think there are some mega trends here and if we're going to skate to where the puck is going to be a little bit more you know what is what is a continued rapid urbanization going to bring us what our climate change is going to do with regards to people's state society relationships what are some of the water scarcity problems going to do what is 5G terrorism going to look like and I think for a development organization trying desperately to take the long view and a sort of gradual but deliberate and sustained response those are the things that I think are particularly important for us both for researchers and then certainly on the practitioner side well I was going to say I'm an optimist but after hearing that I know it was a close killer you know that what I would say though I would agree with those comments especially the idea that we have to have kind of the local connection I was familiar with the resolve curriculum and how you're trying to do capacity building of researchers at the local level this is hugely important this will pay the kind of dividends and provide the kind of research that we really need and that we can try to get access to this is for me one of the most important sort of kind of projects that we're pursuing right now but at the same time I would say within the government approach and what we're looking at for the United States government and why I do have somewhat of a cause for optimism I see policy development here that's responding to this in a way that's not kinetic that is saying there are aspects to the violent extremism problem that we have to address in different manners and in different ways so for example we have the stabilization and assistance review looking at how we can do stabilization better as a whole but at the local level and try different things we have 11 countries right now that we're focused on we're going to see what's going to happen there and learn the lessons from that and apply it in other places we have the Eli V. Sell Genocide and Prevention Act and essentially under that we are going to be identifying countries that are at risk or even sub regions at risk for atrocity and try to come up with strategies to address the threats that are there those strategies just as they are in the SAR will have CVE elements they have to have that and address CVE aspects we have the Women's Peace and Security Act and the strategy that we're implementing now that completely integrates women and women's issues and peace and security issues into CVE to make sure that we have real progress again at all levels and recognizing that without CVE being addressed as part of WPS there will be no real progress and lastly let me just mention Fragility which seems to be one of the big themes of the day right now we are working with USIP on a Fragility project in Burkina Faso just a pilot project to see how we can identify the indicators and come up with strategies to address fragility that might give grounds to violent extremism this is a small project but it's a pilot project to try to figure out lessons again that will have greater application this is important because we fully anticipate the Global Fragility Act will be passed and we need to know how we're going to respond to that that is a 1.15 billion dollars over the next five years on fragility and that is really about addressing the CVE indicators as an aspect of our fragility approaches and all of this put together shows that we have a lot of different approaches to the CVE problem filtering through or integrated into woven into various policy approaches and program approaches by state, by USAID and DOD okay now I'm going to ask a question that may make those who are still in office squirm a bit and so I'll focus it more on Mike anyone else who wants to can chime in so being fully candid it was my understanding back when I was in government that localization was hugely important but there was also a really important dimension at the highest level government to government interaction and there was a discussion earlier today about dealing with bad partners we have countries that we have serious relationships with that either do really bad things in the name of counter-terrorism what or he used to always feign that kind of thing in the situation room too it took us forever or that simply can't be bothered for example to deal with the very legitimate grievances having to do with lack of the provision of justice and those sorts of things which are a major driver I think we all agree and I guess the question is from those of us who just read the newspaper it would seem like there isn't a lot going on at that level of government at the moment in bilateral relations or multilateral fora but there is a huge government below that and I'm curious if you think the torch is still lit there are still extraordinary people in all the agencies of the government that I used to work with that are striving mightily and in some cases courageously because they're potentially putting their own careers at risk to make the case to make the argument that we have to shift our policy formulations and our strategic thinking towards those things that are more likely to lead to long-term strategic success as opposed to short-term I feel better because this guy is now dead or in jail and I have complete confidence that that mass of people from junior officials all the way to pretty senior officials will continue to strive in that direction but at the top layer of the policy and I won't restrict this to the United States government I see this in many governments at the top levels of many of the governments that I've interacted with over the years there is a reluctance to follow that course there are exceptions to this there are some very senior policy makers I know both in the United States and around the world who are also striving in this direction but there's an insufficient mass of them they are outnumbered by those who are either oblivious of the need to make this change or are very reluctant highly resistant in some cases to make this change now having said that it should beg the question why so I'll try to be brief about this one reason is because of what I've already mentioned it's the ways in which we can successfully employ these other instruments these other instrumentalities fill these decision makers with uncertainty whereas they know they can watch the IRSR feed of a kinetic strike that's nothing but certainty but there are other reasons as well one of them is that we've got some very unfortunate habits it was my colleague just mentioned the billion and a half dollars I think it will be invested over several years I'm glad that's going to happen I'm delighted that's going to happen but as soon as I heard that I thought about the fact that my office for my last three years I was charged with doing an empirical analysis of how the United States Government spends counterterrorism money annually that's actually a perennial requirement of the National Counterterrorism Center I can't quote any specific numbers here because the report is classified but I doubt it will shock any of you to know that we spend tens multiple tens of billions of dollars each year on kinetic counterterrorism now I'm not saying we should throw that kind of money at CVE or counter messaging I don't think they have the absorptive capacity and money isn't necessarily the solution to all their problems but when I examined the enormous disparity between how we resource kinetic CT we can replace everything else that can't possibly be the right answer but that's not part of our policy budgetary formulation habit our habit it's almost on autopilot is to throw the lion share of the checkbook at people like I used to be who go on raids who use physical force or who arrest people we have got to see everyone here knows nothing is harder than changing your habits but if you never start you never finish I would just say two things to that there are many people in our political leadership who believe that every time they face these problems there is the kinetic solution or there's a solution of just throwing money and they you know flash back and forth between these two all the time I think what we're trying to do now is just develop a smarter approach and it means yes there is times when you have to have a violent solution and there are times when doing something much softer is much better for a longer term solution and trying to be smart about that and helping our political leadership understand why this is a better approach in this circumstance at this time is really the challenge for all of us and that's what we're trying to do can I riff off of that I have even lower expectations it's a race to the bottom here I dream of just not continuing to do stupid things if you look at some of the research you know I think for us there were some ripples that went through the policy world at least in my circles when the UNDP report The Road to Extremism came out which you know cited how approximately 71% of those who made the tipping point from anger to taking acts of physical violence in Africa did so because of negative interactions with security forces of their host country government so I think we've got to start there in a lot of ways you know some of these grievances are very legitimate and fuel the problem and I think sometimes in our rush to quote-unquote partner we get ourselves into mortgages that are quite difficult to get out of and I think it creates risk association problems for the United States later down the road and I say that because often it is later when we are asked to help fix the situation and it is one of structural violence that has impacted the community I did a good chunk of my graduate research in Uzbekistan I was just thinking about this I don't know why but Uzbekistan came to my mind because here's another situation where you had a legacy of a repressive terrible governance then it flipped and we're still dealing with that aftershock and we will be for quite a while the trauma issue that had come up earlier in the earlier sessions I think that wrestling with that we should have known better that to be in relationships with governments that were structurally repressive which would impact foreign fighting and other kinds of problems like that and then the last just because it's not classified we attribute approximately 85 sometimes north of 100, 120 million or so dollars per year over the last three or four years to what we would call CVE so that's about the level of investment when you compare that with some of the other agency thanks for that question specifically for you when when I was in government I was always troubled by the