money will result in accountability either in the bio ministration or over the pentagon. also in the hill, congress has a difficult job of voting on a $3.00 trillion dollar budget with a military budget being the largest portion of federal spending. but instead of spending every moment possible finding ways to tighten a belt, congress has decided to go play baseball. literally, we will give you the 360 view on the u. s. budget crisis, which will result in a thousands of federal workers will be far load if an agreement is not reached by thursday. and the debate as to if the judicial branch is the most dominant branch in the u. s. government continues, as a recent cases have redefined laws, passed by legislatures and executive orders. however, what is the law was not the basis for those rulings. rather, the judges undisclosed financial interests. we're going to bring you the shocking story involving over $100.00 judges who broke the same laws. it was sworn to uphold . and around the world,

the online platforms are finding themselves conflicting with the government and australia where freedom is under fire. australians are being denied access to comment on a very popular media page. after a court ruling, we will see we will bring you why this can be setting a precedent for other countries to follow up. i know you'd be stores and more on today's news views right here on our to america. let's get started. ah, thanks for joining us. you know, it's day to on the hill for the generals and the secretary of defense. and if you thought to the hearings were heated before the senate home, just you wait a wednesday before the house, general mark, milly, defense survey, lloyd austin, and general frank mckenzie faced a new around of grilling and of course, like always expected grandstanding. all this resulted in questions about president joe biden's ability to lead someone who leads to always is,

are fair in front tech who is going to give us some of today's highlights. 20 years of a whole lot of different people leading has led us to this point and we said we're going to stop this one chairman, this side of the conceivable will bring war here going war is not over. it's coming to america. congressional payoff after a heated hearing in the senate, members of the house armed services committee, up the annie bickering with each other and bickering with the 3 men. testifying general mark, milly, secretary of defense, lloyd austin, and central command commander frank mckenzie. not even close congress and oh, really because you said you chose to talk to reporters instead of us. the one who took the most heat, general mili over as comments in the just released bob woodward book peril where it revealed several of milly's actions in the final days of president trump's time in

office, including calls with his chinese counterpart and his conversation with how speaker nancy pelosi quoted pelosi is saying, and this was to you what i'm saying to you is that they couldn't even stop him from an assault on the capital. who even knows what else he may do. and is there anybody in charge of the white house who was doing anything but kissing his fat but all over this is that you recall that is a lot of barging comments made and, and my focus was to assure her that the nuclear system and weapons were under control, and then more probing into what these men actually told president joe biden, after the resurfacing of the president's august interview with george stephanopoulos. so no, no one told your military advisors not to, you know, we should just keep 2500 troops. it's been a stable situation for the last several years. we can do that, we can continue to do that. no, no one said that to me that i can recall. i think the general officers here and secretary have made it very clear that they gave the president advice that he would

listen to the generals doubling down. they did tell the president to stay in afghanistan is been my position in my judgement, that if we went below an advisory level of $2500.00, i believe that the government of afghanistan would likely collapse and the military would follow. they continue their attacks. you know we, we got smaller and so i agree with john mackenzie, that's when you could begin to see things really beginning. now more questions arise about president violence leadership. and whether or not the book should stop with him. but if we didn't have a president that was so adult, you all would be fired, because that is what you deserve. you of let down the people who wear the uniform in my district and all around this country. and you're far more interested in what your perception is and how people think about you inside or washington books that care about winning tillman's. it has are for news use hughes. i'm here in front

back of the story returned to a former navy intelligence of sir john george john. i missed it today to get the word fat, but was actually used in congress today. i think that the historical but i think that just shows exactly. we're intelligence is in 2021. we're actually talking about a very serious issue. like afghanistan. i had to start with you thoughts on the impeachment review. i actually got their grade templates for cable tv drama. many of those that were actually deserved. oscar, so their performance, but today's hearing for the armed services committee might actually give them a challenge for the grade award. did we actually learn anything? do you think? which might clarify how the chaos around ask and withdrawal actually happened? we've learned so much, not just from the hearings today. as you recall, in general, mili was before congress talking about how he wanted service men, members to read all of the woke books including white rage and how he wanted to learn about white rage. and how he refused to say that communism was bad. turns out

