All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
25:04
Phil Giraldi : More Trump Iran Lies
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, July 2nd, 2025.
Phil Giraldi joins us now.
Phil, always a pleasure.
I know this question is going to sound ridiculous, but I have to ask you it in light of your recent piece about Trump and his bellicosity at the UNS Review, where your pieces normally appear.
Can he with intellectual honesty claim to be a man of peace?
Or is that a loaded question because of the intellectual honesty part?
Well, yeah, the lack of intellectual honesty would perhaps suggest that the argument that he was a man of peace was being made as some kind of a joke, perhaps.
But no, I mean, the fact is you have to judge him by his deeds, not his words.
His words are contradictory anyway.
But the fact is that the war between Russia and Ukraine, which he said he would stop on his first day in office, is still going on now six months later.
And so that didn't exactly come out that way, although it now looks that the U.S. is getting tired of the costs associated with staying in this war and that they are considering cutting back on military supplies and that sort of thing.
That would be a good sign.
But that's not ending the war.
And the talks obviously went nowhere in the negotiations.
So that's that.
And then, of course, there's the slaughter continuing in Gaza, which again, Trump would be able to stop with a phone call and has done nothing to do that.
On the contrary, he's done everything to support his buddies in Israel to begin a new war with Iran.
And while that is kind of in a ceasefire mode at the moment, I and many others believe that it's only in that position because Israel was running out of weapons and the United States has been resupplying them.
So as soon as Israel is resupplied, you know that Iran is still going to be on the list.
So no, he's not a man of peace.
He's a hypocrite.
He's a liar.
And he's ignorant.
Whenever he talks about any foreign country, it's clear that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about.
All right.
Let me go back to Ukraine.
Our friend and colleague Larry Johnson put out a piece late last night, early this morning, in which he listed, you're an ex-military guy, so a lot of these terms don't mean much to me.
Some of them do.
What Ukraine will not be getting.
Patriot missiles.
We know what those are.
155 millimeter artillery shells.
Those are the meat and potatoes of his military's ability to push the Russians back.
This, I don't know what it is.
GMLRS rockets.
I don't know what that is either.
Okay, and the last are Stinger and Hellfire missiles.
Yeah, well, they've been in use for years.
Okay, so it sounds to me as though the reduction is substantial, not cosmetic.
Yeah, I would think it is substantial.
Of course, it depends to what extent there are other suppliers that are coming forward with stuff from European arsenals and whether there will be other things that will be provided that are not on that list.
I saw that list and it was a very good comprehensive list by Larry.
And this should have a decisive influence on Ukraine's continuing ability to resist insofar as it is.
So we shall see what happens.
If that brings about a situation where some kind of ceasefire for real, where the two sides will have to negotiate some kind of permanent status quo, that could be very good, and that would be a good move.
So we shall see how it plays.
Chris sends me a clip from the Lockheed Martin website, Phil, on these weapons that I asked about.
That's the GMLRS's supporting ranges of seven kilometers and beyond.
The GMLRS is the go-to.
Now, this is a little bit of puffery that Lockheed Martin's talking about itself, but here's how it describes this thing.
The go-to guided missile for precision strikes and assured mission success, which sounds like something that the Ukraine military would desperately want.
Yeah, you would think so.
There was also an article today about some of the, they're even running out of small arms.
They rely on the U.S.-made machine guns for their close action, and they have become very dependent on that weapon, and that's running out of ammunition and everything, too.
Wow.
Wow.
Has Trump ever said no to Netanyahu as far as you know?
No, not as far as I know.
Was the media talk At the time he made his visit to Saudi Arabia, that he was snubbing Israel.
Was that all some sort of a farce or deception?
Well, I think in retrospect, it certainly was a farce or a deception, because, as I noted in my article, all of a sudden the coin flips, and the two guys are not only talking together, they're conniving clearly together over the Iran business.
