First, I think maybe we should talk a little bit about the press itself and the problems
of the press before we go forward.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we're the greatest people on Earth.
We've all made mistakes.
We're human beings.
But I have dedicated my life and as everyone else here to try to be a disinterested third
party observer.
It doesn't matter where the information has taken me.
I want to go get the information.
If my facts are wrong, correct me.
If I make a mistake, I'll correct it.
I have no other than that, no agenda.
Opinion pages are different, but news pages are not.
News pages are supposed to be vetted information where news is disseminated to the public.
As such, all I have is the ability to go and ask someone to talk to me.
They can tell me to go to hell, which happens on an occasion, and more likely than not people
do want to talk and they'll talk to you.
When the information you garner and gather is not information that they want anyone else
to know that they're connected to and they ask for protection and we give it.
But not always and not easily.
It's a hard choice to make and the consequences are even harder.
And when we all got together tonight, I said this is kind of like my family.
I feel like we're all family because we've all gone through this.
As my friend John Wall said, this is a small club.
No one asked to be a member and we really don't want any more members.
I want a national shield law.
If there's something that comes out of this evening, I hope we all can agree that reporters
need to be protected and the information needs to be gathered and disseminated.
We do cover too much Justin Bieber, too much Madonna, too much Kardashian, and I don't
care.
It's nice on the entertainment page but it shouldn't dominate coverage.
The problem is when you take away our ability to gather information, what are you going
to have left?
What is there left to disseminate?
But that type of information, let me tell you, news doesn't stop.
You can turn on the television at any point in time and there's going to be something
on that's news or parading is news.
Or you can get on the internet.
And you can find facts that are not vetted.
You can find pseudo-intellectual garbage parading as information from a pseudo-website that
isn't news.
How do you tell the difference?
Right now, more than any other time in our history, we really do need good, solid news
gathering.
And we need the government to back off and let us do our job.
Whatever it gets for it.
Hey, good afternoon, everyone.
It's been a little while.
I hope you missed me.
Absolutely.
If there are protests again, if this pipeline goes through, last time during the protests,
there were independent journalists that were arrested and detained.
Same question I asked the Obama administration, would this administration at least support
reporters in trying to do their job and gathering facts?
You guys are going to be a huge fan.
God love you.
I had that on the record.
And then, number two, new Congressman Jamie Raskin out of Maryland is proposing that he
will sponsor legislation for a national shield law.
Your Vice President in the past has supported a national shield law for reporters.
Would this administration support a national shield law for reporters?
I have not asked.
It's a great question.
I'd be glad to follow up with you on that.
This President, when he came in, said he was going to gather us all together, that he
was going to bring us together.
And the actions taken in the first 10 days seem to indicate otherwise from people in
his own party, the use of the word betrayal.
How is this President going to address the fact that people are looking to him to bring
people together and yet, with his own words, seems to be driving us apart?
I think that's a very one-sided way of looking at this.
I think he's brought – the President has done a tremendous amount through both what
he has said and done, more importantly, to start to bring this country together.
And his policies, frankly, are focused on keeping every American safe.
We talked to Congressman this morning, we're getting these emails saying, if you're going
to repeal and replace Obamacare, why not give everybody what Congress and senators get?
Can you address that since Congress won't?
If you remember, prior to Obamacare, you could go out on the open market and go from a variety
of different options and tailor what you or your family needed based on the conditions
that you saw or the ductible that you wanted and choice dried up with Obamacare.
But specifically, the perception that somehow Congress, senators, senators in Congress can
get better care than the rest of us.
Can you address that?
Well, that's what – yes, I think that's why we're trying to pass it the way we are.
We want more choice.
We want more competition.
We want lower costs.
You're saying that you're going to open it up because of war on coal, isn't that
kind of contrary to what Teddy Roosevelt wanted in preserving land?
Jobs matter.
Social costs of not having a job.
In some of our communities, coal, mine, forestry are the only job.
But I think to the point where you're going to return the land to its original pristine.
