is it possible to legalize this? >> they would have to fill out the compliance form and go through the planning department on that. >> i understand that, but as far as a review. we have looked at this building, it might be one of those able to be legalized but has to go through the process. >> yes. >> what are the fines involved? >> notice of violation. okay. it shows nine times penalty for $2,000 of work notice of violation. >> nine times 2,000. >> nine times 2,000. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> i don't think deputy director you can answer the question, a question was brought up about the fines being on the burden of the owner, the landlord, right? what is policy procedure if they are trying to do the right thing and correct the violation about moving the violations, the fees to the violator? >> when they obtain the permit, when they're trying to find compliance, the supervisor could reduce it -- >> under the current application. >> yes. hang on just -- >> that will be determined whoever picks up the permit. whoever

or not legal? vet never felt i had to orders through the national security council. i felt as a military senior leader i had three obligations. when obligation was to provide military advice. one was to raise concerns that i had if they happen to be legal concerns. the third obligation was related to legality of the order. either follow the legal order or refuse. i had legal advisors myself. we would involve legal advisors where dod took that from there, i was issued a take. i would certainly have been in consultation with the secretary of defense and the chairman. >> senator johnson. >> i want to continue on this line of questioning. there are two basic scenarios. the scenario of imminent attack, an attack that is imminent and then one where it is more preemptive. you said there's always going to be time. >> i did not mean to suggest there would always be time. >> when the president would thermine we are under threat of almost imminent attack , he has almost absolute authority. correct? >> yes. co

however, legal opinions by mr. bradbury sought to provide a continued cover for continued use that ran counter to the intent of that law. our most respected military leaders have spoken out against the use of these unlawful interrogation techniques. a letter signed by 176 retired military leaders opposed the kind of torture techniques approved by mr. bradbury's office of legal counsel. having had the privilege to serve in the army of the united states, i think we understood that if we did it, our enemies would do it to our men and women and it would be unconscionable to give them a shred of -- to say we did what you did to others. the use of the techniques approved by mr. bradbury, quote, not only violated well-established law and military doctrine but also endangered u.s. troops and personnel, hindered the war effort and betrayed the country's values, damaging the united states stature around the world as a beacon of human rights and the rule of law. that is the voice of one marine speaking from years of experie

they will set up a campaign legal fund to pay the legal fees of campaign staffers and done junior evenugh don junior wasn't a campaign staffer.donej junior even though don junior wasn't a campaign staffer.we have reporting the trump campaign stopped paying donald junior's legal fees. what about the rnc and republican party? have they stopped paying and who decided to pay them on the first place? we still don't have a sat t satisfactory answer why the republican party was paying the legal bills. don't know why that was set up or reportedly stopping now. the lawyer ty cobb said paying his own legal fees was quote always president trump's preference. so why didn't he? [ laughter ] >> if he really wanted to pay his own legal fees, what, did the rnc body block him? i mean, does the president think it was a bad idea for the republican party and donors to be paying for him and his son? if so, why doesn't he repay them? so many questions. joining us is white house correspondent for bloomberg news. nice to have you with us tonight. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> this story confounds

jeopardy and set up his legal defense fund, mike flynn. according to ty cobb, if flynn has been holding out hope that president trump will personally help him to defray legal defenses, white house is foreclosing that possibility tonight. quote, the president is not planning to contribute to mike flynn's defense fund. first definitive statement. mr. flynn, you're on your own, happy thanksgiving. this turns out to be an important decision, also for what happens next. more on that, stay with us. >>> march 21st, 1973, president nixon met with white house counsel john dean in the oval office, a tape was running. how much money do you need? >> i would say these people are going to cost a million dollars over the next two years. we could get that. uh-huh. you on the money. if you need the money, i mean, you could get the money. let's say -- well i think that we're going -- what i mean, you could get a million dollars and you could get it in cash. i know where it could be gotten. >> reason nixon was asking about how to get a million dollars, telli

nuclear weapons must be legal. the basic legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportional lit apply to nuclear weapons just as they do to every other weapon. it was my job, and the job of other senior leaders like the secretary of defense and the chairman and the other combatant commanders to make sure the principles were applied to nuclear orders. as i close i want to urge caution as you consider these matters. changes or conflicting signals can have profound implications for deterrence, for extended deterrence and for the confidence of the men and the women in the nuclear forces. again, mr. chairman, thank you for issue voting me. i appreciate being here today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. doctors fever. >> chairman corker, ranging member cardin and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important topic which i will refer to as nuclear command and control. my bottom line is simple. in the past, congress has played a

