community unless and until there is a request to unmask that u.s. person s name, correct? i would like to think that discipline is still exercised even if a request to unmask a name is made. so we protect u.s. persons even within those like yourself and director pompeo and admiral rodgers and director commey and the people we trust and we still they have to request an unmasking. there has to be a justification. you can t just wake up in the morning and say hey, i feel like knowing who participated in x, y, and z. there has to be justification, right? yes. so how do we get from that to names being on the front pages of certain major u.s. newspapers? that s an excellent question zbl . what would be an equally
that the types of systems russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying. so my question as of today, admiral rodgers, do you have any evidence that russia cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of michigan? no, i do not but i would highlight we re a foreign intelligence organization, not a domestic intelligence organization so it would be fair to say we are probably not the best organization to provide a more complete answer. how about the state of pennsylvania? no, sir. the state of wisconsin? no, sir. state of florida? no, sir. state of north carolina? no, sir. the state of ohio? no, sir. so you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence that suggests any votes were changed? i have nothing generated by national security industry, sir. director comey, do you have any evidence that any votes were were changed in the states i mentioned to admiral rodgers?
i believe that s the correct chronology. do you know how mr. stone would have known that mr. podesta at the time mr. podesta said he was not even aware whether his e-mails had been stolen and would be published? it s not something i can comment on. at this point, mr. chairman, i m going to yield to mr. himes. thank you. the ranking member and gentleman, thank you for being with us today. let me when i get my own time, i ll have some follow-up question, but let me start with a point that the chairman brought out i think very specifically, which is that there s no evidence that votes were technically changed in any of the jurisdictions that he named, admiral rodgers, thanks
private meeting wh a russian officer for any reason would be concerning. would you expect that agent to report that meeting? yes. admiral rodgers, a similar question. would you be concerned if one of your intelligence officers had a private meeting with the russian ambassador and would you expect that intelligence officer to report that meeting? disclosure of interactions with foreign governments is a requirement for all our employees including myself, for example. i ask these questions because on at least four occasion, i can count, mr. flynn, a three-star general and former intelligence officers, someone with influence over the u.s. policy and someone with knowledge of state secrets and the incoming national security adviser communicated with and met with the russian ambassador and failed to disclose it. so i ask you, directors, if you wouldn t stand for own staff to do this, why should we, the
secondarily, you don t have to prove it. i guess there are a couple of reasons you would not have to unlawfully, felonously release material. you already had the information, didn t you? i can t answer in this particular matter. how about in theory? is there something in theory a reporter would have access to that the head of the fbi would not? it s hard to answer. i would hope not. i would hope not too. i would hope you had access to everything as head of the premiere law enforcement agency. so if you had it all, the motive couldn t have been to help you because you already had it. and admiral rodgers, the motive couldn t have been to help you because you already had it.