that seems like a very reasonable -- why do you need it at all? >> because that is the minimal effort on the other side of the balance as i was trying to mention to justice ginsburg. that is a safe harbor for the state's obligation to engage in maintenance efforts. a 4 says the state's have a duty to remove ineligible voters and c says begins by saying, you can meet your obligation to remove ineligible voters by going through this process. it's the minimum on the one side of the balance -- >> if i can take you back to justice ginsburg's questions because it seems as though you are effectively turning hd 1 into a safe harbor in this sense, 18-1 says that these confirmation procedures are a permissible part of the program, even though part of the confirmation procedures are about not voting. so that's clear that 8 d 1 says that but you're trying to take that and convert it into something bigger and broader essentially saying, if you use these confirmation procedures you're entire program is going to be insulated from criticism, even though there's an

it's not a reasonable inference, so how could it eat a reasonable effort? >> the failure to vote clause says it can't be that sole basis for removal, not setting a notice says nothing about sending a notice. subsection d, congress identified a minimum that they thought was sufficient for state to remove individuals for failure to respond. >> that's minimal. that you think the maximum should be something more than the failure to vote? >> it does because -- >> a change in the residence in d,ordance with b, c, and and d has you using the post office. >> c. >> c has you using the post office. d says it shall not result in the name of the removal of the person in any election i reason of the persons failure -- by reason of the person's failure to vote. >> that's correct if you interview that to be a soul proxim it contest, then ours proximate- sole contest, then ours does not qualify. failure to vote over six years, which is more than -- >> so please ask plain to me why a change of address is reasonable to read -- explain to me why a change of address is reasona

the case centers on whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car he did not rent himself and is not authorized to drive under the rental agreement. he was arrested on drug and weapon charges in 2014 while driving car rented by his girlfriend. >>> you'll hear argument this morning in byrd versus united states. >> the government's proposed rule should be rejected for three reasons. the privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the car's locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this court's reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not contract terms and not property rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negate fourth amendment rights, it's notable that mr. byrd's presence in the car and the government does not dispute this was not improper. his storing of his personal items in the trunk was not even a contract violation. >> could he have been -- could he have been the renter given his criminal record? >> perhaps not, your honor, but he was given permission by the

in a reasonable way. some people might be unreasonable in certain aspects of each caucus but in a reasonable way, there's a process forward. that's what they demanded, that's what they got. mitch, i think, was very gracious in saying what he said today made all the difference in a world. his speech this morning opened up the avenue that we needed and the vehicle we needed to carry forth. that's going to happen. and the pressure is going to be on basically when we get our job done, then paul ryan has to do his job. we can't do the house's job. we can't dictate what the president and the executive branch is going to do. we can only do the senate's work. people have to understand once we got ourselves in a mindset, we're senators. what's the responsibility of the united states senate? that's what we're going to do that's what we're focused on. reporter: do you plan to bring in the house? senator manchin: if they want us to help them we're happy to help. reporter: what's the guarantee this won't happen again

that is what they are going to use, in a reasonable way. himuse, in a reasonable way. some people might be unreasonable in certain aspects. mitch i think was very gracious in saying what he said today. his speech this morning made all of the difference in the world. it opened up the vehicle that we needed to carry forth. the pressure is going to be on basically when we get our job done, then paul ryan has to get -- do his job. we cannot dictate as to what the president and the executive branch is going to do. we can only do the senate'a wor -- senate's work. >> do you plan to bring in the house? what is the guarantee that this will not happen again in three weeks? >> there are no guarantees around here. >> now, reaction from the white house following video that was struck in the senate to reopen the government. sarah sanders was asked about the president's role in negotiations and his position on immigration moving forward. this is 20 minutes.

