the complaint which sparked impeachment proceedings against president trump is released but the whistleblower admits not being a direct witness to most of the described. democrats out for blood to their guns. we were presented with the most graphic evidence. that the president united states has betrayed his oath of office. to the national security and betrayed the constitution. reiterate his desire for t. of to investigate the alleged corrupt activities of former us vice president joe biden and his son claims goes well beyond ukraine we look into those allegations.

of paris court finds the woman behind the french me to movement for defaming a man and she'd accused of sexual harassment. british businessman and banks and his leave daughter you campaign cleared of receiving millions in funding from overseas including from russia. stating there was no evidence that any criminal offenses had been committed. live from the international venue with you tonight. welcome to the program. controversies growing in washington over a july phone call between presidents of the us and ukraine so after whistleblowers complaint against donald trump was declassified on thursday it alleges that the white house attempted to keep the details of the 2 leaders conversation secret

democrats say that during his conversation with lot of news alecky mr trump unlikely committed a crime by urging his counterpart to investigate democratic 2020 hopeful joe biden's activities in ukraine and the balkan explains. if you take a look at the complaint it's from an unnamed whistleblower and this whistleblower essentially argues that they are working in the interests of the united states they heard about trump's conversation with the ukrainian leader they were outraged about it and they had to speak up now what's interesting is the whistleblower admits they never actually heard the conversation i was not a direct witness to most of the events described however i found my colleague's accounts of these events to be credible because you know most cases officials recounted fucked pot's ins that were consistent with one another in addition a variety of information consistent with these private accounts has been reported publicly and therefore filling my g.-t.

to report this information through proposed legal channels to the relevant authorities we were presented with the most graphic evidence yet that the present united states has betrayed his oath of office. betrayed his oath to defend our national security and betrayed his oath to defend our constitution sacrificed our national security. and our constitution for his personal political benefit the director of national intelligence says he fully stands behind this whistleblower you don't believe the whistleblower is a political hack do you director i believe that the as i said before mr chairman i believe the whistle blowers are is operating in good faith well then that has money in the law they couldn't be in good faith if they were acting as a political hack could they. mr chairman my job is to support and lead the entire intelligence community that individual works for me therefore it is my job to make

sure that i support and defend that person you don't have any reason to use the move disloyalty to our country or suggest that beholden to some other country i mean i'm sure absolutely not i believe that the whistleblower followed the steps every step of the way now the white house has released the full transcript of the phone call in question between president trump of the united states and the ukrainian leader and as that transcript shows trump did indeed bring up joe biden his son hunter biden the issue of the firing of the prosecutor however there was no mention of a threat to withdraw military aid from ukraine as was alleged by democrats initially and that transcript is available and when they were at the united nations speaking together trump and the ukrainian leader reiterated that there was never any pressure or threat placed on the ukrainian leader and. i think. he was normal we spoke about many and so the so i think you

will read it is that nobody bush and bush and yes nobody at this point the democrats have opened a formal impeachment inquiry into president trump now the way the u.s. constitution lays things out the house of representatives decides to begin impeachment proceedings that would be the house judiciary committee that would write up articles of impeachment but it's the u.s. senate that would then convene an impeachment trial and vote on whether or not to remove the president so at this point we have the democrats in the house of representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against us president donald trump in response to this phone call and the whistleblowers complained about it however at this point of the senate is controlled pretty solidly by republicans so they could very easily vote not to convene an. pietschmann trial so the next move will be quite interesting to see but regardless of what we now have with the transcript available that says that the whistleblower didn't actually hear the conversation

the complaint that is now available from the whistleblower to the transcript of the conversation that is now available it'll be quite interesting to see what happens next but the impeachment ball is rolling in washington d.c. however while the many democrats are praising the whistleblowers some republicans are raising concerns about the number of leaks coming from the white house is it normal for the president states to have their conversations leak out. it's a 3rd time ranking member of the allegation in the whistleblower complaint was that there were about 12 people who listened in on the conversation so there were a number of people that from the white house briefed on the call this would not be something that i'm quite i'm quite sure this this white house probably didn't leak this out i wouldn't say the white house but there are individuals within the white house that may or may not i don't know but it would not be from an intelligence intercept i will say that what they were talking about at that point was that we

