i think in the 96a executive summary, it indicates on page two and also addressed in the presentation that the police department has internal mechanisms in which this is supposed to be done. in fact, on page two it indicates that commanders review the reports with district captains a z a means to monitor and identify concerns immediately. these numbers with respect to use of force against people of color have been happening for years. this isn't a new thing. so if we as a police department have internal mechanisms to catch this, why haven't we caught it and why hasn't it been brought to our attention? >> i will start with the first. and the academic and i don't want to oversell the research piece because it's another set of -- it's more data. but what it will do for us, i believe, is i think it will make more sense of the data because, like i said, we don't have benchmarks to 96a. often times you compare to the general population and that is really not -- that benchmark doesn't help this conversation at all. there's other benchmarks to look at. so what we do know is that the people wh

and i want to put it up on the screen. volume one, pages one, two and five. if we understood coordination to require an agreement, tacit or expressed, between the trump campaign of the russian government on election interference. the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government and its election interference activities. if mr. chairman, the special counsel did not find the kind of coordination that you said was there. >> congressman schiff: chris, as you know, and it was you had played the rest of some of those clips, i went on to say that whether that collusion, that evidence of collusion rises to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of conspiracy was a different question. and indeed, that distinction is made in the opening pages of the mueller report, so when the president and his allies repeat this mantra of no collusion, they clearly haven't read or are ignoring the plain language of the report where bob mueller says two things. he says we are not going to look into the questi

line on page two hundred fifteen which has come to me it's a zinger line from muller he says the conclusion that congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balance and the principle that no person is above the law with this line muller is essentially punting to congress and implicitly saying you may find that there is an obstruction of justice and what we've had here you may find you may have and he is basically inviting congress to participate in the next chapters of this report and i think they'll be no doubt that he appears before may twenty third in house member gerry natters house judiciary committee which will take this further so the headline as donald trump would like us to believe is no collusion no obstruction it's all game over but if you believe the devil's in the details it all seems to show that there was a lot of. questionable stuff going on a lot of stuff that still needs to be answered from that whole election period i think the key line is going to be what this gui

item number two on page two, the e.m.g., i've highlighted here. we've met about six times, i think seven, including yesterday, and you'll see we -- these are the seven working points responsibilities that we've identified so far. i expect this to be tweaked once or twice over the next quarter or two, but these are the assignments and responsibilities that we're acting on. some closings that we're reporting on -- >> we'll take the closings as submitted unless there's anything really important you want to point out that was -- >> no. is that okay? very good. very good. okay. so i'm going to move -- and would you like to move through the charts and just save those for another time, given the hour? >> why don't you hit on some of the high points? >> one thing i'll point out is look at the chart on page five, the lower part. the equity market was down for the year. but what did earnings do? earnings were great. so, you know, earnings have been the best for three quarters, and now, four or five quarters in that they've been for a number of years. and as

on page two, starting on line 15, this is the main amendment that our offices worked with the city attorney and d.h. r. on. it requires department heads to have an in-person training, which will be fulfilled with an all-day training within the first 60 days of them entering their office. and commissioners remain taking an online training. and just to match this so that h.r. can implement it, there are some state adjustments. throughout you'll see that the requirement of june 30th has been changed to december 31st, 2019. i've also got susan guard her with d.h.r., if there are any questions. >> chairwoman: great. any questions? no. thank you so much for being responsive to us. this looks great. i would love to be added as a co-sponsor, please. >> thank you very much, supervisor stefani. i appreciate your support and co-sponsorship. >> chairwoman: any member of the public like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> chairwoman: is there a motion? >> i move that we move this forward with a positive recommendation. >> chairwoman: without objection -- >> you need

page 4 of the staff report, it's your chart number one and chart number two, i'm not sure i'm reading it -- i don't think that the 5% and the 10% of, say, 15% of donations that are under $200, that that's the number of contributors, it's the value. and so the dollar amount affects those percentages. and i was curious, if you do have numbers of contributors that fall into each bracket, i'm assuming that the number of people who give money under 100 bucks is a hell of a lot more than people who give 4 to $500. >> yeah. and i think in crafting our models, it was difficult to get data from the contributors between 0 to $100. it's not required to itemize those contributions, so i think getting the people who donated between $5 and $15. tyler could speak more to that if you have questions, but i think we put this chart here deliberately because we couldn't generate the numbers for that substance set of data between zero and 100. >> commissioner ambrose: and i understand under the current program, if you're able to generate a $500, that's worth 1500 under the current campaign. under the new

