All Episodes
Previous Next
July 28, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
27:09
Ray McGovern : The Trump Conspiracies.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, July 28th, 2025.
Back from vacation.
Happy to be back with you.
Thank you for watching.
Also back from his trip throughout Germany, Ray McGovern, who will be with us in just a moment.
But first this.
Why do so many financial experts call silver the most undervalued asset today?
Because silver is essential to the future.
From solar tech and electric vehicles to the explosive growth of artificial intelligence, demand is rising fast, and yet silver is still trading at a bargain.
With billions pouring into AI, silver prices have only one place to go.
Up.
Robert Kiostaki, the author of Rich Dead Poor Dad, says silver may be the most overlooked opportunity on the market and could double or triple by 2026.
I believe in hard assets like this bar of silver.
You can hold it in your hand or put it in your 401k or IRA.
That's why I urge you to call my friends at Lear Capital and get their free report, the AI Revolution, and see why silver prices are set to soar.
Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to LearjudsNap.com.
Don't wait.
The government can print dollars, but it can't print silver.
Ray McGovern, welcome here, my dear friend, and thank you very much for joining us.
Much appreciated.
While I was away, but after you returned, of course, the concept of the conspiracies involving President Trump against him was generated by the revelations from Tulsi Gabrin.
And I want to talk to you about that.
But before we do, this morning from one of the president's golf clubs in Scotland, the president and British Prime Minister Starmer have been wringing their hands over the suffering, misery, slaughter, death, and starvation in Gaza.
How disingenuous is this?
It's the United States bought and paid for it.
Judge, words pale.
This is so heinous.
Let me just add a wrinkle that I have come to.
I don't know why Trump abets this and allows it and encourages it and pays for it, but could it have something to do with Jeffrey Epstein slash Israel slash blackmail?
My God, that would make it even worse, wouldn't it?
Yes, it would.
Yes, it would.
Well, that's a possibility.
And I've talked to people who know more about this kind of thing than I do, like Phil Giraldi.
We both think that there's a more than 50% motivation here that traces itself to blackmail and that Trump is not free to do the right thing because of what the Israelis have on him.
And of course, Mossad and Epstein were in that thing together.
You know, the last show that I did before I went away, he was with Max Blumenthal.
And on that show, I asked him if Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad asset.
And he gave a very long, very detailed, very compelling answer, the ultimate bottom line of which was yes.
And then the Israelis reacted.
And even Naftali Bennett, the former prime minister of Israel, personally attacked Max.
One wonders why their reaction was so over the top.
Well, methinks they do protest too much, Judge.
It's out there, and I had really not reflected on this, but as heinous as genocide is, if the motivation is largely equally heinous activities with underage girls, my God, words fail.
No question about it.
Do you detect a shift in international opinion on the Netanyahu who orchestrated and perpetrated slaughter?
Sure, I do.
Yeah.
The question is, how fast it can move to save the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians that are being slaughtered or starved to death in Gaza.
That's the big question.
Things have moved painfully slowly.
Whether anyone can do something quick enough to save these people, well, that depends on how much pressure we can put on leaders who still have some moral sense and who can still smell Holocaust and genocide for what it is.
I think that there is, Aleister Crook knows more about this than I do because he scours the Israeli media, that the concept of an Israeli-created ghetto,
an Israeli-created camp which concentrates people in a small space and doesn't let them leave, an Israeli perpetrated slaughter of innocents based on ethnicity.
These are hallmarks of the Nazi regime.
Well, they are.
And the interesting thing is that some of the Israeli press, actually some of the Israeli press in Hebrew Are saying this, saying Holocausts, saying concentration camps, saying that this is really beyond the pale and we ought to figure out whether we, as a state of Israel, should be doing these things.
So, you know, I had hoped before, so all I'm saying here is this is painfully slow.
Unless leaders of some countries kind of come together, the Arabs have been really delinquent in supporting the Gazans.
The Israelis just seized another flotilla boat just two days ago.
I mean, my God, they shouldn't be able to get away with this stuff, but they have been.
And I'm from Missouri as to whether anybody has the guts to stop them.
