tv MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC January 5, 2017 6:00am-7:01am PST
the tweet nthat mike barnicle read in part one. he said, the dishonest media likes to saying that i'm in agreement with julian assange. wrong. i state what he states, it is up to the people to make up their own minds. the media lies to make it look like i am against, quote, intelligence, when in fact i'm in agreement. he insists on putting intelligence in quotes. this morning, the russian investigation. the first public testimony from intelligence agencies on that election hack. it is happening in the senate this hour. new details set to be released. the controversial allegations finally coming to light and we'll bring that to you, live. >> and a possible intelligence overhaul. donald trump reportedly planning to reshape the cia and other intelligence agencies, but are republicans questioning his confidence? >> the president-elect's made it clear to the american people that he's skeptical about conclusions. from the bureaucracy.
>> and the battle has officially begun to repeal obamacare. >> the first order of business is to repeal and replace obamacare. >> great. but what happens next? and, a shocking video. teens allegedly torturing, you heard me right, torturing a young man with mental health challenges. and they did it live on facebook, using anti-trump profanities, police arresting the assailants. a city, a nation in ock. we're boing to begin today with a potentially explosive senate showdown over the russian hacking allegations. that's going to take place in 30 minutes. top u.s. intelligence officials are set to testify for the first time after that senate hearing as president-elect donald trump is still doubting whether russia was really involved. senator john mccain, who you know has been very tough on russia, is set to deliver the opening remarks. we're going to take you there en it happens. and guess what, we have a team of the best reporters and analysts today, standing by,
with new and latereaking details. i want to take you first to nbc's hans nichols on capitol hill. hans, what are we going to expect here today? >> well, stephanie, good morning. we know we're going to have senator mccain be aggressive on russia. question the intelligence that trump says he questioned. what we don't know is the reaction from other senate republicans and crucially senator elizabeth warren. this is her first potentially breakout moment on the senate armed services. and steph, just as crucial, how do the intelligence officials react? do they essentially pile on to this assessment that russia is to blame for the hacks on the dnc? and how much space do they leave for themselves, and crucially, steph, for their agencies to then make nice with donald trump when he becomes president in about two weeks' time. one final note on this, steph. after a very public session, there's a possibility that armed services could go into closed session, meaning that he would receive some sensitive, classified information. steph? >> all right, thanks, hans. i want to take you live now to trump tower, where nbc' kristen
welker has new information about the psident-elect trump planning possibly a big shake up at the top u.s. spy agency. kristen, what can you tell us? >> reporter: hey, steph. good morning. well, transition officials aren't saying much about that explosive "wall street journal" report, which says that president-elect donald trump is planning to revamp top intelligence agencies, including the dni and cia. but, what they have acknowledged is that there are discussions underway, they say, to streamline those agencies. to put this into a little bit of perspective, steph, there has been support and talk for making intelligence agencies more effective, taking a hard look at how that might be done. but the fact that this is coming against the backdrop of donald trump's recent war of words against intelligence agencies is only enflaming that situation more. there's also a sense that this might be blowback. remember, president-elect donald trump's national security adviser, his pick for national
security adviser, michael flynn, was ousted by james clapper. so there are some tensions there. donald trump, though, clearly, starting to realize he's got a pr problem in this regard, tweeting just moments ago, steph, let me read you part of his tweet. he says, the media lies to make it look like i am against intelligence, when in fact, i am a big fan. there's no doubt he's going to be monitoring those hearings on capitol hill very closely, and it anticipated we're going to get a lot more tweets as he watches all of it unfold today here from trump tower. steph. >> he's a big fan of what, exactly? i've got to ask our guest for the hour, managing editor of bloom brg politics, and captain of team bigly, john heilemann, and jonathan capert. john heilemann, i want to start with you. here we are, game time. are we going to see a fractured gop? you've got john mccain giving opening statements. you know what he said on russia before. people are scratching their heads with donald trump saying, you know, we'll see. >> well, if you're asking the question about whether there's going to be a fractured gop on
the question of russian hacking, and on the question of the intelligence community, the answer is, yes, quite clearly. this hearing today is designed, explicitly and openly by senator mccain to give the intelligence agencies a chance to fire back, basically, at donald trump. it's designed for other things, also, and he's trying to get to the bottom of the russian hacking matter. and there are substantiative things being pursued here. but the political purpose, as he said yesterday, essentially, he and lindsey graham saying, they are behind the intelligence agencies. they believe that he hacked the dnc and they are upset with the way trump is treating the intelligence agencies, and they're saying, guys, here's a platform on national television to make your case with one real target. and that's the president-elect. and those are republicans, by the way. >> okay, then, is it a show? so, is the point -- >> it's always a show. >> donald trump hasn't gotten the intelligence briefing yet. he'll be getting this information tomorrow. and the risk is, he gets it, throws it in the garbage and
