gain control of about $2000000000.00 of its central bank assets are frozen by the us for the court has ordered washington to provide compensation to iraq. these law mac republic of iran, believes that the ruling issued by the international court of justice shows the solidity of rounds arguments in the righteousness of iran's request. in this important verdict, the i c. j correctly rejected all the fake defenses of the u. s. the international court upheld the u. s. objection to iran jurisdiction over the funds, which have amounted to almost $2000000000.00 and bonds and cumulative interest. but it considered that washington, the seizure of toronto assets breached a 1955 treaty between those countries. and so it must provide the gree of compensation but left the amount to be determined later on. iran initially appealed to the hague based course in 2016. after the u. s. supreme court ruled the money

should go to a victim of a legit terrorist attacks. we heard from to her on a university professor say add that mom made mirandi. he agreed with certain aspects of the ruling, but said the court is biased in favor of western powers. the court to be fair did expose the fact that the u. s. case was irrational, it was not justified and that the right in position was reasonable and within the framework of law. and in that sense, it was a positive ruling. united states has exposed itself to be a country that steals it, steal the iranian ships, deals iranian oil. it feels well from iranian bank accounts. on the other hand,

the i c. c shows itself to be toothless because they admit that the iranian case is valid and that the american argument is not acceptable. on the one hand, i think it shows that a i, c, c is not credible. it is feeble. it is a too much way too much under the influence of western power. direct impact on the show up next indicting the full, the present don't problem a little bit back to have a talk with and direct and impactful, which is why we call this direct impact. ah,

so here we go. it's happened for the 1st time in the history of the united states. a former president has been criminally indicted by a grand jury grand jury in new york. after hearing evidence of the case against mister trump has apparently decided that there is enough there to charge him with a crime. so what it is really about? well, it's about a woman, i'm about to introduce you to the scene here with me. in fact, back on a cnn, and i'd like to introduce you to somebody who may be taking the senator on. she is considering the possibility. some would say there's a whole lot of people who wanted to do just that. this is stormy daniels. she's joining us now. stormy, thanks so much for being with us. thank you for having me. you are referred to by some as an adult entertainers. some of the news stories are saying you're a porn star. well, how would you describe yourself?

all of the above an exotic dancer point. i don't film director, look at pictures, contracts or whatever you want to call me is fine with me. whatever we want to color seems to be fine with her that was stormy daniels and it's apparent that she received. and here's where we get to the meat of the matter, right? she got a payoff of a $130000.00 as what is described as hush money. now, if mr. trump chose to give daniel's the money for whatever reason, there would be no allegation of a crime. but that's not what prosecutors appear to be alleging in the end, what will matter here is, how was she paid? where did the money come from? and how was it documented? it seems to be the case that they're trying to make. so here's what we know. we know that the money was paid to daniels by mister trump's lawyer, michael cohen. if mr. trump paid mr. cohen for legal fees,

but didn't declare that it was intended for stormy daniels. well, that could be a problem. unfortunately, it's probably no more than a misdemeanor at that point. but remember, this in 2018 cohen was charged with violating campaign finance laws for paying off for me. daniels cohen has asked all along, well, why am i going to jail if the guy who told me to do it didn't go to jail? that's been his big defense. if you hear about all the cable tortures. well, part of that answers somewhat simple. in 2018, mr. trump was the president of the united states and sitting presidents aren't generally in diable. but this look, this is not going to be an easy case to prove. and there will be those who say that if all you got in the end is a violation of campaign finance laws, why stop there with the former president when you get argued so ramp and washington d. c. and this may, as some republicans have said, be a selective prosecution. and then there's the politics. this is what a lot of people in america are always going to be talking about. mr. trump has

already declared his candidacy for president. he immediately called this indictment, a political persecution, and members of both parties are wearing and democrats who fear that this could actually fire up the base and make mr. trump even more popular and more likely to become president. again, republicans who quietly would like to kind of see the president make room for others in the party, but we'll likely defend him for fear of losing his supporters. it gets interesting . speaking of supporters, despite all the talk so far about the protest, if this happens in the fact that new york city would be mobbed by tend to tens of thousands of people. in fact, tens of thousands of beep police so far have been told to report for duty just in case this happens. but as far as we know at this point, there are no obvious signs as of yet of many reaction to for mr. trump space or, or anyone else for that matter. so let's get into this to talk now. further about this, we're joined by our panel ad martin. he joins us here in the studio. he is

