a," then, theresa may takes questions from the house of commons. then, a discussion on u.s. policy towards russia and ukraine. ♪ q and a,"eek on " edward jay epstein discusses his book "how america lost its secrets: edward snowden, the man and the theft." edward jay epstein, in your opinion, why did president obama pardon edward snowden? president obama, in this case was the man who knew too much. unlike the world of journalism, the world president -- of

access to, they have the findings of our own intelligence communities, the cia, the nsa, that the eye. so he knew without a doubt that snowden was lying when he came the u.s. that government, specifically obama, tracked him in moscow. he knew he was lying when he said he had no contact with russian intelligence. he is known and was leinonen -- was lying when he said he had only taken whistleblowing documents. even compassion, and no present to give him a pardon, and he did not give him a pardon. >> your book, called "how america lost its secrets: edward ,"owden, the man and the theft when did you get interested in doing this story? dr. epstein: i have always been interested in espionage.

i temporarily interrupted my interest when the cold war ended. it was suddenly announced that someone had stolen communication snowden and facts admitted it on video. there was no whodunit, and went to russia. this interested me because it was a potential -- i stress the word potential -- espionage case. i became involved in 2013, shortly after the theft. many countries did you go to to do the stories? japan, where snowden had works, hawaii, the scene of the crime. russia, of course, where he ended up. so i would say three different countries. >> as you know, a lot of reviewers -- there is a whole group of people that do not

think you have done a fair job. they think you are biased. the front page the book review times," by nick don't knowsays you what you are talking about. what is going on with the negative journalism? dr. epstein: i have been concerned with a single issue -- how unverified information becomes established as conventional wisdom. it started with the warren commission, went on to the black panthers, and of course soviet disinformation. in all of these years, i have never seen a case where the snowden case -- so uncritically, journalists have accepted information from a single source , edward snowden, who is in

moscow under the control of the russian government. so what i am doing here is questioning the validity of that single source. so many journalists have tied -- the author of that review was the head of the pulitzer prize committee that gave pulitzer prizes to several authors. the reaction to me is what theness you have disturbing peace? what business do you have saying the conventional knowledge is wrong? they have a perfect right to question my facts, to even question my motives. but my motives are clear. i am doing exactly what "the new i wasimes" review said doing. i'm not taking at face value the and iof edward snowden, am basically looking at what the government, which has access to information that journalists

don't, what the government has found about snowden. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth, but is this a case where the liberal point of view says he is a whistleblower and the conservative point says he committed treason? dr. epstein: there is a rift here, a great divide. i am not sure it is only the liberals. i think the general wisdom has gone being on the liberal/right wing. i think there is a libertarian streak, a privacy streak, and a commitment to journalism as a religious institution, where you have to have faith in other journalists. if a journalist wins the pulitzer prize, they have to somewhat know what they are talking about, even though i am trying to say that the emperor morneau close. , they these journalists had only a single source other than the documents.

legitimate,s are but aside from that the narrative comes entirely from snowden. >> what do you think of him? dr. epstein: snowden? i think he was a disgruntled employee who didn't like the nsa . he was working for a private company. he started more like you said he started. he held anti-surveillance parties in hawaii, got angrier and angrier, and left with the documents. he wound up in the situation in are what where you russia -- where his only in was to russia. went to russia, and the home of the russian intelligence services hands, and they are going to squeeze them. that is what they do. that is what we would do in reverse situation.

i never interviewed snowden, not that that would help, and i only know the same things from the video clips that everyone else has seen. >> how hard did you try to interview him? dr. epstein: i went to moscow twice. i met with his lawyer in moscow, who was very helpful but said his aclu lawyer in america has the keys to seeing snowden. lawyer, wrote to that snowdenaid declined to see me. so that is as far as i went. >> when all of this became public in "the guardian," the " the washington post," there was an interview with snowden. let's watch a little bit of that from 2013. >> my name is ed snowden.