And you have certainly seen the message that Trump allegedly wrote, or someone wrote it, about the trial coming up of Netanyahu.
And to get Netanyahu completely off the hook, he goes on for a long paragraph describing what tremendous heroes both he and Netanyahu working together were in defeating the Iranian threat.
And this thing is sickening to read.
It's full of lies.
It's full of nonsense.
And it seems to indicate that these two guys are playing a game.
And I would suspect, of course, that Netanyahu has the upper hand in it, particularly because he's supported by the Israel lobby in the United States with money and political conniving that make all this happen.
Is the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency a Mossad asset?
I would say he is based on certain evidence that he has had Mossad people in and out of his office, that he has introduced Mossad people into the White House to brief the president and others.
He's been the middle man on that.
He is very active on behalf of Israel.
And, you know, it's unbelievable here.
You have a guy who's a head of CIA whose basic loyalty appears to be somewhere else.
Wow.
Max Blumenthal, who's on right after you today, has more evidence than he did last week, as I understand it, when he told us that Mossad...
Mossad people, employees of the Mossad, were in the Oval Office.
This must be the people who are briefing him that cause him to say, I don't care what Tulsi Gabbard says.
Where else would he get this from?
Could, you know the way this works, although there was not a DNI when you were in the agency, could the director of the CIA bypass the director of national intelligence and brief the president personally and directly so as to assure that he gets the Mossad propaganda rather than filtering it through Telsey Gabbard, who knows the difference between hard intel and propaganda.
Well, first of all, there was no DNI back most of the time when I was an employee of the CIA, so that wasn't even an issue.
The sole briefing the president was getting back then was from guys like Gray McGovern, who were working for the CIA and were the special briefers for the president.
Now, we've had presidents like Bill Clinton, who refused even to be briefed by CIA or anybody else.
And that was well known within the agency.
But the fact is that there would have been only one briefer, and the briefer would have been agency.
So yeah, it would have been dead easy for the director of central intelligence to put the guy in as the briefer who's just been briefed by the Israelis.
And furthermore, to introduce Israelis into the process of intelligence in the government.
That occurred certainly before the Iraq war with the Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon, where we had Doug Fight and Welensky, and they basically were shuffling Israeli intelligence officers in and out of the Pentagon.
These guys didn't even have to check in.
They had a pass to walk in any time and talk to these people and tell them what the Israeli point of view was.
And that prevailed, of course, because we went to war with Iraq, even though Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
Wow.
George Bush ever apologized to you?
Not to me personally, but I would have liked to have had a chat with him and tell him what I think of him.
He was a tool of these people.
And there were a whole bunch of them.
I mean, he was surrounded by them.
It's kind of like what we have right now and what we had with Joe Biden.
Right, right.
I'm going to play a clip for you from Senator Kennedy of Louisiana talking about the briefing the senators received.
I don't know if you've seen this.
It's rather remarkable.
He lists the briefers.
You'll recognize a name not there.
And then he's asked a question at the end and he gives a three-word answer, which is rather startling.
Chris, cut number seven.
Before Israel and America did what we did, Iran was within days of having a nuclear weapon.
Now?
Within days.
Within days.
Now within this briefing?
Within days.
Sir, just to kind of circle back and put a finer point on this, the days that they were to getting a bomb, that seems to be different from what Tulsi Gabbard had testified to in March.
Was there a new assessment?
Was that the Israeli assessment?
Was that a new American assessment?
Was that information new to you in this briefing?
It was new to me.
This was a good briefing.
It was one of the best I've ever attended.
I mean, Rubio, Hed Seth, Ratcliffe, General Kane, they didn't bring out a script and read carefully from it.
They just looked us in the eye and talked to us.
The assessment that said that Iran was within days of having a bomb, is that Israeli or American assessment?
I don't know.
Was that Israeli, an Israeli or American assessment?
I don't know.
And apparently, he didn't ask.
And of course, the name missing was the person we're talking about, Tulsi Gabbard.
