[laughter] mark thank you for coming. Im mark loiselle, at 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. We will continue to do so. I am very flattered by this turnout. For those of you who dont know jarden George Mason University has a schar School Policy government that provides academic programs in fairfax and arlington, virginia and we have a number 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 i want to acknowledge the presence of the provost of our university. [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 hayden, 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. Hayden 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] so i just want to take another brief moment and acknowledge this gentleman has been through a lot in last year and this is one of his first times speaking publicly, since he suffered a stroke, so one more round of encouraging applause. [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, we would love you to tweet along the event and putsomethings out there that reflect the comments of some of our speakers. If you look in your program hayden2020vision 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 you guys to ask questions. You probably noticed we have microphone stands, so when Margaret Brennan indicates its time to ask questions, 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, let us know what it is. We would love you to make your comments brief and ask a question. 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 have a mission to 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 Community provides the nation and i think to emphasize the men and women who work in 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 we are 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 steered away from the 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 events that we are calling 20 20 vision. The first of those we are 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. She has been the moderator cents 2018. It is one of the longestrunning Television Shows in america. It goes back to 1954. 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 covered Global Financial markets on bloomberg and cnbc. We have a Powerhouse Panel of u. S. Intel leaders. Their experiences stretches from vietnam 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 haveention again john brennan, former director of cia, former assistant to the president for Homeland Security and counterterrorism and a longstanding 20 year career at the cia. John mclaughlin director central throughence, and he led some incredibly trying times of our nation. He is a legend in the analytic tradecraft. Michael morel, Deputy Director of the cia, serving twice as our acting director, and he also served under george w. Bush. The only person in america with the president on 9 11 as well as with the president the day we brought Osama Bin Laden to justice. Andrew mccabe, Deputy Director from 20162018. He served as the acting director in 2017 after james comey was fired. He has had a storied career in counterterrorism. Lead the fbi Security Branch and 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 and moderator to the stage and thank you. [applause] thank you all for coming out tonight. 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 lead them off tonight. And i want to dive right in because theres there is so much 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 susan rice, then National Security adviser and said, we have evidence that Vladimir Putin himself is directing election interference in this country. Thank you for the invitation. It is great to be here. In 2016 when i went to the white house i went to see the president and a few others to talk about what we had determined at that point 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 needed to do, in order to try to get a better sense of what was going on. Making sure that the chief policymaker of this country had the information he needed to safeguard one of the foundations of our democracy. That is the right of all americans to choose their elected representatives. So it was a discussion i had with that small group. And then made some decisions about who else we needed to brief. To brief the gang of eight to make sure our congressional or leadership was aware as well. And how we are going to ensure that we would work with our partners within the Intelligence Community the ones that had the expertise and capabilities as well as the responsibilities such as fbi and nsa. , 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 without a hitch. And largely, it did. It is quite evident now after the Mueller Report that the russians did engage in a systemic effort to try and influence the election. And it was directed by Vladimir Putin. I have learned a lot of things since i have left government. I think the impact of the russian attempts, the impact on the vote is unknowable. It was something that we did not mandate. Ive learned a lot about what the russians were doing in a digital environment as far as putting out these personas and trying to influence the perceptions of the candidates, the situation. Im sure personally that they changed the minds of at least one voter. Whether you change the mind of one voter or one million voters, i dont know. Based on what it is i have come to more fully appreciate as far as pushing out this content based on my background i think votes were changed how many and in which states . I dont know. Whether it made a difference as far as the outcome, i dont know. I do know the russians have engaged in this type of activity not just here but abroad. They would much prefer to shape the politics of other countries through this insidious manner as opposed to trying to use military pressure. Sometimes they opt for that in places like ukraine. If they can shape the outcome of these elections particularly in western countries, they have a toolkit of capabilities they have leveraged. In 2016 they didnt do some of the things we have seen them do in other places. I dont know whether or not that was the result of us confronting them. I confronted one of my russian counterparts in early august about it. Jim clapper and jeh johnson came out with a statement about it in october. President obama braced putin, so i dont know if that is confrontation we had with the russians dissuaded them from doing more things. People said that we did not try to stop the russians. We did. Maybe the things that we did had , maybe itance impacted the russians not to go to a greater extent than it did. Mike, i should also say we are lucky we worked together at cbs as well. Facebook said today it removed three russian backed influence networks on its site were aimed at african countries. The networks were linked to a name that you know well. It was the same Russian