nine o'clock here. with me welcome to the program after a two year investigation the four hundred page. report. is finally in the public domain. well it's over four hundred pages of the bob muller report this is the report from special counsel robert lawler and it goes over allegations that russia somehow interfered in the twenty sixteen us presidential elections and it investigates whether or not trump had a role in colluding or being part or being in contact with these alleged russian activities there was so much anticipation of the report in the us press in the us media that as the report was being released the website of the u.s. department of justice actually crashed because so many people were downloading the
report from the d.o.j. website now at this point prior to the releasing of the report william barr the u.s. attorney general came forward and reiterated that the reported show that there was no collusion between trump and russia what trump has said from the beginning seems to have been the conclusion of the report that's the bottom line after nearly two years of investigation thousands of subpoenas hundreds of warrants and witness interviews the special counsel confirmed. that the russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the two thousand and sixteen presidential election but did not find that the trump campaign or other americans colluded in those efforts when he was giving his press conference a basically announcing that the report was pending we saw a u.s. president donald trump speaking up on social media tweeting out graphics and such and now we've heard from u.s.
president donald trump saying that this is a pretty good day for him and they're having a good day i'm having a good day to who schooled. no collusion no obstruction well yes the report is very heavily redacted these redactions are things related to ongoing investigations and not wanting to compromise or reveal the sources of the f.b.i. or foreign contacts however it's been pointed out that though trump's lawyers actually looked at the report william barr was very clear that no redactions were made at the request of the white house or of president donald trump at this point we've got top democrats calling for bob mueller to testify before congress the house judiciary committee has already entered a request for a special counsel robert mueller and to testify as soon as possible the deadline the latest date being may twenty third and in addition to that we have the house intelligence committee also calling for special counsel robert mueller to testify and it will be regarding a counterintelligence investigation and what he discovered in his report the house
intelligence committee has formally invited special counsel to do is to find the country intelligence investigation after a two year investigation the public deserves the facts not attorney general barak's political spin now it's also important to note that the report contains a legal justification for the report and saying that no president is above the law and that the president has to has the you know should be investigated if there are concerns bob mueller kind of went into detail kind of kind of justifying his raw. to make this probe and the legality of the report. joins me in the studio to discuss this further. but russia did interfere in the twenty sixteen election according to the attorney general yeah well that's what he said during the press briefing before had that's what the gist of the report but the report itself i mean we heard about four hundred pages let me just show you what those four hundred
pages many of them look like this is it's almost modern art this is how much was redacted from the report and you can go for pages and pages with nothing legible really there's so much redacted in this report that it is honestly very difficult to get a picture of what they were saying at certain points for example they seem convinced that there was russian meddling yet they see no collusion the russian government interfered in the twenty sixteen presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion evidence of russian government operations began to surface in mid twenty sixteen in june the democratic national committee on its cyber response team publicly announced that russian hackers had compromised its computer network releases of what materials hacks not public reporting soon attribute it to the russian government began that same month additional releases
followed in july through the organization wiki leaks with further releases in october and november the investigation did not establish that members of the true campaign conspired all coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. now the report makes many accusations many allegations about russian hacking it describes our russian military intelligence units and troll companies told firms factories meddled in the election the problem is i went through the report the first sections detailing russian hacking there's almost no proof no evidence there's it's incredibly light on details and technical aspects pacific's it's just very very general the russians did this russia the russians did this take us at our word there's also contradictory information at certain points they say that to aliases that the russians used apparently d.c.
