Good afternoon. Welcome to the National Press club. I am deputy manager editor and passed past president of the National Press club and board member of the journalism institute. For todays headline or event, we are pleased to welcome any andy parker. Hopefully, joining us by phone is the director of the Georgetown Universitys civil hts clinicnic rig and Voting Rights institute. They are here to discuss and his campaign to get google to tape video off of its platforms and to take your questions. During the q a portion, i will take as many questions as time permits. Please wait for the handheld microphone that will be brought to you, and when i call on you, state your name and affiliation prior to asking the question. Andy parker and his daughter andy parkers daughter, allison parker, was an Award Winning journalist tragically murdered reporting the morning news from a live location in august of 2015. Her father has been advocating for changes in gun laws and lately and tech policy. His efficacy can be found in his book and his oped testimony before congress and state houses. He is here to tell us where things stand in his battle with google and what future steps he believes must be taken. Please join me in welcoming any andy parker in the National Press club. [applause] thank you, angela. I am allisons dad. And, i find myself standing at the confluence of guns and google. They have a symbiotic relationship. And i have been profoundly affected by both. As all of you know and as angela mentioned, your fellow journalist and my daughter, allison, was murdered. You probably also know about i my fight for sensible Gun Legislation that has been thwarted by republican lawmakers in the pockets of the nra. Even in the face of seemingly nonstop mass shootings, tools to have which we just witnessed this past weekend. These cowards can only offer us thoughts and prayers. The most disturbing is that the perpetrators of these acts are being spurred on by the racist rhetoric coming from the white house. As you have heard many times, over the last couple of days, words have consequences. Trump has fomented a climate where domestic terror is occurring with alarming regularity. 99. 9 of Trump Supporters would never carry out the atrocities we witnessed, but there is that 1 like the el paso shooter that feels that the president was is calling him to act. These pieces of human garbage are encouraged by trump and enabled by the media. The republican leaderships response came from congressman kevin mccarthy, who said the problem is with violent video games. Im sorry, kevin, but we dont have a monopoly on violence video games or mental illness. For that matter. What we do have is a monopoly on guns with more guns than people in this country. These republicans are grasping at straws and will do everything they can to place blame everywhere other than where it logs. But where it belongs. Perhaps one day soon, this will not be a partisan issue, but im not holding my breath. Which brings us to why were here. As bad as facebook and twitter have been, google has been worse, forming immunity protection under section 230 of the Communications Decency act. They have refused to sell police their own terms of service with regard to violent and harassing content on its platforms, especially youtube. The el paso shooter, a trump devote, also said he was inspired by the christchurch massacre in new zealand. Point of views video from that person still are on youtube. The video of allisons murder have inspired others to do evil, including the shooter of a Community College in oregon who professed his admiration for allisons killer. Who said he was acting in retaliation for the charleston shooting. Google just helps perpetuate this evil chain. On may 1 of this year, in the company of the Georgetown University civil rights law clinic, who will hopefully be able to join us, i had a videoconference with lance kavanaugh, youtubes counsel, jennifer downs, chief of Google Global strategy, and alexandria walden, google director of global human rights, whatever that is, regardings sister regarding specific content and our attempts to have it removed. Their response was, were really trying. Lance kavanaugh swore up and down that googles algorithms had blocked this stuff. Further proof of their deception and indifference, it has not been blocked. The videos were blatantly obvious with titles stating rock eo, or murder. Vid it was not as if they were buried in some obscure way. They were in plain sight. Since that meeting, there have been nothing but silence until the morning of my Senate Judiciary committee testimony. Walden reached out to us. Ancois law fr responded, and i quote, my client has reached the point where he does not believe it is productive to continue this conversation when google has not only failed to take meaningful steps in addressing his concerns, but also failed to timely respond to communications from georgetown. In short, until and unless google tells us concrete steps the concrete steps it tends to take to make certain the videos are automatically taken down in a manner that videos violate the rights of copyright holders, my client is not see the point in continuing a conversation that has now lasted for years without resolution. I stated in my testimony three weeks ago before this Senate Judiciary committee, as a company with a virtual monopoly on internet search and video hosting, google has a duty to make sure the information they make accessible to the world is based on facts and not harmful conspiracy theories. Implored both google and youtube to take down the footage of the murder and the related conspiratorial content. Their response was to suggest i view and flagged the content i flag the content i found offensive. Instead of self policing, they put it on me. In essence, they wanted me to watch my daughters murder and then explain to a robot why it should be removed. I never have nor ever will watch any of it for obvious reasons. So in 2017, i