Oligarch linked to some of what john brennan was just recalling from 2016. Does the fact that they are continuing to use the same individual mean russia and its efforts are completely undeterred . First of all, it is great to be here. This is my fourth or fifth event. Everyone has been a pleasure and it is great to be here. I think it is fair to say the russians in general have not been deterred. Not only in africa that they are continuing to use social media to influence populations to react a certain way, to split them. To raise debates. They are still doing it here. They are doing it as we speak right now. They have not stopped. Not only have they not stopped but we know from public testimony by the director of National Intelligence that others have seen the bennetts and benefits of this joined them. I know how carefully analysts write, so i know that the others means something there there are other countries that he did not want to mention that are also doing this. I would be interested to know who they are. I think it is probably some of our allies. Not only have the russians not been deterred but because the russians have not been deterred it is spreading and becoming a larger problem. This is a new tool but it is a wellknown rival, enemy to the United States. Why has there not been more of an adaptation by the community to figure it out . I think people are working on how to battle it. What we dont know is the Intelligence Community cannot talk about is what they may or may not be doing offensively for that is the one part of Cyber Operations we dont talk about. But i am quite sure our community is not relaxed about this and is vigilant. The bigger problem is not what it can or cannot do, it is if the u. S. Government as a whole can coordinate in the absence of a cybersecurity coordinator in the white house whether the government can coordinate all of the tools to both detect and combat what the russians will attempt to do. While it is true as john said, we cannot determine at this point with confidence what effect they may have had. If you look at volume one of the Mueller Report, which is very interesting, it is a gold mine, and you look at the four states that were pivotal in the outcome of the election, take michigan. Mr. Trump won michigan by about 11,000 votes. You cannot be certain of whether or not that margin came from a russian influence. We know from the Mueller Report that manafort briefed an officer from russia on internal polling data on the swing states. There were similar margins in pennsylvania, minnesota, wisconsin on which manafort briefed the former russian Intelligence Officer. So it is not a leap to say that this could have had an impact. When you are looking at someone who came within the fbi and how to protect against the influence that was described here, the debate often focuses whether congress should pass laws to crack down on this . It doesnt seem to be going anywhere. There is not a lot of support for it. What can be done short of that legislatively to give the fbi more tools . When we talked to a lot of people from the obama administration, they share frustration that when it came to recognition of patterns and speaking to states in particular , there was a pushback against the federal government and how to protect against interference . Im not sure theres an easy answer to what tools or capability should the fbi have to do that work more efficiently or effectively. It is a bit beyond the scope of the bureau in that area. There is no question. It needs to be done. There is no question it should involve legislation. We did encounter that sort of pushback and resistance. But those are broad states rights issues that quite frankly it is an augment that the bureau is not going to be able to settle. We need a more consistent securityto election and that involves not just cybersecurity it in terms of all of the processes involved in signing up and registering voters. Maintaining the sanctity of that information, and then of course right through the electoral process. The fbi is wellplaced to respond to threats as they are perceived in cyberspace by our intel colleagues and here on the grounds as that information comes through. The kind of prophylactic measures that get the states on an even footing when it comes to the approach with Election Security and cybersecurity goes far beyond what the bureau is capable of doing. Did you want to bring in a microphone . Your microphone was cutting in and out. I want to add one point to what john and john said about whether the russian effort influenced the outcome of the election. I agree with him 100 . We will never know. In early 2017 i did a number of briefings on the hill about what russia did. I was often joined by somebody on the clinton campaign. They would offer very interesting anecdotes that suggested that this mattered. I will give you one. They saw in the final two weeks of the campaign, social media blasts questioning whether secretary clinton was healthy enough to be president in critical swing states. They would see the daily tracking polls move in response to some of these blasts. I sat there and listened and i said wow, we will never know. You cannot prove it did not happen either. I think the Senate Intelligence Committee Report in particular emphasized the focus of a lot of these russian bots. On the African American community in particular, and on other fellow republican candidates, ted cruz and rubio were focused on quite a bit too. What do you make as an analyst of how these fissures are being exploited . Is the same toolbox going to be replicated . Pretty much i would say. I think back on what they did. I reflect back on the Mueller Report. They came at us on three vectors. I think they will come at us on those same three vectors. One was to manipulate people. In other words, they recruited people who were naively brought in to cooperation with them, perhaps unwittingly as john brennan has pointed out a number of times. Going back to your first question about what does the Intelligence Committee do . We need to heighten Awareness Among everyone in the campaign with approaches from a foreign country. You think people would know what to do, but in this last campaign a lot of people didnt report those approaches when they occurred. The second thing is counterintelligence is very important in this time. Mueller tells us in 2014 the russians had a team of people doing research on which states were important. The Intelligence Community needs to be focused on that aspect of the russian activity. What are they doing, are they under cover, can we detect them and so forth. As you said, they also tried to drive wedges into our they wanted us at each others throats. They pretty much achieved that in some areas by driving wedges between social groups that typically oppose each other by thating