prosecute you in federal or in state court. you're entitled to know what you're charged with. and you're entitled to know the evidence against you. and you can only be convicted if the jury agrees unanimously on all the elements of all the charges. but in this case, the statute permits the jurors to disagree on what the underlying crime was. now the judge himself seems rather non impartial. he's actually donated to the democratic party and in 2020, during the elections. it was pretty clear he wanted donald trump out of office. this judge committed multiple elements of reversible error and he did it while his daughter has made a ton of money off of democratic candidates. and while he himself donated to the biden, can you repeat that for him to you cannot say that this trial was anything more than politics masquerading as justice. now many are comparing this to bill clinton's legal settlement with holland jones. she was paid over $850000.00 to shut

up. now that's a lot more than stormy daniels allegedly received, but there were no criminal charges filed fears. paula jones publicly getting paid off from bill clinton, probably display her check. this is america stewart, through justice system. she was paid $860000.00 by then present bill clinton to settle her claim of sexual assault. so what happens next? does donald trump get to run for office from house arrest or jail? he's sentenced on july 11th. what if he wins? does he then walk out of jail automatically as a result of being president? the constitution is not clear on these matters. it's pretty clear that the founding fathers did not anticipate such circumstances. one thing is clear, since being convicted, donald trump has already raised $53000000.00. his supporters do not want him to quit. and while the whole world is laughing at the us legal system, donald trump seems to be getting only more support payable,

mopping our to new york. well, but so for me, for that i as always, is paid to have your company, my calling mike, of course you will be with you at the top of the hour. i bid you own a very good day, the hello and welcome to cross that bullhorn time peter labelle. here we discuss some real news of the escalation, louder nato inches closer to war with russia in a desperate attempt to salvage its failing ukraine. project also will be american people, a left, a convicted felon president. to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess george, send me away in budapest, he's a pod counselor at the goggle,

which can be found on youtube and locals and americans. we have martin jay, he is an award winning journalist and commentator. gentleman cross up rules and effect, that means he can jump any time you want. and i always appreciate it. it's kicked us off with george in budapest. you know, george, we've heard we have this mean record regarding the ukraine. it's been persistent over the last few months. that's you claim is on its last legs. we keep hearing that and, but we also see nato escalating. the problem is here is this escalation is not directed and i'm talking about the words coming from the, the british, the french, the germans, etc, particularly the americans. and this is not really to salvage their ukraine project . it is to inflict a strategic failure to feed on russia. they're 2 different things here. they have this escalation, this the destruction of these early warning radars and has nothing to do with a battlefield in ukraine. this is a challenge, a nato direct nato challenge. the rush of these are 2 things,

different things going on simultaneously. your thoughts were your rights either. but again, the sense that this was already baked in to the reasons why russia launched the special military operation in the ukraine. the problem for russia was not ukraine by itself, because of course, you brain by itself does not pose any real strategic threat to russia, is as much smaller, you know, much more limited and it results so. so it is ukraine in nature, ukraine as a battering ram. before may, so that's what supposedly a problem for russia, and that's really becoming ever more explicit now. and so we now go step by step 2, was this uh, direct involvement by the nature of powers inside russia. and, and we can say that each time they make this step, it's always literally is the provisions saying, well, you know, there's going to be very, very limited. don't worry about anything. so, you know,

we do the a, we'll provide them with weapons, but it has to be only in ukraine in sir richard. all right. you can attack character like crime. yeah. but not rush or problem. so the of the now now there's that, okay, you can attack rusher property, but it has to be some went close to the fire code regions such as each step they go along. and of course, as soon as they said, oh, it has to be limited in through the, in the near to the heart, the region on comes the end scan, all his champions in washington an inmate. that was a, oh, that's not enough. it has to be unrestricted, then it goes most of america, as bob, as i said, yeah we, we put no restrictions at all and anything that we have provided. so that's the next step, is that, well, let's move back, respects it. so it's better, as you said, with inch by inch is becoming a direct will, between nato and russia. well, you know, martin, i, you know, um, i look at this in a very simple way. i mean, is it, what is the difference in hitting inside of brushes,

