allies to make those decisions. i will focus as we divide this book up i focused on those two figures so i'm sure he will have a lot to say about everything including those two chapters. so what are the lessons and what made thesee people great? each of these we could talk forever about but the question trying to be as telegraphic as i can for purposes of time, we focused on what was truly important. he had a central miss and to end homelessness after 2000 years. not an easy thing tons take on he was tactically agile to achieveli that objective he what is zionism to britain in 1939 with the white papers and then phased out jewish immigration and then to start all over again with united states he actually lived here at the hamilton hotel on k street. this is the goal parkway thought it was the achievement now we have to change. he believes you need a mindset for the institution to link the people with the land. so immigration was the oxygen of zionism of unrelenting focus if you wanted to compromise on that issue tha

a decision not taken is okay. she didn't really measure up. >> last question, yes. >> it is a bit off-topic for the middle east, i must have your reaction from the piece team. >> i felt you can disagree on points here and there, three key members of the piece team, his learning curve was most pronounced of the three. he was looking for win/win and time to go through every one of them. if jared kushner looked up the economic parts of the peace plan that were unveiled in bahrain, and final status issues. on the political issues, jerusalem borders all that and departure has to be seen as a real setback. he believes this plan is to be unveiled. i noticed he doesn't use the word plan, this is our reference point for the future. all sides are sitting around the table. i knew he was paying for this. that's what i take from it. there is a conspiracy school but what is good about this, we will know within 12 days if it is accurate. but they start within hours. did he quit because trump was about to make a move in the next

what he meant by that is when you base these decisions you face them alone one wonders when the decision was made and the planes were in the air, he wrote two different letters. one was a letter to explain what happened and the other was to submit his resignation in the event that it went through very badly and i was in, he was our negotiator in 1994. heavily involved in trying to get the palestinians to give us any information they knew and it turned out that they were not behind it. the israelis found where they were being held. they conducted an operation and he was killed. being in response to the first, and sharon when it comes to making the decision on gaza they are heavily influenced by the institution and how they defined the leadership, how they defined responsibility. he got a scholarship to go study water engineering at uc berkel berkeley. but he stayed afterwards because it is interesting. the commander units feel too little attention is devoted and he feels they did what was necessary to prepare. they have the capacity to look ahead. they are not afraid to make decisions. th

serious questions remain about how the decision was reached precipitously with syria and why the decision was reached. given the initial details of the cease-fire agreement, the administration must also explain what americans future role will be the region. what happens in and out of the cards and why turkey will face no apparent consequences. for the cease-fire does not change the fact that the america has abandoned an ally. adding insult to dishonor, the administrationsp speaks cavalierly, even flippantly. even is rli has suffered death, and casualty. their homes have been burned and their families have been torn apart. we know the truth about occurred allies. they lost 11000 combatants in a joint effort to defeat isis. we dropped bombs from the air and provided intelligence and logistics behind the lines. the curse lost thousands of lives.ve eighty-six brave americans also lost their lives so tragically. it is argued that the cars we're fighting for themselves. of course they work. that is the nature of annoyance. we fight together each pursuing our own vital interest. american leaves

that was a tough decision. was thinking about the 5000 small businesses around the country, my 1000-plus employees, and i was like, this is painful but it is what we have to do. it turned out we needed every ounce of that capital to get through the crisis, and we thrived afterward. making the decision to walk away from the private sector and run for office, which is something i wanted to do, but you are putting yourself out there in a way i never had to. those were tough decisions. >> let me conclude with one political issue because you have been involved in gerrymandering. you served in the house of representatives. the argument is that democrats and republicans are talking at each other, not to each other. specifically with gerrymandering, how would you fix congressional districts? do you think that would make our politics less toxic? mr. delaney: yes. it is one of the most significant issues that we face. and i led on this issue in congress, and i introduced a bill called the open our democracy act. it does

