starting with nate dwery, john lazar, jonathan oliver, robert chizana, carl mcmurta are the first five. >> chair c. brinkman: thank you. >> thank you, members of the board. my name is nathan dwery and i drove a taxi in san francisco from 1965 to 1977. and sometimes thereafter. i have an issue with some of the terminology that has been used in this report. one is that the people who had medallions in those years paid a nominal fee. i saved my money in the years that i drove, the down payment was $5,000, it was a $1,500 transfer fee to the police commission at the time. many individuals that i know in those years did the same. they saved their money and they borrowed from friends and relatives. some even got loans through the small business administration. the average price paid was about $20,000. we are told that this was a nominal fee. really? in 1978, $20,000 was not nominal. i think that if you bring it up to current value it's more like $200,000. but that's neither here nor there. it is asserted that those people made billions of dollars. i personally know of many individual drivers

. >> john lazar and jonathan oliver and carl mcmurdo. >> that was a great article, i enjoyed it. my name is john lazar. i have been in the cab business since i was 8 years old. the earnings is made up out of the air. many pre-k holders upgrade their permits for years and years after 1970, in fact, still have some doing that now. these were not persons clipping coupons in cabo, okay? they are blue-collar veteran taxi drivers who drove for more than four decades only to have the small amount of retirement income cut off by the sfmta. the other groups of pre-k holders are typically widows or daughters of deceased drivers who took over the permits in 1978 or latter years. these women cannot operate the permit, they're in their 70s and they too rely economically on the reduced revenue currently being paid by some taxi companies. as mentioned in the sunday's examiner, they had them sacrificed. something, even proposition k didn't do. prop sigdz k changed all of the rules but it grandfathered the permits for the life of the permit holder. and now the staff wants to eliminate the importa

olive branch. so there is a sense that may have been factored to go out on sort of a high note. >> jonathan lemaire, thank you for that reporting. let me bring in michael allen who's also joining us on the phone. michael, we know that the president based on his remarks happening now in the oval office said nikki haley came to him about six months ago and wanted to take a break after an intense few years at the end of the year. the end of the year is december. why is this coming out in early october? >> it's very curious timing for sure. i have a feeling, though, as some of your other reporters referenced, that's she felt unsub board nated under the secretary of state and new national security advise. the realm is access to the president. i have a feeling he probably limited the access she had, especially compared to when rex tillerson was secretary of state. there's also the friction you have when you're the u.n. ambassador. they've risen up to policy-making. when, in fact, the people of the secretary of state see that as his or her due toy as policy-making. there's an inherent friction in the role

oliver. very royal. steve: meanwhile is president trump on a collision course with impeachment? it may be an eye catching "new york times" headline but jonathanp is on spanish language station and punch as mascot? ♪ ♪ steve: democratic candidates and lawmakers may have been strucked by party leaders to tone down calls for president trump's impeachment but "the new york times" appears to be re igniting the topic like that one. is trump on collision course with impeachment but as our next guest reveals in a new op-ed in "the hill," the special counsel may be backing away from obstruction charges all together. what is that about? jonathan turley, constitutional law professor at george washington university and join us now. you detailed three reasons why mueller may not be barking up the obstruction tree. >> i don't see any real evidence he is building an obstruction case. i've been a critic of that allegation for many years because this first does not fit any recognized definition of obstruction. the president is allowed to criticize this investigation. that's not obstruction. a classic obstruction case is interfering with the grand jury or more