one that was brought up in the hearing, but two that were sort of not clear from the hearing. first that was brought up in the hearing i asked him would he recuse himself if the ethics office of the justice said he should, and he said he would make his own decision. that was clear at the hearing. the other two i thought were much less clear. the first involves the issuance of the report. he said he's for transparency. that's not good enough, especially with someone like donald trump who has been -- has treated the justice department almost as if it's it's his own personal fiefdom. he seems to believe the justice department should protect him and pursue his enemies. i asked would he unequivocally state that he would not interfere in the mueller investigation in any way. sorry. i'm getting the transparency. okay, let me go back. first is on transparency. and i asked him would he issue the full mueller report with only redactions if intelligence agencies said it would compromise sources? to simply say he's for transparency doesn't say much. you have to make, in my judgment, to me

we're hearing it on consent. if you'd like to pull it and hear it, i think we'd have to do that -- pull it here. >> far vote. >> yeah. so do you want to hear it as -- would you like the hear the staff report and any public comment on that item? >> yes, i do. >> ok. so, we would need to rescind that previous vote. >> right. >> move to rescind the previous vote approving item six. >> and approving item seven? >> sure. >> ok. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to rescind the vote, the previous vote to approve item six on consent, pulling it off of consent and approving item seven under your consent calendar. on that motion -- [roll call] so moved, commissioners. >> and then take item six up as the first item in the regular calendar. >> very good. commissioners, that places us under commission matter. adoption of draft minutes for december 13 and december 20 of 2018. i did have one speaker card. >> are you commenting on the minutes? all right. >> i'm commenting on the minute

we will hear from the appellant. mr murphy, you have three minutes. >> i am just getting my papers in order here. >> so i guess if we look at the map, if i can have the overhead. a couple of observations here. if you were to put the centre of this map somewhere, that is the least number of notifications that you would send out. if that were the little bit more over here, he would be notifying people in this neighborhood, and if you were further back, you be notifying people back here in the lower neighborhood kicked the other thing that i would note, just on the naming, is that it is a very small, but this laneway has a street sign on it. it actually has a name. it is posted at both ends. so it is how people describe that laneway. and perhaps it should have been on the notification that it was the lane. let me go back to some of the items in the brief from at&t. they pointed out, or they were attempting to point out that i was not being -- that i was attacking them. i just want to go through some of their arguments s

i didn't hear it before.ould say, again, it strains credulity -- that's a big word for this early in the morning -- but it does strain credibility, his credibility in saying i haven't heard it. because it's obviously the talk of cable news now. >> what do you want the president to say? in your dream sequence of all of us waking up and being much more conscious of these things, what should the president of the united states say? >> the obvious which is to condemn it. again, whether it's racism, sexism, all the different isms out there, the need to be called as they come along and people need to condemn them, period. i think that's part of what's necessary to holding our society together given the disparate views people have and given the many different backgrounds, race and walks of life people come from in making the american family. that applies to the press, members of congress, folks in media. but, again, my bigger point on this morning is we've got to be consistent in doing it. you can't give some folks a

we are expecting to hear from roger stone after the hearing. he is expected to speak outside the courthouse to reporters. over the weekend in one of these many interviews that roger stone gave he was asked specifically about the pardon question and said he has had absolutely no conversations with the president about that. >> there is that until it changes, of course. there is a lot that will be happening in this courtroom. we will have updates as it plays out. i really appreciate it. joining me is shan wu, former federal prosecutor. jennifer rogers is here. and evan perez, cnn senior justice correspondent. it's great to see you guys. jennifer, being arraigned, what are you looking for? what are you looking to come out of court today? what do you want to know? >> not much because it is a pretty technical proceeding. he is going to plead guilty and charges will be read to him. i will look for what is coming next. they will set a discovery schedule and motion schedule. the judge is not interested in how many fbi agents came to the house, whether t

