he joins me to talk about this is fair and cousins editor of the national trialware magazine this this story i again it's no surprise. this whole the whole nature of this legislation was to put money in the hands of people so they could eat so they could pay their rent now we see the threat of banks saying what well the banks are saying hey you have overdraft fees from a couple years ago oh you're you're behind on this payment that you know this debt that we hold for you we're going to steal your money and the worst part about this is not just the fact that the banks are doing this it's that this was intentional this was intentionally put into this piece of legislation because they wrote in a provision congress did as part of the stimulus package here that the federal government cannot seize any of this if you're the government any money with the exception of child support. but they didn't include that provision for banks

instead the rule says we're going to leave it up to the treasury run by steve maneuver the banker hill decide if banks are allowed to take your money and of course minucci did the very predictable thing which was to say absolutely banks if somebody owes you money this stimulus check is going right into their account at your bank you can go ahead and keep it that is what they explicitly told the bank teller and extent the bill exactly limit you the back story a little bit more treasury department is having this massive webinars telephone conference with banks all over the all of the u.s. and they they say by the way is it ok if we take this money that comes to us the $1200.00 check and if they owe us money on overcharges are they on us money on delinquent payment on a loan that we can take that money and real cutesy she says well you know there's

nothing the explicit that says you can't add other words you're right they understood this when they went into it. 1 understands that he's looking out for the banks the whole concept of this is a put money in the hands of people who have to pay for things like food and rent or whatever they might their needs be what that does is it empowers the economy ok you got what $350000000000.00 worth of money flowing through the years that this was the half $1000000000.00 about how about a half of ok so the money is flowing through but i'm talking about the total money that's flowing through the entire process right right right so so the money is flowing through and it's the notion of it is brilliant for the 1st time because it is saying we don't really want to worry about trickle down trickle down doesn't work it's a lie when a corporation gets their money they buy their shares back none of that money. those

in the economy and now maybe they've embraced the notion because they've been forced to that trickle up makes a lot more sense if you put hand money in the hands of somebody who's going to go buy something really is going to engage with the economy that's what boost the economy not these folks at the top the corporate elite at the top this and they don't then i go by anything you know i am an avid bentleys can i have i mean how many shares can they own in a corporation so so the point is this actually had a good idea behind it the idea was empower the bottom let him pay for food let him pay for for or whatever and that money trickles back into the economy right right and it's great in theory unfortunately congress wrote this legislation in a way that prevents that theory from ever becoming a reality and here's the kicker to you had 3 wonderful senators you had a lizard with warren sherrod brown sheldon white house they all before this

decision was made to let the banks tank your money they all petition the treasury department they said please make the right decision here which if they knew anything about this treasury department about steve. they knew this was going to happen but the fact that they had to petition and beg them to not make this decision shows that they knew this was in there and they knew that it would lead to this and that's what people need to focus on here. and was completely predictable but what we had in this legislation written by democrats written by republicans written in part by minucci himself is that it was designed this way they made it to where the banks can do so so the it comes down to starve people but make sure that that overcharge at the bank is paid for that's how ugly this is there's another another ugly part to it and i love this part for 1st of all let me throw out the palosi issue got to do that. yesterday palosi is that. by 5 there she's asked the

question did you know that you have democrats 567 democrats that are saying please don't hold up the the business loan the small business loan issue and and now what's happened is she's put herself in a position to where snow is she's the focus the democrats are the focus of the bad guy give me a got about a minute tell me tell me that part of the story well what's happening at this moment is that yeah democrats are trying to get some concessions from the republican side these are extremely weak concessions they include the extension of cobra benefits so that we can still pay insurance companies rug but people don't have to pay for a month or whatever it is but they have put themselves in a position palosi has as the leader of trying to make concessions from behind she's always behind the curve behind the 8 ball never in front of the issue and playing hardball saying this is what's going to happen and her weaknesses have been exposed you know i mean the shrub administration is exploiting this tremendously ice cream

thing what right the ice cream thing man she's businesses need the money and she's out there showing talk show host her ice cream collection church trying to appear human yeah and relatable but in fact you're in front of 48000 dollars worth of freezers with ice cream that's $12.00 a pint again you think this makes you a little democrat leadership had the right they had they were perfect position perfect position to make this work for them and then this has been this goofy has been palosi no leadership blows it again the small business loan program contained in the stimulus bill has already run out of money partly because large corporations were able to exploit loopholes to get their hands on this money wow ugly story they were talking about giving money to investment bankers that's what this is that's what this is about yeah it really is. and of course obviously we've all seen the