What are your thoughts on this?
I've never seen anything like it.
No, nor have I. And it's quite astonishing that, I mean, Kennedy is not stupid.
He pretends to be stupid.
He's a graduate of Harvard Law School in either Oxford or Cambridge.
He's not stupid at all, but he puts on that act.
Maybe it works back home in Louisiana.
Yeah, he's got the good old boy sound to him.
But the fact is, he's not stupid.
And the fact is, he knows, he should know when she asked the question, that the question had deep significance.
And it had deep significance because these clowns that had briefed them, clearly, had gotten briefed by the Israelis.
The U.S. government had no evidence that Iran was days away from a nuclear weapon.
And this has become very clear since the time when the United States decided to support Israel by intervening in Iran.
In terms of the discussions that are going on about the weapon sites that were bombed, this stuff had all been removed.
And if it was being turned into a bomb somewhere, that was news to U.S. intelligence.
And Israel obviously had somehow spun this and was feeding it to CIA and feeding it to all the other people around.
These are the people that write the laws, the United States senators.
And they sat down in some windowless secure facility and just let Rubio, Hegseth, Ratcliffe, and General Kane babble away with no notes, no charts, no written materials, according to him, and make absurd statements like days away, a statement that even they never made, that I'm aware of, and you and I would have heard it before Trump bombed.
Yeah, I agree.
I mean, the whole thing is frightening.
And of course, these are the idiots that are now passing these beautiful big bills in Congress and are considering laws that will enable the federal government to denaturalize U.S. citizens.
Now, that's something to look forward to.
Wow.
Well, you know, the Supreme Court has ruled the only denaturalization can occur to those who were naturalized, and it has to be for an event that occurred before naturalization.
It can't be for something that happened afterwards.
But these people will stop at nothing.
Did Trump threaten to assassinate the Ayatollah?
Yeah, he did.
And also the Israelis have spoken of that possibility.
But Trump was the one that had the delicious language of saying, we know where you're hiding and we won't kill you quite yet.
So this is how you negotiate with a foreign government that you're trying to avoid a war with.
You tell their leader that, yes, we know where your secret hiding place is, but we may just kill you when we get around to it.
Does the IDF have a quota of people to kill every day in Gaza?
Well, it's been running at about 100 a day.
And, of course, it's been revealed now that the, well, two things.
First of all, that the Israeli soldiers have been basically encouraged to be shooting Palestinians who are lined up to get food or anything like that.
And the second thing is that Israeli soldiers who reveal that they were involved in atrocities are now prosecutable by the Israeli government of Netanyahu because it's been considered that they considered they're acting against the interests of the Israeli state and they are committing treason.
Wow.
I'm going to run a little clip from CNN.
It's actually from their pollster showing the radical change of opinion amongst Democrats in the United States over Israel.
He's a bit of a character, this fellow, but he's very clear in what he's saying.
Chris?
Andrew Cuomo during the primary attacked Mandani as being insufficiently pro-Israel.
I'm not quite sure the former governor understood how much the politics have changed around this issue among Democrats.
What are we talking about here?
All right.
Who Democrats sympathize more with?
Israelis or Palestinians?
In 2017, the Democratic Party was a pro-Israeli party.
Look at this.
They sympathized with the Israelis by 13 points, more with the Israelis than the Palestinians.
But look at this deep change.
Now Democrats sympathize more with the Palestinians by 43 points.
Oh my God, that is a change in the margin of 56 points over the course of just eight years.
So all of a sudden, it's the pro-Palestinian position that actually reigns supreme in Democratic politics, not the Israeli position.
And that is part of the reason why Mandani was able to do so well in this primary, because those attacks over Israel simply put did not ring true for Democrats.
They're now on the side of the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
So take a look here.
Who age 18 to 49 Democrats sympathized more with?
The Israelis or the Palestinians?