everybody hear me? good evening. my name is paula peters, and i've lived at 1945 clay street since 2005. i became aware of the mandatory seismic retrofit work that needed to be done to my building in october 2017. i reached out to my landlady, the owner's sister, for information about it via phone calls, certified letters, and memos on my rent checks that she received throughout the year. so date, she has yet to get back to me on it, so i am here. going forward, i will refer to them as my landlords. the work permit became approved on october 18, 2018, and a job card has already been issued. i viewed the plans at d.b.i. on october 22 and saw that they would be doing work to my unit on the interior walls, shearing and putting straps into my ceiling. after taking detailed notes, i passed them by an architect who is familiar with my place and eventually saw the plans. i also hired a private building inspector. both of them came to the conclusion that i would have to be moved out of my small unit for these invasive repair

we'll hear from the d.r. requester. >> good evening, commissioners. since i was here last time, unfortunately we didn't come to any result. what happened we met once briefly for 45 minutes with architect and there was the privacy issue. the rest was not even open. i would like to recap what's bugging us or why we have a problem with the project. the openness of the properties there's seven properties on judson avenue and all have the same footprint which basically means from the back side you have the same openness and feeling. with this proposed project how the building is proposed, we're literally being enclosed. there is a study on the plan and the shadow study is misleading because it just shows the noon light which in reality around will be 3:00 p.m. will be in the shadow of the building which means with our foot print, bedroom and living spaces down below are not getting sunlight. we like to sit on the bench as well a lot of and so basically where i'm going with this is i would like to see changed to the project on this particular issue to satis

we're going to hear more about it. i'll say it again, is someone going to be charged on account of that statement? i don't know. maybe not. but it's still problematic. >> hold that thought. i want to bring in pete williams. he's outside the washington, d.c. courthouse where roger stone was just arraigned and was in that courtroom watching these proceedings unfold. pete, what did you see? >> reporter: what i saw was a typical arraignment. very brief. an unusual feature of this one was about half time no one said anything while roger stone signed a series of release forms agreeing to abide by the conditions of bail and was sworn that he would agree to the conditions of bail. his lawyer entered the plea. the same conditions of release would apply as were imposed by the judge in florida last week when he was arrested. that was the request made by the government, by a representative of the u.s. attorney here, who is handling this case along with the special counsel, robert mueller's office. those same conditions will apply.

>> can you hear me then? under the charter, explicitly the historic preservation commission has authority to review and comment upon the environmental documents. so i think that you would be exceeding the authority under the charter to take an affirmative vote. i think that you could perhaps find ways to do more than what you're doing and do different processes. but to vote on the adequacy of a draft. e.i.r. is too much. okay? >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> thank you president hyland for saying what you did. it begs the question as to whether or not you need to start raising the issue as to whether or not your role is adequate to what's at stake. and i think that is a difficult one when it comes to the interpretation of the charter but that is one which i think that is pressing given that we all jointly agree that the tools that we have together aren't quite enough for us to responsibly -- or for each of us and each group is trying to do. and i think that i would definitely join you to ask as to whether

okay. >> let's hear it. >> so let's hear what -- >> we will hear from the permit holder. we have mr. mack or mr. law. agents for the permit holder. >> good evening, president fung, members of the board. a lot has happened since we last met. in fact, we're not going to submit a revised plan set. we're going to go with the original plan set and in discussions between our attorneys, our attorney and ms. peters attorney, he advised us that he was going to advise her to withdraw the appeal of the permit and we will comply with the law and give her the proper 60-day notice and pay her expenses to move. temporarily move. >> if she needs a little more time, then we're definitely open to that. >> and as you heard -- sorry to interrupt, that the previous hearing which is very similar, you expect your work to exceed 90 days? >> no, we do not. >> just to clarify, your intention is to offer her to relocate and to pay expenses for the relocation during the time of the work happening so that you can proceed with the original -- >> correct. yes. >> thank you. >> and to follow on that, as