there are no easy decisions. every band we are looking at today for new wireless service is something that's going to potentially alter someone else, whether they are nearby or in the band today. we have to deal with that fact and that reality. that makes some agencies jittery about things they use the service for. we are an independent regulatory agency that has a statute that governs our activity and also governed by the record. we respect agencies who weigh in on their views that their licenses are governed in some instances by ndaa and that process but we also have to respect it when we talk about harmful interference which is our standard it so different from how we treat federal agencies can how we treat others in this space. >> speaking of differences and etiquette work out, there's been a lot of reporting and i and others have done on nasa and atmospheric noaa, saying the decision by the commission to allocate one of the vans for 5g could potentially interfere with the weather forecasting. people from the

no final decisions have been taken. i cannot tell you what the decision will be. simply what the basic parameters are. in the various ways we are trying to achieve such a success. i will stop there. palmer.el: mr. mr. palmer: i do not have a formal opening statement but i look forward to answering any questions members of the committee may have. rep. engel: thank you very much. let me ask you this, according to media reports including fox news, president trump went off callt during the october 6 in which he was supposed to tell erdogan to stay north of the border. instead, the president capitulated and gave the green andt for turkey to invade announced the united states would withdraw troops ahead of a turkish operation. ,et me ask you first of all were you consulted ahead of the october 6 call? could you push the button? mr. jeffrey: i was consulted almost daily by secretary of state pompeo. issue we discussed this on almost a daily basis with president trump. this is something we have been working on since the issue was raised publicly. of course, he had taken a

decision to go in.the turkish incursion was a decision taken by the president of turkey. it was not a decision he took because we told him he could or we wouldn't oppose them. he knew we wouldn't oppose him because we never told him we would oppose him. >> mr. administrator, there is, however, a sequence. mr. erdogan, despite many, many threats, has not undertaken this kind of incursion until the president of the united states informed him that we were going to withdraw our troops and stop providing protection to the kurdish fighters and kurdish villages, is that not correct? >> that's totally incorrect. >> incorrect? >> incorrect. i've done this for two days and i'll do it again. those troops were not there to protect the kurds from the turkeys. >> that's not what i'm asking. is there a connection, the rest of the world sees it, between our decision to withdraw and the turkish decision to cross the border again engaging in what is euphemistically called combat with our kurdish allies? >> congressman n

-1-4 decision? what is a party supposed to do? we won this case but we really can't rely on it because it has no stare decisis effect, and then what happens as the years go by and nothing happens, the court doesn't come back to that question? >> that at least is in the ordinary case, the party would have every right to rely on this court's decision, subject to the ordinary principles of stare decisis that were deciding. one thing that makes this case unusual is you would think if the party did rely on that prior case it would come up and defend instead ask the court for a different rule. that tells you something about how discredited the fifth vote in this case is, which i think makes it almost a universe of one. i've looked and haven't that any of the case where somebody has come up to this court and said, i'm not even going to make an argument based on the provision of the constitution in which the previous decision rests. >> can i come back to the math question that was alluded to earlier? i must

i'm happy to make a decision but i can't. it is going back to the courts what to think they're pretty strong precedent than exclude the interstate service when trying to do common carriage regulation at a state level is going to be a high hurdle. >> i disagree. whatever we set in 2015, the states will, trust me, when i could speak to the state groups and state regulators and local regulators they get really, really angry at will be set in 20152015, people argue again the preemption, these cases are going to be extremely fact intensive. i was at a meeting with a bunch of state ag's and the really warned us, it's hard to draw conclusions about what's going to happen in these cases because they are so fact intensive. he only thing i will repeat again is that, and it's possible that patrick and his allies will find, will scour the communications act for provisions that given some authority to claim conflict preemption. but the arguments the fcc made in front of the court were basically batted down one by one. it's all to say, i'm

