tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 1, 2016 3:31am-4:18am EDT
encounters and request, if it is crisis, versus demand, those things change the dynamics. >> watch the issue spotlight on police and race relations saturday, august 6 at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> coming up next, from look atton journal," a the supposed hacking of dnc e-mails by russia. after that, we will take you on the campaign trail with donald trump in colorado and hillary clinton in ohio. "washington journal" continues. host: with us is matthew rojansky, who is the director of the ken the institute at the wilson center, here to talk with us about the reported hacking of d.n.c. emails by russia and other emails as well that was reported over the last couple of days of other servers. let's talk about the d.n.c. hacking that led into the
democratic convention. how do we know it was russia? guest: well, we can't be 100% certain, first of all, that it was russia. the evidence that we have so far points strongly in that direction. the u.s. government, certainly the administration has been careful because they don't want to politicize the domestic side of this to the extent they have avoid it, but hints have been dropped pretty strong that will the evidence persuasive that the hackers who did this, they may have been private actors, but that they were acting at the direction of the russian state. that kind of plugs into a history that we know about of hacking by the russian state, where a lot of the cyberattacks we see against high-profile, political other targets, sometimes what seems to be hackivism, but may have an ulterior motive as well, is also state-linked. it's very commonly coming from russian territory, if you can trace the servers back and sometimes chain sandeeze other ajor state actors.
host: what does russia have to gain? guest: the mode of question is very, very complicated. i think what's been frustrating to me and perhaps other russian experts, we've watched this conversation. it seems like as soon as people became relatively certain it was link to the russian government, then they knew why the russians were doing it. that part is much more complicated. there were at least three things going o. the first is the russians have these operations long term, right? so they're constantly mounting attacks of various kinds against targets, sort of probing, seeing our vulnerabilities. this is part of a long-running spy game basically between russia and the united states. we've seen cyberversus spy, people getting beat up. we've seen a lot of that in the last few weeks, and that's part of the overall conflict in the relationship. so this is -- the timing of this is what makes it suspect. that brings tout second problem, why intervene in an american election? this, too, is consistent with what the russians have been doing. if you look at european
elections and european politics over the last five, 10 years, they have been channeling money, often to fringe far right and far left candidates, not necessarily people they think are going to get elected. the challenge here is they like to stir the pot. they like create day no, sir western democracies in order to send the message that, hey, your system is not perfect, right? you go lecturing us about democracy, but, you know, your system is not that great either. they love the panama papers leak, because it showed that we're constantly accusing them of corruption, you know, all of their top officials have all this dirty money. well, guess what. so does everyone in the west. so something like this, going into the d.n.c. and revealing that there's all this dirty dealing going on behind the scenes, democracy doesn't look the way it's supposed to look, the shoe is on the other foot now, look how dirty your politics are. that doesn't take touts third step, and this is what we've seen, about donald trump. there's been this automatic conclusion that trump is some kind of manchurian candidate. there's like a trump-putin
bromance and he's trying to get trump elected. that's why i'm skeptical. host: you mentioned russia's involvement in european elections in the form of money. have we seen -- have we seen evidence of russian involvement in terms of hacking of any type or outright or covert support of candidates in other european -- in european elections? guest: yes, absolutely. we have definitely seen what appears to be credible evidence that the russians, through front companies, have channeled money to individual politicians and to political parties. they have also created what appear to be credible media outlets, so someone comes to you with a microphone and says they're from such and such news service, but an actual fact, that news service exists solely for the purpose of an operation to get someone to say something or to provoke something, or even for a kind of sting, an entrapment operation against a mainstream politician. , all which of may or may not be designed to get individuals elected in european politics, but there's no question that the russian goal is to promote the far right and the far left in europe.