i hear from mr. buck that okay, we've got to stay away from this bus shelter, we've got to stay away from this -- this pole. but what i'm -- and what i'm also hearing is we're winging it, okay? so what i would like to hear, and i'd be -- i would absolutely be in support of -- it's a backwards thing that we do here, up holding the appeal based on the per mish issuance on the following conditions. what i would like to see is a plan how these trees responsibly are going to be removed, the timing of how these trees are going to be responsibly removed and a supplemental plan that includes some of the things that you just addressed very constructively and that would probably resonate tremdendousl with the appellant. my question is why aren't we hearing that creativity as part of a general plan so this appellant has to come in here and challenge you? >> -- if we can move with some kind of speed because i could be disappointed to have a process that is two years long, and in the meantime, we have an accident

we will do our best to keep this hearing on time. we have one last item after this hearing. i may have to ask our presenters to wrap up. supervisor vallie brown is a sponsor of this hearing. i want to hand the floor to the sponsor. supervisor brown. >> supervisor brown: thank you chair kim. i want to thank everyone for being here today and joining me on this board for an important hearing concerning muny. >> supervisor kim: please take your conversations outside. this will be appreciated. >> supervisor brown: i like to thank my staff. let me open by saying that i'm a big believer in public transit. as the number people crowding this planet continues to grow in a larger and larger percentage of those people choose to make their homes in cities including this one and as we face the reality of climate change it seems that san francisco best future is one where all san francisco is not only use public transportation but they have to be able to depend on it. it's not about being better than the rest. in my opinion, public trust is critical to making this happen. there's relations

we are hearing that to date. to refresh everyone charge a memory, and supervisor peskin is joining us today, it was discovered that through the home s.f. project packet highlighted an issue with home s.f. approval processes where some of the projects would potentially have to go through both the section 328 home s.f. project authorization, as well as an additional conditional use authorization. a project could potentially be appealed to the board of supervisors as well as the broke -- board of permit appeals. the idea was originally, but was not worded appropriately was to have all projects go through section 328, a more streamlined process. that was a major change that brought about this legislation. there were other changes that also removed a specific date around the technical advisory committee and when we would reevaluate the different income levels and the tears of the project, and instead of stating a particular date that it would be pegged to, we are just changing it so the reevaluation would occur after

and we will hear from the appellant first. i understand that she will be -- you can approach the microphone. ms. chu. i understand that you are going to present in english, but we have a korean interpreter present in the event that you don't understand some of the responses, is that correct? >> yes. correct. >> you will be given the normal amount of time, seven minutes. >> good evening, everyone. my name is ok chu. i currently own and decided directly behind the property 521 los palmos drive in question. that was recently granted a permit to do construction. i am suffering from asthma and my doctor indicated this could worsen my medical condition. the construction would also cause havoc in the lives of my family who sleeps during the day and works during the night. further more, my family including many of our neighbors have been living in this neighborhood for many decades. tirelessly promoting preservation of the character of our neighborhood as much as possible. the city and county of san francisco building and planning div

it's not just the people who are protesting and saying they're frustrated we hear that and we're hearing that from opposition parties as well people seem to be fed up not just on the ground again these are two people with a pattern which we have all animate but they both are right most of the people who are protesting on the streets are you they have not known any other president any other form of government said the government of machine but we've seen people who are political will form a political out of step with step back and say this is not how we want the government the country to be governed whether it's from within the government or the national coalition we have some parties like the popular congress party which is part of the government coalition thing what is happening on the streets is not fair the. people who work this thing and being met with live i mean. is not fair and they're demanding accountability and people are being arrested and that freedom of speech is not allowed it's not something that they want to see in the government going forward of course some of them are s

