yor garcetti, thank you very much for joining us. me just start out by asking, what's your overall reaction? they are talking about leveraging federal dollars to state and local dollars and the rest of it, something like one to five. >> good evening, judy, an any day that washington is talking about infrastructure is music to my eurs, but, of rse, the devil will be in the details. but we've got a yawning $5.4 trillion gap, and we want to get home to r tam ls quicker, cut traffic, we don't want to be on unsafe bridges, and we need the geeks generatofn orts and airports to help fuel -- the next ge ports and airports to fuel americans have passed $260 billion in infrastructure, this only proposals $200 billion over ten years. there is more money inhis budgetor the wall than for cities in america to hav ansit dollars and to fix their roads, to fix the potholes. so we're doing our pareand want to see federal government do its part and not just take $20 out of our wallet and give it to themselves, give it back to us and say here's your inf

mayor mark garcetti. and all of these people think they can do a better job than this president and feel they have a good shot. does it weaken the field having so many running. guy: the republicans had 17 people running and eventually won the white house. i don't think trump is ever going to have approval rating in the 50s or 60s again. so mathematically it would seem that he's ripe for pluck. but it's not quite so easy to beat him as hillary clinton discovered in 2016. i'm thinking about there is example you have been talking about. when there were 17 people running on the republican side. there was the main stage, the adults table, and the kids' table debate. the democrats might have to have a third run. the top tier and second tier. kennedy: no network is going to carry the bottom tier of a crowded field. guy: what if she and zuckerberg both ran and did their own facebook live debate off by themselves. that's not completely implausible. kennedy: they could control that medium for sure. but what i'm say

he is the author of the garcetti case that sets out the doctrine in ways that the government can restrict people speech in the workplace. but it is still hard to understand. >> but why didn't they just do that in paris? so in that case they rule on a more narrow workaround. but at that point justice scalia had written the most effective opinion why it was fair and equitable. that is clearly speculative to have some difficulty coming around with that strongest defense back in the 80s. it appears they wrote a broad opinion expressing deep skepticism. >> that is the explanation i would do. >> what will they do will they say they are overruled like in south dakota? >> look at the language in this case and it walks right up to the line. they could have distinguished it to say we don't have to address that but it went out of its way to talk about all the additives but they were directed by the court went out of their way to reject the arguments not mine personally but from the justice going out of its way to reject those arguments and you see them being raised again for understandable reasons t

he is the author of the garcetti case that says there are ways they can restrict people's speech in the workplace. see you know what will come out a certain way but it is still difficult. >> one of the things that struck me why didn't they just do that in paris? essentially they ruled against that but on a narrower ground they could have but the best point justice gilead wrote the most effective opinion why they were fair and equitable so he had some difficulty to come around and wrote the strongest defense in the 80s. it appears they wrote a broad opinion each giving deep skepticism but then he saw the light as time went on steroids you have any idea what they would do is there wiggle room but the language goes right up the line. you could have just distinguished to say we don't have to addressth that but going out of his way not was directed at him in the court went out of their way to project those arguments not me personally bet the brief that went out of its way for those arguments for understandable reasons. >> what happens if there is a federal statute? >> i don't know the answer

los angeles is doing very -- i applaud mayor garcetti, doing excellent work on electric buses for transportation, and i would like to give three examples of the international cities of how they are thinking of corporate thinking with jobs and the strategy of the cities n. vancouver in the greenest city action plan is specifically measuring actual jobs created through green initiatives and through green companies in areas like high the tech, i.t., food, energy. it has goals based on the measurements to double the number of jobs in those sectors and double the number of companies in those sectors over the next five years. copenhagen which is leading in so many ways has also integrated the thinking on the economy, jobs and economic growth into the climate change strategies. part of the work includes a clean tech ak sel ccelerator wh being undertaken in partnership with the city, the national government and the national government's economic development agency in new york city. so they are attempting to create export-oriented jobs based on their own expertise and high-tech and clean energy strategy.

