Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Catherine Herriage is a long time veteran journalist who has
worked both for Fox News for many years and CBS
News in Washington, DC, covering DC and politicians. She has
faced some interesting challenges as of late, and she will
also be speaking at the Steamboat Institute's Freedom Conference coming
(00:20):
up at the end of this month.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Catherine, first of all, welcome to the show. Thanks so
much for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
So I want to have you sort of explain where
things kind of went sideways for you. And I mean
this in terms of you are actually facing right now
contempt charges for not releasing your journalistic sources on a
story that connected a Chinese man to some investigations in
(00:50):
the FBI. I think that's fair to say, and I
realized that this is ongoing litigation, so I'm kind of
laying the groundwork. But if i get something spectacularly wrong,
please feel free to let me know. You have been
held in contempt, you are now appealing. Where are you
in the appeal process?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
So thanks for the opportunity to bring people up to speed.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
On the case.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I am limited in what I can say because I
want to be respectful of the courts and the process. Currently,
this privacy Act case is in the Appellate Court in Washington,
d C. We've had a series of briefs that have
been filed, and we anticipate that there'll be oral arguments
and potentially a decision in the case.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Later this year or early next year.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
These Privacy Act cases are extremely rare, but when they happen,
they can have a profound ripple effect.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
As a journalist, I am only a witness in this case.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
The plaintiff is a woman who ran a school in
Virginia which was recruiting members of the military, and she
has sued the FBI, Justice Department, among other government agencies,
for the alleged leaking of her personal information. I was
held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose confidential
(02:06):
source information as part of a series of stories I
did at Fox News in twenty seventeen. The decision by
the district court just left one exit rant for me
to appeal the decision, and that was to be held
in contempt of court and then have the case heard
at the appellate Court in Washington.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Now, Catherine, we like to think of journalistic protection of
sources as almost being sacriscynct. So how common are these
kind of occurrences. To your knowledge, I'm sure you've had
other journalists maybe reach out to you or you've been
forced to get up to speed on this. How common
are these kind of prosecutions?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
These cases are in common. I just emphasized that I
am a witness in this case. I'm not a party
to the litigation. Some of the recent cases which have
been similar involved allegations about the source of the anthrax
letters after nine to eleven, others to do with UH
nuclear secrets that had been allegedly stolen.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
So they're not common, these cases.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
But when you have a constitutional question the First Amendment,
you have the free press and the protection of confidential
source information, every single case can have a profound impact.
And it's not an exaggeration to say that whatever the
appellate Court decides in Washington will impact every working journalist
(03:27):
in the country today, because if you don't have a
credible pledge of confidentiality to your sources as an investigative
journal journalist, your toolbox is empty.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
I was going to ask you to kind of explain
to my audience how that process works, how you build
up these confidential informants, how do you get confidential informants
give me a little window into that how that process
plays out.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Well, what I will, what I'm able to say, is
that confidential sources come to reporters I'm speaking generally here,
not specifically about myself, through a number of different avenues.
By and large, they come forward as whistleblowers, or they
come forward only on a confidential basis because they have
evidence or they have insight into what they believe is
(04:18):
government corruption and wrongdoing. And if you can't offer someone
a credible pledge that you will protect their identity in
almost all of these cases, they will not be able
to provide that information to a journalist. And the reason
that matters is that it blocks and frustrates the free
flow of information to the public. And that's the reason
(04:40):
that this is so central to our constitution and also
to democracy. And informed electorate is the bedrock of our
country and our democracy. And this is why the protection
I believe confidential sources is so vital.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Have these sources been upheld in the cases you mentioned
before about the anthrax letter? Have what is the recent
court done in this arena?
