All language subtitles for Interference Democracy at Risk (2020) - 123movies.eng

Downloaded from
YTS.MX

(dramatic music)

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.MX

- I don't think there's
anything more basic

to American citizenship as
accepting not the privilege,

but the responsibility to vote.

(upbeat music)

- The American people are divided.

- And there seems to be
so little accountability

for brazen misstatements of fact and law.

- It couldn't be more true

that democracy depends
on good information,

- Their views of what is
proper for the government

to do or not do are important.

- The election for the
president is not actually

a national election,
it's 50 state elections.

It produces a two party system.

It certainly has worked
well up to this point.

I'm not sure it's working
now, because it's splintering.

- The peaceful transfer of
authority is rare in history.

- [Man] The American
people can remain confident

in the resilience of our financial system.

- Make America great again!

- There are two great aspects of America,

that it's a democracy,

and that it's a free
competitive marketplace.

- The heart of a democracy,
I've always felt,

is the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,

et cetera, et cetera.

(upbeat music)

- [Narrator] The 2016
presidential election

made millions of American
doubt the process

used to elect our leaders,

creating questions as to the legitimacy

of the election's outcome.

- The current state of our
electoral system is in shambles.

- [Narrator] When the winning candidate

loses the popular vote by
over two million votes,

average Americans began to
wonder why they bother to vote.

Does their vote actually
make a difference?

- I think we're into a
essentially unregulated realm.

The federal election law is Swiss cheese.

- We have to have an honest selection,

and if it's not going to
be an honest election,

I guess people have to sit down and think

really long and hard about it.

- I mean, if you look
at almost any measure

of a healthy democracy or
a healthy electoral system,

whether it's voter
participation rates of 50%,

information that has integrity,
that's not good right now,

Trust, and right now they
do not trust the system.

By almost every measure we're hurting.

- The greatest threat to our system

of government is indifference.

- If you participate and you
take the time to be informed

about the issues, and
you actually turn out

and your peers turn out,
you change the country.

You do.

It may not always happen
as fast as you'd like,

but you'll change it.

- [Narrator] Before Americans
even cast their vote,

they have to make it through months

of political ads on TV and social media.

Ads that are paid for by
billionaires and Super PACs

or by some source of funding
that can't be traced.

- Democracy requires elections.

Elections require money.

- I think most people in America believe

that their voices have
been eclipsed by big money,

special interest, billionaires,

and they really don't count.

- The United States has
had, I'll call it issues

with voting for quite a long time.

- What we're seeing today is
a resurgence of the cold war,

a resurgence of authoritarianism
versus democracy,

dictatorship versus a democratic Republic.

- The bedrock, the foundation
of our country, the Republic

is our elections.

- [Narrator] The 2016
election became ground zero

for a democracy that had not kept up

with the advances in technology.

Social media and data harvesting

allowed ads to be tailor-made

to individual preferences and biases.

Foreign governments used
fake news and disinformation

to sow discord and chaos within
an already divided nation.

Not only did American
elections come under attack,

but so did democracy

and the very nature of facts themselves.

- The most effective way to
manipulate an American election

is through disinformation.

- So when we look at these platforms,

Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter.

- There is a growing need for some means

for people to be able to sort
out what's actually true.

- But we know that the
internet can be abused

and it has been abused,

and unless we're pay a lot
more attention in the future,

it is gonna undermine our democracy.

I'm optimistic we can
come up with an antidote,

but we better start talking about it.

- [Narrator] Can we still
trust American elections?

- I really don't think that
you're gonna know anything

on the evening, anything
meaningful or anything real

on the evening of November 3rd.

- [Man] We need to realize
that we're entering

an incredibly dangerous
period in the history,

not just of democracy,

but of human society and civilization.

- The real threat and the real concern

is the slow but effective undermining

of the idea that our election process

is reliable and accurate.

- There's a difference between
being skeptical and cynical.

Skeptical is something we should all be,

cynical is something we
should try not to be.

Because if you're cynical,

you just don't believe anything,
you don't trust anyone.

- The data collection,

and the failure to
regulate data collection

enable you to be manipulated.

- [Narrator] Democracy
is at a tipping point.

We have stood by and watched
the greatest democracy on earth

become at risk of failing.

There can be no democracy without trust,

no trust without knowledge,
no knowledge without truth.

The freedom of speech
our democracy provides

is being weaponized
against us in an attempt

to destroy the very fabric of democracy

that the United States was founded on.

(dramatic music)

- We really need to
stop and pay attention.

This is not a political issue.

- For anyone out there
today, young or old,

they got to realize that
the stakes are higher

than they ever have been.

That we really are determining the future

of civilization right now.

- [Donald Trump] Thank you, God bless you.

And God bless America.

(dramatic music)

- [Narrator] When over a
$1 billion dollarsare spent

in an election that has
accusations of interference

and illegitimacy, the
first question has to be,

where did the money come from?

Are campaign finance laws non-existent,

or are they just not working?

Is anybody even paying attention?

(upbeat music)

- [Man] The American
electoral system requires

a huge amount of money in
order to properly communicate

with the American people.

It's an obscene amount of money,

and nobody knows where it's coming from.

How much is the right amount of money?

I don't know,

But if we were to try to
limit the amount of money,

we would be limiting the
amount of information

that people receive from the candidates.

And that's not a good idea.

- You can't have a democratic system

without the money to fund campaigns.

There are two ways to fund it.

You fund it with private money,

which is the system we have now,

or you fund it with government money,

which implies all kinds of
issues of control, bias,

and regulation. that we've
never been willing to accept,

with the one rare exception

being the presidential funding system,

which is now essentially defunct,

because everyone ops out of that system.

- If you're already a member of Congress,

you are collecting funds,
you are collecting support

and money from people
who favor what you do.

Your opponent has to
start from ground zero.

The opponent doesn't have any money,

doesn't have a campaign manager,

doesn't have the person who
creates television commercials

unless the challenger can
raise these funds very quickly

to compete with the incumbent.

- [Narrator] In the 2016 election,

Hillary Clinton raised $768 million.

And Donald Trump raised $398 million.

When you include house and Senate races,

the grand total for that
election cycle was $6.5 billion.

To put that into perspective,

that's enough money to give

every public school
teacher in America $2,000.

(dramatic music)

- with as much money as we
spend, the data suggests to me

that correlation, i.e. correlation

between the amount of money
we spend and the result

is not causation.

So in 2010, and this
is when I was fighting

the so-called Millionaires
Amendment in the Supreme Court,

successfully I might add,

the conventional wisdom was,

well, we can't allow
millionaires to come in

and spend all their money and
skew the election results.

And so in the oral argument,

I presented the following statistic.

Of the 58 people who self-funded in excess

of $350,000 a year,

which was the Millionaire's
Amendment threshold,

11 of them won.

- If you look at the amount
of money spent by a candidate,

versus the amount of money
spent by another candidate,

it's simply true that sometimes
the person that spends less

can still win.

- In the election of 2016,

Hillary Clinton spent something
over $600 million dollars.