reached out to someone whose son was murdered in sandy hook. Though hundreds of videos have been taken down due to their diligence, they are often stymied even with an enforceable copyright. The person who replaced susan as googles Vice President of Government Affairs policy preceded my testimony. When the senator asked him about related content and video of allisons murder, he replied it had all been removed from the platforms with the exception of what they considered newsworthy content. I contend that with that answer, he perjured himself. But sadly, it does not surprise me. Ever since my first conversation with susan two years ago and subsequent conversations with Jennifer Downes and other google contacts, i have included that concluded that google executives lie as easily as they breathe. The day after my testimony, the Senators Office submitted 48 links to frannie w illings, googles liaison. All of the videos i have been fighting to have removed for three years were taken down, not because of the flagging done by the network, but because they were coerced through congressional scrutiny. If it falls to the senate staff to remove objectionable content, that is a real problem. As was the case here. But google couldnt care less. Could care less. I would like to introduce someone to give you insight on this. Thanks, andy. Andy was gracious enough to be a witness before our subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee a few weeks back now. Through that relationship, i learned about the difficulty he has had on getting some of the videos down. We have had some back and forth since then on google. With google. They have been willing, when flagged by us, to take the videos down. As andy said, we dont think that is the right approach. Were trying to work with andy and others to put together a more efficient processing google process so that google takes a little more ownership of this. We are continuing down the process. We submitted questions down the for the record recently for google to explain the process a little more. We are hoping to get more clarification on that and better answers as to why they cannot seem to solve the problem. And you will have a list of those questions, we will pass those out momentarily. As i said in my testimony, thinks to section 230, thanks to section 230, google has complete immunity. Therefore, has no incentive to respond. That is why they sandbagged, lie, and otherwise obfuscate the truth. It came to me the next day. Their faces had a look of seeming innocent the wilderness. Be wilderness. Either feigned or ingrained. They were a modernday version of the stepford wives or androids. It was as if they watched Mark Zuckerbergs testimony a while back and said, we need to be like this guy. Their demeanor and responses were completely offputting and totally disingenuous. As i told senator cruz in my testimony, theres not much you and i can philosophically agree on, but we can agree that google must be regulated. Got thee testimony, i sense there is Common Ground here to craft legislation both parties can agree on, and i the coverage i think the coverage from the aftermath from some conservative outlets such as fox news and the daily caller would confirm that observation. Google should not be allowed to publish, much less profit, from targeted harassment and murder videos. There are far too many new members of the club that no one wants to join after this weekend. Unless we have congressional action, they will find themselves revictimized at the hands of other social media platforms and, in particular, google. The solution is pretty simple. Not long ago, section 230 of the cda was amended to restrict online sex trafficking and child pornography, restricting targeted harassment, incitement, and murder videos should be an extension of this. Extension to this amendment. I want to put a face on it. I want to call this allisons law. For the parkland kids, the sandy hook families, all of us who have been affected and those yet to be, i urge legislators from both sides of the aisle to adopt and pass allisons law. I want to thank jeff and the Senators Office for being a good shepherd. And on that note, we have that list of followup questions jeff was referring to. These were prepared by jeff in his office and sent. Sent to others. I encourage every member of the press to reach out to the google executives i mentioned to see what kinds of responses you get. Thank you very much, and i will turn it over to angela. Thank you, andy. Stay here and i will kickoff questions. Section 230 is back in the news now with the discussion of the host of 8chan, the Online Platform where the el paso shooter posted his rant. The Tech Companies google included say that the section 230 is precisely what they need so they are able to voluntarily police some of the most violent and objectionable content out there. How do you respond . It would be great if they did, but they dont. That my understanding facebook has been one of the most egregious offenders and has been very helpful in removing content. When you flex something, fl something, it comes down immediately. He has much more difficulty with google. With youtube, with their platform called blogger, he cannot even get a response. The network is set up as Google Trusted flagger. They make decisions on arbitrary basis. An ad hoc and arbitrary basis. There are pieces of legislation and discussions that would target section 230 either broadly or specifically, if you are making some amendments you are asked for. Have you endorsed uses of some of the pieces of legislation that are out there . I have not seen a lot other than, i know there is a push, i think the original premise of the subcommittee hearing was to address bias by social media companies, against conservative viewpoints. In google in particular, against conservative viewpoints. It was clear to me that they talked about it. To the senator, he pointed out the real issue is that you name it. I think what theyre