i am 29 years old. i work for booth allen hamilton as an infrastructure analyst for an essay in hawaii -- for the nsa in hawaii. water -- >> what are some positions you have held previously you go -- previously? >> senior adviser for the avtral intelligence solutions control center, and telecommunication system officer. >> who is this fellow? in the clips we have just seen, he tells a lie. he said he was a senior advisor to the cia. what he was was a communications a hack, what is called working at the cia for two years and was actually forced out. he was not a senior adviser, but that is not my complaint.

the interesting thing about this video is that he made it. if snowden had gone directly to moscow or if any intelligence officers had gone directly to moscow, a narrative would be established. u.s. intelligence workers steal secrets, go to moscow. but he stopped in hong kong and made this video. supplying, just as we have seen, alternative video where the self-interested party identifies himself as a whistleblower. from this video and the story he , i think he was honestly reported. i have no complaints against the took this single source, a great story, and ran with it because the government did not immediately respond. they were shellshocked, and

people found they were not credible. they did not like the u.s. government. at that point, the story became established. this is the way he established his narrative. --how dutch did he move out how much did he move up the database at the nsa and how did he do it? despite what snowden says and despite what his supporters say based on what 1.5 millionremoved documents, a vast patch of secret documents. the way i know this is this is in the report of the house permanent select committee on intelligence, signed by all the democrats and all the republicans. these members of this commission had only one source essentially, and that was the u.s. intelligence community.

they read the damage reports, ok? that is my source. the more interesting question is what was the intelligence damage assessments based on? each compartment from which snowden stole information how to , and the log log said when he copied, selected, and moved the documents, so that is how they knew the minimum number of documents he moved. , he hade he was working what was called a thin computer. that is a computer without any storage capabilities or ports, so you cannot make copies because it was such a high-security facility. so he had to move the information with this workstation to a server and from that server, where he raced the erasehe had to move it --

the data, he had to move it to another computer which was approximately 20 miles away where he had previously worked. to a thick computer that had ports so he could make some drives orthumb external drives. so the nsa -- or the apartment -- department of defense, was able to trace the movement of information, how much he moved, from onehe moved computer to another. that is how they came to the 1.5 million. pick thed he -- how did he pick those people to release this to? dr. epstein: he wrote to laura poitras, who had been making

anti-nsa films, and said you selected yourself because of the work you had done. he picked them because he knew they would be on his side. he knew they were actually all courageous reporters. films whichs made she found, and she believed that she was under surveillance with good reason, possibly. and glenn greenwald was her friend, became a co-author and cowriter. he also wrote to lenox about the -- the nsa, and this pulitzer prize author who had also been writing about the valence -- surveillance. he knew three people would be sympathetic to what he was about to do, and in his first communications with them, he lied to them. he said he was a government

--loyee -- which he was not who is a senior member of the intelligence community -- which he was not. he did not belong. agencies make up the intelligence community and he did not belong to any of them. administratority from an outside contractor of the nsa. >> the three people that were this is from a "new york times" hosted skype discussion among the three. the first reaction of mark, and. >> [indiscernible] to latin america, where he was on a train to russia.

the government canceled his passport, and [indiscernible] bringiberately did not any of the documents with him to russia come up with the express purpose of making sure that he could not he compelled to disclose them. of those bring any documents. backam holding some tweets from early january from mark ellman about your book. have you read those? dr. epstein: no, i don't do twitter. >> these are quite critical. he was talking to -- about things that you dispute. dr. epstein: this is a good illustration of the snowden narrative. he destroyed all his material because he went to russia.

he did not transfer any material to the cloud or anything. snowden gave the russians nothing. can only come and from a single source, and that is snowden. now gelman is repeating what snowden said. what i found is the opposite. i will give you four bits of direct bits of evidence that we may not believe, but they come from witnesses. .irst, vladimir putin he said snowden had contacted ,ussian diplomat's -- diplomats who authorized him -- snowden to come to russia. so he was in contact with russian officials.

gujarati, whenly asked if snowden had given all in documents to journalists hong kong, he said no, he gave only some of them. had asked whether snowden brought -- he was in moscow at the time -- he brought documents to moscow or had them in moscow, undisclosed documents were secret material, i should be per site. -- precise. and he said yes. >> and this is his lawyer? dr. epstein: yes. we had overseas intelligence -- france, others who said snowden shared his intelligence with russian intelligence.

