new york times" and "washington post," they can publish the stolen material. as long as they didn't steal it. >> of course. >> sean: i interviewed assange. he said he didn't get it from russia. no state party. maybe, we know hillary's computer is in the bathroom closet or hacked by six foreign intelligence services if not more. my question to you is, based on that. that would mean that these emails be it wikileaks or "new york times" what to mike who published it. if they didn't hacking it was given to them from sources does not mean that what they printed is legal? >> absolutely. the president has the same story and his campaign has the same authority as "the new york times" and "washington post." they are allowed to print material that they know was stolen as long as i didn't tell the people to steal it or give them directions. no one alleges that of the president's campaign. therefore they have completely the right to do it. the problem is molar is throwing away from his mandate to

pentagon papers another problem for senior management to deal with. big move for deutsche bank today. a decent sized move down on the downside as well, down by 2.5%. trading at 8.38. vonnie: a surprise plea in the robert mueller investigation. michael cohen pleading guilty to a new federal charge. and he is agreeing to cooperate with special counsel robert mueller or continue that cooperation. we are joined now by bloomberg's investigative legal reporter greg farrell. what executives this new charge? why is he pleading guilty now? charge isnew different from the charge three months ago insofar as it pertains to russia and all the allegations and the whole reason robert mueller was appointed special counsel was to look at ties between the trump campaign and russia. since the beginning, trump has said that there was a real estate development project discussed in 2015, but it all stopped before the iowa caucuses. today's plea says that michael cohen says that was false. that cohen testified to congress that, yes, there was no discussion of a trump moscow

they tried to sort it out with the white house. 1971, new york sometimes with the pentagon papers.s to the pool. but we really haven't seen a lot of this. you asked the president when he was running about this. >> yes, about whether he would do this because back during the campaigns, he banned a few different news outlets, actually half a dozen from his campaign rallies. he said they weren't allowed in. so in a phone interview i said, hold up. if you are elected, are you going to keep doing this? he here's what he said then? >> ulwill you try to revoke the press credentials of media outlets? >> in my case, i am a person running for office. i have an option. when i'm representing the united states, i wouldn't do that. but i would let people know if somebody is untruthful. >> two years later, obviously a change from the president. he has talked privately about wanting to do this. until last week he hasn't taken this step. last friday he was asked when are you going to let acosta back in. he said i don't know, but i might do this to others out of the blue. it is an entire problem for

anyone ever hear of the pentagon papers? just a thought. remember, it is now day 559 of mueller's destroy trump witch hunt. zero evidence, zero, of trump/russia collusion. we have lying to the fbi, lying to prosecutors, lying on loan applications, didn't pay your taxes. where is the collusion? why not go after hillary? what we are seeing is a two-tiered justice system? hillary clinton paid for phoney russian lies that were fed to you, the american people, to influence the 2016 election and no legal consequences? president trump, everyone associated with him, they turn the screws ever so tight. mueller and his merry band of partisan investigators with a horrific track record. it is a travesty of justice, the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal we have had. never mind hillary clinton from the get-go got exonerated, no real investigation. they were writing her exoneration in may and they didn't interview her and 17 other people until july. she committed obvious and clear felonies including obstruction when she deleted, acid watched and y

i want to ask you through this prism, isn't it true, based on the pentagon papers, the supreme courtion, 6-3, "the new york times," "washington post," they can publish stolen material as long as they didn't steal it. now i interviewed julian assange, he said he did not gete. it from russia, no ste party, et cetera. maybe it was a cut out, maybe -- we know hillary's computer in the bathroom becauseoo that were hacked on my cac by six foreign ceintelligence services, if not more. my question is, that would mean that these emails, be it wikileaks or "the new york times" that published wikileaks, which is ironic, if they didn't attack -- and itac was given to them from sources, doesn't that mean that what they printed was legal? >> absolutely. the president has the same authority in the president's campaign has the same authority as "the new york times" and "the washington post." they are allowed to printed material that they know was stolen asng long as they didn't tell the people to steal it or give them directions how to hack hack. nobody alleges that of the president's campaign. and

