Sorry I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America and by God we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again, you've been had.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing they army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like Say Our Name been saying, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
Aren't you guys introducing Trevor Tim?
First time in a long time.
He's co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation at Freedom.
Press.
Hey, you finally got your URL straight.
Welcome back to the show, Trevor.
Yeah, thanks for having me back.
Yeah, man.
And here we are talking about Assange and Manning.
It's just like old days, only new again.
It is.
Yeah.
Things never change.
Yeah.
Or they get worse sometimes in this case.
So Manning is back in jail, not prison, but in jail on contempt charges for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury, which has recently issued a superseding indictment against Julian Assange.
They started with some computer crime and now they've escalated severely.
I think 17 counts under Woodrow Wilson's Espionage Act.
And you and your freedom of the press people seem to have a problem with that.
Do tell.
I mean, this is honestly one of the, or if not the most dire threat to the first amendment in the 21st century.
What the Justice Department is essentially saying is that it is illegal for Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, but also any other journalist to obtain and publish classified information.
They have indicted Julian Assange, as you said, under 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act.
The Espionage Act is a hundred-year-old law that was meant for spies and saboteurs.
In recent years, it has been used against the sources of journalists at a record pace, and it is a horrible law to begin with, to be using against the sources of journalists and whistleblowers.
But to use it against a publisher is wholly unprecedented.
What this potentially could do is literally criminalize national security journalism.
It sounds like hyperbole, but it's in fact exactly what the Trump administration is trying to do.
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are famous for publishing classified information, but I think a lot of people don't realize that journalists publish classified information all the time.
You open up the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, pretty much on any given week, you're going to find classified information on their front page.
And that's why what the Trump administration is doing is so incredibly dangerous.
This could actually make what dozens and dozens of journalists do around the United States outlawed.
All right.
But just right on the face of it there, usually when I'm reading The New York Times and there's secrets in there, they're very official secrets that the reporter couldn't ever get in trouble for, and that the leaker wouldn't get in trouble for either, because that was what their department head or even the president or whoever in the executive branch wanted them to put in there.
What's really at risk is the occasional scoop The New York Times might have where they publish a secret that one or another powerful faction might not have wanted in there.
But usually they're just the handmaidens of the state in the first place.
And that's why I think they don't seem too worried about what you're so worried about.
Well, I would actually say that it was a pleasant surprise to see the unequivocal condemnations by the top editors, The New York Times, Washington Post, even The Wall Street Journal.
It is true that there are many officials who leak secrets to The New York Times all the time to further their own narrative, to tell the story that they want.
But it's also true that those papers, published stories, the government doesn't want out.
I mean, think back to the NSA warrantless wiretapping stories in the George W. Bush administration.
Alberto Gonzalez, the attorney general at the time, actually threatened The New York Times with prosecution under the Espionage Act.
You know, CIA torture.
We wouldn't know about CIA torture if this type of reporting was illegal, because all of that information was highly classified, and reporters at The Times and The Post did expose it.
So what this actually does is it gives the Trump administration and future administrations further power to shape the narrative and to let or tell the American public what they can and can't see.
So they will be able to continue to leak secrets as they see fit to shape their own narrative.
But then when these papers do publish stories that contain classified information but show illegal conduct or corruption or unethical conduct, the Trump administration will be able to shut them down, because they will say, we will prosecute you if you publish this, or actually go ahead and prosecute them if they do publish it.
So it is a dangerous step, not just for organizations like Wikileaks, but for all journalists of many political stripes.
I'm going to Childerberg, which is at, I think, what, Lake Buchanan?
Coming up on June 8th and 9th.
Just Google search up the Childerberg there and you'll find it.
If you're in the Texas Hill Country or somewhere in Central Texas or I guess anywhere, come on out and it's going to be a big camp out and fun time out there at Childerberg, June 8th and 9th.
And then also, I'm doing Porkfest in New Hampshire.
That's on June the 12th, just a couple days later there.
And I'm going to be sharing a stage with Michael Bolden from the 10th Amendment Center, the great standup comedian and Libertarian podcast host, Dave Smith, as well as Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of the Future Freedom Foundation, who I'm trying to convince to run for president of the United States as a Libertarian Party candidate.
So that should be a lot of fun.
