All Episodes
Previous Next
July 28, 2025 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
19:39
LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski : Trumps Bemoans Starvation but Funds Genocide.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Tuesday, July 29th, 2025.
Our dear friend, Colonel Karen Kwodkowski, joins us.
Colonel Karen, as you know, I've been traveling.
I missed the show.
I missed our audience.
I missed you.
And everybody is now back together.
Again, thank you very much for your time today.
Colonel, yesterday, while he was, before we get to genocide and Netanyahu and what I will argue is a growing consensus and recognition of the horrors of the Israeli regime.
But before we get there, your thoughts on Trump's statements yesterday where sitting next to British Prime Minister Sir Kir Starmer, he threatened President Putin.
End this war in 10 to 12 days or else.
Now, what does this tell you about his knowledge of the history, the culture, diplomacy, and Putin's brain?
Yeah, he seems so out of his league working as doing foreign policy, even being the United States president, you know, because what he says, and he says so much all the time, but what he says becomes the public face of the United States, at least to the other leaders of the world, and really the rest of the world.
He's the most visible example of what it is, what America stands for.
And when he says things like that, I mean, that is almost a throwdown.
You know, that's a bully throwdown.
You know, I'm going to meet you in the back.
Here's when we're, and we're going to duke it out.
And it's like, we live in a nuclear world, you know, with a ton of people who have very little control over the few people who control the nuclear weapons.
And so that's not something you want to joke about.
And it's not something you want to threaten unless you're serious.
And I don't think we really know when Donald Trump is being serious and when he's not.
So I'm a little confused by it.
He certainly, you know, I think the response of the Russians in particular, at least the political class, is much as they've responded to him before.
And that is basically, we'll just wait and see.
We don't really know what he's talking about.
I mean, but the concept of secondary tariffs, particularly at one of those absurd rates.
So if India buys oil from Russia and you and I buy something from India, there will be an additional 50% tax on what we're buying in India.
Doesn't he understand that these are sales taxes ultimately paid by the ultimate consumer, which in this case are Americans?
Yeah, he doesn't really understand how that all works.
And, you know, he's cheering his tariff policy because he's saying all these naysayers and all these free market economy, free trade people are wrong.
The tariffs are not doing anything except enriching the U.S. government because he sees the numbers in the past couple of months.
And, you know, we see that our tariff income, government taking of, you know, this tariff policy is giving, putting money into the federal coffers.
And he sees those numbers and he confuses that.
He confuses the federal government with a business that produces something that anybody on the planet actually wants.
And it isn't.
That's not what government is.
We don't want, you know, we don't bid on with our dollars for a good government.
Only only lobbyists do that.
The average people, you know, government just doesn't add much value.
But he looks at it from the only experience he's ever really had, which is in business.
And he says, oh, this property is making money.
This policy, you know, I charge the hotel people more money.
I'm making money.
And that is an illusion.
I think it's not going to last in the long term.
The American economy, much as the economy of many of our allies, is not healthy.
The European economy is not healthy.
Japan's economy is not healthy.
Australia's economy is not healthy.
The American economy is not healthy.
But he's thinking that, oh, my policies are working and it's good.
And if primary, if sanctions work, secondary sanctions will work that much better.
And also I get to compel other countries to my will.
Again, it's clown world.
I'm sorry.
I mean, you wonder why.
And she's an odd, a militaristic, odd duck herself, Ursula von der Leyen.
But you want, and honestly, I didn't even realize that she has the ability to negotiate for the entire EU.
The French and the Germans are furious.
Oh, they should.
You want to buy a $100,000 Mercedes.
It's going to cost you $115,000.
I don't know why she caved and why she went along with that.
And Trump is touting it as a victory.
A victory for what?
American taxpayers are going to be paying more money to the federal government.
That is hardly a victory.
That's right.
And we will have less for what we pay for.
The government may make more money, but as a consumer, as the American consumer is going to have fewer goods and fewer dollars.
This is not good for the economy.
This does not promote growth.
This does not somehow ensure that an American BMW will somehow arrive to the marketplace overnight and that will be cheaper.
No, that is, again, you have government people talking to other government people and they're not grounded in the real world.
Ursula is a prime example of someone never faced an election in her life and yet she speaks for all of Europe.
This is not her area of expertise.
The only thing these people know is government.
