 Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. My name is George Perkovich. I'm a vice president for studies here at the Carnegie Endowment That's my pleasure to welcome you And is the mic on I think it's on but maybe People in the back are nodding. All right, but I'll speak loudly or as loudly as I can It's a great pleasure to welcome Natasha Bertrand who will be our moderator today Natasha as a staff writer for the Atlantic and a frequent contributor for NBC News and MSNBC news She covers national security issues And and issues related to the intelligence community and others that are relevant to our discussion here today and then of course And a special pleasure for me to introduce Daniel Ellsberg I was just saying that we first met in 1981 So a long time ago it was as a result of that and some other things right then I got interested in nuclear weapons policy So I've been plagued by that experience for 37 years now And and was quite taken by Dan's memoir, which is outside his second Memoir the doomsday machine because as we'll hear and as you can see as you read it It's one of the most penetrating accounts of the nuclear enterprise That I've that I've read and some of the material is quite dated in its origin, but is still very very relevant today. I Want to say just a little bit by way of introducing Dan. I think many of the people in the room Were around when the Pentagon Papers Happened and and so no fair amount of Dan's background, but I think many don't And it didn't come out in the movie the the post But but Dan began as a cold warrior he Went to Harvard in the in the 1950s and then after graduating joined the Marine Corps Where he was an officer and then after that Came back to Harvard and then Went to work for the Rand Corporation Where he was very involved in Thinking about the unthinkable how to how to manage nuclear deterrence primarily with the Soviet Union He got deeply deeply involved in nuclear strategy. He then completed his PhD in economics in 1962 at Harvard and was very involved in in game theory that was relevant to Nuclear war planning and as he recounts in the doomsday machine From 59 so I guess it was about 64 work very very intensely on US nuclear war planning and became involved in and exposed to the Depths of the system Many of which the the president himself wasn't wasn't aware of and then a part that I think a lot of younger people Aren't aware of in 1965 he went to Vietnam on behalf of the State Department and spent two years there That is recounted in in first memoir secrets Which is is a is a really really Brilliant book if I were teaching I would have it required reading in any core curriculum in any u.s. College It's a rich history. It's a rich treatment of ethics of government of political science I mean, it's a profound story and Some of it a lot of it's derived from his spending time on the ground in Vietnam driving Into the unsecured provinces of the country where many u.s. Officials including the military never You know dared visit and so he got this kind of ground Reality to the situation which became then ironic when the Pentagon papers were released and he was portrayed in certain ways Is if he didn't know What he was talking about and didn't have that on the ground reality, but it is that sense of Where operations really happened whether it was Vietnam or a nuclear force planning that I think Dan got his his keenest insights So I commend both books to you What we thought we would have the discussion focus on today though was was more on on questions of Government service and the dilemmas that come out in government service and partly our motivation was thinking about today when I think a lot of really fine people Face feel that they may have dilemmas as institutions are discredited as the sense of government service Is is is more problematic to hear Dan ruminate on on those experiences and what he Has learned from them. I think it's especially Invaluable, so we're glad to have you we're glad to have Natasha and Dan and I will get out of the way and let the conversation begin Thank you Was my microphone on Yeah, can you are these on can you hear? Yes, you know you you can hear in the back. Yes, okay So as George said in his introduction you were a Cold War nuclear planner You spent two years in Vietnam driving through the provinces visiting the most dangerous areas of Vietnam at that time And then you became a whistleblower So I wanted to start out the discussion asking you how that evolution occurred. How did you evolve? between 1959 and 1968 and what was the final step for you in becoming a whistleblower, right? Well, there were various stages actually in that and I'll take I can almost answer the question by the first sentence of a review of my book that I just read today my publisher sent it to me it's from April 7th from the Montreal Gazette. That was when I turned 87 three days ago and She sent me a And She sent me this review doomsday machine confessions of a nuclear war planner and I'm going to read the first sentence of it But first let me ask you this is an unusual audience for me. They're very very welcome I'm very happy to have an audience like this and I can't remember when I have been a long time ago And not much since the Pentagon Papers But let me ask you how many people here are now currently employed by the executive branch. Are there any? I see Three hands for how many have been within the last eight or nine years Right, and how many within the last year is Bossert here today? McMaster Tillerson no, but I I'm not as I'm not going to ask how many have clearances But already those are more hands than I've had a chance to Talk to and I would have I would have liked to very much I would I wish I were giving this talk in the Pentagon In fact, I inquired whether the mall in the Pentagon the concourse still had a bookstore When I was there and I'm told because I love the thought of having a book talk in the Pentagon For my book and apparently there isn't anymore That's what I was told so this is the next best but Here is the first sentence Question what would you do if you were a young professional working at your dream job and You discovered your employer was lying to the public Promoting a disastrous foreign war and Steadily expanding a weapons program that threatened to destroy human life on earth Now those of you who are working in the national security establishment right now May or may not recognize That sentence is applying to you right now Or in the last eight years or 10 years or 15 years in fact You might or might not recognize it. I wouldn't have recognized it Let's say 50 years ago But it was a sentence applicable to me and I Would say I'll just start by saying I think there are Thousands of people in the government right now looking at the prospects of war with North Korea and Or Iran and or Syria and are looking at the new nuclear posture of you who recognize That like Obama's nuclear posture of you you are looking at plans for a doomsday machine under some Conditions in some circumstances a system that would end most human life on earth and Many who are working on those plans would not any more than I did at a certain point So that's I'm not pointing any fingers here by any means, but I'm sure there are people who do See it that way. So this is very relevant and coming back then to your question Well, let me explain. In fact, let me in so it's your question Natasha Say that there the second sentence is a little misleading. It says In 1971 That was the dilemma facing Daniel Ellsberg young academic and consultant at the Rand Corporation The Cold War think tank with close ties to the Air Force. Actually, that was not a dilemma That I faced for the first time in 1971 In 1964 on my first day in the Pentagon as a full-time employee having been a consultant for years before that But a first time and I'll say for benefit of people here Special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security affairs a GS 18 the rank at which I came in That I went to Vietnam as an FSR one and the State Department my first day was August 4th 1964 When we first the end of the day Our evening Warning in Vietnam 12 time zones away with the first 64 air sorties against North Vietnam Which beginning then in February of 65 led to? almost 8 million tons of Explosives being dropped on Indochina or four times the tonnage of World War two Which was two million times the beginning then on August 4th my first day I Heard the president LBJ and my boss secretary McNamara was one step above my immediate boss assistant secretary saying to the public this was a limited response to an unprovoked attack on