but there is some legal dispute about the question still beyond the legal question. there's also questions of moral authority, political authority, and the abdication of responsibility in this body. 75% of the members of congress today were not even here when the 2001 authorization was passed and thus have never had to cast a vote on it, even as our men and women risk their lives and in some instances are killed in action. simply put, the 2001 has become a golden ticket that justifies military action against terrorist groups all over the globe without the need for additional congressional approval. i'm not surprised the executive wants to keep it that way. who wouldn't prefer such flexibility but we have a job to do. here's what we need to do. here's what i think needs to happen. we need to end the legal gymnastics with the 2001aumf, a 60-word authorization against the perpetrators of 9/11 and applying that now to the fight against isil, boca ra ham and others is a stretch. the aumf outlined the military action as follows, nation's organizations or persons, the presi

with chain of commission in our legal this simultaneously with the legal of pfizer's. but as senator rubio pointed out that does not mean every ordert that comes down is an opportunity to discuss and debate. there is a perception those orders are legal. when there is the extraordinary order to launch nuclearwh weapons that wouldex require attention it with galvanized attention. made you want to have the lawyers back to talk about the legal authorities now with a conflict on the crimean peninsula we're still in harvest -- armed hostilities from the first korean war all that provide a legal basis i am not a lawyer to adjudicate the name sure they are looking. >> one more thing that if i was not get a legal and what i was asking for it. my obligation and responsibility from strategic command was to clear up any of those concerns on behalf of the operating forces they are not in a position to make a legal determination with an order given to them. i spent time that missile launch control center to try had no way to know whether the target i was told to strike was legal or

does that mean that trump might pay for mike flynn's legal defense? as of earlier this past week, it was unclear. quote, it is unclear whether trump's offer extends to michael flynn, who was fired from his role at trump's national security adviser early in the administration. flynn didn't just work on the campaign. he did make it 24 days into being national security adviser. so, that makes him technically a former white house official, so maybe trump will pay his bills? maybe? should it matter based on what mike flynn's going to say? the ambiguity isn't just frustrating here, the ambiguity here from the white house and from the president, it has a purpose and effect. as people keepch t testifying, right? there has been the threat and the promise, where all these white house and campaign staffers have been facing these inquiries, right? giving testimony under oath and potentially speaking to grand juries. i said i had a little bit of news to break on this. ty cobb, the president's lawyer on the russia investigation does give us some news on that tonigh

because this is an open session, i cannot discuss legal strategy or give legal advice. i can only discuss the evidence that i have thus far. my ability to take questions will be limited and i apologize for that. judy wu and trent zu used the following m.o. first, they purchase single-family homes. and then they obtain permits to add laundry rooms. through deposition testimony, the advantage is having gas and water hookups. once they get signoff, they use the gas and water hookups to install kitchens, kitchen sink and a stove. they then don't get any permits after that and they erect drywall, create entrances and pass them off as units. then they go through the process of applying for approval to house section 8 recipients. we conducted task force inspection. and we discovered numerous code violations regarding unauthorized building, electrical plumbing and ventilation issues throughout the properties. the inspections revealed that there was cheap and substandard building materials, like thin drywall where sound can pass through, unpermitted electrical wiring. and haphaz

legally. if you remove the extra stoves, the only issue, the reason staff says it can't be done is because of the rooms down matrix, places can't be independently accessible and have sinks. it's a policy interpretation. it's not law, it's not code. you have the authority not to apply it. it's just the guideline for staff and the commission is not bound by it. i want to thank you forgiving time for our experts to do the property by property analysis. they have developed a list of code upgrades for each property to ensure safe quality housing. >> jeremy shaw, i'll go over one of the subject properties right now. if i can get the overhead. this is 1083 hollister. right now we're using the plans that the department has requested that we submit. so existing on the left, proposed on the right. the main idea at least on the ground floor for the planning proposal, there are two legal units combined into one. we want them to remain separate, and the way we do that is by removing the stove in one. we wo

s legal bills. that's not because he's going to cover them himself or because his dad is going to cover them. instead they're going to be setting up a campaign legal fund to pay the legal fees of campaign staffers and don jr. even though technically don jr. wasn't a campaign staffer. and so this is clearly changing but i still have lots of questions. right? we have this reporting tonight that the trump campaign, the campaign, has stopped paying donald jr.'s legal fees. what about the rnc, though? what about the republican party? have they also stopped paying donald jr.'s legal fees? and who decided to pay them in the first place? we still don't have a satisfactory answer as to why the republican party was paying the legal bills of the president and his son and no one else. we don't know why that was set up in the first place nor do we know why it is reportedly stopping now. white house lawyer ty cobb told nbc news that paying his own legal fees "was always president trump's preference." so why didn'

