. 23, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric. 24, existing litigation, pacific gas and electric. are there any public comments on the items to be addressed during closed session? seeing none, may have a motion on whether to assert? >> i'll move to assert. >> second. >> president ye all /* we are going to take five-minute break. maybe eight minutes. >> [laughter]. the commission has now reconvened in open session. the announcement following the closed session is the following. item 20 was settled. items 21 through 26, no action. >> just to clarify on item 20, it was a recommendation to the board of supervisors, so there is not a final. >> recommendation to the board of supervisors. thank you. that's because of the amount of money, correct? >> correct. >> may have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? the last item, other new business. i have something to bring up. i was wondering why the commissioners have not gotten a raise -- [laughter] -- or, i don't know, how many years? and that's true of other commissione

we need to vote to invoke attorney-client privilege to discuss existing litigation with legal council, so we need that as a motion. >> i move it. >> do we need a second? >> thank you. all those in favor of going int all those in favor say aye? >> aye. >> we will go back into public session. a quick review of our rules. the same rules. public comment is allowed and limited to 20 minutes on any one item or in general. next item is item four, general public comment. does anyone wish to speak? >> my name is richard and i am a retiree. i just wanted to say a few things but generally i haven't been around for a while, but in the secret session clearly there is something to hide, i guess. someone's intellectual property, we can't know what they're getting, what we are getting, it was interesting to read some of the recent comments, and i gather that you said if you had invested in index funds instead of this group of hedge funds or whatever they are that 88% funded, perhaps you could rethink this and get out of these entangling secrets of alliances that mostly i use to -- i know that the p.c

session and specifically whether or not the board should convene in closed session to discuss the existing litigation and tax measures adopted by the june 5th municipal elections and items 35 through 41 on the adoption without reference to commit calendar. public comment is not allowed when an item has previously been subject to public comment at a board committee and pursuant to the rules direct your remarks to the board as a whole and speakers using interpretation assistance will be given twice the amount and if you would like it display a document on the overhead projector specify that to sfgtv. >> first speaker, please. >> the library does not allow folks who own more than $10 to borrow anything, those 15,786 under 18 persons all or certainly most of them are unable to borrow any books or other materials. they're also restrict from requesting materials from other library systems using link plus or interin -- or interlibrary. that should be unacceptable in san francisco. there's other people who can't afford to pay fees and who are also adult or seniors unable likewise to borrow. the library is co

. >> clerk: item 18, existing litigation david alfaro, et al. v. city and county of san francisco san francisco superior court no.: cgc-15-547492 date filed: august 20, 2015 proposed settlement of action as to property claim of victoria sanchez in the amount of $97,500. >> any comments on closed session? seeing none can i have a motion to assert. >> assert. >> second. >> all those in >> the commission is now back in open session. the announcement from closed session is item 18 would settled. -- was settled. can i have a motion whether to disclose the discussion? >> move not to disclose. >> all those in favor. the motion carries. is there any other new business? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:03. sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial

. >> clerk: item 18, existing litigation david alfaro, et al. v. city and county of san francisco san francisco superior court no.: cgc-15-547492 date filed: august 20, 2015 proposed settlement of action as to property claim of victoria sanchez in the amount of $97,500. >> any comments on closed session? seeing none can i have a motion to assert. >> assert. >> second. >> all those in >> the commission is now back in open session. the announcement from closed session is item 18 would settled. -- was settled. can i have a motion whether to disclose the discussion? >> move not to disclose. >> all those in favor. the motion carries. is there any other new business? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:03. >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and w