stories over the last few days with these major restaurant chains shake shack ruth's chris getting their hands on tens of millions of dollars shake shack of course they gave back their 10000000 they said oh i'm so so out of it love that i mean it's great that they did that they only did it because people got fieri assim you know but he had paid attention shake shack what a love to have chris 2020 1000000 dollars they don't give about their keep you've got all kinds of big corporations here that are giving that money back so you know if you compare to what shake shack did i don't know i don't have the interest and shape but i'll have a david $10000000.00 but the problem is the way again this was written allowed these major firms which includes a lot of hedge funds to come in there and say whoa technically i'm a small business yes i control $16000000000.00 in assets but i meet your criteria i don't have $500.00 employees i don't technically own these assets that i'm

controlling so you need to give me a small business loan because golly gee i don't know if i'm going to make it off my 16000000000 and they give them the loans i mean we're talking about 75 publicly traded companies at this point have gotten small business loans these a 1000000000 multibillion dollar wall street silk stocking a late. thugs really and so some of the people that i thought this was interesting the people who advise these investment bankers there's something called a kasia ok all these investment bankers they go to these consultants and they say what should we do give us the idea what do you think the trend is occasion says what ever you do what ever you do do not take this money right good advice it's wonderful advice and actually quote rather shocking that they would go as far as to say that but but again they know their clients they know what these people will do they know these people only care about money and if you can

get 20000000 dollars at one percent interest they're going to take that loan all day long meanwhile as you mentioned $350000000000.00 gone this was supposed to help mom and pop businesses you know the little pizza shop around the corner the boutique selling out an athletic clothes down the street those were the places that needed this money they needed it to survive and pay their employees and they can't get it because ruth's chris want to let me get back to this issue because it's. nerving to me ok i don't know i don't know who has got out of the way to try to advise the d.n.c. more than you have that you know obviously they don't listen so now what what is the image of what we see with this whole palosi thing the the deal with her ice cream freezer and and she has 75 or 7 democrat senators sent don't you see what's happening here won't you please make

a move to support small business she is completely utterly tone deaf to what the average american what person gets in front of a $50000.00 refrigerator or freezer and says hey let me talk to you about the economy got i got about 30 seconds well it's really interesting here because not only. only are we seeing all the weaknesses that palosi has as a leader but once again seeing the democrats are absolutely the worst group of humans on this planet when it comes to messaging they could have been in front of this they called it one the issue but there are so few good ones left that you could count on 2 hands even if you were missing a few very are blind followers yes just like we've seen with the republicans for so many days for so many decades they are blind goofy followers who rather than thinking for themselves look to this has been palosi to say what do we do and they're terrified of the us currently they are terrified of the ice cream lady which is beyond totally beyond me i don't get it fair and cousin scientific joining

me ok thank you for coming out it turns out that the federal government can request why volumes of consumer data without needing to disclose a reason for its collection despite a lawsuit filed by a twitter that and more when we come back.

when else seems wrong. just don't call. me. yet to seep out just because that's it. and it gets better equals betrayal. when something you find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground . this is a story about what happens auster a stray bullet kills a young girl in the street. what happens to her family and daughters in florida the mother daughter is very very mean this is with your head what happens to the community the public was screaming for a scapegoat the police need is a scapegoat so why not choose a 19 year old black kid with

a criminal record who better to pin this on than him and what happens in court he be. shot after shot. we feel. we don't know just for the. end of this trial unfortunately you. will still not know what childress.

a judge has rejected a twitter lawsuit against the u.s. government that sought to inform the public about federal surveillance requests artie's brigitta santos joins me to talk about this story brigitta i've been pulling you know i've really been pulling for these folks i'm not a huge guy i never i don't even tweet i'm not a twitter person i think it might be because you know donald ran me all from even being interested but what can you tell me about the lawsuit what happened here what this was 1st filed by twitter in 2014 against the obama era government but it has

since been amended to challenge the government under president donald trump the so social media giant sued because they have wanted to include information about the number of surveillance requests it receives from the federal government every year as part of its public transparency reports the requests which are known as national security letters however are designed to be withheld from the public so a federal judge in california after 60 years has now dismissed the case handing a victory to the federal government. no surprises here. i'd like to know more about the appointment of the judge and what their pedigree is but i probably could guess what does this mean for the public are they going to ever learn about the government spying i mean they at least have a right to know you you've been spying on me and it least let us know that that happened that's that's probably not going to happen though is it. no it's probably not and the federal government cannot continue to completely ban companies not only