by the way, we've seen huge benefits from that, right? brexit, definitely benefits russia's indication that the european union is kind of a sham, that it's defunct, doesn't have a future. and then the dutch referendum several months ago, in which the dutch people voted against offering ukraine deep and comprehensive free trade with europe. host: matthew rojansky is from the wilson center. tell us what your mission is, and tell us specifically about your interest in russia and russian politics, russian government. guest: it was founded by george kennan, the u.s. diplomat. he was ambassador to stalin's soviet union, was actually thrown out by stalin. the kennan institute was created by him and several other distinguished leaders foreign four decades ago with the goal that americans should understand not just the soviet union as a geopolitical challenge, but russia, and that's really the challenge today, to sustain an american awareness and understanding of russia and what's going on. that's what frustrates me about the current debate, is that,
oh, yeah, we recognize russia is a problem. we have a big problem with russia. but we've got to understand a whole lot more about where they're coming from and how they've seen the last 10 or 20 years in order to understand why they're doing what they're doing right now. it's not at all surprising. if you've been watching russia and paying attention to their narrative, which is that americans intervene in their politics, americans try to pick winners and losers in the post-soviet space, which is their neighborhood, color revolutions, regime change. remember their complaints about libya and syria and so forth, it's not that surprising that they're trying to meddle in american politics. host: "the washington post" on friday had a piece on the roots of a beef between putin and clinton, a couple of them here. they talk about december 2011, unexpectedly protest broke out in moscow following the parliamentary election there is that featured secretary of state called the election neither free nor fair, and putin jumped on that attack, on that as an attack on russia and, by extension, on him. what are some of the other
things that have sort of been percolating in this relationship or breakup of this relationship between putin and clinton and other u.s. officials? guest: well, that is a very big -- in terms of proximate cause causes for putin to have a real gripe with hillary clinton, he identified her, rightly or wrongly -- i mean, she was the mouthpiece of the administration on foreign policy. i think the administration as a whole was, broadly speaking, in favor of the public protest in 2011 and 2012. the goal of which was more or less to bring down the putin system. and so, you know, if you're vladimir putin, you're effectively russia's new czar. it's an absolute system. it's an authoritarian system. that means that any threat to the stability of that system is a threat to you personally. so this very much becomes a mano a mano thing between putin and clinton, but i should note, anti-peat between kind of the hard-core conservatives in russia and the clinton camp goes back to the 1990's.
because remember, bill clinton's administration, in which hillary clinton was an active part, and certainly many of the people who are around hill sandri who would come in with hillary was in favor of nato enlargement, which it actually teed up, and then that happened, which russia was very much against, and also remember, clinton officials, as well as other leading americans, went into russia, literally did deals with russian oligarches, helped to privatize the russian economy, which something most russian citizens were not thrilled about, creating this semicriminal state. and then putin, of course, comes in and essentially, you know, sweeps out the whole crowd that worked with the clinton folks. there's no love lost between these two camps. host: what happened to the reset button? guest: it got pressed, and that was kind of it. the truth of the matter is, from 2009, from the official announcement of the let set and this awkward moment, we actually got a fair amount of stuff done with the russians, but that was because. cycle that had come before that. remember, the georgia war in 2008. host: right. guest: after that, basically
the bush administration and putin administration didn't talk to each other. host: does secretary kerry have a better relationship with the russians than former secretary clinton did? guest: i think that would be fair to say, yes. i think john kerr and i sergei labrov have a functional relationship. that doesn't mean they can get anything done, because their bosses don't necessarily want them to. host: our guest is matthew rojansky, they're take calls and comments about the reported involvement of russians involved in the hacking of d.n.c. emails, and we'll read other stories related 2067892-748-8000 is the number to call for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. all others, 202-748-8002. or send us a tweet @cspanwj. let's hear from louisiana. james, good morning, on our republican line. caller: good morning, bill, mr. rojansky. july 5, director comey came out and told all of america that the russians generally don't leave any fingerprints when they do hacking. now all the sudden they're
leaving letters behind, using the same malware for multiple hacks t. doesn't seem like it can be tied to an entity that doesn't leave fingerprints. and finally, if putin wanted hillary to lose, why on earth would he do something to get rid of bumbling debbie wasserman schultz? thanks. host: bill on the fingerprints issue. guest: yeah, so james, this is an interesting question, because i've wondered myself why it is that this hack has been so easy to pick apart and to prove reasonably, clearly, and i wondered the same thing around the olympic scandal. why is it that all this evidence is coming out? broadly speaking, when you have an intelligence operation, it's intended to be clan did he say teen and you have multiple layers of concealment. that doesn't seem to have worked here. but i don't necessarily buy conspiracy theories about russians wanting as a false flag for americans or the wider world to think this was someone else's operations. i think things just go wrong
sometimes. in terms of the question of, you know, trying to get trump elected or trying to defeat hillary, i guess what perplexes me most is if you think vladimir putin is trying to get trump elected, you have to be pretty short sighted not to realize that branding one of the two american presidential candidates, no matter what you think about the person, no matter what the person's position is, as the choice of vladimir putin, that's not much of an endorsement for the american people. and i would think that that would probably hurt that person more than it would help. obviously the polls are going to show us, but putin is no fool, and certainly the folks who analyze american politics in moscow, they're no fools either. you think they would advice that. host: melvin, next up from florida, democrats line. caller: good morning. let me just say one thing. i've been a c-span daily watcher or listener since 1980 when you first came on tv. one thing i want to say, give me a couple of seconds.