false platforms used legitimate organizations as vehicles for their own propaganda. Everyone needs to be on heightened alert. They also tried to break into companies that make software for voting machines. That is another area we have to put up the roadblocks. Then there is the paper ballot issue. There are some states that dont have the paper ballot backup. That is the only safeguard against tampering against votes. John brennan, and i should say, no relation, that we know of. [laughter] a lot of brennans. In terms of what is happening now, Hillary Clinton got a lot of attention in the past week or week and a half or so. In her view, she believed Tulsi Gabbard who was one of the democrats running for the nomination was a russian asset. Her staff doubled down on that. She did not walk away from the comments. Do you see what she was talking about there . Leave it to secretary clinton for the explanation. You can Say Something is a russian asset even if it is not trying to advance russian interests, but because of what it does or what it says, it is in fact something that is promoting the russian agenda. Maybe that is what she meant in terms of some of the things gabbard has said. Like the United States should not be involved in some of these things. And a thirdparty candidate was something specifically that she brought up. The russians are very sophisticated observers. Theyve done a lot of research about the political scene and they have looked at a lot of Different Countries in terms of how they can influence events. Sometimes maybe a thirdparty candidate pushing money into the coffers of some of those politicians of parties they favor. We have seen that being done in the european countries. They also push money into some campaigns that they oppose because they want to put tainted money in and expose it as a way to undercut and undermine the electoral prospect of individuals. The russians will opt for a lot of different things. We have to be worried on the technical front, absolutely. They also look for opportunities to promote a certain theme in media. Certain theme in media and journals and other types of things. They will be able to befriend individuals who will unwittingly going go along with their encouragement, feeding money into some academic areas as far as promoting something they think will be useful in terms of impact on the electorate. And also looking at politicians are going to be amenable if not malleable in terms of the overtures they make. And the digital environment is one. There is no easy answer to this issue. I think we as a society are struggling to ensure that digital environment does not become the playground for all of undermine this country, by exercising freedom of speech but pushing out bogus information, information that can really undermine this countrys democratic foundations. How do you balance security with the liberties and freedoms that we love as a country . So the russians take advantage of those, the openness of western society, the freedoms and liberties in this country to be able to operate on the ground and in the digital environment. And this is a challenge we face, not just from the russians but others who really want to shape the influence, or shape attitudes here in the United States, both politicians as well as the electorate. This is the challenge, i think, or the 21st century. And i have been a long time advocate for having a bipartisan congressional commission, just after 9 11, when we tried to address some issues that might have contributed to the attacks on 9 11, we had the wmd commission after the iraq war. I think we need to have a commission take a look at that environment, and how we grapple with those challenges, and not diminish in any way those freedoms and liberties that really define america, and at the same time not allow a lot of countries, entities, to take advantage of that to our detriment. Arearet so while you talking about this need to Intelligence Community is essentially being investigated itself from within. We know attorney general barr has launched this investigation into the investigation about the origins of the 2016 Russian Election meddling probe. He is using an attorney in connecticut as the lead, by the name of john durham. Have any of you been approached by those investigators. I have not. Margaret do you expect to . I mean, you must be preparing for it, given that you were there. Of got a lot to prepare for. [laughter] margaret there are a lot of people who reported that you are expected to be there. Mr. Morell mr. Mccabe it is on my list. [laughter] theously i played a role in investigation they are looking into. I expect that will be contacted. I havent yet been. I will say, theres nothing wrong with, especially a new attorney general, coming in at the conclusion of a to multiwas and highprofile, controversial asking questions about how that all began, and what was the factual medication that led to the initiation of that investigation, how it was conducted. Those sorts of reviews take place all the time. They are typically done by inspectors general, and of course one has done that on these facts, that are referred to as the Michael Horowitz fisa investigation, ending up as being a broader set of questions and issues, which again is appropriate. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The spirit in which the investigation is isducted, then i think it something a lot of people, myself included, would cooperate with. Margaret it is now a criminal probe. Does that change your view . Mr. Mccabe i dont believe that changes as much as people have indexed on in the past week. It would be odd to expect mr. Durham to conduct that sort of inquiry without having subpoena power, things like that. Margaret so that is how you understand it . The elevation to obtain subpoena power and convene a grand jury, it is not that something is about to happen in terms of an indictment . Mr. Mccabe i dont know what is going to happen. But it is not uncommon for an attorney general to give a special counsel that sort of authority, even on the basis of tong able to bring in folks submit to questioning and to misleadingle arent them in that questioning. The problem with this, margaret, is when you have a factual scenario, which i think we have now, that indicates some folks, and possibly even the attorney general, are bringing a set of preconceived notions and biases to that investigation. And if that is the case, i dont know that it is but there are indicators that it might be, or that the purpose of the investigation is not really to get to the bottom of the what did we know and why did we make the decisions we did, but more political theories, conspiracy theories and things of that nature, than that cause me causes me great concern about the state of the department and the Intelligence Community that