leaks another what the russian military intelligence officers communicated with each other paddy mean blish over twitter which is very strange to think of this was the russian military intelligence director at the stand up and shout to each other no not in this case they allege that the russians are hacked all sorts of things nevertheless they also admit that they never actually got that physically on the d.n.c. servers that hacked on and where clinton's e-mails were leaked from which is very shinji say they got copies later on the f.b.i. is all sorts of little snippets contradictory information that you know is worth picking out but it is impossible because so much is redacted it's page after page that is barely legible and the russian the russians have said largely the same thing the kremlin has said statement they're looking at the remulla report but they
say there's no evidence there's no proof there's no sort of information that they can address talk about it's all allegations in suspicion at certain points they say the russian hackers appear to have done something so even they aren't convinced the russians are saying what they've always said that there was no state sponsored meddling and their hands are clean of this. and i had to repeat what i've said several times including in our personal contacts the russian state never has and never will interfere in internal american affairs nevertheless a number of russian companies have been targeted as legal action against them number of individuals while a dozen military intelligence officers have been indicted obviously russia boom to give them up. any way you look at it but. there's an interesting thing as well
one specific company that there's legal action ongoing against. isn't being told what the proof the evidence against them is because apparently sensitive information is remarkable situation it's like accusing someone of a crime and then refusing to tell them what they did wrong. and it's especially strange because they're apparently concerned that the russians will find out what the russians did it's very strange but again it might be in the redacted sections that we haven't seen that the public isn't being shown nevertheless there's a lot to get through and i'm sure they'll be more talked about yeah i mean you know you talked about the confusion so despite the confusion the unanswered questions the redactions it is still a very comprehensive report isn't it was huge twenty five million dollars they spent putting this report together. fifty or f.b.i.
agents working for two years they looked at more than a million documents financial receipts e-mails invited you know stage two thousand five hundred interviews two thousand and eight hundred subpoenas thirty four indictments it was tremendously huge but they looked at three things one russian meddling which again they were incredibly light on the details they also looked at whether from colluded trump or any of his. associates colluded with rush on that they were pretty categorical that there was no collusion something trump was or boasted about and the last thing they looked at is whether trump tried to obstruct justice by firing the former director of the f.b.i. when the investigation. in its infancy but here we've got a little bit of confusion because the report says that they haven't decided either way there's not enough evidence it's all very difficult. trumpets taken this. as
a victory says that there was no obstruction no collusion the house u.s. house democrat majority the house judiciary committee is now saying that this report condemns trump it says that there was obstruction a promise to look into it nevertheless the reports be in the release but i'm sure that there is plenty more drama plenty would be those to come certainly looks very complete and thanks very much for updating us on this story now we're going to get reaction from attorney and former u.s. congressman michael flanagan michael thanks for coming on to the program no collusion conclusion surely not something the democrats wanted to hair what do you think the next move will be. used to sit on the house judiciary committee years ago and i know jerry nadler very well. there you have to understand about the report conclusion and i heard your previous guest an excellent report by the way. this is
this is the bifurcation of the of the report on one hand they give you the legal standard which is no collusion and of course they had to reach the conclusion of no collusion because they can't tell you whether or not or how i should say in their unchallenged estimation russia interfered with the election and if you can't demonstrate how russia interfered with the election in a fight for you know lay. out sort of wait you can't then say that there was collusion so they're kind of stuck in a trick bag and that conclusion was kind of forgotten the second question of whether or not there is obstruction of justice by the president is a process crime it's an in the eye of the behold or crime it's whether you think it's obstruction or not but there is a legal standard in the legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and they could not reach that they say they couldn't reach it they cannot reach the conclusion that the ad a reasonable doubt using the legal standard the trump administration was involved
in any collusion what they go on then to say is that they can't exonerate the president we don't do that in this country and in most western countries you don't have a finding and in a trial of innocent you have a finding in the trial that we were able to find them guilty or we were not able to find them guilty guilty or not guilty it's all phrased in the negative there is no positive statement by trials that he's innocent. or put that in as a matter of pure politics as a sop to the democrats who are out of the commission and twenty five attorneys all of them democrats most of them hillary supporters a large number of them hillary donors and we had to do something in the report to make them happy so you have this wildly political statement we couldn't exonerate him well of course you couldn't that's not your task it's not what you do but you know it would put that in there for them to give jerry nadler and other democrats an opportunity to have some place to go to save some face about all the outrageous
