washer a nationstate behind our not. charlie: we looked at the north koreans and sony and identified them, with the iranians later there was some indictments. we have not said anything about and it took us three or four months to respond and identify the russians. what is the calculus behind all that? james: and the most recent case -- in the most recent case, the reason for the delay was at least for my part, was driven certitudence, greater about attribution. business, it is always better to have multiple sources when you are going to dime out a nationstate publicly. i want to be kind of careful about that. the other thing about all this thatess of attribution is oftentimes, the means by which we do that is fragile and perishable. transparent are too about it, i want the details, then we risk losing those perishable, fragile sources that give this -- as the inside in the first place. charlie: let me turn to north korea. can you tell us how, what is the status of their ability to put a nuclear warhead on a missile that

it is easier perhaps with nationstates, and nationstates have other vulnerabilities beside their cyber-securityeaknesses. it is non-nationstate entities or the nations that have been in the past considered to have a lesser capability and i am thinking of the likes of north we haved iran, where had this disparity or contrast between the capability of the most sophisticated cyber actors, which are clearly russia and china, but have, to this point, perhaps more benign intent. and then you have other countries with more nefarious intent and more nefarious are other nationstate actors. so how to create the substance and the psychology of deterrence against all those potential actors, i do not think we have figured that out yet. charlie: was the internet attack a nonstate actor? james: well, the investigation is still going on. there is a lot of data to be gathered. preliminaryo be the case. i do not want to be conclusive. whether a nationstate was behind that or not. charlie: why -- i mean, we anded at the north koreans sony identified them. with the iranians later there was some indictments. we hav

what is new is applying it against nationstate cyber actors. you have seen us run this --rcise with sony resulting in less than 28 days publicly naming north korea and introducing sanctions. there are some things you see and some things you don't but there will be consequences. need to investl in creating a maximum amount of tools for a decision-maker to use when it comes to cyber threats or activity. that is something in terms of things the next administration can focus on to put resources and figuring out who did it put resources into continuing to develop those tools or playbook. they ran an important point in this of -- you have heard phrase which is we are going to respond at a time and place of our choosing. that is our doctrine in terms of the types of consequences. although we are going to figure out who did it, make public who public thatake there will be consequences it doesn't mean in every case what the consequence is will be public. i think that's to preserve the maximum amount of options for the decision-maker to craft the respons

to everybody, arab, u.s., internationally -- we need to keep our eye on the nationstate system. if we allow the system to break easier, itse it is divides libya into three seconds -- sections, they are more manageable. they are part of one country. that the african union, one example, in its founding document, basically and forectly blamed europe colonization and all that, but took the position that in spite of all these failures of influence, it is more dangerous to try to redefine borders and --efine ancient states redefine the nationstate system that it is to move forward. while there are conspiracies, i do not think trying to dismantle the world is the best way to move forward, and it will not stop in the middle east if you start doing that. let me stop with those points, and i am open to any questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> we thank you very much for those thoughtful and wide-ranging comments. chair -- b rasinski chair at csis. i wanted to pick up on the idea of egypt being the model. you describe a much more decentralized world, a much more arab world where he

but that that is not the same as a nationstate. ultimately here's the other thing, do not think that the only means that we have retribution is cyber means. cyber means. we have other intelligent capabilities. that's why we don't lean so far because we would be compromising other sources and methods. it is a complex set of issues. if your entire attribution is based on cyber forensics the best actors are going to run circles around you. but if you have other means in addition to that historical trend to see what their tpp czars then he can start putting the pitcher together. >> have an illuminating why this is a complex matter, what about the private sector? if you get hacked by the north koreans and you know who it is or you think you know who it is, is it ever okay for a private company to be hacking back against a nationstate? >> i have written a paper in controversy arguing for a cyber private model. given keep in mind congress has the right. >> mark an appraisal. which was in the context of a maritime security domain which was

not all hacksaw the same, not all nationstates are the same, not all capabilities are the same. and ultimately it hinges around intent. if hinges around intent. if you can exploit you can attack, the line is very thin and it's hinging upon the intent of the perpetrator. >> and do things need to break for it to be cyber warfare in your mind? my answer to that question is that cyber warfare is way call your book or documentary if you want people to pay attention to it, that or -- either college cyber war and it will get someone's attention. my definition of cyber war is the imposition of will using a digital means. now, there are are two schools of thought. one is that in my phd advisor who wrote a book called cyber war will not take place. the reason he called the book that is that he believed that wall war equals violence. if you don't have violence don't have war. he believes that cyber cannot be used to impose violence, therefore cyber war will not take place. so take place. so that's a school of thought. another is it is much more expansive and this is where the russian and c