is currently under investigation. Were alsojohn, you there. What is your view of this nowcriminal probe . Have you asked been asked to speak to investigators . Mr. Brennan to my understanding, it was a New York Times report that said the barr review evolved at some point into a criminal inquiry investigation. I do not believe the department of justice has come out officially saying it is a criminal investigation. I may be wrong, but that was the New York Times report. I have cooperated with any type of review that the congress or executive branch has decided to do on the 2016 election, or any other issue. With anyoperate reviewsional branch whether it is coming from the committees are the department of justice, or anything else. Like andy, i would like to believe that any such review or investigation would be conducted in a fair, professional and apolitical matter. John durham has a very good working withnd is a number of professionals that this will be done appropriately. I hope that william barr is going to live up to his responsibilities as attorney general to oversee, whether it be a review or inquiry, in a way in a manner that does not have any Politics Associated with it. So i have talked to them. There are indications that i will be talked to at some point. I happened to be there at the time. I was involved in some of these things. I am very confident that cia conducted its responsibilities appropriately, consistent with our legal authorities, and in a manner that was apolitical. And we were trying to fulfill our responsibilities to understand the counterintelligence threat posed by the russians, and what they were trying to do. A very challenging issue, on the eve of a hotlycontested election. And we were part of a democratic administration. And one thing president obama said to us, he wanted us, cia, fbi and nsa, to carry out our responsibilities as rigorously as we can, but not to do anything at all that either in reality or perception would be perceived as putting a thumb on the scale in terms of the outcome. So we had to navigate these waters as best we could. I look back on it, and i feel good about what it is we did as an Intelligence Community. I feel very confident and comfortable with what i did. So i have no qualms whatsoever about talking to investigators who are going to be looking at this, again, in a fair and appropriate manner. So if i am called, i will be happy to talk to them. Margaret the times article you referred to also made reference to the idea that this could be politically minded. You dont necessarily assume it to be that . You think there are valid reasons to have this probe . Said, ifan as andy the effort is to try to look back and ensure that things were done appropriately, as opposed to questioning the analytic assessment that was done and the judgments that came out of it, i am not going to ascribe motivations to this, but i must tell you that it certainly lends the appearance, at least in the minds of some, that this is politically motivated, because of the continued insistence by mr. Trump that this is all a grand hoax, and that the former leaders of the intelligence and Law Enforcement community were involved in this effort to try to subvert the candidacy and Electoral Prospects of mr. Trump, which is the furthest from the truth it could be. As andy mentioned, there were some things that mr. Barr said in testimony that raised questions in my own mind about whether or not he was looking at this through the prism of what and attorney general should be doing as opposed to the , standpoint of mr. Trumps lawyer. Margaret what do you mean . you mean language used in testimony in particular . Mr. Brennan yeah. Margaret do you want to be more specific . [laughter] what he means, in testimony barr referred to this as spying, which is a very unusual word to use. Margaret and for someone who once worked at the cia himself. Mr. Morell i was not there but , i know what they were doing. They were carrying out a counterintelligence mission, which they are legally and morally empowered to do. That is not spying as we that is not spying as we , typically talk about spying. Plus when you look at how mr. , barr handled the Mueller Report, to simply declare before we had a chance to see it that it declared no collusion and completely exonerated the president does not fill you with , confidence about the objectivity of the Justice Department. He questioned the predication of the counterintelligence investigation. All have to do is look at the files of the fbi and see what transpired before the decision in late july of 2016 that the counterintelligence investigation was launched. It would have been derelict, absolutely derelict, for the intelligenceLaw Enforcement community to not pursue this in a manner that was consistent with their authorities and responsibilities and obligations. It is really quite interesting to see that, we are hit from one side saying, those people didnt do enough at all, they didnt do anything to stop the russians, and the other side is saying saying look what they were , doing. It is tough. [laughter] it really is. And given that you have u. S. Persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign who were consorting with russian officials that raised questions about the objectives and agendas and motivations and collusion, given that cia does not collect any intelligence or pursue any intelligence on u. S. Persons, which is why we had to work so closely with the fbi and share the information that we had, which is why we set up a fusion group. Let me just give john a break, although you are doing really well. [laughter] what we knew is really well known. What we knew at the time, the fact that we knew the russians had been attacking us through cyber means at institutions across the country. But specifically, political, academic, government institutions, we knew this as early as the fall of 2014, and we saw that activity peaking as we rolled into the election. We knew. And this is all widely discussed in the Mueller Report and other places we knew about their , targeting of the dnc. We know about their efforts to extract information from the dnc. We then knew in july that the russians have used that material, had weaponized that material with the intended effect of negatively impacting secretary clintons campaign. And then we found out from a trusted ally, that a u. S. Person who was part of the Campaign Prior to any of that information becoming public, prior to the weaponization of the dnc emails said to this ally that the , russians had offered to assist the campaign. Margaret you are talking about australia. Mr. Morell im talking about george papadopoulos. I will not specify who the ally was. Margaret i think he is now running for congress. Mr. Morell mr. Brennan mr. Mccabe that is remarkable. [laughter] with that