>> NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN. >> YOU LOOK AT JEFF SESSIONS
ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY AND HE WANTS TO MAKE IT POTENTIALLY EASIER TO
DO SUBPOENAS TO REPORTERS. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND IS THAT
FAIRS AMENDMENT PROBLEM? >> IT'S A FIRST AMENDMENT
PROBLEM. WHAT IT MEANS IS THEY ARE
PROBABLY WILL BE MORE SUBPOENAS DIRECTED AT JOURNALISTS WITH ALL
THE PROBLEMS THAT WAS REFERRED TO IN YOUR LAST SEGMENT.
TIME, EXPENSE, PREOCCUPATION AND THE LIKE.
THE LAW IS NOT GREAT FROM A FIRST AMENDMENT PERSPECTIVE.
THERE ARE SOME GOOD CASE LAW BUT SOME REALLY BAD CASE LAW.
WE DON'T HAVE A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW IN AMERICA.
THERE'S NO STATUTE PROTECTING. IT COULD GET VERY, VERY
DANGEROUS.
WHEN YOU HEAR THE PRESIDENT AND MANY PEOPLE ON THE LEFT SAYING
THE LEAKS OF THESE PRIVATE PRESIDENTIAL CALLS ARE TERRIBLE
AND INTERFERE WITH ANY PRESIDENT'S ABILITIES TO CONDUCT
FOREIGN POLICY. DO THEY HAVE A POINT OR IS THERE
A FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT FOR THOSE LEAKS?
>> THEY HAVE A POINT THAT PRESIDENTS UNDERSTANDABLY LIKE
TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK CANDIDLY AND PRIVATELY.
THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT FIRST AMENDMENT VALUE ON THE OTHER
SIDE. THAT IS THE PUBLIC WAS INFORMED
YESTERDAY ABOUT REALLY IMPORTANT TOUGH.
HERE IS THE PRESIDENT TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT OF AUSTRALIA.
HE DOESN'T REALLY EXPECT MEXICO TO PAY FOR THE WALL.
ALL HE WANTS IS FOR THE PRIME MINISTER NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT.
THE PUBLIC WOULD NO LESS. >> IS IT TO MAKE THE PRESIDENT
LOOK BAD OR IS THERE A DEMOCRATIC OR CIVIC QUALITY TO
THIS. >> I DON'T KNOW THE INTENTION
AND THE AFFECT IS MAKE THE PRESIDENT LOOK BAD IN THIS WAY.
THEY MAY NOT WANT TO BE INFORMED ABOUT THIS.
IT'S IMPORTANT JFGS JUST AS THE ARGUMENT WITH THE AUSTRALIAN
PRIME MINISTER WAS WHICH LEAKED WHEN IT HAPPENED.
>> HAVE YOU HEARD A PRESIDENT SAY AS DIRECTLY AS JIM COMEY DID
THAT HE WANTS JOURNALISTS TO GO TO JAIL FOR PUBLICATION?
>> NO. I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF
RICHARD NIXON THOUGHT IT.
