not really. commissioner renne: i went back into the look at the transcript, portions of the transcript where the question, the question that were at issue were raised, and there were objections to the admissibility as being immaterial. i think we may have been too lax in letting it come in. i share the view that has been expressed here that, regardless of what the answer would be and to the testimony you want to put in, i am sure it will not be clear cut one way or the other based upon the stories that appear in the newspaper. denials and -- it will not be clear cut but even if we did, it has nothing to do with whether or not there was a violation which constitutes official misconduct. it has nothing to do with that. it is a totally separate matter and if you like to pursue it someplace else, fine. >> i would respectfully disagree. this is why. the mayor has argued that his suspension of the sheriff was discretionary. it was an exercise of his discretion. respectfully, the phrase rise to the lev

he did not have a duty to do that, but that is not what happened here, so we do not have to deal withthat. he took an ax to prevent his wife from going to the police. -- took acts to prevent his wife from going to the police. >> thank you. your time is up. >> good morning, commissioners. i want to begin by thanking you to the city and service of san francisco for this proceeding. this has taken an extensive amount of time on everyone's part, and i want to thank you on behalf of myself, the sheriff, and miss lopez for your careful consideration of the evidence and a lot in this case. this morning, before closing argument, i will spend a few minutes talking to you about discretion. that i will turn it over to mr. kop who will discuss official misconduct and the facts as it relates to official misconduct. >> before you start, can i make a comment as someone who was tried cases for a lot of years and appear before a lot of judges, you did not do your client any favor by starting off your brief by saying at the end of an unnecessary protective dog and pony show. is that what you consider t

>> i do not want to be flippant and say, not in san francisco. [laughter] no, but i am trying to figure out why. what we are trying to do is get closer and closer to what the line is. >> i think that i see what you mean. the interpretation that you are giving in relation to the duties of the office, i read the second provision to relate to the office of sheriff but not necessarily to mean that it has to happen while carrying out the duties of sheriff. i still think there needs to be a nexus and their relationship to the office. i do not read it as restricting it to the duties of office. i think that is where we differ on the interpretation. chairperson hur: my interpretation is a little bit broader than that. "in relation to the duties" means what you are acting under color of law. if the sheriff had used his authority as sheriff to dissuade a witness even though he was not the share of at the time -- the sheriff at the time, i still think that could explain a charge. what i am worried about is a relationship that is so general that what we are t

>> i did not ask that question. >> why not? >> objection. compound. >> sustained. >> why not?am working telecommuting from home, and i am working, and i get a call, and i am doing the best i can see if she is in any danger or need any support. >> so you did not think of it at the time? >> yes. >> when you think that having guns and a home is a risk factor for further violence could >> yes. >> did you ask her whether she was threatening to leave the sheriff or to take their son? i. >> would you agree that the danger is heightened when the victim is threatening to leave? >> absolutely. >> did you ask her if the sheriff was ever drinking or using drugs during this time period? >> no. >> would you agree that drinking or using drugs is a risk factor for violence? >> yes. >> did michelob's tell me during this protocol, this first 40- minute phone call, that she was considering making a police report? >> no, she did not tell me that. >> Ñ[e 3did she discuss what effect this would have on sheriff mirkarimi? >> no, she did not bring it up. >> did you bring it up? >> no. >> do you know

>> not enough. >> not a thing. tavis: i would not say not a thing. >> he has moved a few >> to high positions. -- a few blacks to high positions. terms of african-american teenage mothers who do not know what to do, and she is overwhelmed, what has he done? in terms of the black man in prison, there are so many black men in prison, it is a disgrace to humanity. what has he done for them? tavis: i do not disagree at all, but the ultimate question for black voters is how is romney going to make life better? we are done. >> i do not think either of them cares. it reminds me of a long time ago when people ask what margaret thatcher was going to do about the poor in england, and he said, ignore them. tavis: the book is called "how to really ruin your financial life and portfolio." may be will come back. we talk about some real stuff. thanks for watching, and keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for a conversation with actre

the mayor said i do not know. i have not thought about it. if he does not know what of their crimes, misdemeanors would warrant removal from office because they would constitute alleged official misconduct, then how can any official be on notice? if the mayor does not even know what other misdemeanors would constitute -- warrant removal, that would warrant suspension. how can anyone be on notice? >> council, in determining whether or not the mayor exercised his discretion in a reasonable manner, can the mayor and for this commission take into account what the elected official did between the time that the alleged misconduct occurred from the time he is suspended from office? >> can the commission take into account the suspending authorities conduct? lpor the removed official -- >> in other words, let's assume in the case of public official, it's an act that would constitute official misconduct, and between the time he commit the act or she commits an act and when the mayor exercises his discretion, can he take into account what happened in be