first, people keep indicating that hillary clinton's servers was unsecure. that is false, and you can look it up and see that it was secure. just the f.b.i. couldn't tell you who. then with respect to donald trump's statement about he told putin to try to come back 30,000 emails, you had one gentleman just indicate that the server was destroyed before that by the f.b.i. the actual problem is he's hoping that the emails were gotten before that and no one has to disclose the fact that her computer has been hacked. and even if it wasn't russia, even if someone would send them in, trump would come back to say, see, i'm getting along with if you tin, because he's actually sending the emails i requested. it showed they're getting along together. lastly, no one ever indicates, just like the last gentleman, someone mentioned the question about colin powell with the emails, he never sent -- he
never sent any emails. so just to clarify some of these issues, a lot of people just talk about things that they never actually talked factual, saying when it comes down to. host: all right, melvin, we'll hear from matthew rojansky. caller: i think that this point about trump calling for the russians to, you know, locate, uncover the 30,000 emails that hillary allegedly deleted, what's interesting to me about this point is that it's so illustrative of campaign rhetoric versus governing. i have no doubt, whatever anyone may think of donald trump, i have no doubt that a sitting american president is not going to be calling for any kind of foreign intervention in confidential american government communications. fine those communications belong to someone that he or she doesn't very much like, like, for example, opponents in the congress or something like that. and this is key to understand, because i think this is why
putin is intervening now during the election, in the way that he's intervening, because causing chaos in the election is something that actually has ripple effects. it's something that the other candidates -- the candidates themselves are actually going to echo and increase his effectiveness, versus if he attacks after the election when everyone has been forced to come together and say, well, you won and we're behind you now. then attacking america is just going to cause us to circle the wagons and his attack is less effective. attacking now when we're divided is very effective. host: a question for you on twitter about hillary clinton's server. is there any truth to the rumor that hillary clinton used a private contractor linked to russia that set up her personal email server? guest: you know, i don't see conclusive evidence one way or another about any direct links, but i can tell you is, in this day and age, the amount of financial links, technical links, cyberlinks and so forth that connect to moscow in some
way, or to russian money -- this argument has been made about the trump option, that they have investors coming from russian money -- you really can build some pretty elaborated conspiracy theories out of this space. but this is the age of globalization. there's russian money all over the place. host: there's a "washington post" piece on saturday that says a russian hacker threat grows, u.s. businesses are booming in response, talking about the organization called crowd strike. if you, matthew rojansky, were hired to consult in the campaign for the democratic or republican national can he to say what do we have to do to prevent russia from hacking us, from getting data, what would be the first step? guest: don't put anything really confidential on your servers. yeah, i don't think there's any way to prevent the kind of hacking we're going to see. look, it's one thing to prevent identity theft that's worth a couple hundred bucks, a few thousand dollars, maybe even tens of thousands of dollars. that can be done, you know, credit card companies and others can reimburse, the damage can be covered. the kind of damage from the
leak of classified information, i mean, that's damage that can't be quantity feud. for that reason, the investment of foreign governments, which have vast resources, are willing to make, breaking into those secrets, is basically limitless. and that means we're going to have an endless arms race in the cyberspace, and i think we're already there. guest: c-span is also seen on sundays on the british parliament channel. we hear from manchester next up, and this is simon in the u.k. good morning. caller: good afternoon. just a couple of points i just wanted to make. can you hear me? host: yes, i can. go ahead, simon. caller: a couple of points i wanted to make. firstly, brexit will actually hold the e.u. to form from becoming an unelected bureaucracy, which if you listen to the people, doesn't take issues with migration. to actually becoming an elected democracy, because it isn't a democracy at the moment. the second point i wanted to make was that we talk about