And Trump is proving himself to not be taking in the kind of information that he needs to take in, not just on foreign policy, which we've talked about before, that he doesn't really seem well informed in terms of the rest of the world and how those things work, but he's not well informed economically either.
His treatment of, you know, I love to see Fed, you know, the chairman of the Fed get beat up, you know, and I love to hear the Fed criticized.
But Trump is not criticizing them because they're, you know, pumping out money and destroying the economy and, you know, destroying the purchasing power of the dollar.
That's not why he's mad at them.
He's mad at them because they won't do more of it.
Correct, correct, correct.
Trump loves debt.
Trump has boasted even from his early years here as a developer of high-rise structures in New York City.
He loves debt.
And of course, he has gone or his entities have gone bankrupt many, many times.
Do you think this Epstein thing sticks?
Do you think there's a there that Epstein was a Mossad asset or that Trump, while not participating in this disgusting behavior, nevertheless, by being a friend of this person whose behavior was grave beyond imagining, is tainted?
Well, what you have with Epstein is you have a lot of people who control policy in our government and they control foreign policy and they even control wars, whose wars we're going to fight.
The evidence is pretty solid that, well, I shouldn't say solid.
It is a fact, okay, that the U.S., that the feds told the prosecutor in Florida, who now works in the federal government, that hands off Epstein because he belongs to intelligence.
They didn't say which one, right?
But it's only going to be one, two, or three.
It's either the CIA, MI6, or Mossad.
This is all he, these are your choices.
We would not protect somebody that belonged to anybody else's intelligence.
So that local federal prosecutor was put into Trump's cabinet.
That's right.
As the Secretary of Labor.
I don't know where he is now, but he was the Secretary of Labor for the four years of Trump's first term.
Yeah, that's right.
So there's no question that intelligence is interested in and has some debt to pay back to or has some benefit they are gaining from a free Epstein.
Okay.
There was no doubt that that happened before.
In fact, this is why, this is why his girlfriend, Jelaine, will be getting not maybe not a pardon, but a new trial and possibly even a mistrial or set free, because she is claiming that that same immunity that lay hands off of Epstein applied to her as well.
So that's the only reason that we're even hearing about it because what you're talking about is a deal negotiated by this then U.S. attorney, Alex Acosta, and Epstein's very well-known lawyer, former Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, which granted Epstein a free pass on everything except that for which he pleaded guilty.
And there is language in there, which could be interpreted to cover Epstein's colleagues as well.
She being one of the colleagues, she raised this at the trial level.
The trial court said, forget about it, we're going to prosecute you.
And she was convicted, as we know.
She raised this at the appellate court, and they said, no way, we don't read it that way.
She's now asking the Supreme Court to take the case and to read this document and come up with her interpretation of it.
It is an odd document.
I have seen it.
And there is ambiguous language in there, which protects even Epstein's boyers, one of whom was Professor Dershowitz.
So this request of hers is independent of the interrogation she went through for two days with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
But look at it this way.
You're in jail for 20 years.
You're in your early or mid-60s.
I don't know how old she is.
I'm sort of guessing on this.
The president sends the number two person in the Justice Department, who was the president's personal lawyer before the president got elected, and wants to talk to you.
Aren't you going to cut a deal?
I'll tell you what you want to say.
Just get me the hell out of here.
Who wouldn't do that?
That's right.
That's right.
Because if the Epstein affair and the collusion, the pedophilia, the influence peddling, the bribery, all that, the massad operation on American soil that was consented to by the CIA, if all of this is true, honestly, it breaks the government.
It breaks the American government.
Now, I don't like the American government.
I don't like what it does.
I don't trust it.
I don't think it's constitutional anymore.
So I would cheer that.
I'm okay with that.
Break it wide open.
And I think a lot of the MAGA people feel that way.
But Trump is in that government now, and he is working on his second term and final term legacy.
And he doesn't want it to blow up.
And in fact, he reveals his true feelings early on when he said, you know, why are you talking about Epstein when we should be talking about all the great things I've done so far?
So he feels that this competes with his legacy and very likely could destroy it.
He's very concerned about his legacy.
There's a bill that a Republican has introduced to change the name of the Kennedy Center to the Trump Center.
You gotta be kidding me.
No, I kid you not.
And The government has begun taking measurements at, you ready for this?
Mount Rushmore for another face.
Oh my God.
Oh my God is right.
