tv Former Ambassador Calls Presidents Denial of Russian Interference... CSPAN July 1, 2017 10:03am-12:41pm EDT
nic riot but a working man's riot, the largest in our history. ourunday at 8:00 p.m. on presidential history, philip placeslks about associated with george washington's birthplace. >> there were still amway stories about the land, and the washington's themselves were living further away. retreat.rt of a there was not a lot on the land to recall where the buildings were. p.m. eastern on reel america, the 1977 documentary "men of bronze" about the soldiers of the u.s. infantry regiment known as the harlem hellfighters. >> all of our equipment,
canteens, rifles, army belts, and our helmets -- we were issued french helmets, rifles, ammunition, canteens. 8:00 p.m., who would surprise winning historian thed mccullough talks about founders, particularly john adams, viewed slavery, and persevered in the shape -- face of hardship. >> he grew up on a farm where they had no money. his mother was illiterate. his father could sign his name, maybe could read, because there was a bible in the house. that was the only book. day,hey worked hard every from childhood on. but because he got a scholarship to this little college in cambridge called harvard, and, as he said, discovered books and
read forever, he became the john adams that helped change the world. >> for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. diplomats and experts from the u.s. and europe testify about russian interference in u.s. elections. this hearing is two and a half hours. >> today the committee convenes
it to russians interference of the 2016 your selections in the 12 open hearing this year today with ava focused on the domestic impacts of activities. today's witnesses will highlight to the committee and the american people russia's interference in the european elections. we hope to gain understanding of russian efforts to undermine democratic institutions worldwide as the committee continues its inquiry. the intelligence committee assessed in january that moscow will apply lessons learned from his campaign aimed at the united states presidential election to further influence efforts worldwide. to further assess that russia has influenced elections across
-- they echoed those worlds when he testified before the senate that russia seeking to influence elections in europe including france, germany, and the united kingdom. the intelligence community assesses that there russian messaging strategy wins covert activities with overt by state-funded media, third-party intermediaries and paid social media users or trolls. russia's employment government approach to undermining democratic institutions globally. facing down russia's activity is no longer just a bipartisan issue. to successfully protector institutions and the integrity of the electoral systems we must work as a global community to share the experience. collective awareness of the intentions spinning borders
incontinence will help us enhance the security measure and thwart information campaigns. just as germany is learning from the recent events in montenegro, we will lean on our allies to inform our approach of the 2018 elections we must advance quickly on our adversaries and only together will we do so. like to welcome our witnesses today and welcome at harvard kennedy school of government. they have some long title there. were delighted to have you. we have the director of the nato center of excellence. hopefully i'm getting these names rights, try my best.
the ambassador, professor of the practice of diplomacy and international -- within our girl margaret senior fellow in the brookings institute thank you all for being here to help us better understand russia's activity in the underlying intentions that russia might have been with that i turned to the vice chairman >> let me commend you on your brilliant introduction. welcome witnesses today searing continues the issues surrounding russia's active interference in the democratic process and in the 2016 chair of america. as well as a similar and in some
cases ongoing efforts to undermine democratic institutions among our closest allies. i believe we have a good understanding of the russian playbook. their goal is to show chaos and confusion, to fuel internal disagreements and to undermine democracies whenever possible. really to attack the democratic process wherever it exists. there's not nothing unusual about it. we know their efforts date back to the cold war. russia's blatant interference in
the 2016 presidential elections was unprecedented in both scale and scope. we have seen it replicated across europe. in fact, the active measures are only growing bolder and more brazen in the digital age. russia has interfered or attempted in elections in france, the netherlands, the baltics, we've seen the government's use of active measures including support for far right and far left parties opposed to his historically successful european -- for example, russia has provided support and financial assistance to the far right party of -- le pen in france. they have lunch cyber attacks against particle parties and government institutions in several countries. they have released stolen information and effort to steer elections in a particular direction. as we saw on the french elections with their release of information about candidate mccrone. germany cyber -- has been attacked. most observers to -- as of the
united states, russia aggressively uses trolls and bots to spread fake news and disinformation. with the goal of weakening european institutions and driving a wage between the united states and europe. these measures have been supported by state-controlled russian media including rg and sputnik. so far, these efforts have not been successful in europe as perhaps they were in the united states. for instance in france, and the campaign the french government was prepared to push back on cyber leaks as they released information in the 48 hour blackout time. we've seen companies such as facebook take down a series of fake accounts to help those efforts.
in the netherlands earlier this spring officials hand-counted paper ballots to ensure there'd be no electronic interference. across europe government media push back against fake news stories and have established such institutions in the nato strategic communication center of excellence to educate the public and identifying and correcting russian propaganda. frankly we have learned a thing or two from our allies in europe about proactively protecting ourselves against these threats posed by russia. a month ago i would have assumed this hearing would've been a good opportunity for the united states to import some lessons learned tory european friends. unfortunately, today we have not yet as a government hole taken to heart those lessons.
unfortunately as we heard in testimony before the committee, our president and his administration have demonstrated little interest in determining how the russians did what they did or how we might better protect ourselves going forward. instead, we've seen the president repeatedly deny that russia was responsible for your selection interference, even in the face of unanimous agreement among our nation's intelligence agencies. he has questioned the integrity of our intelligence professionals and he has been all over the map and discussing the united states commitment to the transatlantic alliances such as nato. several of my colleagues have noted that in 2016 the russians targeted democrats, who is to say which party will be in the
crosshairs next time. the one thing we know is that vladimir putin is not a democrat nor republican, his interest work to advance russia's interest and undermine the united states. in 2016 i believe russia got us money's worth and so in doubt, distrust and dissension in the heart of the american political process. my fear is that rate of return to russia will continue to return to those tactics. i don't believe anyone believes russia will stop. i believe a state that has statewide elections in 2017 we have to be alert now. that's why last week when we had dhs before the committee we asked them to share even if they have to share confidentially the names of the 21 states that were attacked by the russians in 2016. i've written and spoken with secretary kelly on this matter as the oversight committee i
believe are entitled to that information we need to work through a process so the state election officials can at least be read in. my fear is that when the top election official from wisconsin, both of those states could not acknowledge whether they were part of the 21 states. also we heard from illinois which is testified openly that they were attacked on a regular basis, that they had not been informed until last week that those attacks originated from russia. that's why the testimony we hear today is importance. to learn lessons from what is happening in europe and around the world and how going forward western alliances and allies can stop this critical 21st century threat. thank you.
