there's a federal law against robbing federal banks. can it be made a state crime to rob those banks? i think it is. >> i think it could, but i think that's quite -- >> but does the attorney general come in and say, you know, we might really only want to go after the professional bank robbers? if it's just an amateur bank robber, you know, we're -- we're going to let it go. and the state's interfering with our -- with our whole scheme here because it's prosecuting all these bank robbers. >> well, of course, no one would -- >> now, would anybody listen to that argument? >> of course not. >> of course not. >> but this argument is quite different, justice scalia, because here what we are talking about is that federal registration requirement in an area of dominant federal concern, exclusive federal concern with respect to immigration: who can be in the country, under what circumstances, and what obligations they have -- >> now, are you talking about now or -- >> yes. >> -- or does this argument relate to 2 as well? >> this is an argument a

that we got a federal call -- we got a federal answer that the person wasn't registered? >> no, we're going to say that we communicated with the federal immigration officials, and they told us this is somebody who's perfectly fine and doesn't have to register. >> no -- no confrontation -- no confrontation clause problem withthat? with relying on a call to a federal agency and the police officer says, you're arrested, you're charged, it's not an illegal alien -- or it is an illegal alien. >> my supposition, >>, is that they would use that call to not bring the prosecution, so the issue wouldn't even arise. but i do want to be clear about -- >> no, no, no. how about -- how about they get a response, yes, it's an illegal alien? >> and they bring a prosecution under section -- >> so how -- where do they get the records that show that this person is an illegal alien that's not authorized to be here? >> i -- >> who do they get it from? >> i think they would get it from the federal authorities. i think it would be admitted. there might be a challenge in that case. i mean, you kn

federal law. i think the question is can law- enforcement tea party-backed? -- can law-that la enforcement be part of that? and we robbery at banks interact. all we are asking is that they work collectively with us to uphold the laws. we believe in the rule of law, which brings to mind part of the questioning was why was the federal government not wanting to enforce the law? i thought that was very striking. why don't they want to enforce the federal law? do they want to just selectively picks a portion of the law that they want to enforce? so it was very, very revealing today. i think that we will succeed. and i'm looking forward to june. thank you. >> one of the comments made by the government [inaudible] >> i would assume that it would be incarcerations if in fact they had broken law on the first offense. they even discredit - some of the federal administration discredit the fact there are that many illegals in arizona. >> sounds like 400,000 people could end up locked up in arizona. >> if they

five brigades in combat against the federals in this position. in early afternoon it's a lot of fighting. confederates, you can imagine, are trying to negotiate this open field and troops are making a series of rushes into the field and getting nowhere against the federal fire. the frontal action is just simply not working and stewart is holding firm and mcarthur is still able to check the confederates trying to maneuver through the woods to the east of here. by about 1:30 things have got a little static particularly here on this stretch of the battle front. in fact, his brigades is down here in the ravine that's timbered and sheltered just to our south. they have tried about three times to get across the field, got nowhere. so they're now quite positive, i think to a man that, you know, this is just not a good place to be, out in this open field. in fact, they're refusing to attack. word reaches johnston than the men are refusing to attack. he initially sends governor harris over. isham harris was an acting aid on johnston's staff. he was the el

so, um, we just don't have places to move the federal agencies to any longer. so we have to find a way to coexist here and allow industry and the federal agencies to use the same spectrum. and the way we can take advantage of it is the fact that the federal agency use is somewhat intermittent and more importantly it doesn't necessarily involve the entire country at any point in time. and advances in the new cellular technologies, particularly lte, seem to offer an opportunity for the commercial industry to apply this new technology and be able to operate in an environment where they don't have the exclusive use of the spectrum any longer. um, we know industry was particularly interested in the bottom 25 megahertz of this 95 megahertz band, the 1755 to 1850 band that we reported on a couple of weeks ago. but our o goal here is to find 500 megahertz of spectrum as the president asked and, indeed, we're hearing from industry that they think the need's going to be greater than that. so, um, from our perspective we had an opportunity to put 95 megahertz of spectrum

