they are globally systemic credit suisse. they are classed as too big to fail. they are required to have enough capital to stop them failing evenif enough capital to stop them failing even if really bad things happen but credit suisse looks on the verge of failure and the most likely scenario seems to be a takeover by ubs but everybody he is approaching that with an awful lot of queasiness, if you like. switzerland doesn t want one big bank. it wants that reputation you talked about of a number of banks where you re safe with us. 0bviously, headlines like we are seeing this week really don t help. the swiss economy relies on its financial sector and it relies on the financial sector with a good reputation. it on the financial sector with a good reutation. ., , ., , reputation. it does raise interesting reputation. it does raise interesting questions, i reputation. it does raise - interesting questions, doesn t it, because the bank but in money, what, in the middle of the week to t
force on us at every turn. use all that tweet, right? what is the bigger threat to democracy than extra dude gnomic judicial pressure on the supreme court justices? you don t get a free pass to say whatever you want because you claim you are calling out threats to democracy. let s remember we had an assassination attempt on justice brett kavanaugh, words like i m not saying because that incident but certainly don t help. carley: this is a house hearing on extremist rhetoric. so, how did you have a witness with that kind of twitter history testify on rhetoric? that is something the witnesses will hold a little bit better. and also a harvard law instructor. if i m working with young people in 20 that kind of stuff. what nancy mace did he she asked the witnesses, do you think extreme rhetoric is a threat to democracy? and of course nancy mace pulled up the street where this person
him off the street and unable to confront and kill these murder these officers. so this was entirely preventable. it is completely indicative of the public defender justice system that is gascon. if you decide to let people out who have a background or propensity for drug use, violence, criminality, you get more drug use, violence, and criminality. in this case tragically. hopefully the voters of l.a. will get a chance to recall him like they did chesa boudin in san francisco. the tide is turning. ideas have consequences and we re seeing it if front of us. bill: looks like his future will be on the ballot. stories like these don t help. in the business they call this bad p.r. for the d.a. meanwhile at west point, something for you, a veteran. fox news digital has got a piece out there judicial watch went in and found 600 pages. they are teaching critical race theory. here is the evidence.
we want to not see this problem, we want to get rid of this, but what is happening on the backhand for these folks is all sort of indeterminate. it does feel like this hammer nails solution to public space, or public order. the issue is there is a hard-core of people we experiencing homelessness who don t help. and i think as a society we have to decide, sometimes that help may have to be imposed against will. we do that in certain cases, and now the question is how often. how can we balance freedom and what s good for people? but the idea that somehow it s morally just to allow people to stay and live in the subway system, where the fatality rate is incredibly high, as a civilized society, that s not acceptable to sleep in tunnels in the subway. so we can we don t have to fix everything about housing and inequality before we say, no, this is unacceptable. new york is a we have more services and more people. so we becomes a political
communities. and the example to me, this, peter, i want to talk about clarence race after this. we are seeing this homelessness discussion. this is a national thing. if you go on fox news, the whole thing is, look at these disgusting cities with all these people everywhere. i did know that because i don t but that s the discussion there. eric adams has been doing these homeless sweeps that people will get this to me feels like these things where it s like, we want to not see this problem, we want to get rid of this, but what is happening on the backhand for these folks is all sort of indeterminate. it does feel like this hammer nails solution to public space, or public order. the issue is there is a hard-core of people we experiencing homelessness who don t help. and i think as a society we have to decide, sometimes that help may have to be imposed against will. we do that in certain cases, and now the question is how often.