>> at this time i want to make members aware that will recognize numbers by seniority for five minutes. i'd also like to make a note to members that when we return from next week's fourth of july recess, we will immediately consider the nomination of david gladly undersecretary of intelligence if members have additional questions for him they need to be in quickly so they can be acted on wall were and we intend to move that nomination as quickly as possible. again i think our witnesses for being here today, i will request for my left to right >> mr. chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify. i appreciate very much the
bipartisan commitment your committee is shown to investigate russia's interference in the european elections and in our own elections. there's no doubt about russia's systematic campaign tundra mind our 2016 presidential election, the montenegrin dutch, french, german elections this year. and are seeking to diminish the confidence the citizens of all these countries have in other democracies. in this sense, it poses a nexus central threat to the democratic nations of the west and requires a swift and serious response by europeans and americans. yes for recommendations i have just three. first, the united states and europe need to work more closely together to identify russia cyber attacks as their being launched. then we need to work together to do something about it. to respond in tandem to discredit the actions.
he saw the campaign of manual macron do that effectively. you have not seen that in other countries. we should also make it clear to the russian government that we have our own capabilities that can be injurious to moscow and we will use them if moscow does not cease and desist. with this in mind, and with the buyinbenefit of hindsight, prest obama should have been more transparent and specific with the american people during the campaign about the nature of the russian threat. he should have reacted earlier and much more vigorously to be fair to him, this was an extraordinarily difficult choice. a new and unexpected trip. president obama would have been accused of intervening in the context between secretary clinton and donald trump and he
did make the right call in the end by imposing sanctions. but, we in america and europe have to learn from this experience and try to avoid that in the future. second, the u.s. and europe should adopt stronger sanctions against russia for its actions. we learned an important lesson and they ran nuclear negotiations. sanctions were much more effective when the united states and the e.u. aligned them together, specifically the financial sanctions. i hope the house of representatives will back cannot dilute, in the sense the very strong senate sanctions bill against moscow that passed by 9. it be a great mistake for president trump to veto such a bill. with our long national to century debate about the separation of powers in mind, i think that congress is time for congress another president to lead the american response to russia cyber attack on the united states.
the president has shown that he is unwilling to act against russia and that's why the congressional view provision in your senate bill make sense. so the administration cannot easily lift the sanctions on russia until prudence attack on the democratic elections have ceased until he's met the provisions of the mystic grievance on crimea. there, congress and the president must make resistance to russian interference in the european elections as well as ours and urgent national priority. i serve in the government for a long time, i serve both parties as a foreign service officer. find it dismaying and objectionable the president trump continues to do nine the undeniable facts that russia launched a major cyber attack against the cyber attack regardless of which party he launched it against. is done the same thing in europe very systematically. in response president trump has refused to launch an investigation of his own. he is not made this an issue
with his relationship with the russians. taken no steps of the congress and state local governments to strengthen our voting systems for future russian hacking of our elections. there's no indication he has asked his senior cabinet officials to develop a plan to protect the united states and deter the russians. his failure to act, i'm a former u.s. and passenger to nato under george w. bush's ambassador, we have of political responsibility and nato to protect each other not just from armed attacks but from cyber attacks as well. that's a clear failure. i've worked for both parties, it's inconceivable to me that any of president trumps predecessors would deny the gravity of such an open attack on a democratic system. don't believe any previous american president would argue
that your own hearings in the senatorial waste of time for the words of president trump, a witch hunt. they are not, you are doing your duty that the people elected you to do. it is his duty, president trumps to be skeptical of russia. it is his duty to investigate and defend our country against cyber offensive because russia is our most dangerous adversary in the world today. if he continues to refuse to act it is a dereliction of the basic duty to defend the country. russia will do this again, you heard director coming in this committee said that he felt russia would be back maybe against the republican or democratic party. our elections will be at risk when that happens. the sanctity of our elections will be compromised in the minds of our citizens. let me close by senate russia's really testing the leadership and resolve of the west. americans and europeans are far
stronger in our democratic and values in the russians. with this in mind we need to be more effective in countering them. we can do that by building bipartisan unity in the congress. i want to commend you for setting a bipartisan tone which is deeply appreciated. we can do that by encouraging the president-elect. we can do that by being very close eli and with europeans to take common action. if we can achieve those three things, we can defeat president putin and the russian intelligence services. thank you. . .
those russian authorities with a variety of information of culmination with those actions against montenegro and with those programs and local parties in russia has been consistent with said nato built in never specified darr indications that they command that in response to syria and then to make those reciprocal measures and with
those media outlets in the region so zero is in the media campaign and with nato and russia in to be utilized of christianity. it is fundamentally different to the western world. the russian government with the political coalition dominated by the party known with the russian affiliation so the primary goal was to
is a proactive approach it with support from the democratic reforms in the balkan states. they must remain open in further for the european security thank you mr. chairman i look forward to your questions. >> and the time it has been established we are closely watching operations we produced 18 different studies on the methodology on the ways how russia tries to refect the outcomes of
the choices. in the election process typically there are three venues they try to pursue, which to support the candidate of their choice and to do that they use the of many in the support of all the traditional media networks they are controlling as know where your end secondly, they try to get that sensitive information to undermine the credibility and try to achieve that through hacking but that is not the only way. they have 30 large segments of this information and fake
news is one of the instrument of choice that through the same information networks but they also use fake news sites and they used patrols -- patrols to amplify the message so let me go through quickly on the french response and what we should quickly take note first media cooperation with very different sorts of media at to come together they were supported by the online activist groups to make sure that the fact in
the digital space over the of all said and said kent there were many hack attacks and all of us who have been in that business narrowed it you can have only as strong of a response as possible so they trap the hackers to make that daunting formation irrelevant and how the media and the public but first based on the french role to say it is illegal to use these tax the most of the
media refrain from going back. and to be manipulated into that election process so based on that i share some recommendations that is the critical thing to be achieved the nation that is under attack is far more resilient than the one that is oblivious for their role in for the end of standing in the still treat that as a game of golf but it is rugby. to have a very good situational awareness so who
much more preeminent. so the reason the russian activities succeed and to use the market no house so i see no reason why they should continue but it is focusing on the problem and then collectively do have the potential to win this. >> good morning as distinguished members of the committee is an honor to be here to testify before the panel.
