>> so the first three amendments to article 16 amendments are all on one sheet, and the article 33 amendments are on a different set. >> supervis >> president cohen: mr. chair? >> supervisor safai: yes. >> president cohen: may i be recognized? >> supervisor safai: sure. >> president cohen: i'm not a voting member on this body, but i do have a couple of questions on the amendments that are being introduced. my understanding is we're looking for diversity and ownership -- oh, i'm sorry. sorry. my question's for hepner, not mandelman. >> supervisor safai: so president cohen, do you have any questions -- >> president cohen: with handle man? no. i'm in agreement with mandelman. we've worked together on certain aspects of the legislation, so i'm comfortable with what supervisor mandelman is proposing. >> supervisor safai: so it's essentially about ownership, and the one over here on article 16 is -- can you just repeat that again? >> sure. so the article 16 changes that we're proposing, the first one just clarifies that based on the new transfer threshold of up to 50%, kind -- it prevents someone w

in its article 50 formation. lead. today the european council endorsed the agreement and the withdrawal of the agreement and the withdrawal of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland from the european union and the european energy community. on this basis, the european council invited the commission, the european parliament and the council to take the necessary steps to ensure that the agreement can enter 29th of march 2019 for an orderly withdrawal. the european council approved the political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the european union and the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland. the european council restated the union's determination to have as close as possible a partnership with the united kingdom in the future. i quote this passage of today's conclusions. it contains the essence of our meeting. ahead of us is the difficult process of ratification, as well as further negotiations. but regardless of how it will all end, one thin

the article continues. the lawyer, that would be the white house lawyer, don mcgahn, rebuffed the president, saying he had no authority to order a prosecution. mr. mcgahn said while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. to underscore his point, mr. mcgahn had white house lawyers write a memo for mr. trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment. laura, this is an explosive article we're getting. and clearly, they didn't go ahead and the justice department didn't begin to prosecute hillary clinton or james comey. but this is pretty explosive right here. >> it's remarkable reporting, wolf. and it's interesting that mcgahn obviously saw the writing on the wall, saw how this could turn bad and fast. even resulting in possible impeachment. so he had the lawyers in the white house counsel's office, according to this reporting, draft up a memo, trying to outline for th

the famous article, we are talking about russian concept, if you read the article he basically said the west is using a hebrew war against us and we will use it against them. the revolution is nothing but a covert operation of american intelligence. so what we should try to do is try to have a couple operations of our own that will mirror what they're doing. and then, when you asked them, and this was for me, from this point of view, can you imagine there was something spontaneous. can you imagine that people can go on the streets without being paid and one of the most interesting things i heard was first, they cannot imagine but we could not imagine this also, because, if people really get on the streets when they are passed off with their government , like they weren't in the streets of russia in 1990, it's an extremely cynical view of the world. different types of experiences, but this makes the world looks so consistent and so transparent for example, the most difficult thing you can argue was the where -- russian policymakers. when you tell them the americans failed in iraq they wi

-- article ten of the code.this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. the preservation consultant and the project sponsors, i believe, are still present today and are available for questions. >> thank you. any questions for the staff? mr kelly, do you want to make a presentation or are you just here for questions? [laughter] >> here we are again. so many familiar faces. there's not much more to be said most of you have already voted to approve this landmark and i think that it is kind of uniquely fitting as both related to significant historical patterns in the city and also for its architectural and physical qualities. with that, i'm open to any questions. >> thank you. it doesn't look like we have any >> thank you, commissioners. i'm here on behalf of the building owner. i want to give you a background. most of you may remember the first time when many of you were here in 2014 and hurried heard and supported the landmark designation. since then we have been working closely with supervis

she has ruled out extending article 50 and ruled out extending article 50 and ruled out extending articlenesses in croydon waiting right now to know what is going to happen in the future, what will she do if she loses the vote in parliament?” future, what will she do if she loses the vote in parliament? i say to the honourable lady, if she is concerned about croydon businesses she should look carefully at the future relationship we are developing with the eu. we will fill out further details in relation to that but that future relationship will deliver for the businesses in croydon or deliver on the issues they have expressed concerns about, and will deliver in a way that ensuresjobs can and will deliver in a way that ensures jobs can be and will deliver in a way that ensuresjobs can be kept in her constituency. may i congratulate my right honourable friend for securing the steel and say there is much in here that pleased my constituency who voted strongly to come out, including taking control of our borders and ending the free movement of labour? i say to the pro minister, her task of br