had the conversation with the australian prime minister leaked we have the conversation with the presidents of mexico late and now a leak about they have president of ukraine there is a significant problem with people working against and the question that we're all going to ask ourselves as look in the cold light of day these phone calls may sound incriminating but we don't know what barack obama said to world leaders and so we've got nothing necessarily to compare this to and i think that that is where it is only one of the things i would say as an important point and anybody watching this i think would have the intelligence to recognize this you cannot wrong a foreign affairs operation if the confidential conversations your having with both supportive and hostile regimes a cult see being leaked to the washington post that is something that is deeply on helpful and is something that continually options and only to donald trump an old trump has reiterated he still wants alleged corruption claims involving his

potential election rival joe biden and a ukrainian company investigated and the u.s. president's accusations now extend beyond just one country as donald quarter reports. trump's doing something there's a naysaying liberal media following close behind despite president trumpet rudy giuliani's repeated allegations against the biden's no evidence of wrongdoing tied to his son hunter biden's ukraine business has actually been found the allegations against him which which have indeed been been proven baseless at least to this point these are proven claims that the president is making above right well he's making up to the allegations against the vice president i think that's really important to understand so does biden and his family have a squeaky clean track record let's look at the facts in 2014 biden was in charge of washington's policy stance for ukraine and for some reason his son was put on a ukrainian oil company's board of directors around that same time when

a prosecutor launched an inquiry into that weird coincidence biden had this to say and i went over. the $1213.00 time key event and i was goose supposed to announce that there is another $1000000000.00 loan guarantee and i got a commitment from poroshenko and from. you know that they would take action against the state prosecutor and they did so that they're walking out. and i'm not going to we're not going to give you $2000000000.00 shortly after the prosecutor was fired and the inquiry dropped by then said neither had to do with one another just another coincidence but let's go back to biden's 2013 trip to china for talks with president cheesing paying 10 days after that a subsidiary of the bank of china cut a deal with joe son hunter to form a $1000000000.00 joint investment fund another $1000000000.00 coincidence then

there was 2011 when he oversaw u.s. troop withdrawal from iraq that same year joe's younger brother sealed a $1500000000.00 deal to build homes in you guessed. iraq there's plenty of money for everyone if this project goes through and that mountain of benjamin's 2 was only a coincidence it seems when you're related to the former vice president things just tend to work out and joe's got no problem with it mr vice president your take on that was a conflict of interest there was a clear conflict of interest but you heard him people move along nothing to see here i'm not seeing now questions about well it could also be distracting us from what joe biden has done and others have been involved in maybe there really is something there that's a question that's not coming through really the questions that are being asked in the hope i think for those who are were answered from this how does leads into really great. leaked information or

a juicy information not about joe biden but about donald trump. people who are upset with his politics and this could be a way to move us away from when joe biden might be involved in a family thing. a court in paris has ruled that the founder of the french me too movement defamed the man she accused of making lewd and sexist remarks back in 2017 is a correspondent shot at the whiskey. well sundram has been told to pay some $20000.00 euros in fines and damages after being found to have defamed to t.v. executives who she said had sexually harassed her now she is known as being the leader or the start of the me too movement here in france which is called pole which means rattling your pig and back in 2017 she had tweeted about an incident for many years before in which she had said that the executive who she went on to name and shame had made inappropriate advances to her but the t.v.