destroyers carrying out a routine patrol in international waters and We seek no wider war. This is a limited retaliation of the kind We're hearing that might be taking place right now a limited retaliation in Syria Just an attack not on us, but a violation of international law of gas in Syria the president was talking last night that he might as early as Tuesday carried that out and So in August 4th in the morning I was seeing the planning being done for that a strike by that evening I was hearing the president say and I'll say again Again unprovoked attack International waters routine patrol. We seek no wider war. I knew already each of those statements was false It did not occur to me to resign or to expose that I had just signed one of many Promises that I did in my career Including by the way for some of you will recognize I had to mention this I don't know if I've ever mentioned it before but it'll put me in context here for some of you I had asked in coming into the government as a GS 18 for all the clearances my boss had So I got a dozen clearances higher than top secret SC what it now are called SCI sensitive compartment and information. We didn't use that term then but special clearances All right, not involved in it. Well, actually one involved because one of these supposed bits of intelligence the critical one where intercepts For supposedly of Attacks that had been the showing that the North Vietnamese had conducted an attack on August 4th on our destroyer patrol and There were such intercepts They did however refer to August 2nd the attack that had taken place in daylight two days earlier Not August 4th the night of August 4th. That was misleading Lee I mean lying Lee Miss told to Congress in 1968 in By McNamara in closed testimony to the Center for relations committee in which he had Asked that nobody who did not have a special clearance a communications intelligence clearance. You remember SI Must leave could stay in the room except the congressman He allowed them and he did not show them the daytime group On the which would have indicated that this did not refer to August 4th total deception. That's in 68 and we got a Undated Declaration of war from Congress on the basis of a deception that I have just described which I knew at the time now It didn't occur to me Even to expose that to Congress at that time Because president Johnson was running against senator Goldwater Air Force general reserve Who was running openly for an expanded war? even more than Johnson was planning actually and For a use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam So I wasn't about to undercut the president on that even if it had occurred to me to break my promise To keep these secrets and I mentioned the other clearances because as some of you know each of these involves a separate Promise and a briefing and in some cases additional clearance procedures So I was it didn't occur to me to break any of those promises Although looking back at it if I may say it might have occurred to me I'm not aware that it ever occurred to anyone in those years But by keeping silent I Was breaking the single oath that I had taken these other promises as you know are not oaths So help me God or you know formalized oaths all of their often called secrecy oaths They're agreements non disclosure agreements as a contractual basis for your job as happens in corporations in all over the place The oath I had taken was the same one I took in the Marine Corps Years earlier as a lieutenant man as a first lieutenant And that I took later in the State Department and had just taken in the Defense Department the oath that every Congressional member every member of Congress takes the same every officer in the armed services Takes the same oath same words Every member of the executive branch takes the same oath except the president whose words are slightly different But the substance is the same and it is not an oath To secrecy and it is not an oath For the precedent it is not a furor oath As the SS had to take and eventually all the German armed services the blood oath to the leader It's solely an oath To defend and support the Constitution of the United States Against all enemies foreign and domestic and article 1 section 8 gives the power of getting us into a war Declare war, but really the intent was anything but a response to an immediate attack on our forces was to be made solely by Congress not by Consultation with Congress and advice of Congress that by Congress and lying to the president to the Congress as Was done to get a declaration of war what amounted to a declaration of war the Tonkin Gulf resolution three days later Was a direct violation of that oath by the president whose his words I believe are protect and preserve the Constitution Every one of us who kept our mouths shut to Congress about that including me and Thousand others who knew the truth at that time Was violating their oath of office and a senator Morse one of the two senators who voted against the Tonkin Gulf resolution in part because it was Resolution because it was an unconstitutional Usurpation of power by the executive it followed no hearings It no duck no invite no consultation no discussion in Congress was unconstitutional and aggression said Morse Pretty much what Barbara Lee who I'm going to be talking to in a couple days Was the single member of Congress against the authorization for the use of military force at the time of Afghanistan And later arrived which all the presidents since have been relying on and which presumably in some way will will is it conceivable that? President Trump will rely on that for Syria But yeah, it's conceivable. We don't know yet what he'll refer to as the basis for his unconstitutional behavior But in any case We were clearly keeping our mouths shut in a way that was violating that old did I realize that at the time? 64 definitely not but well before This dilemma that they come to me and I want to talk to you in a moment later But not right now about what I had learned in 61 and now we come to 71 but actually 69 if I may say Where I began copying the Pentagon papers With a new president that I knew was giving the impression that he was getting us out of Vietnam And I believe intended to get us out of Vietnam Quickly in his first year. That's Richard Nixon. I don't think he was lying when he said I'm gonna end that war fast He said with honor But he didn't tell us what honor meant to him Well, what his conditions were for meeting that that requirement and I was sure in 69 having worked for the White House it before the inauguration and at the pier in December and then in the White House the executive office building in early 69 I Was aware that Nixon was not going to get us out of Vietnam though. He thought he was he was making threats Including threats of nuclear war Which were secret from the public and which he thought would end the war quickly And I was sure would not end the war and would lead only to a prolonged war and escalation and eventually Nuclear war I feared so that was the dilemma. I was now facing The prolongation as the sentence says there of an unjustified wrongful hopeless war In a war that I had just come to realize in 69 Had been illegitimate and wrongful from the start Something I did not appreciate in my two years in Vietnam in the Foreign Service I had the notion not unlike that of Reagan or Carter who called it a noble cause that had Costs too much that had not been carried out. Well, it was you know faded not to resume But it was only when I read the origins of that war in the Pentagon Papers in the earliest chapters of it Which I put off till 69 to read that I realized that an effort to Provide the entire financial support 80% of the financial support of a French Effort to reconquer by force a former colony that had declared its independence on 1945 For the for an American that was not a noble cause It was not a legitimate cause. It was not what I had understood I was joining when I went to Vietnam when I read the top secret history What they were saying to themselves? I realized that that's what it was that it was a wrongful war And that meant that everybody killed there in my opinion on both sides civilian and military Was being unjustifiably killed unjustifiable homicide and In my layman's mind here not making fine distinctions about that international lawyers would make that read to me as murder That I should not be part of at all. There was no way I could end it quickly But I could stop cooperating with it quickly and it's thought that's what I needed to do And what's new in this book is as the first sentence indicates I also was aware that