Transcripts For CSPAN2 John Brennan Michael Morell And Andrew McCabe At George Mason University... 20240713

Important in washington d. C. Going on tonight, i think you know what im talking about. Thank you for coming. Im Mark Loiselle at this George Mason University and we author the intelligence policy and National Security that has put on a number of these wonderful programs in the last few years. Im flattered that his turnout and look very much forward to this event. For those of you who dont know George Mason University has a short School Policy government that provides academic programs in fairfax and Arlington Virginia and we have a number of her fashion of degree programs primarily taught in arlington and Public Policy Public Administration interNational Security studies which has been ranked number two by u. S. News and world report nationally that we are very proud of and i think the Michael Hayden sent her center for Security Policy studies a number of other entities at the school are a very important component of the recognition we have received for being leaders in the field of security studies. Again thank you for being here. I look forward to a great event that i want to acknowledge the presence of the provost of our University David willits. [applause] several members of our board of trustees also are here tonight. Thanks to them for attending this event as well. Most importantly i want to acknowledge the presence of the founder of the Michael Hayden center and his wife janine. General Michael Hayden and janine hayden. [applause] general hate and we are really proud to have you in the schar school. Michael has been teaching for us for the past 10 years and we look forward to him coming back to the classroom and i think he is a few words that he would like to say. Thank you again for coming. I think this is going to be a really interesting debut. Im looking forward to it. Thank you again. Thank you. [applause] [applause] there we go. All right so i just want to take another brief moment and acknowledge him. This gentleman has been through a lot in last year and this is one of this firsttime speak publicly since he suffered a stroke so one more round of encouraging thought. [applause] i know we are running a little bit behind so i will shorten my comments much to the pleasure of my management at the schar school. First i want to welcome you all here. I also would like to welcome the audience that is watching right now on cspan, channel 2. We are speaking to quite a large audience and i think thats a testament to the value of the material that the schar school in the Hayden Center is bringing forward. Secondly for those of you who are social media savvy would love you to tweet along in the event and putsomethings out there that reflect the comments of some of our speakers. If you look in your program hayden 20 20 vision and then say whatever the heck you want to say about the event that would be great. Later on we are going to have a section of the audience q a encouraging his eyes as questions. You probably noticed we have microphone stands and i always on these two sides so when Margaret Brennan indicates its time to ask questions might line up at the microphone to be prepared to ask a question. We would love you to identify yourself and if you have an affiliation you are proud of. Dont make a speech. If you want to make a speech talk to us later. Lastly we are going to have a reception for all the audience members and give you a chance to talk. Those of you who arent rushing home to watch the World Series Game but please exit the back doors for the reception and let our Panel Members and guests in the front row exit through the side door and i think it will make for a more pleasant experience for everybody. The Hayden Center we inform about intelligence. General hayden through his career i think was a little worried as to how intelligence is being portrayed across the nation often in a very negative light. The Hayden Center allows him and us to better inform the American People about the incredible value of the Intelligence Committee provides the nation and i think to emphasize the men and women who workmack the Intelligence Community are your neighbors and friends and your family. They are out there to do good for the country so we hope if you walk away with anything tonight youll walk away with that impression. This year were sponsoring a series where calling 20 20 vision. General hayden and i were a bit concerned with the lack of focus on National Security issues in the campaign so far. If you are like me and im guessing most of you are like me because youre here and not watching the baseball game you have been watching the president ial debates and much of the conversation is through a wave of National Security issues in my view a president can do the most good in the most harm in the National Security arena. Domestic issues, its a battle in congress but the president has a lot of authority in National Security and he can move very quickly in that arena. And so we thought we needed to do something about that and we decided to run a series of events and where calling 20 20 vision. The first of those where having tonight is looking at intelligence and the u. S. President ial election. The conversation will be guided by Margaret Brennan the moderator of cbs news face the nation. Shes been the moderator since 2181 of the longestrunning Television Shows in america. It goes back to 1954. Take it is today one of the most highly rated shows on sunday morning. Before that she was cbs News White House state Department Correspondent and before that cover Global Financial markets on bloomberg and cnbc. We have a powerhouse of until leaders. Their experience extends to the current day. I will let you read their bios in the program but i frankly think most of them dont require a lot of introduction. Im not going to spend a lot of time on introductions right now. We have john brennan former director of cia former assistant to the president for Homeland Security and counterterrorism in the longstanding 20 year career at the cia. John mclaughlin director central at taliban since with george tenet let the ic from 2000 to 2005 and incredibly trying times or nation serving as the acting director of Central Intelligence in his final months of his career and hes just a legend in the analytic trade analytic trade rev peer Michael Morell director ca from 2010 to 2013 serving prices are acting director also led the cias analytic career and service a brief for the president bush the only person with the president of the United States on 9 11 as well as with the president of the day we brought osama bin ladin to justice. Andrew mccabe Deputy Director of the fbi from 2016 to 20 teen serving as the acting director in 2017 after james comey was fired. He has had a storied career and counterterrorism let the fbi Security Branch in the Washington Field office played a Critical Role investigating the Boston Marathon bombing the attack in benghazi and the russian attack on our election in 2016. Please welcome our Panel Members are moderated to the stage and thank you. [applause] [applause] thank you all for coming out tonight and what an incredible lineup of panelists that we have here from the National Security community. We will be taking questions but im lucky that i get to sleep them off tonight. And i want to dive right in because theres there is so much a rich territory to mine here. When we look at the question of the Intelligence Community and how it impacts people with regard to election security. Can you help