He received his undergraduate and masters degrees in history. I got to know david when he was running on Hillary Clintons campaign. He is a distinguished fellow, National Security and board of law school. Scholar of the university of texas. He spent many hours together in the situation room and previously served president home and security and counterterrorism. Middle Eastern Affairs and counterterrorism, john received several awards for his contributions including National Security panel, Public Service medal and fbi director medallion. Please join me in welcoming david and john. David, congratulations on the release of the book before we get to the specific aspects, can you give an over view of what the book is about . Why you wanted to write about this topic. I want to say thank you for being here and i am excited to talk about these issues. I would say i wrote this book because after 2016 after russia attacked our democracy, i found bizarre, dangerous the operation was treated as unprecedented and noble because that means theres no history to it and if theres no history to something, it becomes easy to create misconceptions about something to manipulate something for whatever you are seeking to advance so i sought to provide that history and the end of the spending years going through archives and interviewing individuals to recreate the history before the 2016 operation. What i do is map out the century long story of electoral interference, they use their Intelligence Services to interfere in elections all over the world. Russia has rediscovered and enhanced that idea and interfering in elections all over the world. I look at 2016 in detail and use all of that background for the future not only by 2016 but everything before is the general purpose of the book. Thats why its needed to be written. Its super interesting historical book in putting this issue into historical context, you said something necessary. Id like to pick up on that, the unclassified version of the january 2017 intelligence immunity investment in the 2016 election founded russias effort to influence the president ial election represented significant escalation in the level activity and scope of effort compared to previous operations in the u. S. Elections. Could you elaborate on the reasons efforts differ from the past . I am pleased to participate in this virtual event. David has written an excellent book. Very well researched and written, it adds to the literature not just about what happened in 2016 but also the years before. What happened in 2016 from my perspective, its much more robust, and tensed and wideranging in the russians. Partly its because of the opportunities that exist in the Digital Domain that caused problems. Using social media platforms but there was a determination that putin had to undermine the election and help donald trump. It seems as though there was a wideranging effort on the part of russian intelligence servic services, also working with various other mechanisms such as Internet Research agency to have the press particularly in the last six or nine months before the election. So social media aspect of it was the one that was probably the most, not surprising but the newest elements of the russian effort. The russians are sophisticated when it comes to operating in the domain. I think what we saw in 2016 was a real effort on the part of putin to do what he could to undermine the integrity of the election as well as tip the balance so the outcome would be favorable. Thats one of davids findings in the book, much of the tactics were similar to soviet efforts during the cold war, it was technology. David, i dont know if you want to elaborate on both the similarities and why the technology is such a difference in your mind. Sure. I would argue nothing about Vladimir Putins operation was original but all of it was within an enhanced version of what his predecessors had done and what our country had done. Breaking that out into three components with the objectives to help donald trump and hillary clinton, the interference in our politics to accomplish those three to help people they liked for a generation. The russian targeted our voting systems to access them and open up to manipulation. In the postwar, stalin and his travelers many plated voting systems across Eastern Europe. Russias targeting systems like ukraine so its an application to the u. S. The second was taking what was private information and making them public. Abolishing the line between whats personal and whats in the public arena. Thats an old idea. In the 1976 president ial election, he created forgery, personal life of the president ial candidate and saw to publicize what they claim the private life to destroy his political career. With the internet afforded them to do was instead of having one forgery with tens of thousands of documents rather than newspapers to upload them online through wikileaks as a thirdparty credit. The third was social media which seems the most novel and in many ways, is a real revolution but what they were doing across the ira was suppressing voters, turning out others, steering voters, appealing to the personal vulnerability and they had done with elections all over the world. But the internet did was allow russia to enhance those tactics to reach more peaceful people precisely. The idea behind its operation on just well but in some ways, we can predict them moving forward because theyve been taking place for so many decades in the past. I think it is all interesting, the Common Thread there, if wrenching factors and i think will come later in the conversation to what we should draw from the evolution. David mentioned your book and the cia during the cold war were engaging in these operations but one of the things davids research confirmed was after the cold war, the u. S. Moved away from engaging in electoral interference but russia under putin has not really doubled down. Id be interested in your assessment of the reason for that departure and what it tells us both about u. S. Thinking on democracy as well as putins worldview. Why things have evolved and for the u. S. , not evolved as much