it to be a fax and the media in america reports that as a fact of also. i hope the american people or the media don't believe it as a fact sophie i i i see it as the facts are clear that for whatever reason i question why the russian intelligence services. attacked our system so aggressively but i think that as a fact i don't i don't think that's the nihil the question then is what did that do and what impact did that have on the results of the election and for what reason did russian intelligence conduct that activity i don't have the answers to those questions and i won't speculate because i think that would be irresponsible i think we have to determine what happened and then decide what happened on the basis of the evidence and i don't think we're there yet but that's the thing i don't know that anyone has presented the evidence and the facts have been presented to the

public by intelligence agencies american public has been misled intentionally or not by its intelligence community many times like i am i'm thinking w m d's in iraq for instance since the consequences of that are still felt fifteen years or so why are a whole hearted face in what the intelligence is telling them about russia now especially what you're saying it's a fact but every time russia asks to show them the facts they they they they are unable to provide them. just like with iraq i think that's a legitimate i think that's a legitimate accusation sophie to the extent that it puts pressure on the u.s. intelligence community to do something it's hard to do which is to present the if you will the secret facts or the story i don't even know frankly the secret story because i don't have a reason i need to know that as a retired cia officer however if they do present the facts there's

a risk of of compromising what we call sources and our methods which would of course not not be good so the question is how much evidence should be provided to the american people i'm personally and i stress this is my personal view an advocate of declassifying as much information as possible and presenting it to the american people and to present it. to the russian government i think we really need to initiate a process that we negotiate an end to this kind of aggressive cyber hacking and interference in our it one another's domestic affairs if president putin believes the u.s. is interfering in russian domestic affairs or internal affairs it's not a good approach to interfere in our affairs in order to get us to stop doing it so i think it's in the interest of both sides a sit down and and talk this over and try to avoid a repetition of what happened in two thousand and sixteen in the future. ok let's take a short break right now and when we're back we'll continue talking to cia veteran

ralph larsen a spy agencies position the mits today swell tension. when washington's political elites chatter endlessly about memos the u.s. continues to deepen its role in the syrian proxy war of course there is no public debate about this and more that you can peace. love and war hawks selling you on the idea that dropping bombs brings peace to the chickenhawk forcing you to fight the battles that will be. the new socks for the tell you that will be gossip the template for the most important. as you tell

me you are not cool enough and that's like. all the hawks that we along the border will walk. and it's getting international recognition with the help of israel at least in the world of zoos and. this if you like to believe this is my complicity is going to sell you know maybe. the only palestinians who gets the most hopeful is jerusalem counterparts i don't

think some of those who are in the world under the vision to look at this. and know it's not just the heart of this lady of the muscle that you are going to compete in the gaza as you do more. we're back with cia about your own role for what larsen former top cia official and the two decade better and all the agency tell you about the spy bureau's role in today's united states internal and external policies are all from michael powell had just recently about had so fresh intelligence verus to protect the american people as he put it so hostile with the rake threat naming sections of the site

russia and the u.s. are still programatic enough to work together on some issues right. well that's right sophia it's really important that professionals in the intelligence business not cease cooperation even at the hardest times we have a long history between the u.s. and russia that goes back in the soviet days of setting aside our most grievous complaints against one another to cooperate in areas like counterterrorism and sometimes on counterintelligence and other issues that impact on both on our bilateral relations and i applaud the recent meeting of the three russian intelligence. visits chiefs in washington with director pompei and others i think it's a great move toward to reinforce the idea that we must continue to cooperate in areas of common interest to both countries now obviously the congress is up in arms as an american intelligence she was meeting why would the law makers be against this if

it does bring tangible results in the fight against terrorism. well i know some people in congress and i interact quite a bit with congress too if you will inform and advise specifically on the areas that we need to talk with one another to continue keeping our country safe both of our countries that's in american interest to not see any russians die in terrorist attacks as it is in russian interest to prevent any terrorist attacks in the united states or elsewhere in the world so i don't think there's any dispute on that in congress and i think maybe some of the posturing is frankly political as opposed to substantive i haven't heard anyone say we shouldn't be talking to one another on counterterrorism issues democrat senator chuck schumer has demanded publicly naming everyone who had contact with their russian intelligence delegation and we want that sort of all across the board disclosure being damaging for the

