trinity next week to share it in, in detail. that view with our is really counterparts. and to lay out argues on how to deal with the problem differently. britain and australia, how also against the grounding cars you need to wrap. i have the ones that there will be devastating consequences for the civilian population. but i said, you know, he's really a government official has double down saying that the idea of fully into rafa. even if the have to fight to load it will happen even if these will as force to fight alone. even if the entire world turns on is well, including the united states. we're going to fight until the battles, one. they all just there are media outlets has a pay and exclusive footage from february in town units. the disturbing images show for on, on civilians being struck and apparently killed by on these really drove this dried sabri say dom and deputy secretary general of font. the central committee says

america has to act not just make statements about piecing gas. i use the she had woman home. do you have to over the top, you should i to, you know, we will, we have to save the people of the guys that we have to provide the aids we have to stop this operation was seals didn't provide the weapons, those right? that's the sort of the kind of do all it the physicians people know the, the other countries are the executives name. they're saying that i gave, so i'll put you on the roof. i have they have to stop. they have to bring assessed ational fire. but to spend supplies is what i had with lessons. how come to school hand in hand with the will of the international community to see an em to this ongoing mexico as well. now, most importantly, what's going to allow or to push on that it is right to stop this, what, but again, would it be the is top of the supply of weapons to his right is what it is now, finding a request, a new request for america to provide for the weapons. if that is blocked then is

there anyone understands the language of the, of demand and that demand is the stop issue of alteration and i'm thinking the whole scene altogether. this has been ongoing for the last 6 months. and that being the $33000.00 palestinians, the can so far with scores and scores are still under. but i've been with the 100000 people in india and the totem demolish went on most of the guys. and so this is a lot of skin, the parts of it that is right and has to recognize that it's on vacation. so that's, that's what watching our as international. i'll see you with more updates that some of the out by now the, the power button program, the byron holidays, the occasional family days. we now are going to do this show every day. we think context, nuance, trolls. the, the is the kind of important we used to be a weekly. now we're going to be daily. look for it. truth, bob, number one, doing

a saw j is not a criminal. truth is not a crime. is it possible the us justice department is finally willing to accept that messaging and grad assad his freedom? we are going to tell you about that truth bump number to us supreme court is threatening free speech. how? by questioning the value of the 1st amendment in your going to hear it for your self truth bomb. the us troops are books on the ground off the coast of taiwan. did you know that? once again, we must ask the question we've asked before, are we trying to start one or 3? i'm rick sanchez. this is direct impact the the we are hearing again that there is a possibility that whistleblower julian

a sod who has been in captivity or on the run for the better part of the last 12 years may finally be given his freedom. not nothing confirm, nothing confirmed, but according to the wall street journal, the us justice department is thinking about possibly reducing the charges against him to a misdemeanor. the judge would simply be mishandling classified information if that were to happen. the man has been in a british prison now for telling the truth would be freed. and why does this matter? why does this matter? it matters because of all, most members of the media and or our government even to this day, still don't want to talk about the horrible things that our government did in our names in iraq and afghanistan in places like that assigns did. he did talk about those things, it was because of him that we learned that in many cases are very compromised political leaders. some military officials are very wealthy contractors were

essentially line to us. if done for him, we don't know. let me give you some examples. there was a case, there was a case in baghdad, this is 2007 to employees of writers disappear to employees disappear. i mean, they work for a western mediator company, right? one was a driver, the other was a photographer. he was, they were both there, they were covering the story in baghdad, which he likes, and others began reporting that they may have been killed by our own military. the 2 guys, your reporters, are working as a part of the media. but our government lied to us about that from the very beginning. how do we know? because wiki leaks, release the video, the one that i'm about to show you again, just to remind you on the video, you're going to see how these men, they were on arm. they were, they were asking questions. they were talking to people. they were on the street. suddenly they're shot from the sky. but from a us gunship helicopter,

