mr. olsons very predictable listening to various different tapes of nixon. if you listen to -- presidents feel every time to lose a decision and the supreme court, i don't know if they use the same language, but i suspect you would hear if there were more tapes similar language from other presidents who are disappointed. you have covered and are covering some very interesting cases in this series. and presidents do not like to lose anything, particularly in the supreme court, when they pretty much know that is the end of the line. mr. abrams: i would just add a reference to justice stewart and justice white, it is quite right that they were the deciding vote. votes when we came in and the question was always we get two more. opinionustice stewart's which is generally viewed as the opinion of the court, in which he wound up saying that the only circumstance in which a prior restraint could issue in a case like this is when the government proves that the disclosure of the materials would surely r

mr. olson: it is very predictable listening to various different tapes of nixon. if you listen to -- tapes from linden johnson and some of the language and has comments about things that were going on and probably other residents have felt the same way every time they lose a decision. i don't know whether they use i suspectanguage but you would hear similar language from other presidents. you have some very interesting cases in these series. presidents do not like to lose anything, particularly in the supreme court when they pray much now that is the end of the line. mr. abrams: i would just add the reference to justice stewart and justice white, it is quite right that they were the deciding vote. we had four votes when we came in and the question was always would we get two more. it was justice stewart's opinion which is generally viewed as the opinion of the court, in which he wound up saying that the only circumstance in which a prior restraint could issue in a case like this is when the gov

mr. olson? >> mr. chief justice of it may please the court one of the most important decisions of the constitutional convention of 1787 was replacing the failed c that govern states with a government to regulate individuals but not states. in the words of this court in the new york case commerce may regulate interstate commerce directly that it may not regulate states regulations of interstate commerce. >> what about state law? and the federal government initially takes that physician with interstate commerce to have that inconsistent state laws. >> and then to regulate this way or don't regulate? >> gave the states a choice in conjunction with the regulation of the area. >> the states were told that if you don't if you don't regulate neither will we. >> consequence of that that the states could regulate according to the standards established by the federal government with respect to interstate commerce that it was left to the federal government that is a direct command to the states without any effort

. >> supervisor peskin:, mr olson, the floor is yours. >> thank you mr president.y name is ted olsen and i'm a third generation san franciscan and sit on the division zero task force. -- sit on the division zero task force. i want to support the approval of this. we've made such progress with vision zero. i think what's really impressive about it is how the departments of the city have come together, acting on such and an important thing. especially how they've been using surveys, media, to conduct such a survey and gather community impressions. i took the survey and i'm sure many others did. there's much discussion in the community, i know it certainly has been on the market. it has been discussed about removing freeways and stuff like that. i commend division zero team and command your approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr olson. seeing no other public comment, i will close public comment, i think you have one more commissioner thacommissioner tho solicit a vote from on the consent agenda. if you could please ask commissioner kim how she would like to vote

mr olson, we. >> my name is ted olson. it was an honour, it is an honour to serve on the board for this project. i, obviously ask your approval of it, but i am here today to commend the director on the way he conducted and chose all of the participants for this, particularly his collegial work with the other partner departments which means that this is a uniform intelligence of all of your infrastructure departments. i also want to commend susan, and the entire team for leading our see wg through this process of understanding all of the technicalities that went into this decision. finally i say, about the importance, and as john said, the differences between airports and roads versus railroad, by the time high-speed rail comes to san francisco, and the importance of this is it is a regional plan that we have proposed, by the time it arrives in san francisco, we will have 1 million residents. i urge your approval. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> mr chairman, members of the commission, our interest is really in getting c

mr. ted olson.e has argued 63 cases in private practice and for the government before the supreme court, including during his term as solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. one of his key cases, representing president bush in bush v. gore. he's also a partner at gibs gibson-dunn in washington. we are pleased to have you back. you were with us on the first turn and we are delighted to have you back for a second season. >> i'm delighted you would ask. >> we're going to start with understanding how broad or narrow this decision was. help people understand the decision before we go into all of the details. what did the court actually find? >> well, the court found that the "times" and the "post" could not be restrained in advance from publishing a prior restraint, as it's known, and they said that it is a very heavy burden that the government has to overcome. they have to show real irreparable harm to the country and that the government had failed to do that. so, that was the ruling of the court. in addit

olson back-to-back jacks. that's why you bring your gloves right there mr. man in the orange.'s leading the o's right now 5-4. they are in the seventh inning wearing their kelly green tonight. abc 7 sports brought to you by toyota. as i mentioned warriors had a chance. don't get it done. sharks had a chance. they got to get it done on sunday. >> i don't worry about the warriors. the sharks it's -- >> it's looking a little dicy. we've had a couple of blow outs, a couple of overtime games. the warriors game four sunday on abc 7, pregame at noon, tip off at 12:30. they've got to bring a lot more energy and effort. steve kerr said they really didn't bring it and steph curry bouncing back from the knee injury. >>> well, coming up tonight on abc news at 11:00, the santa clara sheriff facing serious questions from within her own ranks. >> my confusion quickly turned to outrage. i didn't agree whatsoever and i expressed the fact i didn't agree. >> coming up an i-team exclusive did slafr smith delay a suspected child molester for days so she could get more media coverage? >>> the famil

mr. chairman. >> thank you. our final witness is the president of grid strategies llc. you have five minutes for opening statement, sir. >> thank you very much, vice chairman olson, ranking member rush, members of the subcommittee. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk about the important issue of the state of transmission. there's no infrastructure more important than transmission which is essential to the reliable and affordable electricity service we depend on for almost every modern commercial activity. the industry has succeeded in building a lot of transmission. the transmission benefits have exceeded the costs by factors of 2 to 3.5 in the major investments in the central region you have heard about in miso and the southwest power pool. transmission investment has enabled over 100 billion dollars of generation investment in rural communities. transmission investment is needed for both a distributed future and a large utility scale generation future, either one or both. we've learned a lot about what works. regional planning and cost allocation in particular have worked well. we should build on that success. in my written testimony, i provide nine i

olson who everybody respects. former solicitor general, mark penn. sharyl atkinson's time line is devastating. your reaction to this. >> here's the thing. you know, inspector generals are good in circumstances. mr. horowitz cannot interview any of the people that left the department of justice or the fbi. he has no subpoena authority so the people part of the plot are gone. he can't talk to them. all he can do is review documents and talk to whoever is left to do that. what we need is a federal grand jury with a prosecutor, doesn't have to be a special counsel -- and by the way, let's remember why we're here. we're here because rod rosenstein, a political coward, someone that was inadvertent made deputy attorney general appointed robert mueller illegally. here we are more than a year later with nothing having been determined except there was no russian collusion. all of these people been put through hell because rod rosenstein couldn't done what he should have done, which is conducted -- not only is he conflicted because he was a witness and he signed some of the warrants, guess what? suppose there was activity, which i believe there was that went beyond the law. rod rosenstein is not only a wi