Childerberg, June 8th and 9th, and Porkfest on June 12th with Michael Bolden, Dave Smith, and Jacob Hornberger, too.
Well, the New York Times did equivocate, though, and they essentially tried to agree with the prosecution in the indictment that Assange is a source, not a journalist.
They refused to share the title of journalist with him as though it's theirs to bestow.
It is true that the New York Times has been quite petty when it comes to Assange when they talk about him.
The specific statement you're referring to was the editorial board of the New York Times.
The executive editor of the New York Times on the news side actually released a much more unequivocal statement saying that they publish secrets all the time and this is a direct threat to the First Amendment.
The problem is that a lot of these editorial boards at these papers oftentimes go against the interests of their own reporters.
I mean, you can remember back to the Washington Post who were leading the charge in publishing the Snowden revelations on the news side, yet their editorial board was saying that Edward Snowden should be brought to justice.
It made absolutely no sense and was hypocritical of them, but oftentimes these editorial boards on the news side disagree.
Now, you can question why the publisher would have editorial boards in the first place who have these opinions, but at least on the news side, the response from these papers has been fairly good.
Yeah.
Well, that's good to hear.
Well, there was deafening silence from the New York Times when they first grabbed him out of the embassy on the computer hacking charge, whatever nonsense, but I am glad that they're sticking up for him now at least a bit.
I think you also bring up a good point that for years and years, you know, groups like us at Freedom of the Press Foundation and a few other press freedom groups and people like you have been warning that this is the path that the government could potentially go down and they could use WikiLeaks as a method to criminalize journalism.
And because news organizations or more mainstream reporters weren't talking up that threat and loudly protesting just the idea that this could happen, it may have given the Justice Department, you know, essentially a green light to think that, okay, Assange is an unpopular person, so we could probably get away with this and there will be a lot of reporters who don't care.
Um, so I think it was a mistake to not raise these alarm bells years and years before by the New York Times and others.
But, you know, at least they are condemning this in very strong terms now.
And I think that if there wasn't that condemnation, this might go down the road and be even more dangerous.
All right.
So let's go back to Woodrow Wilson's Espionage Act here, because I think you made a very important point there that, hey, Barack Obama might have normalized prosecuting leakers under the Espionage Act, but that hadn't been the tradition up until, I guess, the Bush years, right?
It was, you know, the history of this much better than me.
It was very rare that a leaker would be charged on the Espionage Act.
What would they be charged under before?
Oh, it was incredibly rare.
I mean, this law is, like you said, a hundred years old.
It was originally meant for spies and saboteurs during the World War I era.
It was not used against a leaker or a whistleblower until 1971.
Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, was the first person charged under it.
His case fell apart because of government misconduct.
They were warrantlessly wiretapping him.
The Nixon administration was trying to bribe his judge, just an outrageous violation.
Even hired Cuban hitmen to kill him, which didn't work out, thankfully.
Exactly.
Just stuff out of movies that you would—it's hard to believe actually happened, but the Nixon administration was carrying out.
And then for the next 30 years, really, they only used it in two kind of quirky cases involving leaks.
But then towards the end of the George W. Bush administration, and especially in the Obama administration, they essentially turned this act not into an act that was going after people who actually committed espionage, but people who were talking to American journalists and trying to inform the American public.
And the Trump administration has then used that precedent to bring even more charges against leakers and whistleblowers.
Do I remember it right, Trevor, that Obama actually prosecuted double the number of prosecutions of all the previous administrations before him under the Espionage Act?
He did.
There was eight prosecutions under the Espionage Act for sources under the Obama administration.
There had only been three in the entire history before that.
And now Trump has come in, and he already has six or seven on the books in only just two years.
It took the Obama administration eight years to get to eight.
So Trump administration is on track to shatter the Obama administration's record.
So the problem is getting worse and worse.
But now the Trump administration has taken this to the next level.
They're not just going after government sources.
They're going after the publishers and the journalists who were publishing this information that have never been in government at all and don't have security clearances.
And that is the kind of Rubicon that's never been crossed before.
And that's why we're in unprecedented territory.
Hey, y'all, here's the thing.
Donate $100 to the Scott Horton Show, and you can get a QR code commodity disc as my gift to you.
