And i ended up writing a column about it. It began a conversation with chris that was part of his effort to develop this book and the arguments in it. Want to ask chris to take us all on a journey he has been on. He has shared some with me over the years. The book starts with a really chilling account of what would happen in the first hours and days of a war with china. Maybe that is a good place to people whyaining to we have a problem when it comes to technology. Chris thank you, david. I appreciate your friendship and guidance throughout this whole process. It has been invaluable. With the timens is spent on the Senate Armed Services committee, the better part of a decade supporting the committee and senator mccain, looking closely at the u. S. Military, how we were investing money and werent investing money and ultimately, how we match up against emerging great power competitors, first and foremost china. The reason i wrote the book was a concern i had then add have now that we are losing our military technological advantage , that as a result of that, our ability to it or conventional conflict is eroding. And that is putting us into a dangerous position. I tried to make this visceral to people, spelling out what it might look like if the United States military had fight china. There are a lot of reasons why that might happen. It is not a war the United States is looking for, but for many reasons we could find ourselves in that situation. The problem that we have is that for 30 years, our adversaries have going to school on how the United States builds and operates our military. In china in particular has not sought to play the same game that we have played. They have recognized the u. S. Military is built around very small numbers of very large, expensive, heavilymanned military systems, vehicles, ships, aircraft, platforms, and they have made a conscious, urgent effort to build up military capabilities to call into question how the u. S. Military operates and what it operates with. Concernpell out is a that if we ended up in this conflict, our Forward Operating guam, land bases in asia, japan, would come under immediate attack from precise and large quantities of positionguided weapons, missiles, Hypersonic Weapons of different ranges and types. Our navy forces and see bases, aircraft carriers, would face a similar onslaught of large quantities of lowcost, very precise weapons, antiship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, carrier killer, ballistic missiles. Our air power would struggle to get close and struggle to be relevant, because of the dense, integrated air Defense Systems the chinese have built, all of this with an idea of pushing the u. S. Military farther away, making it harder for us to operate and ultimately engaging in what the Chinese Military refers to as systems destruction warfare, which is the feeling of capabilities to rip apart the critical enabling technologies and technologies the u. S. Relies on to operate income that up combat the u. S. Relies on to operate in combat. The Chinese Military feeling very advanced technologies from effect, cyber electronic warfare, to go after the ways the u. S. Military operates. They have made a lot more progress than most americans realize. Is situation for the u. S. More dire than most americans realize. Chillingsense a ourunt of a war in which carriers are having to move east , away from china, should escape attack. Our beautiful, f35 exquisite fighters cant get to their targets to refuel because the refueling plane will get shot down. Just a series of really dreadful prospects. He said at one point the talking for senator mccain about this i can onlyago, imagine the conversation and what the choice would be, between surrender and lose or fight and lose. , how did we get into this terrible vision of vulnerability, the kind of scenario you just described were the chinese have a Weapons Systems dock for an Weapons Systems doctrine that will render our beautiful weapons i dont know useless, but much less powerful. Chris i am not trying to suggest china is 10 feet taller the u. S. Is no effective means of responding. We do. The overarching story is a pretty bad one and it is heading in a worse direction. How did we get here . There is a handful of things. One obvious reason is that for the past two decades, we have been focused on events that followed 9 11, wars were fighting, global counterterrorism, and that shouldnt be minimized. At that was in a normas strain on the u. S. Military an enormous strain on the u. S. Military. But over the last 25 years, the lions share of our defense budget, upwards of three quarters of a trillion dollars at this point, has been going toward military systems and modernization efforts that didnt have anything to do with the wars that we were fighting. That is where a lot of the failure resides. It is an intellectual failure, that we misconceived the nature of military power, what we are building a military to do, what we refer to in the defense world as a platform centric view of the world. We have optimized our entire defense enterprise to produce military things, vehicles, ships, aircraft, tools of military power that can be relied upon for many decades. And we have sought to make them incrementally better. We have optimized our Industrial Base to produce this result those results. And that is not what ultimately wins wars, tours conflicts or keeps the peace. The outcomes we are trying to achieve our better decisionmaking achieve are better decisionmaking, better understanding of the world, and the ability to do that faster than our competitors, regardless of the tools we use. So part of the problem exists in how we conceive of military power and the fact we build grams and budgets and an Industrial Base and special interest support complex, all focused on producing more incrementally better versions of the old things we have relied upon for a very long time. At the same time, we have