Page 39 - Nothing Changes News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

For our viewers, i just want to play that. >> they made up a story. just like your client made it up. >> people willing to say, i was with donald trump in 1980. >> nothing changes. >> i was sitting with him on an airplane. >> and he went after me on the plane. yeah, i'm going to after them. believe me she would not be my first choice, that i can tell you. [applause] you don't know. that would not be my first choice. >> when you said in that video that miss leeds it would not be your first choice, you were referring to her physical looks, correct? >> just the overall, i look at, or i see her, i...

The tearing down of memorials to colonialists like Colston forced us to ask questions about whose voices we remember, and whose stories we are told

Not about the planet, the planet was here before we were _ not about the planet, the planet was here before we were under- not about the planet, the planet was here before we were under it - not about the planet, the planet was here before we were under it will - not about the planet, the planet was here before we were under it will be | here before we were under it will be here before we were under it will be here we _ here before we were under it will be here we are — here before we were under it will be here we are it— here before we were under it will be here we are. it is— here befo...

It now now that the plaintiffs have decided to put it in their brief, they could decide right now. there are three possible scenarios. what i think is most likely. they could keep the stay in place which would mean nothing changes. pill remains available case would go back down to the fifth circuit, which is the lower court where it comes from, but essentially, it would mean nothing changes or the justices could deny the justice department for a stay which would cause i think considerable confusion mostly because you still have that washington case that i keep banging on about it tells the fda...

>> i'm >> i'm not quite sure what you're asking for. i don't sign all briefs all day. we have a political process by which we resolve issues. that particular ruling seems to be going through -- it was on a process-oriented thing among the reasons the way they ruled, the way i'm told, is the fda did not follow correctly the administrative proceeds act. that's a question of fact that can be resolved by the court and it's actively being resolved the broader question is how do you resolve the issues in general? i think returning it to the states to allow a state's values to guide is very important...