War or Peace: Can the U.S. military be trusted to not interfere with this election by swinging the presidency to Hillary Clinton and getting America involved in a potential war with Russia?
October 2016 – WASHINGTON – Concerns about Russian hacking into the November 8 election have now reached the Pentagon where the military’s top cyber official has outlined a plan to help the FBI and Department of Homeland Security to track an election altering attack. What’s more, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, commander of U.S. Cyber Command, has added his voice to that of Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson who is considering whether the election system is critical infrastructure, like the power grid and financial sector, and subject to federal oversight.
“What is critical infrastructure in this digital age? Data, I would argue, is taking on a very different value in and of itself. And the ability of individuals to harness the tools of big data analytics now make access to large data concentrations…very attractive,” Rogers said at Harvard University this month in a video released Wednesday. “I look at the election sequence for example, as an example of, ‘Do we need to step back and reassess this? Hey, look, this really is part of our critical infrastructure?” he said.
Rogers, at an event sponsored by Harvard’s Institute of Politics speaker program, quickly added that the military is and won’t be involved in elections, but instead in tracking foreign attackers if there are any. “What we do is we are trying to understand the actions of foreign actors as they are trying to approach the network, if you will,” he told the student audience. Rogers said that there is an advantage to having 50 separate state election systems instead of a national one that would be an easier target. But he noted that one state could make a difference if results are manipulated. If a probe were required to determine if the election was hacked, he said Homeland would take the lead. Johnson recently said, “There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure.”
In a hack situation, Rogers explained what would happen. “Were there concerns that they thought there were an issue that would call into question the result, [states] potentially would approach the federal government. The Department of Homeland Security would likely have overall responsibility, they likely would turn to the FBI, us, and maybe one or two others, to say, ‘Can we put together a team and harness the breadth of this knowledge and insight and capability that you have to come back with an assessment: Do we think the result is valid? Do we think it was manipulated in any way? So that’s how I think it would play out,” said the admiral. “I would not be surprised in the aftermath of the election that we go in a broader, more long term effort to step back, assess it, and ask ourselves, ‘Are we really comfortable with this structure, do we need to make changes?’” he added. –Washington Examiner