we need to have mandatory audits. we need to have an encrypted document that has the voting records on it. and we need to have better oversight over the three companies that provide voting machines. none of which is taking place, and is very troubling to me. because we know what russia will do. they will continue to infiltrate any way and everywhere they can. many of these databases are porous enough and easy to access. and that s why they were able to get into 21 of them already, from states to states. there s very little regulation of what goes on in states and counties. and the only way we have any authority, really, is to impose restrictions over federal elections. and that would be congressional elections coming up and the u.s. senate races coming up. i have two more questions and i want to get them both in before we have to go. the first one is about social media. there s a bit of a reckoning right now when it comes to facebook and other social media companies about what happen
full security clearance. this is a document that has the nation s deepest secrets, including covert operation and top-level intelligence, nsa eavesdropping of foreign leaders. and to have someone looking at that document who hasn t been fully cleared, who hasn t been signed off on by the fbi is unprecedented and it s a decision directly made by donald trump, katy. frank, you ve been privy to a lot of sensitive information. i know ken is privy to a lot of sources who tell him about this sort of stuff. but in your firsthand experience, why wouldn t you want someone with a temporary security clearance taking a look at the sort of stuff that ken just outlined? well, let s use porter as an example. there could be areas of compromise and blackmail that go toward whether someone should actually see top-secret. and let me point something out here. just because you have an interim top-secret and we re not even clear on whether all of these interims are top-secret or secret, it doesn t mea
and i think as we well know now, this was a total spin document that was put out by the chairman of the committee, with the intention of creating a means by which the president could say i m totally vindicated, which as we know now, is what he said, but clearly, the memo does not provide that kind of credibility. the white house director of legislative affairs, marc short, said the other day that he believed that adam schiff intentionally put sources and methods into the democratic memo, knowing that the white house would not be able to release it as is. is that a correct assessment? no, it is not. it was a comprehensive document. i ve referred to it as a, you know, post-graduate dissertation as compared to a third grade book report. because, really, the republican memo was embarrassing in what it didn t say and how simplistic it was. and the democratic memo puts it
and it was also the purpose for that mondayoring. if you believe what was reported in the wall street journal and there s no reason not to. they wrote white house officials believed that the intercepted information could be valuable to counter mr. netanyahu s campaign. that is the campaign to undermine the iran deal. secondly they said that netanyahu, who was subject to stepped-up nsa eavesdropping. so not only were they targeting netanyahu, they were prioritizing netanyahu and they were using it if you believe the reporting in this piece, for the purposes of a political campaign here in the united states. that is a problem. if they re monitoring government leaders, foreign friendly, unfriendly, that s fine. if they re doing it for the purposes of winning a domestic political debate. that is deeply problematic. we re no longer monitor heads of state. his specific wording was heads
and it was also the purpose for that mondayoring. if you believe what was reported in the wall street journal and there s no reason not to. they wrote white house officials believed that the intercepted information could be valuable to counter mr. netanyahu s campaign. that is the campaign to undermine the iran deal. secondly they said that netanyahu, who was subject to stepped-up nsa eavesdropping. so not only were they targeting netanyahu, they were prioritizing netanyahu and they were using it if you believe the reporting in this piece, for the purposes of a political campaign here in the united states. that is a problem. if they re monitoring government leaders, foreign friendly, unfriendly, that s fine. if they re doing it for the purposes of winning a domestic political debate. that is deeply problematic. we re no longer monitor heads of state. his specific wording was heads