tv John Brennan Michael Morell and Andrew Mc Cabe at National Press Club CSPAN October 30, 2019 7:39pm-9:01pm EDT
thursday, the house will vote on the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. resolution for firm the committee work so far and expand for the investigating committee. also lays out the process on which hearings will be open to the public. past meets thursday morning at 9:00 eastern, live in our network c-span. >> live to the national press club. including former cia director, john, former acting cia director, michael. poor acting fbi director, on the security of u.s. elections. >> everyone needs to be on heightened alert care. they also try to break into companies that make software for voting machines, that's another area where we have to put up roadblocks.
there's that paper ballot issue. there are still some states that have a completely paper ballot backup. assuming safeguard against tampering with folks. >> no relation that we know of. [laughter] in terms of looking at what's happening now, hillary clinton got a lot of attention in the last week and a half or so were saying she was, in her view, believed chelsea gabbert, one of the democrats running for nomination was a russian asset. her staff went down on that, she didn't walk away from comments. do you see what she was talking about there? >> i can say some things are
russian asset, even if it's not intentionally trying to advance russian entrance but because of what it does or what it says, it is something promoting the russia agenda. maybe that's what she meant in terms of some of the things chelsea said in terms of the u.s. should not be involved in the a lot of these. >> a third party candidate was something specifically she brought up. >> yes. very sophisticated observers. they've done a lot of research on that. they have looked at a lot of different countries in terms of how they can influence them. sometimes it may be third party candidate. pushing money into some of those politicians or parties they favor. we've seen that being done in european countries, they also
push money into some campaigns and because they want to put money in there and expose it, a way to undercut and undermine the prospects of individuals. the russians will opt for a lot of different things. in terms of navigating into those systems to see what they can do. they also look for opportunities to be able to promote certain themes in media journals and other things. they will be able to befriend individuals who unwittingly walk along with their encouragement, beating money into academic areas as far as promoting something they think will be useful in terms of the impact on the electorate. also looking at politicians who will be amendable in terms of
the overtures they make. in the environment is one. we are, as a society, with how we are going to ensure that that does not become the playground for both trying to undermine the country by exercising freedom of speech but pushing out bogus information, information that can really undermine this country's democratic foundations. how do you balance security with the liberties and freedoms we love as a country? russians take advantage of those. the freedoms and liberties in this country to operate on the ground in other places. this is the challenge i think we
will be facing. the influence or attitudes here in the u.s., both politicians and electorates, this is the challenge of the 21st century. i've been a longtime advocate of having a bipartisan congressional just after 9/11 or we try to address some of the issues that might have contributed. i think we need a commission to look at that environment, how we are going to grapple with those challenges. it really defines america. but at the same time not allow other countries entities to take advantage of that. >> what you're talking about, this need to protect the intelligence community is being
investigated itself from within. we know attorney general barr had launched this investigation into the investigation about the origins of the 2016 russian election meddling probe. attorney in connecticut by the name of john. have you been approached by the investigators? >> i have not. >> do you expect to? >> well, i was there so yeah. >> you much must be preparing for it given that you worked there. >> i have a lot to prepare. [laughter] >> it's on my list. [laughter] of course. obviously i was, i played a role in the initiation of the investigation they are looking into so i expect to be contacted at some. i haven't yet been. i'll say, there's nothing wrong
with, especially a new attorney general coming in at the conclusion of a tumultuous and high-profile controversial case and asking questions about how that all began. and what was the factual predication that led to the initiation of investigation and how it was conducted and those reviews taking place all the time. they are typically done by inspectors general. and of course, one has done that. it started as the michael investigation, ended up as a some broader set of questions and issues. there's nothing wrong with that. it's when -- is not the spirit in which the investigation is conducted, and i think it's something a lot of people would
cooperate with. >> it's now a criminal probe. does that change your view? >> i don't believe that changes as much as people have indexed on in the last few weeks. i think it would be odd to expect him to conduct an inquiry without having subpoena power. >> that's how you understand it, the elevation to be able to be enough power, something is about to happen in terms of indictment? >> i don't know what's going to happen. but it's not uncommon for the attorney general to give a special counsel for authority. even on the basis of being able to bring an folks to submit to questioning and ensure they are not misleading them. the problem with this is when you have a factual scenario,
which i think we have now, that indicates that some folks and possibly even attorney general are bringing a set of preconceived notions and biases in the investigation. if that's the case, i don't know that it is but there's certainly some indicators that it might or that the purpose of the investigation is not really to get to the bottom of what did we know and why did we make that decision that we did but it's more to run out theories, political conspiracy theories and things of that nature. that causes me great concern, not personally but of course about the state of the department and intelligent community that is currently under investigation. >> don, you were also there. what's your view of this now criminal probe? have you been asked to speak to investigators? >> a new york times report that said the barr review evolved at
some. >> , i do not believe the department of justice has, officially insane that's the investigation. i may be wrong but i believe that's what it is. i have cooperated with any type of review that the congress decided to do on the election or any other issue. i will cooperate with any congressional or executive branch, reviewed investigation. that is coming from, whether committees or whatever else. i think i would like to believe that any such review investigation will be conducted in a professional affair and a political matter and he has a good reputation. working with a number of professionals who are going to try to ensure this is done appropriately.