a conservative tacos, he's also an author and the president of the foolish, lastly eagles, and also joining us, his investigative journalist. i'm calling this that the nation, david linder. gentlemen, let's have a good spirited conversation. i know you're both coming from different perspectives and david, i want to start with you and maybe the simple question that a lot of people seem to be asking themselves in america today or, or even arguing about doesn't seem to you from what you've learned thus far. that there is a case here that the former president should have been indicted. oh absolutely . if they think that he committed the crime because look, he's, he's present. he's a former president. and under art system of, of you know, government. he's an ordinary citizen. he's not, he doesn't have special rights of other than that. his documents for from the presidency that are somewhat protected. ah, depending on what they are. um,

but otherwise she's just another person. so wallet only talk about this being unconstitutional, and so on is ridiculous. how about it, what he just said, i mean, if i and i think what david is saying is look if mr. trump, where mr. rodriguez or mr. john may. yeah, he would have been charged that. that's what he's saying. well, look, rick, it's great to be with you and i'm, i'm glad we're in this, but nobody's above the law. right. right. nobody's below the law. i mean, in a certain point, what we're watching is the law being manipulated for political purposes. there's no one just from the smell passed from the outside is no one saying, oh, you know all this time after he's been out of office, you finally figure this out? no, he's been declared as a candidate for president. it's interfering with the election as a matter of politics. and yeah, as you point out, you know, we're talking off the air. we don't even know what the charges are, their seal 30 counts. what is this about? look michael cohen, it's baseball team. by the way,

let me just stop you there. if we don't know where the charges are, and we don't know would be the democrats and the republicans going on the air and telling everybody. oh, this is a case that a shouldn't be brought, or this is a case that definitely needs to be brought. why don't we were here with the evidence is well, there's a simple answer there. we have a track record of how many years now, where the media and the left to works to put out something about trump. and it turns out to be false, and they spend the years conditioning the american people to feel a certain way about the russia hoax about charlottesville, about anything, when the truth is at least much more nuanced and at worse, it's false. let's let david into that conversation that he, you just the point that you just made at how would you respond to that david, i really have to laugh. i was as journalist in new york for years before i moved to cover hong kong for business week and china for business. we can, can back the states about 10 years later. i it trump. i've written about a since i was a cub reporter in new york. the got my yard fellow to on the panel if

you're in and at martin. yes. i'm sorry, i didn't names go right by me now. i the, the point is that there's, there's the on there's the issue that this last conviction of his company, which took years to get the documents on firmed fraud, financial fraud. and those documents include the stuff that supporting this case, you know, so short. so let me start, let me just fighting david, let me just stop there for a moment. i think what you're saying is they've now got evidence that nails him dead to rights because and i don't know, i'm just saying and you and i were talking about this just a little while ago at if they have an email or a memo from dar, from donald trump, to michael cohen, it says, michael,

i need you to pay this woman off. this is the here, i'm going to put the money, but let's hide it. i don't want anybody to know that i'm paying make it look like it's a legal fee. oh, and by the way, i'm using campaign funds to do this. if they got that, you're right. he's in trouble, but they would have had to refer that they would have referred that to the fed for a federal charge. i mean, that's a federal crime. remember the trick that's going on here that needs to be acknowledged, and it's it's slight of hand as the media is played along. the da has a, has a supposed crime, a misdemeanor under the new york state law that has to do with record keeping correct. and that is a misdemeanor, he wrote it as legal fees when in fact, ryan was not legal thing. it would happen, right? if that's a misdemeanor than here we are this. but what he's doing is charging a felony. you don't turn yourself in. you don't get indicted by the grand jury for a misdemeanor. and the felony is because he has to allege that it's a step up. meaning there was a crime that it was done for and the crime that it was done for he saying,