that some of my source told me that a lot of the joint chiefs and a lot of senior officers had been in several times several twice or thrice weekly meetings, dealing with cultural wars in the woke wars in the military during the run up to and during the christ canister, and they were spending all kinds of time on that rather than an actual operational thinking. so at a minimum, you can say that the to the command, the command structure of united states was distracted with the joint chiefs. and certainly with president, mike, was interested jude actually bring that up because they seem to obviously play the blame game in this. and one of their favorite things that buying was trump saying that president trumpet already put this timeline into action. it was already there one to buy and was sworn to office. was that kind of confirmed a? and my question is, why would they stick with the timeline when it seems like both of them were not necessarily fans as serving when president trump was a great question, scott, you?

so this is the way to characterize this. i'd like to call this the cascading bucket pass. so nobody in the current administration of current command staff is responsible. but somehow, trump is the facts in the ground are somewhat at variance with this as the agreement that trump made with the taliban and doh, how that was negotiated with conditions base. meaning if you do this, we do that. that was not just a unilateral cut and run. now since that deal was cut and go high and during the biden and the 1st few months the bindings ration, the taliban had clearly broken those agreements that were made to the present with president trumpet his administration. so present buying was under no obligation to up and withdraw out. now when he did this was an artificial deadline set for political reasons, because the administration knew that they had falling, pulling deteriorating polling and they needed, they knew they needed to get the grow, the president's credibility. so they could, he would have leverage to whip the bipartisan infrastructure deal and the

$3500000.00 deal through congress. that's what this is really about. and they wanted to deliver a cheap political win before 911. so you could go before the american, people say, hey, i ended america, as long as we're the idea being a, give them a bump in the polls and some leverage with congress and it blew up in their face. and now they want to blame president. trump. ok, so, but here's the thing, john, you're smart man, looking at this, go into, we knew it was not going to be easy. the question is, how are they thinking that this was going to be easy to do with in just a few weeks? it was actually a positive experience from everybody on the outside and even just watch the news knew that this was not going to go well that the afghan government was going to do was going to fall quickly. and yet, even the generals today said, we told president abide, and this wasn't going to work. he didn't listen to us. so why in the world who was telling the president or where was he thinking that this was going to go smoothly and be a win for him? well, there was a real disconnect here between what the military officers, as the,

in their testimony were congress states that they knew they knew it would be a disaster. and what the white house believes to be true, and what they hoped would be the case. the white house political shop, probably led by rod rod claim, the white house chief of staff thought the geez, there'll be some messiness in our withdraw from afghanistan, but the american public will appreciate they were looking at pulling for this. appreciate president biden ending america's longest war. they didn't anticipate the images of people jump falling off of the airplane. the 13 service members being killed and the coverage of, of american afghans who worked with the united states slot being slaughtered and the social media blow back. they didn't anticipate that this was a political edit misjudgment, when they decided in fact, to ignore the advice the military commanders had given them. well, and i think the biggest answer and all of this we found out we didn't get any details once we don't know exactly what, what general milly said and how he justified that his conversation with the chinese . and i doubt we'll ever see transcripts from that, which i think we should. john,

always great to catch up with you. thanks for joining us. my, for the others is a new report that says more than a 130 federal judges have violated u. s. law and judicial ethics by overseen cases evolving companies in which a day or their family members actually own stock. in the investigation by the wall street journal found the judges improperly failed to disqualify themselves from nearly 700 court cases around the country since 2010 large. the attorney chavez brings us this story from new york and investigation by the wall street journal reveals that a 131 federal judges violated u. s. law by overseen cases involving companies in which they or their families held direct stock. according to the report, the judges failed to accuse themselves from 685 cases across the u. s. in which they helped financial interest since 2010. furthermore, when the judges participated in these cases,

roughly 2 thirds of their rulings ended up being in favor of their or their family's financial interests. while there are no laws that prohibit judges from owning stocks, the federal jurist code of conduct, demands judges, recuse themselves in the event they hold any semblance of financial interest in a case or the ownership of legal or equitable interest. however small, the cases in question were all held between 2 years, 201-2020 of the 2 thirds of the federal judges who disclosed individual stock holdings. roughly, a 5th of them presided in at least one case that involved their stock after the paper notified the judges of the findings. 56 of the law men began to alert parties involved in 329 of the law suits of their conflict of interest. judges offered multiple explanations for their infringements. when confronted by the paper, most of selected the blame though citing administrative errors and arguing their refusal lists contained misspellings that caused cases to slip through the cracks of their conflict screening software. other judges called attention to rulings they made that resulted in their own financial losses. reporting for news use hughes