says, i'm not listening. is the goal, let's let the intelligence agencies put this out to the public today. otherwise, we have to hear it or not hear it from donald trump. >> yes. i think the answer to your question is, yes. i think john sets it up nicely, as he always does, about what's going to happen today. it is all about theater and it is all about getting as much information as they can, without violating any of the classification laws out there, so the public can lear and see for themselves what's going on. butter we're dealing with the president-elect, who through twitter and through public pronouncements has cast doubt on the nationshtional intelligence agencies, who is siding with russia. i remember there was a time that the idea that a president of the united states would even give the benefit of the doubt to the russian president was not even -- i can't even find the word for it, because it is so unbelievable. so we, i think, kristen made a very good point in that, you
know, the backdrop here is, yes, maybe the intelligence agencies do need to be, need to be streamlined, but when you have a president-elect who has cast serious doubt on their effectiveness, that sets up a tension there that is not only republican against republican, but the president against the intelligence community and sets up a really serious national security problem that we can't even anticipate now. >> right, it's the question of, i think, you know, yesterday mike pence mad this point about it's a healthy american value to be skeptical. and certainly there are a lot of people on the left that are skeptical and have been for a long time. >> but be skeptical in private. >> not even that. i think the problem for trump is that the skepticism that he's exhibiting towards -- first of all, it's not just skepticism towards the intelligence agencies. it's mockery. and secondly, the skepticism is not being exhibited towards people like julian assange whereby with there seems to be on trump's part kind of a -- he tweeted this morning, trying to clarify his positions. like, i don't necessarily believe assange, but he seems to, if you look at all of his twitter commentary on this
matter, seems to give much more credibility to julian assange than he does to the collected wisdom of the american intelligence establishment. that is not applying skepticism in kind of a healthy way. >> then how do we possibly take his last tweet, where he says, you know, wi really like the intelligence agencies. i'm sorry, what. >> he says he likes intelligence, in quotes. that's literally what he says. >> he also says he's like a smart rson. so the like is the -- >> but here's the thing, with donald trump. he can tell you at 9:00 a.m., the sky is blue and 9:05 say, i never said that. and is reasonably confident that the people who support him will be with him stemp of tp of the . >> okay, but this is crazy. he can, and why can he? >> not long run, you asked the question about, he's going to have this briefing tomorrow, can he just throw it in the trash? he can't, really. because the truth is, although donald trump is a force of nature and is the most potent
political force descending on washington when he becomes the president of the united states, the reality is there's going to be a two-year investigation of the russian hacking, it's going to be bipartisan and go on for a long time. these institutions, the senate, the republican party, the intelligence establishment. they are going to be there long after donald trump leaves office. whether that's in four years or eight years. and as powerful as trump is at this moment, he's coming up against institutional washington. and institutional washington has pr prerogatives, imperatives that have extended further into the future than donald trump. so why this question, there will be a truth in the end about this russian hacking thing. it will be uncovered over the course of a long period of time in a bipartisan way. and trump can say whatever he wants about that. but in the end, he will lose that fight over the long-term. >> or this is a whole new world. and we've been saying for months, until this happens, until this happens, and he keeps plowing on through. >> i still believe in truth.
>> but while these investigations are happening, and we get to the truth of the hacking, there is still the enterprise of the united states that has to go forward in, you know, realtime. and so, while the president of the united states is doing battle with the intelligence community, he then has to rely on them to help keep us safe. this does not set up a very good situation for the president, for washington, for the american people. >> you know what else is happening realtime? senators are beginning to file into the room for that event, that's going to take place in just a few minutes. i want to bring kasie hunt in. tell us what you think we're going to hear today? >> reporter: well, steph, the senators are starting to walk into this hearing room behind me for a hearing that's set to begin at 9:30 up on capitol hill. and i think this is the beginning of a very intense focus on what has happened with russia and this hacking and i think one thing to focus on are donald trump's tweets, comments about julian assange.
that's something that's really angered both democrats, moderate democrats, and some republicans up here on capitol hill. john mccain and lindsey graham both very concerned about this, obviously. we're going to hear a lot from mccain this morning. i think one thing to watch is for what donald trump says, if anything, about casting doubt on this intelligence assessment. we're not going to learn anything new from this obama administration report at this hearing today, simply because the president and president-elect donald trump are in the process of being briefed on it. but if trump casts doubts on what that says, on this information, i think you can expect a remarkably strong reaction from both democrats, but also some republicans up here on capitol hill, who have very real concerns about it. one perso who could suffer from that is rex llerson, the secretary of state nominee. he's been making the rounds up here, i'm told that he has been making a good impression. he's had strong answers on russia in the view of the people that i have talked to.
