he did not have a duty to do that, but that is not what happened here, so we do not have to deal withthat. he took an ax to prevent his wife from going to the police. -- took acts to prevent his wife from going to the police. >> thank you. your time is up. >> good morning, commissioners. i want to begin by thanking you to the city and service of san francisco for this proceeding. this has taken an extensive amount of time on everyone's part, and i want to thank you on behalf of myself, the sheriff, and miss lopez for your careful consideration of the evidence and a lot in this case. this morning, before closing argument, i will spend a few minutes talking to you about discretion. that i will turn it over to mr. kop who will discuss official misconduct and the facts as it relates to official misconduct. >> before you start, can i make a comment as someone who was tried cases for a lot of years and appear before a lot of judges, you did not do your client any favor by starting off your brief by saying at the end of an unnecessary protective dog and pony show. is that what you consider t

>> i did not ask that question. >> why not? >> objection. compound. >> sustained. >> why not? >> i am working telecommuting from home, and i am working, and i get a call, and i am doing the best i can see if she is in any danger or need any support. >> so you did not think of it at the time? >> yes. >> when you think that having guns and a home is a risk factor for further violence could >> yes. >> did you ask her whether she was threatening to leave the sheriff or to take their son? i. >> would you agree that the danger is heightened when the victim is threatening to leave? >> absolutely. >> did you ask her if the sheriff was ever drinking or using drugs during this time period? >> no. >> would you agree that drinking or using drugs is a risk factor for violence? >> yes. >> did michelob's tell me during this protocol, this first 40- minute phone call, that she was considering making a police report? >> no, she did not tell me that. >> Ñ[e 3did she discuss what effect this would have on sheriff mirkarimi? >> no, she did not bring it up. >> did you bring it up? >> no. >> do you

>> i do not want to be flippant and say, not in san francisco. [laughter] no, but i am trying to figure out why. what we are trying to do is get closer and closer to what the line is. >> i think that i see what you mean. the interpretation that you are giving in relation to the duties of the office, i read the second provision to relate to the office of sheriff but not necessarily to mean that it has to happen while carrying out the duties of sheriff. i still think there needs to be a nexus and their relationship to the office. i do not read it as restricting it to the duties of office. i think that is where we differ on the interpretation. chairperson hur: my interpretation is a little bit broader than that. "in relation to the duties" means what you are acting under color of law. if the sheriff had used his authority as sheriff to dissuade a witness even though he was not the share of at the time -- the sheriff at the time, i still think that could explain a charge. what i am worried about is a relationship that is so general that what we are t

>> not really. if you're going to do a permit, dpw for for her you push it back. -- prefer you move it back. i would not be too concerned. good >> we can hear from the appellant. >> thank you from hearing from me today -- for hearing from me today. i have a few questions regarding everything that was brought up. no. the reviews already supposed to happen? i thought we did worth the reviews already supposed to happen? -- weren't the reviews already supposed to have been? according to the appropriateness, i am also questioning the legality of it. it has actually been a legal -- illegal, and the door handle is currently 5 feet tall, 5 feet high, so it is not a wheelchair accessible, and that would have to be changed. the gate is requested to be open from 8:00 until 5:00 p.m., but for the last three months i have been keeping records of when it has been closed, and i have just put a piece of paper on the light box so you can see all of the notices. i have sent an e-mail each time it has been a close, so

this is not official misconduct. it is not violence. because i have a little bruise on my arm from something else, that is no proof. you were not there. you did not see how hard it was or how little it wise. some people breeze very easily. that is no proof of violence. this is not justice. if willie brown and gavin newsom, the mayor, could get away with that -- [tone] and here you are trying to make -- lay this mantle on him, and reasonable. think of your conscience. but what if you were in that position? it is not fair. you have to legalize the justice scales, right? i'm not a lawyer, but i know a lot about the law. so do your job and tell this man he is to report for work as soon as possible. [tone] [applause] >> before we move on, i appreciate that members of the public are going to have reactions to things that are said. this is public comment. this is not evidence. i feel like we can have a little bit of -- more reaction than we can add other parts. but please respect of speaker and please respect this process. let's not the way th

