And friend, illustrates the commitment that they have made personally which i think all of us want here at the post are very grateful for. I just wanted to share that with you. Today were going to talk about cybersecurity interference in our 2020 president ial elections. The very Innovative New way of trying to do with that. And avoided talked with two of the people who are most familiar with these issues. First former director of Homeland Security, michael, former director of National Intelligence, james, each knows the cyber in these issues in a difficult political and legal background as well as anybody who has served in government. On this gentleman with the question is on everybodys mind. It involves the question of interference in our elections but this is the complaint that has been raised by the so identified whistleblower who is complaint now before the house Intelligence Committee. This subject of an Intense National discussion going all the way to the issue of impeachment. That went out asking you what you think about both of the president should be impeached, do what i ask you each the baseline question both of you as experts find it whistleblower his complaint which we have now read, urgent and credible. Because there are the words that were used. As i get both of you would think that it ought to be investigat investigated, both of its accurate. Maybe i should start since his im sort of familiar with the Intelligence Community is the lower protection act and the complaints that are submitted with it. I would say that the whistleblower complaint that i saw during my six and half years of dni, this one was the best written and best prepared footnoted and calmly added as an appropriately as it should be. The law prescribes that once a complaint is submitted, it goes directly to the intelligence communities and Inspector General. It became statutory during my time as dni. Accordingly, index independently. The attorney general makes the determined if it determination about if it is credible. I dont recall ever to have one declared urgent. So that was done, the whistleblower complied and meticulously with the provisions of the law. And for me, it was one of the most credible compelling such complaints ive ever seen. Should be investigated absolutely. The whole premise of whistleblower protection act. Is that a serious credible complaints of wrongdoing should be accordingly investigated. Your feeling about the same issues. Was it credible urgent and should be investigated . I cant judge both of its credible because i think you have to investigate it and determine the technologies and there is a person within to know certain things are not know certain things. Operably other people who would have to be talk to. When i would say is the self. Obviously it is a matter of significant concern. Any investigation or not be passionate fair, thorough and expeditious. Should what should i have it is people resolving things for before the investigation is done. That is tearing the credibility of the whole process. To be clear, the law stipulates that period of 14 days i believe where the Inspector General can investigate the allegations containing the complaint. That was done in this case where there was within the time limit of 14 days of collaboration. At least in the ig his mind before he forwarded it. Jim let me ask you because you were in the position of the acting dni. He found himself, just after taking office, he mayday decision we need received the complaint from the Inspector General, to go to the white house and the council and then to the Justice Department, and legal his counsel, with institution and says part of the whistleblower his complaint, do you think that was appropriate. Is in a tough place. Acting director of National Intelligence for about six weeks. This arrives on his doorstep. So i think, we have answered this, this is beginning to be a faq. [laughter] the way i responded in the past is that i think institutionally, joe did the right thing. The problem of course by consulting with the doj and the white house, and he had a genuine concern about violating the executive privilege. He doesnt have the authority to waive the executive privilege. I can argue till the cows come home but was at the right thing to do where he is consulting with element of the government. This implicated in the complaint. Thats a judgment call that he made. If it were me, i honestly dont know what i wouldve done. I trust what i wouldve had is the very expensive and deep conversation with my general counsel about the pros and cons of doing that. And im sure joe did the same thing. Mike, i want to ask you about a question becoming more central now and that is how can congress compel testimony either through subpoena witnesses or depositions where the documents in an investigation that it deems essential but where Administration Officials are withholding that information. What happens next . Typically what happened in the past, in particular we do get a subpoena, but even if congress what you did testify is usually holds the power of the purse through appropriations, government officials go alone because of the sanction they face the money gets cut off. I think of you going to be technical about it, what would happen as a subpoena would issue if someone failed to up here, they would then go to court and congress would go to court, it would get a court order mandating the person to up here and that if the person still failed to up here, they would in theory be held in contempt of court. The other possibility is if they declined to answer certain questions, on the ground that they are privileged, they get you into some legal issues about both of congress has a direct ability to impose contempt or both of congress has to go to court. As with most things in the american legal system, usually wind up a potentially extended litigation because you are dealing with unprecedented