trinity chavez. art. hey, our break work hard play hard as an extra monitor live by, but congress more focus on their ball game than a responsible budget. we will tell you when we return the news join me every posted on the alex, silent show and i'll be speaking to guess on the world, the politics sport. business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. me the jamie diamond was critical, a big claim starting when it was $200.00 a point. it's now around $45000.00 point depending as he points out. 10

x from here. so he's looking for up to point $55.00 and about a coin. the latest one, most of the most of the limitation of a unit 731 was a unique organization in the history of the world. what they were trying to do was to simply do nothing short and build the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program. that the world had ever known real to production, but it will show up enough

keel to the new new model to model this new you know want to do and i got the sale. i wonder i wish to know who he didn't know. i had a pathologist, mother and all you got a nice little to do want to on this she might new on it. i don't know. i don't the, you know, put them out to give us the me ah

ah, you, i just labor hours to figure out a multi $1000000.00 budget or face to thousands of workers being out of work? what would you do? well, congress has decided they're going to go play baseball in the current $3.00, trend $1.24 page budget proposal. we find allocations like 3000000000 for tree equity, which is basically tree planting in cities which can benefit the most and health economic climate. isn't that every city are these true specifically woke timber? ok. 25000000 for anti discrimination and biased training. that actually sounds really good, except it's only for once or an industry health care, and it's mainly focused on maternal health care. but isn't appropriating money for $1.00 group rather than all something considered to be biased? and the last one, my favorite, $78.00 are $7000000000.00 to go after taxpayers and beat up the

iris. all become more aggressive and shake down individuals who just happened to make minor mistakes on their very complicated tax forms. so let's get the $360.00 view. welcome and david kat, former assistant us attorney, and steve, gil, former official in the us trade representative's office. definitely people who understand budget, both of you german, i am sure. and so i want to start with you david. do you think the budget being stalled right now? why there's so much complicated because it's been combined with a $4.00 trillion dollars infrastructure package as well. well, the infrastructure package, the so called safety net one, the one that does not have any republican support. that's the one that's been the heavy lift, you know, scotty, there's bipartisan support for a 1.2 trillion infrastructure package, which is things like of the electric grid, repairs and so forth. and what's happened is because the democrats are having this

in fighting right now between the moderate wing, especially the 2 senators, who won't vote for anything like 3.5 trillion and the progressive wing. there's actually been a threat to not even past the 1.2 trillion, which would be a huge mistake because as i say, it has a lot of republican support and cities like wait here in l a. r mayor has been screaming that we really need the money, you know, we needed for roads and bridges and stuff like that. so hopefully the democrats will all come together. but you're right, scottie, there's a lot of moving parts right now. and this is a very stressful week, and it's become stressful for the republicans too because they won't approve a higher spending limit. and if that happens in this country default, that's going to hurt a lot of rich people, a lot of republican voters and a lot of big companies so well to the republicans to if they want to just stand there and not agree to anything, which is what they apparently want to do not even to pay our bills that the republicans ran up under trump the last 4 years. well, there's to bring up that. you said a word, dave,

that on here come out of democrats, very often in fighting. that's been a hugely goes to the republicans in that sense of steve, you know, you're listen to david response on this. but if it's as simple of there's conflict between weren't there, why don't they just separate the 2 and held 2 separate votes? well, they could do that, that be the easy answer. but the liberal extremists are wanting to force through the huge tax increases the crippling economic impact of their 5.53 dollars. because when you add everything else into it, it's not just 3.5 trillion, it's closer to 5.53, and they want that and they are holding the hostage crisis of the infrastructure bill that you know both sides agree on in order to force through this bill that is much too much and, and even democrats, including sentiment and mansion, and we suspect some others are unwilling to go along with that, particularly since it also includes some hidden burdens on taxpayers. you mentioned the i r s funding. they also are going to put regulations in where banks will start