i am not sure if part of this was not in evidence. i do not have any particular comments on this paragraph. >> i think i thought was the relevance problem is we struck paragraph four. i think -- i think the first two sentences rely on paragraph 3 might be ok. ms. kaiser, do you have a response with respect to paragraph 135? >> i guess i would say that even the part you want to strike is consistent with what she was testifying to, the ease with which sound travels. i do not have feelings about it. >> i would recommend we strike lines 23 through 25 of paragraph 135. is there any dissenting view from the commissioners? 139. ms. kaiser? >> this is the portion of the williams decoration that was readmitted by agreement. >> ok. 135 -- 139 is in. 139 relies on 142. is that i invite this position? it was not in previously. >> that is not part of the stipulation. i will grant you you're standing objection on evidence being not admitted. is there any objection from the commissioners to excluding 142 which relies on paragraph 13 of volumes which

i do not want to see another solution that could not work. this trust has not had income. two years. we were getting hate from the abc. we let it slide to see if we could, everybody down -- calm everybody down and find a good operator, hopefully a gay operator. i got pressure from the abc to get it done. that is why we're here today. under the 2358, there is a time frame on this aspect under the state code. there is precedent over city code. we're trying to do what was required by the abc. we want to reach out to the community. obviously he would not have an even amount of people for and against because there had not been outrage. they would not be here today. supervisor campos: is the owner willing to come and appear before the committee? but my client is not here. he is involved in some other things up state. i will speak to him and asked him. but we will not agree to a continuance just because of the time constraints and abc telling us to get this done. supervisor campos: you talked about the business and professions code 2358, that section also says in the context of r

it is not just

not a single person was hurt by their decision. not one. and what did president obama and his national relations board do? they sued this iconic american company. it was shameful. and not worthy of the promise of america. but we did one of the things we do best in south carolina. we got loud. we are fighters in south carolina. we watched an amazing thing happened. you fought with us. and guess what. we won. a few months ago, high set on the tarmac in north charleston and watched as a new mac daddy plane rolled onto the runway, sporting a "made with pride in south carolina" decal and surrounded by 6000 non-union employees, a cheering and smiling and so proud of what they had built. [cheers and applause] we deserve a president who will not sacrifice american jobs and american workers to pacify his bullying -- american businesses deserve a government that does not stand in their way. fighting american ingenuity and innovation, that is what this president has meant to this governor. that is why this governor will not stop fighting until we send

i do not think it amounts to official misconduct, but i do not want there to be any illusion to my view about whether it was appropriate conduct or not from what i would expect from an elected official. but i do not think it rises to official misconduct. >> you are talking about this item only? >> yes. any other views with respect to the factual allegations? of course, the parties submitted a joint statement which was somewhat helpful in us trying to determine what facts we really need to find and discuss here. we have addressed, i think, the most salient ones. there are a couple that we may want to address just so that we can ensure that we have established the predicate for our discussion of the law and the application of the law to the facts. i think it is undisputed that the share of -- sheriff was elected on november 8, 2011, and that he was sworn in on january 8, 2012. i also think that there is -- it was proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he did engaged in actions at the sheriff's office that he was getting up to speed on what his duties would be in the interim betwee

that training bulletin is not a shall not or a do not. officers will have to use that and dynamic situations. we are not telling them they shall not. >> thank you for coming. i had a question with regard to -- it also says, unless the situation justifies possible risks or death of serious injury. what would be the weapon more dangerous than name taser -- than the taser? >> i have to be careful about the way i answered that question. a firearm would absolutely be more dangerous. >> that is the answer i was looking for. >> i am looking at the houston and michigan slides you presented. years and dollar amounts only tell part of the story. do you have any actual numbers that show the numbers reduced? i would advocate for you to work directly with the department. everything i bring to you is going to have that air of taser international. >> ok, thank you. >> good evening. i am the chief of staff and the supervisor at the risk management office, the officer- involved shooting team, the legal division, and i work with the city attorney's office