trying to do, senator cruz, they want to make the bill a lot broader than i think it will facilitate its passage. I believe that if we take a narrow approach, with what i have suggested with thousands allisons law, it is Common Ground. You get that done and address the other stuff later. You just alluded to the fact that most legislators who have legislation already introduced to target section 230 are republicans looking at it through a different lens. There are also lawmakers who are against increasing them control gun control measures, as you also asked for. How do you align your two interests here, working with people who are addressing the 230 topic on capitol hill . Andy i think those two issues are not mutually exclusive. I think that there is Common Ground here. As i mentioned to senator cruz, i know he is not where i am on gun control, but he is where i am on removing this kind of content that no human being, or no person with any decency would want to see. I think again, if we could narrow the focus and make that bill happened, that law happened, i think there is Common Ground there. The platform where it is currently posted, but youre ok with other platforms also . Andy again, as i mentioned earlier, i have never seen this video and dont want to see it. I have to rely on friends and volunteers to monitor this stuff. They should not have to be doing this. The onus should not be on me or them or anybody here, the onus should be on google. There was a point here. Whether the video lives on in other platforms. Thank you very much. Yes. Blogger is one of the google platforms that i mentioned is rampant. They will not do anything about it. I dont visit that, but that is according to lenny. There is nothing that could be done. My name is eric feinberg. I am with a Cyber Intelligence company. Probably over the last five years, we have earned tens of millions of dollars because we have exposed youtube, google, instagram, for nefarious content. My firm was responsible back in 2017 for the youtube ad cut. Look that up. What he is saying is all the they have to do in addition to youtube is basically do a Google Search and you will see that because it lives on other platforms, it is not only on youtube, but also exists when you do a web search. Finally, me doing this with andy, no one in andy or anyones position would be in this situation. I used this line of section 230, that it is protecting big tech but leaving citizens being vulnerable. All right . One sidebar, im responsible around the world alerting media and governments of christchurch videos still up on youtube, facebook, and instagram. As of today and saturday on the el paso attack, you can still find dozens of these videos even though like i said, we have received media around the world exposing this. Google, facebook, said tell us, meaning me, i have to tell them just like in the case of allisons videos, how to take these down. Why . Because they have 230 protection. Danny sullivan, who i mentioned earlier, a google contact i had, he is at least last year, the head of Google Search. Another instance of the communications i had was we have taken this all down. That is just a lot. Again, they just lie. Before we take audience questions, i want to let you in the audience know we have francois on the phone now. He is connected by audio. Georgetown and law center on the phone now. One question, your daughter was a journalist. We stand for access to information. How do you address the tough issue of drawing a line between access to information and taking extremely objectionable content off the internet . I do not know if there is a conflict there. I dont think that showing a murder and having that up violates the first amendment. I dont think that is you know, or continuing to have it up there, you know, if you take it down, itll violate the first amendment. I do not think that would either would be the case for multiple reasons. It is just human decency. Start here in front, you have a microphone. Andy, thank you for being here. My name is victoria, and i just moved back home to america after working five years as a journalist in new zealand. I was there when the christchurch massacre happened. Something that was different there, being in new zealand with that video versus how we respond to things like in america. So in new zealand, immediately, everybody, whether you are a citizen or government official, everybody made an allout effort to get rid of the video. Whether it was on facebook, i remember somebody sent it to me and i immediately got rid of it. One thing that was different there was the threat of prosecution. New zealand actually did prosecute people over that. Im wondering what are your thoughts about that here in america . What is so different about here that we dont jump to that call like New Zealanders did . My understanding of it, and i think eric will back this up, my understanding is our laws, the u. S. Laws supersede anything because it is an american company, our laws are in are the laws of the international community. So because they wanted it taken down, doesnt mean google had to do it, because theyre going by our laws instead of theirs. It is a shame. My name is roger. I was the ibm executive during the 1990s, responsible for the endorsement of section 230 and lobbying it through other through the congress and other countries around the world. It may be of some interest to you or others concerned about this that i recently posted it posted an oped in the hill which explained what it looks like in 1995 and what we thought we were doing, most important importantly, the title of the article is these are the four big things we missed when we wrote section 230 and a number of other internet laws. I guess my question and comment is that, we are spending some time understanding how the world looked 30 years ago when that law was written, because this was decades before youtube, decades before google, and there were four big things we missed. Check out the hill