I was taught long ago that when you leave a campground, you leave it in the same or better
condition you found it.
Republican governors out here, but not very many Democratic governors.
Is this administration actively attempting to reach out to the other side of the aisle?
The dialogue that exists between this administration and this president and governors, I think,
is a very refreshing move forward.
And then my point I follow up, I quick follow up, I want to clarify a little bit of something
that happened Thursday and Friday about the public enemy statement.
Are you saying that all of the press is the public enemy, people who didn't vote for
the president, just the people in this room, or is it just Bill Maher and maybe Warren
Beatty?
Can you clarify what we're talking about?
I think the President made clear in his tweet that he was referring to the fake news and
people who ascribe to pushing fake stories is where his target was.
Why is it okay to bomb Syria but not okay to assist the refugees?
One, and number two, what's the reaction, this administration's reaction to Russia
saying we are running a danger of a real war within the Middle East?
But with respect to number one, the reason that we took action was multi-fold.
Number one, to stop the proliferation and the deterrence of chemical weapons.
When you see mass weapons of destruction being used, it should be a concern to every nation,
especially our own people.
The proliferation of those weapons pose a grave threat to our national security.
So number one, we have to stop that.
Number two, we have to stop ISIS.
But with respect to the people of Syria, by us taking action and de-escalating what's
going on in Syria, that's the greatest thing you can do to support those people.
But does that mean we're going to commit troops?
I mean, they're creating war?
No, what it means, no, no.
I think this President has made it very clear that if those actions were to continue, further
action will definitely be considered by the United States.
We continue to urge further the world community to join us.
Are we building a coalition or?
I think we have a call.
I mean, again, I think if you look at who's not with us, it's a pretty small group.
A couple quick follow-ups.
You said you want the agencies to use best available science.
Does that mean there's going to be no further scientific research?
You don't want to fund additional scientific research?
And number two, what other issues do you like to see the President reach out to Democrats
to tonight?
So on the first one, best science is best science.
And that's whatever it's available is what you said.
Well, if it's not available, it's tough to use it.
Just doesn't matter.
But is that a code for not using it?
No, it's a code for it.
It's got to be available.
That's it.
Plain and simple.
You shouldn't read anything into that.
Last week, you dismissed, I think it was when Halley asked the question, you dismissed
North Korea and said it isn't a threat if you can't go through with it.
So what changed?
What's our goal in North Korea?
What's the strategy and what's your response to the critics who say that this is just loose
and okay mirrors to hide some of the problems on the White House staff and some of the feeling
domestic social agenda?
I don't think there's anybody in the world who would not believe that North Korea's actions
are both provocative and a concern.
So the actions that we're taking are extremely-
What you said that it was-
They're appropriate and justified.
What we're doing is working with the world community, and as I've mentioned multiple
times today, especially China, which is really acting in a historic way to ensure that our
national interest and the safety of the peninsula is protected.
Francesca.
So what about the criticism from people on the Hill who say you're just hiding a domestic
agenda that isn't working?
I haven't heard that criticism.
Not really.
Okay.
Well, we travel in different circles.
Has anyone from the Department of Justice had any conversation with anyone in Montgomery
County or Rockville as they describe themselves as a sanctuary county in city, and there's
also a pro-load of federal government in Montgomery County?
Well, you know, Maryland is talking about a state law to make the state a sanctuary
state.
The governor is opposed to that, I'm glad to hear.
That would be such a mistake.
Our best local version of Fifty Shades of Grey is the White House Press Office, where
Sean Spicer up there instead of Christian, whatever, Christian Grey.
When Trump came in, we decided to sent him that what's going on down there has a huge
effect on us locally, maybe more so than in the recent past.
So I assigned one of our columnists and myself to cover Congress, the Senate, and the White
House on a regular basis to see what we can mine out of there that's of interest to local
readers.