things that they've been saying for two years bottom line no collusion no obstruction issue over they could make it as political as they want to and they would anyway they don't need miller's help to do it and we move on michael i mean ysaye you know issue over but the issue isn't over i mean if you look at some of the wooding have in the report based on the facts it says on the applique legal standards. attained the evidence we obtained the about the president's actions and intent. presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determine that no criminal conduct occurred and you obviously mention the exoneration. not exonerating him. beyond reasonable doubt as well it's cool thing about will that as a be that conclusion beyond reasonable doubt as. it is it is up to the attorney general to come to that conclusion it would have been nice if his subordinate moeller had given him a recommendation that we should we feel the attorney general should find that there
was no collusion but he refused to give a recommendation to the attorney general it's now in the hands of the attorney general to decide whether or not to proceed as if there were a conclusion and in coordination with rod rosenstein who has always been a part of a mole or supporter of miller cheerleader on the subject rod rosenstein also says there was no collusion and so beyond a reasonable doubt you can't say someone's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt the question is is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and no one involved can say that he is and therefore he's exonerated ok then of the democrats said demanding that nothing to testify before the house judiciary committee what exactly do you think they want to hear. they want to go through the line by line of the ten points that miller said you know this gives us pause this gives a suspect and they want to go through and they want to present a case that there was collusion. if you have no base crime why would there be
collusion i mean the whole thing is resting on a house of cards chasing all the way back to a belief for a certainty that russia invaded our election with purpose and malice aforethought to involve it if you can't prove that you can't get anywhere else on anything else but let's say for example that they could prove it all right fine they still can't get to a point where the president clued with russia in fact they say quite categorically it did not happen so then why would the president knowing he is innocent obstruct it's crazy so you have a lot of political hyperbole the president has a lot of slanderous hearsay in the reports maybe he said it maybe didn't we don't know the president didn't didn't say that he said this somebody else said that he said it and they want to expose this is embarrassing for the president and to move it forward politically they have no power to to attack him they can't can they can
impeach him in the house that but the impeachment as we all know is a political action and if they wish to choose to make this political statement into a peach the president for what they believe are crimes then they have to make that case beyond a reasonable doubt before the trial at the trial before the united states senate ok michael also a political courage and ok we'll leave it there michael flanagan attention from a u.s. congressman thanks very much for coming on to the program. now greece is set to step up its demand for germany to pay will do more to reparations to the sum of maybe three hundred billion euros athens has long been seeking compensation for the nazi era occupation but lynn says that debt has been settled are you a correspondent peter that has the details. europe could be set for the reopening of some painful historical wounds the greek parliament has asked germany for billions of euro for the nazi occupation of the country during world war two the
demand for german war reparations is a historical and moral debt for us it will help us build a better future in our relations with germany today therefore we have a duty to give our two peoples the opportunity to close this chapter athens as next step is to send what's known as a verbal note to berlin that will be seen as the starting point for negotiations to kick off from now back in twenty sixteen agreed parliamentary committee put the figure that should pay is reparations it well at least two hundred and ninety billion euro that's as compensation for the deaths of tens of thousands of greeks at the hands of the nazis as well as the extortion of the bank of greece by hitler to finance his war machine however some greeks aren't confident that this appeal will lead to anything the germans are of the opinion that it has compensated the
issue with the payment of one hundred sixty million dollars marks to the victims on the admission of about four hundred twenty thousand guest workers as far as the german government a constant that payment back in one nine hundred sixty of roughly around two hundred fifty million euro in today's money settled the matter once and for all. we are aware of the great guild the attitude of the federal government is unchanged the question of german reparations is settled legally and politically in the treaty which we unify germany in one thousand nine feet it's no for the reparations were planned but what do the people of the land and athens think should happen next we have a very very big. responsibility to two world war two but how long to generate. of generations having to pay for things that they didn't do as a country we have the responsibility to react now they should have come
a little bit earlier now would still ate their broke and trying to see where they can get money for them of course we should claim some things not only because many years have passed but because of german intolerance to step do you think we have governments that can claim in a sane i think there is no political will from any government to claim german reparations. germany looks after its own interests so now is what are we looking after one of the darkest periods in european history still echoes today and ideas about what to do when it comes to reparations for wartime atrocities still fairly split peter all over r.t. . news for now i'll be back at the top of the hour with our next update for both next in the latest on the touchline with a new only on international. best's
drug were her cocaine as were four bucks for dia and just for the. job everybody use cocaine crack cocaine you can smoke it this is worth fifty thirty. twenty. score came to this is about a fifteen dollar bet and people smoked this one go figure so sweet you can find these drugs in any city in the united states that you walk along as you want to get about the. make money. and that's what i did every day.