totally on promote. and you will see on fortunately, how much the man shooting them down are seeming to enjoy themselves. they joke and they laugh. you know, it almost sounds like they're playing a video game. and then you're going to see how, what, what an ambulance shows up. it's a van that you'll see on the video. i'm telling you what you're about to see and see this ambulance vantage. it arrives to take them into the hospital. the soldiers in the us gunship fire, i think ambulance to finish them off. here it is one and a half, 5. 40 by them all up to traffic to 62

by the by the shoot. during the day when a claire claire. oh yeah, they're good at right. yeah, they were laughing it's. it's not about being anti us. it's not about being pro signed folks. it's about being pro truth. it's about transparency. it's about learning from our mistakes. that's all. i mean, do you watch this video? i mean, we hear the soldiers laughing when they're witnessing, one of the tanks run over a body there. do you hear that at the end? so here's how much younger assigned, by the way, reacted to this video in an interview. he did obviously much earlier with the elders here. here it is. so you see these young pilots acting like they're playing

video games only the high schools that are getting with real human lives. i mean if they were doing things like that we should have known right. we, we, we, we want to know those things. if nothing else to correct the behavior assigned to the western media has called divisive is finding a drawn out legal battle with the british government to avoid being expedited to the united states. if he were to be sent to the us. the could be tried for publishing, thousands of confidential us military records and up about cables which embarrassed the us government. let's face, let's call it what it is. but a sanchez lawyers are now saying they are intox. admittedly, they are and talked of possibly come up with a resolution, according to people who are familiar at this point with the us just the state department. and this case there seems to be a softening in the us as previous hard line position. what exactly does that mean?

very pollock, is the lawyer for us. ok. he has said that he has been given no indication that the department will take this deal that they're talking about. the justice department is not commenting at this point, but we thought it was important to share this with you. and if they do come up with some type of acceptable compromise, if they do, one would think it might have something to do with the public backlash. that's been expressed worldwide against the sanchez and present them as well as the situation that's going on right now. we're, our government is being criticized for things like what's happening in ukraine. what we've done in gaza, our history and iraq, afghanistan. so all those comes into the picture, i say joining me now to talk about this as active as professor and lawyer, dan, come all it and radio host miss misty wins to she is a cause for the action for a sondra streaming on youtube. dan, let me start with you and your lawyer. what do you make of these negotiations that are going on with the us department of justice and the think they will break?

well, we'll see, you know, so i'm, his wife is said that you know, she and julie and would oppose any deal that would require him to plead guilty because he, they don't, he's guilty of anything. neither do i of course. and the other thing is that at least that i understand is one of the things being floated is a deal in which he would agree, he would plead guilty and get like 14 years. that would mean we'd still have a years left because he's only been in jail for 5 years. no. so let's talk about the misdemeanor thing. i mean, i mean a big a misdemeanor is a slap on that here. and that's like, uh, you know, uh, j walking, right. i mean, i would think he and his lawyers would say, you know, fine, i read some documents, i probably should know, like that, right? yeah, and i mean, i would take the deal. i mean, ease, again, he's been in jail 5 years before that. remember, he was hold up in the ecuadorian and embassy me in london for

a number of years. i mean, so he's been in kept it typically a long time. and according to his father's been visiting him, he's not in great, a physical or psychological shape. so yeah, that would be good. and it needs to be pointed out by the way, the guy's been in jail 5 years without being tried on his charges. he's not being accused of any violent grime. there's no reason he shouldn't be out on bail, or he shouldn't be under house arrest through the little bracelet on his ankle that he's been held for 5 years without trial. that isn't about the nation that he really didn't, cir, another day talking about. yeah, talk about it into the constitutional misty. let me bring you into this conversation. i'm almost getting a sense that there's a lot of pressure on the us government right now from people like yourself, like you and others. not to mention everything going on g o politically right? now that puts us, i think, in a defensive position where what look good to bring this guy in and throw him in jail for the rest of his life as well. and especially during an election year,