It's a one ounce silver disc with a QR code on the back.
You take a picture of it with your phone, and it gives you the instant spot price and lets you know what that ounce of silver is worth on the market in Federal Reserve notes in real time.
It's the future of currency in the past, too.
Commoditydiscs.com or just go to scotthorton.org slash donate.
So now tell me if I'm right about this.
I really should have checked the text before talking to you today.
But I've read before that the Espionage Act actually is written quite broadly and that whatever the intent and however it's been used traditionally, that it actually says that anyone who disseminates classified information or however they phrase it exactly, can be prosecuted here.
And it's only been tradition that has prevented them from invoking the Espionage Act against journalists in the past.
And of course, the fact that most of the secrets are leaked quite deliberately.
But even on Scoops, they just haven't gone that far and used it as an official secrets act like they have in Britain.
But that the language is that broad.
Is that true?
Exactly.
It's shockingly broad.
And that part of the reason that tradition exists is because the lawyers at previous administrations, justice departments were probably smart enough to realize if they actually brought these prosecutions, the whole law would be struck down as unconstitutional.
It's a blatant violation of the First Amendment if they actually try to go down this road.
The language is as such that it's, let's pretend the New York Times publishes a story with classified information in it that they are then prosecuted for.
Not only could the New York Times be prosecuted under the statute, but every single person who shares that article on Twitter or on Facebook could also be prosecuted for it.
Because it talks about anybody who is unauthorized to receive information, who communicates this information to another person.
So it's not even the original publishers, it's potentially the readers of these stories that this law could potentially be applied for.
So it's just a crazy statute that it's amazing that it's still on the books, that it hasn't been struck down completely.
But now the Trump administration is trying to use it to go after Julian Assange.
And unfortunately, we can't guarantee that this will get struck down.
I am optimistic that it will.
But this is a very, very dangerous road to go down.
Well now, okay, so I went through that indictment and looked at it very carefully.
And I think what they're really trying to do, and I don't think they do a very good job of this, essentially, they don't even try, they just skip the arguments and just sort of make it seem like they had made an argument or something.
But what they're really doing is they're not saying that, yes, Assange is a journalist, but journalists are banned by the Espionage Act, as you just said, from disseminating information.
And we're invoking the Espionage Act against this journalist in this case, because we're so mad.
They're not doing that.
They're saying, he's the same as Manning.
He and Manning work together to do this in a way where they don't outright say, again, they don't really make the argument, and that, Your Honor, is why he's not a journalist.
Instead, he is a leaker, not a leaky.
They don't come right out and say it, but that's what they're trying to do, essentially, is deny that he's a journalist and say that he's something else altogether.
Which, this is something that, you know, the New York Times and a lot of others in the past have been willing to at least be silent about or go along with.
Many of their reporters, certainly on Twitter, like to say, he's not a journalist, not like me.
You know, like they have some government license that makes them better or something.
Exactly.
And that's the good thing about the First Amendment and how our system has operated for the past 100 years.
The government doesn't get to decide who is a journalist.
You know, the Justice Department is now saying Assange is no journalist.
Well, actually, you know, even if that was correct, which I don't actually believe, but it's actually irrelevant whether he is a journalist or not, because what they're describing in this indictment is conduct that journalists use every day.
What they say is that Assange spoke with Manning and may have said on their website that they accept leaked documents and that he obtained this information from Manning after speaking with her.
And that is conduct that journalists engage in all the time.
So the Justice Department can say that Julian Assange is not a journalist.
But if he is successfully prosecuted, they could then turn around and use this precedent on every other journalist.
And it doesn't matter.
But how paper thin and silly is it, though, for them to not turn, as we just discussed, to that other part or the very broadest interpretation of the Espionage Act, but just to say that journalism isn't journalism, journalism is a co-conspiracy, you know, with whatever government employee is doing the leaking?
As you say, there's nothing different in kind here.
When Assange says, hey, get me some more documents, and Manning says, OK, here's some more documents.
Again, they don't make the argument that this is the difference, but they imply that that's what they mean, that by Assange acting in this way, assuming even the truth of those accusations there for argument's sake, that that is somehow what makes the difference.
But that's not different, as you're saying, from the kind of behavior that any other journalists would engage in.
Right.