specifically on the federal elections ended my country germany. pressure and interference is strategic and aimed at stabilizing european project. to diminish the e.u. in the european project because it has orchestrated against russia and has become the main obstacle and in the ukraine. and it is not limited to elections there is a general consensus of when and what form is taken. and manipulation isn't likely to use paper ballots with that computer infrastructure the real
target is a they tried to have their political consciousness so the use of broad spectrum of tools as those individual for institutional agents this is one of the most difficult problems not the least because not even russian authorities ordering interference are monolithic to be outsourced door were delegated to those patriotic hackers. and it is also hit or miss but often miss and to meddle in those european elections for what was intended for those that are. european union so they have
lost out almost everywhere but to be experience a a renaissance of purpose so now chancellor merkle is holding a studies so russia still can do significant damage as for countermeasures germany has taken a while to take note of the threat to make up for lost time and then to be creating more resilience. and the german politicians certainly need to do better against the kremlin information and germany is not the first country and we cannot tell long string that we learn from our friends
and allies with that said we have no reason whatsoever but in fact, the success of russian interference that we could examine those so what type of interference does this take? if there were a major terrorist attack that could be exploited by the propaganda. bill with that substance of those 16 gigabytes we have not seen them yet but it is just as likely a visible attempt could backfire and interference could just as well take probing and testing of vulnerability is
that continuous slow drip of what is happening. and we must not over dramatize in with fab propaganda to think it is bigger than it is actually. so we can fight this in the marketplace and with the historical volatility in here the relationship with american is key we know that they need to do more for their defense that transatlantic and it's already taken many steps. but the alliance the political economic military and intelligence partnership is crucial for the
preservation of the european project. and look forward to your questions. >> thinks to all of our awareness is now we recognize the members by seniority and i recognize myself do you have any doubt that russian interference is driven by putin himself?. >> no doubt. >> same answer, and no doubt. >> no doubt. >> no. >> any doubt that russian
interference has happened in european elections?. >> it happens systematically >> it happens and it will happen. >> has happened. >> it is difficult but yes. [laughter] >> ambassador garcevic what would've happened in montenegro if russia had succeeded?. >> can you a imagine? what would happen they would draw those sanctions because that was among one of the human the region -- one of the few
in in the region to air demonstrate that a security policy that would be immediate states to be taken to turn directional so i can imagine in years from now that would become centralized in the balkans. >> was there any evidence of russian involvement? of court -- of course, those that made the effort to have an effect on monday election but i do not say there has
been a sad event pattern of what we have seen and i would also argue that russia needs time to construct elaborate appropriations so there is very little preparatory time and while planning for these they're not really efficient. >> with those media outlets that they are directed in many cases by russian government what they say or don't say about the candidates and have a narrative that was different
that is this kind of russia tried to influence?. >> i have no direct evidence to say that the particular narrative that we have seen although there is a meeting with those key with those kremlin officials to coordinate the of messaging. >>. >> if i understood your testimony was a suggestion of the social media platforms and as a
coordinated attack so did i hear you correctly? so those media platforms to see where it to originates and also assisting the french media to make sure the information in these platforms is correct with the ability if the bought to make it look like there is tremendous public support vs. a degree of public support. is that an accurate statement?. >> yes. garett is an increased number to publish day
regular report that they are pushing the narrative and with that narrative also with day french election and. >> bette of last question what should the u.s. response be and should that be to election integrity and intrusion?. >> i think it should and they are beginning to do some of this first to be linked up to understand the threat but fl laws are
broken with the judicial authority should be working to prosecute people and third so it didn't this brilliant response we can be matched up with the europeans to be in the same data alliance that is a political as well as military alliance and finally the senate is on the right track i know it is a tough bill the frankly american and european countries should not have the bridges to sell into the market. >> so i will think of
witnesses for your unanimous agreement with the nature of the threat so in the march public hearing to testify that then candidate trump used active major -- measures at times against his opponents so then we saw kennedy trump use the terms like the election is rigged and then with the propaganda if you come to that conclusion at least inadvertently that candidate trump wasn't reassessing the
goals of the russian propaganda and efforts. >> i don't have any independent knowledge of the trump campaign. >> i am just asking if the comments about the elections being rigged that it appeared the conclusion inadvertently that the candidate trump was aligned with that same type of chaos >> it is just as important to saddam had to ration of the what he did encourage the russian government with secretary clinton's emails was irresponsible. >> i imagine i would get the
are using technology tools increase the power of the fake news. is said many of those our robot accounts and not the actual person so recently with facebook 2.0 the fact they check down 50,000 fake accounts right before the election night command them -- commend them because the look they had responsibility for increasing the fake news of a love to hear from all of you of these platform companies that they have in this new world.
>> and i had the opportunity and i was impressed by the number of people to filter out the hate speech that is the point there should be the ongoing dialogue between the government agencies to filter out that propaganda so i thought the testimony was quite convincing there has to be an integration of technology. >> and back from silicon valley with these issues and first is the growing black market for ruth bat -- robotics in social of media
much of it is criminal activity. and it will be a growing concern for those in the digital environment and with those large numbers supported by artificial intelligence so to counter that those that have the platforms are one of the key players. i was heartened by the discussion that day take that seriously was to these companies are thinking how they could be an active supporter in not the lead instructor but also the technology research on this
subject is a must that we work together and if we don't we will see not -- will not succeed. >> german policymakers zaph traveled to silicon valley and i am told those initial conversations less iran cooperative there seems to be no inclination to self police and that has significantly changed in the use this with our allies to enforce those hate speech
other adversaries but as somebody is running a country and what they would do the administration and is threatened i can tell you and you to be slightly off mark if it is the most dangerous adversary that we face but russia is not a dangerous adversary. and there are others that our more dangerous the you could agree with me that the russians had taken in no
active measures in the elective role since president trump has been president?. >> may i just say in response to the first comment, i agree with everything he said about north your in negative north korea back into greater damages certainly in europe so it is respectful. >> i appreciate that is the more likely that assuming it had nuclear weapons that have more likely it would come from russia or or north korea?. >> i think they are both a problem when in general the deferred was there.
>> beg you agree that they've taken no active measures? is that a fair statement?. >> i don't know. >> you think russians have taken active measures?. >> i don't know. >> we do know they have in the last presidential election. >> we are all in agreement with that and who was president one that occurred? >> president obama. >> he was aware this was going on and he talked to mr. putin about that. >> you heard my a testament about president obama i had great respect for him to give him the benefit live hindsight should have acted to be transparent with the
american people but he did take action but donald trump is now investigating and taking no action. >> i'm talking about somebody who could have done something you are aware they talk to mr. putin about that ?. >> also the obama administration brief to the of congress there republic's statements made by a secretary johnson but they did take action so when president obama told mr. putin we knew they were taking measures so if you are president of the united states you are well within your rights to tell putin we
think he is doing. it is no good if you collect that and though you said. >> if you don't want that to see the light of day. >>. >> this is monday morning quarterbacking but if you go back and look the american people deserve to know what is happening clearly after ringing the village bell we should've had a response that was painful to the russians and by a covert means i don't want to micromanage the mia testimony clearly shows that president trump has taken no
action at whatsoever. >> but the description in that you gave that the obama administration does not take significant action. >> the obama administration ensure taken more action and that has implications for europe. >> but what should have been done with a commander in chief?. >> many have said this is the crime of the century if it is conducted by intelligence agencies we know russian intelligence to
doesn't do anything. but the united states of america cannot see that critical infrastructure of a democratic election destroyed by russia. i very interested if anyone is prepared to play an end prepare?. >> day half to be aligned their retch strong curve we work with those europeans it is my impression to do much more of to respond verbally
to a propaganda but you are right to think of other means. >> these are not french people but to data three intelligence services of russia that is a big deal to hit the elections so maybe we shut off this sanction or maybe it just goes away? i have been on this committee for a long time i have never seen the full confidence of
thing is that i recommended like cyberdefense to have to ruth operational lies that battle space so if you look at those rushing documents they really believe that's which is a paradox so what we have to look for we're not attacked by the russians but by the kremlin and actually to help those people to recognize what is that reality the truce of -- the truth of what they hide from their own citizens.
