i compare and contrast with academia. we were looking with different stats a bit of a transition, segue, howie, looking at stats of commencement speeches, so far of 18 at top 100 colleges, 38 liberal folks, and three conservatives this was a disappointing number to me, because i like idea of diversity of thought. you ought to have just as many conservatives as you do liberals. i would think at a university of all places, you would want that, because again, the more ideas the better. but when you see the likes of nancy pelosi, hillary clinton, et cetera, what does it tell but the sort of next breed of journalists if you would being educated in these institutions? >> first tells me diversity in academia, not so much. separate from the commencement speeches when prominent conservatives supposed to speak on campus there is protests, sometimes they have to back out, all that is very sad day for free speech. i agree first six or eight months, a lot of the press was rooting for hillary to win. thought she won the popular vote, h

your thoughts about what's going on in academia and why republicans don't take seriously about achieving ideological diversity. >> i work for turning point u.s.a. and this is what we are confronting head-on. i think ought reason democrats and republicans alike don't take it seriously because they don't understand how bad it has gotten. conservative thinkers are under attack. you have students against white supremacy that shout down student for capitalism. they are socialists. they refer to people who wear blue blazers as the symbol of white supremacy. i was at a campus in minnesota that said somebody wearing a blue blazer was the costume for white supremacy. lou: that is stunning. that's one i hadn't heard before. there is so much that's being ginned up by the left in this country. watching the dimms at gina haspel's confirmation hearing. those are some of the nastiest people i have ever seen. utterly disgusting. >> it's so typical unfortunately of democrats in the last 10-15 years for them to turn something so crucial and important as this nomination into a stupid partisan fight in whic

and it's just -- you now, it's time, once you're finished in government, you ought to go to academia and not to try to play the same role. lou: by the way, do we have the president talking about john kerry today? do we have that sound? can you bring that up? it's worthwhile for all of us to see that. it's terrific. let's turn to these remarks today by the president at the nra. great speech. >> very powerful. lou: we referred to love in the room there. i mean, there was a mutual admiration society at the nra -- between the nra and this president. >> very important constituency. and what he challenged them is to get out and use all of the powers that you have in the midterm elections and that's very important that they do that. they're powerful across the country because they've got a lot of active members. lou: and the trump economy, 34.9% unemployment, the lowest unemployment rate since 2000. the lowest hispanic and african-american unemployment ever. and jarrett is trying to take credit for it today. >> again, she should have left the government a long time ago too. at the end of th

two years, we've made progress with the fbi and dhs in advice and awareness and threat to not known academia and industry from china and other nation states. we will continue to do that and work with the associations and i concur with your point that i think the private sector leadership at the ceo level needs to be more active in terms of ob staining clearances so that information that is classified can get to them in a more efficient manner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to pick up mr. evanina on the vice chairman's point with respect to zte specifically. thank you for the visit we had in our office. now in 2012, the house intelligence committee issued a nonclassified by partisan report on national security issues posed by the chinese telecom companies. one of them was zte. the report concluded that the risks associated with zte's provision of equipment to u.s. critical infrastructure could undermine american national security interests. do you agree with that bipartisan report? >> senator, i do. >> now, they recommended that the united states should view with suspicion the continued

they must work with the private sector and academia. no less important are investments in stem education, programs that develop junior talent into future tech leaders of policies that promote an environment in which global collaboration, discovery, innovation, public institutions, and industry can thrive. i had an opportunity to read dr. schmidt's statement and i want to thank you because it provides a kind of reality test for us, and how do we continue to do many of the advances that we've been working on, and you note those in your statement very clearly. but also build an architecture that is going to bring us into the future and certainly respond to the needs of the men and women who go to war on behalf of our country. i look forward to hearing your testimony today. thank you. excuse me. and i yield back. >> without objection, both of your written statements will be made a part of the record. i do want to comment, dr. griffin, that nobody's read yours because we just got it. and i think it's important. i realize that when you're an

and once you get all the academia behind you, it still comes down to who are those who are less fortunate that we need to give more concern to? and that's where we are. and i'm hopeful that eventually that we can get there because they are the ones who wake up tomorrow with nothing on the table. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> are there other amendments to title iv? well, everybody had a five-minute bite at the apple. are there other amendments? recognize mr. walsh for five minutes. >> that's why i'm going to yield to one of those smart people, mr. mcgovern. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm amazed at how this markup has evolved. in the beginning, my friends on the other side were talking about how these provisions were the greatest thing since slice bread. they were wonderful and then mr. davis basically said don't pay attention to what's in the bill. you may think it's bad but this is the beginning of a process. it will change and change and maybe get better. here is a radical idea. why don't we start off with the very best product we can? rather than something that nobody k