is it we think is this campaign finance? know you're a lawyer and you make a good point and i will take it back to david david, even some of my very liberal democratic friends who can't stand. trump have told me they don't see this as a very strong case, based on what they know. now remember, we don't have the evidence yet. what, what, what is it? how do you feel about it? well, 1st of all, what we know is that the da da did not bring this case until after that conviction . and the 2nd thing is with regard to the state prosecution to this, the da has to prosecute on state crimes. and it is a state prosecutor and what he, what he has that going for him is that next his office that brought the, the civil sit with that found the, the financial fraud. he has access to that, he has a lawyer working for him, brought the who prosecuted a case who's now being brought on to prosecute this case. i believe. and it's

speculation. everything you're saying is speculation, everything i'm seeing is spec up, correct. i think, i think that the reason this case was brought is because of that conviction having made it possible to do it because the document that came, let me lin, 2nd and 2nd with that that be those documents have provided enough evidence to show intent to defraud that the, the electoral system so because that's, that's the, that's what turns into a felony and also a conspiracy. so what do you, both of, are not federal crimes, but state crime. what, what, let me, let me give it a chance here before we go to break up. in fact, let's do this, i'm gonna, i'm gonna take a break. when i come back, i want you to answer the question that david seems to make for the point that david seems to make, which is pretty simple. people are saying he couldn't have done it. and the reason they're saying you couldn't have done it is because they don't know that there's new evidence that come out in the prosecution of the trump company case and there's

new stuff there that is going to shock you. mr. martin and it is something advancing office in jail and who can be indicted for fraud now because of that information they're finding. so, you know, i think there was the talk about his lawyer being canned, but the trump had been a trump right now, and we're going to talk about co and because you're right cohen is me wearing the mil, let's do larry. what with that 30, that 30 minute interview, we don't know. let's do this. let's take a quick break. when i, when we get back, i want you to respond to what the point that he just made. and we're going to do that in just a little bit, by the way, before we go to break. i do have some, i want to tell you, i have a podcast where as a journalist, a real one as a latino, as an entrepreneur, i share my stories with you, the good, the bad, all over the ugly as well. and. 2 it's about growth, it's about success that it's called the rick sanchez podcast. if you get a chance, check it out

with what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on offense. very dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk with

ah ok, welcome back. you might want to call this the great debate right here. we're speaking about the mr. trump's a indictment with 2 gentlemen who have 2 different perspectives on this case, a respectfully at martin is the president of a fil, a shaft, li, eagles, and david linder, f. as a columnist at the nation, we welcome them both back. all right, i promised you as to martin, you get a chance at this. you learn what is your, what, what yeah, david says, he says, look, you, that you, republicans are all going out and saying, there's no case here when you don't know what new evidence is there. i don't know if that's how i started this. so if you want, i can start a little differently. i, my objection is when he says, we have no reason to think this. he's saying we, david and others are saying, we should assume this is all on the up and up when we have a record of about 6 or 7 years where we've been lied to by the media and by prosecutors. the muller, at the molar investigation was dog meet the derm investigation is dog meter. at

this point we, i don't have any confidence. and this the, i, again, i go back to this. i don't know why david gets to skip across it. you can't charge a felony without the net. no, you're not before the grand jury and turning yourself in to be arraigned. if you're not charging a felony, the only felony beside vance wouldn't do any of this. that's the previous guy. and nobody in the federal do. feds will do it until now. they're not can thinking of the federal i by the way then no one has said there, i've got an open complaint. the only thing is to say, i'm the da i can't charge a misdemeanor and get enough attention. i'm going to charge this this felony and they're stretching the law. let's just say we'll wait for the evidence to come in before we argue that out. but i like the 1st point you make and i wouldn't be surprised if david kind of agrees with you on that. i have. i'm a journalist, study journalism, practice journalism. i believe david, that donald trump made the media in this country. be as crazy and some of the points that makes about the media losing its credibility. and that is partly why