are attempting to attack the federals here. they're doing so in piecemeal fashion, primarily lone brigades making these assaults in succession in some instances over the course of the midday and through the afternoon. they were dead center. pretty much dead center on the battlefield and the confederates attack through what they describe as a dense underbrush. heavily thicketed zone. they called it an impenetrable growth. that's different from the normal vegetation on the battlefield which was old growth forest. the confederates are attacking through the thicket. >> why are they attacking through the thicket? it provided some semblance of protection as they tried to maneuver and get into a position to confront the federalists holding the line here. besides, if they moved any further to the north they'd pass through a wide open field which it was in fillated fire from the federals. to the south there's another open field and the thicket provided cover. it provided some semblance of protection. it is also apparent that these confe

this issue is much like federal tax law where the federal internal revenue service interprets and enforces the law as opposed to 50 state agencies going to people's houses to ensure that they properly filed their federal tax returns. only federal comprehensive immigration reform can accomplish the three objectives most americans want to see achieved with regard to immigration. first, ending illegal immigration. second, fixing our dysfunctional legal immigration system and, third, addressing the status of people here without legal status. in 2010, many of my democratic colleagues on this committee released the white paper with me outlining our proposal for immigration reform. then, as a good-faith down payment to encourage negotiations with those who said fix the border first, we passed a $600 million supplemental border security act that added 1,500 troops on the border, deployed more unmanned aerial drones, and increased border fencing and technology. the border bill was hailed by my arizona colleagues as a significant border security accomplishment that they were proud to co-sponsor. as

they have driven the federal force. they are driving it northward. the question is going to be, is if you have half of grant's army here, where is the other half of grant's army. if this is 2/3 of johnson's force against half, that leaves only what? the smaller proportion of his army against what is the other half of the union army, and that other half constitutes grant's center and true left flank. >>> we're almost two miles from the crossroads north of shiloh church. that brings us all the way over what is the true union left flank representing grant's army of the tennessee. this is colonel david stewart's brigade of sherman's fifth division. stewart had been detached throughout the encampment period. sherman was the first division to occupy. he was over here guarding the hamburg road from hamburg landing which is four river miles upstream from pittsburgh landing. so this is where his brigade will fight the battle detached from its mother division. prentiss' camps were roughly a mile or a little over from the southwest or to our southwest about a m

of any federal law enforcement. but there's -- they're only present on a limited number of flights. the ffdo expands that even more and the ability to respond to ton expected threat, which may be the achilles heel of a risk based, intelligence based type of program. according to the estimates by the airline pilots association, ffdos only cost $15 per flight segment. let me say that again, to protect an aircraft, to protect possibly the potential of thousands of people, the federal flight deck officer costs $15 per flight segment. though the actual numbers are classified, currently ffdos defend over 100,000 flight segments per month. and 1.5 million flight segments per year. thousands of tdos have been certified through the program despite the budget hasn't grown since the initial inception. currently,ftdos are not allowed from receiving reimbursement for many of the expenses related to their own training. for example, i'm a former federal flight deck officer. i went down to artie sha, new mexico, for training down t

we just don't have places to move the federal agencies to any longer.so we have to find a way to coexist or and allow industry and the federal agencies to use the same spectrum. the way we can take advantage of it is the fact that the federal agency use is somewhat intermittent. more portly, it doesn't involve the entire country at any point in time. advances in the new cellular technologies, particularly lge, offer an opportunity for the commercial industry to apply this new technology and eager to operate in an environment where they don't have the exclusive use of the spectrum any longer. we know that industry was interested in the bottom 25 megahertz of this megahertz band, the 1755 band we reported a couple of weeks ago. but our goal is to find 500 megahertz of spectrum as the president asked, and indeed, we are hearing from industry that they think they need will be greater than that. from our perspective, we had an opportunity to put 95 megahertz of spectrum on the table and bring people together with this new paradigm of spectrum use. we thought