were you not? >> yes, i wanted to realize that was really a domestic violence. >> had you ever prior to the time you were texting her about is, had you ever spoken to ms. haynes about your personal relationship with ross democrats know, just comments during the campaign. everybody gets sick, and no one can follow iis reason. that kind of thing. >> you never had more than a 40 minute conversation with ms. haynes, and in that conversation, did you describe what had happened on december 31? >> yes. >> what if any response did she give to you when you told her those facts? >> what was her response to? >> what did she say in response? >> she was asking more questions, and she was explaining domestic violence is a lot of things, so to know you are in a domestic violence situation implied a lot of different things, so just one isolated thing, maybe it is not. however, that does not mean it is right. it is wrong, and you need to be very serious and take this very serious, and we need to take ross to counse

that maybe -- maybe does not address that well, has not so much sense of fashion, is not interested too much in his art, but when it becomes to the movie, first, he will explain to you the movie, tell you the story he is so much into it, and visually, so much into it. he gets very upset, then he can already imagine how he should like it to be. it is very beautiful because you can see how intent it can be and how the movie becomes a world. it is very specific at some times. for example, the apron of the made from valencia from the 1960's. ok, so i have to go to the market and find one. i not know exactly the apron of the maid of valencia in the 1960's. housewife, sorry. not a mate. it is not abstract, let's say. but specific in the color, which is absolutely inspiring and fabulous to go into the story. the movie was the cook, the thief, that one -- with helen merrin, who is absolutely fabulous -- helen mirren, fabulous actress. he showed me some painting of rembrandt and said, "uc that? could you do the in modern, in today? and i said i will try. yes, but it is part of the job. so i

for my parents, they felt it was not very elegant. so it was not so nice, not so clean. so me, i fantasy about it. and maybe i was looking more and people that were wearing that kind of close, sometimes going to buy a jacket. there is a movie of marlon brando. but i must say, i remember it was a time in the 1960's, it was some boy from the suburbs. i suppose little gangs who were supposed to be bad boys. maybe i was a very polite boy. i was a little fascinated by bad ones. [laughter] it came from my fascination with movies, with james dean, most of all marlon brando. all wore rebellious close. i find it very attractive and very interesting. of course, i should say that i love a lot of other things. cinema was also showing that kind of rebellion of the street. for me, maybe it became like those things are not that bad. and they're already recognized. they show some kind of people that i am not at all part of. but also, i use it may be after -- it inspired me. i love to make them all. the code of what is decent and a decent. what is elegant, not elegant. what is luxurious

it is not as if she has not been trying to find housing. as i recall from the april 18 hearing we spoke on behalf of the landlord in support of the city it -- of the landlord not fining him. he is being very reasonable under the circumstances. there is no reason why they should be penalizing this owner for granting this delay, and as i also recall, the purpose of inspector duffy going back to the property was to determine whether there were life- threatening conditions on the premise is that would put this woman at risk, and he determined apparently there are ninone. >> you are repeating yourself. >> thank you very much. you would like to make a comment? >> we will have to agree to disagree about how they are looking for accommodation. when i speak to her, she says she does not need to move. that is that. i can talk to the lawyer, and we can try to figure that out. as long as she is doing that, that is fine. if she has not done anything by the time the notice comes out, there is nothing we can do, so i would really like her to be proactive

this is not a playground. i think -- well, i don't want to say what i really think about this, but i don't think there is any way this is relevant to what you have. i think we are perfectly permitted to comment on the credibility of witnesses. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection of 87. any dissenting views from my fellow commissioners? ok, that will be excluded. ok, moving along to nancy lyman. unlike ms,. lopez's declaration, you were more successful narrowing your scope of the disputes. unless i misread it. >> no, but i did not mean to give you the impression we had to go through this paragraph by paragraph. we have an overarching objection because, repeating myself, we don't think a domestic violence expert is needed to understand the situation and make a decision. i am aware from past comments that some of you have made to that. i am probably in the minority here, but really, they agreed to take out those paragraphs. i alluded to 185 to 190, inclusive. other than the overarching irrelevance obj

not raising bush. i'm just saying there was a standard with commanders that we do not have now. >> not praising, just exempting him. >> see you next week. >> "inside washington" is brought to you in part by the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org.

