on this new hour of ayman , how the supreme court conservative said one thing to get confirmed and did another in their decisions from the bench plus how the same justices say federal law allows for some fun bribery, and we have amazing news to share about a story we first brought you about a little girl in gaza

and the dc-based family working to save her life. i'm ayman mohyeldin, let's do it. . forwards are engraved above the entrance of the supreme court building in washington. equal justice under law. a simple four word phrase that while america has certainly never achieved this goal, charges the courts to strive for it and work for it. on monday, inside of that building, that same one, the courts conservative super majority made a mockery of it. in trump versus the united states, the court essentially ruled that american presidents do not have to obey the law when conducting official presidential acts. it had a huge win to trump giving him immunity to some of his conduct while trump was

obviously ecstatic with the ruling, posting, big win for our constitution and democracy, proud to be an american, justice jackson's dissent called the ruling a five alarm fire that threatens to -- some scholars are criticizing the ruling saying that it violates the principle of original is and that the conservative justices all claim to abide by but also contracts with some of these conservative justices have argued in the past, let's look at their confirmation hearings when he was in the hot seat, brett kavanagh cast immunity as almost unthinkable and stated in his hearing that quote, no one is above the law when course which was asked if a prosecutor, waterboarding people he said, no man is above the law no man, amy coney barrett stated no one is above the law not once, not twice,

but three times and chief justice roberts said no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. quite the change of heart, while criticism of the ruling has pointed out the absurd levels of power it gives the president, it also puts into focus the excessive power in the hands of that institution, the courts itself, and as we worry about america tax lighting into authoritarianism under a second trump administration, it's important to understand the role that the courts have played in other countries that have already started their backslide. in the new york times magazine piece last year, writer emily basil raised the question of how much power should the courts have and she exported country throughout the past 20 years such as hungary, turkey and venezuela were a key step toward one party rule has been to diminish the judiciary. in this country, we appear to have the opposite problem.

she writes, quote, it's conceivable that the supreme court could help bring democracy to the brink not because it is too weak as other countries have experienced, but because it is too strong and a judiciary that is too powerful can also pose its own set of dangers to a healthy democracy. the united states has a system of judicial, and that idea of the popular will is a port on a want to focus on that because remember three of the supreme court justices gorsuch coney barrett and o were nominated by trump who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes and they were confirmed to the court by senators representing less of the country's population and who had received fewer votes than senators who actually opposed their nomination but that's not all, to other justices, roberts and alito were nominated by bush who also lost the popular vote before his first term in the

white house. so think about it like this. five of the nine supreme court justices were put on the bench by presidents who lost the popular vote when they first ran for president and four of them were confirmed i senators representing less than half of this country. if trump is elected president again, the threat to american democracy will be severe but even if he isn't, the vast majority held by the unelected then and women of the court who just gave donald trump's candidacy another huge gift monday have already put our democracy into question and peril. join me to discuss this is barbara walter, professor at uc san diego and in mills hires -- a couple of light fourth of july holiday beach reads. it's great to have both of you with us. barbara, first your reaction to

the supreme court ruling that gave trump presidential immunity. is it safe that we are slipping down the road of our president becoming a king? what does this mean? >> i was not surprised, anybody who knows the makeup of the court and who has watched the various rulings that have come down from republican appointed justices starting in 2013 with the voting rights act, you know, they know that this is a course that has a very conservative agenda and their rulings are in some ways, anti- democratic and as you said, they do not represent the majority of americans. 62% of americans favor a woman's right to have an abortion under most or all circumstances. 62%, that is across this country, and yet, this supreme court returned roe v wade, a deeply unpopular ruling and you look at the voting rights act, which they got it, if you look

at what they just did with the epa, when you survey young people, young americans, and you ask what the most important issue is to them, it is climate change and the environment and yet, this court chose to got environmental regulations. so this is a court that is not intent on equal justice for all americans. its intent is to help boost some americans over others and it generally tends to favor wealthy americans over everybody else. >> wealthy and powerful americans. ian, is the supreme court of the united states to powerful to put it bluntly, and if so, why? >> oh god, yes, i mean, there's lots of reasons why, one is that our constitution is a vague document, so, if you give the power to say what is

