. >> good afternoon, my name is michael levine, i have the architect. project sponsor. and maria is here today and she will add her remarks. by removing the rear portion of the existing roof area above the third floor replaced it with an extended flat roofed area which effectively is 5 feet below the current ridge line of the existing building. if i can get the overhead, please. the site currently exist an existing 3 story building. the rear wall is shorter to the neighboring building to the west and over 30 feet shorter of the average of the rear walls of building along 21st street. the dr request building to the east in the rear lot line of the corner lot fronting on noi street. as a result the building enjoys three open exposures, southern, eastern, northern. including exposure to a 55 foot deep front yard area. the southerly exposure of which the dr request or is on the property line in which it would not be allowed by current code. though some loss of light to the windows is recognized is acceptable by the design guidelines we feel the loss of light is claimed by t

this plays extraordinarily well in the sort of michael savage, levin -- >> glenn beck was invited onn, here's the problem with all of this. according to glenn beck, there are six members of congress who are going to open an investigation into this conspiracy theory about a third man. >> i believe that -- i believe that. i'm sure we have six members of congress crazy -- i mean, louie gohmert has to be on the list. >> yeah. >> we have six members of congress. but, you know, the thing about o'reilly that's so cynical, i mean, roger ailes had the good sense to get rid of glenn beck to realize glenn beck was becoming a terrible embarrassment to fox. and o'reilly brings him back, because i don't know, he's having an issue with his ratings and he's got to gin up the islamophobia and now give glenn beck another fox platform to spew this stuff? i mean, it's just so cynical. >> there's voters at home who will buy it. so there are senators who will push it. >> of course. toure and joan walsh. thank you so much for joining us. much more ahead. >>> first, we'd like to say good-bye to a legend. co

michael kranish, harry reid,believe carl levin, both of them have protected the modern filibuster, whicha little different from the original filibuster. maybe at its origination, it was to protect minorities, but it has morphed into something else. what it is doing, it is turning the senate into a cowardly institution. what i mean by that is, one inson in a strong position their district or senate can make cover for all the other senators who now don't have to make a decision to stand for something. they can just talk around the problem, knowing that one of the cause as going to filibuster and they will never have to address the issue. it is protection for their jobs and their seats, and it might be very effective and work well for them, but it is drawing bipartisan set to a screaming halt. host: we are learning from senators over the easter break, ted cruz, mike lee, marco rubio , that when the senate goes forward with an legislation, those four are going to object to that type of bill moving to the floor. we saw rand paul filibuster for 13 hours over drones holding up the nomination of

michael: how much does the legacy of iraq weigh on him in syria? >> i think a great deal. again if you take a look at what the letter to senator levin said, it basically looks like it, it's sort of a high degree of confidence, but we haven't established a chain of custody. yes, there is evidence that sari sarin was used. this could have been used by any of the groups who are anxious to get us in. and in iraq the inspectors were back in, they couldn't find anything, but bush went ahead any way. i think that's the case. then we found out too late after we're already in there with 150,000 men and women and devastated iraqi society. >> michael: do you think then, senators graham and mccain are jumping the gun crossing the led red line too quickly or is this the proper thing for the white house to look into or are they asking for action without looking further into it. >> you would think with their stand on iraq they would be more cautious. the president did use the term red line so they wanted to go to syria before this. they're using this, if you will, a reason to say that the president ought to follow their advice. it's amazing to me