we had been for Many years at that point 70 years now really in a build-up of nuclear weapons That was supported by secrecy and lies from the very beginning and That had built up to a level that for a long time and well by 461 Into a doomsday machine. I didn't know about nuclear winter in 69 not till 1983 So I didn't have that in my mind, but I did know and we'll get back to that later that it was I didn't know that it was threatened all life on earth, which it would dis and does But that it would mean the destruction of the northern hemisphere of civilization in the northern hemisphere I knew that by then I thought the southern hemisphere would survive Wrong, it was a mistake, but the northern hemisphere So we had continued war like now The Iraq Afghanistan very similar in their prospects to Vietnam Finish with the same other involvements going on in in Somalia and Sudan and supporting Yemen but in Iraq and Afghanistan Afghanistan in particular and almost replay of the Vietnam War but now with very heavy reliance on drones Surveillance and airplanes and much less loss of American life but a lot of loss of Afghan life and at the same time a Modernization of a doomsday machine going on that was true in 69 It's true today, and it was true in 81. It was to et cetera et cetera So that's what I faced that was the limit and at that point Now a crucial thing having realized all that was to meet young Americans who were on their way to prison for refusing to participate in a wrongful war and That put the question in my head for the first time What can I now do to help shorten this war? Now that I'm ready to go to prison and Actually, the first thoughts I had were didn't really threaten prison They did that didn't seem the most effective thing to do But they would have ended my career and that's in a way the operative question What can I do to change matters if I'm ready to risk my career? That's the subject in a way today of the overall subject of ethics And is faced by people who have been or will be in the government Under what conditions should you consider breaking your promise to keep secrets Which most people don't consider it's a promise. It's a commitment. It's national security The risks of doing so are significant, but far from the risks. It's it's a matter of identity I keep secrets for the president. I'm trusted with him. He's trusted or she was trusted be with them There's no question of breaking that for most people and you've said yourself that the pentagon papers after you leak them They accomplished nothing because nixon was Of course relaxed in the landslide he continued bombing and you have said that you felt like they really had no impact So what was the what's it all the trauma that you and your family went through? What did it accomplish in your mind? Well, you're right. You've read that and most people are not aware that my my judgment is That the impact on the war of putting out the pentagon papers Looked as of a year and a half later with the christmas bombing of hanoi The pentagon papers came out in june 13th. I was indicted at the end of that month of 1971 Eventually faced 115 years in prison I uh the trial was still on in december of 1972 when we're bombing hanoi After an election a landslide election after watergate had been revealed by bermstein and woodward and others um chasai hirsch and others a landslide victory for nixon and weeks after henry kissinger in his first publicly televised statement Because he had been forbidden to reveal his german accent On television a little known fact until then But they allowed him to say in his accent which i won't try to imitate well particularly before the election Pieces at hand Knowing that soon after the election was scheduled the heaviest bombing in human history in two weeks in two weeks of december of uh, 1960 72 so when i was asked during that i say you know people said what if the pentagon papers accomplished and my answer was nothing The entire anti-war movement at which i was part and which had inspired me to do this by the people who were going to prison for draft resistance Had led to this 72 saw the heaviest bombing of the war with an offensive of 72 Ending with the christmas bombing So i saw i said the american people Have as much influence over their foreign policy at this moment As the russian people had over the invasion of hungary Or czechoslovakia And i didn't see any distinction now the war did come to an end and in the end it turned out that Actions against me actually played a significant role in getting nixon out of office Which was essential to ending the war the anti-war movement couldn't end that war Whatever the vietnamese did and the vietnam war movement with nixon in office that war was Programmed were scheduled to continue in the air Till he left office and no one foresaw that he would left leave office in 1975 as 74 okay, uh the My my wedding anniversary is august 8th And in august 8th of 74 We were having dinner and nixon had just announced his resignation of the next day Somebody sent over a paid for my meal actually anonymous And a bottle of champagne against anonymously and you know the next day So who foresaw that in 72? Zero not one person could have imagined and that meant to me I remember the pentagon paper 71 And slight election 72 Ask me whether the war will end before 1977 Zero that is not going to happen That is wrong And it has so it did happen Uh miracles can happen and there've been others in uh in my life But uh, that's the answer to your question initially Big effect on a public opinion Very big But the public was already against the war Primarily it increased the majority against the war It did not Significantly increase the vote for the McGovern Hatfield bill which was to cut off funding for the war Which congress could do last year the year before whatever on iraq afghanistan haven't come close to it democrat or republican Could they stop him in terms of funding from attacking north korea? Yes In the absence of an immediate attack for which he's to repeal congress could say no money shall be expended Foreign attack on north korea without a declaration of war by congress and there was a bill right now I was just discussing Um with one of its sponsors For no use of nuclear weapons except in a war Declared by congress There's 66 cosponsors. I think that ain't enough to get it and it won't it won't get it Congress is not going to stop this war that we're on the verge of Right now, so but depending on papers to my disappointment didn't even do what what nixon expected Increase the vote for the McGovern Hatfield bill as long as there were soldiers at risk In vietnam not until the soldiers got out Was congress ready to cut off the fund but then they did do it Not knowing actually what they were doing at that how effective it was They eventually cut off all the funding for combat operations at a time. We weren't conducting any Not knowing that nixon intended to renew the bombing And did not do so because of water data basically because of the break into my former psychoanalyst office at which point he rescinded his order of uh april 15th Who returned the bombing according to time magazine? So I was going to have a fight for impeachment As this president is facing right now by the way and did not want to have an additional fight On the bombing issue So he rescinded the order to to continue the bombing in the expectation Resume it in the expectation that it would come back to that later and he never got to it Because he was later facing uh This uh, he was later facing uh impeachment and had to resign which made the war endable nine years nine months later So it turned out And this is so much in line with what we're talking about all you're talking about effects what I did Worried the president that I would reveal information about his threats against north vietnam And his threats of escalation. I was talking about them, but I didn't have documents Because the people who had those documents and who resigned over cambodia five members of the nsc staff resigned over cambodia one consultant Did not take any documents with them and did not reveal them nixon feared they could have given them to me And so he had to send people into doctor's office to get information to blackmail me into silence Not to reveal and smear me people said that was to Stigmatize me. I was already facing 12 felony counts In a federal court. You know stigmatizing me was not the problem at that point But information that he thought he could find that I didn't want out about myself That in those days it would have been homosexual now not it would have to be Something more lurid than