but at the same time, if this issue blows up, he could become somebody who takes a fall for it. >> do you agree with that? >> i think the tillerson is going to have some difficulty. i believe in the end, he'll be confirmed. but we had john mccain yesterday, although he later clarified this was a joke, said he was as likely to support tillerson as the prospect of pigs might learning to fly. there are russia hawks, john mccain, lindsey graham, rand paul, maybe, marco rubio, who are going to ask some very tough questions. i think rex tillerson is making a good impression now and will make a good impression at his hearings, he's likely to become the next secretary of state, but if this matter becomes enflamed and trump continues, especially after his briefing tomorrow, to cast doubts on the intelligence agencies and continue to seem to be inexplicably, mysteriously and suspicion-raisingly pro-putin, tillerson is going to be the sharp end of that spear and where that argument will get litigated in the senate, for
sure. and the more that trump does those things, the messier that hearing becomes for tillerson. maybe he still gets through, but it could become a very ugly thing. >> i think tillerson, people will be looking to tillerson to see whethe okay, if donald trump is going to be pro-putin, can we rely on you to be the backstop? >> where's the checks and balances? >> can we rely on you to be the check on the president? and that's going to be very, very interesting to watch. >> well, guess what, we're going to do it here. we're going to take a break. we're minutes away from the hearing beginning. we'll take that to you live as soon as it kicks off. and senator angus king, who will be asking some questions at that hearing joins us next. tech: at safelite, we know how busy your life can be. mom: oh no... tech: this mom didn't have time to worry about a cracked windshield. so she scheduled at safelite.com and with safelite's exclusive "on my way text" she knew exactly when i'd be there, so she didn't miss a single shot. i replaced her windshield giving her more time for what matters most.
tech: how'd ya do? player: we won! tech: nice! that's another safelite advantage. mom: thank you so much! (team sing) safelite repair, safelite replace. sometino big deal.ing gums bleed. but my hygienist said, it is a big deal. go pro with crest pro health gum protection. it helps prevent gum bleeding by targeting harmful bacteria on your gums. left untreated, these symptoms could lead to more serious problems including tooth loss. gum crisis averted.
welcome back. i'm stephanie ruhle. you're watching msnbc and we are just minutes away from top u.s. intelligence officials testifying for the very first time at a senate committee hearing for russia's hacking and interference in the u.s. election. joining me now, one of the senate who is will be asking questions at that hearing, independent senator, angus king of maine who also serves on the intelligence committee. senator, thank you, i know we don't have much time because you've got to head into that room, what do you believe we are going to hear today? donald trump and other skeptics have been asking for hard, hard evidence. is that what's going to get delivered? >> i think you're going to get a firm conviction and the opinion of the leaders of the intelligence agency, which, by the way, they stated back in october that this was a russian
operation. i think you'll get confirmation of that, but here's one of the difficulties, stephanie, with this hard evidence standard. we want the public to understand what's going on, we want the evidence out there, but we don't want to tell our adversaries how we got that evidence. in the intelligence committee, we call it sources and methods. you've got to be able careful to not reveal how you gained access to this information, to not give away to your adversaries what your tulles are. so there's a little bit of a challenge here, but i think the evidence is very strong, what i have seen and heard is very strong. and i think we're going to hear more of that today. one of the questions i'm going to have is, what's your level of confidence in this evence? is it firm, is it solid? and tnk we're going to hear a lot of confirmation from the findings of the intelligence, the 17 agencies of the intelligence community in the united states have come to collectively. >> this morning, reuters
reported that there was proven russian interference. russia then took that content, gave it to a third party, who then provided that to wikileaks. will that get confirmed? >> i don't know what the testimony is going to be, but i can tell you, one of the pieces of evidence is that this is absolutely consistent with what russia is doing and has been doing in other countries. i was in the ukraine and poland last winter. john mccain was in the baltic states just last week. the one thing we hear from those countries is, wah out for the russians messing around with your elections. disinformation, fake news, messing around with computer hacks. in france, they're even funding one of the political parties. so, there is a huge effort by the russians to do just what they appear to have done here. and so, that's a bit of evidence in and of itself. >> senator king, john heilemann here. i'm curious, we're seeing reporting that donald trump and his team are contemplating an
overhaul of how intelligence works in washington, d.c. and a streamlininge ining of that bureaucracy. what kind of reception will that get among people who follow intelligence closely on capitol hill? is there a belief that that kind of -- some kind of a good faith effort towards streamlining would -- is perhaps in order? >> well, i think there's always -- you know, there's always an opportunity to streamline or to make more efficient any bureaucracy. that's something that you'll always ought to do on an ongoing basis. if they're talking about taking away the position or severely weakening the position of the director of national intelligence, which by the way, was created after september 11th, because of the finding that one of the things that brought september 11th to our shores was a lack of coordination among the intelligence agencies, a lack of connecting the dots, to abolish or severely weaken this sort of focus poin i think, would be very dangerous and very bad for the country.