i hope william barr will live up to his as attorney general whether he was doing it in a matter that does not have any politics associated with it. so i have not talked to them. there are indications that i will be talked to at some. i'll have to be there at the time. i am very confident that cia conducted its responsibility appropriately, consistent with legal authorities and in a manner that was political and we are trying to fulfill our responsibilities to understand the counterintelligence threat posed by the russians and what they were trying to do. it was a very challenging issue on the eve of a hot contested
election. we were part of it administration and one thing obama said to us is that he wanted us to carry out our responsibilities as rigorously as we can but not to do anything at all with reality or putting the thumb on the scale as terms of the outcome. we navigate these waters as best we could and i look back on it, i feel good about what it is we did as an intelligence community and i feel very confident and comfortable with what i did so i have no qualms about talking to investigators who are going to be looking at this again. if i'm called, i'll be happy to talk with them. >> the times you referred to, the idea that this could be
politically minded. you don't necessarily assume it to be fat? you think there are valid reasons? >> if the effort is to try to look back and ensure that things were done appropriately, as opposed to questioning the analytic assessment that was done and the judgment that came out of it, i'm not going to ascribe motivations through this, but i must tell you it certainly lends some appearance that this is politically motivated because of the continued insistence about mr. trump that this is all grand hoax and performer leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement community work --
were involved in this to subvert the candidacy and prospects of trump, which is the furthest from the truth it could be. he mentioned there are some things mr. barr said in testimony that raised questions of my own about whether or not he would look at this again through what the eternal general be doing as opposed to looking at it from the standpoint of trumps lawyer. >> you mean like in testimony? >> yes. you want to be more specific? >> in testimony, bart referred to this as spine, which is an unusual word to use about something that was a legitimate u.s. government activity. >> for someone who once worked in the cia himself.
>> essentially, i wasn't there but i know what they were doing, they were carrying out counterintelligence mission which they are empowered to do. that's not spine, as we typically topic out spine. it showed no collusion that completely exonerated the president. fill you with confidence about objectivity about them going forward. >> all he had to do was look at the file of the fbi and see what would have cast fired before. the decision in july, the investigation was launched. the community to not pursue this in a manner that was consistent with authority and responsible
these and obligations. it's quite interesting to see that we are hit from one side saying they didn't do anything at all. while yes, it's kind of tough. [laughter] you had u.s. persons affiliated with the trump campaign, who were consorting with some russian officials. that raised questions about the objectives and agendas and motivations and collusion, given cia does not collect any intelligence on american perso persons. which is why we had to work closely with the fbi and share the information that we had. which is why we set up a fusion.
let me give john a break here. you're doing really well. [laughter] what we knew is really not -- it's well known. what we knew at the time, the fact we knew the russians had been attacking us through cyber means and institutions across the country, but specifically academic institutions, we knew this as early as the fall of 2014. we saw that activity peaking as we rolled into the election. this is all widely discussed, we knew about their targeting of the dnc. we knew about their efforts to extract information. we then knew in july that the russians used that material to weaponize the material for the intended effect of negatively impacting clinton's campaign. then we found out from a trusted
ally that u.s. person, who was part of the campaign prior to any of the information becoming public, prior to the weaponization of the dnc e-mails, said to this ally that the russians had offered to assist the campaign. >> you're talking about australia? >> i will specify who the ally was. >> i think he is now running for congress. >> remarkable. [laughter] so with that knowledge, knowledge that a u.s. person may have had knowledge to that, that may have in fact been in contact with not just any adversary but russia, who we have a long history of understanding their desire to impact our electoral process there, they're never ending efforts to undermine our
liberal democratic or the driving wedges between different parts of our areas, we have a job to do. it's a tough decision to make, we did it in the most evenhanded and fair and quiet way that we possibly could we stepped up to the responsibility that we knew we were both bound, not to ignore and we did our job. anybody who wants to come in now and sit down and talk about th that, and happy to walk through this again. i'll explain to them what we found at the time. it's an effort to understand that, we have absolutely nothing to worry about. >> quickly, on the mueller report language, it said no conspiracy but it did say, there were numerous links identified between russian government and
trump campaign. when you read the report, what did you think that meant? then we'll go to mike. [laughter] >> i thought wow -- [laughter] that's a remarkable conclusion for anyone. numerous links between the russian government or individuals affiliated with russian intelligence in the trump campaign. that is still an open question that i think a lot of people would like to hear the answer to. why? >> and you are one of them. >> i would love to have an answer. >> i know you had strong feelings about that. in terms of the message sent to other analysts and the intelligence community. >> i have deep concerns about
is good is he is, how we doing analysis. how we understand how we evaluate information and understand how we evaluate sources, and how we come to conclusions and understand it doesn't understand that, he doesn't do that for a leaving. he looks at issues and decides weather a crime has been committed. i am concerned about whose because, and was the cia who are going to be talked to or perhaps who have been talked to, have had to hire lawyers. i am concerned that whose will have a chilling effect on analysts going forward. i have to make a tough decision and what is perhaps a political issue and they are looking at an issue overseas but it's got
political funds with us here. they might think twice in the future about having make such a decision if they have to fear hiring a lawyer, road and have to defend them something is a justice department. then.to make here, is a people have already looked at the question of whose analysis. the senate intelligence committee look at this. in a bipartisan way it was unanimously came to the conclusion that the analysts were right. but with the russians were trying to do, is try to divide us. and to damage hillary clinton and help president trump. the republicans and the democrats on the senate intelligence committees see they analysts came out in the right place. now his intelligence committee came out in a different place because it is broken. now his intelligence the democrats said they cannot in the right place. the republicans said they came out in the right place on trying to create divisions and on