>> seeing and hearing none. closed.ring it back to the commissioner for one last. >> we are on case number 9. 920 north point street. certificate of appropriateness. >> i need the request to be recused for this item. >> can i have a motion for that. >> you be recused for this one. >> second. [roll call] >> so moved, that motion passes 7-0. commissioner wolf, you are here by recused. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning staff. before you is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for alterations to 920 north point street, located on the north side of north point street between polk and lar kikin stre. the proposed scope of work consists of the enkind replacement of the character defining giradell square. the rooftop sign was initially constructed in 1915 and restored in 1964. the 19-foot tall painted sheet metal sign would be replaced with a new metal sign matching the dimensions, appearance and alum enation of the existing sign. the new sign will be installed on the existing steel. staff finds the work will

at the initial protest hearing, and at the november and december hearings, these are arguments the board has heard and a multitude of times before, and other similar cases. this is not an extraordinary case. there is no manifest and justice present. we respectfully ask this board deny the rehearing request. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you for your time. >> i have a question. in the last hearing, we spoke at length in regards to whether or not the pole is a replacement pole, or whether it is a new poll. but the appellant pulled out a document that indicates if a pole is taller, it has to be smaller in stature or in size then that would constitute as a replacement. is it saying if you're pole is taller, does it mean it is no longer a replacement? >> the definition about replacement under article 25 is mobility or any provider -- >> i'm sorry. can the appellant but that document on the overhead again, please. >> while he is searching, at length, we did speak about it quite a bit, in the bar for a rehearing is quite high. if there is the information that indicates the ponies to

welcome to this hearing. the federal trade commission bureau, competition and department of justice antitrust division, the agencies that help consumers by protecting the free market. there is a broad scope of issues to cover in this hearing, it comes to a vital time for many issues important to the american public. americans are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. one way to address those cost is to ensure the robust competition in the pharmaceuticals market. ranking member and i introduced legislation to do just that. food and drug administration restricts the distribution of certain pharmaceuticals or public safety reasons. unfortunately, these restricted distribution programs known as risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, processes can be abused. they can be used as a pretext for branded manufacturers to deny generic manufacturers access to needed samples for testing, thereby delaying generic entry into the market. .. can voluntarily restrict distribution through contracts with distr

what are you hearing? >> a few minutes ago i was told that roger stone hadn't yet entered the courtroom, but mueller's lawyers and other prosecutors were already in the courtroom milling around, getting ready for what we would expect to be a fairly brief process. i say brief because arraignment is simply a time for a defendant to be served with the charges against him and to enter a plea of not guilty. but this one could be a little bit longer if, for instance, there is some sort of a renewed detention motion or as maya says a gag order. >> what does that mean? >> at this point stone has been released on a signature bond, a recognizance bond. he won't remain in custody pending trial. to keep someone in custody, the government has to prove they're a flight risk or a danger to the community. i don't think that we'll see a motion like that taking place today. but the government could renew a request to detain stone if at some point the facts change. >> final thoughts to you as we get ready for this court hear

but his confirmation hearing will start tomorrow. and tonight, next here on this show, we are about to hear from a former, very senior justice department official, who helped oversee the russia investigation at its earliest stages, at a time when the earliest stages of that investigation are the subject of renewed national fascination and horror. he's going to be with us here in studio next. stay with us. we'll be right back. >>> senator saxbe the question being exploited is whether mr. jaw ja jaworski -- the answer is an unqualified yes. >> what would you do if the new attorney general tried to interfere in any way with your pursuit of the investigation. >> i'd march him down to this congressional committee if he and i couldn't work it out among ourselves. e and i couldn't work it out among ourselves. i'm a fighter. always have been. when i found out i had age-related macular degeneration, amd, i wanted to fight back. my doctor and i came up with a plan. it includes preservision. only preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient form

>> will be a rather lively hearing tomorrow. jessica, thanks. s shimon, jim, thanks to you guys as well. let's go to capitol hill for more on possible subpoenas for the president's interpreter and others. i want to go to our congressional correspondent, manu raju. house intelligence and foreign affairs committees are discussing whether to subpoena the president's interpreters, records, possibly even the former secretary of state rex tillerson. what's the latest? >> reporter: yeah, i just actually spoke with the house foreign affairs committee chairman eliot engel who told me no decisions have been made about a subpoena. they're still trying to get their committees in order but they're trying to figure out the best way to get information about the trump/putin meetings. he wants to have hearings about the trump/putin relationship and raising serious questions about why those records of those meetings are not available and the president has apparently gone to lengths to conceal details of that meeting, of those meetings. now, wolf, i also had a cha