We're acting as if that every journalist in history who has ever published government secrets, that these that these documents or secrets magically landed in their lap without any work whatsoever, that they were dropped off to them in a total surprise situation.
And this is just not true.
Journalists work sources all the time.
They ask for additional information when they receive the initial information they receive.
And that's funny.
See, it even has jargon.
Working sources.
Right.
That's a special term that journalists use to each other, essentially.
It's called news gathering, and it is a fundamental precept for all good journalists.
And the idea that this is somehow illegal is why that it's not hyperbole to say that this would would literally criminalize large aspects of the journalism process and why this is so dangerous to everybody.
This would give the Trump administration or any future administrations almost total control over what gets published and what doesn't.
And that is a very terrifying concept.
Yeah.
Well, now, so back to the First Amendment thing is we don't have an Official Secrets Act.
As you said, they've never really prosecuted the broadest interpretation of the Espionage Act here against publishers because that would get the law struck down.
This case, anyone who reads this indictment, it's laughable.
I mean, unless you personally know and care about Julian Assange, who, according to recent headlines, might be lucky to make it to his Starr Chamber trial here.
But they don't really have a case beyond just twisting words and bending the truth and being ridiculous.
I mean, Assange is not Manning.
Assange was not on a military base in Iraq with a military rank cracking into this computer without permission and liberating these documents.
That was the different hero in this story, Manning, that did that.
Assange was the receiver of that information.
How do you spin that, right?
That was why the indictment is so thin in making their cases.
They really can.
It's too ridiculous.
But even the places where they leave the implication, the implication is hollow.
Absolutely.
They're trying to create this narrative that really just doesn't exist.
And they can say all they want, Julian Assange is not a journalist and that we're not going after real journalists.
But if you look at the statute and the law and you look at what is, even if you believe 100% what is in the indictment, this is conduct that journalists engage in all the time.
And so they can pretend all they want that this is some sort of one-off case.
But in reality, all you have to do is read the text.
And it is blindingly obvious that what they are trying to do is criminalize journalism.
And we know that Trump goes on tirades virtually every day about one newspaper or another calling them enemies of the people.
This is the next step in how they can do this.
They know that if they go after the New York Times directly right off the bat, that they are going to have a lot of pushback against it.
So they decided to go against somebody who is, at least in mainstream circles, more unpopular and thinking they can get away with it.
This is how it always works when our rights are violated.
The most unpopular person is the first person prosecuted, hoping that no one will pay attention and then that can be used against everyone else.
And right here we have a classic case just like that.
It's a, you know, this law itself is so illegal under our constitution.
It seems like they must know.
In fact, I think, well, according to the Washington Post, so it might be outright lies, who knows, but I think it was the Post that said that two of the prosecutors on this case refused to go along with it or at least had protested against it, resigned or whatever they had done and didn't want to be part of this because they just did not believe that the that the case could stand.
It sounds to me, it reminds me of what they did to Jose Padilla, where it's a U.S. born American citizen arrested on American soil by civilian police in their blue parkas.
He's arrested, then he's turned over to the military and the CIA to be held without law in a naval brig and was apparently tortured, at least chemically, if not beaten, but was, you know, sensory deprivation and psychotropic drugs and all kinds of craziness they put Padilla through.
And the Supreme Court actually went to the Supreme Court, but they blinked and denied standing on a technicality the first time around.
But then the second time around, Bush blinked and went ahead and indicted him in federal court because he knew, essentially, or at least he was willing to bet, we hope it was true, that the Supreme Court was not going to allow this to stand, that they would demand that he be tried or released.
And so this is that same kind of thing where there's a lot of problems here, but that First Amendment says what it says, and there's so much precedent already along these lines, I think, or I hope.
I don't know.
You're the lawyer, not me.
But it just seems to me like this is such a bridge too far.
They can persecute the hell out of him.
And like Padilla, they can drag it out for years.
God knows what suffering he'll go through between now and then.
But official punishment?
I don't know.
I guess John Kiriakou was saying that, hey, that federal court in eastern Virginia is nothing but a rubber stamp.
Prosecution and the judge and the prosecutor and the jury is all government employees.
They'll go along no matter what.
But at some point, if we have a constitution at all, Trevor, then the First Amendment says that the appeals court is going to have to let him out.