earning hillary clinton but they got it wrong on helping president trump. but they provided no compelling arguments with that. so people have already looked at whose in the proper people have already looked whose. john durham should not be looking at whose. to make deal great. select is my definition of analysis. it is someone who deals with situation of ambiguity, with information arriving incrementally but on constant pressure to come to a conclusion. that means analysts take reputational risks everyday. i think the most compelling.here is that you put analysts in a situation where they are defending their analysis with a lawyer sitting at the site, and someone holding a criminal prosecution uber their head for a judgment they may, in a situation that i can tell you never has complete information in the manner that you know expect there to be complete information in a courtroom
before you come to a conclusion. is it terrible position upon an analyst in. the most compelling.is that it's wrist tasting taking an analysis. that went out risk taking you get apples. >> the other.is that the standard for coming to a judgment, in a criminal case is the much higher than standard to come to judgment on an analytic issue. is i'm concerned that john durham, we do look at this, is going to see, analyst to have enough information to make the judge in the myth they made and is looking at it from the perspective if he would invite somebody not his he would make a judgment is an analyst. >> can just see to all the future analysts in the room, don't let these guys discourage you. [applause] made you you now more than ever. >> i see some right out there, and i know who they are.
>> in terms of talking about something that will overhang the country, and certainly i'm sure intelligence community is at the middle of the political fight we are all now and in washington with impeachment. the president has made clear that is a lot of differences and trust the intelligence community. he has said that since he's been on the campaign trail. the whistleblower is in whose case, is is been widely reported came from the seat ia and happens to be detailed to the white house. what is whose confluence of factors add up to old but he only for the intelligence community if he has reached out reelected me very well may be, what is that relationship going to look like and was at me for if that distress continues to be
happening right rightly or wrongly but it exists. >> the one thing i would be confident about is the intelligent community will just keep doing his job. or the things it is remarkable that it is a clear sense of mission there intelligence committee has been through a lot. can't overseas not unknown in that business. therefore you get up every morning and come in and do your job that's what i'm confident they are doing. i think it relationship with trump has gone through stages and i think we are in another stage now. the way i would define stages is that the first stage they didn't know anything about it is a candidate. the second stage is probability and john is described that. was it appeared imminent intelligence information was somehow jeopardizing the legitimacy.
in the third stage came about when he first confronted in syria. he realized in north korea that he need it it. and it was sort of a necessity intelligence. and the fourth stage is the one where an outcome of kind presenting the need that there is a need. you cannot conduct foreign-policy that went out good intelligence. no president can even a real elected present trump. and so it will always be is long is he is there intense and conflictual relationship which in monday ways is the nature of intelligence anyway. >> but there is something unique you have to agree that now the impeachment inquiry is underway. it impedes the presence and concern and the deep state. >> thank we've got for the deep estate. [laughter] [applause] everyone
here is in whose progression of diplomats and officers and white house people tripping up to capitol hill right now and staying these are doing their duty are responding to a higher call. it doesn't surprise me, well think about it for a minute. with all of the people who knew what was going on here, it's a good intelligence officer to step forward and see something about it. which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else. why does that happen. tell american people when that happens is whose an institution can the u.s. government that with all of his flaws and makes mistakes, is institutionally committed to objectivity and to tell the truth. it is one of the few institutions that is not a chain of command, his whole job is to
speak his truth engraved in marble. whose dysfunctional relationship that your alluding to, it's right near her, it's a and 20, thought they were building smilingly in the professionals to carry out their daily responsibilities will continue to do it is. they are expected to do. the reason why mr. trump has whose very much relationship with cia and the deep state people, at. >> and you. >> and me. [laughter] is because the tell the truth. they cannot be manipulated like clay in his hands. they will stay on up and speak out when things are wrong. and they will tell him what the truth is. and the truth, he fears because he has lived anything but the truth, not just during his
presence at sea but before that. so think of is for the women and men who are in law enforcement communities, who are standing up and tearing out their responsibilities. if he doesn't use their intelligence. his music contributions to the security, out on him. but are people who continue to fight the fight, and entrenches here as well is overseas, will do the work irrespective of what he is going to do or see about them. when they raise their hand they have that obligation and a duty of their oath whose what compels the cia or whatever to speak out. it's what compels investors. in kernels and others. to be able to see, whose is wrong. whose is antithetical to the values that whose country was founded on and unfortunately there is it too monday people on
the other end of pennsylvania avenue in congress to hold their nose uber what is being done until they realize what they are doing is traveling the foundations of whose country. we are going to be in for a rocky road. so just in place every day that my former colleagues, in the intelligence community are continuing to fill fill their duties. >> to think the whistleblower [applause] >> has brought that i feel strongly about the issue at all now. not mac. >> do think the whistleblower should be compelled or be asked to testify. republicans are staying and if of the product present, he has a stripe to know his accuser. >> the whistleblower act, was the ink designed to ensure that individuals can come forward and
speak out when they see criminality, or things that are inappropriate. and they do so at great risk to themselves and their careers in the futures did there are ways that the whistleblower, and while it is the whistleblower even need it anymore to provide testimony because it seems like everything she or he said, has been collaborated by others. whose is no longer hearsay. it is now the people who are on the phone, people who are things being said. so again, what is being done right now is trying to attack somebody who is seen is something else. i don't see a reason, and certainly not to expose their identity, there are some nasty people out there. i've come to realize that myself. so that individual his identity
should be protected with there are ways to ensure that that person has additional information, that is above and beyond the other depositions have provided, they can get that testimony in a matter that is going to again protect the person his identity and be consistent with the purpose of the whistleblower statute. >> wanted to jump in here but i do want to tell everybody to get ready with your questions. you see those microphones are. if you want to get ready and lineup. >> just wants a market that in whose political environment, i think there are two myths about the ic. one is from president trump his opponent i want to be able to paint a pitcher that his rhetoric and his behavior is inappropriate is it is towards the intelligence community is the damaging the community and creating morale problems and letting people to leave and undermining with the intelligence community is doing everyday. it is wrong.