knowledge and the knowledge that a u. S. Person may have had foreknowledge of that and may have been in contact with not just any adversary, but russia, their never ending efforts to undermine our liberal democratic order, driving the sort of wedges between different parts of our society as we know , they have done, we had a job to do. We had a very tough decision to make. We did it in the most evenhanded and fair and quiet way that we possibly could. But we stepped up to that responsibility that we knew we were oathbound not to ignore, and we did our job. Anybody that wants to come in now and talk about that, i am happy to walk through this thing again and explain 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. Margaret i want to come to mike. Quickly, on the Mueller Report language, it said no proven conspiracy, but it did say there were numerous links identified between the russian government and the Trump Campaign. When you read the report, what did you think that meant . You, and then we will go to mike. Mr. Mccabe i thought, wow. That is a remarkable conclusion for any report. Numerous links between the russian government or individuals affiliated with russian intelligence and the Trump Campaign. That is still an open question that i think a lot of people would like to hear the answer to. Why . Margaret and you are one of them . I would love to know the answer to that. Margaret mike, i know you have some strong feelings about the durham probe in terms of the , message sent to other analysts and the rest of the community. Mr. Morell i have deep concerns about the Justice Department looking at analysts and making , judgments about whether the analysts came out in the right place, whether they did their work properly, etc. There are other aspects of the program i agree with andy on. Take a look at whether all the legal decisions that needed to be made to open the counterintelligence investigation and the decisions made along the way, that is fine if it is done in the right spirit. But to have the Justice Department look at cia analysis and ask them to come to the conclusion, did the analysts do the right thing . Did the analysts, out did the analysts out in thelysts come right place . It is highly inappropriate. Because the Justice Department does not have a lot of experience understanding the analyzing process. They are not experts. And john durham, as good as he is does not understand how we , evaluate information, how we evaluate sources, how we come to conclusions, how we put confidence levels on them he , doesnt understand that. He does not do that for a living. He looks at issues and decides whether a crime has been committed. And i am concerned about this because analysts at cia who are going to be talked to, or perhaps already have been talked to by durhams folks have had to , hire lawyers. And i concerned this will have a Chilling Effect on analysts Going Forward who have to make a , tough decision on what is perhaps a political issue. Theyre looking at an issue overseas, but it has political consequences here, they might think twice in the future about making such a decision if they , have to fear hiring a lawyer down the road and defend themselves against the Justice Department. The other point i would make here is that people have already looked at the question of this analysis. The Senate Intelligence Committee Looked at this, and in a bipartisan way unanimously came to the conclusion that the analysts were right, that what the russians were trying to do was divide us, damage Hillary Clinton, and help President Trump. So the republicans and the democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee Said the analysts came out at the right place. That is a proper place to look at this. The house Intelligence Committee came at it in a different place because it is broken. The house Intelligence Committee, the democrats said the analysts came out in the right place, the republicans said they came out in the right place on trying to create divisions and hurting Hillary Clinton, but they got it wrong on helping President Trump. But they provided no compelling arguments for that. So people have already looked at this the proper people have , already looked at this. John durham should not be looking at it. Margaret do you agree . I do. Here is my definition of an analyst. An analyst is someone who deals with a situation of ambiguity, with information arriving incrementally, but under constant pressure to come to a conclusion. That means that analysts take reputational risks every day. And i think mikes most compelling point here is if you , put analysts in a situation where they are defending their analysis with a lawyer at their side, and a Person Holding a criminal prosecution over their head, that is a terrible position to put in analyst in. To put an analyst in. Terrible position to put an analyst in. The most compelling point mike makes is this discourages risktaking in analysis. Without risktaking, you get pablum. I think the other point to make here, margaret, is that the standard for coming to a judgment in a criminal case is much higher than the standard for coming to judgment on an analytic issue. So i think the other isnt to make here, margaret, that the standard for coming to a judgment in a criminal case is much higher than the standard for coming to judgment on an analytical issue. I am concerned that john durham, when he looks at this, he will say the analysts did not have enough information to make the judgment they made. He is looking at it from the perspective of whether he would indict somebody, not whether he would make a decision as an analyst. To all the future analysts in the room, dont let these guys discourage you. It is a great job. We need you now more than other. I see some right out there. I know who they are. Margaret in terms of talking about something that is continuing to overhang the country and the Intelligence Community is the middle of the political fight we are in with impeachment. The president has made clear that he has a lot of differences and distrust of the Intelligence Community. He has said that since he was on the campaign trail, and that has come up frequently. Now the whistleblower in this , case as it pertains to ukraine came from the cia, and happened to be detailed to the white house. What is this confluence of factors that up to here, ultimately for the intelligence , community . If President Trump is reelected, and he may be, what does that mean for the Intelligence Community if that disrupt continues to be fed, rightly or wrongly, but it exists . Mr. Mclaughlin the one thing i will be confident about is the Intelligence Community will just keep doing its job. One thing that is remarkable about it is there is a clear sense of mission. The Intelligence Community has been through a lot. Controversy is