>> not really. if you're going to do a permit, dpw for for her you push it back. -- prefer you move it back. i would not be too concerned. good >> we can hear from the appellant. >> thank you from hearing from me today -- for hearing from me today. i have a few questions regarding everything that was brought up. no. the reviews already supposed to happen? i thought we did worth the reviews already supposed to happen? -- weren't the reviews already supposed to have been? according to the appropriateness, i am also questioning the legality of it. it has actually been a legal -- illegal, and the door handle is currently 5 feet tall, 5 feet high, so it is not a wheelchair accessible, and that would have to be changed. the gate is requested to be open from 8:00 until 5:00 p.m., but for the last three months i have been keeping records of when it has been closed, and i have just put a piece of paper on the light box so you can see all of the notices. i have sent an e-mail each time it has been a close, so

i do not think it amounts to official misconduct, but i do not want there to be any illusion to my view about whether it was appropriate conduct or not from what i would expect from an elected official. but i do not think it rises to official misconduct. >> you are talking about this item only? >> yes. any other views with respect to the factual allegations? of course, the parties submitted a joint statement which was somewhat helpful in us trying to determine what facts we really need to find and discuss here. we have addressed, i think, the most salient ones. there are a couple that we may want to address just so that we can ensure that we have established the predicate for our discussion of the law and the application of the law to the facts. i think it is undisputed that the share of -- sheriff was elected on november 8, 2011, and that he was sworn in on january 8, 2012. i also think that there is -- it was proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he did engaged in actions at the sheriff's office that he was getting up to speed on what his duties would be in the interim betwee

that are not very sensible. if you look at what his testimony was at the cheering to explain this, you will find that testimony was not -- at the hearing to explain this, you'll find that testimony was not credible. the sheriff said, the agreement was, my lawyer was going to give the weapons to the sheriff's department and the sheriff's department was going to give them to the police department. that was his testimony. what happened next? we know from the inspectors declaration that the next day when he spoke on the phone with capt. or would from the sheriff's department, she did not have any idea that with the plan. -- was the plan. this was an agreement that he supposedly made, but he sends over a member of his staff and did not inform her. if she had known that the plan, she would have given the weapons to her counterpart at the police department. but the next thing that happened that could disprove his testimony is this. there was a court date the following week where his attorney was present, the same attor

this is not official misconduct. it is not violence. because i have a little bruise on my arm from something else, that is no proof. you were not there. you did not see how hard it was or how little it wise. some people breeze very easily. that is no proof of violence. this is not justice. if willie brown and gavin newsom, the mayor, could get away with that -- [tone] and here you are trying to make -- lay this mantle on him, and reasonable. think of your conscience. but what if you were in that position? it is not fair. you have to legalize the justice scales, right? i'm not a lawyer, but i know a lot about the law. so do your job and tell this man he is to report for work as soon as possible. [tone] [applause] >> before we move on, i appreciate that members of the public are going to have reactions to things that are said. this is public comment. this is not evidence. i feel like we can have a little bit of -- more reaction than we can add other parts. but please respect of speaker and please respect this process. let's not the way th

that training bulletin is not a shall not or a do not. officers will have to use that and dynamic situations. we are not telling them they shall not. >> thank you for coming. i had a question with regard to -- it also says, unless the situation justifies possible risks or death of serious injury. what would be the weapon more dangerous than name taser -- than the taser? >> i have to be careful about the way i answered that question. a firearm would absolutely be more dangerous. >> that is the answer i was looking for. >> i am looking at the houston and michigan slides you presented. years and dollar amounts only tell part of the story. do you have any actual numbers that show the numbers reduced? i would advocate for you to work directly with the department. everything i bring to you is going to have that air of taser international. >> ok, thank you. >> good evening. i am the chief of staff and the supervisor at the risk management office, the officer- involved shooting team, the legal division, and i work with the city attorney's office