for the russians. They are engaged in many blading and shaping that. But in the height of the cold war and aftermath of world war ii, the u. S. Administration saw an extra central threat between the soviet union and the u. S. And union were involved in this race to shape the number of countries in the aftermath of world war ii. We are working hard to ensure either liberal and democratic systems were going to evolve and emerge for communist systems. I think success of the administration engaged in a lot of the activities and propaganda or whatever try to boost the prospects and politicians were sympathetic to the democratic model. I do think u. S. Administrations of the u. S. Has matured in those respects as well in terms of seeing the exploitation of electoral system and process is that it is Democratic Values. When i was in government and in those circles, i really believe and argued strenuously against doing anything that is inconsistent with all the Democratic Values and ideals that we have globally. Do believe the truth is more powerful than misrepresenting the facts, i believe, now im talking about what the situation up until january 2017. I dont know what the Trump Administration is doing and how its upgrading on the local stage during the obama and bush administrations, those discussions i was involved in of a fanfare election would try to strengthen the ability of dominance to hold elections, that is certainly true but not to try to advance the interests of one time or another. I do think the Global Situation has changed compared to the post world war ii, up until january 2017, they saw it was best to allow these electoral processes to play out. Its interesting, one of the comments you made in the book as well about the truth is more powerful. On the policy side, we hear about countering one interference, disinformation, sometimes the tendencies because the national one is say why dont we do the same thing back . I think you made it eloquent and article. There about how the values and principles of democracies need to be guiding not only of response but entire approach to engaging on democratics. It is important for the u. S. To remember we are fighting for our principles and the foundations this country was built upon. We should never stoop to using tactics of other countries. Whether we are fighting the russians or fascism, modernday, i think weve really got quite a few that we can use and not stray from those basic principles and ideals, it makes this country truly what it aspires to be which is a beacon of freedom and liberty. Thats why being dishonest is counterproductive and thats why im particularly dismayed by what i see happening. David talked in the book about either the goal in the social media space and information from russia is the attempt not only the false narratives and discord undermining the idea of truth. I think thats really important points of you made about the need for doubling down on truth and something you can protect in advance and not allow it to be undermined. One of the things you discuss in your book is why u. S. Democracy is different than western. And previous work ive done, id be interested in your reaction to these. First, engaging in other countries openly and transparently and second, its made available to parties across the political spectrum if they are committed to the democrat process and third, this policy tries to give people a voice in determining their countrys future. In other words, u. S. Democracy is about strengthening the democratic process while one interference is about weakening or subverting it. Does that match up with the conclusion from your book and findings . It does. It also marks evolution of American Foreign policy in the sense that director said during the cold war, the threat was an ideology so the strategy was to contain ideology and therefore using action to prop up anticommunist candidates and democratic candidates. There is a logical space to be made to be doing that. In the postwar period evolved to promoting strengthening democracy itself in one of the people i interviewed, he must prefer using organizations like iri, organizations to shore up electoral processes over action for a couple of reasons. One, it can be dramatically added. Like you said, it is open. It is visible, you know what america is doing, no objectives to hold stable, free and Fair Elections which contrast with the russia objective which is to degrade the most democracy, underlying democracy and its parallel strengthening and undermining it all over the world which i think is the important but others i was able to interview with the president of russia intelligence they attempted to assassinate as well as former president who said elections were under siege, to undermine democracy so the reason why from my perspective promoting democracy makes sense in the current environment because it helps make the effectiveness democratic system subverts and undermining the election. Interesting. Other countries also facing russias tactics, i think the u. S. , we have a tendency in our american exceptionalism ways, the challenges we face are exceptional to us but this is not a challenge for us. Across the european stage and other parts of the world, i think just like david noted, he thought we needed to understand the history where it is occurring. Its important we understand the broader global context in which these tactics are playing out. What youve seen in terms of russian interference operations in other countries as well as if we need to be doing more to work with our partners and allies. Just as we would on any traditional Security Threat to actually put together will of a Coalition Effort around protecting sanctity of our democracy. Russians and soviets before them tried to influence the outcome of elections, theyve been on the effort on a global scale. I would argue that they are more active in other countries around the globe than here in the u. S. I was looking at and russia would like to affect the outcomes of elections and political challenges in other countries so they can have in those countries, governments and politicians and individuals