so, for the rest of the life of that story, which was at the pentagon papers but it was a good story, i was proud of it, 50% of the people that read that story will think it's totally false forever. there is no way to get them back and of course it's just my reputation and credit ability. the president of the united states calling me a liar. you know, it is an unsolvable problem and it sort of, you know -- so what's it like to work -- it's not just the president. working with the trump administration, there's as we talked about on the last panel sort of a culture of go screw yourself. this peters down -- talk about modeling good behavior, it's throughout the industry now. and a lot of people inside the administration doing good work who care about journalism and believe they have a responsibility, but for anyone that doesn't believe that they have top cover permission to tell you to go screw yourself. [inaudible] with the pentagon. there was a six-month period with the pentagon didn't have any press conferences. unprecedented. what -- you know jim mattis like him or don't like him he

under "the new york times," pentagon papers case, it would not have been a time for me to go see assangenal testimony was incorrect. my e-mails show i was willing. that was amended. >> did you want to, or did you not want to? were you interested in going and seeing what he had? >> what i really believed and still do about assange is it would have been pointless. >> and anna is with me now. what's your big takeaway from the interview? >> well, he makes these stunning -- he admits to a lot, actually, when he sat down with me. he says he essentially told roger stone exactly what julian assange was going to do, that there were going to be two big dumps, and he knew the october surprise was going to be john podesta's e-mails. >> so once he made that admission to you, why? >> well, right now he's fighting tooth and nail. the gloves are off. he's declined this plea deal, which puts him in a huge amount of hot water. he's in big trouble now. i asked him, are you hoping for a pardon from president trump? he said, no, of course he's going to say that. i pressed him on it, and he said no. it certai

and what do the pentagon papers, when it's splashed across the new york times and later "the washington post," what does it tell the american people? that we have been deliberately and systematically lied to from every administration from eisenhower to johnson. why does this matter? and then we're going to take a break. if the public starts to get that perception. >> they have a threat for the american people, you lose that one leg of the trinity. >> the credibility gap just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and when you feel lied to, you're just going to lose all faith. >> what about if you're doing good stuff? >> it doesn't matter anymore. they don't believe you. >> the good stuff that we got to do right now is take a break. before my credibility gap grows. good stuff. good stuff. i do believe -- i didn't disagree. okay. so we see this growing credibility gap. if you're lyndon baines johnson, what do you know? >> he lost -- >> that uncle walty might be right, you've lost middle america. okay. here's my good friend, lyndon baines johnson. and in many ways, he's a v

organization sued the president or sued the government like this, you've got to go back to 1971, the pentagon papers case. or 1981, that's when cnn sued to become a part of the white house press pool. the major networks were trying to keep cnn out. so there was a lawsuit in that case. that's about it, wolf. this is really a remarkable step by cnn. and the network says this is not just about acosta. it's not just about this network. it's about other white house reporters who could see their press passes revoked in the future, as well. cnn's lawyers are trying to set a new clear case here that says it's unconstitutional to take press passes away, just because you don't like the way a reporter might act at a press conference. >> yeah, we're going to be speaking with ted butt rres, a constitutional lawyer. we'll get the legal perspective of what's going on. brian stelter, thank you very much for that report. let's get back to the mueller investigation right now. i want to bring in our senior justi justice competent, evan perez. the responses could be submitted in the coming days much the let's say he do

the pentagon papers case, even if julian assange had stolen material that was classified, as a journalistic him, i can get that material and i can publish it. i'm not committing a crime. so i was happy to do it and i was happy that it would benefit donald trump. >> and appreciate you putting that on the record. now then, this is also from the mueller documents you've leaked. your e-mail, you're telling stone you've got a friend in the embassy planning two more document dumps. >> that's assange. >> that's assange. one shortly after i'm back, second in october, impact planned to be very damaging, time to let more than the clinton campaign chair be exposed as in bed with the enemy if they're not ready to drop hrc. is that a reference to john podesta? >> yes. and let me explain that. because this was one of the main points of contention with the special counsel. i maintain and it's my best recollection that i figured that out. now, special counsel couldn't believe that. they said dr. corsi, we have e-mails you knew it was podesta, you knew he was going to drop them in october, how he was going