the territory or close to conic of what is the difference in hitting, you know, most got it's russian soil. there is no difference here. okay. i don't understand why they think that there says there's an invidious difference there isn't here. what's really interesting to me is that the nato thinks they can do this risk free, which is very, very dangerous. because the entire theory and practice of deterrence, nuclear deterrence here, is being rapidly degraded. martin? yeah, the risk freezing is very, very worrying. when you have people like david cameron, who is off by a journalist. well, what happens after we strike into or into the russia, into the, into real russian territory? you know, and his response was nate in russia just off the point of view crane. that's really the only solution to the fact that this big gets in view of this, this, this incredibly blanket view. you know that there are no other options for russia and the west has the up behind is really dangerous. i'm really stupid. and now

we're beginning to see, you know, how close now we are edging towards this. we keep talking about this on the show, you know, how close we are going into world war 3 scenario. we've talked about it largely as a see a radical subject. i think perhaps at some point it's going to be beyond that. so because you say there's no difference between um the russian side of the border and in ukraine, i think there is between reducing or is i think, i think for the russian people's or is i think for puts in there is, um, how much further can we continue with storm shot as being so i but british soldiers . no, i think we're agreeing with each other here on this made me because the hitting russian soil is sitting russian say oh, you know, if it's near the border, you know, there's somehow different. it's not different, it's the same thing. and george, what's important here, this, these is nato, a weaponry, largely controlled by nato personnel, if there are soldiers or contractors. and very importantly, it's the,

the satellite, the assistance that these weapons means. those are definitely nato, probably american, almost exclusively. this is russia versus nato, nato versus russia. they use equation and suddenly out of the equation here, that's exactly right. these and these kinds of long range missile attacks inside russia and even the long range drone attacks, they could only succeed if they had guided by satellite systems. there's no way you can just simply lump by a drone input and magically hits a target close to the cause. ex, them bought a this the that requires satellite guidance. the only way that you can get satellite guns is through nato and the united states. so obviously, the nature about keeping the unites as already involved in firing drones and misses on behalf of the ukraine safety does gift keep in mind the united

states has not said that ukraine channel fire misses be on this limits that we're talking about. the always has to be somewhere close to the board or they have not said that. they have just simply said that, um, well, uh, you know, we, we would prefer it and if you would limited this, but we don't take part in any detail uh, military planning. it's up to ukraine to decide how is going to defend itself, and the new grant is right, that depends a we, we don't tell you frame what to do so. so frank, that, that's just simply a media hype. disable will get to the door very, very limited, very well. it's not only about the limits, it much timely. false, it's a lie. okay. i mean the, the level of encryption that need be, you need to understand the, to guide these drones and missiles that is highly sacred. they're not passing that onto the ukrainians. so ukrainians are being given that information. maybe they hit a button, but it's already preprogrammed the algorithm is there, martin?

it's patently obvious something the george and i, and i think you were all at the time. we discussed that it's, it's only a matter of time before article 5 of the nato treaty as being tested now. it could go in many, many different directions here it's, there's a, a gross mis reading of what it means that it's not automatic. i'm a member, countries can decide if they want to participate in it. it's not, you know, if somebody flips a flip, the switch here, but it will test the, the membership of nato. but i think this is an amazingly reckless because once you know the 1st bullet aspired more, is very unpredictable. go ahead and mark. yeah, that's the problem. you know, it only takes one, but i only say it's one mic miscalculated decision on the west. and i wonder if booming does radar installations was really a mistake. i ready to wonder whether we received that the company is a marvin chart. that is the biggest thing that has happened in this conflict. and it's not given the coverage that is really necessary when i came across that

georgia and i talked about it separately. i was horrified, but i still am horrified by martin. and you know, when, when such things happen, you have to wonder how we going over how we post the article. sorry about the debate now. you know, we, we'd be on that now. i mean, i, as well as some people say, the british m. p said, i'll just say now we all know. and what was russia? you know, we all the following rockets, the russian civilians and soldiers. the question is, you know, when, what does it take? what does it take for putin to send the message? the fact that you're going to have a line i'm, i'm sure he will be very careful. i mean dos is i'm sure he will exercise extremely amount of caution. but at some point, he has to do something. and if you look at some of the realistic proposal targets that he could hit, if he gets any more of this ordinance thrown over the border and russian people, russian civilians have been killed. you know, perhaps the nato installation in germany,