reasonable, the fourth amendment says you can't have unreasonable searches and seizures and they use liberty without much context, you're going to wind up with a body that has an awesome amount of power and the other problem is that they are political appointees. you know, many states, many countries, they use merit selections to select justices, the french have a system where if you want to be a judge you go to judge school and there's a civil service process where you move up in the ranks, and what doesn't happen is you don't have a publican presidents picking judges and justices because they know they will do what the republican party wants. they serve for life, there's no accountability, and so, you wind up with this court doing what it did in this trump immunity case. it is such a part of our civic religion in america that no one

is above the law. you play the kits of the justices saying that when they were in the confirmation hearing but it turns out once they get into office, nothing will keep them from doing whatever they want. >> when it comes to democracy, you know, obviously the supreme court has a lot of power but there are structural problems with the way this unelected court chosen by a president that did not have the popular vote confirmed i a senate that did not represent the majority of the country, these are structural flaws, put aside all the other problems that ian was talking about, you have term limits on the supreme court and the justices, they can't be corrupted, we thought our system would allow us to have judges that would not be co- opted by the wealthy class and in fact, it has actually shielded them from any kind of accountability precisely for being co-opted by billionaires. >> yes, americans like to believe that we have the best democracy in the world. and we were at the forefront of

building democracy around the world but the reality is, we have a democracy that is deeply undemocratic, in ways that we know about. we have gerrymandering, big money and politics. we have a senate and electoral college that disproportionately favors rural states that are heavily white. other countries don't have this. you know the healthy democracies like denmark and switzerland and canada don't let the parties run the elections, they have an electoral commission, there are all of these ways that america's democracy has become weakened over time and the biggest way that it has become weekend is because we have allowed money and politics. we are increasingly giving more power and more influence for those with money and they have gladly taken this advantage. >> the conservative justices

claim to be originalists, and they said in their hearings that presidents are not above the law. are you surprised that you know, the idea that the presidents aren't above the law, are now the norms as a result of this decision? >> sure thing, i'm not surprised that they abandoned original is in, they do that all the time. the same congress that wrote the 14th amendment which the supreme court used to strike down affirmative action also created the freeman's bureau which is a giant affirmative action plan, so like these guys don't really believe in original is them, it's just a rhetorical trick. that said, i was really surprised by this trump immunity decision. i knew these guys were right- wing and i expect them to string this out and delay and delay trump's trial, but it's

such a part of our identity as americans that no one is above the law that i ner once out ey terribleinthat theynaove, but h you not look down the tree and see that if you give the president immunity, this is going to create incentives for every con artist in america to want to become president because once you are president, you can do whatever you want and once they are there, to never ever want to leave because once you leave, you can be prosecuted. it creates such deeply bad incentives that it's just beyond me how they couldn't have anticipated this. >> for me as somebody who's not a lawyer but as a layman you look at it and say the president cannot start -- can now start offering bribes, the supreme court says it is within his power to do so. what is there to stop a future president from a wink and a nod

to say if you want a part of, you know what i need you to do for me and just to get it done. i think we have opened a pandora's box. what happens now to the special counsel's election interference case? >> well, the procedural niceties is that it goes back to the trial judge, the trial judge will figure out what trump is immune for like what evidence can be admitted and what evidence can't be admitted and as a lawyer, i can come up with good arguments that this case can still move forward but i think if you read an opinion like trump versus the u.s. and try to parse it like an attorney where you look at the words and try and figure out what the meaning is, you're doing it wrong. like once the court says the president is above the law, we are operating in a world where legal principles do not exist. >> stick around, next up it's

not right break, it's bribery light, did the supreme court rule in favor of corruption? we will explain, next. explain, .

and what is possibly the most ironic ruling of this term, the supreme court conservative justices basically said this, hey, if you are a government official, you can engage in a little bit of bribery if you want, and it's

no big deal. it all started with a man named james snyder who was mayor of portage, indiana, back in 2014 and at the time he approved the city's purchase of five garbage trucks from a trucking company to the tune of $1.1 million. after the contract was awarded, the same company cut snyder a check for $13,000. snyder claims the money was a consulting fee but federal prosecutors charged him with a violation, the statute is now a whole lot weaker after the supreme court overturned snyder's bribery conviction effectively ruling that state and local officials can actually accept certain gifts and payments, but only after the fact. writing for the majority in snyder versus the united states, justice, said there is apparently a distinction between tribes and gratuities whereas bribes are taken before an official act and gratuities are given after an official act, as a you know, token of appreciation, think of it as a tip to your waiter but whether you want to call them bribes or