seriously, they actually could reveal the law within the first amendment even prosecute, because the pentagon papers case, while it ruled out the possibility of a prior restraint , it perfectly allowed for prosecution of the times after the fact. in fact six of the nine justices said that if the same fact had come to them in a prosecution, they may have been tempted to convict, to uphold a conviction. i think the legal structure is very ambiguous right now and quite a dangerous weapon as it stands, but fortunately it's never been used in that way. >> let me jump in, not to pick on you but you just used the phrase if we were actually in a war, of course we are actually in a war. let me shoot this over to melanie. you concluded with a positive note that, all things being equal we are a lot better off today civil liberties wise than in the past. is that in part because of the conflicts that we are in, although authorized in some ways are not being as felt a war as world war ii? >> that is true, i'm grateful that we are not sending hundreds of thousands of people to be killed. there are people being kil

we know through the church committee hearings, through the pentagon papers what was going on. this had been going on for a very long time, especially since fdr forward. it might have shone some light but, look, you had the church committee hearings, you had watergate. did that stop it? no, absolutely not. so this one little segment i'm not sure would have made that much difference either. here and then i'll come -- just do the tag team. >> my grandparents invited all their adult children and grandchildren to look at the speech. all adults in the room thought for sure that johnson would announce his re-election. and i'm going to clean up the language, but my grandma said all the elderly people and the african-americans will vote for him, and he'll win. and everyone was absolutely shocked. >> uh-huh. >> and there was a feeling that, you know, there goes vietnam. >> right. >> there goes vietnam. there's no reason for us to be there, we thought we had a chance, but if he pulls out of the race -- my question though is how did members of congress react to the speech, and were they a

organization that is a news organization being charged -- we'd be going back to the days of the pentagon papers and elsburg being charged and the "new york times" attacked for publishing information that shouldn't have been brought by the government. if the evidence is he coordinated with the campaign, then he can be charged with campaign violations. that would have no problem with the first amendment. so it does matter how he is charged. what crimes are charged, and whether he is viewed as a foreign entity in cooperation with intelligence operations or whether he is a journalist. >> we are out of time. very quickly, malcolm nance, in your view as an intelligence professional, is julian assange a journalist or an actor, foreign intelligence actor? >> he's a foreign intelligence asset. he fulfilled that role. when mike pompeo jumped into the cia, one of the first things he said is julian assange is a nonstate intelligence agency. so that means he looked at the information, a huge tranche of information that assange will never know how we got it, but we know every aspect of his life. i'm sure he'

papers. we have three more servicemen died for no reason whatsoever, while defense contractors are making record profit. we have no oversight from congress. lets the pentagon spend and do whatever they want while we have so much hardship going on at home. disagree andongly angers my frustration and at what we are doing there and how i am not being told the truth. host: thank you. guest: i appreciate the feedback. i am not sure we disagree on everything in a sense that you are suggesting. i have called on this administration to give a progress report to the american people. this administration enacted a new strategy that many of us celebrated one year ago. the south asia strategy. conditions based strategy in afghanistan that according to the administration is different than what the strategy was before. after visiting and asking the question to military leaders, to the ambassador, to afghan leaders, it is still unclear to me what has been accomplished in the south asia strategy over the past year. i have renewed a strong call to the administration to give us the progress report sooner than later. i think it would be good for president trump to visit afghan

