a member of the committee, and there is a couple problems with this response. clearly the president equivocating on whether or not vladimir putin was responsible is a problem and it s why. we re under attack and we need a coordinated response, and when the president is on again and offer again, mostly denying it, it makes it impossible for that to happen. the national security advisor abolishing the position of cyber coordinator. a bizarre decision given that. the second reason this is important, john, is i have met with people in earn eurostern e that have been putting up with russian interference for years. i asked what is the best defense, and they said that it is for the people to know what is going on. so when it happens their population says it s just the
weapon of mass destruction picked the weapon of mass destruction had been one of those airliners that hit the twin towers, we would not be talking about 3,000 victims, we would be talking about 300,000 victims or more. these are the things that we have to think about it we cannot rest on our laurels that we collect a lot of information, we know what is going on. there are people out there playing this game of chess with us in ways that are going to take us down. we have to be better than they. that is a huge challenge and that is why i say it is a whole government effort that has to take place relative to cyber. if the white house fired at cyber coordinator and has not replaced him, as the president really engaged in this mark because, if the president is not leading the charge, will the troops really try to take the health? as you know, we have a national security advisor, john
the president at the working level. but for instance dan coats said last friday that the warning level on cyber, and cyber from russia more aggressively than any other foreign actor, was blinking red. to the extent that the threat level from terror was blinking red before 9/11, john mclaughlin, you lived through that. jeremy, so did you, in and out of government. and the fact is, certainly the aftermath of it, the fact is, if there is nobody in the white house anybody in charge of cyber, because they fired the cyber coordinator and did not replace him, there is no interagency motivation propelling it if it doesn t come from the top, from the president. am i right about that? yeah, you are, andrea. i think what s going on here is this. jeremy indicated, there are almost two governments working at this point. whatever is going on in the white house, all of these mixed messages. i think the regular government people, call at it deep state if you will, people are showing up, going to wor
strategically we have to look forward. tom clancy s sum of all fears, when a terrorist group obtains a weapon of mass destruction. the weapon of mass destruction had been one of those airliners that hit the twin towers. we wouldn t be talking about 3,000 victims. we d be talking about 300,000 victims or more. and so these are the things we have to think about. we can t rest on our laurels that, yes, we collect a lot of information. we know what s going on. there are people out there playing this game of chess with us in ways that are want to take us down. and we have to be better than they, and that is a huge challenge. it s why i say it is a whole of government effort that has to take place relative to cyber. yet the white house fired its cyber coordinator and has not replaced him. is the president really engaged in this? because if the president is not
they re overtly insidious. they re not effective unless you feel them. the russians had an act it program for some time to infiltrate and embed themselves in various aspects of our infrastructure. and to reens enforce an earlier point about the turnover with tom bossert and rob joigs, who was a cyber coordinator, who is really a competent professionals, both of them are having departed. well, once again, we re in a bad space i think to how we react to these russians he wasn t until a few days ago a homeland security adviser at the white house. let me get your reaction to the james comey book and the interviews she giving. a few days before donald trump inauguration, you were in the to youer with comey and others to brief the president-elect on russian interference.