article and you will see what they were. I use the analogy of when the framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment, they were dealing with muskets, and they could not envision automatic weapons that had taken that have taken over. It is the same thing. The purpose of section 230, a great thing for exchange of information in the 90s, everyone said it is perfect. They could not perceive the dark side of it that would take place. It reminds me of the founders of google. The two guys that originally found it, their original motto was dont be evil, and then i yearsabout four or five ago they changed it to do the right thing, and that was my final piece of the testimony. They dont do either now. Dont you think to keep the memory of your daughter alive newsonsidering that most last only two or three days and then go away, its a good idea that it a good idea that that you can see what has been happening and rather than taking it out of the public . Out of the view of the public . I dont think that removing the video of her murder, her if thatthats not is left up, i dont think that is going to help preserve her memory. There are other ways. It has been reported. It is unique, not unlike christchurch, it is there, so it is there in perpetuity, so keeping that up, that video is not going to preserve her legacy. I run cyber safety charities, and several of us were around in the olden days. How can we help . Well, at this point, once jeff and his compatriots craft some legislation, just like with anything else, just like with the gun issue, call your congressman and legislators and help get this passed. Thank you. A that actually leads to followup question i would like to ask. You like to talk about the work with the Senators Office. What are your next steps . Are you looking to broaden the coalition . Like the sex trafficking advocacy a couple of years ago . I am going to lean on jeff and eric. I am going to keep doing this and i am going to rely heavily on my friends in congress to craft this legislation, and once we get it up and running, i will be roaming the halls of capitol hill, which you guys can do, too. As soon as we get something that is out there and allisons law becomes part of the dialogue in congress, then we need to roam the halls and knock on doors to support it. What andy said. We are part of this bigger coalition that is coming together. Of course, what happened to allison, it is not only what we see as far as these violent videos. Ive also been responsible drugs oning sales of social media. What we are working on proposing is bringing survivors or people who have died from opioid or drug overdoses. Last year, it was reported in the washington post, on instagram, that you could buy opioids. If it was not for our findings andrting this reporting this on the washington post, it would not have, there. There are other illegal forms of drugs that are available on the social media platforms. From china. And by the way, we offered for a fee, a vexing for these companies, to license our software. They turned us down because in order to do it, i have to get inside the body. They wont allow us access to the body. But by doing it, we can prevent these videos and horrific content from going up, because of 230 there is no incentive for them to license my content. License my software because they are responsible for the content. Im advocating for 230. With my software, we can save lives. Anything you would like to add . Does anyone have any questions . We are on the civil rights clinic and Voting Rights clinic. I would like to make a point. [inaudible] the only reason we took on the case is to be active in its advocacy. Gun control. I never met anyone who is a defender, so i dont understand the fight against google to be antifreespeech. The second point to make is that section 230 was never meant to be unlimited. It has at least two builtin stipulations. Limitations. Two,s liability and intellectual property theft. What we are asking to consider aspect, thatrights should we give google complete immunity . Even when they act in such a way . The last point i want to make is that videos such as those murder violate googles own terms of service. Their own terms of service indicate moment of death videos should not be on their platform , and yet, they have the unwillingness to police their own terms of service. Section 230 have immunity. Well said. They violate their own terms of service. Can you describe allisons law . What is the change . What are the penalties . What exactly would it do . Im going to give it to them 2yearold from 3000 feet, because i dont know the nuts and bolts of it. Im going to leave it to jeff and his office. Leave that to jeff and his office. Working witho be senator warren and kane. Essentially, its going to remove the immunity for any kind of targeted harassment and hate speech and moment of death. Simply put, a fairly narrow focus. Again, that is kind of what i would like to see. Generally speaking. Im going to leave it to the experts to craft the exact language of it. Essentially, that is what i like i would like to see. What are the penalties for the violations . What would the Tech Companies would have to do to demonstrate they are conforming with the law . Cruz said, if they sent you that youtube, you could sue them for everything they are worth. Essentially, that was the gist of it. Someone likeenable me to take them to court and litigate them without the they currently have. I would think there needs to be some criminal penalty, as well. I would like to see that. I would really like to see that. President trump signed into exemptionction 230 for sex trafficking last year. Have you had any conversations with anybody in the administration about this law and the concept . No. This is sort of the unveiling of the idea of it, so we have not. I would welcome the opportunity. More questions from the audience . From a Customer Service standpoint, we were talking about this before. Not a 230 