the other thing that's bothering me about this discussion is, quote, the politicization of intelligence. the director of the cia is a career cia official. the director of national intelligence, james clapper, who we're going to hear from in a few minutes is a 50-year veteran, non-partisan, worked for democratic and republican administrations. to charge james clapper with being political doesn't pass the straight face test and i'm tired of hearing that. >> senator king, it's jonathan capehart here. for the past several months, we've seen a battle between donald trump president-elect and with the intelligence community. how long duke that battle can go on, before damage is done not only to the intelligence community, but also to the country as a whole? >> well, i think already there's been damage done in terms of the morale. these are people, when i travel abroad and meet with intelligence officials, the one thing i came away with is, these are idealistic, patriotic,
non-partisan brave people who quite often are taking their lives in their hands when they go out to lunch. and to denigrate the work that they do and zpsuggest that it's been politicized can't help but damage the morale of that agency. i'm hoping that the new leaders that donald trump has proposed will be able to understand and restore that, but also, convince him that these are loyal and patriotic americans whose work shouldn't be denigrated. he's coming in entirely from the outside. he has no experience in this kind of thing, whatsoever. and skepticism is fine. i spend my life up here questioning and probing and being skeptical. but there's a line between being skeptical and being dismissive and, frankly, someone insulting. and i don't think that serves anybody's purpose. >> but what do you do to actually combat that? because in terms of donald trump, some have said president-elect trump listens to whomever he spoke to last. and one person he does have in
his ear is mike flynn. and mike flynn doesn't necessarily have the same views about those great americans in the intelligence community that you do. he's got some bad blood. >> well, i know he does. there's some background between he and jim clapper and maybe that's part of the problem today. i just don't know. but i hope and believe that the president-elect is going to go out to langly, to go to the various headquarters of these agencies, meet these people, start to listen to them. and build up a level of trust and confidence. because they're his eyes an ears. if he ignores the hard work and the communications of the intelligence agencies, where else is he going to get his information? >> but sir, why do you have any confidence that that will happen, given what donald trump is saying and doing all day, every day, especially on twitter? why -- listen, i wholeheartedly
agree with what you're saying, but sadly, it almost feels idealistic, not realistic, and we have to get real. >> we do have to get real. i have to believe at some point, he's going to understand the gravity of the position that he's in and it's going to sink in that this isn't a reality tv show. this is reality. and i just can't believe that the enormity of the responsibility isn't going to slow him down a little bit, in terms of his acting somewhat impulsively, tweeting, and making foreign policy in 140 characters. you know, i'm an optimist. i believe everybody's capable of redemption and learning. and it's just beyond belief to me that anyone would go into this office and not be weighted down and understand the gravity. look at the -- my best evidence is barack obama's hair color. he's a young man, he's been in office for eight years, you look
at every president in my living memory, their hair turns white during their time in the white house. that's a measure of the responsibility of this job. i can't believe it's not going to affect donald trump. >> well, senator, i know you have to head into that meeting. the room is filling up. i can tell you one thing, i'm pretty sure at the end of four years, donald trump's hair color is still going to be orange. thank you so much for joining us this morning. i know you have to head into that meeting, because any minute now, the hearing on russia's interference in our election will begin. we'll take you there live when it begins. this is 100% useful for a 100% fresh mouth.. what's it like to not feel 100% fresh? we don't know. we swish listerine®. as do listerine® users. the very people we studied in the study of bold. people who are statistically more likely
to stand up to a bully. do a yoga handstand. and be in a magician's act. listerine® kills 99% of bad breath germs so you can feel 100% in life. bring out the bold™. but so we don't have tormin wad to get clean. charmin ultra soft gets you clean without the wasteful wadding. it has comfort cushions you can see that are softer... ...and more absorbent, and you can use up to 4 times less. enjoy the go with charmin. at godaddy, our goal is to let's chat in football terms. this is the goal post. the end zone. the goal of every team. we know you have goals. like getting exposure for your idea or business. with godaddy website builder, you can easily create an awesome mobile-friendly, get you more exposure website. we call that...a website builder touchdown. get your free trial of website builder now. announcer: are your children in the right car seat
for their age and size? is the seat supposed to be forward-facing or rear-facin did they move to a booster seat too soon? it may be too late to check when you're on the road. [blaring car horn and skidding] fortunately, you're on the couch. hey, need fast try cool mint zantac. it releases a cooling sensation in your mouth and throat. zantac works in as little as 30 minutes. nexium can take 24 hours. try cool mint zantac. no pill relieves heartburn faster.
witnesses start filing in and take their seats. nbc's hans nichols is outside of the hearing now. hans, what should we expect in the next couple of minutes? >> there's an important dynamic to watch here. that is at the witness table. at the center, you see james clapper, the head of the dni. to his left is an admiral, admiral michael rogers. clapper wanted to fire rogers about a month and a half ago. at the same time, michael rogers has met with donald trump, potentially to be the head of the dni, the director of national intelligence, the very job that james clapper has. to the extent that there's tension on the witness table, look for the interplay between those two. now, at nbc news, we are reporting that the leading candidate for that dni job, to replace clapper, is senator dan coats, outgoing senator from indiana. but look for that dynamic and look to see if you think michael rogers, the admiral, he's got four stars, whether or not he's saying anything in a public audition, potentially, to actually take that dni job. >> a public audition.
