we're going with will no more see the condition you view them saw mr . sloan pursue all. as a americans came out on the common usa, who said it was known for its oil at a g e company at the care of pricewaterhousecoopers. if someone could give no, so, so to the home all alone, romania proceed to get the rebel is decent. naturally americans can pick all up and then the pavilion, sham, initial not the total korean it's of the breaker. nevertheless, american money came to ukraine. the united states had already formulated its vision of ukraine's role in september 1996. but the us house of representatives and the senate adopted resolution 120 support ukraine's independence. ukraine was declared to be an important element of us national security. we had to oppose the emergence of any political or military organization that would facilitate the reintegration of the state of the former soviet union. cushman agreed to it in additionally to cooperate with nato lou until to 98. a total of $1000000000.00 in economic aid was given to ukraine. but this amount of aid for the paralyzed e

mr. biden's most dangerous nominee yet. carley: lindsey graham agrees with you, he released a statement saying gigi sloan is a complete political she would be a complete nightmare for the country. i will do everything in my power to convince colleagues on both sides of the ail to reject this extreme nominee. in this political climate, joe, can somebody like senator lindsey graham convince the other side of the aisle to agree with him? >> it's very difficult, right. it won't take too many democrats, though, to tip the scales, obviously, particularly when talking about a 50/50 senate. so again, you bring up the names, manchin, sinema, that's about it. but you would hope that they would say, all right, this is a bridge too far and we have to put a stop to this because, again, this is somebody in gigi stone who wants to stop what some people want to say on the airwaves and that's not the role of the fcc. todd: i don't think she is going to be invited to concha's thanksgiving, regardless of white meat. carley: it's always twitter with the nominees that get them in trouble. daniel: john durham nuked the steele dossier credibility. ne

mr. granite just referenced where, you know, a fair reading of that decision is that, you know, based on sloane, that we can't just eliminate one of the fundamental variables for this permit, you know, based on the a.d.a., that the a.d.a. does not eliminate, you know, that fundamental requirement of having a driver's license. how would you distinguish your 2003s decision from the 2008 decision? >> well, they're entirely different in the 2008 decision pretty much is moral terpitude than anything else. but the other thing is there's actually nothing in the law or even in the code that says that the medallion holder has to have an eight-card or a driver's license, so that's what the driver is going to do. they're going to drive a taxi. so really, an allegation by the agency that says a disabled medallion holder has to have a california driver's license is factually incorrect. it's not in the code. it's not in the law, it's not in the code. it's entirely different from a person who is a dangerous to public safety because of d.u.i.s and aberrant behavior. that's my answer. i think i answered it. >>

mr. granite just referenced where, you know, a fair reading of that decision is that, you know, based on sloane, that we can't just eliminate one of the fundamental variables for this permit, you know, based on the a.d.a., that the a.d.a. does not eliminate, you know, that fundamental requirement of having a driver's license. how would you distinguish your 2003s decision from the 2008 decision? >> well, they're entirely different in the 2008 decision pretty much is moral terpitude than anything else. but the other thing is there's actually nothing in the law or even in the code that says that the medallion holder has to have an eight-card or a driver's license, so that's what the driver is going to do. they're going to drive a taxi. so really, an allegation by the agency that says a disabled medallion holder has to have a california driver's license is factually incorrect. it's not in the code. it's not in the law, it's not in the code. it's entirely different from a person who is a dangerous to public safety because of d.u.i.s and aberrant behavior. that's my answer. i think i answered it. >>