the current legal levels for nitrogen dioxide emissions were introduced in two thousand and ten the court cases purely about upholding those limits you can read is using these regulations as leverage to banish older diesels from urban centers the gals in kitchen court decides in favor of environmental action germany the groundbreaking decision driving bans for gayle's inclusion and essen including for the first time a stretch of interstate. to a forty in essen up to one hundred twenty thousand cars travel along here daily many of them diesels it's one of germany's most important road links for local commuters and long distance traffic a driving ban on such a vital interstate is a nightmare for transportation policy makers and a triumph for your question which was we associate us with the right to bear firearms germans have a similar relationship with. a driving ban for diesel vehicles on one of the main road arteries in the ruler valley area is the clearest warning signal a court can send. it's a clear rebuke to our government and their lack of action that then god exists. so how harmful

the legal dispute has also reached deals in cash and you're going to clash the n.g.o.s managing director has declared war on german automakers for months he's been crisscrossing germany celebrating one legal success after another his goal a nationwide ban for older makes of diesel's this case involves scales and kitchen and s. and the nurse these are. we want clean air for the other valley low in him to the skies new today but it shouldn't just looked like. the people here should have the air quality they have been entitled to since twenty ten in terms of nitrogen dioxide from the diesel emissions in. the current legal levels for nitrogen dioxide emissions were introduced in two thousand and ten the court case is purely about upholding those limits you can read is using these regulations as leverage to banish older diesels from urban centers the gals in kitchen court decides in favor of environmental action germany the groundbreaking decision driving bans for gals in kitchen and essen including for the first time a stretch of interstate. to a forty in essen up to one hundred twenty thous

the legal standard is a test. we obviously have a test that is with the whole 2014 issue that is doing. so that is your legal standard. the question is what work of substance doing then the substantive doing it is doing it in contravention to procedural. there is no doubt here that everyone on both sides agree that in that sense substantive versus sub procedural is in effect towards billions of dollars that reduces the right for recovery or reimbursement for the hospitals. now what the government says, they point to this d.c. circuit case call a jb bowen and said that congress made this change in the statutory language and added the phrase, substantive legal standard to that ruling. when congress made that change is said they are clarifying the statute. it did not say we are doing a wholesale change in the statute. which is what the government position is today at oral argument. is that it's clarifying statue. that age a jb bowen case is a distinction in the apa. there substantive rules, there interpretive rules in

in our view the text of the provision richard versus substantive legal standard, and the operative text excludes it. with respect to substantive change in regulations it does not say substantive legal standard which is the operative language in a 2. it sends a substantive change and we think that means as opposed to form or wording or something like that. >> when you use the word substantive in two ways in two very nearby provisions. >> they have a different effect but even if you said and interpretive rule can address something of substance, interpreting a statute or regulation, it may have some affect, it is not binding and what the court said in chrysler corporation, which deals with this very program, the effects of law and interpretive does not, simply explains the agency, that it implements. >> there are a lot of words there but not sure there's an answer. i will give you an opportunity to try again because it is very important to me as well. aren't you using the word substantive in two different senses? first the apa sense and then what i will call the other traditional legal sin

first with the apa sense and then the other traditional legal sense? you are conceding to your colleague on the other side it is used in thatco sense i believe? . >> it doesn't say substantive rule or standard but a change but that is a nonsense under your view. >> but we think in substance. i'm serious what it refers to the non- form it is meaningful but beyond that the words used in this section refer to regulations manual instructions with a distinguishing regulation from the subsequent things. >> again, there is a lot of words but i think you do agree congress uses that word into different senses? . >> we think substantive changes different from substantive legaln standard and i'm sorry i forgot the third thing you asked. >> statement of policy because that is hanging me up also. >> again frankly that is an artifact of the house version of the bill if you go back to page 34 no rule requirement or statement of policy what may have a significant effect it is possible or that interpretive rule could have a significantic effect on the interpretation. >>