nation. yes i think it sends the wrong message if if i were to talk to senator schumer i would i would certainly urge him not to politicize you talked about politicizing intelligence earlier this would be an example of it if we don't do this cooperation one but between one another and areas such as. exchanging information and analysis on the terrorist groups and their activity whether it's in syria or around the world in the caucasus in them in the u.s. we should all be fired so we have to have the courage to do that it's in my experience of i was involved in the earliest if you will lays on work between the u.s. and russia at the time of the breakup of the soviet union and i don't recall a time when three intelligence chiefs all came together to washington such as just happen and so i take it as a very positive signal of a desire to do more and i hope both sides can find the strength to do that. this is

just a chance for politicians to be loughton t.v. friendly blaming spies right and left because on the other hand surely they must care about the actual issues of national security right yes i hope so and i have i have a deep respect for senator schumer and i quite i would question this based on what i've seen in the media and i hope behind it all it's not a seriously questioning why we would be doing this at this time i would also add that again this is a somewhat unorthodox view for someone like me i'm not a believer in applying sanctions to people that are doing their jobs we have a long history of of trying to avoid that sort of politicization of intelligence so i think we try to have to try to find out find a way to deescalate the politicization of intelligence activity it would help again

if both sides particularly in this case i would have to put more pressure on the russian side to stop interfering in u.s. domestic affairs with intelligence activity and that would set a better environment to deescalate the rising tensions on a political level and that this fact that intelligence committees on capitol hill have been briefed about this mean that the administration has no trust in congress . i don't think i would go that far sophia i think it reflects the very sharp political dividing lines right now in our country and not just between the democrats and republicans but between within the parties themselves i think the democrats are struggling to reestablish their identity to decide what part or wing of the democratic party will move forward into the next election cycles and i think the republican party is trying to decide how much it supports the president some do some don't as you know i'm not the true betraying any secrets

here so i think there is there are various conflict intentions and instabilities within both parties again having watched this for much of my over sixty years i have seen other times in our country when we've seen just as confused and dazed and we generally emerge out of it stronger than we enter that so i'm overall confident that we'll get out of this phase that we're in stronger than we were before we entered it so one terror attack has already been prevented thanks to the cia sharing intelligence with moscow and put it has personally thanked the americans for their help in that how does that work what the intelligence agencies i mean how do you coppery it on some matters when there is general mistrust and hostility i mean how do you know you're not being caught i think that's a great question and i love that question. yeah well i love the question because it gets back to the heart of what we are what i hope we are and what we strive to be and even on our on the days we don't we don't reach this ethics i would call it of intelligence our basic motto our basic if you will standard is we have

a duty to warn we have a duty to warn anybody anywhere in the world if they might their lives might be threatened by terrorist activity and of course in my time at cia working in counterterrorism i personally instructed my officers to analyze and then provide the russian government with information that i believe prevented attacks on russian citizens during my time so i consider that a high one of our best days any time we help one another prevent attacks where people might be killed obviously and so that's that's a great story and as we've done it before this is just fortunately on this occasion there's a little bit of recognition that it happened and i think that's a good thing so do you think their recent pentagon military doctrine shift from the war on terror to great power while great with china and russia given higher priority now means that the cia's anti terror effort will fall to her.

i don't think so sophia because terrorism is not going away we fact i'm a little worried right now because every time there's been a relative lull in activity such as we've seen since a little bit of reduction of conflict in syria recently there's been a rebound and then the terrorists every merged in a new form so i'm not in any way believer in the idea that we were past this threat of terrorism i think at the same time the great power rivalry doesn't necessarily imply that we're enemies again or that we're back to a cold war i think in a way whether you're that you apply this idea of rivalry to china or russia it's a recognition that both countries should be taken seriously and that their interests are sometimes a threat to the united states but i would describe it more as competition than adversarial. i've heard former cia officials lament the fact that the agency has

fewer resources now than sure in the cold war but does new technology like the n.s.a. surveillance mean that fewer people are needed at the agency anyway. i generally am not a person that believes that intelligence resources are insufficient i think we have plenty of resources and we have to be smarter in how we go about things as you as you indicated technology helps leverage we can leverage technology as afore we call a force multiplier that makes us stronger there are other ways to do it too i don't think numbers is often the way to attack the problem i think we need smart people we need people who have the authorities they need the resources they need to do their jobs but i don't think the numbers indicate whether we have enough coverage in other words i believe or the u.s. intelligence community we have some we have sixteen different intelligence and it is within the what we call our intelligence community we have plenty of capability

i think where we need to make more efforts is in how we decide what we do and then being more efficient in going about our missions so will the agency have less need for gathering old fashioned cold war style human intelligence like i don't know talking to someone or infiltrating a guerrilla camp controls like hacking is dropping on phone conversations intercepting e-mails spying would. replace the human intelligence component. well you're talking to an old school person so i don't feel i need to reform my thinking at this point my life so i'd have to answer you by saying there's always room there's been room for of thousands of years for old spice old fashioned espionage spies go back to biblical times and you know as long as there are humans on the earth there's a need to know what our if you will competitors and adversaries are thinking and human spies will never be replaced by cyber or hacking or any other killer drones or any other technology in fact in the one nine hundred ninety s.