that but something that I didn't want out That he could threaten to put out and keep me silent and then when they didn't find anything there in the files that they broke into By the way, that file they broke into is here in town now in the smithsonian Dr. Fielding's file cabinet Is some broken into is in the smithsonian and They didn't find that so he had to do other things. I was heard on warrantless wiretaps Of mort helper and tony lake and others that were then criminal then a dozen Cis assets were bought up from miami on may 3rd 1972 To incapacitate daniel elsberg totally And when the prosecutor william meryl told me that I said what does that mean? You know kill me And he said the words were To incapacitate you totally But you have to understand he said these guys see I people never use the word kill Uh neutralize terminate with extreme prejudice Listen that they don't talk so he thought it was to kill me. I think not. I think it was to keep me quiet About what I was talking about the coming mining of high fawn, which by the way might have destroyed russian ships in high fawn and uh Been impressive to the russians nixon thought that wasn't a negative that was a positive So all of that all of that said how would you encourage A new generation of whistleblowers to come forward given Everything that you went through exactly it what i'm saying is that the fact that there was an effect Was like a miracle many things had to come together Uh to make it possible to face him with resignation and certainly that was not in my mind at all When I did this in the first instance and the fact that it happened Was at that time astonishing Nothing like that. It was kind of a miracle. So I can't say to other people Uh do this do that reveal and you have a good chance of having a big effect. I wouldn't say that was true actually Uh, it's not clear yet Whether chelsea manning will have had a big effect Uh or ed snubin a lot of discussion in congress of surveillance and a lot more knowledge And many many resolutions passed about reigning in nsa national security agency Uh, I by the way trade spent some time with ed in moscow Trying to find out how many clearances he'd had it was almost uncountable, but um Any effect has it affected what nsa is actually doing? Not clear. Will it ever? Not clear. So there's no guarantee at all no matter how much discussion you get going, but You can't say impossible In my case the way I think of it right now I would not have done what I did Without the example very specifically of bob eaton of american friend service committee Randy keeler both gondians and followers of martin luther king who chose to go to prison and put in my head the idea What could I do now that i'm not afraid of going to prison like them? Or giving up my career. So I wouldn't have done that without their example Uh, I'm very pleased that ed snodin. I think chelsea is too young actually to Ed wasn't much older to have known about me But he said that he had seen the movie most dangerous man in america daniel elsberg and the pentagon paper Which was nominated for an oscar for longest title For a documentary and I was told just yesterday You are no longer the most dangerous man in america donald trump I see that but um the the reason henry kisner had called me that Was the danger that I would tell the truth about what mixon mixon kisner's boss Was doing in the way of nuclear threats That's why I worried them and if I hadn't worried them they wouldn't have taken the then criminal acts to shut me up It's very noticeable that after 9 11 and here's the discouraging part All of the crimes that mixon did against me would for the major aspect of his impeachment process Are now legal or have been legalized even whether or not you can make them constitutional Warrantless wiretaps no problem as snodin has found after the patriot act and other things Going into a doctor's office by cia acting as domestic intelligence domestic then no problem After the patriot act how about bringing 12 people up to incapacitate me totally american citizen on the steps of the capital on may 3rd Barack obama sent drones to kill an american citizen born in this country anwar all olaki Without due process without indictment without anything Deliberate attempt effort to kill him on a kill list which he looked at regularly which had other americans on it too And as far as we know that list did not include olakis born in america 16 year old son But he was killed a few weeks later by a drone in a way that for reasons never explained Presume perhaps some kind of a state But other people going after somebody else on a kill list. Okay, so what that means to me is uh that presidents now feel entitled and Barack obama was not who for whom i voted twice was not challenged on this to kill american citizen Without due process so in all these cases A president would no longer have to obstruct justice by paying off people like howard hunt or gordon livy Further obstruction of justice to keep them quiet because they're not crimes anymore. So where do we come out? had alex butterfield Not broken he didn't even have to take a promise It was just inconceivable that he as one of the handful of people who knew about the taping in the oval office And was in on every meeting That he would reveal the taping to the watergate committee without that i believe nixon would have stayed in office and the war would have continued He was republican Reasons for doing that he went into with me to some extent No one foresaw that no one imagined that That was after dean's testimony about the plumbers and about the break in that was after my trial had ended if Elliott richardson had not refused to fire the special prosecutor That sound resonant at all here It's in the news this afternoon the president considering Whether he will fire the special prosecutor and saying today that he wants the prosecutor's boss rosenstein to fire him And then he's mad at sessions rosenstein's boss for not fire et cetera, et cetera If richardson had not refused to do that and then followed by ruckel's house Who succeeded him who also refused and resigned until we got to bork who did it Nixon would have stayed in office simply without that evidence it would have been dean against the president and The president was in those days believed And we now have a president who's believed by at least 35 37 percent whatever he says absolutely so Similar you know today is happening all of this unless those people had done what was not expected of them what risked their careers definitely or gave them up what took risk Of in some cases of well, we had the number two man in the in the fbi mark felt acting as deep throat Breaking all of his for which he could have been prosecuted. He was prosecuted later for other things But for this he could have been prosecuted acting as deep throat Without all of those people Nixon would have stayed in office and the war would have continued But they did do it. So I think of myself as one link in a chain of people Saying that no one could have foreseen any of this landy keeler my friend Who went to prison has been my friend ever since And and very strong against nuclear weapons as well in the freeze campaign Told me just recently what had induced him to be willing to go to prison Some something he'd read and some people who induced him. So there's this long Chain of people and the answer is An act out of the ordinary at personal risk Can have a very big effect and where enormous stakes are at issue the constitution a continued war nuclear war A war's worth of lives It is worth it to consider taking any personal risk on me I wonder how you feel at this moment about the press being an intermediary for leakers essentially being a platform For leakers because we see the press being denigrated every day by this president And I wonder if you think that that undermines the credibility of any kind of leaks that would come out in any The credibility of a whistleblower Or if you Start to envision a wiki leaks type platform As perhaps the best way to get these leaks out there Or do you still have faith that people will trust in the press and the leakers who choose to go to them? Good good questions. I've often long been asked Would the you know, what would I do now with this sort of information? I would still go to the print press first of all to get the documents printed because well, I don't know I my old age here I still read the print press a lot more and in washington and it prints large amounts of stuff uh hard for me to read on a Computer so Uh, I would go to the print press first As did a guy named tam who revealed Just what he'd heard. He