on the nationstates are the same. and the medley and hinges around intent. in other words, if you can ask why, you can attack. the wine is very thin and is now upon the intent of the perpetrator. >> richard, do things need to blow up or break for it to be cyberwarfare in your mind? >> my answer to cyberwarfare if you want people to pay attention to it. either called cyberword to be sure to get a month attention. my definition of cyberwar is the imposition of will using a digital means. there are two schools of thought. one school of thought which is the school of thought of my phd advisor for rhoda both called cyberwar will not take lives. the reason he called the book bad is because he believes war equals violence and if you don't have violent you don't have war. he believes cybercannot be used to impose violence there for cyberwill not take place. there is one school of thought there. another school of thought says that much more expensive and this is for the russians and chinese tend to think about it. they believe war is not just violent. work can be any

by jesus, applied to the church, used by the church for more than a thousand years, and then the nationstatetakes it on as part of its own identity. it does so so successfully that it's common for it to be attributed to john winthrop. in fact, i was told that's what happened on jeopardy. i was told it was attributive to john winthrop and not jesus. one of the implications when part of your own possession, part of your scripture is taken by the nationstate and used for its own purposes. that is part of our civil religion debate that we have in america. >> did you have any input on the washington d.c. landmarks built on a tower of sand? >> i did. i had more input on this than any other book. that is a very perceptive question. i will admit there was another proposal out there that i pleaded with the publisher in britain, and we talked a lot about the timing of the book and what would connect with the british art indians as well as an american audience. their first proposal was brilliant. it was a recognizable image of jesus delivering the sermon on the mount, with the head of ronald reagan wra

. >> i studied at the university that was based on the nationstate and its developed at the end of the 30 years which the doctrine of sovereignty emerged as the ideas of international laws laid out the conduct and at that time it had been thought about in part by religious beliefs in the societies and it was agreed it was the subject of international policies, but international aggression assisted of the borders in violation of borders of established state. the basic structure of the international order i was in office and when he came into office was placed on the nationstate and the principal elements of security are still in a state of fear -- europe plus russia through all of its emphasis. it was beginning to emerge in the 70s in the countries like india. since the beginning they are international law. the middle east parole of its conflict between the various states, some of them radical, some of them less so. the current situation is radically different. the major countries feel they are not obliged to observe it. in addition, states are now emerging based on the principles of le

, which are not real nationstates, and hope that people will be able to manage their affairs. but you know, there's no way you can draw a border within iraq, which will create neat kurdish areas, neat sunni area, neat shia area. that's not going to happen. plus, turkey would never allow a kurdish state to become reality in the north. and then we should not want it, either. melinda: where do you see the political situation developing after a liberation of mosul? one author on your website has written that the various members of the anti-i.s. coalition fear each other more than they fear the jihadists. daniel: and it's even more complex than this. i recently talked to a young researcher who came back from studying the fragmentation and the chain of command inside of the kurdish troops. she says, you have people from different parties, different command structures, inside this kurdish bloc, and they disagree with each other. they believe, my enemy is fighting on my left side or my right side. so even in these units, you can monolithic,ocs as but even in these there is strife and

there are nationstates, actors and groups out there doing that every day. who have interest in individuals and uses that conductivity as a vehicle to generate insight. into where you are, what you are doing and who you are communicating with. there are nationstates, actors and groups out there doing that at the same token, i recognize what it provides. i will say to the older one, what works for your brother in the private sector isn't necessarily going to work for you. it's not one-size-fits-all. that's the great challenge for leaders, to find that talents. at nsa, the compromise we are working on is -- let us provide you with unclassified connectivity in a format by means where we have high confidence we have minimized the risk. let us generate the means for you to access that information, and to do it in multiple formats and multiple mediums. if you think there is value here, we want you to be able to do it. because we understand -- again, as i said, i want to have access to this anytime, anyplace. when i cannot bring my device, i don't like that. i find