the case hinges on the driver's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. the court is deciding if that extends to a rental car that the driver did not rent and is not authorized to operate under the rental agreement. arguments go about an hour. >> you'll hear argument this morning in case 1631 byrd versus united states. mr. loeb. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court, in this case, the government seems to transform a violation of a car rental agreement into a rule where unlisted drivers have no ability to even invoke the fourth amendment and the proposed rule should be objected for three reasons. first, ignoring the privacy expectations when he locks his personal property in the car's locked trunk with the permission of the renter is contrary to this court's reasonable expectation of privacy test which looks to privacy expectations and not contract terms and not property rights and while the contract violation alleged here does not negate fourth amendment rights, it's notable that mr. byrd's presence in the car and the government does not dispute th

so a reasonable period to first agree and then write and get ready to pass this negotiated settlement that we've been working on for months, february 8 is a very reasonable time. so i'm going to give -- i hear the sentiment for that -- there's sentiment for that on both sides of the aisle. i hope so. we'll vote on that option. we can't get that vote tonight, but i'll going to ask consent to have that vote tonight. i move, mr. president, to table the motion to >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal ." live at 9:00 a.m., the house of representatives gavels in to consider legislation to deal with the government shutdown. "q&a,"ay on c-span's noah feldman and his book "the three lives of james madison: genius, partisan, president." >> the constitution is madison's monument. in that way, the monument is all around you. the way internet -- the way the government interacts. all of that is in madison's mind . paul.f as a case with st. if you seek madison's monument in d.c., look around you, and it will be all around you. "q&a" sunday night on c-span. >> this morning, we

this bill provides daca recipients a reasonable includes solution that strong anti-fraud measures and makes sure daca don't get a special pathway to citizenship. this will restore the rule of law and protect our communities from terrorists and illegal insurers we are not facing another generation of immigrants who came as illegal miners in a few years. before elected to congress, i was a federal prosecutor. mexico order in my jurisdiction. i have been dealing with this as quite some time. a unique opportunity now with daca to finally get the border secure once and for all. chairman goodlatte outlined, in our meeting with the white house was backed by the president as a starting ground for negotiations. i thought it was a healthy discussion and unique to have negotiations in the white house with live television cameras for 45 minutes. it was a transparent discussion that americans got to see these negotiations that are normally behind closed doors. they saw were the president stood and where members of congress stood. i think this bill embodies the four main pillars we came to agreemen

so a reasonable period to first agree and then write and get ready to pass this negotiated settlement that we've been working on for months, february 8 is a very reasonable time. so i'm going to give -- i hear the sentiment for that -- there's sentiment for that on both sides of the aisle. i hope so. we'll vote on that option. we can't get that vote tonight, but i'll going to ask consent to have that vote tonight. i move, mr. president, to table the motion to >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, your reaction to the latest on the debate of funding the overnment. and a discussion of president trutch's campaign promises made and kept during his first year in office. be sure to join us on sunday as we look back on the one-year anniversary of the women's march on washington. >> defense secretary james mattis ske

it's not a reasonable inference, so how can it be a reasonable effort? >> the failure to vote clause says failure to vote cannot be the sole basis for removal and the notice, and it says nothing about sending a notice and within subsection d congress identified the minimum evidence that it thought was sufficient for the states to remove individuals for failure to respond. >> so if that's minimal, don't you think that maximum should see something a little bit more than the failure to vote? >> well, it does. a change in the residence in accordance with b, c and d, and b has you using the post office, correct? >> c. >> c has you using the post office. >> b says shall not be removed -- shall not result in the removal of the name of a person from any official list registered to vote in election for federal office by reason of the person's failure to vote. >> that's correct and if you interpret that to be a sole proximate cause test then ours does not satisfy it because nobody is removed solely when --? exactly. >> they're removed if they fail to respond to a n

so a reasonable period to first agree and then write and get ready to pass this negotiated settlement that we've been working on for months, february 8 is a very reasonable time. so i'm going to give -- i hear the sentiment for that -- there's sentiment for that on both sides of the aisle. i hope so. we'll vote on that option. we can't get that vote tonight, but i'll going to ask consent to have that vote tonight. i move, mr. president, to table the motion to >> the way the government interacts the way they speak to each other or free speech that is madison's money so that was the case in saint paul where they said look around you and you will see it everywhere spee17