extent to which some of my superiors in various buildings were convinced that if we just got the messaging right we would crack this nut open and it wasn't really persuaded but somehow I got involved in doing an awful lot of work on messaging and I think that the message if you will that we got throughout a lot of today was that messages on the airwaves from distant unknown sources of dubious provenance are not going to solve this for us but I'm pretty sure you think that are we going to still continue to always have that decision maker who thinks if I just hired the right people to get that message right is that going to be our fate forever? Well I don't want to fall into a paroxysm of pessimism here so I'm going to say no I don't think so is this the abracadabra solution or the war game solution where the bad tweets are rising on this side of the screen the good tweets will rise to meet them and somehow the problem will be solved in a couple of pixelated bursts in the middle that's pretty obviously nonsense I'm preaching to the converted here I think we all understand this I would actually attribute some of this to an early spate of obsessive focus on the messaging genius of al-Qaeda we've all forgotten about this because the most recent obsessive focus was on the messaging genius of ISIS as compared to Zohar Hiri Stajji sitting in a cave still but if you read some of the analyses from 2004 I think those resonated with senior policy makers more than many of us realized at the time and there was this sense that these guys have really cracked the code on a magic way I once was giving a presentation and joked about the al-Qaeda website with the button to donate the person that was briefing said wow, we've got to stop that there were some very simplified understandings of how this worked what I would say in closing on this we have really moved away from looking at this through a messaging prism we've moved away from looking at the solution through messaging we very rarely use the term I'm using it here because that's how you framed the question but this is not about messaging it is about influence it is about behavior and messaging is one component it is often the most visible component it is often the one that attracts the most attention because it's something that is relatively you can talk about you can see it it often intertwines with technology we're a technology obsessed society we love talking about the latest platforms but those of us who have done very in-depth research on this realize it is simply one component I would say broadly we at the Global Engagement Center recognize that it's simply one component and we've moved very considerably away from the idea in the core and we constantly push back at the idea that we are a messaging shop or that you're going to have this problem and let's bring in the messaging guys at the end that's just not how it works see I knew we'd find something reassuring so I want to throw it open now and just ask if there are any trends any developments from our partners we cooperate closely with quite a lot of countries on PCVE on influence on a lot of different things if there are any noteworthy trends that you would want to call out right now for those of us in the veil of ignorance that is the private sector it would be enlightening I'll mention one there's a personal opinion I suppose some people in the audience may think I'm full of crap here but I think a global trend is a very rapidly to one degree changing to another degree deteriorating relationship between populations everywhere and their governments some of this change is necessary and beneficial a lot of it though is a loss of confidence everywhere I've been for the last particularly the last 20 years but really over my whole entire career I've seen this I didn't always recognize it I've only come to recognize it perhaps in the last decade but rather obviously I'm going to focus before I finish on the deterioration aspect of this not all of it is deterioration but a big chunk of it is everywhere this relationship is deteriorating and I do believe it is a global trend so it's consistent with your question this is this creates everywhere I look this translates into a rich growth medium for violent extremism which is why I think this is a very large part of the explanation why as I stipulate at the outset there are more terrorists now than there have ever been anyone else maybe just this is a bit parochial to my world but I think that amongst the development people who have been asked to rise to this challenge there's a fairly high degree of consensus across countries so the donor coordination angle of this is easier and it's led to a lot of blended funding co-designed projects shared data and other things like that that I think are very valuable so that I think it's just something I wanted to point out let me just reinforce that here at USIP earlier this year we had a meeting of the communications working group in the counter ISIS coalition and one of the few silver linings to the dark cloud that was ISIS is the degree of international cooperation around the issue and that continues and that's I think much it's in a much better place than it was 10 years ago I know that we interact with many more countries and we benefit from their kind of shared experience in this area if I could add just one thing I would agree there is concern about the deterioration of this you know this disconnection of people from the government it really is troubling at the same time I think back to one of our projects in Kenya I don't know if Dr. Nathalia talked about this earlier but we took an approach after the Westlake mall terrorism attack where we saw that seemed to drive people towards more violent extremist kind of opinion and attitude of working in a different area in Kenya with the local government to improve the relationship between the local population and the security forces that were there and this came about after about five and a half years there was another attack I want to say the what was it DUSI 2 attack and what we saw after that was actual what I thought was progress in the sense that while people were appalled by the attack you didn't have the same kind of reaction of people moving towards a more kind of extreme kind of approach looking towards violence as the way to resolve this the security forces didn't kind of engender that and I think it's an important model for us all to look at and what I found especially interesting on this case was our international partners were looking at it in the same way and looking saying this is something we can draw from and learn from and we seem to be having much more conversation and dialogue along those lines sticking with the issue of our partners Daniel made an important point that we are shifting paradigms and focusing more on great power and near pure competition and so you know there may we may see a dialing back of resources both on the kinetic side but also on the on the softer side and so I guess the question is is that detectable among our partners especially those in Europe who have really put out quite a lot of money for the P and CVE work I don't know that it's immediately detectable I can't speak to the budget figures we're definitely having a more complex conversation that we're having this is particularly apparent at the global engagement center because congress specifically broadened our mission starting in 2017 to deal with propaganda and disinformation by state and non-state actors so what had been a focus on non-state actors like Ida and ISIS very quickly became a focus on Russia China, Iran I would flag one potential benefit to the CVE effort from the renewed focus on nation states and great power competition if you look at the history of our cold war standoff you know there was an enormous you know component of it that consisted of the information space and that was the cost of direct military confrontation was so astronomically high that we were forced to operate much more in the realm of propaganda counter propaganda and we made very considerable investments in those areas our hands were much less tied in the counter-terrorism sphere it often unfolded in areas where we could do things that you cannot do against a nation state now that we are looking once again at competition between nation states you know nuclear powers a lot of this is once again going to unfold in the information space and I think that that could lead to I think you know if you just look at some of the recent congressional legislation in you know countering Russian malign influence the amounts are pretty significant you know compared to some of the things we were talking about in the CVE space so I think that you know we are going to be working at a larger scale and certainly we are dealing with actors that are working at a large scale paradoxically I think that could end up benefiting the CVE community down the line I would at some point like to have a discussion about how do we transfer some of the lessons we learned from CVE in the last 10-15 years to these more recent areas of kind of great power competition but I think there is more interplay between this and we are just starting to explore it I'll take a shot at it I brought so much sunshine to this panel with my optimism but if you looked at a if you look at you know gray warfare and perhaps some of these new rules of the game as part of great power competition it's hard for me not to believe that great powers will use proxies and great powers will arm those proxies and those proxies will use violence and some of those proxies will look different than the types of groups that were typical in engaging and I think the violent extremist organizations are absolutely within the food groups that they will look at to take advantage of or to distract or to consume any nation's resources that they're going up against so for me and based on what Dania just said I mean not only the knowledge management from all of that prior work but to be honest break out the microfiche from the cold war and take a look at some of that because I think we will be dealing with some of those types of issues going forward but they will be nastier and perhaps more lethal I would just say not just the microfiche I would recommend to everyone the miniseries Carlos which is a great depiction of the Soviet Union's involvement with some of the terrorist groups in the cold war era I want to express my dubiousness at the idea we're going to pivot away from counter terrorism and I'm not just saying that because I spent my career doing it I've seen us try to quote pivot away from terrorism on multiple occasions we're still pivoting