Sweeping and systematic, we now have a way to digest the conclusion that there was a lot of it out there. When people hear that, they need to hear that was not only droll activity which is folks pretending never us riding around in cyberspace but more importantly because the effect was clearer. The hackers who stole contacts. And then link it back into our system through front groups ultimately we can make and created the effect not on their own. Had our press been more careful, the media agenda would not have been reset the way it was by that act content. So no there was a lot, they downplayed the extent, a lot more than we initially knew. We knew it was across platforms and we know that its still there. As a platform shut down one place, it pops up in another. Its a little bit like likable. We have to keep working about this. Not just from the russians but other actors who might want to intervene in our elections. We heard from facebook that only about a hundred thousand dollars was spent by these russian groups. People who make that argume argument, they didnt buy a lot of advertising. But that doesnt mean they didnt have a lot of reach. By the way since some of that was purchased removal, we had to be see the platforms that we shouldve spotted the fact that was outside of the United States. That was through final contract, it was from the organic post. Their estimate is hundred and 26 million reached. That doesnt mean everybody rented everything but it means it showed up someplace where it couldve had an impact. Its not a small amount. This is talking about one set of platforms. In your book, cyber work, you cited figure that said there were 340 million shares. Of this information. That we know of. One of the questions because we continue to find contact and the revelation of it being there it continues to be put out. There was probably more that we havent found it. So one question is, how are we going to be able as those who want to intervene, shift tactics to find them and shut them down before they can ever have an impact. The platforms are trying, we know theyve done a lot of it. The question is can we outpace people and theyre watching every thing we are doing and try to adjust from the result. From the book, the tech giants platforms were designed to efficiently reach the customers coveted by the advertisers. They have unique capacities and userfriendly means to hone in on desired audience members. One of the things i was surprised by was the extent to which the existing social media platforms structured permit amateurs to target audiences. Ive studied politics for a long time and effort average election we would gather people, we would produce people who would produce a campaign. The key people who figured out how to get the ad to the desired audience and it took us hours and hours talking with these people to try and figure out what had gotten where and how efficiently a dead been done. It was in our firm. Now, our 13 yearold grandson could go on facebook and figure out how to target a message. The system is so well set and theyve gathered so much information about how to reach different parts of the electorates, their focus in the ways which they can reach us are in effect micro targeted. They can reach subunits of subunits of the public. The consuming public. They really dont have to have that much skill. You mentioned you covered politics for a long time and written et cetera. Your first book, 1984, packaging the presidency. Were we able to target back in 1984. Present just kind of spaghetti in the wall. While that book covers the televised era. His focus on advertising into the days in which it was carried and pulled and we marched through parades and was posted on walls and through the radio era in the book concentrates on 1952 through the current. I was riding on. I saw across time was the sophistication which the system permitted you to reach audiences became more and more sophisticated. Initially when we try to target something in 1952, you cant get it in parts of the United States on one television outlet because the whole nation wasnt getting up systematically. So we look at 1952, basically a Mass Campaign to a mass audience by geographic blocked regions. By the time he got into the 1980s, you could target specific radio channels that were reaching specific demographics. You can also as soon as you have cable, you can begin on cable to start to find subsections of the electorate by geographic targeting but you knew where that came cable was going. As a result across time can we have seen more and more sophisticated targeting. With messages that have more capacity to persuade because of the audiovisual environment give us the ability to move images really rapidly. When theyre moving rapidly with the evocative video and with music that provokes the emotions, you cant really control it. You cant be as analytic as you could be on the right side. In the 17 hundreds and at least you had to stop and process it literally as you read it. So the capacity to use our susceptibilities has increased as the media changed. Social media adds something to that repertoire. Back to 2016, what dont we know or what cant we know. The book actually caused my people anxiety. The cant is really about trying to recover what happened in the past. If you dont have the scholarly materials gathered in real time, the audience analyzing in real time. Youre not going to be able to recover some of the impact of the sum of the message. After this we already remember the election. That number of people who said they voted on one side, changed. But we didnt survey the right people during the election. He cant really go back and find out what was happening in realtime with those individuals. Thats a big cant know. We also dont know whether that organic troll content, the viable stuff. Not the paid staff. Did reach the voters who are susceptible in these three decisive states. Wisconsin pennsylvania. We know there was enough across the electorate. We note which