President Trump's campaign
was about half that,

about $300 million.

The person who spent less was elected.

- But there's a caveat there.

Outspend him on traditional
dollar contributions.

If you counted in Donald
Trump's free media,

and remember the myths before 2016 was,

you had to spend all your
money on TV and media

to get elected.

And Donald Trump put a hole in that.

He did these press
conferences at Mar-a-Lago,

where he went on for an hour and a half,

and all the networks covered it.

And the same night that Hillary Clinton

was winning her primary,
she got six minutes.

He got an hour and a half for free media,

she got six minutes.

So what is the impact of money?

So people often ask, does
money matter in politics?

And the answer is absolutely,
but you've got to identify

what kind of money you're talking about.

- The Supreme court issued
a ruling, Citizens United

that allowed super PACs and
very wealthy individuals

to just finance all these ads

that you guys see on TV all the time.

- [Announcer] America must stop China.

And to stop China, you
have to stop Joe Biden.

- [Announcer] Our country is in crisis.

- We have the right to
do whatever we want.

- [Announcer] And Donald
Trump is making it worse.

- [Announcer] Joe Biden.

- Times are tough, the man is weak.

- Half the time nobody
knows who's funding them.

And that makes you cynical,

partly because most of this
money is spent on negative ads.

And so you're just hearing constantly

how horrible everybody is.

That'll make you feel pretty bad

about the political process.

- Citizens United is a
case that basically found

that because of the First Amendment

protection for free speech,

the Congress could not
restrict the amount of money

that people can spend
expressing their views

on candidates and issues.

- One of the slogans that
comes out of the case

is the thought that money is speech.

And obviously money isn't exactly speech,

but contributing to a political campaign

is an expressive act,

and the courts have long recognized that.

So this isn't a new thing
from Citizens United.

- Well, actually there was
a Supreme court decision

that went all the way back to
1976 called Buckley V. Valeo

which was the first case
that actually certed

that the spending of money
in the context of elections

was an act of speech,
because to have speech,

you have to be able to spend money.

You have to be able to buy ads,

you have to be able to buy billboards

or newspaper advertisements.

And that therefore the
act of spending money

was an act of facilitating speech.

- Citizens United was a
corporation put together

for the purpose of making
a campaign kind of film.

It was a negative treatment
of Hillary Clinton.

When the issue got to the Supreme court,

and the Supreme Court said
they didn't see any reason

why a corporation could not make a film

favoring one or the other candidate.

- That part I completely agree with,

as a former publisher and editor.

The second part of it said,

"And therefore any money spent

"producing content in the
context of an election

"should be free and unlimited."

Now that in itself is not a bad thing.

What happened after Citizens United

is that a group called Speech
Now came with a challenge,

and they said, okay, "If
spending money on content

"is an act of speech and
therefore should be unlimited,

"then shouldn't contributions
to outside organizations

"also be unlimited?"

And in the Speech Now decision,

the appellate court said yes,

those contributions should be unlimited.

That's what turned PACs,

which initially had
caps on giving to them,

into Super PACs, which had no limits.

- [Narrator] A super
PAC is an independent,

political action committee.

In the 2016 election, there
were over 2300 Super PACs.

Together they raised almost $1.8 billion.

And while they can raise
unlimited amounts of money

from corporations,
unions, and individuals,

they are forbidden from
coordinating directly

with campaigns and candidates.

- We had a case during,
I guess it was 2012,

where a candidate has
had a super PAC donor

riding on the campaign plane with him,

sitting in the seats
with the campaign aides,

and contending that well, he
didn't have anything to do

with coordinating his
expenditures with the candidate.

Now, maybe that's true,

but there was no way to
examine that and say,

well, were are they
discussing campaign plans?

Were people sharing ideas

about where the money should be spent?

So it's fraught area of
enforcement to say the least.

- The super PAC money is
almost more about the threat

of the super PAC, than the
actuality of it oftentimes.

What that means is that
you'll have a lobbyist

who will walk into a senator's
or a congressman's office,

and they'll say,

"well, our super PAC
fundraising is going well,

"we've got $60 million in the super PAC."

And then they'll have
the policy conversation

with the congressman.

But what effect do you think,

what is going through
the congressman's mind

when he or she has just heard

that the lobbyists
sitting in front of them

has a $60 million super PAC
that they can pull the trigger

on whatever they want, right?

You know what's going
through their mind, right?

They're gonna listen a lot
to what that lobbyist wants

and is saying to them.

- I discard and disagree with the argument

that it is bribery

for a candidate to accept funds

from an individual or a group,

because that is bribing the candidate.

The donors contribute to
them because their policies

are policies that the donors agree with.

- If I were to write a check

to a teacher who's about to grade my kid,

people would say that's bribery.

If I were to hand a $100 bill to a cop

before they gave me a traffic ticket,

they would claim that bribery.

If I were to offer my car to a judge

before I went before that judge,

people would say that's bribery.

So then when people make
contributions to politicians,

what the court has said, which is in line

with the common sense
of the American people,

is that that is either a
potentially corrupting act

or a corrupting act, and
therefore it needs to be limited.

So when we talk about money as speech,

what we need to realize is
that even the court today

still accepts the notion that money

is the transfer of property

when it comes to making contributions

directly to politicians themselves.

Well, right now in DC,
and we were on K street

here in Washington just two hours ago,

dozens of politicians at
restaurants across this town

had lunch with lobbyists

who are representing the
industries that those politicians

are supposed to be regulating,

based on their committee assignments.

So if I'm on the financial
services committee in the house,

I would have just had lunch
with a bunch of bank lobbyists.

And those bank lobbyists,
when they had lunch with me

would have each committed
to pumping, to maxing out

to my campaign, to
pumping the maximum amount

into my campaign war chest.

I think in the minds of most
Americans and certainly me,

that is a profound conflict of interest,

and that is transactional giving.

I as a member of Congress am having lunch

with the lobbyist I'm
supposed to be regulating,

because they're giving me money,

therefore they get this
full hearing before me

in a way that your
average American wouldn't.

And that is what distorts

the policy making process in Washington.

- [Narrator] While super PACs
have allowed for the giving

of unlimited sums as an
exercise of free speech,

there are also reporting
requirements that in theory

should make it possible to
trace every dollar to its donor.

Enter dark money.

- So everyone's heard the term dark money.

And a lot of people think that somehow

super PACs are dark money.

Well, that's not true.

Actually, super PACs have to
disclose all of their donors,

but what's going on right now

is that people are pumping dark money

into super PACs through corporations.

A group of people will
set up a corporation

in the state of Delaware.

Let's just call it the Blue Carpet, LLC.

That corporation all of a
sudden it has money in it,

you don't know where the money came from,

because you can't ask for that
from the state of Delaware.

And then that corporation
will make a donation

to a Super PAC.

The Super PAC then has
to disclose its donors.

Among those donors,
it'll disclose the fact

that a certain corporation or
corporations has given money.

And then, right after the election,

the corporation that
gave the Super PAC money

will collapse itself.