from saying anything about government surveillance requests but even that they have been doing them in the 1st place national security letters are law enforcement tools that are similar to subpoenas and they're most commonly issued by the f.b.i. however other agencies can also issue them an s.l. force companies to turn over information about certain customers for national security related investigations but there's no way for companies to even know whether the government is legally doing this or whether they're violating the law with these requests so these companies are now for been in from disclosing how many requests they've received or that they've received any in the 1st place all we know is that the federal government has issued over 300000 and s l's in the past 10 years we don't know where they were issued or what they were issued for. you know what try to call balls 'd and strikes on the show as much as possible and you know people get mad at those because we're not tribal and we don't have one position so

the balls and strikes in this in this situation is the other side of the story is when we compare how we have been able to suppress terrorist activity united states because of this type of spying it's nothing less than spying that's what it is that when we compare ourselves to europe in asia in other parts of the world we have done far far superior and when you build in this this is the the argument is this is part of the reason but the empirical data is we have done far far better than the rest of the world and so we hear that argument whether it's accurate or not i don't know but the argument is certainly out there if you compare apples to apples yes we're doing far better as far as the 1st amendment goes is this a violation of the 1st minute i don't know how it could not be but tell me what your opinion is. yeah i think that it is but unfortunately by citing national security concerns the government can always find a loophole for warrantless extrajudicial surveillance and in this case twitter says

the government was infringing on its rights to free speech by preventing it from publicly posting information and forcing it to engage in speech that's been pre-approved by the government but this goes deeper because the government often passes that from these social media companies then down to consumers and users by basically forcing us to squash our own speech and when we talk about social media they're also collecting massive amounts of data on people so they're also doing their own form of corporate spiral spying and while the government can't legally squash free speech of course unless it's given it this loophole of national security private companies can squash that free speech they are free to do that and the government as i said does pressure social media companies to do that you know silencing certain stories or voices and that often happens and of course this is a bipartisan policy one of america's policies where both parties seem to agree it

spans multiple administrations mass surveillance this is just the next chapter. yeah well the companies you know whether it's you know whether it's facebook or twitter or whoever 'd you know they've been if it from a they get they get they get a lot of benefit from federal government in breaks that the federal government gives them in the federal government is always has that hammer over their head if you don't do this then we're going to do this and so that's always there it's reality they're terrified that they're going to lose a dollar so i really love to see and twitter take this position but it's no surprise to see a federal judge shoot it down because truthfully he probably they probably were on good grounds when it comes down to the 1st amendment are you argument versus police power federal government health safety and welfare health safety and welfare is going to trump something like the 1st amendment most of the time look thank you for joining me ok stay safe out there in l.a.

. thanks a federal lawsuits been filed against the chinese government alleging that officials intentionally withheld critical information about the corona virus which eventually wrecked havoc on america's small business molly barrows is here to talk to me about it obviously this was this was filed by a very good friend of mine a lawyer out in nevada who's extraordinary trial lawyer robert robert yes and he's the one that handled the vegas shooting case that thought everybody thought was impossible and he he went to 800000800 i mean so this this this is a real this is a real deal and if fascinated yeah 1st of all what is the is the this is a lawsuit just about all businesses are is a narrowed his his scope well he's narrowed it and it's the sickly representing 5 small businesses glower shops that sort of thing but it actually is on behalf of some 32000000 small businesses he says it's going to impact what happens with these cases will impact small businesses across the country because they've all been

impacted by what he says is negligence on the part of chinese health officials as well as the chinese government in covering up not giving enough early warning basically threatening doctors threatening people who knew about this virus when it 1st sprung up and if they had known they would have been allowed to be a part of the reaction perhaps and our own health officials over there and put a stop to it before it ever got out of there are plenty of precedent for this as you know i have with iran and the banks that watched money for terrorists and in order to do that i had to bring iran into the into the lawsuit has billions of not trillions worth of assets in the united states right so i'm going to win that case i don't like that i will win that case and same way with china what i think is most interesting is the he's using the treaties that came out of this globalization the nafta calf to type treaties on trade. and he's saying they have

a responsibility under trade under these treaties not to do what they've done what is he saying they did well basically you know if you go back even to some of the original doctors who were 1st responding they wanted to put the word out on social media they were tracked down they were threatened they were told not to tell anyone who disappeared they disappeared yes that mean there is just a whole slew of basically heinous allegations that are coming out that are not unsurprising if you will considering the crackdown that the chinese government has on their people in a variety of other areas as well that he's saying that they they were coverups against journalists against doctors against the medical community that in essentially allow this virus to escape the borders and in fact infect an impact the entire world and to the small businesses trillions of dollars as a result something they would have had to suffer otherwise but it's a shame that you talk about how he's suing through that treaty loop home and you know so much of the world is changing because of the coronavirus and this is probably going to impact our global relationships there well whether it's the