when it comes to solving the legal and illegal immigration problem in the united states, there's reallytwo things that i think are important. one, it -- we would need to make it easier for people to come to this country legally, to be able to work and live. legal experts have said that the united states immigration law is second in complexity only to the income tax. in other words, the income tax is the only set of laws more complicated in the u.s. than the immigration system. we need to make it easier for people to come here legally and if they are good people, if they are not a threat, to be able to stay here, work and live legally just like our ancestors did. if we liberalized it, made it easier for people who are low skill, mid-skill, high skill, entrepreneurial, who want to start a business, who want to live here, we need to make that easier and cheaper to do, make it so it's available to more people. we do that, it will solve the problem dramatically. on top of that, i would say legalizing unlawful immigrants, those who are here illegally, who aren't violent or property criminals

they added the phrase substantive legal standard to reflect that ruling. first of all, when congress made that change, it said we are clarifying the statute. it did not say we are doing a wholesale change in the statute, which is what the government's position is today and oral argument. it said its clarifying the statute. second point. that haav bowen case, actually, substantive procedural is also a distinction in the apa. there are substantive rules, interpretive rules and procedural rules. and what haav bowen says is procedural rules, as opposed to substantive and interpretive rules, also lack notice and comment. and it draws the distinction between substantive and procedural. this is on pages 1045 to 1047 of hav bowen. so even if we assume that congress had ahav bowen in mind, i'm willing to take the government at value -- >> do you have any other case that might be when the conference report says we're reflecting recent cases? is there anything else other than bowen? >> we've looked. there really isn't anything that's on point of the ones we could find

world magazine reporter jim long discusses his series on the legalization of recreational marijuana in the u.s. jones onr writer tom the top media stories of the week, including video of the covington catholic school students, and an erroneous story on the mueller investigation. "washington journal," >> next, a second circuit court f appeals oral argument. the panel will decide whether the decision is unconstitutional and violates a equal protection clause. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> good morning, your honor. may i ask a question? >> of course. i noticed you are outnumbered. >> i am. this is off the clock. we're all confused -- this is a civil case. i gather this is a civil case and the question is sometimes partial tting most the government shutdown with the civil case we can't come to new york, we can't show up and sometimes we show up and you're here of course you're going to argue but can you explain to us what the theory is, how this works? >> i wish i could, your honor. i would be reluctant to two there. i am hoping i can do better with the answers. >> that's fine. you ar

that is the legal history of jehovah's witnesses, from 1918 to 2002. that leads us to our first question. are jehovah's witnesses social activists? the numbers suggest so. jehovah's witnesses worldwide have obtained 371 supreme court victories in 63 countries. that includes 50 degrees here in the united states and 62 favorable decisions before the european court of human rights. that leads us to the second question. why are jehovah's witnesses involved in so much litigation? to answer this question, we have to go to the vital to understanding little bit about the beliefs of jehovah's witnesses. just as a foundation, jehovah's witnesses believe that the bible is the word of god, and you have to obey what is written in the bible. one of the standards in the bible is found in romans 13:1. it says the following -- "let every person be in subjection to the superior authority, for there is no authority except by god. existing authorities stand place in their relative positions by god," so you get the point. a general standard followed by jehovah's witnesses i

the prices and legal market are collapsing. they are down from $5,000 in the '90s per pound down to $1,000 now. withhe profits going down, so is the motive to grow it illegally and ship it east. as more and more states legalize it, the black market goes away. >> is there a tipping point orl cat to get us to that point where the legal market overtakes the black market for cannabis? >> it's already happened. farmers say they have lostheir shirt in the black market. they have having trouble this year with prices low ashey are. there's legislation pending in washind.on, it may end prohibition as we know it in america. tha promises to access rate the price decline and theove to grow it illegally. >> the state finalized operating under temporary emergency ones. one of the final rules, the more controversial ones allow marijuaeliveries to cities and counties, even those tha banned pot businesses. iw will this affect the industry and likely to face legal challenges? >> it could. there's opponents of statewide delivery including police a

