the mustangs go sluggard yet, but the hey everybody, i'm rick sanchez. this is the weekend review show and these are some of the things that we're about to be talking about. people inside your crime and people outside the crane started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and that was at that point that it, that it fell apart there, eating the dogs, the people that came in there eating the cat, exploded reddick street. it's coming from victoria newland and former president donald trump, top our list of stories and this weekend review. i'm rick sanchez. this is direct impact. let's do this. the ok. so here we go. we are now less than 2 months from knowing what the next president of the united states is going to be at each week. the. well,

the situation becomes more and more critical. joining me now to go through this week's advance or the house of the critical hour on sputnik radio, dr. wilmer leon and collin nixon. gentleman, thank you for abiding by the c c memo, the co listen casual day memo and let's get through it. so look, no matter who you were pulling for no matter who you think won the debate, there is no denying that cumberland harris and her team seem to seem to have come up with some kind of plan to bait donald trump, right the, the easiest and most are observers on both sides of the aisle are saying it worked, the come with harris. so good, basically see. thank you. they have and she has destroyed our country. this is

someone who was openly said he would terminate. i'm quoting terminate the constitution of the united states. i want to get the war settled. i know zalinski very well and i know put in very well, i have a good relationship and they respect your president. she's a marxist. everybody knows she's a marxist. her father is a marxist professor in economics and he taught her well. so, so essentially we wanted to show you a little bit of everything as a, as they discussed the topics of the day there look neither one of the more specific about their plans. but, but there was a tendency and it seemed to me and i want your reaction clear that she was coached to stick in every one of her comments. something that she knew she would not be able to resist and therefore reveal himself in some way that they had planned on him revealing himself, did i,

did i explain that correct and get us started there. wilma, i think you did explain it quite well. they, they did their homework, they did. one of the things that had, that has been said about a former president from his he is the more he's been as more debates than any other president or individual in that position. and so they watched the video, and they, the 1st thing that happened, she stepped across the stage. yeah, right to him. she as they say, she stepped to him and then and gotten his chest. and someone with that type of personality does not look favorably upon those types of aggressive action from a woman. the woman from yeah, i from a woman of color. i mean, uh they pushed his buttons and he never was able to pivot

out of out of that having his button pushed to really taking control of the circumstance. but i, you know what i thought, and i told this to my wife as i was watching this, i saw that at the very beginning. if somebody had told him, you need to be more disciplined, you need to stick to the issues and you need to talk about your stuff, not hers. i thought he was doing very well with that, i thought the 1st half hour of the debate, i looked at my wife and i said, i think he's winning this thing. something happened about the mid point where we started seeing angry donald trump up here. i saw the sweat coming down, you know, the sides of his nostrils. and then i looked at my wife and i said, no, garland, something's changed here. i don't know what it is. she's getting under a scan. did you see that to? yeah, but i think it was kind of w, this was kind of a w w as you know, wrestling said river, why wrestling federation kind of thing where the discussion afterwards is getting under people's scan, who was angry and who was it?

and i think a donald trump, as they say in football, left a lot of points on the field. you know, the yes, he did hit the issues which with that that people are holding on, which is going to be the foreign policy that stomach express in that the money that's going to for an a pilot policy is affecting domestic policy. and of course, the issue of a price is then inflation. so i think he did, you know, score a couple of touch downs on the issues that are important. he left a lot of stuff on the table mainly because he harped on immigration far longer than he showed nothing wrong with the immigration, but he took it too far and, and he shouldn't really, what do you deal with that migration? if he did done that with inflation, yeah, it would have been much more fire or i don't think it really hurt him that bad. i don't think this is gonna move the needle. you know, what i think is best. norma was the closing argument. that's one, somehow he thought, oh my god, i was supposed to get this, isn't this,