gratuities, a check of $13,000 or say and all expensed paid fishing trip to alaska or the use of the billionaires private jet can have major influence in power, you saw what i did there, right? i think if samuel alito or thomas would have written the opinion, it would have been a bit too on the nose. in, i will start with you and your recent piece about this. break down this ruling for us. how much will this change how things are done in politics? >> oh man, like, what can i say about the supreme court that kendrick hasn't already said about drake? they not like us, you know, they fly around in their private jets, you know, two of them are just monstrously corrupt and they have never met

a corruption case where they don't come down on, think of citizens united, think about the mcdonald case where they have the different statute, the only thing i can say about this opinion that is good is that it is narrow and only applies to a statute that involves state officials who take bribes or gratuities, as the court call them, you know, the federal statute prohibiting these, nominally, is still in place but who knows how long that'll last because these justices they not like us, they think corruption is just fine. >> the idea that they think corruption is so black-and- white, how dangerous is it to be able to legally give gifts to elected officials after they carry out a certain policy the incentive is there, if i'm a government official in ohio, i know that company, that garbage truck company gave a gratuity to an official why would i not be incentivized, i know you did

it for that guy, i expected to be done for me as well? >> timing does not matter at all like, this is semantics, whether you get paid you provide the service or you get paid after the service, if somebody comes and fixes my house, you know, it doesn't matter what i pay them before he does the service or after, it's the same thing. and of course the expectation is if you don't pay me afterwards, you're not going to get any more favors in the future. so it is such hairsplitting and it is so transparent. but a bribe is a bribe is a bribe, whether it comes before or after the service. >> and if you go into a restaurant knowing the waiter is expecting a tip, the waiter is going to be extra nice because he knows that the tip is coming. so my point again is why would these justices, knowing that this incentivized government officials to award contracts or to behave in a certain way as a

waiter would in a restaurant to get that tip, not realize that this is what they are unleashing and the irony here is that these are justices that we have reported on receiving gifts from individuals linked to organizations that have had this is before the court. the reporting, shouldn't have they recused themselves, alito and thomas, shouldn't they have recused themselves? >> thomas and alito should resign. you can't fly all over the country on some billionaires time when you are a government employee. if they were a house staffer or a member of congress, there is a limit of $50, so like every other government official isn't allowed to do this, is, of course they shouldn't be allowed. if you want to know whi think they did it, if you read

justice kavanagh's majority opinion. it has all of this language about like what if someone buys flowers for a government official and does a nice thing or buys like a dinner gift card for their schoolteacher, something like that, they give all of these innocuous examples and i think that is what going on is brett looks at this case and he looks over at clarence and sam and he has empathy for them and doesn't want them to get in trouble because those are the people that you know, he identifies with. he's not thinking about the broader implications of what does this mean for the country. >> justice jackson wrote a strong dissent in this case" officials who use their public additions for private gains threatened the integrity of her most important institutions. where do we see this pandora box leading to? >> it's yet another instance of injecting more and more corruption into our democracy, and the implication of that is going to be that more and more

americans and more and more young americans are going to distrust the system, and they are going to come to believe that maybe democracy isn't the best system and maybe there something better out there and there are going to be people out there who will try to convince them that having a strong man in power or having perhaps business takeover government would be better. but this is all part of a lengthy process to really undercut our democracy and undercut trust in our democracy, so that certain groups of americans can ultimately have most of the power and this court has been really transparent or a majority on the court has been transparent about their desire to allow wealthier americans to have more influence, and the big picture here on this ruling is it is just yet another way for wealthy people to influence policy outcomes. >> is there anything congress can do here? they have proven themselves to

be inept but is there hypothetically speaking something that congress can do, is there an act that it can pass for them to try and put an end to this type of corruption on the supreme court? >> on the supreme court i mean there's lots of things you can do, if you have a large enough majority, so the first thing that can happen is that congress could rewrite the statute to make it clear that if you take the bribe after the fact it's still illegal and it's still a ride. but there's lots of other stuff that you could get, you can add seats to the supreme court and fill them with biden appointees or whoever is the president, if you have the votes to do that. you could take away almost the entire budget, you can't take away the justices salaries, but you can take away their building and their law clerk and staff, you constrict the court of much of its

jurisdiction. there are lots of things congress can do but that depends on us electing a congress in november that actually wants to rein in these justices. >> it does not seem like anyone has been talking about that in a touring the campaigns. up next, we are going to talk about the stunning turn of events and some of these important elections around the world, in particular, france, sending a clear message to the far right in that country. that. ♪ trains that use the power of dell ai and intel. ♪ to see hundreds of miles of tracks. ♪ [vroom] [train horn] [buzz] clearing the way, [whoosh] so you arrive exactly where you belong.