people may be reacting the way they are right now. my have a hint of truth to it. do you agree? your problem, what do you agree that the media in the united states was made so crazy and probably lost its credibility in its coverage of trump over the last 4 years? that that is what is generating some of this criticism. now, over this indictment. yeah, let me say one thing about the media and myself, i, i've been a report for 52 years, an investigative journalist and a good. i'm not in the crap. i'm not a liberal and way to left of the democratic party on. and i have, you know, and i even think that trump did some good things that i think his stance on china and particularly on russia and trying to, to, you know, develop a relationship with these countries. rather than getting on a war fitting with them was, was good policy is some, sorry it, it didn't happen,

but i'm not, i'm not saying that he did everything bad. i think the media in this country doesn't address any really issues. they go for play, you know, trying to win the election so that they can get that. what do you call it? a patronage? basically, they're both parties are pretty similar in terms of what they really support, corporate america, militarism, you know, so i just, so you understand where i'm coming from. i think however, that it's, there's, it's sort of laughable to hear republicans saying that, you know, the democrats are piling on trump and he didn't do anything. you know, that's worth it. i watched a man that i have no, no liking for which president clinton being dragged through the calls for a completely ludicrous charge of having a this this at lying about this affair. he had with

a fellow in law. if he didn't like, i shouldn't like this case, i ever heard us so so, so here we are again though. yeah, what he does. but when you make a disclaimer, republicans, some of the republicans who are now shocked that the truck would be charged for something like this, wanted clinton to be charged for something like this. no, oh, if you insist, i was an journalist at the time. if you insist, then you should agree that it's wrong that it was wrong that it's wrong. now i, i agree that we shouldn't charge will perjury is what clinton got in trouble for the way. and i think david would jump in and save you committed fraud. if somebody committed fraud. yeah. but remember, you've now put your finger on it. this is about something that's morally salacious . i'm not, this is this right. and let me say, and i hope david will join in. there is enough evidence in the public record confirms now that the guy in the white house is in the middle of a lot of that corporatist action,

big money to the ukraine and the china. and there's no coverage of it, right? i mean, so i don't know, listen, i don't think you're going to get an argument from david or for me on the media media. you know, it's been a right fails, it's in its responsibility. all right, and we should be asking questions of president biden about the way he's had a lot of. am president obama for that matter? right, right. and obviously president bush and president trump in some regard. but what we're left with here is a case where we're asking ourselves, and here's where maybe we, let's turn to the political side. do you think in the end, david to you 1st that these charges will help mister trump in his chances of becoming president or hurt him? i think that they will probably help me what in winning the nomination and they probably will hurt him in the election. that's because that's actually a fair point. i don't. yeah. you agree. backfire in the end on him and,

and it's going, but it's going to mean will probably have missed a candidate running against probably by. i mean, that's pretty, pretty pathetic. 2024. like, how do you know why i think, you know, by the way, can i just get my opinion on that? you know what, i think he may be right in the end when it all comes down to america has to decide . and i have primary. yeah. yeah. which get very tribal, right? people will have to either make a decision or hold their nose and say, what he did was kind of, i don't act like that. you don't rack like that. i mean, who sleeps with a porn star and, and helps to pay her off? i mean, there are americans who will say, i don't want that anymore. if there is another guy like the fact that i'll take him, i disagree in the sense that i think that's already baked into trouble. i do agree with david's assessment. he wins the primary, the primaries over to santos. as out as a 9, even a happened to st. this runs, it's political malpractice. he's doing a terrible dis, just a miss justice injustice that so jumping. so trump wins the nomination. a 100 percent. i was on the republican national committee. i could see it up close, that's over, i think in the general,

david's point is exactly right. you don't knock somebody out. remember, trump beat hillary by a 110000 total votes in 3 or 4 or 5. also he lost by 55003 or 4 states. you a 1000 cuts. and when you say to a soccer mom, he was indicted once twice 3 times. it you just have to slice off the edge is when you say don't evangelical christian, you don't have to worry about die. roe v wade, you have to worry about a porn star, your slicing off the edges and you're trying to get that. so i think, but i do think this if joe biden is a nominee. yeah, donald trump is running against the guy who started wars mismanage wars. and there's a bunch of younger people that aren't gonna care about just sent something interesting . you do, i did well, you have, you want to go and you say he's going to be indicted once? twice. i 73 times. i george's coming in the next 2 weeks he'll be indicted in georgia and then the department of justice will indict him for some sort of record keeping charge over how he maintained his record. wow. it's got a gang heard it right here. so this is just establishing the traction for future

