security interest. we are doing everything we can to ensure the risk of proliferation in these weapons systems is diminished. it does no good to sign an agreement if a party is owing to comply with it. the piece of paper is it is not being complied with does not reduce the risk. it does not take down that threat. the people around the world, the by thebeing violated russians. it is the agreement they signed up for. we do not force them into the agreement. they decided it was in their best interest. they decided it is not in their best interest. we are prepared to enter into negotiations on these complex arms control issues around the world, including conversations about the renewal of arms control agreements as we move forward. make no mistake about president mission ission, his to make sure any agreement we enter into it has america's best interest, that is the text the

american people, protects our allies as well. and has provisions other countries are both capable and willing to comply with and allow us to verify they have complied with those agreements. sitting arounds a table talking. it is important we make sure the provisions are enforceable and verifiable. that is our aim in every set of important arms control discussion. have a great day. thank you. >> is there anything wrong? are they asleep? announcer: lots of congressional reaction for and against the move. nancy pelosi issuing this statement, which reads the administration should exhaust every diplomatic effort more closely with nato allies over the next six months to avoid resting the united states into a

dangerous arms competition. more about today's announcement from pentagon officials and others will talk about the 2019 missile-defense review. it is an event hosted by the strategic and international studies, coming up in 10 minutes 11 -- live on c-span. announcer: josh stelter, director of university law school institute. director during the obama administration. thanks for being here. talk about your background and election security and cyber national security. >> there is this link between counterterrorism and dealing with election security issues and that the private sector has become the front lines for both and the counter terrorism era, you have isis coming up with new ways to radicalize followers

through the internet using social media file upload sites to do with they cannot do physically and region and try to get people to engage in violence. that is what is happening in the election security field as well. russia, notors like other actors as well reaching into america, trying to polarize american voters, deceive them about what candidates stand for, even deceive them about went to vote or whether to vote. host: how big is the threat and how does it work? guest: it is a problem. to isolate the foreign to his because when online, it becomes a domestic application. it gets picked up by actors and spreads but it is part of the problem now. a sense of having what divides americans. some of the charges the special counsel robert mueller has written up in his work show this

effort went back before the 2016 election itself, in which russia began to study what was dividing americans and could mislead americans. they had people come to the united states to learn about us better and they studied what we were saying and consuming online . to build accounts with large followings that seemed to be american in nature, that seemed to resonate with parts of the american electorate, and then to push those people. make it the -- make them think candidate was endorsed by the pope. is endorsed by the pope but to get them to believe that or hillary clinton is involved in some kind of sex ringing in washington, that is how they use that. how to prevent the next election disaster. how? guest: we begin by finding something that did not happen after the 2016 election. there was no clear consensus of

the type you had after 9/11 in which domestically and internationally there was a sense of, this was the problem, this is a coalition that needs to be built and the coalition let's that out the red lines. which when they will crossed -- they cross, they get countries to act against russia. we propose the united states needs to articulate where that get other and to countries to agree to it. part of what we propose may be the most -- propose, maybe the most controversial part, we need to clarify how different we are from the russians. at linger ontting the scale and foreign elections, it is worth giving that up so it is clear what is acceptable behavior. host: are we different than russia and our adversaries when we have interfered in other countries' elections? guest: it is a fact question.

the answer is yes. certainly post-cold war, yes. when america has intervenes, when it has tried to to the scales and some commentators have talked about the support , when --by the u.s. was low in the polls in russia and rebounded, it was still a pro-democracy push the united states made. that is true globally, especially post cold war. the united states intervened for democracy. russia is anti-democracy. they think democracy is brittle and they can go got it in ways that make the u.s. weaker on the world stage and allow russia to do more of what it wants. host: you think motivation matters. guest: i also think tactics matter. to hack into a domestic political campaign and then share the contents of that campaign's internal

communications with a domestic electorate to skew the results, that is not a tactic the united states has engaged in but that is part of russia's play. host: we will see with our reviewers agree. independence: 202-748-8002 start dialing in. you mentioned a coalition of the united states and our allies together combating this type of interference in an election. what with the coalition look like? and are there any models out there from previous incidents that other countries in the united states could use going forward? helps that this is not a problem distinctive to america. europeans suffered from russian democracy interference before america's 2016 campaign season

and continue to suffer. it seems building on that, one can utilize nato, perhaps a new cyber focus unit nato has stood up as the center of gravity for building a coalition. there is intelligence that can be shared by -- what is happening next? what tactics is russia deploying, especially ones that might be new and hard for a country to detect? and for countries like that to , thatt sanctions publicly is the sort of thing where a national consensus can help. host: are the sanctions the trump administration has done on russia, have they helped? guest: it does not seem that way. this past week has been stark and suggesting russia is undeterred. some of the material robert mueller shared for discovery purposes with opposing counsel said back into russia

disinformation aimed at crediting -- discrediting the mueller campaign. when you have russia trying to disengage in a campaign, to discredit our own investigation into russia's information campaign, it seems they are undeterred. it seems the tech sector is trying to do more to help in this area. they have begun sharing information with the government or with each other. in the past when he for hours, more has come out from the tech companies about matches just russian interference in the 2016 -- 2018 midterms but iranian as well. part of what i found interesting in what the tech companies disclosed is twitter and facebook were in communication with each other. they were sharing what they saw. host: in this last election but not 2016. guest: that seems like a step of progress. host: what are you looking for in 2020? what is on the horizon? where could the threat becoming

from? will see some we tactics that are old, the sheer introduction of falsities and things that polarize americans. sophisticated stuff as well. one thing, our deep faith. these are videos that look as if you and i were having conversation except we would not be. we would be spliced together from earlier conversations we had and they can make it look like we are saying things we're not. we have been taught seeing is believing and it is hard to suppress that urge. i worry about those going viral quickly and it being slow and difficult to make people realize that was actually junk. host: let's hear from our first call in north carolina. caller: i am not concerned about russian interference. what concerns me is when you have joshua and the obama administration targeting conservative groups.

the irs targets conservative groups. conservatism is when you have the fbi and the doj colluding with the democratic party to be trump. that is what concerns me. host: what do you say to people like ed and others? this is not on their radar screen. they do not see this as a priority. guest: it is worth worrying about. i understand our domestic to two since the to say -- need to stay professional and in the lanes as they have. , once i hope we cannot unite against, it seems we have a lost opportunity in the 2016 election cycle when folks went from the executive branch to congress and tried to get a strong statement of bipartisan opposition to russian election interference and meddling and has since been

relates, mitch mcconnell resisted that. that strikes me as a lost moment to say, if you are a foreign country, you do not mess with american elections. let's listen to dan coats because he was testifying along with chris wray and the cia director. [video clip] ask the folks in the back to turn down the volume. i hear and it -- meister echo on my mike just microphone. -- microphone. i always have to say, just in case we have any reason, i will give directions down the stairs and out the back. me in case we need to depart. i want to welcome my good friend dave trachtenberg who