let me get it out there. now that's when he turned over and said, look, you put an offer to 3 and a half years. why didn't you get a name and stuff done that you've been talking about? he should've made that his main point and drilled that throughout the entire thing . instead, most people didn't hear it because most people were sleeping. cuz cuz it was almost past midnight already, at least i wanted to go to sleep. unfortunately, i couldn't cause i get paid to do is go ahead. when i went, the 1st question that was asked. yeah. are you better off today than you were 4 years ago? and she wasn't able to command data, she couldn't talk about the jobs report now she couldn't talk about interest rates . come in. like you, i sent a message to a buddy of mine saying on that 1st question. it's over. she's done. she's lost because she demonstrated no command of the subject matter. but what happened? the conversation shifted to more of a narrative,

conversational visceral discussion about abortion, about immigration? anybody could have had those conversations because she wasn't talking data policy and specific point. and, and so i've been calling you right. and because of that, that's where he fell into the tried internal, we'll know exactly out of turning the whole thing into another one of his rallies with all the people who come to see him who already we know we're going to vote for him and not thinking i need to be talking and more broad terms. this is why he got heard that we live in an era where it's not about the totality of the moment. if that relatively few people will have watched this entire debate. relatively speaking, it will be a very, very small number of people, but almost the entire world will see the clips. and that is why the haitians, inc caps, comment that from, from mr. trump, i think is going to be very damaging for him. not,

not only is the clip being played everywhere, so are the means. and so is this reaction that was recorded in real time the, those are real people watching the debate, laughing when they'd heard him say that and, you know, just to admit, my wife was sitting next to me when we were watching the debate together. she laughed when she heard that as well because she thought it was, i mean, i'm sorry, it was just a ridiculous thing for a guy who wants to be president of say, i mean, and then when he's out there and then when he's asked about it, he says well, but i saw somebody say it on tv. come on man. i mean, but i don't think, i don't think it hurts donald trump for this reason. the reason why are people voting for donald trump? it doesn't have to do with donald trump, you know, be in some cool,

calm and reasonable, brilliant philosopher, you know, me, pickle, expect that stuff. and donald trump, the people that are going to support donald trump, had long since given up, you know, any thoughts that he right, your average person. i think that, um, what about me on the side as well? what about the, on the side? it's garland, there's still a group of i know it's weird for people like you and me and, and, and, and, and, and, and the good doctor here, but that, but there are people out there believe it or not, who aren't even watching this crap. they're only going to see a tick tock dates on this point. it's not a matter of how much it helped or heard him. it helped her. and because she's the one that has to pull in the undecideds, she's the one that has been translating the dual haters. she is the one that has to bring more to her camp because he's already decided he's not expanding the electorate. she has to expand the electorate, but how about how garland? well, you know, we both interrupted you. so how you were going to make your point about the fact

that you don't think it's going to hurt them as much as most people are saying. make your point on that, please. because i just think you have to look at the reasons that people voting for donald trump. and i think this particular election, a lot of it doesn't have to do with donald trump. i think a lot of people are voting for donald trump for 2 of the things that he said, one installation, the other, when he said, you know, we're close to world war 2. i think people are concerned with foreign policy. they're concerned with that. and as malcolm x said, any place is better than here, and i think they're able that are looking at the current administration saying any place is better for here, they vote for and you know what? a wrinkly old plumb if they could to get out from any of the what they see is it as a disaster, the by itself. but what you didn't, but you didn't address the question that the, that wilmer and i were talking about that there are as many as 7 percent of the people who are undecided do not think they and, and by the way, and they're not, they don't watch the news like we do,

they don't even they probably didn't want you to be, but they'll see that tick, tock, video, do you think they'll be moved? i don't think that's. i don't think that kind of thing will be made. make a decision. i remember watching. uh, george w bush and like, oh for both of us. he was a horrible debate or he was a the one of the worst i've ever seen any one because ultimately in the end, i don't think these debates rarely move the numbers. rarely fair pointed to your point, they said hillary clinton b donald trump, 2 or 3 times and he still beat her on election day. so there, there's a point to be made that maybe these debates are somewhat overblown because there are media events. okay. when we come back, we're going to talk about ukraine and we're going to talk about the peace deal that was because boy, is there a breakthrough and that this week we finally had somebody just say what everybody knew. and she's big. you know her, you'll hear from her will be right back, the own, the the,