>> absolutely not. >> she did not tell you about planned communications? >> absolutely not.rming? >> she only shared her emotions? >> that is correct. >> after that text, there is a series of back-and-forth between you and mrs. lopez, and at 5:57, you talked to ms. lopez again for seven-. you recommend -- to you recollect now the purpose of that call? >> i do not. Ñ she suggested calling mike hennessey? >> she did not. >> in the middle of that phone t a response, i cannot and neither can he. you have to reject the actions. we both do. i cannot involve new people. did she tell you about getting that text? . >> the you know what it meant -- did you know what it meant? >> that is speculation. >> i am asking. >> i did not. >> ok, so that comes in at 5:51. no, that is wrong. i apologize. that comes in at 6:01 in the middle of a phone call you are having with lopez the glass until 6:00 for -- that lasts until 6:04, so you hang up and then call sheriff mirkarimi. you know what that is about? >> i do not recall. eheriff, and says, do not write any other thing. answer the call. she h

>> i do not recall.all i know is that they were trying to connect with each other. that was my understanding, that Ñzs and he was tried, so they need to connect. >> ok, so they speak, and then he calls you again right after he speaks with her for two minutes. do you recall what that was about? >> i do not recall. i am sorry. >> did he tell you, by any chance, to jog your memory, that chance, to jog your memory, that he said he had spoken to eliana t and to talk to ivory madison? >> no, i do not recall that. >> , to more do you have left it >> i have got, let me check -- newmont half an hour? >> proceed. >> thank you. >> how much time have we been going >> maybe 1.5 hours of the time we got situated. >> ok. kx newborn baby,jÛn5] and i am breastfeeding, and i do want to have a englebright but -- have a little break to check on my baby. >> i guess, maybe check in on her? we will keep going unless i am needed. >> absolutely. no objection from me. >> update. thank you. >> unless i am in the middle of a reall

it is not just law enforcement perspective, it is not just the community-based perspective, it is not just the research perspective, it is a multi- layered approach. first and foremost, we do have to consider meeting youth where they are act. we are talking about perpetrators of violence or what not or system involved or involved in gangs, we have to meet them where they are at. pain and hurt produces more hurt, right? what is fundamental it is addressing back pain -- addressing that pain. not looking at folks in a punitive way and saying, this guy is notorious, we have to lock him up. that person is hurting. he might have been abused, you know. first and foremost, we need to meet that individual's needs. i am pursuing a master's in social work. i have that lens. we need to heal our communities and take those answers upon ourselves. everybody has already -- we sure this in perspective, but definitely, we need to create community anchored solutions. that involves a discourse with policy makers. as people of color, we need to be accountable and to be positive role models. greek them on

parts he did not.quex hannity ever thank you -- >> they he ever thank you -- did he ever thank you? >> sustained. waxed almost done. your declaration says -- >> almost done. your declaration says, at no time did i dissuade any witnesses from cooperating with an investigation. >> i did not. >> you tried when you spoke to our free madison? >> i did not. >> new coach -- you coached eliana about what to say to witnesses? >> i did not. >> you sent e-mails and ahmad >> i did not. >> who encouraged her to make phone calls to ivory madison and to try to dissuade her from talking to the police? >> i did not. >> your declaration says at no time did ross mirkarimi asked me to help dissuade witnesses, but he knew you were trying to clean up the mess he made with his wife. >> that is argumentativÎ >> sustained. >> he was counting on you to help him get past scandal and to sue the rihanna -- to sooth eliana. >> objection. >> i have not heard the foundation. i think you have out and got negative answers, so i am goin

that is not an answer. not only is it not a good answer, it is not even an answer.here is nothing in parent wants to do more than to give their kids opportunity that we never had. [applause] there are very few things more painful than a parent not being able to do it. we are still fighting back from the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes. a lot of parents out there are working really hard, still struggling to make ends meet. i do not accept the notion that we should deny their children the opportunity of higher education and a brighter future just because their families were hit by a recession. think about all of the discovery, all the businesses, all the breakthroughs that we would not have had if we told every american that wanted to go to college, tough luck, too bad, you are on your own, shop around. this country has always made a commitment to put a good education in the reach of all who want to work for it. that is part of what made us an economic superpower. [applause] that is what kept us at the forefront of science, technology, medicine -- this is not j