such an approach would have demonstrated respect for the law, and this article 1 -- in this article 1 branch of government. it the would have also provided the administration additional leverage to persuade the saudis to support our objectives, not the saudis' objectives, our objectives in yemen. i also thought the claim that the sawed subsidies requested shall the saudis requests an end was lamentable. in our october 10 letter, seven of us -- again, a bipartisan group -- asked for answers in a umin of questions related to saudi arabia and yemen and the section 1290 certification. we asked for a response by october 31. failing to receive those answers from the administration on november 15, more than two weeks after the deadline, i worked with ranking

have articles to put on it or to think that we've been there is to go to. civilians and i want to. skip this critique out to get all that i love. to get i. just want some in the office but i also. do a lot of. gifts. so you. know if. that. it's any. help there for them with. that then. what do you. do when they build that social to that. to do this for the. president of the or doesn't or. a nationalist we do here thought on orders or i can't believe. the anything. else to say you get the best spendings make. their duty to give and then they admit they were told to say she had different demands list or. who could not talk a little. detail of her store. also she enjoyed what he had something to do or beat me up on those so they can have. the next question comes from self just. he that the media or some. expected my movie star to talk or perfect a star makes it and i go all the aspects of the. financial district that. comes from all of. their social daughter on the t.v. but it's to michelle think about a. little dislike me there's a been. six months after i meant to i called a friend

and so i don't -- like the article is an article about history. it's an article about how congress experienced that set of things. and by the way, they didn't look at it and say, you know, we don't -- we're not going to pay attention to what the president says, we're going to focus on what he does, even though we don't read the tweets, not that nixon tweeted. they said, this is an unacceptable way for the president, who has taken an oath to preserve and protect the constitution and has a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, this is an unacceptable fashion for the president to engage with an investigation of, among other things, his white house and himself. and that is one of the articles of impeachment against richard nixon. >> and i want to be specific about that bottom line, because what happens with nixon is that it does end up being part of the articles of impeachment against him. but we know in part because of documents that were unsealed because of litigation that you were part of to get this unsealed, we know this was not

article 174 says otherwise. as all my right honorable friend says, what my right honorable friend does no longer match, so should i not write to my right honorable friend and sail west? the speaker: prime minister. pm may: can i say, can i say to my honorable friend -- can i say to my honorable friend, can i say to my honorable friend, we will indeed -- he referred to the articles that relate to the protocol in the withdrawal agreement. i have been absolutely clear that some difficult choices have had to be made in relation to that protocol. those choices have been made because i believe, and i strongly and firmly believe it is important, that we do ensure that there is no hard border between northern ireland and ireland. but as i have said before, and my honorable friend heard me say before, it is not only our intention but we will be working to ensure that that protocol does not need to be put into place. what what we are negotiating, , alongside that withdrawal agreement, is not something that will be as a te

and i suggested our viewers take a look at that title of the article is a rules based global order or rule is u.s. global order and that it's getting to be unilateral isn't that i've been talking about here on this program i don't think you probably read the article but i think that title tells you a lot go ahead peter. he's a unilateralist. well it was charles krauthammer who celebrated the end lateralus of the leading neo con thinker who in one nine hundred ninety said that wrote an article and gave a talk called the unilateral the unilateral moment and then by two thousand and two he expanded it to the unilateral era into the one nine hundred ninety he said it might last thirty or forty years by two thousand and two he was so triumphalist that he said this could last indefinitely unfortunately by two thousand and five he had woken up with the debacle in iraq and he said well what's going on now in iraq makes it look like the unilateral era is over and the unilateral moment might be not be lasting either the big change that's gone on is that we've gone from a unilateral world where

