centers told you a woman could not win the election. but according to a c.n.n. commentator the question of whether or not saunders said a woman would never make it to the white house is not actually up for debate because c.n.n. reported on it back in 2018 so must be true so you really got to hand it to c.n.n. for dealing a monster class and how to lack self-awareness even if it didn't mean to it chant up people at the start of what so far can only be called a bumpy year. ok appreciate staying with all teams and national join me for updates in 30 minutes. on my hands on guns and money i'm not. afraid to bounce of a time about what members of us anytime that were innocent is about more about.

what with more than the side of the. scene that i'm going to get but i'm before. him but i. give up now embody i'm not madonna. america's built a prison called the wall and it's the prison is the right it runs the prison and the cost of building that prison is 0 because it's all based on everyone in the world is still willing to accept dollars trading dollars clear through the new york fed and worship the u.s. dollar wherever you go you'll find a.t.m.'s in countries where as the local currency and dollars right dollar is god no matter what religion you say you are around the world the fact is you pray to the u.s.

dollar every day. ratings and value televisions will break out the champagne and warm up the hors d'oeuvres hog watchers because on january 21st 2020 which is just a few short shopping days away we here in the united states of america get to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the. drumroll not really anyway citizens united yes it's the 10th anniversary of citizens united that momentous supreme court decision that essentially decreed that corporations are people too and that the money they spend on influencing

a politician or political party is the same as practicing the sacred right of free speech if that's turning 10 years old january 21st i know you had it marked on your calendar and just what great gifts of corporate bribery sorry sorry free speech in the form of digits and decimal points has the citizens united decision brought to us all well according to a new study on a new study released this week by the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization public citizen over the past 10 years just $25.00 ultra rich individuals have poured $1400000000.00 into super pacs corporations have spent at least half a $1000000000.00 to influence elections and donors in a small number of majority white zip codes exert a massively oversized influence on our political system and that my friends is why we here in the united states the choice that we are most often presented and sold to us at the polls is old rich white person in

a red suit or old which right person in a blue suit allan's i believe research director of public service and corporate president presidency project and author of the report told the media quote this surge in mega donors of the past decade means that the 10 year mark of the citizens united decision is something to bemoan rather than commemorate this is not what democracy looks like the world seems united made. but the ugly truth is that because of citizens united decision to hide bribery is free speech we might never know the actual numbers being spent to influence u.s. elections by our corporate billionaire class which is why my friends we always need to be watching. if you want to deal with gone. on a city street you want to. show you what you see. this is joyce state. great city slaves systemic deception

show which. welcome one and all the watching i robot joining us today we go to discuss not only the 10th anniversary of citizens united but much much more is the wonderful cavalcade of personality immigration attorney alan thank you very much our to america correspondent rachel blevins and ceremony. sports correspondent. thank you all for joining us today well citizens united 10 years old how are we all celebrating this this wonderful gift that's been given to our electoral process because again i think constitutionally it was decided wrong and it's proven to the fact that it's not just about the billionaires in the united states well the companies it's about foreign companies here in the united states who are donating this money to their foreign policies so little bit greater problem than just the amount of money that sort of spent into it not to mention that all that money could

be used for something else besides the election it was all they could otherwise control so it's sort of spinning out of control and that's really the problem that is really the problem well i think it's interesting that they're trying to present it as a free speech issue because of course the 1st amendment is something that we take incredibly seriously here but at the same time when you have something like this a lot of people if they're just naming it is free speech and they don't realize how much it actually impacts our elections and how much this decision has had an impact because obviously you have all of these political candidates out there who can make promises this way or that way but if they're getting millions of dollars from the super pac or from an organization that is absolutely going influence their decisions when i think it's interesting too that when it 1st came out it was to protect the democrats who were getting more money than republicans which is. misconception people think republicans get more money from them but it's the democrats in fact who are and if it started i'd also to protect them the unions and people i think to this day also are corporations are people who are afraid to admit who they voted for so kind of protecting that privacy as well while i know people

who have voted for a president donald trump and will never admit to it in public because they're ashamed because of what he stands for or what not but i think that i it's changed over time kind of what it stood for and maybe it's time to revisit it and take a look at what this means for for the presidential candidates and like rachel said where the money's coming from because money talks so it just shows our elections are bought and paid for they're not free as they should be and so they don't have the people's best interests at heart of the citizens of this country who want to elect a leader that would put policies forward that would help them and their families out instead it's these billionaires that want to promote corporate greed in order to influence these elections and you see it in like for example bush the bush family you see the families out trump people are talking about his family in 202-820-2020 extension 32 maybe his son or daughter running it just stays in the rich billionaire family and i think that there's something in the is really gross to me when we consider that like money equals free speech that it's not about like

