All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
33:02
Alastair Crooke : Deep State vs Trump.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, November 25th, 2024.
Alistair Crook will be here with us in just a moment on the deep state in the American government versus President Trump.
But first this.
We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years.
Save your money, then live off your savings.
Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars.
The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value.
Just the cost of groceries is absurd.
Let me be brutally honest.
I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct.
Not just here, but globally.
The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold.
And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom.
We will lose our privacy.
They can track anything we do.
You need to take care of yourself and your family.
So here's what you need to do.
Immerse yourself in knowledge and information.
The writing is on the wall.
Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset.
Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals investing for over 27 years.
They help me diversify into gold and silver.
They can help you too.
Call Lear today at 800-511-4620.
800-511-4620 or go to learjudgenap.com.
Alistair Crook, good day to you, my friend, and welcome here.
Thank you for joining us, as always.
Since we were together last, largely in response to the American and British authorization for Ukrainians to deploy with American and British technical assistance, long-range missiles into Russia, The Kremlin responded with some new supersonic device that the world had never seen, which apparently can't be shot down.
What was the reaction amongst European elites to the use of this device to destroy a military storage facility in Ukraine?
It's barely mentioned, hardly noticed in the press.
Largely ignored.
And I would say to you, I know you've probably had others on the program, but this is really a thunderbolt because it's checkmate that Putin has done.
Because against these escalations by Atakems and Storm Shadow and Scalp, etc., he was always bound by the sort of sense that What's the only next step could be possibly a nuclear step.
But what he's done is he's found the solution in that he's no longer bound by that with the Oreshkin missile.
He is able to escalate against Ukraine, but also the whole of European, and those behind the curtain, those that are supporting The attacks into Russia.
He can do that with a conventional non-nuclear weapon that no one can shoot down.
And it puts all of Europe into a bind because it changes the whole escalatory paradigm.
It was, if you like, that Putin had no choice but either to go nuclear or to go to threatening rhetoric.
Which most of the West didn't believe.
Now with Oreshkin, he has a conventional weapon that can be used against Europe or others.
And where is America?
America now largely has only one answer to this.
It is, if you like, trapped in an all or nothing dilemma, either to go nuclear or, if you like, just to Make sort of pointless gestures of sending more attackums and more storm shadows, which Russia has proved it can easily manage.
It shoots down 90% of attackums on average over the last period.
So it's suddenly changed.
So Putin has the escalatory dominance now.
And what does Europe and NATO and the United States do?
Well, so far, all we've had, and I think probably you've mentioned it on your show, I've been traveling, but I think we saw this Vice Admiral Buchanan saying not only is the United States preparing for a war, a nuclear war with Russia, but it is a war they intend to win and to keep sufficient nuclear deterrence.
To maintain America's leadership position in the wake of that war.
He said that on the day before Oreshnik was actually launched.
What does that mean?
It means basically a preemptive strike on Russia.
That's the only way of understanding what he means by keeping sufficient deterrence in the wake of the war to be able to deter other states and to keep America's leadership.
We may say, well, you know, was he authorized to speak?
Isn't he going over the top?
He was from the strategic command and therefore is in that loop and is responsible for some of that planning.
But in Russia, it had a much more profound effect.
People see the strikes into Russia, deep strikes by attack, and then these sort of statements are saying that, And why?
because I think we're in another different paradigm, because really what this new weapon has done has inverted the whole, if you like, strategic, the geopolitical paradigm that we live in, because for now how we have it where we are is
The forever wars were about increasing American leadership, primacy through the region, American hegemony.
That's what their purpose is.
Now, the threat of the wars, what's happened in Ukraine, what's happening against Iran, is about the internal American war.
It's about disrupting Trump, disrupting him.
On Ukraine, by pulling him into a situation where he's compelled to escalate and can't go off and sit and talk to Putin.
And it's also intended to pull Trump into, with his heavy promotion of Israel Firsters into his team, pull Trump into, first of all, becoming a co-conspirator in what Netanyahu has been doing.
With all the carnage that it is entailed and even take it to war with Iran, because ultimately Netanyahu has been wanting an American, if you like, security state has been arguing really since 9 /11.
It was the first time in 9 /11 that they said the ultimate aim is for war with Iran.
Why war with Iran?
Not because it's threatening Israel directly, but because Iran, 98% of its oil goes not to Europe, to China.
And China is very dependent on Iranian.