points about notjust this article but also the daily mail.itors change in his favours the general public might not get much of a clue that anything has happened but with paul goings by the upstairs at the associated newspapers and geordie cumming and it has been noticed that we have been talking aboutjudges cumming and it has been noticed that we have been talking about judges as enemies of the people when they were considering the article 50 legislation to now we have had to talk about the real saboteurs and traders being as politicians not supporting theresa may. and here we have a front page article written by michael gove and one of the arch brexiteers, i hate them calling them that. makes them sound like musketeers. the musketeers all died. well, they did. one of them got switched. talking about brexit people. he's saying we can't have 100% of the dealer wanted no did not have 100% the vote. that's perfectly valid, moral and democratic point perhaps and he had to take the rest of the electorate with you as well. but it's not the kind of

again i referenced the article the data come -- came from. this was released from a california of berkeley study you see the san francisco chronicle article the information was pulled from as well as the 88 page document on health care apartments an consumer welfare. so the sfudy -- study was looking at northern california with the rest of california and how you see prices driven differently in the markets. even adjusting for things like the higher cost of living in the bay area, wage differences and general data in the bay area. compared to the rest of california and the bay area inpatient and out-patient procedures are approximately 30% higher on average and premiums higher. different than the data set from the health article saying something inaccurate in terms of the impact of pricing in northern california. >> commissioner: this is a rather depressing part of the presentation. >> that's why they put me first. the other think tank tracks prices in partnership with the robert wood johnson foundation just released their price index for 2016

that is inherent of the article 15. i would also say to my honorable friend that one of the things we have got removed from this protocol is the idea that if we moved on to the future relationship and the british government chose to change that future relationship, the backstop could be reinserted. it cannot be. once it is superseded, it cannot be revised. >> can i congratulate the prime minister, she has proven yet again that you cannot square the wheel. can she say, hand on heart, whether she believes what she has negotiated is better than the bill we have -- deal we have now. prime minister may: i believe this country's best days are ahead of us. we will get a good deal in the european union. we will take advantage of our independence outside of the european union with our trade deals around the rest of the world. >> my own constituency like the rest of the country is deeply divided. does my honorable friend agree that there was going to come a difficult moment when the theory of a perfect brexit met the cold reality

we published an article one year later in the atlantic originally went to the title but to teach the habits so we shouldn't be surprised that students are reacting in those ways. they didn't like that. was too boring it was coddling the american mind but it was the second most read cover story in the history of the atlantic which is sent bad for publication around since 1857. surprisingly we actually got a positive response the discussion was highly constructive even critical it was constructive for the most part. we were happy with what we did we went back to our very busy day jobs and unfortunately we could not leave it there because the summer of 2015 the fall and everything after everything on campus got more and more intense a lot of these trends that we spotted weren't going away. and have the political environment without interaction so at some point we decided now we have to write a follow-up. so trying to capture the spirit to go into that dysfunctional psychiatrist office. so what's going on campus currently corrects that doesn't seem as if we teach a generation bad habit s

he's article 2, congress is article i, he should respect article i, and in order for them to have respector him. he's the personification of article ii in our constitution. >> just very quickly, before i let you go, the fact is you were instrumental in helping get john roberts appointed to the bench. the pushback, do you approve of that? >> i thought john roberts did a good job. number one, he did it responsibly. he is the head of article iii in our constitution. he's the head of all of the federal judges. i thought it was appropriate to say the people were named by a president, confirmed by a senate, they give up their partisan label as soon as they take the oath of office. they don't make decisions based on politics or base odd emotion, they make decisions based on the law. they do it to the best of their ability. i think they all do it with a real firm commitment of belief they'll be doing what is right under the law, and not making partisan statements. >> thank you, andy card. always good to talk with you. >>> what might be the most remarkable comment from the president this week, and

what about revoking article 50 altogether?ue to be heard later this month that the european court ofjustice, referred by the court of session, the highest court in scotland and seeks to clarify whether article 50 can be revoked, taken off the table altogether. most lawyers think it counts, but the court will rule on that. if it says yes it can, the key question is will it be a bilateral decision, the uk and eu taking it jointly? bulk of the uk do it on its own? if the uk were able to make that decision unilaterally, i have been speaking to one of the petitioners in this case, a supporter of remain and he set out what he thinks a unilateral decision, what that message would send to mp5. actually, power rests entirely with your parliament. so, if your parliament decides that remaining in the eu is better for the country than leaving without a deal or leaving with a deal, the prime minister has managed to negotiate. that is an option that is exclusively in your hands. so potentially, very significant. it is interesting, the gover

