very success in 1963, the british empire had to recognize the independence of gain. yeah. however, the colonial regime left behind a trail of blood and wounds that canyon nation has not recovered from on sale. now . the . hi everybody. i'm rick sanchez. this is direct impact, and this is what we're going to be talking about. need to be able to stop these russian attacks that are coming from bases inside russia. so i think there's also a question of whether we the united states and our allies, or to give them more health in hitting russian bases, which here to, for, we've not been willing to do there you go bomb russia. so says victoria, new. and if you think that suggestion to bomb russia, sounds crazy. wait till you hear what else? victoria newland had to say. i'm going to play it for you. i'm rick sanchez. let's

do it of the. all right, let's start with this very important conversation going on in the united states right now. in fact, it couldn't possibly be any more important. my gosh, think about this. it's about whether the people of the united states that involves me and maybe some of you are watching right now. want to start a war with restaurant seriously, whether you want, do you want to start a war with russia? do you really want to start a war with russia? i won't say that that would be possibly the beginning of world war 3. but if you're thinking about that, you probably might be right or at least asking a good question to yourself. here's, here's the deal, and here's why i'm asking the question i'm posing all of this ukraine has recently been bombing and killing civilians in a russian border city that it's, that's named belgrade. you probably don't know,

but if you happen to live in the united states, because the media here doesn't report that. but because of that, russia has tried to create or says it's creating this safe zone inside of ukraine in a place called car cost. some would call it park off the gradients, call it car key, whatever, to try and stop the bombing. so the russians are moving into that area to stop the bombing, because that's where the missiles are being used to fire and developed around the, the follow that. okay, and they're doing it by hitting that area right there near the russian border. well, so the us secretary of state, pardon me, the us secretary of defense, i misspoke lloyd austin was asked recently. if you crane should now be allowed to use us weapons, the weapons made here in the united states to bomb russia. right. in mind you, they already are bombing rush. i mean, they're already doing it. but regardless, let's,

let's pretend they're not right. so when lloyd austin was asked this question, he said no, here's the headline, this is what you can read right about. now i think this is a b c news, but everybody picked it up. as you can see, what general austin is saying is that there's an expectation by him that when he gives you crane weapons or when united states gives ukraine weapons, they will be used inside them ukraine only. they will not be used to attack russia, which kind of makes sense, right? we don't want to be given somebody weapons and then they're shooting them off and getting china or russia and right, so obviously not to the us media though. see the us media doesn't find this obvious which, which is even you could almost argue that there are members of the media and united states that are more, we're hungry. then the us general himself, the guy who's in charge of the defense department. like like people and cnn and stuff like that they, they almost are more of yeah,

hawks. then people even at the state department are believe it or not it it's, it's obvious. just watch the news so. so these folks, in this case i think it was a b, c. they sought out their favorite people to talk to after the secretary general, secretary of defense, pardon me. said no, we don't want ukraine bombing russia. they made a phone call to victoria nolan, victoria nolan, who was an auto bash russia hating war hawk. and she suggested, yeah, we should encourage ukraine to bomb russia. she never mentioned that ukraine has already been bombing russia. she never talks about bell gerad. so here is new and being asked if you crane should bomb russia with us weapons, listen to what you said and, and do you think they should i think is the attacks are coming directly from over the line in russia that those bases ought to be fair game,

whether they are where missiles are being launch from, or where they are, where troops are being supplied from. i think it's time for that because russia has obviously escalated this war, including as you said, is the beginning attacking rush, the 2nd city har keys, which is not on the front lines and trying to designate it without ever having to put a boot on the ground so i think it is time to give the ukrainians more help hitting the spaces inside russia to listen to it and say, i feel like i'm doing the daily show here instead of a new show. cause this is almost like funny how ridiculous it is, that she uses the fact that russian soldiers and russian troops come from russia. therefore, ukraine should attack russia because russian troops and russian soldiers and russian art or munitions come from wherever. how else could they come from door to door? like reasoning is we sure the tag was because the troops and the soldiers and the

guns in the ammunition and the weapons that are being used on you. great. and couple of mazda, of course, that come from russia, by the way, what you're suggesting is an all out we're with russia. and martha ravaged, the woman who's interviewing, or she doesn't even push back. it's like, oh, okay, that's what you mean. okay. manila that i mean, did you pick up on any of this a well wreck if we apply the same reasoning that victoria new and used there, then the 20 years that the united states occupied afghanistan, it would have given the taliban, the right to wire off missiles or use their, you know, their, uh, whoever, supporting them, the taliban to fire rockets off this way to mainland united states. so that kind of rhetoric is nothing more than trying to continue more and more bloodshed. she was saying, how, you know, in the rest of it,