the main headquarters would be exactly the target. well, i mean, what we have for right now, george, to go back to history is a problem. um september 1939 to may of 1940. we had some, it was called the phony war. i think we're in that right now. we're in a state of war, but we, we haven't seen a major escalation. i think we're about to see that right now, because this is an untenable situation. and the, the, the russians will not compromise their security. this, is it something and, and you know, what, will it be satellites being shot? i think that's the most obvious one here is. does that count for invoking article 5? nobody knows george. that's exactly right. i, i would have thought hitting the cyber lights would be the most logical of a step, hitting bul drones in the black sea. it will also be the of the spike drones in the black sea. it would be a logical step where it's, it's clear that the,

the, the nato browse. i have no idea. all the then built in is going to capitulate. there is monuments. think about what david cameron's or what, what do you know, what, what if this doesn't work as well and all that they, they, as the just simply withdrawal from ukraine, that isn't going to happen. russia is known to capitulate. so therefore, there is a path that has to be a next step, because russia cannot just simply allow nato's the to be and essentially shooting and killing russians on raso solo. so that has to be in the next step. and i think that it, we are precisely been on the brink oval. well look. and that's exactly what you know, remarkable speech yesterday by a victim of war. but who said this is the 3rd time we hung, gary ends up being pushed into a wall with russia. so time 19141941 now,

and we're not going to do it the 3rd time. and that's, i think he's the 1st lead was explicitly said, this is the same project. well, well on well to what was right. we've mobilizing your, of the gaze, russia, and i don't know, but i said, well, you know, we don't want to be a positive, as i said, well, you know, a little self advertisement. george and i did an extensive video on this in our pod cast style. the gag when i refer people to it because we talked about it a great like what he just said. you know, more modern, you know, a britain is at war with russia. this is what we're being told. well, maybe the british will feel what war is like again because they were inflicting a violence upon the russian citizenry that had to have, hasn't happened yet in britain. it could. yes. good. um, but uh i, i refer you back to a show. we did a couple of months ago when you asked me what my opinion would be alternate, so best a policy and i said expect

a lot of fake news. we experiencing the fake news now, here with the room is that i've heard in the last week that nato is planning something big. you know, and this is being fed to a few gullible journalists and it's being pumped up into some flow. and, you know, mark me and you know, i think this one of the things that the, the 3 of us have been doing been pushing back against this year with this is all political posturing. it doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences, but it is political pastoring. that's why they're, they're not thinking strategically. they're thinking politically and we should all be terrified of this process. they're going through a gentleman. i'm going to jump in here. we're gonna go to a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue. continue our discussion on some real in stay with our team, the,

[000:00:00;00] the the welcome back across the bullhorn design, peter lavelle remained. you were discussing some real news. right, george? you know, we had, we have, for the 1st time in american history,

a former president convicted of 30 me on 34 accounts. he is legally right now a felon. but he also is the presumptive domini of the republican party. and the 2024 election um your thoughts on this because you know, the, the, the way you uh, the weight's being pitched right now by liberal media primarily. you said no one will vote for a convicted felon. i think we're good. that's what is going to be tested very seriously. go ahead. sorry. i, i agree with you beat that, but it's really interesting that i mean, it ties in with what we were talking about in the, the 1st half of the show, which is the united states has become a completely and reckless, irresponsible, useless power in the world. i mean, you, you would be under the, you doing things. no one would have tramped off provoking a, a, a world war nuclear apocalypse. and here you have the democratic policy, which at 1st was spent is essentially, uh for the,

for purposes of domestic politics. whipping up a totally ridiculous, his theory about russian interference in american domestic politics. impeaching a president full that and making there was totally reckless irresponsible attacks on the press. ok, he's working for russia. so now they've gone the extra step. and i said, okay, he's a a convicted felon. i think well that, oh, but that'll wind us on the election. you know, because now he's always a click of a story for charges unanimously. the jury. well, as you said, be the, i don't think that's vital. that's, that's not a deal breaker. so then you said, well, what's next? well, i think what's next is that the democratic judge and the democratic prosecutors in manhattan. i'm going to push for an imprisonment on july, the 11th one week before the republican nomination. they've got to push to imprison donald trump because they're going to say by the end they're going to realize that they'll be looking at the polls and that's a business hasn't done anything to damage drone. yeah, well, we have to go to the next step. what?