executive in question says as a result of this he was labeled as a sex offender he received a huge parish of criticism on social media and he was unhappy he said even more so when she rejected his advances which he admits actually happened he then went on to apologize effectively i did make misplaced comments to stand during a drunken cocktail party very late one night but only ones i later i told her was so heavy handedly and only once i must point out i don't want to exonerate myself from my boorishness of the time i retreat my apologies well sundram isn't happy with this verdict in the court and neither is her lawyer and both say that they will now look to appeal. i didn't win the other one i lost here today but in any case we win it all genders have started talking

this decision doesn't take away from the fact that women's voices have been liberated that he must continue to speak out that he must continue to do now is reprehensible acts of any kind fear must not win here must not change sides well this isn't perhaps the 1st embarrassment for the me too movement to think about the italian actress an activist asieh our center who is one of the. forbearers of the me too movement across the globe and also new york professor. who talked about being victims of sexually inappropriate behavior in the past but both women were later accused by young men of making them the victims of sexually inappropriate behavior and many people have long questioned this idea of naming and shaming people who are being accused of being sexual offenders or sexual predators given that in a public space such as social media there is often little to no evidence to back up

that those allegations those claims have got a real grain of truth to them and many people saying why didn't you take them to the courts in the 1st place and some saying as a result of that their careers have also been growing their personal lives have also being ruined so some people question now whether this defamation case marks a real reversal in the fortunes of me to movement not perhaps just here in france but across the globe with many other people perhaps looking at this case and wondering if the 2 now could bring their own defamation case. the u.k.'s national crime agencies found proof of wrongdoing by the campaign group leave dot edu and one of its fundraisers are in bags cleared him of receiving donations for the bricks it can buy in from a foreign source namely russia with more on that story. britain's national crime agency says it's dropping an investigation into aren't banks one of the biggest

donors behind the referendum campaign the n.c.a.a. looked into potential offenses concerning 8000000 pounds worth of funding it was claimed banks wasn't the true source but the inquiry found banks illegally took out a loan from a company theo and so he could give the money to the press that campaign the n.c.a.a. investigation has concluded that mr banks was legally entitled in his capacity as an individual to release these funds to the better for the country limited by instructing another of his company's rock services ltd to make the transactions on his behalf but it's worth noting the n.c.a.a. felt the need to highlight the hype surrounding the case the investigation has been subject to press and social media commentary the n.c.a.a. has not received any evidence to suggest that mr banks and his companies received funding from any 3rd party to fund the loans or that he acted as an agent on behalf

of a 3rd party why is this important because our in banks with the russian ambassador to the u.k. a few times as well as russian businessmen as is often assumed by associating with russians you must be a russian agent something banks. that crimea you know what the police are going to investigate lunch with the russian ambassador but of the universe to go but the media seem eager to find a russian connection or exit is now being pinned on russian interference baron banks has been dogged by repeated accusations of close links with russia the parallels between the russian intervention in bragg and the russian intervention in the trump campaign appear to be extraordinary so we go they travel to south africa to find one they also filmed russian opposition figures with no knowledge of the case as they brought up his russian wife mr banks is a perfectly good reason to visit russia whenever he wants his family. he has free children by his russian wife in 2015 aaron banks tried to raise money in russia to

invest in his mines here in south africa and surprisingly they try to connect banks with donald trump and felt it was newsworthy to discuss banks some time visit to transplant and publish pictures of it too controversial because of the breaks a movement would guess last year at donald trump's mar a lago club are in banks and the week more known as the bad boys of bricks visited the palm beach club in april according to a review by the palm beach post of instagram post tagged at the spot mainstream politicians also pushed him on the issue so much so banks walked out of a select committee meeting as m.p.'s questions on the exit and russia ran late because like you know you could call this isn't just one. story it is that it was it is it is which is the n.c.a.a. found no evidence banks had committed any criminal offenses he says the allegations against him were part of a political witch hunt as with claims of trump russia collusion reports of banks

and russia collusion were apparently founded perpetuated on fear rather than proof the decision to leave the european union was something so monumental that it impacted the elites in britain both in the politics in civil service and in business and media that they needed to find the enemies they needed to find a way of discrediting the whole campaign and so the 1st thing they did was start to attack the donors to the campaign to leave and of course mr our own banks and the leave means to leave movement came into the firing line of their anger without a doubt this was a witch hunt it was a witch hunt against those who campaigned for bricks it like myself and the leaders of the movement it was a campaign to discredit those who donated it and they also tried to discredit it by saying that there was collusion from other. nations such as russia that there was russian money behind mr r.