failed to recognize how far emerging technologies have advanced, particularly in the commercial world over the past 15 years. Theay of an example, parking lot outside the Office Building where i am now has commercial tesla vehicles that computer processors and processing units that are hundreds of times more capable and powerful than the supercomputer that is on the f35 joint strike fighter, referred to as the flying supercomputer. The defense world has fallen significantly behind the commercial world and a lot of respects respect to Artificial Intelligence, emerging technologies like that, and the underlying reason if i could point to one is hubris. We came out of the cold war so far ahead of the next competitor and enjoyed that literary dominance for so long that we begin to believe that the ways we have always operated militarily, the things we have relied upon to deliver our dominance, would forever be the things that would achieve that level of military primacy for us. And we failed to recognize that in that time, we have been disrupted by competitors and disrupted by the nature and evolution of advanced technology. And if that mindset doesnt change, if we dont realize we have to get out of the way we have conceived of military power and operations for 30 years, we are not were to be able to address this problem effectively. On the question of how did this happen to us, i am going to ask you to talk about something on which you have a a unique advantage, what senator mccain liked to call the militaryindustrial congressional complex, that Iron Triangle that keeps our existing ancurement systems, evergreater refinement of procurement systems, keeps that whole thing rolling forward. Maybe you could talk about that obstacle to buying what we need, from the perspective you have from being staff director on the committee, the things you saw happen despite efforts by u. N. Senator mccain to turn the course. It didnt happen year after year. Why is that . Chris it is a great question. You are right to hit upon the ecosystem. His is an it definitely involves the congress, the department of defense, the military, special Interest Groups outside certainly the Industrial Base, but also the Many Organizations involved in National Defense. Not the nature of the system. The nature of the system is not going to change. Eight is going to be what it is it is going to be what it is. We could wish that it was going to be otherwise, but i dont think it is realistic to hold out hope that defense reform has to be predicated upon a fundamental transformation of our political system. You areity is, and what pointing to, that too often, incentives that govern that system are out of whack and they generate the same outcomes which as we have been talking about is building more and more, incrementally better versions of old things, at great cost, great levels of technological sophistication, but they are not necessarily things we need to prevail in the strategic competition we are now involved in. The reason is that this is a defense establishment that is inherently conservative. And there are good reasons. Bureaucracy exists to slow the pace of change. Costsisruptive change peoples lives and creates calamity. The problem is that the system has become so optimized to producing the same types of things, demanding the same types of things, building the same types of things, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to change the incentives that govern that system. And to do that, you have to affect it at all levels. It is not enough to make change at the congressional level in the absence of leadership at the department, or different types of defunct different types of responses from the defense industry. These are things that i think are possible to change. In my time in the senate, i saw efforts where the congress was involved in the right ways toward making hard choices, divestments of old systems, increasing investment in new technologies the department is perhaps not fully aware of, and this has happened before. The predator aircraft, unmanned aviation as we think about it today, largely again through congressional earmarks. The incentives can be changed, but too often what we have is a system where the pace of change is incredibly slow, there are very few incentives for people in all the different branches of government and parts of the ecosystem to make disruptive change in fundamentally shift the way we do things. And it revolves around the systemic failure to truly understand and measure and seek , different ways of achieving military outcomes we seek, rather than producing better versions of tools we have relied upon. Ourd i want to remind audience members that you can join this conversation in a committed. If you have a question for participantsyour thaad on the screen and hit the participants tab on your screen, hit the raise hand button, and that will facilitate our conversation. Beliefyou have a strong in the need to modernize our defenses. You have actually tried to do it yourself in your own career. I thought it might be interesting for our viewers to hear from you about what you are new weapons and systems you are trying to build, and what you hear about in the technology world. About what will talk it is difficult for Companies Like yours to get in the door. Amn and are all androl is a startup that is three years old. We try to provide advanced Technological Capabilities to the defense enterprise. The department of defense, other National Security agencies, u. S. Allies and ardors overseas, and our focus is very much that. Emergenting technologies like Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems and building capabilities that address that the u. S. Military and National Security professionals have. Not to meet requirements laid out 10 years ago, but to solve problems in new and different ways. A broader statement about the nature of these technologies. It goes back to what we talked