in my view are the u.s. intelligence can community became too enamored with what i call national technical means whether that was satellites or other things to replace human intelligence we thought the world changed after the collapse of the soviet union and it had we're still living in the same world i was born in the one nine hundred fifty four so i believe to answer your question we're always going to need understanding of adversaries and even some of our friends plans and intentions because by having that knowledge will make better decisions and also if you like more technology progresses we're typewriters and old special letters are the safest thing out there still anyway as well thank you so much as it is and to. thank you so much for this interview this wonderful insight always show you all the best of luck or talk until ralph larsen two decades cia veteran former moscow station chief about the cia's relationship with the trumpet ministration and its role in today's counting

quarrels that's set for at the center of so if the next. tens of billions hundreds of billions probably a trillion dollars of u.s. government subsidies a seat on the energy industry yes government can subsidize mining of big brother crypto currencies and put those into while it's called american citizens going to each have an automatic wallet tied to the social security account and they can get

a daily weekly or monthly air drop of crypto coins that they can then years to boost economy with the government can easily do that. most losing to me spokesman kim. just knew she was thinking for both of them which is this mission of the new question is a. little bit. just almost trying. to gather some are some serious.

ok but i think you also think something. about it because it's. a little you can use obscene.

greetings and salutation who doesn't love a good spy story arc watchers and boy oh boy oh boy oh boy did we get a doozy this week or both the intercept and the new york times released competing stories featuring one hundred thousand dollars cash drops shady intelligence agency middle man the promise of trump russian compliment and the danger of stolen n.s.a. hacking tools you know tom clancy couldn't write it any better. ian fleming could but i digress writing for the intercept james risin outlines how the n.s.a. was desperate to recover documents that intelligence officials believe russia had obtained through a mysterious group known as the shadow brokers but once the communications channel open the russians on the other side offered to sell documents related to trump along with these stolen n.s.a. documents risin goes on to write how the cia was wary of accepting the trump documents initially worried about not only the motives behind the offer but the

potential political blowback as well meanwhile over at the new york times matthew rosenberg reported that after months of secret negotiations a shadowy russian built american spies out of one hundred thousand dollars last year and that the episode ended this year with american spies chasing the russian out of western europe spy story at the old well rise in the story didn't mention the hundred grand both stories all timidly concluded that the russia russian go between offering all the info could not be relied upon or trusted but i guess the didn't stop us from handing over a hundred thousand grand to him in the process cia has come out firing telling a fee that this is a fictional story that the cia was bilked out of one hundred grand is patently false the people swindled here were james rising and mad rosenberg. journalists versus the cia the cia versus credibility the n.s.a.

still left wondering where their hacking tools under the up and the russia gaiters all of the russia gaiters once again disappointed that reality just does not reflect their fantasy i guess it's time to start watching the hawks. what. it looks like. it's like. at the bottom if you. like you know that i got. this. week's. welcome on the watching the hawks i am a robot thorough and on top of the well it's a lot of spies this weekend to have big spy was spying novel big here go along and yet somehow we don't seem to get more information about this by that suppose the

reason we're investigating spying and the first. it's too hard to keep an eye was too hard to keep up now this was a fascinating think as you saw like the intercept story came out like earlier on friday and then suddenly out came the new york times and i had first to think like oh we were negotiating for information to get like these hacking tools then we got like russia gate to trump russian collusion the russians themselves wanted to sell to us and then suddenly the new york times story comes out undercuts all of that and says no they were built out of one hundred grand and that like all these people seem to be kind of phoneys and really when they say they were not really representing what they said they represented would you begs the question to spend we believe the cia when they come out today you know saying that they never paid the russians off for they are in for. i'm asian or anything we didn't pay anybody but the cia literally has

a policy of not confirming or denying so them saying it's not is odd to me it is because they wouldn't normally speak on this sort of stuff they wouldn't have any they would say there's nothing i mean. the guy from the gall me shows they still haven't confirmed that he that's true is or isn't and wasn't a cia or was a spies so how do you know. it's very bizarre is a very strange story this idea of they wanted to pay for information that was theirs but it got stolen but they want it back yes. yes it is an odd one it isn't because that begs the question of why would the you know n.s.a. pay for mation compromised hacking tools you know when the question would be you know it's not like you could just make a copy of it right it's all a photocopy right all of this but i don't know if they have an answer to that but there was an answer to that right one of the things that they did say about that was rise and reported that the shadow brokers theft of these u.s.