that interview was saying how we didn't move fast enough. we, as in the united states and congress didn't move fast enough to supply more arms. as we know, there was a contingent of republican congress, people who are holding back, holding the line from giving for aiden arms to do the loading. there's the landscape, however, the rest of that sound bite. rick, i think is important to note if you ever want to know why war is a racket, victoria knew and wraps up her interview by saying that, by the way, most of this ukraine aid is coming right back to the defense industry as provides the good jobs in more than 30 states here in the united states, martha, let's start a war with russia because it will provide great jobs for americans here, the united states, and then we'll all die during world war 3. but we have the app rep can make it up really well. we made some good money before we died. right? buying good news by the way, victoria mueller. and let me just add one more thing before we go. stop. don't move

the teleprompter yet because we're not going to move on to the next story. there's something i should say. and i always forget to save this, but this important way to start a war with russia. right. and so many americans don't know this either. let me just say this, cuz this is important. they have more nuclear warheads than we do. one more time, they have more nuclear warheads, then we do. wouldn't be smart to start a war with. right? says i wouldn't before it. what do you say? let me know later by the way, inventory a newly doesn't start world war 3. there's always these old white guys in the us congress or willing to do it. are you ready for this southern congress? men are proposing that idea of soldiers receive the same benefits of us soldiers enjoy, which essentially means that they're expanding the us military to include israel's military. again, i am making this up. here's what it says, let me read it to victor. put this up on the screen, look at the see that as you can see, it says the service of a citizen of the united states in the idea will be treated in the same manner as

the services of a soldier in uniform services. how in the hell do you think this will be received around the world? if we literally say that from now on, the us army and the israeli army will be one of the same. which is what these congressmen, thank god is not the entire congress is just a couple of guys. we're proposing this one to suggest, but no a well rec source. after i finished rolling my eyes, we should say that this is a clickable to roughly 20000 dual citizen american slash is rarely people that are currently serving in the id for member service. and the idea is mandatory is compulsory. if you maintain a and is rarely passport. now that said, i take personal ambridge to this stupid ridiculous bill. i am the wife of a veteran who is permanently disabled. and for years and years and years,

we always hear how the v a doesn't have enough resources. to do a or to do b, we can't take care of our veterans because of this matter, the other thing. but now you're saying you want to spread those limited resources to people who i'm there. they're granted, they're also americans, but they never served in the us military. yeah. these are tools citizens serving in a foreign military. and if the resources are as limited as a claim, they are for our own veterans who works tens of thousands of them homeless, starving, dying on the street, drug addicted. we can't serve them after they've served this country. but now you want to give those limited resources away to people serving elsewhere. it's absolutely ridiculous. those people should resign. you think it'll make a lot of americans angry, but it's also going to make a lot of people overseas angry. i can't imagine the people in the middle east are

not gonna look at this and saying, oh, so basically what you're saying is the united states and israel are now one country . uh and if israel is gonna take us on, including a rod which would be hearing with very big years that this conversation, they're gonna say that essentially you guys are taking us on to i just can't see this ending up in any way other than like a freaking disaster or catastrophe. absolutely. this of the optics of this alone, rick shows that we're walking in lock step and further supports be ongoing genocide . no matter what they say that this is an agenda side. this i think supports that in that we're not no longer tacitly supporting it. we're actively supporting it. yeah. good point. so thanks, but when we come back, by the way, sam will say we care about sam. he's an independent journalist who covers the state department. you know, what's great about sam. and he, and i are going to be talking here in just a little bit. in fact, i think you're going to see him here. there is, i say i'm, how are you know, it's clear but you know, what's cool about this?

got, he is not a laptop. so many journalists are he asked the tough questions that often make state department official seeing both foolish, nervous, maybe even a little hypocritical, maybe even a lot hypocritical. we've got an example of exactly what we're talking about when we come back, stay right there. the the the

the scott bennett, i'm a former united states army psychological warfare officer, really served in the state department counterterrorism office under investor del daily the . so i wanted to come here to russia in the dawn bass area and to gather the facts, to take back to the american people, the

hold on bass as the front lines and the square, the bombs and the bullets are raging. this is where people are dying. this is where the buildings are exploding the go. i wanted to see 1st hand the scars of war, the welcome back. i'm rick sanchez and i have been doing this for so long and i always enjoy when somebody does real journalism. so i want to place something here for you in just a little bit. this is, here's the state department. can i say lackey? he's kind of a lackey, you know, somebody who's paid to, he's kind of like a p r guy. matt miller. right. he says, he's saying how they're the i c c,