issues and that means everybody is going to wind up being careful about how they deal with it. And would you guess say based on your experience at this is going to end up in the Supreme Court before it is done. It is quite possible. Obviously ruby remains members back next in case. But the court given a schedule, only as a certain amount of bandwidth. In some ways, by the time he gets up to the Supreme Court, you are talking about months having online. So the may be a tension between the temple of these investigations in the temple of the court system. So again is the little hard to speculate because we dont know her yet seen a concrete dispute that emerges that is right for to report. Return that to political experience Going Forward to the 2020 elections. I want to invite if you have questions, you can send them to me right to this little ipad hashtag the slide. I will in theory see them here and look and ask the questions. Let me has jim first and then mike. To give us a sense as we head towards 2020 of how well prepared you think we are to protect our elections from the kind of interference that we have seen now, powerfully in 2016 and in 2182. Having happily left the government, i dont know is my impression that is what has been done. Certainly among the key federal agencies at the ite deferment of Homeland SecurityNational Security agency, all of this it have had our stakeholders and can help us. I think a lot has been done. Over the situation where we were in 2016, but youve got to remember that our voting apparatus is very decentralized. It said that state and local loophole and not at the federal loophole. I was really taken aback during the 2016 and we are seeing with russians doing when jay johnson then secretary of Homeland Security, reach out to voting officials and election commissions and the sort of thing at the state loophole. And a lot of pushback. We want the feds messing with this sort of thing. So i think having said all of that, i am confident that a lot has been done. To make it better and if i may david make a point here, id this topic comes up, securing the voting apparatus apparatus, the Voting Machines, computation of votes, transmission of votes, and all of that, thats usually important. But that is to me, at least one division of the problem. The other than is what i might call the lack of better terms, intellectual securities. Meaning how do you get people the question that what they receive here and read on the internet. This is where the russians exploited us. They exploited by using social media. So that part of the problem im not sure about. Mike let me ask you the same thing. How vulnerable do you think we are heading into 2020. Both of the resistance that jim describes, to federal help the state and local governments, if thats changing, and then also maybe to comment on the broader question that jim raises about the way in which our Information Space as a whole now has been it looks like contaminated. First of all, i agree with jim, the federal government has been much more active and i think the states have but much more wheeling to accept help. I also agree that actually the machines themselves, in some ways are the least vulnerable because a they are decentralized. And be they are normally not hooked up to except for very briefly. To tamper with him, you have to have physical access. Greater challenges are the registration databases, the tabulation databases and all of the infrastructure around voting which includes his ear power working, transportation working, can people get to the polls. These issues require not just preparing to raise your loophole of cybersecurity against hacking, but it also means rezoning is. If there is something that makes it difficult on election day, either databases down and if we can verify who is entitled to vote. While the trains stop running because of the cyber attack. Is there a plan for what you do next. And that is the essence of resiliency. You need that in advance. Have to make sure you know the plan is and that you have the authorities and you have the capabilities. I think that is the area we have to look at. And what jim called the second man, which is disinformation, i think this is the challenge that is broader than the election itself. Im obviously one of the approaches, that the russians and chinese also, takes your geopolitical conflict and using Information Space. With the used to call active measures. The idea here is if you can disrupt the unity of effort, of the United States or europe or other democratic countries, and basically win that went out firing a shot. Because people dont trust each other and they dont trust institutions. I think thats what weve seen over the last ten years. In fact he goes back decades. What is change most recently in social media. And the ability to manipulate that to drive very carefully tailored messages to particular individuals. That is an area where i think we are still trying to implement standards and approaches that would mitigate the effect of that. And job number one is to get people to be critical in their thinking when they see a story and not something to accept as true. Because its on the internet. Going to the point that jim and you both now have discussed, the more that we talk about the insecurity of our election systems, and sense the more people have it in their mind that there is something wrong here. A friend who runs the cybersecurity for one of the big social Media Company said to me recently, what the russians are really doing, his weapon icing and certainty. That the very fact that you know uncertain that one of these systems may be attacked, leads to less faith in the outcome. So i want to ask you, these were the hardest questions there is, is there any way to reduce that weapon iced uncertainty that you can think of it that its appropriated for the democratic government. Jim . Mike customer. One of the points that has been