monitoring and reporting transactions over $600.00. and then that's going after trading errors and billionaires. i don't think $600.00 transactions at the bank are going to catch a lot of trees or be in it's going to catch middle american. well, and that's it. see there are a lot of these little fine details. i think why republicans are digging in. but to your point, dave, that you said, wouldn't it be a win if you do have this infrastructure bill, which is still a whole lot of money, but you ever probably get the democrats, even getting that pass and do see should be considered a win for democrats kristen cinema mentioned you mentioned they're actually raising money right now from business groups who oppose. busy but do you think both have met actually with the white house? will they cave? do you think that they're going to stick with it or do they even matter anymore has the progressive wing kind of taken over when it comes to numbers and budgets? i think eventually they'll come together because both wings of the democratic party have a lot to lose. if it all falls apart, they'll be blamed by the voters if they don't produce something. so i think what's going to happen after all of the tension is they'll be

a much smaller. busy reconciliation package, maybe it'll be a trillion dollars. and one of the questions has always been, why don't they decouple? not just the 2 bills from each other, but some of the things in the 3.5 trillion dollar package, because it's really been a sales problem that the country doesn't understand it. there are so many things in it. you know, there's climate change. there's pre k, there's free community college, there's dental care for medicare recipients. why don't they decouple it? and for instance, what isn't bite and just say we're going to do a bill right now. we're going to get 50 democratic senators to vote for it. and we're going to bring dental care and we're going to bring, you know, other kinds of services to medicare people, your grandfather, your uncle is going to get this. it's going to be great. and we're going to pay for this by going after apple and amazon and the other huge corporations, j. p. morgan that pay an effective 4 percent tax rate. that's something the american people could get behind. and maybe steve could get behind it because,

you know, i was in the reagan administration, i get the idea of getting the government off people's backs of reducing taxation. but there are some things that are worth paying for. and if buying would pick out the things green energy, you know that, you know, having, you know, greener energy, we need it because we have global warming. if you pick out those things, scotty, i think he might get everyone support even steve. but to david david point, steve, why is it just that simple? why can't you do just those clean things that everybody can get by? why doesn't washington d c ever do that? what david just said? sounds like a really good campaign speech to me. but when we get up on the hill, that's not what we hear time and time again. why not? well, it's a great idea and if they let david and i work it out, i can probably get a deal done. i agree with david that there will probably be a smaller package that comes through. but as always, the devil's in the details of the democrats, one all the goodies on, which he mentioned like the pre k 3 pre k for kindergarteners,

3 to 5 years old. the problem is that for a few years, 50 percent of the cost gets passed on to state. so when they talk about tax burdens, they're going to pass this track down the states and make them start picking up the town. so it's always the devil's in the details of your goodie is going to cost somebody a lot of money and figuring that out is, is what makes it so complicated. but i great david and i could probably work it out this afternoon like got days in that old movie, you know, get out the budget to get out of, you know, legal work the thing out a couple hours. well and unfortunately about steve, steve come out to california, do something about our 9.5 percent sales tax, and our other huge taxes out here in california right now. not going to the income tax. i would say that's your guy right there is steve steve. again, except his invitation. yeah. jackson, tennessee, how come out there and help you lower your gas tax that is unfortunately drive a lot of california out of the state and it's just the unfortunately bringing some

of their liberal tax and spend methods to us. but again, i think the bottom line is, it's not just how much the dollar figure is, whether it's the $1.00 trillion dollar infrastructure package or the 5 or 6 trillion dollar reconciliation packages. it's what's actually in there and what's the long term costs, and what's the patient's cost of the economy that we're already starting to get in, in pretty dire circumstances. well, there's a little bit too much agreeance going on in this 360 view, which is good for america, bad for politicians, but i think that then you both can agree on that. going to play baseball tonight is in poor taste, especially when you're about to see a bunch of americans possibly facing for away from their job. david, steve, always great to talk to you even when you're getting along now it's trans or being blocked from accessing a major news networks. facebook page i've read court ruled publishers can be held liable for defamation. now, seeing in the network decided to disable the comments section after facebook declined at their request to help disable the public comment section. so they just