will be more sympathetic to russian policy goals and objectives. I dont think the russians like to roll over borders with tanks and russian troops, its a different piece. To the extent that they can attract influence the elections so they have empathetic politicians and government so they can get them to support maybe sanctions against russia get them to support the initiatives in the un, this is a very active russian effort. Whether or not youre talking about europe or africa or asia, try to influence the outcome of these elections or local struggles so people will rise to the top were going to either by design or happen, need to support russian initiatives so russia uses a lot of different tactics whether money that goes to propaganda, disinformation, the prospects for candidates they want to lose an election so it is very active. Weve talked with a lot of partners over the years, i was involved in a number of discussions one by foreign counterparts about the types of tactics the russians use. The needs to be greater awareness, i know we are focused on russia right now but i would say it is not limited to russia as far as the opportunities for a number of Foreign Companies and services to try to influence the outcome of those systems. Thanks that is something i want to come back to, but we are other, authoritarian regimes designed this toolkit, whether it influences the outcome of the election or simply to undermine and weaken the democratic foundations of the competitors is a way weakening us within. Its a tool that liberating hello, i think our distinctions based on their strategies which i would like to unpack but we will come back to that in a moment. David, sticking with the history for a couple of minutes, one of the interesting conclusions for me that you reached is even during the cold war, is a different in the u. S. And soviet tactics when it came to electoral interference and they were rooted in the democratic process themselves. While the soviet approach was more about corrupting activities and had little to do with the democratic process, you wrote that electoral interference where the state could execute that. You say the different experiences and intelligence agencies so im interested if you could talk more about why you found that to be the case and i will give your background and ask you to reflect on this particular part as well. I would say there are two key differences in the soviet and russian and american approach. First, youve been talking about russias move towards this practice where it was america with rare exceptions such as in serbia but the second difference has to do with systemic objectives and tactics. Across time, soviet objective and now russian interference is to tear down democracy. The very first operation to do this in 1919 for the express purpose of vladimir, the democratic systems will abolish borders and create communist international utopia. The idea was to undo democratic systems through disinformation, bribery and blackmail, extortion. Those kinds of methods that extend across decades. The american objective here is the a reaction to interference was to preserve a democratic position. Eastern european states, theres communist after winning rigged election of the democracy so they authorized the cia to help christian democrats present that outcome and in those operations, you saw things like orchestrated voter registration, get out the vote efforts. Making sure campaigns knew how to reach and influence the masses in effective ways and campaigning tactics that mirror what they do in the u. S. What they described was figuring out what the vulnerabilities were and blackmail them into doing what they want in relation to an election. Thats different than what i found the cias approach to be. Even when we were in this game, the objective difference, which is one of the reasons why anyone says theres equivalency between america and russia here, it is totally sniffing the ball, one that we approached this idea in different ways in the lines weve been willing to cross across time. These are really important points. We look at the world through this prism. Im sure theres similar discussion going on about what has happened since world war ii. Since world war ii has been to try to preserve and strengthen democracies. I do think the u. S. Sometimes has engaged in certain types of a tactic thats justified because the ends justify the means. I do think the soviet Union Dissolution and the real ideological drives behind moscows and global activities. Its much more and Vladimir PutinSees Opportunities to massage against different outcomes. I dont think theres a real concern for others about engaging in these tactics whether it blackmail, intimidation, voting or whatever one we send money not just for the county and then expose the money and i think theres a lot of dirty tricks they have been engaged in over the years. Im not saying its only the russians but would like to think at least the main purpose behind those involved were designed to ensure democracy was going to survive and flourish despite ideological drive me out of the soviet union. If i could add, i agree with what you said, it is not accurate to say the cia has only ever organizing drives and turnout initiatives. That is not true. Disinformation was spread in places like italy and chile, they preceded. There are a vote authorized to be bought. In pursuit what was forced democracy so as director said, means versus and calculation of the history is complicated and there are exceptions in which they did things that i imagine today americans would say the lines we shouldnt be crossing and i agree. But also to be clear, those are activities that were productive in the past that are not as far as to reach is today. I want to ask another question that relates to what you said earlier about the past and present, what are the goals of operations of the soviet Union Operation has been not just getting candidates selected but undermining democracy itself. Your book defines electoral interference in narrow terms for concealed effort to influence democratic vote of succession. Im wondering though, given what