didn't have documents about the nsa criminal program of Surveillance of warrantless wiretaps and warrants surveillance and everything Which he gave to james ryzen and others thomas tam Um for which he was facing trial for a very long time and the now here's the other thing though noden did not go to the times By the way, shelsey manning did and was ignored and did go to the post first before she went to wiki leaks But snowden did not go to the times because he had observed That when tam and others went to the times with this vast program of criminality here in unconstitutional behavior The times Above the rising level bill keller sat on it for a year After he was told by the white house. You'll have blood on your hands Meaning we will accuse you of blood on your hands if there's another terrorist attack That we will say could have been prevented by this And he held off and that was in october of 19 of 2004 That right yeah four Which meant that he refrained from having the evidence they had which by the way was a lot of testimony, but not documents um About giving the lie To george w bush who had said we do not listen to american citizens without a warrant a flat lie and revealing that Would have been had a very big effect undoubtedly or significant effect on a very close election In 2004 so keller took the choice by a free press here and by the times Not to intervene in an election gave us four more years of george w bush essentially Who uh one if you'll remember by very disputed votes in ohio In that year a very close margin Well, I think they were I think that bill keller deserved The bullet surprise he got a year later For publishing ryzen's work And should have been impeached uh the equivalent of it Journalistically for having held on to it will snowden having observed that Chose not to go to the times um And instead put it out through reporters that he trusted more on greenwald and laura poichers Again, that's what I would say First go to the print press If they don't wait a year As all the people who had talked to the times did wait they knew about This unconstitutional behavior enormously listen to all americans like the east german stasi The times wasn't printing it they talked to the times and a year went by and by the way the reason it came out at all Was that ryzen decided he would put it out in a book uh himself And the times in order not to be scooped by their own reporter Uh chose to put it out Under his byline ryzen has said publicly many times No chance the times would have printed that if they didn't know he was going to put it out in a book So, you know, it's a mixed mixed picture here and now you're getting to the immediate problem Supposing they did put it out now or you know what I gave them or whatever Would it be believed and that that is an interesting something interestingly new I would say That the chance of it's getting printed Even by print press with documents is pretty good They didn't have documents from ryzen that uh ryzen didn't have documents Snowden put out documents and he got as much attention as you could want and you know It got out all over everywhere With the documents they printed them Uh and he's in lifetime exile And I'm uh I've said enough here. I'll add this to it When snowden was being searched for by the cia an NSA Turned out to be in hong kong Revealed himself to laur poitras But they were looking for him And I said publicly That he was in physical danger in my opinion That uh if they could knock him off And stop this flow There would be a real danger that that would happen And this was under barack obama So I believe it was the atlantic It so happens Uh your paper but uh that actually had a column saying Uh elsberg is really going off the rails on this You know here he's this sugar off the wall extreme historian So how could he imagine such a thing you know And I didn't say public I didn't put it into print But I told people at the time and you'll say You're talking to a person who had 12 people brought up from miami with orders from the white house to incapacitate me totally And that was in 1972 And I was at that point under trial. I'd been on trial for a year at that point I was one of the most prominent people in america that didn't protect me from this So don't tell me that I have no right to say that snowden Is in is in danger now And I think he he really was and yes will be for the rest of his life really Um, that's that's the way it is and I think he he did do the right thing. Absolutely But now With the documents This year Would they be believed and you've really pointed to something new Actually Even with the documents people will say if the president says If this president says Those are forged That didn't happen You know, none of this is true About a third of americans will believe that Despite the document And you know in the new digital age and you could say it could be true also The possibility for falsification is indeed great So it wouldn't be as as clear-cut I come back to the same point um The chance of having an effect On actual policy is small Actually small But it's not zero And where the stakes are very high Your own personal life can absolutely be worth taking that with On that note, we're going to open it up to questions I think there's going to be someone with a microphone walking around But that gentleman all the way in the back had his hand up first All right, Dan Howard Moreland here They may have to do this because my hearing is true There's a lot of Comparison between trump and nixon One thing i've noticed that was different back back in nixon's day I remember I recall only one person in the major Media who was openly critical of nixon and that was tommy smothers And he got into a whole bunch of trouble with cbs for it Uh nowadays, steven colbert every night tells more nasty trump jokes Than uh tommy smothers did against nixon in his whole career And to me that seems like a difference But it's not it's not having an effect on trump supporters And I wonder if it really is a different uh atmosphere when it's so openly Uh possible to criticize the president Could you give me a little I heard about half of that but can you help me So I think what you're asking is whether or not the media should feel more free to criticize the president Is that Is that right or Does the difference between steven colbert and tommy smothers Really mean that we have a different atmosphere in the country today There certainly What's unique almost is the president Using his bully pulpit to Say don't believe what you're reading in the press. I don't I don't remember a president for that and the fake news story and everything Uh in terms of criticism of the president, there is no lack of that in the press at this point Uh in terms of mocking him in very strong terms And satirizing in various ways, of course nixon felt that too at the time though people have forgotten He wasn't all that unpopular when he got a landslide election. He wasn't elected by 37 percent or 40 percent or something in 1972 And that was before you know, he was really facing its downfall. But uh still people were were free to uh Saturize and criticize It's you know, look the headline tonight is What I saw it and we're talking today now is Who was it somebody saying? Mueller i'm sorry Trump will face It will be suicide some high member of congress said it would be suicidal I think graspley said that be suicide for him to fire Mueller And we're back in the same situation of firing, you know archable cops Basically and so it would be suicidal for him to do that that did result In what was called, uh, it was the saturday night massacre because it was not just cox who was fired It was richardson had to resign and rickle self So he had three people leaving in one night and that got what was called A firestorm of protests I think an unprecedented outpouring of telegrams and calls and whatnot to them that forced them to do what nixon had no further prior intention to do and that was to Appoint a new special prosecutor now In a way which was would that happen again? Well, would there be protests? Yes, I have no doubt of that. There will be enormous protests It might even be as I was told by a congressperson today Uh hours ago enormous outpouring in the streets But will it make a difference? A difference was at that time That the president was doing this facing a democratic congress both house and senate Clinton uh was uh faced impeachment from a republican house and senate, I believe In 98 that's not the case now Will the republicans then turn on their president if he fires muller? I don't know but let me just make a guess no Actually and uh You