with always knew that there was a pathway forward and it was a reasonable pathway forward. there was other people that felt differently. the bottom line was that it should never be shut down. we knew that. we were all moving in a very positive way towards that, but leadership was still in that jousting, back-and-forth. the rules of the senate have to change. i'm speaking for myself, not for my bipartisan group. i do not believe that either leader on either side should have the powers that they have. that is me speaking. no 2 people should be in a position of that much power when you have a force as strong as ours moving in a direction. they listened. that is what moved it. we were not backing off. we were not going to be be into submission -- be beat into submission. how come the appropriations bills aren't working? >> let me just add a little bit to what joe has said. first of all, every single difficult negotiation that i have ever been in, in the 21 years that i have served in the senate has had peaks and valleys. this is no different. i give our leaders a lot of credit f

out such a reasonable amout of people. there are unreasonable people and it is a bipartisan situation that we have here. on certain issues they become unreasonable. but all of a sudden they create theseli coalitions from those of us that just wants to score and make progress and fund the government to provide a solution for the population. but now we have another in the area on both of the spending bills and also daca bill. also, i could talk about the chip program. it's something that i wanted to reauthorize in september of last year. this wasem the month before the program technically expired. however, there was sufficient money and reserves to continue to run the programs and they are starting to run out of money including states that miami and north carolina. now we have an opportunity to reauthorize for years to provide the certainty for years and we are going to hold it hostage because we have a disagreement over things i think we can work out with the program. we see what people have said in fact one of the senators

that is what they are going to use in a reasonable way. andle might be unreasonable certain aspects, but in a reasonable way that is what they demanded than that is what they got. i think mitch was very gracious and what he said today. it made all the difference in the world. his speech opened the vehicle we needed to carry forth. the pressure is going to be on basically when we get our job done. then paul ryan has to do his job. we can't do the house's job. we can't dictate what the president and the executive house is going to do. if left to understand, once we got ourselves into a mindset we are senators. our responsibility is to the united states senate. >> if -- >> if he wants us to come that is what is going to happen. >> would've this happens again? >> that is no guarantee. announcer: that is the question tonight, will we be back in that same situation in three weeks. the new deadline is february eight. welcome to c-span's coverage of the events. i short-term continuing resolution keeps the government open for the next 17 days. your

a democrat. i do not support truck for various reasons. however, in this case, i believe the democrats are at fault. federal government funding has nothing to do with daca. they should not be holding us hostage over this issue. i do not feel yet another resolution -- this should have been passed long before the fiscal year. every other month, it seems federal employees, not just the military, are on pins and needles worrying about the shutdown. democrats need to end this now. deal with daca separately. what kind of work do you do for the federal government? caller: actually, i am in human resources, so we are responsible for sending out the furlough letters. host: you will have to come in and do that if furlough letters have to go out monday morning, right? caller: we have already given up some information. down for are to come four hours to complete the shutdown. we have identified essential and nonessential employees. when was the last time federal employees got a pay raise? we have actually been preparing for this for quite some time. m

so is that a fair reason? do we distinguish between parts of town to decide when to make an arrest? >> i'm not trying to argue for us between low income and high income properties but the board says from a common sense perspective. >> this is a new tenant. or from whatever part of town we are from. where does he enforce the law? >> i just say there are several considerations taken into account but you make that concession that would be there are situations where the condition of the home would be enough so the petitioner cites real-world examples and there is a for sale sign up front. obviously they have probable cause with a for sale sign, condition of the house with at least some evidence. >> it is different because in that case there could be forced entry because they don't have keys. >> i'm saying keep the facts exactly the same just move the house. >> it is a closer case but if police, upon evidence that they implicitly made that they shoul should? >> but to contrary to take into account commonsense consideration but ignore the fact if you are in a low income neighborhood police

usually you have to have a specific reason. there has to be a child getting married, your grandmother passing away, there has to be some reason for advanced parole. a number of people with tps have been able to apply for that. it is very hard for them to leave the country. you have to apply specifically to the u.s. government with a compelling reason. they are granted and denied. most people don't end up applying for advanced parole. some of them do because they have something in their country of origin. host: what's the difference between those looking for tps and those who get it? guest: anyone who is in this were a lot apply for tps. as long as they didn't have a criminal conviction. if you had a felony or two disk -- misdemeanors, you could not apply for it. it was very hard. no one knew at the time they would get tps when they came in. 2003ould not walk in in and said let me do it retroactively. host: so if a country is declared in some distress, is it automatic guarantee you will receive status? guest: if you apply and you