solution. You would think there was a five person team at google who could respond to people whose families content is on the platform. They know how to go there and remove it and come back to the initial report. It is not a very expensive solution. There is no solution being offered. Right . Just thinking about how this could be done practically, when they are saying there is nothing that could be done, theres a bunch of things that could be done that would not necessarily be universal or comprehensive, but would certainly help families like this. I go back to the onus should not be on the family to do it, and that is where we stand now. You were the one that led me to through senator mccains office, led me to a conversation with Jennifer Downes. Before that, when the whole thing came up, we did a search related to the foundation we have for allisons foundation, and all of a sudden the first thing that came up was a youtube thumbnail, and it was a scam for him to make money. I was like, here we go. This is when i went down this rabbit hole and went to youtube typed in allison parker, and there were pages and pages. Actually, there was no autoplay going. I could go on. The hooks were related. It ins how i discovered the first place. When i called, its not like you can call google Customer Service and say i need help. They are as transparent as that will right there. I was able to do it, but before that, when i saw these videos, we had a Gmail Account tied to the foundation, and i just called Customer Service for the Gmail Account. I said, i know this is not in your purview, but here is what i have got here. The guy actually said, let me get back with you. Literally, some Customer Service representative overseas. Thisid, well, we have moment of death certificate and out. Will check it that is great. They said they have to apply to each one and that is how i ended up contacting it. I said i cannot do this. They want me to flag each video, and then explain to them the why the moment of death certificate should be taken down. Lot should have a hell of a more than a handful of people monitoring this. That is one of the questions jeff proposed. How many people do you have . What is your process . Who monitors this stuff and adjudicates it . I think we will find out questions there. It is not like they cant afford to hire people to monitor. Let me add one thing to the point you just made. Compare and contrast the last few years with respect to allisons murder to copyrighted materials that makes its way onto youtube. Google is extraordinarily efficient at removing it. It is in you tos youtubes interest to make sure this does not make its way onto the platform. [inaudible] content id its interesting that youtube has never tried, even in the very specific incidents of their own videos. Im not talking about any and all videos you might have objections to, we are talking about specific videos that show leading toof death, adopting the technology to remove the videos on a daily basis, on an hourly basis, a minute by minute basis. As they do to remove copyrighted video. The reason in my opinion is they monetize. They say we dont monetize these videos, we dont monetize death, but the reality is that they do. Every time you click on a video, and one of these videos had over 800,000 views on it, that makes money for google. Eric noticed it early on, they were running banner ads on the murder video. Unsuspecting advertisers were having their ads run on an execution. They said, we quit doing that. That is great. That is the reason they wont do it, because it is a Profit Center for them. Thank you very much for bringing this to the forefront. I know there is a new charity being formed right now, cyber safety. Org, being formed that this will fall on the purview of. It is horrific that it is still happening and i appreciate you are stepping up after everything you have gone through. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have said over and over i will not accept it, i will not tolerate. I will not stop until we fix it she, thankotherwise, you, because otherwise, she would be pissed. Question in the back . I am wondering what impact you think allisons law would have . What other societal or larger scale impacts with implementing the law have . Dont haveately, we any sensible gun laws on the books yet. It is coming. There will be tragedies, as we have seen this weekend. They keep coming at a horrific case. Pace. Rific so, every time one of these things happen, somebody is going to throw some conspiracy. This whole thing is a hoax, all of this. For me, the thing that bothered me most is google making money off my daughters murder. That is what bothered me the most, but there are parents with kids that go online, and ultimately, they are going to see this kind of garbage out there. Gets deathhe threats, he gets harassed constantly. This would take care of a lot of that. I want to have allison as the face of this, but im not just for her, butme and the parkland kids, the people in virginia beach. It is on and on. They get harassed. So, that would be the impact. I think there would be an Immediate Impact and that stuff was stop if google were forced to control their content and mandatoryrial, control over this. I think we would have a benefit. I want to ask if you had a chance to speak about the issues outside the u. S. Because clearly, it is not only an issue here. It is a global problem. After the christchurch massacre, some bringing this to the you one, for example. It . You spoken about i have not. I have spoken to some Foreign Press about this, but again, it has not been formalized. We have not brought it to this point until today. But i think that or launched this notion or this idea. So, it is something that is a great idea. But again, as long as google has protection, International Protection from the laws in the u. S. , they are going to continue to do what they are doing. It has to start here first. I think certainly pressure from abroad