there is not. it is disclosed, right? >> even at the levels that we see, it is not a flood. >> but it is not disclosed. we do not know where it is coming from. >> that is a problem. >> it could be coming from corporations. >>-sure in some cases it is. >> thank you. just to go back to the notion that this dates back to mccain- feingold more than citizens united, it is true that outside spending was happening in 2008 and 2010, but before 2003, it was disclosed, and in 2004 it was this close to the irs. it is the disclosure that i see as big dramatic change post- citizens united. there are suggestions that we relaxed the limits on candidates, and problems with that. one is the statement that you made, that the supreme court has said we are permitted to regulate the nation's based of the appearance of corruption. i am not sure this conservative supreme court would go as far to say we should end contribution limits. that is one question. if disclosure of leads to discrimination and harassment, why are c

if he had not, i do not think anyone ever would have. your enemies are saying. if you want to know why your enemies attack you, it does not justify why they attacked you. but if you want to understand what is going on, you would have to know why they say they attacked you. [applause] i know there are hundreds of moments, but the final one that was one of my favorites, i think this was from 2008 also. when they talk about the war in iraq, he said, we just marched in and we can just march out. [cheers and applause] >>> bring them home! >> i give to you the guy that is my hero, the guy that is the greatest representative of the liberty movement in our time, my father, ron paul. [cheers and applause] ron paul! ron paul! ♪ ♪ ron paul! ♪ >> thank you very much. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you very much. thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you, thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you, thank you. [cheers and applause] ok, enough is enough. [laughter] [cheers and applause] that is very nice. thank you very m

why not? guest: the super committee -- the idea was to come up with a plan to try to cut $2 trillion or $3 trillion out of the deficit over the next 10 years. we are going to grow another $10 trillion in the next 10 years under obama. republicans are willing to raise tax revenues by growing the economy but we are not going to raise tax rates. they could not come to an agreement. that is why this election is so important. these decisions about how we bring down debt -- those decisions are going to be decided by the election. president obama says we can balance the budget by taxing rich people. i think we need to cut government spending and growth economy faster the way reagan did it in the 1980's. host: ron in colorado asks -- guest: that is a really good point. i agree with the premise of that question. i actually believe this writer has a good point. i think we have a shot in 2013 for blowing up the tax system completely and starting over. think about all the issues we have to deal with. the

they do not want to engage in what it is not true. steve on the democratic line from texas, you are on with jeffrey bell. caller: i did not vote for reagan. i am 51. i have been voting since 1979. i would like to say one thing about social issues. i follow politics -- i have followed politics my entire life. the republicans have tried to cut medicare, the social programs that matter to people or help people. they have been against us from the beginning. it is a red herring for mitt romney to say something -- they will fix something they will cut. if you look at social issues with respect to religion, how can you say you are religious? if you look it jesus christ's teachings, he is a liberal. i love my lord and savior. host: i will give you a chance to respond. guest: in 1944 and 48, thomas dooley was the republican nominee for president. in those elections, the more affluent you were, the more wealth you had, the more likely you were to vote for him. he carried the northeast, the most affluent part of the country in. everything was ki

it does not mean she is not beautiful or not nice. it means sometimes that some make me dream. summing we dream. >> inspiring you. >> yes. >> one thing that is very interesting in this exhibition if you have a section called urban jungle. you go and see it and it looks as though it is what you would typically say is taking animals and jungle and things i suppose from africa or perhaps india, but a lot of animals in it. as to get closer to the pieces, you realize that these are actually coutoure pieces. it is as though you have tamed the jungle. there is the extraordinary leopard dress that tells you where the coutoure are and how many hours of workmanship are in there. so when you pay the bill, perhaps it is justified. [laughter] there is one that was 1,032 hours of hand or again beating. they're very few designers i can think of in coutoure who would do something like that. we were used to seeing coutoure very much what i would call salon clothing, a very beautiful and very delicate, but not with the sentence animal, vegetable, natural being brought into coutoure. was doing co