hinging on a driver's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. arguments go for about an hour. hear argument in bird versus the u.s. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. government seeks to transform a violation of a car rental agreement into a real unlisted drivers have no ability to even in folk support. -- the first amendment. the rule should be rejected for three reasons. ignoring a person's privacy expectation 20 locks his personal property in a cars locked trunk with the commission -- permission of the printer it is contrary to the expectation of privacy which looks to privacy expectations and not contract terms and not property rights. while the contract violation alleged is not negate fourth amendment rights, it is notable that his presence in the car was not improper. restoring of his personal -- the storing of his items in the trunk was not a violation. perhaps not. given permission by the renter to store his items in the locked trunk and the government does not argue that was impermissible. >> oppose he had in a passenger. and the renter was there. ,> even i

work is ahead of us but this work needs to be targeted and will be carried out intensively and a reasonable climate in spite of all controversies and this is what this day has and with the decision of the party thank you very much. write a pithy statement from. about the work that lies ahead i'm joined in the studio by belinda crane our chief political correspondent and also for an analysis of merkel's remarks and how she is likely to approach things light of this s.p.d. decision we got. outside of the chancellor here in start with you this is a relief for despite what she said about all the work that lies ahead. right definitely a sigh of relief we've just heard from her herself she is now looking forward to the official formal negotiations and

a lifetime. this doesn't do anything to help them in that regard. that's one of the reasons we want a full funding of the government and to meet that challenge as well. instead of dealing with the challenges that face americans in their lives every day, whether they're wondering about the state of their pensions while trying to pay for their kids' soaring tuition bills, struggling to make ends meet with stagnant paychecks that have barely budged in decades, helping ailing parents who need long-term care, caring for their young children when their employers provide no family leave. i could go on and on. but the bottom line is none of these challenges get any attention from my republican colleagues here in the house and the senate in terms of this budget. i spent the first -- they spent the first half of 2017, last year, in a relentless effort to strip millions of americans of their health care coverage, relentless. relentless. and then when the american people spoke out and beat back republican efforts to repeal the affordable care act, they gave up and they set their sights

guest: well, a couple of reasons. in general, even without any mishaps, a flu tends to more than most other viruses mutate and we call it drifting so even if you have the same general strain like an h 3 n 2 from one year to the other, it drifts and mutates a bit. the problem is it general lemieux tates at that part a particular molecule or a protein on the influenza that's responsible for the immune response to protect you against it. so you may have some underlying protection from either previous exposure or a vaccine and then it changes a bit from year-to-year which necessitates the reason why you might ask a reasonable question. why do you have to get vaccinated every year for a disease like meaningfuls or other? you get it -- measles or others? it's that continued changing. the problem this year was an extra added risk. and that was we have the way we make vaccine is we grow them in eggs or cells. this year when the vaccine was made, the choice of what virus to use for the vaccine was fundamentally the correct choi

a conspiracy? >> it seems reasonable. it's odd to the indict the entire planet of wherever for wanting to come and visit. even if we are going to arguably, maybe we could consider it a conspiracy theory. it's a conspiracy of aliens in and of themselves, right? which is not what we tend to talk about, when we talk about ufo conspiracy theorys. alien conspiracy theorys. those are theorys that include an element of human complicity, usually of government complicity. and these ideas that there are not only aliens visiting earth but that the state is in some way voefled with those visits is a really prominent conspiracy theory. it's a multitude of conspiracy theo theorys. and like the kennedy conspiracy that we were talking about last week. to just stand here and name every ufo conspiracy theory would take much longer than we have in this class. so tragically, we will not be talking about the fact that nasa is hiding the existence of the planet nabir. tragically, we will not be talking about the fact that we are in secret conta