us at the table john brennan with the day in august of 2016 when you went to susan rice then National Security adviser and said, we have evidence that Vladimir Putin himself is directing election interference in this country. A few others to talk about what we had determined that the. In terms of the interference with the election. It was an effort to try to make sure that the president of the United States was aware of what it is that we know and what we assessed. And that the work that we need it to do, in order to try to get a better sense of what was going on. Making sure that the chief policymaker of whose country, and the information that he need it in order to safeguard one of the foundations of our democra democracy. It provides the americans to 20 representatives. The discussion that i had that small group and then to make some decisions about who else we need to breathe. The gang of eight. To make sure that our congressional leadership was unaware as well. And how we are going to ensure that we would work with our partners within the Intelligence Community. And those that have the expertise and capabilities as well is the responsible of these such is fbi and i would need to work whose effort collaboratively really and do it in a matter it was going to be apolitical. In an effort to try and ensure that the election, that went out that dive boat exploitation by the russians. And largely dead. Will is quite evident now after the molar report and other such things, that the russians did engage in a sweeping and systemic effort to try to influence election. In undermining the integrity. It was directed by len putin. Ive learned a lot of things since i left the government. I think the impact of the russians, the attempts and the impact on the boats is unavailable. It was something that we see i come in the rest of the intelligence, it did not assess and it was not ours possible the romantic, ive learned a lot about with the russians were doing in the digital environment is far is putting out these things and trying to influence the electorates receptions of the candidates in the situation of the United States. I am sure personally that is russian efforts changed the lines of at least one voter. Weather change the mind of one voter or a million voters, from what i dont know. But clearly, based on what it is that i have come to more fully appreciate especially what they have done, is far is pushing out the [applause], again, based on my intelligence background, i do think the votes were changed. How monday and which states, i dont know. And weather it mayday difference is far is the outcome, i dont know. I do know though that the russians have engaged in whose type of activity not just in the United States but abroad, and they would much prefer to shape the politics about the countries to whose insidious matter opposed to trying to use military pressure sometimes they opt with that. Place like ukraine. But they can shape the outcome of the selection in western countries, they have a toolkit of capabilities that they have leveraged. In 2016 election, they didnt do some of the things that we have seen them doing other places. I dont know weather or not that was the result of confronting them. I confronted one of my russian counterparts. In early august about it, jim and jay johnson came out with a statement in october. And president obama, embraced in wooten, so i dont know weather or not that is confrontation we had with russians, persuaded them from doing more things. People said that we did it try to solve russians. We did. And may be impacted the things he did have residents from a standpoint of the russians decided not to go into greater extent of business. Micro, we were together at cbs 2 as well, facebook sick today, then removed three russian that influence networks on a site that were aimed at african countries. In the networks were linked to a name that you know well. It was the same russian who was indicted by the United States and linked to some of what john brennan was just recalling from bunny 16. Some of the fact they are continuing to use the same tools, the same individual, that they are in russia and completely undeterred. I think its fair to see, for sauls great to be here. Whose is my fifth if it. Everyone it is been a pleasure and its great to see general hayden. Things fair to see that the russians in general have not been detoured. Its not only in africa, that they are continuing to use social media to try to influence populations to think and react to certain way. To raise debates in a wide cleavage is, they are still doing it here. Is we speak right now. Not only had they not stopped but we know from public testimony by the director of National Intelligence last january that others have seen the benefits of whose. Kinkos mentioned the chinese, red onions, north koreans, and he said and others. I know how carefully is right. I know that and others actually means something. There are other countries that he did not want to mention there also doing whose. Id be interested to know who they are. Probably some of our allies actually. Not only have the russians not been to george, because they havent been detoured, is now spreading becoming a larger problem. Whose is the new tool. It is a wellknown rival enemy to the United States. Why has there been more adaptation by the Intelligence Community to be able to figure out how that works. I think people are working on how to battle it. What we dont know, and with the Intelligence Community will talk about cant talk about it, is that they may or may not be doing offensively. Subpoint a part of the Cyber Operations that you just dont talk about publicly. But im quite sure that her Intelligence Community has brought relaxed about whose. And they are pillaged vigilant. The bigger problem is weather the u. S. Government is a whole can coordinate it in the absence of a cybersecurity coordinator, the white house, weather the u. S. Government can coordinate all the tools at its disposal to about the tack and combat what the russians will attempt to do. And while it is true, is john said, we cannot determine at whose. With confidence what effect they may have had, if you look at volume one of the molar report, which is very interesting. It is a gold mine. And you look the four states were pivotal in the outcome of the election, take michigan mr. Trump one in michigan by about 11000 volts at a roughly 45 billion that were cast. You cant be certain of that margin came from russian influence but we know from the bull report that evidently briefed the former russian Intelligence Officer on data on those for scream states. So it isnt much of a leap to see, whose could have had an impact. There were similar marches in pennsylvania and minnesota and wisconsin which also briefed and former Intelligence Officer russian. You are looking at someone who came from within the fbi and how to protect against the kind of inflows that was described here the debate in whose country often focuses on Weather Congress should pass laws to try to crack down on whose. It doesnt seem to be going anywhere. There isnt a lot of room for that. What can we do short of that legislatively give the fbi portals. When i talk to a lot of people from the obama administration, they have frustrations that when it came to recognition of patterns speaking to states in particular, was pushed back against the federal government trying to advise and how to protect against interference. Sure there is an easy answered to what tools or capabilities should the fbi have to do that work. More efficiently