downstairs hours later the pentagon and the joint staff called me into his office and said i want you to know he said we're going to attack iraq you pull up a piece of paper off his desk so i just got this memo from the fences off that says we're going to attack and destroy their governments and seven countries in five years we're going to start with iraq and then we're going to move to syria lebanon libya somalia sudan and iran i seventy seven countries in five years i says in a classified memo he said yes sir i said well don't show it jim. i go to camp sundown to get for people that can't go. and they're like so tired. safe house i guess they don't have to talk about what they go through with us because we understand her daughter katie was diagnosed with a very rare son sensitive condition if i get sunburned i heal she doesn't feel patients and they have problems with the walk to talk to your son the brains that are actually shrinking inside the skull gets thicker in the brain still small. the pain is indescribable it's feels like a really really bad chemical burn but it goes through your skin in your muscle down to the bone and there's no relief. so we

downstairs hours later the pentagon and the joint staff called me into his office and said i want you to know he said sure we're going to attack iraq you pull up a piece of paper off his desk so i just got this memo from the secretary to fence off that says we're going to attack and destroy their governments and seven countries in five years we're going to start with iraq and they were going to move to syria lebanon libya somalia sudan and iran. i seventy seven countries in five years i says in a classified memo. yes sir i said well don't. you know world a big part of the lot and conspiracy it's time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that made stream media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smart we need to stop slamming the door on the back and shouting past each other it's time for critical thinking it's time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks. negatively is called camp sundown to get free people that can live and their like so the empire can this is like a safe house i guess they don't have to talk about what they go through with us because we understand our daughter g.d. was dia

downstairs i was leaving the pentagon and the joint staff called me into his office and said i want you to know he said sure we're going to attack iraq you pull up a piece of paper off his desk so i just got this memo from the secretary to fence off that says we're going to attack and destroy their governments and seven countries in five years we're going to start with iraq and then we're going to move to syria lebannon libya somalia sudan and iran. i seventy seven countries in five years i says in a classified memo he said yes sir i said well don't short term. when a loved one is murder it's natural to seek the death penalty for the murder i would prefer and it mean when the death penalty just because i think that's a fair thing the right thing research shows that for every nine executions one convict is found innocent the idea that we were executing innocent people is terrifying news just newly hasn't been that we're even many victims' families want the death penalty to be abolished the reason we have to keep the death penalty here is because that's what murder victims' families what that's going to give them peace that's going to give them justice and we come

i was leaving the pentagon and an officer from the joint staff called me into his office and said i want you to know he said sure we're going to attack iraq he pull up a piece of paper off his desk so i just got this memo from the secretary to fences off that says we're going to attack and destroy the governments and seven countries in five years we're going to start with iraq and then we're going to move to syria lebanon libya somalia sudan and iran i seventy seven countries and five years i says in a classified memo he said yes sir i said well don't show it jim. us producing a lot of oil and gas now or energy independent where as big as in russia and saudi arabia but as you're making there is that they're actually losing money on every ballot. in fact a recent poll of gallup poll shows fifty seven percent of americans want a more cooperative relationship with russia so there's a disconnect that a smart politician democrat would understand needs to be seen because there's not a lot of hunger or appetite for this kind of any russian politics is being fanned by a media political establishment. i mean i didn't find most unwelcome even even in the slightest event i nev

pentagon is millions into studying for social media posts to predict anti trump protests and while i'm happy they're reading my means government surveillance is getting downright creepy like with the research paper the us army funded called social net. structure as a predictor of social behavior the case of protest in the twenty sixteen us presidential election this paper argues that the next protest could be predicted with tweets and this will in due would have lee have a chilling effect on dissent which is why i have to distance myself from online activists. in two thousand and six intelligence agencies and research universities came together to find a new groundbreaking way to make money called the office for anticipating surprise yes that is a real government office that still exists. unlike this cabin which is not real surprised the office of anticipating surprise when it wasn't ruining magic shows helped to inject twenty two million dollars into a project called embers embers or early model based event recognition using surrogates used open source indicators social media satellite imagery and more than two hundred thousand blogs that are publicly available to model risks of social contagio