dasgupta: the fact that the legal determination here makes the difference, because that's the legal mind that courts have drawn and that's why every court who has considered a challenge judge: you're -- it sounds like you're suggesting they want a judicial determination that daca is unlawful and that is their real goal in the litigation? ms. dasgupta: that's right, your honor. they wanted to tell the public that they lack authority to continue an overwhelming popular policy. judge: this is starting to get into politics. your answer. the question. whether it's popular or unpopular has nothing to do with the power of the secretary of homeland security. so let's just keep to that. ms. dasgupta: well, it explains perhaps why defendants have repeatedly tee clind to exercise their discretion and take responsibility even though they have been specifically invited to by multiple district courts. judge: in other words, when we ask you the question why, the answer is politics. ms. dasgupta: that's right. and there are good reasons why congress wanted to make an agency determination about legal aut

the standard for the company the legal system. essentially once you are indicted by the prosecutors you're facing a ninety nine percent conviction rate and this kind of a presumption in the job the system got the prosecutors can do no wrong and where they do do wrong well then they kind of find ways to still find on some sort of guilt on the part of most of the suspects what's different in this case is that this client they've done this against not some ordinary citizen who can't really fight back but against one of the most powerful and well known people in the world and thus there shining a spotlight on the problems of the legal system but should have been the same problem crime but now suddenly the whole world was paying attention and seeing. and of course part of that is the french side those related to reno or those who are just concerned obviously that this is being handled unfairly are you getting a sense that there's any sort of rift between nissan and renault related to this or hearing anything where you are. oh it's very

the withdraw the green which is the legally binding policy of the british that i think they would be prepared to find language in the political declaration that talks about the future relationship and there may be scope for for improving making changes to that language the trouble is that is not going to reassure the skeptics in the house of the house of commons who want some kind of legal assurance that by entering into the backstop we're not going to be permanently locked in i find it very difficult to see where out of and so i think the risk of a new deal is growing by the day because if nothing else happens between now and the and march no deal. the that is what is going to happen the know has got to be changed in britain to prove to stop that happening now there will be various amendments tabled during the course of the next couple of weeks by parliamentarian seeking to avoid the sort of heart breaks it and some of the amendments of calling for a second referendum first and that would like to see a second referendum but whether that will happen a lot is very very unclear so we'r

i'm here today to ask your approval of a contract for lafco legal services. themission, as you know, authorized me back in june to issue an r.f.p. for legal services. seeing how the contract had not been updated in more than 20 years since lafco was formed. the r.f.p. was issued on august 17th. we extended the deadline to october 26th. i did a considerable amount of outreach and we received four very strong proposals from some of the leading law firms representing lafco's and other public agencies in california. and remy public law group. all four of those firms qualified to proceed to the interview process and then i selected an r.f.p. panel to evaluate the proposals. on the panel were angela calvillo, clerk of the board, beth rubensteen and rachel jones, the executive officer of lafco. the firm that scored the highest was richards, watson and gershan. they left it would be best for lafco. particularly, they have specialized knowledge of some of the issues this lafco is working on. they were instrumental in getting marin clean energy off the ground. they have a

defendant's termination of the daca program because defendants failed to adequately explain their legal conclusions. in the duke memorandum and sessions letter defendants made statements asserting that daca was ununconstitutional and unlawful. defendant never attempted to explain why daca was unconstitutional. >> was there an obligation to explain? what if they said nothing and announced the decision? >> no. that would not be sufficient either because as i'll explain, the defendants had to also -- because this was a reversal in policy under encino motor cars defendants had to consider the reliance interest and explained they considered those interests. here -- >> that does seem to run counter to your colleague who spoke to us about ten minutes ago and said that all they have to do is go back to the drawing board and issue something that does not contain these erroneous statements and you're saying even if they go back to the drawing board and issue something that does not contain statements that you view as erroneous it still wouldn't work? >> they do have to -- under encino motor cars

by declaring a national emergency which the president has the legal right to do, the president cannot legally avoid the responsibility of eminent domain. you don't get to just take people's land because you declared a national emergency. there are lawsuits already being prepared for that eventuality. many landowners along the border have already started thinking about how they are going to handle this in court. one land owner along the rio grande river said quote you can give me a trillion dollars i wouldn't take it. it's not about money. i remind people with the keystone pipeline they offered ranchers a lot of money to build through their land they said no and they won. house democrats are taking more steps to try and end the partial government shutdown. the house is set to vote soon on bills that would separately re-open the departments of agriculture, transportation and housing and urban department of. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell said senator will not vote on any bill the president does not support. the white house has threatened to veto legislation to re-open individu