i've talked to eric garcetti in los angeles. i've talked to mayors in other parts of the country. they are not coming up with solutions yet, and i think this is one issue where we can have an impact, although a small one, but it may be able to work in neighborhoods like sunnyside where they're dealing with many things. so that's my one cent. >> chairman brinkman: thank you very much, director torres. mr. thornly, i think what i'm hearing from my board -- and again, this was a discussion item. we don't have an action on this, so what i want to give you is feedback as this board has presented is there is appetite to look into a towing fee amnesty when people have their homes, their vehicles towed. i have no idea what's going to be involved. it's going to definitely mean a bit more work for you and the team. we like the work that you're doing with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. absolutely want to commend you for the way that you've approached that and what you've done and encourage you to continue on that work. i am hearing that perhaps a citywide ban could be

yesterday canadian prime minister justin trudeau joined eric garcetti for a little exercise on his lasthree-day visit to california the two walked around griffith observatory taking selfies along the way. trudeau got a rock star welcome here, he met with jerry brown and gavin newsom to discuss economic, healthcare and environmental issues. on thursday trudeau met with sales force ceo marc benioff. this was the prime minister's ninth trip to the u.s. since president trump took office. >>> he was moments away from disaster, a driver barely escapes after his car gets stuck on the tracks in atherton. a driver was crossing the tracks when his car stalled. he jumped out just before the train crushed his vehicle. fortunately the driver of the car was not hurt. it's hard to believe when you see this crumpled austin healy. >> the train came through with no ak pant in the vehicle, struck the &,5vehicle, married 100 yards or so down the tracks, it then caught on fire. >> about 350 passengers were on board that caltrain which originated in san francisco. no passengers were hurt. more than 90 minute

he's the author of the garcetti case that says there are ways the government can more freely restrict people's speech in the work place for its reasons. it's one of those cases where you sort of know it's going to come out a certain way and hard to understand doctrinally why it shouldn't. >> and one of the things when i was going over the papers, why didn't they just do it in harris? and obviously in that case, they essentially ruled against paul's side, but on a much narrower ground. they could have done it there. >> they could have, but the thing was-- at that point justice scalia had written the most effective opinion explaining why the agency fee was perfectly fair and equitiable. this is just my completely speculative explanation, that he had some difficulty coming around to a broad overruling of abood having written in the '80s. and it appears to me that they wrote a broad opinion and he wouldn't join it so they wrote a narrow opinion sort of expressing deep skepticism, but not doing it and that he saw the light as time went on. that's the explanation that i would do. >> do any

>> reporter: that met with defiance from leaders of california including los angeles mayor eric garcettiworking to protect people on the streets of los angeles to worry about empty threats. >> reporter: sen. dianne feinstein firing back onto the president's obsession with california is growing more outrageous by the day, the attacks not only mean-spirited but patently false. late last month ice rated 70 businesses in northern california, the latest example of a stepped up federal push to enforce immigration laws. donald trump in california clashed over a variety of other issues including the border wall, tax reform, offshore drilling and marijuana. in los angeles, will car, fox news. leland: governor ricketts of nebraska leaving the stage at cpac heading to our camera. we will talk to him in a minute about his thoughts on infrastructure projects. more charges for parents who imprisoned 13 children in their california home. remembering billy graham, back in his hometown of charlotte, how he impacted communities and our country as a whole. speech is great loss to the world. he spoke the wo

he's the author of the garcetti case. there are ways in which the government can freely restrict people's speech for those reasons. it's one of those case where is you sort of know it was going to come out a certain way but it's hard to understand the way it should. >> could i ask you a question. one of -- a question? >> one of the things that struck me is why didn't they just do it in hard -- in harris? they ruled on a much narrower ground. they could have done it there, right? >> they could have. the thing was -- >> at that point justice scalia wrote a piece in why it was fair and equitable. this is just my completely speculative explanation that he had some difficulty kind of coming around to a broad overruling of abud having written a stronger case back in the 1980's. it appears that it they wrote a broad opinion and so they wouldn't join it. and they would express deep skepticism about abude but not doing it. he saw the light as time went on. that would be the explanation i would do. >> do any of you have any ideas a