Again, in 2017, younger Democrats sympathized more with the Israelis by 14 points.
Look at this shift now.
Palestinians, they sympathize more with the Palestinians by 57 points.
That is an over 70-point shift in the margin in just a matter of eight years.
The bottom line is the politics around the Israelis and the Palestinians Have shifted tremendously among Democrats, and they've shifted specifically tremendously among Democrats who are under the age of 50.
Pretty telling, isn't it?
And I don't know if the Democrats are the majority party anymore.
They probably are by registration.
They always have been, at least in the years after FDR.
But those numbers, assuming they're accurate, and this kid, I don't know him personally, but he has a reputation in the industry for being accurate.
These are startling numbers.
Yeah, I've seen other polls that suggest the same thing.
And also, there's been a big shift among Republicans where it's like kind of 50-50 now.
And so it's, you know, you can't watch these babies, the bodies of babies every day being killed for no reason except to terrorize the Palestinians and drive them away or kill them all.
And you can't watch that day after day after day and think that the people doing that are, gee, they're chosen people of God and believe in the Ten Commandments.
That's BS.
These people are utterly ruthless.
You listen to Netanyahu, who lies as much as Trump.
And you listen to Smotriach and Ben-Gavir.
These people are open about their desire to get rid of the Palestinians whatever it takes.
And this gets even through to Americans who have no stake in the game, except that their government is complicit in it.
And, you know, the truth occasionally gets through, even through the, shall we say, Zionist-controlled U.S. media.
Is Israel the United States' overlord, or is the United States Israel's overlord?
Well, that's debated by even people like me who watch this very closely.
I'm convinced it's not quite that simple in terms of how you define it.
What is terrifying to U.S. politicians and what is something that they love, which is money, comes from the Israel lobby.
And the Israel lobby has a lot of Christian Zionists in it too, but the money comes from Jewish sources.
And this has corrupted our entire political system and basically made all these congressmen tools of what Israel wants and what Israel claims to need.
And Netanyahu benefits from that.
And Netanyahu is just the errand boy who tells Troph what to do.
Last question.
It's a little off the wall, but you wrote about it, and I have some personal familiarity with it, which I probably shouldn't mention on air.
What's with Trump and dogs?
Well, does he hate dogs?
Trump constantly comes up with negative comments where he calls somebody a dog.
It's not to be complimentary.
It's that they're really low.
And he denounced a CNN journalist, a woman, by saying she was a liar and so on and so forth.
And he concluded his comment with, fire her and throw her out like a dog.
This was as insulting a thing as he could say.
I find it disgusting as a dog lover.
And I think that it is just totally awful that we have a president who feels that way about domestic animals.
Well, I'm 100% with you.
You know, I love my Chris.
I'm not talking about Chris, the producer.
Of course, I love him.
I'm talking about my dog, Chris, and his predecessor, Gina.
I love dogs.
Most Americans love dogs.
How can the president of the United States, who's supposed to be the incarnation of our culture and values, hate dogs?
Well, he's a guy who's all about himself, and he has no sense of decency.
And he has, you know, I kind of said in my article, you know, how can we have a guy at the top of the country who basically feels it's okay to make a comment like that?
Because it isn't.
Where is his sense of decency?
He doesn't have one.
Dogs can sense dog lovers and they can sense evil.
I wonder if he's ever been in the presence of a dog.
All right, enough on this.
Phil, it's always a delight to chat with you.
I know I can ask you anything under the sun, and it's one of the things that's great about our relationship and my ability to probe your thoughts for the benefit of the audience.
Thank you very much.
The values of the 4th of July, 1776, don't exist anymore, but have a nice Independence Day weekend, Phil.
And we can look forward to Benjamin and Etanyahu being here on Monday.
Did you have to run my weekend?
Oh, well, we'll see what happens.
Thank you, my dear man.
Best of you.
And my best to your dog.
Thank you very much.
Okay, all the best.
▲
Export Selection