>> absolutely not. >> she did not tell you about planned communications? >> absolutely not.s forming? >> she only shared her emotions? >> that is correct. >> after that text, there is a series of back-and-forth between you and mrs. lopez, and at 5:57, you talked to ms. lopez again for seven-. you recommend -- to you recollect now the purpose of that call? >> i do not. Ñ she suggested calling mike hennessey? >> she did not. >> in the middle of that phone t a response, i cannot and neither can he. you have to reject the actions. we both do. i cannot involve new people. did she tell you about getting that text? . >> the you know what it meant -- did you know what it meant? >> that is speculation. >> i am asking. >> i did not. >> ok, so that comes in at 5:51. no, that is wrong. i apologize. that comes in at 6:01 in the middle of a phone call you are having with lopez the glass until 6:00 for -- that lasts until 6:04, so you hang up and then call sheriff mirkarimi. you know what that is about? >> i do not recall. eheriff, and says, do not write any other thing. answer the call. s

he very well may not be, but i do not think that is in our purview.f we are going to sayq/a -- essentially, what the mayors export -- experts said is that any misconduct by a sheriff is official misconduct. that troubles me because it seems the parties can see that there is a difference between personal and official misconduct. the evidence we heard does not give me a comfort that we can take that line. -- pick that line. >> i am just wondering how you are getting to that time iss ue. within option 2, any wrongful behavior in relation to the duties of office, including conduct that falls below the standard of decency and right action required, and the standard required could well have at( going forward element o it. the standard that we expect is so that you can do your job going forward. it is not either historic or at one moment in time. you may be looking at something that i am just not seeing in the second line or in the other case law, which i know you know better than i do. chairperson hur: it is a good point. i do think a standard is something

others, we were not. we could not shrink the size of any units. we have complied with the goals and direction of the planning department. with regard to the fire escape, the fire escapes are gone, because we have fully sprinkle the building. all of the separations are up to code. hopefully, this is contingent -- the removing a fire escape is contingent upon the stair. we have met with the building department. they have signed off on this. this is what they would like us to do. fire escapes are not a great way to get out of a building. they are not allowed in new buildings. it is something that exists because there is no other way. if we had the opportunity to make two code-compliant stairs, it does not require the fire escape. president fong: this is a safer, more up to code building? >> this is part of the project. there were no rated separations between corridors, between units, between floors. all of that is now up to code. the prior stairs were not in closed. the stairs are now in closed and rated. the egress did not comply. if you grant the v

they are either at the end of their term, not coming back, or they do not know that they are not coming back. [laughter] but this is a small group. the idea you will raise taxes on the american people to not think through defense priorities, let me leave the name that because i do not promised if i said -- there is a big r in that category. i said i would like how can i help you provide for a serious defense and defend the united states and not raise taxes an cut other spending. or do you have other forms that we could help high light that aren't moving from gridlock in d.c., perhaps bipartisan commitment to overspending. the answer i got, we, what you could realy to is explain to people that we can't cut the defense budget. at which point i thought to myself this is not a person who's trying. he said this and this -- i tried all these four things and it hasn't worked if you could push maybe we could get these across the finish line. could you help? he had nothing on his list to save money, nothing. and when i would suggest to him, well, that doesn't solve all his problems. several bill

our view of the recall is not sufficient? whenever the reasons for why they wanted to do this, it is the voters decide we want another tool, not some third party or our determination that adds this. >> well, to be fair, i do not think they created this for almost 100 years. the power to remove for official misconduct has been in the charter. they treat the procedure a bit, creating the ethics commission. >> exactly. to answer your question, i think you have to assume the voters were aware of the state of the law. the state of the law has not been in the state of california that allows a person who has been elected but not yet sworn into office to be removed for any act that occurred before they're sworn into office. there's just no such case that exist. that is why they have had to go to other jurisdictions to persuade you. and again, beating a dead horse -- ." >> we do not know other those cases do not exist because no one tried or no such factual situations. >> of course. i do not want to move away from this if there is any

it was not. no one has gone up here and said when the lawsuit was settled, that space was taken into consideration. they were compensated for it. it was not. i was there. i negotiated the settlement. they were told one thing and handed something else. all of these people are coming to this from a historical perspective and reading the documents of others, coming to the conclusion that some held the y- -- somehow the yees are to blame. they are not. president hwang: -- vice president fung: there is another forum, i will ask the question, there is no discussion in your brief as to what was in the original permit versus we have been cited for. do you want to comment on that or not all? >> the permit was issued on an emergency basis. i have not had prior experience with an emergency permit. the idea was that the city thought this was a good way to go because they had to a large extent been responsible for the destruction of the house and so mr. yee was assured by the building department and other age