i looked careful at our legal authority. it is clear we are on sound legal footing. the supreme court has already ruled in 2005 that the commission can classify broadband internet access with title i information service, which is what this order does. the supreme court has upheld it. you'll have expressed since the 2015 decision, the commission is under some obligation to drastically change, and the inability to do so is a legal weakness with the document. that is not true. if you look at the d.c. circuits position, it said the fcc and 2015 did not rely on change circumstances, and they did not matter to the court's decision. it did not matter then, it does not matter today. we are on very solid legal foundation for taking this step. i look forward to taking that action. >> does this draft proposal return the concept of net neutrality to the so-called powell doctrine? brendan carr: that is a really good way of looking at it. we have all understood a free and open internet, and how important it is. it is a question, what is the right legal framework. back then we had

we asked for the legal authority and they haven't yet provided an answer. what congress has done is told presidents you can do whatever you want and that has a way of grabbing him and i think it already has a and the american people deserve better but the troops deserve better. the public civic immorality and ordering the troops to be killed as the forewarned while congress is unwilling to cast a vote because this would be difficult. i would rather make the president to do it and then blame it if it works out in the calculation to advocate a responsibility while others are shouldering the burden of responsibility even losing their life in the process. the congress passed the resolution during the vietnam war. the prerogative in the field of the war and foreign policy seem to be arguing that the president's powers as commander in chief are with the president alone defines them to be. the implication that the presidency is beyond the range to check in the exercise of the war power is a serious constitutional danger. if we accept such a view we accept the situ

when you revoke every legality, when you do not even follow your own legality, nobody wants to go toso let's restore legality and then we can build together. if i may interrupt you forjust a second, i asked you for any acknowledgement of your mistake. don't you worry, we will talk to the catalan regional government, as it was, about the things they did but i need to press the you for things you did. for example, was it wise for you to use such powerful and polarising rhetoric, when you they called the referendum that they held in catalonia — and i'm quoting you directly — "an evil illegal act". why on earth did you call it evil? these are just civilians conducting a vote. no, it wasn't civilians conducting a vote. it was a governmentjumping over every, even their own regional law, the basis of legitimacy, breaking their own law, to approve convening a referendum which they knew was illegal. that is evil. that is not democracy. you cannot jump over your own democratic laws... evil? ..you change it by a simple majority, that's evil. 0k, evil, it's illegal. illegal in a democratic world

legal analyst. natasha bergen has been closely tracking the russia investigation and malcolm unanimous, a former career u.s. intelligence officer and now an msnbc security analyst. okay. let's start with just the concept of the term. because it is -- it has become the word that everyone throws around, collusion. it's the charge against the campaign. it's the thing they explicitly deny, and yet it doesn't have any specific, nick -- it has no specific legal meaning. >> the only legal meaning it can possibly have is conspiracy. it's a conspiracy to violate another law or a conspiracy to defy the government or to violate the computer fraud and abuse act, the federal hacking statute. so conspiracy does have -- collusion has a legal meaning within conspiracy, which is a crime. >> right. that's a more technical specific way. there is also -- to me there is also the idea of what would -- what constitutes collusion over and above what we know, right? i mean, i want to play this -- this piece of sound of the

>> i love the fact it's going to be legal. i love the fact that i'm going to be able to open a facility and do what i want and pay my taxes like i want. it's a great thing, but there's going to be paperwork. it's going to be a battle. it's going to be an uphill battle that a lot of people might not make. >> joining me now with further analysis are san francisco cannabis editor david downs, and christian groe, cofounder. david, we just heard from a retailer. they're worried about having enough supply of the we ha. we have a situation here where you have medical and recreational users vying for a supply. >> the market will be clear i would say six to eight months after the law has been here. plenty of canna birbis will fai testing. much will go down rather than up. >> that's a lot of changes to go through. >> other states have gone through these changes, whether it's colorado, california or nevada. a lot of them have gone through these growing pains. we've seen a number of cities and counties begin to allow medical dispensaries

providers have the legal authority to do that. we have not seen it in part because of competitive pressures. i understand there is a lot of concern out there and misinformation. under this proposal, we are not proposing to go to a wild west regime where broadband providers are free to rush out over consumers. if you look at the document, there are four separate legal standards that will continue to apply to make sure consumers are protected, even if you don't think competition alone will protect them. there is consumer protection law when the internet was classified as a public utility, it stripped the federal trade emission of its authority over the internet. so the federal trade commission would have section five authority to protect consumers. and there is section one and two of the sherman act, protections to go to anti-competitive conduct by broadband providers. that is the second key piece. the third is privacy. consumers feel that online privacy under this proposal, will be a cop on the beat once again. there are eight cons