they said that is when whatligence -- intelligence services do. i think he was correct. and we of the house select committee report -- have the house select committee report, snowden was in contact with russian intelligence after he arrived in moscow, and continues to be in contact with them. this report was declassified in 2016.er 22, whatever snowden brought or did not bring to moscow, he had the grids in his head. in his he did -- secrets head. he said he did. he said he could make the nsa go dark. he said the same thing to gelman and everyone else, so the russians knew he had secrets in his head.

the assertion that he gave nothing to the russian, the assertion we have seen in that video, comes from snowden, and i don't believe snowden. >> where is he right now? dr. epstein: snowden is in moscow at an undisclosed location, under the protection of the russian government. >> mark gilman and his tweets, i will redo a couple of them. this is january the first -- read you a couple of them. no time, space, or inclination. past a certain point, that faith work doesn't marry the effort -- merit the effort. dr. epstein: the ad hominem attacks -- i can't really say very much about gellman.

he has a basically almost religious commitment to his faith in the person who gave him this pulitzer prize. they believe in him. go -- argue with someone with faith, you are automatically wrong because you are violating what they believe in. i think this is become it religious matter. that's a religious matter. anyone who contradicts snowden, gellman also attacked them with the same vicious comments. >> he said it was an awful report. dr. epstein: they declassified , and the summary of the report, and having not read the attacked it with the same slurs he attacked me with. here is a specific. >> you can answer this one.

he says in another tweet " snowden, epstein's book says, -- unreachable level three secret that only a spy could want. there is no such category at the nsa. " in your book is a level 1, 2, and three. he says there is no such thing. from thein: this comes former director of the nsa, the former director of intelligence, michael mikado -- mikado -- michael mcconnell, in which he says there were four levels. the first level is administrator isument, the second level documents or material from which the source has been removed, which is what they circulate. a leveld level, i call three, he might call it the third tier, is information that

still has the sources included in them, and the fourth level is so secret that mcconnell cannot say in the wall street journal what it is. so there is level three, whether it is called tier three, third tier, whatever. >> there is this clip of glenn greenwald talking -- what harm has the release of this all this done? what the specific arm has it done to this country and the people? dr. epstein: two different worlds. in the world of intelligence, 1.5 million documents were removed. roughly, work, given to -- were given to journalists. we don't know what happened to the rest, whether he gave them to the russians, whether the chinese make copies of them in

hong kong, we don't know. but the intelligence is compromised. it is not that they will check down the channel, but they will use it to tell you misinformation. as if the mafia found out the fbi was tapping a phone, it wouldn't unplug the phone because they would cap another phone, they would keep talking over it. damages harder to assess and the intelligence world. the second is the world of counterterrorism. there, we can assess the damage. one of the programs is called programsm, one of the basically was intercepting the internet, foreign internet while it was still unencrypted. they were able to do that through the structure of the internet, because it takes about 90% of the material through the united dates on the way --

states on the latest companies like google, facebook, twitter, whatever. .hose companies encrypted -- encrypt it. but before it gets to them, it is in plain text. the nsa was intercepting those intercepting communications between bomb makers in pakistan and operatives in america who were going to set up the bombs. one example of the pakistan bomb maker communicating with an american of afghan descent in colorado who was planning to blow up penn station, grand on septemberon, 11, 2009. this information was shared with and the guy fbi, was arrested before he could detonate the bomb. becausegedy was averted the program was still secret.

their messagesw were being intercepted in this way. when snowden publicly revealed it, and revealed it in the video of hong kong which we have seen here, once he revealed it they switched to encrypt in -- encryption. they began encouraging it -- encrypting it from the moment it was sent from their phone to when it was received by the operative. allies -- so now the nsa and all of its allies lost the vantage of finding out in advantage of what terrorists were up to. so that can be measured. >> glenn greenwald, from the same conversation that was held through "the new york times." >> he published many pokers of top-secret -- hundreds of top-secret documents, and