know I heard from another congressman that they don't have the spine to do it, but I think Is that just democrat? Is that just republicans? I remember after 2006 uh I was very excited when the democrats took the house in 2006 because Conyers of the senate judiciary committee head of it Had written a book that summer on impeaching bush who certainly deserved george w bush impeachment Uh in part for not our things But in particular for a totally unconstitutional aggressive war which we're still fighting Uh in iraq And so he had all these articles of impeachment a year. So I said aha I'd been telling people all summer vote for the democrats because john conyers will be Uh The head of the judiciary committee, which is what brings impeachment to the house Well, didn't happen And in part didn't have in considerable part was the democratic leadership was afraid that would bring republicans to the polls And they couldn't get a democratic president in 2008 So it made almost no difference to have the democrats in and I remember saying to senator grovel Who had face censure for putting the pentagon papers in the uh congressional record one night Just before I was indicted I said, uh, Mike Is this congress unusually cowardly? And he said no Usually cowardly He said they were just the same then it hasn't changed. I don't think it has changed I don't think we're in a world now where people will impeach a president of their their own party It hasn't happened. So I think don't trump could get away with that You in the blitz? Hi dr. Oh It's working I anchor for the voice of america and west I anchor for the voice of america and westwood won And I'm teaching a course on the pentagon papers In fact tomorrow is the second class. We had john proddose at the first class We were going to have mary come to the class tomorrow, but she wasn't able to make it your daughter mary Your daughter mary daughter mary. Yeah, she was going to come to the class, but she wasn't able to make it So what's the matter here? So She gave me a birthday party just on saturday, right? So if if you want to be a backup to mary, we'd love to We'd love to have you tomorrow. I think I can get mary to your Okay. All right. Let's see My question is we're told that you provided the papers to neil sheen But there is an account that he and his wife Photo copy them without your permission. Yeah, is that is that true? That is true Um, I had told him that I he had access to the papers I even gave him a key to the apartment where they were being kept so that he could take notes on them It was my wife's brother half brother, but uh, I had said to him I didn't want uh Them to publish I told him You don't have my permission to copy them. That was it Until I have some indication that the Times is thinking seriously about publishing them I'm not asking for a guarantee. I know that could change the night before publication And it almost did by the way, you know on the question of publishing the documents or not But I said I'd like to know that they're serious about it My fear was that if I gave him copies They would be numbers of copies of xerox age around the Times they wouldn't do it in the end But somebody would pick up the phone to the fbi And call for those copies So I said I wanted to know that they really were interested in it and for reasons still not clear to me He not only refrained from telling me that they were working night and day as shown in the movie Uh on this he told me the opposite actually said they weren't working on it That's why I went to senator withias and representative mcclossy at mcgovern others Try uh full bright trying to get them out otherwise and I'm not sure to this day why He misled me on that point, but what he did do was to uh In having promised not to copy them did Use the key and brought his wife up and uh went out and got money from the Times and copied them And when I learned that afterwards when I was on trial I never held that against him actually at all He had done pretty much what I'd done. He thought these these things have to come out Whether this guy is willing or not, you know and so forth. He was ready to risk the you know that the Times wouldn't do it but That he would have the copy anyway And and he knew they were interested So that wasn't an issue which he chose not to tell me So I I really didn't hold hold that against him actually, but that is the case and as far as mary is concerned Spielberg was very taken by the story Of my daughter's involvement in the papers and he actually had a scene which ended up on the cutting room floor Where I knew that she was going to be in the movie. There was a night when uh my Son who was then 13? Was working the xerox machine and I was Collating and mary who was then 10? Was cutting top secret off the top and bottoms of the pages with the scissors and So in the movie in the end they had tony russo cutting the top secret because spielberg said It was just incredible. No one would believe it And he said I would have to spend too much time explaining why I had done this So in the end there was an earlier version of this story in which my daughter was shown with we were just discussing this With blonde hair. So I had told the producers Since they were putting this scene in her hair is black. It's got to be She ended up not coming but uh, you know, I I think I can get her in the studio for you there I mean the red Talk to me after I'm I'm bill gatesman. I'm a lawyer in private practice. Thank you Mr. Ellsberg You uh started out by referring you you you referred to your oath to the constitution as the basis That uh allows at least for your mind whatever. Yeah, not at the time by the way I didn't think of that at the time but in retrospect you did and then you also Went through the history and you you show how these fundamental laws are being compromised With the patriot act and so on and the question arose For what advice do you give people who might now be considering Being a whistleblower with the erosion of these fundamental laws. What basis then Would someone refer to to when making this this very consequential decision to to leak When they feel that there's silence they should consider doing it When they feel that there's silence Would be wrongfully helping to sentence many many many People of various colors and nationalities to death Or the constitution which is being violated was being further shredded As Ed Snowden did feel for example, uh, and there were in other words enormous stakes And that the president is lying about this And and wrongfully leaving the country then I think they should what I would tell them is Don't do what I did Don't wait till the bombs are falling Or nuclear war has occurred in north korea before you reveal Consider revealing estimates in the pentagon of just what the prospects are in north korea I have no doubt that there are top secret secret confidential and unclassified reports in the pentagon Right now and higher than top secret That say that war with north korea would have the following effects properly described as catastrophic And uh, that that it could not possibly serve american interests to do this Well, I would consider putting that out at whatever cost to myself and I mean tonight Or tomorrow and if I had access to the 6 000 pages of the top secret But redacted torture report that barbara feinstein said should be out Uh, I would certainly consider putting that out of of significant importance enough to do so So there's lots of things and there's lots of things that it wouldn't occur to me to put out and nobody that I knew would occur to me Would we occur to put out? Revealing valerie plains name Uh to punish her husband joe wilson and revealing that she was a covert agent involved in countering proliferation Something that has to be done And has to be done secretly and to put that out by Uh, what was his name scooter liby? At the directions of chainie and others Uh was wrong and I can't imagine doing that or others, but you know for political purposes Uh, it is that sort of thing is done So there are secrets that are certainly should be kept and there are secrets where you give the benefit of the doubt to the president if you have doubts about it and that's Something that passes across your desk every day if you're in the national security business But um, and then there are secrets which you know This should be out and that's where Most people have not had the benefit that I did of a direct face-to-face example with someone who seems like yourself And uh, is choosing to go to prison Um, can we get someone in the back actually? A lot of what you say, uh has a sense of hopelessness about it