copulations they were trying to demobilize and shift. But we dont know what got to the states. The platforms know that. I am hoping the Senate Intelligence committee knows it too. Im hoping at some. Were going to learn it. The reason we know it for example, twitter contacted people to god controlled content and let them know that they had been exposed. How did they find us. They knew we were there. As a result they know where that went. Since facebook and instagram. With some caveat youre not going to be exact you can make a pretty good estimate. Some of those troll groups you list, hillary for president , blacks against hillary, trump train resign now for fbi director coleman. One of the things that is intriguing to me looking at the way in which the troll content started to show discord. As a result by the way disadvantages the parties, if the country is dealing on and feeling unease, you mouse amount out of power. That would disadvantage barack obama. One of the things that intrigue me was the way in which they sought out audiences by looking what was already resonating. Some cases, they coopted those audiences. Youve got a site that is trying to attract the black lives matter. Constituency, is called collectivist. It gains more traction than the black to the site. That is kind impersonation. They also managed to get people in the Africanamerican Community who are artists to create things for the site. These people didnt know they were dealing with russians when they did that. You also had a site called actin underscore, its got that supposed to be tennessee republicans. It had high traffic in the tennessee public site. What you are seeing in st. Petersburg looking at what is there and asking, how can i coopt this. Then harness it in the directions that i would like to see the electric move. In the case of the blacked of the society and the target of the Africanamerican Community, height by arguing there is just no difference between Hillary Clinton and donald trump. Hillary clinton was actually vulnerable to it. The increase of black incarceration under bill clintons administration. In order to see how that works, youve got have a theory about persuasion. There is a little counterintuitive. My theory of persuasion says that when you change the amount of messaging that youve gotten one side, you can disadvantage or advantage a candidate. People tend to think what is the messages they are, it has effect. It does. But the amount of messaging has an effect too. So if you can increase the amount of messaging, its advantageous to a candidate as a predator. Black incarceration, you decrease the likelihood that that content unc will go for that candidate. Thats what i believe the russian trolls accomplish. Do you debate to use the word cyber war. Yes in retrospect, had i known more about the National Security community had already been saying, about the hazard of using i wouldve thought, the second and third time about using it. There are some technical arguments about why it should not be used. And why it can be used in other cases. There are largely technical outside my expertise. I used it not in any of those technical senses, but to try to get rid of a language that i thought was really downplaying. You go back and read all of the News Coverage that you can reasonably find, 2016, using the verbiage metal or interfere. The russians interfered. The stronger does intervene. The scope of this and the potential impact of this, and the threat to the electoral structure involved in trying to get into her voting mechanisms, i dont think should be called metal interfere intervene. Not in the scholarly rhetoric. I want to ramp up the language. We could increase our preparedness as a result. The word cyber war, a cyber attack was a way of saying to people we should view this is very serious. I would justify the use on rhetorical ground. Not National Security ground. When you attack the infrastructure of an election, thats an attack that isnt an attack on national sovereignty. In a way that i think justifies at least considering using the term. Also if you draw in our history, think about when a country goes to work, its actually moving troops into places. On the first first things it tries to do was it takes ground is to take over the Communication System. Now the russians didnt take over our Communication System but in some important ways, they did support it. In this instance, i can legitimate legitimately stay banned cyber work. I think i would like to put it so that it is not literally meaning cyber war in a way which the National SecurityCommunity Means that term. After that book, the two Major Party Nominees increased our collective vulnerability to russian men imaginations in very different ways. Trump did so by what he said and did. And clinton by with she failed to do. Had hillary Hillary Clinton had released the speeches that Bernie SandersBernie Sanders was asking for. He wouldve attacked back on them but we would have that vented them during the primaries and as a result, when segments were disclosed, the wikileaks had been gotten brought illegally by the russian hackers, they wouldnt have been used radically that was so busy trying to handle all of that content that was being dumped on it that it didnt actually look carefully to see that those hacked segments didnt say what they thought they had said and didnt say that bernie fant sanders in fear. Im going to do something really different with wall street. But a public im going to tell people something else. Thats just simply not there. Hillary clinton could have prevented the problem that those tax segments because her when they were taken out of context had she simply disclosed. She was aware he candidate and i think her wariness in this case caused a problem for her. Donald trump just think about that statement. The candidate trump made. Russian if youre listening, i think the hypothetical should go like this. Imagine that john mccain and romney, prior to nominees had been confronted with