Theres that paper ballot issue. There are still some states that have a completely paper ballot backup. Assuming safeguard against tampering with folks. No relation that we know of. [laughter] in terms of looking at whats happening now, Hillary Clinton got a lot of attention in the last week and a half or so were saying she was, in her view, believed chelsea gabbert, one of the democrats running for nomination was a russian asset. Her staff went down on that, she didnt walk away from comments. Do you see what she was talking about there . I can say some things are russian asset, even if its not intentionally trying to advance russian entrance but because of what it does or what it says, it is something promoting the russia agenda. Maybe thats what she meant in terms of some of the things chelsea said in terms of the u. S. Should not be involved in the a lot of these. A Third Party Candidate was something specifically she brought up. Yes. Very sophisticated observers. Theyve done a lot of research on that. They have looked at a lot of Different Countries in terms of how they can influence them. Sometimes it may be Third Party Candidate. Pushing money into some of those politicians or parties they favor. Weve seen that being done in european countries, they also push money into some campaigns and because they want to put money in there and expose it, a way to undercut and undermine the prospects of individuals. The russians will opt for a lot of different things. In terms of navigating into those systems to see what they can do. They also look for opportunities to be able to promote certain themes in media journals and other things. They will be able to befriend individuals who unwittingly walk along with their encouragement, beating money into academic areas as far as promoting something they think will be useful in terms of the impact on the electorate. Also looking at politicians who will be amendable in terms of the overtures they make. In the environment is one. We are, as a society, with how we are going to ensure that that does not become the playground for both trying to undermine the 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 we love as a country . Russians take advantage of those. The freedoms and liberties in this country to operate on the ground in other places. This is the challenge i think we will be facing. The influence or attitudes here in the u. S. , both politicians and electorates, this is the challenge of the 21st century. Ive been a longtime advocate of having a bipartisan congressional just after 9 11 or we try to address some of the issues that might have contributed. I think we need a commission to look at that environment, how we are going to grapple with those challenges. It really defines america. But at the same time not allow other countries entities to take advantage of that. What youre talking about, this need to protect the Intelligence Community is being investigated itself from within. We know attorney general barr had launched this investigation into the investigation about the origins of the 2016 Russian Election meddling probe. Attorney in connecticut by the name of john. Have you been approached by the investigators . I have not. Do you expect to . Well, i was there so yeah. You much must be preparing for it given that you worked there. I have a lot to prepare. [laughter] its on my list. [laughter] of course. Obviously i was, i played a role in the initiation of the investigation they are looking into so i expect to be contacted at some. I havent yet been. Ill say, theres nothing wrong with, especially a new attorney general coming in at the conclusion of a tumultuous and highprofile controversial case and asking questions about how that all began. And what was the factual predication that led to the initiation of investigation and how it was conducted and those reviews taking place all the time. They are typically done by inspectors general. And of course, one has done that. It started as the michael investigation, ended up as a some broader set of questions and issues. Theres nothing wrong with that. Its when is not the spirit in which the investigation is conducted, and i think its something a lot of people would cooperate with. Its now a criminal probe. Does that change your view . I dont believe that changes as much as people have indexed on in the last few weeks. I think it would be odd to expect him to conduct an inquiry without having subpoena power. Thats how you understand it, the elevation to be able to be enough power, something is about to happen in terms of indictment . I dont know whats going to happen. But its not uncommon for the attorney general to give a special counsel for authority. Even on the basis of being able to bring an folks to submit to questioning and ensure they are not misleading them. The problem with this is when you have a factual scenario, which i think we have now, that indicates that some folks and possibly even attorney general are bringing a set of preconceived notions and biases in the investigation. If thats the case, i dont know that it is but theres certainly some indicators that it might or that the purpose of the investigation is not really to get to the bottom of what did we know and why did we make that decision that we did but its more to run out theories, political conspiracy theories and things of that nature. That causes me great concern, not personally but of course about the state of the department and Intelligent Community that is currently under investigation. Don, you were also there. Whats your view of this now criminal probe . Have you been asked to speak to investigators . A New York Times report that said the barr review evolved at some. , i do not believe the department of justice has, officially insane thats the investigation. I may be wrong but i believe thats what it is. I have