in france, projected results from today's election are in and they defy prediction. the left has rejected the far right party and prevented it from winning the majority, remember the french president called for parliamentary elections after the party suffered a major defeat in last month's european parliament elections. it was clear, french voters wanted change and today in a surprising upset and with voter turnout the highest it's been in decades, a block of left- leaning parties is projected to

finish first while macron's alliance is expected to come in second . it's not just france, voters elsewhere showed us that the status quo is not working from there -- them. in iran a moderate won the election, defeating an ultraconservative former nuclear candidate. these elections show us the desire for change is resoundingly clear but are people just fed up with the way things are or are they rejecting far right voices and forces across those countries. i'm joined by the editor and chief in, magazine.

what does the signal to you that after the stunning emergence of the far right victory the voters were able to prevent them from getting the majority, the unity among the left and centrist parties, to block the far right? >> i think this really is more of a rejection that it is a vote in which any great enthusiasm was shown for who is going to govern. you have between the left and the center, extreme range of views really that are going to find it able to get the coalition, they would find it hard to agree on anything at all. i think first what happened is the left and the center, they agreed to drop certain candidates from various constituencies, so that people could unite their votes. this really is most of all a

vote against the far right which it seems like much of france has united to come together and say they don't want the worst of what they have seen, the crazy, anti- immigrant rhetoric, some of which has links to far right fascism, decades ago. that is what has been rejected today but really, one should say, there is no clear sign of what happens next. the next prime minister could be anyone, john luke who runs the party who won the most number of votes, he is someone who wants to pull france out of plato, so confusion reigns. >> such an important point and we will take into that. but barbara, give me your thoughts on the broader question that i asked earlier. do you think that it's about a real desire for change or more reflecting a rejection of conservative voes anforces, give me a sense if there is a through line between these elections or if there isn't in

each one is unique -- you might be muted. okay, go ahead, barbara. >> i think it is definitely a movement for change. it's not a rejection of the far right. if you look in britain and france, the far right madeg ins inbo the ecs. scary, so macron, he represented the center of french politics and they were the big losers in the election. and what you saw was a rise on both the far right and on the left, this is really an indication of a rise of more extreme politics, and it is telling us that democracy in

europe, democracy in the united states, is probably facing a decade or so of real instability. and that is something that everyone, voters, party leaders, important donors, are going to have to be vigilant about because we are seeing the hollowing out of the middle and democracies and that is where stability usually sets. >> very important point, that barbara brings up about the hollowing of the center. the polarization of our politics now is that the new norm, are we going to see more extremism or more extremist i should say, and marriage on both sides of the political divide because i want to highlight this point, author and professor natalie klein said that there is a key lesson for democrats coming out of the uk and french elections, voters want change and there's little political coherence to the way these races are going except that people are turning on the status quo whether it is the

right in the uk or the center in france. your thoughts on this, are we in a new era of polarization that has, that is basically going to cut the center out of our politics? >> every country is on its own journey. i do think we need to treat them separately. i think the reason why in france many of us are seeing this as a rejection of the far right, is in comparison to just a week ago. when it won the first round, or a few weeks ago when polls suggested that the far right would really come and dominate the french parliament. in reaction to that, it seems like a lot of people actually voted strategically even if they were voting for parties on the far left or the center that they didn't really care for. that is something that gives me a little bit of hope in democracy people are much smarter than we give them credit for. they have generally a wider and

broader vision of where they want their country to go. look at the uk for example, where, turnout was actually lower than it's been in about 20 years so the opposite of france which was higher than it had been in 20 years and the vote, while it was for change, this was also not a vote of great enthusiasm. this was a vote where people were largely fed up with what they had, 14 years of chaos and confusion with a conveyor belt of prime ministers going in and out and they voted essentially for a party that has been very clear about the fact that it doesn't want to put forward radical new proposals. it wants to project itself as steady and that is really where it is and if i may, i will take us to iran very quickly where it seems like globally, there is a broader feeling that the system isn't working and that capitalism isn't working and the greatest fear that iran's