who's actually xander stand like look if an individual wants to donate to a campaign whether they're rich or poor they have every right to do that but when you start treating the corporation as a person not just in regards to you know elections but across the board that's a very dangerous thing it's a group of people it's not one person and i think that's where we're kind of we really jumped off track with this in the original decision justice anthony kennedy who wrote the rewriting opinion said we now conclude that independent expenditures including those made by corporations do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption he went on to say that the fact that speakers i.e. donors may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt. was justice kind of the completely naive to how politics works in the modern world or was this decision made with the direct intend to allow the super wealthy and these corporations to legally control the direction

of our government i mean do you think it was just my of a tale that got this passed you know i think in the center of that case it was very well discussed it had been years of presidents where people had said money does equal speech right and we sort of look at the democratic party today even without this in the united just in who the candidates are now it's already eliminated many of the black candidates and some of the hispanic and the diversity on the stage but money alone so money alone does have an influence in deciding who even the candidates are who will be affected by this is united so it's an oversight an overreach in just a way to sort of button these continual continuation of what sort of putting the system which members you go back to these lobbyists i mean who are really behind the scenes creating this policy and lobbying these people in congress people in office to vote this way our own way and it's that risk that trust or that credibility that they really rely on these people and where does that come from so it's interesting to see how easily they trust certain people after building relationships because it's again following the money absolutely and i think that's a really good point too especially when you go back to the 26000 election we had donald trump and hillary clinton with the 2 most unpopular candidates across the

board and yet you still have hundreds of millions of dollars going into these campaigns and it raises a lot of questions about ok what else could we be doing with that money what if we were in a system where the candidates took that money and then were able to give it back to the public and to help out and that's within their popularity in stead of this sort of race that we're in now where it's just who raises the most and who has the biggest names behind this interesting and it's really interesting you know what also strikes me too is the fact that both individual donors and corporate donors i mean individuals 1400000000 go what we could've spent that money on outside of buying people in washington corporations almost 5 i think 500000000 almost half a 1000000000 do you think that this system will ever get fixed or is it too entrenched in how politics does business here and watching. and d.c. i mean we ever see a congress or a president say we need to stop this we need to pull back from this but because remember one of the part of hurdles is the fact that they're also then promised jobs when they leave office a lot of these same donors then when that when that candidate no longer going that

politicians has done with public life it's the revolving door they get to walk back and get that cushy corporate job are we ever going to see this changed. i don't think so i mean k. street is full of people who make their living off of sort of influence and connections and so that's sort of what the problem is and the problem with democracy is the whole of the concept that we want to hold out that we have is one person one vote and when you only get to vote for the person who is put before you by a corporation who has no vote then your vote really doesn't matter that much right because you're sort of limited to this pool of people who are sort of protecting the interest of that specific cohort so that's really the problem with it all and it sort of say all of a sudden when you look at the senate and everybody's a millionaire in the door and you go to the house and everybody's on their way there so that sort of a floor that says you're not going to have that big of a change i think the president has been president has been set so i agree with alan that it's almost too late and the case tree is full of just people trying to lobby these politicians one way or another and grab support from all these other

companies and that's where it kind of gets lost in translation so to speak where we've come so far i don't think it's even worth and it's interesting because even these these candidates who are lobbying for are saying that you know talking about medicare for all or trying to make that change unfortunately like rachel said earlier sometimes it's just talk because once presented with that with that issue and that argument it's not as easy to specially with with all your supporters and where all your money is coming from to make it happen i think it's going to be far easier to. move forward. that's a good point but i believe in you know i mean when you see this might be a little preview of the next topic but candidates such as bernie sanders when they do say get the money out of politics you see them get ostracized and silenced so it's going to be tough to ever get a candidate. can't wait we're going to go to break right now but we'll be back with this amazing panel we have right here all right don't forget to let us know my