the con federals were in close proximity. hardy's front consisted of four brigades, 800 yards in front of him, five brigades from braxton brag's corp and stacked behind him were -- nearly 44,000 men. johnston had achieved his surprise. although it would be federal reconnaissance that brings on the battle of shiloh because a brigade in grant's army violated orders and took initiative to send out a force. but it will take, the confederate forces in front of us, the better part of two hours to bring the forward brigades to bear against the main union camps on the south side of grant's large encampment. and that would be the divisions of sherman and benjamin prentiss. so part of the problem the con federals were running into is this engagement consumes about an hour. it would be an hour before hardee's troops are commanded to move forward after the squirmish begins. so powell and hardcastle are banging away at one another for nearly an hour before the main line under hardee's command steps forward. when it does, powell quickly re

follow the federal spending. it makes it possible for members of the congress and the public to find out where all our tax dollars are going. you would think this is a simple and basic idea, but unfortunately in washington nothing is as simple and basic as it seems and is simply not possible right now. host: you would also think with all the elements at our disposal that if you're looking for information regarding federal spending that somewhere on the internet you're going to be able to find it. guest: you would hope so but you would be sadly mistaken. there has been some attempt to make it available on line the cobra and obama bill puts some grants and contract information online but according to the analysis available at clear spending.com ever.org we found over $1.3 trillion discrepancies between two different reporting systems for grants. so the information that's available is not particularly reliable and misses literally trillions in other spending. host: give us an idea of what kind of information we woul

how many were marion federal law? -- how many were under federal law?it is not the same thing as civil. we need to make sure that is clear. injury under federal law is a crime. -- illegal entry under federal law is a crying. crime. >> of listed was but in a manner to be divorced. it did not really change appeared they can -- does not really change. they can remove the illegal policies. it is an important section. i am very confident. it still be a chilling effect on those wanting to model its. it does not change the constitution. i have been enforcing immigration laws since i was a puppy in march 1970. it was never an issue. the states have never been pre- empted. >> that will not be the decision. people seem not to get that right. they will bring the one thing the state police said about. if they deny this part, the make a prediction. i realize you are brilliant. if you lose, it would seem to me but they would be saying more. >> it did not pass the package did not have that majority. the pre-emption issue is the same argument. the misinformation, touri

overseas, federal employees health benefit program. and more importantly for this hearing, the federal long term care insurance program. this program is the largest private long term care program in the country. mr. loren coleman is with the department of human services, with more than 25 years of experience with with long term care facilities, a host of programs for older adults, and is the leading force behind minnesota's transform 2010 program. which is designed to help the state prepare for retirement of the baby boomer generation. dr. aiken is president of the american action forum. he was chief economist with the council of economic advisers from 2001 to 2002. and he serbs as the director of the congressional budget office from 2003 to 2005. professor judy fader has had a long and established academic career, serving as dean of the policy in washington, d.c., from 1999 to 2008. today she's a professor at georgetown university, a fellow at the urban institute and an elected member of the institute of medicine. we also have dr. bru

i don't believe federal law is based -- i don't believe this is consonant with federal law. >> yes, sir -- >> let me go -- >> it is with federal law, mr. chairman. >> let's go to demeaning police. doesn't your law permit any citizen of arizona to sue any police department or any individual police officer who refuses to ask for immigration documents during a stop? >> mr. chairman, let me correct you. it does not allow them to sue any individual law enforcement officer when they use the discretion that we give them under this law and other laws. that discretion is allowed the officer, if you read the bill carefully, you'll see that discretion. in fact, we give -- >> but there is a right to sue. >> hang on. i understand, mr. chairman. >> so, just explain that right to sue to everybody. >> yes. yes, sir, and i will. but law enforcement has qualified immunity under this bill because we knew that they'd be sued, whether they do or they don't. what the lawsuit has done, that phrase in our founding document, "we the people"? in arizona, we still believe in "we the people." we gave we, the peopl