towards the far east we've been doing that for about five years actually when I was on the joint staff the joke was our pivot to Asia was a 360 degree pivot we ended right back where we started but I think there are important reasons why well policymakers can't take their eye off this ball one is because of the political harm terrorism does and there's nothing more finely tuned than a politician's ability to sense unfavorable changes in his political fortunes as you know very well terrorism is the use of violence to cause political change but more importantly I think a better characterization is we clearly are going to have to increase our effectiveness against peer competitors and the like but partially for the reasons it was just described groups non-state actors that somebody's going to call a terrorist group are going to be increasingly attractive proxies for everybody including the United States so that's one reason why terrorism is going to go away but I think the most important reason is because when an act of violence occurs that is political reverberations which again is the goal of any terrorist it is it becomes politically untenable for any government that is suffering the consequences of it not to throw resources at it I mean I remember before Benghazi we were in the special operations where we were pulling people out of North Africa until Benghazi happened and then everybody had to turn around and go right back there's still air in large measure so it's not really not a pivot it's never going to be a pivot to increase our efforts against these other problems but we're never going to pivot away from terrorism Chris can I just follow up maybe I don't know if you're up to speed on this stuff but are your colleagues your opposite numbers in the world's leading development agencies sticking with the CVE mission or as defense budgets are going up around the world are they moving are governments moving resources in that direction do you have a sense of which way the wind is blowing yeah I think again this has been a hard fought consensus and I think for a lot of other political reasons over the last 15-20 years it's been hard for some countries to get on board with where this was going we talked about before some quibble over terminology more than others we can sign up for PVE but we don't want a thing to do with CVE what are the difference between those again but I think at the end of the day when we start talking about what effects we're trying to have on the ground and what we're trying to prevent from happening there's a fairly good consensus there I also believe that the tent has gotten bigger in some sense on other countries contributions certainly from the donor kind of food group because I think again it's more palatable for them to make contributions to that and we're a little bit further away from some of the stigmas of Iraq and other things like that and ISIS I think has shocked the system a little bit and created a new motivation to get behind that and now if anything I feel like we're seeing more leadership and I think for this audience there will be nodding but more research that are coming from whether it's European or other centers that are producing things that are quite helpful and informative for our approaches so I do think that that has gotten bigger there is a bit more of a coalition and in some cases there are more resources available to work on it so to follow up on that resource I'm sorry research issue not resources going back to research a question from the audience that'll modify a little what any any tips for scholars on what to do to get in front of a policy maker get your ideas in front of a policy maker and how to make those ideas user friendly I'll start just two very simple things put the bottom line up front and don't be afraid to be critical and to be directly critical when I first arrived in government I said you'll be amazed at how quickly offices take notice when someone mentions them directly and that is definitely true so you might not see the ripples but people in government do read and take notes I would just take those two things put the bottom line really up front because particularly senior people in organizations don't have time to read academic papers they will not read to the end they don't build to a conclusion they want to know in a summary paragraph if you have a comment and you frame it specifically you will definitely get the attention if you ever put in that comment if I can just add to that I liked the par presentation earlier to sort of remind folks you don't have to have spent the first three years of your graduate life figuring out your research question and then go out and solve the answer to just that problem come work with us and others on a level of effort and then I think a more iterative approach is a smarter approach for us I think the fallacy of us knowing what the solutions were going to be or what the problem was that we needed to research immediately way ahead of time is just not there I saved this quote I wanted to read this but we received a very good piece of research recently it was 161 pages long but it was good and the response from one of our senior leaders on the email chain was excellent to have this kind of analysis now how to incorporate this into our programming and I think that that last little step from research conclusions to action ability I beg that researchers especially those like you who are steeped in field work just stagger a couple of guesses about where you would take this make some suggestions about action ability not just here's what the regression tells us but what would you actually think about doing as a result of this or what would you try to avoid that type of stuff I think is very interesting it helps us to kickstart the policy conversation internally as to how we would start developing interventions around it I would just agree with all that I would add one other thing for where I've been working and at the State Department watching it over the years nothing gets attention more than if a congressman says I read this report can you please you know why aren't you acting on this having that kind of political reach and just even a question will get such an immediate response it's incredible I had one other thing I was going to say which was I would encourage our academic partners especially to follow policy read the documents that are coming out that are provocative towards policy so you know USIP in partnership with this congressional task force, congressional mandated task force put out the extremism in fragile environments publication it's pretty provocative piece it's got an annex with proposed legislation I mean it's out there these are the types of debates that we're having internally in the policy world and I think the more you understand those it will help you craft the sort of last few pages of some of your research to really be responsive to some of those challenges. What if you can quantify what percentage of the research that does get a response it does get people's attention comes in the form of not the monograph but the four pager that has been boiled down by a place like USIP or the many resolve partners I mean is that a word to the wise should you hook up with a policy institute to get it into the right format or do you think that the center certainly does I'm going to give you a yes but answer for reasons that have just been described shorter is better than longer if you want to get a policymaker or even the staff of a policymaker to read it because their staffs are often even busier than the senior person is but there is peril here as well because it's not an unmitigated good brevity is not an unmitigated good brevity can you can lose the context of the research you can lose important details that's one form of peril another one I'm going to say with some trepidation because I know there are research in the audience here it is not my intent to offend you if I do offend I apologize up front but there is a problem some of the shorter pieces that I see come across that support themselves to be research if you ask for the original documents and examine them sometimes they do not exist and even more dangerous cases when you actually get to some of the source materials there's no footnotes there's no empiricism to the analysis nobody's ever tried to repeat the experiment and gotten the same results to the conclusion that some of the stuff that gets tossed at policy makers whether they be congressional members or people in government or people in the executive branch frankly it's just personal opinion or anecdote tarted up as research and when it comes across as a really short piece it's very hard to detect that unless you dive unless you challenge where is the source material for this on the bureaucratics of the interface between the research community and the government I got to the state department and I had a lot of people reading classified intelligence I didn't have anyone reading research so I went out and I hired Will McCants and that took care of it for a while and then he said you don't like government that much Daniel you said this is just reading the research what are the other organizations doing? I can't speak for other organizations there are people who are well plugged into the research community I laughed when you mentioned Will because he was one of the people who brought me into government and then promptly left about a month later liable friend we've benefited very much in organization and you can't just have a person who sits and reads research that's not how I want to characterize our approach to this you have to push it to the people doing the work you have to make sure they read it she does the great work of going and interacting with the research community and following things but that then goes to members of our teams and this also is a very important function of leadership leadership needs to hold people accountable make it clear that we care not just that you're following classified analysis but that we expect that you will be looking at academic research you will be interacting with researchers we expect when you present your programs one of the pillars of justification will be citations of research so that's something that has to come from management so I would say it's much more I think it's actually dangerous in some ways to assign some person and think you've checked a box you need to integrate it and that has to come from the top down also I would love to see going ahead a little bit more interaction between the practitioner community and researchers just so that we can talk to each other it's not always apparent from the outside