this time is important for belarus not to miss how our aic will add what is there for this reserves and new projects and a blockhouse hall olga onishchenko not everyone is lucky, but the agrarians this year are adding agricultural production increased by 3.5%, it is worth remembering only a record grain harvest per person for the first time in history, and a little more milk and poultry and much more potatoes, sugar beet berries, more are grown more produce belarus confidently follows this logic and this year the production of the main food products butter by 8% is still 6% there is a meat product, it is 6% of sausages products by 6.5%. the fact that the belarusians themselves are not equal to the business profits. prices of which have not been completed yet a year has not yet been completed, the vice-premier operates with data for 10 months, and the country has already received as much foreign exchange earnings as it did for the entire past year, and the final $ 8 billion is not sky-high figures at all. all the most delicious belarusian is bought in a hundred countries of the world, a

looked at and litigated and everything else has happened in the disney to be a verification but need to aicification awy that makes sense to the haymarket people and produces a process that is reasonable and protect democracy and the electoral count which you have been involved in pencil moving in in the senate but has broad bipartisan support and their own legislation and how important is it to get done before the end of the year and it's hard to see the republican house would support something like this. >> will he do think that it needs to getnd done before the d of the year and i am sorry that we are this far into the year without getting it done but the long process did produce a pretty dramatic bipartisan consensus on the things that need too be done to make that 1888 law, work better in one of which would be to take more than one member of the house and one member of the senate to totally take all process back in from the joint session into two separate meetings and a slow that down in ways that really do not produce any questions about the election itself produce a lot of questions

and wic aic. >> they could making tons of profits i get, that say, stop bailing them out, stop helping economy. government gives them to knows of money we did that for airlines during the pandemic and they turn around and play-off a bunch of pilots anyway, they are more screwed up thank you mayor pete. kennedy: it swab of president's favorite talking points. he knows that he can't engage in mercantilism and price fixing. >> one reason that democrats are focused on this, we know that inflation is a problem, there are a b bunch of reasons that include the war in ukraine and covid, we know it is an issue, average americans are struggling, corp operations keep jacking up prices and they keep making the huge windfall profits. they can -- can't blame russia or blame covid they are just raising the prices and making more money . -- to to so when they get government money. they should pass on some of that success to the consumer, inflation is a problem and corporate companies, that are making huge amount of money make it worse. >> katie there are economists who say profit marginsicested existe

and said, he said that in a news aic, reporters would have bn tter served by relying on their own instincts, their own legwork. this in turn -- political instincts, rather than the presumably scientific samples offer by pollsters. the surprise outcome of 1980 left pollsters bickering amongst themselves quite openly. this is quite unusual. disputes amongst pollsters tend to be more private, more quiet, more low level. not so much in the 1980s. they brokered about how things got so wrong. one of the disputes was whether there was this late in the campaign shift of support of reagan from carter. or not. some pollster side, yeah, that explains. other said, that's nonsense, we did not see such a shift late in the campaign. really, it's still kind of, years later, somewhat unresolved. the standard explanation is yes, there was a shift to ronald reagan, late in a campaign, b it was a disputed analysis it was not embrace unanimously. it inspired editorial cartoosts to. the polling failure of 1980 -- the philadelphia inquirer, to put together this fairly imaginative, and a bit insulting, editorial c

create a false impression the orders of the most active estate what's more the proposal would require aic senior official of certain nonbanks to attest to the cfpb that they are complying with these orders. that would effectively give the cfpb enforcement power over other agencies orders for violation of state and federal laws. the cfpb has no enforce on —- jurisdiction to enforce this and no limiting principle from extending the rule from nonbanks to all financial institutions these are some of the symptoms of an agency out of control knows that congress can't do a thing about it that's i'm introducing legislation to place the cfpb on appropriations the best way to make it accountable to congresses through appropriations through rulemaking it can exercisees legislative power and it does. what's ambiguous about the first line of the first paragraph of the first article of the constitution? "ngall legislative powers herein granted are invested in the congress of the united states". at the very least congress to carry out the responsibility that the constitution assigns to us to exercise co

susan: i'm a big believer that there no such thing as aic wash. if you look at trump's attacks and those of his administration on the media, it is important to note they were purposeful, calculated, and served an important clinical purpose from the very beginning of his time in politics, even predating the presidency. the use of the terms "fake news" was an appropriation of those who pointed out in 2000 16 how much lies and misinformation and this information were being used by trump, by a network of russia-supported bots on social media that aimed to distort and misrepresent things. i think it's very important to make that point. there is no one monolithic washington media. when it comes to the russia story, what i am struck by, as peter pointed out, the incredible success trump has had shaping a narrative. peter and i have covered, and we will talk about kremlin rising, but we have covered the u.s.-russia relationship for more than two decades. i have to tell you, people might not understand this -- there has never been an example of any preside

and it's in aic i, which kind of suggests the founders considered it a legislative power. i guess i'm a little less moved by that lollapalooza than yo are. maybe you can help me out, though. mr. katyal: sure. of course. and i think it'reflective in the chief justice's comments to my friend on the other side. there is certalyomething legislative there, but i think that the overall pointf iley is to say -- and my friend says this in e ply brief at page 6 -- you take legislatures as you find them. he agrees with that proposition. a's what smiley did as well. the legislature as it was found in minnesota in il was -- justice gorsuch: and nobody here thinks the north carin supreme court is exercising a legislative function. all agree on that too, right? mr. katyal: correct. justice gorsuch: okay. sohakind of takes care of that argument doesn't it? , what am miing? mr. katyal: -- underlying smiley is something more specif tn that. it's basically yi that the conditions on the lawmaking power -- that's thlauage at page 365 -- apply, and, certainly, one cdion on the lawmaking power

leser is about aic v. it's about a totally different text. the text of arclv is application of the state legislatures. the point of smiley, justice jackson, is to say this is different because it's a lag system not just "legislature" but also because of the word "regulation." there is no regulation that has ever existed that has been exogenous to the s constitution. it's literally a species that never existed. justice alito: mr. katyal, can i ask you some questions about the boundaries of your argument. so suppose a state constitution sayshacongressional districts will be determined by the state supreme court exercising legislative power. is that consistent with the elections clause? mrkaal: we don't think it would be, your honor. so we think, in general, there may be some redefinitionf e legislature that the azona decision might permit. that isn't what we are arguin here. we're talking abo oinary checks and balances like judicial review. justice alito: all right. ppe that the state constitution says that the legislature can adt congressional