We've had numerous emails, numerous requests, numerous questions, and so what we decided
to do was to take our time to try and separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and
I found that there's a lot of wheat and a lot of chaff, and it's an ongoing process
in trying to figure out exactly what the truth and the facts are.
But is this White House, because some people have accused it of being anti-science?
There is every reason to believe that there is a large number of people in that White
House, whether it is the President himself, I do not know, who seemed to take issue with
not specifically with climate change because of their association with fossil fuels.
So it's driven by economy.
And then science in general because it helps them sell the message that climate change
is questionable.
So it's kind of a two-pronged approach.
Now whether or not they honestly believe that, I cannot tell you because I don't know.
So we're Lando.
We're talking Lando.
Yes, sir.
The big thing here locally is of course what happened in Congress, there was a sit-in with
members of our congressional delegation joining others, Democrats, as a sit-in to try and
get some changes made to the gun laws.
And of course locally we've seen a division again along party lines as far as who supports
gun control and who doesn't.
And there's a fundamental misunderstanding I think on both sides of what's going on.
I don't care whether you call it an assault weapon or you call it a semi-automatic rifle,
whatever it is, you've got to keep it out of the hands of people that shouldn't have
them.
There has to be some restriction.
There has to be a roadblock.
I think all of us stunned by what happened in Paris by what these terrorists are now
threatening to do all over the place.
Well, terrorists always threaten.
When they get you to change your lifestyle then they've been successful in terrorizing
you.
There's a lot of fear.
I've got a lot of emails.
And the fear can't overcome you.
So this term limit question will be on the ballot.
Two of them, yes.
Two of them.
I think that term limits are ridiculous.
I think it discourages people from becoming involved if you want to get involved, get
involved.
Robin Ficker poured all this effort into bringing this to fruition.
And it would be nice if people actually in the county got that involved in running for
office and other voices were heard.
That's the answer.
So what term limits is okay for the president of the United States?
Who says it is?
Why is term limits not good for anything else?
Who says it is?
I don't think it is.
I don't necessarily think it is.
I think the bottom line, I don't think term limits work for a number of reasons.
One, if the guy is doing a good job and you want to keep him around, why shouldn't you?
Do you really want to, I mean, take a look at this year's presidential campaign.
Do you really like the specter of having Donald Trump in?
Or would you prefer to, I mean, a lot of people would have voted for a third term for Obama.
A lot of people would have voted for a third term for Bill Clinton.
Do you really, and in Congress, the big problem is if you limit people to terms, then what
happens is you have a professional staff that is not responsible to the electorate who then
has all the power, and that's not a good thing.
So what would you do to get young people interested in affecting the courts?
I think young people come interested.
I think it's the political debate which turns them off.
It's filled with vitriol, hatred, and what, and I was joking earlier, but the fact that
you have three different groups coming together and benefiting and taking community first instead
of party, instead of self-interest, young people are more responsible and responsive
to that plea than to Republican or Democrat.
So what criteria do you use to decide what's important to put up there?
The way a journalist is going to remain, I say, is going to remain relevant is being
a disinterested third party observer.
And so I'm not going to, you know, my opinion, you'll know it.
It's labeled an opinion.
If you read an editorial in the Sentinel, it says editorial.
But if we pretend it's fact, we're not pretending it's fact.
The appearance versus reality, you decide what the facts mean to you.
Freedom of information isn't going on.
There is no transparency.
Everyone here put it on the line to gather information for the press to disseminate to
the public.
And I hope, if nothing else, we will serve by being here today the first step in a national
shield law and serve as an example for young reporters what you should do.
Everyone up here said when they were, you know, first arrested, faced prosecution, they all
told us, hey, we believe in the First Amendment, just not in your case.
And some of us had to face the prospect of other brethren in the press thinking that
we did this for private gain and had to listen to someone tell me that the reason why I went
to jail was to further my career.
And I sat there thinking, if this is where my career is going, I don't know if I want
to be a reporter.
Everyone here has made a sacrifice equal or greater.
I'm proud of to be a member of this group.