russia's influence on brexit, but you've also got to consider russia's influence on the scottish national party, which are borderline marx i think so, the labour party, who's led by c.n.d., a campaigner who's also a marxist. we've got some serious extremists in the u.k., and it isn't the brexit people. it's the other side. and i think what you guys might watch too much of the mainstream media, which focuses on that, and what brexit proved was that mainstream media isn't always right and people don't necessarily listen to it. and that's what brexit was a vote for. it was against the mainstream, against the government, against obama, and it wasn't just a protest vote. it was a vote for the truth, in my opinion. host: simon, thanks for joining us. guest: thanks, simon. as to brexit potentially in the long term helping the e.u. reform, maw may well be right. i hope that you are right. but i think given the choice of the u.k. remains in the european union, sort of all of the things being equal, maybe
the e.u. is not as popular or effective as it should be, but it kind of stumbles forward, and the e.u.'s policies in the east towards the former soviet countries, ukraine, georgia and so forth, those also continue, versus there is a disruptive change. the u.k. leads the european union, a message is sent to brussels, to the world that europe is wrong about a lot of things, it's doing things wrong, and it needs to be changed. there's no question that is the message that the kremlin has preferred. and for that reason, there was a sort of sly smile that crossed putin's face when he was responding to questions about, you know, oh, well, no, i would never have any intervention in u.k. domestic politics. but the other point you make, that there is likely to be some sort of russian interest or russian connection on both sides of that issue and of other issues in u.k. politics and in european politics, agree with you completely. i've made this point as well, that the more moscow can help to stir the pot, and this goes with money, it goes with
broadcasting, so russia today and other kinds of propaganda, news services, and it also goes with things that are said directly from the kremlin, so challenges that are launched at american or british or european politicians and how they respond, the goal is to create chaos, to seed uncertainty in the western democratic electorate, so that they look at the institutions we've built, whether it's the european union or the institutions of government in the united states, or others, and they say, hey, these guys are not trustworthy. this system is broken. and that helps that system is broken. get out of our politics, don't judge our democracy. don't judge our record on human rights. a headlight -- there was a post,ne in the washington an opinion piece, this is clinton has now made the democrats the anti-russia party kind of -- anti-russia party,
kind of a change. guest: putin was secretary of nationith the democratic added a reset. russia has not historically been a partisan issue. even during the cold war, there was kind of historic consensus about waging the cold war and confronting the soviet union. senator henry jackson was a democrat. that part does not surprise me. what surprises me is the assumption that the campaign rhetoric, where both sides are looking for issues that can divide them and that can distinguish them, traditionally russia is not one of them, but suddenly russia has become one. it is convenient and russia is putting itself out there. the assumption that that would continue after election day -- i think the moment after election day, whoever wins will get that intelligence briefing and will go, oh, ok, here is what we're going to do about russia.
bar that said, why can't we must -- cooperate with moscow? they said, let's cooperate, and within a couple years, we get into problems, usually over some kind of issue in russia's domestic politics, how they treat their own people, or the former soviet countries and how russia tries to manipulate outcomes or accuses the u.s. of doing that. host: how might this incident combo kit our foreign relations with russia in terms of areas of cooperation, syria, for example, and a headlight in the wall china journal says that and russia pledged to drill in the south china sea. as far as china and russia are concerned, there is no doubt that the alienation of russia from western institutions, so russia has been kicked out of the g8, now the g7. russians and americans, russians and europeans, do not have the kind of regular summit meetings
are used to have. the nato-russia council has not been functioning. not surprisingly, the russians are looking for other partners, and the chinese naturally present themselves. not an easy partner, to imagine a russian-chinese alliance is a bridge too far still. in terms of bilateral cooperation on one-off issues, like syria, for example. can we just do a deal to defeat isis and move on? the answer is our financial difference and worldviews tends to get in the way. the russians would did syria and say you americans are crazy. you think there is some kind of democratic, moderate future possible in that country. it is either assad or isis. american's object to that view. so if we do not agree on the outcome, how are we supposed to get to a deal? host: a look at a headline. gary, valencia, california, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen.