without objection, this hearing has been heared ad and is now filed.tem read] . >> president yee: okay. thank you. the purpose -- i want to say that the purpose of this hearing is to hear testimony to form a city and county special tax district and improvement area and a future annexation area in the central soma area. in addition to executing the implementation program as adopted by the central soma area plans pursuant to the board of supervisors resolution of intention adopted on november 13, 2018. details of the covered area are in the file. without objection, the public testimony will be as follows. we will first hear from the district supervisor. we will then hear from all speakers in support of -- of the special tax district, giving two minutes apiece, and lastly, we will hear from all speakers in oppositions to the special tax district. okay. seeing no objection, we will proceed as described, and this hearing is now open. supervisor haney, would you like to provide any comments? >> supervisor haney: yes, thank you, president yee. first of all, t

the state agency knows that we're having this hearing today, and knows that we will hear it on the 29th. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for that. let me just say a couple of other things. i believe, if my memory serves me correctly, and if i'm not, shut me up. that the city of san francisco gave a grant to the museum of ice cream business attraction grant i believe came out of the office of economic and workforce development to help get the business off the ground. that may or may not be relevant to the p.c.n., but it does say there's a relationship between the city and this business, which -- and i'm not pointing fingers at you, but there are other people involved in the museum. there was a little kerfuffle in the beginning, with plastic items entering the landfill between the business and my staff. i believe -- not you, but there's another person involved who knows my office well, miss berg, and there's been no outreach. i'm happy to meet with you in the intervening five days, is to send out a resolution recommending denial. if we can get something done between now and tuesday, keep

this concludes today's hearing. -- weal d mons, have to get to the floor to vote. this concludes today's hearing. thank you to the people in the audience for being here. -- questionsf the for the witnesses or additional materials, the hearing is adjourned. >> that's ongoing to say about that. i can't comment on that. we will wait and see until the 18th and what happens in that transaction. reviewede matter is and there is a due process for that and it will move on. [indiscernible] >> the administration continues to review the underlying legislation that i shared the sentiments. division as well as the administration as i mentioned here publicly. >> [indiscernible] >> we have to take a look. >> [indiscernible] >> no updates. we will continue to speak to our friends abroad. we had a very productive meeting . optimistic we will have an agreement that will be signed in the first quarter of 2019. >> these bands washington newsal live every day with and policy issues that impact you. this morning, top senate storylines of

you saw chairman graham try to kick off the hearing by a little bit hijacking the hearing and instead attacking someone else. it wasn't a witness against the nominee at this point. it was the fbi. and as cynthia and neal both point out, it was a very cynical move that along with the president's delegitimatezation of the institution, it will have long term ramifications and impacts on this country. what you saw was a sin scall at a bit -- a cynical and strategic way to redirect attention. >> they're about to gavel back in. >> the hearing will come to order. and i recognize senator whitehouse. thank you, mr. barr. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is my first chance at a committee hearing to congratulate you on taking the gavel here. we worked well together when you were chairman of the crime and terrorism subcommittee and i hope that that will continue here. mr. barr, welcome. did you make it a condition of taking this job that rod rosenstein had to go? just to be clear so we're not bandying words here, did you request or signal or otherwise communicate in any way that you wanted rod ro

there is the hearing room.es to watchers of hearings and before any delay, i want to get to correspondent garrett haake up on the hill. garrett, the committee makeup will look different to folks who turned in for the last set of hearings. can you walk us through the new faces that we'll be seeing up on the panel? >> sure. starting from the top, you'll have a new chairman, lindsey graham of south carolina will take over for chuck grassley of iowa. chuck grassley is now on the chairman of the finance committee. that means lindsey graham who showed a lot of people a different side of himself politically during the kavanaugh hearings, will be chairing this panel. both parties had concerns about the makeup of this party after the midterm elections. democrats wanted to make sure they could keep their two new members on here, booker and harris. they decided to add two women to the panel, joni ernst of iowa and the new senator, marsha blackburn, of tennessee, will be the first two republican women on the judiciary comm