and effect Going back to vietnam. What effect do you think there was about the younger generation confronting their parents? over the issue of vietnam and does that have any relationship today? And any hopeful sign of change we saw that A march for our lives a couple weeks ago that perhaps is a start of that example Well, if I understand you clearly again, correct me if I missed something Again, I heard in about half of it. I'm sorry, but um, I think you're referring to the marches We've seen just in the last week or two about gun control. Was that something in your mind? And um, I must say that when I first heard of those I thought very nice I'm glad to see it happening But we'll see what happens as a result until I learned that all the young speakers were talking about Registering other people to vote and getting them registered and going into the process this year Which struck me as not only as very very good Uh objective and motivation Not significant not enough It's as I've been saying you can elect new people in there and they don't necessarily act any different from the old ones But it's necessary. It gives you a chance And I don't recall with all the respect I had For the occupy movement, which I address several people in the streets with policemen standing by I don't recall them talking at all about registering or voting on the contrary. There was a contempt for it Uh, no difference between the parties. This is a useless process Uh, it's not sufficient, but it's essential and uh, frankly in the anti-war movement as a whole Back in the 60s, which I was a belated uh member of There wasn't much talk about congress or about the the idea was affecting the president somehow and as I said the effect on the president Was like zero But uh, there could have been much more effect on congress than there actually was they hadn't focused on it so if the young people Are are focusing on changing congress this year and in 2020 That makes me very hopeful and when you said by the way hopelessness when I heard you say that I thought gee, I thought could I have said more often? That I feel there is a chance The chance is low if I said I thought the chance of dismantling the doomsday machine, which is the objective of this book Is high or certain? I would be lying and I'm not inclined to lie to inspire people. I think the chance is very low But it's not zero And I've mentioned the miracle of the ending of the war in 1975 The Berlin wall coming down in 1989 I don't know of one person who would have foreseen that in 1984 As possible We didn't talk about it at all. Reagan actually did say take down that wall and everybody's yeah, right? You know and total rhetoric didn't even pay any attention to that idea Had it come up the answer would have been not what I've been saying the chances low The chant it's impossible. That's ridiculous Nelson Mandela coming to office which didn't produce heaven on earth or total equality or anything But no one foresaw that happening without violence. I remember tony lewis Saying in the new york times It is impossible to imagine something close to this Nelson Mandela or the the a and c coming to power without violence Which he was not proposing, but he said it's not going to happen. It did happen So I'm old enough to tell young people and people not so young You can't say impossible You can't say impossible here And so i'm working with a very thin margin here, but the chance of increasing that slightly Is worth it. I think it's worth a person's life and when you come to register It doesn't amount to that much, but I must say by the way. I have friends Oh boy, this would be so controversial in some audiences But uh, I'm very impatient with my friends who were not willing to vote for hillary clinton because she was so bad but even when the alternative was donald trump and uh Jill stein or not voting or whatever I I really held that against them at the time and in retrospect Even more So happens as I have ever since uh, ralph mater in 2000 And uh, so it's you know, it's essential. I think their heads are in the sand that showed to me since almost I've never almost never met somebody who regrets having voted for ralph mater in 2000 Which showed me that there is as much opportunity for denial on the left As anywhere else gentlemen in the second row right here Yeah, here right here. Yeah Hello, uh, seam brown, uh, formerly of the rand corporation Hi dan and of brookings and of the carnage endowment but now retired uh like to Focus back on some of the issues that you raise in the doomsday machine a very important Have you seen it already? I've read it every page already I have um Let's suppose that i'm a young official. Well, all right. I mean use your imagination Let's suppose i'm a young official in the defense died your hair since I was right Say at the at the level of a deputy assistant secretary of defense And I've been privy to in fact participating in the drafting of the nuclear posture review You did you say i'm sorry. I'm supposing Yeah, right. This is a supposition That i'm that kind of a young official and I've been participating in it And I realize that what this is in the large despite some of the obscure rhetoric in the review itself This is an effort to legitimize the nuclearization of the overall defense posture Talk about dual capabilities in a lot of forces Variable yields Low yield weapons and so on Nuclear weapons that what's really going on Is an effort to integrate nuclear weapons Into the overall defense strategy and posture In a way that has not really been done Up to now this much That well, that's really what's going on and there's a a new group of theorists who have influenced My colleagues in the defense department to Plan for for limited strategic nuclear war Okay, that that's really what the the the npr does Okay, and I know this I've sat in these discussions What should I do? should I Resign from the government because I regard this as a disastrous hypothetical. You're not in the government. No, I'm not I'm not I'm that kind of an individual who have has discovered what you discovered back in the early 1960s But now I realize that what's going on Is putting us in a situation in which we could step into nuclear war that the threshold of nuclear use would be lowered Not raised that would be lowered and that could put us on an escalator to nuclear holocaust To the very things that you're talking about in your book. What should I do? should I and join The anti nuclear war movement Should I go public? like you did Or should I stay And attempt to work myself into a position of influence Where possibly I can affect Uh some reversal away from that disastrous policy of normalizing nuclear war I have that choice facing me that dilemma facing me. What would you advise? Well, you know, that's where we started in my talk here because that was the question posed in that review Of my book. Suppose you're a young professional Who recognizes what you just described and you didn't mention the intervention part But you're focusing on the nuclear part, which was what I focused on in my new book How are we on time here? We have about five minutes. Okay. I'd like to give a Good answer to that if I could because it's so central I'm I'm really pleased to see him to of all to have you in particular but To be able to talk in Washington with people who read my book very few so far Uh and to have this discussion you are asking the question that I would hope would come from reading it and uh and this when I said this kind of audience If you're not in the government, you know people who are in the government Who are in this position now? I would take issue with only one thing you've said Which is well first I agree totally with you say that this npr In effect doesn't just aim to legitimize or desigmatize first use and uh limited strategic use they talk about even doing it in connection with cyber attacks Haven't spelled out too much what that might be but um The uh It does do that but to say that that's new and unprecedented I think a lot of people I don't want to accuse you of this But a lot of people have forgotten the george w bush administration already and richard shaney The fact is that the 1990 the rather that the 2002. I think it was Something like that various nprs in the past Have have talked about Expanding the use of first use of nuclear weapons in various cases and not one Has ever renounced the first use of nuclear weapons Uh, the obama is said to have considered that strongly and asked for it to be considered Not only in 2010 perhaps 2013, but in his last year 2016 very seriously Getting rid of the icbms, which I regard not just as