i think that the by the administrator has in a very precarious position right now. their approval rating is in the toilet. they have a situation happening now in gaza, which has caused a world wide or option of backlash and protest against that. and i think that they are desperate for, um, some kind of a p r bu some kind of a when i think we do need to be very skeptical about this potential rumored offer. again, these are anonymous sources. we don't know for sure. exactly what's been offered or any of that stuff. so i think we need to be incredibly skeptical. there is a possibility here that they're just floating this out there in the public to either make vs ons, legal team, comment on it. and if they decide that it's not acceptable, that then makes it look like it's, it's his fault that he remains in prison and it kind of relieves them of that responsibility. and it could also just be that they are a trying to get some kind of a p r when, where it looks as if they're being more reasonable on this issue. so i mean the but, but, but regard, i mean, oh, any talks are good dog drive. i mean, i've always been, i was a journalist and you know,

somebody who has watched these kinds of things in the past. any time you have 2 people in a room talking, you're more up to get some kind of solution. don't you agree for sure. yeah, no, no, no, i think for sure that the talks are good. i think that the any time that there's dialogue that taking place that i think we need to be mindful of the intention behind them, what they're, what the game is that they're playing. and also if his arms does take any kind of a plea deal and listen, i'm not saying that he shouldn't. the man has been objected to psychological torture for over a decade. his health is failing. if it is what he feels as in his best interest in his family, i am in no and no position to judge him for doing that. but the implications on the future across freedom are there and we need to be mindful of that. then do you think i'm going to hit you with the same question i asked most because i'm getting a sense of right now. our government, this place we call the united states of america is kind of in a week in state, in terms of how the rest of the world. and especially anybody under the age of like $45.00 sees us because of ukraine because of gods. and because of so many things that are going on and because of assigns, are those the things that are moving,

perhaps this conversation to this? we hope fruition? i think i think so. yes, i think they have to all be seen is, is one bundle. i think the gaza protest of chase and bite and he knows now being called genocide, joe. yeah. the idea of julian aside showing up on an airplane and handcuffs into the united states would not be a good look for the president at this time. the other thing that wouldn't be a good look, look, and i've said this for years and it's, it's why they've tried to really string this along this extradition. this is that, you know, if this goes to trial, julie decides will be able to call all kinds of form or, you know, a big wigs from the, from the government. you know, department, you know, hedges, the depart. oh and wait. that video i just showed just to make my point about once he did that was so wrong videos like that, disclaimers like that. so that'll be out there every day for people to look at. yes

. so they don't want this trial, you know, and again find doesn't want the optics of assange being extradited here. so i think all these protests that are happening most you focus right now in palestine are having impacts on stuff like julian decides across, is all to the good. of course. well, you know what, what, here's what i'm going to do when we come back, you guys stick around because when we come back, i want to talk about something that also has to do with the 1st amendment. in particular, the us supreme court questioning freedom of speech. let me say that again, the folks who are supposed to defend the constitution are questioning the 1st amendment of the constitution. we're going to talk about that. when we come back, the

we are in north of cities in the congress has mountains where beautiful people have been coming together to celebrate the ancient traditions. since the beginning of time itself, where everything has a special symbolic meaning. i'm sure i'm thomas. this isn't my vision. and today we're discovering of the world of a subject culture. the look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings accept. we're so charters that conflict with the 1st law show you alignment of the patient. we should be very careful about visual intelligence at the point, obviously is to makes a trust rather than to the job. i mean with artificial intelligence. we have somebody with him in

the robot most protects his phone. existence was on the page. welcome back. i'm or sanchez. so let's stay with the 1st amendment because if you defend the 1st amendment, you almost have to defend julia massage, right? you have to but is our understanding and our appreciation of the 1st amendment dwindling somewhat. you'd say in the case of a solid, you probably is. why would journalist not be coming to his defense? like so many art? is it being question also by the very people whose job it is to protect it? actually. yeah. it is. it's a matter of fact just this week the supreme court,

whose job it is to interpret and that's, that's really defend the constitution of the united states of america actually made some comments. a couple of them. one in particular, made some comments that seem to suggest that maybe it doesn't think, call that much of the 1st amendment. maybe it's not so important. after all, you know, they were hearing a case on whether the government, the bottom and ministration in this particular case has the right to make media companies take down information that it thinks is dangerous or doesn't agree with a comment. for example, can people pose negatively about vaccinations because they don't believe in them? or should the government have a right to go in there and say, nope, can do that. have a right to prevent them from doing so for the public. good. here's justice could tony brown, jackson, member of the us supreme court seeming to suggest that maybe maybe we ought to push freedom speech aside in, in,

