first and foremost, the intelligence community as it was in terms of the first stable in october because you want to do so, very attentive to not disclosing methods that may appear to identify and attribute malicious actors in the future. what i would also say is the president directed the intelligence community to discuss a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. to capture lessons learned from that and report to a range of stakeholders, this is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage the congress on the threats we have seen and state and local stakeholders i spoke to in terms of them and understanding and tools to defend themselves and help them confront the risk but

it is important, 2008, and to bob mueller. and met any engagement -- called him up a call from a senior official at the fbi to talk to him about the chinese infiltrating systems in the obama campaign. we have seen in 2008, and the election system, we may be crossed into a new threshold. it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to

conduct some after action, to understand what this means, what has happened and impart those lessons learned and that is what we will go with. >> in 2008 and this time, the chinese got into the system in an effort to change or manipulate the electoral process. and is that something he expects before he leaves office in january, before he leaves office. >> he expects to get a report prior to leaving office. we will see what comes out of the report. >> with a month left in office,

i will pander if i can. >> what about the other one? >> very forward and i would like to look back a little bit. the president -- eight years, no more parents authorization successfully acting on, president bush never said that after 9/11, that is 15 years. you were here, everyone thought another huge attack come the next day or the day after, it never happened. have we been that good? or the 9/11 hijackers harnessing airplanes against our buildings, did they get lucky? is a time to step back and recount this threat given the fact we basically had white noise terrorism since 9/11? >> with regard to your question

about good or lucky, i think we have been both. there has been a tremendous effort to build up our defenses, to strengthen systems, border screenings, systems -- the ability of the intelligence community and law enforcement to interact not only domestically, with our foreign partners, countless attacks in 2006 during the playing slot which i was with the fbi and we were with british partners twice a day unsecure videoconferences to understand what they have so that we could compare it to what we were looking at domestically. and information and relationships have only gotten

greater and gotten better. we have gotten better. has has often been said, we have to be right 100% of the time. we need to recalibrate and that is what i was getting at in my reference at the top to the new face of the terrorist threat we are in. the more immediate threat we judge comes from ice all and in particular their ability to inspire individual actors and small groups to conduct less spectacular but certainly deadly attacks and real consequences, and have potential to unsettle communities quite justifiably. we have to calibrate the tools

we apply, whether it is encountering violent extremism, working with the private sector and the tech sector to get them to work with us to address platforms, these are all tools and efforts we didn't talk about in the aftermath of 9/11. we will build up those tools as we built up the tools to harden our borders in 9/11, right after 9/11. >> we look at the question on cyber attacks, you mentioned more broadly, cyber is a real concern area. it is a concern for the next team. the president-elect and his team have not acknowledged cyberattacks in the election. and security concerns, they don't talk about infectious diseases as a concern.

does that give you any concern and what are the things you and your team in the white house can do between now and january 20th to bring awareness of this and get on the president-elect's radar? >> it is too soon to say. only a month since the election, the president-elect and his team are working to make their appointments and no we have to see how to post these issues when the time comes and when they are in the seat. what we have been doing is carrying out the president's direction for professional, comprehensive transition and that means preparing a tremendous amount of information and briefings to be able to transition and relay a tremendous body of knowledge and experience and lessons learned across a range of crises and threats that have evolved over eight years so we will be doing that right up until january 20th

and having discussions. as many as we can as people are brought on board. >> real quick politics. >> i want to turn it around a little bit. because of the nature of the transition in the world we are living in can you describe or make an assessment of how external actors view the transition as a vulnerable period in the united states, what is your assessment of that and do you think this inauguration event, the actual event itself, because there was a threat for president obama's inauguration, is this the most vulnerable inaugural event. >> let me take these in turn. we don't have any credible

information about a threat to the inauguration for the current period. that said, transitions are, i think, reasonable to conclude and we are operating as if across the intelligence community, homeland security, that transitions are something adversaries try to take advantage of. that is the posture that would be true in 2008. 2012, in 2008, any other transition period of that is the going in proposition and we will act accordingly. we would take that approach. >> anything different in 2017.