if not, why not? >> the short answer is, no. we do not do that. >> why not? >> we try to determine everything about a person as possible based on their willingness to share. because of the constitutional system, we do not do that. other countries are very successful in using profiling. there is a fair amount of debate on that question. would we be better if we profiled? i do not think so. one of the things i saw when i first came over, a terrorist has no face. the idea it may be someone from 9/11, it could also be a 24- year-old son of a prominent banker and a foreign country who is african who may not meet somebody is profile. what profile do we use? is it the israeli model? if the fit this category, the better plan on the three hours. -- if you fit this category, you better plan on three hours. that works under israel's laws. 11 million passengers a year. we have 12 million zero week in the u.s. the scale of it, the professionalism, the work force, having already served in army for two years. the bottom line is, we do everything we can to differentiate, not

just because it was not the most extreme form does not mean that it is not domestic violence.the sheriff is the head of a law-enforcement agency. i do not think the sheriff should be an example of reform to justice -- reformative justice. the sheriff should be someone who follows the letter of the law, someone we can all emulate. i would certainly feel that this has been violated. chairperson hur: ok, i think probably -- i appreciate the views of my fellow commissioners. i appreciate also that i am clearly in the minority here. i think they are very informed and wise use. i will say one thing, in response to commissioner studley. you are right. the language is all over the place. it could be interpreted as the people wanting to be broad. one reason i think people did not want to be so broad is because the power it gives the mayor to suspend an elected official without pay while this entire process goes on, i think, is pretty in store -- pretty extraordinary. we might become more efficient, going forward, but it is still going to be disruptive. i want to protect future mayors a

neil: i am not to give money to anyone, not rescues or credits, not one individual or another, we have a slippery slope. >> the slippery slope is the corruption on wall street, mortgage-backed security. neil: no, no, that slope is $45 trillion in more debt, it is leaving all of that -- all of that, you to the tax payers, everyone is paying that bill, not just those in arears. >> how do we get out of the mess. neil: stop spending, that is how we get out, just put the shovel down. >> get america back to work, people can pay taxes, this is not rocket science. neil: we sppt a lot of -- spent a lot of money, and not a resu result. i leave you speechless. >> that ove never happened. but i will say help modify people's mortgages, keep them in their homes, and then also, create jobs, that -- then we can get the economy moving. i want to see this country prosperous. neil: i want us to stop spending to stop guys like you even though i love you, congressman, thank you. he does not feel the same way, dennis kucinich. by the way, i am covering these issues from the speeches from both conventions ne

it is not here. therefore, it is not official misconduct. that argument does not make any sense. do not think anyone would argue that the charter meant to allow an official to do anything on the job, no matter how wrongful, that if it was not spelled out as a particular duty and a statute that you could not violate, that it would not work give rise to official misconduct. that does not make any sense. the california supreme court said in the cranston case dealing with the police officer who engaged in reckless driving while off-duty, it up held the determinate -- it up held the termination of that officer. it said, the public has the right to expect police officers to obey the law, whether on duty or off duty. when police officers violated law that they were hired to enforce, they do so at their own peril. that relationship existed there, and it is the same relationship here. this test is fully satisfied. it is conceivable that there are situations where it could be terrible conduct and it could be a much harder question. but this is not one of them. >> let me ask about cranston.

or not. there is difficulty given you are so public and your clear difference of opinion with your supervisors about what the right approach was. >> prior to going to support -- homicide, i never had any problems with any supervisor except for the one written reprimand which is sealed because of an automobile accident. doing what was told. they put me with perhaps the toughest pretended to work with. i get along with him. i do my job. i have been doing an outstanding job. this incident happened during a short time in homicide. they did not want me in homicide. they were bound and determined to kick me out of homicide, and if you're going to firing over this stuff, i am pleading with you. i have down -- done an outstanding job for the san francisco police department. i have an outstanding record, and i am going to continue to do a great job for the chief and for the city, and i am at your mercy. vice president marshall: 4 inspector lee? all right, thank you then. deliberations. thank you. >> f