professor feder? >> chairman kohl, ranking member corker, i'm delighted to be with you today to -- thank you -- i still am delighted to be with you today to discuss ways to improve the quality and efficiency of services for people who need long-term care. chairman kohl, you started by asking about ways we can reduce unnecessary hospitalizations for this population, and that is the focus of my testimony. i specifically want to explain why it is so important that the medicare program give top priority in delivery reform initiatives to people, beneficiaries who need long-term care, and that those initiatives extend care coordination beyond medical care to include the coordination of long-term care services. the data that i present in my testimony developed with the support from the scan foundation will tell you why this is so important. and i'm hoping that you have my testimony in front of you, but if you don't, i'm going to tell you to look for in the data when you have that, when you look at the pictur

enforce federal law, the federal government did an unprecedented thing. never before have the department of justice sued a state for trying to assist the federal government. never before. in making that ill-fated decision, the justice department ran into the wall today. general verrilli was on the ropes because he was asked multiple times, especially by scalia, to give an example. he had no answer to that question. there is no precedent. this is an unprecedented lawsuit and the justice department's answers today were very inadequate for the questions asked. that ultimately went back to the last-ditch argument where is mexico could cause this to be pre-empted. they took an action they never should have taken -- suing them. when we drafted this law, ran into the wall you saw today. conflict pre-emption asked if there was a conflict between federal and state law. he was asked by the justices can you give me an example of where the federal government can preempt a state merely by refusing to enforce federal law or by exercising prosecutorial discretion? the j

count as lobbying the first time these laws are filled with loopholes the state law and then the federal laws which of course is what the i.r.s. is based on are completely different from the state bots so there's this huge patchwork of laws that cover what is or is not lobbying in most cases is not lobbying even though you would i or anybody reasonably thinking about lobbying might consider it to be and so it's all that everything falls into these loopholes and almost deliberately design is considering this you know it is a stranglehold on these lawmakers they might beat the rap on this one but it's still pretty negative attention and this is been a month in which more than a dozen corporate members of our you know pepsi co you name it have left. could we see the i mean i would just describe it it's not economic forces could maybe be seen. as we know it or at least like having all this influence as it as it used to. but important understand alex finance is these corporations represent a huge part of how alec is funded and finds itself in funds the meetings where these corporations and le

with one federal worker.t is very unusual -- the office of management and budget in a statement said that kind of replacement mechanism would make it hard for the federal government to meet its mission. that is what you would expect a federal agency to say. so, yes, the federal government should be downsizing, it is downsizing. do you want the social security checks? do you want the border protected? these are the workers who do their jobs. considering how highly skilled and dedicated they are, i hope we do not make them what they really are not. host: this tweet for you -- guest: a very important point. the president is not going to do the deficit reduction through the appropriations process. his budget was the budget with the discretionary spending blind agreed upon -- spending line agreed upon in the deal. the republicans walked away from the table. host: why not the votes then from democrats to support the president? guest: because that was not the president budget. the paul ryan budget is not a budget. h

>> correct, they are generally federally mandated programs. our welfare program for families in california, our federally required ha foster care program as well as a host of federal matching support services and other programs. supervisor chu: what constitutes the category that you call realignment? >> realignment 1 was crafted in 1991 that goes to support services, wages, foster care, aid payments predominantly. for the second realignment, that as child welfare services, that is the big realignment with the public protection realignment. so not only including what has been talked about a lot, the probation and county jail, the child welfare services was part of the public protection peace. again, we will reflect that, but it goes to pay for foster care payments, the staffing of workers and adoption assistance. from a policy point of view, it is good for us because it pulls child welfare services out of a state and the general fund debate every year. and it is obviously not subject to reductions by the legislature and the governor. in the bre