well, well, what it did was i didn't one day and i'm, i've got them, i get the number on like 36000000 dollars in small donations. went into his campaign. now that was the reaction. you know, martin, if they, if this was happening in any other country, the undertaker blinking is, i call him, he would sit me calling the country, you know, the violation of the united nations charter of human rights. so freedom of speech, but know that the state department isn't going to react to what's going on in new york, i guess here. i mean, the double standard is so glaring, and i mean, in this administration, there's that they're, they're pretty rich in the double standards. got a category here, martin, or is it you're getting the on the head between the any other countries? i mean, they are p and so, you know, we look to bill clinton's messing around with the amount of money because there's a dependence key in the, in the white house. and the french would just just sort of as well, you know, what's the big deal? i mean, you know, every brand, the french prison has oral sex with it in times you know, i think is a similar thing going on here, right across the world and particularly europe,

you know, we look at this case against trembling. we think for goodness sake, you know, he's a wealthy guy who go to his lawyers to pay off people who are black community. i mean, it happens all the time. i mean, i've done so many investigations with well, see people over my career. you know, they just as why your employer is in the no sense suit, it happens all the time. yeah, i mean, is really not a big deal. this particular case isn't really a big deal, but it could be this end of the wedge. it could create a momentum and is jewel quite right. your says, you know, them, the, the, the democrats be looking at the polls thinking with this hasn't really had much impacts. we need to crank it up a bit, but we're going, it's completely unsolved. walters. i mean america as a brit, it gives me great pleasure to say birth is a very young country and you know, then someone, so this is unprecedented and no history behind it. and you'll be really interesting to see, can we have a president in jail? i think given goes to jail, but just for me, of put my momma savings on the left side. i mean, you know, martin, but before we get there in a high of it, when trump well,

i met with the media after the verdict was given, didn't read out to him, but there was a headquarter in the crowd, and i don't know if it was a fad or it was a trump support and we'll never probably know. but it was yelled out civil war, which is really, really remarkable and really scary. you know, your judge what they're to, what they tried to do in this ridiculous trial. i don't know. i think we're pretty smart guys here. our audience is pretty smart, but i've never understood what this case was really about. what was the harm? i don't know what it was, so. okay. particularly since, you know, new york knew a lot about donald trump's personality and character for decades. right now, being george, being in the real estate in a sector in new york, which is, you know, it's not really per steen if you know what i mean. so sometimes i know tom is in

business in new york for 50 years, and he was never charged with a crime and then suddenly this, okay, what this saying is saying that donald trump not necessarily is corrupt, but the legal system is corrupt because that's exactly right the, the biggest, this ridiculous thing because you know, anyone who read, you know, the prosecutors, i know i've tried to explain to man on the street. what exactly is the crime? what is it that you're saying? trump, is that, and he will be unable to do it because nobody's able to do it. you know, legal x was, are unable to explain what the crime here is. but yeah, he paid some of the, all the best, all the legal. so to make present those 34 count felony, they have to do the convoluted contortions to, to make, make it sound that he has committed these crimes. but on top of that, the you have also in your code that tries to bankrupt, it hits him with a 500000000 dollar sign for alleging fraud. when no one has this

can come forward to say that they've been the food and no one is going well just like they lost any money. no one was before that again, a convoluted theory that was uniquely applied to trump. so as well, in this case, you know, there's no rep or any with any anyone being prosecute the crimes of trumpets, that'd be great. but no record of anyone being found guilty or flaw. busy on the new york statute that was used against them. and then we got all the others going with the who does that. and he had official class in 5 documents, every president this last away, but still people can see this and say, you twist, think manip lightnings the legal system to go off the one man. well, that's what the american republic was found, the to oppose. you know, we don't have the bills of attains as you to, you don't manipulate the law just to go off the one person. so essentially the, and this is, i think large of the democrats, they've trash the system, they trash the laws, the trash, the quotes,

and in order to win them election will have. so that's a very dangerous game to play. and i think it's going to blow up in the face as well. you know, it's, it is a bit of an echo of 2016 martin because, you know, we have the clinton administration, i'm just like clinton campaign employed there pied piper strategy. you know, they will, they actually pushed him up. i mean, if we look at the media coverage over the last but obviously for the last few days, but, you know, watching a trumps legal travails. you know, just getting a lot of free coverage. okay. and is absurd if these these cases are, they all are absurd. you know, it pump same up. i mean, the average person is george or just pulling it out and say, it looks like you're just going after the this guy. okay. yeah. and you're in your trashing along the process mark, but that nobody would appreciate that more than shot himself. he would understand the power of that free media oxygen, any way use it is best devices. um you mentioned 2016. i think it's, it's more of an risk resumes for 2006. i think it's a, it's looking like