years the world has been organized on principles first developed by europe and the idea of the nationstate, the notion of sovereignty. the concept of the system. in the operation of the system, europe, britain and the united states have played a decisive role. europe and america must not drift apart. they need the respective naturalism and the centers of power all around the world shouldn't be tempted. in the disputes of the atlantic community or the disputes in europe, infrastructure and emerging britain could perform its historic and global role contributing to a world order that is stable and forward-looking through the atlantic partnership. while undermining the diversity and inspires loyalty and creativity. it is not bureaucratic but it is a moral and political test. i first met him before he became prime minister and i stayed in contact with him until the auspices of the aspen institute which mess in the united states and iran in 1978 and germany in 1980. my last encounter was at the funeral in 2001 that was attended on its own as a token of friendship because of their common service

we have nationstates at the very top of the list. it is at the top of that list are countries integrating computer networks attacks and exploit the war fighting strategy and doctrine. organizationsrist . not all tax are the same. they are very different. mobilizinghat are capabilities into their strategies are the countries that i think are at the top of list. when u.s. national security chinactives -- russia and are at the top of that list. a lot of what we do is computer network export, or espionage in cyberspace, but they had done preparation of the battle flight -- battlefield. those would be the very top, but you have other countries may lack the capability of rush and china, but what they lack in capability they make for with intent, and this is where you moreorth korea and iran likely to turn to a constructive cyber attack. they have fewer constraints. i will shut up at that point, not all caps are the same, not the same,ilities are and it hinges around intent. if you can't exploit, attack, the line is then come and it is all

as jerry taylor of american renaissance pointed out, in a racially exclusive nationstate composed solelyof whites, white privilege would not be operative. so the issue of white privilege presents somewhat of a conundrum for critics of white separatism. it would be hard to accuse white separatists of having white after all, they are trying to form an exclusively white nation. on the other hand, the establishment of such a political entity presupposes ethnic cleansing writ large. it is hard to see how the goals of white separatists could be attained without resorting to widespread violence. although the mainstream media condemns overt forms of white separatism, arguably it is still practiced on an individual level by many people when they decide where to live. take, for example, bill clinton. morrison, thetoni great african-american novelist went so far as to characterize bill clinton as the nation's first black president. however, after leaving the white house, bill and hillary clinton purchased a home in chappaqua in new york state. the population there is less than 1% african-american.

but that's not the same as the nationstate because ultimately, here is the big. don't think the only means we have fractured nation of cybermeans. we've got other intelligence capabilities. that is why we don't think so we don't win so forward because they would be compromising about their methods. it is a complex set of issues. if your entire attribution is based on cyberforensics, the best actors are going to run circles around. if you have other means in addition to that historical trend to see what their tax techniques and procedures are coming from but the picture together. >> cyber command and the president, what about the air. you know who it is or you think you know who it is. is it ever okay for a private company to be hacking back against the nations they? >> everett to pay for it and cause controversy in arguing for a cybermodel. keep in mind in our constitution section one, article viii that congress has the right with letters of market reprisal, which was in the context of a maritime security domain that was not controlled by state actors that was in

much more long-term nationstates more likely to deploy techniques like that.term>> we will take you lo the cyber maryland event to hear from admiral michael -- michael roberts. -- michael rodgers. rogers. .> good morning i would like to welcome you to the sixth annual cyber maryland summit. we are the cochairs of the cyber maryland advisory board. it is my pleasure to welcome the sponsors here to this event today and leaders and policymakers and other dignitaries in the audience. ago, cyber america started as an idea to unify the cyber maryland ecosystem around a common theme. six years later, looking around the room, i would say we have an successful. would you agree? [applause] the question we always ask is what is next? sarver american have --cybermaryland has become a model for other states. cyber states that will be led by secretary for commerce bill bond. tom ridge, former governor of pennsylvania. >> flu wanted to kickoff the session today, as everyone knows, cyber security is the new space race. what happened when the space race went on, countries were

now enables individuals, enables individuals, actors, groups, nationstates, groups, nationstates to acquire data at massive scale. amendable to that and make that data publicly available. there is a lot of things we have to think through with respect to that. fundamentally as a nation it's important to us that we all believe and trust that the mechanisms of governance are going to generate outcomes we can all believe inches that is foundational. as. as we work our way through this particular issue that is always at the forefront of our mind. how do do we help engender trust and confidence in our citizens and how do we send strong messages to others in the world outlining what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. >> one of the biggest challenges facing the split between the nsa and cyber command outside the previous comments on finding the right time a process for split. >> so i have talked publicly about a matter that is under review by the president, he is the chief executive, he will make the ultimate decision. i will not get into specifics, good back, how would we assist and see and