so on some level, it seems like he would be trying to win donald trump over? >> potentially. we know he met. we know he met with donald trump back in november at the trump tower. we know that the obama administration wanted to dismiss him. it's very complicated why they wanted to dismiss him. what we've reported at nbc is that they didn't like his response on isis. there have been security breaches at the nsa. there's an entire other overlaying issue here. >> hans, i need to stop you, because john mccain is kicking off right now. we're going to take you there. >> -- working with each of you. the committee meets this morning for the first on a series of hearings on cybersecurity to receive the testimony on foreign cyberthreats to the united states. i would like to welcome our witnesses this morning. james clapper, director of national intelligence, marcel latray, under secretary of defense for intelligence, and admiral mike rogers, commander of u.s. cybercommand, director of the national security agency, and chief of the central security service.
this hearing is about the range of cybersecurity challenges confronting our nati threats from countries like russia, china, and north korea and iran, as well as non-state actors from terrorist groups, to transnational criminal organizations. in recent years, we've seen a growing series of cyberattacks by multiple actors, attacks that have targeted our citizens, businesses, military, and government. but there's no escaping the fact that this committee meets today for the first time in this new congress in the aftermath of an unprecedented attack on our democracy. at the president's direction, director clapper is leading a comprehensive review of russian interference in our recent election with the goal of informing the american people as much as possible about what happened. i am confident that director clapper will conduct this review with the same integrity and professionalism that has characterized his nearly half a century of government and
military service. i'm equally confident in the dedicated members of our intelligence community. the goal of this review, as i understand it, is not to question the outcome of the presidential election, nor should it be. as both president obama and president-elect trump have said, our nation must move forward. but we must do so with full knowledge of the fact. i trust director clapper will brief the congress on his review when it is completed. this is not the time or place to preview its findings. that said we know a lot already. in october, our intelligence agencies concluded unanimously that, quote, the government, the russian government directed compromises of e-mails from u.s. persons and institutions, including from u.s. political organizations. they also assess that, quote, disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails were consistent with the methods and motivations of russian-directed efforts and
that these thefts and disclosures were intended to interfere with the u.s. election process. since then, our intelligence community has released additional information concerning these russian activities, including a joint analysis report that provided lal details, regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the russian civilian and military intelligence services to attack the united states. every american should be alarmed by russia's attacks on our nation. there is no national security interest more vital to the united states of america than the ability to hold free and fair elections without foreign interference. that's why congress mus set partisanship aside, follow the facts, and work together to devise comprehensive solutions to deter, defend against, and when necessary, respond to foreign cyberattacks. as we do, we must recognize that the recent russian attacks are one part of a much bigger
cyberproblem. russian cyberattacks have targeted the white house, the joint staff, the state department, our critical infrastructure, chinese cyberattacks have reportedly targeted nsa, the department of state and commerce, congressional offices, military labs, the naval war college, and u.s. businesses, including major defense contractors. most recently, china compromise offered 20 million background investigations at the office of personnel management. iran has used cybertools in recent years to attack the u.s. navy. u.s. partners in the middle east, major financial institutions, and a dam just 25 miles north of new york city. and of course, north korea was responsible for the massive cyberattack on sony pictures in 2014. what seems clear is that our adversaries have reached a common conclusion that the reward for attacking america in cyberspace outweighs the risk.
for years, cyberattacks on our nation have been met with indecision and inaction. our nation has no policy, and thus, no strategy for cyberdeterrents. this appearance of weakness has been provocative to our adversaries, who have attacked us again and again with growing severity. unless we demonstrate that the costs of attacking the united states outweigh the perceived benefits, these cyberattacks will only grow. this is also true beyond the cyberdomain. it should not surprise us that vladimir putin would think he could launch increasingly severe cyberattacks against our nation, when he had paid little price for invading ukraine and acts in crimea, subverting democratic values and instituons across europe, and of course, helping bashar al assad slaughter civilians in syria for more than a year with impunity. the same is true for china, iran, north korea, and any other
adversary that has recently felt emboldened to challenge the world order. put simply, we cannot achieve cyberdeterrence. to do so, we must first have a policy which means finally resolving the long list of basically cyberquestions that we as a nation have yet to answer. what constitutes an act of war or aggression in cyberspace that would merit a military response, be it by cyber or other means. what is our theory of cyberdeterrence. and what is our strategy to implement it? is our government organized appropriately to handle this threat? or are we so stovepiped that we cannot deal with it effectively? who is accountable for this problem and do they have sufficient authorities to deliver results? are we in the congress just as stovepiped on cyber as the executive branch, such that our oversight actually reinforces
problems, rather than helping to resolve them. do we need to change how we are organized? this committee intends to hold a series of hearings in the months ahead to explore these and other questions and we look forward to hearing the candid views of our witnesses today who have thought about and worked on these questions as much as anyone in our nation. senator reid? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to commend you for your leadership in promptly scheduling this hearing on foreign cyberthreats. i would like to welcome our witnesses, director clapper, undersecretary lettre, and admiral rogers. thank you, gentleman, for your service and your dedication. while i understand that our witnesses will be discussing the cyberthreats that many countries, including india and china, pose to our nation, i would like to focus on russian hacking that raise concerns in the election to 2016.