friends during the break what you think of the topics to cover social media be sure to check out watch. which is now available on spotify apple music and all those other places you listen to your favorite. coming up we discussed the follow up to what many are calling it disastrous performance by c.n.n. on its own democratic presidential debate and then we look at the decision to ban political protests at the olympic games. to watch the whole. just one magic bullet you could actually come up with some of the top of these baby bonds talking about ways we get access capital in capitalism is important so we could actually have programs that actually help folks who want to do that but when

you give everybody a $1000.00 i'm a poor person i'm going to consume that you're rich you're going to invest that. the wealth disparity is going to grow because you're you're not using your money to consume you're literally buy more crazy things and then my landlord knowing that i got a $1000.00 and you just go raise my rent so then you get your inflation going on and there. was this financial survival. with customers go find your just. did now. that's not what's good for the market it's not good for the global economy. this week c.n.n. host of the last major democratic presidential primary debate before the much ballyhooed i will caucus is candidate who made the biggest election year face plant

at this debate. c.n.n. yes many critics are calling out c.n.n. this week for their coverage and handling of the democratic debate in fact the criticism of c.n.n. got so heated that after the debate hashtag c.n.n. is garbage and hashtags. we're trending on twitter at the heart of the criticism of the news agencies handling of the great elizabeth warren bernie sanders he said she said campaign trails of 2020 with award winning journalist matt taibbi writing in rolling stone that over a 24 hour period before during and after the debate c.n.n. bid farewell to what remained of its reputation as a nonpolitical area and heavy handed messaging episodes like this are why people hate the media many also pointed out see the lack of questions on immigration or prison reform just to name a few when confronted with the day s. featuring all caucasian candidates. so how soon is handling of the suppose

a burning war and scandal and the democratic debate in general finally expose them to be just as biased and agenda driven as say a fox news or a muslim b c i will watch the paddle. face plant this week expose them as being agenda driven i think it absolutely did but this isn't the 1st time we've seen this but it's nice to see that twitter is finally figuring it out and talking out about it but i think a lot of people like to say that fox news is right and c.n.n. is left these are 2 networks that have continually pushed the same standards when it comes to our prison population when it comes to our endless wars in the middle east when it comes to government surveillance a number of issues but you don't see people like bush or obama or trump questioning c.n.n. and fox news don't really question those either and so i think that guys it's nice that c.n.n. is finally getting called out for that specifically where this is concerned i agree with rachel i think it's happened before i mean we saw this in the 26th election where it came out there working with the hillary clinton campaign we've seen this

time and time again and twitter is catching up to this and i think viewers especially were disappointed because they want to know these these tough questions they want answers to these and where c.n.n. really lacked that and of course they were going to spin the war and sanders he should need to because what gets ratings to them it was that but i'm glad that they receive some backlash on twitter that these people the viewers want to know more about the real issues and not about what he said she said and the timing of of that and the fact that it all came out now it was just pretty interesting you're skeptical of all of it so let me just go that way so i don't think i don't think it was a face plant by spin as much as it was the bernie bros sort of ball get it running with sort of tag afterwards and sort of break the democratic party it was a family conversation that was in a family setting and the sort of thing about investigating so was every supposed to say did he say it after he said he didn't say it just to lead to the next question of asking how did you feel when they said it after reporting it already been that she was said so i sort of i think it misses the. point and it draws people into the

worst part of media which is the reality television has become this sort of sensational thing rather than saying well what about immigration what about prison reform what about the hungry children what about the schools rather than sort of highlighting this thing that really has no bearing on anything i don't really care what bernie said about anything either hate or love him the same thing about i don't really think that takes me to the box to vote for somebody about that position so i think it distracts a lot and it leads to the things that happened today where you saw senator sort of be confronted by c.n.n. and say you're a left wing hack so that makes the media rule in the media in general for everyone because then people turn away they become skeptical of the people providing the news of course everybody has an intent everybody has an angle sort of understand that and sort of deal with it right then and is not perfect has not been broken the past we all have sort of flaws in that way but i don't really think it's trash just because of that one thing i'm not going to rate it by its worst moments doesn't it i like i actually like it because it's like we can all pick apart every single news agency for all the problems that make we can pick apart our to you we can pick