people just buckle down and do the work. in the other myth is that the intelligence community is the deep state and it is actively trying to undermine the president. that is it too is wrong. yeah by gotti operation of which whose was a huge intelligence success based on what i read in the paper, undermines both investments doesn't it. because the intelligence done was out so beautiful how could a demoralized place crippled by people leaving done whose job and then the other is if whose really was a deep state, why would it give him the political gift of being able to get out bag daddy, because both myths.
>> my name is christine and i political partner determine national security project. you have a platform here to help inform the campaign both congressional and presidential on what they can do. i would love to hear one point from each of you on both how we should watch out for infiltration digitally and in person. and what are some steps they can take to protect against it is wealth is reported to the appropriate parties. and thank you. >> i will focus and i will pass on the cyber peace and more on the human approach. it is absolutely imperative that people who are associated with political campaigns at every loophole, not just people running for president the people and state offices in particular and states that are impactful on
national politics in one way or another. they have to understand the threats that are facing them from his kind of human factor. those individuals who will attempt to ingratiate position of trust to try to influence those campaigns. these things are real. not just stuff you see happening in movies and outlandish plot lines and things like that. i think far is it too frequent frequently, folks who are attempting to enter politics failed to understand the significance of the threat they face. just from strata of human operation. >> will give you an answered on cybersecurity. former secretary jay johnson, former secretary of homeland security mike, myself, number of other people on the advisory board and they knew not-for-profit company called
cyber dome. and what it is doing is providing pro bono cybersecurity to any campaign that was it. democrat and publican independent. so my suggestion would be to pick up the phone and call them and help they can help your campaign was cybersecurity. [applause] a couple of things falling onto michael's comment simple cyber hygiene for everyone. because the theft of the dmc material in particular was it not a very sophisticated operation. it was missing fishing operation. but if all of you took out your phones right now, you would find someone fishing on phone. some phony message that could open. that is basically what happened. so simple, hygiene at all levels
of the electoral process. then one can go on but just one other idea, and these really important that every state in a paper ballot or backup system in some way. that is in the end, why we are in whose emergency period, until he figured out, i endorse whose. neither ballots. it's the surest way. >> i think a lot isn't dependent on the candidates leadership. and instilling in his or her campaign staff. a real sense of doing what is right and not doing what is wrong. there are so monday ways that somebody may pursue victory. at all costs. i think we see examples of that right now in the u.s. system. take whatever dive boat information that might benefit
you. i think the integrity that an candidate shows is really important is far is trickling down to the people. concerning the leadership that is need it. so winning at all costs, and not winning is in fact losing. so in addition to all of those things, i think their only needs to be a sense of the values for the candidates really prioritize. >> jim meyer, of the united states. [laughter] for mr. mclaughlin, stated that the cia offices are sworn to tell the truth. perhaps you can expect to be the word disinformation. mr. crawford recently stated that it's pursuing his role in may investigate a possible trump
investigation, you simply following the orders of his commander-in-chief suggesting that if he is indicted he will invoke the defense that he was just following orders. do you consider that a valid defense. >> on the issue of speaking the truth, i am referring here to nothing among analysts. that is the job. disinformation is the misunderstood concept that to the extent that it exists, it exists in the operational realm of colbert action however i would see that even there, when the cia uses a term like propaganda, it has learned that the best propaganda is the truth. cia is the organization that created video for europe for example and is the organization that managed to get a lot of literature behind the western literature behind the iron curtain and cold war. frankly, disinformation in the classic sense that we see the
soviets deployed eight years ago and the russians more recently, so something is cia does. is a matter of practice and routine. when he is referring to was that it was the white house and president obama, asking the intelligence community in early december to put together an assessment about what the russians were doing. the next demonstration would have the benefits of the insides another knowledge and expertise that that was evident in the time of the election period. that resulted in the assessment that was done and early of january was given to president obama and the two president-elect help at the time. that is what he was referring to. does it ring and the number of defense or whatever else. he wasn't telling us to spy on the trump campaign or to prevent the trump campaign forming choice at all.