And so you could have 10, 20, $30 million

going into Super PAC through a corporation

or various corporations
that are here today

and gone tomorrow.

And that's a new form of dark money.

- You really don't know the source.

But I think contributors
to these Super PACs

within 24 hours of their contribution,

their names ought to be published,

ought to be available on the internet,

that people can see who's
giving what to whom.

Does that affect free speech?

Well, it's free and open speech.

It's corrosive if people were
allowed to affect the outcomes

without knowing where the
criticisms are coming from.

If you're gonna give to a candidate,

you have to be prepared to be
identified with a candidate.

And frankly from the
candidate's point of view,

if you're gonna accept money
in support of your campaign,

but you're unwilling,

if you're unwilling to acknowledge
that that was the source

of the donation, then
you shouldn't take it.

Period.

So I'm a strongly believer, obviously,

in transparency across the board.

I often like to joke that
money in politics right now

isn't even like the Wild West,

because in the Wild
West they had sheriffs.

Right now there is no sheriff.

There's entity in Washington called

the Federal Election Commission, the FEC.

The commission itself is incapable

of making any significant decisions

that can instruct the lawyers of the FEC

of what cases to pursue
and how to pursue 'em.

- [Narrator] The FEC is
made up of six commissioners

who oversee campaign finance
laws and enforcement.

Four votes are required to
take any official action.

Since January 2017,

there have only been three commissioners,

meaning that no enforcement
actions can be taken.

And if the FEC did have six commissioners,

since no more than three commissioners

can be of the same party,

there's already a built-in deadlock.

- The FEC was the basic
regulatory body formed

in the wake of the Watergate scandal

to regulate campaign finance

and to attempt to put some
disclosure requirements

and some limits on individual
campaign donations.

And that part of the system still exists,

even after Citizens United.

The FEC is responsible for
enforcing that provision

of the campaign finance law

that prohibits foreign money being used

to underwrite contributions
or expenditures

in federal elections.

It has a good deal of responsibility there

to identify what money
should be identified

as foreign-sourced.

For example, should a American subsidiary

of a foreign corporation be able to spend

corporate funds in our elections?

- The Foreign Agents Registration Act

was passed in the '30s, because
the government was fearful

that the Nazi regime in Germany

was interfering in US policy making.

And so they passed a law that said,

if you're going to propagandize

or engage in political activity
within the United States,

and you're controlled
by a foreign principle,

you're gonna register and report.

So that goes back back to the '30s.

That's been with us at
least since the '30s.

In fact, one of the biggest
fears the framers had

was foreign interference in our system.

- And foreign money is by its
very nature unaccountable.

It will be used to achieve
a foreign government's

or entity's political
desires in this country.

If we want to keep the
integrity of our elections,

keeping foreign money out should
be a priority for the FEC.

- Looking simply at the FEC to do its job,

it's too big of a task.

There are too many dollars involved,

too many campaigns involved.

- The void has been filled by the states.

Certain attorneys
general in larger states,

New York, California, and others

have attempted to fill the void.

- I don't think the FEC
is particularly important,

except for publishing information

about who's contributing.

- The FEC has essentially been neutered,

really for several decades.

- Right now the
commissioners are appointed

based on partisanship,
based on whether or not

they're a democrat or republican.

But what you end up with is
hyper-partisanship, right?

Which makes it very
hard for the commission

to come to any agreement on anything.

So let's just de-politicize it.

Let's just call it for what it
is, which is law enforcement,

and that should never be political.

- Every alphabet agency that you can name

SEC, FCC, FTC,

on and on, and on and on,
has a majority of one party

that can enforce the
will of that commission.

The FEC stood out alone as evenly split,

because the Congress in
its wisdom back in 1976,

'74, and then '76 decided

they didn't want one party to have sway

over the fate of the other party

in sensitive matters
involving federal elections.

So they built in the
potential for stalemate,

even though in the early years,

there was much more bipartisanship.

- The issues associated in my mind

with the billions of dollars involved

in national and state, and local elections

is far beyond the FEC to control.

I'd like to see the regulations
enforced from time to time

that you do see some enforcement actions.

I still think the most
significant antidote

to excessive amounts of money

in the political system is sunlight.

Sunlight.

- Disclosure is important,
because it lets people know

who's putting up the money.

And that is critical for
citizens to understand

the messaging that they're getting.

Who's behind the messaging?

Do they have an ax to grind?

Who are they?

That law, that requirement is extant.

It's not been changed by Citizens United.

Now, has it been enforced
as vigorously as it might?

No.

And because of the internet,

and because of the
digitalization of our world,

it's harder and harder to
pierce the veil and get to that.

That doesn't mean you can't.

It means it's harder.

Special counsel Bob
Mueller pierce the veil

and found Russian GRU agents

behind the expenditures that
were made on the internet

and indicted them.

And now the department has dismissed

that for a lot of other reasons.

- It's pretty clear
that billions of dollars

are being spent influencing opinions.

And yet the ultimate
recipient, the ultimate viewer,

the ultimate voter has no
idea who's paying for the ads.

And I think the voter's entitled to know.

- Now that fight is still
going on in the courts,

because there are people
who are suggesting

that anonymity should be
part of the First Amendment.

And that if you want to give money,

and you want to shield your identity,

because you don't want
people picketing your house

and you don't want people
making threats against you,

that it should be private.

That's a debate we're gonna have.

- I'm quite concerned about the
way that people are attacked

for making political contributions.

I think this is really shameful,

and something that shouldn't
happen in our system.

- We're getting further and further away

from respecting legitimate
differences of opinion

and political philosophy

It's very troubling to me.

- There was a famous case with Target.

Target gave money to a
candidate in Minnesota who was,

I guess, anti gay marriage.

And that got publicized.

And somebody organized the
boycott of Target and said,

"We disagree with you.

"We don't like you funding a candidate

"who's against gay marriage."

Target withdrew.

- I don't know how any
organization or individual

in their own mind can say, "I
really support this candidate.

"I believe in this candidate,

"but I don't want my name
attached to a contribution

"to that candidate."

I think it's shameful,
I think it's gutless.

And if you're not willing to be associated

with the financial
support of the candidate,

then that candidate shouldn't take it,

and you shouldn't offer it.

I'm not stepping on
anybody's free speech rights.

But if you're gonna throw
campaign money against me,

I'm entitled to know who my opponent is,

and not just the one on the ballot,

but is also funding that campaign.

And so are those voters in
my district, or jurisdiction.

They're entitled to know who doesn't think

I'm qualified for this job.

- It might hinder your
ability to say certain things

if you have to worry about
it getting widely reported,

the things that you say in the think.

But on the other hand, Congress
has a really good reason

for wanting to identify

who's contributing to campaigns.

- And the example of 2016,

if every ad

or a political statement

that the Russians put
into the system had to be

substitute to a disclaimer,

"This message was furnished

"by the Internet Research Agency,"

which was a cover for GRU agents.

Then people would know, "Oh,
that comes from Russia."