in some cases. so my biggest concern is that your view has the 1st amendment, ham, stringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. i mean what we, what would you have the government do? i've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, um, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it is not going to get it done. i was truly taking it back. then again, i'm a journalist. i've been trained as a journalist, i went to school at the university of minnesota, the eric's ever had school of journalism to study journalism. the 1st amendment is ingrained in mind, so new. and when i heard or said that, say that by job drop, dan lawyer to you. yes, very concerning. and of course it has to be noted. this is a liberal, a point, the right. yeah, this is a liberal member of justice. but, you know, here's the sad part, is that too many liberals have become very liberal,

especially during co, but a lot of liberals seem to back the idea of censorship during co with, you know, they didn't want to hear people talk critically about vaccines and masking, and that sort of thing and uh, you know, that was very disturbing to me. you know, during a time we needed very robust debate over these things and over locked downs. we didn't get up. and there was a lot of suppression of speech. and again, it, ironically, it was the liberals pushing it, you know, now you have the, a, c, o u which frankly, isn't that even interested in free speech anymore. so who's going to watch the watchman? this is a very disturbing thing if you mentioned, yeah, that's why it does. when did you say that? you know, when we think about these things, i think misty we were taught. i don't know if you have the same background as i do . but as a journalist, no means no, it's an absolute protection that we have in the constitution. it says government

shall make no law. let me say that again. government shall make no law. what i heard just as good, tiny saving to the jackson, the seeming to say is uh, occasionally a government can make a law. and that what you're yes, maybe a little while here and there is a treat. uh, it's absurd, right? like this is so ridiculous on every, on every level and you're right, and i think that this obviously stems from the cupboard situation and that's what they want a sensor. but we've seen over the course of the past 34 years now that the so called authoritative sources were almost always the ones who were wrong. almost always the ones were posing the misinformation. it's safe and effective november. it was 90 percent effective, then it was 80 percent effective, then it was 60 percent effective and then suddenly it's not a to really know at stopping transmission. so the idea that we have a supreme court justice arguing for basically the dissemination or the destination of the 1st amendment is a really just kind of blows my mind. that that's the level where we're at right now

. have you thought about this? don't mistake, but maybe it is different. does she have a case to be made when it comes to social media, as opposed to legacy media? have you thought that through how, how are they different? what should you not be allowed to do? for example, on twitter, that maybe you can do if you're, i hope i'll say that is because we were talking about it during the break. if you're done women on cnn, for example. i don't think that there is any difference. and again, frankly, like i just said, it was the legacy media that got it wrong. and that usually does. and frankly, that usually lie to us. i mean, how many wise, or how many words have a ride us into how many situations? i mean, if there's no question about it, the legacy media has been completely corrupted. so it is often times done that it's telling us eliza dismiss, informing us, but most of the time on purpose. so i think that there really is no substitive difference when it comes to the 1st amendment. well, let me try one more time with you. then on this day and i'm going to try and defend her argument. all right, since i'm disagreeing with her, i want to defend her in this case. what,

what about the possibility where they. busy say a bunch of bad people get together on twitter or on the i don't know, a tick tock or something and they all try to convince us of something that's not true when they light it was and they tell us, i don't know something about the vaccinations or something about china or something about anything else. and then we have protect ourselves from these evil people. you say what? i think the idea is always been. the truth will out. that if you allow people to have free discussion, that's how the best result will come about. and i agree with that. um, yes, there's always room for manipulation, but is miss the says it's often being done by the mainstream media, by the legacy mean. yep. i think you're absolutely right, by the way, i want to bring in something else. now i want to go to cuba. this week there were several demonstrations in cuba. people there took to the streets once again to complain about hunger, electricity cuts. and the generally, if not a tunnel depressed economy there on the island, which of course,