i did not find that incredible. >> in addition to which she testified that she could not remember thesubstance of many of those phone conversations. there were 20, 30 phone calls? to say you don't remember what you were talking about is not credible. she may believe she does not remember it but i was not convinced at all. >> i would agree with your conclusion. there is a very plausible or possible chain that would explain better than miss lopez calling someone she did not know very well and hremembering her having something different than the testimony but i don't think we have enough for a separate charge. >> i next think we should discuss the witness dissuasion charges with respect missw3 madison. here i don't think it's close. agianain, it's plausible the sheriff instructed miss hanes to tell miss madison not to cooperate with the police. i do not think we are close to that kind of evidence we will need to find that sheriff sought to dissuade miss madison from cooperating with the police or reporting the incident. i welcome the view from my fellow commissioners. >> i think there wa

this is not a mystery for me. this is not theory. this is practice. i have five things i am going to do, five things i am going to do in my plan to help get the middle class working again, with more jobs and more take-home pay. putting them in place, it will get the economy going again, get higher incomes again. we are going to take advantage of energy -- oil, gas, coal. [applause] and when i say take advantage, let me tell you the gold. by the end of my second term, by the end of my second term -- [applause] you got that, did you? by the end of my second term, north america will be energy independent. will not be buying any oil from the middle east or venezuela. number two. the american workers of today and tomorrow will have the skills to succeed in america. that means better schools, better job training. we cannot continue to allow our schools to perform at the bottom of the world. we need our schools to be the best in the world. we did it in my state. we can give our kids the future they need with great schools. [applause] number 3, we have to hav

what it has not done as it has not created jobs. it is using technology, but we need a market to sell the things we manufacture. china is the biggest market in the world for us. we want their economy to be good. they also insisted the bill restores with things that people want to buy at low prices. the consumer is one of these days going to wake up and say, "wait a second -- i want them to keep sending stuff here. without them, i could not afford it." >> one very hopeful thing -- in the last few years, we have had enormous discoveries of natural gas in this country. we have an energy policy for six or seven years, we will be totally independent of importing any oil or gas, and the gas which will go into the power stations and the coal will give out half the carbon in the coal dust. we will not have to worry about bloody wind farms and other hideous things. [laughter] >> glad to see you supporting the coal plants. >> absolutely. we have got the gas now. except in your state, we have a governor who has been very slow to allow it to be

if i had not for giving you, i would not be here today. i have to forgive you, but i want to know why. why do i want to know why? i want to get you killed, too. kurds people -- hurt people hurt people. apparently, you are hurting. you had to be hurting that night to shoot my son in the face. you knew him, you ate at my house, you spend time together. i want to know why you killed my son. i want to know why. i want to know why the community did not step up. everybody was present. i want to know why came to say who did it. i want answers. like all the 300 mothers that we represent in the healing circle, they ask the same question. i want to know why along with the over 30,000 unsolved homicides since the 1990's. over 30,000. over 30,000 unsolved. that is over 30,000 families that i represent. i want to know why. we are the healing circle and we believe in healing people. we go inside of san quentin, we go inside of the county jail, the juvenile justice system. all entities -- the whole family is incarcerated. we want to kill the whole family

they did not say clearly there is not. in fact, there is an inference that it may very well have been. >> ok. >> have you done an internal to ask other people outside? does an fbi agent that i talk to, is here she feeling is great reluctance because my career could be over or is there some sensitivity now that the bureau wants them to do what they should be doing to make sure we never having another forehead. i think if you sat -- another for ted. -- fort hood. >> i think if you sat through the sessions with each individual in the field and their executives, you would see that in his fbi, political correctness is not tolerated. he expects us to follow the letter of the law and constitution and to turn over every rock and every lead, so i do not believe that is the issue here, sir. i believe that the commission would have seen it. they would have gone down that path. >> well, maybe and maybe not, and i guess we will end with this. you had an assistant, we see a transcript to said, i'm on the mailing list on my blackberry fo