apart c.n.n. we could pick apart all these companies but at the end of the day you know you have to kind of be able to sort through it yourself it doesn't fall upon you know definitely and we we don't know who said what it's a he said she said elizabeth warren said he's he said a woman can be present he denied it so we don't audial that but the bottom line is that appears that it's a rerun of 2016 were c.n.n. by obviously just like the context it was saturday and if he had come out and maybe said or clarify whether he said or not again there's no actual proof now but of course we don't know the context if it was said between him and more bernie and warren but we do know that c.n.n. clearly is trying to silence him once again like sarah said earlier we know through e-mails that c.n.n. in the hillary clinton campaign paying concluded so clearly we we don't know who c.n.n. choosing it but it's not bernie sanders again i mean really i mean that's the one thing you kind of want to ask news agencies like we all understand you have a certain slander you have a certain bias but at least lied to us a little bit don't put it on a lower i don't know tell us that you know all these people are right there. and if

it's wrong and you saw them do that to a few candidates along the campaign trail this year were kind of group think mentality rather than listening to do ideas and things like that and i think like you said to tyrrell i think people need to then decide for themselves and not think all media is bad media and it kind of really look into and go through a filter through the news and what to decide how you decide to face these issues and unfortunately i think that's going been gotten worse in the last couple of years it's interesting because you know i actually learned something. in the in the kind of interesting folly of all of this that we saw on wednesday night there was a really interesting kind of tell c.n.n. was criticized essentially for harping over how much medicare for all or single payer health care coverage would cost bush as a policy analyst there riffel pointed out on twitter and some really interesting tweet he said they just 27 questions about sending troops into the middle east and preventing iran from developing nukes and not once asked how they would pay for.

not letting poor people die whoa that's you know what's the price tag on that essentially is what this guy that's them for interesting tweet an interesting tell that we spend more time you know kind of excited about war and asking our candidates will you send troops will you stand up when it comes to policies that actually you know are designed to help people oh well that's too expensive i mean it was a absolutely and i think we see about every single being in congress because democrats and republicans love to act like they're on opposite sides but then when it comes to passing the military budget every year all of us a number one comes together there's no debate they don't care about the fact that a hundreds of billions of dollars are adding more on to it this year and they don't care about these reports that are coming out saying the wars in afghanistan and iraq these were all based on lies continued on lies and we're wasting all of this money over there yet when it comes to programs like medicare for all and it may do something for the citizens here in the united states all the sudden they don't have the money for that they can agree on it. that's brilliantly. they just gave 2 trillion. right away after cutting snap benefits for children who need it. no one

cares and we don't care as voters then why should they care. costs we're going to fight the best for the strongest there's also this misconception that the more money that you spend on something the better it is and that's the folly of war you think more money this is really solving the problem and we throw more money at it money doesn't solve all problems out so i think that's where president bush back where he wants to pull troops out but it's not that easy i mean we've had them for so many years there that it's you know you can pull them out but that's going to leave them in chaos too so it's balance of ok do i pull them out how many do i pull out and the idea ideal world of course we would have to tell over the world but that's not the case then we see just a week ago also the current guy sitting in the oval office tweeted out that we spent i think it was it was a 3 trillion or $3000000000.00 after he after the attack on the money he bragged about the military budget i think he said $3.00 trillion dollars when you see the president of the united states bragging about the military budget that kind of

influences some people to see who has the biggest budget who's the top this guy in the world. and that's what they are for the state the media is supposed to be there to say hey we're not supposed to cheerlead some things like this we're actually supposed to stand up and say not just how can we pay for health care but how can we pay for invading another country again how could we pay for things like that but we don't see that i don't think very often that a lot of our branches of the deficit next to the. you really don't that's a great point that's a great point all right and for our last topic of the day the 2020 summer olympic games in tokyo this year will not be featuring any kind of political protest or speeches by the c.b.s. news reports that the international olympic committee cited the olympic charter states that athletes are banned from protesting while on the field of play in the olympic village. and during the medal another official ceremonies the committee did say that athletes could still get political and precedent out. side you know the

olympic village didn't we didn't send them social media now with some of the most memorable and iconic olympic moments tied to political expression of protest is the i.o.c. ignoring a big part of what makes the game so important to the world steve i'll start with you as a sports correspondent they clearly don't want any distractions obviously and this coming after recently at the pan american games when a fencer race in voting took a knee on the podium and then a 3rd one barrier rose a fist and those 2 of these are being banned now they probably will be able to participate in these olympics coming up in tokyo because they received 12 months probation now clearly the i.o.c. says they're in support of freedom of expression of these athletes but this says otherwise and it goes back to 968 you mentioned history john carlos tommie smith dichotic reason the 1st on the podium they were they were banished from the team and then just recently they were given back those medals and those wins that they had so it's i think they're going too far and i would agree and that my question is where does it stop because it's easy for them to say ok just don't do it at the