if they do not, they should not be approved.t is important that all regulators recognize the relationship that the need to have and maintain with the regulated entities. it does mean there needs to be an arms-length relationship. there is a growing level of sophistication in the wells that are being drilled and the wells that industry wants to drill. that will require a higher level of sophistication to scrutinize the applications that are submitted. there have been problems recruiting senior engineers with the skills to give those applications a close look. there are efforts on going including a pay increase for engineers which moves the ball forward, but more needs to be done. we need to think about those from other industries and other countries which would help regulators do their job in reviewing the applications they have to deal with. that is not a criticism. if there is a rush of new deepwater applications, i think it would be in no one's interest for the backlog to stack up. >> address some of the things that steve ment

but if we do not have the focus, if we do not have the workers turning for the some people, we will not cut it. one of the most alarming statistics i have heard recently, and this is the biggest challenge for the next president and governors, is that we are the lowest level of new started businesses in america in 30 years. think about that. small businesses in america. there is no way for the existing corporations medium and large to create and sustain economic growth we need to keep america the hope of the earth. you need to have a steve jobs or bill gates. until we create a culture of entrepreneurship and we have every policy at the federal and state level focused on creating the next generation of entrepreneurs and motivate the some people are getting out of college and to think about the american dream in a new way and be willing to take new risks and that is whyelail -- romney is the best for america. >> this is about jobs. what will we do to get people jobs? that goes back to, what are we doing to recruit businesses? i am looking forward to the day when we're not taking from each

i did not find that incredible. >> in addition to which she testified that she could not remember thesubstance of many of those phone conversations. there were 20, 30 phone calls? to say you don't remember what you were talking about is not credible. she may believe she does not remember it but i was not convinced at all. >> i would agree with your conclusion. there is a very plausible or possible chain that would explain better than miss lopez calling someone she did not know very well and hremembering her having something different than the testimony but i don't think we have enough for a separate charge. >> i next think we should discuss the witness dissuasion charges with respect missw3 madison. here i don't think it's close. agianain, it's plausible the sheriff instructed miss hanes to tell miss madison not to cooperate with the police. i do not think we are close to that kind of evidence we will need to find that sheriff sought to dissuade miss madison from cooperating with the police or reporting the incident. i welcome the view from my fellow commissioners. >> i think there wa

school supplies not being bought and new computer not bought and money not going in the economy that is bad for us all. >> gary? >> sarah is right f. we are just talking about salaries. unfortunately we are not. we are talking about pensions. pensions for the public sector compared to the private sector are 50 percent more. we now have a new trillion dollars. i forget the exact amount. two trillion of unfunded pension liability in the federal level. clearly the math said asking federal employees to kick in five percent are unfair considering that the pensions are 50 percent higher than the private sector. >> look at that as compared to the compensation. federally employees make less than skill would people could. and dea agents, fire and police that keep us safe. >> sarah, this is tobi, that is a nice thought and would have applied 10 years ago. but if you look at numbers over the last 36 months. lawyers and judges. judges can make more money. but almost every side is in a higher rate . you have to include salaris and pensions. because of the pension plan is guilded. the idea of matc

to not have clean hands. supportedia have democracy in rain, said troops, yet we have the biggest weapons still in history with the saudis. $60 billion, which there's nothing to compare that in history. it is a signal by the u.s., we will still armed dictatorships, even in the midst of the arab spring. we will not get up front about regulating some of these sales, but try to delete it. i think it sends an awful message to the world and does not represent the views of the american public. >> let me turn to president eisenhower. in fact, part of the name of your book comes from that famous address the president eisenhower gave. president dwight d. eisenhower was famous farewell speech to the nation. it was generous 17, 1961. -- january 17, 1961. >> my fellow americans, this evening i come to you with a message of farewell and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. 3.5 million men and women are directly engaged i

evidently the majority here does not, did not, like the conclusions of the report. and so they turned this into an investigation with a number of subpoenas and now the testimony of the acting inspector general. as i said yesterday, it is ludicrous, it must look really silly to people outside looking at this. so here we're spending committee time, subpoenaing people, calling them in because in the preliminary edition of the report, the word pause was used and in the final report a more official sounding word, moratorium, was used. you know, yesterday, i went through at great length various synonyms for moratorium, which would include pause. i don't see anything nefarious here. it's simply that the majority did not like the conclusion and they want to discredit the report. and unfortunately, try to discredit some hard working con seenshus -- conscientious altruistic public servants, and i thank you for coming, ms. kendall, i'm sorry that you have to go through this. let me run through a few questions. when the case agent finished a draft of the report, you reviewed th