it enables actors, groups, nationstates, to require that at a massive scale, that make the data publicly available. there are a lot of things with respect to that. as a nation, it is important to us that we all believe and trust that the mechanisms of government will generate the outcome we can all believe in. it is foundational for us. we worked our way through this particular issue, it is always at the forefront of our mind. how do we send strong messages to others outlining what is except avoid what is not. >> what are the biggest challenges facing the split between nsa and u.s. cyber command outside the previous comments finding the right time and process? admiral rogers: i have are you talked publicly about that being a matter currently under review by the president, the chief executive. i will not give a specific good , bad. let's give it some time. if it is insubordinate, my job is to make it work. >> all right. technology evolution currently outpacing the training and education and build out of the workforce. what is cyber command doing to address maintaining the workforce, speci

time, we have an increasing pressure from the outside to do more together, because the nationstates arell to handle. we cannot do it alone. we have to require more firm political leadership from the different heads of states and heads of government that are meeting constantly in order to get more solid popular support. tracy: what about the eu as an organization? has it failed europe? >> i think it has been a spectacular success. what is happening is that it is facing a combination of challenges that were not foreseen. we have a meltdown of the labonte -- levant. we have the financial situation that is more demanding on the global level. this requires -- this requires more working together. some of these issues don't really lend themselves to sort of quick solutions. tracy: you mentioned immigration. sweden is known for a quite generous immigration policy. any talk about what impact that has had on the domestic political situation? among the more liberal policies, they have transformation. sweden has to tendencies -- we are more dynamic a nation than we were before. we have impressive g

. -- said "borders means there would be no united states doing away with a notion of nationstates. he also explained how open borders would make everyone in r by radically reducing wages. maybe that is ok with him, not ok with me. by the way, how many ways can hillary clinton betray bernie sanders? she really has the trade him. even if we do not agree with him, i mean -- bernie sanders would have been a legend. he would have gone down as a legendary figure in history if he did not make a deal with the devil. but he made a deal with her and now he is just another guy. ed his supporters as basement-dwellers. she is in favor of entitlement cuts and as for open borders and open trade. your state has lost one in three manufacturing jobs since bill and hillary clinton's nafta and china deals happen. i am going to stop for an cheating. the product dumping, which by the way is killing the steel industry -- and it has already killed a much of your steel industry. howdy people agree with me that china -- we're going to bring them back, don't worry about it. how many people agree with me -- s

leave it to one country in the same way that here in the united states, obviously, we are an actual nationstate as opposed to a , but we separate states would not abandon one state and just say, here, you do with an entire problem. and good luck with that. solidarity and benefit from that solidarity, on a whole range of issues, then that means you also have joint responsibilities. ok? that is what i just said. i said central america. >> i was wondering if you could comment [inaudible] president obama they spiked heavily into a 14 and went down significantly in 2015, have gone back up this year in part because there is still desperation in central america. it are still not at the levels they were in 2014 by or appreciate you shutting out a question since i am sure there are a lot of other colleagues who would want to do the same. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span brings you more deb

charlie: does this need leadership from a nationstate, or can the united nations be the rallying point? zeid ra'ad al hussein: i think it is a combination of different factors. theeeds leadership at international level, and the united nations has been trying to create the right atmosphere to create the right space for these efforts to bear fruit. person i think has been heroic and what he has been trying to achieve. we from our side will continue to report, and we will continue to speak out, no matter what the identity of the attacker, if there are victims that have suffered excruciatingly -- or not, even if they are not suffering injuries that are that bad -- we will still say something on their behalf. charlie: what do you worry about in mosul? the battle for mosul? zeid ra'ad al hussein: we have been very clear, and i'm sure you discussed this earlier today , that the use of human shields by isil his deeply worrisome. we have heard they have kept certain communities close to their places of concentration. we have heard they have been moving populations from villages toward mosul. ,f

