Fortunate to have a military leader such as you serving in a time of great peril. I want i want to ask a question of you if the objective were to destroy isys, not to we cannot a great but utterly destroy what would be required militarily to accomplish that objective . It would not be possible to destroy. I do think the military aspect is critical. If the timeframe i suggested is not feasible feasible but let me ask you a followup question what will be required to destroy isys and what timeframe is necessary . If that were the objective what would be required to accomplish it . Clicks from my perspective today this is a longterm endeavor a longterm endeavor on the order of years, not months. And what would be required to do that in whatever timeframe is necessary . From military perspective we need to take action to deny sanctuary where everything takes root that will require us to build local forces in the Partnership Capacity with local forces that would be the defeat mechanism. Mech
Almost never his litigated in the this is an area of law and there is lots of learning based on opinions and the posturing of congress. These debates rarely it in the court. The george w. Bush administration. And both the administrations refuse to enforce the statute on the grounds they are constitutional power rendered that statute again person born in jerusalem commenced litigation that first went to the court three years ago. The court said no and direct the dc circuit to decided on the merits. Some some people thought the court was depriving itself an escape route. Would not be able to use the political question if they concluded it would have been desirable seem to be a lot disconcerting noises they were being forced to decide something that had a lot of Foreign Affairs and political visibility. Obviously obviously taking sides owns and controls yours is politically loaded question. In the court did address the merits and so he was right. Justice kennedy writing for the majority i
Ago they called in senator mitchell and ken dubestein to investigate where they had gone wrong with the ioc and make recommendations. External respected, nonpartisan investigation. This committee to help u. S. Soccer set up a similar independent committee to find out what on earth has gone so badly wrong and it being covered up. Also u. S. Soccer could do what your government does, which is put everything online. The forms are inadequate. And then renew, reorganize and reinvigorated soccer could say to the world this is how it does. We are not in america pushing around but we can do it. It is all wide open. Join with us and the 209 National Associations would come with you finishing. Next monday, the absent mr. Gillaspie, who i think is treating you with contempt and the u. S. People of soblger, the men and women and the whole sport with context when he cant come here and defend the u. S. Soccer activities in concocaf and fifa. So hes going over to zurich next week with a private meeti
Dont understand which is the disparate impact. In other words, is it the provision that causes more proposals to go to more proposals to go to the housing or is it the provision that causes more approval of more. Youve about got to know what youre shooting at. The disparity tied to the practice is just the first step in the appal sis. The second step is whats the justification justification. Ill ask it the last time and let you get on. Youre saying you need justification, but for what . Which is the bad thing to do . Not promote low Income Housing . You say whats causing the bat effect, but whats causing the bad effect . It may be neither because the government may say in the first case, well this is our justification and that may be a just fi indication that holds up. The government may say in the second case, well thats our justification and that may be a justification that hold up. Do you think that a private developer would ever be found guilty of disparate impact because he owns a
Jones and their attorney dana kurtz. Thank you all for being here. And i want to i guess we should note the police did issue a statement, the Hammond Police yishtd a statement in response to the lawsuit being filed by mr. Jones and ms. Mahone and their response is the Hammond Police officers were acting in the interest of officer safety and in accordance with indiana law. I guess i will start with you, ms. Mahone. Why did you call 911 during that traffic stop . What prompted you initially to call 911 . I really didnt feel safe. I wanted someone to send a higher superior because i did not trust that Police Officer at all. And were you pulled over initially by one officer . Yes. And at what point did other officers arrive . Later on. Probably about i think the first officer came ten no, about six minutes after the initial stop. And you mentioned that youd seen the officers draw a gun or one of the officers draw a gun. Was it the initial officer that pulled you over that did that or at wh