not unknown in that business. You get up every morning, come in, and do your job. The relationship with trump has gone through stages. I think we are in another stage now. The first stage, as was i would describe it was ignorance. ,ignorance of the Intelligence Community. He did not know anything about it as a candidate. The second stage was hostility. John has described that. Once it appeared to him that the Intelligence Community was somehow jeopardizing his candidacy. Then he realized he needed it in north korea. The third stage was sort of the nessus city was sort of the necessity of intelligence. And the fourth stage is the one we are in now, resenting the need. You cannot conduct Foreign Policy without good intelligence. No president can, not even a reelected President Trump. So this will always be as long , as he is there, this will always be tense and conflicting relationship, which in many ways is the nature of intelligence anyway. Margaret but there is something unique, you have to agree, that the impeachment inquiry is underweight sparked by someone in the Intelligence Community. It feeds the president s concern, and he often uses the term about a deep state being there to take him out. Mclaughlin thank god for the deep state. [laughter] [applause] everyone here has seen this progression of diplomats and Intelligence Officers and white house and white house people tripping up to capitol hill and thinking, these are people who are answering a call. Think about it for a minute. With all of the people that knew what was going on here it took , an Intelligence Officer to step forward and Say Something which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else. . Hy does that happen i will tell the American People why this happens. This is the institution and the u. S. Government, with all its flaws and all its mistakes, that 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 or speaks to policy, it speaks the truth. Mr. Morell the issue of the the issue of the problem here is near here, it is at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. It is not at the hoover building. It is not at langley. The professionals are going to continue to do what they are expected to do. The reason why mr. Trump has this very contentious relationship with cia and fbi and the deep state people, margaret and you. And me. Margaret specifically he has he has cited you. ,[laughter] is because they tell the truth. It is because they cannot be manipulated like play in his hands. It is because they will stand up and speak out when things are wrong, and they will tell him what the truth is. And the truth, he fears. Because he has lived on anything but the truth, not just during his presidency, but even before that. Thank goodness for the women and so men in the intelligence and Law Enforcement communities who are standing up and carrying out their responsibility on behalf of their fellow citizens. So if he doesnt use their intelligence, if he doesnt use their contributions to this countrys security, bad on him, but our people who continue to fight the fight in the trenches here, as well as overseas will , do their work irrespective of what he is going to do or say about them. When they raise their hand in the oath of allegiance to this country, as andy said, they have that obligation. It is a duty of the ralph there oath. Compelleds what ambassador taylor and colonel vindman and others to say this is wrong, this is antithetical to the values this country was founded upon. And unfortunately, there are too many people on the other end of pennsylvania avenue, in the congress who hold their nose at , what is being done. And until they realize mr. Trump is trampling the foundations of this great country of ours, we are going to be in for a rocky road. So i am just pleased every day that my former colleagues in the Intelligence Community are continuing to fulfill their duties. Margaret do you think the whistleblower [applause] its not that i feel strongly about the issue at all. Margaret no. [laughter] do you think the whistleblower should be compelled or asked to testify . Republicans are saying, in defense of the president he has , the right to know his accuser . The whistleblower andhe whistleblower act, the Intelligence Community whistleblower act, is designed to ensure individuals can come forward and speak out when they see criminality or things that , are inappropriate. They do so at great risk to and themselves and their careers and their futures. There are ways that the whistleblower and why is the whistleblower even needed anymore to provide their testimony . Because it seems everything she or he said has been corroborated by others. So it is no longer hearsay, as the whistle lower was being accused of before. It is now the people who are on the phone people who heard , things been said. What is being done right now is to try to attack somebody who is seen as a partisan, that is not. I dont see a reason to expose the whistleblowers identity. There are some nasty people out there. I have come to realize that myself. So that individuals identity should be protected. But there are ways to ensure that if that person has Additional Information that is above and beyond what the other depositions have provided, they can get that testimony in a manner that is going to protect that persons identity and be consistent with the purpose of the whistleblower statutes. Margaret mike, i want you to jump in. But i do want to tell everyone to get ready with those questions. You can see those microphones if you want to line. Margaret, in this political environment, i think there are two myths about the i. C. One is from President Trumps opponents, who want to be up to paint a picture that his rhetoric and behavior, as inappropriate as it is towards the Intelligence Community, is damaging the community, creating morell problems, is leading people to leave, is undermining what the Intelligence Community does every day. That is one message. It is wrong, it is wrong is both johns have just said. People just buckle down and do their work. The other myth is that the Intelligence Community is the deep state, and it is actively trying to undermine the president and we can him politically. That too is wrong. What is interesting is that the albaghdadi operation, of which this was a huge intelligence success, based on what i read in the paper, undermines both of those myths. Because the intelligence job was so beautiful, and how could a demoralized place crippled by people leaving have done this job . And then the other is if this , really was a deep state out to get the president , why would it give him the political gift of being able to get albaghdadi . It kills both myths. Margaret we will start here. maam, if you would say your name and where you are from. My name is christine vargas. I am a political