I want you to take a look at this from a congressman.
I think he's a Republican.
I think he's from Florida.
I really never heard of this person, Congressman Randy Fine, release the hostages until then, starve away as if that were a legitimate negotiating tool.
This is the guy who took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, federal law, and the international laws enacted pursuant to it.
And he's suppling the Netanyahu use of starvation of babies as a legitimate instrument of war.
Congressman from Florida explains it all.
The real question is whether the temperature of the body politic in general is changing.
Now, Netanyahu, as I have pointed out, bragged in 2001 that 80% of the American people support Israel no matter what they do.
And he said, this is absurd, period, end quote.
Well, that ain't 80% anymore.
I don't know if it's even 50%.
So, you know, what does that mean?
My God, that would be apparent good news, but for Netanyahu, he's likely to try to strike out again against Iran and kind of mousetrap Trump into doing the same thing he did a month ago.
You know, our mutual friend Gerald Salenti is fond of saying, when all else fails, they take you to war.
Alastair said virtually the same thing this morning, which is if Trump's back is really to the wall, whether it's on Epstein or whatever, they will surely consider attacking Iran again, even though, as far as I know, Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with the Epstein scandal.
Let's transition on.
You remember this.
Larry Johnson and I, this is back in 2017, accused the Obama administration of using the British GCHQ to spy on then Mr. Donald Trump.
We were excoriated.
I was taken off air at Fox for 10 days.
Larry was thrown off.
Now it turns out we were right.
There have been other revelations since then that we were right, but it also turns out that this came from the top.
Sure, from the head of the NSA equivalent, GCHQ.
Yes, from the top.
And what did he do?
He resigned right after that.
So yeah, the British were involved in this from the start.
You know, it shouldn't be forgotten that the woman who became director of the CIA was chief of station London when all this went down.
That's bloody Gina Haspel.
And I'm proud of having been mauled for speaking out against her nomination before the Senate Intelligence Committee way back when.
What is your take on what Director Gabbard revealed last week?
Is this an effort to get the public's attention off the Epstein scandal?
Is it an effort to find out exactly what happened?
Is it an effort to achieve both?
Is there a there?
Not with respect to the Russia hoax, it turns out that that was nonsense, but with respect to efforts by public officials of the United States government to frustrate the ability of Donald Trump effectively to be the president of the United States.
The evidence is out there now.
This is big, Judge.
I've not seen the like of it.
Trump and Tulsi Gabbard have thrown down the gauntlet before the deep state.
And as Chuck Schumer so artfully reminded Rachel Maddow back on the 2nd of January 2017, the deep state, or he called it the intelligence community, has six ways to suddenly get back at you.
Okay.
So that's the reality.
Now, the timing, that in my view, is incidental.
We have two major things going on, the Epstein thing, and now these revelations.
They should be looked to the degree we can singly in each category.
So what I'm saying here is that the odds are against Tulsi Gabbard.
I mean, the gauntlet she threw down is one thing.
The gauntlet that she has to run now with the mainstream media and the deep state and all the Democrats all together as they were in 2016, 2017, that's a formidable challenge.
So the good news is that she's got some honest analysts from the CIA.
I didn't know there were any left, but they were, and they objected strenuously to what Obama and Brennan tried to do in blaming Russia for Trump's victory and talking about Russian hacking and all.
So it's disproven, okay?
So this is big.
So Tulsi Gabbard has admitted that she's got people coming out of the woodwork.
Yeah, we were forced to say that.
We were forced to say that.
That's the good news.
There are two bad news, okay?
One of them, one of the bad news is this: no one whistle blew.
The other bad news is to whom could they go?
Back in my day, you could go to the New York Times Bureau in Washington, and they would read the stuff, they'd vet it, and they'd put it on the front page like they did for Cy Hirsch.
Now, New York Times?
So I was sort of thinking, well, why the hell didn't one of these guys, it's, well, who, you know, what kind of, what kind of risks there would be when you had no assurance at all that these people would tell the story.
So it's doubly bad.
Those are the two negatives there.