about earlier that what we are trying to do when we field literary capabilities or bring new technologies to the fore, is to fundamentally enhance human decisionmaking and understanding of the nature of actions humans can take, and making it a humancentric process. Confusion lot of around what these technologies can and cannot do. There is misunderstanding and concern about building skynet for the terminator. Many people in the Defense Technology world look at it as, there are good things that these technologies are doing now and there things they are not good at end they shouldnt be put in position now. At the most basic level, the department of defense is awash in data like the rest of the world, collecting vast amounts of information. The tragedy is that all too often, we are not taking advantage of all the information that we have. We make it the job of tens of thousands of people to sift through this information and generate insights to bear our military for the dangerous jobs they are going to perform. Slow,o often, it is manual, brittle, not very dynamic, and that increases risks to our men and women in uniform and professionals who do defense work. It wastes their time and where these technologies can shine today is around making better use of the information that we insights thatng are going to protect our force, humansnocent lives, put in the position of making faster decisions about issues of warring peace war and peace and life and death, and ultimately ensure whatever actions are taken emanate from human agency and always have human accountability, so you can trace that action back to someone accountable for initiating it. That is the crux of the issue. As long as we ensure that process is taking place, these technologies are to rapidly develop and add value, but it has to occur in that operational, strategic and ethical framework. David if you read chriss book, you will see a detailed discussion of all the different unmanned systems, air, sea, land, that for relatively little money can be brought to bear. Roc striking details on systems that we could have. Assuming there are Great Companies out there that have got great ideas and know how they could be helping our way,se in a costeffective they can fund they confront a pentagon procurement process that is intimidating and overwhelming, and a lot of Companies Just give up. Talk about that problem, that people with good ideas dont have the ability to do the paperwork to get into this procurement loop. Chris National Defense is not a free market. Ands significantly defined controlled by the government but still governed by consensus. Focusing on when we unpack this question of how a new entrant can do Better Business with the department of defense. Saw in my time in the senate with senator mccain to reform the acquisition process, and in my life after government, is that timelines are way too long for Small Companies. For larger companies, they can ride out the multiyour process from rating requirements to acquisition programs, selecting a vendor, going through competition, getting money appropriated. Years, oftentimes a 6, 7 in the case of larger systems, it is over 10 years long. The problem is that for Small Companies and startups, they need to return investment quickly. They need to be able to show that they are generating wind, getting traction for the work they are doing. All too often, the problem in the defense world is that when we start a new program and have a lot of new prototypes or science projects or smallscale efforts that get going, and it has never been easier right now is a lot of as a result of reforms in recent years, the Defense Innovation unit and other innovationfocused organizations seeking to bring these companies in, the problem historically is that none of it scales. So hundreds of Companies May come in and have the opportunity to get a very small contract and build a small prototype. But there is not a mechanism that takes the best performers across what is known as the valley of death, from a smallscale prototype to a largescale military program. What the defense established needs to focus on, the next administration whichever stripe, processes to identify who the true performers are among all those new entrants that are doing small amounts of work for the department of defense, and identifying the next spacex, the next star company capable of fielding critical National Security and offensive technologies at scale. That is how you then begin to change the defense Industrial Base. As Small Companies become larger, as they hire more people, and looks like a viable Business Models for engineers and investors,s a place where engineers want to work and investors want to invest. The problem we have had for 30 years is that, as start ups every other sector of our economy from financial others, there have only been two examples of that in the defense world in 30 years. It is a very small group of companies that have been able to cross that threshold. And all too often it is because ory have had the prowess resources behind them to play out incredibly long timelines. That has got to change to level the playing field, reduce barriers to entry so more of these companies and innovators can not just do work and go nowhere, but do work and scale it to build more Successful Companies and products and help the u. S. Military regain its competitive advantage. Viewers ifnvite our you would like to ask a question of chris, go to the participant tab at the bottom of your screen, hit the raise hand button, your hand will be raised and we can call on you for a question. Chris, i want to veer away from your book for a minute to ask a question as someone who follows our military carefully and thoughtfully. A lot of people in our professional agencies, military, look over their shoulders toward political authorities, whether on the hill or white house. That is worrisome sometimes. I would be interested in your evaluation of how the