a cup of coffee and we won't wait. we will have to wait and see whether the voters use the same russia now. now, as they didn't to see the other 16, a lot of democrats hated henry henry. i just wouldn't, didn't want to rent any cost. i'm a product and prepared to even cross the oil and light for trump, just to reform the democratic party and clean up those corruption images that there's some things happening in person with a conservative policy. everybody knows, can somebody buzz going full? i'm going to come to each time and almost talking about it being a good thing because we need to lose once of them for the concepts of reform and come up, you know, come back with a clean, more around modern image, which people will responsive. i think is only a quarter of regular democrat voters see the the word for the tray sky so you can see what's going on here with this, which holds. i think i think great, we're looking at it from coming back into the white house. i think there's no question of that. you know it well, i mean i, i'm of the firm conviction. if he does win the election, they still won't let him get them. they'll get rated, but that's a topic for another program here. george,

here me look at the calculus here. um joe biden. i didn't have to find a primary. it looks like it's going to be a virtual convention that you know, basically the basement strategy. okay, fine. um, um, but no one loves jo by there. a lot of people that disliked him, but no one loves job. i just suppose that to donald trump. yeah. a lot of people paid donald trump, but a lot of people love donald trump. how do you square? that's very a symmetrical. yeah, that's exactly right. that's what i have to this day. there's so many questions about the 2020 elections because we're all over the warehouse. the believe 81000000 americans voted for this man that nobody loves nobody likes is always been the a washington political. a glad hand. a croak and what also believes he got 16000000 more votes than bar of obama, who did indeed as, as you know,

inspire many people to go out and vote for the 1st time. that's really the problem . and now it's compounded by the perception that he knows he con, waiting in a fair and square fight, as always ringing the system. when he likes to cheat, you know, if you, you know, you're going and so a tennis tournament and then you use like the drink of your opponents. nobody's going to think and say, hey, you won fair and square. and that's really how biden is playing. and so there's this new ad that the republicans are running web ideas getting this going to be able great. and when he is honest, a trumpet, the trump is saying you were behind those legal troubles. and he says, and he just gives a, is big the able grants. they're going to play that over and over again. and they can say, yeah, the biden is going to tacitly admitting take, i'm cheating, and i just love to be president because i'm, she thinks is very, very unlikable. yes. and his eyes. so all the resources, visit ministration behind this. okay. martin, just to finish up here, you know, it's, it's quite, you know, we can do british elections later, but it's worth it. it's

a pathetic commentary. but this election in the united states is turning out again to be about personality. so you, why can you dislike as a country is going to hell in a handbasket? as george pointed out, with all these foreign policy crisis going on, where we were asked to judge of or pick between a candidate that is basically c nile and a colorful, a real estate mogul. kinda pathetic. go ahead. tv celebrity. yeah. so that in as well. um, unfortunately we've, we've come to this stage, we come to this point where the system doesn't really allow us to choose any of the candidates. you know, it's pulled down to the stupid in the corrupt or wherever, whichever way you wanna throw it. george's point is very important, so um, but it isn't liked people don't like button um, so he's only got policies, you know, or, and, or school degree, you know, treating. whereas on the,

on the trump side, if you've got personality and, and policies and control. so i usually would run out of time, but i, i think unfortunately i have to start ending all of these programs. why every time we vote we get john mccain. it's all with at home. we have one of the things like as in budapest and america sort, of course, i want to thank our viewers for watching us here at ortiz the next time. remember, ross up rules the a the same rom just don't you have to shape house and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds of

parts, we choose to look so common ground. the russia tree says ukraine is lost a $190.00. so just in one day i made intense fighting in the hawk region. ok, easy, it goes down, no big sab and some of the equipment left behind by ts forces. when a ukrainian unit has to retreat, they quickly take the scope to a nearby tree or something. and if you think that they go blind when the night falls, well actually they can see everything as bright as the day. after you less than jeremy let you train use the long range weapons in the sock of just drive deep within bratia. europe find itself divided over here is