maybe not so hypothetical situation of things that could cause disturbance around the dinner table, and what can keep your thanksgiving dinner from turning into a food fight. grandpa al said, i don't think the fake news. >> grandpa al, he won't believe it? don't watch it >> grandpa al is ridiculous. he shouldn't be at the table >> the correct answer is, did you do something with the marked potatoes this year? . >> reporter: cousin mary said i need a safe space to process my feelings >> the kids' table is safe >> that safe space probably is in the basement. >> the correct answer is did you try these yams? they're yamtasc. i want you to know is when are they going to lock hillary up? >> see would tell him to go >> go where >> you know where. >> correct answer is, boy, this stuffing is moist >> grandmom sally said what we really need to do is build a wall around trump >> grandmom sally, we need a wall around you >> the correct answer is bacon, don't you just loveback >> uncle al said i don't believe this russia stuff, trump is draining the swamp >> pass the potato salad and broccoli, pleas

so we came up with a couple of hypothetical scenarios, maybe not so hypotheticals to find out how peopleo different situations and to make sure your thanksgiving dinner doesn't turn into a food fight. grandpop said, i don't believe the fake news. grandpop al, he won't believe the fake news? don't watch it >> grandpa al is ridiculous. >> the correct answer is, that did you something with marked potatoes this year? cousin mary said i need a safe space to process feelings >> the kids' table is safe >> that's probably in the basement >> correct answer is did you try these >> brother-in-law bill says what i want to know when they will lock hillary up. >> the correct answer is boy, this stuffing is moist >> grandmom sale said what we need to do is build a wall around trump. >> grandmom sally we need a wall around you >> the correct answer is bacon, don't you just love bacon >> uncle al said i don't believe this russia stuff, trump is draining the swamp >> pass the salad please >> what gram said is we need to build a wall around trump. >> what is she trying to tell us >> is she's your grandmoth

lack of a better word, they have specific criteria for how -- what documentation is required, so hypothetically, for a funeral and burial, obviously, it's a crime, it's a homicide, we -- we receive documentation from the inspectors in the homicide division, and then, of course, the invoice from the funeral home indicating what the cost of the expense would be, and then, it goes onto the claim support for the last checks and balances of what they're going to issue. >>supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. thank you very much. colleagues, do you have any other questions for miss deal i can't. if not, we'll go to public comment, see if there are any members of the public like to speak on these items. seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion? >>supervisor tang: i'll make a motion to this send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >>supervisor cohen: we'll take that without objection. mr. clerk, could you call item 1, please. >> clerk: eyes 1, resolution authorizing the exercise of an option to extend the term of a lease for approximately 20,000 square feet, consisting o

. >> would tv hypothetically? so we have eliminated the of hypothetical it isn't because of technology so why >> so to invest in the ct. >> there are other options. if you are charged a certain amount of money 1.2 way billion dollars is pulled back:deficit reduction and. but it is that because of funding?. >> we treated like every of error but we take away that passenger funded money and also the president's budget decreases. >> that are you satisfied a keeps us save given the technology that is available to us right now?. >> server was not involved in that. >> i am just asking your opinion. you are satisfied? you just said in a the passenger portion itself could be safer because of treaties giving? is that satisfactory?. >> when the budget was developed we did not work at that. >> we have the funds available. >> americans are not safe, lee and technology but money keeps us parker not the technology itself. >> no believe i said americans were not safe. >> safe her. >> additional investment would make travelers save h

did everything it could to hurt their most popular candidate in that is a form of breaking so my hypothetical how would you answer that i think of it would have been a much more competitive race i think that bernie would have been a better candidate and it was hillary by all accounts democrat and republican accounts she was an all full candidate and she thought that she was entitled that she thought it had it she had it coming and she didn't listen to the advice of those around her and so she were i think bernie it would have made it more competitive i do have to disagree that the that donald trump is is really the republican party i'll tell you that donald trump has reinvigorated the republican party i mean he look what he did last year a year ago you know a little over a year ago now what's going on now which was also alluded to correctly is that it's the. can establish mitt it's the mcconnells it's the ryans it's those people it's mccain it's they can stand trial they don't want him to succeed donald trump is doing everything correctly he's doing what he promised he would do when he read a