in addition to stealing information from the democratic national committee and the clinton gain and cherry-picking which information it leaked to the media, the russian government created fake news and spread conspiracies across the vast social media landscape. at the very least, the effect of russia's actions was to erode the faith in america's democratic constitutions. these and other cybertools remain highly active and engaged in misinforming our political dialogue even today. there is still much we do not know, but russia's involvements in these intrusions does not appear to be in any doubt. russia's best cyberoperators are judged to be as elusive and hard to identify as any in the world. but in this case, detection and attribution were not so difficult. the implication being that putin may have wanted us to know what he had done, seeking only a level of plausibility didn't to support an official rejection of culpabili culpability. these russian cyberattacks should be judged within the larger context of russia's
rejection of the post-cold war international order. and graggressive actions agains its neighbors. russia's current leaderships and president putin in particular perceived the democratic movements in the state of soviet states, rule of law and democracy as well as nato and eu enlargement as a threat to what they believe is russia's spear of influence. putin's russia makes no secret of the fact that it is determined to aggressively halt and counter what it characterizes as western encroachment on its vital interests. the invasion of georgia, the annexation of crimea, the aggression against korean, featuring sophisticated military techniques, cyberrattling in the baltics and baltic sea, ngos and what remains of the russian democratic opposition. tun wavering campaign for nationalovereignty over the internet, and the creation of an
iron informaon curtain, like china's great firewall, and its aggressive interference in western political process, all are one piece. russia's efforts to undermine democracy at home and abroad realize the countries thon border cannot be ignored or traded away in exchange for the appearance of comity. furthermore, what russia did not united states in 2016, it has already done and continues to do in europe. this challenge the progress of democratic values since the end of the cold war must not be tolerated. despite the indichbs of some to this matter, our nation needs to do in detail what the intelligence community has concluded was an assault by senior officials on our electoral process. our electoral process is the bedrock of our system of government. an effort to manipulate it, especially by a regime with values and interests so antithetical to our own, is a challenge to the nation's security which must be met by
with bipartisan and universal condemnation, consequences, and correction. i believe the most appropriate means is the creation of a special select committee in the senate, since this shall and the solutions to the problems it has exposed spill across the jurisdictional divides of the standing committees on armed services, intelligence, foreign relations, homeland security, and judiciary. failing that, our committee must take on as much of this task as we can. and i again commend the chairman for his commitment to do so. therefore i am pleased and grateful that his efforts will be expended and the energy will be invested on the matters that are so critical to the american people. i also want to applaud president obama's initial steps publicized last week to respond to russia's hostile actions. general clapper, underscare lettre, we appreciate your efforts to discover wlapd and why and make these facts known
to the american people. although your investigation and report to president obama is not yet public, we hope you'll be able to convey and explain what's been accomplished so far, including the steps already announced by the president. in addition, i am sure we will have many questions about how we are organized in the cyber domain, and what changes you have recommended going forward. subject to that, president obama referenced in his signing statement of the national defense authorization act for physical year 2017. these are difficult issues, but they are of vital importance to our nation, our security and our democracy. mr. chairman, i look forward to working with you in a bipartisan matter to conduct a thorough your skand to address the cyberthreats our country faces. >> welcome the witnesses and mr. secretary, we'll begin with you, for any opening statements or comments you might have. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member reed, members of
committee, i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i will shortly turn the microphone over to director clapper for some comments followed by admiral rogers. as this is my last appearance before this committee, before stepping down from eight years of pentagon service in a few weeks -- >> i'm sure you'll regret not having that opportunity again. >> it will be nice to be skiing a little bit in february, that's for sure. but having said that, since i am just a few weeks from stepping down, i do want to thank this committee for its partnership and i want to thank director clapper and admiral rogers for the privilege of being able to serve together with them in the leadership of the u.s. intelligence community. and to the men and women of the u.s. intelligence community, civilian and military, thousands of whom are deployed today around the world, advancing u.s. interests and protecting america, i do dmirl your integrity. i admire your service.