for more perspective on the shifting legal landscape for transgender rights, feliciano sat down with chase strangio, an attorney at the and then also to push the court arto rule that trans peopl not covered under existing the office, now and moving into 2019, what we are seeing is an escalation sying to get treme court -- now, as we're moving into 2019, what we're seeing is an tion, trying to get the supreme court to rule in... in ways that will have long lasting, really devastating effects for the trans community, both solidifyingalhe constitutiy of the trans military ban, which is one thing that he wants and his administration has been pushing, and then also to push the court to rule that trans people are not covered under existing federal civil rights laws. >>r: reporooking at the sort of big picture in terms of federal protections for trans people, what has the trump administration said it might do versus whatually been set in motion? have any protections been taken away so far? >> so, i think what's reall important for people to understand is that, for many years-- decades, in fa

he was in the process of appealing, that is the controversy about legal aid. k at a little less detail about the exact process, there will be a lot of formalities that need to be confirmed but we are likely to hear a further court case one would imagine for the crime of not being present throughout the duration of his trial. we will pause for a moment because we will be in a position to have the interview with him ina position to have the interview with him in a short while. thank you very much. let us move on. the prime minister has told mps that any attempt to delay brexit will not "solve the situation" — she says the decision is still between ‘the deal, no—deal or no brexit‘. labour's jeremy corbyn accused her of having a ‘closed mind' to other brexit options — such as labour's plan for a customs union with the eu. the leading conservative brexit supporter —jacob rees—mogg — fuelled speculation that he might support mrs may's plan — when he said that ‘any deal would be better than not leaving at all‘ —— but he repeated his opposition to the so—called ‘backst

. >> reporter: for victims of the wildfire, raising questions about the legal cases. >> the phone is blowing about with calls about what does this mean for cases, i have reassured all of them, it changes nothing. >> reporter: the attorneys were appointed co-lead counsel to coordinate the legal cases of several thousand fire victims. >> i don't think the cow fire report takes anything off the table. me back they say the point of origin misses the point, pg&e can be found liable, because they did not cut off the power despite dangerous when conditions. >> they can't immunize themselves by saying it was a senior citizen living in a farm upon a hill, who is responsible, they decided to keep pumping power through those lines, knowing there would be a spark someplace. >> you can't have a fire without a spark event, if you have no power, there's no spark. >> reporter: the company gave no indications that it would abandon plans to file chapter 11, they said resolving the legal liabilities and financial challenges from the 2017-18 wildfires will be enormously complex and require to address mu

but we know the legal system in pakistan is as good as what we have in germany in the rest. of time and political factors. but it has nothing to do with with. is going to happen today. so a lot of eyes will be on this case. thank you. now over to the auto industry folks wagon and ford will join forces in the effort to develop new technologies the two companies are set to unveil details of a deeper alliance at the detroit auto show next week sources close to management say the carmakers are hoping to fend off rivals in electric and autonomous driving technologies among them software companies like google and other reason for working together continuing trade frictions between the u.s. e.u. and china. ford have said in the past that any alliance would not involve merger. now let's dig deeper into the story with bars our correspondent the frankfurt stock exchange two big car companies one from europe one from the u.s. of the major players out there what are they getting out of what is this a partnership alliance. yeah we don't know yet the details according to the reports are s

s not to vote for the deal defeated on legal advice defeated on time table defeated on our finance bill and found in contempt of parliament itself some mainstream u.k. media claims the crises she faces are unprecedented in modern political history joining me now is the man who was lord chancellor under margaret thatcher and john major and who now holds the oldest surviving office of state in scotland lord mci. lord makai welcome to going underground to tell me about the last time you saw a government that could have these problems even putting a finance bill through parliament let alone heading for a defeat over legislation that took two years to prepare for i. don't recall during my time and nothing quite like that but of course we're in a very special situation here worth seeking to break the vote of the people. lasted for a long time and in which we have become very integrated in the european union and therefore separating that dick here is a very difficult task and that's what the two years has been about and of course everybody has their own idea of what should happen i personally