>i will not waste them. if i do not need them, i will not use them but it is more efficient to raise the issue then to have to come back and ask for permission and explain why the issues mayor the extra pages. >> is there an objection from the sheriff? >> the mere fact that you need to do all this work to justify the case speaks volumes. if you want to give more than 10 pages, 15 should be sufficient. i know that we can do it in 15. >> the opening brief is 27 pages. >> commissioners, -- >> i do not have strong feelings about limiting either party. if you want to waste or paper because they think we need more education, i am happy to get it. so i would not strongly urge a page limitation. obviously our time is limited. >> i am actually probably closer to commissioner renne. if that helps to lay it out -- [inaudible] were the bids 50 and 30? perhaps you might like to offer a number somewhere in between. we did i get to do much of that. >> that is true -- do not get to do much of that. >> that is true. in light

not bad news but you have ripley's believe it or not to the west. if your family, you will want not want a bunch of osbournpeope smoking at the end of this sidewalk. it is a hard one. i was trying to brainstorm to see how we could make it work and one of the things we talked about is having their staffing, which talked-about having science. encouraging people to go across the street if they are smoking in large numbers. they have agreed to that. i do not know of that -- if that is conditionable. we are -- to promote that with customers. that we do not have a big smoke cloud. >> it is a big parking lot. so that is perfect. >> is not enforceable but the smoking code says you have to go to the end of the curb. there is no way we can force them to do otherwise. sometimes being a good neighbor and encouraging patrons, there will be compliant.

it is not here. therefore, it is not official misconduct. that argument does not make any sense.t think anyone would argue that the charter meant to allow an official to do anything on the job, no matter how wrongful, that if it was not spelled out as a particular duty and a statute that you could not violate, that it would not work give rise to official misconduct. that does not make any sense. the california supreme court said in the cranston case dealing with the police officer who engaged in reckless driving while off-duty, it up held the determinate -- it up held the termination of that officer. it said, the public has the right to expect police officers to obey the law, whether on duty or off duty. when police officers violated law that they were hired to enforce, they do so at their own peril. that relationship existed there, and it is the same relationship here. this test is fully satisfied. it is conceivable that there are situations where it could be terrible conduct and it could be a much harder question. but this is not one of them. >> let me ask about cranston. crans

just because it was not the most extreme form does not mean that it is not domestic violence. the sheriff is the head of a law-enforcement agency. i do not think the sheriff should be an example of reform to justice -- reformative justice. the sheriff should be someone who follows the letter of the law, someone we can all emulate. i would certainly feel that this has been violated. chairperson hur: ok, i think probably -- i appreciate the views of my fellow commissioners. i appreciate also that i am clearly in the minority here. i think they are very informed and wise use. i will say one thing, in response to commissioner studley. you are right. the language is all over the place. it could be interpreted as the people wanting to be broad. one reason i think people did not want to be so broad is because the power it gives the mayor to suspend an elected official without pay while this entire process goes on, i think, is pretty in store -- pretty extraordinary. we might become more efficient, going forward, but it is still going to be disruptive. i want to protect future mayors

it did not work. [cheers and applause] him it does not work. it is not a plan to cut the deficit.is not a plan to create jobs. it is not a plan to revive the middle class. it is not a plan to move our economy forward. we do not need more tax cuts for folks like me. we need to give more tax cuts to working americans and middle- class families for folks who are trying to raise their kids and keep them healthy and send them to college and keep a roof over their heads. that is the choice in this election and that is why i am running for a second term as president. [cheers and applause] four years ago i promised the people but i would cut taxes on middle-class families, and that is what i did. the average american family is paying $3,600 less in their taxes than when i came in office. and i want to keep income taxes exactly where they are for everyone making a certain amount. if your income is $250,000 or less your income taxes will not go up a dime. on the other hand, if you are lucky enough, like i am, to pay in the top 2%, what we have said is you can afford to do a little bit more

by choice, not by circumstance, are not married and do not have children. but what are they doing? they tend to be highly educated. they tend to be in charge of their own retirement security. they make that decision about age 40. they are very responsive to an ownership financial stewardship, successful entrepreneur oral message if it is so delivered. i think for president obama the one that would scare me the most are self-declared independence. for a couple of reasons. i've been doing this for 24 years. for years, people would say, i am an independent. i would ask them what that means. they say, i vote for the person, not the party. they haven't voted in a longtime barry now people are independent and not because they don't pay attention to politics, but because they do. to make a conscious decision to declare independence from either party and refused to pledge allegiance. if you can now with their numbers recently. a 42% of men consider themselves to be independent. 43% of women. that number is on the rise. why that would worry me for president obama is that are skeptical of go