here here here here not here they scored in this corner in this war they are all kids but they're still kids so many mistakes us is a cage to what that space who got that through or better up to one zero would buy them here working we do but i am still a member is the controversy. you have to show him what you are doing for months and months than a month. or . so joe's eight we know he's in the semifinals of the champions league a barcelona play liverpool which is what you predicted and then spurs face i accept you didn't foresee that one entirely although you did say that could be an upset so where we'll let you off there but let's start with that incredible game involving
spurs last night i've never seen a game like it have you and. i did. is that the thing is the fickle pool to remember but even in the champions league matches with incredible scores with incredible starts or incredible finishing i played myself a very similar game to this one. else about salonen. after fifteen minutes was three zero for chelsea and then one of the you know scored two balls and make it three two. in the first half and let it open until the ends were someone who was qualified then we needed to score so you go over that you story and even in the biggest competitions you you find it.
i think. the dissolve go on on minute ninety two or three or something like that a goal that decides a semifinal final we choose offsides. nor refereeing nor lines and in the study of football all does a lot of that the ball in the civil consensus only the viewer and the v.a. got it absolutely right because it is an offside now before that school their third only a few minutes before it was ruled ok they allowed that goal because they said it was a deliberate handball still a lot of controversy over that one what was your view is that this is the controversy and. i saying they got it right and let's go broke a couple of months or more i think in the world cup final bill got it wrong in
a very similar situation the vote is in many competitions and while. we king. sometimes i love the virus sometimes i hate the virus sometimes i think. it's killing emotion sometimes i feel. that interpretation of the fight in the protocol years is many times wrong but other times is fantastic. tool and a fantastic help to the referees and to the game and to the fairness of of the result the view would be to take some pressure from the referee they put in his hands a big decision and i think he decided right according to the angles of the cameras that they had that is this basel look for me that. i got into
doesn't try to score with these with his arm if you see image two there is even a contact between a lot in this harm. portents because la porte also goes with these hands so i think the decision is correct right at the start of this game it was phenomenal four goals in ten minutes and then city three two up after twenty minutes could you make sense what was happening just me as a fan i watched us see all these goals fly you know the other fan there is the fern and there is the coach. wants that that's great but i look also to the coaching perspective always it possible at a champions league level so many mistakes together in the show in a short period of time so many mistakes is that freshness outplays suffering and depression come on they cannot feel pressure and that's the level we are speaking
about the best players in the world the best clubs in in the world i don't think expression i think this is where they want to be and they want to be in the final song they have to play the. the final before the being in the file and lots of mistakes lots of calls with awful defending on the inside food you look to to a wall to even to mess it all and then you go to one ball that was disallowed to lose i. also all weeds the insides appear that they absolutely love phenomenal erikson makes a mistake that you would never forget them is live but if you saved her you know it was and was there to save him so on these very dangerous lookers is the same. when they both be with some freedom and against a team that has the ball that was the ball that allowed a fuss transition i think. nobody would do better than some spurs when i play i.x.
next after they carried out another giant killing at a pizza event is ensuring another great performance for my ex yes and in my opinion. another team. with their strength i think until this moment nobody really i don't like their words fears but nobody really respect them and they did let them play with the qualities they have i think they have fantastic young players. we've. a little bit of the experience that they had they didn't have a couple of years ago when i played them in their up a cup final. they blend and. they are. the two players that just come in not just by the tactical point of view like that leach but also like the mental point of view daley
a very stable and experienced boy and you know they are solid they have their philosophy until they play. with this fantastic positive. attitude they played against obviously two giants glades real madrid in the event was. i think at any moment they failed and the game and the pressure they felt and the responsibility they just weren't there to to play the way we want to play to play the way we like to play to play the way we are good at and they felt even more comfortable away of home after not very good results at home so. you know fantastic run doesn't matter what happened in the semifinals are saying there are. no doubt.