if things take a turn for the worse, what is the legal exposure? >> on the campaign finance reform he's looking to be indicted january 21, 2020. the statute will not have run by then. and there are other crimes, by the way, if they are charged as conspiracies and there's even a single overt act that -- including covering up that occurs within a five-year period before he leaves office, then he's also subject to being indicted, presumably with a new administration and southern district of new york acting very aggressively. so the election could very well be for his liberty, assuming he's still in office at that point. >> i imagine he will stay totally calm and cool through that. when we come back, the president loses more republicans on the shutdown fight as the trip to the white house fails to turn the tide in his favor. another day, another trump-russian connection for the house to investigate. >>> and stop me if you heard this one before, the president is probably undermining another west wing aide. we were surprised he couldn't find a chief of st

worrying crudely violating all norms of international law essentially taking a direct course at the legal authority in this latin american nations. over more than a week demonstrators have been taking to the streets protesting the dire economic situation in demanding president steps down. they've been met with force and the threat of imprisonment so in total i think we have some just over forty people believed to have been killed in different manners so far this includes at least twenty six people reported to have died after allegedly being shot by security forces or members of pro-government groups this by the violence the opposition is calling for another massive demonstration. and another one on saturday as been a power struggle continues with no end in sight both inside and outside of the country alison. the british parliament has authorized the prime minister series and made to go back to brussels and try to secure a better deal politicians also voted to make it harder for the prime minister to take britain out of the e.u. without a deal. italy says five european nations are offering

we will speak with the aclu's chase strangio on the legal fight to overturn the ban. >> it is looking to ban people from enlisting, restrict promotions and give the department of defense asked -- discretion to take people out at will. this is just transparent determination we have seen from the administration towards transgender individuals and so many others. amy: all that and more, coming up.

legal aid be denied to him?” think whatever safeguards can be put in place need to be put in place, to stop the abuse of legal aidcause it is a privilege to get legal aid, it is a privilege to get legal aid, it shouldn't be able to be abused in this manner. i wonder if you want to take this opportunity as charli's dad to talk directly to jack shepherd and appealed to him directly. i would say to jack shepherd, you have caused our family a lot of harm and devastation. but really, you need to look at what you've done and come back and atone for the damage that you've done. you need to come back and serve your sentence, not only because that's the right thing to do but he will need to do that so you can eventually move on yourself. it can't be any fun being a fugitive, it doesn't sound any fun to me. but please, if you are watching this, hand yourself in. there's an awful lot of resources from the police, to home office, national crime agency, they are looking for you. i'm personally never going to rest or stop until you're in custody. is there anything that you would want to add, katie? to add to that, i would say

s because lords of the people because it's. normal not to reveal legal advice which the government's got from the law officers that's been the tradition for a long enough. and there is a law officer is an advisor of the house of commons and therefore they could have asked him to come along and tell them what is advice was them but he is eternal general is the legal advisor to the house of commons and the house of commons could have asked him to come along and ask them any questions they wanted looking at the bigger picture ironic that britain's first colony island should end up having a say over the british government being in place by going to go weeks. as you know i had quite a lot we experience of northern ireland when i was little johnson and i value very much the piece that's been reached in northern ireland and i want to do everything possible to see that it continues i mean what was it like being. chancellor back in those days it wasn't a very easy task as i said. in my speech on the subject in the lords there had been a killing near the border of

the idea that there's any legal recourse that's being provided to people that are either here on their tps status, daca, or asylum, he's now decided he wants to rewrite the asylum laws. asylum is not forcing people from central america that have to stay there to apply for asylum. asylum by definition under our laws is you're here and asking the united states to giving you a place to go to protect you from persecution >> which is legal. >> there's nothing legal going on. >> can i say something? >> the idea of asking the people that you are fleeing to giving you permission to flee, i'm applying in this country to lead this country. i mean, are we supposed to be stupid? i mean, how do you say that they have to apply there when they're trying to escape because they're operating in fear there? >> right. again, this is not a president who fully understands the law as evidenced by innumeralble things. but i want to remind the people that the deal that was on the table in december had over a billion dollars in it to already complete building part of this wall structure that the president wants