and banks and all of this was to discredit the movement discredit the referendum it was a disgrace and should be something that's looked into by a royal commission in my view in the way that we look after our elections in the future. a 3rd of the world's banks have signed up to a un initiative on efforts to tackle climate change such as cutting back on investing in fossil fuel projects among them are some major players like georgia bank city group and barclays 2 in total $130.00 financial institutions in $49.00 countries have signaled they're on board although 7 of the world's top 10 banks are missing from that list the un initiative calls on banks to harmonize their strategies with the paris climate agreement and work towards a sustainable future discussing it up next with us independent journalist luke rebate and social and environmental campaigner george barr gentlemen thank you both for coming on today good to have you on george if i can start with you perhaps these guidelines i mean do they seem

a little vague when you read into them surely there's more to buying influence you know on salient issues on environmental matters than just you know easy target of fossil fuels. yeah i mean i think there are 2 ways to look at this one is that. it doesn't do any harm to have a framework in place that over time might see some more accountability and some need to account for what's happening within these banks but look at what's actually being committed to signatories to this to this program even have to complete their analysis until 4 years' time from now and extinction rebellion a group that i'm part of is campaigning 482-0250 carbon target and it's great pointed out to the un the other day we're set to blow through a global 1.5 degree carbon budget in the next 8 years and so something where you know you don't even have to start giving the details for 4 years makes no sense at all and of course the main thing about this initiative is it saying we want more

great more green stuff and less of the bad stuff you know it's about reducing some of the harm and increasing some of the positive things what we really need to be looking out looking at is eliminating the funding of fossil fuels as quickly as possible and the key thing here is not to focus too much on the banks they will do whatever they can within what is profitable and legal key thing is to put pressure on governments to utterly change the rules in terms of what banks to to get rid of anything that is destroying the future for our children can see you shaking head george mentioned putting pressure on governments of governments they're off failing to make those moves the bold gestures you know to help resolve these moral mental issues you know want to hit polluters where in their pockets when their financial flows. well you know it's very complicated but enough is enough because the green technologies that are presented as growing are not a toll in many instances in the energy sector days say no to nuclear energy there is no reason to say no to say no because nuclear energy doesn't emit any c

o 2 and they say yes the electric car as an awful l.c.a. life cycle analysis if you look at their environmental footprint it is much worse than my diesel car today and it will be for the next 50 years so because of the production of the batteries so this is all rubbish this is perfect rubbish frankly and it is enough you know having 16 year old girls like the one we had a system at the united nations explaining to adults that they are stupid i mean this is often you know she's supported by the person's family of billionaires that have invested in the green technologies i mean this is who writes her texts this is a disgrace really it's time to stop and the gulf moms must progress of course in the reduction of c o 2 emissions but they should do it normally at a normal pace and for bidding the use of coal of fuel or gas is

stupid especially for example in germany because of their choice for supposedly renewable energy such as wind energy they need coal plants to to produce the energy when there is no went so crazy. if i can come here i mean well you can i would agree that making sure that any changes that are supposedly environmental actually address these very real issues in terms of the impacts of of so-called green technologies and certainly i would love to be a place where we'd agreed that we needed to get rid of all fossil fuel use in the next 8 years because we're serious about 1.5 degrees and the impacts they will have on hundreds of millions of people if we get to 2 not to mention the feedback that come into this system but to identify you know perhaps correctly busy. problems with some of what is being pushed forward is green at the moment as a reason for carrying on burning fossil fuels when we know it is who already a crime against humanity that we have entered into the last 30 years that is having horrible impacts on hundreds of millions of people in the form of catastrophic