he told us to do our jobs is the fbi. he did request the success met and i'm so glad he did. >> thank you my name is amanda. i live in virginia. and i just want to start off by staying thank you all for your service to whose country i am deeply grateful for all of you. getting back to the unnecessary attacks with deep state, what would be your word of encouragement for morale for those of us like myself who are considering going into whose field. >> i see two things, one is is john mentioned, you can't make national security policy. you simply can't that went out really good intelligence. and that is probably truer today than it ever has been. the work of the intelligence community weather you know a
collector or an analyst, it is incredibly important and it will remain so for a very long time. that transitions from to the second. whose administers you will come to an end. [applause] >> i'm just going to see that the whole idea of the state is the most sophomoric idea i've ever heard. [laughter] >> i agree. >> weather yourself or not. but the way it is deployed by some of our national leaders, in truth, what is deep state. they're talking with the civil service of the united states which is the juul in the crown of whose country. it is what, you got outside of whose building and probably a lot of lights still on and federal buildings. have people who are dedicated to doing a good job to support the american people. it is a perfect, no. the people there who are great. yes. by any human standard, and it is
the juul or a juul of the crown of whose country. what i would see, i treat teach graduate students. i encourage them to go into government now because when whose is all uber, there's going to be a renaissance of dedication in whose country. anyone to be part of it. >> i absolutely agree with that and if i could just add on a personal loophole. in some ways, i probably am like the worst recruiter for government service. ever. [laughter] and i get it. [laughter] i have to tell you that i firmly believe, there is no better live than one in the service to others. if you know the dive boat person that is compelled, to whose unique and unbelievably profound disservice to your community and to your country, and you should do that. because you will find the community of people that is
diverse and is broad and they come from every conceivable background but they all come for the same reason. they're there for the same reason you know. and that is to do good. and there's no better place to do that and in the places that we have served and despite everything that i have been through in the last few years, and things my family has been through, i would do it all again tomorrow. if given the chance. it is the most righteous way to surf and to live and if you think that's interesting, do it. [applause] >> whose the best damn career he could ever have. i'm so jealous when i look at you in so monday other young people. you know starting off in your careers, ours are mostly behind us. a couple of you i'm guessing, [laughter] and if you have the
opportunity to get into public service, law enforcement, do it. you'll never regret it. >> hi and thanks for being here. jerry with the washington examiner. so i been talking about durham and talking about ukraine but we actually have doj inspector michael work which is the reports coming out soon as well. in just a couple of questions about something that the sender, christopher steele his dossier. so mr. mckay, if you would would you be able to see with best estate 50 but the fbi verified in whose dossier before using it. i've heard generally that specifically what was verified in the dossier before it was used. it also if there's an explanation for why in these applications, the fbi didn't just see directly or indirectly,
that christopher steele is being paid by the clinton campaign. a lot of caveats and footnotes but i was just wondering if you'd be able to answered those two questions. >> the answered to your first question is no. i will not go into specifics of today about the with the fbi verified prior to or after. in answered to your second question is i will wait is i'm sure you will eagerly to see what mr. harwood his conclusions are the report. that is a matter that he is i assume at the center, is at center of the investigation am anxious to see what his thoughts are on it. is you've mentioned, there was an extensive and detailed explanation inserted by the department of justice into that isa package that everyone involved believed accurately by
should speak for myself. i believed accurately reflected lows in there. register here with the ig thinks about that and we probably won't have to wait is it too much longer. >> my name is hunter price and i'm a grad student at georgetown. thank you for being here is pretty amazing. to see all of you up on the stage. my question is an issue in the 2020 prophetic by mary has been breaking off some of the large companies including 2016 election and facebooks. the companies claimed that whose would harm their ability to stop and authentic behavior from actors like ron russia and similar to what we saw in 2016. based on what you guys know about the threats and your knowledge of these companies response to authentic behavior, do you think whose is the case of breaking up would hurt their ability to stop it or no. you. >> does anyone want to take that. we'll take one and then go uber
here. on make sure we get more questions in. >> i'm not really qualified to answered that. by instinct it's a bad idea to break them up. these companies, i can be is critical of them is anyone but they have also a tough job. i have followed the whole facebook controversially catholics up to notice that the last couple weeks that they have pointed out the removed quite a few faults and sites from facebook that were both russian and iranian. not only here but it also in africa. i think we keep the pressure on them to do that but breaking them up i suspect will end up having some secondary bad consequences that we have a run-up. thank you. >> hello i am norcal, permanent
resident and permanent university of washington. my question is on impeachment. he states where senators are going up for reelection and soon weather they are for or against impeachment. given the u.s. 2016 election wasn't completely devoid of russian influence. how can we make sure that our impeachment process is completely of devoid of the russian impeachment process. tina is impeachment good for our adversaries. you could put it that way. does anyone want to take that. [laughter] >> i wouldn't see impeachment is good for us. whose uptake of peat position on impeachment. all the turmoil we are in, that's good for our adversaries. i kind of leave it at that. >> do have time for one question are we getting wrapped up.