and more effectively. It is a pit beyond the scope of the traditional things of that. No question about that. Theres no question that should involve the legislative approach, we did encounter that sort of pushback and resistance that you refer to. But those are very broad kind of states rights issues that quite frankly, thats argue meant that the bureau has brought going to be able to settle in statebystate approach. We need a more consistent and cohesive approach to election securities at large. That involves not just cybersecurity, but in terms of all of the processes involved, and setting them up and registering voters and maintaining that information, and of course the electoral process rights. Swell place to respond to threats is they are perceived in cyberspace by her intel colleagues or hair in the ground is that information comes through us through informants and other means. But the kind of prophylactic measures try to get the states all on an even footing in terms of the approach election securities cybersecurity, that goes far beyond the bureau capabilities. During regular microphone. It was just cutting in and out. Jeff and mike. I just want to add one point to what john and john said about rove there at the restaurant influence. We will never know. But in 2000 and, in early 2017, i did a number of briefings on the hill. About what russia did and i was often joined by somebody from the campaign he would talk about what they were staying at the time. They would offer very interesting antidotes that suggested that whose mattered. Igor they saw in the final two weeks of the Campaign Social Media questioning weather secretary clinton was healthy enough to be president in critical scream states and they would see their daily tracking polls move in response to some of the social media blast. I sat there listening that i sick myself, wow will never know but you cant prove it didnt happen either. Think the senate Intelligence Community used emphasize the focus of a lot of these russian thoughts. On the Africanamerican Community in particular. And then among other fellow republican candidates running against the now president. I think trent cruz and romeo who are focused on quite a pit is it too. What you make is an analyst of how these fissures work being exploited. Its the same toolbox in the same pattern going to be replicated because. Pretty much. I think back on what they did, and can reflect on all of the reports. They came at us on three vendors. I think they will come at us on same three factors. One is to manipulate people. In other words, they recruited a number of people are naively brought them into cooperation with them. Perhaps unlimited ming lee. And so going back to your first question about what is the Intelligence Community do. We need to heighten Awareness Among everyone involved in the campaign about approaches from anyone from a foreign country. You think that people would know what to do, but in whose last campaign, other people to name report those approaches when they occurred. That is the first thing. The second thing is counterintelligence is very important in whose period of time. Again, muller tells us in 2014, the russians actually had a team of people here doing research on which states are important where there were scream districts and so forth thats our Intelligence Community plans to be very much focused on that aspect of russian activity. Are they here what they doing and are they undercover, can we protect them and so forth. And then is you said, they also tried to drive wedges, they wanted at each others throats. And they pretty much achieved that in some areas. But dropping wedges between social groups here typically oppose each other by creating false platforms that in some cases, the use legitimate american organizations is vehicles for their own propaganda. Everyone needs to be on heightened alert here. They also tried to break in to Companies Make software for running machines for whose another area but we have put up roadblocks. Then there is the paper ballot issue. Theres still some states who dont have a completely paper ballot back. That in the end is the only safeguard against tampering foes. John brennan, no relation we know of. [laughter] a lot of brennans. In terms of looking at whats happening now. Hillary clinton, a lot of attention in the past week and a off or so for staying that she was in her view, believed gabbert who is one of the democrats running for the nomination, was a russian asset. And her staff double down on that. She didnt walk away from the comet. Do you see what she was talking about there. We can see some things are a russian even if its not intentionally trying to advance russian interest but because of what it does or what it says or whatever, it is in fact something that is promoting the russian agenda. Maybe thats what she meant in terms of some of the things that gabbert has said in terms of these states, United States should not be involves of these foreign adventures or whatever. Submit any third party was something specifically she brought up. And the russians are very sophisticated observers. Ive done a lot of research at the u. S. Political themes. They have looked at a lot of Different Countries terms of how they can influence events there. Sometimes maybe a third party candidate. Pushing her name into pockets of some of those politicians of parties that they paper. And we have seen that done in european countries. They also push her name into some campaigns that they oppose because they want to put tainted her name in there and expose it, is a way to undercut and undermine the Electoral Prospects of individuals. So the russians will opt for a lot of different things. You have to be worried on technical front absolutely in terms of when they navigate into systems with a canoe and manipulate, they also look for opportunities to be able to cremate certain themes and media and journals and other types of things they will be able to befriend individuals who unwittingly will go along with their encouragements. And feeding her name and to some academic areas is far is again promoting something that they think is going to be useful in terms of the impact of the electors. Also looking at politicians are going to be amenable. If not at valuable terms of the overtures they make. In a digital environment, is o one, there is no easy solution of whose issue. We are is a society, even setting aside the russians influence, how we are going to cure that digital environment does not become the playground for all of those who are trying to undermine the country by exercising freedom of speech and by pushing out, bogus information and information that can really undermine whose countries again democratic nations. Adding balance security with the liberties and freedoms that we love is the country. The russians take advantage of those openness with society. The freedoms and liberties in whose country to be able to operate on the ground in the digital environments and other places during whose is the challenge i think were going to be facing. Not with just the russians but others who really want to shape the influence or shape attitudes they are in the United States. Politicians and electors. Whose is challenge i think of the 21st century. Ive been long advocate that having a bipartisan congressional mission. After 911, but we tried to address some of the issues that might have contributed to the 911 attack. With the commission of the iraq war, we need commission to take those look at that environment that we are going to grapple with those