i think mr. rojansky is nothing but the tail wagging the dog. this is misdirection. i have not seen proof that russia did this. and fact, the issue is that what bernie and donald trump are saying, that both major parties are rigged, and they keep people out from coming in and trying to oust the elite. debbie wasserman schultz got caught, and the dnc got caught, and he is not focusing on that. he wants to misdirect people so you do not focus on how corrupt both major parties are. now they then fired debbie wasserman schultz, and then hillary's campaign hires her right after that to show you that they do not care about the people. they do not care at all about the people. he is doing a tremendous disservice misdirecting the people from the focus it should be, that the dnc is corrupt,
that hillary clinton is corrupt. guest: well, thanks, gary. first of all, i do not think i have ever been accused of spin, so that is a first to get on the air. second, i am a russia analyst, so my job is to look at the russia angle of this. look, whether what you say about the american elite, the establishment, is true or not, and i think plenty of people are persuaded of that, i read an interview just yesterday in the financial times with the editor-in-chief of rt, used to be russia today, the little green box, the russian global news network. what was interesting to me is she made the exact argument that you just made, which he does not mean it is wrong. it just means that the russians are very excited, and they are very excited to spend billions of dollars of their money to point out the ways in which they
believe the western institutions of government, of politics are corrupt and are not serving the people. i think what the conversation has been about is, why is it subtly that russians are rushing and to do this in american politics, and should that make us uncomfortable, and what does it mean about where this is going and what we will do about it, not so much about the problems we have in american politics, which many of us know about and are frustrated about. from thethew rojansky cannon institute at the wilson center. here are the numbers -- int: roger is up next alabama. good morning. caller: yes, the last caller completely took the wind out of my sails. i think the contact and the e-mails is more important, and wouldn't it be against the law,
i mean, there is an investigation on clinton's e-mail server, and she deleted, what, 33,000 e-mails and scrubbed the machine, wouldn't that be against the law for her to do that? guest: we know the fbi investigated hillary clinton's server. where are they investigating this alleged tact of the dnc, allegedly by the russians? guest: they're being relatively tightlipped so far. it is pretty clear the administration wants to substantiate in some way that there was russian involvement here, but no one has been prepared to, but the document, a federal government investigation that leads it right to put in's doorstep. it may happen though. host: you kind of opened the
door on this talking about the european elections and russia's involvement there. there was analysis in new york times yesterday, hacking of democrats e-mails raises worries some questions about what is next. they write if russia was behind the stolen data from the democratic national committee, you may see one of those tools of its to mystic politics employed as a hostile weapon and for policy. i hope i get the word right, there is a russian word for this practice -- compromat. compromising and materials, referring to the time worn -- guest: it is a fantastic point. would russian interest has been an coming into the u.s. election
in this way, again, may not be so much about the outcome of the election, which i think they really would be delusional if they think they can predict that or shape it in a reliable way that would be good for russia. because i think the net negative is already so high at this point for the russian intervention that it almost seems pointless. i think the real purpose is to create a russian feeling, the sense of everything is dirty. what a couple of our callers of just illustrated, and fact, the sense that everyone, all of these powerful people, they are all crooks, right? romat is the right word. everyone has a folder full of bad evidence about them that someone can use against them. that saps confidence in the institutions of american governance and the whole western order, which is what russia cares about her they do not care about american domestic politics. they care about the role of america plays in europe.
if we are weaker at home, we are weaker abroad. some storiesere that the democratic committee was hacked? guest: the kind of operation we're seeing little bits and pieces of know, and i cannot say if it is intentional that it is being revealed now or it is coincidental, that these are ongoing operations. you do not set out to do this, and 24 hours later you have a massive public leak. the russians and other government-backed hackers are constantly assaulting major political, corporate, organizational, and other targets in the united states, and we have to be aware of them. host: wikileaks denied a connection to the russian hack in the leak of that material. guest: i would be surprised if wikileaks did not have some connections to at least the individual hackers doing the work. it does not mean those folks get a russian government paycheck. it does not mean they are cozy
in bed together. i would be surprised if there was not a relationship. host: bob in pennsylvania. good morning. familiar withi am russia. i study it. and i see a lot of things are sold to russia from united states. one of the name brands is caterpillar. they're sold throughout the whole entire country. i mean, you have got to be blind not to see a cat in russia. it is in the whole countryside. open your eyes up, america. russia is the heartbeat of america. if hillary clinton is getting wiretapped or e-mails, it is either north korea or china using russian software. and when you send someone to or talko have a meeting with russia, have the respect and the dignity to speak in