they aren't easy decisions anymore.very band we look at today for new wireless service is something that is going to potentially alter somebody else, whether they are nearby or in the band today. we have to deal with that reality. that makes some agencies jittery about things they use the service for. we are an independent regulatory agency that has a statute that governs our activity and we are also governed by the record. we respect agencies and their views but their licenses are governed in some instances buy an ka artwork through an ka -- work through -- some instances nka.a, and work through speaking of how differences get worked out, there has been a lot of reporting i and others have done a, both saying a decision by the commission to allocate one of the bands of 5g could interfere with weather forecasting. people from the fcc have said that is not necessarily the case. help us understand where the differences could have emerged, or where a different set of models used by the commission that the agencies didn't u

that there were -- there was very specific decision that was made to reject unanimity. that was proposed. it was rejected. it was debated. it was discussed. it was a known issue because four states had actually adopted -- >> how far are you willing to depart from unanimity? would a 7-5 requirement be okay under your theory? >> mr. chief justice, i think this court has established some of the outer boundaries already in williams and in birch and in -- and apodaca, so nine under apodaca, 9-3 is okay. i would also remind the court louisiana in reliance on this court's decision in apodaca and in johnson went and at a constitutional convention the year after that case was decided discussed it, expressly relied on it and increased voting rules to 10-2. >> can we go back to reliance a moment? putting aside that a couple of decisions from the supreme court put the unions on notice that things should -- that the constitutional theory was on shaky ground. and here, you have a series of cases, much older, telling you that the incorporation theory was on shaky ground. but you're ta

about its affairs in the wake of the decision, does it in a 4-1-4 decision, what is that party supposed to do. >> we won this case but can't rely on it because we don't know because it has no decisis effect it is the years go by and nothing happens -- >> in the ordinary case. subject to the ordinary principles of decisis, the one thing that makes this case unusual, a they did rely on the prior case, the defendant instead of asking for a different rule and that tells you something about how discredited the fifth vote is because it makes a universe of one. i haven't found any other case where somebody has come to this court and said i'm not going to make an argument based on provision of the constitution in which the previous decision rests. >> back to the math question that was alluded to. capable of doing this math, somebody could. if there is a jury pool with a certain percentage of jurors who were inclined to acquit and is there a greater likelihood of acquittal with a 6-0 verdict than a 10-2 verdict or if the state decides to have a jury that is bigger than 12, a 15-1 or a 15 person

reportera: la defensa apelarÁ la decisiÓn luego de conocer la sentencia del juez y dijo respetar la decisiÓnva a dictar la sentencia y mientras tanto, estos hondureÑos que han venido a protestar y que han estado aquÍ para escuchar el veredicto, van a regresar ese dÍa para escuchar la sentencia. patrÍcio mientras -- patricia: mientras tanto, en honduras, la poblaciÓn siguió de cerca el juicio. veamos a lo que piensan los hondureÑos, incluyendo el mandatario. reportera: la sentencia del jurado declarando culpable al hermano del presidente de honduras de los delitos de posesiÓn ilegal de armas, declaraciones falsas a un funcionario estadounidense, soborno y trÁfico de drogas, hicieron que la oposiciÓn hicieron llamado a protestar en las calles. >> a nuestros movimientos de base y otras organizaciones polÍticas, con el fin de avanzar hacia un plan nacional de protestas indefinidos hasta que caiga esta dictadura. reportera: ante el llamado a las protestas, el gobierno ordenÓ la militarización de casa de gobierno. en algunas partes de la capital, comenzaron a tomarse vÍas como esta, en demanda de

so a decision like that -- so i it depends on the decision. obviously, the most important in your life ike think at least for me was my to marry april which wasn't the hardest decision, in many ways it was the easiest decision, but it was the most important decision. that felt right from the beginning. i've had some hard business decisions to make in the middle of a financial crisis. i was running my company, it was had $15 billion of assets, we were lending money to companies, all of which depended upon us financing them money. in other words, the companies we financed, every week called us up to get access to their lines of credit and the financial crisis was happening and large financial institutions were and ising left and right made a decision to raise a lot of capital for my company and i and i lot made of -- excuse my of crap, i took a lot from the market to do it. my investors were furious with my decision because it was a market and wethe were raising capital at a relatively low price in our price because all companies' stocks had gon