what is a part of it that the employee would post good. isn't the deepest view of us and bidding the word or is it something deeper, more complex might be present there? let's stop without pieces. let's go out of i look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except we're so shorter is a conflict with the 1st law show alignment as a patient. we should be very careful about visual intelligence. at the point obviously is to trace a truck or rather than fit the area, i mean with the artificial intelligence,

we have somebody with him in the a robot must protect his phone. existence was on the i'm rick sanchez. and the gang is all back. wilmer garland, rick, yep. we are quite a 3 some and we are going to be bringing you the weekend review. in fact, we're halfway through it. we talked about the politics. now let's go to the geo politics and this is about ukraine and it sounds like ukraine is about to be a check made it right. if this were a chess board, it's like, oh, i mean that he's staring down at my queen, right? and is that's the case, then what's the next move, right. i mean, the russians are moving into that area. watch this. let's look at this. this is the

next move. the guardian is now reporting that the u. k. has already given permission and the us is about to do the same for ukraine to fire french and british made cruise missiles into russia. unfortunately, the people of the united states know nothing about this because our media does not report such things. you would expect something like this would involve some kind of congressional have not national referendum from the people. after all, we're talking about bombing rush off or some would say, and this is where i want you guys to come in. it is real. are we really considering doing this and we're going to let by them just make a decision one day? or is this all a bluff because it's needed for negotiating leverage. because right now the west and ukraine have almost no negotiating leverage left as a result of what's going on in the curse region of garland. i'll let you start, you know, i, i think you're looking for a rational reason,

3 reason of the neo cons and not rational. they just continued to escalate. they don't know, they don't have a plan. their original plan was the collapse of russia with sanctions. with that didn't work, they've been just effectively putting out fires and i don't mean putting out fires in ukraine. i mean putting out fires here. i would argue this is most likely related to the us selection. they want to look tough and strong and they're moving because things aren't looking well for them. so, but now that it's not rational, it's not a play a plan and it's extremely dangerous. could you imagine? i'm just thinking uh, wilmer is the 3 of us. let's take ourselves back 20 years and we learned, or there was a new york times headlines saying us considers bombing russia using cruise missiles and russia. wouldn't that have been a big story? wouldn't that have been like 24 hour news coverage? what the hell man? well, is the story for 20 years ago, it probably would have been a republican,

it would have been a bush administration that was talking about launching missiles into russia. now it's a democratic administration that is more hawkish than the republicans. the other thing, this isn't as simple as sending missiles into russia who's providing the coordinates for the muscles who's going to launch the missiles. that means the united states is now even more directly involved in this conflict. then then originally thought, so now if russia decides they want to take their pound the flesh from box. well here's what's interesting. we are now giving them one more read to do so here's what's interesting about this case. one way or another, the truth always comes out, right? and what you are just talking about was highlighted this week. here it is, victoria no look has just come out and made a block buster confection new. and as in case some of our viewers don't know,

was the under secretary of state in charge of all things ukraine. and she's earned a reputation about as being among the most play or hawkish, neil collins, and the entire u. s. government. she's now admitted that yes, it's true about a year and a half ago and about a $100000.00 that ukrainians ago. she and others killed a piece deal that would have ended the war in ukraine, and here she is admitting it the ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going. and it became clear to us, clear to the brits clear to others that clinton's main condition was buried. and an annex a to this document that they were working on. and it included limits on the precise kinds of weapon systems that ukraine could have after the deal. and there