The positive is that if they get these people under, and we know the names of two of these five hand-picked analysts, they were, by the way, just working for John Brennan, okay?
Michael Van der Hanelen and another guy named, what's his name?
He worked, well, there were two well-named people who were two of the five.
The first one was bragging to Rolling Stone exactly a year ago.
He did a great job.
And he was the primary drafter.
And he thought I was great.
I looked him up.
All the credentials.
Michael Van Landingham is his name.
He went to the finest schools, prep schools, Ivy schools, just like the best and brightest under Vietnam.
So whether he believed this stuff or not, he was all trained to hate Russia, of course.
But he breaks about his role in this.
Now he's going to have to pay the Piper because his associates were coming out and telling the president and Brennan, forget about this.
It's crazy.
You're disregarding the real information.
And that's big.
So to the degree they keep coming out of the woodwork and to the degree that Congress will fulfill its duty for oversight, and that's the big thing.
And they talk about these at Congressional.
Oh, the Senate did a report.
Well, how the hell did the Senate miss the fact that Obama commissioned this so-called community, intelligence community assessment, which was produced on the 6th of January 2017, that he commissioned that and that the thing lied through its teeth and overruled all the good analysts.
And again, the good analysts are the ones that we should kind of be supporting.
We're going to write a veteran intelligence professionals for sanity memo supporting the people that told the truth and expressing our joy, for God's sake, that there are still honest people in the CIA and are lamenting as to have we know where to go to blow the whistle with the mainstream media being the way they are.
Take a look at the person who today gets to whisper in the president's ear whenever they share a golf cart.
But here's what he said back then in 2016 and 2017 about all this.
You'll get a kick out of this.
Cut number two, Chris.
The Russians did it.
It was the Russians who tried to interfere in our election.
Every member of the committee agrees it was the Russians.
They didn't change the outcome, but they did release information, embarrassing to the Democratic Party.
It did affect Hillary Clinton.
There's only one person in Washington that I know of that has any doubt about what Russia did in our election and is President Trump.
LAUGHTER Of course, you compare that with what he says today.
Cut number three, Chris.
Senator, are you now saying that you don't believe that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election?
Well, what I am saying is that you left a lot out here.
It's called the Horwitz Report.
It's the Mueller investigation was crooked and rotten to the core.
The Washington Post and the New York Times got a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Trump's campaign's relationship with Russia.
It was all BS.
At the time, I didn't know any of that.
At the time, I didn't know that they were manufacturing evidence to get FISA warrants.
There was a confirmation bias.
Durham didn't say there was no political bias.
He said quite the opposite.
He said every time a FISA warrant was sought in the motor world, they got it, and the errors made to get warrants in this space were a lot greater than they were in anything not involving Trump.
But what I'm saying is that this is new evidence.
This is something I didn't know, you didn't know, that in 2016, Obama suggested, I don't like the outcome that there's no evidence Russia was involved.
Well, now we all say Russia was involved, but in 2016, they said Russia wasn't involved.
What's going to happen?
Let's get a special counsel.
Well, Judge, let me remind our audience here that when the first charges of the cornerstone for RussiaGate at its outset, namely Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee emails, why was that such a big deal?
Well, because those emails showed that Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, pure and simple.
The primaries, all that stuff.
They were very damaging, okay?
And they appeared.
Wikileaks published them on the 22nd of July, three days before the Democratic National Committee began.
So that's how this all started.
And then the whole thing was turned around to blame Russia for hacking and sort of divert attention from what was in the emails and it worked like a charm.
Okay.
Now, one big thing here, Judge, is Obama's involvement.
Now, let me just read from this letter to the editor that appeared this morning in a Baltimore newspaper.
One must regard the disagreeable truth that the intelligence committees in Congress tasked with investigating the charges themselves were themselves multiply compromised morally and politically.
Which previous investigation even mentioned the now undeniable reality that it was then President Obama who ordered a rewrite of an intelligence report that didn't conform originally to the Russiagate narrative?
Now, Obama's role in this has been pinned to his orders for this community assessment that appeared on January 6th.
But he was in it from the beginning.
