relates to the american people concerning what if any relati relationship they had. so i gather, fredricka that the president s lawyers felt that it was time to get involved in this and take some control over it, and bring it to private arbitration which the agreement all allows by the way, but it will bring it out of the public view and into a forum that is away from any of us to see, participate or listen. it is largely a futile effort to stop the 60 minutes interview from happening? i think so. the reality is that we have such a strong and free press, and as result of that, this is what is called the prior restraint. you can t in anticipation of a press interview being aired to the american people decide, hey, i want to stop this. there was a case a long time ago, fredricka, and you heard about the pentagon papers involving national security secrets, and so that the washington post and the new york times were going to report
yet you collaborated with the new york times to help produce a number of stories of late that not only revealed what was happening with the nsa but with also its british counterpart, the gshq. why embark on that collaboration? there came a point we thought this would be a difficult story to report from london alone. so there were two reasons. one was that it was good to have a separate set of eyes on these documents and the reporters and the new york times brought expertise and depth to our own reporting. the other was that it was becoming impossible to report from london. there are a different set of media laws in london. there is a concept of prior restraint, ie the government can interfere to try and stop you for from publishing which just simply doesn t exist in the u.s. there came a point where it made
some kind of an order is ludicrous on its face, number one. number two, you can t tell somebody that they can t talk. that s called prior restraint. you re only kind of remedy for that is to sue for damages later on. so, this is a long way from over and, you know, notwithstanding all of the ethical issues, the fact that they are claiming to have won an arbitration is almost laughable. dana, just politically how big a problem is this for the president or is it? does anyone care? well, there are two questions, right. there is a legal problem and there is a political problem, which they are separate questions i think at this point. the legal problems i m going to leave it up to the lawyers to answer that question. certainly seems that there are potential issues, particularly with what you were talking about earlier, anderson, which is did he sign this, did he sign it under an alias, did he even know about it, all of those questions. the political question is, is something we don t rea
trump and michael cohen? it s not even a close call. stormy daniels does. first of all, in california generally, as a general rule, the arbitrator does not have the ability to issue what s called injunctive relief. so this idea that somehow they ran into adr, that they got some kind of an order, is lewd cuudi on its face, number one. number two, you can t tell somebody that they can t talk. that s called prior restraint. your only kind of remedy for that is to sue for damages later on. so this is a long way from over, and, you know, notwithstanding all of the ethical issues, the fact that they are claiming to have won an arbitration is almost laughable. dana, politically how big a problem is this for the president, or is it? i mean does anyone care? there are two questions, right if there s a legal problem, and then there s a political problem, which they are separate questions, i think, at this point. the legal problem, i m going to leave it up to the lawyers to answer that ques