part of the problem is, federal use is growing. unmanned aerial drones is a good example of a system that did not exist as a spectrum user 15 or 20 years ago, but increasingly these systems are being put into operation. not just in the board theaters not just in the board theaters but in the united states to support the relief and those sorts of efforts. we have to find a way for industry and federal agency to use the spectrum. the way to take advantage of it is the fact that the federal agency is somewhat interest mitent, and -- somewhat intermittent and it does not involve the whole country at any point in time. this seems to offer an opportunity for the commercial industry to apply this new technology and be able to operate in an environment where they don't have the exclusive use of the spectrum any longer. our goal here is to five 500 megahertz of spectrum as the president asked. indode, we're hearing from industry that they think it will be greater than that. so from our perspective, we had an opportunity to put 95 meckrerts

he sends harris over to staff him and put pressure on the federals and put pressure on the federals. other staff officers ride off and he's left alone. you find the general now across the road where the monument stands. riding up to johnston, he says, sir, i've relayed your orders. they have people moving forward. he said he saw johnston reel in the saddle. he reached out and grabbed him. he said, sir, are you wounded? and johnston said, yes, i fear seriously, and that will be the last conscious thought from albert sidney johnston. so harris, assisted by another staff officer, brought johnston down into the ravine, got him off his horse, laid him up against a tree, ripped open his coat, his shirt looking for a wound. of course, they're imagining something up in the, you know, vital part of the body. johnston's wound actually was from the back side around -- had entered just below his right

host: what does president obama say about federal employees and the federal government? and do you agree with everything in his budget? guest: president obama began this cycle and before budget discussions ever got underway, last year freezing the salaries of federal employees, adding to that -- the objection of a federal employees is that the president should have waited until they got into budget discussions so that everybody could have more easily understood how much they would contribute. just like when you go to church and the richest guy hangs back when at they or passing the collection plate. most people will say, "what about him?" host: you did agree with the president's budget when it comes to federal employees. guest: it is not that i disagree with the president's budget it is more evenhanded than the ryan budget. i disagree with the budget where it takes more from federal employees than for others. it is more in line with what i perceived that the ryan budget. they come to federal employees, come with pensions, creating something of a two-tier federal employee

arizona's immigration law as b ten seventy and oral arguments were heard in the case that pit the federal government against the state. this is a print court today taken on the highly political issue of immigration specifically arizona's tough law s.b. ten seventy they're hearing both sides of the debate on key pieces of arizona's immigration law that will ultimately decide if states of the power to enforce their own laws to arrest illegals the arizona law conflicts with federal immigration policy at issue is whether states have the authority to step in to enforce immigration matters or whether that's the role of the federal government those who oppose the law say that it is the case of states going too far that the feds basically preempt this is their area this is their authority regulate immigration the law is going to cause significant civil rights problems throughout arizona if he uses the word relaxed to describe the federal government's enforcement policy on immigration and he says arizona has decided who has to step into the breach be obama administration will argue that states hav

the exact phrasing of federal law. so all it says is that if some behavior is prohibited at the federal level then we're going to make it a state crime as well. that is mirroring and supporting the federal government. when the justice department sued arizona that was an unprecedented thing in american because never before has the justice department sued a state for trying to help. >> it is clear that in america we should not have laws in which 50 states have 50 different ways of treating immigration policy. especially laws that can only be enforced by making judgements on whether you have dirt on your boots, the color of your skin, the accent of your voice, or your last name. that is no way to make law enforcement in the united states of america. >> ifill: for more on how the arguments played out inside the court today, we are joined, as always, by marcia coyle of the "national law journal." marcia, in some ways, last time we had a big case at the court it involved health care and it was a rematch of the lawyers involv

when we have the federal program, it was 100%. because we are limited to $5,000 reimbursement, there remains a enough to get a nice number. supervisor cohen: thank you. hi, trent. i have a question about the j obs now program is good. i want to talk to you about the facility over at the southeast community college. the potential move, does it impact the budget in any way? >> de se facilities commission voted recently to reprogram the space, and the result of that would be they no longer have space at the facility. we currently have 11,000 square feet and we're able to deliver the full range of employment. with also do job fairs, it is predominately our families. once we are formally convicted, we do want to find alternative space in the bayview. one-third or more of our clients are closer to 38%, the presence we have had out there has proved really effective in engaging that community. we're currently working with the department of real estate and looking for space to purchase a out there. we don't know what the timing is, we imag

