that s anonymous data, no one can be tracked to an individual, where we compare voting lists to get it exactly what you just mentioned. incidents of double voting which are extremely rare but they do occasionally exist, and so we are in an ongoing cooperative effort. that s the way to do it. to do it dispassionately, non-politically, instead of this process which really to me at this point looks like it is questionable at best, reckless and harmful at worst. i don t trust it. don t take my word for it. 40 other states have said the same thing. either completely or partially. and i have real concerns about this effort nationally and i think it s something designed seemingly to distract and to follow up on an inquiry that is baseless and just has no basis in fact. some people ask, and there s no mal intent in the question, but if you are not from some places in the south and not of a certain age and maybe not african-american, not really
there is this common concern here that they feel that donald trump s executive action on immigration likely had something to do with it. they maintain they re simply taking a closer look focussing and also deporting those individuals with the felony convictions. this case speaks to fears of a mal intent whereby doing this you re going to keep people from coming into check which will trigger people saying that they re non-compliant and the cycle gets more and more harsh. so athletic apparel giant under armor they re responding to a backlash after their ceo made comments supporting president trump. what did he say? what s the reaction? that s in this morning s bleacher report. a day after steph curry publicly disagreed with the company s ceo that said that president trump is an asset to the united states, underarmour wanted to try to distance the company s brand from the ceo s
how did it get past the system? again and again. exactly. it s not as simple as saying there ought to be psychological evaluations. dr. tucker would tell us that he probably could have passed them with flying colors. this man lied. that s how he did it. he fabricated it. somebody with mal intent is likely to lie anyway. people who are going to self-report are not going to be in a position to do what he did. you are looking at more psychological reporting. yes. a different infrastructure but don t be let s not cause a panic in a crisis. this is one case. robert boyer from flying magazine says there s been more pilot suicides than hostage situations. you re still talking about three cases, three cases. egypt air, silk and this and
the deal. so isn t that negotiating with terrorists? i don t think it is, erin, i mean this wasn t negotiations directly with the taliban. this was negotiated by the government of qatar, we re grateful for that, and more importantly, we re grateful to have sergeant bergdahl back. the detainees are in qatar, a country which has been known to harbor people with mal intent toward the united states. they re going to be banned from traveling outside qatar for one year. what happens after that year, though? i can just tell you that again, a lot of careful thought was put into this. i mean nobody entered into this agreement lightly or without seriously considering the national security interests of the united states. and again, secretary hagel would never have signed off on this if he didn t believe that this transfer was in the best
controlled descent of less than 2,000 feet per minute. the people sitting in the back, the passengers may not even be aware of that. but wouldn t you feel it in your ears? with a gentle rate of descent and with the pressurization system set to automatic, and half of them are probably sleeping, you probably wouldn t even notice. and you add that on top of the fact that the left turn was basically a standard rate gentle turn. very, very gradual. they may not have noticed. they may not have noticed. so you re assuming intent here. intent on the up and down. intent on the up and down may not mean mal intent. let s go with the issue of intent. what would be the point? i have absolutely no idea, frankly. i mean, we can make an argument it s to avoid oncoming traffic in the opposite direction. if you knew that the air weways went to 37,000 feet so you went to 39,000 feet to be out of the way of the traffic.