cooperated with any type of review that the congress decided to do on the election or any other issue. I will cooperate with any congressional or executive branch, reviewed investigation. That is coming from, whether committees or whatever else. I think i would like to believe that any such review investigation will be conducted in a professional affair and a political matter and he has a good reputation. Working with a number of professionals who are going to try to ensure this is done appropriately. I hope william barr will live up to his as attorney general whether he was doing it in a matter that does not have any Politics Associated with it. So i have not talked to them. There are indications that i will be talked to at some. Ill have to be there at the time. I am very confident that cia conducted its responsibility appropriately, consistent with legal authorities and in a manner that was political and we are trying to fulfill our responsibilities to understand the counterintelligence threat posed by the russians and what they were trying to do. It was a very challenging issue on the eve of a hot contested election. We were part of it administration and one thing obama said to us is that he wanted us to carry out our responsibilities as rigorously as we can but not to do anything at all with reality or putting the thumb on the scale as terms of the outcome. We navigate these waters as best we could and i look back on it, i feel good about what it is we did as an Intelligence Community and i feel very confident and comfortable with what i did so i have no qualms about talking to investigators who are going to be looking at this again. If im called, ill be happy to talk with them. The times you referred to, the idea that this could be politically minded. You dont necessarily assume it to be fat . You think there are valid reasons . If 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 judgment that came out of it, im not going to ascribe motivations through this, but i must tell you it certainly lends some appearance that this is politically motivated because of the continued insistence about mr. Trump that this is all grand hoax and performer leaders of the intelligence and Law EnforcementCommunity Work were involved in this to subvert the candidacy and prospects of trump, which is the furthest from the truth it could be. He mentioned there are some things mr. Barr said in testimony that raised questions of my own about whether or not he would look at this again through what the eternal general be doing as opposed to looking at it from the standpoint of trumps lawyer. You mean like in testimony . Yes. You want to be more specific . In testimony, bart referred to this as spine, which is an unusual word to use about something that was a legitimate u. S. Government activity. For someone who once worked in the cia himself. Essentially, i wasnt there but i know what they were doing, they were carrying out Counterintelligence Mission which they are empowered to do. Thats not spine, as we typically topic out spine. It showed no collusion that completely exonerated the president. Fill you with confidence about objectivity about them going forward. All he had to do was look at the file of the fbi and see what would have cast fired before. The decision in july, the investigation was launched. The community to not pursue this in a manner that was consistent with authority and responsible these and obligations. Its quite interesting to see that we are hit from one side saying they didnt do anything at all. While yes, its kind of tough. [laughter] you had u. S. Persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign, who were consorting with some russian officials. That raised questions about the objectives and agendas and motivations and collusion, given cia does not collect any intelligence on american perso persons. Which is why we had to work closely with the fbi and share the information that we had. Which is why we set up a fusion. Let me give john a break here. Youre doing really well. [laughter] what we knew is really not its well known. What we knew at the time, the fact we knew the russians had been attacking us through cyber means and institutions across the country, but specifically academic institutions, we knew this as early as the fall of 2014. We saw that activity peaking as we rolled into the election. This is all widely discussed, we knew about their targeting of the dnc. We knew about their efforts to extract information. We then knew in july that the russians used that material to weaponize the material for the intended effect of negatively impacting clintons campaign. Then we found out from a trusted ally that u. S. Person, who was part of the Campaign Prior to any of the information becoming public, prior to the weaponization of the dnc emails, said to this ally that the russians had offered to assist the campaign. Youre talking about australia . I will specify who the ally was. I think he is now running for congress. Remarkable. [laughter] so with that knowledge, knowledge that a u. S. Person may have had knowledge to that, that may have in fact been in contact with not just any adversary but russia, who we have a long history of understanding their desire to impact our electoral process there, theyre never ending efforts to undermine our liberal democratic or the driving wedges between different parts of our areas, we have a job to do. Its a tough decision to make, we did it in the most evenhanded and fair and quiet way that we possibly could we stepped up to the responsibility that we knew we were both bound, not to ignore and we did our job. Anybody who wants to come in now and sit down and talk about th that, and happy to walk through this again. Ill explain to them what we found at the time. Its an effort to understand that, we have absolutely nothing to worry about. Quickly, on