[indiscernible] what was non-newsworthy but will avoid harming innocent people. i think we have done a very good and the proof of that -- there is zero. that little bit, but zero, -- stories have caused harm to individuals or endanger national security in any way. the same terms of transparency that no other specific harm has come to freedom. dr. epstein: what grand greenwald is saying -- glenn ringwald is saying is that the documents they published did not compromise any intelligence operation. a very respected blog, which is partly sponsored by brookings

institute, found that was not true. they had compromised military blowns, agents names, ongoing operations, given away basis, compromised allies like british and in raise israeli -- israeli intelligence services, and they can be found on that blog. thatld answer very simply my comp rising the prism program , -- compromising the prism actram, part of the riser to.fizer act it refers they basically compromise the entire war on terrorism. i am not sure if glenn greenwald

did, because snowden had compromised in his video from hong kong. i would attribute it to greenwald, and i think he is doing what he says he is doing. he is publishing documents that he thinks expose secrets. i am not blaming him for doing that. i don't blame us on -- assange. once documents get weeks, stolen in this case, and given to journalists, i think we accept that journalists will publish them, even if it is buzzy feedshing -- buzz publishing a dossier from an undisclosed source. i think that is what queen greenwald. -- glenn greenwald did. brazil, andin

writes for "the guardian" newspaper in london? dr. epstein: he moved to brazil for personal reasons. , i believe, still based there. i am much or he is still writing for "the guardian." he has his own website called -- internet by billionaire, and i think he spends most of his articles. >> did you ever speak to him? dr. epstein: no. desk personversus is laura poydras. what you know about her? she is ain: documentary filmmaker who, during the iraq war, was unfairly suspected of collaborating with the iraqi extremists, al qaeda.

i do not think she was. and she was then on a watchlist and tracked, and got more and more concerned about the security of herself. she was spending five years on a nsa,ct to investigate the and she made a documentary, which i have seen and i like, called "citizen for," and again i think are documentary honestly reflected what snowden said. it was fairly edited and i think she deserves the oscars she won. from thousand 15 from the canadian broadcasting 2015 from the canadian corporation -- broadcasting corporation. thank you and be careful, r.tizen for -- fou

snowden.e is edward i go by and. of the you suspicious sender of the emails in the beginning? >> i knew that was legitimate it would be dangerous, and i had to be very careful. >> he literally asked if he was trying if -- if you are trying to trick him? >> he literally asked how to i know this is not entrapment? documentary --e she used her emails snowden center. her.nt in those emails, he begins by lying that he is a government only. -- employee. you can see him at manipulating her by saying you are under surveillance, and in those emails she sewed how she contacted greenwald and gelman.

she put together what later became his network. -- and then she explains how they came to hong kong and interviewed him, and you see what you provided was his alternative narrative. it is a narrative i don't accept because it comes from a single source, and the single source went to russia. your book, among other things, with a quote from cfd -- thises quote. why? dr. epstein: he is a with committing a horrible crime, murder. he never planned to do it and his anger at the system becomes such that innocent people suffer. >> the quote is "there are

certain persons who are perfect ofht to commit breaches morality and crimes, and a law is not for them." that is the position of snowden, greenwald, and gellman. a single person is justified in knowing what information will and one great. in america, we have a president .ho is alert and -- elected we have congressional committees that do oversight of the intelligence community. we have a huge compliance machine of literally thousands .f people in the nsa the compliance is not only the nsa, but the inspector general, department of defense is esther general,- inspector and a committee that reports directly to the president. it is not perfect, but the same

who is not even working for the nsa, but for a private company, says he will declassify all of i don't care, and i will take it with me to hong kong, which is part of china? and i will go to russia. is no more than a character in crime and punishment. >> what in his background did you find interesting? snowden -- let me go back to step. missed it is lee harvey oswald, i found friends of his , friends of his from the marine corps, from workplaces, about 87 people who spoke to me and became part of my book. with snowden, it was the exact opposite. yes, he dropped out of high

school in his first year. i cannot find any people who could say anything about him. i couldn't find anyone in the military because new privacy laws made it very impossible. >> he was in the military? dr. epstein: for about four months yeah. >> why did he leave? dr. epstein: he says he left because he injured his feet in a parachute jump may be, i don't know. he got an administrative discharge that says he was not the for the military. he then joined the cia, and there i have more information about him, because basically what happened in the cia is that .e began violating their rules different forms of hacking into , and they basically said unless you resign, we are going to start an investigation

