we show that there is a partisan divide on this issue of russian hacking. are you bothered by it a great deal or quite a bit? 86% of democrats are. 29% of republicans. if russia hacked into our democracy, how do we get the country unified on this issue? i think we re taking a bad tangent on the topic of hacking. i think hacking is important. most americans should worry about it no matter what side of the aisle you are on. the notion of trying to use this and various other issues to explain the results of the election is where i think everything is off the rails. i agree with yamiche, the way that he paused when you asked about him about wisconsin says it all. take the electoral college, for example, i don t know anybody here played chess. when i win in chess, if i have one player left but his king is gone, i win. that s it. wisconsin is the poster child for the party losing track all the way back to 2010, the takeover of congress. there is an unnerved part of the public that understa
i know that. the media didn t cover itself with glory on the way they handled the matter. the new york times reported this week in their own reporting said that they became an instrument for russian intelligence. so i think we ll all ought to take a lesson from this, look at it. most importantly, investigate what actually happened and put that out to the american public, declassify as much as possible, do it through an independent investigation. everybody will feel like we have learned whatever lessons there are from 2016. we will move forward so it didn t happen again. this is your personal account that was hacked. i gotta think you are getting updates on the investigation that others would not. what can you share? i will share this with you, chuck. the first time i was contacted by the fbi was two days after wikileaks started dropping my e-mails. let me pause a minute. two days after? two days after. so october 7, let s go through the chronology. on october 7, the tape come
obama s actions often have not matched his rhetoric. his rhetoric has been pretty tough. but then there s been no follow-up and no action. if you combine that with red lines that have been crossed, demands that assad step down with no plan to actually figure out how to make that happen, the withdrawal from the middle east from iraq and afghanistan and essentially the way it was done, i think it sent a signal that the u.s. was in retreat. it was always going to be complicated to withdraw from those wars without victory, without sending the signal we were withdrawing more broadly from a global leadership role. i think some of the things that have been done have accentuated that impression around the world. i think putin felt that he could take advantage of that. as you know, president obama said this week that he directly spoke with putin back in
about unintended consequences up until the moment where it stops him from taking action. we had the fall of aleppo and we had the hacking of the american election system. on both instances, the president said, we were so worried about something going wrong if we intervened. i think what the american public in this election said we want more action. in 1984, the hero said, freedom means the ability to say two plus two equals four. what i m getting at is the more we permit hacking, particularly hacking that of disinformation, the less we have reliance on a common set of facts. once you begin to lose that, norms begin to fall in a terribly quick and decisive way. i want to pivot to north carolina. we have been talking about it. it is perfectly legal what is happening in north carolina. but it doesn t feel in the spirit of ending an election. the north carolina legislature
for an administration a new administration and donald trump that you weren t so comfortable with during the campaign? well, that s a kind way to put it. he is familiar with countries from indonesia to latin america to the middle east and russia. it seems to me having somebody who is secretary of state who has dealt with a lot of these leaders, who knows them, knows how they negotiate, knows how they think is a huge assess for the united states. what s the as i have said, i think the second he raises his hand to take that oath, his only goal will be to do what s in the best interests of the united states. what kind of explanation i guess explain the relationship for him with russia and with putin. it just comes across, you know, very friendly. is that totally business? clearly, the ceo of any u.s. company that does business around the world is going to want to be on friendly relationships with the leaders