took their ball and went home to discuss this trend, right. continuing to other countries, we bring in our we go and media media analysts line a line. oh, thanks for so much for joining me. and we've had this conversation before multiple times here in the united states. is it this sort of an endorsement of section $230.00? that's what they're going to be saying. now for some crazy reason, australia says that, you know, think about this on your page, some lunatic. some your group, as we say here in new york, decides to write horrible things in common to what you don't, you don't even know who these people are and you or, or cnn, or whoever should be held liable and australia. yes. so cnn went to facebook. it said, can you help us disable this? now you got to do it one by one. why do you think that was to show ru buddy how important section 230 is? how important it is to hold people immune to keep it up. so here's what the answer

is, key to 30 immunity. go ahead, but let me say whatever i wanted. don't shut me down because you don't like my opinion about vaccines or trump, or, or i remember in nora unicorns or whatever it is. you see, they want to have it all, they like bogey and because i think the song goes, they are using this to say we need section 230. and all they have to do is you think, we'll just let us all say what we want. nobody is held liable and that's it. remember what this is all really is. we're going to come here, perhaps perhaps, but this is what they're going to be saying. we need to 30 and again, i per chevry and reiterate, keep to 30. just let me say what ever i want. and scotty, if you don't like what i like or right, like what i like already. just don't, don't want you don't agree. move on hash tag. so what turned it off?

that's all. but here's that gives you line with it. there's a difference between cnn posting content, which is what they're doing versus me as someone getting on there and posting a comment. i and that's what i can em scratch my has because facebook claiming can help me display it disabling comments. i can do that on my own pub and private pages. so do you actually, do you actually buy facebook's excuse on this one? well, no of course up a t, here's the thing. if you've got 10000 comments, you could get some intern to sit there, you know and get and you judgment. but i guarantee you, if all of a sudden facebook word to go through 10000 comments, pro trump or anti vaccine or whatever work is anti vax, by the way, is the word they used for anybody who has a problem with mandatory vaccination, laud versus vaccine. but anyway, you better believe they've got algorithm, they can find anything they want. if you ask facebook, can you remove anybody who uses 3 semi colon within the year?

yes. anything they could fight the idea that i'm sorry we can, we can help you with a big deal is, but the point is again, so that junker burger, all these people can go back to congress and see you see how we need this. now of course, like you bring up libel based on comments from some half drunk lunatic at 3 in the morning, typing it together in a parent's basement, you got to put the parents basement in their covered chino dust. yes, yes, i understand that. so, but anyway, so a lot of apples and oranges, but it's very, very important. but remember, very simple, keep section 230. but if i want to say anything, if i want anything about about vaccines or whatever, just let me know what we're all. and that's why we have you here because you can say the you want, i let you do it like always final. they're always informative. thanks for joining us as well. you should thank and that's the time we have a show, but i promise this is a conversation which we will continue to follow me on twitter at study and use use

to hash tag and b h for the show. more download the portable dot tv app for your apple or android device. like, always, thanks for watching. ah, ah, lack of universal healthcare makes america the country of every man for himself. we have a retirement crisis in this country and we have a health care crisis for seniors in this country as well. so private business has come up with a special mechanism for that. it's called the live settlement market. we are a life settlement provider, which means that we buy life insurance policies from primarily seniors throughout the united states who no longer want or can afford their life insurance policies.

if you are sick and for want to live a few more years, you can sell your life insurance. that way you get more money right away and the company collects your insurance payment off to your dad. there's a group of people out there, i guess, hoping that people die soon. what kind of motivation is i give them when i start crying about and dying? that's usually what it's about. i just the sheer unfairness of it all the time. now we receive so many inputs on a daily basis that are completely related to reality. so think about how i social media filters and they basically present themselves in very unrealistic way. and so we come out of fomo and be involved more than that. it's about being sort of envious of something that may not exist and is also really tied to the fact that as humans, we want to be part of the crowd the

ah, it was an extraordinary disaster. if we didn't have a president that was so adult, you all would be fired. i don't think anyone can trust anything this present says about up can stand us because scolds joe biden, and tell ralph, save about some in congress, calling washington's humiliating withdrawal from afghanistan. we are so if the whole afghan campaign might be a big failure than just the pull out itself, also this our, the wall of shame, that was the graffiti fell. that's not how some encourage come to view the power suburbs up in arms over the construction of a wall designed in theory to keep drug addict.