on page two, lines 20 to 23, i just describe in a little bit more detail what i'm talking about when i'm talking about these cooperative apartments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen: should you make a motion? >> chair fewer: let's see if there's any comments. >> supervisor ronen: oh, yes. if i can make a motion -- >> chair fewer: oh, yes, supervisor yee. >> president yee: i just wanted to thank supervisor ronen for bringing this forward. in particular, i wanted to make some comments around your last amendments, i guess, on the small -- additional long-term housing for people with mental health, mental illness, in terms of purchasing places for that. it's something that certainly fits -- it's a model that fits not just individuals with mental health issues but just anybody, whether seniors or others, and it's all the work that supervisor or chair fewer has done in terms of small site acquisition, making sure that we have funding in there, and also, the more recent vote that we took yesterday on her copa legislation, this all fits right in nicely. so i want to t

two of volume two about mueller outlining why he didn't make that decision on obstruction. that will be a key line of questioning for sure. a few more thoughts from you. now we've seen how an independent counsel has operated, ken starr, for example, during white water and how a special counsel operates with robert mueller. it's not fully independent in terms of separate. which do you think is more effective for the american people? >> that's a tough one. we end up in a situation where we're always trying to address the last special counsel and what went well. there was concern with the starr report that too much was released, it became too political. now on this one we're concerned about not enough being released. >> what's your thought? >> well, i think that the attorney general now, attorney general barr, has not released to congress what he's required to release. there is a distinction between what gets released to the public because of national security concerns or on going criminal justice proceedings. but that's a very different calculation than what gets released to

volume one page two, the investigation did not establish that the trump campaign coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. volume two page two, quote if w had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, by the president did not commit obstruction of justice, we woul so state. accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. the attorney general william barr reached a decision saying there was no corrupt intent and therefore no obstruction by the president. the presidents critics vigorously disagree and that is the battle ahead. just a few moments ago the president tweeted after watchin coverage of the report ahma i had the right to end the whole witch hunt if i wanted, i could have fired everyone including mueller if i wanted. i chose not to. i had the right to use executiv privilege, i didn't. we have team coverage night. on the white house marathon wit the presidents reaction to that report. we begin at the justice department tonight with details and substance ins

they actually put the dossier on page two and kind of a breakout box. i think it was the cia pushing this real intelligence experts looked at this and said this is not intelligence. this is garbage and i took it out. in this process the idea that they would include something like that in one of the greatest dollar intelligence assessments as mueller also found out is highly questionable. it needs to be investigated. >> sean: highly questionable. bob, we had an ensemble team for over two years will bent on peeling the layers after layer after layer of the biggest abuse of power corruption scandal in our history. this ensemble cast on radio and tv and my show had been right all along and now "the new york times," even they are coming to terms with some dose of reality revealing in a new piece at the dossier is now under renewed scrutiny t. baby steps for them. the media may have been more wrong than we thought. according to the times, the dossier may have been a part of a russian campaign to begin wit with. hillary's campaign, she paid for it. not to help

work without permits, work beyond permits, are on page two. there are at least ten over the counter permits with minimal to no planning department review. major work is done with over the counter permits, which even investigated during a complaint, the planning commission acknowledges that extensive work is done with permits and does not investigate further. even with numerous permits, case closed. planning department finally issued a warning to new staff: do not approve any over the counter permits. excessive work includes excavation and large renovation of the building. at least 17 inspections are performed throughout the project, and even with complaints to be investigated, no enforcement action is taken. not until planning code enforcement gets involved for the second time after having an issue declared no violation exists does anyone recognize that even the front and rear yard variances are missing and necessary for the issued permits. how can this happen? the d.b.i. should investigate the full planning permit history and present it to th

c-span: you write on page two, health problems, including addison's disease, possible fatal malfunctioning of the adrenal gland. chronic back pain, colitis, and a allergies, head added greatly to normal strain of the nationwide campaign. you say in this book that ted kennedy found out about all of his brother's health problems from your book. >> guest: not all of them. the knew that his brother had a medical history and had health problems, but i don't think he knew the full extent because he -- he was very admiring of my biography, an unfinished life and told me was, arthur lesser jury was as well. he said it was the best entry agoography of kept. what both of them concluded was my description of kennedy's health problems enhanced rather than undermined his public standing, his reputation, in history, because how he managed to rise above his health difficulties and be an effective president was a very impressive achievement, and so they would -- ted did not know the full extent of his brother's health problems and it's the measure of much they hated -- how much joe kennedy, bobby kennedy,

