mr. sullivan and mr. perciasepe have mentioned, he had an outstanding record during the 1990s, as a civil servant at epa, and those recommendations were based on the record that was then used by others. >> what was his title? what was his title at epa? >> believe it was senior policy analyst, and then in the year 2000, he stated he was a senior policy analyst but i would like to see what report he gave to the epa. what did he analyze? i would like to see. mr. sullivan, could you get us report on what was his outstanding work and why did he receive gold medals what i want to know, did he do anything -- what did he do? i want to see his reports. we have policy analysts that work for us. they do a great job. they deserve their day. i want to see what this scam artist got away with a parking lot for $18,000 that he didn't deserve because he wasn't handicapped and no one checked on him. and then he got a retention bonus that you recommended, which is documented that he didn't work for two and a half years. the

mr. patrick sullivan, the deputy inspector that oversees the primary responsibility for this investigation. mr. mark kaminski, who is sitting behind them is a special agent with the office of the epa and he may be called to answer questions because of his direct contact in this investigation and will also be sworn in when the others are sworn in as well. the honorable gentleman is the deputy administrator of the united states environmental protection agency. and mr. robert bremmer is the former director of policy analysts and revealed that the air radiation division of the u.s. environment protection agency. the primary witness is the senior policy adviser at the u.s. environmental protection agency and allegedly the cia. without an pursuant to the committee rules, would all of you please rise to be sworn. please raise your right hands. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth. thank you and please be seated. let the record reflect that all answered in the affirmative. we are going to consume a lot of time and i would as

mr. sullivan, and mr. carmichael my math teacher who is now mrs. carmichael. >> we will get letters from emerson college. >> i didn't say i went to emerson. >> by the way i could use some cocaine. >> when is that not the case? >> it is true though. somebody has to build the bridges. you can't major in humanities and build a bridge. you can't. just because you take gender studies -- no. >> you can major in humanities and liberal arts and you can be on tv. >> i think you can do both. if you built the bridge you have every right to write the -ccentance speech at the ground breaking and be good at it. i think you can multi task. america will lean on this. we have to say we know the square root of 289 is 17. >> let's get an f and call it a d and move on. >> we have great teeth though. basically we have conquered the calculus on our teeth. >>> ladies and gentlemen, coming up, so does something, something, something, something? well you will be something when we find out next. is this the best song of the year or just really racist? why can't it be both?

mr. sullivan? >> i think the impact of the law tilt. disparate, racial that troubles me profoundly. if it wasr ground" use in this particular case, if i can just amend what senator cruz said, is not entirely correct to say that "stand your ground" was not part of this case. mr. zimmerman did not avail himself of the immunity portion of "stand your ground," however the judge constructed consistent with florida law, which included an expressed statement of "stand your ground" if you felt like you were imminently in fear of death or bodily injury, then mr. zimmerman had his right to "stand your ground" and use deadly force in response. i may have cited in my written testimony, if not, i will provide it. "stand your ground" was front and center in this case, just not the immunity portion of "stand your ground." ofmr. lott's rendition statistics were pretty compelling. i do not claim to be an expert in this area. i guess my politician's point of view, when you have people like governor granholm and joe manchin, somebody i actually know, i do not believe in their mind at the time they fin

mr. sullivan? >> i think the impact of the law as a despair racial tilt. and troubles me profoundly. that stand your ground was used in the particular case, if i can just amend what senator cruz said. dc not entirely correct to say that stand your ground was not part of the case. mr. zimmerman did not avail himself of the immunity portion of stand your law; however, the judge instructed consistent with florida lo which included an express statement of stand your law if you people you were imminently -- mr. zimmerman had a right to, quote, stand his ground and use deadly force and response. i may have cited it in the written testimony. if i didn't i'll provide. it stand your ground was front and certain in the case. just not the immunity portion of stand your ground. the renner -- rendition of statistics were compelling. i don't claim to be an exinert the area from a politician's point of view. when you have people like the governor and joe machin, somebody i actually know, i don't believe in their mind at the time they signed the law in to law that they felt that's what they were doi

mr. sullivan? >> i think the impact of the law as they despaired racial tilt and that troubles me profoundly that "stand your ground" was used in this particular case if i can just amend with vinegar cruz said. it's not entirely correct to say that "stand your ground" was not part of your case. mr. zimmerman did not avail himself of the minty portion of "stand your ground." however, the judge and start it which included if you feel you were around then see had to quo, stand his ground and used daily force in response. i made sightedness written testimony that did not provide to the jury instructions. "stand your ground" was front and center in this case, just not doing a good of "stand your ground." >> mr. lott statistics were compelling. i claimed to be an expert in this area. from a politician's point of view commodious people like governor granholm, governor joe mentioned, somebody actually know. i don't believe that the time they signed peace and to love that they felt that is what they were do