partner at the truman National Security project. This question is for all of you. Thank you for being here. Long story short you have a , platform here to help inform all political campaigns, both congressional and president ial on what they can do. , i would like to hear from each of you on how they should watch out for infiltration, both digitally and in person, and what are some steps they can take to protect against it as well as report it to the appropriate parties . Thank you. Will pass on the , for my colleagues to focus on the human approach. , it is imperative that People Associated with campaigns at level, not just president , people in state offices particularly states that are , impactful on National Politics in one way or another, have to understand the threats that are facing them from the human vector, those individuals who will attempt to ingratiate a position of trust to try to influence those campaigns. These things are real. It is not just stuff you see happening in movies, and outlandish plot lines and things like that. Far too frequently, folks who are attempting to enter politics fail to understand the significance of the threat they face, just from straightup human operations. I will give you an answer on Cyber Security. Former secretary of Homeland Security jeh johnson, myself, a number of other people around of a newory board, notforprofit Company Called cyberdome. What cyberdome is doing is providing pro bono Cyber Security services to any campaign that wants it, democrat, republican, independent. So my suggestion is to pick up the phone and call cyberdome. They can help your campaign with Cyber Security. [applause] a couple of things, following on to michaels comment. Simple cyber hygiene for everyone, because the theft of the dnc material in particular was not a very sophisticated operation. That was a phishing operation. I will bet if all of you took out your phones right now, you ishing ond someone ph your phone, some phony message that you would open at your peril. That is basically what happened. So simple hygiene at all levels of the electoral process. One could go on, but i will give you just one other idea. I think it is really important that every state have a paper ballot or paper backup system, in some way. While we are in this emergency this emergency period, until we figure it out with Something Like a commission as john brennan has called for, paper ballot is the surest way. I think a lot is dependent upon the candidates leadership and instilling in his or her , Campaign Staff a real sense of doing what is right and not doing what is wrong. There are so many ways that somebody may pursue victory at all costs. And i think we see examples of that right now in the u. S. Political system. Take whatever type of political information or whatever that might benefit you. ,to me, i think the integrity a candidate shows really is important as far as trickling down to their people, and demonstrating the leadership that is needed, that winning at all cost is not winning, it is losing, to this country. So in addition to all of those things, there needs to be a sense of the values that the candidate really prioritizes. Margaret can you say your name and what organization you are with . Ken myers. Citizen of the United States. [laughter] said cia officers are sworn to tell the truth. Meaningquestioning the of the word disinformation in the cia context. And for mr. Brennan, mr. Klapper recently stated in pursuing his role in investigating a possible , trumprussia connection, he was simply following the orders of his commanderinchief, suggesting that if he is indicted by mr. Trump, he will invoke the nuremberg defense of just following orders. Do you consider that a valid defense . I am referring to an ethic among analysts to tell the truth. Disinformation is a misunderstood concept. To the extent it exists, it exists in the realm of covert action. And i would say even there, when the cia uses a term like propaganda, it has learned that the best propaganda is the truth. Cia is the organization that created radio free europe. And it is the organization that managed to get a lot of western literature behind the iron curtain during the cold war. So frankly, disinformation in the classic sense that we see the soviets deploying it years ago, and the russians more recently is not something the , cia does as a matter of practice and routine. What jim klapper was referring to was that it was the white house, president obama that asked the intelligence , community in early december to put together an assessment about what the russians were doing so that the next administration would have the benefits of the insights and knowledge and expertise that was evident in the time of the election period. And so that resulted in the Intelligence Community assessment that was done in early january that was given to president obama and president elect trump at that time. That is what jim klapper was referring to. So that does not bring in the nuremburg defense or whatever else. He was not telling us to spy on the Trump Campaign or prevent the Trump Campaign from being victorious, at all. He told us to do our jobs as fbi and cia officers, but he did assessment, and i am glad he did. Thank you. My name is amanda linton. I live in woodbridge, virginia. I want to start off by saying thank you all for your service to this country. I am deeply grateful for all of you. Getting back to the unnecessary attacks on the deep state that this president likes to talk about every day, what would be your words of encouragement for morale, for those of us like myself who are considering going into this field . I would say two things. One is, as john mentioned, you cant make National Security policy, you simply cant, without really good intelligence. Todayat is probably truer than it ever has been. So the work of the Intelligence Community, whether you are a analyst, is an incredibly important and will remain so for a very, very long time. The second point, this administration will eventually come to an end. [applause] i want to just say that the whole idea of the deep state is the most sophomoric idea i have ever heard. Margaret i agree. I agree. And and whether you are a sophomore or not, but the way it is deployed by some of our national leaders. What is deep state . We are talking about the Civil Service of the United States, which is a jewel in the crown of this country. You have got outside this , building, probably a lot of lights still on in federal buildings of people dedicated to , doing a good job to the American People. Is it perfect . No. Are there people there that are not great . Yes. But by any human standard, it is the jewel in the crown of this country. And what i would say, i teach graduate students now, and i encourage them to go into government now, because when