But more than that, the whole investments, the heavy investments of China, of Russia, in the BRICS corridor, we call it the BRICS corridor in the heartland of Asia, is really dependent.
On Iran for the corridors, for the trading corridors, north, south, and east, west, and also Iran's, if you like, trading expertise in the region.
It's absolutely important to the whole, if you like, conjuncture of China, Russia, and Iran is to keep Iran.
So, collapsing Iran.
It's probably seen by some in Washington as a means to contain China, to weaken China.
Not just Iran, but to weaken China.
Before we get into Israel, a few more questions about Ukraine.
It's kind of startling in light of your analysis, which Alistair is consistent with the analysis of all the other
Similarly, over here, there's not been a peep about Admiral Buchanan.
I mean, what Admiral Buchanan said, unless it was authorized by his superiors, is a fireable offense.
And if it was authorized by his superiors, they should be fired for even suggesting that a nuclear war could be waged, Musleh.
So a couple of questions.
Was the United States shocked and surprised at the strength, at the existence and power of this missile that Kremlin fired?
And why no response from European countries?
Because it was a bolt from the blue.
It was unexpected.
And it is more than that.
It is a game changer in, as I described, you know, that now Putin is not bound to move to a nuclear confrontation.
He doesn't have to.
Go down that route.
He has the alternative.
And they have a stockpile.
He said they have a stockpile of these Oreshkin missiles.
And he's not compelled any longer to sort of threaten nuclear war.
He has now an entirely conventional war.
It can be a nuclear missile, but it essentially gives him the option of only a conventional retaliation against Western escalation.
And the big question, and the question I What does NATO do?
Does it go on escalating?
So far, the language has been yes.
France has promised that it will use its scalp missiles into it.
Britain has sent its chief of defense staff to Kiev, Admiral Radican.
To talk to the Ukrainians about how to use better scalp, not the scalp, the storm shadow missiles, the British missiles, deeper into Russia.
I mean, the real point is we call them long range, but they're not really long range.
They're only 190 miles or 300 kilometers at most, and Putin can deal with them.
So how are they going to escalate?
How do they, you know, if they want to escalate the war, so is to present Trump with no alternative but to pursue escalation in Ukraine.
What have they got?
They have only got a nuclear to go to the nuclear.
They've got no other weapons that would that now because he's promised it.
And he's also said, look, it's not just Ukraine.
We will attack NATO and European bases that are supporting those missiles.
And they said it specifically, like the American base in Poland.
That was said, it's on the target list.
So it wasn't just, you know, generalized.
It was said the base, American base, which is one of the new missile bases they've constructed, this is And so it changes also a much bigger paradigm, which was, as you recall, I think it was in 2019, at I think probably John Bolton's insistence,
America withdrew from the intermediate missile treaty, intermediate range missile treaty.
And he said, They were putting missiles into Poland, into Romania, mainly as a guard against Iranian intercontinental missiles.
No one believes that.
It was against Russia, of course.
But then last year, the last year, he said in 2023, America said it was planning now to put hypersonic missiles into Germany in 26, by 26. So to surround Russia with intermediate missiles.
And Putin then said in response, and this is the escalation, and then said, well, we're going to do our own thing and we're going to produce our intermediate missiles.
And that's the Ereshkin.
That's its direct result of So he's come back with a checkmate because there's no alternative now for America.
So they're going to have an emergency meeting, I think, on the 26th of November of NATO to decide what do we do.
But, I mean, there's no obvious response.
But they're desperate to keep the escalation going because Biden and the outgoing administration want to keep the escalation for internal.
And as I say, this is more about internal American rivalries and politics than it is about actually a strategic objective in Ukraine, just as Iran is much more about pulling Trump into an invidious position so that he cannot concentrate on the two things that matter to him most of all is the great reform,
the storm that he has promised the Americans of reducing the power, crippling the power of the permanent security state and ending the sort of extravagant bloating in the federal expenditures, the endless Omnibus expenditure measures that are so long that no one in Congress ever has time to read, you know, 3,000 pages of expenditures.
So these are the things that matter and matter most to Americans.
That's the American interest.
I'm speaking outside and from away, but I can understand the American interest is to become a competitive economy again.
To reduce the size of the sort of financialized economy and to have a real economy that makes things, that can sell things, that is competitive.
And to do that, he's going to use, he says, tariffs and other means to do that.