and the federal government's great social experiment. what i did have to tell my fellow guys here, this was about the legacy of prohibition. >> brian, seems to me from what you're saying alcohol drives the expansion of the federal state. >> that's exactly right. and one can make a very good case for big government, so called, beginning not with the new deal but beginning with prohibition. for those of you who want to say sayonara, good riddance to big government, we got rid of prohibition, think again. think about the laws on search and seizure, think about the laws about wire tapping, they all come out of the 1920s an era when the federal government is very involved in intervening in day-to-day lives to make sure that we create a safe environment. those laws on search and seizure, those laws on wire tapping are still very much with us today. >> so, seems to me we've had a lot of continuities back and forth across all of the centuries. i would say as reform movements go anti-alcohol is still top. mothers against drunk drivers. interestin

can't maintain the federal fund rate at zero indefinitely. but i think over the next 12 months it is appropriate to keep the federal fund rate very low. that seems to be what the majority of the committee certainly feels is appropriate, and from our point of view as bond market participants we would put that as an assumption that the federal fund rate stays very close to zero over the next 12 months. >> tom: so expand upon that, because fixed income investors at least in terms of interest rates have gotten punished by this low interest rate approximately over the past three years. where does a bond investor go to look for interest rates? >> well, we've been arguing that the investor should be investing for what i call coupon income, or interest income. and unfortunately too many investors have been far too cautious these last two years, have too much money in cash and cash equivalent that as you said punishes them. yields next to nothing. there are segment of the fixed income markets that still provide reasonably good interest income. high yi

the federal general services administration is our government's landlord. it's appalling to see the wasteful and ending on this conference. and mr. denham will outline not just this conference. he's going to talk about trips to hawaii, atlanta, junkets to the south pacific, california, atlanta, hawaii, guam, saipan, all at taxpayer expense. but that's just the tip of the eyeingberg. the billions that are lost, again, by having the federal government's primary landlord agency out of control and not operating as it should and making these assets perform for the public is what's outrageous. you know, we smelled a rat, and we asked for data because if you look at the budget and the expenditures for the public buildings commissioner they went from $2.9 million in 2007 to $9 million. that's, what, 200%, 300% increase? so we started asking for data. we got stonewalled time and time again. mr. denham asked at almost every hearing, you heard him say we requested information and data. what we got instead, this is what we got instead, folks. just a few pages of the to

chairman, the federal law doesn't make any distinction. that's a regulatory function, not a function of the states. >> okay. next

it would shift the federal government -- it would shift the federal government to a system of continuous monitoring of information systems, streamline reporting requirements and ensure that agencies take a smart risk-based approach to securing networks. this bill will continue to authorize the office of management and budget to set federal policy for information security. this is important because we need to hold all agencies accountable for developing appropriate standards and living up to them. however, nothing in this bill would prevent the department of homeland security from continuing the great work it is doing to protect our nation against potential cyberattacks. the department was dramatically expanded -- has dramatically expanded its cybersecurity quork force and has built the national cybersecurity integration service, federal governments, cybersecurity command center. this command center is a vital part of our efforts to protect federal information systems. earlier this month, the head of u.s. cybercommand, general keith alexander, testified that the security of our nation aga

of federal agencies as yeah, i'd love to work there. and it ranked second to last for pay, family friendly management policies, and performance-based incentives. would you comment. >> i'm aware of that survey. first like to comment the g.a.o. has ranked near the top i believe last year we were second. i saw the scores for dhs and tsa. i think some of that reflects they have a very large screening workforce that does somewhat stressful job, interacting with the public on a day-to-day basis, and sometimes that's stressful. it wasn't clear to me what the department was doing about it on an organizational wide basis. we have work under way right now. >> we'll give them an opportunity to respond. are you aware of the turnover rate? >> not specifically. >> would it spritz you to learn it was 13%? >> if that's accurate that would not surprise me. >> it's been 10% for at least the last five years and that is significantly higher than the average federal agency. >> any time any organization experiences that type of turnover obviously you're deal