He was the prime mover.
And do I have evidence for that?
I sure do.
During the trial of this fellow, Michael Sussman, who lied to his former friends in the FBI and was exonerated, of course, New York jury, it became known that Obama insisted that a memorandum be prepared pinning Russian hacking on Russia, and that he couldn't get the FBI and the CIA to do it.
This is October, early October, 2016.
So what did he do?
Well, he went to his most pliable subordinates, James Clapper, who, as you know, thinks that the Russians are almost genetically inclined to do evil, right?
Okay, he said that.
And then Jay Johnson.
Now, Jay Johnson's a lawyer.
He was head of Homeland Security.
And Obama, according to the emails surfaced in this procedure, legal procedure, said, look, I want you to do a memo.
The other guys won't do it.
And they said, but KrautStrike hasn't reported any forensics yet.
No, forget about it.
You just do the memo.
They did a memo accusing Russia of hacking and all that kind of stuff.
And then what else?
It's really kind of damning because what Jay Johnson said later, Jay Johnson's a nice guy, but he's pliable.
He's malleable.
He'll do what if Brendan says, so these guys were seen with a suspected terrorist in this bar in Baghdad.
Well, Jay, can we kill him?
Oh, I suppose we can.
Jay Johnson's wife is a Catholic.
He has said publicly, you know, I'm glad I didn't convert to Catholicism because then I'd have to go to confession for all these things.
Okay, here's what Jay Johnson said to a House committee in June of 2017.
He was asked about this memo.
The date is October 7, 2016, one month before the election.
This is Johnson.
And quote, you have to remember that the president approved this statement, and I know he wanted to make this statement.
So that was very definitely a statement by the United States government, not just by me and not just by Clapper, end quote.
Very good guess.
Let me ask you this.
Has there been, and I think the answer is yes, reaction in Moscow to the revelations last week by Tulsi Gabbard?
Well, you know, there has been.
And curiously enough, on Thursday, the head of their Senate, okay, I have it right here.
Valentina Matsienka.
She had a press conference at the end of their session.
And she said, look, the level of manipulation that was carried out, the falsification, accusations, it was not just a fake invented by someone, but a deliberate provocation by that U.S. administration.
Well, if you have admitted, gentlemen, that this is a lie, that this is a fabrication, then you will cancel everything that you have done based on that lie.
Oh, it makes sense to me.
What did Obama do?
He threw out 35 Russian diplomats, confiscated Russian property in the United States, diplomatic property.
So Obama was in it from the very outset, not only by commissioning this meritricious so-called intelligence community assessment, which appeared.
And of course, that same day, James Comey, head of the FBI, told Brennan and Clapper to leave when they were briefing the president elect January 6th now, 2017.
And he said, now, Mr. President, Mr. President-elect, I don't know how to begin this, but this is this awful scurrilous report going out.
And actually it's appearing in the press today about you and prostitutes and Moscow hotels.
We can't confirm it, but it's out there.
We just saw you know, Mr. President.
Just so you know.
Now, if it were I, if it were Bill Binney, if it were you, Judge, where you said, thank you very much, Mr. Director, clean out your desk, you're out of here, don't show your face here anymore, okay?
But no, no, this is Trump.
He has incredible persuasive powers.
So he spent the next two months trying to get the head of the deep state, he and Brennan, To try to get him on his side.
Okay.
It was pathetic because, as Chuck Schumer said, Trump is not a smart guy when it came to dealing with the deep state.
Now, the cudgel is there, the thing has been thrown down.
Now it's going to be either Tulsi is skating on thin ice.
I wish her the best of luck.
But the forces arrayed against her and Trump and throw in Epstein as well.
You know, the odds are against her.
And what we will try to do is say, look, Tulsi, contemporaneously, with all the things that you've uncovered since 2016, we have a record that has chapter and verse without official documents, but coming to the same.
I hope she reads and takes into account what you send her.
Ray, I have to go.
Thank you very much for your time today.
Much appreciated.
We'll see you at the end of the week with Larry.
Most welcome, Judge.
All the best.
▲
Export Selection