it has been an honor to serve with you over the last many years. in the interest of time, i'll briefly note the department of defense's views on cyber in three core themes. first, the threats we must address. second, what we are doing to address them now. and third, the difficult but urgent work we know still lies ahead. first, the threats. as you know, the department of defense's leadership believes we confront no fewer than five immediate but also distinct and evolving challenges across all operating domains. we are countering the prospect of russian aggression and coercion, especially in europe. something we unfortunately have had to energy etically renew our focus on in the last several years. we are also managing historic change in perhaps the most consequential region for america's future, the asia pacific. and watching for risks
associated with china's destabilizing actions in the region. we are checking iranian aggression and malign influence across the middle east. we are sengthen our deterrent and defense forces in the face of north korea's continued nuclear and missile provocations. and we are countering terrorism with the aim of accelerating the lasting defeat of isil and al qaeda. these are what many in the department of defense have termed the four plus one. four state-based challenges and an ongoing condition of battling terrorism. as our joint written statement for the record has detailed. each of these security challenges, china, russia, iran, north korea, and global terrorist groups, such as isil, presents a significant cyberthreat dmimension to the u.s. military. cyber is an operating gae ining that is real, complex, contested
and must be addressed. second, what we are doing about it. the department of defense for several years has pursued a comprehensive strategy for maintaining the necessary strategic dominance in this domain. secretary of defense ash carter has pressed for dod to change, to adapt and to innovate, not only to meet today's challenges, but also top ensure that we effectively defend against cyberthreats, well into an uncertain future. we have built and continue to build the means and methods that will strengthen our relative position against each of these dimensions of the cyberthreat. the government's cyber policies reflected in executive orders provide guidance on the absolute necessity of a whole of government approach, critical to protecting our nation. the department has developed, refined and published its cyberstrategy, which clearly lays out three key dod cybermissions.
defending dod networks, providing cyberoptions for our military commanders. and when called upon by our nation's leaders, defending the nation against cyberattacks of significant consequence. as the director and admiral rogers will note, since 2009, the department has matured cybercommand to ensure a clear command responsibility and authity, and growing capabilities essential to our unity of effort for cyberoperations. we also continue to mature our cybermission forces, which this fall achieved initial operative capability or ioc status. this force is providing military capability to execute our three missions in cyberspace. we're building new capabilities and new tools for the cybermission force to use. third, what remains to be done. as much as we have done, we recognize there is much more to do. let me mention just a couple of o those most important tasks
here. first, we need to continue to develop and refine our national cyberpolicy framework, which includes the evolution of all dimensions of our deterrence posture. the ability to deny the adversary's objectives, to impose costs, and to ensure we have a resilient infrastructure to execute a multi-domain mission. this refinement and evolution in our deterrent thinking and capability will further empower decision making at net speed. second, within the department, cybercommand has matured and is doing more to protect the nation and support global operations than ever before. and we need to continue, in fact, accelerate this maturation. accordingly, the secretary of defense supports the elevation of cybercommand to a unified combatant command, and supports ending the dual hat arrangement for the leadership of nsa and cybercommand. and doing so through a deliberate conditions-based
approach, while continuing to leverage the shared capabilities and synergies. finally, we must redouble our efforts to deepen partnerships between government and the private sector, and between the u.s. government and our allies. we must continue to seek help from american industry, the source of much of the world's greatest technology talent in innovating, to find cyberdefense solutions, build resiliency into our critical infrastructure systems, and strengthen our deterrents. with our international allies and partners, we must work together to promote stability in cyberspace universal recognition that existi international law applies in cyberspace and the adoption of voluntary peace time enormous of responsible state behavior. mr. chairman, thanks. i look forward to your questions. i'll now pass the baton to director clapper. thank you. >> general clapper? >> senator mccain, ranking member reed, and distinguished
members of the committee, first, thanks very much for juniyour opening statements. obviously, we're here today to talk about cyberthreats that anr some brief valedictory recommendations and a few parting observations. i certainly want to take note of and thank the members of the committee who are engaged on this issue and who have spoken on it publicly. i know there is a great interest in the issue of russian interference on you're electoral process based on the briefing that has been presented to the congress. jay johnson and i have issued statements about it. the joint analysis report publicly issued by department of homeland security and the federal bureau of investigation provided details on the tools and infrastructure used to
compromise infrastructure associated with the election, as well as a range of u.s. government, political and private sector entities as you described. as you alsonoted, the president tasked the intelligence community prepare a comprehensive report on russian interference in our election. we planned to brief the congress and release an unclassified version of this report to the public early next week with due deference to the protection of highly sensitive and fragile sources and methods. but until then, we're really not prepared to discuss this beyond standing by our earlier statements. we are prepared to talk about other aspects of the russian cyber threat. we also see cyber threats challenging public trust and confidence in information, services and institutions. russia has clearly assumed an even more aggressive cyber posture by increasing cyber pionage operations, leaking