you'll see on page 2 two tables. the first one is very familiar. it's the actual asset that we allocate to and we have capital receptions around and as well as the global macro groupings for those, that we expect growth from public equity and private equity. we expect diversification and allen talked about those, from real assets and absolute returns and we expect income and capital innovations. and i'd like to spend a little bit of time, and it comes from bill and it's important to spend some time to see how we think in terms of where the risks and returns are for each asset class that we allocate to. it's worth remembering that the asset allocation decision is one of the most important investment decisions there is. multiple research shows that over 90% of volatility of the returns comes from asset allocation decisions, and asset allocation decisions starts by outlining our expectations for each of the asset class, and that's why i would say we start with bill's view and our cio view and our investment staff view of expectations of each asset cla

. >> on page two of the report, the very last bullet item says that the appeal -- it says was filed february 27, 2015. is that correct or is that a typo? last bullet item. >> it is a >> 19. >> 19. >> okay. >> thanks. >> any other questions? okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> appellant's rebuttal. >> i can't say i've seen the report that mr. cabral -- i'm sorry, dr. cabral, but i suspect this is an ongoing issue between the landlords and dr. cabral and a finite ongoing situation here. i would suggest this is a financial interest that he has in having this order of abatement recorded in addition to impeding the repairs one way or another. they've been -- there's been discussions about the appropriate level of rent concessions and lawsuits threatened and so on over the course of this -- these repairs and this dispute, so i suspect that that's part of why this report was generated, but as i said, i have not seen it. it hasn't been given to his landlords to review, so i won't say anything as to those points, but i would also add that on more than were you not occasion, efforts have been under take

volume one page two, the investigation did not establish that the trump campaign coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. volume two page two, quote if w had confidence after a thorough

on page two, robert mueller explains that he somewhat to my surprise, as i mentioned, didn't look into the matter as to whether or not there was collusion. he explained because collusion involves things that are both criminal and noncriminal, and he stuck to only what was criminal. to me, that's one of the most important matters that can be looked into. now in those hearings, we have the ability to go a little bit further. so again, i don't think we can rule anything out and what will come out in those hearings. remember, it was back to watergate, it was evidence that was found in the hearings that revealed the tapes. not actually the work of the independent counsel. let's not lose sight of just how important these hearings are that will now happen beginning in a few weeks. >> congressman brendan boyle, appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. >>> jared kushner speaking out on the mueller report, russian election interference, suggesting it was just a few facebook ads. his comments, next. use your smartphone for directions. hey guys! up there! or, to laugh out loud. you're in the

he signed his report to it. >> he shouldn't sign his name to a document that says on page two he has to be convinced the president didn't do it. when did a prosecutor ever have to be convinced you didn't do it? that is taking the burden of proof in america, flipping it around, only on donald trump. he has to be able to prove that the person did it. you read that first two paragraphs and you understand anything about the law or the ethics of a prosecutor, that's a horrendous statement. it says he can't be, even the statement that -- >> we shouldn't take this as exoneration of the president because the document is not credible. >> we shouldn't take it as exoneration of the president -- >> you're saying the document is not credible. >> no. how about looking at it this way, people who were unfair to him, people who wrote an unfair report, people who came close to torturing people to get information and break them. >> came close to torturing people? >> yeah, how about having -- >> wait, whoa, came close to cor torturing people? >> yes, having ma in a fort in solitary confinement, question

volume one pages one and two and five we understood coordination to require an agreement tacit or express between the trump campaign about election interference investigation did notbl establish members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in interference activities. the special counsel did not find that coordination you said was there. >> as you know, i wish you play the rest of some those clips i went on to say that whether that evidence to produces beyond a reasonable doubt was a different question and that distinction is made in the opening pages of the mueller report when the president and his allies say no collusion they are ignoring the plain language where bob mueller says we will not look into the question of collusion that is a late-term criminal or noncriminal we will look at conspiracy and on this issue hehe says the fact you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that doesn't mean there isn't an absence of evidence of crime. i talked about this all the time over the course of the last year. talking about evidence of collusion i use those