made repeatedly is that you need to have a verifiable order system for actually getting voting. Both of it is a paper ballot or various kinds of tools now being developed that we encrypt a copy of the ballot, the ability to ensure people that if there were a dispute, you might take those little bit of time. You can go back so that you can actually manually see it. I think thats an important confidence building measure. I dont have any silver bullets suggestion here other than to implore people to think critically and try to collaborate the information there absorbing to pick and choose your sources, that sort of thing. Ive often fantasized about some sort of national exchequer. Unassociated with the government perhaps. I dont know quite how you would constitute this but the fact checker would be seen as uniformly and universally credible. But somebody like that, could verify or refute, what is being said out there on the particularly on social media. Is tricky, we dont want to Single Authority telling us was true and what isnt. That sounds like big brother. But theres gotta be, i want to get to something that is really encouraging that you know both involved in. And its a creative effort to deal with this problem. Its called psycho. Maybe i could ask each of you to explain the basic idea of this and what sorts of Services Cyber dome will offer to candidates. For candidates in 2020 and for years to come. Jim what dont you start that off. Jim i was approached by this group which is the group of citizens public spirited citizens to align themselves with cybersecurity experts. Put together an organization in which is designed on a bipartisan basis, support and assist campaigns in particular the two mass communities to secure themselves. Its not a government thing. They are seeking funding outside of the government. Mike and i have both approached about it. We are surfing on their board of advisors. Mike the idea here is the nonprofit organization, free of charge to campaigns, cybersecurity advice. We have campaigns hacked for years. I remember back in 2008, cafes were hacked. What is different in 2016 is what they called dotson. Not only were the campaigns hacked by foreigners in order to see what the campaign was thinking about from a policy standpoint but actually some of the content was disseminated by the russians and put out there in front of the 20002016 election wait to try to unnerve and demoralize the Democratic Party and supporters. So that i think took the weaponization to a new loophole. Part of it its what we are trying to do is to get the campaigns to raise their game when it comes to protecting against these kinds of intrusions which then can be as been said, weapon iced against us. Sawyers people to take those look at what the cyber zone is proposing, its a creative idea, is that the government doing it the private citizens. In a way that should make it easier for people to call and help. As we think about how we are going to protect our democracy, which are set to be more fragile than we realize, is the pretty good idea. Im really pleased to have these two people who are associated with it here with us. Let me ask another question. On the surface of our National Debate now, its a hard one but there are a lot of people out there, its clear who think that there is something that is a call to deep state. They think of people like the two of you, experience National Security, [laughter], criticism no criticism attended. People like jim who served as i remember over 50 years as an Intelligence Officer one way or another, i think about mike is being the u. S. Attorneys, u. S. Agencies, is seen every part of a government. That they worry that youve got a kind of hidden hand on the nation his steering wheel. That surfaced in the whistleblower complaint. He said what the heck is the cia guy doing to conquer the nfc staff, investigating the president. He can be really interesting for people if each of you with response from your, this long experience youve had to this argument that out there in america and want to suggest that you would want to say. Jim i have never heard of that term. Maybe i was ignorant bliss or something but never heard of that until the campaign and afterwards. Theres alleged a conspiracy of a career government Public Servants who somehow organize themselves into a conspiracy to undermine or overthrow the president. Which on its face, is ridiculous. The Intelligence Committee, almost ripped. Truth to power. On what difficult circumstances that may be, and if the power reit ignores the truth they still have to keep telling it. Mike sperry says ben, people in the Intelligence Community, they have political views but again, my observation is been consistently, they parked those political provinces at the door. Before they walk in to the office. No unfortunately, this recent whistleblower complaint, coming from them member of the Intelligence Committee, just fuels that conspiratorial fire. That there is such a thing as a deep state. Deep state is the very competitive, and entirely different context. For the military is so powerful they also control a lot of the industrial base. The revolution regarding a run, actually in addition to have military capabilities, the actually controlled industry. We dont have any of that year. Our military is completely on civilian control and they say in the lane. Likewise the intelligence communities is very carefully hedged with a lot of rules and reports. The supervisor most everything. If you look at some of the history for example, surveillance programs and the controversy, the safaris occurred because of he was uncomfortable with the decision being made and got to court perhaps for Congress Change the role. We are kind of of the opposite of the deep state. That is not so much the question of the Civil Service is it is more generally the question of not having government overstepping his role with the private