so in your hypothetical example i guess we don't know how many are paid. it would be a limiter. >> so again, for a general awareness of this, what might our hypothetical billionaire -- they are a host of past provisions, the lower rate for people at the top of the top and the like but just kick off what might this hypothetical billionaire benefit from? >> aside i should start with the rate. you're saying the person is a billionaire, so you're thinking they probably have a fair -- probably have an income in excess of $500,000 or a million dollars. those are the single and joint threshold taxable incomes for the 38.5% rate under the chairman's mark. on the qualified business income, the bill would allow a 17.4% deduction, which hoping one of my colleagues has quickly figured out the deduction amount for the effective marginal rate. reduction from 38%. let me say it's roughly not quite a sixth, so maybe six points down. it would mean instead of having a 38.5% rate on the qualified business income, you would have something around a 32% marginal tax rate. >> so

of the democrats and during challenges in turning out their voters and off year contests so in the hypothetical national ballot max democratic congressional candidates hold the rebuffs eleven point lead over their g.o.p. counterparts but it's a dead heat if you look at just those who are likely to vote it's a dead heat between the democrats and the republicans and all the craziness of the trump administration of mother jones popularity is on the way up so they got rid of a lot of the garbage that he had to get done in year one and now he's going to roll out some showcase programs of course the market keeps going higher and hillary clinton fans of democrats they have a problem all putting all their efforts into chasing the fake russia gate hoax and they're not therefore they don't have the resources to go field new candidates that might have a chance of twenty team so if they were to drop the russia gate hoax and focus on just finding candidates to run in twenty eighteen they might have a chance but at this rate they don't have a chance which means that they probably won't have a chance of twent

trying to understand the logic of very brief hypothetical with two parts the costt that generates out of the providers because we spend money. not the insurance. so add to the hypothetical market so one hospital system that is dominant because of dominance the triple the rates then they go to conferences to decide itsev do as many services as possible everybody gets radiation every heart isma studied and then make a lot of money but in another market two groups have been working for some time and maybe because there is more competition the rates are not crazy high. so when people in the exchange go out to buy they will pay more in one class as will the employers and everybody else because the rates are high during to a much unnecessary stuff. medicare and medicaid take the price difference because they get the price they impose not necessarily that utilization difference. so the problem i have of the republicanns side to say we need more insurance competition the market's is that the insurance company are like car dealerships if you'll put that quality that there is nothing much they can do but put the lights element so we watch this bill on and

backorder which is about 4,250, not that -- in a hypotheticals you have to get too accurate, that's enough work to keep them going for a couple years. so this is perhaps, have i said hypothetically enough? can i stop saying that? >> i think you have mentioned that, yes. >> so what is happening here? so it is in part building on an atmosphere which may exist. that's fine. which boeing sees and is taking competitive advantage of. to essentially use this existing mechanism to go after a canadian competitor who has got a product which they're frightens two to three years from now will start to nibble into their overall profit margins. you want to know why we in want canada are quite keen in having chapter 19 as interstate dispute resolution mechanism? we are really keen on that. there are always differences in opinions, different interpretations of the rules and eventually that ugly topic of politics can creep its way into programs and projects which involve multiple billions of dollars. hypothetical case boeing says boembar jay receives government subsidies. we are probably going to say boeing received billions for their military procurem

hypothetically that could be done. but there's other countries using them. so when you say hypothetically you could do that now, are you saying that the technology doesn't exist, even though it's being utilized elsewhere or what? >> no, the technology exists. in fact, i'm going to visit the airport next week -- >> so what did you mean hypothetically then? why is it hypothetical? >> due to funding. >> that's interesting. so you could use more funding to keep people safer? >> to invest in the ct technology requires funding above what tsa has. >> there are other options for that funding. i mean, the public, they are surcharged a certain amount of money. $2.8 billion of that has been pulled back from what the public gives for deficit reduction. we'll talk about that later. but you could use $1.28 billion. would that really help you getting rid of the hypothetical in terms of funding? >> yes, sir. we compete for funding like every other agency does. >> how far would that go? that's a lot of money. >> it would go a long way. >> so we could be safer, clearly, because