Speaker 4 (05:05):
Well, I want to.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Be careful here because of the ongoing litigation. What I
will say, is there's hope that of the litigation I'm
involved in will sort of help clarify the rules of
the road when it comes to the protection of confidential sources,
and that only in the most extraordinary cases can the
government force the disclosure of these sources. Right now, I'm
(05:27):
spending pardon me, I'm facing contempt fines up to eight
hundred dollars a day for the refusal to disclose. I'm
grateful that they have been stayed pending the appeal, but
I think your audience can appreciate that that these would
be crippling fines for any small or independent news organization,
even corporate organizations as well.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Now, you had done this work on this particular story
while working for Fox News, but then you had moved
over to CBS News. And how far after this story breaks, thinking,
were you laid off by CBS News?
Speaker 4 (06:07):
This story was.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
In the media, I want to say at the end
of last year, it was, and then I was laid
off in February. And after I was laid off was
when I was actually held in contempt of court.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
So this has been a really crappy year for you,
Catherine Harritt, not the best year ever.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
You know.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Sofore, it's been.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
A very would I'll say that it's been a very
eventful year. I did lose my job at CBS News.
I still remained very proud of the work that we
did there, especially with veterans.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
This was work that impacted a million service members and
their families. But the same month that I was terminated,
I also had my record seized by CBS News. These
were investigative reporting files, including confidential source information. I'm thankful
that they were returned to me, but only after a
public backlash and the intervention of my union sag AFTRA,
(07:02):
and then I was held in contempt of court just
within about two weeks of losing my job. What I
will say is that when you go through as many
life events as I have in the last six months,
it gives you a lot of clarity. And I feel,
really with all my heart the importance of the First
(07:23):
Amendment of free press.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
I mean, they really are my guiding principles. Now my
north Star.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Well as more than one of my texters, is giving
me a variation of Mandy. I really miss Catherine Herridge.
I know I butchered the spelling, but she's always been
a great investigative reporter. The landscape in your field has changed.
It used to be that if you did not work
for a network or you didn't work for a channel,
then you didn't work. But now there are more opportunities.
So what are you doing now? Are you pursuing individual projects,
(07:52):
are you working with maybe a more independent news network,
or what's happening with Catherine Herridge.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Well, I decided, after.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
All of the events of this year, and having so
much clarity about independent journalism and accountability and the importance
of a free press, that I've decided to launch under
my own Bane or Catherine Harris Reports, and we publish
our investigations on x We launched our first in June,
(08:28):
which was an investigation into COVID vaccine injury in the
US military. This is a difficult topic, but we had
a lot of confidence that we could launch this project
on X and we could do so without fear of censorship,
and that we could have a really candid conversation about
the impact.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
And I'm really.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Pleased to report that we had full engagement with the
Defense Department and the Department of the Army on this
soldier's case, and after our investigation, they expedited the review
of her military records, and they ended up giving her
full benefits for a debilitating heart condition that left her
with a pacemaker at twenty four seemed very literally linked
(09:12):
to the vaccine. So Number one, we got a great
result for this soldier. Number two, the Department of the
Army and the Defense Department really listened to what we
get found in our investigation, regardless of whether we were
working under the umbrella of a big corporate network like
CBS News or whether I was working independently. And that's
(09:33):
the kind of results driven reporting that I want to see,
and I think the landscape has really shifted and that
door has opened for independent journalists like my Smeuth or
smaller independent newsrooms.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Well, it doesn't hurt that you've already got an established
reputation that is a very strong reputation. So I'm glad
you're continuing on what's the handle for your Catherine Herridge
reports on.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
X SO it's Catherine Double Underscore Herriage H she are R, I,
D G E. And we do subscriptions as well, because
they're sort of behind the scenes and bonus content that
we provide.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
But most of all, you know, we ask.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
People to support this kind of independent journalism, which he's
very fact based and accountability driven journalism.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
And I've been really heartened by the response.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Our first project was over three million views, and that
was encouraging. But what was even more encouraging was that
we got a result for this young woman, and that
was accountability and it was about seeing the government do
the right thing by her.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
How comfortable are you being the story?
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Not really very comfortable. I've become more comfortable as the
year has has gone on. It's you know, it's been
hard personally this this year. It's not been easy because
you know, one of our I testified to Congress earlier
this year and I shared with them at that time.