you asked harry about the legal significance. o talk about the political significance for a second because this is an extraordinary thing. if we knew then during the campaign what we think we know now based on his own lawyer's testimony, television testimony about the president and his dealings with russia and his organization's dealings with russia, we would have been astonished and, i think, outraged during the campaign that he was simultaneously talking to russia about a business deal and having these other kind of candidate negotiations and positions on sanctions, on nato, on all sorts of things that were of interest to russia. that is why it would have been intolerable if the truth had been known then and that is why it is such a big deal politically that we know it now and one other question that still seems open to me. did this end? did this end after the lech? what do we kn what do we know about that? >> this was an incredible offer to vladimir putin himself. with the controversy, harry, about the withdraw from nato argume

even cnn acknowledges the president's emergency powers are broad. watch. >> as a purely legal matter, it is hard for me to imagine the court's finding a plaintiff withstanding, that is, a plaintiff with the legal right to sue, to stop this at any early point in the process. >> "the washington post" went a step further saying, lawyers who take an emergency declaration thinking of unconstitutional are also hard-pressed to say exactly who would stop the president. for example, the supreme court could, but that might not happen until after the wall was built. "the post" also said the president cited moving money around for years and that a little known code governing military allows the defense secretary to military construction products in times of emergency. others argue it will come down to the president's definition of emergency. the problem is the national emergency act doesn't offer a definition. the most plausible legal challenge might come from someone who was actually harmed by the wall being built, meaning their property is taken through eminent domain. one woman, whose

questions open and he was basically the expectation that this would be resolved also to the legal expectations here in greece now as far as germany's position is concerned that has been all along that this issue was resolved in the two plus four basically which was the foundation that allowed for german reunification which was basically a contract between all parties involved in the second world war and so that's the legality of it under the machall responded to that although there was some delay because she went into other issues before that saying that the lesson from this was that he would work hard on german and greek relations so whereas the greek debate here focuses on the outcome of an expert group that has come up with a figure of two hundred eighty nine billion euros germany's position remains the same that that is essentially as far as the legality is concerned settled what the public debate say is of course something very different and just briefly mikhail you mentioned that relationship between the two countries how is it today. well it's a lot better than it used to b

we should use the correct us start to talk about that and how it's going to go and talk about the legality of because i think it's very important so the fig leaf for us so-called diplomatic intervention yet they know they're coup attempt in venezuela is they prompted this puppet guido to to claim article who is the head of the national assembly a body that has been since removed by all powers by the supreme court of venezuela to claim article two thirty three of the venezuelan constitution and this was prompted by pence they directly pushed planned the washington post has revealed this you know that this was secretly planned for a long time they pushed it what if you seized power in this way we will back you so he did right you know this is a clear so article two thirty three of the constitution only addresses when the president is absent from office like if he is physically or mentally incapable if you just disappears and abandons his post. if it does it provides no legal rationale for the u.s. to interpret again visitors this is a crane in two thousand and fourteen leaders it was against

this is a story that brings the question why legal aid was being offered. as the front page goes to a bottega store for that ministers will tackle speedboat legal aid loophole. —— we don't have much detail as far as the french phrase goes, but take us through it. ministers will tackle speedboat legal aid 0pel. —— loophole. ministers will tackle speedboat legal aid opel. -- loophole. six yea rs legal aid opel. -- loophole. six years injailand now legal aid opel. -- loophole. six years injail and now he is appealing that sentence. he is receiving legal aid which understandably has alarmed a lot of people. it is not become a bit of a political row that you mentioned just as they would gottlieb and obviously he sees as the loophole and you're someone who on the face would appear in the present needs it in certain circumstances and adjust it is questionable whether they should get it or not. we are very light of the detail here, and is very difficult to understand why it's been awarded in these cases but i think it's been awarded in these cases but ithink i'm it'