article 1, section 2, clause 5, states that the house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. section 3 cost six of the same article are -- asked that the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachment. with the president of united states is tried, the chief justice shall provide -- preside. and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. article 2 section 4 states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for any conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. pillow, the start with what might be certainly one of the most fundamental questions we can ask about the process of impeachment and removal. is it a political process or a legal process? >> i think it is a legal process. i think that is a point we should insist on. it is not obvious, the body that tries the impeachment, the senate, is a political body, and the body that impeaches and indicts is a political body. but the text that you just read spec

newspaper articles about military medicine demonstrated this very clearly. one article, you can see the picnic gear, and shows the cartoonist standing helplessly as this array of shrapnel falls upon them, and the caption of the cartoon if you cannot read it, describes how the shell unleashed an amazing 262 bullets, and it also notes that it made a couple of dozen wounds in the shoulder -- soldier and smashed every bone in his body. the media was saturated with discussions of soldiers fallen victims, and bizarre symptoms that doctors linked to the power of shelling. one article referred to soldiers that was wounded without wounds, and men who had been so dazed by the shock as to be incapable of remaining at the front. soon, this during the spanish- american war, the media last onto the phrase used by battlefield doctors and soldiers themselves. shellshocked appeared in papers across united states. once again, you're the spanish- american road, there is pushback from the mental health profession, but this time instead of denying the extent of the crisis, they

most article 32s are a paper shuffle. and coming as an aside from my prepared remarks, coming from a background of california, when we moved from a hearsay preliminary hearing, or from a nonhearsay preliminary hearing to a hear say preliminary hearing, we found that there was a significant increase in acquittals when prosecutors did not have access, did not choose to put the witness on the witness stand. and i believe that that is also happening in the military now. so i believe that the article 32 should be a robust investigative tool, and it should include the right to call defense witnesses and liberally grant a request for defense witnesses, particularly where they're co located at the site of the hearing. we have situations in which we have asked individuals who are on the base, where the preliminary hearing is being held, and have not been allowed to call those witnesses at the article 32, because of the very narrow vision on the part of the preliminary hearing officer that only issues related to probable cause woul

article 132 article 132 sets ats fairly clearly. so can the prime minister firstly tell the house how confident she is that a deal can be done at the end of 2020? and also confirm that if a new trade agreement is not agreed by the 31st of december 2020 then article 132 applies paying a huge financial contribution in order to extend the transition period, if we are to avoid triggering the backstop as the prime minister insists his or position. on the backstop itself, should it come into force there is no time limit or in the point. and if either party request a review and if there is no agreement it goes to independent arbitration. the backstop locks britain into deal from which it cannot leave without the agreement of the eu. in the backstop restrictions on state aid are hardwired in with an arbitration mechanism, but no such guarantee exists for workers' rights. can the prime minister also confirm that the backstop applies separate regulatory rules to northern ireland, creating a de facto border down the irish sea as norther irelan

because the article captured a certain sentiment of the time. it was not by accident that it was so much used and argued and so on because the idea of a dramatic change of a radical change was very much in the air. and i do believe many people could be reading the end of history as -- [inaudible] the last chapter of the sources of soviet conduct. certainly intellectually -- [inaudible] and reading there and rereading famous article, and it was published in the national interest simply because the journal of democracy was not this yet. [laughter] i'm sure that if the journal was there, frank was going to publish it in the journal. but major argument of the end of history is the age of imitation. it's not that everybody's going to be perfect.. -- democracy, but the idea was for good or bad, everybody now is forced to imitate western norms and institutions. probably for different reasons before you have two different models and people basically can choose what you imitate, suddenly this model basically collapsed, and now you have this universal typ