the international criminal court. the international criminal court came out recently and criticized israel, a master benjamin that the guy who's arrest right for what? 40000 people who are dead. 15217000 children who are dad the, you know, to alleged genocide of a country trying to get rid of all the people who happen to be palestinians who live in that area. at least there's really accusations, right? so the icpc is making the case and they say budget mentioned nothing. yeah. who should be arrested for that? well, you're gonna hear matt miller essentially say all the i c c doesn't know what the hell is talking about how they are. they say something like that, they have no place to be saying something like that. and at the end, you're going to hear sam jose needs voice. my guest asking matt miller, a really good question here it is. united states fundamentally rejects the announcement today from the prosecutor of the international criminal court that he is applying for arrest warrants for senior is really officials together with warrants for him off terrace. first of all, the israel has its own investigation. second,

we have accountability mechanisms here we have processes that are ongoing to look at israel's compliance with international humanitarian law. so there are places to look at these questions. it's just in our, in our view, fundamentally not our role of the i see. see, there's us get is not have yours to, is there a different quote i wasn't referring to criminal jurisdiction about there was different ways to look at this long term. we agree with you that the policy and people should be a state that has the and have the ability to make these determinations. but that's not where we are today. that's what we're trying to get to your fine was the i see, see going after the so no time slot you are fine with the eyes. you see going after russia in no time flat but now to continue the question when they go. busy after israel, how dare they owe bill to go after israel. yes, go after russia. go after china, go after any country we don't like. but if you go up to a country, we like, then you're not a real organization and you're breaking all the rules. i mean, it's a, it's, i hate to say it, but my gosh, how hypocritical can you be?

sam was saying, he's an independent voice, but you should consider subscribing to he's. i'm sub stopped by the way. he's on subs, doc, under the heading, who's saying sam could see it again. my friend, how are you? good to be with you. right. thanks. so what happened after you asked him that question where you said you were so, you know, you were fine with russia doing it, but now you're not. what do you say? what happened? the only ignore me is low to call on me terribly often. um, um but, but i had what i saw the effect would be later on, not miller v solve briefly there the a p reporter was more independent than most us journalists. although sometimes you, you know, ask some questions from august perspective. yeah. as well. he is not, you know, i, i is different from me but he's better than the vast majority makes the reporters. he picked up on it and started asking them regarding russia and what,

what do you ended up having is at the beginning, miller was falsely saying that is that uh uh they, they don't apply the i, c, c, a, in the case of israel palestine because as ro isn't a party and they claim that house isn't a party either because it's not a real estate. welf. i mean the u. s. can have that position, but it's a meaningless possession of israel. palestine is a member of the i, c. c. it, you know, you go to the, i see, see, web page, it's listed, palestine, the state of palestine is original. and in 2015, i even did the screenshots on my latest piece there. so there's no why is that? so he's saying look, that they have no right to do this in defense of palestine because palestine is not a member, is not a real state, per se, at least according to the i c. c. you're here to tell us. yes they are. so that

means you're not at all that miller's lie or, or he's ignoring miller's lying and saying that it's not a real member of the i c, c, the i c c says it's a damn we own member takes a state of palestine on their web page they joined in 2015. it's an outright lie. and. and then later on uh he um, she uh claimed later on, matt, matt leed picked up on my questioning. so so so just so you guys have yours up. matt lini is the reporter for a p. matt miller is the, the, the, the, the talking head who represents the state department of the united states. so matt levy is asking matt miller, what questions go ahead. right, keep, keep followed up on my question in saying, what about russia and the i c c. because, you know, you, you're saying that, you know, israel isn't a party in russia, it isn't a party. so what's the difference here? why, why are you accepting it in one and rejecting it and then other, and he says,

well, the difference is that ukraine is ukraine, is a member, is, are they? well, they're not lied again. he lied on both sides of the equation. the deep sleep claim that palestine wasn't a member, and then he falsely claim that ukraine was that ma'am, and of course, that of course back got picked up by the new york times and abc news and cnn. and they're all now letting us know that there are people at the state department who are lying to us who live here in the united states. that happened right. course that happened. yeah. and that'll work. that'll work. nobody picked up one thing, nobody picked on it in the room. i had actually left the room at that point. i mean, i had, you know, it's kind of hard what i hollered, you know, to attempt to intercede in the situation. and i finally, you know, i plan frankly, i got that off of the situation and my phone was dying. so i, you know,

i headed out and it was only a couple of hours later that i found that i looked at it and i was like, hold on. yeah. even the, you know that, matt, we, the a p reporter picked up on my questioning. and they lied, so they have this massive park receive. yeah. and you know, i didn't get to asked of proper said questions, but just me raising the issue and another recorder of picking up on it led them to be making multiple, multiple lives. matt, matt miller, the spokes person, even at one point, seemed to be claiming that the i c. c. hadn't bothered to even go to israel, which is brain generally falls, right. the prosecutor went to israel. he met with families who had had loved ones killed on october 7th, a whole 9. he didn't go to gaza. but they claimed that he didn't. it is ro, we've just, well it's, it's good. i mean, i gotta tell you, people asked me sometimes you know, why do you know how to show on our team?