. >> so what you mean hypothetically? that is notated hypothetical because of technology. so why is it hypothetical? >> i have to come up with the funding. >> that is interesting. so you could use more funding to keep people safer. >> to invest in the ct thenology involves money tsa does not have. >> there are other options for that funding. >the public or surcharges are nt money. $1.28 billion of that has been pulled back from what the public is for deficit reduction. you could use 1.2 billion -- $1.28 billion. would that really help you? in terms of getting rid of the hypothetical for the funding? >> yes sir. we compete for funding like every other agency does within the homeland security and federal government. >> how far would that go? >> that is a lot of money and go a long way. >> so we could be safer clearly because the technology and savoring your opinion. we are taking away the passenger funded money and also the president's budget decreases that. are you satisfied with the budget? >> i wouldn't disagree with the fact that additional money makes us safer. >> are yo

hypothetical so it wasn't hard to infer what the bush family felt about donald trump as he emerged as the clear man to beat in 2016. >> dickerson: nancy in your book you talk about something called the gathering, which i want you to explain. but also have -- when you talk about leadership, people are grabbing it. in other words, they are not -- there's some question always of greatness is it thrust upon you or do you seize it. what is your take on that and explain what you mean by gathering. >> i any that the -- i think the leader makes the moment as well as the moment making a leader. grant is transformed as a general over the course of the civil war. fdr, right, is changed and developed through the course of his four terms. i'm sure this is true of both 41 and 4. so, greatness is not thrust upon us in some kind of divine strike of lightning. like, great suns something that i think proceeds very significantly from one person's willingness to say, i want to get better. and to fdr i'm going to show up in service to my mission with dignity and humanity. and compassion and a sense of the

. >> that brings up the larger question so with that hypothetical. >> if he wins that hypothetical toave the ethics investigation or to simply say forget that we will have a vote that is very unusual that would be a significant if the voters elect him fully knowing what he was accused of. it puts republicans and a difficult situation we cannot say 100% for sure but on the one hand talking about those circumstances at least it has to have that ethics probe that would take a long time means that would make it harder as time goes on. connell: so many republicans have called him to get out he is not going anywhere. >> there is not then the expulsion. >> and then to make history going forward. thanks for taking this time on a weekend. and to take a big financial hit if the current version of the tax bill passes in congress because it could end the use of tax-free bonds to subsidize it also doing away with tax deductions for universities to entice donors to give. we have not heard a lot of about that but we will now. we're in los angeles with the details. >> the oakland raiders building a $

between now and then, chuck, and i'm not going to project what we should be doing under that hypothetical. >> sously it's a hypothetical situation, but given the fact that republicans have such a slim majority in the senate, they need every vote on big issues like tax reform, are you likely to see that if roy moore wins, the republicans will kind of brush this under the carpet and seat him or do you think there could be an insurgency of sorts to say, no, we don't want him in our midst? >> first of all, i'm not sure they can refuse to seat him but they can kick him out. i think this is one of those moments of conscience that we saw around donald trump too. are you going to embrace trump, and they did. but there are a lot of people in the party right now who are saying, okay, donald trump was a big -- was a problem, we did that. but this is pedophilia. this is molesting -- if the worst allegation is true of the 14-year-old, this is molesting a young girl. we can't afford to associate our brand with this. so i think that there would be a big battle in the senate and there would be a significant num

you're saying hypothetically you could do that now, you send the technology doesn't exist has been utilized elsewhere? >> the technology exists. i'm going to visit the airport next week. >> so what did you mean hypothetically? is not hypothetical because of technology. >> it is due to funding. >> that's interesting. >> so you could use more funding to keep people safer? >> there are other options for that funding. the public is charged a certain amount money. $1.28 billion has been put back for what the public gives for deficit reduction. you could use $1.2 billion. with that really help you in terms of getting rid of the hypothetical? >> yes, sir. we compete for funding just like everybody else does. >> could you use the money? how far with echo? >> it would go a long way. >> so we could be safer clearly in your opinion, were not doing it because of the money that were taken away the passenger funded money in the president budget decreases it. >> i wouldn't disagree with the fact that additional money. >> are you satisfied that it keeps us safe given the technology available to us now. >> i was not involved when the budget was developed. >> your satisfied were safer with t