[laughter] >> host: so no article thrusting. what's another piece of advice that comes in i love you but i hate your politics? >> guest: no shouting. people's voices start going up. never start any sentence with how could your side possibly think -- particularly in that voice. those are some of things. you can also stop arguments. one that was very interesting was two trump supporters, but they differed on things. one voted for trump because he liked his ideas and hated his personalty, the other one liked both. everybody's misunderstanding him, he's really a great guy. they went to blows over it. this was two guys. they were beating each other up over this. okay, no alcohol. first thing about a political fight -- not bad for other situations too. no alcohol. out of the way. out of -- no, no. no. and you see things getting out of hand, stop them. shut your own mouth, say we can't talk about this now and use some self-control. i know it's a very old-fashioned value -- [laughter] but self-control comes in real handy if you're tryin

the problem in article five to four is that the period in which there is the preliminary investigation this in this period when the person is one of the person is investigated with anything that is related to the person and to the individual's private life is not respected so people will have their phones their photos. taken out of their phone in order to constitute a file against them in order to be able to prosecute them down i was charged because she stated in interrogations that she has relationships with men but her identification documents still stated her gender as male article five three four actually it doesn't define what natural intercourse is or what intercourse that is against nature so we do always up to the judge to interpret this article that was acquitted by a local court and the ruling was upheld by a higher court of appeals it was a landmark case for lebanon's community done its ruling however does not mean that homosexuality has been completely decriminalized in lebanon judges in other districts are still able to interpret the law as they please and even for donna t

year in prison diana was charged under this article. you know who has a lawyer with a n.-g. o. legal agenda and don as an attorney. the problem in article five to four is that the period in which there is the preliminary investigation this in this period when the person is one of the person is investigated with anything that is related to the person and to the individual's private life is not respected so people will have their phones their photos. taken out of their phone in order to constitute a file against them in order to be able to prosecute them down i was charged because she stated in interrogations that she has relationships with men but her identification documents still stated her gender as male article five four actually it doesn't define what natural into a course is or what intercourse that is against nature so through all is up to the judge to interpret this article done i was acquitted by a local court and the ruling was upheld by a higher court of appeals it was a landmark case for lebanon's bt community tennis ruling h

and extend article 50. and tell brussels that we must remain in the single market and the customs union. anything else, mr. speaker, will lead to economic chaos and crisis. prime minister, do the right thing and we will work with you. [laughter] stop the clock and go back to brussels. >> the prime minister. prime minister may: can i just pick up two key points that the right honorable gentleman makes. first of all, he made a reference to scotland's n.h.s. being under threat. in fact, scotland's n.h.s. depends on the scottish government, the s.n.p. government, determining the money is no good -- he's no good in pointing his finger at me. we ensure that in the n.h.s. settlement, it means more money comes to scotland and scotland has chosen not to spend it all on their n.h.s. that's an s.n.p. decision. >> order, order. i protected the right honorable gentleman quite properly a moment ago when he was being brayed at in an unseemly manner. let me say to members of the scottish national body they must , hear the

it and what's brought this all out into the open why these people are marching today because of an article last week in the new york times and it reported that google paid to the founder of android android software a man named andy rubin and nineteen million dollars severance package when he was accused of sexual harassment and the article reported that google paid this money just spot finding the claims against team as credible he of course denies these and the articles reported that there were similar cases where google has been making similar payments and basically that's why these employees are. staging mass walkouts out of their offices today as the one sign it said what do i do a google i work hard every day the company can afford these nineteen million dollar payouts to executives who harass my coworkers with ninety million dollars at the company what do the employees what concrete measures do they want to see ok so they want to what's called for and this is designed to stop people from taking their complaints public they want to clear a process for reporting sexual harassment anony

the article captured a certain sentiment at the time. it's not by accident it was so much used and argued and so on because the idea of dramatic change, radical change, was very much in the air. when we are reading the article and it was published in the national interest simply because the "journal of democracy" was not there yet, i'm sure if the "journal" was there, it would be published in the "journal" but the major argument of the end of history is that history is tend of imitation. it's not that everybody is going to be perfect democracy and not that they're not going to be contradictions, but the idea was for good or bad, everybody now is forced to imitate western norms and institutions, probably for different reasons, because this is what means the end of major theo logical confrontat n confrontation. before you have different models and suddenly one of these models basically collapsed, and now you have this universal time for institutions and norms and people are going to imitate. so the problem is where is the problem with imit