thank you for calling this hearing. people can work on solutions from riders planning different routes or days differently. only through the transparency and communicate can we begin to trust muni and get where we need to go. thank you. >> supervisor brown: anyone have questions for ms. carder? i want to give time for public comment. i know that's really important. we have lot of transit operators here. could you line up for public comment please? >> supervisor kim: at this time we are opening for public comment. >> i'm a cable operator. i been with muni for about 18 or 19 years. to be honest with you if i was looking for job today, i wouldn't come to muni. one thing it's dangerous. the pay is not good and the biggest thing is there's no support. you call the police, they don't show up if somebody is hurt. if there's a fight, they. you to -- expect you to intervene. aside from coming to drive the bus, it's stressful dealing with it. sometimes operators have to take off. just one more thing. this is question i have. do y

we expect to hear from the president any moment. he has an event right now in the oval office. there likely repeating last night's prime time message, a wall, he said necessary in the president's view to prevent bloodshed. >> over the years thousands of americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country and thousands more lives will be lost if we don't act right now. this is a humanitarian crisis. a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul. >> democrats say there's a problem at the border, but not a crisis. they blame the president for the shutdown and they accuse him of manufacturing this crisis, choosing the wall over federal workers. >> my message to president trump and my republican colleagues in congress is simple. our federal workers just want to do their job. it's time that you do yours. >> take your path forward. take yes for an answer. instead, he has chosen a wall over workers. >> that's the democrats. later this hour the president heads up to capitol hill to visit with senate republicans and to be patient and hold firm. this afternoon

comment provided today, continuing the hearing open, so you can continue the hearing at a later date. >> thank you. >> president cohen: thank you. so supervisor fewer has made a motion to continue. i need a second. seconded by supervisor yee. thank you very much, so this item will be continued. first, before we do that, take that action, we'll hear public comment. any member of the public that would like to come and comment on this item, please come. you'll have two minutes. come on up. all right, seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. so, madam clerk, i believe there's been a motion to continue this item. could you tell us when the meeting will -- >> clerk: the date was the january 29. >> president cohen: thank you. >> clerk: madam president, can we put a 3:00 p.m. special order on that? >> president cohen: yes, and looks like we can take this without objection. all right, thank you. madam clerk, what's next? >> clerk: items 46 through 47. so this is the board of supervisors sitting as a wheat of the whole pursuant to a motion made during the board of supervisors meeting

this is our final hearing of the year. i wasn't able to give you an update on the pending mill site contracts but i wanted to let you know and reassure you that all contracts proposed for the cycle were proposed for the board of supervisors. they have all been recorded with the assessor's office. and that happened at the board of supervisors hearing in mid november. i also wanted to make you aware there are several pending landmark designations at the board of supervisors, and given that the committees will not have adjourned for the remainder of the year, these items will likely be picked up in early 2019. one is the paper doll in the north beach neighborhood. it needs a board introduction. second is 22 beaver street which has been introduced but needs a committee date for the land use committee. third is the former welsh presbyterian church in the mission. that needs a board introduction. and the diamond heights safety structure, which is at the board , however, to give you a quick update, the arts commission on public w

thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. my purpose is to describe the policies that are driving a historic long-term surge of budget deficits. i will begin by asserting the few americans fully apprehend the fiscal avalanche that has begun. the budget deficit is on pace to surpass $1 trillion as soon as next year on its way to $2 trillion in one decade if current policies continue. and that is the rosy scenario, because if interest rates merely rise back to 1990's levels, the projected deficit is $3 trillion in ten years according to data from the congressional budget office. the long-term picture is worse. the cbo projects $84 trillion combined budget deficit over the next 30 years, and that assumes all tax cuts expire. it would leave national debt at 150% of gdp and that assumes peace, prosperity and low interest rates. that is the rosy scenario. so what is driving the red ink? we can start with $250 billion of annual tax cuts and the 150 -- $150 billion cost of higher discretionary spending caps according to cbo those --