not. we are seeing some analysis today that focuses on the fiscal year 2013 defense budget that the administration put forth to congress and is now being considered in congress. and also sequestration and what that would mean. i will try to keep it less than 30 minutes and then open it up for q&a. the briefing is divided into two parts. the first will be what is in the 2013 budget request, how was it different from last year, and is it consistent with the strategic guidance for the department? the second part that i am sure most people are more interesting in -- interested in the is sequestration. i have done a little more detailed announced -- analysis of what it would mean in terms of budget authority and out reach. and talk about what it would mean. i will start with an overview of defense spending. this chart shows total national defense spending and inflation in just a dollars in fiscal year $13. the blue part is the base budget, the red part is the funding for iraq and afghanistan th

correct or not correct? >> that is not correct. an agent of the fbi cannot tell the prosecutor whether or not to drop the case. >> to drop a war? >> to drop a war. >> he never called -- to drop a warrant. >> he never called? >> there was a dialogue. if a case agent has a case on somebody who is coming into the country, the system is set up so there will be a call to that case agent. >> what time was that? >> i don't know. >> sunday, early morning. >> i don't know. am i want to get to the bottom. we're going to get a hearing, and we may even subpoena the thing, but think it is important. the inference was the bureau had nothing to do with it. where if there was a call from the fbi agent who worked the pit bull case, that has -- who worked the paint ball case, that has bearing to the attorney. i could be corrected, but i think it was like, we will get this for the record. i think it was somewhere before 7:00 in the morning, perhaps on a day when the government was not operating. sir, i think it is a little misleading. >> can we give

it did not seem force. it did not seem -- he could not have given the kind of speech paul ryan did. he was not that kind of guy. i noticed he is somebody who watches speeches a lot. the lines you could not repeat verbatim, those were not here to 92 the rambling nature at the beginning -- the first thing they see is clint eastwood. downright weird. even the romney campaign is trying to spin their way out of it. does it matter at all? or is what will stick in the matter of people is only the speech. >> it does not matter in terms of this moment. i do think in popular culture they will be talking about the clint eastwood speech four days to come, possibly weeks. that will not be true of mitt romney's speech. i thought it was a strange proposal, like having an elderly uncle at thanksgiving dinner who's telling a story you do not know where it will end, and everybody has to watch, praying it will end soon. >> if you go to political.com, you can take a look -- we look at how the media interprets the speeches, the things they look for that will set the tone for the analysis in the days ahe

i'm not a lawyer, but i'm not sure if i could shoot somebody or i could not shoot somebody. there's tremendous confusion about that. people sincerely have come to the task force to say what does it all mean it? >> i cannot agree with you more. i think what we have in georgia before 2006 was more than sufficient. those who disagree is the pro- gun lobby who wanted to pass the legislation in multiple states like texas and then georgia. nra's pro-gun lobby legislation. one thing you raise is in the african-american community and in all communities, we all agree we should protect ourselves in our homes or wherever we are, but the idea that some seem to have that there's nothing wrong with the law itself, there may be some problems in how the law is applied and other may be some racial disparity. if there is some racial disparity and injustice in how the law is applied, then there's a problem with the law itself. how can you separate the application of the law from the law itself? that's where i think mr. munro and i disagree. that's one of the basics for our lawsuit. it is board

not everybody can be a gabby or an olympic hero. not everybody can do that. not everybody can participate in the 5000 jobs that we are creating in the internship programs that are paid that we signaled this summer. not everybody can be successful in everything that we do to try to set up those conditions for people to be successful. there are some who, unfortunately, touch our juvenile and adult probation criminal-justice system, and we try to find ways to correct that path and to create supportive mechanisms. we are rich in services in many ways with interventions as much as we can to redirect our youth or to help victims and their families as best we can. sometimes not perfectly, but the best we can to assist them in their recovery. and so it was right for me to talk about this in a very deliberate way, to talk to other mayors across the country and ask what they are doing to find out what is working and what is not working and then to bring back that conversation in a very direct way to our own communities here in san francisco. i know every person standin