clerics had in their election this past weekend was that the people would reject the system. and if you look at turnout there, just 50%, which is actually higher than some were expecting, that suggests that there is broad resentment with the establishment itself. and if you look at elections around the world, reducing turnout suggests that people, you know, they might toss leaders out now and then, they are upset about the system. >> very important points that you both raised. we will continue to attract them as we head into her own elections and see what if any impact they have on our own domestic politics. thank you so much for joining us. next up, west think land seizures and how it undermines the biden administration. biden t i n

this was the scene at the village in the west bank back in april as hundreds of israeli

soldiers went on a rampage burning down houses and corona settlers. this is one of the largest attacks this year and a reminder that bostonians are increasingly vulnerable to rising violence from settlers because that's for decades the walls have been closing in on them as israeli government approves more and more land grabs in the west bank, something that has only increased since the war started at the end of last year. this week we learned israeli authorities approved a seizure of five square miles of land in the valley, the largest landgrab since the oslo reports three decades ago, back and said ray, vasectomy of state said they are inconsistent with international law and that are administrations are maintaining -- israel remains defiant and has made it clear that these

illegal landseizures will only accelerate. daniel, thank you for joining us, this landgrab comes as we already saw for swelling -- four square miles of land seizure, this makes this the peak year for land seizures in the west bank. at this rate is it possible to have a two state solution, are we beyond that just speaking from a realistic perspective? >> so, really important, these land seizures, this came from a freedom of information request inside israel and the two headlines are that this is an important part of the

bureaucratic process which has been going on for decades across every israeli government which has led to what you just described, the fact that there are 650,000+ israelis now, illegally in palestinian territories in the west bank, east jerusalem, that is a constant and the other headline is that under this government, there's been a scaling up, not only in those efforts but in the legal arrangements for managing the territories which means we are already in a de facto annexation government, this is one state, so that brings us to the question of, what does that mean in terms of the plausibility of this thing that everyone plays rhetorical lipservice to, the two states, that means we have to put under a microscope such statements of two states, do you really mean a sovereign palestinian state and with all that all that

entails of the rights of refugees or you saying listen, the israelis have created a reality of this government doesn't talk about that in the terms, they openly acknowledge that that is what they are doing. if you are accepting this reality or are we now in a reality where this is so entrenched that we have to be talking about equality for all in the one state? >> you brinup a very important point which is, the rhetorical lipservice that people pay to a two state solution, you speak to american officials, european officials, they still talk about a two state reality, excuse me, a two state solution, denying this

reality that you describe. we know that the jewish settlements are considered illegal by the international community. yet, there is no substantial action by the americans or the europeans, why not? i mean why is it that the u.s. will not even just follow its own foreign policy objectives ofimposing a two state solution, why are they not even taking actions for those that are trying to block the objective? >> right, so you've had very limited initiative by this administration, some sanctions against a very small and select number of settler groups. they are much larger and much serious ways that if they were doing that you can go after the organization which pays for a lot of the construction and that would have to be on your list but more than that, how do you make sure, if you are serious because of course, what this all suggests is there's no seriousness but if you are serious you make sure that you are not complacent in any of

this. if israel has sporting clubs inside its own institutions over the lines, should they be participating in international sport, what about all of your bilateral relations, the trade and that is why, now before the international court of justice, it's not only the case brought by south africa or genocide in gaza but also the un general assembly, they called on the court to provide a legal new opinion, what does this permanent occupation mean in terms of the responsibilities and america went in there and argued, we don't have to do anything. i don't think that is what the court will say. i think it really tells a lie

to this idea that there is a seriousness of commitment to two states because you could be doing so much more and th reality is that having failed to do that for decade after decade, you are now looking at an increasing field and that is something that has been called by states, israel's own ministers, and apartheid reality, is going to require an unraveling that involves sanctioning and equality, and this two state option, the partition option which is really encouraged landgrab from the get-go may well be receding into the distance. >> we are almost out of time and i will have you back to discuss this but hodo you take a one state solution from this kind of fear in terms of what it means into a practical solution for both people with equal rights, how do you bring that into the mainstream? >> well, it is the reality on

the ground, i would say first of all the palestinians need to make some hard political decisions, you need a palestinian national movement that can represent aspirations, that's not for me to do. palestinians will have to say, is this what we want and then you have to acknowledge the eradication, on the israeli side, the people who, to today not only talk about but they are enacting attempts of displacement, and if they don't get their way but also they will have to be a part of that equal future reality. >> let us hope that somehow that does prevail. thank you so much. i appreciate your time and your insights. next up we will head to texas as it braces for tropical storm beryl. be b race s for tropical stm beryl. but a treatment can be. keytruda is known to treat cancer, fda-approved for 17 types of cancer.