mr. sullivan? >> i think the way -- the impact of the law has a disparaged racial tilt, and that troubles me profoundly. that stand your ground was used in this particular case, if i could just amend what senator cruz said, is not entirely correct to say that standard ground was not part of this case. this zimmerman did not avail himself of the minority the portion of standard ground. however, the judge construct -- instructed, consistent with florida law, that included and expressed statement a stand your loss, if you feel your in fear of death, then mistress merman had a right to "stand your ground and use deadly force in response." i may have cited it in my written testimony to the chair, the specific jury instructions. stand your ground was point and center in the case, just not the immunity portion. politician's point of view, when you have people like governor granholm and joe manchin, i do not believe in their mind the time they signed these laws that they felt that they were they were doing

mr. patrick sullivan deputy inspector general in the primary responsibility for this investigation.itting behind the two is a special agent with the office of the inspector general at epa and maybe call to answer questions because his direct contact in this investigation and will be sworn in with the others are sworn in. and then deputy administrator of the u.s. epa and robert braddish is a former director of policy analyst of review at the air radiation division of the environmental protection agency and john beale in the former senior policy adviser at the environmental protection agency and allegedly the cia. with that in pursuing to the committee rules all of you including you always your right hand to be sworn. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give visitors the whole truth and nothing but the truth? please be seated. let the record reflect all witnesses answer in the affirmative. this is a large panel we will consume a lot of time so i asked you to keep their opening statements as close to five minutes as possible to your entire statement will

sullivan who covered the story for years. i want to begin with you because they you were with mr. wallace when the news broke. can you tell us what his reaction was? what he said? >> yes. >> once we go through -- and it was myself and when we broke the news, he was an innocent man. he had been with him . >> did he understand what you were saying? >> at some point you recognize some things tkpoeup believe we manage -- that he had his own attorney. most of the time, he was to some degree. his eyes and that he understood some of the things about it. i guess that's an indication that he understood what we were saying. that was not an herbish involved that indicated that he was actually innocent. i think all the people say -- >> a lot of years. is there any t i don't know, bittersweet element knowing that it is a technicality that is his freedom in the very end. it didn't go to heart of the case. >> well, it's bittersweet that it took this long for mr. wallace to get what three state judges years ago said that his trial was not fair but for one reason or the other the state court of louisiana always over turned hi

mr. president, and we invite you to begin our discussion here today. >> thank you very much. my name is jim, i'm a partner in the sullivan and worcester law firm office in new york city and president of the american bar association, a voluntary bar association of more than 400,000 members around the country. thank you for inviting the aba to participate in this forum to discuss the adverse impacts, effects of the government shutdown and sequestration on excess to justice throughout the nation. this is a discussion we need to have in public forrah like this -- fora like this again and again to make sure all americans know what is at stake if congress fails to provide the federal judiciary with the funds it needs to fulfill what is at stake. to fulfill resources for the judiciary and our concern for the judiciary grows every day. i'm going to start with some general comments on the nature of the judicial function, what's at that stake here, then address the preeminent issue of the moment, the government shutdown, and end with a brief comment on sequestration which we feel is maybe the most important problem involved. even

sullivan show" february of following year. bill as you know it was a really big show, really big show. bill: that it was. hey, happy halloween. martha: happy halloween to you, mr cool. martha: what is your favorite halloween candy? bill: reese's cups. martha: i'm a big butter finger fan. "happening now" starts right now. bye, everybody. jenna: breaking news on today's top stories and stories you will only see here. jon: sophisticated tunnels poping up between u.s. and mexico. a new secret underground system was discovered. we'll tell you where. >>> suddenly there is new hope for the search for a missing autistic boy. a mistertear russ photo appears that bears a striking resemblance to the teenager. could be it him. >>> fans go wild. what caused this stadium riot. we'll sho

mr. sullivan and mr. elkins will you look into the house that he cannot remember what he paid for or sold or monday involved could you get us a report on the arrangement? also looking to the timing on the house there appears to be a discrepancy in the testimony i was reading the ig says you owned it together until 1999 and i believe you said intel 1989. i want to give both of you a chance to explain the discrepancy how long did you tell the house together? >> i just said it was about 40 years later so, -- 14 years later eighties is not consistent with the 14 years >> do you thank you have a conflict of interest mr. brenner in your recommending mr. beale to work to your department in 1989? >> as he owned the house together with you? >> i did not think. >> why not? >> because the way the process works i could go through the process of recommending that mr. beale be hired but there are several reviews that needed to ocher. >> you recommended him as he lived in the house with you but you didn't know about the