joe duffy, dbi. the building permit as you know is replacement of 8-foot fence on the rear property line on the northeast and the west. so the permit was properly reviewed and issued by dbi. there is nothing wrong with that. i did hear, i was involved in this originally during the early stages of the appeal because the contractor had started the work. and when the permit got issued and then the permit got suspended. but the yard was completely wide open. i mean, it was unsafe condition. security-wise with the permit holders, they were keen to not have their property open for a period of until now from basically back in november. so we did let them finish the property line that would have been on the adjacent -- neighboring property. we let them finish that work. the only part that needs to be done is the back part that faces onto the appellant's property. and i agree with mr. sanchez f there is a tree -- if there is a tree protection plan, it's my understanding they're going to use the existing footi

>> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i. just to clarify in the public comment, they will need a window, and if there's an existing window and it's closer to the property line, we generally don't make them do anything that. but if there's one created, there's a little bit of confusion with that being brought up. with the other items that need cleaned up with the nick and the open's solid fire billet, and the bedroom issue may need to be addressed. the exit code requirement forr for single-family dwellings, we are typically concerned with egress and life safety, and i don't think that is an impact in this case because of the single-family dwelling, but again, i would like the architect to address all of the issues with d.b.i. if we're moving in that direction. thank you. >> inspector duffy, one question. if we were to condition it, what would you like to see conditions? i mean, to remove the nonoperative door, meet with ab 009. the property line be recorded, and normal drawings and survey points at the site, and also to addre

>> commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i.to clarify in the public comment, they will need a window, and if there's an existing window and it's closer to the property line, we generally don't make them do anything that. but if there's one created, there's a little bit of confusion with that being brought up. with the other items that need cleaned up with the nick and the open's solid fire billet, and the bedroom issue may need to be addressed. the exit code requirement forr for single-family dwellings, we are typically concerned with egress and life safety, and i don't think that is an impact in this case because of the single-family dwelling, but again, i would like the architect to address all of the issues with d.b.i. if we're moving in that direction. thank you. >> inspector duffy, one question. if we were to condition it, what would you like to see conditions? i mean, to remove the nonoperative door, meet with ab 009. the property line be recorded, and normal drawings and survey points at the site, and also to address any

american public to hear from witnesses like john bolton and mick mulvaney and duffy if it means that the white house calls joend hunter biden, maybe tries to call adam schiff? is that worthwhile? >> remains to be seen. i think that if that were to transpire, it would become quickly evidence that bolton and mulvaney and others were direct precipient witnesses to the gravamen of this charge against the president and that hunter biden and joe biden would be mere sideshows whose testimony would properly be stricken as neither relevant nor material in any regular proceeding. so if the republicans wanted to dress this up that way, i think that it would be a mistake on their part, but again, they're in the majority. if they wish to do that, they can do that. i just don't think it ends well for them to have clearly irrelevant witnesses dragged in for political purposes. >> as we speak even, new evidence is coming out as this happened a number of times now since the end of the house impeachment inquiry. this particular new evidence, new emails showing that the white house budget office laid the groundwork for freezing

mick mulvaney, john bolton, michael duffy, robert blair. for republicans, joe biden, hunter biden, adam schiff, and the anonymous whistleblower. you think any of that happens? yes or no? >> i would rather not go down that line make those decisions until after we hear from what the democrats say come over with the articles of impeachment, here the defense from the white house, and have them answer our questions. if the senators are going to submit questions in writing to the chief justice. then we will decide if any witnesses at all are needed, or we are ready at that time to say we have heard enough good we are ready to vote. if you start bringing in witnesses, bill, discussed delays getting to the important work of the american people. this could just drag on -- in my opinion, far too long. completely partisan project. >> bill: i have to run. what is your sense about how long this last? is it two weeks? 1.5 months? >> that is the way to look at it. two weeks to make the case. and then we will hold a vote. do we need to hear more information? or are we ready to

duffy and robert blair etc. but then the immediate toxicity where the other side says okay, that is fine, we went to see hunter biden, joeiden, adam schiff, ted cruz apparently called for reciprocity and i find it fascinating but hunter biden has nothing to do with this, what are you talking about? he is mentioned in the call. he was specifically mentioned in the call so we would like to call him and, against the context, everybody makes a mistake of these immediate one-liners. even in the biden alleged corruption this has been fully debunked, there is a scintilla of evidence, these one-liners and everybody should get a hold of themselves. >> is there still a chance for some republicans could move to dismiss? >> there is but it won't happen. it may not be witnesses and they will take it to the vote on the merits. >> timeframe? >> two weeks. >> we will have you back. house speaker nancy pelosi sending a mixed message about the impeachment process. >> this is a very serious matter and we take it to heart in a really solemn way. >> if it is so serious why was she smiling for a celebratory picture and handing out commemorati

michael duffy all have firsthand knowledge of president trump's attempts to withhold security aid to ukraine, allegedly in exchange for investigations into president trump's political rival joeiden. they all refused to cooperate with the house impeachment inquiry. but bolton, the former national security advisor, recently pulled an about face, saying he would willingly testify about the senate. while at the white house bolton was vocal about his concerns how the ukraine matter was being handled. >> i have to go to the lawyers, john eisen berg, i was counsel for the security counsel to basically say you tell eisen berg, ambassador bolton told me i am not part of whatever this drug deal mulvaney and sunday a sondland are cooking up. >> reporter: also mick mulvaney openly admitted the president withheld aid in exchange for investigations into 2016. >> the look back into what happened in 2016 was what he was worried about in corruption with that nation. get over it. there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> reporter: mulvaney tried to walk that back later. emails show mulvaney asking his senior advisor robert blair back in june did we ever find out about the

joe biden. senate majority leader chuck schumer insisted impeachment managers made a compelling case yesterday for calling more witnesses. >> it was so clear that we are to hear from mick mulvaney and blair and duffyton. at the center of these events, it was so clear that we must review relevant documents. >> martha: mark meadows, who is working with president trump's legal team says that he doesn't think the democrats will get enough votes or new witnesses. >> i think witnesses are unlikely. once the defense team for the president actually presents their case, i think it becomes a house of cards and starts to fall down around our house impeachment managers because what they will start to see is... they're connecting actually don't connect. >> martha: so see you tomorrow, they have a third day to lay out their case before the president's defense team will take over. >> bret: congressional correspondent chad program back on the hill. chad, 16 hours, 42 minutes left. they are not going to take it all. >> exactly. two more days to have it out. jerry nadler walked past me to start the trial at 1:00 here. are they convincing republican senators sitting as jurors? that is the big question right now. her