were no similar constraints on russia. russia wasn't required to pull back russia wasn't, wasn't required to have a buffer zone from. the ukrainian border wasn't required to have the same constraints on its military facing ukraine. and so people inside ukraine and people outside ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal. mostly, of course people outside your credit. and it's probably like a true military contractor. well, if we had signed this, we wouldn't be able to sell enough stops to ukraine. i mean, you know, we wouldn't have been able to give them more, you know, military hardware. remarkable to watch this for me anyway, but so revealing. but wait, there's more, here's a 2nd confirmation that there was a deal that was killed by the brits in the united states. it comes from one of the ukrainian diplomats who actually agreed to the deal. he was so happy he says they

actually were getting ready to pop a bottle of champagne to celebrate. it came back with the negotiating process completed completely as this was successful we, we whole position pin both over the world for this. because like when we opened a bottle of champagne and many as because as was completely successful negotiations, this is, this is, i don't know, garland getting that taken away man. well, as it is, we undermines the camera. harris's reason argument. then of course, the, the by the administration is continuous argument that ukraine is an independent and sovereign nation democratic nation. and we are know if they were independent and sovereign, they wouldn't have to ask permission. and once they celebrated a, a decision that was made by ukrainian diplomats, it would have help. but because victoria newman was part of the cabal that over through you brain and inserted a puppet regime, it was the, the us imperial is the brits,

etc. that made that decision for ukraine. it's definitely it's now it, they make it clear. no ukraine was not allowed to make that decision because there's no such thing as ukraine. it is a political and military tool of the us neo costs and nothing more. i'm surprised. see, so unabashedly admitted to all of this. i've got to be thinking that there's some people over the state department who watch this and their job was dropped and saying, why the hell is she saying this? why she'd given up the game? what's wilmer, i mean, what do you think? i well, it just shows the arrogance of, of her position. and she doesn't think that there's anything wrong with saying this . a because it's true and b because as far as she's concerned, it's her show garlands. absolutely right. this is always been a proxy war. the ukraine in this context was never a democracy, the united states over through that democracy in 2014. she was instrumental in

doing that when she talks about there were people in ukraine and outside of ukraine that were opposed to this. he were those people the crazy you'd be impressed, gained in to serve as a performed on the front line. and so this, this demonstrates it, 1st of all, what are the important really quickly, what please, this conflict, this conflict didn't start in february of, of 22. it started when the united states started putting missiles on the border of countries that are bordering russia. yeah. and just the same way people want to say october 7th, started a conflict in, in, in, in guys a know that started the 1947. right. right. it's a very limited perspective of history. now it's, it's, it's a fascinating i, i think that was one of the most fascinating stories that we covered all of this

week. and it's interesting that there's us and then there's a few other networks and maybe a couple of people and who are independent journalists and other than that nobody will ever know about it. and that's sad. my, the way sad is it may sound, many of the people who work for us in this country, either elected or appointed or incentivized to encourage wars that most of us don't want. right. but, but those people are extremely powerful. and they often have interlocking interest where, where they serve more than one master. there's obviously no better example of this anywhere than dick cheney, who's literally the leading figure in the military industrial complex, who then went on to become the president of the united states. oh, that's right, sorry, vice president wink. and then he sold us on a war mostly through on troops. i mean this guy is the neo cons neil con. and that is why i find this next clip that i'm going to share with you so fascinating. here's some chinese lead or interesting man lecturing the former vice president.