russian and understand russian, and god bless you if you can read russian. but have the respect and dignity and not speak in english. a speak and russian. and when you also go to russia, if you see a man changing a truck tire along the highway, it is going to say kelly springfield, akron, ohio. host: ok, bob. caller: if you go to a coal mine, you are going to see mining inclement made in pennsylvania. wake up, america. you are being lied to. host: i am trying to find out, he says he has studied russia. i wanted to find out if he has been there. guest: i cannot agree more with the idea that you should speak russian. one of the challenges i think we have in the united states is after the end of the cold war, we basically abandoned our investment in russian expertise. we said, well, this conflict is
over, so now we need to learn about the arab world or east asia or so forth. it troubles me how often i am interacting with folks at senior levels of the u.s. government who have response ability to that part of the world who have either of you that has almost been frozen in carbonite for 25 years, and all of a sudden, ok, we have to do the cold war again, or they just have never been there i do not know anything about the place. host: what about the pipeline of people coming through paul -- college programs? guest: the wonderful thing about this country is we always have another generation coming, and it is always making us stronger, but there is a long tail on that. suddenly, we are aware that we have a real crisis with the u.s. relationship with russia. the russian-speaking world is one-third of a billion people. coming up. are i was told by a very senior u.s. intelligence official when i said, why is it i ask for a show of hands in a room full of
analysts, and a quarter of them have ever been to the country or speak the language, and he said, you know, it is a 10-your problem. , it will be different. host: how many times have you been there? guest: russia, dozens. i have lived there. i have been there many times. host: making anything anti-russia, that sets us back, and we wake up in a new cold war thanks to trump. that the fbi did nothing to protect the e-mails. and this observation, let's not forget that we are probably hacking everyone else. is one ofh, that those observations that i think it out help but have an effect. the russians have always wanted to remind americans of this sort of tit for tat, the shoe is on the other foot. the reality is, i cannot speak to any of the details, but i would imagine that most of the things that the russians are doing to target americans,
americans, in some way or other, have been doing similar things to russia. that is the argument. the best example i think goes to elections in the post-soviet state. americans think about training political parties, which is something we have done for a long time. we say, hey, look at this great system we have, and we will show you how to campaign effectively. but we tend not to offer that supports every political party appeared for example, if there is a far right political party, anti-american political party, understandably, we are not inviting them to come to our trainings, and we are not giving them support. the russians view that as, you know, intervention to change the outcomes and him is to politics. again, it is a clash of worldviews spirit we think we're supporting an outcome towards freedom and democracy that is good for us, get for them, and russians say this is just tit-for-tat, we're doing the same thing you have been doing. host: wichita falls, republican line. caller: good morning.
i guess my comment is more of a political observation. i think what is lost on a lot of people here is there is precedence for this happening before. in 2008, sarah palin's e-mail records were hacked, and they were all put out there. i do not recall the amount of fuss and mainstream media and dnc hysteria about the fall of western civilization because her e-mails are ely differences, there was really nothing of bears on there. i think the average person looks at this and says it is bad that russians did this, but they had think records, retail records they get hacked. they had a hollywood producer that had his e-mails hags. the embarrassing stuff about angelina jolie. join the club, dnc, this kind of thing happens. host: you touched on this earlier. guest: yeah, i don't recall that with palin, but if that was the
case, it is entirely possible that there was a russian connection or some other foreign government connection. what would have been the motivation at that time, we can only speculate. i think your point is well-taken, which is that this is a bigger problem than one particular moment in one campaign with one candidate and one foreign adversary. this is just going to be a reality of american politics going forward. we live in the globalized world and in the information world. that means the ability of four players that seek to in some way affect our politics, intervene, to damage, whatever it is, their ability to inject information, whether it is a wiki leaks flood or one little league bit of information or a report, it will be there. bethe same token, we need to careful about saying, the information, we do not care where it came from. and the law, they call it the fruit of the poisonous tree. if the information is required to really illegal means,
espionage, they need to be careful about rewarding that by saying, ok, that is a perfectly legitimate point out in our politics, and that should be the deciding factor and we should ignore the fact that it was stolen. host: north carolina, good morning to robert on the independent line. caller: yes, good morning. to the gentleman before me, do you have any thoughts on, how is it so many seemingly intelligent people can be so stupid about e-mails? they do not understand all e-mails can be hacked. when i had my first company e-mail account, from day one, my principal was never put anything printedmail they got out and made public that i was not ready to back up and say, yes, i did that, and i meant every word, too. how can so many people keep putting incriminating pigs and embarrassing things in e-mails? i do not understand that.
