And the interviews that are underlying factor of the base of this project and how it worked. I thank you for that. I turn the mic over to you. Thank you very much, i am honored to be moderating this panel here with for dear friends and valued colleagues. There is a concern a foot that as a moderator i might let it go to my head and try to interject myself too much, so i will be sitting down there while they make their presentations. And then i will come back up here during the question time. You have the detailed bias of our speakers, so i wont repeat them, but a few highlights. First here is professor richard h. Immerman, his bio says he retired from temple university, but he does not know the meaning of the word retired. We are Close Friends and collaborators and her historical advisors. Hes very active as a scholar and a mentor. Next to him is professor melvyn p. Leffler of the university of virginia, a titan in the field of diplomatic history. I read his book as an undergrad, as a
Tonight because with his topic, the bomb, because it brought back memories for me. Back when i was a high school, i was a debater. One of the years the topic was about Nuclear Weapons, and we also read herman khans unthermal nuclear war. It was a big deal at the time. And so now to go back and listen to what has happened to Nuclear Weapons from truman to trump is, is really, really remarkable. Our author grew up in the midwest in kansas, went to Oberlin College thinking he was going to be a lut major lit major, but watergate changed him to political science. And then he went on to graduate school at mit, and it was International Relations and Nuclear Strategy. Then he moved to washington as a defense policy adviser for the house of representatives. But, you know, government work being what it is, he decided that wasnt for him. So after a couple of years he left and wrote his really widelyacclaimed book the wizards of armageddon an inside history of Nuclear Strategy. He then spent time,
American policy on nuclear war. Good evening. Im tony clark from the carter president ial library. Im really glad that you all are here tonight. I was excited to get our author tonight because with his topic, the bomb, because it brought back memories for me. Back when i was a high school, i was a debater. One of the years the topic was about Nuclear Weapons, and we also read herman khans unthermal nuclear war. It was a big deal at the time. And so now to go back and listen to what has happened to Nuclear Weapons from truman to trump is, is really, really remarkable. Our author grew up in the midwest in kansas, went to Oberlin College thinking he was going to be a lut major lit major, but watergate changed him to political science. And then he went on to graduate school at mit, and it was International Relations and Nuclear Strategy. Then he moved to washington as a defense policy adviser for the house of representatives. But, you know, government work being what it is, he decided that
U. Where the i would look and i would think how are we hearing e a motion to dismiss a Sexual Assault case how are we even hearing this. Why are we hear . That is not a credibility determination nap is just a base level facts, have they met this burden, if youre there that tells me that something went really wrong with your case or that you didnt fully consider if this case should see the inside of a courtroom. To have it happen once, to me, is problem matic. That is an ethical call that the lawyer ought to be making. I sat as a judge a number of times ruling on motions where both sides would present evidence and facts, the motion was when did article 32 change . That is a fact. That is a fact. Experienced defense prosecutors did not give anyway fact. If done intentionally, thats an ethical violation. I dont think it was done intentionally so there is no ethical follow up, but it is an ascertainable fact. How i know, i googled, it exists. But the reality is that at the end of the day y
Cspan2. Former state department and National Security officials testified on the Trump Administrations iran policy before the House Foreign Affairs committee. Secretary of state mike pompeo declined an invitation to testify on the president s decision to kill iranian general Qassem Soleimani. Committee chair representative eliot engel threatened to subpoena secretary pompeo in order to obtain information on the u. S. Drone strike. Subject to limitation in the rules. Before i begin, i want to make the big announcement that todays mr. Mccalls birthday. So happy birthday. Im 35 years once again. Me, too. Pursuant to notice were here today to examine Trump Administration policy towards iran. I welcome our panel of distinguished witnesses. Welcome to members of the public and the press, as well. We had hoped to hear from secretary pompeo today, as well. After we invited him, he announced that he would instead be in california. Thats unfortunate whether you agree with this administrations ap