, with the emphasis on culture, ethnicity and language in the nationstate would make a very political for people who do not fit the national profile and the chilling accuracy he said in some places they could be enslaved or exterminated. and we've seen that and that's what we've been thinking often what we tried. let's be triumphant about either religion or secularism. we try and discover meaning and we also miniaturized, especially as the world gets more complex and mature aware of. >> we are going to have another meeting, another conference. we have to talk about militarization of this stuff as well. you complained about politicalization and we have been discussion this issue for almost one century. but unfortunately, it has become an issue. so what are we going to do with religion or where are we going to do in european countries. as you said, the minister of some parts of foreign affairs. 10 meanings is subject -- not only the politicization, but we've got all of this. now the problem has come to the point of securitization which is extremely important. >> three points. one is the

carlin: a sophisticated nationstate could've done it.would there be evidence if they did it? , therelin: that is where are different ways. you are good, charlie. i will not talk about it or speculate about the investigation. let me tell you more generally. we talked a lot about september 11. there is a lot of distress these days of institutions generally, one thing that has been an incredible opportunity for which i feel grateful is to work day in and day out, if you remember the feeling, as terrible as it was, right after september 11 in the weeks and months to come, we felt as a country, so unified. we knew the enemy was. it was the terrorists who were trying to kill us. the world was unified. charlie: they were clear, that is what they wanted to do. mr. carlin: they were attacking us because of who we were. it brought us together and we put aside a lot of petty differences. in the national security division, with the people we work with with the fbi and other parts of the community, everyday is like that. there is nothing that focuses

i would posit that just about any nationstate in the world worth its salt can put a computer virus onime they want and listen to everything you say. this retard innovation in any way? >> it shouldn't. our job is to make sure we have the defense is necessary for these technologies to exist. we should not shy away from these technologies. we have to make sure they are safe to use. oliver: great stuff. you are the chief scientist and ceo at red balloon security. it kind of sounds scary. scarlet: coming up, when politics -- 'sasked about jon bon jovi opinions on this election. scarlet: what bon jovi song should hillary play on election night? sale.s house is not for scarlet: there you go. what about the trump campaign? >> it's a wonderful world. it goes to show you anyone can be president. ♪ scarlet: jon bon jovi is one of the world's top rock stars. at theown with the star bloomberg charity day here in new york and asked what inspired his setting up a business offering super fan experiences. >> it became a place for people to think of it as a cruise on land. they would have their favorit

the role of government is to optimize civil liberties while optimizing security whether it be nationstates, adversaries, terrorist groups, or individuals that want to hack into something and destroy it -- this is something that we as a nation need to understand the potential vulnerability unless we take the steps necessary -- it is going to require an unprecedented partnership between the public sector in the private sector and i believe that the national commission news to be established to look at what we need to do as a country and cyber doesn't respect boundaries, either, so it is also been a we can do think that this is the issue that we are going to have to deal with the future aside from all the other ones -- terrorism, proliferation. >> thank you for your service. who ultimately decides what is going to be in the data briefing? when the president refused to briefing and he is looking at the intelligence, does he know that intelligence comes from the cia or some other intelligence agency? does the president need to have somebody personally briefed him on the daily briefings or visit

cyber at another division because it enables individuals, actors, nationstates to acquire data on a massivecale and then diebold that. it is a lot of things that we have to think through with respect to that. fundamentally, as a nation, it is important we believe and trust that the mechanisms of governance are going to generate outcomes we can believe. -- our wayaway through this should come as the forefront of our line -- how do and how do weust send strong messages to others in the world outlining what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. some of the comments by nsa director michael rogers. bernard today, an event in baltimore, and you can watch these comments tonight at 1:40 , or you can take a look at them anytime online at c-span.org. weekend, saturday evening before 7:00, ohio state benedict talks about a case where the rule -- --re the court rule >> the trial was part of this design to prove to the public that the danger was real and the military trials were justified. know it were. lincoln won the election. >> at 8:00, the origins of the gay rights movement. front was liberatio

