dr. richardson. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a san francisco resident and executive director of young committed two double-developers in the baby. i wanted to take a brief moment to speak on behalf of dr. moses and not only his work within the community but his work and advocacy for those that do not necessarily have the same voice as others within our community. immigrant rights advocacy that is needed at times, particularly when we're talking about dealing with the systems that are in place here in san francisco, it is important to have somebody who is ready to work hard for and with and alongside them. as supervisor kim mentioned earlier, he did have emergency surgery. the fact that you see him here today against the doctor's orders, against my own recommendation, you can understand the dedication and commitment that he

of providing, maybe encouraging susan richardson to have an interview, any of the associates with her that wrote this memorandum. i think it's important that even dr. chu's staff be in bald -- involved, it raises a lot of questions why was the subsequent one they felt was necessary to erase his name out there, and to try and hide the original january memo. i think those are important questions to ask, because it looks like there's a cover-up to protect dr. chu in this. >> would the gentleman yield? >> issuer. >> i think that's a pretty incendiary statement, and i don't think we know. they might affect to memos. i think that these allegations flying around about cover-up are exactly the problem of this investigation. what i would say is -- >> you are not allowing us to go through regular order. >> i am happy, the gentleman asked would i be willing to encourage the administration to provide dr. chu and the other witnesses. i would be happy to do that. recognizing that the administration doesn't always do exactly what i tell them to do. sadly enough. >> it would be helpful -- reclaiming my time -- would be helpful because, frankly, from my perspectiv

dr. chu. >> with the gentleman yield? i think that's a pretty incendiary statements and i don't think -- i don't think we know. they might have had to memos, one with his man and one with susan richardson> are you not allowing us to go through regular order. >> ibm happy the gentleman asked will be willing to encourage the administration by dr. mic and the other witnesses. i would be happy to do that recognizing that the administration doesn't always do exactly what i tell them to do sadly enough. >> would be helpful, claiming my time would be helpful because frankly from my perspective, and the rhetoric from at least the two top people on this committee has been obstruction and diversion, so i appreciate the gentlelady's what i believe is a sincere jester of helping get those. the point was we haven't had time to do those interviews but i will tell you what when things change from one version to another it is a legitimate question to say why was it changed cracks one was dr. chu's nay removed? that is a valid question and it looks like it was to protect him why you do the trick. why were discussions occurring on subordination october, so three months, three full months before the janu

dr. chu -- >> will the gentleman yield? i think that is a pretty incendiary statements. they might have had two memos ones with his name, once with the susan richardson's name. the allegations are exactly what is wrong with the investigations -- >> you are not allowing us to go through regular order to allow us to ask these questions -- >> i would be happy to do that, recognizing that the administration does not always do what i tell them to do, sadly enough. >> it would be helpful because frankly, from my perspective the red rug from -- rhetoric from the two top people on the committee has been obstruction and diversion. i appreciate the gentle lady's -- what i believe is a sincere gesture of helping with those trade i. we have not had time to do those interviews. when things change from one thing to another, is a legitimate question to say why was it change? why was dr. chu's name removed there? it looks like it was to protect him. discussions occurring on subordination, october -- three full months before the january memo was written. and then the february supposed official one -- it looks like -- i want to know this during your interviews, the bipa