my gosh, watching television. can i tell you something just as a friend? i still more free and independent doing journalism here. then i did when i worked at nbc, when i worked at cnn, when i worked at telemundo, when i worked at clear channel, what, where else did i work? i can't even remember. i worked at all the fox news. i was doing all of them. i, i have fewer, we always have some kind of debate in this business. you know that, but i get your less push back here that i ever have working at all those places where i entered and produced a new sam we're, i believe, i believe that i think, i think any big outlets you're going to have some kind of constraint right, but, but the constraints in us establishment media, given the mass criminality of us policy, the mass of policy in lines of us policy is so massive. so if you have an outlet

that basically asks, acts as a funky in some respect, and that goes from box to cnn, to m s. n b c. you're gonna get, you know, nass, of the distortion of the troops at minimum, new i hope taking a back are you, by the way, when you sit in there and you watch this love affair and all out constant defense of israel. and i'm not gonna look, i don't want to, i don't want to knock israel, there's a lot of great things about israel. i went to israel. israel is in many ways a wonderful country with great people who have done wonderful things, but it's position when it comes to the palestinians should be brought the question . and for some reason, you go to these hearings and you listen to these folks and you watch these reporters. it's crazy. it's like, we're not saying you have to hate them. but at least be honest about some of the crap that they're doing. how do you deal with that? oh, it's very frustrating, being in the rooms of a house, tell you that. but it,

to me, the more insidious thing is how the state department, a set of things for, you know, they, they sort of pretend to say, oh, well we, we really advise as well to take more precautions for, you know, is if they can perfect um, but but then when you really dig into the actual policy its in cities, i asked a series of questions beginning last year and then i, i picked it up again about the geneva convention, the cornerstone of international law. do you recognize virginia of a convention? yeah. apply to gaza and they, you know, the, they did and deceived every which way that they possibly could to avoid saying the obvious truth. no, we don't. that's basically the us government policy. we don't recognize that the geneva conventions applied to the house to say, apply to everybody on the planet so, so, so,

so if the intention except that's how so what, let's of the one you just said we're not going to go by the geneva convention. if we're going to popo everything coming out of the united nation so much so that we actually told the united nations, we don't want the palestine to have the right to be a nation. and then we're going to criticize everything that the icpc and international criminal court does then who, who is the ultimate arbiter of world affairs right now, globally speaking, us like washington, i guess. and you had, you know, a series of resolutions put forward at the u. n. and the us representative would raise their hands and veto it. tried, did that all over again. you had the general assembly passing resolutions, you know, a 140 to, you know, to 3 of us as well. and i don't know how they knew the beginning hit or something. so if we say no so, so it was a note on the i c c note on the u. n. note in the international criminal court. oh

and uh, uh who, who did i or no to the geneva convention. then we're basically say yes, we are a gemini, that's what we are and, and we're copying to it and proud to say it, right? i mean it's, they don't talk to it and they don't say they don't even say outright. we don't recognize the geneva conventions. they just, you know, you know that they will evade the question. and it one time with this guy, matt miller, i said, do you recognize that you need that conviction is applying to pulse it to palestine and he said, we absolutely recognize that. can you the convention and then it quickly went onto the next question. what do you mean to say that you recognize it with respect to pals? time is that i meant exactly what i said it's and i said yes you did. you applied to palestine really? so i meant it's set and then the zip is lips. we really like this impression that they are a biting by international law while that are in the process of reading it. i think

the next step of what has to happen so that the gen embley does have some mechanisms. it has a thing called uniting for piece where when a member of the security council. ringback okay, it's being co opted into whether it's a veto power and is abusing its power and just preventing the security council which as opposed to maintain security and is obviously failing in that respect to, to grab hold of the situation. and i think where it has to, what we're going to, what we're going to watch for that. maybe we want to have another conversation that seems to be the only place that can go given the conditions that we have right now . sam, we're out of time. you are the light to talk to please keep up the good work. and once again, i would encourage people to go to sub stack and look up who's saying read his stuff . it's good, it's fair, it's true. thanks against him. thank you. that's our show. remember, always look outside your own box truths, as we like to say, don't live in boxes. i'm rick sanchez. so your next step,

the, the, the, the, the on off

what sky, o'neill slow was the when you talk with bob. bob got done with the move the new weight of the money for the theater. if as little as human views to that pretty good sense of the agenda like you, especially with read you a couple, i get those go for need a lot more to the door. so familiar with that, but yeah, i don't know for sure, but just as soon as i think it's my the pnc and then with which assessment planning please do. i need to get the the of the,

the line. scott bennett, i'm a former united states army psychological warfare officer, really served in the state department counterterrorism office under investor del bailey. so i wanted to come here to russia in the dawn bass area and gather the facts to take back to the american people. for the course or the

.