there might have been somebody said, the way these non-nationstates actors, terrorists could impact usey could hijack commercial airplanes or run them into buildings. nobody had thought of that. there might be somebody somewhere who had thought about that. it had not risen to the level of caring aboutc. that particular threat. as he looked back, there were threats. at the time people were concerned about that kind of threat. for it.'t ready maybe we should have been, and we had to deal with the aftermath and we're still dealing with the aftermath. out a9, kansas state put report on homeland defense, food safety, security, and emergency preparedness program. that talks about the threat to animals, plants, and even terror. i was made aware of this report when i was chairman, i thought it was good work. since then not much has happened to change the landscape. the recommendations and the commission's report, the not many,tions here, if any of them, have been acted on in a national way that makes us any safer from these threats. 9/11, we couldn't anticipate. maybe we should have. we know w

using more decisively the antimonopoly competition authorities of the european commission nationstates. not only at the european level but looking at specific geographic markets. in particular, in energy, banking, and transport. finally, let me go to the bottom line again. revamp,hould also strengthen its anticorruption good governance ascent sensed mechanisms across the union. it seems it is getting there but it is taking more than a decade. we think it needs to happen much faster. with this, let me conclude our and invite you to also find our report at cs is.com. heather: [inaudible] we will have the podium move so that we can join in on the conversation. kathy is the assistant secretary of state in the bureau of european and eurasian affairs with responsibilities for policy toward russia and the region. tired to becoming deputy assistant secretary, she served as the director for russian affairs in the european bureau and prior to that, deputy chief of mission at unesco in paris, deputy coordinator for u.s. assistance to europe and eurasia. you are perfectly placed because you do the

we have russia and the nationstate propaganda machines that are very complex and have been around for 50 to 100 years and they know what they are doing. americans, we find it sort of distasteful to think of american government doing something to counter that. on the other side of that is the way isil and other terrorist groups can use propaganda through their network and delegate the ability to tweet and send out messages to the field level when we still have this knee-jerk reaction to that because every tweet, every tactical tweet can be a strategic problem for decision-makers, we've got the pull-up counter messaging to the highest levels of government. we got have a white house decision on how to counter the message. were never going to get inside their decision cycle and they're always going to beinside hours . that is something on the congressional side we are trying to think of, what do we do the executive branch with these operational problems ? >> if you are russia, this is the time you would manipulate the data because everyone is low into these, they aren't that interesting a

it country has its own history, language, and culture, but we can have a federation of nationstates.hing europe to redefine itself. the idea here of the united states of europe. i thought juncker was brutal a few days ago. he said this does not exist. does it exist for you as an investor? brexit and europe, they do exist. from this quote, what is really remarkable is the reminder of how we got through the last five years of crisis. the political momentum, the social momentum, is one where this generation just does not want the european project to fail. also, the mentioning of the youth and the young -- that is an interesting disconnect, right? we have unprecedented youth unemployment in europe. however, as brexit showed, the demographics of the brexit vote showed the young are the ones still married to europe, without a doubt. that is an interesting disconnect between the intergenerational cap, the two-tier labor market within each european country. the young are not blaming europe for how youth unemployment. and that is something that i think the european elite has to capitalize on,

case of case of isis which is really a throwback to a pre-form of of government were not even a nationstatet were trying to do something else. so, the way we behave in places like outerspace also reflect how we behave and think others are going to behave in other shared areas. for example, russian behavior in ukraine and eastern europe, chinese chinese behavior in the south china sea should give us pause about the degree to which we can rely upon them to follow in other areas of international order. there's a thing in the political science world, we talk about signaling in the case of immediate aftermath of world war ii, much to our somewhat resistance, we had to accept the signal that stalin was sending us about what he was going to be doing. in the early days of the falling of the cold war, there was some skepticism of gorbachev but we took the signal that he was sending and absorbed them and found ways to see that their intentions have change because they've undertaken some costly steps. today, again facing some resistance because we like to think that the world is reasonable and america

. >> have you seen any efforts by any actor in particular, nationstate such as russia to manipulate data going through the voter registration systems are other systems tied to the election? >> director komi has spoken to this and obviously my former colleagues of the fbi are very focused of responding to and assisting states with indexed occasions when they do experience speeches or other inclusions. has said we have seen a lot of probing and efforts to get -- we have not seen indications of manipulation. >> are you looking at, do you think there has been -- is there an effort by another nation state such as russia to try to cast doubt on the legitimacy of our election process? >> i think we will be concerned when we are talking about cyber threats on critical systems, whether it is our power grid or on our election systems or the saw myal sector, you former colleagues at the justice department not to long ago indicted a number of iranian actors for cyber attacks on the dam in new york as well as our financial sector. we have to be concerned about nonstate actors trying to breach our cri