but the fact that u.s. officials wanted to see how deep it went how much they actually have but then my question is again what you're doing is relying on stolen information from people who stole information from you and you're you're paying one hundred thousand dollars it wasn't going to just be a hundred thousand dollars apparently what they would have kept going it was a million well you sort of already know you started a ten million men immediately drug a million and then you got this weird hundred thousand dollars that no one wants to take responsibility for that apparently there they were using the whole negotiations where they were using like an american businessman to like act as proxy of the certain goshi ations and the other guy was supposedly acting as proxy for like you know russian intelligence services i mean to me it really at the end of the day tab it really does this big this question because they're trying to say well what was it like a. but it hang out where they try to like get us to buy bad information that's easily disprovable of like trump russia meddling so that way the intelligence

agencies look bad so the question now is was the bad trump and so designed by russians to make the u.s. agencies look bad or was it just really just like a shady character in europe who figured out a way to build goble u.s. intelligence agencies for some money because then when they're like you know we don't trust the information the guy just took a drink walked away you know he's like oh ok i'm out you know you do or is it like which is it those which are that somebody was trying just trying to make you know shady russian making a off of. americans. or he was an idiotic american. i say yes to both i think it's a little of both honestly i think it's odd that we would be spending resources and time and not realize that this is how this works you send out bad information in order to make them look bad and the truth believe it's worked though even if it was just so you know. national who wanted to just build some people and make americans

look bad either way it just looks ridiculous so it starts getting stolen all the time we can't even keep our hacking tools safe i won't we get our hacking tools stolen we used lots of money and resources to get them back even though now they've already got them and all that stuff is out because it's been leaked. so why are we and it's not a secret anymore than it is before we move next subject one good note is the n.s.a. was communicating their heard like the guy you want to know if the u.s. government is truly doing this to the n.s.a. it was using their tweets from over the summer about like morse code as code to this guy to let them know that it really was the u.s. government you know interested in what he had to say so what does this tell us in one room don't trust what the n.s.a. tweets it's probably code for something. lisa lucas a lifelong resident of west virginia is planning to run for the state's house of delegates and one of the reason she's running as her discussed with big money

buying power that belongs to the people at a recent public hearing for west virginia bill age before two six eight an oil and gas industry sponsored bill that would allow companies to drill on land without the owner's permission lucas pointed out the hypocrisy of the public airing. to keep it short simply because the public only gets a minute forty five while a lobbyist can throw a gala at the marriott with whiskey and wine and talk for hours to the delegates. but when locust begins reading off the donations members of the committee had received from the very corporations who would benefit from the legislation those members felt she was making a personal attack eventually silencing with lisa lucas first stating those facts. only. in the.

first place. what's even worse she wasn't just being comical when she mentioned whiskey and wine the shale energy alliance literally you had a whiskey wine and policy winter legislative reception at the charleston marriott hotel two days before the public hearing lukas attended the purpose was according to them for legislators suppliers and other supporters will attend the event to network a discussion energy alliances legislative priorities so if she is simply spokes facts why were these little legislating snowflakes feeling so darn attacked well as lisa lucas put it quote if they feel attacked by mentioning their donors to me they shouldn't be taking that money and quote true facts are. true fact this is this is great because what this points out is exactly what everybody is harped on government across the land for doing especially here in the states and local

national bedroll the whole bit because here you have a she made a great point you guys can go have one cigars and hang out and talk about shale energies legislative priorities for hours on end but citizens get about a minute forty five in the morning each to get up there and just say where they do their yea or nay i like this bill or not yet and if the facts are a little too like uncomfortable for them they now down and lets her know attack telling people where i get my money from this guy who is sitting up there said that she was doing personal attacks that's what the drug are way they said while you're down there you're getting personal you make mistakes which of course i would say a person should just go up and say oh this dude's a you know. i don't like him but she was a she was no not at all oh she's dating fat she was what lobbyists paid these guys campaign she wasn't stating like this guy's a jerk face i don't like it was you say well there's oil come.