In the absence of that, you
don't know where it comes from.

- Facebook, Google charge for ads

like most of the social media platforms.

And foreign money being used

to place ads on those mediums

should be subject to policing

by the Federal Election Commission.

- It's against the law.

It's always been against the law.

The question is, is it being enforced?

And how difficult is it to enforce

under the current technological
situation that have?

- [Narrator] Direct foreign
contributions are illegal,

but that isn't the only
use of foreign money.

In fact, the other uses of foreign money

are much more dangerous.

It funds attacks on our
nation's voting systems,

and powers the disinformation
machine using social media,

shaking the very bedrock
of democracy and truth.

- Well, it's a shame what's
happened with the FBI,

but we're gonna rebuild the FBI.

It'll be bigger and better than ever,

but it is very sad when you
look at those documents,

and how they've done that
really, really disgraceful.

President and Putin was
extremely strong and powerful

in his denial today.

There's no Russia.

It was all made up by the democrats.

They're the ones that
colluded with Russia.

The democrats colluded with Russia.

My people came to me, Dan Coats
came to me and some others.

They said they think it's Russia.

I have president Putin.

He just said it's not Russia.

I will say this, I don't see any reason

why it would be.

- [Man] Was there Russian interference?

- Yes, there was interference
in the 2016 election.

- Clearly, unequivocally, absolutely,

there was Russian interference.

The intelligence community
and the Senate reports

have all agreed with that conclusion.

I rely on special counsel Mueller

and the Senate Intelligence Committee,

and the intelligence establishment

and the director of national intelligence,

and everybody else who
said, "Yes, there was."

- It was a disgrace to the FBI,

it was a disgrace to our country.

The Russian investigation is a hoax.

It's a phony hoax.

That was a total witch hunt.

Thank you very much, everybody, thank you.

- I regret that the
president of United States

rejected the universal conclusion

that the Russians attempted to influence

the outcome of the 2016
presidential election.

It's undeniable, and I
regret that our president

has refused to acknowledge that publicly.

- When we deny that Russia is a threat

to our election infrastructure
within our states,

and therefore potentially
within our federal government,

then we're denying
reality and we're actually

further strengthening
the ability of Russia,

and other nation States to
interfere with our democracy.

- I met every day for several years,

every morning in the White
House with the President,

the Vice President, the Attorney General,

the FBI Director, yours truly,
and a bunch of other people,

just to talk about terrorist threats.

And there were broader issues,

but that was part of the
conversation I was involved in.

I know about Mueller.

I'd never questioned the man's integrity,

don't question the man's patriotism.

I don't question his character.

I don't question his intelligence.

Bob Mueller and this group,

along with the intelligence community said

the Russians interfered
in the 2016 election.

Take it to the bank.

They did.

- [Narrator] After the
intelligence community

discovered the attempts made by Russia

to influence the 2016 election,

the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence

began an investigation that
produced a five volume report

detailing Russian
interference efforts in 2016,

the response by American authorities,

and the continued efforts
that Russia has made

heading into the 2020 election.

- The first key finding
is that Russia engaged

in interference efforts
attempts from 2014 to 2017

in the U.S. electoral
process and systems.

I think it's really important

to point out that this key finding

of a legislative committee was bipartisan.

- The Bipartisan Senate
intelligence report

that was issued, volume one
of the report in July of 2019,

identify these efforts
that Russia had gone to

to actually attack all 50 States

in election systems infrastructure.

And the US is unique in that

we have our federal and states rights.

And the states run the elections..

Even the presidential election is run

through states elections offices.

We saw testing here,
and we saw infiltrations

of most of the systems.

However, there was no evidence that votes,

or election systems for election tallies

were actually altered.

But we know that
something that was started

in at least as early as
2014 by the Russians,

and by the Russian
Internet Research Agency,

and we know is continuing
at least through 2017.

- If you're looking to change
the outcome of an election,

you can manipulate the
machines a little bit.

So that's a kinetic threat,
and I think that's real.

I think the bigger
threat is disinformation.

- It has never been proven

that there's been a successful hack

that's manipulated the vote count.

The bigger thing is
happening in our elections

is that you've got foreign players

like Russia, China, and Iran
that have every interest

in trying to manipulate the
minds of the American voters

through social media,
through propaganda campaigns,

through content.

And that manipulation
can be just as effective

as actually going into a machine
and hacking the vote count.

- There was an active campaign

by the Russian Internet
Research Agency, the IRA,

to manipulate the results of the US vote

through disinformation on
social media platforms.

One of the main goals here
was really to sow discord.

These active measures that Russia took

to manipulate our election results

were intended to really create
a divide within our society.

To play upon our society's greatest fears,

greatest weaknesses, and
to use our own strengths,

the freedom of speech and our
right to communicate openly

and express political dissent against us.

And they did this through
a series of trolls,

individuals who were intentionally
spreading information.

They did it through bots, right?

Automated accounts that weren't real,

but they were fake
personas and fake people.

And they also did it
through unwitting Americans

who weren't aware that they
were spreading disinformation

and intentionally manipulative messaging.

- So there are all kinds of
disinformation out there,

which includes everything
from the Russians

propping up Facebook accounts,
and then trying to act

like they're either Black Lives Matter

or act like they're a
white nationalist group

and getting those groups to come and clash

in public parks throughout the country,

which did actually happen in 2016.

Where you can talk about
all of the fake news

that's out there, I'll give
you one really good example.

In 2016, millions of Americans

were told one day that the Pope

had endorsed Donald
Trump as president, okay?

Now, first of all, Popes don't do that.

Popes don't endorse American presidents.

But they were told that the
Pope had endorsed Trump.

Where did they read it?

Well, most Americans didn't actually know

that in fact, it was a fake news site

that was propped up mainly
to publish the story

that the Pope had endorsed
Trump for president.

The problem is that by the
time millions of Americans

had heard about that,
and were so surprised

and many were encouraged by
the fact that Pope Francis

would endorse Trump, they'd
already heard about it,

and they'd moved on with their lives.

They actually didn't hear the
second piece of information,

which is that it was 100% fake news.

- We've heard about Cambridge
Analytica and Facebook,

and what happened there.

In that case, we had a Russian national

who was a professor at Cambridge

develop a app, or an
interface with Facebook

that was supposedly just a
sort of personality test.

And supposedly at the time,
unbeknownst to Facebook,

what really happened was

it allowed wholesale data collection.

What kind of data are we talking about?

We're talking about
your sexual preferences,

your religious preferences,

the things that really
make you respond positively

or negatively, the things
that make you tick.

And when you know what
makes a person tick,

you do know how to control
them or manipulate them.

This aggregation of
information allowed individuals

during and leading up to the campaign

to be identified and what
we call micro-targeted

to have messaging and
manipulative propaganda

sent their way based upon
behavioral preferences

that they had indicated
through all kinds of exchanges.

Russia put great effort
at studying US culture,

US idioms, how we phrase things,

what we did and didn't do on social media

so that it would be able
to create very credible,

believable and persuasive content.