. >> clerk: item 18, existing litigation david alfaro, et al. v. city and county of san francisco san francisco superior court no.: cgc-15-547492 date filed: august 20, 2015 proposed settlement of action as to property claim of victoria sanchez in the amount of $97,500. >> any comments on closed session? seeing none can i have a motion to assert. >> assert. >> second. >> all those in >> the commission is now back in open session. the announcement from closed session is item 18 would settled. -- was settled. can i have a motion whether to disclose the discussion? >> move not to disclose. >> all those in favor. the motion carries. is there any other new business? seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:03. the treasure island development authority infrastructure and transportation committee meeting. item number 1, call to order. director, riched ardson. >> here iny , director tsen? >> here. >> director lai? >> director dunlop? >> here. >> we do have a quorum. >> ok. thank you all for being here and i also wanted to thank those that are watching r

enter into closed session to confer with or receive advice from the city attorney regarding existing litigation with pacific gas and electric company and items 33-35 on the adoption without reference to committee calendar items. public comment is not allowed when an item has had public comment at a board committee. please direct your remarks to the board as a whole, not to individuals. and the way the board would appreciate you showing your support for an issue is to show your support of hands, rather than audible sounds of approval. thank you. >> president yee: okay. let's start with the public comments. dr. brown. >> thank you, mr. president. members of the board. ladies and gentlemen. this august i will be privileged to go to ghana, west africa. to head a delegation that will be observing the commencement of the 400th year of the slave trade. men my ancestors were brought here against their will, but they did not leave in mother africa wisdom. one of the sayings of those persons who were enslaved, was that if you want to go fast, go alone. but if you want to go far, you go together. now i've

could construct argument thinking about executive privilege or as we were saying, the existence of ongoing litigationto me i don't think those arguments are very strong. but, you know, as we saw with the manafort sentencing, different judges can come occupant different ways and it can take years to resolve. >> that's the game they want to play. >> it could be. this will continue eep up to the election. >> if they want to run out the clock. laura we have both subpoenas. now the president slamming democrat who fb threaten to issue more subpoenas, specifically, right, jerry na nadler he is not waiting. he wants it now. he wants the subpoena now and here is the president's response. >> i think it's ridiculous. we went through two years of the mueller investigation. the attorney general now and the deputy attorney general ruled no obstruction. they said no obstruction. and so there is no collusion. there is no obstruction and now we're going to start this process over again. i think it's a disgrace. >> all right. sew doesn't want it out there, laura. but it's quite a change from the president a few days a

existing conditions. and that is really not in danger of the current litigation working its way through the courts. i'm all in favor of working on what should be called niche fixes to try to improve the current system. obviously, obamacare has entirely too high at copayments and deductibles. we ought to be working on something like that. there is a bipartisan effort underway in the senate to try to get down the cost of prescription drugs. those are the kinds of things that could actually pass, but i guarantee you, next year what it will be on display across the country is a debate about whether we want to turn america into a socialist country. i never thought, by the way, we would debate capitalism and american my lifetime. >> bret: you backed off last week taking another run at trying to repeal and replace obamacare. did the president get too far over his skis there? >> mitch: look, we made that effort last congress and it didn't work. clearly democratic house will not pass it. so we will not spend time in the center on things that have literally no chance of becoming law. >> bret: what happens if

that litigation -- which we did not bring, we are a party, i'm the party in the litigation -- but we want to protect pre-existingditions. if the litigation ends up in that position, we want to work with you to secure better care for people and make sure all the types of issues you've raised are taken care of in any kind of new legislation. >> well, let me just ask you, as secretary of health, to you green -- do you agree that if this ruling is upheld as the administration is arguing for, it will result in tens of millions of people losing their coverage and allow insurers to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions if it's upheld? >> well, the burden would be on us to work together to actually come up with a -- >> that's not the question. the question is if the court dose through with the ruling as -- goes through with the ruling as you have requested them to, will it result? >> well, you wouldn't have medicaid expansion, and you wouldn't have the exchange -- >> pre-existing -- >> unless you can come up with a better system that we think delivers better care -- >> i've heard that before. it would

existing laws. really interesting to see that strong a reaction. it speaks to the weakened state of this industry, already facing litigation across multiple states and a personal levels. it also follows the health care stocks in the political risk is a real factor for stocks this week. another example here. speaking of politics, still the top story of the day, the justice department releasing their redacted version of special counsel robert mueller's report. we saw william barr standing by the decisionit also follows thee not to pursue obstruction of justice charges. >> the report recounts 10 episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction of fence. the deputy attorney general and i disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law. us by phone is a former fbi assistant director. i want to begin by asking you, for your view of the decision process here, once you get a better look at the redacted but more full report, whether the attorney general's decision makes se