droughts floods typhoon slight clones hearkens you know and the strength of these things is absolutely vastly greater than before and you know so to try and identify some of the problems with what's being put forward by you know the mainstream green narrative as a reason to carry on destroying ourselves it's just madness and for what it's worth by the way speaking personally this is not extinction of anyone speaking but absolutely if it were a choice between colon you clear despite all the catastrophic dangers associated with nuclear a in terms of whether it when the technology goes wrong would be in terms of global security you know if it were the devil's bargain i would take nuclear any day of the week but the reality is and i. need to go to stanford university climate change just put that in google and you will see a global study that looked into the best way to decarbonise included looking at new clear carbon capture and storage and they concluded there is the best cheapest way to move to 0 carbon is with renewable energy and i would upset you agree with the

more we can minimize any environmental impacts and avoid a kind of green colonialism the better. it's not a solution. it's not about 2000 years and it's about what the science is saying in terms of what happens when we go over one with photographs and so i was not as if these are one of the i've seen go see the i.p.c.c. the i.p.c.c. only represents a fraction of the scientific world so many all those disagree with all so many deployments and all that that it's called warming but the global warming is not necessarily due to c o 2 alone or 2 main thing it might be due to the recent says well and we don't know enough yet so we must be very careful what we do because c o 2 is a sense. sure to the growth of plants and to to life on earth and to oxygen creation so it's not that they say if we can't tell why we're running out there i don't have a congress passes that we're not running out in you because george if i can jump in here i think we all we all perhaps agree that climate change is happening we might

disagree on some of the reasons why or it's speed or it's a very to but we do agree there is a problem you mention that yes governments countries do need to reduce c o 2 emissions gas emissions harmful substance emissions what is wrong with governments theory in private companies and banks in the right direction to ensure that sustainable switch to green energy does happen i mean this isn't say a radical decision it's a charter it's they've got quite a few years to reevaluate their funding this is just a small step in the right direction what's the problem with it. what is the right direction is it the electric car it is not the electric guitar it's not the solution because its environmental impact is worse than the fossil fuel cars us today so we must 1st have solutions and it's not because great thumper work is speaking on monday this week spoke on monday that we need to go faster we need to do the right thing at the right time so the electric car is not the solution the

interim it didn't ring nubile sources are not the solution and we must find others we need the nuclear energy for the next 50 years at least so you know these things say to me mean that it's not people are extreme extreme activists that need to decide governments cannot allow this and the united nations should not allow this. the only reason that the solutions required to deal with these problems are now so extreme is that well we've had 30 years of people like luke saying oh well we need to wait till we know more until the technology is about or what has happened over that period is that we have produced more emissions in the last 30 years than the entirety of human history before so over the time that we've accepted this is a looming problem we have made it far far worse and that is why we have faced with the science that says we are likely to hit 1.5 degrees through the emissions we create in the next 8 years globally so the very very tempting rationale which is

that anything that looks greener than before is a step in the right direction to paraphrase not what they have been progress with your lotion i say when obviously it's like progress on this joy just like it's for life so if you think about countries you know that all the laws that industries that are non-sustainable by cutting funding sure that's going to affect jobs growth in those countries going to have a negative impact we're already out of time so if i could just ask you to be brief george if it were yes i mean if it were to do that that would be terribly bad and we had no way that we would have uptake of this transformation has to happen it is . responsibility of the wealthy countries and wealthy sectors of society that have been creating the problem to bankroll the transformation to provide the technology that exists free of charge i would suggest looks into other medium fuel cells by the way that seems to me personally to be a much better way than electric batteries in the world running out of oil i'm sorry if i can just give you your final summary 20 seconds just very briefly. well ok there are new technologies that are being developed but we must go at the normal

pace we cannot stop planes from flying from today on because that's what the extremists want and i want to eat pineapples and not necessarily apples because that grown next to my place journalist are not aware of it all down by individuals about a word of time thanks so much both for coming on today i'm sure we'll have you on again to continue this discussion. that's what i want to see it in 30 minutes with the latest. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy foundation let it be an arms race off and spearing dramatic to follow the only closely i'm going to exist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical time

to sit down and talk. mass geysers financial survival guide liquid assets not those that you can convert music as quite easily. to keep in mind though as a tremendous pleasure to watch does record. all. of the welcome to worlds apart the firing of john bolton as president trumps now.