many of them blame on their own government. but then the president of cube us making up government miguel b as the canal school who is not a media hungry like his predecessors. the castro brothers were then take to the airwaves. he talks to a n b c news reporter who's on the island. and he addresses this very topic the the you know, it's interesting recording the president diaz canal, what cuba is continuing to suffer through are the consequences of the us government's heavy hand. he says the us state department has been interfering and cuban affairs for 60 years. and uses it's 5 bridge and it's embargoed to do everything possible to hurt the cube economy. one thing is certain, by the way, which the president is right about. the us at least politically, seems to benefit from a week in cuba. the guaranteed political victories, especially in the state of florida. so 11 does wonder whose fault is that speaking

of us interference. let me add another point here as tensions rides with china. taiwan is defense minister has for the 1st time into the us troops, boots on the ground, have been training on the taiwanese millet with a taiwanese military on some of their outlying islands out there. the defense minister did not for details of the us deployment, but he seemed to be talking about the outlying islands of keen men, which are only 3 miles from a chinese coast. is comments mark, a rare acknowledgement by taiwan confirming that us troops are on its territory up . let's do, let me begin with you. there seems to be enough cases out there even today, old case like cuba, new case like taiwan, like our government. and our sense or need for had gemini, has a tendency to want to go to places and interfere in the affairs of those governments is as plain to you and shouldn't be to the rest of americans. oh,

it really should be, it's not going to be because again, legacy media does not tell those stories. and so the vast majority of the american public is fully unaware of what their government is doing on any given day. mean we're seeing it right now. and ukraine, the 2014 might onto, that's exactly how we got to the situation where we're at now and ukraine. so i think that it is a r m o. it's something that we've been doing for decades. so nobody should be surprised by it. but unfortunately, we have a very misinformed american populace that is unaware of an a my to again, they are mr. acted and by 2, and this will be blamed on china and our role and it will certainly be left out of the conversation. do you see some, dan, do you see some similarities between the situation in cuba and the situation that we're now talking about that i learned about this morning in taiwan, where we're sending troops there to train the taiwan, the military against china? yeah, so mean of course, i mean, basically the us, you know, decided some time ago that it, it has the right to intervene anywhere in the world at any time for its own perceived interest that it has, you know, sold dominion over the world. you know,

the fact, you know, the complying, the china for example is may, yeah. you engaged in maneuvers in the south china sea. well, it is called the south china sea writer that the diversions of iran are doing something in the persian gulf. what is the persian gulf, but the us, you know, it, it, it presumes it is a right to intervene anywhere at any time. and it's destroying america. you know, i think it was a 19 o 5. the democratic party platform said something to the effect that the united states cannot continue. one half republic in one half and by the republic or full in it, it is falling because of that. the president monroe of the like that i'm not sure it works today. my thanks to both of you, dan misty. what a great conversation you guys are fantastic. guess. and this has really been a, as a smart conversation. i hope our viewers enjoyed it as much as i did before we go.

i do want to let you know that we have a mission here to try and talk about these things out. they open simple, really. i one of the silo the world. they've got to stop living in these little boxes where only it's over here over there, or i only talk to the people i agree with or agree with me. choose don't live in boxes, truths are everywhere. i'm rick sanchez. and i'll be looking for you again. right here, where i hoped to provide directed by the line, scott bennett, i'm a former united states army psychological warfare officer, really served in the state department counterterrorism office under investor del daily the

. so i wanted to come here to russia in the dawn bass area. and to gather the facts, to take back to the american people, the hold on bass of the front line. so this is where the bombs and the bullets are raging. this is where people are dying. this is where the buildings are exploding the so i wanted to see 1st hand the scars of war, the,

[000:00:00;00] the russia could've done some thousands of resigned strikes on ukraine in the industry and military targets. its largest operation in month must goes, pay back, comes in response to key as attracts and boarder regence. the citizens of the town of bell grid have once again woken up to the sounds of air, raid sirens and explosions, defenses. the did manage to, to set most of ukrainian projects out. so please states of them some slip through just uh, big images from the russian border city of belgrade, where