when you revoke every legality and do not even follow your own legality, nobody wants to go to your placestill legality and then we can build together. ifi make interrupted you for a second, i askedif interrupted you for a second, i asked if any at knowledge meant of your mistake. don't you worry, we will talk to the catalan regional government about the things they did ata government about the things they did at a need to press the yuan things you did. example, was it was the youth, use such powerful polarising when you they called the referendum. you called it an evil act. why on earth did you call it evil? these arejust earth did you call it evil? these are just civilians conducting the vote. it was a governmentjumping over eve n vote. it was a governmentjumping over even their regional law, the basis of legitimacy, breaking laws to approve a referendum which they knew was illegal. that is evil. you cannot jump over democratic laws... evil? evil. 0k, it is illegaland the media legal in a democratic world. evil evokes something about the mindset of the government in madrid seems to have

, they would have been legal. they could have been improved at that time. so, that is taken into consideration, at least it was with the board of appeals' decision. >> supervisor kim: i understand that you're in a difficult position on this, because you did actually not -- you didn't approve the initial permit, but i'm just having a hard time with the argument. so you know, even if there was a use that was legally permitted, for example, a restaurant is legally permitted on the parcel, but i move forward and open a restaurant without the permitting process, just because i'm zoned for a restaurant, doesn't mean i'm legally operating. the permit seems to be what legally allows you to have the use. you have to go through the permitting process to have it legal. i just found that challenging argument that being only 50% illegal, makes it maybe more legal. you understand where i'm going with that? just because i'm not familiar with the property, although i appreciate that the appellant brought in the two photos, by alt

martin thank you very much we appreciate you helping us understand the legalities of this legal story thank you thank you. all right you're watching the news still to come the countdown to the winter olympics is on the torch arrives in south korea one hundred days before the games begin. our own game players right here binns here with business news u.s. lawmakers turning up the heat against facebook and company yep they sure are the u.s. house intelligence committee has released a whole trove ads basically from facebook first of all links to a russian internet agency its best to getting russian interference in the twenty sixteen presidential poll representatives from facebook twitter and alphabet have been testifying at back to back hearings in both the congress and senate with facebook being the first to announce it had evidence of russian meddling on social media lawmakers have slammed the companies for failing to rein in russian use of their sites to manipulate the american political process. and it's going to get its quota standing by the new york stock exchange on this one even f

the mission the soldiers were performing in the legal authorities for the deployment. that is our responsibility, the committee's responsibility. if the witnesses are not able to answer these, then i'm going to ask that you return to the committee for a classified hearing. i thinkme that we are asking whe else are the u.s. forces put in harms way. some information has been provided to the congress including the june 27 notice the chair referred to but there's been an adequate explanation of what activities are actually under what legal authorit authot is this committee's responsibility to deal with thes authorization. protecting the american people from spreading this around the world is important, but i think there needs to be more public discussion on these activities because i do not think the american people want the united states conducting a global endless shadow war under the radar, covert and beyond scrutiny. there've been developments since the committee's last conversation on the topic with secretaries in august there's hundreds more surrendering and second,

we cannot risk undermining the legal foundation of this critical fight. we must also be mindful that withoutn aumf significant bipartisan support could send the wrong message to allies and adversaries that we are not united and committed to victory. so far congress has been unable to bridge the gap between those who see a new aumf as an opportunity to limit the president and those who believe constraining the commander in chief in wartime is unwise. unfortunately the inability to reconcile this divide without threatening the existing authorization has allowed the status quo to preparvail. committee recognizes we have a special ability to speak with one voice on foreign policy. we have a great tradition of working together in a bipartisan way to advance national interest . it is my hope we will be able to do the same on this issue. i think both of our distinguished witnesses and the members of this committee for the seriousness with which they approach the topic. i hope that together we can have a productive discussion about a way forward. the distinguishe

>>daca no es legal pablo: repitiÓ el fiscal general.daca", era basado en eso, pero tambiÉn de otras razones. pablo: el presidente afirmÓ que las leyes de inmigraciÓn provocaban bajos salarios, cargas financieras para escuelas, la entrada ilÍcita de drogas y cÁrteles criminales. los demandantes deben demostrar que el motivo fue legal y que pudo haber otros incluidos, potencial discriminaciÓn por origen Étnico. el presidente dio un plazo de seis meses, que se cumple en marzo. enrique: robert muller enviÓ una orden en la que exige a varios funcionarios del presidente trump que entreguen documentos relacionados con el caso de la posible corrupciÓn entre el gobierno de rusia en la campaÑa y que presten testimonio sobre la relaciÓn de la campaÑa. ilia: las organizaciones protectoras de animales y sectores de la sociedad civil estÁn indignadas con la decisiÓn de la administración de levantar la prohibiciÓn de traer trofeos de caza. por segÚn el servicio de vida silvestre, se recaudarÁn fondos. luis: son majestuosos y estÁn en peligro de extinc