>> [laughter] we will get you all to the game. >> ladies and gentlemen, i think we are definitely leaving you wanting more. i apologize if you are still lying. perhaps you a chance during the reception desk question. i'd ask you. betty in the audience to exit through the reverse. letter panelists exit to the side doors. it 020 top of the second. [applause] thanks for one full panel for whose great presentation. [applause] [background sounds]
to the conversation all morning with your calls and facebook comments and text messages and tweets. be sure to watch c-span his washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern thursday morning. >> the house has announced that is moving forward on the impeachment process against president trump. by thursday morning at 9:00 a.m. on c-span in the house takes up the resolution outlining the next steps on the impeachment process including how hearings will be conducted. and later transferring evidence to the house judiciary committee. follow the impeachment inquiry. was moments online at cspan.org, our live from wherever you know on the free c-span radio app. >> representative serves the fourth district of kansas. weitzen means committee joining us with lots shooting journal whose morning.
good morning. >> good morning. whose announcement of the impeachment inquiry, what did you think of the announcement. >> is really trying to cover the tracks of what is going on. it is being pitched is a solution but if we compare what is happened soe far, and it was being talked about in whose resolution, we compare that to what happened when resident nixon was impeached for the process started with a democrat congress and with clinton, on a republican congress. those were both open and transparent in the residuals of people followedtr and the minory of both cases were allowed opportunities to subpoena witnesses in bringing documents and an if it is happening now. what whose resolution that springy but it is just basically trying to cover gap what is happening. he uses some nice sounding words. transparency in the resolution but really doesn't get back to ade process is been traditionally followed.
it's actually going to be problematic in terms of being justified so far. i know if everything is going on in the closed security room, technically all hearings are being called nonclassified but you can't release any information out there. the big piece that's happening is out of shift is coming out and licking one or two things out of that. we already know the for example has brought been telling theut truth and some things like the transcript that he made up and read in front of a hearing is i was one of those pieces we need to make sure that we get true open and transparency that we have then republicans have the opportunity to witnesses and to be able to treat transcripts in the information as well is make sure that they're going to make accusations for the present, they have the opportunity to lease question the witnesses and be able to have counsel to support that and back them up. heich is what's been done in the past and is practice and whose is falling short of being able to do that.
>> national security council witness said had concerns about what was the dialogue between the president. does that change your mind at all is far is what's going on. >> if it two or three witnesses there on the phone call the talked about things but we do look at what is being accused by the whistleblower, in the original write up around that was that there was a direct click claude crow that was actually seven structured the the president was not going to release her name to ukraine in reality the president was doing was following the law that congress passed. first the 2014, ukrainian defense law was at the president was required to make sure thatre there is no corruption. the same thing with the national defense operation act inde 2019. required there's no corruption before the release any her name. and actually speaker pelosi and unshipped both voted for that law. was one of those things that the president, said he wanted to
make sure there wasn't corruption in the ukraine, which obviously there's lots of the allegations were that. making sure he couldth reform things in ukraine, is one of those things that has been a constant state of attack on the president for the last twot years. that before he was election they're actually talking about how they can impeach him. his was ag process whose continued on. what we really want is, let's make sure we focus on things we need to get done. i spent 35 days now talking about impeachment. there's only 18 legislative days left in whose congress in this year. we've got summing things wee hae to deal. deed to focus on national defense for authorization and, appropriations bill for 2020. so are already 30 days into the year and weys still don't have n
appropriations bill we need to reauthorize flood insurance and needd to look at water security and address healthcare costs. we need tooc address social security. need tolot of things we be doing and instead were having whose, it really is almost a sham. you could literally call it a sham. >> if you want asking questions, call in. and you can text questions to a 27,488,003. your calling, other means committee is on earlier says that democrats could do two things atmo once, work on impeachment and these pressing mca and divide. that argument. >> i think we can but it's not happening. i believe we really need, the rightva reasons, nasa was so positive for so much of the country. there were some areas in whose industry in some places that were is advantaged in nafta but
broadbrush throughout the united states, it was better off in the army s mca makes a whole lot better. also bring in the 21st century which is the huge positive thing for us is a country. it puts a another hundred and 76000 people to work. and increases our gdp by $68 billion. mexico and canada want whose. they had the opportunity whose week to talk with trade ambassadors from canada and mexico. mexico is really taking a m lea. one of the problems in nafta. there weren't enough restrictions and guidelines to make sure mexico labor, that their wages came up. that is something that the current president mexico, so we need to change. the need to brent they do recognize that having low wages in mexico means that they don't get a middle-class mexico therefore they cannot be consumers. is a big push in putting on right now is how to build that
up in mexico is committed to doing that. in the past the changes that they need to make and then they are starting to put that into effort and budgeted for that appropriation candidate just come through elections, they were waiting until after elections that due process. bring it up for a vote. we need to bring that usc mca to the board. we need to pass it. i thoroughly need think it will pass. >> better labor protections that were in the previous nafta. you are staying that whose version does a better job at it. spak does a better job and puts, present office done a good job with his administration and in there, includes worker provisions for workersrs that things that are typically better than what a republican would've had in labor agreement. it also addresses some of these environmental issues which were a concern. so i know there was a delegation led by chairman neil but on the mexico, as couple of weeks ago that actually talk to the president and talk to the labor secretary down there to make sure that what mexico was doing
and what their commitment was to address those concerns. >> montréal canada, richard republican line. john with our guest. good morning. >> good morning congressman. nellie gore told lawmakers last october that the gps sources was a ukrainian who actually helped the democrats interfere with the election. select holland for second only because we have a little bit of trouble with the hearing of it. could you try that one more time please. >> natalie or told lawmakers last october and one of the gps sources was ukrainian parliamentary and his government is accused of the illegally meddling with the u.s. election and the ukrainian court said, that the ukrainians, officials illegally help the democrats metal in the elections. i don't understand why republicans are not talking about thatt instead of the
lighting the corrupt immediately make like it was the president they did something wrong what is democrats who colluded the ukraine and foreign government to interfere in the american election. >> really is the strange thing. we started thehe process muller was assigned to actually do the special prosecutors investigate corruption from the russians on president trump his behalf. in reality, with issue does got out looked at also help the gps and the dossier was developed. there wasn't any look at that. and we went through that whole process. mullerce spent 22 months and several million dollars with several investigations and several hundreds of subpoenas and going through that process and i was focused on the impact of the investigation of what republicansump and were tied to with the russians.