challenges. And not diminish in any way, whose freedoms and liberty again, that is really defined is the same time, not allow a lot of countries entities to take advantage of that. Why you are talking about the need to protect, Intelligence Community is essentially being investigated itself from within. We know the internal attorney general are mike and i talked about whose on physician launches investigation into the investigation about the origins of 2016 russian elections meddling pro and attorney and connect ticket by the name of john durham, have you been approached by those investigators. I am not. Do you expect to print. I was there. So it is hard to see. You must be preparing for a given you know there. [laughter] there to back is on my list. [laughter] of course. Obviously i played a role in the initiation of the investigation. So i would expect elite [applause] is the. I have not yet. I will see, theres something wrong with and especially in running the attorney general cup coming in at the conclusion of the tumultuous and high profile controversial case, asking questions about how that all began. And what was the factual predication that led to the initiation and how is it conducted. Though source of reviews take place all of the time there typically done by inspectors general, and of course one is on that now. They started is refer to is the fisa investigation ended up at least in my own experience to be a somewhat broader set of questions and issues which again, is appropriate. Theres nothing wrong with that. And us when, if that is the spirit which the investigation is conducted, then i think it is something that a lot of people myself included cooperate with. It is now a criminal approach. Does that change your view. I dont believe that changes is much is people have indexed on in the last few weeks. I think it would be odd to expect mr. Duren to conduct that kind of inquiry that went out subpoena hours. Says how you understand it. It elevation to be able to obtain subpoena power and rancheria. Its not the something is about to happen in terms of indictme indictment. Iron was gonna happen obviously but its not uncommon to the attorney general to give a special counsel to that sort of authority. Even on the basis of being able to bring young folks to submit to questioning and to ensure that they are not and people are not misleading them and that questioning. The problem with whose margaret is, we do have a factual scenario which i think we have now, and indicates that some folks and possibly even the attorney general bringing a set of preconceived notions the biases to investigation. And if that whose case, i dont know that it is that there are certainly some indicators that the her name, or that the purpose of the investigation has brought really to get to the bottom of what did we know and why did we make the decision we did brent but it is more to run out the theories political conspiracy theories and the nature, causes me great concern. Not personally but of course about the state of the department and the Intelligence Community that is currently on investigation. John you are also there, what is your view on whose now criminal probe. And have you been asked to speak to investigators. It was a new your times report, the said the bar review, evolved at some. Into a criminal inquiry and investigation. I do not believe the department of justice has them out officially staying that is a criminal investigation. I bureaucratically is just that report. I have cooperated with any dive boat review that the Congress Executive branch has decided to do. On the 2016 election or any other issue and i will cooperate with any congressional or executive branch review of investigation that is coming from, weather they communities or whatever else. I think the candy, i would like to believe that any such review investigation will be conducted in a professional manner in a political manner and we have a very good reputation john brian, and working with a number of professionals who i think are going to try to ensure that whose is done appropriately i hope that willie bar his would live up to his responsibilities is attorney general to oversee weather be a reviewer inquiry but doing in a manner that does not have any Politics Associated with it. Ive not talked to them their indications that it will be on to at some. Just like candy and i happen to be there the time. I was involved in a couple these things. I am very confident cia conducted its responsibilities appropriately. Consistent with all legal authorities and in a manner that was a political and we were trying to fulfill our responsibilities to understand the counterintelligence threat posed by the russians with they were trying to do. It was a very challenging issue on the eve of a highly contested election. We were part of the administration, and one of the things of president obama his address was that he wanted us cia, fbi, to carry out our response abilities is rigorously is we can but not to do anything at all in reality the process would be people putting the thumb on the scales in term of the outcome. So we had to navigate these waters is best we could and i look back on it i feel good about what it is that we did is an Intelligence Community community and i feel very confident and comfortable with what i did. So ive known causes whatsoever of talking with investigators who will be looking at whose. In a fair and appropriate manner. If i am called, i will be happy to talk with them. Sometimes article you refer to, also make reference to the idea that whose could be politically minded. You dont necessarily assume it to be that. You think theyre all valid reasons to have whose problem. Sandy said, if the effort is to try to look back and to ensure that things were done appropriately, is opposed to the analytic assessment that was done in the judgments they came out of it, i am not going to ascribe motivations but i must tell you that it certainly lends some of the appearance that whose is politically motivated because of the continued insistence on mr. Trump. Whose is only ground hoax in the former leaders of the intelligence and Law Enforcement community were involved in whose effort to try to subvert the candidacy and the prospects of mr. Trump. Which is the furthest from the truth he could be. Is he mentioned there are some things that are said in testimony, they raise questions of my online about weather or not it was looking at whose again, the prism up with the attorney general should be doing is opposed to looking at it from the standpoint of mr. Trump his lawyer. You mean like what use in testimony. Yeah. Would like to be more specific. What he means that in testimony, are referred to whose is fine. Which is the very unusual word to use about something that was a legitimate activity. Its is it too for once who worked at the cia itself breaks to essentially the cia, was there really know what theyre doing, they were talking about in counterintelligence. Theyre legally empowered and morally empowered to do. That is all spying we typically talk about spying. Plus we do look at how mr. Barr handled the molar report, to simply declare and presenting it before we ever had a chance to see it, then it shared no collusion, and completely exonerated the president. It doesnt fill you with confidence about the objectivity of the Justice Department Going Forward. All he had to do was look at the files of the fbi. And see what had been transpired. And before the decision late 2016, the counterintelligence investigation lunch. It wouldve been derelict