what is and is not possible in government it is sometimes rather idiosyncratic internally what is and is not possible in government and you can't assume that there has to be dialogue about it so I'd love to see you know you could create some review board of practitioners who could look at papers and say what's actionable or not but you know more ways that we can interact with each other at CSO I have to say it's an impressive bureau it's an impressive group of people and I think per capita wise we have more PhD's on our staff than any other bureau at the department and that's a deliberate kind of approach we are recruiting from the people out there who are doing the research bringing them in and asking them now apply it so it forces a dialogue it forces a conversation that is constantly being renewed by the intake of the workers that we're bringing in and what happens in the big five-sided building on these issues in terms of the intake of research well I doubt it will surprise you to know that the most eager consumption in the military whether it's the Pentagon or elsewhere of research materials are those about weapons platforms mobility platforms the next generation radar or what have you I'm not suggesting that there aren't parts of the military whose mission their mission is central to either information operations or influence activities or messaging or even things like CVE but they suffer from the same problems that I would argue everybody else suffers from if this is not a priority for the most senior people in the Joint Staff or OSD or the service chiefs it's hard to get attention so there's often a ceiling effect that very energetic very talented people just can't get beyond perhaps more importantly though the you know there is an attitude to some degree it's a reasonable attitude to some degree it's a bad attitude that the research that is most relevant to dealing with the topics that we've come here to discuss there's a bad attitude in the military not our job we don't care which is ridiculous given how many senior military commanders I've heard in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever I've been saying well damn it we went in there and now they've come back who's preventing the next crew from arising and coming back where are the fill-in-the-blank civilians without recognizing will you fail to pay attention to this up until now now it's goring your ox so now you care reminds me of that really famous Rumsfeld snowflake are they regenerating faster than we can kill them the answer is yes one of the secrets little unknown secrets at least from a few years ago in the government was that DOD was often a surreptitious sort of funder of a lot of CVE that was going on at state and DOD was a great partner and a lot of three stars and four stars got it and wanted to help out the state department it will be interesting to see if that persists as there's some reorientation of priorities I would argue it's in the long-term strategic interest of the U.S. military to become a stronger advocate of the civilian practitioners both government and non-governmental that do the kind of work we're talking about here today but at the end of the day no amount of enthusiasm or even advocacy from the United States military is going to get this community to where it needs to be the kinds of resourcing and policy support that I would argue everybody on this panel that are still in the only one not in government now of your panelists what they need to truly strategically succeed cannot be funneled through the Department of Defense the Department of Defense is never going to care enough about this to make that successful without the policy makers of all stripes becoming greater enthusiasts for this kind of work which in many ways is more difficult and more complex than anything I've had to do we're never going to get there okay well I think blood sugar levels are plunging people are thinking about what else they'd like to be doing this evening so I just wanted to ask if our panelists had any final comments on this eternally challenging set of problems that we've discussed it's again it's one of those problems of democracy how do you get people to focus on the long term how do you get to them to fund things that are uncertain how do you convince them that we can develop greater knowledge we have done it in the past in other circumstances if anyone has any closing thoughts on their own and you can anonymize your discussions on your own interactions with the hill on this I would be eager to hear them because ultimately that institution is going to play that part of our branch of our government is going to play a really big role in all this may I yeah I think because this is being recorded there will be little anonymization but no I mean I think at least for me I sort of feel like a counter terrorist in a candy store to have an audience like this and people working on so many different issues that directly impact the way that we use in many cases your money and I think that the one thing I was going to say earlier that was I think a positive point here is that the fundamentals of the CVE PVE space that we're working in have they've had durability through changes of administration and that's good that's good for all of us if it had been even more of a policy 180 we would have a lot of real problems and I think we'd be that many more years behind so because those fundamentals are there I think we are making some progress and I think we're doing it in a much more sophisticated way than we had previously cadre wise we still need to grow you know it was a pretty lonely conference room in the early days and it is bigger but you know that handful of people unfortunately several of whom are in the room here I don't all want riding on the same public transportation at the same time just for fear of lobotomization of our capacity but but I do think that there's also just extraordinary growth that still needs to happen and how we much more rapidly communicate because if the threat is going to be changing this dynamically going forward we need actionable research much quicker and I think that that's true in the development space I think it's probably true in the diplomacy space and I know that it's true on the security side as well let me just pick up from there because I would agree with that and I would say in the interactions we've been having on the hill especially there's a recognition that this is a field that is here to stay and it has a future and it has a value and a worth that people are projecting to the future so I believe you know we'll there will be you know waxing and waning of support through the years but overall this is now an area that people say this is something we have to pay attention to and support politically and that's the message we're getting from the hill and in general as I mentioned before we're seeing the policy space in this area expand and broaden in ways that going into different fields and taking different approaches to the CVE problems but with generally bipartisan support and support both from the hill and from the administration in ways that I still find sometimes challenging in the current climate let me just offer my heartfelt thanks to the people in this room I think that and all the other researchers out there I think that much of the positive progress that has been made in this field much more of it than is generally recognized is really directly attributable to your insights your field work it's something that I think we see just in the fact that this form is taking place that resolve exists that we're having this kind of an interchange you know I think it's a good model to build on and I hope we build on it more well I wasn't quite sure how I would end this on a positive note but somehow it happened and given all the other elements of the discussion I'm quite pleased with myself so on that note let me thank you all for your continued attention let me in particular thank our panelists for an enlivening and informative discussion and with that I'll turn it back to Leanne. So thanks everybody especially those who have been here all day today we really appreciate your time and your attention thank you so much to everyone who has been a speaker, a panelist and I'd like to give a special thanks to my incredible team here at USIP Megan Loney, Bethany McGinn, Katiera, Arianezad Bozgoski and Fouad Pervez. Team Resolve has done incredible work to make today happen and I hope that everybody gets a chance to spend a little bit more time at the reception getting to know everybody on our team. I'd also like to thank everyone here at USIP that made this possible our public affairs team our AV team our operations team we have been here all day multiple stage setups multiple different things and to make it look this easy and this seamless is a feat in and of itself so thank you to everyone here at USIP to make this possible I think we have learned a lot today I won't try and sum up although we may try and do some written sum ups afterwards so we'll have to send out to everybody what those blog posts look like. I think we learned a couple things though that I do think are worth highlighting that that the peace building challenges for our future are not going to be solved in one day or in one conference but we have a lot more work that we have been progressing on and can continue to progress on together so I really hope that we can find more opportunities to work together as part of the resolve network with USIP as home to the resolve network secretariat and maybe continue this what I'm calling constructive disruption we see resets as a good thing I think that the change that was alluded to in the last panel is difficult and uncertainty is difficult but we are stronger when we are able to face those uncertainties and those changes together so thank you everyone and I'm going to direct everybody now to our reception which is going to be let's see it's in our international women's common which is going to be up the stairs and over to pass the turnstiles I get that right thank you everybody for being here today