is it reasonable? it's a balancing of interests. that's what reasonableness meant at the end of 18th century, it's what it means today. and so you have to grapple with the real privacy interests that are involved in the case versus the other considerations, namely the mobility of the automobile. and that i understand your argument to be is why it's reasonable to draw a distinction between an enclosed place like the house or garage, and an open place like a driveway. even if it technically falls within the curtilage. >> that's correct. and the search that occurred here was very reasonable, limbed in scope -- >> very see, the problem i have is the court below didn't do this. it basically said the absolute rule, not a balancing test. it said you can search any place where a car is, because that's what the automobile exception permits. but that's a very broad statement that would permit search of the garage or the automobile inside the house. you have a very strong argument and so would the court below if it had said, given the nature of

running the cafe with fewer people we can increase productivity and serve delicious coffee at a reasonable price. he's the ticket to mark he says that will help keep the price of a cup of coffee low it's currently causing three hundred twenty yen about three dollars the robot coffee shop is part of a trend in downtown tokyo. also operate three hotels. robots run the check in desk instead of humans. as their business with. the to. prevent. the to. the to. the touch. the to. the to. the to. global demand for. a movie has plenty of this alkaline metal. batteries for cell phones and. one of the poorest countries in south america but libya has the biggest reserves hoping to get rich but foreign investors want a slice of. three. entered the conflict zone confronting the powerful lobby challenging those in power asking tough questions for monday. as conflicts intensify i'll be meeting the keep players on the ground in the senses of our coaching through the rhetoric holding the hostages fast approaching. complex song confronting the powerful gone deep dug. in and talked to. the deadly storm to be

there is a reason why there is a bipartisan group of members that opposed this and a bipartisan group that were for it. this is not as clean issue. there is complicated dynamics in both parties here. one of the key reasons why in terms of pathway forward of what's most interesting to see is how these dynamics break down in the days ahead and what the pressure turns into that's put on this red state democrats and how people like lyndsey graham clearly at the forefront trying to figure out the solution right now and strike a deal and address what's going to happen in the future on daca and far more align on democrats on that, right now in terms of trying fie find a resolution in the near terms. all of those things are at play right now. basically, it under scores it, it is not easy and not going to be clean. these are all calories players akey players playing ahead. >> so we see some key players there on the senate floor. you see chuck schumer who's sitting down elizabeth warren is wearing purple there. it is hard for make out for me. i know at home with your tv, you can see these peopl

or mom reason at all sppt question is, can he fire for a bad reason? is there evidence that he fired him for a bad reason? there are interest views, including with lesser holt. it will be incumbent upon mueller. i have to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. but here we are talking about the president of the united states. you better talked beyond a reasonable doubt fan noicht up a couple levels to think about bringing an indictment for obstruction of justice where the president has the right to term state in jim comey and take other steps lining that. he has the lawful right to do it. kennedy: is removing the president success? is that what success looks like to the special counsel? i guess we'll find out. the inspector general of the department of justice says they have recovered all of the missing texts between peter strzok and lisa page. they sent texts to each other while having an affair. but all this russia stuff is creating a firestorm. >> we have an informant talk about holding secret meetings off site. this is potentially corruption at h

these things can help younger people who are ambitious feel you know this government is giving me a reason to have a stake in the future it's not giving me a reason to give up hope and then there's the money factor of course that alan talk about because apart from my deeper ideological causes when people go out and protest they're really just comes down to money and they need hot drinks blankets weapons so this is really also about who funds to revolution the success of our illusions and by who funds it i don't think you can put the success of a revolution into who funds it simply because once people have become sufficiently energized and. anxious to create a revolution they're willing to take considerable risks putting their lives on the line and they're willing to endure quite a bit of hardship to take a change that they thought might never come and now they've got a chance to realise that change in their own lifetimes yes if there's going to be revolutionary mobilization people do need to be fed they do indeed be provided for but that usually comes from their families it may come from l

jurisdictions is that if the defendant contests and decides to put the prosecution to its proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to an element of the defense, the constitution precludes the defense his own lawyer from telling the jury -- >> any element of the offense? is venue an element of a defense sometimes or -- >> the most extreme hypothetical i can think of is was there a mailing in interstate commerce? >> all right, that's a good one. did you cross state lines? that's an element of the offense so if the lawyer says it's obvious that you did cross state lines. you have 48 witnesses. i'm not going to argue that you didn't cross state lines and the person says that's an element of the offense. you have to say i didn't or withdraw. >> no, no, no. the client doesn't get to decide squha you will affirmatively say. the client can say, even if it's just an element -- >> ok, so the lawyer gets up. look, they have to prove these things. crossing state lines, that's clearly proved but we want to talk about these other things so that violates this fundamental right? >> just so you and i are very clear about