military is doing in protecting its independence. We had the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff out in ,amouflage at Lafayette Park and general milley would be the first to say that was not a good moment. What are your thoughts about the right balance for the military optics . Chris great question. It is something that has become alarming. National Security Professionals beyond the military, certainly when i was on the hill, there was always broad bipartisan support for these institutions. There is a degree of trust and deference shown to them from the believing of not there are conspiracies afoot to undermine the functioning of the u. S. Government and its elected leaders. And that erosion of trust has been deeply worrisome. The u. S. Military is hanging on. Well ine weathered this light of how many different ways this could have played out. The instance you cite general milley, i think he recognized he put himself and ended up in a compromising position and was quick to correct the record and admit that that should not have happened. The military leadership keeps the institution on the right track. And it has been very difficult for them to maintain that straightline that is ultimately straightline. That is ultimately where civilian leadership is essential. We dont want a society where we treat the military like the priesthood we want strong civilian leadership, and part of the civilian leadership is sheltering the military from political winds, political interests. And that is becoming harder to do, as more of this process becomes politicized. I hope that is something we can move away from and recognize that if we keep going down that path, it is going to lead us to dark places. That the u. S. Military has done an admiral job admirable job of trying to keep itself out of politics and constantly making it clear that their loyalty is to the constitution, the of that they took when they joined the oath thatary the they took when they joined the u. S. Military, that is going to have to guide them going forward. But at the same time, civilian policymakers have to recognize the ways we want to rely on our military and the ways, the things we need to keep them away from. My hope is that on a bipartisan basis, congress can continue to try to play a role in helping the process of giving the military cover, sheltering them from political winds or interests that could be deleterious, rather than playing into the process of wanting to take opposite side that using the military as a cudgel to beat up the administration, regardless of which party is in power. David we have some wonderful questions submitted. I am going to start with two people who are special members of our aspen family. Then we may bundle some questions. But i want to begin with jane harman, a member of congress for many years who took an intense interest in National Security issues and was an effective overseer and critic and for the last 10 years, running the aodrow wilson center, making special contribution to understanding Foreign Policy and National Security. Jane harman. Jane thank you, chris and david nice to see you both. Is left without john mccain and congress is also left without you, chris. I thought you were a highly Skilled Staff member of the Senate Armed Services committee. Confess, i was part of the military industrial congressional caucus, because my district made most of the countrys defense and intelligence satellites. It was a huge deal for the economy. It was the economic driver to have Aerospace Firms doing that. It doesnt mean we cant do better with small suppliers and all that, but i just thought i would put that out there. My question is this. It first relates to the capacity of congress but yes, we need defense reforms and need to think about new systems most members of congress are pretty analog, and these are digital systems. At the wilson center, we are educating staff to understand ai, but if members of congress wrap their heads around, if they have time for this, the concepts and systems we need for the future, that is the first part. David raisedrt, andissue of intelligence, it is not just leaving the leaders of the military alone in making sure they exercise their capacity to put the country first, it is also what i would call a substantial purge of our Intelligence Community recently less able to speak truth to power. As we think about systems to field against future threats, we have to think about how capable are our adversaries, and what are their intentions . If we dont understand their intentions, we could easily miscalculate. So it is the capacity of congress at the capacity of our ic. Chris great questions, thank you, jane. ith respect to congress capacity, at the member level as well as staff level, the institution would be well served by the efforts you are engaging up the understanding of these technologies. That is important. I think we also have to whatnize that ultimately, these technologies do is solve operational problems. Demystify a lot of the technology. You shouldnt have to be a Data Scientist to understand the value Machine Learning can provide to the military. Nor should you have to be a 20year military operator. What i sought to do in the book was unpack this in a way that would make it more accessible to , myneral audience colleagues, former colleagues in congress, and that has to do with oiling the problem down to what it is we are ultimately Building Military systems to do, which is to improve understanding and Decision Making and action. Canhat level, you contextualize what these technologies can do. There are ways you can demonstrate to people so that it is visceral and tangible how these technologies contribute to improving understanding, decisionmaking, making us better faster at the types of things we have to do operationally. See is where people will the value of the underlying technologies, and what they can do to enhance our , without getting into algorithms