european union how do you see that i think globalization is is dead in the water globalization to me and there's just my opinion i mean everybody has a different opinion on this obviously it was it was it was a wrong start to begin with what it was was bill clinton was trying to embrace wall street right so one of the asks by wall street was can you let us push globalization and what that meant to them is when you let our corporations send jobs out of the country will you let our corporations be told what they can and can't do that they sell it to the american people like you're going to get cheaper like this is going to be better for you that and it's a lie just like their ability to sue they can come here and we have this way mollies who are saying that they can come to the united states a foreign company can come the united states and say we don't like that the e.p.a. has told us that we can't dump our toxic chemicals into your river therefore we're going to sue you and get paid by the taxpayer. so we can poison so we can poison

you so that's globalisation so robert he's again he's a brilliant lawyer he's taken he's taken the other side of it he said ok you can do that to us we're going to do this to you right he's going to win well this case is going to this case has got he's got it's going to be a year just going to the hague just to get him served because he's going to win this one it seems like there's a fairly broad jurisdiction and as much as if you do business in the united states then there's a good chance that we can see if you have more in country so it's not unheard of like you said let him have tenure handling their own litigation against iran where do you see this going now other lawsuits being filed robert what i thought was interesting commented on a couple of other lawsuits out of florida that he said they're too wide you know they are different because of the trade angle with the florida case are way too broad they're trying to encompass too much this is a narrow case we can show that your conduct directly affected this business it's called legal causation you have to be able to the conduct with the event and that's what he's doing. barrows were you know this this is an interesting case is going to

go on a lot for sherry talking about this one a lot thanks for joining me ok thanks that father and i had some good news a federal judge last week ruled that the permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline was wrongly issued and therefore the permits not valid this is a major win for the environment and for activists who've been fighting against the pipeline for years and his ruling judge brian morris said that the u.s. corps of engineers failed to do a proper environmental review of the project which is a violation of the law the reason the environmental review was not properly conducted by the government is because it would show without a doubt that this pipeline is going to cause more harm than good proponents of the pipeline of argued for years that it's necessary so that we can lower energy prices for americans but the truth is that this pipeline is going to stretch from canada to the gulf coast where the oil would be loaded on to oil tankers and shipped overseas not for us but for other people. the united states would assume all of the

environmental risk while reaping 0 benefit from the increased pollution this pipeline is a bad deal for both the environment and for american consumers and the sooner the whole thing is put to rest the better that's all for tonight find us on twitter at facebook at facebook dot com slash r t america's more than you can watch all our t. america programs on direct t.v. channel 321 and also streaming live on your you tube and be sure to check out this new portable app that all to use put together we can watch virtually anything that's on the air. how might happen tony owned this is america's lawyer what every week we tell you the stories that corporate media is not they're ordered not to tell the story because of their political contacts or because of their advertisers we're going to tell those stories anyway have a great night. people

are really remarking that 2020 is a mirror image of 2008 it's the exact same problem banks over leverage blew themselves up and are now demanding a bailout at the point of a gun from the fed and other central banks and except this time the dislocation in the economy combined with the coronavirus is so great that we've tripped over into medieval ism that's how messed up this. after a lackluster primary democrats and their media friends have decided on joe biden as the party nominee is the electable will the progressive small in line with offering voters and will the d.n.c. experience buyers. the world is

driven by a dream. shaped by those. who dares thinks. we dare to ask. something a man has is to put on a chain on the stone to consume a little sponge that's there. but you can quote mr shenstone with nothing to tell him that i desire to know. how much older the.

local just a little only a little me of them still lives also me up on the show as it was still a lot. more push we'll show. you produce not just on thoughts and you will not in my little notebook so we stop at the beach to the list you. want to. so. the lady that.

hello there i'm an election enjoy watching in question broadcasting live from r.t. american national headquarters in washington d.c. we want to welcome our viewers from across the nation and all around the world here are tonight's top stories 1st hospitals in coronavirus stricken cities are surprisingly empty a reopening that not so simple will get you the details next plus u.s. navy ship comfort is now leaving new york and heading back to virginia this after the new york governor said it is no longer needed and then new relate revelations in the case of julian assange claiming a spanish firm want to great lengths to spy on the wiki leaks founder including top .