one of those cancers is advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer, where keytruda is approved to be used with certain chemotherapies as your first treatment if you do not have an abnormal “egfr” or “alk” gene. keytruda can cause your immune system to attack healthy parts of your body during or after treatment. this may be severe and lead to death. see your doctor right away if you have cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, severe stomach pain, severe nausea or vomiting, headache, light sensitivity, eye problems, irrelar hetbeat, extreme tiredness, constipation, dizziness or fainting, changes in appetite, thirst, or urine, confusion, memory problems, muscle pain or weakness, fever, rash, itching, or flushing. there may be other side effects. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions, including immune system problems, if you've had or plan to have an organ, tissue, or stem cell transplant, received chest radiation or have a nervous system problem. depending on the type of cancer, keytruda may be used alone or in combination with other treatments, and is also being studied in hundreds of clinical trials exploring ways to treat even more types of cancer.

it's tru. keytruda from merck. see all the types of cancer keytruda is known for at keytruda.com and ask your doctor if keytruda could be right for you.

back with breaking news along the gulf coast, tropical storm beryl is churning and gaining strength and it's expected to be a hurricane by the time it hits texas monday morning. priscilla, what are u seeing with just hours to landfall, is the community bracing itself and heeding the warnings? >> yeah, they are, and we have really felt the strengthening on the ground here in the past hour, with the wind starting to pick up, you can see the waves along thwater becoming more

violent and i understand that these winds right now, on the storm, about 70 miles per hour, they are right on the cusp of becoming a category one hurricane and we expect that will probably happen at some point overnight, and what officials have been saying throughout the weekend is for these coastal communities to prepare and that is certainly what we've seen down in corpus christi. they have passed out 10,000 sandbags in just under an hour. we were in galveston earlier today where we were seeing empty store shelves as people were picking up water and supplies as they prepared to hunker down and here we have seen businesses and homes, boarding up and so it does appear that people are preparing as many of them plan to stay and ride out the storm. and the really big impact that officials are worried about is going to be the storm surge and we are talking about potentially up to a seven foot storm surge that could knock

out power lines, trees and impact a lot of homes along the water, and the other really big threat is going to be flash flooding and a lot of these inland areas. we are talking about 5 to 7 inches in houston which, over the past couple of months, has been inundated with rainfall, the ground there, already still saturated. and so those are some of the things that folks are worried about. and in fact we heard officials saying that yes the storm surge is a problem but the more deadly issue they are concerned about is the flooding, warning people not to go out and attempt to drive in the water and i will tell you at this hour, there are mandatory evacuations in place for several counties and also more than 120 counties under a disaster declaration as communities prepare for what is coming. >> thank you so much, stay safe with the crew and everyone else that's down there. we want to end the show on a positive note, and an update to a story we first told you

about last month. three-year-old julia had been living in gaza with extremely rare disease called ahc, it's so rare there are only 1000 diagnosed cases worldwide. for months as conditions in gaza deteriorated, she became paralyzed and did not have access to the medication she desperately needed. julia's family warned that if she didn't receive proper treatment, she would die. people around the world including parents of children with that same condition rallied to help her. last month i spoke with simon frost, father of annabelle who's also living with ahc, they were working tirelessly to help julia and her family leave gaza for life-saving treatment. this past week we learned she has been evacuated to egypt thanks to a multinational effort by governments and families. sadly, her parents were not allowed to go with her. they were forced to make the devastating decision to send her away with her 20-year-old

aunt, but the good news is julia can now receive the medical care that she deserves, say from the unrelenting threat of war. as we mark nine months of the war, this is a bright spot in a testament to the efforts of so many pele around the world to save this young girl's life. thank you for making time for us to make sure to catch ayman every saturday and sunday. until we meet again, i am ayman mohyeldin in new york. have a good night. and helping to write new ones. ♪

- [narrator] life with ear ringing sounded like a constant train whistle i couldn't escape. then i started taking lipo flavonoid. with 60 years of clinical experience, it's the number one doctor recommended brand for ear ringing. and now i'm finally free. take back control with lipo flavonoid. you can save.