extraordinary philip davis .h. >> so i think we're confusing a lot of things . right. the lot of things. right. the principal issue about the election date . yeah is the election date. yeah is the suspicion that people knew. yeah. what the what it was privileged. they were in a privileged. they were in a privileged inside circle. yeah. and they put money on that. and that's effectively cheating. yeah. because they know something that the rest of the pubuc something that the rest of the public don't know, generally in political betting you're not privileged. i mean, i remember betting, i think, on yvette cooper to win the labour leadership 2015. well, it didn't actually. yeah, it was only like actually. yeah, it was only like a fiver. yeah, yeah, a tenner. but i think that sort of betting where you're, you're not using privileged information, you're just the same as any other regular sort of betting gambler, punter . i regular sort of betting gambler, punter. i think that's fine. there's nothing illegal about that

now, joining us now is the conservative sir philip davies . philip davies, philip davies.h forjoining us on the show. this afternoon. there's been quite a lot of hoo ha over this £2,000 figure that rishi sunak lobbed out in the, in the tv debate last night. where does that come from? that figure ? figure? >> well, it comes from a combination of two things. it comes from a combination of the treasury costing out certain labour policies . and it also labour policies. and it also comes from labour's own figures of the cost of other things. so if you add those two things together, i mean, i'm sure both seem to me to be perfectly non—controversial figures . i non—controversial figures. i mean, presumably nobody can really quibble with the conservatives using labour's own costings for certain things. and on the other things it's based on the other things it's based on treasury figures. should, should , should rishi sunak have should, should rishi sunak have presented it entirely as an independent, civil service led analysis of the figures? well, i mean, it's on it's all on the i

so tory candidate sir philip davies has allegedly gambled £8,000 on the result of his constituency, predictingill lose. sir philip was asked by the sun newspaper if he placed the bet and these quotes i must say, are absolute gold. what's it got to do with you? whether i did or didn't , i hope to win. did or didn't, i hope to win. i'm busting a gut to win. i expect to lose. in the 2005 election, i busted a gut to win. i expected to lose. i had a bet on myself to lose in 2005 election, and my bet went down the pan. theo, i mean, is he okay here saying this is this is nobody's business apart from his. >> look, i don't carry a candle for sir philip davies. right, but we have to draw a distinction with this story. there is a very. there's a huge difference between placing an eight grand bet on your seat, where you don't actually know whether you're going to win or lose. there's a huge difference between doing that and some of the allegations made against those very close to rishi sunak, where they had extremely sensitive, privileged information about the election dates , and they're now facing date

does that mean philip davies is wrong for his alleged that?onservative party. philip will be subject to that like anybody else. if philip will be sub'ect to that like anybody else.— philip will be sub'ect to that like anybody else. if he had put a bet adainst anybody else. if he had put a bet against himself, _ anybody else. if he had put a bet against himself, you _ anybody else. if he had put a bet against himself, you still - anybody else. if he had put a bet against himself, you still think. against himself, you still think what you said on the interview on the radio it would be wrong. it what you said on the interview on the radio it would be wrong. it does sound to me. _ the radio it would be wrong. it does sound to me, if— the radio it would be wrong. it does sound to me, if somebody - the radio it would be wrong. it does sound to me, if somebody does - sound to me, if somebody does something like this, i do think there are concerns around that. labour has taken action against a candidate. too quickly in terms of finding out whether or

joining us now is conservative philip davies, philip, just on that, on that line of questioning thereshi sunak, your leader , to roll up his sleeves, leader, to roll up his sleeves, put the boxing gloves on and get a bit personal? >> well, i think he's been rolling his sleeves up. i don't think anyone can deny that he's been doing that. >> but the boxing gloves, though, in politics it's a you know, i don't think it's a question about getting personal, i.e. making personal attacks on people's character and things like that. >> i don't really think people want to see that, but i think it's perfectly legitimate in election. at the end of the day, elections are choice, and i think it's perfectly legitimate for political parties to point out the failings of the others and the dangers of the others if they were to come into office. so, yes, we certainly need to do that, because otherwise people are sleepwalking into a socialist nightmare. >> of course, when boris johnson was still prime minister, he did once, famously at a session of prime minister's questions , say prime minister's questio

attorney philip solinger, just told the jury about a 2020 conversation with the senator where they discussed the ongoing fraud case against menendez's friend and co-defendant, businessman fred davieshim to do other than my official duty. nbc's tom winter has been following this trial for us. catch us up to speed here. >> so, just -- you laid out the framework there of what we have been hearing. to rewind folks back to last week, we had a couple of days without testimony in this case because of an illness of one of the defendants. what has been going on here is a discussion with solinger and an examination by federal prosecutors asking about how it went down that he got the u.s. attorney's job, specifically that it appears that solinger was going to be menendez's top choice. he asked him, the senator did, specifically, maybe you should look into this daibes case. something about that doesn't quite seem right. and the next day, solinger called the senator back and said, hey, look, i just want to let you know, i have some sort of an issue here, i was previously involved with litigation involving dabies and i think if i were to get the job, they would recuse me. his name is not put fo

with the co development leads of charmaine curtis and cathy davis, who i see in the in the audience there, and they'll introduce themselves up philipe it away. wonderful. thank you very much for the introduction. director kozlowski. good later. afternoon. chair. brackett commissioner drew and commissioner lim, my name is phillip wong. i'm a housing development specialist who just joined the oci housing team, this past january. i have to say, this is my first presentation to this commission, and i have to offer that. i'm very grateful to have joined a really talented, passionate, dedicated, group. i think that speaks volumes about them and their work in public service. and i'm very grateful that they've been generous with their experience and, and their time to help me adjust into this role, i also want to make a land acknowledgment. i know that our work takes place on unseated ramaytush ohlone land, and our collective work, is important to further that cause. and we recognize their continuous connection to culture, community and country, i also am here to present on the very exciting rfq evaluation panel selection, but i also want