cardin: then you agree with the president's decision? the decision? as a professional, you are fully in accord to the president's decision to relocate our troops? mr. jeffrey: i carry out the instructions of the president. sen. cardin: my question is to you, you know said it didn't have any effect, so do you agree with his policy or not? mr. jeffrey: i agree that presidents have to make that decision, not people in the bureaucracy such as me. sen. cardin: for the record, you did not answer my question. sen. risch: thank you, senator. senator rubio. sen. rubio: thank you. and i apologize this has been asked before. i wanted to get some clarity. the u.s. policy towards syria , the official policy as it was described was that it had three objectives, prevent the resurgence of isis, number two to give the u.s. leverage and any future political solution in syria that would be -- so that they would arrive at an arrangement pursuant to the security council resolution, which calls for a new constitution and new election, and the withdrawal of all iranian forc

court of appeals decision on internet regulation, also known as net neutrality.oining us to discuss this issue gigi sohn, former fcc chair tom wheeler's adviser, currently with the georgetown law institute for technology. and the senior vice president at u.s. telecom, trade association patrick halley washington, d.c. give us of lawyers assessment of what the d.c. court of appeals ruled. >> the d.c. court of appeals ruled that the sec's decision was permissible in the industry storing internet freedom order. it was completely upheld. it was a big win for consumers and innovators and a big win for broadband in america. essentially, with the court said was that the sec's decision to regulate broadband internet access as an information service as it largely has been for the last 20 years outside of a two-year period. under the title to order, was permissible. it is consistent with supreme court precedent and this d.c. circuit judge going to make a determination that the fcc's classification was incorrect. because it is within their discretion as the expert agency to

they made that decision. for investigators, if you are trying to figure out if there is a conspiracy people are trying to commit a crime if the question was did the secretary set up a server to circumvent record of laws, if any of us in this room were conspiring to do something in an fbi agent wanted to figure out the conspiracy they would want the communications early on in the so the reason this became relevant is because later on in the course of this other investigation into anthony atweiner, which i will save my view of him, but found himself under investigation-- you can google it-- the fbi found out laptop that barack-- along to him that had a lot of hillary clinton's e-mails on him because his wife was heard this-- assistant. so the fbi decided this might be the set of e-mails we don't have. people can agree or disagree.th the second part about whether it violated fbi policy, there is not a policy out there that says that you can't open an investigation. there has long been a norm that the fbi departm

decisions. why did you make this decision to report critically ill kids for almost all the other decisions that you had to make at the agency? >> the timing is right you can answer the question. we >> don't report anyone. we made the decision at the end of a long road that predates me coming into my current position and discussions across dhs. it was made on august 7th, at that point it is my decision and one of the things that we testify to from what we had in the last hearing is to your point there are trade offs as we know quite correctly that 1000 of these cases absorb resources which we are not paid for that would otherwise deal with the problems in the naturalization cases and we did more last year than in the whole decade and there are still more coming in and i hear from many all legitimately concerns about backlogs in some areas and improved in erie areas. we have limited resources and this is an undertaking by uscis that as not been assigned by congress and with the authority to have t

the decision is still in your lap. so your thoughts. >> i think that forcing the -- the government to have its case in essence complete at the 32, i think -- dsh i can't say that there is not value in that, right. i mean, the obvious -- it appears to be common sense that the government should have its strongest case as early as possible. i am -- would be concern about two things. and the first is, is -- well let me just -- i think i'll say my concern is that that may be unnecessary delay in waiting until the -- it may cause unnecessary dpla in waitidelay waiting for the 32 -- the case can continue to improve as it works through the process. there is a value at least in the military justice system of allowing a case to proceed versus waiting too long before initial disposition. >> so i certainly takes your -- sorry. >> i'm sorry. >> i certainly take your point as far as it may force the government's hand to have a better case to present prior to going to the 32. but i think if we were going down that road, it would nega