- [Narrator] The most effective
way to divide Americans

is by taking advantage of an
already existing fracture.

Russia exploited hundreds of years

of racial tension and inequality.

They fanned the flames of
division, racism and hatred.

In doing so, they have stalled the dream

of a free, equal and unified America.

- People who were pro-Trump were given

additionally pro-Trump messages

and encouraging a stronger
Trump Alliance or support

for the candidate Trump.

And then people who were
uncertain or unclear,

or who clearly expressed
that they would not be voting

for then candidate Trump were
sent behavioral messaging

dissuading them not to vote,

creating a perception of
voter fraud or election fraud,

like disbelief in the electoral process.

And so the goal was both
actively turning away voters

who might vote against the
targeted lifted candidate

and to encourage and strengthen those

who clearly would vote in
the way that was desired

by a malicious acting nation state Russia.

And this bipartisan
Senate Intelligence Report

makes this clear.

- [Narrator] When the
intelligence community

discovered election interference

coming from Russia and
other foreign nations,

it became clear that there
was no cohesive plan in place

to counter these attacks.

It became imperative
that a response be ready

the next time our elections were attacked.

- When does a cyber event
or a cyber operation,

particularly one involving information,

constitute a use of force
under international law?

So the military is hands are somewhat tied

in responding to these
types of operations.

So then in 2018,

we have the National
Defense Authorization Act

for fiscal year 2019.

And that involved a
number of new authorities

for Cyber Command that
we're going to address

these challenges and difficulties.

Probably the more
interesting piece, though,

is section 1642, which
actually gave the authority

for the US Armed Forces,
particularly for Cyber Command

to engage in measures against adversaries

that interfered with our
elections in certain ways.

Now it's somewhat cabin or constrained,

there's only four countries, right?

That we can respond to,

that is Iran, China,
Russia, and North Korea.

But if any of those four countries engage

in certain activities
leading to some level

of election interference,

it gives authorities to US
Cyber Command to respond.

But usually if there's not a kinetic,

some type of physical manifestation,

then it's not going to
rise to use of force.

- Ultimately protecting
against the kinetic attack,

everybody's got a role to play.

The best, most important role, I think,

for the federal government,

is the extent that they have information

with regard to these attacks.

Codes, they got precursors.

Any digital information that they have

relative to the attacks themselves,

they need to pass that along
as quickly as possible.

And frankly, as a former governor,

they might want to a few federal dollars.

Some need to buy just new
and better voting machines

and build software to reduce that risk.

But ultimately the burden,
the primary responsibility

protecting from that kind
of influence, I believe,

rests in the states and on the governors,

and the state legislatures.

- [Narrator] For how prevalent
election interference is,

and how damaging it is to the
foundation of our democracy,

there seems to be very little at this time

that our government can
actually do to stop it.

- Disinformation and misinformation
is the greatest threat

because of where it leads

in terms of democracy,
including elections,

because it makes people more cynical,

it makes people more polarized,

and can also be used
to overturn elections.

- The most effective way to
manipulate an American election

is through disinformation.

It's cheap.

It is effective, given how
much you can micro-target

the voters that you're
interested in manipulating,

and it is very hard to track.

So yes, it was an issue in 2016.

And yes, it's gonna to
be an even bigger issue

in 2020 and 2022, and 2032.

- So what does disinformation look like?

Images like this of Stacey Abrams

were a doctor to attach to the candidate

to the Muslim Brotherhood and Communism.

False warnings of a
citation for political signs

were created and distributed.

And photos of other persons
were falsely attributed

in order to fabricate false motives

and discredit harmful testimony.

- We need to realize
that this is the future.

This is the way that people,

whether they're inside our
country or outside our country

are gonna try to manipulate
the American electorate,

because it is very, very effective.

- There's a digital war going on.

And part of it, at least is I think,

as the Russians take a look at it, is

destabilize the United States.

And how do you do that?

Well, start questioning the legitimacy

of the bedrock, the
foundation of our country,

the Republic, is our elections.

Locally, state, and nationally,
particularly nationally.

Four years into it, we're
still talking about it.

Some people will say that
there's a kind of equivalency

between what the CIA and Voice of America,

and other entities have
done in other countries.

But we've got to understand

that there's a very different intent.

The intent when America

has been involved in elections abroad

was for the most part to try
to encourage liberal democracy,

to try to encourage
democratic processes along.

What the Russians want to do

when they manipulate our elections

is to try to discredit the
integrity of the American way.

- Putin, when he was
just this ascending star

in the KGB's forte was destabilization.

And look what he's done
to our electoral process.

His goal may or may not have been

one or the other individual elected,

but he destabilized our election systems

so that now we're still talking about

and questioning legitimacy

of the election of the
President United States.

He accomplished his goal.

- Disinformation and misinformation

isn't just a matter of
foreign interference.

That's a big deal, and it's
a national security interest.

But what we're seeing
is political activists

and PACs of all kinds, right and left

using their money to start
phony local news sites

that look like real local news sites,

or national news sites, but
they're actually financed

by people with a political agenda.

And they approach all
stories from a certain angle,

and they're promoting their
own brand of misinformation.

- The current administration
has been quite the ringleader,

even, in a campaign of misinformation.

President Trump kind of
made a name for himself

in political circles as a birther,

as someone who'd sought to claim falsely

and without justification at all

that president Obama
wasn't a real US citizen.

- If we're all going to be
governed by the latest rumor,

or the labeling of what is true as fake,

then we can not have a truly responsible,

responsive and functioning democracy.

- One of the byproducts of disinformation

sort of a vicious cycle, is polarization.

Because if I convinced
you that the sky is green

when it's actually blue,
that I've put you off

into this corner where you're
gonna be much more comfortable

with people who also
think the sky is green.

And then you're going
to defend your position,

you're going to rely on,

or maybe even create
your own disinformation

that furthers the myth
that the sky is green.

- People choose the facts that they want,

but they choose things that
aren't necessarily facts.

I mean, I guess that's
where the challenge is

in the impact of the internet,

and its use and abuse

in terms of the electoral process.

- I think we need to
realize that we're entering

an incredibly dangerous
period in the history,

not just of democracy, but of
human society and civilization

in which people now fundamentally distrust

most of the stuff that's before them.

Now, the problem with that is twofold.

Number one, that in a democracy,

you actually have to have
a common set of facts,

and a common narrative that
enough people believe is true

that a democracy can hang together.

And when all of a sudden
you have a situation

in which information is
being, not only fragmented,

and politicized, but then
profoundly distrusted,

regardless of where it's coming from.

We no longer can have
a coherent conversation

in this country, and we no
longer have a national narrative

and set of facts, that we can all trust

and debate and make decisions around.

And I don't know how a
democracy can function

under those conditions.

- A democracy depends on good information.

It doesn't necessarily mean
that every citizen who votes

knows the name of their congressmen,

and the name of the members
of the city council,

but they know a certain amount,

and they share a certain
set of basic facts.