and i of course, yeah, that's right, it's that would sali him though, right? $1.00 to $1.00 cell is you to does 3 does as more, i mean it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, i think that it, i think it's a negative in general, but i think trump knows you got to get to the general and if it's biden, if the democrats are dumb enough to put by enough then donald trump has a chance. he's the although there were a lot of democrats who might agree with you on that david to you, sir, your reaction to what he just said. yeah, well i mostly, i group it with them on what you, what he said there. i mean i, i do think i don't think that international issues and war sadly, are a big priority for anyone in this country. i mean, look at, there was a demonstration in new york on the, in washington, on the, the 20th anniversary of the invasion of iraq and not what i have an article in fair to day, not one mainstream news organization reported on that demonstration. okay. there

were like between 2505000 people there. that's a small demonstration of it by, you know, global standards for an anti war protests. but it was on the 20th anniversary of iraq and they were writing what data but at a red area that story not buried. it be blacked it out is well. but it said by david, it's a 40th anniversary of the day after the movie about apocalypse and a nuclear. there are americans that are realizing that we're getting awfully close to nuclear armageddon with what was happening in the ukraine and russia. and they're not blaming that on trump. they're not blaming and even on republicans on some of the stupid republicans are trying to get it, get some blame, that'll be the president. and i, i think, you know, that's a factor, but we're going to be stuck on this case for quite some time, i think because it's wherever fig, soap opera. and this really ease, is it a gentleman, the kind of story that our present day media loves to inflame, loves to engage in an almost gobbles up. um, i really,

i really think in the end though, going back to the case, i have to say this because i mentioned it in my lead in awe. when michael cohen says, why did i go to jail for something i didn't even do on the orders of somebody else? doesn't he have actually a good point that some americans are kind of agree with though? i mean, well, i think he didn't do. we would start, daniel. i think he's got a point for where he is in his life. but i think, you know, when you're a lawyer, when you do the acts, when you do the deed, i mean, you know, people go to, it's not against the law to cheat on your wife. used to be, if it is against the law to file things and you know, there's a lot of this is one of the things that people are mad about. there is a letter that came out from produced and i think and said, here's a letter where michael cohen says, you know, we did it like this because i advised them to are one of the learned. yeah, i mean, as i said, i sent to you, michael cohen is now what a convicted felon. a proven liar. he's getting in the billy martin,

george steinbrenner territory back in the day. so one is a drunk and the other one is no good for a convicted felon. i just don't know which way. right, so it, well, what do you think of michael colon having so much predominance in this case david? i mean that's, that's the way it works. you know, you get what you get who you can get. i think that we're going to see the finance officer for the trump work station. yeah. on the stand. and i think that that's going to be an interesting so you gotta, and i, i do believe that that's probably the guy who had the 30 minute interview before the indictment was dropped. we'll say so, you know, at this point, we're waiting for the evidence. we're waiting for the literal shoe to drop as they say, david, you're a great guest and of course that you are to and great points made on both sides. and we really appreciate the conversation. my thanks to both of you and to you at home. thank you so much for joining us here. remember, what we try to do here is, is really pretty simple. we try to d,

silo the world to many people living in these little boxes. just don't live in boxes, they're everywhere. how much sanchez? are we looking for you again, right here, where i hope to provide a direct impact ah ah, we have this problem on tenderness from united states. we'd exported it now to the world because the multinational corporations and we've been damaged to believe that babies meeks being nurtured and careful in love. and so you've got a whole bunch of traumatized people all over the world with post traumatic stress disorder. i don't know how to heal. ah

ah, yes, it's a light. they want to do everything in their power to preserve their privileged position and worlds. russia devotee ambassadors of the un tells off fee after a recent security council meeting that western powers have an insatiable drive to maintain that global hegemony. ukraine. a further climbs down on freedom of the press in the country with a new law empowering the state to shut down. political news outlet in india's flagship, and i think it will continue flight in russia.