and false positives and other things i think engineers are going to focus on. It is possible, it has to be framed to the right way and we have to oak us on the right problems. Ith respect to the ic, couldnt agree more. Theere talking about erosion of trust in our professionals, whether our Foreign Service officers, uniformed luke perry, law ororcement officials professionals in the Intelligence Community. We have an admirable tradition in this country of people who serve in our government who answer a calling higher than themselves, Render Service to the country regardless of which administration is in power, regardless of which party is in ofer, and to see the erosion that trust in our institutions and the belief that these are yet another political laughter, political actor, to me is deeply worrisome. That is something we are going to have to rebuild in this country sooner than later, because if that erosion continues and we no longer trust that we have professionals in our National Security ranks who are there to serve the nation and to serve the nation and call balls and strikes, then we devolve into a real state of political chaos. We are at risk of that now. And we have got to correct in the future or we are going to take a dark path. David lets turn to a question from another giant in National Security, senator sam nunn. Is the center still without senator still with us . David . You hear me, david yes, chris is waiting. Thank chris for his service on capitol hill serving mccain, and i look forward to reading the book. The procurement system has always been difficult and i guess it is more difficult now. I want to know whether ash carters initiative with Silicon Valley plays any role here are role here, and whether that should be continued. My second question deals with Constitutional Responsibilities of congress. My guess is that the Founding Fathers would have said the most important responsibilities of congress under the constitution are article one, appropriating money and number two, declaring war. The war powers has not worked, it is not working, and no one seems to be overly concerned about it, although we have baited wars in the middle east where everybody things we ought to get out, that we dont, we can find a way for almost 20 years now. Does Congress Need to reorganized in order to fulfill its role under the constitution on war powers . It is important but it seems to me it is in total default. Thanks, chris. I look forward to reading the book. Chris thank you very much, senator. Good to be with you. On your first question, and initiatives that have been launched in recent years, these are good. And there are a number of organizations like that have proliferated. These are good things. They are playing an Important Role to build bridges to the Technology Community to create pathways for startups or new entrants or companies that have not traditionally done National Defense work. The critical thing that is still lacking is how we scale the best performers. Because that is what is going to ultimately revitalize and help make our defense Industrial Base a more defense a more competitive and robust ecosystem of technology where you have lots of viable performers, rather than just a very small number of very large companies, as we have today. Act spect to the war powers and the authorization of use of force, i could not agree with you more is a problem people recognize on a bipartisan basis, congress has delegated a lot to the executive branch with spect to the conduct of war and authorization of war, how these conflicts are governed. The big flag i would offer is that, in the attempt to reframe this, Congress Needs to resist the temptation to try to be an organization of 535 commanders in chief. The proper role for congress in authorizing use of force is i to is identifying a mission we want our military to accomplish. We have to defer as a congress the execution of that military operation to the president. And i think the reason we have an inability to get this system right, to modernize it, is the lack of trust between congress and the president on that basis. I saw it when i was in the senate, where you had a Republicancontrolled Congress and a democratic resident. The same is true now where you have a division of power in the congress and a republican president. Ultimately, congress has to be in a position of defining the mission, but then comfortable delegating the execution of the mission to the president , while still having oversight, control of funding, mechanisms at its disposal to correct things. Tries to micromanage we arey operations, going to create more problems than we are going to solve. David i am going to take the top two names on my list of questions. And then ekon. Nancy. Is nancy there . I am not hearing her question. Ask you to give your question. Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. I am grateful for this session. Thank you for organizing it. , mr. Kristin, for your book, and thank you, mr. David, for coordinating it. My question is about the pandemic. Were are several diseases have dealt with in the past, hiv, ebola, and they come from viruses jumping from animals to humans because of animal slaughter. Could this model of the pandemic be used as a warfare technique . And what can we do to prevent future such pandemics, since we have live markets not only in china but several in the u. S. . Good question, chilling, but a good question. Chris i guess the chilling answer is, i spent a lot of time looking closely at emerging technologies. The one that i am most concerned about is not Artificial Intelligence. Ands biotechnology, specifically around the question of biological warfare. Warfareally, biological has been a classic example of an indiscriminate weapon. Once released into the environment, it moves persontoperson in an uncontrolled, undirected way by human beings. The concern around biological weaponry is, for the same reasons we can