We're at the CES 2020 and hi. Hi Nicholas. So who are you? Jim McGregor. I'm a principal analyst and founder with Terrius Research. So it's barely the first day and you're already doing a lot of meetings, right? Oh, I've actually already had meetings over the past two days and the show doesn't even start till Tuesday. So it's it's always an exciting time and exciting Show because there's so much to see and so much to do. What kind of research are you doing? We pretty much look at technology so we track everything from some of the basic technology that goes into semiconductor manufacturing, semiconductor development all the way through and sensors all the way through cloud-based systems, servers, and you name it. So what's the latest? There's a lot of stuff that can be said about the latest semiconductor technologies, right? Yeah. No, there is I mean pretty much a big focus that we're going to see this year and going forward is really AI. How are people using AI? How are they going to integrate AI? Whether it's on device, whether it's in the cloud? I mean we've spent five years actually more than five years now focused on IoT connecting devices, using sensors to collect data and everything else. Now it's really about creating intelligence out of that data and the the ones to watch are really the companies that can do that whether it's an intelligent washer, an intelligent phone, or an intelligent car. Has it got to do with the chip designers having more space on the die? They don't know what to do with it, so they put AI in there. It's like one way to use up space. Actually, no, not at all, matter of fact. You'll see in a lot of cases with the kind of the slowing of Moore's law where it's been a challenge to scale up and put more transistors on a die that a lot of companies have had to go to multi-dye solutions, what's called chiplets in a single package, or they've had to go to multiple devices discrete devices just to increase performance. So it's actually just the opposite of what you said. It's not that they have extra space. It's the fact that they're running out of space. Good examples. LG actually in their latest Q70 smartphone used a separate discrete AI chip from Gear Falcon just because they got better performance out of it. The latest Qualcomm solution for premium smartphones. They used the A65, used it to discrete modem just because if they integrated the modem they couldn't get the same level of performance out of it unless they go to another process node that's not available yet. So right now we're actually at a point where we're having to do packaging techniques and multi-chip modules and even discrete products just because we're running out of space. AI is really in symphony. A lot of companies are just using it for one function or two functions like digital photography and stuff like that. We're just really getting to the point where we can start using AI for a whole plethora of functions, you know, for natural language processing, image detection, image correction, you know, all these different things. So that's going to actually take even more silicon as we go forward. Is there like huge fragmentation in the AI space right now? Oh, yeah. Everybody's doing their different kind of AI. How do AI developers keep track? Well, the good thing about AI is the fact that all the software and tools and everything they're being developed or a lot of it is being developed in open source. So that's really helping the development of the community, but in terms of silicon we estimate there's over 300 entities developing silicon today for AI and that's anything from semiconductor startups, existing semiconductor companies, government labs, universities, even OEMs, you know, big companies like Google and Microsoft and Facebook, you know, developing their own AI solutions, even car companies like Tesla. So there is a huge fragmentation in the silicon, but the silicon's really kind of separate from the software and the software, the development of the software tools is really what's enabling this. And there's an abstraction from the silicon layer, so it doesn't have to be developed for certain pieces of silicon. So it's like cafe or tensor or something like that. Exactly. Cafe, tensor flow, those are two of the biggest ones out there. All being designed, you know, you can use them on any platform. So there's not like a need for somebody to step in and say, hey, let's make an open platform. Everybody just go in the same direction. Like ARM is trying to do an AI thing, right? Where ARM is trying to license AI in a certain way, but then Qualcomm, Huawei, everybody's doing a different way. Yeah, no, there doesn't have to be a specific way because no two workloads are the same. I mean, whether you're doing natural language processing or image detection, those are completely different types of models. So you might want a different AI solution for each and quite honestly, each one of those functions is multiple AI workloads within it. So it doesn't have to be the same. And quite honestly, it probably won't be the same. The fragmentation isn't bad. The challenge is really leveraging the technology and keeping up with technology because the software and everything is advancing so quickly. Is there like just a lot of hype and not much to see or is it like a lot of stuff happening? Actually, it's really improving products. It's happening so fast. It's really hard to keep up. I don't think we're seeing it and I haven't seen any of the products yet, but this is the, you know, we're really just getting into the show, but you're seeing, I would say, probably most of the major companies that are here, especially the big ones, are looking at how to use AI and when to use AI. So we're really on the cusp of how all of that intelligence gets fused into the products. Over the next three to five years, I think if you don't have AI using AI, whether it's local, cloud-based, or native, you're pretty much not going to be competitive in the market. Do you research the ARM and the X86 and how about the RISC-5. Is RISC-5 just a way for semiconductor companies to tell ARM to not increase the license fee and then like have an alternative? Actually, not at all. It's an alternative business model and an alternative instruction set architecture, but you have to remember, like in servers, there's never been a single architecture for servers because no two workloads are the same. So there's certain things that are going to run better on MIPS, certain things are going to run better on power, certain things don't run better on X86 and on, you know, ARM. Same thing even with embedded applications. You've got microcontrollers of different form factors, you've got different CPU cores, different GPU cores. You know, if anything, RISC-5 is just another one of those options, especially as we start expanding, you know, some of the different devices. I mean, think about it, we're now putting silicon in tennis shoes and just about everything else. So the number of applications and the opportunity are almost unlimited. So I've been using ARM-powered Chromebooks for it since they exist, but I feel like I'm a small minority of people using ARM-powered laptops, but maybe now things are happening with this Snapdragon, Windows 10, or maybe not. Maybe it's just... I'm using one. You're using one, too, right? We're not like a very big... It's not so big, maybe, yet. Well, I think part of that has to do with the fact that Microsoft really wasn't backing it. I think now that Microsoft has the Surface Pro X out there, you'll start seeing more interest in the ARM-based solutions, and they're getting better. I mean, we're now on the, I think, the third generation of ARM-based PCs, always connected PCs, and they're getting better. And even Intel kind of recognizes that. You know, they now have a push to put cellular connectivity into PCs and to increase the battery life beyond a day. You're right. I've been using one for a year, and I absolutely love it. And quite honestly, just having multi-day battery life and that cellular connectivity has really changed the way I use a PC. I use it more today than I did before on previous PCs, because it's easier for me to open up and type than to try to do things on my smartphone. Is it an 850 Snapdragon you have, maybe? Not yet. Actually, I do. We've got multiple versions. We've tested out everything from the A35 on up. But you're not complaining about performance, right? Performance is okay. Actually, the performance is okay. What do you need to do? One of the problems that I think they had early on, and this may be the case with the Surface Pro X, I'm not sure yet, is the fact that they've spent so much time making it look and act just like a PC, like on the first ASUS that came out, it had so much bloatware on it that the performance numbers were horrible. I actually went through and rebuilt all the software on it and it works fine. That's one of the things. I think if I had a message for the always connected PC guys, the ARM-based PC guys, it stopped making it look just like every other PC. You've got an opportunity to really make it different, or differentiate from the other platforms. And you should be doing that. It should be the true mobile experience. Give users something different. Don't give them the average PC. The one issue I've been having with mine is no Chrome ARM version of the Chrome. I had to use a Firefox, which was ARM optimized, and now Microsoft is doing Edge based on Chromium. But it's just not even a real release. You have to go and get some kind of... It's not even... The browser is the most important app. Chrome has been emulated. That is probably one of the biggest opportunities is not having Chrome native on the platform. Hopefully that gets corrected this year. Just one little other topic. I've been doing videos about the ARM part servers for a decade. And finally, something like the Amazon A1 instance. That's a big deal for ARM servers. Now it seems to be happening with lots of companies working on this. More and more. Actually, the whole ARM in servers has gone through starts and stops, especially as companies like Samsung, Qualcomm and a whole bunch of others jumped into the market and then jumped back out. But it's funny because actually ARM servers have been shipping in volume for many years, especially from Huawei. Huawei has been shipping more ARM servers than anybody else on the planet. But they don't publicize it. And they don't really publicize the devices that they have available. And they're quite phenomenal. But I think as we start seeing more from Marvell, who bought Cavium, and we start seeing more from other vendors, we've got a friend to think of the other one. Yeah, some new ones too. Yeah, there are new ones coming out. It's one of those cases where it's taking a lot longer than it probably should have. But ARM in servers, and quite honestly, I think eventually we'll even see RISC-5 in servers. So it's an opportunity. And they'll likely replace the old MIPS parts and the old PowerPC parts first. But it's kind of a natural trend because once again, no two workloads are the same. And sometimes you need, it's better to have a RISC-based processor than it is to have an X86, certain applications.