of you, which would have basically destroyed him, even if they found he would -- was innocent. he resigned from the cia, and in looking at his postings on the internet. he was a very unhappy employee. >> what is the difference between the cia and the nsa? as apstein: the cia foreign intelligence service. the nsa has two missions. to protect internet communications, internet, telephone, government communications. the second started out as code intoing, but has evolved basic intercepting of all electronic communications, the entire spectrum, or are they are

, -- wherever they are, and it is the queen on the chessboard because every other american intelligence service and our nsa.s depend on the they need to intercept through some phone conversation, internet communication, or some telemetry, so the nsa is agency.y a super spy it is limited to foreign intelligence. it is not supposed to do in a surveillance -- any surveillance on persons in america. >> cia? dr. epstein: no. the cia is also limited that it butot surveillance america, the fbi can go from anywhere. >> from your knowledge, how much does this country spend on intelligence? dr. epstein: snowden published

budgets from 2012, and i would you could be wrong, but with a guest, $10 billion. it might be much greater than you defineing on how homeland security, but $10 billion, $20 billion, a lot of money. is that a black budget? dr. epstein: it is a black budget. how we deal with government secrets is they are not secret from congress. congress appoints to committees senate,78, house and permanent subcommittees which have the classifications necessary to look at the black budget. but yes, they are secret of the public. videoant to show you some of the last time i saw you, when you did a book on arm and hammer , and here is 1996 in december.

>> what you do for a living? dr. epstein: i am an author. >> what are the kind of things your written about over the years? dr. epstein: i have written books on conspiracy in intrigue. assassination, the cia, the kgb. i have also written books about business, the rise and fall of ,iamonds, the takeovers mergers, and acquisitions, and books but the media. >> what year did you do "news from nowhere?" dr. epstein: that was my phd thesis at harvard, so my investigation where i sat in different networks was done from 69-71, and the thesis was finished in 1972, 19 73, and

published in 1974. >> when did you graduate from cornell? 1964, i left for a butyears, graduated late, -- the story as you working for the author of "lolita?" dr. epstein: i was a sophomore. i was taking his class, and through -- he asked me if i would like to go to the movie theaters and give him a short review of four movie theaters in him --t if, and tell aca, and tell him what the

best movie was playing because he and his wife only had time for one. >> what do you remember him best about him the most? dr. epstein: i remember all of his lectures, because he was wifeic lecturer, and his would never turn to me, she would keep looking at her husband. and when i said something very stupid about the movie "queen of spades," i still regret saying it. said, i said it reminded me of [indiscernible] and he got very interested because he was thinking of some connection, and asked me why, and i honestly were wide --

replied because they are both russian. i could see his face dropped, and she looked at me like what kind of idiot are you? book, it's "how america lost its secrets: edward snowden, the man and the theft." what number is that? >> i think it is my 15th long book published by a publisher. >> have you been able to make above money over the years to survive -- writing over the years to survive? dr. epstein: yes. >> did you have to do other things along the way geico dr. epstein: -- way? dr. epstein: i like doing other things. i have done other things, written columns for manhattan inc. and for slate on different hollywood,usiness in

but i have supported myself through my books. >> do you still live in new york city? dr. epstein: the same apartment you visited me in new york city when you were taking the wraps for your book -- photographs for your book. >> that was a long time ago. anyway, let's go back to this other story, and here is oliver stone and a clip of him talking. i will ask you what your interaction was with him. >> at hit of 21 years old, what he did is stunning to me because no matter what you think of him, it takes tremendous courage to turn your back on a life that is spoiling you. good money, jobs, and physicians, and on top of that , and onome -- positions top of that he has a home in hawaii, on the go to list, and he is making more money than he ever made, and he felt that they wrote this constitution and