your allies of do no harm or question in the alliance but that is also in our interest to be as the central importance so american governments to question is that the alliance led the article five mutual defense commitment does more to undermine our security and safety than many things the kremlin does. not to say we don't have flaws in a mental ability is but that we could address those together sanctions to work even more as a political statement and as such to have a tremendous impact to leave a deep
impression against the threats against your peer project. >> my hope they will produce a document that will much detail what happened but how they did it to take preventive steps settle believe it is going in the all negative away anytime soon bin to have that instability i doubt if anybody thinks that is the case. and that the sp deeply gratified to as to authorize
the measures which it has been exacerbated by a truly hope the best ways that we can tie and maintain that. so when stuff k mount there was some blackout at the end period i am not attacking the media but just to say when the most powerful agents of russian influence was the mainstream media so that gossiping aspects of it and not your chin's of what it was about so those that understand that would get widespread coverage so i
want to know if anybody has successfully confronted this threat to alleviate the sting of the severed? i point to an article in "the new york times" that talks about the steps taken by creating dozens of false e-mail accounts i am curious of the efforts and montenegro bin there were not able to have that pro day negative old government because we need to do that. >> first that people did not
like to be manipulated and then to change their mind they become more cautious we have seen any number of countries it is much harder instantly. said to be very important one of the cold case as a contingency plan but the contingency he is said it will not break-in and also to have knowledge and except
is bad is happening in third that the fake news comes first so if you're able to get into that cycle you are limiting the effect such to take those german soldiers for raping a teenage girl but the be a major that they understand this is fake news. so there are quite a number of tactical and strategic examples so what was
and of those religious court it's between those nations effectively two years church and fake. of traditional society they trust church. and also '02 propagate and to have those people and the citizens of my country and it is about dignity to be fundamentally different in and then if we join nato or the you so if they use these
different channels and that since that to ruin schleicher the hearts of the people. >> fakes to the four of you this has been a valuable panel. i focus on following the money issue about the moscow funding two years ago directing that intelligence assessment so looking its european democracy to help us understand what has happened because of those
also through the of the islands controlled by the kremlin with different russian control and then to disseminate but the a their video is giving a the russians information power and whosever is message they're trying to promote and whose political point of view they are trying to use for whenever. >> as president to to make that decision himself based on what they know?. >> so to look explicitly at
the source so i could not make that conclusion. >> does that help political parties or individual figures all all of these different approaches?. >> all of the above. >> is any information available and what mechanism putin prefers to provide financial assistance?. >> in the open space with the european intelligence agencies with '70s practices
but there is much more that is not in the public space. >> so your statements referred to the russian in cyberattacks last time in the u.k. parliament came under a sustained nt terminal attack although the source has not been identified. so i understanding every attack will be different because once you engage in one strategy the based on your analysis with those cyberattack strategy is?.
>> first i think you give too much credit to the kremlin and operations in fact, our research says much remains the same but that generic advice we have two things slightly differently of levees cyberattack is we think of that as a venue to get into the infrastructure infrastructure, but i would they get those parameters but at the end of the day the purpose is to get into the mind with that defense.
>> i am glad he think they are less clever although i do have reservations about that. had one last point ambassador imf a endures but one thing that concerns me is that you talked about integrating the companies and government and thank you meant to better communication in want to make that point. >> thank you i did mean there should be communication. >> ambassador it is good to see you the key for joining the panel.
so with montenegro in france and germany is much more proactive and exposing the fall said that is out there and with the farm were visible effort and you are somewhat critical of president obama and ivan be even more critical of his response to call that behind the scenes the really not until after the election that the sanctions were imposed and the january 6 report on the effectiveness of the scope of the russian interference was released
from the intelligence community but as you pointed out president chun's administration doesn't seem to have any strategy going forward but then i hear baldie efforts among government or the media or even technology company i just cannot even and imagine a headline to see the american route newsroom so
our system is so different with those active nests that -- measures is steady been possible with the very different role from the media? ambassador?. >> we are learning the of lessons as we go along and he does think the next target so i applied that bipartisan effort but the europeans have learned lessons in what seems to have worked well in speed and in decisive action with transparency so actually all
of the french people are made aware of the threat and that is the basis of my criticism. i have tremendous respect for president obama this is monday morning quarterbacking. but if you're asked to testify this is a lesson in half to learn but was it is missing from the government that is one step the trump administration could work with that would be good with their visibility and action. >> transparency is a critical lesson ambassador garcevic, i want to ask you about montenegro with that
special relationship i can tell by your smile you are aware of that program to of those members station to assist the military and to get you ready for nato but that's is an interesting example because despite a tremendous effort by question and to use this is why were those russian influence efforts those religious ties to russia
comes to the cyberattack that we try to build the partnership the bend at the end of the day coming to cyberattacks and those issuing a warning side. >> ambassador you talked about that sanctions bill but if the speaker does not take up that bill but type of message does that send to vladimir putin?. >> beacon as by the senate to have a painful type of leverage the trump
administration and carriages that and they will recede a mixed message. >> so will they make that more or less likely?. >> i read the transcript of your hearing he thinks that will continue to we have bettered if defense and i think secretary to loosen to do that as directly and then to say there are consequences that is the most effective about the trump administration. >> should we take the cyberattacks to take that
military action or the threat to the country?. >> tavis you respond within hours what they tried to reduce systematically is due discredit democracy in the eyes of the citizens i did think that was not hyperbole but we need to meet this squarely with the multitude of ways. >> don't disagree and to a knowledge as that fluidity but i am curious what that means to lead france a conversation with european
allies and i would like your opinion on that. >> this has to be held talking to the germans and the austrians about the consequences of the senate bill so talk about the separation of powers i perceived congress to be tougher. >> so politicians and this is because those german companies are invested i am not a big fan of this project frankly so those
