Department and nato. Id like to call the hearing to order. Thatd committee convenes its second open hearing of 2017 into russian interference in the 2016 u. S. Election the 12th open hearing this year. To date our open hearings have largely focused on the domestic impact of russias dealings. Todays hearing will hilet russias intersfeerns in the european elections. Senator burr we hope to gain additional understanding of russian efforts to undermine Democratic Institutions worldwide as the committee continues its inquiry. The Intelligence Committee assessed in january that moscow will apply Lessons Learned from its campaign aimed at the United States president ial election to further influence efforts worldwide. It further assessed that russia sought to influence elections across europe. The director of National Intelligence copse echoed those words as recently as may when he testified before the senate that russias seeking to influence election in europe, including france, germany and
Afternoon mail glad to receive any one everyone here. I am a professor of Public Policy and i am also of the executive director of the Host Institution the center for error Public Policy i will tell you that were delighted with a discussion near and dear that is the subject of trade policy and in particular examine the issue to remedy those of unfair trade practices so todays panel will be moderated by my colleague as a senior industry fellow taking a wonderful lead clearly it has got an so popular over the years i will steal his thunder but in terms of introducing the panel it is a Blue Ribbon Group for people talking today. Looking off the list we see those experts we want to make sure to have ample time for questions and answers as you hear the panel speak so please wait for a microphone this is recorded for posterity so it is a nice idea to identify yourself and your organization so i will turnover so we can introduce the panel. This is a great group we have good dramatic wave of c
Account at all. Its uncontroverted because nobody says he turned the political stuff off for Guilford County. All they did is a cross check as a Guilford County to make sure it wasnt a retrogression problem with the Guilford County which is exactly what he should do by the way. But talk about theory similarities. It was Guilford County and it was greensboro and cromartie ii, and what this court said in giving that direct evidence relatively minimal rate was to say if you look at the rest of that email, the map drawer was very candid about taking race into account in drawing cd one and theres much less race involved in cd12 so it didnt predominate. The similarities could not be more dead on with this case. The most you can get out of Guilford County is that race was taken into account in some way that did not make it predominate, and this in evidence as in cromartie ii, that if you contrast the way the legislature proceeded with respect to cd one and cd 12, its virtually impossible to t
Account at all. Its uncontroverted because nobody says he turned the political stuff off for Guilford County. All they did is a cross check as a Guilford County to make sure it wasnt a retrogression problem with the Guilford County which is exactly what he should do by the way. But talk about theory similarities. It was Guilford County and it was greensboro and cromartie ii, and what this court said in giving that direct evidence relatively minimal rate was to say if you look at the rest of that email, the map drawer was very candid about taking race into account in drawing cd one and theres much less race involved in cd12 so it didnt predominate. The similarities could not be more dead on with this case. The most you can get out of Guilford County is that race was taken into account in some way that did not make it predominate, and this in evidence as in cromartie ii, that if you contrast the way the legislature proceeded with respect to cd one and cd 12, its virtually impossible to t
Account at all. Its uncontroverted because nobody says he turned the political stuff off for Guilford County. All they did is a cross check as a Guilford County to make sure it wasnt a retrogression problem with the Guilford County which is exactly what he should do by the way. But talk about theory similarities. It was Guilford County and it was greensboro and cromartie ii, and what this court said in giving that direct evidence relatively minimal rate was to say if you look at the rest of that email, the map drawer was very candid about taking race into account in drawing cd one and theres much less race involved in cd12 so it didnt predominate. The similarities could not be more dead on with this case. The most you can get out of Guilford County is that race was taken into account in some way that did not make it predominate, and this in evidence as in cromartie ii, that if you contrast the way the legislature proceeded with respect to cd one and cd 12, its virtually impossible to t