house of representatives took that decision today do you think it was a decision made out of conviction or was it congress rebuking presidents trump and airtel why firstly let me just say that no country has right to impose their own version of a story on another country and especially when it when the when there are no historians. and there are no researchers spoken about this but politicians it is very clear that this is a public site decision it has nothing to do with the facts and it has nothing to do with the story on the lead this is something we have been very very open from the beginning we have opened our archive which includes over 1000000 documents related to this part of history and we have been saying the same thing to our contra parts around the world including armenian government but we haven't seen that we cannot make such decisions politically especially when there are no evidence we cannot we cannot create. we cannot create money factual genocide accusations when there are actually real genocide they did the escape from acknowledging the example french genocide in alge

make a decision. as evidence changes come you have to adapt. listen to everybody but ultimately when you make a decision, people have to start -- stop harping. that's what we are going to do, we've heard all the evidence, now we are going to figure out how to implement that decision and we will go with that. that's high you run organizations efficiently. openly, consistently, but decisively. steve: if there is a second trump term, what would that mean for the country? mr. steyer: [laughter] that would be, i would have to he is someone who is deeply corrupt. workse who actively against the interests of the vast majority of americans. you see someone who is incompetent in his job, not just in terms of decision-making power but actually putting together an organization and administration that functions. on every level, this man is a failure. to see that continue for another four years would be disastrous. when you include the climate problem where there's an absolute need to move expeditiously, quickly,

serious questions remain how that decision was reached with that withdrawal and why the decision was reached given the initial details of the cease-fire agreement the administration must explain the future role and why turkey will face no consequences and the cease-fire does not change the fact that it has been an ally adding insult to dishonor it speaks cavalierly and fluently even as the ally has suffered death and casualty. we know the truth about our kurd allies they lost 11000 combatants in a joint effort to combat isis. t we drop bombs in the air the kurds lost thousands of lives 86 brave americans also lost lives tragically. it is argued they were fighting for themselves. of course they were. that's the nature of an alliance. we fight together each pursuing our own tsu vital sinterest. america leaves no soldiers behind, often a great trust we recover our dead and wounded in freemen and women who are held captive. this is a matter of american honor and promise. so as we stand by our allies we do not abandon our friends the decision to abandon the kurds violates one of the most

how can america be trusted to word when we make mpulsa decisions -- impulsive decisions that have an immediate and catastrophic impact on millions of people? ongress must speak out against this disgrace. the measure we're considering unambiguous, d an bipartisan, hopefully bicameral policy in f frump's sear -- trump's policy in syria. this measure calls on the white strong, clearop a strategy on how to defeat isis now that president trump has its resurgence. it expresses strong support for forces, urdish recognizing their commitment and against s in fight isis. and it calls on turkey to its military op syria.in at president trump's hands, american leadership has been laid low and american foreign olicy has become nothing more than a tool to advance his own interests. oday, we make clear that the congress is a co-equal branch of government, and we want nothing disastrous his policy. so, mr. speaker, i say to our colleagues, it is on us. us to uphold our country's values, to strengthen security, to defend america's standing in the world. on both all members sides of the aisle to suppor

again, i'd be happy to make a decision right now, but i can't. that. [laughter] so it is going to be up to courts. but i think there's pretty strong press tent that makes -- precedent that makes clear at the state level it's going to be a high hurdle. >> guest: i disagree. and, you know, whatever we said in 2015, the states will, trust me, when i go and speak to, you know, the state the groups of state regulators and local regulators, they get really, really angry at what we said in 2015, and they will argue, again, these preemption cases are going to be extremely fact-intensive. i was at a meeting with a bunch of state ags, and they really warned us it's hard to draw a conclusion about what's going to happen in these cases because they're so fact-intensive. the only thing i will repeat again is that -- and it's possible that, you know, patrick and his allies will find, you know, will scour the communications act for provisions that give them some authority to claim conflict preemption. but the arguments the fcc made in front of the court were basicall