better not discuss that are put out there but actually four years and then also that lesson of that experience is frass as allies to discuss what is a net interest that would be as a significant importance. >> one president tromped --- trump even after we should keep that as a structure. >> i already said that i think that helps the president and it is not great kelso think it is america's best interest to question the alliance the
kids to have an interest in europe and the alliance with us europeans hostess to deal with that interest. >> i could not agree more. >> before my a time runs out how to retake the truth directly to the russian people because they receive so much other information so how do we speak directly to the russian people?. >> so it is very clear and evident if one takes note against the corruption it is striking how young back crowd was handed is clear they don't get their world view is from the social
merits the kremlin will try to put up a new element to progress that is the environment. >> thanks for your testimony today. >> the russian economy is failing not the country that it could or should be subject to to benefit in russia from getting credit for interfering with elections?. >> i think he does. >> does. >> this is what is significant part of his policy to benefit from the. >> i'm sorry i cannot give
yes said no short-term benefits long term he loses. >> but the short-term benefit. >> it validates the narrative that they are better living off in russia but the reality is a lot of those have backfired visibly and it taught us to review a the complacency in to defend the democracy which is a good thing but we're also up against a significant enemy. >> what should we do with our country's starting with the view what if anything have you done to respond really to contradict
information? you are closer to this than we are but it is harder there. >> so ironically i was stunned by the amount of posters and advertisements the big ones that the bus stop and then all over the construction site fences i have never seen anything like that so there was a big investment. >> no investment like that in germany?. >>. >> would you allow that?. >> ambassador garcevic to think if they want to buy advertisements it is a free country and they are companies i am not a big fan of that and the state to
protect us from think the region perfectly well think through an american can do this as well but what is more insidious if it is covert with a dying people or institutions? indicating fed is more insidious than the fake news?. >> it is if consumers are citizens are not media literate. >> but another country's what about other rationale let's?. >> and that information space somebody doesn't have the credibility than there is the refect from that and there is an interesting example in the scandinavian countries. >> what about montenegro.
>> i can barely remember of that rationale based media itself but to be in neighboring serbia so they really ted show up with the places it in a moment because then they can do that easily because then from there and then to be impoverished. >> so what is it anything should we do about the miscommunication?. >> blades attached an adjective such to expose them who they are as russia
and beverage and be very careful because they will destroy our -- to start with you say to not give them the platform. >> i actually agree with your current position on congressionally binding sanctions and i assume you're much more inclined to have a flexible position at the state department? to make that destroyed a creature of the executive branch like it is better to preserve the president's authority to act since he is acting in think congress has to take their responsibility >> so starting with the couple of comments to associate myself with senator rubio question what can be due to defend ourselves? can you submit half a page report here is
what we can do to defend ourselves and sent with the implementation of a new kind of warfare soul balladry who was said chief to the general staff calls that what the naysaying information that we air engaged in informational conflict but petitions defense budget is 1/8 the hours but plays a we can't very well because this is where public opinion matters so to have some short questions any doubt but that
is an arm of the russian government? no doubt. everybody agrees. i heard in a previous hearing that the russians were sniffing around buying commercial tv all bets in europe. have you heard that?. >> yes. there have been cases they have tried but the government tries to block the possibility. >> that is one of the things we have to watch so what was done here consistent with what the russians have been doing?.
>> there was some new elements. >> darr getting more sophisticated?. >> you said something several times that some members of this committee were in eastern europe to be in the ukraine and poland the first thing it wants to tell us his watch out for those elections and we did not understand how precious and that was at the time so how do you defend yourself? the best defense is if the people know what is happening to say it is just the russians and that you characterized as societal wariness to educate the
american people and to use that word digit the - - digital literate but we need to understand they will keep doing this and we need to shrugged that off. >> i agree that is the lesson to learn it is do they did not appreciate the extent and the lack of transparency. >> there has been some discussion on october night there is a comprehensive memo those that were listed in the heat of the campaign nobody pays attention that i industry in but that the lemon is do we go public in a big way? but i agree that
would have been inappropriate 20/20 hindsight but that compromise is that not part of the strategy? that has that happened in other countries?. >> that german legislature the have nots posted anything yet that is the james bond version. but with compromise you don't find out because you are not supposed to. >> but to be very heavily elite -- heavily used but also having one is not only
the essential. >> you could make something up decane cakes a dog every morning that i deny that for the next three months. so i hope he will give us of written responses because that is an important role of this committee to prepare ourselves for what everybody has suggested is not a one-off sale in 2016 but will continue to have given all both sides of the political divide because putin is not a republican he is an opportunist and the next time it could come from the opposite direction but it is still a corruption to our democracy. >> i have learned several things today that the keying
kicks the dog every morning and i was completely unaware of that. [laughter] going back to the question of before is the deterrence so what price should russia pay for this type of interference? i have heard that from several of you to find cooperation between legitimate media sites to help identify so what price should they pay? with the russians were cheating with their athletes in a very short period of time it paid a big price by the athletes not going to the 2016 olympics you train them and did dope them and were caught some of the last 24 hours that authority can even start testing their
athletes again they have been on suspension that long and they paid in the price though the hope that is a deterrent so what price should they pay?. >> this is a difficult question of the delete and the major reason was the retribution and even with the intelligence services and though they may not want to make that public and that is the largest conundrum of what we're dealing with. . .
>> one of the things you mentioned before was the export of lng. that was something that was debated here in congress. the conversation became this was something about energy companies becoming more profitable. if you don't sell us lng, the russians can turn the valve on and off. that became long-term debated -- long debated here and was finally decided, yes, we are going to sell lng.
and it is a benefit to our alliance of. other ideas as far as the price russians should pay? >> i thought that when emmanuel macron met putin in versailles, was not a pleasant experience. and so instead of being direct, .hat i describe as light talk second, the machinery they use against us is extremely important for the kremlin to control their own population. if we are able to dismantle it, we bring in more troops to the internal russian discourse.