medal ceremonies but you can still do it on social media or you can still do it in your own free time but then what happens when they come forward and they say oh wait a 2nd let's not do this on your social media either because that also reflects who you are as an athlete and so i think it's one of those things where you give an engine there's concerns that they will eventually take a mile and make it so much so that the police can't say anything i disagree i am actually in support of this because sometimes i want to turn on a sports game i want to turn on a movie something where it's not going to be political and for me that's been something that's kind of been kind of tough for i understand the freedom of speech and that's great but i think for this case the olympic games where you're supposed to come together as one was i think one of the few times now that we see anything in the world besides sporting or and sporting events i think where the world really you see is united to leave the politics aside leave it in the village leave it on your social media i really do kind of like the idea of having them not to protest on the field and we can go the opposite of everything they stand for. i think that

it's difficult for me to understand as a lawyer how someone could control the artistry which is the sports good and then to say what you can do at those points no one would ever say to a singer you can sing just the song right only would you not feel that also a little bit different part of their protest is their artistry in the performance of the sport for african-american people who are doing some sports they're not supposed to be doing and winning venus and serena have changed women's tennis for all time for the u.s. that's why there's a whole docket full of them and they're no maintenance players so i think that the part that someone should show up to work and not mentally tap into who they are and to ignore the things that are going on around them is problematic and for the. for the olympics was supposed to be about this world peace to be focused on controlling them about the protests rather than addressing the things they're protesting is the problem because then they say we take no position which to me become i will tolerate you but that said i don't want a mockery either way tolerate you without really wanting to know. and it's interesting to me it's like trying to trying to ban protester politics from the

200 some odd countries all meeting in rome and all these different athletes all meeting to represent their cause countries in a competition against the other countries it's kind of like i mean that's kind of impossible it's like putting out a fire with a with a score because it's like these people are going to come they're jazzed up there they're full of life you know energy and their country pride. it whether they want to protest something in their own country something other countries are doing that's going to be hard to really tamp down stamp down especially with these historical precedents that we've seen over the years right well actually where do you think i don't see i don't think that's what actually starts in the cafeteria i think that this is what i mean so much because cabinet has made it has it has had a movement now for 3 years you know in protest of the social injustice going on in this country so what better way to do it when you're given a world stage like that how else would you make people aware who might not be aware that there's a lot of people oppressed in this country and in other places and let's not forget was a megan was rapid no you know with women's soccer you know they're going to be competing

up there too you're talk about a lot of people that are going to have a lot of things to say and then maybe you're right so maybe they'll keep it off the field no and they'll keep it clean no i didn't you know you never know him and i think but i do think at the end of the in my opinion i feel that athletes are human beings and they should have a voice regardless of where it is the same way we all have a voice at this table know that and you know at the end of the day if they want to stand on the podium and raise their fists or do whatever you know celebrate or protest where where they can let's let them represent their professional public figures who have earned it so the happy hour for me it's not about. the last award show where they said do not come up you see the political and that didn't happen it's like all right everyone i want to thank you all for coming on the day alan or do you think it was always rachel blevins armont to steal christine christakis great conversations we all were nice and polite and look i'm biased we were to each other maybe congress could do this or that is are so pretty they remember everyone in this world we have not told that we love that stuff so it's all you all love i

robot through a keep watch from the hawks and have a great day and. no sense. you're no longer a young woman in fact you are one of the last living survivors of the not. i'm aware of it. all you like. you can never forget it. was really like to be inhaled because you would never believe that one. can do to as an operating cost for 3 years of growth and be. very bad at all seems so a lot offered by the side to make it work when i get out on the farm saw you don't

want to take my song to the next place and hope for the bless our hurts. friday marks the 75th anniversary of the soviet union's the liberation of walsall from nazi germany thousands to a sense of death camps of loss the laws in the city that suffered years of occupation sure and world war to be. around brown says former new partners washington's puppet germany confirmed it caved in to donald trump's threat to impose tariffs on european states if they don't quit the 2015 nuclear deal. i'm british police knew but ignored the most profound sexual abuse by paedophiles in care homes a new report reveals a former detective who took part in the initial investigation tells the side of the story.