I'm that one of our children asked me when I
(11:02):
was subpoenat and going through this process, this litigation over
the disclosure of confidential sources, he said, you know, Mom,
are we going to lose our house? So we're going
to lose our savings, everything that you've worked for to
protect your sources. And I wanted to say that in
this country, where we say we value democracy in a
(11:24):
free press, that it was impossible, but I couldn't offer
that assurance.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
And what he said to me is he said, you
do what it takes. I've got your back.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
And I thought, if a teenager can really understand the
importance of protecting confidential sources and the free of information
to the public and what role it plays in democracy,
certainly Congress can pass the Press Act. This is a
piece of litigation that is sitting in the Senate right now,
and it would create a federal shield law for reporters,
something that exists in almost every state but does not
(11:55):
exist at the federal level.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Gatherine, I want to come back to something you mentioned
kind of in Pawer saying, and that was that CBS
seized your records when you were laid off. Now they say, hey,
we just went into Catherine's office, we boxed everything up
with HR because that's the procedure when someone is laid off,
and then we sent it to her.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
How long was the lag time.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Between you being, you know, walked out of the buildings
as they do, and when you received all of your
data and information and all of your stuff.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Well, what I've always tried to be respectful of my
former employers. What i will say is that CBS's public
explanation at the time just illustrated to me that it
was a news organization that had a very.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
Difficult relationship with the facts. That is not what happened.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I was told that my job was a difficult relationship
with the fact That is not what happened. I was
pardon me, I was locked out of my email and
locked out of the office. And if it had not
been for the intervention of the union and the public backlash,
I may never have seen those records again. And this
(13:09):
idea that CBS just sought to secure the records is
undercut by the internal communications with the union and.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Sort of myself as well. So that's all I'm going
to say.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
I thought that the seizure of the records was a
red line that should never be crossed, and that for
the network of Walter Cronkite to see these investigative reporting
files was really an attack on investigative journalism.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
It's sad the way that the circle of the wagon's
mentality sometimes you lose sight of how damaging this ruling
against you is for all of their journalists as well,
right and every other journalist in the country who relies
on confidential sources. Can I ask you one journalistic question
that I just want an answer to and that is
(13:55):
when you get information from a confidential source, what happens
at that point? Do you then take that and run
with it? Do you then begin the process?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
I'm verifying.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
We can't go there, Okay with litigation.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Now I understand, no problem.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Now, if you want to hear more from Catherine or
have a chance to meet and say hello, she is
going to be at the Steamboat Conference's Freedom Conference this
at the end of this month. Now, Catherine, you've ever
been to this event before?
Speaker 4 (14:23):
No, I have not. I'm really looking forward to it.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
It is the absolute best. It is my favorite nerd
event all year. Forget the White House Correspondence. This is
so much fun because they bring in great speakers on
a huge variety of topics, yourself included, and it's in
the most beautiful setting you will ever see. So I
hope you enjoy your time in Beaver Creek and enjoy
your time at the Steamboat Conference.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Now what, let me make sure I've got this right.
You are understood.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (14:51):
I just one final thought.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
I just if there's one thing that people can take
away from our conversation, is that what's happening with the
First Amendment and a free press, and the pret action
of confidential sources is so much bigger than my case,
and it's so much bigger than a single network or
a single series of stories. This is about protecting a
fundamental tool of investigative journalism that keeps the public informed
(15:15):
and that is the bedrock of our democracy.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
The Twitter handle at c underscore Herriage correct, Just to
make sure I have the right one.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Double double underscore h double underscore sounds yes, ce double
underscore Heriage at Twitter.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
It popped right up when I am Yeah, got that, Catherine.
Thank you for making time today and obviously we'll all
be watching to find the resolution of this case, and
hopefully thank you rather than later.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
All right, that's Catherine Herridge.