existed until needed." ad his persttgiulia, slmed mcgs credibility in multiple interviews. ggahn's lawyer responded in a statement, "it's a mystery why idy giuliani feels the need to de-litigatencidents the attorney general and deputy attorney general have concluded were not obstruction. but they are accurately aescribed in the report. >> the mueller document has now left with us a road map to go forward. >> reporter: congressional rsmocrats issued a subpoena for ed unredacted version of the report and called for mueller to testify before congress. >> we have a constitution of the united states, and it says when a president engages in this kind of activity, then it's time for impeachment. th reporter: massachusetts senator elizabeth warren is the first major presidential candidate to mention impeaching mr. trump. but other 2020 hopefuls say there's a better option. >> if we really want to send hiumpism into the history books, the best thing we can do is defeat it decisively at the ballot box in 2020. >> reporter: on monday, house opeaker nancy pelosi is planning to hold a conference call with democrats to go over the findings and the mueller report, what she calls a grave mat

litigator. it is very clear there is a high standard when you talk about defamation and the reason that exists isas writing the first amendment specifically wanted senatorial power to rest with people of the government, not the government to center the people. we have a sitting government official whether you like him or not who is trying to stifle my free-speech by using litigation as a cudgel and that is a clear case of violation of the first amendment. shannon: thanks for coming on. more news later. free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ we really pride ourselvesglass, on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what yo

litigator. it's very clear that there is a high standard when you're talking about defamation. and the reason that existswriting the amendment specifically wanted not for the government to be able to scenso the people. we have a sitting government official trying to stifle my free speech by using litigation. >> shannon: we'll watch the case, all $400 million of it. more news next. what do you look for when you trade? i want free access to research. yep, td ameritrade's got that. free access to every platform. yeah, that too. i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront. yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ did you eat all of your treats? ♪ help! i need somebody ♪ help! not just anybody ♪ help! you know i need someone we really pride ourselves >> ton making it easyautoglass, to get your windshield f

succeeds in this litigation, it will be legal for insurance companies to limit the amount of coverage someone can get in their lifetime. it will deny access to people with pre-existing conditions, and it will allow insurance companies to sell junk plans that offer no coverage -- or no real coverage for the american people. democrats have a better plan. the minority leader will be happy to know, there are bills to do it, and we will strengthen the protections with people with pre-existing conditions, we'll expand access for working men and women, and bring down cost of prescription drugs like bills like mine that will allow more generic drugs into the marketplace. we take a lot of complicated votes in this chamber. this is not one of them. this vote is very simple. it's a vote in favor of this resolution. it's a vote for access to quality, affordable health care. a vote against it is a vote for the interests of insurance companies at the expense of working people. i know where members of the democratic caucus stand. we ran on this. we are committed to it. we are fighting every day to protect the affordable care act and to build on its success and to improve it. the r

started litigation against steve wynn, that she was treated like a bitter ex-wife instead of the board member that she was. when commissioners pressed her to explain why she didn't reveal the existencettlement with a former employee to gaming regulators here in massachusetts, she says she relied on the counsel of general counsel kim sinatra. she is fighting to meet suit ability requirements in connection with this gaming license in massachusetts here's what she said >> i am here by choice that at the moment that my shares were free and clear to sell i would have had an opportunity to do so and leave this company but i chose not to and i am here because i am team wynn >> reporter: she and matt maddox are only two of the original qualifiers still with wynn and they are under fire after departure of steve wynn. again the gaming license in the balance. the property due to open in june >> where is wall street on this issue? how closely are they following this and what have you read in terms of the notes about what the consequences could be? >> reporter: well, i talked to twoen analysts who are not following it very charlie what you it is not being live streamed by the massachusetts gamin