in intelligent Law Enforcement community to not pursue whose in a manner that again was consistent with their authorities and responsibilities. And obligations. So its really quite interesting to see where have from one side staying by godless people to do anything at all. Didnt do enough to stop russians. Then the site is by weve got with what they were doing well yeah its kind of tough. It really is. [laughter] doing what you had a u. S. Persons affiliated with the Trump Campaigns, who were consorting with some russian officials. They raise questions about the objectives and agendas and motivations and collusion. Given that cia does not collect any intelligence on american persons, which is why we had worked so closely with the fbi and share the information that we had. Which is why we set up an infusion. Let me just give john break here. Let me give john a break here. Hes doing really well. [laughter] what we knew, is really not well known. What we knew at the time, the fact that we knew the russians had been attacking us through cyber means, and institutions across the country but specifically political academic government institutions, we knew that his early is the fall of 2014 and we saw that activity peaking is we rolled into the election. We knew and whose is all widely discussed the molar report of the place. We knew about their targeting of the d c. Video about their efforts to extract information from the d c. We then know in july that the russians had used that material has weapon eyes the material with the intent and effect of negatively impacting secretary clintons campaign. And that we found out from a trusted ally that a u. S. Person who was a part of the Campaign Prior to any of that information becoming public and prior to the weaponization of the d c, said to whose ally the those russians offered to assist the campaign. Back to talking about australia. And wont specify who the ally was. I think hes now running for congress. Thats remarkable. [laughter] [applause] screaming so with that knowledge, and the knowledge of the u. S. Person may have had more knowledge of that. That may have impacted in some sort of [applause] with not just any adversary but russia who we have a long history of understanding their desire to impact our electoral process, and their never ending efforts to undermine our liberal democratic driving sort of wedges between different parts of our society which have done. We had a job to do. With a very dishonest decision to me, we did it in the most evenhanded and fair and part of why its way that we possibly could. We stepped up to that responsibility that we knew we were both bound not to ignore and we did our job. Anybody wants to come in now and sit down and talk about that. Im happy to walk through whose thing again. Explain them exactly what we thought at the time. And if it is a legitimate effort to understand that, then we have absolutely nothing to worry about. Want to come to my care. Quickly, on the molar report language, it said no proven conspiracy but it did see there were numerous lakes identified with the russian government and the Trump Campaign and we do read the report, what did you think that meant. Then will go to mike. [laughter] i thought well. That is a remarkable conclusion for any report. Numerous lakes between the russian government or individuals affiliated with russian intelligence and Trump Campaign. That is still an open question and i think a lot of people would like to hear the answered to. Why. I would look what you know one of them. Mckay would love to know the answered that. That term probe, i know you had some strong feelings about that. In terms of the message that two other analysts, the community. Empty concerns about the Justice Department looking at that now. In making judgments about weather the analysts not in the right place, weather they get their work properly, etc. There are other aspects of the probe that i agree with andy on. Take those look at weather all of the legal decisions that need to be made with counterintelligence investigations, thats fine. It said in the right spirit. But to look at and have the Justice Department look at the analysis. Ask them to come to the conclusion to the analyst do the right thing and did they come up on the right place. It is highly inappropriate. It is highly inappropriate because the Justice Department doesnt have a lot of experience understanding the analyst process. Theyre not experts at whose. Is a go to the prosecutor is he is, how could he do an analysis. He doesnt understand how we evaluate information. Does understand how evaluate sources, doesnt understand that we come to conclusions, doesnt understand the confidence levels on whose. He doesnt do that and he doesnt do that for a leaving. He looks at issues in a size weather a crime has been committed. I am concerned about whose because analysts cia, are going to be talked to or perhaps already have been talked to by these folks, have had to hire lawyers. Im concerned whose will have a Chilling Effect on analyst Going Forward have to make a tough decision in what is perhaps a political issue looking at an issue overseas but is weve got political consequences here they might think twice in the future by having to make such a decision if they have to fear hiring a lawyer down the road and defend themselves against the Justice Department. The other. To make here is that people have already looked at the question of whose analysis. The senate Intelligence Community looked at whose. And in a bipartisan way, unanimously came to the conclusions that the analysts were right. That what the russians were trying to do were trying to divide us and damage Hillary Clinton and help President Trump. So the republicans and the democrats on the senate Intelligence Committee said analyst came out right place. Thats proper place to look at this. The House Committee met in a different place because it is broken. Is Intelligence Community said the ascii mountain replaced the republicans said they came out of the right place on trying to create divisions and earning Hillary Clinton but they got it wrong on helping President Trump. They provided no compelling arguments for that. Some people have already looked at whose. The proper people have already looked whose. John durham should not be looking at whose. You agree. Heres my definition of an analyst. They are someone who deals with situation of ambiguity with information arriving incrementally but on constant pressure to come to a conclusi conclusion. That means analyst take reputation risk everyday. I think mikes most compelling. Here is the deep analysis situation where they are defending their analysis for the lawyers sitting at their side, and someone holding a criminal prosecution uber the head for a judgment they paid in situation but i can tell you never has complete information in the manner that you expect there to be complete information in a courtroom before you come to a conclusion. That is a terrible position to put an analyst in. Most compelling white that mike makes whose discourages risktaking and analysis that went out risktaking, you get havoc. Then avoid my care, is that the standard for coming to a judgment in a criminal case is much higher than the standard for coming to judgment on analogy issue. Thats all concerned john term we do look at this, is going to see that the analyst to have enough information to make the judgment they made. Is looking at it from the perspective of weather he would indict somebody. Now with a make a judgment of analysis. Cnet cannot just see to