but it didn't address at all but it is. >> i turned attorney starting to have some of those questions now. wasn't sure that there any bad conduct on the part of a couple of people from the fbi. who actually were sending the wrong signals and actually actively working against the project president trying to create the story wasn't true. is we solve through muller his investigation. >> i want to know why nobody is talking about the 7 billion dollars was lost in ukraine those during the obama administration and whose with the investigator joe biden had fired, whose what part of his investigation was. is looking for the trail uber that $7 million went to. sort of led to the company that biden worked for. i want to know, they wanted to
come to the united states in question people. that wasn't allowed and joe biden, adding fire because he withheld a billion dollars. then the nested investigative game in advance i think. trump says he didn't probebe 12, whose like whose. we had $7 billion, i want to know where it went to. i'm not interested in giving 400 million more dollars people who all seven bag, on nowhere went to about her name. >> you highlighting the good. the whole reason the president zelinski was elected. was he companion on corruption how to fix the corruption that was in the previous administration in ukraine. so whose just highlights of whose type information really highlights what was going on in the previous administration. in the president zelinski his mayday commitment to come out and address that.
is you mentioned that the investigator, during the previous administration was fired because he wasni trying to investigate and get to the bottom of that corruption. it's one of those things that i think president trump and president zelinski are going to be able to work together is we move forward to help root out h what had happened in the past and to make sure that we correct that because and make sure it doesn't happen in the future. >> are taking to step weather the trump administration will withhold documents. or continue to obstruct the house of representatives. nobody is above the law. twenty think about the president and instructing others in testimony and his reaction generally to these calls. sooner one of the things we've had tradition in whose country and being able to talk about executive privileges. some of the things that multiple presidents both republican and democrat have been able to claim executive privilege. because there is, we do have separation of powers in thehe united states between the executive branch of the
legislative branch that doesn't oan that is that legislation branch were going to give up our responsibilities to investigate issues. weather they occur in the executive branch and i think the speaker was kind of adding some nice sounding words. i don't think that's being addressed. certainly not being addressed in a resolution. doesn't allow an open and fair transparency in terms of that process. we want to makee sure that it is fair and the president is given due process and at the president weather his replica republican or democrat has brought given due process, was only for you or me in terms o of having an opportunity to not beav railroad through some process. >> from indiana, independent lane, charlotte. >> yes sir. i would like to know how whose displacing will president continues to be supporting by the republic.
also is grading of the swap turn into the sewer. thank you. >> the president been through a lotsi of great policies throught the country. you look at where our economy is going, we now have more people working and we have more job openings than we do have people who are looking for work but there's a lot of positive things in the economy in the process and the policies that have been implemented in one of the things the president gets criticized a lot for business communication style but we do look at the direction the country is going in in terms of the things that are positive for americans are so much positive things out there that we need to help make sure that those good processes and policies happen. >> from wisconsin democrat michelle up next. hello. sooner thank you for taking my call. my comment is i know how anyone
in the legislative branches can try and backup somebody who goes against the constitution. we are not allowed to let foreign entities step in and mess with ourh elections. four have foreign entities investigate u.s. citizens. that is in the constitution. that is illegal. yet that is happening. it don't understand that. and number two, with the policies that you know staying, about unemployment. aaron toma, a lot of people are losing their jobs. my husband is one of them. my niece and my nephew in law, and another nephew in law. in another niece. these are all manufacturing jobs. so i don't know why the employment is down. it must be that a lot of people have whose filing for an appointment because they've exasperated the total use of their unemployment.