tailor make medicines that are unique to an individual or group of individuals, you can do the exact same thing on the dark biologicalespect to warfare agents, specific strains of disease. And it is something we need to be very cognizant of as a country, what our competitors might be doing in this regard. That is a huge area of concern and yes, the recent pandemic brings that into focus to a certain extent. It is something we are going to have to pay a lot more attention to as a country. Chris forthanks to the usual, suburban account of these issues. Nickll turn this over to mo burns. Lets go into extra innings. I want to ask one more question before we turn to john bolton. Chris, i have been so impressed as you and david and i have been debating this big issue, but how do we reform the u. S. Military . How do we take advantage of these Technology Ends technologies and militarize them . Do we risk losing our military advantage to china . Foresee a scenario where the United States becomes effectively the numbertwo military power in the world . Because china has been more quantum,n ai, biotech, and reformulating those technologies for military purposes, i dont think any of us want that, but is it in the realm of the possible . Chris it is absolutely a possibility. The course we are on will take us there. And it is not because we are not spending enough, not because we dont have access to fantastic technology or have less Human Capital or our people are less focused. We have all of thats going for us. The problem we have is an inability to recognize that, if we dont change course, we are going to end up in the future you just described, we will have lost our military advantage, and all the attendant consequences that come with that, things we take for granted in terms of diplomatic influence, economic standnce, the ability to a things we care about, with some weight behind us. To erodengs are going as we lose that military competitive edge, which is playing out. For us to fundamentally change that, it starts with the recognition that we have to make significant changes with a sense of urgency. China is moving out with that sense of urgency in a national way. And we shouldnt treat them as if they are 10 feet tall. We also should minimize the challenge either. We shouldnt build ourselves up and pat ourselves on the back too much, because the types of changes we are talking about are going to be significant, they are going to have to play out for a very long time. Id even if we are successful, dont think we are going to get back to military premises we enjoyed for the past 30 years. We are moving into a competitive environment where we can hope to and China Military primacy, military dominance in their region, but we have to recognize we are not going to turn the clock back to 1997 or 2002. We are going to be a n a fundamentally different and competitive environment where we in and a fundamentally different and competitive environment marie have to conceive defense in a competitive environment, even in the absence of military primacy. I am flattered to be asked. Ill give to brief thoughts two brief thoughts. On the 10foot tall question, i have been looking at evidence s capabilities as a as assessed5g gear, by the british and their best experts in their intelligence which as a public National Security cyber center. What is fascinating is some of i products,s in huawe the software is spotty, there are a lot of holes in it that are vulnerable to manipulation, beat ility to inability to make their own chips, and our cutting them off from our chips means that within 12 months they would be unable to supply their customers. So that is a little short of 10 feet tall. I could give other examples. It is important to bear that in mind. A brief pointith that is one of the most powerful in chriss book. Engages the underlying strategy question as he thinks about getting the right weapons. He thinks about using those weapons to foster the right strategy. Strategy since our victory in world war ii, magnified by victory in the cold war, of projecting power, fighting two wars at the same time, projecting power where we need to, this global superpower projecting, and the chinese have a very different view. People from infringing on their interest. Said,ead you what i just we need to think more about the way the chinese do. Having a strategy that seeks to prevent them from doing something that would harm us or our allies but isnt really so much about trying to project everywhere and having grandiose ambitions that lend themselves well to the suite of weapons we have. Thats a creative part about what chris presents in the book. I urge people to take a look at those chapters. Thank you for a compelling discussion. The book is an important book for every american interested in what we do around the world and maintaining american power. Thank you both for a very serious, helpful discussion. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] cspans washington journal, we are taking calls live on the air on the news of the day. We will discuss policy issues that impact you. Thursday morning, we discussed the 75th anniversary of the u. S. Bombings on hiroshima and nagasaki with a pacific war historian. Also joining us, grandson of president harry truman. Watch live at 7 00 eastern thursday morning. Discussion with your phone calls, text messages, and tweets. The Senate Judiciary committee continued its review of the fbis Russian Investigation by hearing testimony from sally yates who served as acting attorney general at the start of the trump administration. She was asked about the actions of former National Security advisor michael flynn. Her role in the pfizer application process and allegations of political bias within the Justice Department and the fbi. This is just over three hours. Good morning, everybody. Hearing will come to order today. We will have a video hearing
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.