-- incriminating things and embarrassing things in e-mails? i do not understand that. wire: on the tv show "the come go to lesson was if you are engaged in any type of illicit activity, you better not use any other communications other than face to face. but people are doing those things, and they will probably be cut one way or another. that why people put the kinds of embarrassing comments, the kinds of just generally, you know, and appropriate things that you would not want seeing the light of day, why they will type them and send them off into cyberspace -- i mean, that actually is perplexing to me. i think the rules of got to be that cyberspace is not perfectly secure, and that goes for financial transactions. anybody who thinks banking in cyberspace is somehow safer than a small retail bank branch of they can get robs, i think they are deluding themselves. the one thing i have come up with that i think many of us see in our daily lives is just pressure. it is the time pressure, the
pressure to always be on and be responding. that is going to get worse, not better. it is about making a psychological adjustment to the reality that there is constant hacking and constant pressure to be online. host: why russia is rejoicing dropping the language he is. how much longer will vladimir putin continue to serve? all, it ist of anybody's guests. he is 25 years and to the next time he is constitutionally mandated to run for reelection. since he stepped back several years ago and served as prime minister, he is constitutionally allowed not to have two terms in a row. he could theoretically serve until 2024 without changing the constitution again. made, when he was announced he was returning to the presidency after serving as prime minister, a lot of these protesters i was talking about earlier, the so-called white movement, they also had sort of
photoshop images of footwear pigeon looking like an alien, sort of a blast from the soviet past, soviet citizens, russian citizens feeling like we have seen this movie before. we do not want this in our country appeared we want to feel like it is a dynamic place. that.has answered he is been a pretty dynamic leader. you can strongly disagree with the nature of where he is going with domestic and foreign policy, but the economy is beginning to recover. it has been shrinking last couple of years, beginning to recover. russia is on global headlines every single day. for russians to feel like we have a dynamic leader is actually not that big a stretch. host: matthew rojansky is director of the canon institute at the wilson center, russian expert at you can follow his comments on twitter. more
supporters for bernie sanders spoke about the political movement that the senator created. and efforts to continue that movement. watch the event tonight here on c-span. ere's a preview. >> a lot of people thought i would never get out of convention, i did. won the primary by 19% margin despite being outspent four to one. [applause] >> 19% outspent four to one and you won because you speak the truth. >> issues talking about resonated with voters. and mike lee has a million which isn't a lot for a senate ace.
the senator from utah has just as much power over your lives as the senator from texas or florida or vermont. if we want to really change our dialogue in the nation we need to get more progressives elected. more progressives you have in congress, the more that -- the easier it is to support a progressive agenda and to start fighting for the policy that bernie sanders talked about. we want to have a $15 minimum wage, we want to reform, we need more progressives in congress. it doesn't matter which state. every victory you get is another vote. that's the lesson we need to learn. >> you can see the rest of the discussion tonight here on c-span.
>> i'm from los angeles, keafment so far my experience has been definitely a learning experience. it has been one where i have learned the true inner workings of how my party works and it's something that i'm excited to share my experience with the world. i want to just be thankful for the people who elected me to come here and be your voice. thank you so much. have a great one. an issue important to me is education. i feel that the lack of education in such schools and systems has gone on for too long. it should improve.
especially cincinnati, ohio. the graduation rates are low. and the literal rassy rates are very low. hopefully we can get this to fix itself. >> i am 17 years old and the youngest member of the california delegation. i pledged to support bernie sanders. my grandfather was a united worker with caesar chaves. i'm here to stand for the voices of those who don't have a voice. i'm hoping to represent the youth. >> i'm delighted to be here this convention. it's my first convention. i've been working getting hillary in for eight years, getting her in the white house. that's why i'm here. it's my passion absolutely. >> my name is morgan. i'm from ohio.
i'm a delegate for bernie and i'm 21. so this is my first convention. i'm the state directer of college students for bernie and i am really excited to be here. my generation and the millenials we're now about the same size as the baby boomers and it's really important for us to shout out. so i'm having a great time at the convention and looking forward to the rest of it. >> donald trump made a campaign stop friday in denver, colorado where he shared his thoughts on the democratic convention. he also spoke about his own campaign moving forward. this is just under an hour.