>> thoughts? say senator, it is a difficult question as it is for president trump as it was for president obama. -- can can stand up stanza is right, it's probably going to be asymmetric. incentives that it was mentioned that russia's goal was to drive a wedge between the you and -- you and and u.s. and the u.s. eu must remain. senator -- first of all i was
impressed it to see our nato allies what you've trying to do -- to identify russian propaganda. tryithuania, cyber sleuths to beat back the people employed on social media app to spread disinformation. versus aed it elves trolls. france and britain have pressured facebook to disable big accounts and it has doubled he number of monitors. all of this is amazing weird i think you have been dealing with this. a --ys here that in lot be , broke three and
1991. they have been controlling their people by not informing them. -- when be a broke latvia broke, you were able to set your people free with the truth. have you had any trouble getting the information in their using their own networks against them? none of the governments that i know of have made a decision to do that. are no society groups that theto do that and bring in different tools that might be there. some of them -- i would argue in -- asof this committee awkward as it might be, is one of the best laws i would suggest
your countries so that people would know where it is coming from? >> if i have that information, i probably wouldn't be sitting here. there is no assumption in germany that the president's office is directly involved in giving orders to russian interference. the execution is actually accomplished very broadly, a variety of actors. >> i cannot repeat what our state prosecutors's mentioned just a few weeks ago -- i can they are fromd russia and certain authorities were involved in a certain level. moment we cannot make that conclusion that putin himself was giving orders to what was going on there. >> if i could follow up with one, the rhetoric coming from
the white house in this administration, has a cause our nato allies to contribute to percent to the defense spending or because of the concern of russia's aggression? i want everyone to answer. >> the chancellor has said repeatedly that we will achieve 2% by 2024 and increasing our defense budget by 8%. we are doing a lot of other things. which are working towards -- senator: what was the cause? more so than the white house rhetoric? dr. stelzenmueller: the policies has enforced us a sense of urgency. ambassador burns: 20 of the 29 allies have increased defense spending. that was the primary cause. but i must say, president
trump's been right to raise this issue as all of our presidents have, and i think he has had an impact on the internal debate. canada spend 1% of their g.d.p. in defense. so he has gone about it in a way , that is not effective -- senator: unconventional. >> unconventional but right to raise it. ambassador garcevic: other members of nato increased defense spending by around $2 billion u.s. dollars. senator: senator cotton. sen. cotton: thank you. this has been informing. this is one small part of russia's efforts to undermine western democracies. trying to divide our alliance. most of thexplored points today. i want to respond more broadly are twoi think
myths that have professed here and the myths are that somehow president trump is weaker on russia. somehow nato deterrence is undermined by the united states rather than by europe. let's review what's happened in the first five months of this administration. president trump has bombed a military base in syria and shot down syrian planes and shot down iranian drones showing russia is unable to protect its two main clients in the middle east. and we are on the verge of deploying more troops where russia has been meddling with ever greater intensity in recent years. and we have finally proposed a budget that increases our military spending, albeit not enough that accelerates missile defense. and our domestic agencies are
doing everything they can to increase oil and gas production in the united states. by contrast president obama pushed the reset button six weeks after russia invaded georgia. he mocked mitt romney for calling russia our number one geo political foe. he asked in a hot mike to wait until after his election despite -- to discuss missile defenses because he would have more authority and bipartisan support in the congress. president obama refused to send lethal weapons to ukraine and stood by as russia returned into the middle east for the first time in syria and stood by in the 2016 election. so i would dispute the premise that somehow president obama was any tougher or stronger as against russia. second, the myth that somehow nato and deterrence is at risk because of the united states.
not europe. talk is cheap. deterrence is about the military balance of power. it's not about magic words. national leaders can call article five second or sacrosanct, but europe's collective failure to meet the 2% goal of defense spending is underinvested in our common defense of something in the magnitude of $120 billion. vladimir putin can see the reality of what national leaders in europe think about our common defense. no matter what words they use. moreover, it's known that russia is in violation of a treaty and open skies treaty that european leaders continue to resist the trump's administration's efforts to bring russia back into compliance with those treaties. dr., as you noted, the german
foreign minister has protested the russian sanctions bill that passed the senate because germany does business with russian companies in the construction of the pipeline, which they shouldn't be building in the first place if they are worried about russia and want to deter russia in europe. the german foreign minister said the goal isn't likely to be attained and don't make promises. sadly, i think he is right. germany increased its budget by 8%. budgetar, it's defense is proposed to be increased by 4%. a poll suggested that a majority of germans oppose such an increase. more alarmingly, a pew poll from last month asked europeans if russia got into a serious conflict with one of its neighboring countries which is
our ally do you think our , country should or should not use military force. the dutch said 72%, yes. 23% no. that is great for the dutch. they are good allies. poles and americans very proud of our country. canada, 58-31%. france if the 3-43. spain, 46% to 46%. brits, 45-43. germany 43%. my time is almost expired. my remarks are focused on germany and you are the subject matter expert on that country, what is the matter with germany? dr. stelzenmueller: thank you , senator, for your questions and for your remarks. i already said that i'm not a fan of the pipeline project and i think the number of many of my german expert friends agree with
me. there is debate about the use of this project politically. on the german defense budget, i think, again, i can only reiterate what chancellor merkel has said who is likely to win the election, germany is on course. anybody who has ever looked at defense budgets and attempted to increase the them, knows how many complications there are in expanding forces. we would have to double our defense budget to do this. but i can assure you from my personal experience, many conversations last week in berlin, we are racing to do this. in fact, only last week or two weeks ago i was on a stage together with the german chairman -- equivalent of the joint chiefs at the bidding of
the defense ministry to explain to germany's armaments of bureaucracies why they have to work faster more flexibly to accomplish the promises that we have made to nato. i assure you that this was a very serious discussion. now, it will also not have escaped you because that we have been talking about this all day. we are in an election and gabrielle is in the opposite party and he has to say these things. he has said other things. he has also said other things. for example first time he went , to moscow he told his counterpart that he did not believe in the post-western world spoken of at the munich conference. this was wrong we stand by the , idea of the west and western alliances and that this is a question of shared values and not geo political location. as for the poll, i'm unhappy about that as you are.