crux of the analysis divided the decision. identifyssion did not explicit regulatory authority to justify preempting state laws in advance. the best way to understand this is the fcc concluded that because broadband is in a title ii service, it doesn't fall within the major provisions of the act. the commission also said that invoked previously in the 2010 and 2015 orders, the fcc said that is in the basis for regulation. it only guides the exercise of the regulatory function. havecc said we don't positive regulatory. you don't have the authority to preempt state law in advance. the court said under the other exemption, it is premature to determine whether state law is preempted. arises under the clause of the constitution. that is the essence of our system. where the courts of applied that doctrine, there are two ways to have a conflict. is topical.iterally state law requires you to do something. federal law preclude you from doing it. state law must yield. the other type of conflict is when state law is an obstacle to achiev

and that leads to disastrous decision making because it leads to impulsive decision making based on whatnot what actually may be true or false. and we're seeing that every day where his rejection of expertise. north korea, iran, the kurds, the trade war. i mean, all problems that experts warned him over and over again would cause problems but he doesn't want to hear it. >> so, tom, let's make people uncomfortable right now. because this has been happening a lot recently. this has been happening, in fact, throughout the entire century with our commanders and chief. -- chiefs. you can talk about barack obama, the constant complaint i heard from diplomats and democratic senators and foreign policy experts who were rooting for the guy was barack obama always believed he was the smartest guy in the room. he didn't want to hear from generals, he didn't want to hear -- he always believed he was -- i'm nol nt saying that, just telling you and i know you heard it too that he always believed that. and it led him to a foreign policy apparatus where it was the president and ben rhodes and sometimes

>> the decision? >> as a professional, you are fully in accord to the president's decision to relocate our troops? >> i carry out the instructions of the president. >> you said it didn't have any effect. do you agree with his policy or not? >> i agree that presidents have to make that decision not people in the bureaucracy such as me. >> for the record you did not answer my question. >> thank you, senator. senator rubio. >> thank you. and i apologize this has been asked before. i wanted to get some clarity. the u.s. policy towards syria the official policy as it was described was that it had three objectives, prevent the resurgence of isis, number two to give the u.s. leverage and any future political solution in syria that would be -- so that they would arrive at an arrangement pursuant to the security council resolution which calls for a new constitution and new election and the withdrawal of all iranian forces. is that an accurate assessment of our syria policy? >> it is, senator. >> is that still

la corte no ha tomado una decisiÓn.bo identidad a indocumentados con nÚmero de seguros ajenos. que no todo lo vayan a hacer. la decisiÓn llega a fines de junio. >> terminal enriquecen el departamento de estado por el mal uso de un correo electrÓnico que pertenece la ex secretaria clinton. en total 38 persianas entre funcionarios y ex funcionarios fueron seÑaladas como responsables de enviar informaciÓn clasificada al correo personal de clinton cuando se encontraba este cargo. hubo quinielas 88 velas en estilos postales pueden recibir sanciones disciplinarias. patricios. ser jefe interino de la casa blanca revelÓ que la cumbre del g7 del prÓximo aÑo tiene como sede el complejo de golf trump. la cohesionada propuesta producirÍa un contrato que le dejarÍa importantes ingresos al lugar cuyas ganancias, el washington post, cayeron en un 70% desde que trump asumiÓ el cargo. >> menÉndez fue uno de los pocos demÓcratas presente durante la tensa reuniÓn donde la lÍder del partido se enfrentÓ al presidente trump, le contÓ a jorge