>> so i found that hypothetical after we spoke last night and i read it and having read it i do understand your concern. as you've just expressed it which is we go from a noncriminal but suspicious acts to reading the contenlt of some aspect -- >> i'm going to stop you right there. that's encouraging. so you think that's a valid concern to making that leap to reading content? >> no, i do understand the concern, yeah. definitely. and then this brings us to -- so then if the solution is the warrant requirement, as we also discussed last night and have been talking about today so then we're putting a warrant requirement in by targeting nonu.s. persons. where no court has held that a warrant is required to do so and where we've been chastised for not connecting the dots in the past and i think that's the worry of the fbi here. but you should let them speak for themselves on that. and of course if your interested in the american and really to surveill the american, you'd have to go get a fisa warntd on that. i say on balance, at least from right now i don't think you should need a warrant to lo

hypothetical with two parts. the u.s. healthcare is very expensive. the cost generate out of the providers because we spend the money, not the insurance. so, let's have two hypothetical markets. in one there's one hospital system that is dominant, they bought awe thedocks -- all the docks they've trim their rates and go to conferences and decide, let's do as many services as possible, every freckle gets radiation, have heart is studied, everything, everything can happen. make a lot of money, have profit. another market, you have two groups who have been working on cost and quality for some time, and maybe because there's more competition among the providers, the rates are not crazy high. so, when people in the exchange go out and buy, there's going to pay lot more in class a, as are the employers, as are everybody else, because the rates are high and they're doing too much unnecessary stuff. this goes on. medicare and medicaid obviate the price difference because they gate price that they impose, not necessarily the utilization difference. so the problem i have with the republican side saying, what we need is more insurance competition in

. >> so i found that hypothetical after we spoke last night, and i read it. and having read it, i do understand your concern, as you just expressed it, which is that we go from a noncriminal but suspicious act to reading the content of some aspect of this person's communications. >> look, i want to stop you right there because that's encouraging. so you think that's a valid concern to be just kind of making that leap to reading content. >> i do understand the concern, no, definitely. and then this brings us to, so then if the solution is the warrant requirement, as we also discussed last night and as we have been talking about today, so then you know, then it becomes a question, okay, so then we're putting a warrant requirement in to search information that's lawfully collected by targeting non-u.s. persons, where at least as i understand it, no court has held that a warrant is required to do so, and where if you, you know, we have been chastised for not connecting the dots in the past. i think that's the worry of the fbi here, but you should let them speak f

( applause ) >> so, can i ask you a hypothetical questions. >> well, i don't thinking to like the real one, either. >> do you have the papers? >> not yet. >> this is a devastating security breach that was leaked out of the pentagon. the most highly classified documents of the war. >> "the times" has 7,000 pages detailing how the white house has been lying about the vietnam war for 30 years. >> the way they lied, those days have to be over. >> kay, people are concerned about having a woman in charge of the paper. bet she doesn't have the resolve to make the tough choices. >> thank you, arthur, for your frankness. >> let's do our jobs, find those pages. >> you're talking about exposing years of government secrets. >> is that legal? >> what is it you think we do here for a living, kid. >> ben, i might have something. >> must be freshes cargo. >> it's just government secrets. >> "the new york times" was barred from publish anything more classified documents dealing with the vietnam wa war. >> if you publish, we'll be at the supreme court next week. >> meaning? >> we cou

so it's not a guarantee. the race is not a run-away for either party. >> shepard: before he would run in this hypothetical that you're speaking of, would he have to be relieved of duties or be taken out of position as attorney general? if so, does that create complications on any level for the russia investigation? >> he resigned from the russia -- >> shepard: he recused himself. >> recused himself. yes. earlier this year. so he's not in that day to day but he has a huge job as attorney general looking at kinds of different things. as far as i know, there aren't specific -- he might do it at the same time, but it's just a whole new ball game. this is not happened before. >> shepard: we'll wait and see how this plays out. for now, a new accuser who says i feared he was about to rape me. i liza collins, thank you. wild times in the trial of bob menendez. jurors started deliberations from scrap after an alternate juror had to step in. minutes ago, the jurors reported that they can't reach a unanimous decision in the bribery case. the judge told them what to do next. we'll give live reporting from new jersey next