we'll hear more details from roger stone. at the same time right now just a short distance from here at roger stone's house, the fbi is still there with agents who are going through his home with a search warrant looking for evidence. one of the things they did is they put tents out so helicopters above cannot peer down and zoom in on what they're actually doing. the neighborhood is closed off. but at this point i think the headline is roger stone taken into custody this morning. now we'll be posting a bond from the federal court making his way out here and responding to what has happened in these last six, seven hours. >> all the. kerry, thank you. cynthia, roger stone, very public about his conversations with wikileaks and then his public denials of collusion. how much of this did he bring on himself? >> he brought a lot on himself. it's hard for me to believe anybody who thinks -- who has lawyer thinks it's a good idea to -- when you know full well you had all these conversations. because we have proof of it now in the ind

can you hear me now? can you hear me now ? okay i will try to talk into the microphone. i want to say thank you, andy for continuing to highlight what is going on there. and he is continuously updating his page. yes, i completely agree. i guess what i sort of wanted to talk about today, actually i just made this argument in an essay that will be out and about that's coming out karen bring bergs security. we need to sort of call up a style reckoning about the standard of guantanamo bay and to keep them there, the reason we have 40 men there is because of the standard of the dc courts in the dc circuit has allowed to exist and created. and what the obama administration fought hard to implement. one reason why we need that is because we know so much more now about who the men were in guantanamo bay who the government was constantly saying were too dangerous to release and opposed such a serious threat to security to do so. many have been released, and you know their stories. you know the story of mohammed moussaoui, and that is a lawyer in the audience today who gave a pres

that's wonderful to hear. jake sherman, what was the takeaway from lawmakers who were in this hearing and what they will do with this information? >> it seems like an easy menu of things from which congress could choose to hold a whole host of other hearings. not only with the intel chiefs, but now you could broaden it out to cybersecurity. you could broaden it out to a whole host of other agencies who have the ability to create policy and to implement policy on these fronts. it's important, it's a big moment, a big hearing, but now it kind of gives all other members of congress who hold hearings for the rest of the year information from which to pivot and hold more hearings. so it's both importantsubstanti. >> let's listen to ron wyden, senator wyden asking dni coates about that trump/putin meeting and why it seems that there's not more information about what was discussed between donald trump and vladimir putin. let's listen. >> according to press reports, donald trump met privately with vladimir putin and n

i didn't wantto hear it.n't want to hear all the things irving had gone through in s childhood, how that had affected his life, how his mother struggled to dot be ule she for him. i didn't care. i didn't want to hear it. at some point it broke through. and i would just say, think back on your own lifendhow negative experiences have impacted you, and maybe made you do something that you weren't -- that you didn't really think you were capable of doing. and how that impacts others. and just open up a little bit. >> dionne wilson, wein cer are thankful you took the time to be with us today and share with us yourstory. >> i really appreciate it, thank you. >> let's go foyou to a few of the stories these inmates have written and performed from inside san quentin. ♪ >> hello, la my name is azraal "big ass"fo . i grew up in southern california where drugsnd crime ruled the day. by the time i was 21, every one of my friends had been to prison already. t wasn't a placehere a kid could grow into a good man. i covered m

works -- but if you'd like to go first. >> chair peskin: i'd very like to hear mr. spitz. in that no less than 60 and no more than 90 days, what the department has to do is develop a cost estimate of the cost of revocation and number two, identify the responsible party. >> supervisor safai: and associated restoration. >> chair peskin: yes, costs and -- well, that's the costs. revocation and restoration is the costs, so if you have to remove the driveway, that's the cost, so same thing. so we're kind of replowing old ground here, which is that insofar as when this first came before earlier incarnation of this committee and went to the board and came back to this committee and went back to the full board, all of these issues were settled. what is really before this panel today is really a due process matter. so the department, which ultimately supported the legislation, which this part is not actually before us, was in support of the 60 to 90 days. the funny thing about this is this is mostly a theoretical conversation because as we both stipulated to, very few of the