in the same way that here in the united states, obviously, we are in actual nationstate, as opposed to a union of separate we will not abandon one state and say, you deal with an entire problem and good luck with that. ande have solidarity benefit from that solidarity on a whole range of issues, then that means you also have joint responsibilities. >> [indiscernible] president obama: that is what i said, central america increased rate. >> i was wondering if you could comment? obama: david, they spiked in 2014, went down in 2015, and went back up in part for this year because there is desperation in central america, but are still not at the levels they weren't 2014, but i appreciate you shout not the question since i'm sure there are other colleagues of yours who would want to do the same. thank you, everybody. i appreciate it. >> tonight, president obama hosts the state dinner for the italian leader and his wife. we take you there live at 6:30 p.m. eastern for arrivals on c-span. inside, for the staircase photo and ahead of the state dinner tonight, some thoughts from the italian abbas

anything that hastens the movement of authority and power away from nationstates towards larger internationalations that try to tamp down the difference between america's con additional system than the rest of the world is fine with him. in the faculty lounges of the great universities of america, they think it did the same thing. stuart: deletes the world over think exactly the same thing. mr. ambassador, thanks for joining us as always. the big war shows a lot. up four points. we had been up 40 or 50. now we are down for. more "varney" in a moment you can run an errand. (music playing) ♪ push it real good... (announcer vo) or you can take a joyride. bye bye, errands, we sing out loud here. siriusxm. road happy. (announcer vo) you can commute. (man on radio) ...40! no flags on the play! (cheering) (announcer vo) or you can chest bump. yo commute, we got serious game. siriusxm. road happy. stuart: next case, gun sales. ashley: up 27% year-over-year. background checks doesn't necessarily signal a gun sale. the process they go through 2 million that were checks. handguns are not a manic rifles

was at one point a vision that the world was going that way where nationstates would become somewhatglobal corporations would not really care where they were, and what we are seeing in the u.k. and europe, now is the beginning of a trend in the opposite direction, a risk of the globalization. frexit, if impact of it really ends up going the hard route is that it may result in a fear of an ultimate reality of unraveling of many of the, let's call it europe-wide arrangements. us, this masters with morning. mr.nheimer funds on radio, jersey at oppenheimer funds on the many choices that janet yellen faces at the debt meeting debt meeting of november, the very live meeting of december. ♪ ,uy: d.c. looking resplendent all lies increasingly turning to washington as we count down to the u.s. election. there is the first word news. taylor: france's president is learning that not all publicity is good publicity. his popularity has fallen to a record low after publication of a book in which he made candid comments on a wide variety of subjects. 15% have a positive view of him. only 11% want him

just leave it to one country, in the same way that here, in the united states, actually, we are an nationstate, as opposed to a union of separate states, but, we would not abandon one state and say, you deal with the entire problem. if we have solidarity and benefit from that, then you have joint responsibility is. ok? >> [indiscernible] that is what i: just said, central america, they have increased. , wente heavily and 2014 down, and have gone back up this year in part because there is still desperation in central america, but are still not at in 2014.s they were at i appreciate you shouting out a question because i'm sure there are a lot of other colleagues of years who would like to do the same. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. david: president obama wrapping up a conference there with that kind prime minister, giving a strong talking to one of the journalist there. i want to start with what president obama and matteo renzi were speaking about there being the migrant crisis and europe. it had a lot to do with economic participation. i wonder what caught your year there when t

particular case of something like isis, a throwback to another form of government where we are not a nationstatein places like outerspace reflects how we behave and others think they will behave in shared areas. russian behavior in ukraine and eastern europe and the south china sea should give us pause about the degree to which we can rely upon them to follow other areas of international water. in the political science world we talk about signaling and in the case of the aftermath of world war ii much to our resistance we had to accept the signals & was sending about what he was doing. in the early days of the filing of the cold war there is skepticism of gorbachev but we took the signals he was sending, found ways, their attention has changed, they undertook some costly steps. today, facing some resistance because we like to think the world is reasonable and americans can work everything out, the signals we are seeing from russia and to a lesser extent china, they don't buy into the assumptions we had over the last decades of the world is becoming a more dangerous place and how we behave in spa