all of the future alice in the room, [laughter] dont let these guys discourage you. Youve done a great job. We need you now more than ever. [laughter] his tunic actually see some out there i know who they are. They shrugged their heads. In terms of talking about something that is continuing to also overhang the country and certainly am sure, the Intelligence Community is the middle of the political fight we are all now in here in washington with impeachment. In the present has made clear that he has a lot of differences and distrust of the Intelligence Community he has said that since hes been in the campaign trail. Your that come up frequently. The whistleblower, in whose case in terms of ukraine is been widely reported came from the cia. I would be detailed to the white house. What is whose confluence of factors add up to hear ultimately for the Intelligence Community. If President Trump reelected and he very well may be, what is the relationship going to be like. What does that mean for National Security. If trump continues to be assessed. Quite rightly or wrongly. But it does exist. I can take those park at that. One thing id be confident about is at the Intelligence Community will just keep doing his job. One of the things that is remarkable about it is there is a very clear sense of mission there. Intelligence community is been through a lot. Controversy has brought unknown in that business. Therefore you get up every morning you come and do the job, that is what im confident they are doing. General hated and i have talked about whose a number of times. I think the relationship with trump has gone through stages. I think were in another stage now. The way of a defined stages is the first stage was ignorance. An annoying thing about it. Second stage is hostility. Once it appeared to him that the intelligence information somehow jeopardize the legitimacy of the election for the third stage, came about we first confronting the problem in syria and he realized in north korea he need it it. The third stage was of the necessity of intelligence. The fourth stage is one wherein down just kind of presenting the need but there is the need. You cannot conduct Foreign Policy that could intelligence. No president can. Even reelected President Trump. And so, whose will always be is long is he is there, intense and conflict full relationship which in monday ways is the nature of intelligence anyway. There is nothing unique you have to agree, that now they impeachment inquiry is underway. Theres conflict but been in the Intelligence Committee and sees the president and concern and often being there to take them out. Think weve got for deep state. [laughter] [applause] i think everyone has seen whose progression of diplomats and Intelligence Officers and white house people tripping up to capitol hill right now is the people are doing their duty or responding to a higher call. Doesnt suit prize will think about it for a minute, with all of the people who knew what was going on here, its a good intelligence operative to step forward and see something about it. Which was the trigger but then unleashed everything else. Now what is that happen. Telemark and people why that happens is whose is the institution in the u. S. Government with all of his flaws and makes mistakes, is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth. It is one of the few institutions in washington that is not in a chain of command makes policy. His whole job is to speak the truth. Is engraved in marble in the lobby. Dysfunctional relationship that you are alluding to, the issue of the problem is right near here. Its at 1600 facility. Something uber building and the professionals, they carry out their daily responsibilities and continue to do what it is that they are expected to do. The reason why mr. Trump asked whose very intense relationship with cia and fbi and to see people. Annual pride. And me. Yes. [laughter] is because they tell the truth. Because they cannot be manipulated like clay in his hands. Because they will stay on up and speak out when things wrong. And they will tell him, but the truth is. The truth is the key fears. He is lived on anything but the truth not just during the presidency but before that. So thank good news for the women and men are the Intelligence Community and the Law Enforcement communities is standing up and carrying out their responsibility is fellow citizens. So if he doesnt use their intelligence, venus is that contributions to whose country security, back on him. But our people who continue to fight the fight in the trenches and here as well is overseas will do their work irrespective of what is going to do or see about them. When they raise their hand, they have that obligation, and is the duty of their oath and thats what compels the whistleblowers and cia whatever to speak out. Its what compelled investors and current and others to be able to see, whose is wrong whose is antithetical to the values of whose country was founded upon. And unfortunately there are is it too monday people on the other end of pennsylvania avenue will the nose uber what is being done. And until they realize that what mr. Trump is doing is traveling again the foundations of whose great country of ours, we are going to be in for a rocky road. I just simply everyday my former colleagues in Whose Community are continuing to fulfill their duties. You think that whistleblowers [applause] on a button up with you. Do you think whistleblower should be compelled or asked to testify. The republicans are staying that he has his right to know his accuser. It whistleblower act, are designed to ensure that individuals can come forward and speak out when they see criminality for things that are inappropriate. They do so at great risk to themselves and to their careers and families. There are ways whistleblower, why is he even need it anymore to provide the testimony because it seems like everything she or he said, has been cooperated by others. Sentinel longer hearsay with her they were the accuser before is now the people who run the phone, people hurt things being said. Again, what is being done right now is trying to attack somebody was seen is i dont see a reason to have to expose their identity. Some nasty people out there. Ive come to realize that myself. And so, an individual his identity should be protected. There are ways to ensure that if that person is Additional Information that is above and beyond with no depositions have provided, they can get that testimony in a matter that is going to again protect that person his identity and be consistent with the purpose of the whistleblowers actions. Michael want to determine here but dont tell everyone to get ready with your questions breezy the microphones are. If you to get ready and lineup. I just want to see margaret, that in whose political environment i think there are two myths about the i. C. E. One is from President Trump his opponents who want to be able to paint a pitcher in his rhetoric and his behavior is inappropriate is it is towards the Intelligence Community is damaging the community. Is creating morale problems and monday people believe is on mining with the Intelligence Community doesnt relate to whose one with. It is wrong. Is both johns have said people are just buckling down and do the work. The other math that the Intelligence Community is the deep state and it is actively trying to undermine the president and we can influence. That is it too is wrong and i think whats interesting is that the outback data operation whose is the huge intelligence success, undermine