blood. they meant it. said that i pledged that loyalty to the investigation. that is a good point to make. the nsa has its own set of laws which you broke, but he never wrote the of to the constitution. many courts have supported that because they says it has been unconstitutional. >> what did you think about his movie "snowden?" dr. epstein: oliver stone is very interesting and very good filmmaker. "snowden,"n he does what he does in his movies. --is a fictional trail portrayal. even when he does the reenactment of laura richardson become a citizen -- laura

fortresses -- laura poitras' like a scene snowden frontys his hard drive in of the other journalists. he adds scenes, and if you ask , he says this is fiction. and it is fiction. he is entitled: see labels it fiction, he is entitled to make the movie as he likes. i do like his movie and one reason i recommend it is because it best encapsulates the false narrative of snowden. he did spend a lot of time with snowden. , or his phonelion topany paid $1 million,

snowden's lawyer to give him access not only to snowden, but to block the access for a competing movie that were going was going to be made by sony and mgm. he did have access, did get ifwden's story, but again you accept snowden's story, case closed. whichn gives his story in he supplied no information to anyone but journalists. that is contradicted by even russians, and it's basically, i don't think it is true. it is not that i don't believe over stone stones movie, i don't believe snowden. -- oliver stones movie, i don't believe snowden. >> how much of this is tied to a group of people who all reinforce each other?

when you go back to the 11 who used to -- nick levin, who used to run this journalist school, and mark gelman, who has some of the documents, got a pulitzer prize, and charlie savage, a new york times , and then you take oliver stone, they all seem to think about the same thing, and you're the first one to give another side to it. how much of that is tied to nick levin used to seeing the over desk full of surprises. -- pulitzer prizes. dr. epstein: i would include nick levin, because this is what he felt. in -- do fito fit in to a snowden circle, where

they have staked their reputations on what snowden says, and it strikes me -- ,uzzles me that the same people journalists in america, that embrace the findings of u.s. intelligence that the russians were behind the hacks of a democratic national committee and other hacks that influence the election, while they would accept these findings they reject the same findings that are in the house select committee reports completely, not to mention reject my book because what i am saying -- the entire book says one thing. the conventional wisdom about snows in -- snowden is wrong. it is based on a single source,

on snowden. he is not only a self-interested party, but the russians have created the myth of snowden. nowas a global platform and tweets about ma looking -- american surveillance from russia. commitment,e is a not a political commitment, but a commitment to receive wisdom of the press. 2015 inis from july of the middle of the presidential campaign. it is our now president donald trump. i think he is a total traitor, and i would deal with impartially. i would get along with putin. i have dealt with russia. he would be absolutely fine. he would never keep someone like snowden and russia. he hates obama, doesn't respect obama, and has no respect for

obama and a hatred for obama, and [indiscernible] if i am president, prudence is desperate and says hey, you happen. i guarantee you that. what president trump is saying is that putin did not, unlike other spies who got caught or leakers who got caught, he did not face a court process. he didn't face justice. instead, he basically went to an adversary nation and the benefits of going there. i don't use words like traitor. they are legal concepts. i believe snowden trade secrets -- secrets sequence that he signed an oath to protect. he might have thought he was above the law, the constitution said he was above the law.

punishment," one of the characters believed he was above the law. there is a moral duty that goes leon -- beyond the law. would trade secrets that basically blew a large part of the war on terrorism, and blew all the sources that the nsa and thedepartment of defense -- 900,000 military documents, all the sources they believed, rightly or wrongly, that he had compromised. once a source compromised, you have to kill it and find some way to replace it. --did it normative damage enormous damage, and i don't even know if his supporters say he did no damage. they say he did a norm is good. that is their view. he did some get -- good by starting a national conversation.