would be greatly appreciated. Any other audience questions . Do you have any commitments from congressional offices to introduce the bill . You mentioned warner and kane. I have talked to the chief of staff. This issue is near and dear to warner. Have indicated that they are going to start working on, and jeff will be partnering up with these guys to craft some legislation. Hopefully, we have a good team working on it, and we can come they can come up with the right language that will pass. Any last questions before we wrap up . Go ahead. Let me get you the mic first. When do you think theyll is a solution the legislation will be done and crafted . I think that is premature to talk about. We have talked to andy, he suggested we reach out to the es to talk about what they are doing. We need to have a conversation and see where things go. Jeff did provide me with a caveat that things tend to move slowly on capitol hill. But, we will get there eventually. Passed,der to get this we would be willing to accept restrictions on partisan contents on Online Platforms . Would you be willing to accept restrictions on partisan contents on online pet flatworms Online Platforms . On this piece, i think the broader it gets, the less likely it will succeed, so i think as narrow as we could make it and exclude the piece of it, i think that is the greatest path to having it come to fruition. Here up front. I run stop Cyber Bullying and stop cyber stalking. I am advising the United Nations , etc. , andalking what we can do with these issues. Has anyone in your scope of this work been reaching out to educate consumers . I dont think regular people 0nderstand what to 30 is 23 is. When they reach out to try to report Cyber Bullying or extortion or all of these other things and Facebook Says it does violatee does not our Community Standards but it does, people dont understand that. They just think that they got it wrong. Is there a way to get everyone to understand what is truly going on . When i tell people and people find out that i have been harassed, called a crisis actor, allisons death was a hoax, they are shocked. They just dont believe it. And so, when you tell them this actually happened, that part is hard enough for them to believe, but they are not as deep in the weeds on section 230. Nobody is. But hopefully, with what im trying to accomplish, they will be. Soon, educated. I think again, it is easier to say this is allisons law and have a face and a hook to it, rather than talk about section 230 but if you say allisons law, they are going whats that . And then you can introduce heres what it is. Cap time for one last question. We have time for one last question. It is very important. What we do know for a fact when it comes to 230 immunity is that no industry given immunity industry, be the gun that is one reason we need to think very carefully. Second, when the immunity was we ared to the platform, trying to point out that if in fact this platform is not willing to police themselves, in the instance that someone is shown to be murdered, then how can we trust them to apply any standards at all . If you really think about it, it is a pretty, pretty low standard. That is a pretty low bar to ask. Simply dont use Something Like this to make money. You. Ank think you. Thank you. Before we wrap up, i would like to tell the audience about future speakers we have. We have former Virginia Governor terry mcauliffe, talking about his new book the on charlottesville. August 7, we have Steve Bullock in the morning and representative Elijah Cummings from baltimore speaking at lunchtime. And august 8, we have the wife of a chineseamerican who has been imprisoned in iran since 2016 for the conviction of espionage. Thank you, andy, so much for being here and our guest for joining us on the phone. The senatorsns office submitted to google is right there with the bill. Lots of good questions. Thank you all for coming today. We are adjourned. Thank you. [applause] [indistinct chatter] washingtoncspans journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Ing up wednesday morning, d. Why the fda needs to take more action on cannabidiol, or cbd. Then, the red flag laws. Week, the our podcast host of the global dispatch podcast. Washington journal live at 7 00 eastern wednesday morning and be sure to watch podcast week all this week on washington journal starting at 9 00 a. M. Eastern. Guess ay, the fog podcast cohost. Friday, the host of congressional dish. Heres a look at the life coverage wednesday on cspan. At 10 00 a. M. Eastern, Steve Bullock will speak at the National Press club about the 2020 president ial race and policy issues like gun violence and campaign finance. That is followed by the chair of the House Oversight committee on his committees investigations on the trump administration. 9 30 a. M. Eastern, the importance of maintaining military air superiority on a global scale. Noon, a discussion about congressional war powers and whether the 2001 authorization for the use of military force can be applied to future conflicts. And, the Heritage Foundation takes a look at japan, south korea trade relations and how they are impacting u. S. Diplomacy at 1 30 eastern. Cspan has life coverage of the 2020 president ial candidates at the iowa state fair starting thursday at 1 45 p. M. Eastern with Steve Bullock, followed by joe biden. Friday, life at 10 00 a. M. Eastern with julian castro. Later, beto orourke. On saturday, life at 10 00 a. M. Eastern with jay inslee, kamala harris, amy klobuchar, kiersten gillibrand, elizabeth warren, and cory booker. Watch the 2020 president ial candidates life at the iowa state fair starting thursday on cspan. Watch anytime online at cspan. Org or listen live from wherever you are on the go using the free cspan radio app. Announcer next, combating radicalization and efforts to rehabilitate violent extremists. The u. S. Institute of peace hosted this twohour event
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.