page two i detail a number of individuals class actions brought privately against home security systems and other telemarketers who are responsible for those even if they areot not actually making them. >> only thing i would add to that is it will give us greater options and even stronger inter- agency federal and state cooperation. not to say there hasn't been any type of significant collections but for example in 2017 us doj had a $280 million judgment against a dish so there has been some effective enforcement i think one of the bigger challenges is that collectibility for the players and the fluid operation. >> my time is expired but thank you for hosting this hearing. >> as we wrap up we want to get these bad actors into a headlock so hopefully we can move the legislation forward you have the danger of those who are preyed upon but also there is the inherent danger when people are no longer picking up legitimate calls relating to their own health safety and elderly people and that seems to be another reason why we do this. and has been very helpful thank you for your input and test

the largest issue in volume two is opening set of paragraphs on page one and two. what they say very clearly is number one is they are abidesing by the olc guidance that you cannot prosecute a sitting prosecute. the prosecutorial decision was made in that light. second, that they are preserving evidence because presidents can be prosecuted after they leave office. how ominous is that. it would have been unfair the allege crimes even though they count prosecute the president because the president in this proceeding couldn't defend himself like a typical defendant could clear his name in court. they concludes we're not going to judge the president's conduct through thecriminality. we're not going to say whether the president engaged in crimes. that's whiy i say it raids difficult issue. no not at all. the special counsel is saying the exact opposite. >> to nicole wallace. >> i have a question for you. you have been part of all of the conversations that we've had over the last two years about the president's incredibly curious and until today exmy kabl contact around

that was one add-in. page one, section two, was the formating to match the coyk policy headings. and she made a title change, are or recommended a title change on page three, section three, to protocols for safe operation. and on page seven, ownership, we removed "on or off duty," as the drone will only be operated on duty. so it was minor word changes that we got through updates. i think as many hands we can get to look at it before it goes in front of the citizens, we know haas been reviewed several times by the commission, by the city attorney, and then we can move forward. i just want to be as thorough as possible. >> thank you very much. commissioner? >> thank you. just to followup, is there any change in this policy that further ties your hands? is there anything in here that you think that will tie your hands to do the job of saving a life in case of an emergency if you need it? >> that was our purpose from the beginning. we did not want to follow the city policy. it was way too restrict stiff. restrictive. basically wherever we want whenever we want is what the fire depar

in fact, mueller didn't even look at collusion, noting on page two, quote, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of collusion. barr also went on to praise what he claimed wasull cooperation with the trump administration with the mueller probe. >> the president took no act to deprive the special counsel of the documents necessary to complete the investigation. >> the redacted mueller report says trump made multiple attempts to influence the investigation including trying to fire robert mueller but was unsusta unsuccessf unsuccessful. trump was saved from himself. >> after carefully reviewing the facts and consultation with counsel and other department lawyers, the deputy and i concluded that the evidence concluded is not sufficient to establish the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. >> mueller lead out the foundation in his report listing ten instants stating, quote, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president did not commit obstruction of justice based on the facts and legal standards, we are unable to re

and the bottom of page one. it starts crossing out and it continues through page two and continues into page three. and it's a little bit later on we have -- go to page seven, and there is page -- mine is backwards. this is page 12. why is that? i am missing page eight. >> the numbering is off on the bottom. >> i got that. >> from 7 to 12. and anyway, heavily deleted and i just wondering in a nutshell if you could tell us what that was about. >> updating it to contemporary i.t. language. this was, i think, last updated back in 1996, if i remember correctly. and so as you can see, it was computers and peripherals and now we call it electronic resources. and the i.t. wanted to include a bunch of the other technologies that have come along since the d.g.o. was done. >> i am glad you pointed out and i don't know what page it is now but the privacy photograph. i don't recall seeing the privacy paragraph before. when i read that, it was pretty draconian. and i might have to talk to the city attorney because as commiss

paper which was one hundred and two page paper on how to make the internet a safe place and what they mean by a safe place is three things one they want to remove any terrorists content to they want to remove anything that could be implied as being sexual exploitation and three which i find to be the most distressing is during the elections they only want content from authoritative sources so they feel that not only is the content bad in some respects but they also want to go the additional step in regulating political news and content and the question comes up is this is extraordinarily subjective who is an authoritative source and it would absolutely stifle one's ability to get basically news that would provide all the information necessary to make a decision during an election well and when you talk about politics that's especially troubling right because the concept that the authoritative source has to be determined by someone typically by government typically by people in government who themselves are in politics so there is in terms of the conflict of interest here enormous conf

