and it'sroven overime, ihink. if y look at sateite imag you can e the bodaries ofhe resertion just bause theush rest mes it and out. and yes ago, t areas l arounds were wip out by mber bars, st clear-cutti, wiping iout. - apanoh pecwan". thateans "fls repeatly". it's aescripti of everhing thas going wiin the eironment aund us, the tural enronment. the lifeood ofhe fores the riv we haveere. evything rolves arnd this dy of water. the d thing that it fls in frothe nort ofof the afields, ich picks up lot of cumulati ofifferent types ochemical diffent typeof runof bo naturalnd manma. the nefits othis fort thaton't getecognize this water, thihydrolog isleaned bthe fore. thesbenefitspread to all the unties aund us cause ofhe riverystems. the cleawar that ty enjoy is a rest of thiforest he, these complete intact elder communities. (waves lapping) (singing in hawaiian) - is is theastern int of theig islanof hawai so wcome herfor our sunriscelebratns. anto honorhe creatn. but thisould all consided part religio ceremons ofhe

he saithat tor's geing big.and i id, wellyou kn ge.. that'what tor do, u kn ow says, ihink he' too gere. i id, wellhe's n sensitive. can't goutside,ou k no and says, "ll, do y got perwork r th at ani did. en he cos back a he says"well u're gon have to give mbo aw ,"you kn, "to a tor farm d i said"he wot never st. u put hiin wi other g ors, ey're gog to eatim becae he is ak er. if you p him in e sun, he's gon roll ov and d ." so iasn't a le brker, but said, "youe not tang my gar. yoll have shoot mto o."i meanit's jus gonnbe that mp le. - myrticle w the fir one at came t on theator t i guesit's t too suri sing th it wentll over e pl acit jusblew up,ou k no cial med, the wathat works n, it's ita nt. - [jes] i wa surprid it wen as fars it didell you uth. but th came from all over to put their two cents in. - at four o'clock in the morning first call i get is, "good day, tampa b ay." says, "ry i'in your rd.can you ing rambou t?" ary laughs] i'like, what? - [firstemale ne anchor]many ous have ts we love. d we wou do anytng inhe worldo keep them. - was a mia frenz it was people en zy. - eco

ihink, i am not sure if there is a dference. i think that by take up residence you are referring to the inrptation judge coloradans -- judge collins floated in his dissent. encouraging somebody to reside might mean take up residence for the first time, not consider unlawful ridce. i don't think tt rks because the description of the mens rea saying knowing the person is coming to our remaining residing in the united states is or will be unlawful. i think that suggest congress understood you can violate the statute by encouraging someone to consider -- continue residence that is already unlawful. >> my second question is about the effect of the enhancement. so, the jury has defined the elents of the enhancement. >> correct. thinking about this as an overbreah challenge, obviously, the substance of the dissent itself could, standing alone in a situation where the penaltornhancement was not applicable, let'just posit that may that violates the first amendment and fails in an overbreadth challenge. you say the i no evidence for someb

of things, but i will start by asking about nsa's new posture when it comes to cybersecurity which ihink is interesting. if you are online, there is a button to submit a question. if you're in the room, raise her hand we will give you a card. we do filter the questions. if you are doing a card -- not that i couldver read -- but if i can't read your questionit is your fault. >> thanks for hosting us here. appreciate it. came straight out of college, been a lifer. that's not unusual for nsa. the mission is sctacular. the ability to just work with really smart people and work on hard, meaningful problems is great. >> did you see an uptick in recruitment with the downturn in the tech sector? dir. joyce: we have gotten some uptick. what i would say is we have gotten people at an experience level we don't often see. we have seen midcareer people wanting stability, but also the opportunity to come into the intel community. >> one of the things i wanted to touch on i the approach to cybersecurity. nsa stood for no such agency, what has changed? >> it is a recognition that we have intelligence ca

general prelogar: ihink i might be anticipating your next question but i just want to clarify that iouldn't call it a substantial st test, because we do have a concern with the court articulating some new verbal formulation if th cls into question the way that the commission and the lower courts have been applying hardison for the past 46 years. we think that those results are consistentitthe facts of hardison and the court's observation there att's substantial costs across the line so i don't want to resist that at all. that is common ground. bui have concern with the court overruling hardison or at least suggesting that there is a -- a brand new standd with all of the details having to be filled in anew becausee ink that already that case law is drawing the rit nes. justice gorsuch: and i think you are anticipating my next question, as you usually do. but substantial cost tt at least it seems to me in some abstract level is common ground, fair? n.relogar: yes, i would concede it at the abstract level. justice gorsuch: and then the estion becomes do we need to in this case get into

ihink this is an area of the law wementators and the court have long acknowledged that different words hav overlapping meanings that legislatures and courts used to capture these concepts of solicitation and aiding and abetti. about a dozench of the among those.ce and encourage are i not think the fact that ngress took solicit in 1952 suggests it will change the meaning of these words. it was a adopting a shorthand th court had five years earlier in the holden case given to the predecessor statute. when other words were in their thshorthand was encouraging or inducing. >> you agr that the intent requiren of that is traditionally associated with aiding and abetting and solicitation should be part of the statute? once we do. -- >> we do. we jusdoothing that is rewriting. when you look at the rosemont traditional aidi a abetting statute it does not have explicit intent requemts. this court found it implicit in words like induce. we are sayinthsame comes with those certain words. >> i think you have a problem with jury instructions. do you want us to re-man andet the ninth circuit sort tha