exactly the situation. I think they wouldve not use the content, they wouldve suggested strongly our government better get on this right and find out whats going on. Try to shut this thing down. Donald trump was creating an environment which there was an approval of the hacked content being disseminated into the system and in that case whether he intended it jokingly or not called for more to be found and disclosed. Is there a role that the Obama Administration did or did not play in this. We know that from some very fine work by journalists. We are coming that. What we see in david coren is that there is a large plan laid out for the Obama Administration and involve very strong counterattacks on russia as a result. The hacking activity in the Obama Administration not able to get the cooperation of the republicans, and the senate and house to issue a very strong public statement, instead, in the forum of president obama went to boudin to say stay out of our electoral system by which they met our voting system. One of the things i wonder is what wouldve happened had they instead had the sanctions in place in october that they prompt finally putting place in in december 1st. That wouldve change the dialogue. The press possibly wouldve been more aware of the russians at the source. My portly, was there a passive communication that was heard by the russians because of the obama focus. We only know this because of reporters. Well whatever else youre doing, were not as worried about. I think the legitimate question to ask in retrospect is could the Obama Administration could have stepped up more strongly more clearly in and as a result, change the structure. Also change the electoral dynamics. Back to cyber war in a subchapter called my presuppositions. Number three. Barring evidence of tampering with voting machines. And no credible proof of either has been forthcoming donald j cronk trump is the duly elected president of the United States. I believe that that is the case rid this is what is difficult about making this argument. People hear the argument saying that the trolls and hackers laid a different. The hackers clearly made a difference. And vetted presentation media agenda. Somehow claim donald trump is not a legitimate president. We voted him the president of the United States and he is the president. To the extent that we trust our National Security community, it is not disclose evidence that votes were changed. If they were change, we would have a different situation. As the molar investigation interestingly enough raised our awareness. By virtue of indicating that one county in florida was accessed, thats no information from the most recent miller report. We should be raising our vigilance all around the country. Are secretaries of state are working aggressively to try ensure that doesnt happen again. I take National Security that votes were not changed as best they can know. Donald trump is the duly elected president of the United States. The fact of the legitimacy by raised by all of the russian interventions, they basically won. Virtue of whether he created a real effect or not, he basically won because the president of the United States and his legitimacy is called into question as the molar investigation tries to find out what did the russians do or not do. I read my strength by what can we do to prevent every current. If we are not doing everything that we can because the president is concerned about questions of legitimacy being raised than landmark boudin scored as simply getting into our heads and getting into our systems and the way in which he did. How to cyber work it into your body. Ive always been interested in president ial rhetoric in ways which communications functions. In earlier brooks, i looked at how communications and campaigns produces effect. These are books that are widely read by the way public but one book looked at the 2000 election. Its called the 2000 election and foundations of the forefathers. What it shows is that the message and balances in the 2000 election, and the media stream, both advertising and news, can explain what one candidate won the popular vote and one candidate won the Electoral College. You hear this in the beginning of the arguments next summer work because were able to show because we are in the field every single day. The rolling crosssectional survey. We were able to show that in the last week of the election, when the dui charge against george w. Bush came to the four and he stepped out of news as a result. One major interview on the news. Network news still have major impact at this. Theyre giving time in the network news. Al gore hammered network news and regarded by underfunded by george bush. George bush was going to shortchange the security with his personal savings account. Traction at the national law and network news and we can show it day to day and the change. Over the battleground, he didnt have enough money to keep advertising at the same level as George W Bush did. He had restrictions on how much they can spend that. George w. Bush was able in the battleground to come back against the message and outspend al gore by saying you dont have to worry everythings going to be fine, Social Security is going to be protected. We saw in the battleground states that advertising different. What did we see. News advantage or popular vote. Out of that, we argue that message changes in amount message and balances can affect on the margin. The effect we see in 2000 are larger than the effects needed to affect the outcome in the 2016 election. 2008, we were the same kind of model, every day in the field with a rolling crosssection. Here we are saying obama outspend mccain. So as obama outspend mccain, we can actually look at the messages in the message stream of the democrats. We can see in our daily sampling as the amount of messaging went up, so to believe the claims in advance by candidate obama. What is that. A message imbalance creates a message effect. We saw across to past elections that