our department of justice should be able to do in the interest of public safety. but this first amendment thing is not agile. this is really serious. this sends a chill, particularly john through the journalistic merchant community that the report is that mansion. that s exactly right, ali. i think we with reporters there is explicit first amendment protection of the press, with reporters i think it s an easier case. don t go after reporters records. that is not an investigative tool when you re looking at the reach of national security information. you can come up with a case, let s imagine that a member of congress i don t think this is ever happened. let s just imagine a member of congress decides to sell for the american nuclear codes for 1 million dollars. okay. but this is not that. this is not. that adam schiff, eric swalwell, what do they have? they were probably the most vocal democrats in opposition to donald trump. what do we know?
content involved but simply because of cnn, and the fact that president trump makes it clear again and again on twitter that he thinks cnn s coverage of him is unfair. i do want to address the elephant in the room here. there s been a lot of reporting and speculation whether this is all about cnn and frankly, i don t know. but nobody should be surprised that the question keeps coming up because we ve witnessed such an abrupt change in the application of antitrust law here but the bottom line is, that we cannot and we will not be party to any agreement that would even give the perception of compromising the first amendment protection of the press. so any agreement that results in us forfeiting control of cnn whether directly or indirectly is a nonstarter. we believe quite strongly that any deves tour of at&t assets or time warner assets is not required by the law.