had to provide something to the court not the geneva case but here for this case here in the panel only review the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it's reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the i. so it was only a legally stick approach again there was no review of every. for the entire case of the sochi case was not discussed here the report was last discussed here it's only the review of the i.o.c. process which was discussed here i just wanted to ask you about the mechanics of the arbitration who comes in first who delivers the messages first who is represented and is the decision unanimous does it have to be unanimous what happened in this room in this room exactly so technically we have an application from the. fifteen russian athletes who were challenging the i.o.c. decision not to invite them in the games so we have a first round very short run of submission because the i.o.c. could file

had to provide something to the court not the geneva case but here for this case here in the panel only review the question of the application of the law of the rules of the i.o.c. it's reviewed only the process whether it was fair whether it was nondiscriminatory discriminatory. it found that it was not critical there was no. the rules were not unfair and they have complied with by the you see so it was only a legally stick approach again there was no review of every. for the entire case of the sochi case was not discussed here the report was last discussed here it's only the review of the i.o.c. process which was discussed here i just wanted to. ask you about the mechanics of the arbitration who comes in first who delivers the messages first who is represented and is the decision unanimous does it have to be unanimous what happened in this room in this room exactly so technically we have an application from the. fifteen russian athletes who were challenging the i.o.c. decision not to invite them in the games so we have a first round very short run of submission because the i.o.c. coul

international olympic committee versus many athletes many russian athletes and we had that case that we heard in geneva two weeks before the start of the games involving thirty nine russian athletes. this was an totally unusual case i think in the history of class because it was not a classic doping case where you have a positive test by an athlete in the athlete has to establish his innocence here it was the national olympic committee which had to prove or to establish the guilt of these athletes so it had to show evidence and we decided i mean the cast determined that on eleven cases there was sufficient evidence to confirm that there was an anti-doping rule violation but for twenty eight cases there was not enough evidence therefore these twenty eight athletes were no longer sanctioned so the were not suspended anymore after our decisions on the first of february. so that's the first part it was disciplinary the second case which i called the junction case which was involving the decision of the i.o.c. not to invite some russian athletes so these twenty eight at leats who were no longer suspended ap

international olympic committee versus many athletes many russian athletes and we had that case that we heard in geneva two weeks before the start of the games involving thirty nine russian athletes. this was a totally unusual case i think in the history of cast because it was not a classic doping case where you have a positive test by an athlete in the athlete has to establish his innocence here it was the national olympic committee which had to prove to establish the guilt of these athletes so it had to show evidence and we decided i mean the cast determined that on eleven cases there was sufficient evidence to confirm that there was an anti-doping rule violation but for twenty eight cases.

well the document we have in the case is actually a press release regarding the letter that president eisenhower sent. this was after vietnam had been partitioned by the genevaccords and eisenhower felt very strongly that losing vietnam to communism would be a disaster, so he is in this letter, pledging support for ziam, american support. we are committing significant monetary support at this time. this is a decision that sets the united states on a course of involvement in vietnam for 20 years. >> and this is 1954. i want to move forward to early and president kennedy's administration and some notes from a meeting about vietnam. >> okay. >> let's take a look. >> let's do that. >> we move to the kennedy administration. here the exhibit episode 3, kennedy doubles down what does that mean? kennedy is very interesting on vietnam because he understood perhaps better than any other american president how difficult it would be to try to defeat the communists there. he had visited vietnam as a young man and also as a senator and studied the area and but he kind of paradoxically, he doubles down by dedicating a lot of u.s. support for vietnam both financial and mili

were to lose a wto case, they have and they will, i can see this administration saying, we weren't elected by international bureaucrats in geneva, we were elected by the people of the united states and protecting their jobs. so if you say we violated the wto, do whatever you want, i'm not changing a thing. that can be the beginning of a very dangerous process in trade policy. so, let me briefly go over in the short time i have some of the developments on trade negotiations. bob talked about nafta and some of the other agreements. first of all, you know the regulations from dodd/frank from 2010 sort of set the framework and they talked about the need for some sort of regulatory harmonization. bob is right. financial services and financial regulations really aren't the primary topic of trade negotiations, whether it's nafta or tpp, they're done separately through treasury and other agencies. but i will point out some things. nafta, well, you know we are renegotiating that. the u.s. has a big competitive advantage in financial services. $4.3 billion surplus in financial services with canada, $1.1 billion surplus with mexico. with

international olympic committee versus many athletes many russian athletes and we had that case that we heard in geneva two weeks before the start of the games involving thirty nine russian athletes. this was a totally unusual case i think in the history of class because it was not a classic doping case where you have a positive test by an athlete in the athlete has to establish is innocence here it was the national olympic committee which had to prove to establish the guilt of these athletes so it had to show evidence and we decided i mean the cast determined that on eleven cases there was sufficient evidence to confirm that there was an anti-doping rule violation but for twenty eight cases there was not enough evidence therefore these twenty eight athletes were no longer sanctioned so the were not suspended anymore after decisions on the first of february. so that's the first part it was disciplinary the second case which i called the pure junk case which was involving the this issue of the i.o.c. not to invite some russian athletes so these twenty eight at leats who were no longer suspended applied