Catherine Herriage is a long time veteran journalist who has
worked both for Fox News for many years and CBS
News in Washington, DC, covering DC and politicians. She has
faced some interesting challenges as of late, and she will
also be speaking at the Steamboat Institute's Freedom Conference coming
(00:20):
up at the end of this month.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Catherine, first of all, welcome to the show. Thanks so
much for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
So I want to have you sort of explain where
things kind of went sideways for you. And I mean
this in terms of you are actually facing right now
contempt charges for not releasing your journalistic sources on a
story that connected a Chinese man to some investigations in
(00:50):
the FBI. I think that's fair to say, and I
realized that this is ongoing litigation, so I'm kind of
laying the groundwork. But if i get something spectacularly wrong,
please feel free to let me know. You have been
held in contempt, you are now appealing. Where are you
in the appeal process?
Speaker 3 (01:08):
So thanks for the opportunity to bring people up to speed.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
On the case.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
I am limited in what I can say because I
want to be respectful of the courts and the process. Currently,
this privacy Act case is in the Appellate Court in Washington,
d C. We've had a series of briefs that have
been filed, and we anticipate that there'll be oral arguments
and potentially a decision in the case.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Later this year or early next year.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
These Privacy Act cases are extremely rare, but when they happen,
they can have a profound ripple effect.
Speaker 4 (01:43):
As a journalist, I am only a witness in this case.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
The plaintiff is a woman who ran a school in
Virginia which was recruiting members of the military, and she
has sued the FBI, Justice Department, among other government agencies,
for the alleged leaking of her personal information. I was
held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose confidential
(02:06):
source information as part of a series of stories I
did at Fox News in twenty seventeen. The decision by
the district court just left one exit rant for me
to appeal the decision, and that was to be held
in contempt of court and then have the case heard
at the appellate Court in Washington.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Now, Catherine, we like to think of journalistic protection of
sources as almost being sacriscynct. So how common are these
kind of occurrences. To your knowledge, I'm sure you've had
other journalists maybe reach out to you or you've been
forced to get up to speed on this. How common
are these kind of prosecutions?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
These cases are in common. I just emphasized that I
am a witness in this case. I'm not a party
to the litigation. Some of the recent cases which have
been similar involved allegations about the source of the anthrax
letters after nine to eleven, others to do with UH
nuclear secrets that had been allegedly stolen.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
So they're not common, these cases.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
But when you have a constitutional question the First Amendment,
you have the free press and the protection of confidential
source information, every single case can have a profound impact.
And it's not an exaggeration to say that whatever the
appellate Court decides in Washington will impact every working journalist
(03:27):
in the country today, because if you don't have a
credible pledge of confidentiality to your sources as an investigative
journal journalist, your toolbox is empty.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
I was going to ask you to kind of explain
to my audience how that process works, how you build
up these confidential informants, how do you get confidential informants
give me a little window into that how that process
plays out.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Well, what I will, what I'm able to say, is
that confidential sources come to reporters I'm speaking generally here,
not specifically about myself, through a number of different avenues.
By and large, they come forward as whistleblowers, or they
come forward only on a confidential basis because they have
evidence or they have insight into what they believe is
(04:18):
government corruption and wrongdoing. And if you can't offer someone
a credible pledge that you will protect their identity in
almost all of these cases, they will not be able
to provide that information to a journalist. And the reason
that matters is that it blocks and frustrates the free
flow of information to the public. And that's the reason
(04:40):
that this is so central to our constitution and also
to democracy. And informed electorate is the bedrock of our
country and our democracy. And this is why the protection
I believe confidential sources is so vital.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Have these sources been upheld in the cases you mentioned
before about the anthrax letter? Have what is the recent
court done in this arena?
Speaker 4 (05:05):
Well, I want to.