committee that encompasses diverse representation from law enforcement, civil rights organizations, and academia. have posted a series of meetings to hear perspectives from hate crime survivors, academic experts, advocacy leaders and law enforcement officials on best practices to combat hate. the end product will be a summary report outlining the action items detailing the discussions on the advisory group and will be released between the summer and early fall of 2018. it is a very competent of documents that we will clearly make available to this committee. today i would like to focus on challenges law-enforcement faces when it comes to hate crimes. as you have heard from the last two presenters, over the years, one of the greatest barriers to confront the overcoming hate violence has been the lack of statistical data on the occurrence and nature of these crimes. participation of the reporting system, which like the rest of the ucr is voluntary. while participation has increased over the year, but dissipation levels are seriously lacking. we know that figures -- the figures, as reported to the

are available, the education and engagement that we can have through the public and partnerships with academia, information technology, security experts and all that. that's the way we're going to guarantee the security of the 2018 election of not placing federal agents in our polling systems. >> can i ask something? dean mentioned the transparency piece of this. we have to balance the transparency and security. that can be a fine line for election administrators to walk. and we're going to see that certainly in 2018 and pull out further in 2020. i want to add not just to the election administrators but what can voters do, right? and one of the things i'd encourage folks to do is volunteer as a poll worker. i'd hate to use the tsa technology, but if you "see something, say something." those administrators can be valuable. and those monitoring the polls can be helpful. i know some of my colleagues would probably strangle me over saying that. but i think it's important for the public to be out there monitoring. >> how do people sign up? >> go to you know website. we'll sign -- our website. we'll

in the early 2000s it was very popular in academia, for obvious reasons there was an overfocus on trying to find ideologies behind the putin regime. it took ideology, i think, much too seriously in trying to understand how the kremlin worked. now there haven't in the mainstream enough interrogation of the besieged fort tress, what they mean, what the russian establishment has come to believe about certain things and how it's propagating ideologies and pumping them into institutions and network institutions from the whole secret service world, it really is a world of private schools and private hunting lodges and into the bureaucracy and into the military. i think that when we talk about russia a comment that one receives from russian officials and then media, media, media sock puppets is you're talking about fragment remains of the 1990s. they do have a point here which is that the -- certainly the discussion in the media we get is an overfocus on a generation of ambitious 1990 oligarchs heavy criminal lysed, but you have these sort of western global financial ambitions and there isn't e

reporting around this informant said they were involved in many administrations, a long-term career in academia, it is natural they would be on the list. maria: house republicans want a second special counsel to look deeper into hillary's personal server on the ongoing russia investigation, that is another thing devon nunez is looking at and we are looking at hillary clinton's first email. >> a special calls for additional special councils to wander around town to follow that up. and it will be on the hill in those committees. maria: next johnston coming from the white house to a screen near you, a production deal with netflix could have him on some shows producing others. we will tell you about it. and elon musk's human is closer to reality. he is showing up incredible images. back in a moment right here. [music playing] (vo) from day one, we always came through for our customers. it's how we earned your trust. until... we lost it. today, we're renewing our commitment to you. fixing what went wrong. and ending product sales goals for branch bankers. so we can focus on your satisfaction. it's a

a pleasure to see all old friends from the intelligence community, from the think tank and world of academia and other agencies around town. and even some media friends i have made over the years, so thank you for having me today. in the interest of time i'm going to cut right to the chase, and try to identify a core question. and give you my thoughts on that core question and hopefully frame the discussion that we have on the panel, but also during the q and a. so the core question i have been thinking a lot about is what exactly is putin going to do in the next six years, now that he has won reelection? does have a strategy? what does he really seek to achieve during this timeframe? i'm not even going to get into -- some of you may have seen that is the rate of chechnya. somebody might want to put in the constitution for 2024, that is a whole subject unto itself. i'm going to focus on the next six years. so if i look -- by the way, i think everybody will become a russia expert. it is impossible not to pick up a newspaper and everybody has an opinion on putin. so i'm just one of them. i spe