This is Orson Welles, speaking from London, a black museum. Here in the grim stone structure on the Thames, which houses Scotland Yard, is a warehouse of homicide. A warehouse where everyday objects, or phonograph record, a desk pad, a flashlight, or a touch by murder. There's a leather bag. What's a familiar object a doctor carries a bag like this, or a bank messenger, a payroll clerk, neat, compact, light? Not the kind of thing to carry the weight of death.  One package. I know what you mean, Inspector. This case now. It should have been open and shut. Like that. Today that leather bag can be seen in the black museum. From the annals of the criminal investigation department of the London police, we bring you the dramatic stories of the crimes recorded by the objects in Scotland Yard's gallery of death. The black museum. In just a moment you will hear the black museum starring Orson Welles. Orson Welles. It's a mausoleum of murder. It's by now a familiar place, at least to me. The vaulted ceiling with its sinister shadows, the stone floor, the endless shelves, the wooden cabinets. All familiar. All dedicated to the memory of murder. Stories though carefully identified by the plain white labels. Repelling though fascinating. The means to murder. Arranged on exhibition. It's a symbol. Created with skill for the rhythm of dancing, the sound of revelry. One fingerprint on this spun brass and from it, the web was spun which brought a killer to his just and proper end. A revolver designed for death. Have you ever heard of Russian roulette or death by chance? There was no chance in the game where this revolver was used. The victim was picked. The murder was deliberate. Ah, a leather bag. Part of a puzzle. A jigsaw puzzle involving life and death and greed which is never quite completed. A puzzle which began in the railroad yard at Amos and the coal district around Newcastle. You'll get used to this way of doing dins after a bit, Jimmy. I like the work, Bill. The admin. Only I keep wondering where the trains come from and where they're going. You'll get over that, my boy, when you're coupled and uncoupled as many cars as I have. It'll be just routine. Train comes into the yard, it's like this one. Climb aboard, check the carriages in each compartment like we're doing now. They break it up, reassemble, have it on its way again. Here, now. What's all this? Looks like paint to me. Somebody spilled something on the carpet. Lift what it is under the seat here. Ain't that pretty? Ever look, Jimmy. It's a man. Dead. I've seen enough deadens in the war to know about that. This is where the priest, Murd, took four enough. His hat's here. Don't touch anything. This is for the place, like I said. The elderly yard's been left his helper on guard and found his way up near his core box. Shortly after, uniform constables took over and within minutes, Inspector Hunt and Sergeant Lewis were on the spot. Walker Inspector goes Inspector, and the man's hat. Name Warren King on the band. Any other identification? Ask to the premises of the banister colliery. Word for the mine company. And a return to get to Newcastle. Yes, he won't be needing that with five bullet holes in his head. Well, nothing else here, but we'd better broadcast the information we have on him. Someone on a train may have seen him. We'd someone else. The steady, inexorable routine of the police. Notify the employer of the next of kin. Advise the newspapers and the BBC. Request information. On the 9 o'clock news broadcast, Inspector, then I have a bit of information which may be of value. Oh, what is it, Miss Rowley? I saw King with another man in the station at Newcastle yesterday morning. You're certain it was Warren King? I've known him for years. Not well, but well enough to have seen him socially occasionally. I saw him with his little leather bag, just as we went through the gate for the Allmuth fray. Leather bag? Oh, yes. Friday is payday at the banister mine. King with pale old clark. He always drew the cash to pay off the men and took it down to Allmuth himself. Oh, and the man with him. Did you get a good look? No one I knew. But I did have a good look at him. Brown suit, blondish hair, quite well built. I should judge you as about 35 years old, weighs about 380 pounds. You've got that description taken down, Sergeant? Yes, sir. Good. We'll have an old station alarm on him and broadcast the description. It can't hurt at this stage of the game. Mr. Rowley, would you... Another step in the routine, another broadcast description, wanted for questioning concerning the shooting on the Newcastle Allmuth local. Now, of course, the rumors came in. I saw him. On a bus it was. The exact description, even the brown suit. And he looked guilty, if you ask me. In a pub it was on High Street. Talking to the bartender. Flashing a roll the size of your fist. I'd know him again in a minute. We're sitting across from you on the train, right in the same compartment. Me in the same compartment, that close to a murderer. Of course, none of them had the right man. One person had a real lead, though. A woman friend of Warren King's. I'd seen Warren occasionally. Nothing important, just metonic. But he did take me out. And I came to know some of his friends. Maybe you have their names, please, Miss. As far as I know them. Fred, oh, there was one. Yes, seems you've been in to see us. Oh. Then there was Larry Jones and Joe Evans. He is the important one. Why, especially? Because he fits the description perfectly. Snappy dresser. Played the ponies too, I think. Oh, did he? Yes, he offered to put down a pound or two for me occasionally. Then you have his address? Yes, I have. It's over what into when? Sergeant Lewis drove over to the address mentioned for one, Joseph Evans. It was a polite inquiry. Is there a Joseph Evans lives here? Well, yes, sir. Second floor, front. You can go up. He's at home. The sergeant climbed the stairs. All the usual questions came to mind. Was this another wild goose chase? How will this Evans behave? Need I expect trouble? The sergeant knocked on the door of the second floor, front. Yes? Mr. Evans? That's right. I'm Sergeant Lewis, CID. I'm a credential. Oh. Come in, Sergeant. I must say I've been expecting someone from your division who sit down. Thank you. Now, what can I do for you? It's about Warren King, isn't it? As a matter of fact, it is. It's rather a shock reading about him in the paper than all the wireless broadcasts. You see, I was on that same train. Spoke with him on the platform, as a matter of fact. Run into him as we both thought. Rather disarming, fellow, this Evans. Eager to discuss the whole case, but none too helpful, however. As Sergeant Lewis reported. The man fetched the description with broadcast inspector. He states, here, he put it down in writing. We talked briefly, Warren and I. Then he went on to the first car while I stayed at the rear of the train. I was on my way to see Campbell of Blue Colliery. But I was into my paper so deeply. I'm a racing fan, and it was Grand National Day that I rode past Dunnington, my station, and didn't quite realize it until the train latched at the curve outside of Morpeth. I got off at Morpeth and paid the extra fare. Does that check? Yes, sir. The ticket inspector that Morpeth remembers him. What about Campbell? This meant the colliery. I haven't been able to get him yet. He was in the shaft all morning. Well, it might be just as well as charging if you took the train down there and saw Mr. Campbell personally. One never knows what there is to be... The Blue Colliery was no different than any other local coal mine in the area. Same black tipple, same cage, same coal dust. Mr. Campbell was the engineer in charge. What's that place, you see? The CID Newcastle, sir. We are meeting in clarity concerning a duel with Evans. I know the man. What about him? Did he have business with you this past Friday? Not with the North. He says he was on his way down here this evening. He never got here the way you were expecting him. Where such visits are part of his regular schedule. I was not expecting the man. He's a free agent. He comes and goes without hindrance. I have no control over his doing. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Was this a discrepancy in Evans' story? After all, he hadn't said that Campbell was expecting him. If you don't mind, Mr. Evans, Inspector Hunt would like to ask you a few more questions at headquarters. Evans was quite eager to cooperate. He went along with the sergeants while he was at headquarters. Mr. Evans is quite probably furious by now. Held at the station, waiting for you, Inspector. No doubt. The place doesn't heal very much, does it? Just the pawn ticket so far. Not unusual for a racing fan to have such things in his flat. No, rather run of the mill. We'll check them, though. One of the constable says you want me. You run this building? Run it and own it. I see.  No. He is now. He paid the three months he owed me last Saturday. And a man carrying a missing pair was killed on Friday. Or did Joseph Evans make his killing on the Grand National? This would come out eventually, the Inspector believed. For the present, the question of legal identification was paramount. There will be nine men in the room, Mr. Ronit. All of the same description, approximately, is the man you told us you saw with Mr. King on Friday. We'll ask you to pick out that man if he's present. Well, do my best, Inspector. Well, Mr. Ronit? So what about from the left? That's the man I saw with Warren King. That's the man we are holding. One question, sir. Did you see him enter the same car as Mr. King? No, sir. I looked away for a moment. When I glanced that way again, they both disappeared. I assumed they were right, and I tried them together. Thank you, Mr. Ronit. The identification parade had yielded some result. Yet, all the time, the answer to the riddle lay in the plain leather traveling bag. It's that same bag which you can see today in the Black Museum. In just a moment, we will continue with the Black Museum starring Orson Welles. Much to go on as yet, motive, opportunity, knowledge of the contents of the leather bag and an identification. Nevertheless, the police felt that they had to take action. We are holding you, Evan, as you'll be formally arranged in the morning and charged with willful murder. Evan seems shocked, but made the best of a bad job. I understand, Inspector, but I didn't kill him. That's the truth of it. I didn't kill him. In the meanwhile, some miles from Newcastle, a routine inspection was taking place at the bottom of the shaft of the banister mine. Oh, way, oh, this sudden interest in number three. It hasn't been worked in years. Oh, these timbers seem sound enough. Companies expecting to open up here again. Oh, that's the defense effort and so on. The show run does seem all right. Let's get along. All right. Please give me the creeps. Hello? What's this? Shine the lamp over this way a moment, Marty. There you are. Oh, what's this done here? Looks like a pay master's bag, don't it? Let's have a look inside. Nothing in it but a few carpets. I don't think him would do best to report this to the front office. What would old King get in himself done in the morning? Yes, you would do best to report this to the front office, gentlemen. You had no business opening that bag in the first place. The front office will turn the bag over to the police. Inspector Hunt and Sergeant Lewis will take it from there. Chances are it is King's bag. It won't be too difficult to get it identified. It's a long way from office to number three shaft of banister. Yes, I was thinking exactly that. What train did Evans say he took back to Newcastle? The 1150T. Well, it's mathematics and conjecture now, Sergeant. Did Evans have time to get to that shaft and back to Morpeth before 1152? I have the timetable and the whole map. Sir, I'll figure it. Good. Sergeant, how do you feel about the trial? None easy, sir. You, sir? Well, frankly, I feel a lot better if we had the gun and could tie it to Evans. Too many loose ends in this one, Sergeant. Uncomfortable. Joseph Evans was none too comfortable himself, nor was his defending counsel. They had the usual conferences in the lawyer's room with the prison where Evans was held pending the trial. All right, man. You've admitted you spoke with King on the station platform. What then? Well, he went on about his business, said something about the forward part of the train being closer to his exit gate at Oldmouth. I went to the rear for the same reason. The exit is at the rear at Stannington. But you didn't get off at Stannington. I told the police I missed the station. I was studying the racing form for the Grand National. I had a bet to make. Did you? I did. And I won. Worst luck? Then that's how you paid your back rent. Exactly. And not even a book is dubbed to prove it. The one scambling has paid off in the reverse. You win and you're in trouble. Can you find your bookie? No. He's disappeared. No trace. It's flimsy. But it would clean up part of what the Crown would claim was the motive.  I wish I could. I was in first, sat at the window facing forward, lost myself in the paper. I noticed no one. Too bad no one noticed you. You haven't even the description? Nothing. Everyone was noticing me, not the other way around. King must have ridden a loan with his murderer. No one seems to know anything about him or his trip, except that he was killed between Newcastle and Oldmouth. You worked for Culinary 2, didn't you? That's right. Then you knew that the wages are paid every second Friday. Of course. That's going to be hard to beat. It's not good. Your Mr. Campbell says he had no idea you were coming down. I was. That's the truth. You've been there to see him before? Several times. Always on Fridays? If that was so, it would help. I would like to say that. I can't. Campbell wouldn't bear me out. Oh, well. We'll keep at it. Looks like our only hope is someone who remembers seeing you in that last car. As I say, we'll keep at it. It was a strange case. Everyone, prosecution as well as defense, seemed to be groping in the dark, making use of intangibles. People were observant. People were blind. People volunteered information other stayed away, or didn't realize they were part of the evidence. The Crown billed a fairly strong, circumstantial case. I was prisoned when I divide. There is no question he was on that train that Friday morning. He could have made it to the number three shaft, tossed the bag down, and made the 1152 at Mockpeth. I tried it myself one morning. I managed it walking. The next day, I tried it from Stunnington. It was impossible from there. You each other, Mr. King, Mr. Evans. We all went on dates together three or four times. I can't imagine the meeting and not riding together on the same train. I was certainly having money trouble. I did no rent from him for three months. And all at once, he paid his due in a month in advance, the Saturday after this year murder. Evans was there. The timing seemed to fit the evidence. The two men were friendly. Evans had plenty of motive for a payroll robbery. He took the stand in his own defense. Then the truth, as you know it, and remember your underost, Mr. Evans, is that you did not ride with the deceased and you did not either rob or kill him. That is the exact truth, sir. Thank you. Your witness, Mr. Evans, you stated under direct examination that you worked for Blue Colored. Yes, sir. Then you know to the customs to take the payroll monies from the business offices of the mines at Newcastle to the mines themselves. Well, that has been the custom for many years.  