Speaker 3 (05:06):
Be careful here because of the ongoing litigation. What I
will say, is there's hope that of the litigation I'm
involved in will sort of help clarify the rules of
the road when it comes to the protection of confidential sources,
and that only in the most extraordinary cases can the
government force the disclosure of these sources. Right now, I'm
(05:27):
spending pardon me, I'm facing contempt fines up to eight
hundred dollars a day for the refusal to disclose. I'm
grateful that they have been stayed pending the appeal, but
I think your audience can appreciate that that these would
be crippling fines for any small or independent news organization,
even corporate organizations as well.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Now, you had done this work on this particular story
while working for Fox News, but then you had moved
over to CBS News. And how far after this story breaks, thinking,
were you laid off by CBS News?
Speaker 4 (06:07):
This story was.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
In the media, I want to say at the end
of last year, it was, and then I was laid
off in February. And after I was laid off was
when I was actually held in contempt of court.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
So this has been a really crappy year for you,
Catherine Harritt, not the best year ever.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
You know.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Sofore, it's been.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
A very would I'll say that it's been a very
eventful year. I did lose my job at CBS News.
I still remained very proud of the work that we
did there, especially with veterans.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
This was work that impacted a million service members and
their families. But the same month that I was terminated,
I also had my record seized by CBS News. These
were investigative reporting files, including confidential source information. I'm thankful
that they were returned to me, but only after a
public backlash and the intervention of my union sag AFTRA,
(07:02):
and then I was held in contempt of court just
within about two weeks of losing my job. What I
will say is that when you go through as many
life events as I have in the last six months,
it gives you a lot of clarity. And I feel,
really with all my heart the importance of the First
(07:23):
Amendment of free press.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
I mean, they really are my guiding principles. Now my
north Star.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Well as more than one of my texters, is giving
me a variation of Mandy. I really miss Catherine Herridge.
I know I butchered the spelling, but she's always been
a great investigative reporter. The landscape in your field has changed.
It used to be that if you did not work
for a network or you didn't work for a channel,
then you didn't work. But now there are more opportunities.
So what are you doing now? Are you pursuing individual projects,
(07:52):
are you working with maybe a more independent news network,
or what's happening with Catherine Herridge.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Well, I decided, after.
Speaker 3 (08:04):
All of the events of this year, and having so
much clarity about independent journalism and accountability and the importance
of a free press, that I've decided to launch under
my own Bane or Catherine Harris Reports, and we publish
our investigations on x We launched our first in June,
(08:28):
which was an investigation into COVID vaccine injury in the
US military. This is a difficult topic, but we had
a lot of confidence that we could launch this project
on X and we could do so without fear of censorship,
and that we could have a really candid conversation about
the impact.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
And I'm really.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Pleased to report that we had full engagement with the
Defense Department and the Department of the Army on this
soldier's case, and after our investigation, they expedited the review
of her military records, and they ended up giving her
full benefits for a debilitating heart condition that left her
with a pacemaker at twenty four seemed very literally linked
(09:12):
to the vaccine. So Number one, we got a great
result for this soldier. Number two, the Department of the
Army and the Defense Department really listened to what we
get found in our investigation, regardless of whether we were
working under the umbrella of a big corporate network like
CBS News or whether I was working independently. And that's
(09:33):
the kind of results driven reporting that I want to see,
and I think the landscape has really shifted and that
door has opened for independent journalists like my Smeuth or
smaller independent newsrooms.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Well, it doesn't hurt that you've already got an established
reputation that is a very strong reputation. So I'm glad
you're continuing on what's the handle for your Catherine Herridge
reports on.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
X SO it's Catherine Double Underscore Herriage H she are R, I,
D G E. And we do subscriptions as well, because
they're sort of behind the scenes and bonus content that
we provide.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
But most of all, you know, we ask.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
People to support this kind of independent journalism, which he's
very fact based and accountability driven journalism.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
And I've been really heartened by the response.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Our first project was over three million views, and that
was encouraging. But what was even more encouraging was that
we got a result for this young woman, and that
was accountability and it was about seeing the government do
the right thing by her.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
How comfortable are you being the story?
Speaker 3 (10:42):
Not really very comfortable. I've become more comfortable as the
year has has gone on. It's you know, it's been
hard personally this this year. It's not been easy because
you know, one of our I testified to Congress earlier
this year and I shared with them at that time.