i know many germans are unhappy about it as well. maybe that is also rooted in our cultural memory of the cold war. i'm old enough to remember the if ther where we knew article 5 came to pass, there would be three weeks of conventional warfare and then move to nuclear and my country would be a heap of ashes. i think that is a memory that informs that kind of judgment. but i know that german politicians of all parties have made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt to moscow and to the kremlin and mr. putin himself that any violation of article 5 will have us all standing there as one, as allies to defend an attack on nato territory. sen. harris:s --
can you tell me what you believe has been the impact of our reputation with our allies in europe in particular as a result of this administration's failure to acknowledge that russia attempted to manipulate the election of the president of the united states. and if believe there has been an impact, in terms of our standing with our allies in europe, do you believe that is going to have an impact on our ability to protect ourselves and guard against what should be a predictable attack in our 2018 elections by russia? ambassador burns: the basic problem is that the europeans are accustomed to looking for the united states to lead on a big issue. this is a big issue. all of us are under attack from a systematic russian campaign but don't see the united states , leading. if you combine -- this is in response to senator cotton's president trump has not been strong on the sanctions in ukraine. he has not spoken out on
interference and been very natoalent, even hostile to and seems to look at germany as , a competitor and not an ally. if you put it all together, the first time since 1945 that europeans might see angela merkel as leader of the world, -- leader of the west, not president trump. i don't say it lightly. i think it is a sad statement to make it, but it's a true statement. we need to recover our leadership role and do that by actions and on this subject it's by aligning yourself on the european sanctions. and it's by trying to raise our defenses as we talked about here in an effective way. senator: mr. chairman and vice chairman, i appreciate you having an open hearing on this issue. the american people should have a better sense of how our reputation and standing in the global community has been impacted by our failure to
acknowledge that russia attempted to manipulate an election for president of the united states. do any of the other panelists want to add? ambassador garcevic: article 5 , just to remind you has been , invoked only once in the history of nato when the u.s. was under attack on september 11. and all allies from europe stood up behind the u.s. and we have been in afghanistan for years now together along side fighting the same cause. >> i would just add one number to that, more than 8 million people have died fighting for a joint cause. senator: you mentioned a couple of points about the french elections intel is curious about -- and senator collins raised this point. you talked about media as a
partner and their cooperation with the french government and that they were very active in verifying the factual accuracy of misinformation and you also discussed the importance of assuming that a country will be hacked and then trapping hackers. and arguably eating able to prosecute them and give them consequence. how would you propose that that would be applied in the united states? you know for example, i won't name the stations, but there are two cable networks that if you watch them at the same time on the same subject, you will hear two completely different versions of what is happening. we have a culture around the media as it relates to politics that may not be as coordinated as some of the media in europe. how would you propose, looking at the 2018 election as a goal for protecting ourselves, how
would we work with the media to inoculate or prevent harm or to be resilient once we know we've been hacked? mr. sarts: facts matter. facts matter. we don't build bridges on false facts. we want to get them straight. it is very hard in a functional democracy without facts as a basis for it. we tend to go into different directions because of opinions and that's ok. that's what the democratic process is. but at the end of the day, all we have to agree is if we don't value the factual basis of our reality, democracy won't work. senator: i only have a couple of seconds. how did the french media expose
a misstatement of fact to be without factual basis? how did they expose the fake news? what did they do? mr. sarts: the whole set of ways that you verify what the information is in front of them, the journalists should be very good at it. pointtually, the biggest is actually value and understand the role as it is called -- it is also the power and the responsibility. and understand that within the responsibility of that in a democratic society to have it functional is to value the factual basis. that's the understanding upon which the french media were able to come together to actually work together. i wouldn't say there wasn't cooperation between media and the government. media cooperated in between themselves. irrespective of political
viewpoints, valuing that the democratic system is based on fact. senator: i agree with that and important to value a free and independent press in order to allow them to do their job. thank you. i have nothing else. >> senator mccain. sen. mccain: ambassador, do you believe that the united states has a strategy as to how to respond to the cyber warfare that we're in today? ambassador garcevic: i think yes. sen. mccain: could you tell me that strategy. ambassador garcevic: it's a very difficult question. i would say that i can see the strategy through nato and what i also -- sen. mccain:? through nato? ambassador garcevic: when it comes to cyberattacks, as a result of the cyberattacks of a
large-scale that happened years ago when russia attacked estonia, which was supposed to be -- sen. mccain: didn't have anything to do with an american strategy. i was there at the opening of it. ambassador garcevic: yeah. but i think in all case -- in all cases -- thanks to -- when we found out it would be difficult at least as far as i know, it would be difficult to clarify the case and ask for help from the u.s. and u.k. agencies, i would like to believe that strategy exist. i can only -- i cannot comment on it because i'm not in the loop. i didn't read it. i didn't talk to people who can explain. what i can see happening every
day that through your embassies and diplomatic network and at a network that exists in nato at a working level, countries like montenegro. they need assistance. sen. mccain:. answer,a great thank you. should we expect similar aggressive behaviors? we saw the attempt to overthrow the government of montenegro, such as bosnia, kosovo? ambassador garcevic: i'm sure this is just one case and i'm sure russia will continue doing something similar in our neighborhood. sen. mccain: that's pretty exciting. they recruited people and willing to kill people and willing to send people in uniform to kill the prime minister.
i mean it reads out of a novel. ambassador garcevic: that's why i think u.s. and european partners must remain active in the region. any retreat from the region is detrimental for democracies. sen. mccain: came awfully close to succeeding if we hadn't had an informant on the inside, they might have succeeded. seriously that in some cases we simply had a lack. i cannot say we were capable, it happened as a result of certain circumstances. sen. mccain: like an informant on the inside? >> the informant was aware of the proportion of bloodshed and wouldn't happen if this action
succeeded and he showed up to police to report. sen. mccain: should we be concerned about that level of violence that the g.r.u. is willing to engage in in order to overthrow a free and elected -- a freely elected government? ambassador burns: at this time it is concerning. sen. mccain: why haven't we heard more about it? mr. sarts: i'm quite surprised about that as well because i think that is a very telling story that we have to reflect upon. i have one hope and that is the hope that it will all fail. russians like everybody else, lessons learned. i hope the lesson that they learned, it's not really that effective. and in these cases, they tend to lose what they would like to have, which is plausible
deniability. sen. mccain: what has been public reaction and montenegro about the failed coupe? ambassador garcevic: mixed. including me. i was at that time in the u.s., not working for government and the first reaction was a mix of feelings. whether this was staged or not. whether it is true or not. but time goes on. and we are more aware of the portion of the action and what was behind this action and the action was organized. and also, as a result of two suspects decided to cooperate with the police, and they disclosed how action was planned, who financed it, who were the people for contact in serbia, the two agents i mentioned in the beginning. the russian agents.