where is the legal justifications for these techniques?there interpreted to permit the use simultaneously over long periods of time that has constituted what i had, i and many others believe that these techniques are torture. torture inflicted by the representatives of a nation founded on athe ideal that all people are born with equal dignity and that even enemies who scorn our ideals, once they are our prisoners are to be spared cruel, inhuman and degrading ttreatment. the memos authored employed by mr. bradberry justify the use of these techniques under article 16 of the united nations convention against torture. and in article 3 of the geneva convention which quote - prohibits outrageous upon personal dignity. i quote - that. that is the geneva convention. to which the united states is signatory. and violence to the life of a person. most people, including mr. bradberry i'm sure, had never been tightly bound, made to remain in a stress position and deprived of sleep for 48 hours. let me assure my colleagues, anyone who has suffered such

but in general, lay out the legal parameters for when one legal team stops sharing information with a related legal team and what that could mean vis-a-vis the prosecution. >> absolutely i want to start out by saying my job is to neutrally look at the law. this is just so people understand where the law is. when you hear somebody is cooperating with the fbi or federal investigators, that usually means one of two things. it means they have consult a deal with the person. they have enough evidence to indict him and now they are trying to get him to give evidence against other potential targets which could include people in the white house, although they have not been specified as targets in this investigation. another is far more be nine of people in the white house. that is flynn has agreed to take a plea. maybe they used his son. they have potential charges against his son as leverage against him. usually when you're about to take a plea, you have to stop cooperating with other people under investigation. because you're in a conflict of interest situation. your lawyer can't be telling

we wanted to play of the legal -- out the legal theories and legal arguments to see how we did beforee pursued another case and focused more of our resources on that. once we knew we were successful on dapa, it made sense to also challenge daca. so that was it. kevin: you say congress is going to sort this out. in an interesting way, it was your lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit that precipitated this review by congress. i am wondering if in the end if congress turns out finding a legislative fix and granting some sort of legal status, can you live with the results of possibly hundreds or thousands of dreamers in texas who now suddenly would have legal status, not by virtue of the executive, but by virtue of congress, could you live with that? atty. gen. paxton: ultimately, it is up to congress to decide. my job is not to make law, my job is to enforce the law. that is what we did here. if congress has a policy change, and i think dick durban and lindsey graham are working on something in the senate that is completely up to them. we will enforce whatever law they put in place. as ag, i u

legal and illegal. do not vote latinos in large numbers, but they are still a powerful constituency. minds had a more opened toward the idea of immigration than a lot of people give them credit for. josh: while attorney general paxton is claiming victory on the daca policy, it is not entirely clear he has won this battle. the courts might step in here. i think more likely than that, the president has suggested that if congress doesn't reach a deal on this by march 5, he might do something to rescue the dreamers once again. and so while paxton has succeeded in getting a legal apparatus of the trump administration to sign on to his view of this issue, that does not mean the president in the days leading up to march 5 or immediately at the deadline might not take some step to protect them even though they are arguing essentially that the step would be illegal. greta: josh gerstein and kevin diaz, thank you for being here. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the

might be in legal jeopardy as well? >> michael flynn jr. was a very significant employee of the consulting firm that his father formed, general flynn formed a coulta consulting form and appointed his son as in effect chief of staff. they could be well chargeable to him. >> white house communications director hope hicks, despite being the communications director, you don't see or hear her very much, but she's a big player inside the white house. she is slated to meet with mueller's team as well. what does that tell you at this point about where the special counsel's investigation is going, would you say? >> behind all of the noise and the public statements, there is the inexorable momentum of the special counsel. and that momentum and impetus are clearly gaining ground here. with the papadopoulos conviction, the manafort and gates indictments, clear the special counsel is moving forward now with interviews in the white house staff. they have to be looking at each other and asking who has talked to whom and the interview with hope hicks indic

just a legal thought exercise. but no, it would make no legal difference. it might make a moral difference, but it would make no legal distinction whatsoever. >> so many more questions here. danny cevallos, thank you for joining us this saturday morning. >>> well, it was a change of heart or a new strategy? what to make of the president's comments, new comments this week about trade with china. copd makes it hard to breathe. so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way" with anoro. ♪go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators, that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma . it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary prob