I'm that one of our children asked me when I
(11:02):
was subpoenat and going through this process, this litigation over
the disclosure of confidential sources, he said, you know, Mom,
are we going to lose our house? So we're going
to lose our savings, everything that you've worked for to
protect your sources. And I wanted to say that in
this country, where we say we value democracy in a
(11:24):
free press, that it was impossible, but I couldn't offer
that assurance.
Speaker 4 (11:29):
And what he said to me is he said, you
do what it takes. I've got your back.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
And I thought, if a teenager can really understand the
importance of protecting confidential sources and the free of information
to the public and what role it plays in democracy,
certainly Congress can pass the Press Act. This is a
piece of litigation that is sitting in the Senate right now,
and it would create a federal shield law for reporters,
something that exists in almost every state but does not
(11:55):
exist at the federal level.
Speaker 1 (11:57):
Gatherine, I want to come back to something you mentioned
kind of in Pawer saying, and that was that CBS
seized your records when you were laid off. Now they say, hey,
we just went into Catherine's office, we boxed everything up
with HR because that's the procedure when someone is laid off,
and then we sent it to her.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
How long was the lag time.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Between you being, you know, walked out of the buildings
as they do, and when you received all of your
data and information and all of your stuff.
Speaker 3 (12:27):
Well, what I've always tried to be respectful of my
former employers. What i will say is that CBS's public
explanation at the time just illustrated to me that it
was a news organization that had a very.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
Difficult relationship with the facts. That is not what happened.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I was told that my job was a difficult relationship
with the fact That is not what happened. I was
pardon me, I was locked out of my email and
locked out of the office. And if it had not
been for the intervention of the union and the public backlash,
I may never have seen those records again. And this
(13:09):
idea that CBS just sought to secure the records is
undercut by the internal communications with the union and.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
Sort of myself as well. So that's all I'm going
to say.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
I thought that the seizure of the records was a
red line that should never be crossed, and that for
the network of Walter Cronkite to see these investigative reporting
files was really an attack on investigative journalism.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
It's sad the way that the circle of the wagon's
mentality sometimes you lose sight of how damaging this ruling
against you is for all of their journalists as well,
right and every other journalist in the country who relies
on confidential sources. Can I ask you one journalistic question
that I just want an answer to and that is
(13:55):
when you get information from a confidential source, what happens
at that point? Do you then take that and run
with it? Do you then begin the process?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
I'm verifying.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
We can't go there, Okay with litigation.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Now I understand, no problem.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Now, if you want to hear more from Catherine or
have a chance to meet and say hello, she is
going to be at the Steamboat Conference's Freedom Conference this
at the end of this month. Now, Catherine, you've ever
been to this event before?
Speaker 4 (14:23):
No, I have not. I'm really looking forward to it.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
It is the absolute best. It is my favorite nerd
event all year. Forget the White House Correspondence. This is
so much fun because they bring in great speakers on
a huge variety of topics, yourself included, and it's in
the most beautiful setting you will ever see. So I
hope you enjoy your time in Beaver Creek and enjoy
your time at the Steamboat Conference.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Now what, let me make sure I've got this right.
You are understood.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (14:51):
I just one final thought.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
I just if there's one thing that people can take
away from our conversation, is that what's happening with the
First Amendment and a free press, and the pret action
of confidential sources is so much bigger than my case,
and it's so much bigger than a single network or
a single series of stories. This is about protecting a
fundamental tool of investigative journalism that keeps the public informed
(15:15):
and that is the bedrock of our democracy.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
The Twitter handle at c underscore Herriage correct, Just to
make sure I have the right one.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Double double underscore h double underscore sounds yes, ce double
underscore Heriage at Twitter.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
It popped right up when I am Yeah, got that, Catherine.
Thank you for making time today and obviously we'll all
be watching to find the resolution of this case, and
hopefully thank you rather than later.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
All right, that's Catherine Herridge.
The Mandy Connell Podcast News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.