she simply concluded that federal courts didn't have the ability to force the federal trade commission to take an enforcement action. >> host: did that surprise you because consent decrees are approved by courts? >> guest: we thought this consent decree had not been approved by a court, but it was a final order from an agency, and we actually thought we had a good final argument. >> host: as my. >> guest: exactly. the enforcement provision from the ftc actually says in a nondiscretionary fashion, so we went to court and said there's a consent order, it's a final order, it should be enforced. the agency is required to enforce its orders. but as i said, we lost not on the merits, it's simply a question of judicial review. coming back to markham's point, obviously, we have different perspectives on this issue, but i think it's very important in this whole debate, you know, between privacy groups and people representing industry not to lose sight of the interests of users because it really is their data that we're talking about. we're talking about how personal information is being collect

it was handled on the federal level. i will tell you as you all know, of course we are getting our budgets under control. we don't have a lot of money but certainly persons will be held accountable for what has taken place in arizona. and america. >> over here. >> hello. i just want to thank you for 1070. i know you have a recent press all the way to the supreme court. would you consider your championing of the immigration issue within the gop and other governors? who are facing the same situation arizona faces? >> each state we believe certainly in the new federalism where our state has all the rights that we're all doing it together, certainly what america is facing and i had some many governors not only close to the western area of america but throughout that have been very supportive and we reach out and support them and i am sure if we get sins sins that it will be a national movement. i am really looking forward to this next election and it will count on a lot of people and if we see an exceptional election year in

the federals reacted quite well to the surprise. you know federal patrol went out, encountered the confederates, and that slight warning was enough to allow for the long roll to sound and the call of alarm to get all federal divisions up, dressed and prepared for what the heck was going on out there. next map. technology. you love it, don't you? here we go. stop it. here's the fly in the buttermilk, the confederate attack plan. remember that map of the region i showed you? what the confederates were using that showed corinth twice as far east to west than it was north to south from pittsburg landing? therefore, the confederate army maneuvering to a point of assembly would be moving generally from west to east, correct? more than north to south. if you have that impression and that is your impression of the world, that is the impression upon which you are basing your judgments. right? terrain governs the formation and direction of battle. that's an inherent military probability. terrain governs the formation and direction of battle.

jon: jason, a former federal prosecutor expressing her doubts or a least doubt as federal prosecutorht have in this case. what about the statute of limitations? if it is five years, isn't it case closed? >> definitely a real problem and it may be case closed but in this particular case you're talking about a multibillion-dollar industry in the nfl. really part of the fabric of america these days. and i think the prosecutor will have to give a good, hard, look, ultimately the statute of limitations might have expired. but i think the key here is to send a message that the prosecutors, nfl, we as a society will not tolerate anything that is going to infringe upon the sanctity of the sport. >> agreed except that whether you're a millionaire or pauper doesn't matter the statute of limitations is there for a purpose. doesn't matter what you have or what you don't have. if the statute of limitations has run, that's it. case over. as much, even all the evidence in the world i couldn't bring it. >> there is one little wrinkle there. that is, if this indeed happened and there was a conspiracy

the second condition is the federal trade commission has objected to marc's lawsuit. the federal trade commission governs the space, they are able to enforce the consent decree, they have with several of these large internet companies through their statutory authority so they do that but i also anticipate we should have some privacy legislation, that we actually should have a morrow bus framework so that these complicated privacy policies, and they're complicated, could be put under a system of some sort of framework where you have a federal government feel of a praovt for practices that are consistent with user expectation. >> you started shaking your head when marc said 90% approve. >> i think markham is making the stuff up. let me try to answer some of the points he made. first of all, this is hardly my view with respect to the concerns about the change in google's privacy policy. you had 36 state attorneys general objecting. i don't think they're in europe by the way. i think they're in states in the u.s. you had congressional leaders in the democratic and republi