inachronistic But as the hair trigger to the doomsday machine They use them or lose them aspect of the posture both on our side and the russian side Which should have been Uh Sent out should have been Eliminated half a century ago in my opinion or every year since but obama wasn't able to get that past His secretary defense ash carter who had been for that Years earlier when he worked under his then mentor william perry in the defense department And now ash carter as secretary defense is turning around and defending the icbms William perry called for no first use Has done that center, uh general cartwright has called for it obama called for it in uh in the white house Privately, you know, it was reported that he had done that and couldn't get it because of the opposition To it and the lack of support for it. So let me first take your first point there Or one of your points Should you stay in and work it from the inside People have had these good ideas For as long as i've been around for 50 years and more on this stuff and it has had no perceptible effect And I would say it's a very familiar thing to say if I stay inside Surely my my prospects for having some effect eventually are greater than I could possibly have on the outside I think that's usually a delusion. It's not stupid. It's not crazy But it very rarely works the forces on the insiders and in the insiders have worked in this very Steady consistent direction and the fact is that first use threats and threats of demonstrative attacks Which we hear in russia now as well, you know escalating to de-escalate Crazy then crazy for us when we set it in nato in the berlin crisis all this time It's crazy stuff But it is very recurrent and it wins because all the jobs and the profits and this is one factor The jobs and the profits and the votes and the retirement Jobs that are waiting for people are all on the side of maintaining the doomsday machine And I do not think that pressure from inside Is ever going to do it that would be my guess. It's only an estimate, but I could say it hasn't worked in the past And how about it out from the outside? Well, I said over and over no guarantee not even a likelihood But I think the chance is greater Of what? resigning McNamara said If I resigned it would be a one-day story. Well, that's silly. Of course, it would be more than a one-day story but if he just resigned without documents And without a persistent campaign To explain what he had said to the president about getting out of vietnam, which he had said And saying that to the public. No, it wouldn't have much effect Without doing what I did which he could have done without any danger of prosecution In his case, but that's a secretary defense um secretary of state paul Could have I think stopped the iraq war which allegedly he was against without any danger of prosecution but with a danger of career effects and image effects That he didn't want to incur his aid It's a name larry, uh, what? Wilkerson. Yeah, it's a larry wilkerson said that in the in the run up to iraq He had had a letter of resignation in his desk, which he took out and looked at every morning And then put back And I think he Is not happy in the way in the end now On the question of the nuclear threats. I've been talking about nixon had reason to believe That I did have documents On His nuclear threats because people who knew them directly were friends of mine all I knew all of the five who resigned uh, tony lake uh, mort helper and as a consultant um Roger morris, uh, watts That's for somebody else He had reason to think that they might have supplied me with what they knew of the nuclear threats And roger morris in 69 now when i'm facing this dilemma when I started copying the papers Had seen the nuclear target folders in north vietnam Just for a very limited nuclear strike that would kill an estimated number of civilians three Three civilians a jungle post on this out on the edge of china And a trans shipment point coming from china High a high altitude low yield little burst the kind of thing we might do on the test sites in north korea That of course won't lead to anything more because the other side will back off at that point We can be almost sure And he'd seen that he'd seen the photos for them and the mojia pass and so forth He said to me later He did they didn't put out any of that He said to me later roger We should have thrown open the safes and screamed bloody murder Because that's exactly what it was What i'm saying then to this hypothetical person is Don't just resign and don't stay in like paul on the thought that eventually he'll listen to me and will and I will uh overpower Put out the documents in your safe do it in testimony to congress of What should mattis do? Mattis like me is a marine He stayed in longer than I did Uh on that but that means he never had any dealings with nuclear weapons The marines didn't have any nuclear weapons. They had 10 each 10 inch howitzers which uh in 11 and quest for example They were dependent on nuclear weapons. I am sure he is not witted to the idea of nuclear weapons He knows he's looking at a two-sided nuclear war not nuclear winner, but just several million not billions but millions dead There's been a lot of discussion now Of what he will do or what he might do if he gets an order that he doesn't agree with Well, they say if it's if it's unlawful Unfortunately, you know, he won't do it. Yeah fat chance But the order is to attack uh, north korea missile sites with non-nuclear weapons And their warhead testing site non nuclear very accurate cruise missiles Uh kill almost no civilian Unless a few happen to be inspecting it at the time With the expectation That kim jong-hyun very good expectation will respond with some monstrous act I'm not sure what kim jong-hyun can do that isn't rather monstrous in the way of killing civilians in south korea But he uses his artillery against soul. He does this or that He may even before long be using nuclear weapons that kill millions of civilians That will then justify Our annihilating north korea as the president is doing and having demonstrated That kim jong-hyun is so monstrous as we've just seen Thank god, we didn't wait two years for him to get h bombs and icvm The president was right after all to prepare and threaten and commit And wipe out this regime that was so monstrous Now what if mattis foresees that coming? Is he too by the way, I think trump would get away with that with that I think that uh, if he can provoke A monstrous act from kim jong-hyun, which I would guess he can do Uh, I think he would get away even if we suffered extreme casualties as a result our old Corporation the rand corporation did a study in 2006 the year that they first tested koreans tested a weapon As to what kim jong-hyun was his father then Would do With a container on a boat That he sent with a nuclear device in it that he sent to san francisco harbor or in that case long beach harbor 65 000 immediate casualties deaths Quarter of a median within weeks from radiation That's what he could do in 2006. That's what he could do right now. He doesn't need an icvm And what if that happened? What would happen with trump? Trump would have saved us from an icbm and an h bomb in various things. I just make an estimate here very speculative. What if I think he'd get away with that and by the way With the first Attacks on that which could be tomorrow in syria, but I don't think that's enough for the following action Or a war with north korea Mueller has fired The hour of that attacks. It's a tiny item in an inside page No problem. I think that if he wants to get rid of Mueller, he needs a war and He can have it Okay, supposing then I was in a position whether I was a secretary defense Or a secretary to the secretary defense And I'd seen the estimates and I talked to people and I had a good understanding of where this was going Then I would say the public needs to know this congress needs to know this they may go along with it but Let it be their responsibility. Let it be congress's responsibility the majority party and the minority party And I would say do what ed snoden did or chelsea manning did and not what I did in 61 or 64 Which was to stay in office and keep my promise I would consider breaking that promise and informing the world of where we were heading toward hell and Whether it would have any effect or not Who knows but it's worth trying Thank you Well, we have to leave it there, but thank you so much for taking the time to speak to us and dan's book is for sale Out in the lobby and it's 15 off and it's a fantastic read. So I recommend that you all you all buy it. Thank you