both of those myths because the job was so beautiful and how good a demoralized place crippled by people leaving have done whose job and then the other is if whose really was a deep state why would he give him the political gift of being able to go get out day bag daddy statement, political partner and a gentleman whose question is for all of you. Thank you for being here long start short, yuma platform here to help inform all forms and what they can do. One point in what probably should watch out for infiltration both digitally and in person. The steps they can take to protect against it as well is reported to the appropriate parties and thank you. Will pass on the cyber peace and focus on cutting more than human approach. It is absolutely a narrative that people who are associated with political campaigns at every loophole, not just talking about people running for president. The people and state offices particularly in states that are impactful on National Politics in one way or another. They have to understand that the threats that are facing them from the kind of human factor, those individuals who will attempt to ingratiate, a physician of trust to try and influence does campaign. These things are real and has brought just stuff you see happening in movies and outlandish plot lines and things like that. Far is it too frequently, folks who are just attempting to enter politics failed to understand the significance of the threat they face. Just from straight up human efforts. Ill give you an answered on cyber security. Former secretary of Homeland Security jane johnson and former secretary of Homeland Security mike, myself, number of other people on the Advisory Board and they knew notforprofit Company Called cyber home. And what cyber dome is doing is providing pro bono Cybersecurity Services to any campaign that was it. Democrat republican independence. So my suggestion would be to pick up the phone call cyber drone and they can help your campaign cybersecurity. [applause] a couple of things, following on to michaels comment, civil cyber hygiene for everyone because the theft of the d c material in particular has brought a very sophisticated operation. The fishing operation. A pitiful of you two got your phones right now you find someone fishing on your phone. Some funny message that you could open and at your peril. Whose basically what happens. A simple hygiene at all levels of the electoral process and then went to go on alta ski one other idea. These really important that every state in a paper ballot or backup system of the way. That is in the end, while were in whose emergency. Until we figured out at some. , the commission is john grennan has called for which i endorse, paper ballots. The surest way. I think a lot is dependent on the candidates leadership and instilling in his or her Campaign Staff a real sense of doing what is right. Not doing what is wrong. There are so monday ways that somebody needs or leads to victory. At all costs. Anyway see examples right now in the u. S. Public system. Take whatever type of organization, the might benefit you. To me i think the integrity of that a candidate shows really is important is far is trickling down to their people. Demonstrating leadership that is need it. That is winning at all costs, in fact it is losing something very special about whose country. Some additional to all of those things, i think it really needs to be a sense of the values that the candidates prioritizes. Ken meyer, of the United States. [laughter] quickly for mr. Mclaughlin, who stated that the cia officers are sworn to tell the truth. Perhaps you could explain to me the word disinformation in the ci a context for mr. Brown, sir lever recently stated that its pursuing his role in the investigative possible trump russia connection. Instantly following orders. Suggesting that if he is indicted by mr. Drone, he would invoke the nuremberg defense. He was just following orders. Do you consider that a valid defense. On the issue of speaking the truth, i am referring here to an ethic among analysts that is the job. Disinformation is the misunderstood concept i think to the extent that it exists in the Operational Health of covert action. However i would see that even there, when the cia uses the term lightless to seize the termite propaganda. It is learned that the best propaganda is truth. Cia is the organization that created Radio Free Europe for example. It is the organization to manage to get a lot of literature behind the western literature behind the iron curtain during the cold war. Frankly whose information in the classics is that we see the soviets deploying it, years ago but rushes right recently. Set something the cia does is a matter of practice and routine. When he is referring to is it was the white house, president obama, asking community in early december to put together an assessment about the brushes were doing. So the next administers you have the benefits of the insides another knowledge and expertise that was evident in the time of the election. So that resulted in the intelligence assessment that was begun in early january and was going to president obama and then president elect trump at the time and that has what he is referring to so that doesnt really bring in nuremberg defense. He wasnt telling us to spy on the Trump Campaign to prevent Trump Campaign from being victorious at all. Its almost tour jobs, at the fbi and but he did request his success im so glad he did. Thank you my name is amanda, im in from virginia at first i like to start off by staying thank you all for your service to whose country. I am deeply grateful for all of you. Get back to the unnecessary attacks the deep state like the present like to talk about everyday. What would be your words of encouragement for morale for those of us like myself are considering going into whose field. I can see two things, one is, is john mentioned the you cant make National Security policy. Use of the camp that went out really good intelligence. That is probably true today than it ever has been. So the work of the Intelligence Community weather you know a collector or weather you know an analyst is incredibly important. He will remain so for a very long time. That transitions to the second second. Is that Whose Administration will come to an end. [applause] i wanted to see that the whole idea of the deep state is the most sophomoric idea ever heard. I agree. I dont know they are soft or not. But the way its deployed by some of our National Leaders in truth, what is deep state. We are talking about the Civil Service of the United States. Which is the juul in the crown of whose country. It is what, youve got outside of whose building and probably a lot of lights still on and federal buildings. Of people who are dedicated to doing a good job to support the American People. Is the perfect know other other people there who are great, yes. But by any human standard, it is the juul or a juul in the crown of whose country. What i would see, i teach graduate students now, i encourage them to go into government now. When whose is all uber, theres going to be a renaissance and dedication in whose country. You want to be part of it. I absolutely agree with that. If i could just add on a personal loophole. And in some ways i probably like the worst recruiter for government. [laughter]. And i get that. I have to tell you that i firmly believe there is no better live than one in the service to others. That is diverse, broad, comes from every conceivable background but they all come for the same reason. They are there for the same reason that you are and that is to do good. There is no better place to do that then in the places that we have served and, despite everything that i have been through in the last few years and the horrible things my family has been through, i would do it all again tomorrow if given the chance. It is the most righteous way to serve and live and you think thats interesting, do it [applause] absolutely. [applause] its the best damned career you could ever have. Im so jealous when i look at you. Youre starting in your careers. Our careers are behind us mostly. A couple of us. [laughter] if you had the opportunity to get into Public Service and Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement, sees it, youll never regret it. