they re allowed to do this nothing wrong with doing it and written right on the street it s a 3% surcharge. i actually think it s a pretty good deal for the consumers because there s no allegation they re actually raising the prices of the items. the allegation is that there s a surcharge and that s a heck of a lot better than what inflation is, what they might be charging for donuts down the street might be 7% versus this 3%. and also when do you ever really know exactly to the dollar the price of what you re paying for something. right. i mean you ordered a steak at a restaurant, it s $49 and then you get the bill and and oh they added a grew to youity and the steak s gone you ate it. you can t put the toothpaste back in the tube. this happens all the time. and it says on the receipt in the fine print of the smoking gun on exhibit a of the complaint, if you want the refund of that three percent you can ask for it and the president of the company said a few years
administration at troy what this course that is going to start in the fall is all about. well, there is a negative take, which is that we are anti-woke and we are trying to teach the dangers of wokeism to sound business. but there is also a positive sight to that the positive side is that businesses acting ethical in good faith follow rules, treat each other with respect. of treat others with respect and enable cooperation and trust among diverse individuals. so businesses provide value by producing goods an services that make our lives easier and better. steve: right. they don t need to purchase absolution for hard earned profits or boost brand with progressive politics. in advance countries that enjoy it freedom. most businesses most of the times benefit society and generate widespread health and prosperity. steve: very good. unfortunately, professor, you know there are a lot of corporations, big corporations with a lot of people on board they all vote yep, let s go woke and then
too long to ask an if independent party to get involved. now that a document has been reviewed, you can t put that toothpaste back in the tube. so the reason for a special master becomes diminished. a special master could come to different conclusions that the doj initial review team did. with a judge set to review on that soon after suggesting last week she was inclined to point aone as trump is lashing out at fbi, demanding to be declared the rightful winner despite his defeat and calling for a new election immediately. although federal law not former officials determines federal election dates. and now new fallout for a key trump ally. senator lindsey graham facing backlash after these comments on sunday. if there is a prosecution of donald trump for mishandling classified information, there will be riots in the streets. that type of rhetoric is irresponsible. reporter: graham now trying to clarify. i reject violence.
useless at this point because the department, the fbi s already gone through these materials. you can t put that toothpaste back in the tube. second, the investigation here is about it s not about the contents of the individual memos that he stole. it s about the fact he stole them, and so even if you found some documents that might be protected by executive privilege, which is, i think, ludicrous, but even if so, that wouldn t be a defense to the fact that he took them. executive privilege is not i get executive privilege for all time and get to put them in my golf club. it just means that the documents properly belonged to the executive branch, which by the way means even if the special master found in his favor, it wouldn t mean he d get the documents back. it d mean they d go to the archives. it s impossible for me to think there will be any executive privilege documents that will be found because the supreme court has said executive privilege
with a very derogatory intent of smearing and coloring the 23-month investigation and it explains why mueller was so upset and there was reporting in the new york times and the washington post that mueller called this office and was upset. you can t put any of the toothpaste back in the tube and back to my first question to you, how does it fill out the understanding of how heavily donald trump depended on doj to put his finger on the scale for him? i mean, enormously, nicole. the extent to which doj, particularly after bill barr took over was functioning as an extension of the political interest of the trump white house particularly on the mueller report. i had a lot of responsibility for how the information was presented to the public. neal would know first hand that if i had sought out of the white house to manipulate the presentation of criminal cases or cases that implicated the