. >> in the houtrs three women and himself, albert wong spent time searching internet for articles and video about overcoming fear of death and suicide. five hours before albert wong walked into the veterans home where he shot three women and himself, investigators say he looked up this article about the san bernadino terrorist and articles on murder/suicide, when killing yourself is not enough. and 30 minutes before he drove there, looking at videos of su redacted almost half the pages but report ou wt wong was thinking and doing when he shot the three women. kicked out of the program the month before the shooting. according to the report six law enforcement agencies, 114 investigators and 23 witnesses were involved. details how wong, 36-year-old army combat veteran bought both guns used months before the attack. shot gun from sweeney sports in napa. day of the mass shooting at marjorie douglas high school in florida. also gun purchased legally but because of the modifications, illegal in california. and wong was able to enter the building through a metal door leading into the basemen

the headline and the whole lead section of this article tonight in "the times" details an episode that reportedly happened this spring in which president trump is said to have told his white house counsel don mcgahn that he wanted to order the justice department to prosecute both james comey and hillary clinton. according to this new reporting in "the new york times," the white house counsel don mcgahn responded to that by creating a memo for the president that spelled out for him all the reasons why such an order would be a bad idea. and so once again, this is another one of these story, and there have been dozens of them where trump white house counsel don mcgahn has saved the day. trump wanted to do a terrible thing. don mcgahn made sure terrible thing did not happen. sources close to don mcgahn say he doesn't want your accolades. he doesn't want your thanks. it's enough for him, it's reward in itself to be a loyal american whose always trying to do what's right. i mean -- this is a whole genre of weird trump white house reporting. sources close to don mcgahn say don mcgahn did hero

he wrote an article in 1931 about what he found. he wrote his article and then he told his neighbor about his 1958,ery and years later, the jamison family invited the woodlief family to the plantation to celebrate the historic event that had happened on their land. the family started meeting in 1958 and three years later opened it to the public. today as we celebrate thanksgiving festival that has ,een held for the last 57 years it actually re-creates the first thanksgiving when the landing occurred and a lot of other colonial games and things take place, but the main purpose is we have been reenacting that thanksgiving ever since, as they had ordered in the initial papers. once the captain left england, they gave him instructions to do 10 things. the very first thing was when he landed, to say thank you for their safe journey and to do that perpetually and annually. that is why captain woodlief had his men neil and give a prayer of thanks. we think that that is the reason they did that as part of the official first thanksgiving, be

betweens an article 1991 by and drunken old elite. this kind of electorate system that year ago worked as a state, by the way, 1990 some of the top american socialists in the soviet union made the report claiming that the chances of the soviet union to collapse are unlikely. because they said, countries used to make mistakes, but they really commit suicide. from this point, the collapse also created an atmosphere of be trail which is the way the russians were seeing the world, being betrayed by the elites. everything is a kind of operation. but in the 1990's, and i do believe it continues for a long time. the democratic institutions have been used. first, imitating democratic institutions and reducing the pressure on the russia coming from outside in the moment in which russia was weak. secondly, and i do believe this is quite important particularly for putin before 2011, is the at you have a rigged election. but the interesting story is the following. and there was an after the fact which years ago we kid with cnn. if you ask yoursel

in accordance with article 25 and f.c.c. guidelines, planning approved and reviewed the aesthetics according to article 25 and city policy, and all found mobility to be in compliance with the rules and regulations of the city. as to the specific complaints, here to address them briefly, the noticing, mobility mailed notice of the ten at thattive approval to all required parties as stated in the declaration. that's part of the permitting process and was included in the brief. we also posted the notice on the subject pole and on an additional pole on the block face perthe declaration in city requirements. the final determination of the permit was also posted on the subject pole and an additional pole on the block face as evidenced by the multitude of respondents and protesters, it's clear the residents were informed. you know, i can't speak to a perfect reliability of the u.s. postal service, but between mailing and posting, it's clear that the message got out there that we had proposed the small cell site. as to the planning