If that's not the case,
if they can't even debate

how they feel about the
facts with each other,

because they don't even
share the same facts,

democracy breaks down.

- We're becoming a society
of first impression.

We're becoming a society where

we embrace a lot of the things

that we see on the internet
or on Twitter accounts

as actually factually based,

as thoughtfully conceived and presented.

I don't have the antidote.

We need to think about it, seriously,

because it is such a corrosive impact

on the most fundamental structure

in a democracy.

And that is our electing process.

I wish I had a better answer for you.

I don't have the antidote.

- What makes this really
complicated is that

when unwitting Americans share a message

that they really strongly identify with,

and unbeknownst to them,
they're identifying with it

because they were micro-targeted.

But when they share that information,

regardless of where it was created,

it's becoming their speech.

They're expressing an opinion
and sharing information.

It really muddies the waters
on how do we handle this,

and what do we do to address it.

- At the heart of a
democracy, I've always felt,

is the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,

et cetera, et cetera.

And retweeting false information,

is that a violation of
the First Amendment?

When misinformation generated

by the bots from a Russian source,

maybe embraced by an unknowing voter

who subscribes to that
particular point of view

based on whatever their political bias

or philosophy might be,

and then passes it on as if it's true.

I don't think that's a violation
of the First Amendment,

but it's certainly a
disruptive of our democracy.

- The traditional claim
of First Amendment law

is that false speech, for the most part,

gets very little, if any,
constitutional protection,

when it's simple matter of fact.

The government can
often not suppress this.

But the question is when

there's a little bit more gray area,

or when something like
opinion is pressed in.

Suppose you say something like,

"Kamala Harris isn't a real American."

Kamala Harris is a United States citizen,

just like everyone has long presumed,

but there might be this other
part to the real American.

Then it's a bit of opinion
about what values one must hold

to be truly a part of the clan
or something of this sort.

Is this really misleading?

Is this really false information?

It's not quite clear what to say.

As a matter of what I
think courts would do,

I think that they're probably going to say

that this is entitled to
First Amendment protection,

because there's a colorable
kind of opinion matter,

and not clearly under some other thing,

like false or libelous
speech that can be banned.

- The government shouldn't
be able to stop that,

and couldn't under the
First Amendment stop that,

but the platforms can.

I don't have a First Amendment right

vis-a-vis Facebook or Twitter.

I only have a First Amendment right

vis-a-vis the government.

There are outright lies, not hyperbole,

they're just eyes being
transferred through the internet.

How do we as guardians of democracy,

and guardians of the first
amendment deal with that reality

without stepping all
over everybody's right

to free speech and to
express their point of view?

- One of the ways that we see
our own greatest strengths,

the right of the freedom
of speech used against us

is because of the way
the laws have developed

rapidly around these
communication platforms.

We have a federal law, the
Communications and Decency Act.

And section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act

provides a shield of
immunity for online platforms

that post content
created by third parties.

The immunity it provided for platforms

was also to promote the internet
as a communication medium.

We didn't want websites to be liable

for removing some content,
but allowing other content.

And so Section 230
worked as long as it was

content provided by a third party,

the platform itself would not
be liable for that content.

So if there was information on Facebook

that was untrue about someone,

that said someone was a criminal,

as long as Facebook didn't
put that information up there,

it wasn't Facebook's problem.

- There are so many sites,
but the communication,

the distribution of those sites

is concentrated on two or three platforms.

And it's up to those platforms

to be completely transparent
about what they're doing.

- Currently, social
media giants like Twitter

receive an unprecedented liability shield

based on the theory that
they're a neutral platform,

which they're not.

Not an editor with a viewpoint.

My executive order calls
for new regulations

under Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act.

- The so-called section 230
had a very good intention.

Someone would post
something on America Online,

believe it or not, that's
what it was worried about.

They never heard of Facebook, or Google,

or YouTube at the time, or Twitter.

And the AOL was worried
it was gonna to get sued

for something I said about you online.

And the analogy they used was,

if I say something bad about
you on a telephone call,

should Verizon have to
be responsible for that?

And that makes sense.

- This was adopted 25 years ago

to protect the fledgling industry,

and its purpose was to allow
websites that were serving

as essentially bulletin boards

for diverse third party content coming on,

to say that you're not
responsible for the content

of that third party information.

- The real impetus of it was

that these online platforms like AOL,

they were beginning to censor stuff.

They were censoring pornography

and hate speech on their own.

They took it as their
responsibility to do that,

and when they started to
do that, they got sued.

So with Section 230 really
did was exempted them

from getting sued for content
decisions that they made,

not for not making any content decisions,

but they couldn't get sued

for content decisions that they made.

Meaning they could block pornography

and not have a pornographer sue them,

or they could block hate speech,

or block anything they wanted.

They could act like
editors and not get sued.

- [Narrator] There is friction
between the protections

of the First Amendment,
and the overwhelming threat

that disinformation poses.

The United States government
has to fight the war

against disinformation
with its hands tied.

In this void, private businesses
are starting to step up

in hopes of winning the
battle against disinformation.

- One thing that is remarkable
is to see the reaction

of different platforms to combat

the scourge of the attack
upon our democracy.

Twitter has banned
political advertisement.

You see Facebook saying,

"We're not going to get
involved in the truth

"or not truth of political campaigns.

"We're gonna let the
market take care of that."

Meaning the politicians
should regulate themselves

and the people should call out

where there are things that aren't true.

Google has taken a much more nuanced

and really probably the
appropriate approach

if we want to share information.

Rather than ban it
outright, Google has limited

how its platform can be used
to target political messaging.

Google is specifically refusing to allow

campaigns and political speech designed

to target individuals based
upon their preferences

that wouldn't be clear to them.

So this response is
something that we're seeing

these private companies trying
to figure out how to do.

And what we really need
here is federal regulation

that regulates this kind of targeting

and political campaigning
on these platforms

that are all of our number
one sources of information.

- One thing that the
federal government can do

is it can make the
speaker transparent, okay?

So for instance, there's a bill out there

called the Honest Ads Act.

And what the Honest Ads
Act would do is basically

provide the same transparency
that exists for TV advertising

for digital advertising.

Now, what I mean by that
is that if a group tomorrow

were to take out a
million dollars in TV ads

on behalf of a politician
or against a politician,

they actually have to
disclose who they are.

And then you can find out
where their money came from.

The same group could take
out a million dollars

in digital ads on Facebook and
Twitter and online tomorrow,

and never have to disclose a
single word about themselves.

- The platforms are
totally non-transparent.

They will claim that
they have fact checkers

and people who, if they
see something is not true,

they'll secretly change the algorithm

so that it isn't shared as
much, and it isn't seen as much.

Why don't they just
say what they're doing?

And why don't they say
why they're doing it?

And why don't they see who's doing it?

Because no, one's gonna trust
them if they do it secretly.

And that's what they do.

And in part, that's 'cause their culture

is that every problem has
a technology solution,

and the problem of misinformation
and disinformation online,

there is no technology solutions to that.

That is a journalism solution.

That is a human solution.