>> a volatile campaign period. and we have to be on guard and take advantage of it. specific or credible intelligence, through the 2008 period, to the inauguration, and washed out for the intel jargon. and these threats, and the 21st, the same way the last eight

years. >> some of the programs and things you are doing is a way to help people accountable and everyone -- and accountable kind of thing. i want you to tell me when the obama administration is in office, the report they have with the media, you know how we think and i am wondering if you think it is precarious when they are put in place and you wish you made the more solid and there are a couple examples that you released about civilian casualties and drone strikes. it is great that it is out but could have included information by state but this is something you are thinking of doing and in terms of interrogation, from the outside a robust effort to hold people accountable before the obama administration took power,

if you are worried about having that be defined given what the president-elect said about torture. >> a few things. one, in my role to stay as far out of politics as possible, and office in the west wing, i can't really speak to your opening point. whether or not there is a particular understanding between the team and the white house and the press, there was -- i was in the justice department that time. john durum, a career prosecutor spent years reviewing, painstakingly, the activities in

the last administration with enhanced interrogation techniques. a lengthy, robust review of that huge but it was not looked at. i want to stress one thing that came out this week. that was long in the works before the election. a long-standing commitment to put down in one place and reflect the number of readings that i and the deputy national security adviser had with a range of groups and stakeholders who kept saying we have spoken to these issues in isolated places, speeches and various documents. it would be great to have it all in one place and that is what

you saw reflected their. >> all eyes on the monitor >> lawyers have asked for a pardon to the trump has called for his execution. what do you think the prospect is for that? you called general kelly a dedicated military man. is a too many military men in the cabinet? >> on the bowe bergdahl matter, it has been reported there is an application for a pardon against -- that will work its way to what the purpose process is. with regard to the military and the cabinet, the president-elect will put his team in place and you should see how that is.

>> from yahoo. >> the president coming into office with a range of properties with his name on them. i wonder if you could speak, to american national security, what can or will be done about this. >> i think a recognition, certainly as we conduct the transition in briefings and discussions, that we do for the new team on threats to us persons overseas. we focus very much as we do domestically to the threat to soft targets. i can't speak to whether those

properties would be specifically more vulnerable. that is going to be very with respect to those properties. >> given these properties are owned by the president-elect, does the united states government have any special obligation as regard to other american companies? >> i don't know. >> tim johnson is watching. >> cybersecurity experts speak about what causes them to lose sleep at night, is often an attack on the financial sector. i would like you to talk about legal restrictions, responsible for protecting the commercial enterprise like the financial

sector. and what needs to be done to ensure we don't wake up and see the bank balance is 0. >> from the standpoint of the federal government's responsibility, what we have done in that regard is look at critical infrastructure. we talked about it before and financial infrastructure, is included. what we have done is prioritize our approach to protecting critical infrastructure and providing services and information to critical infrastructure holdings. several years ago the president, directed by executive order, the creation of a framework that was developed with industry in partnership with a set of best practices the critical infrastructure owners should

deploy. we work very hard to get a rare thing which is bipartisan legislation and cyber security act of 2015 to ensure greater information between the public and private sector. some of them very much directed at the financial sector as a critical piece of critical infrastructure. the other thing i day is from my experience, there -- they are focused on this issue ahead of the game than many folks in industry and that is reflected in their relationship with the treasury department, the department of homeland security, the white house, to really be focused on the enterprise risk. they are not leaving it to just their it guy. they have taken it to the ceos i have dealt with.

>> let's talk about individuals who are inspired to commit actss of terrorism here, domestically, inspired from outside. i recall a couple years ago the administration launched a very specific campaign of communication and relations with actors in the muslim community. i am interested in where the campaign stands and what impact you may have seen from the presidential campaign, where there was talk about banning muslims and different things. that constitutes a setback, what impact you may have seen from the presidential campaign. >> on your last point, what i

have seen, some communities expressing concern about rhetoric. what i would say to that is we face a very determined enemy both in al qaeda as well as in isis but they have made it very clear that they believe we are at war with islam and it is not of course the case. the words we use and the rhetoric that is used that feeds into that fuels their recruiting power. the type of recruiting message that says they want to enlist troubled souls in a clash of civilizations because they believe the united states is at war with islam. we don't want to do anything to

fuel their recruiting power. with regard to your question about our efforts to counter message, as it were, we have advanced those efforts in the past couple years, the global engagement center at the state department. we determined that the united states is not a very effective messenger when it comes to trying to delegitimize and undercut isis's narrative. what we did is brought in a bunch of tech experts and branding experts and others to say this is what is resonating in isis's message with the type of people they are trying to recruit and this is how we should go about countering that. it is not a message with a us government stamp on it but by amplifying and raising up and expanding the number and range of credible voices that might the more persuasive to

undercutting isis's message. >> that is all we have time for, thank you very much, thanks for coming. [inaudible conversations] >> you are watching booktv on c-span2. ..