i do not get it. i do not get it at all. i do not see where the vision is with this. seems like these are ideas that are just being thrown out there. i see nothing about any of this that has to do with customer service. it is not going to do anything for the customer that will better their service. at a time -- we are at a time where we have real competition. putting a heavier debt and charging more for a medallion just does not make any sense. from a business point of view, none of this makes any sense. shutting out the drivers that are on the list, cutting them out does not make any good sense at all, either. by adding medallions and bringing in drivers who are inexperienced, it will add to the problem we already have in the industry. an experienced drivers. -- unexperienced drivers and a low level of service. the changing from "shall" to "may" is just an abomination. i do not know how i could look at bill, who i have known for 25 years, and who has changed his entire life to get a medallion, just to have it taken away like that. it is a shame. [applause] >> [readin

>> i'm not a doctor.i can say i got a bruised. >> you don't know whether that's an injury. >> objection, relevance. chairperson hur: answer's in. >> there was a second time on the 31st that you told your husband to stop that you mentioned last night. do you recall that testimony? >> yes. >> where were you the second timing -- time you told your husband to stop on december 31st? >> in the kitchen of my house. >> and at that point did you say to your husband, something along the lines of "please stop, look at what you're doing to our son, do you know what this is going to do to him, please stop for our son?" >> in the kitchen he was apologizing i didn't want to talk with him so i said, stop, do not talk to me. and at that point was around 1:00 p.m., he was hungry. he was sleepy. i was hungry. i was angry because i have to cook and make the lunch late at 1:00 when it's already nap time and he was trying to apologize so i just say, stop, let me cook, make things i have to do and deal with you. >> on december

i do not think it is any surprise and it does not cold not well. there was not a lot of national polling about paul ryan. there is some polling that has been going on in the months leading up to this. it shows you that the country does not really know him all that well. high-information voters know who he is. otherwise, he is still a blank slate, someone to be defined. host: the president and democrats are trying to define him right away. what do paul ryan and mitt romney due to get what they want into the debate. guest: we will have a different debate than a lot of folks would have expected. there is no way around the debate over the ryan budget. if you look at the response of every democratic house and senate candidate across the country, you will see that they refer to paul ryan as the running mate of their local republican candidate for challenger. that is going to be the framework for this discussion. there will be a serious discussion about the merits of that plan. host: our guest will be with us for the next 35 minutes or so. we will continu

not bad news but you have ripley's believe it or not to the west. if your family, you will want not want a bunch of osbournpeope smoking at the end of this sidewalk. it is a hard one. i was trying to brainstorm to see how we could make it work and one of the things we talked about is having their staffing, which talked-about having science. encouraging people to go across the street if they are smoking in large numbers. they have agreed to that. i do not know of that -- if that is conditionable. we are -- to promote that with customers. that we do not have a big smoke cloud. >> it is a big parking lot. so that is perfect. >> is not enforceable but the smoking code says you have to go to the end of the curb. there is no way we can force them to do otherwise. sometimes being a good neighbor and encouraging patrons, there will be compliant. other than that, we're happy with the move. >> any questions for officer mathias? let's hear from the public. are there people from the public who would like to address this permit? your welcome.

to say the charter is not perfect and the people did not vote in a provision that was perfect is notery compelling to me. i want to know why we should take a restrictive view of public official that would absolves him or immunize him from being suspended from official misconduct prior to his swearing in. >> there is a very simple answer, the primacy of the will of the electorate. there is a provision in place, called the recall that can be used to remove a public official that the voters want to get rid of. that is a democratic way to do it. admittedly it can take time, because you have to wait six months until after the official is sworn in to start gathering officials. it can take close to a year to remove the public official, but that is the democratic way to do it. this is far too susceptible to politics. to g>> the voters knew all thatn theory. they understood there was a recall option available and said we need this. it is not a week or the supervisor or the state said you need to do something different and override the recall provision, why does this not harmonize with the vot