- There is a growing need for some means

for people to be able to sort out

what's actually true.

- My God, in the digital forevermore,

in the digital age, data
is critically important.

Facts are critically important.

But we know that the
internet can be abused

and it has been abused.

And unless we pay a lot
more attention to it

and its use in the future,

that it's going to
undermine our democracy.

- I think with different
kinds of political leadership,

we can encourage people

to at least go to places
where they can share

the same set of common facts.

- We have a polarized system

that doesn't facilitate dialogue.

Without dialogue, democracy breaks down.

- How much of this is produced by the fact

that our political representatives

are not sufficiently responsive

to what the average person thinks,

and then are gravitating to the extremes?

And then pressing out
really extreme positions

as if they are more commonplace.

Frankly, the internet
itself has contributed

to the erosion of civility.

I mean, Donald Trump has
added a layer on top of it

with his always Tweeting,

but the internet is also an influence,

and a very corrosive
influence in this whole notion

of a civil exchange of ideas
and differences of opinion.

And frankly, Hillary Clinton
said it, Joe Biden responded.

He said, "Republicans aren't our enemies,

"they're our opponents."

And we got to get back to
that notion of civility.

- So you have all these
investigators, they're democrats.

In all fairness, Bob Mueller

worked for Obama for eight years.

The biggest problem is
gonna be with the democrats,

not with China and Russia and Iran.

Your biggest problem is going
to be with the democrats.

- The notion that somehow supporting

states' infrastructures for
elections can become partisan

is really a wedge just being driven

between our citizens and our federal

and state governing bodies
by malicious nation states.

- [Narrator] We cannot
continue to be divided

by foreign enemies.

It is the duty of all
Americans to take part

in protecting our democracy.

- I think what is critical
going into any election,

and whenever exercising both the privilege

and the responsibility of voting,

is to be an informed
member of the electorate.

That's harder to do.

- Don't take everything
you read on the internet

at face value.

I mean, it's crazy, there's no standard.

You throw an opinion out there,

and some people accept that as fact.

And part of it has to do

with the recipient of the information.

- I think we put too much
emphasis on the purveyors

and not enough on the people
who are reading this stuff.

If your exclusive source
of information is Twitter,

in my humble opinion, and
I'm of an older generation,

you are at serious risk
of not understanding

all the facts at issue.

There's a reason that
newspapers have editors.

There's a reason that
newspapers have fact checkers.

There's a reason that newspapers
of one stripe or another

have credibility as
arbiters of information.

- If a reporter or editor gets
something wrong repeatedly,

they will be fired from
their job, all right?

These are professionals who are engaged

in the professional act of trying to get

as close to the truth
as they possibly can.

- We have to really look
at clear indications

from our intelligence community,

from our national security experts

and from the republican
and democratic senators

who clearly spelled out the
measures that were taken

and that are still being
taken against US democracy.

At the end of the day, that's
what we need to preserve.

- I urge every voter to find
sources that are reliable,

but then to go out and
look at other sources too.

To make sure that they are not inside

some type of social media bubble

when they are gathering information.

Go to the source documents.

Read the executive summary
from the Senate report,

read the law, read the constitution

as opposed to reading how
someone else describes it.

Advertise your product or brand here
contact www.OpenSubtitles.org today

- [Narrator] This is the new normal.

How many times has that
phrase been said in 2020?

Life probably won't
continue like this forever,

but the way we live
has definitely changed.

The way we go to school has changed,

the way we do interviews has changed,

and the way we vote will
likely need to change.

- Epidemics and pandemics
should absolutely

be considered future threats

to the sanctity of Americans' elections.

And in a way, these, these viral threats,

these actual medical, biological threats

are much greater and more intense

than what we're seeing
from foreign countries.

You can shut an entire
country down with it.

So imagine if the coronavirus had struck

in early October of 2020?

Would we even be holding an election?

How would we be holding an election?

So, you could have a situation in which

the most powerful and
established democracy on earth,

the United States of America

could have an entire election,
presidential election

paralyzed, crippled, shut down or delayed

because of a virus.

- I would put the voter
access and the integrity of,

the ability of people
to vote in a pandemic

as a higher risk than
even foreign interference.

This to me harkens back
to Bush V. Gore in 2000,

and the election contest in Florida.

And what that revealed

is that the technology and infrastructure

behind our elections is
not really up to snuff.

We have not sufficiently paid attention

to the infrastructure needs

for a modern, 21st Century system.

We need to do that.

And we're going to have some
problems in 2020 as a result.

Not that the election officials
on both sides of the aisle

are not working diligently to fix that.

And I noticed again,
with all this, excuse me,

propaganda about mail ballots,

republican secretaries of state

and republican election administrators

are vouching for mail ballots,

and using an advocating for mail ballots

on a very wide basis.

So I think that's where we
have to spend some more money

and pay more attention than
the foreign interference issue.

- This is not an election that will test

something very important,

and that is our ability to be agile,

and to adopt different methods
if there are emergencies.

- The question is, how
robust can we make the vote

come election day?

Vote by mail, vote by home
really is the only solution.

It used to be called absentee voting.

It's basically the same thing.

And it's safe, it's secure,
the turnout rates are greater,

and so is the level of information

that the voter is able to
work with when they're voting.

So it's a solution that's been kind of

on the shelf for a long time.

And right now, we just need
to radically scale it up.

- They've asked for a
ridiculous $3.5 billion,

that's billion,

$3.5 billion for universal mail-in voting,

a system riddled by fraud and corruption.

- The number one concern
that people talk about

is that you can have a
lot of fraudulent voting.

- I think that be fraud on
both sides, unfortunately,

because people take this
election very, very seriously

and that induces them
sometimes to do things

that are dishonest, and
in violations of law.

- Just as there have been many
calls to stop voter fraud,

there have been displays of the fact

that there just is no great problem.

It seems to me that solutions
should be proportionate

to the problems they're
supposed to counteract.

Voter fraud is not a big
issue in the United States,

and I take it it's for
a couple of reasons.

One, the penalties for voter fraud

are actually fairly stiff.

And two, the benefit of voter fraud

is actually pretty minimal.

- I'm aware of no studies that point

to any increased likelihood of fraud

with mail-in ballots over any other kind.

In fact, some people, and
some state administrators,

both republican and democrats
will say that the procedures

for mail-in ballots are
actually less prone to fraud,

because of the procedural
steps of signing, witnessing,

comparing the signatures,
having a paper record.

- The States that have done it before

would probably be all right.

I happen to live in a state
that has done it before,

and that is Colorado.

- The state of Colorado
has been voting by mail

for almost a decade now.

The state itself launched its own audit

to try to determine what
percentage of ballots

in the last 10 years were
potentially fraudulent.

And the number that it
came up with was 0.006%.

That's basically a rounding error,

and probably there are
more errors like that occur

every two years in polling
places across America,

just because someone didn't write

someone's name down correctly,

someone didn't scan the ballot correctly,

someone didn't fill it
out correctly, whatever.

So on the fraudulent front,

it seems as if voting by
mail is basically fraud free.