Who knows how these things are going to end up, but he's obviously fixated on his legacy.
I want to talk about starvation and war crimes and genocide in Gaza.
And before we do, I want you to hear the most absurd, unbelievable denial I've ever heard, Chris, cut number 17.
Israel is presented as though we are applying a campaign of starvation in Gaza.
What a bold-faced lie.
There is no policy of starvation in Gaza, and there is no starvation in Gaza.
We've enabled the amount required by international law to come in.
There are hundreds and hundreds of trucks loaded with tons.
So far, we've supplied 1.9 million tons of food since the beginning of the World War.
How many lies can you count there?
Oh, more than I have fingers on two hands for sure.
Of course, when he speaks in English, he generally is not telling the truth.
I mean, I think he lies less, slightly less to his own people than he does to Americans.
You know, okay, you can't debate the genocide that Israel is doing.
It is not debatable because there's way too much overwhelming evidence that that's exactly what they're doing.
And it comes out of their own mouths.
It's not just evidence from the remaining non-shot by the IDF journalists who have produced the evidence.
It's not just that.
It's their own members of the Knesset who cheer this and have tweaks that they'd like to see applied to the starvation and to the destruction of Gaza.
And great ideas that they have to eliminate all the men, women, and children that live in Gaza.
Well, in the West Bank as well.
But certainly their language and their messaging to each other publicly, not just privately, publicly, belies what Netanyahu is saying to us in English in that clip.
What does he say these 60,000 people have died from?
What he says these babies who are skin and bones are dying from, but for the methodical slaughter and starvation caused by the IDF?
What does he think he's kidding?
I don't know.
I think he's past caring.
You know, the Israeli government is a little bit on the desperate side.
And it's not just because global opinion is heavily, heavily and irreversibly against Zionism at this point.
It cannot be, you know, this is the bad thing.
He's already lost the strategic game.
And we knew this from the beginning, that strategy-wise, what Israel was doing was bad for Israel.
And it's too far.
You know, they've gone across the Rubicon.
They can't go back.
The people who have seen Israel's and particularly political Zionism's true face cannot ever look away again.
And we will, you know, that is lost.
You can't even rebuild that.
That's not something, you know, like if you get in a fight with somebody and you say sorry, and then maybe, you know, you can have a relationship again.
No, it's way past that.
You know, no one will believe anything that Israel says.
And anything they do from this point on, and even, and it's been that way for over a year now for most people, anything that Israel does will be seen as a warmongering act.
It will be seen as suspect, devious.
There's no positive connotation to anything that Israel does in its foreign policy.
And we believe them to lie consistently.
So he can't win that back.
It's a big problem.
But I think the other problem is what some of your guests have talked about and what we're seeing.
And that is economically and demographically, Zionist Israel is shrinking.
Okay, their economy is shrinking.
Part of it's the global economy, but a big part of it is the people don't want to do business with a country like that.
Israelis and particularly a lot of American Israelis who live there and other Israelis with two passports are going, planning to go back to where they came from because they don't feel safe in Israel.
Well, isn't that funny how they don't feel safe in Israel?
I thought this whole thing was about to make Israel safe and all they've done is made Israelis less safe.
Do you sense, we talked about this at the outset, Colonel Karen, do you sense a growing consensus of the recognition of the genocide in Gaza?
Well, I think globally there's been that consensus for quite a long time.
I'm actually quite alarmed at the delay really until last week when the New York Times and the Washington Post and other major state media began to publish actual pictures and images.
And you know, nobody reads, so we need to see a picture of a starved child, you know, on a moonscape somewhere.
And that then communicates what we are, what this media outlet is intending to communicate.
Now, you know, we should have seen plenty of evidence out of mainstream media two years ago.
Right.
Well, I should say two years ago, but 18 months ago at least, and certainly a year ago, and certainly this past winter, we should have seen it.
But we're only now seeing it.
And so that means somebody turned a switch.
And I don't believe it's the media suddenly growing a conscience.
I think it is now allowable for the West and certainly for Americans now to look into what Israel has wrought.
And that scares me a little bit because it was just as wrong 18 months ago.
It was just as deadly, just as brutal, just as scientifically genocidal as it is today.
And people who said that, the protesters in college campuses were said, oh, you're not getting, you know, they've been told now we're withholding your degree because you protested against Israel.
This insanity in our country is, I'm more worried about my own country.
▲
Export Selection