that it is good to choose one ftc decision over the other. that is what they say the internet act does. host: who brings this to the supreme court? the ftc or the interest groups? gigi is closer to the interest groups and can answer that for their side. i don't know is the short answer. gigi: first, we can go back to the court itself. we can go back to the actual panel or go back to the entire d.c. circuit. i think we are still reviewing it. it has only been a week. we're still figuring out what is going to be next. host: georgetown law institute of technology. gigi stone and patrick kelly, thank you for being on the communicators. this episode and all others are available as podcasts. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing the public unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, and the supreme court as well as events from around the country a

these were decisions that did not dig deeply into that issue. then something like a game of telephone, some of the court decisions were repeated by others in time went by and there was a thought that sexual orientation was not covered. in 1989, the supreme court issued a decision in a case called price waterhouse, it found that sex stereotyping was a form of sex discrimination and violated the civil rights act. that's another argument we make in this case, punishing a person for failing to conform to a stereotype of who they should be attracted to or partnered with the because of their sex is sex stereotyping. nevertheless, some courts persisted in believing wrongly that sexual orientation is not covered. in two thousand 15, the equal employment opportunity commission issued a thoroughly looked into the legal matter, in light of several supreme court decisions and reach the conclusion that sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination that violates the civil rights act. this decision was followed by the seventh circuit in a case called high

or that decision. they just weren't there yet, was were good enough and not something women should do and now we have someone confirmed on the supreme court. that took away any argument that women could not do what ever .hey wanted to do it was not a game changer. you give us an argument that women were qualified. i cannot think of anything in my memory that has been that definitive. >> i was just coming out of law school and at the time there were things that were challenging for women lawyers. [no audio] of the numberunt of little girls i met and they want to tell me about how they andsed up in black robes some famous person in american history and every time i have traveled with her or been out in public, women my age or older will come over and say, aren't you judge sandra? them.ters to >> i was on some panels in upstate new york organized by the roosevelt library and she talked about what it meant to her as a girl meeting in seeing eleanor roosevelt. women you so few could model yourself after and

first, a sunday night decision, a monday defense of that decision. john roberts has the story from the north lawn. >> i'm sure we will hear more from the president on this and other things in just a few minutes. president trump today said he reached out to america's allies for help in syria but when nobody answered the call he turned responsibility over to turkey. signing an important trade agreement this afternoon, president drums that he is taking steps to ensure that turkey does not initiate a bloodbath. [applause] >> the event was decide with the trade agreement and it quickly turned to the president's decision to bring troops home. >> once we captured isis, i don't want to stay there for the next 40 years. >> the president defended the move to turn northeastern syria to turkey sank he warned the president not to go after the currents and to protect isis prisoners and their families. >> i told turkey that if they do anything outside of what we would think is humane, to use the word the second time. we talk about hong kong and this. they could suf

decision in syria. we will go to marry in las vegas, a democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been sickened by what is happening to the kurds and now we will probably have to airlift our men at of syria and that hasn't happened since saigon. unilaterally -- everyone is in acting this or that with no authority or no credentials. ivanka and jared -- jared, they could not pass security clearance, they are out there making money. she went to china to get voting machines, that is scary to me. it comes back with trademarks. we have a make a buck president in office. i am concerned about william barr. he misled the american people and ahe mueller report lot of people have not bothered to read the executive summary of that report. host: let's stick to the topic. mr. antle: there is a lot there. things toe of the watch with regard to the syria decision, congress never authorized this intervention in the first place. now they want to weigh in after the fact, they could have always -- this c