so there is another thing i'm concerned about. so thank you for taking my call. >> thank you. one of the things in employment is calculating is based on the number of people that see they are working or that they are looking forward when they do the household surveys for that. so they can track individuals even if they have gone through an appointment process. it is still be listed is unemployment numbers. so i think the numbers are valid we've been tracking whose for years and they are pretty consistentin now there's a coupe different numbers out there depending on the whole number of unemployment calculations is easy to look at. one of the things we talk about, you said earlier talking about our election process. in our country, we put a lot of faith in our election process. we want to sure the process is fair, want to make sure that we can continue rely on it, with our favorite candidate winds or
with our favorite candidate loses. that at least the process works. that the election went well. what we see, obviously other countries have tried to influence elections and a lot of discussion around russia, a lot of discussion and behavioral and social media. right now return to figure out how do we work with the social media to address some of the things can be done behind the scenes and some of the things that are being done certainly in a nontransparent way to actually try to influence elections and signing make sure that we get to the bottom of what did happen in 2016, and make sure that we set our elections up moving forward. we have got some laws to help that went out help make sure that the states that the informationn and security that they need to move forward with good quality election. >> representative recently numbers coming out that the federal couple of trillion dollars in toy 20. how much of responsibly of that
is the top administration. >> one of the reasons i ran for office is three need to make sure that we need to address our deficit. it's terrible that we is a country, or leaving the lifestyle that but we are mortgaging our kids and grandkids feature. when we looked at the last two presidential administrations. the bush administration, the deficit, doubled from just on 200 trump 10 trillion on the obama administration. in doubled again. now it's on just on 20 trillion. obviously we have a problem right now we are spending more her name is the country than we are bringing in his revenue. just look uber the last year, after the stacked cuts andt jo, got the economy going, were actually bringing in 3 percent more than stacked revenue than we were before but were spending a percent more so we are continuing to outpace our spending. sit the big issue is got to address. it's one of the damning his, our
kids and grandkids future if we don't get that on control. with a look at different ways of getting that to happen. >> stacked cuts on the blame or. >> one of the things that the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation reported was that the jobs act gave three horse of the her name back to small businesses and middle income individuals. basically the average family received back $2000 across the country. and plowed into the economy and what we are staying is exactly is we predicted that we do put the stacked cut for the first year, you should've seen some decline in stacked revenues within the economy picks up and start to increase that stacked revenue is really what we are a staying. in the joint committee and ceo of the congressional budget office, and the joint committee onal taxation bring forth the information around what we expect for bill, look out uber a
ten-year period of overseeing now is already seeing that growth endorsing that increase in stacked receipts coming in if you increasing your revenue by g your spending by 8 percent, you just can'teg catch up in that regard. so got to address that as well. >> republican line. >> thank you for your service in congress, i have a question about social security 2100 legislation whose congress, i know is going to raise an taxation g his, and social cues security 400,000 above. keep the current cap in place. i'm approaching my retirement years want to know what the congress is going too do to stabilize social security to 2034 and beyond i want to get. >> erased a good important question about social security. in the 1980s, when we saw that
the baby boomers were going to create a large number of retirees, starting in the last few years, vessel security need it to be worked on then. so there was a great process in the 1980s ray looked at during the time the baby boomers were working, they increase contributions and then changed the fourth retirement edge at calculations and help extend the longevityoc of social security from late '80s, passing it all the way. at one point time it was up to 2041. the trust fund now that was built up during that time and intended to run out during the time the baby boomers retire, now is you said, and expires in 2034 that the trust fund will be gone and if we don't do something and we will end up having to cut benefits by roughly 21 percent. that is the current calculation. congress needs to act if nothing
else, look at the process we used in the 1980s and look at how we can come back and he said the live of that program again. endorsing now, increases of, millennials and and another generation of increased young workers coming in to the workforce and they should contribute into the program to make sure that we have a sustainable program through not just retires. i am one of the baby boomers. obviously own to make sure there's a retirement that if helpsps all of our generation. and house the next generations behind. that's the process we need to do. it's a tough issue. we need to make sure that it's a bipartisan solution. the something when we look at social security through the years it's only been affected and dressed in the problems have only been solved we get together and they were together to come up with a good bipartisan solution to whose problem. >> i think it makes is when we
look now and art longevity in live, or leaving longer. through medical research and medical technology summer healthcare options, we are leaving longer is individuals. people are actually working longer as well. and so our retirement edge should be looked at in terms of addressing and tied into that longer lifespan. i think it makes sense is one of those parts, set the total solution to solve thee problemn one of the things that we have looked at and is and dear to my heart is heavy address and encourage other retirement savings and securities. after weeks and the opportunity for people to save their four o one kays is avon there are three roth iras and other iras so they have more her name while they are working because are starting to work longer as well. and so they can save more her name and being able to have that for the retirement. for themselves being able to
pass on to the next generation as well. some of those accounts i four o one kays and iras. >> pennsylvania democrat line. >> good morning pedro, congressman, in 1961, john f. kennedy gave a speech before the press. he said, people secret proceedings are greater danger to whose nation that any crime they might uncover. the question is do you think that's true. >> i think are some cases were certainly we need to have classified information. particularly around national security and some of that. what's going on now, is a matter of reference, was going on with being called an impeachment is very dangerous. is you said, is the opportunity
for some people to leak information in late part of the story delhi colfax to allow the whole process there is a great risk in our country that we felt allow enough open and transparency things in government. i'm a big advocate that we need to be open and transparent is part of our government. we represent the people and the people deserve to know what happens in their government. >> richard republican line about a minute. richard go ahead. >> congressman good morning. with regard to the impeachment inquiry. you mentioned that at the beginning of your presence today that conditions not being followed in thehe earlier impeachment investigation. so president clinton annex and print i has brought true, that n whose case, the justice department declined to pursue an
investigation which previously also pursued. so the congress is actually doing the investigation. >> can limit their color. >> always saw in the previous two examples, special prosecutor wasec excited. whose particular case, muller was assigned to do a special prosecution. end of the investigation of ocean pollution. and identify anything. so now actually a continuation of trying to just make the president look bad. and again, it secret, not an open transparent manner. >> also a member of the waves and means committee joining us today whose morning.