the Mueller Report language, it said no conspiracy but it did say, there were numerous links identified between russian government and Trump Campaign. When you read the report, what did you think that meant . Then well go to mike. [laughter] i thought wow [laughter] thats a remarkable conclusion for anyone. Numerous links between the russian government or individuals affiliated with russian intelligence in the Trump Campaign. That is still an open question that i think a lot of people would like to hear the answer to. Why . And you are one of them. I would love to have an answer. I know you had strong feelings about that. In terms of the message sent to other analysts and the Intelligence Community. I have deep concerns about the Justice Department looking at that and making judgments about whether the analysts found the right place, whether they get their work properly, etc. Is good is he is, how we doing analysis. How we understand how we evaluate information and understand how we evaluate sources, and how we come to conclusions and understand it doesnt understand that, he doesnt do that for a leaving. He looks at issues and decides weather a crime has been committed. I am concerned about whose because, and was the cia who are going to be talked to or perhaps who have been talked to, have had to hire lawyers. I am concerned that whose will have a Chilling Effect on analysts going forward. I have to make a tough decision and what is perhaps a political issue and they are looking at an issue overseas but its got political funds with us here. They might think twice in the future about having make such a decision if they have to fear hiring a lawyer, road and have to defend them something is a Justice Department. Then. To make here, is a people have already looked at the question of whose analysis. The Senate Intelligence committee look at this. In a bipartisan way it was unanimously came to the conclusion that the analysts were right. But with the russians were trying to do, is try to divide us. And to damage Hillary Clinton and help President Trump. The republicans and the democrats on the Senate Intelligence committees see they analysts came out in the right place. Now his Intelligence Committee came out in a different place because it is broken. Now his intelligence the democrats said they cannot in the right place. The republicans said they came out in the right place on trying to create divisions and on earning Hillary Clinton but they got it wrong on helping President Trump. But they provided no compelling arguments with that. So people have already looked at whose in the proper people have already looked whose. John durham should not be looking at whose. To make deal great. Select is my definition of analysis. It is someone who deals with situation of ambiguity, with information arriving incrementally but on constant pressure to come to a conclusion. That means analysts take reputational risks everyday. I think the most compelling. Here is that you put analysts in a situation where they are defending their analysis with a lawyer sitting at the site, and someone holding a criminal prosecution uber their head for a judgment they may, in a situation that i can tell you never has complete information in the manner that you know expect there to be complete information in a courtroom before you come to a conclusion. Is it terrible position upon an analyst in. The most compelling. Is that its wrist tasting taking an analysis. That went out risk taking you get apples. The other. Is that the standard for coming to a judgment, in a criminal case is the much higher than standard to come to judgment on an analytic issue. Is im concerned that john durham, we do look at this, is going to see, analyst to have enough information to make the judge in the myth they made and is looking at it from the perspective if he would invite somebody not his he would make a judgment is an analyst. Can just see to all the future analysts in the room, dont let these guys discourage you. [applause] made you you now more than ever. I see some right out there, and i know who they are. In terms of talking about something that will overhang the country, and certainly im sure Intelligence Community is at the middle of the political fight we are all now and in washington with impeachment. The president has made clear that is a lot of differences and trust the Intelligence Community. He has said that since hes been on the campaign trail. The whistleblower is in whose case, is is been widely reported came from the seat ia and happens to be detailed to the white house. What is whose confluence of factors add up to old but he only for the Intelligence Community if he has reached out reelected me very well may be, what is that relationship going to look like and was at me for if that distress continues to be happening right rightly or wrongly but it exists. The one thing i would be confident about is the Intelligent Community will just keep doing his job. Or the things it is remarkable that it is a clear sense of mission there Intelligence Committee has been through a lot. Cant overseas not unknown in that business. Therefore you get up every morning and come in and do your job thats what im confident they are doing. I think it relationship with trump has gone through stages and i think we are in another stage now. The way i would define stages is that the first stage they didnt know anything about it is a candidate. The second stage is probability and john is described that. Was it appeared imminent intelligence information was somehow jeopardizing the legitimacy. In the third stage came about when he first confronted in syria. He realized in north korea that he need it it. And it was sort of a necessity intelligence. And the fourth stage is the one where an outcome of kind presenting the need that there is a need. You can