. >> what is the process needed to legalize it? i mean if they were to act on the permit or get it, has it been approved to do work, or does it need to go to planning? >> it will need to go through planning and planning might even need notification to the neighborhood, they probably consider this as an addition. >> we are looking to look at it as a horizontal addition, he'll need engineered plans. if there's another bathroom, to p.a.c., d.p.w. >> ok, thanks. >> one item that some of the windows were not rated, so it's new construction, and it was, the neighbors were not happy with the enclosure of the deck itself. >> any other questions? ok. thank you. >> appellant like to come forward? >> good morning. my name is manshir comeberry, appearing on behalf of the owner of the property. after we received the notice i would go through, let me explain what happened with the procedure, then i will explain the picture you see and everything. come in to apply for the permit. and then come in to apply for the permit it has to go through the ci

it's very much -- they said it's probably the solid legal ground you want to stand on. what disturbs me is what john roberts just said, the people would go to the ninth -- they found a court that will basically ignore black letter law to try and get an injunction on something. that's the most disturbing, diapered in the last 44 hours, and effort a lot of stuff in the last 24 hours. when you look at this, he's on solid legal ground parade this is a way to move forward. the democrats -- miss pelosi made it very clear as today. if it is the most clairvoyant stephen she made the whole time, the president asked "will you support -- if i open up a 30 30 government in 30 days, will you agree?" and she said no. she didn't even have the audacity to say "that's what we've been asking for, let's do that." she just pulled the shield them and said "no, we're not going to do it." >> harris: i talk about this last hour. i also asked kellyanne conway at the white house about this, too. is there any way to give democrats a fat yes and call their bluff, by stopping this word, "while?" i'm

. >> reporter: donald trump remains convinced he does have the legal authority to declare a national emergency, the white house counsel's office has been looking into it for several days. administration officials have been trying to build a case all week and tonight donald trump said this as he was finishing his tour of the border, quote, we have the absolute right to declare a national emergency and this is security stuff. a national emergency. he went on to say if we don't make a deal with congress, most likely i will do that. i would actually say i would. i can't imagine any reason why not because i'm allowed to do it. the law is 100% on my side. the big question is if donald trump does declare a national emergency where with the money come from to build the wall or barrier. on his trip to the border he brought the commanding general of the army corps of engineers with him and the white house press secretary has confirmed the administration is asking him to find ways to fund it from the army corps of engineers budget. that means it comes from a $14 billion disaster relief fund, mon

the southern border. that would sure -- that sure to spark a major legal battle. me now, carrie cordero, frank bruni, michael d'antonio. senator lindsey graham is calling for the president to invoke the national security powers to fund the border wall because the president rejected the republicans' compromise plan. what is wrong with lindsey graham? >> that is the $64,000 question. and it's a good one in this context because people who have any kind of memory of this stuff will remember that, what was it, five years ago, four years ago, he was part of the gang of eight, right, who drafted a truly kind of comprehensive immigration reform measure that did not ultimately succeed. it died in the house. the measure included a pathway to citizenship. that measure took into account the dreamers. none of what trump is proposing right now does that and lindsey graham is saying declare a national emergency, anyway. he's saying exactly what trump wants him to say. and this is the way he behaves. for every one time that he contradicts the president, he comes back and tells the

will now they need to this moment you were telling me earlier when you sent me a message about the legality of all this i think it's important maybe to shed light on this here first of all we have i have to correct pronunciation we're talking about the name of this opposition candidate who has just been declared president of venezuela it's because the u.s. has that power evidently write. his name as secretary pompei you know specified. national broadcast is good we need. not guide but who we need so there are we should use the correct us start to talk about that and how it's going to go and talk about the legalities of because i think it's very important so the fig leaf for us so-called diplomatic intervention yet another coup attempt in venezuela is they prompted this puppet guido to to claim article who is the head of the national assembly a body that has been since removed by all powers by the supreme court of venezuela to claim article two thirty three of the venezuelan constitution and this was prompted by pence they directly pushed planned the washington post has revealed this you kno

however, from my perspective, the legal issues in the 2013 case are identical to the legal issues thate're facing now. the government's violating the flsa just like the judge ruled in the 2013 case. she also ruled that the government was liable for liquidated damages because the government failed to act in good faith and they're doing exactly the same thing now. so the legal issues are resolved from our perspective and although the government had delays in calculating damages on behalf of those individuals who opted in to the 2013 case, we have a road map, a framework for how to do the damage calculations and i'm optimistic that the government is almost at the end of that process in the first case. >> justin, back to you. will you be tuning in to the president tonight? >> absolutely, you know. i've been falling it all along because obviously it effects my family and it affects a lot of family within the bureau of prisons 800,000 employees and as my fellow brother ray coleman jr. stated on cnn earlier this week, we're going to do our job, you need to do yours and if that means getting t