ihink these are impossible value judgments. >> ok. >> i was wondering if you know about the cost of adopting alternate technologies the estimate of the cos caused by producing more ion batteries from increased mining activity as well as disposing batteries. >> don't look at me. >> i'm sure the costs exist but i don't have them off the top of my head. >> i want to thank glenn brian, noah and coral. i want to be credited for getting your names right at least once. thank you for coming. and thank the people online from watching. and i think this is a conversation we will be continuing next time i promise i will have a lawyer on the panel. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> massachusetts senator ed markey discussed, bitcoin mining in the u.s. saying carbon monoxide emissions are equivalent to the yearly emissions from 7.5 gas powered cars. he chairs the senate environment subcommittee, which is considering legislation to prov

. >> ihink we have your testimony where two citizens said their visas were expiring and they would have left but mr. hansen said you can stay because i will make you a citizen. >> right. but you would have to write in an intent. we have to take the words and define the words encourage or inducing to mean aiding or abti or soliciting. what we do withur point where we said, if we are going to define a statute, we should not define it to put in words that congress took out. congress previsl to this statute hathwords aiding and abetting and sicing. and it took them out. now, we are putting back in what congress took ou >> i disagree justice sotomayor. i think this is an ar of the law were commentators and the court have long acknowlge that different words have overlappin meanings th legislatures and courts used to capture these conptof solicitation and aiding and abetting. oua dozen of each of the issues, induce and encourage are among those. i do not think the fact that congress took out solicit in 1952 suggests it will change the meaning of these words. it was a adopting shorthand this co

. >> finally vacate and re- demand that the third circuit and said to be clear ihink the courts of appeals are. the more informals that mix assigned trifling but so why wouldn't it makete sense to vacate, remand and s be clear this is alling but to be clear to minimus something trifling cost, any costs unlesss you were led astra that. and we want you to apply it to the celestial gs correct understanding which requires you tos whether there is substantial burden, potential hardship. >> at that pointhe statutory language undue hardship. justice barrett always i recognizet as an approach that's open to courts. i think if you lk at the third nothing in there to indicate the court's dec was driven by this idea that anything over a ifle with too much. instead the court carefully pahe court in the case. easy coworker burden people quitting, the union grievance files ultimately the third circuitse's i acknowledge this arification. >> on the ask you one other question. guess one thing that concerns you about your prose approach is a just discourse which is said and basicallyo one is defending this.

. >> ihink it would not be, because while it would satisfy steps one and three of the handler sam -- they handler sam legal framework that is meant to be the interpretive model for the statute. you also have -- need to have a general awareness that you are assist in overall illegal or rtous -- torteous activity. if i have a farm and i he gate with my next-door neighbor's pastu a i can't open the padcknd i goo u my neighbor on the others, i theyjuice thomas, i am traineopen this gate, but i can't gethe padlock open do you ha any bolt cutters that can do this? and you say yes, i do, and i will use a bolt cutters to cut the bow for you. and i ste my neighbors a sheet -- you know that y pvided substantial assistance in helping me get onto the property buyou are not culpable in our unrsnding of aiding and abetting or under step two of the doctrine because you are not generally aware of your role as a legal or tortiou -- >> i think you misunderstood. my friend is a burglar, murderer, and mugger. he has business toonct and i loan him a gun. that is different from opening a gate. you can ope

three acted knowledge, ihink they also agree, the particularity in the context in which there is a remote general -- of services. if we disagree it -- it is on how one calculates or characterizes substantially al it. e vernment says that there has to be a substantial causal link. between the assistance provided and the acts that occurred. and, in principle i don' disagree with -- i don't agree with that. >> can i reserve judgment? >> you are saying very little and then -- that's ok i'll let justice jackson overshot. >> i'm not sure. >> good morning. i had thought that knowledge and substantial assistance were two diert elements, two different criteria. am i right? is that the case or no? let me. i can see how it's confusing. yourwh is alleged to be your culpable conduct has to have in ctubstantially assisted the active international terrorism. >> independent of your knowledge. >> yes but the statute goes further and sa tt you have to knowingly provide that assistance, which we think must mean that you must know that you are providing assistance and no that the assistance you are pridg is

bound to people a thinner, to make people a bit thinner, isn-i— to make people a bit thinner, isn-i-ihinkua— though. we're right to bring it up. kkua iohn— though. we're right to bring it up. akua john cleese looks iemusei:— up. akua john cleese looks iemusei:-i- up. akua john cleese looks- bemused,-?-dare bemused, bemused? how dare he hemusei—pasi- bemused, bemused? how dare he bemused—past an- bemused, bemused? how dare he bemused past an an bemused as he walks past an an ikiinoiion— bemused as he walks past an an extinction rebellion protest ouisiie— extinction rebellion protest ouisiie a— extinction rebellion protest outside a government building. he outside a government building. he iiin-i— outside a government building. he iiin-i .— outside a government building. he iiin-i. he— outside a government building. he didn't. he looked completely noanussei— he didn't. he looked completely noanussei. he— he didn't. he looked completely nonplussed. he looked . he looked nonplussed. he looked. he looked eager— nonplussed. he looked. he looked eapev io— nonplussed. he looked. he looked eapev i