But I can understand that that is a deep American interest to get the domestic situation right.
And they're trying to pull him into wars.
That he said, "I don't want war," but is he going to really be able to roll back all the war hawks and, if you like it, the Israel First and the lobby group from taking this forward in order to completely undermine him?
They say, "Okay, you're the storm.
We're here to crush the storm." And Trump will say, you're wrong, I am the storm.
And that's your phrase, by the way, from your terrific column of the weekend.
You have argued and argued persuasively that the deep state is a counterinsurgency inside the American government against President-elect Trump.
It appears from your comments this morning that you believe that there are many, many foreign collaborators in that resistance to Trump, and they happen to be the heads of state in Western Europe.
Is that a fair summary of your argument?
I would say it's pretty well all the Five Eyes.
The Five Eyes are supposed to be the closest to the United States.
United States, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand.
Who did I miss?
I think more or less right.
Canada.
But the five eyes with which the United States regularly shares intelligence and military secrets, although we know not always from some of the intelligence leaks.
Along with other European nations' leadership will collaborate in the insurgency against Donald Trump.
That's clear because we saw even before America, those first TACAMs were launched, there was a meeting between Macron and Starmer in Paris where they conspired to try and bring about the firing of the I mean,
they were obviously doing this against the interests of Trump, who said very plainly that when he comes into office, he will look forward to trying to talk to Putin and to try and find some resolution.
And they were doing this to make it much more difficult.
So, I mean, the evidence is plain and out there.
Will Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, now indicted and the subject of an arrest warrant for war crimes, attempt to use the American deep state to seduce President Trump into supporting Netanyahu's hoped-for war against Iran?
I would only take exception to your words seduced.
It's not that.
I think it's much more that it is really a sense of blackmail.
I mean, internally blackmailed because...
It's blackmail because Netanyahu has been able to bring America into various wars, the Iraq war.
A Netanyahu war.
It was very plain that it was, in the wake of 9 /11, the first on the hit list, or at least the top of the hit list.
Iran was on the list then.
And always, as I say, it's not just about Iran and its nuclear program, it's about China and about weakening China.
And Iran is seen as a way, even if it's a false Exercise.
And I think it can be.
And I think viewers should be aware of the danger because what happened, you will recall what happened with Colin Powell at the UN that led to the Iraq war when he produced these evidence, this little evidence and the charts behind him to show that these laboratories were being used.
Now we have the press.
Full of stories about how Israel attacked the main research center of Iran and destroyed this research center, and that's a huge setback to Iran.
It is about as real as Colin Powell's evidence then in the Iraq War.
There was nothing in Parchin.
There was nothing there.
There were two empty buildings that were attacked, not by ballistic missiles, but by drones.
But they were already abandoned, and they'd been abandoned since Khatami's time.
It's fake.
There's a huge story about how it was a great blow against the research program.
All the sensitive material from Parchin, I mean, I've been following it for, I suppose, 10, 20 years now.
A fake exercise.
So are we going to have a fake war against Iran?
Because they probably can't destroy the nuclear program, which is buried deep, deep into mountains.
I don't know whether there exists a weapon that America has, a nuclear weapon, that can go that deep right into the base of a mountain and get at it.
I doubt it.
But it's maybe possible.
But if it isn't, then we will have one where we're told, oh, it's been destroyed, it's been a great success, and now the Iranian people will probably rise up and change the regime in Tehran.
I mean, it's just, you know, again, like the lead-up to the war against Iraq, a fakery.
And not true.
And I feel this is going to be, and I say this as an outsider, but I think this is going to be deeply damaging if it does happen to American interests in the region.
I'm curious at your use of the word blackmail with respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump.
I don't imagine you mean it in a personal way, but what is the...
We know what Netanyahu wants.
You've just described that so nicely.
But what is this leverage?
The leverage is that Netanyahu has immense pull over the security establishment and also the lobby and also more widely many Americans.
Who are loyal Americans in the Democratic and Republican Party, but are avidly Israel-firsters.
Some of them, even for evangelical reasons, are like that.
And the reason that they can do this, the blackmail I mean is that if Netanyahu finds the trigger, the provocative trigger.
You remember with Haniyeh, and before it was, if you like, the diplomats, Iranian diplomats in Damascus, deliberately killed to try and be provocative.
If Netanyahu uses a provocation and Iran responds hurtfully to Israel, which is likely Iran responds to that.