it's something i've been working on since we filed a bill in august and long before that to try and get reasonablemount of members on both sides of the aisle to come up with a solution that makes sense. but now we have people who actually want to shut down the government because we haven't reached a bipartisan agreement that i think is not that far away. the problem that i have with that is i think it's going to create a toxic environment in washington, d.c. that it's not only going to provide all the uncertainty that i talked about on the prior slide, but it's even going to alienate people who are coming to the table trying to negotiate a bipartisan agreement. so now we're at a point to where we're trying to figure out if we can fund government either through a vote sometime tomorrow or a shutdown tomorrow night. what i find interesting, and i've only been here for about three years -- i've been in politics for about a dozen years. i find it interesting how things change overnight, how things that were untenable and awful a couple of months or couple of years ago are justified today based on the

there will be a reasonable investment agreement pursuant to which it's agreed to pay a reasonable fee. what raises red flags is the relationship between ima and her son and whether or not the recommendation is being made with regard to what's in the best interest of the plan or because it's her son, but we're told in the second paragraph that there was an rfp process, a reasonable investment agreement was entered into, which involved paying the company a reasonable fee. it was suggested that there was a process followed and it would appear that the board acted in the best interest of the plan. that's not necessarily the case. that's what would have to be dealt with in a situation like this. but if the board acted within the best interest in the plan, there would not be a breach in this case. there's two sort of related issues, or hidden issues, in the first paragraph. the big question is whether or not ima had any financial interest in big bucks through her son or direct investments. and if she did, in that case, it's very possible that the board would not have been able to act at all

48 hours of symptoms, anti-viral medications can be helpful, like tamiflu, so that should not be a reasono withhold treatment. >> dr. ashton with us. jen, thank you. >>> tonight, we have also learned of an alleged school shooting plot that has been thwarted. after a school student overheard a conversation on the school bus and then reported it. police then racing to a student's home, and tonight, what they have discovered. here's abc's gio benitez. >>> reporter: tonight, a quick-thinking teen is being hailed as a hero for preventing a possible shooting at this school near pittsburgh. >> had they not reported this, there could've been a major catastrophe today at uniontown high school. >> reporter: the teen, overhearing a 14-year-old classmate on the bus, allegedly talking about plans to shoot four students today at uniontown high school in pennsylvania, recording the conversation and contacting police. >> that student overheard it and took appropriate action right on the bus. >> reporter: within hours, police searching the suspect's bedroom, finding an arsenal of weapons. three rifles, in

or tick and the reason is a disease of old age people and it is a life threatening disease in cases that such an aneurysm ruptures once detected the repeal of the internal physician would carefully monitor the growth of the and the reason and would of course seek professional advice by a vascular surgery or by intervention of vascular radiology and it's always a team effort to decide which would be the best treatment for the patient so one treatment could be surgery internet the treatment could be an intervention with kind of him stand oh absolutely i have here some films from a patient who treated truman to build a sea of big or to only reason here protected by these metal construct and what you can see is a stand implanted here and most important is that the kidney arteries are free and the patient is neither. only the losing the kidney blood supply or the spinal cord blood supply which is another risk of. the response so after the stent is implanted there is no risk for we are to give any reason to rupture any more i would not say it's no risk but the risk is certainly decreased by an

you have to have a reasonable amount of base fee. vonnie: when a new client comes to you and says i like this idea of active and passive, how do you follow their money? where do you send it? dick: we are optimistic about the future of risk assets right here in the global economy. you should be pretty close to your core base asset allocation measured against your liabilities. the difference between a professional investor and an amateur investor is typically staying within the framework. ary fromno time to v your framework. think about how good in my at selecting asset managers? if you are very good, you have a relatively lower share of active managers. if you think you are relatively be quite confident that a good active manager will deliver significant outperformance over the index and passive over the time peio d ds. -- time periods. mark: some waiting for mario draghi to put a lid on the euro. will he? if he does, will it make a difference? dick: probably what he says won't make a big difference. so much of european economy is trad