you tell them essentially, you guys, you, mr. vice president are now doing the other is what the british wants to do. you. and then he asked them, have you learn nothing from your own histories, experiences go when you became the number one, your economy, the yeah, number one needed to the power you became so students and then also you're the fall. well, boss, the british you want to for the others. yeah. and i don't. 100, you're joined the other west and impurities for laurie. when you read the china in the 1950s america was the lead to you, raise the grant and use it. and you'll meet a lot of trouble in the middle east and the around around the words you tried to. so it just called a month used to live in texas. and you didn't have

a computer problem is i'll do as a ton of munitions. i was quite happy to thank you for me for you. what to do with me. they chose remember the so remember it's our. yeah and, and he's a little guy and he speaks with a broken english accent obviously. but there is something about him sitting there as almost an act of defiance saying look at yourself, dude. and cheney slumped over in the chair just, i don't know, there was something about that moment that i thought was worth sharing. guys, please. uh, the new start. i'll tell you what was really powerful about that moment. i was looking at the people in the audience. one of the air gentlemen had a big green on is that the to he was just sitting there, smile and like watching his favorite movie. right. and that, but that's important because that's the global south,

the people who have been oppressed by the british oppressed by the us. we just want to be left alone to watch the hollywood movies for years and said, wow, the us, you know, it doesn't look bad. i kind of like to be like that and they got stomped into the ground. so the important thing we see there is that there are people all over the world saying, yeah, you know, you guys were in a position to be very, very powerful. and you took advantage of it to oppress others and over through other governments at all. and i'm glad that there's someone in the world finally powerful enough to stand there to your face and to tell you that you've done wrong . and we all out here in the global south agree, yeah. if that kind of kind of the personification of the global self and maybe more specifically the personification of china, which is about to take over as the number one liter economically. anyway, in the, in the, in the world, the position one sale by the united states to that point where you say, what i say, rick sure. the neo cons neil con

is now endorsing. com. la harris. yeah, that is not a, that is not right for a confirmation of her. what it demonstrates is the she attacked donald trump in her speech from the right. not from the left. yeah. it's not that dick cheney is moving to her position. it's not that the neo cons are moving to her position. it's about, i'm a nation that she and the democrats are moving to there's, oh, that's great point. that's a great point. it's such a great point. we're going to just, yeah you're, you're finally got one, right? kidding. uh. but when i hang up with garlands, do i hear that i hear that from my kids all the time that you finally got it right . um, great conversation guys. it's an important conversation i,

i'm so glad to millions of people get to hear as each week have these discussions because i think i only wish we could grow that more in the united states where some of our fellow compatriots could understand some of the things that are taking place that we should just, you know, understand to be responsible for and be responsible for the actions of our leaders . but it is what it is. that's our show. remember, always look outside your own box and don't live in one box. by golly, i'm rick sanchez and we'll be looking for you. next time the the

of the

i'm asked you in or can see and welcome back to going underground will cost single around the world from the you a on the 40 seconds out of us review, k u. s. u on cyber insurance eli massacre, a fellow sydney and refugees in bay route. today the un security council meet once again in new york to discuss guys, 3 permanent members on the genocide, the usa, u. k. in front and to oppose the dresser in china, in nato. countries, even the scale of the heart is diminished. one circled main stream media genocide, a widely used legal time, has been reserved in the u. s. m. 5 and nato's official enemies. never financial countries when the countries they are joining me now from rhode island in the usa is an internationally recognized is mainly american genocide scholar, who opposes what even in a blood joe biden is admitted. is the indiscriminate kidding of civilians. oh, my bottle office at every day israel is getting weaker. he's the samuel piece of professor of all the course and genocide studies at brown university. the present, thank so much for coming on, you know, as well as the, the debates between the,

the 2 bankrolled candidates, the bank called by israelis, of course, in the united states. and the rest of the united states seems to be more and more profiler spinning, you know, given a but every minute, every hour on social media, everyone is seeing what is happening in the middle east. the lance of the british medical paper on peer review, just as we said, said under 96000, maybe in killed, complete estimate that would equate to 5000000 in britain, 27000000 and usa and ralph nader, a man who himself may have saved more lives than anyone else cuz was endorsed with a seat belt, said it could be 300000 that have been killed some 15 percent given you a scholarship on genocide. you just contextualize the kind of numbers in the absence of any actual peer reviewed vegas. um, well 1st of all thanks for having me. um.