- [Narrator] Prior to
COVID-19 Washington, Oregon,

Utah, Hawaii, and Colorado
had universal vote-by-mail.

Overall, 34 States have some
experience with voting by mail

that is available to more
than just absentee voters.

- There's nothing actually
wrong with mailing ballots,

as long as they can be verified.

For those states that are just starting,

they are going to be inundated
with all kinds of questions

about the validity of the ballots.

- It's not so much that there's fraud,

and it's not so much
that there's a problem

with mail-in voting.

It's that the infrastructure
and technology

has not caught up to or kept pace with

the volume of voting that is
going to occur via the mail.

And so that's the problem we face.

- We can't give them the
kind of ridiculous things

that they want that have nothing
to do with the China virus.

It has nothing at all
to do with China virus,

much of what they're asking for.

So therefore they don't have the money

to do the universal mail-in voting.

So therefore they can't
do it, I guess, right?

Are they gonna do it even though
they don't have the money?

- The other argument about vote-by-mail

is a more political argument,

and it's based on calculations
about who benefits

or doesn't benefit when
people vote by mail or not.

President Trump in the spring tweeted out

that it was clear to
him that voting by mail

benefited democrats more than republicans.

And as a result, he said that
it should be discouraged.

Now think about how profoundly
morally offensive that is,

that the president of the
United States of America

was openly advocating

essentially a form of voter suppression,

meaning not allowing
people to vote by mail

during the time of a pandemic,

because he doesn't think it's
good enough for his party.

Now, not only is that morally offensive,

but it's also just in-factual.

And since he released that Tweet,

many, many republicans
have come out and said,

"Actually, typically the
way the Republican Party

"has thought about vote by mail,

"is that it benefits Republicans,

"because older people are
the ones who vote by mail."

And typically older people
are ones who lean Republican.

- If it's them, let's
say, that are doing it,

and it's mostly democrat
states that want it,

and the democrat governors,

they're gonna send them
to certain areas, I guess.

I guess people are gonna be getting them,

and said, "Oh, all right, that's fine."

And they'll send it back.

- So not only was the
president undermining

the very constitution
that he swore to defend,

but he also was putting a
piece of information out there

that even his own party disagrees with.

- I say this for the media,

this will be the greatest catastrophe,

one of the greatest catastrophes

in the history of our country,
that's how serious it is.

- Because of the
overwhelming massive increase

in mail-in ballots during a pandemic,

we have a question about the ability

of the postal service to deliver,

to get all those ballots
in time, that's number one.

And number two, we have
a gap in the education

and experience of the electorate

to properly qualify and
fill out absentee ballots,

because they're not used
to doing it that way.

534,000 mail-in ballots
were thrown out in 23 States

in the 2020 primaries.

In California, 102,000 such
ballots were thrown out.

In New York, 84,000.

That's a lot of ballots to be thrown out.

Now, remember in Michigan,
Trump won by 10,704 votes.

In Michigan in the primaries,

10,694 ballots were
disqualified in the primary.

The margin of victory.

So depending on what happens,
this could be critical.

If people don't have any
confidence in the balloting

in the election of who was
actually the winning candidate,

that will cause disputes
that would go on for years.

- You're not gonna able to
know the end of this election,

in my opinion, for weeks, months.

Maybe never.

- The fact is that the people
who are judging these ballots

then have to go through them,

and that will become a
source of a lot of dispute.

Those disputes will
eventually get to the courts.

The courts will take a
long time as they always do

to resolve these things.

And we don't have that much time.

The election is in November, November 3rd.

And if you have a dozen, or
two dozen lawsuits going on,

would they all be finished by January 20?

Which is only a matter of two months,

two and a half months from
the time of the election.

That's not very long

when there's a lot of litigation going on.

- So the president himself

does not have the power
to delay the election.

That would have to be an act
of lawmaking by Congress.

Federal law would have to be changed

to move the election date.

But what the constitution
says is that no matter what,

the President and Vice President's term

terminates on January 20th of
the year after the election.

It's not just the president, of course,

all of the house members
are up for election

and a third of the Senate.

- If there's a contested election,

the constitution clearly states

it will be decided by the
House of Representatives.

- Is that the full house,

or just the house that has been elected

in unchallenged elections, November 3rd?

And if it's a republican house,

then they elect the president.

This is all very, very dangerous.

- But the fact of the matter is

not that many house districts
actually are very competitive.

And so one would think that

even if there are some
contested elections, perhaps,

there probably will be
a pretty clear majority,

and they will then vote as they will,

provided the law is followed.

But there are some questions

about whether the law will be followed.

One such example in my mind,
is of course the 2000 election.

There are a number of legal
scholars who wonder why

the Supreme Court soft fit to decide

how this election dispute
was to be resolved,

because it's not clear
that it is the court's role

to resolve election disputes.

The constitution is quite clear

about who resolves disputes
about the presidency.

So I think there's a
question about whether

a slightly activist,
you might call it, court

might try to jump in
and then usurp the role

of the House of Representatives.

- For too long, we have neglected

our system of elections in this country.

And the virus at this point
has just exposed that neglect.

It's exposed the lack of adequate funding

that Secretaries of State have.

It's exposed the crazy patchwork
of local election officials

all around the country.

Setting up polling
places in little churches

and community centers
with volunteer staffs.

It's exposed the very nature of the way

that we fund our elections.

And so I think at this point,

we've got to take a much clearer look

at what's going on here.

We are the greatest, most
powerful democracy on earth,

and it would be pretty
hard for us at this point

to try to go to other countries

that are either aspiring to be democracies

or are democracies, and suggest to them

that we should be lending them advice

about how to conduct elections.

- Elections are important,

because we cannot address
the national challenges

without doing it through government.

We cannot rely upon private
business, private institutions

to address the challenge presented

for jobs, education, climate change,

safety around the world.

People at this time on both
sides seem to be despairing

with the ability of government

to address these nature problems.

But without government as the solution,

there is no solution.

And if you aren't participating,

and if you aren't
electing the right people

to help solve those problems,

then the system will continue to collapse.

And it'll give the
authoritarians all over the world

the ability to mock us, and
to prove to their people

that they're way, that
the authoritarian way

is the right way.

People spending millions of dollars

because the vote is powerful.

So use that power.

- You're are the future.

And only if you know and educate yourself,

and work to bridge this divisiveness,

is there really any
hope for our democracy.

- One of the things you must
participate in is voting.

That is the fundamental right,

and the fundamental function you have

to influence where this country goes.

- People in government make decisions

that affect many, many tomorrows.

They decide today on actions
that will affect the future.

Young voters have more vested interest

in that future than order voters like me.

And so for no other reason,
a self-serving reason,

whether it's a local race for judge,

for County commissioner,

a state race, or a federal race,

Your futures will be affected
by those you vote for today.

So vote, it's unexcusable.

There's no reason not to.

It's in your best interest to do so.

(dramatic music)

iSubDB.com - fast, modern, simple
Subtitles search by drag & drop