Right?
Absolutely.
And all the precedent that we know of suggests that this law is unconstitutional and should be thrown out if this case goes to trial.
The problem is that, as we've seen in the post 9-11 world, when national security gets brought up, sometimes all of the normal rules get thrown out the window.
And there are so many judges now that are so deferential to the government, whether it was under Bush or Obama and now Trump, that anything can happen.
And that's why this is so dangerous.
I mean, you could imagine this going through the courtroom for five or 10 years.
Like you said, a jury made up of eastern Virginian government employees decides to convict him.
And the appeals take years and years and years.
And maybe it gets to the Supreme Court and maybe it gets thrown out.
But you have a five-year window there where, at least on the books, this kind of conduct is looked at as illegal.
And so all these other newspapers are going to be terrified of going down that same road.
So they're going to spike story after story.
So even if this does eventually get thrown out, which is not a guarantee, we're going to have this massive chilling effect going on and the American public is going to be poorer for it.
Yeah.
Hey, and in the Padilla case, how to get to the Supreme Court?
Because the federal appeals court upheld it and said that Donald Rumsfeld can hold him as long as he wants.
Otherwise, he'd already been set free.
So yeah, it goes to show there's a real danger.
And you can't get more blatantly criminal than the arrest and transfer of the custody of Jose Padilla in the American system.
And that made it all the way to the Supreme Court with the federal judges siding with the government on that case.
So you're right.
It's not a safe bet at all.
And it could You're right.
It's not a safe bet at all.
And it could still take a very long time and think if they upheld it, you know, exactly.
I guess.
So here's the thing about it, right?
Is it's another thing where it's a difference, but you and I and all good people would argue, it's not really a difference in kind, but we can see how it's a difference in kind to the government that what Assange does when he publishes this many documents, raw documents in a row without calling them for permission, first, the way that the New York Times did over the NSA spying scandal, for example, and this kind of thing.
And, you know, there's no technical difference, right?
What if he gave each one an introductory paragraph?
Now it's a news article?
I don't know, right?
Like, there's no real difference there.
Right, exactly.
It's really different than anything the New York Times has ever done, right?
I mean, they published the Pentagon Papers, but even that wasn't the same as what they did with the Iraq and Afghan war logs and the State Department cables or whatever.
You could see why the government for political reasons, for emotional reasons, they, as Hillary Clinton said, why can't we just kill this guy?
You know, why should they have to suffer him to even continue to live was their reaction to this.
So you're saying, hey, through these eyes, first amendments, first amendments, publishers, a publisher, a U.S. person is a U.S. person.
If he's in federal custody, then the bill of rights applies to him.
And so these things are pretty cut and dry, but you could see how they would try to figure out how to say that there must be a difference in kind between what the New York Times does and what WikiLeaks does in publishing all these documents at once.
I think they talk about that in the indictment too, right?
The kind of broad scope of things being posted.
And then they try to imply the necessary danger to people because of that and that kind of thing.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, you can imagine that that people who hate Assange can say, well, you know, what Julian does is different than what normal journalists do.
And you could even imagine that supporters of WikiLeaks who were fed up with the mainstream media would also say on the other side of the spectrum that WikiLeaks is different than most news organizations.
However, that's not what's at issue here.
It's the legal question of how they are different.
And when you strip away, you know, all of everyone's political opinions and how aggressive or not aggressive certain journalists are, the fact of the matter is that both WikiLeaks and news organizations obtain documents from sources and then they publish them.
And that is really the crux of the issue.
And when we're talking about those legal specificities, you cannot distinguish WikiLeaks from the New York Times.
And that's what makes this dangerous for not just WikiLeaks and people who care about Julian Assange, but people who care about free press in general and the First Amendment.
It is quite literally the Trump administration trying to carve a giant hole in our constitution that will be very hard to fix if it actually goes through.
And now I made an allusion to this a minute ago, but the news is that Assange is apparently too sick to even do an appearance in court by video.
And I don't know specifically if anybody has said what he's supposedly sick with or what are his chances, but we sure would hate to see anything happen to him in custody there.
There's another thing that every journalist needs to be very loud and clear about, that this guy better make it to his bogus star chamber trial here.
We're going to all be extremely upset.