then this actually helped us make a completed picture putting pieces one by one. so, now we have a clear picture what was happening. sen. mccain: what is the reaction in the baltics? mr. sarts: in the baltics i think all the governments are looking with great concern at a big scale military russian exercise planned for september. sen. mccain: are you talk about the reaction to what is clearly a very complex detailed plot to overthrow a freely elected government? sarts: there were political
statements condemning that. there was a discussion within the government's close circles as well as openly of what has been the parameters of it. and i would tell that government's have taken very great care to look into elements of what made it and what was the plan to make adjustments for their own planning in the case of particular crisis. sen. mccain: i thank you, mr. chairman. sen. reed: thank you for an excellent discussion. thank you for your service and your wife's counsel. and thank you for promoting us to the best hope of fixing this problem, but i think we are the second best, frankly. i share your concern that the president has to take the lead here for obvious reasons. commander in chief, chief
diplomat, the most recognizable public figure. there was a missed opportunity at the nato conference, forget what was said. what wasn't said, the common threat we face today, the most significant 1 -- is this deliberate action by the russians. and my sense is that most immediate game changer if the president standing next to the chancellor and president of france and a british prime minister, took that position, i assume you might have an opinion on that. ambassador burns: i was ambassador to nato and every american president has been the leader of that alliance and affirmed that bedrock commitment and it was in the president's speech. and it came out. it had devastating impact on america's leadership. what we haven't talked about today, that in addition to the intelligence and judicial and political measures to take to defend against the interference in our elections, you and
senator mccain lead another committee -- we have to keep rebuilding in europe and because we are into containment of russian power. we are back into containment and on multiple levels. and this hearing exposes one of those levels. sen. reed: not only the reaffirmation of article 5, but a positive statement of the common thread of cyber against the united states. we have mr. one opportunity, but if the president could stand with the leadership of nato and prime minister of canada and many other interested parties, and make that declaration, that would do us much to stop this process. is that fair? ambassador burns: it would. the immediate threat is the cyberattacks on the electoral processes. it's a much bigger threat than a conventional threat. he has the opportunity. he will be in germany the week after next.
he will be at a summit hosted by chancellor merkel. there are opportunities for the president to get back into this leadership role and try to build bridges with the european leaders. my sense is that secretary tillerson and secretary mattis want us to go in that direction. they have been talking publicly about trying to play a bigger leadership role and more conservative one. reed: thank you. mr. sarts, we have had discussions about the vulnerabilities of our electoral system, our information, social media, all of these things. we know as several people have suggested that they're coming back. from your perspective, are russians working on -- already working on in our case the 2016 campaign and 2018 campaign in the united states? are they going to deploy more sophisticated cyber operations against our registration and electoral systems? there have been some reports in
great britain in the context of the brexit vote that there was an attack on registration systems. i guessed the biggest question is are they already there and don't know it because of the ability to use some tools that has fallen into their hands? >> one thing we have is that russians to experimentation and sometimes you see an odd pattern and you kind of dismiss it because it has no effect. but when you look forward to retroactively, and you see that you spent a test case for particular tool. so they are doing it right now. it's not necessarily that they test it in the theater, they are going to deploy.
it might be a different place. so, yes, there will be elaborate, more elaborate tools both from the technical and cognitive perspective. i expect there will be more, but i think the choice how to do that would be made pretty close within the circumstances of the moment. senator reed: your center for strategic communications, are you dealing with this issue in germany, for example, upcoming election, trying to help them in the united states, trying to give advice? is nato taking the position with we hope u.s. leadership of proactively dealing with this or are you caught up in this paralysis that we see in the united states? mr. sarts: nato is putting troops in the battleics and poland. a slightly different element and they are bombarded with misinformation fake news. ,robotic networks are trying to
attack. nato is taking different threats of response, capabilities practical steps, et cetera, et , cetera. we as a center, we are not part of a military structure, we are run by the country's and we respond to them and if they ask and they do to give our advice, knowledge with how they can conquer specific cases including election, we are there to support them. senator reed: my time has expired. thank you all. >> thank you, senator reid and all members for your participation today into each and every one of you. your expertise is invaluable to us. your testimony today is crucial as i shared with all of you before this panel and our ability not only to work through the current investigation that
we're in but to create a road map for the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, both at home to figure out how we change elections to build defensive mechanisms or to make them less vulnerable and working with our partners to make sure globally to make sure any changes any best practices might , at least be shared and offered to be implemented. just a couple of comments. i was challenged from the beginning with the names today. i remain as challenged trying to figure out exactly what we do to stop russian interference but as we complete this process we will have a clear picture. you have been asked to submit some things. i would also ask you to think about the challenges that we've got and that you have in your respective areas of expertise and provide any additional input to us that you feel is pertinent
to the decisions we'll make. ambassador burns, i go back to something that you said and what jim comey said, next time, it could be the other party. as a matter of fact, when this whole effort started, it didn't target one party or the other. i know you know that because the root of when this started and it was a mere fishing expedition that probably encompassed hundreds and thousands of individuals, nonprofits and organizations. it turned into a data-rich environment for russia to be involved in an election. no question, they would have been involved, but maybe not in the same direct way.
they just have happened to accumulated the data. this cybersecurity issue that the world continues to deal with and try to figure out what the silver bullet is and in the end, the answer is there is not a silver bullet. the second thing is, i'm glad you admit it, you are a product of the state department and you know, i can't envision the day there would be a secretary of any state department that would be in favor of sanctions from the u.s. to a foreign entity, because it's inherent that that makes their job tougher. but even though i don't think secretary tillerson is out there calling for russian sanctions, i wouldn't expect any secretary to do it. but there has to be leadership. and i think that's what the world is crying for right now, is for leadership.
and i hope we do what we have historically done and we fill that vacuum, not because we're better at it, it's because, i think as i travel the world, the world's waiting for us to do it because we provide liability umbrellas for a lot of countries because our elections have certainty and most other elections don't have the length of time certainty that we do. there are things that are unique to the united states and we have to realize how that aids our partners around the world of leveraging that certainty of u.s. elections. i believe voters in ashland, north carolina and houston, texas deserve for the same thing and that is to vote with no interference. just as voters in berlin and paris deserve elections that have confidence that their votes and the integrity of the election system are intact. as the committee continues its investigation, it is clear that russian activities fell into
what i would refer to as a seam. it was domestic activity by a foreign power so the intelligence community wasn't quite sure how to approach it. it involved what i might informally call pseudo government, organizations and the political parties that it confused our government's approach. lastly the intelligence community diligently avoids political issues. so that added to the additional complexity of this problem. here's where we are today. this committee's got a charge from the leadership and that's to thoroughly review russia's meddling in the 2016 election. and the committee is committed to finishing that investigation no matter how long it takes and no matter what the results are. i'm not sure that russia's involvement in our election will change much from our initial
assessment, which was the i.c.a. that was produced by the obama administration. but what this committee can do and should do is to make sure that every american and every person globally that cares about the integrity of elections reviews what we find, embrace what's needed to assure that elections are fair and there's no interference in the future. and that we collectively commit to make sure we carry that out. so the committee's work is vitally important to how this difficult time in our history ends. but i'm confident that we can come out of this with a report that not only spells it out for those of us who are members of congress but spells it out for the american people. and our partners abroad in a way
that can be understood and can be received with confidence. your contribution today has been incredibly helpful to our ability to put that report together. with that, this hearing's adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org