>> kennedy used to say there's a reason why it was one volume in terms of the prevalence of courage. it occurred to me this is what a government would look like without a president. this is what a parliament system might look like. that might be too harsh on parliamentary systems. here we are a year in, almost to the hour and there is this curious absence of presidential leadership in terms of bringing a couple of very fundamental issues in the life of the country to a head, to a decision. and i think this is a video -- i was thinking about walter badge et who was the founder of "the economist." he defined two sections of popular government, that there's a dignified element, which is the monarchy in britain but the presidency and its majesty here when we have that, and the efficient. england of course is the parliament and the government itself. one of our strengths as hauls been that we've combined the two. i think heading into year two, if you look at dignified and efficient as two categories for leadership, i think we're 0 for 2. i think that's one of the reasons you're going to se

that is a reason for some discrepancy. on the other hand, the market's forecast builds in a term premium, whereas the fed's forecast doesn't build in a term premium. reasonable judgment, then, if we continue to operate in our current framework, it's a reasonable expectation that in good times, rates will be in the 2% to 3% range, typically. and it seems to me -- obviously that's a projection made with substantial error, but i cannot see good reasons for thinking that the fed and the market's estimates are massive underestimates. second proposition. recessions will come. what is the likelihood of a recession? my reading suggests that the best thinking is that recoveries, unlike people, do not die of old age. that the probability of recession once one is significantly advanced into a recovery is essentially independent of the length of the recovery. and that that probability, depending upon just how far back one looks, is something in the neighborhood of 15% to 20% on an annual basis. that's a historical reading looking back

we have a constant duchenne for a reason -- we have a constitution for a reason. we have these protections for a reason. just because it is hard i would not want to see it say we are going to get pushed to the european model. >> are there any other thoughts that you would have if you could sit down with both the congress and the president vis-a-vis issues in the intelligence community that require attention as we prepare for adversaries in the 21st century? we have some issues with meddling in our elections. what is the appropriate response we should have? should there be reforms in the community in order us -- in order for a stability respond. frances: for better or worse, i helped author the intelligence reform act. the intelligence reform act created the dni. it is easy in washington great something. it is impossible to kill anything. >> this explains our careers. [laughter] frances: good point. i always believe, whether it is the department of homeland security or the dni, you have to have a point in time where you have to say is this, are they performing the

but most importantly about two thirds of the crls had an efficacy reason for turning down the product. 80% had either a safety or efficacy reason included in the crl, and 48% had both. so we drew the conclusion from this that in fact the fda does not turn down products for trivial reasons, and hopefully that has helped to counter the misinformation in that point in a general way, of course, that doesn't answer the question of what might be happening for any particular crl because that has yet been released. we're looking at crls as a unit of analysis, and the question is what did companies do when they received their crl? the answer was that in about 18% of cases, 11 of the 61 crls, there is no press release whatsoever and really no way for anybody to know that the product had been rejected. in an additional 13, the company put out a press release that said that a complete response letter had been released but provided no details whatsoever what that reason was. and then the rest of this or the fraction of the statements that were matched. so we have 61 crls. they're maybe about ten pages long apiece.

off. >> no, you have the right to use your eyes but you don't have the right to go beyond what a reasonably respectful person would do and stopping to examine or seize a motorcycle is outside of that implied license. the motorcycle is not on the path to the front door. he said he was not knocking and talking he walked up to take the cover off to see if this was the motorcycle that he had probably cause to think it was. >> i thought you admitted that he had probably cause to believe that the thing covered by the tarp is the motorcycle that had eluded him by driving 140 miles an hour. >> right. >> so he has probably cause to search that motorcycle to find the vehicle identification number which will tell him the owner of the motorcycle and help him arrest the person that committed this crime, right. >> yes. >> so the case comes down to this if the motorcycle were parked on the street or further down the driveway and therefore in the curtilage, they wouldn't need a warrant and can search it, but because it was parked a few feet further away in a spot visible from the street, they can search is