data stolen from these operations and targeting critical infrastructure systems. china continues to succeed in conducting cyber espionage against the u.s. government, our allies and u.s. companies. intelligence community and security experts, however, have observed some reduction in cyber activity from china against u.s. companies since the bilateral september 2015 commitment to refrain from espionage for commercial gain. iran and north korea continue to improve their capabilities to launch disruptive or destructive cyber attacks to support their political objectives. non-state actor, notably terrorisgroups, including isily continue to use the internet to organize, recruit, spread propaganda, raise fund, inspire actions by disciples and
coornate operations. i want to foot stomp a few points i've made before. we need to strengthen the partnership between government and striindustry and find the r balance to enable the intelligence community and law enforcement to operate and continue to respect the rights to privacy. cyber operations can also be a means to change, manipulate or falsify electronic data or information to compromise its integrity. cyberspace can be an echo chamber in which information, ideas or beliefs, true or false, get amplified or reinforced through constant repetition. all these types of cyber operations have the power to chip away at public trust and confidence in our information
services and institutions. by way of some observations or recommendations, both the government and the private sector have done a lot to improve cyber security and our collective security is better, but it's stillot good enough. our federal partners are stepping up their efforts with the private sector but sharing of what they have remains uneven. i think the private sector needs to up its game on cyber security and not just wait for the government to provide perfect warning or a magic solution. we need to influence international behavior in cyber space, pursuing more diplomatic efforts to promulgate norms of behavior in peace time and to explore setting limits on cyber operationsgainst certain targets. when something major happens in cyber space, our automatic deult policy position should not be exclusively to counter cyber with cyber. we should consider all
instruments of national power. in most cases to date non-cyber tools have been more effective at changing our adversary's cyber behave with her in we need to model the rules we want others to follow since our actions set precedents. we also need to be prepared for adversary retaliation, which may not be as surgical, either do to the adversary's skill or inherent difficulty in calibrating effect and impact of cyber tools. that's why using cyber to counter cyber attacks risks unintended consequences. we currently cannot put a lot of stock, at least in my mind, in cyber deterrence. unlike nuclear weapons, cyber capabilities are difficult to see and evaluate and are ephemeral. it's hard to create the substance of psychology in my view. we also have to take steps now to invest in the future. we need to rebuild a trusted
working relationships with industry and the private sector on specific issues like encryption and the roles of responsibility for government, users and industry. i believe we need to separate nsa and cyber com. we should distinct the dual hat arrangement which i helped to design seven years ago. thissn't purely a military issue. i don't believe it is in nsa's or the ica's long-term interest to continue the dual-hat setup. we must hire, train -- clearly cyber will be a challenge for the u.s., the intelligence community and our national security for the foreseeable future. and we need to be prepared for that. adversaries are pushing the envelope. since this is a tool that doesn't cost much and sometimes is hard to attribute.
i certainly appreciate, as we all do, the committee's interest in this difficult and important challenge. i'll wrap up by saying after 53 years in the intelligence business in one capacity or another, happily i've just got 15 days left. i'll miss being involved in the intelligence mission and i'll most certainly miss the talented and dedicated patriots who are in the united states intelligence community. i'm very proud of the community professionals i've represented here for the last six and a half years who don't get much public recognition and who like it that way. they've always supported me and i'm confident they will do no less for my successor, whoever that turns out to be. so let me -- with that let me stop and pass to add mir rogers. >> thank you, general. admiral rogers. >> good morning.
thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today on the behalf of the united states cyber command and national security agency. i'm honored to appear beside general clapper and under secretary lettre. it's been a true honor. today i look forward to furst discussing this complex issue. of course some aspects of what we do must remain classified to protect our nation's security, so today i will limit my discussion to those in the public domain. we have seen over the course of the last year how this cyber threat environment is constantly evolving. we have all come to take for granted the activity being built into every facet of our lives. it creates opptunities and vulnerabilities. those who would seek to harm our fellow americans and our nation utilize the same internet, the same communications devices and the same social media platforms that we, our families and our friends here and around the world use.
we must keep pace with such changes in order to provide policyakers and our operational commanders the intelligence and cyber capabilities they need to keep us safe that means understoodianding ou adversaries to the best of our abilitand what they do and why, we're watching criminal behavior, terrorism planning, malicious cyber activity and outright cyber attacks. we have witnessed the use of these tactics here at home. i know this hearing today will inevitably focus on reports of interference in our recent elections. i echo director clapper in saying we will await the findings of the just-completed intelligence review ordered by the president and defer comment until after that is shared with congressional leaders and
oversees. nsa and cyber command have worked to detect and monitor russian cyber activity. the hacking of systems belonging to our election process is of great concern and we'll focus strongly on that activity. we focus on the foreign threat actor in foreign spaces but we share our information a readily as possible with the rest of our partners in the department of defense, the intelligence community and federal law enforcement, as well as others within the u.s. government and the private sector. as you know, russian cyber groups have a history of gressively hacking into other countries' government, infrastructure and even election systems. as i indicated, this will remain a priority for nsa. we continue to engage with our partners around the world on what is acceptable and