where is the legality? look at thef we international law? the charter?ide simply setting international relations based on international law and replacing them with international relations based on force? if one of you can tell me in which article and which provision of the united nations charter you can find the legal basis for this self proclamation of an individual that was not elected right anyone as a then we can open a discussion on the legal aspects but i do not think that will happen. ourselves,ed to ask secretary of state rex tillerson, before he was hereed, tells us himself at the podium. not only announcing sanctions which are coercive and not based on international law. he actually had the nerve to announce a number of measures against venezuela. a flagrant violation of the united nations charter, the sacred document of multilateralism. that ait possible president that threatened the use of force -- it was not marco rubio or mike pence at donald trump that threatened the use of against force directly the republic of venezuela. how was it that

the laws. when you make something illegal, you create a black market. to legalizestitution, and i don't like using that word because it is like the oldest industry in the world, at least 2000 years. geis had it legalized with has. in las vegas, it is legal. where it is legal, you don't have too many issues. books,u have laws on the you take away the power from p imps and people to take advantage of people because you have a market for people to do things legitimate. host: thank you. guest: i think that is a big debate in the trafficking field about what to do about the sex trade and whether or not to legalize it. with that actually help? -- would that actually help? the people that are trying to legalize it are doing so for the intention of trying to make sure people in the sex trade are not criminalized unnecessarily and coming at it from a good place. what we are worried about is that it actually makes things worse. amsterdam tried to legalize it. talk to the new mayor of amsterdam, and she says this is a debacle. it became overrun with organized crime. if you lo

the center. ensuing dates, legal scholars praised the supreme court for what it had done. let me just share with you one quote. this is from the senior scholar of the first amendment center. , "jehovah's witnesses have done it again. they chopped up the supreme court victory," he missed two. "an extraordinary line of cases that have significantly protecte increase protections fl americans," and notice what he added. we all owe jehovah's witnesses a debt of gratitude. no matter how many times they are assaulted, ran out of town, attacked, our freedom of religion, and when they win, we all went. history of legal jehovah's witnesses, from 1918 to 2002. that leads us to our first question. are jehovah's witnesses social activists? the numbers suggest so. jehovah's witnesses worldwide have obtained 371 supreme court .ictories in 63 countries that includes 50 degrees here in the united states and 62 favorable decisions before the european court of human rights. that leads us to the second question. why are jehovah's witnesses involved in so much litigation? to answer this questi

california is about to become the largest legal marijuana market in the world. ecreational pot. as more states join, the black market with probably shrink. investing in the marijuana industry seems tempting but i've decided to leave that to others. as for the farmers of humboldt, i wish them success, making an honest living. i'm marcus lemonis. ♪ ♪ a paid advertisement for online trading academy. you've heard it over and over again. if you want financial freedom, you have to invest in the markets. it's true that the wealth created in the financial markets has transformed more people into millionaires and billionaires than ever before. why is it that only wall street and a select few investors get richer and richer while the everyday investor lags behind? how is this possible when both groups are investing in the same market? what is wall street doing right that you're not?

as president of the boulevard republican as well and then we can open a discussion on the legal aspects but i don't think that will happen. also. we need to ask ourselves the. secretary of state. sector rex tillerson before he was dismissed and then president trump selves himself here in this in the general assembly in the first day of the segment at the podium of the sacred podium a multi literalism. not only and now and sanctions which are coercive unilateral measures which are not based on international law but he actually. he had the nerve. to. announce a number of measures against venezuela in flagrant violation of the united nations charter sacred document of multilateralism. how is it possible that. a president that threatened the use of force when he wasn't mike boettcher did it was mike pence it was marco rubio it was donald trump. who threaten the use of military force directly against a rebel of our inner public of his will how is that he wasn't even challenge your question by the. entities of multilateralism and instead that you said in the place of the accused in the republ