we are so far away from the point that to suggest that perhaps hypothetically in five years might have to get a new device so let's not look at the technical standard, as i said, this is a standard that no one would ever apply to any other segment of the coming occasions, certainly not the technology companies that don't have to abide by this mother may i approach here in washington. >> two things. first i wanted to clarify the copper to fiber items and the idea behind eliminating this notification is that services that run over these formally copper networks that are transitioning would still work just fine -- is that correct? obviously the competition to go into more detail but there are two different categories i guess you might say that are in play here. category one is if there is a change to your service in category two is if the carrier is discontinuing that service. if in that first category we are talking about notice under section two and then were talking about the section 240 process and that's basically the bifurcation there were talking about. >> thank you so much. my sec

that is so long time but right now improving the technical standard we're so far away from that point but to suggest hypothetically they may have to get said new device doesn't prove anything this would not apply to any other segment of the communications industry survey not technology companies with the mother may i approach here in washington. >> mr. chairman a few things i want to clarify the cyberitems so with the notification requirement the services so that would work still find?. >> correct so o basically are two different categories category one is a change your service category two is discontinuing the service. in the first category we talk about notice in the second category then to 14 process that is the of bifurcation they're talking about. >> go to our heels. >> blue devils. [laughter] >> you criticize apple to put chips in the phones are you urging verizon to do so given there are reports they purposely block radio chips chips?. >> the report that just came mount?. >> i was assured there is a story that justin now this week but generally speaking you know my overall philosophy they cannot require the

metadata day hypothetical discussion. so to be impressed by your statement with the legal principles of distinction also applies to nuclear plants and operations how is the president legally restrained if that all with the use of a nuclear first strike as a result of the orders that are there under command or there is a distinction that requires this necessity? is there any real restraint on the of president in north korea?. >>. >>. >> there are legal constraints within the military option consider old -- considered. the debate of nuclear weapons and morality and legality and where they fit in all of that given that things changed august 1945 and there has been a longstanding policy from the united states that nuclear weapons are not inherently illegal. they could be used illegally but the question is under what circumstances and what situation so when i was involved abstract of -- stratcom with flexibility we and fall the though legally advisers. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you but there is discussion taking place at the nati

so in your hypothetical example, i guess we don't know how many or how much the employees are paid. that would be a limiter. >> just for, again, for the general awareness of this, what might our hypothetical billionaire benefit from? because it strikes me there are a host of past provisions, the lower rate for people at the top of the top and the estate tax and the like, but just tick off what might this hypothetical real estate billionaire benefit from? >> well, aside -- i guess we should start with the rate. you're saying the person is a billionaire, so you're thinking they probably have a fair -- probably have an income in excess of $500,000 or a million dollars. those are the single and joint threshold taxable incomes for the 38.5% rate under the chairman's mark. on the qualified business income, the bill would allow a 17.4% deduction, which hoping one of my colleagues has quickly figured out the deduction amount for the effective marginal rate. reduction from 38%. let me say it's roughly not quite a sixth, so maybe six points down. it would mean instead of having a 38.5% rate o

saying that committee chairman were all in agreement on this, i know they are not, but hypothetically, they could turn to soled leadership, ryan and mcconnell, saying we're coming out, saying this is none sense, either get onboard or get out of the way. but there is a failure in leadership, mcconnell, ryan, and burr. lou: head of senate intelligence committee -- >> it disgraceful what he has done. >> help kate -- abkated his responsibilities and authorities, he is ut arely bereft of any integrity to have conducted himself as he have. >> burr is complicit. lou: now let's turn to the justice department as we find it. leaderless, rudderless and conflicted. what is the president to do? >> you have a case now where mueller is issuing subpoenas to his very own justice department to compel them to produce records to him. think about this. a subpoena is a coercive legal instrument. it is not a request. it is not coordination, not a lot of things, it is a demand with teeth. ask yourself, what in the world is going on. where mueller issues subpoenas to justice department to compel production of records, is this justi