But I always drew the cash from the bank at Mockpeth to avoid carrying the cash all that distance. But it still was the custom in most cases to bring the money from Newcastle and you knew about it. It was not my custom. You knew it was that of others? I never thought about it. I submit, sir, that when you saw the leather bag the deceased was carrying, you realized its contents at once. I never thought about that either. I had my mind on other things. On your financial problem? Among other things. Would you hope to recoup by the Grand National Horse Race? Well, one always hopes. Isn't it possible your reason for going to see Mr. Campbell was to borrow money from him? No. What then? You must have had some good reason for this trip. Well, it was in the line of business. Will you state what line of business? It was about some wages he was paying. On that Friday, I did not know if he paid on that Friday or the next one. You were at the mine the week before? I was. Were the men paid that day? I don't know. I don't remember. Mr. Evans, are you familiar with firearms? One time I was a guard. I carried a revolver in those days. Where is that revolver now? I don't know. Did you lose it? Or sell it? Or throw it away? I gave it back to the company with my uniform when I became an inside worker. Does the company own those firearms? Yes. You know where they're stored? Yes, I do. I ask you, Mr. Evans, did you take one of those revolvers with you on that Friday morning with intent to kill? Use it against Mr. King, clean it, and return it to its place before anyone noticed it was missing? No, of course not. Why should I? Can't you think of any good reason, Mr. Evans? No, of course not. I can think of several. Your financial problems, your intent to kill, even perhaps jealousy over Mr. King's attention to your mutual lady friend. That is not so. There was nothing. My bullets were pumped into Mr. King's head. One would have been sufficient. This suggests the additional motive of revenge. Well, Mr. Evans, I didn't kill him. I didn't. You can't make me say I did. I didn't do it. I didn't kill him. I didn't. Joseph Evans was not a good witness under cross-examination. He admitted nothing. But the impression that he knew many things which were left unsaid was vivid even in the stenographic record of the trial. The jury retired after three days of listening to the evidence. Two and a half hours later they returned. Joseph Evans rose in the prisoner's box and faced them. The clerk asked had they reached a verdict. We have? What was their verdict? To find the prisoner guilty. No. I am innocent. I spoke the truth. I never touched him. I didn't do it. Who spoke the truth? The foreman of the jury? Or Evans? The only witness could never speak. And that witness, the leather bag, can be found today as I've told you in the Black Museum. Orson Wells will be back with you in just a moment. And is Orson Wells. As the inspector said at the beginning of this tale, this case should have been open and shut. It was not. Still, Evans was found guilty by 12 men in the jury box. And he paid for the murder of Warren King at 8 o'clock one morning in Newcastle Prison. Despite the missing witnesses on both sides. The people who shared the compartment of that last car of the fatal train. The people Evans claimed could have cleared him. The people who may have seen him. The death compartment, several cars forward. The people who might have placed him at the actual scene of the crime. And despite that missing silent witness. The death weapon itself. And now, Joe, we meet next time in this same place. And I tell you another story about the Black Museum. And I mean as always, obediently yours. Museum starring Orson Wells is presented by arrangement with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer radio attractions. The program is written by Aura Mariam with original music composed and conducted by Sidney Torch. Produced by Harry Allen Towers.


Welcome. This is Melissa Armo with the Stock Swoosh and Reviewing Google. This was the Stock Swoosh Show Play of the Day today. Also called a beautiful pet in this too. So again, so nice to see some follow-through today.  Again for those that don't know what I do, I like to short. And I'm looking for the best thing to short every single solitary day. So Google closed yesterday at 1-0-8-0-4, boom. Open of the morning at 1-0-2-69, and we hit it. And we had a great, a great exit on this. But it did continue. So I, as I said, I called it put in this as well. So, you know, it's, it's, I think it's easier to hold options than day trades. You have a fixed time and a day trade. So I try to get into my day trades fast, and I may hold for the bigger move in the option, or not may, but that's what I usually do. So the reality is that when you're deciding to do something and you want to hold a day trade, you, you have a set time until 4 o'clock, and you could get a lot of wiggles and jiggles. Because we, because we had such a perfect entry on this, we did really, I feel, capture the largest part of the morning move, which is what I try to do. I try to capture 80% of the move in stock in the morning. So I think, I think we still did that actually, but anyways, we got in, we got the flesh, and we got out, and really it was just a perfect, perfect, perfect exit in here. No matter where you get out. Snuff is a bug in here, or right in here. This was a beautiful morning exit. Now, this did continue the low of the day today, and again, I don't think we go back down to the lows, was 98.45. So again, a lot easier to stick with the options trade into the drop, which was around 11 o'clock, a little bit after that, and the overall market fell today, too. Which did that help Google? Sure, it did. It helped it go to a bigger target, but this would have worked anyways today without that anyways. Even without the market, I feel that this would have fallen today, but we had such a good entry in this today. I mean, it was a really good stop. We just, we really did great with this this morning. So it's the, for me, it's the fast moves. We were done today in less than 10 minutes. It just doesn't get any better than that.  You just let them ride or roll on down. So this was a great bearish gap. Again, I have a rating system where I look to rate the gap. So I'm taking the gap in the direction of the gap, which is what we did here today. Google was a short, you would not go long this. OK. So many people want to do crazy things to make money. What I do really actually makes perfect sense if you think about it until you do the class, you won't understand everything I'm looking at. But again, trust me when I say what I do makes perfect, perfect, perfect sense. So nice day here in the room, beautiful, beautiful Wednesday. We have two more days left this week. So let's continue in the same success minded footprint, putting it out there. All the wonderful things we want to have in the world, all the good that comes to us. This is the right path. This is the right way to think about it.  That is what you can do when you work against yourself. You you're not doing any favors to yourself or really honest to goodness. So start out the day with a positive attitude.  If you have any questions, email me at Melissa at thestockswish.com. The class for February, if you want to learn my system is February 25th and 26th. Have a great day, everyone.


The most fundamental and basic one for me, and based on my experience, is to educate all women. As the saying goes, if you educate a woman, you educate the entire society. Today I am what I am because my mother went to school because my mother had an income. Otherwise, I would never have gone to school because my father didn't believe in educating a girl child. My father never believed that I could do mathematics or major in mathematics in high school because he couldn't believe that I could pass mathematics. Until I disapprove him wrong. So we need to deal with those cultural biases and stereotypes.