>>> president trump defending his decision to let turkey invade northern syria. we're looking at daryl morey. the houston rockets gm. we'll talk about that story as well. a really big deal between the nba future growth, two countries, the second-biggest economy in the world, massive. >> china businessmen suspending ties with the houston rockets over that supportive tweet for hong kong protesters. new markets or profit? or do you want american values? >> not just profit, billions of dollars. lebron james the face of the nba in china today. >> i'm christine romans. >> i'm dave briggs. 5:00 a.m. in the east. we start in the nation's capital. the big day ahead in the democrats' impeachment inquiry prompted by a whistle-blower's accusation that president trump pressured ukraine to dig up dirt on the biden family in exchange for military aid. >> in just a few hours the u.s. ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland, will testify behind closed doors to three house committees -- intelligence, foreign affairs, oversight. sondland was mentioned in the whistle-blow

call or go online now to get your free decision guide. call a licensed humana sales agent today. >> woman: what's my safelite story? >> vo: my car is more than four wheels. it's my after-work decompression zone. so when my windshield broke... >> woman: what?! >> vo: ...i searched for someone who really knew my car. i found the experts at safelite autoglass. >> woman: hi! >> vo: with their exclusive technology, they fixed my windshield... then recalibrated the camera attached to my glass so my safety systems still work. who knew that was a thing?! >> woman: safelite has service i can trust. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ it also has the highest growth in manufacturing jobs in the us. it's a competition for the talent. employees need more than just a paycheck. you definitely want to take advantage of all the benefits you can get. 2/3 of employees said that the workplace is an important source for personal savings and protection solutions. the workplace should be a source of financial security. keeping your people happy i

decision. steve: you weren't on the debate stage in september. you will be in mid-october in columbus, ohio. what can viewers expect from tom steyer on that stage? mr. steyer: michael in this, -- my goal in this, steve, is to present a positive vision for the future of america. i believe that has been missing. i believe we are still working off of the failed reagan vision of the united aides, and i believe -- united states, and we need a vision for the 21st century of what the rights are of american citizens in the 21st century, because i believe they are being trampled on. i believe it is time to re-examine what it means to be american, what america itself means, what we are trying to accomplish. that's what i'm interested in. that's what i think the american people are interested in. i should point out that i also qualified for the november debate, so i will get a chance in october and november to put forward that positive vision. steve: what was your first entry into politics? i read you wer

la decisiÓn llega a fines de junio.lectivamente porque son funcionarios administrativos. metas tanto siguen aumentando los casos estancados en las cortes de inmigraciÓn que rondan el millÓn. >> mientras no haya independencia judicial real. en los jueces de inmigraciÓn, vamos a seguir teniendo este problema. las cortes de inmigraciÓn no son cortes reales. son cortes administrativas donde una persona tiene todo el poder de decidir cÓmo esa corte va a decidir. y eso no estÁ correcto. paola: un grupo de 80 congresistas fueron liberados por la representante por california. enviÓ una carta al departamento de justicia para que pongan fin al ataque contra sindicato de jueces de inmigraciÓn. ramÓn: y juan antonio hernÁndez, hermano del presidente de honduras, fue declarado cool el dÍa de hoy a nueva york de cuatro cargos de trÁfico de drogas, sobornos, y declaraciones falsas a un funcionario de los estados unidos. la sentencia se darÁ a conocer el prÓximo 17 de enero. el reportero tiene alex. alex: a mÍ el presente de honduras y

the president's decision is a disaster for our partners in the fight against isis and the united states foreign policy more broadly spoken. while i welcome the temporary cease-fire announced a short time ago and hope that a permanent cease-fire can be achieved, it does not absolve president trump of responsibility for his betrayal of our kurdish partners and his role in unleashing violence and instability in northern syria. it is not clear whether turkey made any concessions as part of the deal struck with the u.s. delegation or whether kurdish forces will comply. if not, i am concerned that additional violence is likely to follow and we'll have little leverage to prevent it. in fact, there is a quote attributed to the turkish foreign minister by the white house reporter at cnn. she quotes the turkish foreign minister as saying this is not a cease-fire. we will poise the operation for 1 -- pause the operation for 120 hours for the terrorists to leave. we will only stop the operation if our conditions are met. indeed, even this supposed cease-fire may not materialize as a cease-fire. but