were trump is right is that this man has not faced justice and deserves to face justice, whatever we decide that to be. the jury acquitted o.j. simpson, they might acquit him. had cameras following you around in moscow, hong kong, and so on. what is going to happen to that material? two very talented filmmakers are making a documentary about me. they have completed it. it, i begin the yourentary with their -- 1996 interview of me. i wanted to see how i went about my investigation, so they followed me around on certain parts of my trip to japan, hong .ong, moscow >> when are we going to see

this? dr. epstein: they have to arrange distribution. it is not my phone, it is their film. i am just an actor in a film about myself. >> what do you think will happen to edward snowden? dr. epstein: that is a good saytion, and i can only that i hope he is treated well in russia, because he is now a russian asset. i do not think the russians whatever return him to america -- would ever return him to america, even if donald trump gave him a pardon. i do not think they would return him because he knows too much. in the intelligence game, it is not what you know, it is what your opponents does not know -- opponent does not know you know. he would be debriefed in a very

intensive way if you returned to america. say what he actually did tell the russians, which would help us. i don't think he will come back, and i don't think the russians will do anything to eliminate him. >> you taught me something i didn't know, and if you watch russia today, there is a program called [indiscernible] that thatd no idea woman has a famous grandfather. dr. epstein: yes. her grandfather was the president of georgia, a very distinguished person in the cold war. i found her -- i spoke to her because her interview with snowden's lawyer, 10 weeks before he came to russia, was the last interview.

i was the only journalist that sophie, at least that i know of. in this interview, which is before the narrative took on this extra acts, that he destroyed all this information. before this, they had not spoken on the subject. snowden himself that he build a former u.s. senator -- had emailed a former u.s. senator, humphries. >> gordon humphries. dr. epstein: yes. >> how did he get into this? frompstein: the republican new hampshire. he had apparently shown some support for snowden, and as in the book, snowden in him back him backow, -- emailed from moscow, saying the intelligence he had was secure,

whatever that meant. hen then he didn't say destroyed everything, he said it was secure in his communications. sophiepoint that aterviewed the lawyer, it was wide-ranging interview about his -- it wasn't a hard-hitting interview. she asked him whether he had given all his documents to journalists, and he said no. he made it very clear to her that he only gave them some, as i said earlier, and then she -- rather surprised, she said so, you still have undisclosed documents? lawyer -- the lawyer answered, and that is why i to

moscow to see him. >> he is a russian lawyer? friend ofn: he is a prudence. he is a lawyer for prudence political party. -- putin's. he is a lawyer for putin's political party. ordinance noted in the money for his lawyer? -- where did snowden get the money for his lawyer? dr. epstein: there are different versions. snowden said he brought the money in cash to pay for his time in russia. if you pair -- carry a lot of cash on airplanes and have stolen a lot of secrets, have external hard drives, you are taking a risk. that is what snowden said. is that lawyer told me he has no money. he is absolutely broke and needs , and he was speaking in russians i am giving my interpretation. he desperately needs money, so

if you want to send him some money i will provide you with his defense committee. i will give you wiring instructions. thatrd possibility is since he has affected to russia and it is traditional to pay do, thes, we certainly russian government is paying for his apartment, bodyguard, and whatever other facility he needs. nobody knows where he lives, by the way. doesn't know, and oliver stone got as close to him as anyone. >> we are out of time. there is a lot more in this book. it is called "how america lost its secrets: edward snowden, the ," and oure theft guest has been edward jay epstein. thank you very much. dr. epstein: thank you for a

great interview. announcer: if you liked this q&a program, here are some others you might enjoy -- new york n ons reporter james ris his book, which looks at the cost of the war on terror around the world and in the u.s.

there is also author tim weiner talking about his book on the fbi and its history of fighting terrorists and spies. and journalist scott shane, who in a 2013 new york times story wrote about a former c.i.a. officer convicted of disclosing classified information to a reporter. you can find those interviews online at c-span.org. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, aonday political white house reporter takes a look at the week ahead on white house and capitol hill. then the partnership for public service ceo will be with us to discuss the presidential nomination process, social media communication, and trump administration's federal employee hiring freeze.

washington examiner economics writer will discuss the changing role of freddie mae and freddie mac in our weekly your money segment. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern monday morning. join the discussion. coming up next, prime minister's questions at the british house of commons. then a look at u.s. policy toward russia and ukraine. and at 11:00, another chance to see "q&a," with investigative journalist edward jay epstein. week, british prime minister theresa may faced questions on the uk's plan for exiting the european union. this happened to several hours before members voted in favor of legislation allowing the prime minister to officially begin the brexit process. it is 45 minutes.