I think the whole of the establishment in the United States would say, we have to do something about Iran.
Oh my goodness, this is 9-11 again.
We have to get involved.
We have to stop.
Iran's nuclear program must be destroyed.
So I think that sort of blackmail is what I mean.
Got it.
And I agree with you.
I think that is the way they would react.
Look at President Trump's His intended nominees, none has been nominated yet because he's not in office yet, but his intended nominees, he's just about filled every major position except the director of the FBI, about which apparently there's a lot of internal battling going on.
They are filled with Israel firsters.
Even Senator John Thune, about as white bread, plain vanilla, upper Midwest human being, as you can find, is now the new leader of the Republicans in the Senate.
And the first phone call he made before he called his wife to tell her that he won this position was to...
I guessed it.
We can see where all this is going.
Who or what will stop these Israel Firsters if they're being emboldened by Donald Trump?
This is the big question, and this is the question that I feel is very important.
And I think the only thing that can really perhaps stop it would be a message of deterrence from Iran.
Iran has been sending...
But this is a tiny segment that are bitterly opposed by the leadership, by the IRGC and the supreme leader.
And even the previous Foreign Minister, Abd al-Asian, who was killed in that helicopter accident, said, "Look, you've got to have deterrence to be able to negotiate with the United States." Or even Trump, if it ever came to that.
It'll be very difficult because of his killing of Qasem Soleimani.
But even if it did, if you're not taken seriously and thought to be weak, They will just put, if you like, the pressures and pressures on you in Iran until you submit to the demands of the United States and Israel.
So there is this big debate going on in Iran, and there is a sort of sense amongst one side very much that these messages of somehow that Iran is not We see it.
I mean, it's the same thing that happened with Ukraine and with Russia.
Russia, you know, only a year ago, we were being told its army were conscripts, and they had no morale, and they had wrong weapons, and they had, you know, there was a complete failure.
We had the head of CIA telling us that at Aspen a little over a year ago, and then now suddenly we have a Shikin missile, the new weapon from Putin.
Arriving on the scene and suddenly everyone is talking about talking to Putin.
Europeans and Schultz and everyone says, well, we need to have an agreement sometime.
I'm not sure they'll get it.
I rather doubt it.
But this isn't the same lesson for Iran.
Unless there is a demonstration of capabilities, a demonstration that shows that Iran is not an easy war.
That it is going to be a very serious war and one that could do immense damage to the United States if it's pursued.
America can lose its entire position, its standing, not only in the Middle East, but beyond, in Africa and the Global South as well.
So that's the only way I can see that it probably won't happen, because I think Strongman.
And they're using Trump's known language about peace through strength to say, well, you know, we've got to be strong.
We've got to say, you know, we're going to take you back to the Stone Age.
And then that's the only language that is understood.
Of course, Trump thinks at that point he can swoop in and do a deal.
But I'm not sure if it'll work this time around.
One wonders if Secretary Blinken doesn't regret having gone a year and a half without communicating with Foreign Minister Lavrov.
And one wonders if President-elect Trump doesn't regret having cancelled the INF Treaty because those two decisions have come home to roost.
And also, do not the Europeans regret not listening to Lavrov when he has said so plainly and clearly, forget it.
We are not going to agree to a frozen conflict.
Yeah, we can talk sometime about the security architecture in the wake of the Ukraine war.
But no, we're not simply going to accept the frozen conflict which allows you to do another Minsk agreement, a deceitful agreement that fills up Ukraine against us.
Alistair Crook, thank you very much, my dear friend.
A great, great analysis.
We have a major holiday in the U.S. this week.
Have a good Thanksgiving.
I know you wish us a happy Thanksgiving.
This is not one of those anti-British holidays like the 4th of July.
But thank you for your time, my dear friend.
Have a great week.
We'll look forward to seeing you next week as well.
All the best.
Thank you so much.
Of course.
And coming up, a full day for you today.
Ray McGovern at 10 this morning.
Larry Johnson at 11 this morning.
Pepe Escobar at 3 this afternoon.
Scott Ritter at 4 this afternoon.
Professor Jeffrey Sachs at 5 this afternoon.
We're getting oh so close.
Today is a month before Christmas.
We're oh so close to our goal of 500,000 subscriptions by Christmas Day a month from today.
Today is my little dog Chris's fifth birthday.
▲
Export Selection