At Publish Every Secret, we could possibly get our hands on something, something.
There has to be a narrative there that people aren't going to stand for that.
And that's not conspiracy thinking to think that they might do something like that, as we just talked about.
Richard Nixon hired people to murder Daniel Ellsberg.
He was at the Supreme Court steps with a giant crowd standing around him, and so they couldn't get a clean shot.
Simple as that is why he lived.
So that kind of thing can happen.
And in a case like this, again, the Hillary Clinton quote about why can't we just kill this guy, when the answer was because he's in a first world country.
That's the only reason.
If he'd been in Yemen, they would have just killed him with a robot.
But now I'm sorry, one last thing, and I'm sorry, because I'm sure you're over time and I am too.
But can you please just tell us about Chelsea Manning right now sitting in jail for refusing to rat on Assange?
Yeah, this is even more tragic, in a sense, because we know that Chelsea Manning has suffered extremely at the hands of the U.S. government.
Before her trial in 2013 for leaking these documents, she was tortured by the U.S. government.
This isn't just my opinion.
This is the opinion of over 250 law professors who signed a letter saying that her treatment constituted torture.
The U.N. said the same thing.
Then she ended up serving seven years in prison, the longest sentence ever handed down.
She was actually given a sentence of 35 years, but the longest sentence ever served for leaking information in the public interest.
Her sentence was commuted at the end of the Obama administration.
She is now, unfortunately, back in jail because she has refused to participate in a grand jury that is investigating and indicting Julian Assange.
I think she is incredibly brave and principled.
At this point, you have to ask, why is she still in jail?
There is an 18-count indictment against Julian Assange.
Whether or not she testifies, she should be let free at this point.
They already have their charges.
There is no reason at all for her to need to testify anymore.
If they want to try to call her to the stand in an actual trial, they can try.
Until then, she should be free and be allowed to move on with her life.
It is really just a cruel and senseless act by the U.S. government trying to punish her, essentially, again, for something that she has already served her punishment for.
Right.
By the way, technically, on that detail, is it a fact that the grand jury is done?
Did they leap to the post that now that they have this superseding indictment, that their work is done?
They're moving on to other cases, or they're still working on more superseding indictments?
It's a good point.
They might be keeping it open just to punish Chelsea Manning.
It's always possible they could bring even more charges.
We know the federal government likes to lay on charge after charge against people to get them to crack.
It's entirely possible.
We know that to extradite Assange, the rules are that they need to bring all the charges before he is actually extradited, because that's how these treaties work, because countries don't like to extradite people for charge they don't know about.
That clock is ticking.
We know that all of these charges have already been brought.
It really stands to reason, why are they keeping her there?
Are they keeping her there because they legitimately need to interview her, or are they keeping her there to punish her further?
It certainly seems to me like the latter.
You're a lawyer, so answer me this.
Peter Van Buren was saying the first time, a few weeks ago, Manning was let out and then was put back in.
But Peter Van Buren was saying, there seems to be bad legal advice here.
Manning should be pleading the Fifth Amendment, and saying, listen, I can't talk about this without possibly being caught in some kind of conflicting misstatement trap or something, and so I've done my time on this and I'm not going to talk about it anymore in that sense.
But by sticking with a First Amendment defense of free association, I think, and of free speech and that sort of deal, or I'm not exactly sure, standing on Assange's right of free speech, or her own right to not speak, or however it is, that's what's guaranteeing the jail time and contempt here.
Where if she just pled the Fifth, she would have been able to not squeal and be free to go, too.
Well, the problem is she can plead the Fifth, but then the government can say that, well, we'll give you immunity so that we won't prosecute you directly.
And if they offer her immunity and then she still refuses, then the Fifth Amendment doesn't necessarily apply and then they can hold her in contempt anyway.
Go ahead and put her back in anyway, yeah.
Yeah.
All right.
Listen, I'm sorry I kept you so long here.
Thank you so much for coming back on the show, Trevor.
Great to talk to you again.
Yeah, great talking with you, too.
Thanks for keeping the pressure on.
Yeah, I'm trying.
All right, guys, that's Trevor Timm, co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
They're at freedom.press.
All right, y'all, thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com, and reddit.com slash scotthortonshow.
Oh, yeah, and read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