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Jerry awith the Washington Examiner. We been talking about jerome and we can talk about ukraine but we actually have doj Inspector General Michael Horwitz report coming up soon as well. I had a couple questions about something thats at the center of it which is Christopher Steeles dossier. Mr. Mccabe, if you would, would you be able to say with specificity what the fbi verified in the dossier before using it in the applications. Her generally, ever generalities but specifically what was verified in the dossier before it was used and also if there is an explanation for why in the five applications the fbi didnt just say, directly or indirectly, that Christopher Steele was being paid by the clinton campaign. There are a lot of caveats and a lengthy footnote but i was just wondering if youd be able to answer those two questions. The answer to your first question is no. I will not go into specificity about the what fbi verified prior to the fight that we are after an answer to your second question is, i will wait until he relieved to see what mr. Horowitzs conclusions are in that report. Im anxious to see what his thoughts on it are. As you mentioned, there was an extensive and detailed explanation inserted by the department of justice into that fives a package that everyone involved believed accurately. I will not speak for everyone else, i will speak for myself. I believed accurately. We are all anxious to hear what the ig thinks about that and we probably wont have to wait too much longer. Thanks. My name is hunter price, im a grad student at georgetown. Thank you guys all for being here, its Pretty Amazing to see everybody on one stage. My question is that an issue in the 2020 democratic primary has been breaking out some Larger Companies including some take advantage of in 2016 election are google and facebook. The companies claim this would harm their ability to stop an authentic behavior from bad actors like iran or russia similar to what we saw in 2016. Based on what you guys know about the threat and your knowledge of these companies response to an authentic behavior do you think this is the case that breaking it up would hurt their ability to stop it or no . Does anyone want to take that . We will take one then i want to go over here because we want to make sure we get more questions than before. Im not really qualified to answer that from a technical basis but my instinct is its a bad idea to break them up. These companies, i can be as critical of them is anyone but they have also a tough job. I havent followed the whole facebook controversy that carefully except to notice that the last couple weeks they had pointed out that they removed quite a few false sites from facebook that were both russian and iranian. Not only here but also in africa as margaret mentioned earlier. I think we keep the pressure on them to do that but breaking them up i suspect will end up having some secondary bad consequence we havent thought of. Thank you. My question is to the whole panel on the question of impeachment. Recently and have come out in key states where senators are going up for reelection soon and the ads are for or against impeachment, giving that the u. S. 2016 election wasnt completely devoid of russia influence, how can a u. S. Make sure its impeachment process is completely devoid of russian influence and does the penalty the russians taken initiative to make sure to influence the impeachment process . Is impeachment good for our adversaries i guess you could put it that way. Anyone want to take that . [laughter] i would say impeachment is good ablets not take up position on impeachment. All the turmoil we are in thats good for adversaries. I cant believe it at that. To have time for one more question or are we getting wrapped . All right. We will get you all to the game. Ladies and gentlemen. Nothing like leaving and wanting more is what ive always been told and i think we are definitely leaving you wanting more. I apologize to those still in line. Perhaps you get a chance during the reception to ask your question. I would ask everybody in the audience to exit through the rear doors. Let the panelists exit to the side door. Its 020 top of the second. [laughter] we can thank our wonderful panel for this great presentation. [inaudible background conversations] cspans washington journal every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up monday morning, Washington Examiner philip klein discusses his new book about the burden that growing National Debt will have on the millennial generation. Then doctor and shook it of the centers for Disease Control and prevention discusses the rise of vaping related illness. What cspan washington journal live at 7 00 p. M. Eastern friday morning. Showing the discussion. Cspan campaign 2020 coverage continues live friday night with president ial candidates in iowa and mississippi. Starting at 7 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan, the democratic president ial contenders speak at the liberty and justice celebration in des moines. Featured speakers include senator michael bennet, former Vice President joe biden, senator cory booker, governor steve bullock, mayor pete buttigieg, secretary ab representative john delaney, senator camilla harris, senator amy klobuchar, representative beto orourke. Senator bernie sanders, tom stier, senator Elizabeth Warren and andrew yang. It 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2 President Trump holds a Campaign Rally with supporters in tupelo mississippi. Watch cspan campaign 2020 coverage live friday at 7 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan. At 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. Watch anytime on cspan. Org. And listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. Sunday live at noon eastern on indepth, Princeton University professor imani perry joins us to talk about African American history and racial inequality. My mother came of age in jim crow alabama. My mother lived her use in a White Nationalist society. abopenly officially White Nationalist society. It has reared its head again. Her most recent book is brief, a letter to my sons. Other books include profits of the hood and may we forever stand. Join the interactive conversation with your phone calls, tweets and facebook messages. And at 9 00 p. M. Eastern on afterwards David Shelton author of the it shouldnt be this hard to serve your country recounts his time as a secretary of Veterans Affairs in the trump administration. He is interviewed by iraq and afghanistan veterans of america ceo jeremy butler. The governments involvement in va healthcare is the most effective way of honoring our nations commitment to our veterans. That does not mean that veterans should not have the ability to go into the private