this is all over, there is going to be a renaissance of dedication in this country. And you want to be part of it. I absolutely agree with that. And if i could just add on a personal level, in some ways i am probably the worst recruiter for Government Services ever. [laughter] but i get that. I have to tell you that i firmly believe there is no better life than one in the service to others. And if you are the type of person that is compelled to this unique and profound service to your community, to your country, then you should do that, because you will find a community of people that is diverse, broad, they 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. And there is no better place to do that than in the places we have served. And despite everything that i have been through in the last three years and all 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 to live. If you think that is interesting, do it. [applause] i wont belabor the point. It is the best damn career you could ever have. I am so jealous when i look at you and so many other young people, you are starting off in your careers. Our careers are behind us, mostly. A couple view still, i think, have some gas in the tank. You, i think, still have some gas in the tank. [laughter] if you have the opportunity to get into public service, seize it. You will never regret it. Thank you. Jerry dunn leavy with the washington examiner. We have been talking about durham and ukraine, but we also have the doj inspector generals report coming out as well. I have a couple questions about something that is 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 steele dossier before using it in fisa applications . I have her generalities, but specifically what was verified in the dossier before it was used . And specifically, if there is an explanation for why in the fisa applications the fbi did not , just say directly or indirectly that Christopher Steele was being paid by the clinton campaign. There are a lot of caveats and there is a lengthy footnote in there, but i was just wondering if you would be able to answer those two questions. The answer to your first question is no. I will not go into specificity about what the fbi verified prior to the fisa, or after. And the answer to your second wait, as imi will sure you will to see what mr. , hurwitz is conclusions are in that report. That is a matter that i assume is at the center of his investigation, and im anxious to see his thoughts on it. As you mentioned, there was an extensive and detailed explanation inserted by the department of justice into that fisa package that everyone involved believed accurately i should not speak for everyone else, i will speak for myself i believe it accurately reflected what we knew about mr. Steele. We will be anxious to hear what vig thinks about that, and we probably wont have to wait much longer. My name is hunter price. Im a grad student at georgetown. Thank you guys for being here. It is amazing to see everybody up on one stage. An issue in the 2020 democratic primary has been breaking up some large companies, including those taken advantage of in the 2016 election like google or , facebook. The companies claim this would harm their ability to stop bad actors like iran or russia, like we saw in 2016. Do you think this is the case, that breaking it up would hurt their ability to stop it, or not . Thank you. Margaret does anybody want to take that . I will take one and then go over here, because i want to make sure we get more questions. Im not really qualified to answer that on a technical basis, but my instinct is it is a bad idea to break them up. These companies i can be as critical of them as anyone, but they have also a tough job. I have not followed the whole facebook controversy that carefully, except to notice that in the last couple of weeks they , have pointed out that they have 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. So 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 that we have not thought of. My name is marco, im a permanent resident and student at George Washington university. My question is for the whole panel on the question of , impeachment. Recently advertisements have come out in key states where senators are up for reelection nd the ads are asking him asking them whether they are for or against impeachment. How can the u. S. Make sure that its impeachment process is devoid of russian influence . Margaret is impeachment good for our adversaries . I guess you could put it that way. Does anyone want to take that . [laughter] well, i would not say impeachment is good for our adversaries. Lets not take a position on impeachment. All the turmoil we are in, that is good for our adversaries. I would leave it at that. Rick do we have time for one more question . We will get you all to the game. Ok. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing like leaving them wanting more, which is what i have always been told. I apologize to those who are still in line. Perhaps you will get a chance during the reception to ask a question. I ask everybody in the audience to exit through the rear doors. Let our panelists exit through the side door. It is 00, top of the second. Thank you to our wonderful panel for this great presentation. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [indistinct conversations] facebook, 120 6 Million People were exposed to russian manipulation attempts in the 2016 election. 20 Million People on instagram. We know russia attacked voting wetems in all 50 states, know they targeted misinformation at specific people and we know 27 percent of votingage americans saw russian in russian misinformation in the final weeks leading up to the election. That is what we know. What we dont know is what effect, if any, any of this had on the election, on the 2018 midterms, what effect it will have an 2020, and not just in the u. S. But liberal democracies around the world . Monday night at 8 00 eastern on the communicators on cspan2. The house will be in order. Beenr 40 years cspan has providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and publicpolicy events from washington dc end around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. On thursday the house debated a resolution setting rules for the inquiry into impeaching President Trump. 232196. Ution passed the speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition . Mr. Mcgovern by direction of the committee on rules i call up House Resolution 660 and ask for its immediate considering. The speaker the clerk will report the resolution. The clerk House Resolution 66, 0 resolved that the Permanent Select Committee on intelligence, the committees on financial services, foreign affairs, the judiciary, oversight and reform, and ways and means are directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.