"...Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us."Yeah, that's not how the First Amendment works. Legal precedent has repeatedly made it clear that the First Amendment offers the same protection to the press as to the public, even when it comes to possessing or distributing illegally obtained material (just as long as you weren't directly involved in the theft of the material in question). In its 2001 Bartnicki v. Vopper decision, the Supreme Court rejected even civil liability for distributing illegally obtained cellphone recordings, and refused to differentiate the public from the media in its ruling:
"The . . . question is whether the application of these statutes [that purport to ban distributing illegally obtained material, even when one wasn’t involved in the distribution,] in such circumstances violates the First Amendment. [Footnote: In answering this question, we draw no distinction between the media respondents and Yocum.]"As the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal's law blog were quick to highlight, that case cited New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which also treated press outlets and the public equally in the eyes of the law in such situations. The Supreme Court's Pearson v. Dodd ruling also makes clear that the possession of illegally leaked materials is simply not treated the same way as knowingly possessing physical, stolen property.