seventy six page seventy eight page ninety page one fifty seven volume two. that is why i have formally requested the special counsel moeller. before the house judiciary committee as soon as possible so we can get some answers to these critical questions the first day william barr came out saying it didn't appear that miller hadn't found any evidence of collusion they said their next move i want to financial statements and all of his tax returns and getting his taxes making sure all of his finance statements tax returns everything else could be in their hands so they can continue to try to find something else wrong with trump i mean and that's it you know we saw within twenty four hours of fiat there was no collusion weeks before this entire reporting came out that their next move was already in play with demanding the tax returns not only that we also saw we have seen the arguments and well last night we had chuck schumer saying that well how dare william barr you know come out and speak before we get there is poor what kind of report would this be after tha

in may notes beginning on page two, i detailed a number of class alcohols brought privately against home security systems and cruise-selling of robocall systems and hilton and other telemarketers who are responsible for those robocalls, even if they're not actually making them. >> senator, the only thing i would add to that is the traced act will help give us greater options. it will also create even stronger interagency and federal and state cooperation. it is not to say that there has never been any type of significant collections here. for example in 2017 there were for attorney general's and the u.s. doj obtained a $280 million judgment against dish. there has been some effective enforcement. i agree with miss saunders. i think one of the bigger challenges is sometimes the collectability of the the players and their fluid operations. >> thank you. mr. chairman, my time has expired but thank you again for hosting this hearing. >> thank you, senator sinema. as we wrap up, ethink we want to get these bad actors in a head lock, as was alluded to earlier. hopefully we can move legislation

we want to know why he went around parading the president's phrase of no collusion when on page two of the report i think it is the special counsel mueller says we don't deal with the question of collusion. that's public vernacular ytd that's idea that's been injected by the president. they deal with the question of criminal conspiracy and whether there's evidence to show conspiracy. we're interested also in why he endorsed the president's talking point that he was spied upon by president obama or by the government, and just generally why he did everything in his power to package the mueller report in such a way that it would give a very distorted and one-sided understanding of what's in there. we're still trying to recover from that. we will have witnesses come before our committee to explain what's really in the report so the public could hear for themselves. how many people read the mueller report? could it be 1%? i doubt it. it's 450 pages. we want the people who are actually in there talking about the ten episodes of alleged presidential obstruction to hear from these people. we w

by putting it on page one or two in the introduction to obstruction, mueller was ensuring even if a few people tried to win a few news cycles with something less than that content, he created a legal guideline where it would be hard for mr. barr or anyone to redact page one of an introduction. what does it tell you that he did that? what does it tell you as a prosecutor that he wants congress or the public to know? >> it tells me that mueller found these to be significant acts. whether or not they rise to the level of crimes, he clearly goes through, you know, excruciating detail for all of these, like i said, the ten obstructive acts he details here. he would not have gone into so much detail had he not thought that these were important. i think he does not want all of, you know, his work product and all of the facts underlying that just to disappear. either somebody wanted to redact it or because somebody has a differing legal theory as to whether or not this reaches the level of a crime of obstruction. he clearly wanted that to be out there, and he clearly wanted, you know, all of th

on page 76 of volume two, mueller offers a theory. the president, quote -- the president wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign. the president had a motive to put the fbi's russia investigation behind him. it does not establish a determination that comey was trying to kufrp conspiracy between the trump campaign anding are. the evidence uncovered did not establish that the president was involved in the computer hacking or active conspiracies or that the president are an unlawful relationship with any russian official. keep listening. but evidence does indicate that a thorough fbi investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. there's the reason. there's the reason why the attempted obstruction of justice, fine there was no conspiracy, because he was worried that the fbi was going to find other crimes related to not just his personal life or his business but also

page two that wage growth is almost decile francisco at approximately 6.5%. i don't. i don't know where you got the number from but it appears to dig exclude part-time workers and hourly earnings but when you look at real wage growth come between 2017-2018 it's only .5% for workers at the tenth percentile. according to analysis by the economic policy institute. in addition to association health care plans, each of these services areic limited, emergeny service, mental health, maternity, prescriptions and pediatric services. >> thank you so much, madam chair, and thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. i wanted to start by saying a big thank you. last year that a bipartisan effort in this committee to perjury department to declassify coverage for living organ donors under the family medical leave act. we haven't worked on this for a while. this impacts people all over the country from all income levels, all races, all backgrounds. .. this is a significant step op forward for helping people, thousands of people off of dialysis or move into really a better qua